Changing legal requirements, economic demands, accountability, and student demographics focus the need for reform among personnel preparation programs. Although redesign efforts in general and special education teacher preparation programs have increased, little evidence from research describes enhancement initiatives. In this article, the authors report the findings of an investigation of contextual variables related to reforming teacher preparation as reported by project personnel at Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) who were awarded 325T priority grants by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) during a 5-year period. This study employed a sequential mixed-methods design, which included (a) the administration of a survey to all project directors and (b) interviews with a purposive sample of project directors. From the analysis, results and future implications are included.
BrownellM. T.GriffinC.LekoM. M.StephensJ. (2011). Improving collaborative teacher education research: Creating tighter linkages. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 235-249.
3.
BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.KielyM.DanielsonL. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76, 357-378.
4.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Author.
5.
CorneliusK. E.NagroS. A. (2014). Evaluating the evidence base of performance feedback in preservice special education teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 133-146. doi:10.1177/0888406414521837
Darling-HammondL. (2001). Standard-setting in teaching: Changes in licensing, certification, and assessment. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 751-776). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
8.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
Dedoose. (2013). Version 4.5, Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. Retrieved from www.dedoose.com
10.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.
11.
FriendM.CookL. (2013). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
12.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComtonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149-164. doi:101177/001440290507100202
13.
GoodladJ. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
14.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.
15.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
16.
IngersollG. M.ScannellD. P. (2002). Performance-based teacher certification: Creating a comprehensive unit assessment system. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press.
17.
LittleM.E.CramerE.d.McHattonP.A. (in press). Constructing a new model for teacher preparation: A collaborative approach. Action in Teacher Education.
18.
LittleM.E.HuntJ.PowellS. (2013). Electronic mentoring of beginning special education teachers. Teacher Education in Special Education, 36(4), 286-297.
19.
McKenzieR. G. (2009). A national survey of preservice preparation for collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 379-393.
20.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
MillerP. S.StaytonV. D. (2006). Interdisciplinary teaming in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 56-68.
22.
MorseJ. M.RichardsL. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24.
NielsenP. A. (2012). Collaborative coding of qualitative data. White paper—LA2020. Kristiansand S, Norway: University of Agder.
25.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.TeddlieC. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
PugachM. C. (2005). Research on preparing general education teachers to work with students with disabilities. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on research in teacher education (pp. 549-590). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
PugachM. C.BlantonL. P.CorreaV. I. (2011). A historical perspective on the role of collaboration in teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of teaching all students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 183-200.
28.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
