Differing Conceptions of Teaching: Expert Special Educators' Perceptions of the Framework for Teaching

• In Event: 18.036 - Crossing Boundaries in Defining Effectiveness: Investigating Special Education Teachers' Instructional Quality in Teacher Evaluation

Abstract

Objective
This study interrogates the claim that distinct pedagogical norms motivate instructional practice across general and special education (Zigmond & Kloo, 2011). Drawing on qualitative data from a convening of experts in special education, we explore the extent to which conceptions of effectiveness in special education are consistent with those in the Framework for Teaching), a tool currently used to inform teacher evaluation and professional learning in over 20 states (American Institutes for Research, 2012).

Theoretical Framework
Institutional theory is a useful tool for examining interactions between policy and practice, an important question when considering instruction for students with disabilities. Theorists posit that policy shapes beliefs and action through regulative means as it is incorporated into policy; through normative means as individuals take on practices to attain legitimacy; and through cultural means as commonly-held understandings are deemed collectively appropriate (Scott, 2014). Institutional theory helps us to consider how particular conceptions of effectiveness are embedded in FFT and make their way from policy into practice.

Methods and Data Sources
We convened a two-day meeting where panelists a) articulated a vision of effective instruction in special education, b) examined FFT for convergence with/divergence from this vision, and c) evaluated the extent to which FFT captures effective instruction in special education. Seven panelists were selected as participants because of their expertise in special education instruction and observation tools. Panelists participated in discussions regarding instructional components of FFT (Domain 3). Data include documents produced by panelists individually and collectively, panelists' line-by-line line analysis of FFT definitions and rubrics, and field notes. We used thematic analysis to explore patterns within and across components (see Appendix A; Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Findings
Preliminary analyses highlight that, at the component level (e.g., Flexibility and Responsiveness), definitions present in FFT are generally consistent with conceptions of instruction in special education. However, when considering alignment between FFT rubrics and panelists' conceptions of effectiveness, inconsistencies surfaced. The explicitness, structure, and intentionality that drive effective instruction in special education were absent from or penalized in rubric-level language. This inconsistency emerged from disparate definitions of broad terms (e.g., engagement, responsiveness, and scaffolding). Furthermore, panelists reported that FFT is misaligned with special educators' responsibilities; it does not account for differences in instructional contexts and student needs.

Significance
General and special education are unique professions with conceptions of teaching that, though overlapping, are motivated by distinct regulative, normative, and cultural elements (Zigmond & Kloo, 2011). Because of this, it is important that observation instruments be flexible enough to maintain common conceptions of effectiveness while responding to distinctions between roles (Author, 2014). This study highlights this tension and raises questions regarding problems FFT might pose when used with special educators. In particular, findings draw attention to the ways that FFT serves to regulate practice and, in this, has the potential to shift normative and cultural conceptions regarding what is considered "good teaching" in such a way that the needs of students with disabilities are either disregarded or subverted.

Authors

• Hannah Morris Mathews, Boston University

• Nathan Jones, Boston University

• Courtney A. Bell, ETS

• Mary T. Brownell, University of Florida

• Yi Qi, Educational Testing Service