Unpacking the Similarities and Differences in Language Among Special and General Educators

• In Event: 53.048 - Cultural Clashes in Teacher Preparation: Languaging in Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Abstract

Literature has shown that educators in special and general education often use different language to describe similar things (Robinson & Buly, 2007). In this study, professors representing both general and special education first discovered that words in the programs were being used differently. Some of the common terms that arose in their conversations included terms like: behaviorism, constructivism, diagnosis and direct instruction. Although these words were being used within their own programs, they found that different faculty members thought they were speaking a shared language with the same definitions for terms, when, in fact, they were not. What they were discovering in their inquiry is that the programs came from different paradigms and their beliefs came from different research bases.
Data collected included observational notes from nine all-day retreat meetings, six transcribed interviews conducted with the participants and a document review. According to Agar (2006), the ethnographer makes visible the languaculture of each group by identifying rich points or incomprehensible moments. For this study – Languaculture 1 was interpreted as perspectives from the general education members and Languaculture 2 was the perspectives from the special education members. Meeting notes and transcribed interviews identified language used from team members that clashed with other team members. These clashes became rich points or anchors for tracing how these languages were interpreted among the design team. Findings revealed that guiding principles developed by both groups were necessary for the cultures to begin identifying shared educational goals and determining what future students needed in a dual licensure program.
The clashes, once identified, were traced to assumptions about perspectives about preparing educators. For instance, a shared principle related to recognizing student differences became a challenge when defining what differences include. Faculty members were adamant that if the principle were rephrased it might contradict what they believed regarding how disability is constructed or defined. Through dialogue, the faculty reached a better understand each other’s perspectives by developing the guiding principles that represented common ground. This study revealed that the development of the guiding principles facilitate moving beyond the culture clash. The faculty shared through their meetings and interviews there was much they shared in common. This discovery of compatibility propelled the group in their collaborative efforts.
The significance of this study furthers the scholarship of teacher collaboration. The development of collaborative teacher education is “highly dependent upon the willingness of institutions of higher education to focus more on what all educators have in common rather than what makes them different” (Hardman, 2009, p. 583). These findings build on the research of Robinson and Buly (2007) highlighting the need for dialogue between general and special educators and describes the importance of dialogue for building and implementing a shared language for dual licensure teacher education programs.

Authors

• Carrie D Wysocki, The Ohio State University - Newark

• Laurie Joy Katz, The Ohio State University