Comparing general and special education preservice teachers’ test performance using traditional and anchored instruction

Download Comparing general and special education preservice teachers’ test performance using traditional and anchored instruction

Post on 16-Feb-2017

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 03 October 2014, At: 23:02Publisher: Taylor &amp; FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Journal of Early Childhood Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20</p><p>Comparing general and special education preserviceteachers test performance using traditional andanchored instructionD. Michael Malone a &amp; John Langone ba College of Education , The University of Cincinnati , One Edwards Center, Room 2150U,P.O. Box 210105, Cincinnati, OH, 452210105, USA Phone: +1 512 556 3801 Fax: +1 512 5563801 E-mail:b The University of Georgia , USAPublished online: 25 Apr 2008.</p><p>To cite this article: D. Michael Malone &amp; John Langone (2005) Comparing general and special education preservice teacherstest performance using traditional and anchored instruction, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25:2, 143-152,DOI: 10.1080/1090102050250207</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102050250207</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1090102050250207http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102050250207http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>E L S E V I E R Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152</p><p>Journal of EarlyChildhoodTeacher</p><p>Education</p><p>Comparing general and special education preserviceteachers' test performance using traditional</p><p>and anchored instruction</p><p>D. Michael Malonea,*, John Langoneb</p><p>a College of Education, The University of Cincinnati, One Edwards Center, Room 2150-U,P.O. Box 210105, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0105, USA</p><p>b The University of Georgia, USA</p><p>Accepted 30 October 2004</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Data comparing the effects of traditional lectures and instruction paired with video anchors on test scores ofgeneral education and special education preservice teachers are presented. The sample in both the experimentaland control groups included a mixture of preservice teachers including those beginning a general education earlychildhood program and those beginning an early childhood special education program. Preservice teachers receivedtraditional lecture-based instruction and video enhanced instruction focused on an introduction to using assistivetechnology with children who have disabilities. Multiple-choice and essay format pre-tests, post-tests, and follow-up tests were administered to general education and special education preservice teachers receiving traditional andtechnology-enhanced instruction to assess preservice teachers' baseline knowledge, immediate acquisition of newinformation, and maintenance of knowledge. Results revealed somewhat different within-group patterns as well asimportant between-group patterns. Although no differences between the two groups on the post-test immediatelyfollowing the lectures was noted, the technology-enhanced instruction group out-performed the traditional instruc-tion group on the eight-week follow-up test. Implications for future research are discussed particularly in light ofteacher preparation programs for early childhood educators. 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</p><p>Keywords: Technology; Anchored instruction; Teacher education; Special education; General education</p><p>The roles and responsibilities of teachers and teachereducators are evolving. In the document Teacher Qual-ity: A Report on Teacher Preparation and Qualifica-tions, Riley (1999) reported that only l-in-5 new andveteran teachers feel well-prepared for the contempo-rary classroom relative to teaching students with dis-abilities, working with students from diverse cultural</p><p>* Corresponding author. Tel: +1 512 556 3801; fax: +1513 556 3764.</p><p>E-mail address: d.michael.malone@uc.edu(D.M. Malone).</p><p>backgrounds, using technology, and raising standardsin the classroom. These data are echoed in the reportEliminating Barriers to Improving Teaching (Dozier &amp;Berlotti, 2000). Although teacher education has neverbeen a static endeavor, current challenges to produc-ing fully qualified personnel faced by teacher edu-cators are influencing efforts to explore alternate in-structional strategies. For example, the increased im-plementation of inclusive educational environments(McLeskey, Henry, &amp; Hodges, 1999; U.S. Departmentof Education, 2001) and the issues faced by teach-ers working in these environments (Dozier &amp; Berlotti,</p><p>1090-1027/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>New</p><p> Yor</p><p>k U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 23:</p><p>02 0</p><p>3 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>144 DM Malone, J. Langone /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152</p><p>2000; Riley, 1999) are prompting teacher educators toconsider which methods will optimize the knowledgeand skills that teachers need in contemporary educa-tional settings. Indeed, teacher training programs areincreasingly under pressure to equip preservice teach-ers with skills to translate into practice the informationthey receive in the didactic educational context (Fox&amp; Williams, 1992).</p><p>Lecture-based instruction, the traditional standardof teacher education, has been described as promotinginert knowledge (Brown, Collins, &amp; Duguid, 1989;Hedbergfe Alexander, 1994;Tripp, 1993; Whitehead,1929). Such knowledge is based on one's ability tostore and recall information upon demand, but fails toenable learners to solve complex problems. Becausesuch knowledge may not provide learners with a con-textualized link to a real world event, preservice teach-ers may not maintain their newly acquired knowledgelong enough to apply that knowledge in their teach-ing. Experiential strategies (e.g., teacher guided ex-posure to problems in everyday settings) have beenexplored as an option for providing learners with bothcore knowledge and the ability to apply that knowl-edge (Griffin, 1995). The challenge is providing pre-service teachers with the appropriate models of pro-cedures that are outside of their realm of experience(McCoy, 1995). For example, it is difficult to effec-tively describe to a class of preservice teachers thestrategies for teaching children with disabilities if theyhave not had experience with such children and relatedinstructional situations. University personnel teachinglarge introductory classes are limited in the extent towhich they can use experiential instructional strategies(Buck, Morsink, Griffin, Hines, &amp; Lenk, 1992). A lackof appropriate and accessible field sites combined witha variety of student variables (scheduling, transporta-tion, etc.) represents a challenge for personnel whowish to provide their classes with quality examples ofpreferred teaching techniques that work for childrenwith disabilities.</p><p>Challenges presented by traditional instructionalstrategies, logistics of class size and student diversity,and availability of appropriate sites can be addressedthrough the use multimedia instructional techniquesthat expose preservice teachers to contextually-basedexamples of lecture content. In particular, anchoredinstruction that situates learning in videodisc or CD-ROM-based environments by providing learners withcase study examples of how experts use knowledgeto solve problems has emerged as an effective tool(Barron &amp; Goldman, 1994; Goldman &amp; Barren, 1990;Hasselbring &amp; Rieth, 1993; Morrison &amp; Frick, 1994;Peters &amp; O'Brien, 1996; Ritt &amp; Stewart, 1996). An-chored instruction, based on principles of situated cog-nition (Brown et al., 1989), extends the more tradi-tional use of lectures, overhead transparencies, and</p><p>videotapes by providing preservice teachers accessto targeted case study examples designed to addresstheir individual needs. The study of the effects of an-chored instruction on learning has led to a modifiedapproach that provides learners with video models, oranchors, of teaching strategies or instructional situa-tions (e.g., classroom structures that are paired withimportant concepts presented by the instructor in alecture format). The impact of pairing video modelsand anchors with instruction on both general educationand special education preservice teachers' learninghas been demonstrated by Langone, Malone, and Cli-nton (1999) and Langone, Malone, Stecker, andGreene (1998).</p><p>The purpose of this study was to compare theeffectiveness of traditional and anchored instructionwith general education and special education preser-vice teachers. This work extends that of Langone etal. (1998), Langone et al. (1999), and Shyu (2000)in which these methods have been examined indepen-dently for special education and general education pre-service teachers. In the two studies by Langone and as-sociates instruction combined with video anchors wasshown to enhance the learning of preservice teach-ers, especially when process-oriented testing (i.e., es-says) are considered. Our interest in this study waswhether instructional strategies lead to differential out-comes between groups. Despite the heightened pub-lic awareness about inclusive educational programs,we expected individuals who selected special educa-tion as a major to be more motivated to learn aboutdisability-related issues than individuals who selectedgeneral education as a major. Thus, we expected spe-cial education preservice teachers to perform betterthan the general education preservice teachers in alltesting situations, with the anchored instruction groupperforming better than any other groups.</p><p>1. Method</p><p>1.1. Participants</p><p>Data from 37 special education preservice teachersand 100 general education preservice teachers wereincluded in these analyses. The preservice teacherswere selected using a purposive nonprobability sam-pling technique (Kingery, Bryant, Palmer, &amp; Araghi,1989) based on course enrollment. Course enrollmentassociated with differences in program characteristicsaccounted for the differences in group samples. Thespecial education preservice teachers were enrolled intwo sections of a required introductory course enti-tled Characteristics of Individuals with Mental Re-tardation. The general education preservice teacherswere enrolled in four sections of a required introduc-tory course entitled Introduction to Special Educa-</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>New</p><p> Yor</p><p>k U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 23:</p><p>02 0</p><p>3 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>DM. Malone, J. Langone / Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152 145</p><p>tion. These two courses reflected the different programof study requirements for the special education andgeneral education preservice teachers. With respect tothe special education preservice teachers, one coursesection was selected to receive traditional instruction(n = 16) and one course section was selected to receivethe video supported instruction (n=21). Ninety-onepercent of the special education preservice teacherswere female. With respect to the general education pre-service teachers, two course sections were selected toreceive traditional instruction (n = 57) and two coursesections were selected to receive anchored instruction(n = 43). Sixty-nine percent of the general educationpreservice teachers were female.</p><p>1.2. Procedure</p><p>1.2.1. Lecture developmentAll participants were presented with one 60-minute</p><p>introductory lecture on assistive technology. This lec-ture addressed nine awareness/identification level ob-jectives that would be common for an introduction tothe topic. Content validity was established for the lec-ture objectives and notes by having two graduate as-sistants compare these objectives and notes to chaptersfrom popular textbooks. Lecture objectives and noteswere revised accordingly (i.e., missing or poorly writ-</p><p>ten items were adjusted). An outline of the lecture isprovided in Table 1.</p><p>Two identical copies of the lecture were created toensure that the traditional instruction and anchored in-struction groups received the same information. Thedifference between the two groups was that the lecturepresented to the traditional instruction group incor-porated overhead transparencies and the lecture pre-sented to the anchored instruction group incorporatedvideo clips. Thus, the anchored instruction group wasable to observe activity that approximated that whichthey would have observed in a field experience.</p><p>1.2.2. Test developmentPre-, post-, and follow-up tests were developed</p><p>based on the assistive technology lecture. Each testincluded two multiple-choice questions per objective(18 total) and eight short answer essay questions (oneto three sentences required per answer). One essayquestion covered two objectives, thus allowing us totest the nine objectives with eight questions. The samemultiple-choice and essay questions were included onthe pre-, post-, and follow-up tests.</p><p>1.2.3. Class directionsThe target lecture was delivered to all course sec-</p><p>tions by the same instructor. Participants in each course</p><p>Table 1Outline for the topics included in the lecture on assistive technology</p><p>Introduction to assistive and augmentative technologyI. Overview of assistive and augmentative technology</p><p> Need for assistive technological tools by persons with severe disabilities Range in sophistication of assistive tools Examples of range in sophistication The following discussion provides examples representing a larger class of devices</p><p>II. Assistive devices and computer access Rationale for why individuals with disabilities need to have computer access Types of computers available Need for electronic transparency Interfacing devices to computers (electronic transparency)</p><p>A. Mechanical (non-electric) devices1. Key guards2. Keylatches</p><p>B. Electronic devices1. Description and examples of uses f...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >