Novice Special Educators’ Instructional Practices, Communication Patterns, and Content Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics

Abstract

In this study, the authors examine the influence of teacher and student communication patterns, instructional practices, and teacher pedagogical content knowledge on students’ mathematics learning in both general and special education mathematics classrooms. Five pre-service special education teachers in field placements and 43 students with varying disabilities participated in this study. Observations of teachers during mathematics lessons and follow-up interviews were conducted. Students in these settings completed a pretest and posttest of mathematics content taught over 6 weeks of instruction. Results reveal two sets of instructional practices, communication patterns, and teacher understandings of mathematics for teaching that differentially affected student performance. Implications are discussed for teacher education and further research.

Special education and subject teachers’ self‐perceived readiness to teach mathematics to low‐performing middle school students

“…The importance of special education teachers’ subject knowledge in mathematics has been discussed in several studies (e.g., Flores, Patterson, Shippen, et al., ; Griffin, Jitendra and League, ; Rosas and Campbell, ). Hill, Rowan, and Ball () found that the teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching is positively correlated with students’ mathematical gains during the first and third grades, which indicates that teachers’ subject knowledge also affects students’ performance even at the elementary level.…”

“…Strong mathematical knowledge leads teachers to spend more time and focus on questioning, discussing, and reasoning about mathematical processes (Griffin, Jitendra and League, ). Since low‐performing students tend to have a more passive role in the classroom, teachers’ awareness of valid questions and student engagement is important to encourage students to participate in classroom discussions (Griffin, Jitendra and League, ). Communication also means using the ‘right’ language for different mathematical concepts as a natural part of the instructional practice (Seah, ).…”

Tutoring Sixth Graders Who Struggle with Reading: Illustrations Of Wood’s Contingent Interventions

“…Wood (2002), in fact, suggested that the ability to observe learner behaviors and flexibly shift between contingent levels of intervention may characterize expert teachers. The ability to make decisions based on students' strengths and needs may develop slowly for novice teachers (Griffin, Jitendra, & League, 2009), and certification and professional development programs may not sufficiently prepare teachers to make these fine-grained determinations (Duffy, 2002;Duffy & Atkinson, 2001;Seo, Brownell, Bishop, & Dingle, 2008). Pre-and in-service teachers appear to benefit from one-on-one experiences in which they tutor students who struggled with reading (Duffy & Atkinson, 2001;Gaffney et al, 2002).…”

Promoting Special Education Preservice Teacher Expertise

“…In special education, we have only a small number of studies attempting to articulate the dimensions of teacher expertise in special education (Bishop, Brownell, Klingner, Leko, & Galman, 2010;Brownell et al, 2007;Brownell et al, 2009;Carlson, Lee, & Schroll, 2004;Feng & Sass, 2011;Griffin, Jitendra, & League, 2009;Seo, Brownell, Bishop, & Dingle, 2008;Stough & Palmer, 2003). Though the number of studies is limited and their findings are tentative, results suggest that special education teacher quality is defined by (a) extended preparation in special education; (b) knowledge for teaching both elementary mathematics and reading; (c) ability to apply knowledge to practice, though beginning special education teachers seem less able to apply their knowledge; ( d) explicit, interactive instruction to promote student achievement; ( e) high levels of student engagement during instruction; (t) effective classroom management; (g) a sense of…”