No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Student Teachers’ Perceptions of Best Practice in Practicum with Learners Who Have High Support Needs
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2016
Abstract
Student teachers’ perceptions of possible best practices in the education of students with high support needs and their reports of level of implementation during field experience were investigated in this research. In addition, the student teachers’ suggestions for other indicators of best practice and their perceptions of barriers to best practice were examined. These data were also compared with that obtained in a previous study of teachers. Students reported high levels of agreement with best practice indicators, broadly consistent with the views of teachers. In contrast, students reported substantially lower levels of perceived implementation than teachers. Exploration of the reasons for these perceived differences is a priority for university educators involved in preparation of special education teachers. In addition, weight is added to the argument that evaluation of implementation of best practice should draw on a range of sources and that sole reliance on retrospective teacher self‐reports may be problematic.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2005
References
Atkins, K. R., Campbell, R., & Hartley, V. (1987). A comprehensive analysis of Mississippi Public School Educational Programs for School Age Children and Youth with Severe Handicaps.
Hattiesburg, Ml: Mississippi University Affiliated Program, University of Southern Mississippi. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 294 334).Google Scholar
Ayres, B. J., Meyer, L. H., Erevelles, N., & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher perspectives on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
19, 84–93.Google Scholar
Carter, M., Chalmers, S., Clayton, M., & Hook, J. (1998). Teacher’s perceptions of possible best practices, reported implementation and training needs for students with high support needs: Comparisons across qualification status and teacher location. Australasian Journal of Special Education,
22, 50–70.Google Scholar
Chalmers, S.E., Carter, M., Clayton, M., & Hook, J. (1998). Education of students with high support needs: Teacher’s perceptions of possible best practices, reported implementation and training needs. Australasian Journal of Special Education,
22, 76–95
Google Scholar
Halvorsen, A., & Sailor, W. (1990). Integrating students with severe and profound disabilities: A review of the research. In Gaylord-Ross, R. (Ed.), Issues and research in special education (pp. 110–172). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Hunt, P., Haring, K., Farron-Davis, F., Staub, D., Beckstead, S. P., Curtis, D., Karasoff, P., & Sailor, W. (1992). Educational practices in integrated settings associated with positive student outcomes. San Francisco, CA: California Research Institute, San Francisco State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 056).Google Scholar
Izen, C. L., & Brown, F. (1991). Education and treatment needs of students with profound, multiply handicapping, and medically fragile conditions: A survey of teachers’ perceptions. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
16, 94–103.Google Scholar
Little, M.E., & Robinson, S.M. (1997). Renovating and refurbishing the field experience structures for novice teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30, 433–441.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, W., Kleber, R., Wade, J. & George, R. G. (1989). Results of the survey: “Optimal Practice Inventory for the Severely Handicapped including Deaf/Blind”. Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University. Blumberg Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 174).Google Scholar
Maroney, S.A., & Searcy, S. (1996). Real teachers don’t plan that way. Exceptionality,
6, 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, L., & Eichinger, J. (1994). Program Quality Indicators (PQI): A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with disabilities (3rd ed.). New York: School of Education, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Rees, R., Kelsall, C., Blackwood, G., & Ward, T. (1992). An examination of instructional time provided to severely and multiply handicapped students: Factors which contribute to maximising instructional time.
Paper presented at the 16th National Conference of the Australian Association of Special Education, Perth, WA.Google Scholar
Ryndak, D.L., Clark, D., Conroy, M., & Stuart, C. (2001). Preparing teachers to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities: Program configuration and expertise. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
26, 96–105.Google Scholar
Searcy, S., & Maroney, S. A. (1996). Lesson planning practices of special education teachers. Exceptionality,
6, 171–187.Google Scholar
Sigafoos, J., Elkins, J., Couzens, D., Gunn, S., Roberts, D., & Kerr, M. (1993). Analysis of IEP goals and classroom activities for children with multiple disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
8, 99–106.Google Scholar
Williams, W., Fox, T. J., Thousand, J., & Fox, W. (1990). Level of acceptance and implementation of best practices in the education of students with severe handicaps in Vermont. Education and Training in Mental Retardation,
25, 120–131.Google Scholar