A comparative study of special education and regular education teacher planning practices.
AuthorDuffy, Mary Louise.
Committee ChairBos, Candace S.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractThis study examined the language, methods and behaviors employed by high school level special education teachers when planning for content area classes. While past research in the area of teacher cognitions have described these processes related to regular classroom teachers, no systematic investigation of special education teacher planning has been conducted to date. Previous research in the area of teacher planning has served to develop models of planning found at all levels of education. Drawing on past research, hypotheses about planning practices for secondary level content area special education teachers were tested. Use of a descriptive case study design allowed for an investigation of the language, methods, and behaviors used by special education teachers at the secondary level to plan for content area classes. Two special education teachers, one teaching social studies, and one teaching science, and two regular classroom teachers, one teaching social studies and one teaching science at the high school level participated in the study. The teachers completed background questionnaires, were interviewed to obtain their beliefs and practices in planning, were observed for one week while teaching, kept audio reflective journals, and were interviewed using a video stimulated recall procedure. Findings indicated that special education teachers and regular classroom teachers plan in similar ways. The language that these two groups of teachers used in talking about planning varied. The language differences were observed when teachers talked about individualization and about skills versus content focus in their teaching. The definitional differences could hinder effective collaboration between these professionals. These findings impact teacher preparation in special education, as well as ongoing staff development for inservice teachers. The combination of methods used to develop the descriptive case studies provide more validity for subsequent qualitative research in this area. Lastly, this study adds to the literature base describing secondary level teacher planning and also represents an initial study in the area of special education teacher planning.
Degree ProgramSpecial Education and Rehabilitation