Seventy-seven pre-service teachers enrolled in an introductory special education course completed a questionnaire on their beliefs about learning, teaching, and disability, before and after completing one of two randomly assigned training modules on Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Module A presented UDL as a strategy for meeting the specific needs of students with disabilities in a general education setting. Module B presented UDL as a framework to support all learners in the general education classroom through the creation of communities of learners. The Beliefs About Learning, Teaching, and Disability Questionnaire (BLTDQ) was administered with five subscales rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale that measure pre-service teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching, as representative of their epistemological beliefs, beliefs about disability (from pathognomonic to interventionist) and the role of the teacher in the general education classroom. Analyses of these results suggest that a significant change toward interventionist beliefs about learning, teaching, and disability occurred for participants who completed either module on UDL. Additionally, a small to moderate, positive relationship was identified between pre-service teachers’ beliefs about disability and their epistemological beliefs, with the strength of this relationship increasing following their training in UDL. These findings suggest that training in UDL can have a powerful and positive impact on pre-service teachers’ interventionist epistemological beliefs and beliefs about disability. Shifts toward interventionist beliefs are more likely to result in teaching practices that are more supportive of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Implications for teacher preparation and study limitations are also discussed.
Achievement tests are used to make high-stakes (e.g., special education placement) decisions, and previous research on norm-referenced assessment suggests that errors are ubiquitous. In our study of 42 teacher trainees, utilizing five of the six core subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3), we found that while most trainees make errors, they do not make a large number per person with the exception of a few error-prone trainees. In addition, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests indicated that reading comprehension was the most prone subtest to administration ( T = 120; p < .001) and clerical ( T = 45; p < .01) errors. However, subtests pairwise comparisons indicated nonsignificant differences between error rates across subtests. Based on these findings, we recommend that training programs focus extra attention on reading comprehension and remediating students who make a disproportionate number of errors. Implications for future research are also noted.
Special education teachers play a key role in educational assessment practices, including frequently administering norm-referenced tests of academic achievement. This study examined the course on norm-referenced assessment provided in special education training programs. Data regarding course (a) structure; (b) assignments; (c) test administration requirements; and (d) content were collected from one hundred forty-two special education instructors. Results suggest that norm-referenced assessment is not heavily emphasized in special education programs and that the practical application of assessment skills is limited. Additionally, instructors appear to experience a shortage of support and materials compared to other assessment trainers, such as school psychologists. Implications for future research, practice and training are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.