Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Teacher Training, IEP Compliance,

No description
by

Tania May

on 5 December 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Teacher Training, IEP Compliance,

Teacher Training, IEP Compliance,
& Motivation... Oh my!

Introduction
What the Research Says...
Research Design & Methodology
Data Collection
Summary & Expected Results
Benefit to teachers, as content of both trainings directly relevant to daily responsibilities.

Benefit to district, in terms of maximizing impact of trainings.

The expectation is that both groups will demonstrate positive gains; more so for the experimental group.
Topic Area & Rational
IEP Compliance:
inadequate training/processes, burdensome paperwork, multiple responsibilities (Drasgow, Yell & Robinson, 2001)

Special educator attrition:
13% of all public school teachers leave field; 12% of those leaving SPED transfer to general education, but few move to SPED (Billingsley, 2003)
Research Questions
1. How does the efficacy of traditional professional development workshops compare to identical trainings with the added component of collaborative peer review on compliant IEPs?
Theoretical Significance
2. How is teacher motivation impacted by traditional professional development workshops compared to the additional feedback provided by peer review via IEP Component Checklists?
3. What additional feedback/comments do teachers have after engaging in peer review via IEP Component checklists and providing feedback to other special education teachers?
Significance to the Field
Educational benefit for students
Reduced legal costs for district
Potential to retain special educators
Participatory Evaluation (Cousins & Earl, 1992)
Makes information more accessible/useful
Results have a more long-lasting impact
Attrition in Special Education
- a topic well-covered in the literature!
Billingsley (1992, 2004): multiple meta analyses; 20 studies since 1992
Uncertified teachers; inexperienced teachers; working conditions; individual circumstances
Stress Managment for SPED Teachers
(Cooley & Yovanoff, 1996)
Mixed study
: stress-managment workshops and peer collaboration groups
Participants
: 92 self-selected SPED providers; 2 treatment groups & 1 control
Intervention 1
: 5 weekly 2-hour stress-management workshops (coping skills)
Intervention 2
: 1 3-hour Peer Collaboration Program
4-step framework for helping peers solve student-related issues
Measures
: job satisfaction, efficacy, committment to organization
Results
: treatment order insignificant; positive results for both treatment groups
Unanswered Questions
Need for more research into the reasons why teachers leave SPED.

Professional development, like teaching, has long-term effects; there is a need for more longitudenal studies that measure effects over longer periods of time.
Mixed Method
Baseline:
pretest with IEP Component Checklist

Both groups:
traditional PD

Experimental group:
IEP checklist & peer review

Data collection:
Quantitative:
pretest vs posttest change
Posttest one month after training
Qualitative:
pre- & post-training surveys
Participants
IEPs within date range
837 special educators, 572 case managers
Systematic sampling: every 3rd IEP
10 in control group
10 in experimental group
Data Collection Procedure & Implementation
2 groups of randomly-selected special educators
Control group: PowerPoint + Q&A
Experimental group: PowerPoint + Peer Review + Q&A + Survey
Selection Procedure:
Pretest using IEP Component Checklist
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vbZO_r5Nk5bGpuUGtubGhsNWs/edit
Pretest data will determine content of PowerPoint
Class Activity!
IEP Training for Pre-service SPED Teachers
(Werts, Mamlin & Pogoloff, 2002)
Qualitative study
: 3 IEP-preparation workshops and semi-structured interviews
Participants
: 21 pre-service special education majors
Intervention
: meeting w/ SPED director; parent speakers; mock IEP meetings
Measures
: feedback via online forum; 2 longitudinal semi-structured interviews
Results
: parent consultation and IEP simulation consistently rated most effective
In Conclusion...
Comments/Questions?
References
Billingsley, B. S. (2003). Special Education Teacher
Retention and Attrition: A Critical Analysis of
the Literature (COPSSE Document No. RS-2). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida,
Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
Billigsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The Working
Conditions and Induction Support of Early Career Special Educators.
Council for Exceptional Children, 70(3),
333-347.
Cooley, E., & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting
Professionals-at-Risk: Evaluating Interventions to Reduce Burnout and Improve Retention of Special Educators.
Exceptional Children, 62:4
, 336-55.
Cousins, J. B. & Earl, L. M. (1992). The Case for
Participatory Evaluation.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4),
397-418.
Drasgow, E., Yell, M. L., & Robinson, T. R. (2001).
Developing Legally Correct and Educationally Appropriate IEPs.
Remedial and Special Education, 22,
359-373.
Fore, C., Martin, C., and Bender, W. N. (2002). Teacher
Burnout in Special Education: The Causes and the Recommended Solutions.
The High School Journal, 86(1)
, 36-44.
Werts, M. G., Mamlin, N., & Pogoloff, S. M. (2002).
Knowing What to Expect: Introducing Preservice Teachers to IEP Meetings. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(4), 413-418.
Pre-Training Survey
Years of experience
Age/Grade level(s)
PD delivery preference
Opinion of PD opportunities
Post-Training Survey
What is something you learned?
Which activity was most helpful?
Comments/Questions?
Thank you!!
Full transcript