This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 03 October 2014, At: 23:02Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Comparing general and special education preserviceteachers’ test performance using traditional andanchored instructionD. Michael Malone a & John Langone ba College of Education , The University of Cincinnati , One Edwards Center, Room 2150‐U,P.O. Box 210105, Cincinnati, OH, 45221–0105, USA Phone: +1 512 556 3801 Fax: +1 512 5563801 E-mail:b The University of Georgia , USAPublished online: 25 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: D. Michael Malone & John Langone (2005) Comparing general and special education preservice teachers’test performance using traditional and anchored instruction, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25:2, 143-152,DOI: 10.1080/1090102050250207

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102050250207

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & 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 & 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.

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 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

E L S E V I E R Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152

Journal of EarlyChildhoodTeacher

Education

Comparing general and special education preserviceteachers' test performance using traditional

and anchored instruction

D. Michael Malonea,*, John Langoneb

a College of Education, The University of Cincinnati, One Edwards Center, Room 2150-U,P.O. Box 210105, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0105, USA

b The University of Georgia, USA

Accepted 30 October 2004

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Technology; Anchored instruction; Teacher education; Special education; General education

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

* Corresponding author. Tel: +1 512 556 3801; fax: +1513 556 3764.

E-mail address: d.michael.malone@uc.edu(D.M. Malone).

backgrounds, using technology, and raising standardsin the classroom. These data are echoed in the reportEliminating Barriers to Improving Teaching (Dozier &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, & Hodges, 1999; U.S. Departmentof Education, 2001) and the issues faced by teach-ers working in these environments (Dozier & Berlotti,

1090-1027/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

144 DM Malone, J. Langone /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152

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& Williams, 1992).

Lecture-based instruction, the traditional standardof teacher education, has been described as promotinginert knowledge (Brown, Collins, & 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, & 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.

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 & Goldman, 1994; Goldman & Barren, 1990;Hasselbring & Rieth, 1993; Morrison & Frick, 1994;Peters & O'Brien, 1996; Ritt & 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

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).

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.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

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, & 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-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

DM. Malone, J. Langone / Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152 145

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.

1.2. Procedure

1.2.1. Lecture developmentAll participants were presented with one 60-minute

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-

ten items were adjusted). An outline of the lecture isprovided in Table 1.

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.

1.2.2. Test developmentPre-, post-, and follow-up tests were developed

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.

1.2.3. Class directionsThe target lecture was delivered to all course sec-

tions by the same instructor. Participants in each course

Table 1Outline for the topics included in the lecture on assistive technology

Introduction to assistive and augmentative technologyI. Overview of assistive and augmentative technology

• 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

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)

A. Mechanical (non-electric) devices1. Key guards2. Keylatches

B. Electronic devices1. Description and examples of uses for two devices and a variety of switches

III. Stand-alone communication boards• Importance of communication in the lives of persons with severe disabilities• Rationale for using electronic communication boards including examples of how devices are used• Description of electronic communication board technology (e.g., synthesized speech and digitized speech)

IV. Electronic communication boards• Description of four electronic boards with examples of uses

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

146 DM. Malone, J. Langone / Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152

section were given parallel directions. First, partici-pants were introduced to the topic of the lecture. Sec-ond, participants were told that they would take a pre-test prior to the lecture and a post-test after the lecturewas completed. They were informed that neither testwould influence their grades in any way. The instructorexplained that he was trying out a new lecturing for-mat using the laptop computer to project the lecturenotes and wished to use the test information to eval-uate the system. Participants were also told that theyshould take notes like they normally would to assistthem in retaining the material. The time required forthe pre-test, lecture, and post-test was approximately1 j hours.

Approximately eight weeks after the presentationof the lecture, participants were administered a follow-up test identical to the pre- and post-tests. Each groupwas told the follow-up test would assist the instructorin determining if the information presented in lecturehad been retained. After the follow-up test was admin-istered, the instructor asked the participants to provideverbal comments concerning the design and presen-tation of the lecture. In particular, participants wereasked for comments about the lecture notes presentedvia the computer and projection system.

1.2.4. Procedural reliabilityProcedural reliability of both instructional formats

was determined by having an observer (e.g., graduateassistant) attend each lecture, take notes, time the lec-tures, and tape record the presentation. This processrevealed that the only difference between lectures wasthe instructor's use of overhead transparencies for thetraditional instruction group and video clips for the an-chored instruction group. An analysis of lecture audiotapes indicated that the questions generated by the twoclasses during the lectures were essentially the samein content.

1.3. Data analysis

1.3.1. GradingEach participant's tests (pre-, post-, and follow-up)

were assigned a unique identification code to main-tain anonymity. The multiple-choice test questions onthe pre-, post-, and follow-up tests were graded by agraduate assistant and checked for accuracy by a sec-ond individual. The graduate assistant had no knowl-edge of group assignment. Each essay question wasawarded two points for a correct description of the as-sistive device or three points for a correct descriptionof the assistive device and explanation of how the de-vice might be used by a person with a disability. Nopoints were awarded if the student did not attempt toanswer the essay question. A graduate research assis-tant was trained to evaluate the essay questions using

the above criteria. Using the same criteria, the sec-ond author independently graded the essay responsesof a random sample of 25% of the participants fromeach group. Independent reliability estimates were es-tablished using a question by question analysis (i.e.,the assigned score matched versus the assigned scoredid not match). The reliability estimates were 92% forthe special education student group and 95% for thegeneral education student group.

1.3.2. Statistical analysisDescriptive statistics for test scores on the multiple-

choice and essay questions for pre-test, post-test, andfollow-up test conditions within both the traditionalinstruction and anchored instruction groups withinthe special education and general education cohortsare presented in Table 2. Between group (special ed-ucation versus general education) differences wereanalyzed using ANOVA. Analyses were carried outseparately within instructional format (traditional in-struction and anchored instruction), test situation (pre-test, post-test, and follow-up test), and test format(multiple-choice test and essay test). Data are pre-sented in graphic format in Fig. 1.

Difference scores were created between pre-test,post-test, and follow-up test conditions. Specifically,the post-test scores were subtracted from the pre-testscores, the follow-up scores were subtracted from thepre-test scores, and the follow-up scores were sub-tracted from the post-test scores. This procedure wascarried out separately for the multiple choice tests andessay tests and provided an index of change betweentest conditions. The between group (special educa-tion versus general education) effects using these dif-ference were examined using ANOVA. Data are pre-sented in graphic format in Fig. 2.

The magnitude of effect (Cohen's d) was calcu-lated for each statistically significant comparison. Theeffect size provides an indication of the noteworthinessof the comparisons free from statistical significance.Based on Lipsey (1990), a small effect =.00-.32; amedium effect = .33-.55; and a large effect = .56 andhigher (Table 3).

2. Results

2.1. Traditional instruction format

No differences were found between special ed-ucation and general education preservice teachers'test scores on the multiple choice pre-test. However,special education preservice teachers earned signif-icantly higher scores on the multiple choice post-test [F(l,72)=20.42, p<.000; </=1.28] and multi-ple choice follow-up test [F( 1,72)= 12.57, p<.001;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

D.M. Malone, J. Langone /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152 147

Table 2Descriptive statistics for special education and general education preservice teachers' test scores" by test format, test condition,and instructional method

Test format and condition

Special education preservice teachersMultiple choice pre-testMultiple choice post-testMultiple choice follow-up testEssay pre-testEssay post-testEssay follow-up test

General education preservice teachersMultiple choice pre-testMultiple choice post-testMultiple choice follow-up testEssay pre-testEssay post-testEssay follow-up test

Traditional instruction

M •

36.3169.3157.3115.3158.7547.69

33.9550.2639.187.02

29.3930.28

SD

9.5314.6913.109.88

14.5513.25

11.2114.9619.205.66

15.2312.18

Anchored instruction

M

41.3376.2567.007.00

61.7563.74

35.3553.7446.51

2.8830.7022.33

SD

13.7516.6415.019.39

13.2513.74

12.0613.8015.583.30

15.4710.91

1 Test scores reported in percentage correct.

d= 1.10] than the general education preservice teach-ers. Further, special education preservice teachersearned significantly higher scores on the essay pre-test[F(l,72)= 18.72, /x .000; d=1.03], essay post-test[F( 1,72) = 47.30,/? < .000; d= 1.97], and essay follow-

up test [F(l,72)=4.45,/><.04; d=.58] than the gen-eral education preservice teachers.

We also compared the two groups' magnitudeof change in test scores from pre-test to post-test,pre-test to follow-up test, and post-test to follow-up

70

- 6 0

30

<u 4 0

Ia

I"-10

Traditional Instruction Multiple Choice Tests

z

Pre-Test Post-Test Follow-Up Test

Special Education General Education

60

\ 50

8 40a|>30

| 20

a. 10

Traditional Instruction Essay Tests

Pre-Test Post-Test Follow-Up Test— Special Education General Education

80

- 7 0

S 60

Anchored Instruction Multiple Choice Tests

° 50

Si 4 0

a•£ 30aa 20

Pre-Test Post-Test Follow-Up Test

Special Education General Education

70

o

orre

o<DatS

ere

60

50

40

30

20

Anchored Instruction Essay Tests

/

/

1 ,//

_______/

Pre-Test Post-Test Follow-Up Test— Special Education — - General Education

Fig. 1. Comparison of general education and special education preservice teachers' test scores by instruction type and test type.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

148 DM. Malone, J. Langone /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152

Difference Scores for Traditional Instruction Multiple Choice Tests

4 0 -

-20Pre(-)Post Pr. (-) Follow-Up Post (-) Follow-Up

Special Education — - General Education

Difference Scores for Traditional Instruction Essay Tests

\

\

Pre(-)Post Pr. (-) Follow-Up Posl (-) Folto»MJp

Special Education — — General Education

Difference Scores for Anchored Instruction Multiple Choice Tests

40-r

8 30ou1 20

» 10

-10- \Pre(-)Post Pr« (-) Follow-Up Posl (•) Follow-Up

Special Education General Education

Difference Scores for Anchored Instruction Essay Tests

Pre{-)Post Pr« (-) Follow-Up Port (-) Follow-Up

Special Education — — General Education

Fig. 2. Comparison of general education and special education preservice teachers' difference scores by instruction type and test

type-

Table 3Descriptive statistics for special education and general education preservice teachers' difference scores" by test format andinstructional method

Test format Traditional instruction Anchored instruction

M

33.0021.00

-12.0043.4422.38

-21.06

16.325.23

-11.0922.3723.260.89

SD

14.6612.4511.2618.1716.5113.73

14.5918.8514.5714.2812.2913.21

M

34.9025.67-9.2454.7656.76

2.00

23.4016.16

-7.2327.8119.44

-8.37

SD

19.5318.6517.3613.4118.5816.88

15.8218.8715.6714.7611.9515.91

Special education preservice teachersMultiple choice pre-test (-) post-testMultiple choice pre-test (-) follow-up testMultiple choice post-test (-) follow-up testEssay pre-test (-) post-testEssay pre-test (-) follow-up testEssay post-test (-) follow-up test

General education preservice teachersMultiple choice pre-test (-) post-testMultiple choice pre-tesl (-) follow-up testMultiple choice post-test (—) follow-up testEssay pre-test (-) post-testEssay pre-test (-) follow-up testEssay post-test (-) follow-up test

" The sign of each difference score has been reversed from original calculation. Positive numbers now indicate higher scoreson later tests (pre-test to post-test; pre-test to follow-up test; post-test to follow-up test).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

D.M. Malone, J. Langone /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152 149

test. With respect to the multiple choice tests, spe-cial education preservice teachers posted a signifi-cantly greater change in scores from pre-test to post-test [F(l,72) = 16.30, p<.000; d=\.U] and pre-testto follow-up test [F(l,72) = 9.93, p<.002; rf=.99]than the general education preservice teachers. Pre-test scores were lower than post-test and follow-up testscores for both special education and general educa-tion preservice teachers. With respect to the essay tests,special education preservice teachers posted a signif-icantly greater change in scores from pre-test to post-test [F( 1,72) = 24.06,p<.000; rf=1.29] and post-testto follow-up test [F(l,72) = 33.93,.p<.000; d= 1.58]than the general education preservice teachers. Specialeducation preservice teachers earned higher scores onthe post-test than either the pre-test of follow-up test.General education preservice teachers earned higherscores on the post-test than the pre-test, but lowerscores on the post-test than the follow-up test. No sig-nificant between group differences emerged relative tothe magnitude of change in scores between the pre-testand follow-up test.

2.2. Anchored instruction format

Statistically significant differences were found be-tween special education and general education pre-service teachers on all test conditions. Relative tothe multiple choice format, special education preser-vice teachers earned significantly higher scores onthe pre-test [F(l,63) = 10.67, /?<.002; <f=.85], post-test [F(l,63) = 33.66, p<.000; d= 1.49], and follow-up test [F( 1,63) = 25.78, p<.000; <f=1.37] than thegeneral education preservice teachers. Relative tothe essay test format, special education preserviceteachers earned significantly higher scores on thepre-test [F( 1,63) = 6.67, p<.01; d=.59], post-test[F( 1,63) = 62.43, p<.000; d=2A6], and follow-uptest [F( 1,63) = 178.82,p < .000; d= 3.45] than the gen-eral education preservice teachers.

Finally, we compared the two groups* magnitude ofchange in test scores from pre-test to post-test, pre-testto follow-up test, and post-test to follow-up test. Onlyone statistically significant finding emerged with re-spect to the multiple choice tests. While pre-test scoreswere lower than post-test scores for both special edu-cation and general education preservice teachers, thespecial education preservice teachers posted a signif-icantly greater change in scores from pre-test to post-test [F(l,63) = 6.39,p<.01; d=.65] than the generaleducation preservice teachers. With respect to the es-say tests, special education preservice teachers posteda significantly greater change in scores from pre-testto post-test [F(l,63)=49.83, /x .000; d=\.9\) andpre-test to follow-up test [F( 1,63) = 94.45, /x.OOO;<f=2.39] than the general education preservice teach-

ers. Pre-test scores were lower than post-test andfollow-up test scores for both special education andgeneral education preservice teachers. General educa-tion preservice teachers posted a significantly greaterchange in scores from post-test to follow-up test[F( 1,63) = 5.76, p<.02; d=39] than the special ed-ucation preservice teachers. While special educationpreservice teachers earned somewhat higher scores onthe follow-up test than on the post-test, general edu-cation preservice teachers' scores were lower on thefollow-up test than on the post-test.

2.3. Post hoc comparisons

An examination of the difference score compar-isons and data presented in graphic format in Fig. 2prompted us to "compare the magnitude of change intest scores between the two instructional formats (tra-ditional versus anchored), but within student group(special education; general education). While pre-testscores were lower than either the post-test or follow-up scores for both groups of special education pre-service teachers, those who had received anchoredinstruction posted a significantly greater change inscores from essay pre-test to post-test [F( 1,36)=4.77,/?<.O4; d=Jl] and essay pre-test to follow-up test[F(l,36)=34.19, /x.OOO; d=l.96) than those whohad received traditional instruction. In contrast, spe-cial education preservice teachers who had receivedtraditional instruction posted a significantly greaterchange in scores from essay post-test to follow-uptest [F(l,36)= 19.82, p<.000; d= 1.24] than specialeducation preservice teachers who had received an-chored instruction. Note that special education preser-vice teachers who had received traditional instructionearned lower scores on the follow-up test than on thepost-test while special education preservice teacherswho had received anchored instruction earned higherscores on the follow-up test than on the post-test.

While pre-test scores were lower than either thepost-test or follow-up scores for both groups of generaleducation preservice teachers, those who had receivedanchored instruction posted a significantly greaterchange in scores from the multiple choice pre-test topost-test [F(l,99) = 5.37, p<.02; d=A7] and multi-ple choice pre-test to follow-up test [F(l,99) = 8.24,p<.O05; d=.5&] than those who had received tradi-tional instruction. Finally, general education preser-vice teachers who had received anchored instructionposted a significantly greater change in scores fromthe essay post-test to follow-up test [F(l,99)= 10.11,p<.002; d=.54] than general education preserviceteachers who had received traditional instruction. Notethat general education preservice teachers who hadreceived traditional instruction earned slightly higherscores on the follow-up test than on the post-test,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

150 DM. Malone, J. Langone /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152

while general education preservice teachers who hadreceived anchored instruction earned lower scores onthe follow-up test than on the post-test.

3. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare theeffectiveness of traditional and anchored instructionwith general education and special education preser-vice teachers. More specifically, we were interestedin whether or not the targeted instructional strategieswould lead to differential outcomes for each preser-vice teacher group. Our expectations were supported;not only was anchored instruction a more effective in-structional tool than traditional instruction in general,it did not result in parallel outcomes for the generaleducation and special education groups. These datasupport and extend the work of Langone et al. (1998)and Langone et al. (1999). In both these studies an-chored instruction was found to be an effective tool forboth general education and special education preser-vice teachers, especially when process-oriented testing(i.e., essays) was considered.

In this paper we report data that not only demon-strate the effectiveness of anchored instruction for eachgroup independent of the other, but also the extent towhich this tool can differentially influence the learn-ing and retention of lecture content on general educa-tion and special education preservice teachers. Morespecifically, we found that special education preser-vice teachers earned higher scores in all but one of thetest conditions (multiple choice pre-test) than generaleducation preservice teachers and that the magnitudeof change in scores between test conditions (e.g., pre-test to post-test) was typically greater for the specialeducation preservice teachers than the general educa-tion preservice teachers. The fact that these findingswere consistent for both the traditional and anchoredinstruction groups supports our belief that beginningspecial education majors would be more motivated tolearn content related to disability than beginning gen-eral education majors. Further, the use of anchoredinstruction appeared to enhance this general pattern inthat post hoc analyses of difference scores indicatedthat anchored instruction significantly influenced thespecial education preservice teachers' acquisition andmaintenance of information as reflected in the scoresearned on the essay tests.

Such findings are important given the increased im-plementation of inclusive educational environments(McLeskey et al., 1999; U.S. Department of Educa-tion, 2001) and the challenges faced by teachers work-ing in these environments (Dozier & Berlotti, 2000;Riley, 1999). Indeed, the current educational contextrequires that general education, as well as special ed-

ucation, teachers have an understanding of disabilityissues including accommodations and adaptations togeneral education classrooms and instruction. It ap-pears that anchored instruction can be a useful toolfor enhancing preservice teachers' learning, especiallyin situations where course material is best learnedthrough demonstration (see also Barron & Goldman,1994; Goldman & Barron, 1990; Hasselbring & Rieth,1993; Ladewski, 1996; Langone, 1995; Langone et al.,1998; Langone et al., 1999; Morrison & Frick, 1994;Peters & O'Brien, 1996; Ritt & Stewart, 1996).

3.1. Implications for research and practice inearly childhood education

The results reported in this paper are important touniversity personnel training teachers to work in con-temporary early childhood classrooms. First, the re-sults lend additional support to the use of anchored in-struction in higher education including teacher prepa-ration programs where pre- and inservice teachers areprepared to work with an increasingly diverse popula-tion of students with different learning needs. Second,the results provide insight into the efficacy of differ-ent instructional strategies with different preserviceteacher groups, both of whom will have responsibili-ties for teaching children with disabilities. While wemight expect preservice teachers who have selectedspecial education as a major area of study to be morehighly motivated to learn about disability issues (henceperform better on tests in this area) than preserviceteachers who select general education as a major, it iscritical that we also successfully educate general edu-cation preservice teachers about such content. Indeed,two of the areas for which general education teach-ers have expressed concern and a lack of comfort andskill are teaching students with disabilities and tech-nology (Dozier & Berlotti, 2000; Riley, 1999). Failureto learn about disability issues while in teacher edu-cation programs can impact teachers' sense of com-petence relative to their ability to work with childrenwith disabilities. By extension, a lack of competencecan negatively influence teachers' perceptions of chil-dren with disabilities, how they treat these children,and, ultimately, child outcomes (Doyle, Hancock, &Kifer, 1972; Mahoney, Wheeden, Fewell, & Hancock,2000; Stafford, van Rensburg, & Greene, 2000).

These results prompt us to ask several questions.First, while the general education preservice teachersdid not perform as well on the tests as the special edu-cation preservice teachers, was this performance trulyinsufficient? As indicated in Langone et al. (1998),anchored instruction on disability content appearedeffective with general education preservice teacherswhen this group was examined independently. What,if any, modifications can or should be made to improve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

DM. Malone, J. Langone /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152 151

the utility of this instructional strategy with generaleducation preservice teachers? Would similar resultshave been found if a more advanced course had beenselected? To what extent would making test perfor-mance part of the preservice teachers' grades influ-ence performance? Additional research is needed toaddress these questions.

Although we can interpret the results of this studyto suggest that anchored instruction can assist preser-vice teachers in learning and retaining information thatmay be difficult for them to understand and integrateusing a more traditional instructional format, we didnot explore the transfer of knowledge gained in theclassroom to real world contexts. The use of full mo-tion video case examples in the classroom has certainadvantages (e.g., time, scheduling, supervision liabil-ity) over the coordination of traditional on-site fieldexperience, but limits our ability to determine if thepreservice teachers can put to practice that which theylearned in the classroom. Not only should we con-tinue to investigate the utility of anchored instructionin diverse educational contexts with diverse studentgroups, we should extend our examination to includevaried application of research to practice. Future re-search should explore not only motivational factorsthat impact test performance, but also the effects ofanchored instruction on the generalization of knowl-edge to the classroom (i.e., practice of teachers oncegraduated from their preparation programs). Strategiessuch as technology-based problem solving activitiesthat may enhance generalization have been given someattention (e.g., Barron & Goldman, 1994; Goldman eta!., 1991; Langone, 1995), but questions still exist.Further, an analysis of more diverse applications iswarranted. Replication of this work with greater dif-ferentiation between group instructional formats (i.e.,more comprehensive use of video anchors) and largersample sizes would likely provide us with more defini-tive outcomes. In addition, we must consider whetherother methods of instruction (e.g., discovery learn-ing, cooperative learning, etc.) would have resembledthe effects obtained through technology-enhanced an-chored instruction. It could also be argued that a onelesson assessment methodology may be overly arti-ficial. Would the outcomes of this study have beendifferent if multiple lessons were provided? Replica-tion efforts should include both authentic educationalcontexts (as presented in this paper) and true experi-mental contexts with controlled matching procedures.With such considerations noted, anchored instructionmay provide university personnel with an effective al-ternative to traditional instructional strategies.

There are a number of potential practical applica-tions that can be considered extensions of this lineof research that may be of immediate benefit to earlychildhood teacher educators. With the advancement

in digital video production and the delivery of videovia computer-based programs, the use of video to sup-port traditional academic content (anchored instruc-tion) has become considerably easier than when wefirst began our line of research. The enhancementsin video technology provide teacher educators with anumber of tools that can assist them in exposing theirstudents to the increasingly complex educational en-vironments that include young students who have avariety of disabilities and educational needs.

For example, over the past five years there has beena significant increase in the number of students whohave autism spectrum disorders enrolled in elemen-tary school programs across the country. Increasingly,these students are spending a portion of their schoolday included in early childhood general educationclasses where their teachers are required to demon-strate the instructional skills necessary to manage theirchallenging behaviors, teach appropriate social skills,and provide them with a stimulating environment thatpromotes effective communication skills. For these in-clusive programs to be effective, general educators willneed to work collaboratively with their special educa-tion colleagues. Based on this and other research, it ap-pears that early childhood teacher educators who pro-vide their students with frequent, short video models ofpreferred teaching practices will increase the probabil-ity that their preservice and inservice teachers will beable to generalize the instructional strategies they learnin university settings to their classrooms. These videomodels can demonstrate methods for teaching produc-tive behaviors to all students in inclusive environmentsas well as methods for improving collaboration acrossdisciplines. Therefore, when paired with high qualityinstructional content provided in the teacher prepa-ration curriculum, frequent pairing with video mod-els should increase the probability that preservice andinservice teachers will demonstrate effective instruc-tional strategies when they are in classroom situations.

Finally, given that the emerging body of researchindicates the effectiveness of anchored instruction tosupport theoretical and practical university classroom-based instruction, the need for readily accessible videomodels demonstrating students who have a variety ofdiverse learning needs is paramount. Teacher educa-tors who have access to video models that realisticallypresent some of the unique instructional needs of stu-dents with disabilities can be integrated into class lec-tures using presentation software. For early childhoodteacher educators, having video models that demon-strate preferred practices for facilitation communica-tion and social skills can be of great benefit to studentsin training. In addition, video demonstrations of directinstructional strategies for teaching students who arehaving difficulty learning reading and computationalskills should help teachers in training to improve their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

152 DM. Malone, J. Langone /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 25 (2005) 143-152

generalization of the strategies they leam to their even-tual classroom situations.

References

Banon, L. C., & Goldman, E. S. (1994). Integrating technol-ogy with teacher preparation. In B. Means (Ed.), Technol-ogy and education reform: The reality behind the promise(pp. 81-110). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., &Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cogni-tion and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,18,32-41.

Buck, G., Morsink, C., Griffin, C., Hines, T., & Lenk, L.(1992). Preservice training: The role of field-based expe-riences in the preparation of effective teachers. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 15, 108-123.

Doyle, W. J., Hancock, G., & Kifer, E. (1972). Teachers'perceptions: Do they make a difference? Journal of theAssociation for the Study of Perception, 7(2), 21-30.

Dozier, T., & Berlotti, C. (2000). Teacher quality initiative.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Fletcher, J. D. (1990). Effectiveness and cost of interactivevideodisc instruction in defense training and education.Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis.

Fox, L., & Williams, D. G. (1992). Preparing teachers ofstudents with severe disabilities. Teacher Education andSpecial Education, 15, 97-107.

Goldman, E., & Bairon, L. (1990). Using hypermedia to im-prove the preparation of elementary teachers. Journal ofTeacher Education, 41, 21-31.

Goldman, E., Barren, L., & Witherspoon, M. L. (1991). Hy-permedia cases in teacher education: A context for under-standing research on the teaching and learning of mathe-matics. Action in Teacher Education, 23, 28-36.

Griffin, M. M. (1995). You can't get there from here: Sit-uated learning, transfer, and map skills. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 20, 65-87.

Hasselbring, T., & Rieth, H. (1993). The use and developmentof anchored instruction multimedia modules for enhanc-ing teacher education (Project AIMM). Nashville, TN:Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.

Hedberg, J., & Alexander, S. (1994). Virtual reality in edu-cation: Defining researchable issues. Educational MediaInternational, 31, 214-220.

Kingery, D. W., Bryant, L. D., Palmer, L. K., & Araghi, F. A.(1989). A handbook of survey research. Athens, GA: Sur-vey Research Center, Institute of Behavioral Research,The University of Georgia.

Ladewski, B. G. (1996). Interactive multimedia learning envi-ronments for teacher education: Comparing and contrast-ing four systems. Journal of Computers in Mathematicsand Science Teaching, 15, 73-97.

Langone, J. (1995). Videodisc-based anchored instructionand its effects on preservice special educators. Paper Pre-sented at the Educational Technology Conference for the

National Association of Directors of Special Education(NASDSE), Orlando, FL.

Langone, J., Malone, D. M., & Clinton, G. N. (1999). Theeffects of technology-enhanced anchored instruction onthe knowledge of preservice special educators. TeacherEducation Special Education, 22(1), 85-96.

Langone, J., Malone, D. M., Stecker, P., & Greene, E. (1998).A comparison of traditional classroom instruction and an-chored instruction with university general education stu-dents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(4),99-109.

Lipsey, M. (1990). Design-sensitivity: Statistical power forexperimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publi-cations.

Mahoney, G., Wheeden, A., Fewell, R., & Hancock, T.(2000). The role of parent involvement in preschool spe-cial education effectiveness. Conference on Research In-novations in Early Intervention, San Diego, CA.

McCoy, K. M. (1995). Teaching special learners in the gen-eral education classroom (2nd. ed.). Denver, CO: Love.

McLeskey, J., Henry, D., & Hodges, D. (1999). Inclusion:What progress is being made across states? Teaching Ex-ceptional Children, 31(5), 56-62.

Morrison, D. L., & Frick, M. J. (1994). The effect of agricul-tural students' learning styles on academic achievementand their perceptions of two methods of instruction. Jour-nal of Agricultural Education, 35, 25-30.

Peters, J., & O'Brien, G. (1996). Using multimedia in a sci-ence methods course for preservice elementary teachertraining. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Sci-ence Teaching, 15, 153-172.

Riley, R. W. (1999, January). Teacher quality: A report onteacher preparation and qualifications. Remarks pre-pared for the NCES Press Conference (from the 6th An-nual State of American Education Address), Washington,DC.

Ritt, L., & Stewart, B. (1996). Innovative strategies for teach-ing anatomy and physiology. Teaching Trends, 41, 4 1 -42.

Shyu, H. C. (2000). Using video-based anchored instructionto enhance learning: Taiwan's experience. British Journalof Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.

Stafford, M. E., van Rensburg, P. W., & Greene, A.(2000, February 1). Longitudinal efficacy compar-isons of three levels of developmentally appropri-ate practice for former Head Start children. Cur-rent Issues in Education [On-line], 3(3). Available:http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume3/number3/.

Tripp, S. D. (1993). Theories, traditions, and situated learn-ing. Educational Technology, 33(2), 71-77.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annualreport to congress on the implementation of the Individ-uals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC:Author.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York,NY: MacMillan.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

02 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014