This study was designed to identify and validate essential teaching
practices needed by both general and special educators to successfully
educate students with mild handicaps in general classrooms. An
interdisciplinary panel of 105 experts, evenly divided into university-based
and field-based participants from 35 states, identified 96 of 125 practices
in six categories as being essential for effective teaching of mainstreamed
students with mild handicaps. Based on a two-round Delphi procedure, a
substantial majority (82%) of these teaching practices were
seen as being essential for both general and special educators across all
six rated categories. Panel ratings were significantly higher for special
educators than general educators on four of the six categories. No
significant differences in ratings were found for university-based versus
field-based panelists, or for field-based panelists who were professionals
directly involved in elementary or secondary teaching roles versus
administrators, supervisors, and consultants. Based on essential teaching
practices validated in this study, implications for preservice teacher
preparation and staff development programs for general and special educators
are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonL.M., EvertsonC.M., &
BrophyJ.E. (1982).
Principles of small group instruction in elementary
reading.East Lansing: Michigan State
University, Institute for Research on
Teaching.
2.
BerlinerD., &
TikunoffW. (1976). The
California Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study: Overview of the ethnographic
study. Journal of Teacher Education,
27(1),
24–30.
3.
BickelW.E., &
BickelD.D. (1986).
Effective schools, classrooms, and instruction: Implications
for special education. Exceptional
Children, 52,
489–500.
BloomB.S. (1980).
The new direction in education: Alterable
variables. Phi Delta Kappan,
61,
382–385.
6.
BloomB.S. (1981). All our
children learning.New York:
McGraw-Hill.
7.
BrookoverW., BeadyC., FloodP., SchweitzerJ., &
WisenbakerJ. (1979). School
social systems and student achievement: Schools can make a
difference.New York:
Praeger.
8.
BrophyJ., &
EvertsonC. (1976). Learning
from teaching: A developmental perspective.Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
9.
BrophyJ.E., &
GoodT.L. (1986).
Teacher behavior and student achievement. In
WittrockM.C. (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching (3rd ed., pp.
328–375). New
York:
Macmillan.
10.
BrundageD. (Ed.). (1979). The
Journalism Research Fellows report: What makes an effective school?Washington, DC: George Washington
University.
11.
CronbachL.J. (1951).
Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psycho-metrika, 16,
297–334.
12.
DeshlerD.D., SchumakerJ.B., &
LenzB.K. (1984).
Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part
I. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
17,
108–117.
13.
DeshlerD.D., SchumakerJ.B., LenzB.K., &
EllisE. (1984).
Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part
II. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
17,
170–179.
14.
DieboldM.H., &
TrenthamL.L. (1987).
Special educator predictions of regular class teacher
attitudes concerning main-streaming. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 10,
19–25.
15.
EvertsonC., AndersonL., &
BrophyJ. (1978). Texas
Junior High School Study: Final report of process-outcome
relationships (Report No. 4061).
Austin: The University of
Texas, R&D Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 173 744)
16.
FedenP.D., &
ClabaughG.K. (1986).
The “new breed’ educator: A rationale for
combining elementary and special education teacher
preparation. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 9,
180–189.
17.
GoodT., &
GrouwsD. (1975).
Process-product relationship in fourth-grade mathematics classrooms:
Final report (National Institute of Education Grant No.
NIE-G-00-3-0123). Columbia:
University of Missouri, College of
Education.
18.
GoodT., &
GrouwsD. (1977).
Teaching effects: Process-product study in fourth-grade
mathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher
Education, 28,
49–54.
19.
GoodmanL. (1985). The
effective schools movement and special education.
Teaching Exceptional Children,
17(2),
102–105.
20.
HaringN.G., LovittT.C., EatonM.D., &
HansenC.L. (1978). The
fourth R: Research in the classroom.Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
21.
HarrisV., &
ShermanJ. (1973).
Effects of peer tutoring and consequences on the math
performance of elementary classroom students.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6,
587–597.
22.
HawkesK., &
Paolucci-WhitcombP. (1980).
Helping teachers use peer tutoring: A consultation
model. The Pointer,
24(3),
47–55.
23.
HelmerO. (1983). Looking
forward: A guide to future research.Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
24.
HosfordP.L. (1984a).
The art of applying the science of education.
In HosfordP.L. (Ed.), Using what we know
about teaching (pp. 141–161).
Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
25.
HosfordP.L. (1984b).
Introduction: The problem, its difficulties, and our
approaches. In HosfordP.L. (Ed.), Using what we know
about teaching (pp. 3–12).
Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
26.
HunterM. (1984).
Knowing, leaching, and supervising. In
HosfordP.L. (Ed.), Using what we know
about teaching (pp. 169–192).
Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
27.
IdolL. (1988).
Response to the January executive commentary: No more noses
to the glass [Letter to the director]. Exceptional
Children, 54,
472–473.
LarriveeB. (1981).
Effective teaching behaviors for
mainstreaming. The Pointer,
25(3),
28–30.
33.
LarriveeB. (1982).
Identifying effective teaching behaviors for
mainstreaming. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 5(3),
2–6.
34.
LarriveeB. (1985). Effective
teaching for successful mainstreaming.New York:
Longman.
35.
LarriveeB. (1986).
Effective teaching for mainstreamed students is effective
teaching for all students. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 9,
173–179.
36.
LeinhardtG., ZigmondN., &
CooleyW.W. (1981).
Reading instruction and its effects.
American Educational Research Journal, 18,
343–361.
37.
LinstoneH., &
TuroffM. (1975). The Delphi
method: Technique and applications.Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
38.
LipskyD.K., &
GartnerA. (1987).
Capable of achievement and worthy of respect: Education for
handicapped students as if they were full-fledged human
beings. Exceptional Children,
54,
69–74.
39.
MeyenE.L. (1988).
Current instructional practices. In
MeyenE.L. &
SkrticT.M. (Eds.), Exceptional children
and youth: An introduction (3rd ed., pp.
49–80).
Denver:
Love.
40.
MorsinkC.V., SoarR.S., SoarR.M., &
ThomasR. (1986).
Research on teaching: Opening the door to special education
classrooms. Exceptional Children,
53,
32–40.
41.
NevinA., JohnsonR., &
JohnsonD. (1982).
Effects of group and individual contingencies on academic
performance and social relations of special needs students.
Journal of Social Psychology, 116,
41–59.
42.
NevinA., SkieberE., &
PolewskiC. (1984). A
regular classroom teacher implements cooperative learning.
The Pointer, 28(3),
19–21.
43.
NevinA., &
ThousandJ. (1986).
What the research says about limiting or avoiding referrals
to special education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 9,
149–161.
44.
ReynoldsM.C. (1979, October).
A common body of practice for teachers: The challenge of
Public Law 94–142 to teacher education. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Association of Colleges and Schools of
Education in State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Dallas,
TX.
45.
ReynoldsM.C., WangM.C., &
WalbergH.J. (1987).
The necessary restructuring of special and regular
education. Exceptional Children,
53,
391–398.
46.
SalviaJ., &
YsseldykeJ.E. (1985).
Assessment in special and remedial education (3rd ed.).
Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
47.
Sapon-ShevinM. (1988).
Working towards merger together: Seeing beyond distrust and
fear. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 11,
103–110.
48.
SlavinR.E. (1980).
Cooperative learning. Review of
Educational Research, 50,
315–342.
49.
SlavinR.E., SharanS., KaganS.,
Hertz-LazarowitzR., WebbC., &
SchmuckR. (1985). Learning
to cooperate, cooperating to learn.New York: Plenum
Press.
50.
SoarR.S., &
SoarR.M. (1972).
An empirical analysis of selected Follow Through programs: An
example of a process approach to evaluation. In
GordonI. (Ed.), Early childhood
education (pp. 229–260).
Chicago: National Society for
the Study of Education.
51.
SolomonD., &
KendellA. (1979). Children
in classrooms: An investigation of person-environment interaction.New York:
Praeger.
52.
SquiresD.A., HuittW.G., &
SegarsJ.K. (1984).
Effective schools and classrooms: A research-based
perspective.Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
53.
StainbackS., &
StainbackW. (1987).
Facilitating merger through personnel
preparation. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 10,
185–190.
54.
StevensR., &
RosenshineB. (1981).
Advances in research on teaching.
Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2,
1–9.
55.
U.S. Department of
Education. (1990). Twelfth annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Education of the Handicapped
Act.Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation
Services.
56.
WangM.C., &
GennariP. (1983).
Analysis of the design, implementation, and effects of a
data-based staff development program. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 6,
211–216.
57.
WeathermanR., &
SwensonK. (1974).
Delphi technique. In
HencleyS.P. &
YatesJ.R. (Eds.), Futurism in
education: Methodologies (pp.
97–114). Berkeley,
CA:
McCutchan.
58.
WestJ.F., &
CannonG.S. (1988).
Essential collaborative consultation competencies for regular
and special educators. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 21,
56–63,
28.
59.
WestJ.F., &
IdolL. (1990).
Collaborative consultation in the education of mildly
handicapped and at-risk students. Remedial and
Special Education, 11(1),
22–30.
60.
WestJ.F., IdolL., &
CannonG. (1989).
Collaboration in the schools: Communicating, interacting, and
problem solving.Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
61.
WillM.C. (1986).
Educating children with learning problems: A shared
responsibility. Exceptional Children,
52,
411–416.
62.
YsseldykeJ.E. (1986).
The use of assessment information to make decisions about
students. In MorrisR.J. &
BlattB. (Eds.), Special education:
Research and trends (pp.
8–26). New
York: Pergamon
Press.
