Professional Development to Improve
Accommodations Decisions—A Review of the
Literature
Synthesis Report 84
Jennifer R. Hodgson
• Sheryl S.
Lazarus • Martha L. Thurlow
August 2011
All rights reserved.
Any or all portions of this document may
be reproduced and distributed without
prior permission, provided the source is
cited as:
Hodgson, J. R., Lazarus,
S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2011).
Professional development to improve
accommodations decisions—A review of the
literature (Synthesis Report 84).
Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Teachers play an important role in making decisions about students'
accommodations for instruction and assessment. Although teachers are a
significant part of the decision-making process, "gaps" in teachers'
accommodations knowledge are well documented. Some of these gaps may be due to
challenges in providing teacher professional development, including teachers'
limited time.
A possible solution is to provide online professional development for teachers.
Online training has the potential to avoid some of the pitfalls of traditional
professional development, which require participants to meet at the same place
and time. Because teachers are likely to have Internet access at work and at
home, there is greater flexibility in how the training is provided when it is
online.
The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) is developing online training
for the state of Alabama. In preparation for this development, we conducted a
review of the literature to learn more about the characteristics of high-quality
online accommodations training. This report summarizes the research literature
for both professional development on accommodations decision making, and
traditional and high-quality online teacher professional development.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Overview
Many teachers have gaps in their
knowledge about how to appropriately
make decisions about the use of
accommodations for instruction and
assessment. The quality of professional
development on the use of accommodations
varies widely from school to school and
from district to district. Also, a gap
often exists between state
accommodations policies and local
implementation (Ketterlin-Geller,
Alonzo, Braun-Monegan, & Tindal, 2007;
Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2006).
Currently both general and special
education teachers often receive a
hodgepodge of information about the use
of accommodations from a variety of
sources—and it often is "hit or miss"
whether any given teacher knows how to
use accommodations to improve
instructional and assessment practices
at his or her school (Altman et al.,
2008; Langley & Olsen, 2003). Teachers
face many competing demands upon their
time and there is limited time available
for professional development (Dede,
Ketelhut, Whitehouse, Breit, & McClosey,
2009).
For teachers with limited time,
online professional development is a
potential solution. More teachers than
ever before are connected to the
Internet at home, work, and everywhere
in between. In a recent survey by the
National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), approximately 84 percent of
school districts nationwide are
connected to a network, of which 100
percent have Internet connectivity
(Gray, Lewis, & Tice, 2009). At home,
teachers may be part of an online social
network, including some popular
self-selected teacher communities (Hur &
Brush, 2009). Often teachers may prefer
online professional development because
it offers convenience and flexibility
not available in service training (Clary
& Wandersee, 2009).
The question, then, becomes: How can
the enormous reach and power of the
Internet contribute to teachers'
professional development, including some
of their knowledge gaps on
accommodations for instruction and
assessment? While this question remains
unanswered, researchers have cautioned
that we must not "place the cart before
the horse" in developing online training
for teachers (Schlager & Fusco, 2003).
Consideration should be given to
teachers' needs, competencies, and
expectations, as well as the
characteristics of teachers' work
settings. In other words, online
training should be rooted in teachers'
local contexts and address skills or
practices appropriate for teachers'
varied stages of professional
development (Schalger & Fusco, 2003).
The National Center on Educational
Outcomes (NCEO) is developing online
training for the state of Alabama. In
preparation for this development, we
conducted a review of the literature to
learn more about the characteristics of
high-quality online accommodations
training. This report summarizes the
research literature on traditional and
high-quality online teacher professional
development. The purpose of this report
is to review the relevant literature on
both the characteristics of high quality
accommodations training and of high
quality online professional development
for special and general education
teachers. We acknowledge that other IEP
team members, including principals and
other school administrators, also need
training on accommodations decision
making, but that is beyond the scope of
this review.
In this report we identify some
considerations for developing online
training on accommodations selection,
implementation, and evaluation. The
report contains five sections. The first
explores why teachers need training on
accommodations for students with
disabilities. The second identifies the
training teachers may need to improve
accommodations decision making. In the
third and fourth sections,
research-based models of traditional and
online teacher professional development
are presented. Finally, we briefly
discuss the implications, based on the
literature presented, for developing
online training for teachers to improve
accommodations decision making.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Need for Teacher Training
Both the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of
2004 and Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001
require the participation of students
with disabilities in statewide
assessments used for accountability
purposes. Some students need
accommodations to participate in the
assessment. Most students with
disabilities participate in the regular
assessment or, in states that offer it,
the alternate assessment based on
grade-level achievement standards
(AA-GLAS) with or without
accommodations. A few students with the
most significant disabilities
participate in the alternate assessment
based on alternate achievement
standards. Some states also offer an
alternate assessment based on modified
achievement standards (AA-MAS) for
students with disabilities who are
unlikely to achieve proficiency in the
time period covered by their
individualized education plan (IEP).
According to Thurlow, Lazarus, and
Christensen (2008), accommodations are
"changes in the testing environment or
procedures that are designed to remove
irrelevant variance, thereby producing a
more valid measure of students'
knowledge and skills" (p. 18). In other
words, accommodations "level the playing
field" by measuring the student's
ability rather than his or her
disability (Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, & Karns,
2000) and can eliminate barriers that
are immaterial to the construct being
measured.
Teachers and other IEP team members
are responsible for selecting and
documenting students' accommodations.
However, teachers may not have the
knowledge and skills needed to make good
decisions about selecting and
implementing accommodations. For
example, teachers may make inaccurate
recommendations (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001;
Helwig & Tindal, 2003; Ketterlin-Geller
et al., 2007), and they frequently
recommend accommodations that the
student does not need (DeStefano,
Shriner, & Lloyd, 2001; Helwig & Tindal,
2003). Teachers' recommendations may
also lack consistency over time (Tindal
et al., 2008).
There are several factors that
explain teachers' difficulty in making
appropriate accommodations decisions.
First, teachers may use either too few
or inappropriate sources of information
for accommodations decision making
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Ketterlin-Geller
et al., 2007). Some teachers use
informal observation of the student, to
the exclusion of other sources of
information, for making recommendations
(Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2007). Other
teachers may consider the feasibility of
providing the accommodation, rather than
individual student needs (DeStefano et
al., 2001; Lazarus et al., 2006). Some
teachers may be inclined to select
accommodations that can be administered
to a group of students in a resource or
special education classroom setting.
And, some teachers may also use student
placement (e.g., reading instructional
level) or demographic characteristics
(e.g., ethnicity, socioeconomic status)
to make accommodations decisions (Fuchs
& Fuchs, 2001).
Another explanation for teacher's
difficulty may be their limited
knowledge of the legal basis for
accommodations decision making
(Crawford, Almond, Tindal, & Hollenbeck,
2002; Lazarus et al., 2006). Some
teachers, for example, may be unaware
that accommodations decisions must be
made by the IEP team, rather than by
individual teachers (Ketterlin-Geller et
al., 2007). It has also been found that
often teachers are unable to identify
the difference between accommodations
and modifications (i.e., changes in
materials or procedures that interfere
with the construct being measured), as
well as the consequences of using
modifications on large-scale tests
(Lazarus et al., 2006).
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Professional Development for Accommodations
Decision Making
Given that some teachers make
inappropriate recommendations, and many
receive little support from school or
district administrators (Crawford et
al., 2002, professional development
should be directed at improving
teachers' ability to select and
implement accommodations. This section
outlines knowledge and skills that,
according to the literature, should be
addressed in teacher professional
development on accommodations. Students
with disabilities are taught by special
and general education teachers, and both
groups of teachers need to be
knowledgeable about
accommodations—though there may be some
differences in what each group needs to
know. Moreover, according to DeStefano
et al. (2001) it is important that
training emphasize collaborative
decision making. Interactive and
collaborative approaches can facilitate
sharing of expertise and information—and
lead to improved outcomes as well as
sustained change.
To make appropriate decisions,
teachers must possess a set of knowledge
and skills related to inclusion and
large-scale assessment. It is important
that teachers have a basic understanding
of state and federal laws, including the
IDEA and ESEA, which provide legal
guidelines for how students with
disabilities should be included in state
accountability systems (Crawford et al.,
2002). Both ESEA and IDEA promote high
expectations for students with
disabilities. Likewise, teachers should
expect all students to achieve
grade-level academic content standards
(Thompson, Morse, Sharpe, & Hall, 2005).
Teachers should also understand the
relationship between accommodations for
instruction and assessment.
Accommodations for instruction are
changes in materials or procedures that
provide students access to the
grade-level content (Ysseldyke et al.,
2001), and should be the starting point
in making accommodations decisions.
Instructional accommodations may be
administered or monitored by the teacher
in the regular education classroom. A
student's IEP should guide the selection
of accommodations for instruction as
well as assessment (Ketterlin-Geller et
al., 2007).
It is important to consider whether
specific instructional accommodations
are also appropriate to use during an
assessment. Depending on the purpose of
the assessment and the constructs of
interest, assessment accommodations may
differ from instructional
accommodations. Invalid measurement may
result from either introducing an
accommodation, or in appropriately
denying use of an instructional
accommodation, on test day (Ysseldyke et
al., 2001). Although there should be
consistency among accommodations use for
instruction and assessment, they each
have a different purpose. Accommodations
for assessment prevent test
characteristics from interfering with
the student's ability to demonstrate
what he or she knows (Bolt & Thurlow,
2004). In contrast, accommodations for
instruction help provide access to the
grade-level curriculum (Thurlow et al.,
2008).
Assessment accommodations are changes
in test procedures that reduce the
effect of a student's disability on his
or her test score (Elliott, Braden, &
White, 2001). In selecting
accommodations for assessment, teachers
must consider whether the student has
used the accommodation during
instruction. If the student has not had
prior experience with the accommodation,
it is unlikely to benefit the student
during assessment (Ysseldyke et al.,
2001). In addition, teachers should be
knowledgeable of, and have access, to
state and district testing guidelines
(Elliott, McKevitt, & Kettler, 2002;
Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2007).
Moreover, teachers need a basic
understanding of educational measurement
(Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2007).
Teachers should be familiar with test
and item characteristics for the
statewide assessment. Teachers need to
understand these characteristics to
determine which accommodations the
student needs to meaningfully access the
test. If used appropriately,
accommodations produce a valid estimate
of the student's ability, which does not
interfere with the construct being
measured (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke,
2003). Unfortunately, few teacher
preparation programs provide adequate
instruction in assessment, measurement,
or accommodations decision making (Stiggins,
1999; Thompson, Lazarus, Clapper, &
Thurlow, 2006).
According to the recommendations in
the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO) accommodations manual,
teachers also need to have a deeper
understanding of the final step in
accommodations decision
making—evaluation (Thompson et al.,
2005). For example, members of the IEP
team, including teachers must be able to
determine whether assigned
accommodations are effective for an
individual student. The CCSSO manual
recommends that teachers collect student
performance data on classroom
assignments or formative assessments to
evaluate accommodations use. Teachers
then need to analyze the data to
determine whether the accommodation is
effective (i.e., helps the student
demonstrate his or her knowledge and
skills) (Thompson et al., 2005).
Accommodations used on statewide tests
for accountability should also be
examined. Members of the IEP team may
conduct direct observations of students,
interview test administrators, and
interview students about their testing
experience (see Minnesota Department of
Education, 2008-2009). Compiling
evidence from a variety of sources is
important for making good accommodations
decisions. In addition, evaluating
accommodations at the individual and
systems level will help identify topics
for future teacher professional
development (Thompson et al., 2005).
Although teachers have knowledge gaps
on accommodations for instruction and
assessment, teachers may already possess
some of the knowledge or skills needed
to select accommodations. For example,
general and special educators are likely
to know an individual student's learning
style (Helwig & Tindal, 2003). Special
educators, in particular, have extensive
knowledge and experience working with
diverse learners (Bolt & Quenemoen,
2006). Thus, special educators are
likely to have a good understanding of a
student's learning needs.
Teachers of students at different
grade levels may also have unique areas
of expertise, or needs for professional
development, related to accommodations.
For example, middle and high school
teachers are more likely to consider a
student's program or placement when
making accommodations decisions (Lazarus
et al., 2006). However, accommodations
should be selected on a "case-by-case
basis" (Elliott et al., 2001, p. 82),
rather than at the group or systems
level (Shriner & Ganguly, 2007).
Professional development for middle and
high school teachers needs to focus on
this knowledge gap. Middle and high
school teachers should also encourage
students to become more involved in the
decision-making process (Thurlow et al.,
2003).
Finally, practical and logistical
factors should be considered. Training
needs to be provided in a timely manner
(i.e., well before test day), and should
not overwhelm educators with too much
information (Crawford et al., 2002;
Lazarus et al., 2006). In addition,
teachers may require training on how to
implement accommodations and prepare for
challenges that may surface on test day
(Bolt & Thurlow, 2004; Shriner &
DeStefano, 2003).
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Research-based Models of Teacher Professional
Development
To outline a model for accommodations
training, it is helpful to first examine
research-based models of professional
development. Each of the following
models has implications for teacher
professional development. Although
several models will be presented, they
can be divided into three major
categories: project-based learning,
case-based instruction, and Communities
of Practice.
Project-based Learning
Several models have established that
effective teacher professional
development must occur in an applied
setting. That is, it must be connected
to the teacher's context and practice. Guskey (1986) conceptualized a model of
professional development wherein newly
learned concepts would be applied in the
teacher's own classroom. Specifically, Guskey maintained that teachers must
observe the relative success of the
practice, especially with regard to
student learning, before they accept it
as part of their professional
repertoire.
Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002)
reconceptualized Guskey's (1986) model.
They proposed that teacher learning can
be separated into four domains:
external, personal, practice, and
consequence. The external domain refers
to the concepts presented during
in-service sessions with trainers and
staff. The personal domain consists of
teacher attitudes or beliefs. Finally,
the practice and consequence domains
indicate how concepts may be applied and
subsequently assessed in the classroom.
According to Clark and Hollingsworth
(2002), each of the domains is mediated
by reciprocal processes that eventually
lead to changes in the teacher's
knowledge or beliefs. First, teachers
apply what they have learned in the
classroom. Second, teachers assess the
outcomes and evaluate the relative
success of the new practice. Of the four
domains, the consequence domain seems to
be particularly important for
understanding changes in teachers'
attitudes, beliefs, or practices.
Both Guskey (1986) and Clarke and
Hollingsworth (2002) provide the
theoretical foundation for project-based
learning (Frey, 2009). Blumenfeld (1991)
described project-based learning as an
instructional strategy in which
participants, whether students or
teachers, learn by engaging in the
problem-solving process. Participants
must produce artifacts that illustrate
this process, from the earliest stages
to the end product. More importantly,
the problem must address real-life
issues in applied settings.
Project-based learning may be an
effective component of some teacher
training initiatives. For example,
Howard (2002) found that project-based
learning was effective for helping
teachers use technology in the
classroom.
Case-based Instruction
Like project-based learning,
case-based instruction (CBI) provides
teachers an opportunity to apply what
they have learned. The difference is
that CBI provides more support and
scaffolding (Andersen & Baker, 1999),
which may help teachers engage in the
problem-solving process. As defined in
Kagan (1993), classroom cases typically
are narratives that depict a particular
problem. The problem may parallel a
real-life teaching situation (Elksnin,
1998). Cases also reflect the generic
and situation-specific nature of a
teacher's practice (Kagan, 1993).
Through case-based instruction, teachers
are better able to apply general
principles or theories to their
practice. For example, cases have been
used to help teachers integrate
grade-level content standards into their
teaching practices (Shulman, 2000).
Cases generally are discussed within
small groups. Groups may include
teachers from a variety of school
contexts (Cutter, Palincsar, &
Magnusson, 2002). Through discussion,
teachers are exposed to alternate
viewpoints (McNaughton, Hall, & Maccini,
2001). Group work and discussion
typically are considered more important
than arriving at a solution (Kagan,
1993). Teachers receive practice for
solving "real world" problems
(McNaughton, Hall, & Maccini, 2001),
which may also help them develop
generalizable skills (Elksnin, 1998).
Cases often are combined with other
instructional strategies for optimal
learning (Anderson & Baker, 1999).
Historically, CBI was used in
business education. It was later
integrated into teacher education, but
initially was met with limited success (Merseth,
1991). More recent research demonstrates
some of the benefits of cases in
preservice teacher education. For
example, Elksnin (1998) surveyed special
education teacher educators who used
cases as part of their teaching.
Although teacher educators cited the
student's ability to apply classroom
learning as a major benefit of
case-based instruction, the ability to
engage in higher-level thinking and
demonstrate problem-solving skills were
secondary benefits. The cases also
resulted in increased participant
collaboration and engagement. Cases,
written as rich narratives of real-life
teaching practice (Kagan, 1993), may
also be more appealing for teachers than
content instruction.
In other research, it has been shown
that cases help educators become more
reflective in their practice (i.e., they
"look back, review the basis for
decisions, and consider the impact of
their actions," McNaughton et al., 2001,
p. 90). Cases also provide an
opportunity for collaboration (Cutter et
al., 2002). This is an important benefit
because teachers work in different
contexts, with a variety of other
teachers and staff. Further, case-based
instruction may have an indirect benefit
for students. Students of teachers
enrolled in a case-based training course
demonstrated significant learning gains,
and this finding was replicated for both
low-achieving and special education
students (Palinscar, Magnusson, Collins,
& Cutter, 2001).
Although CBI offers important
benefits, several challenges remain.
Teacher educators cite the amount of
time and resources devoted to developing
cases as a major challenge (McNaughton
et al., 2001). CBI also may consume more
instructional time than traditional
methods, and may lead to challenges in
evaluating teacher learning (Elksnin,
1998). To address challenges associated
with case development, Merseth (1991)
recommended a centralized depository for
high-quality classroom cases.
Communities of Practice
CBI may be supplemented with teacher
discussion and participatory learning
(Cutter et al., 2002). This approach is
referred to as a Communities of Practice
(CoPs) model and originated from
professions outside of education,
including medicine and law (Mott, 2000).
When combined with CoPs, the
effectiveness of CBI may be enhanced,
thereby providing support for
integrating case-based instruction
within CoPs.
Wenger (1998) identified key
components of CoPs, including: (a)
shared agenda and goals; (b) pre-defined
roles for all members; and (c) shared
products or artifacts generated by the
community. CoPs are formed by
individuals with shared interests and
knowledge base. Members are likely to
be, but not necessarily, part of a
formal organizational structure (i.e.,
teaching department). They may conform
to formal leadership roles within the
organization, or they may form their own
roles. Artifacts include publications or
other written products, as well as
routines, sensibilities, vocabulary, or
styles (Wenger, 1998).
Benefits of teacher CoPs have been
well documented. Within CoPs, teachers
generate and maintain knowledge that
applies to the local (e.g., classrooms,
schools) as well as the larger
socio-political context (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999). Thus, the knowledge and
skills that teachers gain are
inextricably tied to the settings in
which they teach. As explained by
Cochran-Smith and Lytle, CoPs are
composed of novice and expert teachers
who share experiences and work toward
building a common discourse. CoPs also
promote teacher exploration (Supovitz,
2002). Teachers may discover new styles
or practices to which they otherwise
would not have been exposed.
Another benefit of CoPs is increased
accountability. As explained in Wineberg
and Grossman (1998), CoPs "make teaching
public" (p. 352) by exposing teachers to
the practices of their colleagues. This
is not only beneficial for maintaining
teacher quality, but it is also
enjoyable for teachers. Teachers in
existing CoPs have reported that they
like the increased interactions with
their colleagues (Supovitz, 2002). CoPs
may have an indirect benefit for
students. Teachers in CoPs model
life-long learning skills that students
may begin to imitate (Wineberg &
Grossman, 1998).
For a CoP to work well, it must be
well designed. For example, if
membership roles within the community
are not well-defined, it may lead to
internal power struggles (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 1999). School or district
administrators may assist in determining
some of these roles to prevent internal
challenges. Administrators also may
assist in providing teachers with time,
resources, or connections necessary to
promote CoP development (Parr & Ward,
2006).
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Online Teacher
Professional Development
Teacher professional development can
be provided with technology. According
to Clary and Wandersee (2009) teachers
prefer online learning because it can be
accessed from various locations at times
that are convenient. Although conclusive
evidence for the components of effective
online training has yet to be
determined, there are indications that
some elements of traditional
professional development may be
translated to an online platform
(Whitehouse, Breit, McCloskey, Ketelhut,
& Dede, 2006). Specifically, CBI and CoP
models have been successfully
incorporated into online teacher
training (Whitehouse et al., 2006), and
more recently, several online teacher
training efforts also have included
project based learning (e.g., Frey,
2009). This section describes how
traditional models can inform online
approaches, and may foreshadow what
high-quality teacher professional
development will look like in the near
future.
Project-based Learning in an Online
Environment
Originating from the seminal work of
Guskey (1986) and Clarke and
Hollingsworth (2002), some models of
online teacher professional development
have included project-based learning.
For example, Frey (2009) reported how
special education teachers participated
in an online course that included
real-life application to their classroom
settings. That online course provided
instruction on how to address the
academic needs of at-risk students.
Teachers had the opportunity to practice
some of these skills (e.g., developing
individualized interventions, progress
monitoring) with actual students.
Teachers also observed the effect of the
interventions, which may have increased
their willingness to learn about new
instructional strategies (Frey, 2009).
Project-based learning may be
supplemented with reflective activities,
including journaling. When teachers
think more deeply about their
experiences, they become more aware of
their own competencies (Doering,
Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009).
Online courses that provide teachers
with applied experiences, and an
opportunity to journal about those
experiences, may lead to better teacher
and student outcomes (Frey, 2009; Duran,
Runvand, & Fossum, 2009).
While it is important to demonstrate
course effectiveness, it may be equally
important to survey teachers'
preferences about online learning.
Teachers may prefer applied experiences
to experiences using sophisticated
technology, which they may perceive as
less practical (Clary & Wandersee,
2009). When evaluations were conducted
of online courses with less emphasis on
application, it was found that teachers
requested experiential learning to be
included in future iterations (Gu,
Zhang, Lin, & Song, 2009). Thus, it
appears that although teachers value the
practical advantages of online learning,
they also prefer courses with real-life,
classroom application.
Online Case-based Instruction
As an alternative to project-based
learning, some have suggested using CBI
for pre- or in-service teacher training
(Anderson & Baker, 1999). Despite the
fact that CBI has yet to be fully
explored within an online environment,
it shows considerable promise. Online
CBI has been shown to increase knowledge
of instructional strategies for teachers
of all experiences and backgrounds
(Fitzgerald et al., 2009). It also has
been found to influence teacher
behavior. For example, Landry, Anthony,
Swank, and Monseque-Bailey (2009) found
that teachers used research-based
practices with more frequency after
completing online case studies.
There may be several explanations for
the demonstrated effectiveness of online
CBI. Koc, Peker, and Osmanglu (2009)
proposed that cases, especially those
with embedded video content, help
teachers to make "theory-practice
connections." In this way, teachers
relate course concepts to elements of
the classroom case. Teachers indicated
that it was useful to "see" how some of
the concepts might be realized in the
classroom (Koc et al., 2009). Cases may
also help teachers reflect upon their
own teaching practices. Using "VideoPaper"
technology, Hauge and Norenes (2009)
recorded teachers in real-life classroom
scenarios. Short video clips were
presented in small groups. It was found
that teachers analyzed and reflected on
their teaching practices during group
discussions.
CBI may be supplemented with
role-playing exercises. For example,
McLinden, McCall, Hinton, and Weston
(2010) described how teachers of
students with visual impairments
role-played problem case scenarios
within an online environment. The
problem cases simulated authentic work
experience. After teachers were given a
scenario, they were asked to collect
information, identify a solution, and
report to a fictitious supervisor. Most
teachers indicated that they liked the
role-playing component, but little
evidence was provided to suggest that
cases helped participants to learn
effective teaching strategies.
Modeling, when combined with CBI, may
also be an effective component of online
learning. For example, Landry et al.
(2009) provided video-taped modeling for
teachers enrolled in an online training
course. The videos "allowed teachers to
see examples in realistic contexts that
were relevant to their classroom
experiences" (Landry et al., 2009, p.
452). Teachers enrolled in the online
course demonstrated higher quality
teaching practices than teachers without
online instruction. In addition,
students of teachers enrolled in the
online course made significant learning
gains in key pre-reading areas (i.e.,
phonological awareness) (Landry et al.,
2009).
Finally, online cases may include a
variety of supplemental resources.
Although many contain embedded video
content (e.g., Hauge & Norenes, 2009;
Koc et al., 2009; Landry et al., 2009),
they may also contain expert commentary,
information databases, case records,
reflective prompts, and interviews with
students or educators (Fitzgerald et
al., 2009). Other cases, including
hypermedia cases, provide textual
resources, research citations, links to
related cases, and links to published
information specifically for teachers
(Powell, Diamond, & Koehler, 2010).
Care should be taken not to overwhelm
teachers with embedded content. Teachers
demonstrate a preference for key
summaries or bulleted points, rather
than an excess of video or textual
resources (Powell et al., 2010). Other
research has identified a need for
knowledge management (i.e., online
searching or related functions) to
assist teachers in navigating the online
environment (Hatch & Grossman, 2009; Gu
et al., 2009).
Virtual Communities of Practice
As discussed previously, Communities
of Practice (CoP) may be used to enhance
case-based instruction. The online
equivalent of CoP has been termed
Virtual Communities of Practice (VCoP) (Keown,
2009). Similar to in-person CoP, the
virtual version may include teachers of
varying levels of experience who hold
different roles within the community
(Gutierrez & Bryan, 2010; Keown, 2009).
VCoPs may lead to better learning
outcomes when teachers of different
educational or experiential backgrounds
are included (Duran et al., 2009;
Fitzgerald et al., 2008), and when
membership is neither too small nor
unwieldy (Keown, 2009). Moreover, VCoPs
with expert teachers in mentorship roles
are successful in helping novice
teachers improve the quality of their
teaching practices (Gutierrez & Bryan,
2010).
The ability to communicate quickly
and with ease is an important component
of VCoP. Online communication is either
synchronous (in real time) or
asynchronous (delayed). In an online
environment, synchronous communication
permits instructors to provide
immediate, relevant feedback, which is
generally preferred by teachers (Gu et
al., 2009; Marrero, Woodruff, Schuster,
& Riccio, 2010). Another training model
is to provide "virtual office hours"
with live instructor support (Trautmann
& MaKinster, 2010). Live communication
may also spur development of VCoPs
because it provides a vehicle for
sustained interaction (Marrero et al.,
2010).
Synchronous communication may be
difficult from a logistical perspective
because all participants must be
available at the same time (Russell,
Kleiman, Carey, & Douglas, 2009).
Asynchronous communication can work well
and may be preferable, especially when
practical or logistical challenges
prevent live communication. In an online
setting, teachers have demonstrated an
ability to maintain topical, in-depth
discussions asynchronously (Koc et al.,
2009). The quality of asynchronous
discussion is mediated by the course
instructor. Several strategies have been
shown to be effective. For example,
instructors should encourage
participants to ask questions, reflect
on their own experiences, or highlight
important (but unrecognized) issues
(Kale, Brush, & Saye, 2009).
Rather than communicating exclusively
in a synchronous or asynchronous
environment, it may be possible to
combine both forms of communication.
McLinden et al. (2010) found that online
training that invited participants to
post messages on a bulletin board or to
chat synchronously received favorable
reviews from teachers. Online training
with more options may also lead to
better outcomes. For example, Trautman
and MaKinster (2010) offered live and
delayed communication with positive
learning outcomes for teachers enrolled
in the course.
As a final consideration, online
forums or VCoPs may benefit from a
facilitator who is independent from the
course instructor. Teachers may find the
added support helpful in maintaining
online discussions (McLinden et al.,
2010), but it is not without challenges.
Facilitators who provide too much
support, or who provide answers rather
than encourage participants to develop
their own responses, may actually limit
the quality of teacher discussions (Kale
et al., 2009; Mitchem et al., 2008).
Teachers with various backgrounds,
including general and special educators,
teachers of different grade levels
(e.g., preschool, elementary,
secondary), and different content areas
(e.g., English language arts,
mathematics, science, geography) have
participated in high-quality online
professional development, resulting in
generally positive outcomes for teachers
and students. Online modules, including
those mentioned in earlier sections of
this report, have been used to educate
teachers on many topics, including
mathematics teaching strategies (e.g.,
Koc et al., 2009), and early literacy
interventions for at-risk students
(e.g., Landry et al., 2009). Because
high-quality online training has
demonstrated its effectiveness with
teachers of various backgrounds and
stages of professional development, it
may also be applied toward helping
teachers make better decisions about
accommodations.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Discussion
Teachers play an important role in
making decisions about students'
accommodations for instruction and
assessment. The literature suggests that
both special and general education
teachers would benefit from professional
development on collaboration and
accommodations decision making. The
literature also indicates that although
teachers play a major role in the
decision-making process, there are gaps
in their knowledge. Some of these gaps
may be due to challenges in providing
traditional professional development,
including cost and teacher's limited
time. A potential solution is to provide
online professional development for
teachers.
In an online environment,
professional development can be accessed
in new and different ways. Case-based
instruction, for example, may
incorporate multimedia formats including
text, audio, and visual. Participants
may also access project-based learning
and Communities of Practice (CoPs) in
new ways. For example, teachers
participating in project-based training
may record their experiences online.
And, teachers can share these
experiences in synchronous or
asynchronous environments.
Although online learning should
reflect the characteristics of
high-quality teacher professional
development, they are not one size fits
all. Some users may prefer online
environments with multimedia cases and
others may prefer opportunities for
online discussion or journaling. User
preferences should be weighed in the
development of online training.
Online training can help teachers
develop accommodations decision-making
skills. This report reviewed the
literature on teacher professional
development on accommodations and online
training. A limitation of this review is
that much of the literature on this
topic does not come from research
studies, but rather from a variety of
sources including policy papers and
state manuals.
According to Schlager and Fusco
(2003), often the "cart is put before
the horse" and online training is
developed without careful consideration
of what the literature says about
effective teacher professional
development. Hopefully, this review of
the literature will bring us closer to
answering the question: How can the
reach and power of the Internet
contribute to teacher's professional
development on accommodations decision
making? Then developers of online
training on accommodations decision
making will put the "horse before the
cart" to develop high-quality training.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
References
Altman, J. R., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R.
F., Cuthbert, M., & Cormier, D. C. (2008). 2007 survey of
states: Activities, changes, and challenges for special
education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Anderson, P. L., & Baker, B. K.
(1999). A case-based curriculum approach
to special education teacher
preparation. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 22(3), 188-192.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx,
R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., &
Palincsar, A. (1991).Motivating
project-based learning: Sustaining the
doing, supporting the learning.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3),
369-398.
Bolt, S. E., & Quenemoen, R. F.
(2006). The growing demand for expertise
in assessment anddiverse learners to
inform implementation of large-scale
accountability systems. Assessment
for Effective Intervention, 31(4),
49-62.
Bolt, S. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004).
Five of the most frequently allowed
testing accommodations in state policy:
Synthesis of research. Remedial and
Special Education, 25(3), 141-152.
Clary, R. M., & Wandersee, J. H.
(2009). Can teachers "learn" in an
online environment? Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 46(1), 34-38.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H.
(2002). Elaborating a model of teacher
professional growth. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L.
(1999). Relationships of knowledge and
practice: Teacher learning in
communities. Review of Research in
Education, 24(1), 249-305.
Cortiella, C. (2006). NCLB and
IDEA: What parents of students with
disabilities need to know and do.
Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Crawford, L., Almond, P., Tindal, G.,
& Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Teacher
perspectives on inclusion of students
with disabilities in high-stakes
assessments. Special Services in the
Schools, 18(1), 95-118.
Cutter, J., Palincsar, A. S., &
Magnusson, S. J. (2002). Supporting
inclusion through case-based vignette
conversations. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 17(3),
186-200.
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J.,
Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McClosey,
E. M. (2009). A research agenda for
online teacher professional development.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1),
8-19.
DeStefano, L., Shriner, J. G., &
Lloyd, C. A. (2001). Teacher decision
making in participation of students with
disabilities in large-scale assessment.
Exceptional Children, 68(1),
7-22.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G.,
Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using
the technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge framework to design
online learning environments and
professional development. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 41(3),
317-344.
Duran, M., Runvand, S., & Fossum, P.
R. (2009). Preparing science teachers to
teach with technology: Exploring a K-16
networked learning community approach.
Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology - TOJET, 8(4),
21-42.
Elksnin, L. K. (1998). Use of the
case method of instruction in special
education teacher preparation programs:
A preliminary investigation. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 21(2),
95-108.
Elliott, S. N., Braden, J. P., &
White, J. L. (2001). Assessing one
and all. Arlington, VA: Council of
Exceptional Children.
Elliott, S. N., McKevitt, B. C., &
Kettler, R. J. (2002). Testing
accommodations research and decision
making: The case of "good" scores being
highly valued but difficult to achieve
for all students. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 35(3), 153-167.
Fitzgerald, G., Koury, K., Mitchem,
K., Hollingsead, C., Miller, K., Park,
M. K., & Tsai, H. (2009). Implementing
case-based instruction in higher
education through technology: What works
best? Technology and Teacher
Education, 17(1): 31-63.
Frey, T. J. (2009). An analysis of
online professional development and
outcomes for students with disabilities.
Teacher Education and Special
Education, 32(1), 83-96.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001).
Helping teachers formulate sound test
accommodation decisions for students
with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(3),
174-181.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.
B., & Karns, K. M. (2000). Supplementing
teacher judgments of mathematics test
accommodations with objective data
sources. School Psychology Review,
29(1), 65-85.
Gray, L., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2009).
Educational technology in public
school districts: Fall 2008 (NCES
2010-003). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Gu, X., Zhang, B., Lin, X., & Song,
X. (2009). Evaluating online solutions
for experiential support of distance
learning by teachers in China.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
25(2), 114-125.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff
development and the process of teacher
change. Educational Researcher, 15(5),
5-12.
Gutierrez, C., & Bryan, C. (2010).
Online community becomes a pathway to
teacher leadership. Journal of Staff
Development, 31(1), 42-47.
Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009).
Learning to look beyond the boundaries
of representation: Using technology to
examine teaching (Overview for a digital
exhibition: Learning from the practice
of teaching). Journal of Teacher
Education, 60(1), 70-85.
Hauge, T. E., & Norenes, S. O.
(2009). Changing teamwork practices:
Videopaper as a mediating means for
teacher professional development.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(3),
279-297.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An
experimental analysis of accommodation
decisions on large-scale mathematics
tests. Exceptional Children, 69(2),
211-226.
Howard, J. (2002).
Technology-enhanced project-based
learning in teacher education:
Addressing the goals of transfer.
Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 10(3), 343-365.
Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009).
Teacher participation in online
communities: Why do teachers want to
participate in self-generated online
communities of K-12 teachers?
Journal of Research and Technology in
Education, 41(3), 279-303.
Kagan, D. M. (1993). Contexts for the
use of classroom cases. American
Educational Research Journal, 30(4),
703-723.
Kale, U., Brush, T., & Saye, J.
(2009). Assisting teachers' thinking and
participation online. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 41(3),
287-317.
Keown, P. (2009). The tale of two
virtual teacher professional development
modules. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental
Education, 18(4), 295-303.
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Alonzo, J.,
Braun-Monegan, J., & Tindal, G. (2007).
Recommendations for accommodations:
Implications of (in) consistency.
Remedial and Special Education, 28(4),
194-206.
Koc, Y., Peker, D., & Osmanoglu, A.
(2009). Supporting teacher professional
development through online video case
study discussions: An assemblage of
preservice and inservice teachers and
the case teacher. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International
Journal of Research and Studies, 25(8),
1158-1168.
Landry, S. H., Anthony, J. L., Swank,
P. R., & Monseque-Bailey, P. (2009).
Effectiveness of comprehensive
professional development for teachers of
at-risk preschoolers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(2),
448-465.
Langley, J., & Olsen, K. (2003).
Training district and state personnel on
accommodations: A study of state
practices, challenges, and resources.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., &
Thurlow, M. L. (2006). How students
access accommodations in assessment and
instruction: Results of a survey of
special education teachers (Issue
Brief 7). College Park, MD: University
of Maryland, Educational Policy Reform
Research Institute.
Marrero, M. E., Woodruff, K. A.,
Schuster, G. S., & Riccio, J. F. (2010).
Live, online short- courses: A case
study of innovative teacher professional
development. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning,
11(1), 81-95.
Minnesota Department of Education
(2008-2009). Minnesota manual of
accommodations for students with
disabilities in instruction and
assessment: A guide to selecting,
administering, and evaluating the use of
accommodations. Minneapolis, MN:
Author. Retrieved from:
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/MNmanuals/MNmanual.pdf
McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D.,
& Weston, A. (2010). Developing
authentic online problem-based
learning case scenarios for teachers of
students with visual impairments in the
United Kingdom. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 104(1), 30-42.
McNaughton, D., Hall, T. E., &
Maccini, P. (2001). Case-based
instruction in special education teacher
preparation: Practices and concerns of
teacher educator/researchers.
Teacher Education and Special Education,
24(2), 84-94.
Merseth, K. K. (1991). The case
for cases in teacher education.
Washington DC: AACTE Publications.
Mitchem, K., Fitzgerald, G.,
Hollingsead, C., Koury, K., Miller, K. &
Tsai, H. (2008). Enhancing case-based
learning in teacher education through
online discussions: Structure and
facilitation. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 19(2), 331-349.
Mott, V. W. (2000). The development
of professional expertise in the
workplace. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 86,
23-31.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J.,
Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001).
Making science accessible to all:
Results of a design experiment in
inclusive classrooms. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 24(1), 15-32.
Parr, J., & Ward, L. (2006). Building
on foundations: Creating an online
community. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 14(4), 775-793.
Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., &
Koehler, M. J. (2010). Use of a
case-based hypermedia resource in an
early literacy coaching intervention
with pre-kindergarten teachers.
Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 29(4), 239-249.
Russell, M., Kleiman, G., Carey, R.,
& Douglas, J. (2009). Comparing
self-paced and cohort- based online
courses for teachers. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 41(4),
443-466.
Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003).
Teacher professional development,
technology, and communities of practice:
Are we putting the cart before the
horse? The Information Society, 19(3),
203-220.
Shulman, J. H. (2000). Case
methods as a bridge between standards
and classroom practice. ERIC ED
452188. Washington, DC: National
Partnership for Excellence and
Accountability in Teaching.
Shriner, J. G., & Destefano, L.
(2003). Participation and accommodation
in state assessment: The role of
individualized education programs.
Exceptional Children, 69(2),
147-162.
Shriner, J. G., & Ganguly, R. (2007).
Assessment and accommodation issues
under the No Child Left Behind Act and
the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act.
Assessment for Effective Intervention,
32(4), 231.
Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Evaluating
classroom assessment training in teacher
education programs. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1),
23-27.
Supovitz, J. (2002). Developing
communities of instructional practice.
The Teachers College Record, 104(8),
1591-1626.
Thompson, S. J., Lazarus, S. S.,
Clapper, A. T., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006).
Adequate yearly progress of students
with disabilities: Competencies for
special education teachers. Teacher
Education and Special Education (TESE),
26(2), 137-147.
Thompson, S. J., Morse, A. B.,
Sharpe, M., & Hall, S. (2005).
Accommodations manual: How to select,
administer, and evaluate use of
accommodations for instruction and
assessment of students with
disabilities. Washington, DC.
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., &
Ysseldyke, J. E. (2003). Testing
students with disabilities: Practical
strategies for complying with district
and state requirements. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., &
Christensen, L. L. (2008). Role of
assessment accommodations in
accountability. Perspectives on
Language and Literacy, 34(4),
17-20.
Tindal, G., Lee, D., & Ketterlin-Geller,
L. (2008). The reliability of
teacher decision-making in recommending
accommodations for large-scale tests
(Technical Report #08-01). Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon, Behavior Research
and Training.
Trautmann, N. M., & MaKinster, J. G.
(2010). Flexibly adaptive professional
development in support of teaching
science with geospatial technology.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3),
351-370.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of
practice: Learning as a social system.
Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1-5.
Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., McCloskey,
E., Ketelhut, D., & Dede, C. (2006). An
overview of current findings from
empirical research on online teacher
professional development. Online
Professional Development for Teachers:
Emerging Models and Methods, 13–29.
Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (1998).
Creating a community of learners among
high school teachers. Phi Delta
Kappan, 79(5), 350-353.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Bielinski,
J., House, A., Moody, M., & Haigh, J.
(2001). The relationship between
instructional and assessment
accommodations in an inclusive state
accountability system. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 34(3),
212-220.
Top of page
|