Including students with learning disabilities (SWLDs) in general education classrooms is a priority nationwide. Consequently, now more than ever before in our nation’s history, university teacher education programs face increased responsibility to ensure general education teaching candidates receive adequate preparation to educate SWLDs. Many stakeholders believe that edTPA—a performance assessment used as a credential requirement—can be an important tool in helping to fulfill this goal. Utilizing survey data from a large, research university, the authors investigated how perceptions of preparation programs, including edTPA, related to general education teacher candidates’ perceptions of their preparation for educating SWLDs. Candidates reported feeling more prepared for disability policies if they believed their program was cohesive in its goals and expectations. Candidates who rated edTPA as beneficial for entering the teaching profession also believed that edTPA improved their abilities to educate SWLDs.
AuW. (2013). What’s a nice test like you doing in a place like this? The edTPA and corporate education. Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 22–27.
2.
BartlettM.Otis-WilbornA.PetersL. (2017). Bending or breaking: Appropriating edTPA policy in special education teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40, 287–298. doi:10.1177/0888406417720188
3.
BlandJ. M.AltmanD. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal, 314(7080), Article 572.
4.
BoeE. E.ShinS.CookL. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education?The Journal of Special Education, 41, 158–170.
5.
BursteinN. D.SearsS. (1998). Preparing on-the-job teachers for urban schools: Implications for teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 47–62.
6.
BursteinN.SearsS.WilcoxenA.CabelloB.SpagnaM. (2004). Moving Toward Inclusive Practices. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 104–116.
7.
BrownellM. T.RossD. D.ColonE. P.McCallumC. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 242–252.
8.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.
9.
Cochran-SmithM.FriesM. K. (2001). Sticks, Stones, and Ideology: The Discourse of Reform in Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 30, 3–15.
10.
CohenD. K.HillH. C. (2008). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
12.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
CohenJ.HuttE. L.BerlinR. L.MathewsH. M.McGrawJ. P.GottliebJ. (2018). Sense Making and Professional Identity in the Implementation of edTPA. Journal of Teacher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022487118783183
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83–91.
15.
Darling-HammondL.HylerM. E. (2013). The role of performance assessment in developing teaching as a profession. Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 10–15.
16.
Darling-HammondL.MacdonaldM. B.SnyderJ.WhitfordB. L.RuscoeG.FickelL. (2000). Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation at the graduate level. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.
17.
DoverA. G.SchultzB. D.SmithK.DugganT. J. (2015). Who’s preparing our candidates? edTPA, localized knowledge and the outsourcing of teacher evaluation. Teachers College Record (ID No. 17914). Retrieved from https://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=17914
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. 28 §1001 et seq., 20 U.S.C. 70.
20.
ForlinC. (2010). Teacher education reform for enhancing teachers’ preparedness for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 649–653.
21.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.WehbyJ.SchumacherR. F.GerstenR.JordanN. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge?Exceptional Children, 81, 134–157.
22.
GehrkeR. S.CocchiarellaM. (2013). Preservice special and general educators’ knowledge of inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 204–216.
23.
GehrkeR. S.CocchiarellaM.HarrisP.PuckettK. (2014). Field experiences and perceptions of inclusion: Varying contexts, structures, and interpretations. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15, 85–93.
24.
GoldhaberD.CowanJ.TheobaldR. (2016, November). Evaluating prospective teachers: Testing the predictive validity of the edTPA (CEDR Working Paper WP# 2016-7). Seattle: University of Washington.
25.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2009). The effects of NBPTS-certified teachers on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 55–80.
26.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798–812.
27.
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
28.
HorowitzS. H.RaweJ.WhittakerM. C. (2017). The state of learning disabilities: Understanding the 1 in 5. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
29.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
30.
KargerJ.HitchcockC. (2003). Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief for parents and teachers. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
31.
KeithT. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
32.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
KoedelC.ParsonsE.PodgurskyM.EhlertM. (2015). Teacher preparation programs and teacher quality: Are there real differences across programs?Education Finance and Policy, 10, 508–534.
34.
LedwellK.OylerC. (2016). Unstandardized responses to a “standardized” test: The edTPA as gatekeeper and curriculum change agent. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(2), 120–134.
35.
LudlowB. L. (1994). A comparison of traditional and distance education models (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED369599). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED369599.pdf
MargolisJ.DoringA. (2013). National assessments for student teachers: Documenting teaching readiness to the tipping point. Action in Teacher Education, 35, 272–285.
38.
McLeskeyJ.LandersE.WilliamsonP.HoppeyD. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings?The Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140.
39.
MeuwissenK. W.ChoppinJ. M. (2015). Preservice teachers’ adaptations to tensions associated with the edTPA during its early implementation in New York and Washington states. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(103). doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2078
40.
MulaikS. A. (2009). Foundations of factor analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
43.
OkhremtchoukI.SeikiS.GillilandB.AtehC.WallaceM.KatoA. (2009). Voices of pre-service teachers: Perspectives on the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 39–62.
44.
PeckC. A.GallucciC.SloanT.LippincottA. (2009). Organizational learning and program renewal in teacher education: A socio-cultural theory of learning, innovation and change. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 16–25.
45.
PeckC. A.McDonaldM. (2013). Creating “cultures of evidence” in teacher education: Context, policy, and practice in three high-data-use programs. The New Educator, 9(1), 12–28.
46.
PetersS.ReidD. K. (2009). Resistance and discursive practice: Promoting advocacy in teacher undergraduate and graduate programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 551–558.
47.
RatnerA. R.KolmanJ. S. (2016). Breakers, benders, and obeyers: Inquiring into teacher educators’ mediation of edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(35). doi:10.14507/epaa.v24.2112
48.
ReaganE. M.SchramT.McCurdyK.ChangT.-H.EvansC. M. (2016). Politics of policy: Assessing the implementation, impact, and evolution of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) and edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(9). doi:10.14507/epaa.24.2176
49.
RuhlK. L.HallT. E. (2002). Continuum of special education and general education field experiences in the preservice, special education program at Penn State. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 87–94.
50.
SandholtzJ. H.SheaL. M. (2012). Predicting performance: A comparison of university supervisors’ predictions and teacher candidates’ scores on a teaching performance assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 39–50.
SharmaP. (2010). Enhancing student reflection using Weblogs: Lessons learned from two implementation studies. Reflective Practice, 11, 127–141.
53.
SmithG. J.Edelen-SmithP. J. (2002). The nature of people: Renewing teacher education as a shared responsibility within colleges and schools of education. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 335–348.
54.
SnyderT. D.de BreyC.DillowS. A. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
55.
SpillaneJ. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 33–63.
56.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.
57.
StaytonV. D.McCollumJ. (2002). Unifying general and special education: What does the research tell us?Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 211–218.
58.
SuckowM. A.LauP. P. (2017). Teacher supply in California: A report to the legislature (Annual Report 2015–2016). Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
59.
WareL. (2008). Worlds remade: Inclusion through engagement with disability art. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12, 563–583.
WeinsteinC. S. (1988). Preservice teachers’ expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 31–40.
62.
WhiteR. (2007). Characteristics of classroom teachers which contribute to their professional growth in implementing inclusive practices (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
63.
WhittakerA.NelsonC. (2013). Assessment with an “End in View.”The New Educator, 9, 77–93.
64.
YellM. L.ShrinerJ. G.KatsiyannisA. (2006). Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and IDEA regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39, 1–24.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
