Download - Promoting Family-Centered Teaching: Can One Course Make a ... · 42 Promoting Family-Centered Teaching Issues in Teacher Education about families within the context of the course,

Ann Bingham & Tammy V. Abernathy 37

Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2007

Promoting Family-Centered Teaching:Can One Course Make a Difference?

Ann Bingham& Tammy V. Abernathy

University of Nevada, Reno

Issues in Teacher Education, Spring 2007

Itiscriticalthatfamiliesbeincludedaspartnersinallaspectsoftheeducationalprocessinasmuchasparentsandfamiliesprovidetheprimarylearningenvironmentforchildrenofallages(Bronfenbrenner,1979;Dunst,1985;Finkelstein,1980;Mahoney&Bella,1998;Meisels&Shonkoff,1990;NationalParentTeacherAssociation,1999;Reiss,1997;Turnbull,Summers,&Brotherson,1984).Researchers,practitioners,andpolicymakershavedocumentedtheimportanceofparentinvolvementinchildren’seducation(Christensen&Sheridan,2001;Epstein,2001;Epstein,2002;Henderson&Berla,1994;Hiatt-Michael,2001;Olmstead&Rubin,1982;Perlander,2000;ScottStein&Thorkidsen,1999;Uman-sky&Hooper,1998;U.S.DepartmentofEducation,1994).Thisbodyofresearch underscores the positive effects of parental involvement ineducationandindicatesthatwhenparentsparticipateintheirchild’seducation,theresultisanincreasedgaininskillsand/orattainmentofdevelopmentalmilestonesinearlyyears. Teachersandotherprofessionalswhoworkwithchildrengenerallydesiretosupportfamiliesbyprovidingsuggestions,strategies,andotherservicestohelpthemhelptheirchild(Bauer&Shea,2003;Turnbull,Turnbull,Erwin,&Soodak,2006;Umansky&Hooper,1998);however,

Ann Bingham is assistant professor of special education at the University of Nevada, Reno. She can be contacted at [email protected]

Tammy V. Abernathy is associate professor of special education at the University of Nevada, Reno. She can be contacted at [email protected]

Promoting Family-Centered Teaching38

Issues in Teacher Education

theseprofessionalsoftenreportthattheyfeelill-equippedandunpreparedtoworkwithfamilies,especiallythosewhosechildrenhavespecialneeds(Lynn,1997).BothTichenor(1998)andTurner(2000)foundthattheteach-erstheystudiedwereunsurehowtoinvolveparentsinmeaningfulways.Thisdisconnectbetweenthedesiretoinvolvefamiliesandtheskillstoeffectivelydosoisevenmoreevidentforpreserviceandbeginningteach-ers(Morris&Taylor,1997).SurveysbytheNationalCenterforEducationStatistics(Choy&Chen,1998)indicatethat,thoughsupportfromparentsisseenasacriticallinktoengagestudentsandensuretheirsuccess,onlyone-thirdofteachers“stronglyagree”that“parentssupportthemintheireffortstoeducatetheirchildren.”Giventhisconcern,preserviceteachereducationprogramsareinapositiontosupportnewteachersindevelop-mentofpracticesleadingtofamily-centeredteaching. Historically,preservice teachereducationprogramshavenotad-equatelypreparedteachersinparentinvolvementorfamily-centeredpractices(Chavkin,1991;Epstein,Sanders,&Clark,1999;U.S.Depart-mentofEducation,1997).AlthoughtheU.S.DepartmentofEducation(1997)andothergroupshaveencouragedtheadoptionoffamily-cen-teredpracticesineducationanddespiteevidenceofthepositiveeffectsoffamilyinvolvement,theevidencehasbeenlargelyignored.Becauseteachersdonot routinelyencouragefamilyinvolvement,andparentsdonotalwaysparticipatewhentheyareencouragedtodoso(U.S.De-partmentofEducation,1997),theimportanceofpreservicetrainingtoinvolvefamilymembersinchildren’seducationisparamount.Recogniz-ingthisgapintrainingandtheconcernthatmostbeginningteachersdonotnaturallyhavetheskillstoeffectivelyincludefamiliesindaytodayactivities(Morris&Taylor,1997),responsivecollegesanduniversitieshavedevelopedcoursesencouragingpositiveinteractionswithfamiliesasapartoftheircurriculum. TheHarvardFamilyStudyReport (Shartrand,Weiss,Kreider,&Lopez,1997)notedthat22statesincludeparentinvolvementeducationrequirementsintheircredentialingstandards.Asaresultofthestan-dardsoftheNationalCouncilfortheAccreditationofTeacherEducation(NCATE),asignificantnumberofstatesaddedparentinvolvementre-quirementsinthelate1990s(Gray,2001,citedinHiatt-Michael,2001).ArecentstudybytheHarvardFamilyResearchProject(Giallourakis,Pretti-Frontczak,&Cook,2005)findsthatmostcoursesinfamilyandcommunityinvolvementareofferedaspartofearlychildhoodeducationorspecialeducationprogramsincollegesofeducation. Trvette,Dunst,Boyd,andHamby(1995)describedfourfamily-orient-edmodelsthatcantypicallybeobservedineducationalprograms.Thesemodelsincluded:(a)Professionally-Centered,whereinchildandfamily



needsaredeterminedsolelybyprofessionals/educators;(b)Family-Allied,wherefamiliesareenlistedtoimplementteacherchoseninterventions;(c)Family-Focused,whereprofessionals/educatorsassistthefamilyinchoosingoptionsfromthosethatprofessionalshavedeterminedtobeoptimal;and(d)Family-Centered, whereteachersbecomeinstrumentsoffamiliesbyreflectingwhatparentsseeasimportantandvaluedbytheirownfamilies. Asafoundationforcourseworkinfamilyinvolvement,theNationalParentTeacherAssociation(NPTA,1999),aswellassomestatedepart-mentsofeducation,developedstandardsforparentinvolvement.TheNPTAstandardshighlighttheimportanceoftwo-waycommunicationwithfamilies,parenting,theparentalroleinstudentlearning,volun-teering,schooldecision-making,andcommunitycollaboration.However,accordingtotheNPTAwebsite,todateonlynineteenstateshaveadoptedsimilarstatewideresolutions.DespitethefactthattheNPTAstandardsforparentalinvolvementmaybeseenasrepresentativeofafamily-fo-cusedmodel,preserviceteacherscouldbeencouragedtoembedthesestrategieswithinafamily-centeredperspectiveforoptimalcollaborationwithfamilies(Trivette,Dunst,Boyd,&Hamby,1995). Familyinvolvementcourseworkshouldfacilitateachangeprocessforpreserviceteachers’preconceivedideasabouttheroleoftheteacherandtheroleoffamilies.Literaturesupportstheideathatteacherbe-liefshavestrongimplicationsfortheirpersonalpraxisandpedagogy(Brickhouse,1990;Clark&Peterson,1986;Hashweh,1996).Inotherwords,teachersactandteachaccordingtotheirbeliefs.Nespor(1987)developedabeliefsystemsmodelthatexaminesthestructure,use,andfunctions of teachers’ beliefs. Nespor maintains that knowing is notnecessarilybelieving,andthatteachers’experiencescantakeknowledgeandtransformitintobeliefs. Acomplicatingfactoristheemotionalaspectofbeliefsthatmakesthembasicallynon-dynamic,inflexible,andunchangeable(Shechtman,1994).Ifbeliefsdochange,theydosothrougha“conversionorgestaltshift” rather than throughrationalargument (Nespor,1986,p.321).Onewaytofacilitatethisbeliefdevelopmentistohelpteachersbecomereflectiveandself-consciousastheyarepresentedwithdatathatvalidateorrefutetheirbeliefs(Olson&Singer,1994).Hunzicker(2004)arguesthat“permanentlychangingteacherbeliefsrequiresthatinformationispresentedrepeatedlyovertimetothepointthatthepersonbeginstofeeldisequilibriumbetweencurrentbeliefsandnewinformation”(p.45).Acentralpremiseofteachereducationispresentingnewinformationthatchallengespreserviceteachers’beliefs. Thoseinvolvedinpersonnelpreparationmustbequalifiedtofacilitate



authentic “transformative” experiences for students as recommendedbyBanks(1997;1998).Involvingstudentsinactivitiesandexperiencesthatreshapepreconceivednotionsofteachingandteachersisessentialtoinitiatepersonaltransformativemomentsforstudents.Duringteacherpreparationandthenoviceyears,teachersaremostinterestedin“self”concerns(Karge,Sandlin,&Young,1993).Whenworkingwithchildrenwithdisabilitiesandtheirfamilies,over-relianceonthe“self”mayinterferewiththedevelopmentofimportantandessentialskillsteachersneedtosupportfamiliesandfacilitatechilddevelopment. AsCochran-Smith(2003)warned,teachereducationprogramsthathammerpedagogyintostudentsmaybethwartingthedevelopmentofaqualityteacherbyonlyemphasizingoneaspectoftheprofession.Theimplicationforteachereducationprogramsistodeveloprobustprogramsthatrespectpedagogy,butfacilitatethetransformationofteachercandi-datesfromastereotypicalviewofthemselvesasateacherintoareflective,respectfulpartnerintheeducationalexperiencesofchildren.

Looking At Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes Using Concept Maps

The current study uses concept mapping to describe changes inpreserviceteachers’attitudesandperspectivesregardingworkingwithfamiliesofstudentswithandwithoutspecialneedsfromthebeginningtotheendofone16-weeksemester. Constructivisttheoryassertsthatgrowthinknowledgeisaresultofactivelyconnectingnewideaswithpastunderstanding(Beyerbach&Smith,1990)andreorganizingconceptualideastoaccommodatethenewinformationandexperience. Strategiesdesignedtohelpteachersreflectupontheirbeliefs,suchasconceptmapping,canleadthemtoevaluatetheirworkinclassroomsandwithfamilies(Beyerbach&Smith,1990).Thisstudyusesconceptmapstoexaminepreserviceteachers’knowledgeand beliefs regarding families prior to and following a sixteen-weekcoursepromotingfamily-centeredteaching. Conceptmapsaregraphicorganizersthatvisuallyrepresentideasaboutacentraltopicandhighlighttherelationshipsbetweenconceptsandimportantdetails(Beyerbach&Smith,1990).Conceptmapshavebeenusedforover30yearsasaresearchtoolinscienceeducationandhavebeenadoptedbythousandsofteachersinmanyfieldstoevaluateinstruction,curriculumdesign,learningandconceptualchange(Markham& Mintzes, 1994). Other disciplines that have used concept mappingintheirscientificresearchincludenursing,accountingeducation,andspecialeducationteacherpreparation(Correa,Hudson,&Hayes,2004).Conceptmapsareawaytomeasurethechangesinpreserviceteachers’



understandingofcomplexissuesastheyintegratethemintotheirexist-ingschema. Recentliteraturefocusingonpreserviceteachereducationhasshownthatconceptmappingisaneffectiveandefficienttoolformeasuringhowstudentsgainmasteryofasubjectandreorganizeknowledgeastheirconceptualunderstandingincreases.Conceptmappingprovidesatwo-dimensional,visualdepictionoftherelationshipamongimportantideasandconceptsfollowingclassroominstruction(Correa,Hudson,&Hayes,2004;Jones&Vesilind,1996;Kinchin,2000;Markham&Mintzes,1994;Morine-Dershimer, 1993;Trent, Pernell, Mungai, & Chimedza, 1998).Mapsareintendedtoshowthecomprehension,beliefs,reflections,andbiasesofthestudentsandtorepresentconnectionsmadebetweenrelatedtopicsand subtopics, aswell as the student’sdepthofunderstanding(Beyerbach&Smith,1990;Kinchin,2000).Conceptmappinghasbeenfoundtoshowbothstatisticallysignificantchangesfromaquantitativeperspectiveaswellasmeaningfulqualitativegrowthwhencomparedwithothermethodsofevaluationsuchasobservation,critiqueofavideotape,orKellyrepertorygridexercises(Correa,Hudson,&Hayes,2004).

Method

Thisstudywasguidedbythequestionofwhetheraone-semester(16week)coursewoulddevelopandenhancepreserviceteachers’at-titudestowardscollaboratingwiththeirstudents’families.Thestudywasconductedovertwoconsecutivesemesterswithtwosetsofpreser-vicestudents.Thefirstauthorofthisarticleservedasinstructorforthecourse,“ServingIndividualswithDisabilitiesandTheirFamilies.”Thepurposeofthecoursewastoprovidestudentswiththeory,generalprinciples,procedures,andlegalrequirementsforfosteringcollaborativepartnershipsamongfamilies,professionals,studentsandotherstake-holdersthatleadtooutcomesofindividualandmutualempowermentbyemphasizingthefamily-centeredmodel.Thiscoursewasrequiredforthestudents’subsequentstatelicensureinspecialeducation.Thecontentandactivitiesduringbothsemestersofthecoursewereconsistent,aswerethetext(Turnbull&Turnbull,2001)andsupplementalreadings.ThestudywasconductedretroactivelywithInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB)approvalbasedonatypicalin-classactivity. This course was taught under the theoretical premise that thestudentsshouldexaminetheirownperceptionsandbeliefsregardingfamily.Thispremisesupportsconstructivisttheory,whichrecognizesthatindividualsconstructtheirownrealitiesandchangeperceptionsbaseduponestablishedbeliefsandvalues.Byreviewingtheirbeliefs



aboutfamilieswithinthecontextofthecourse,studentswerethoughttobeinabetterpositiontoaccommodatenewideasthatmayextendtheirestablishedconceptions.Theinstructoremphasizedthatherownbeliefsaboutfamilyoriginatedinherfamilyoforigin,i.e.,thefamilytowhichshewasborn,andwerebroadenedasshehadexperienceswithherfriends’andassociates’families,asshemarriedandhadafamilyofherown,andasshesharedexperienceswithandstudiedaboutfamiliesindiversecircumstances. The class was held weekly in a three-hour block. In addition toitemstraditionallytaughtin“families”courses,i.e.,benefitofparentalinvolvement,home-schoolcommunicationtechniques,andtheroleoffamilyduringIndividualEducationProgram(IEP)orIndividualFam-ily Service Plan (IFSP) development as required by the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the instructor incorporatedseveraldistinctiveactivities.Theseactivitiesweredesignedtoencour-agestudents’reflectionsoftheircurrentbeliefsandchallengepersonaltransformations.Descriptionsoftheseactivitiesfollow. Anin-classexperienceusedtodemonstratefamilydiversitywasthe“CrossingtheLine”activity.Theinstructorplacedapieceoftapedownthemiddleoftheclassroomandaskedstudentstostandononeortheothersideofthe“line”baseduponavarietyoffamilyconditionsincluding(a)raisedinaruralsetting;(b)familyoforiginparentalconfiguration,i.e.,twoparenthomeorsomeotherconfiguration;(c)onlychildoronewithsiblings;and(d)singleormultiplelanguagesspokeninthehome.Ineverycondition,therewerestudentsresidingonbothsidesoftheline.Theinstructorthenemphasizedthatthesamediversityoffamilycharacteristicsexistingwithintheclasscouldbeanticipatedastheyinteractwiththefamiliesoftheirfuturestudents. Threeclasssessionsaddressedtheissuesofsocioeconomicstatusandpoverty;twomajoractivitiesaccompaniedthesetopics.Duringthefirst,thestudentswereaskedtomakealistoftheirindividualincomeandexpensesascollegestudents.Theythencomparedtheireconomicsituationwiththatofasingleparentwho,becauseofthelackofahighschooldiploma,isforcedtoworkaminimumwagejob.Afterexaminingissuesthatwouldcomplicatethesituationforourhypotheticalparent,e.g., lack of transportation that minimizes access to local resources,studentswrote reflections comparing their ownsituations to that ofthehypotheticalfamily;specificallytheywereaskedtoexaminehowtheyas teachersmightconnectwith this family.Thesecondactivityaddressingsocioeconomicissueswasagameinwhichstudentswererandomlyassignedtosocialgroups,providedtokensrepresentativeofresourcesbasedupongroupassignment,andthenattemptedasindi-



vidualstobettertheirsituationastheytradedtheirtokenswithothers.Theoverridingresponsefromstudentsbasedupontheresultsoftheactivitywasthat“therichgetricherwhilethepoorgetpoorer.”Classdiscussionandindividualreflectionsaddressedthedifficultyofupwardmobilityandthepremisethatitisnotjustamatterofworkingharder;someindividualssimplydonothavetheresourcesthatallowthemtoimprovetheireconomicsituation. Thecollaborativeprocessofteamingwithfamilieswasalsoaddressedduringclassactivitiesandclassdiscussions.Studentsweretaughttoexpect thatdifferentopinionsariseamong teammembers.Classac-tivitiesdemonstratedtheprocessesofconsensusbuilding,emphasizingthatdifferingopinionscanleadtorichdiscourseandpositivesolutions.Students’reflectionsonthisactivitydemonstratedtheimportanceofvaluingthecontributionsoffamilymembersandtrustingthatcaregiv-erswantwhatisbestfortheirchildren. Twomajorprojectswereusedtohelpstudentsmakeconnectionsbetweentheirownfamilyandafamilycontainingachildwithadisabil-ity.Earlyinthesemesterthestudentsconducteda“FamilyofOrigin”interviewwithoneofthecaregiversfromthefamilyinwhichtheywereraised.Thisinterviewwasdesignedtoexaminehowtheirowneducationalperspectivesweredevelopedbasedupontheirownandtheircaregivers’educationalexperiences.Towardtheendofthesemesterthestudentscompleteda“CaregiverConversation”withtheparentofachildwithadisabilityaddressingthosesameissues.Studentssubmittedpapersmakingcomparisonsbetweenthetwofamilies; theirtypicalfindingswerethat,whilethereisgreatsimilaritybetweenthetwofamiliesasallparentsdesirethebesteducationaloutcomesfortheirchildren,familiescontainingachildwithdisabilitiesoftenencounterdifficultiesaccessingadequatesupportsthatwouldprovidetheirchildrentheabilitytomeettheireducationalpotential.

Participants Allparticipantsinthestudy(n=49students)wereenrolledinoneoftwosemester-longcoursestitled“ServingIndividualswithDisabilitiesandTheir Families.”Twenty-four students were enrolled during thefirstsemesterandtwenty-fiveinthefollowingsemester.Becausethecourseisrequiredforsecuringaspecialeducationteachinglicense,themajorityofstudentsidentifiedthemselvesasspecialeducationmajorsor“dual”majorsworkingtowardbothelementaryandspecialeducationlicensure,yetstudentswithadditionalmajorswerealsorepresented.Studentsatbothundergraduateandgraduatelevelswererepresentedineach sectionof the course;however,all studentswerenew to the



teaching profession. Undergraduate students’ (n=36) majors includedspecial education (n=6), early childhood education (n=1), anddual el-ementary/specialeducation(n=29).Graduatestudents(n=13)included12 special educationmajorsandonehealth/physical educationmajor.Theclassconsistedof51%self-reportedtraditionalagestudents(n=25,ages20-24)and43%non-traditionalstudents(n=21,ages>24)withagesrangingfrom25to52(mean=27).Sixpercent(n=3)ofthestudentsdidnotreportage.Ninetypercent(n=44)ofthestudentswerewomenand10%(n=5)men.Studentsareadvisedtotake“ServingIndividualswithDisabilitiesandtheirFamilies”earlyintheirteachereducationprogramsasafirstorsecondsemestercourse.Whilestudentsareadvisedtofollowaprescribedprogramofstudy,somestudentsstepoutoftheirprogramandtakecoursesoutofsequence;thereforeitispossiblethatasmallnumberofstudentstookthecoursejustpriortostudentteaching.

Data Collection Onthefirstdayofeachcoursetheinstructorprovidedstudentswithinstructionsforcompletingaconceptmap.UsingPowerPointgraphics,sheexplainedthestep-by-stepconstructionofaconceptmapbyprovid-ingamapoutlining“LeisureActivities”(seeFigure1).



Students were then provided a blank map with the course title,“ServingIndividualswithDisabilitiesandTheirFamilies”asthecen-tralconceptandweredirectedtocompletemapsbasedupontheirownperceptions.Additionally,studentswereaskedtoprovideashortwrittenrationaleexplainingwhyspecificcomponentswereincludedontheirmaps.Therewasnotimelimitandstudentswereencouragedtoincludeasmanyideasaspossible.Duringtheclassactivitystudentswrotetheirnamesonthemaps. Inthefinalclassofthesemesterthemapactivitywasreplicated.Theclassrevisitedthe“LeisureActivities”mapasarefresher.Studentswereonceagaingivenamappagewiththecoursetitleinthemiddle.Studentsweredirectedtocompletethemapagainnowthattheclasswascomplete.Againstudentsworkedwithoutatimelimit.Thisactivitywascompletedblind,asthestudentswerenotabletoreviewtheiroriginalmaps.Studentsagainwrotetheirnamesonthemapwhencompletingtheactivity.Whenitwasdeterminedthatthemapswouldbeanalyzedaspartofastudy,themapswerematchedpre-andpost-courseforeachstudent,thestudents’nameswereremoved,andacodingnumberre-placedthename.Anexampleofastudent’spre-andpost-coursemapscanbefoundinFigures2and3.



Development of the Concept Map Analysis Form Tobeginassessingcontrastsinstudents’perceptionsfromthebegin-ningofthecoursetotheendofthecourse,datafromtheconceptmapsneededtobeconsolidatedandcategorized.Alongandevolvingprocessof identifyingcodingcategories forthemapswasundertaken.Giventheunlimitedpossibilitiesstudentscouldwriteontheirmapsandtheessentiallackofstructureoftheassignment,theprocessproceededinsmallincrementsandthecodingcategoriescontinuedtoevolvethrough-outthecodingprocess.Inordertodeterminecodingcategories,thetworesearchersindependentlycodedsixmapsrandomlyselectedfromthecollectedpre-andpost-maps,andrecordedcategoriesandthemestheresponsessuggested. Theresearchersthenmettodiscussdifferentwaystogroupthesepotentialcategoriesanddevelopedapreliminarycodinganalysisformwithlargerconstructsdefinedbymorespecificcategories.Athirdcoderwasthentrainedtousetheinitialdatacodingsheetusingtheinitialsixmapsrandomlyselected.Aftersuccessfultraining,anothersetofsixmapsfromthecombinedcollectionperiodswasrandomlyselectedtotesttheveracityofthedatacodingsheet.Asexpected,newresponsesappearedonthemapsthatdidnotfitintothepreviouslyidentifiedcat-



egories.Withtheagreementofallofthecodingteam,newcategorieswerecreatedasnecessary,makingthedatacodingsheetanevolvingdocument.Thegoalwastoproduceadatacodingsheetthatcapturedalloftheparticipants’responses. Subsequentmapswerecodedinbatchesoften.Aftereverytenwerecoded,thethreecodersmetforareliabilitycheck.(Onecoderwassubse-quentlydropped.Seediscussionofreliabilitybelow).Duringthisprocess,revisionsweremadetothecodingsheetasthemesevolvedanddefinitionsexpanded.DevelopmentoftheConceptMapAnalysisFormresultedinfourmajorcategories,(a)Communication,representingteacher/parentinteractionorspecificteacheradvocacyonbehalfoftheparentorchild;(b)Role of School/Teacher,representingtheroleof teachers inschoolsettings;(c)Perception of Family Issues,representingperceptionsoftheissuesfamiliesfaceraisingachildwithadisability;and(d)Other,foranyitemsthatfelloutsideofthemajorcodes.Withinthesemajorcategorieswere22sub-categoriesreferredtoassubtopics.

Coding Data Duringthecodingprocess,codersrecognizedtheimportanceofstemconceptsinordertofullycodeeachbranchofthemap;stemconceptsallowed the coder todetermine the intentof the student for specificentries.Wedefineastemconceptastheoriginoftheresponseorthecategoryonwhichresponseswereattached.Forexample,onthepre-coursemapthestudentincludedtheterm“assessment”intwoareasofthemap.Byusingstemconcepts,wedeterminedthatthisstudentconnectedassessmenttobothteachingmethodsandchildplacementis-sues.Subsequentlyeach“assessment”entrywascodedseparately.Everyentryonamapwasassignedacodebasedupontheanalysisformandnoresponseswereleftuncoded.Weinitiallycodedmapsfromthefirstsemesteroftheclasspre-andthenpost-coursefollowedbythesecondsemesterclassmaps,pre-andthenpost-course. Inadditiontocodingindividualitemsonstudentmaps,twoholisticscoreswereassigned.Holisticscoreswerebasedonthetoneoftheoverallreadingofthemap,inotherwords,alloftheresponsesinsumandnotjustindividualresponses. Thefirstholistic scorewasnamed“positioning.”This constructisbasedonthetheoreticalworkofHarre&vanLangenhove(1999).Specifically,wewereinterestedinhowrespondentsappliedfamily-centeredprincipleswhenpositioningteachersandfamiliesintermsofexpertiseandleadership.Fourholisticpositionscoreswerecreated:Therespondentscouldpositiontheteacherasexpert(TE);therespondentcouldpositionthefamilyasexpert(FE);teachersandfamiliescould



bothbepositionedasexperts(TF);orpositioningmaynotbeevident(NE)inthemap. Thesecondholisticscorerepresentedtheserviceprovisionpriorityoftherespondentreflectedinthemap,i.e.,whetherthechildorthesystemthatservesthechildwasreflectedasapriorityonthemap.Codesforthisscorewere:Thechildwithadisabilityisthefocusandpriority(CP);thesystemthatservesthechildisthefocusandpriority(SP);themapreflectsamixedpriorityfocusedonthechildwithadisabilityandthesystemthatprovidesservices(MP);orafocusorpriorityisnotevident(NE)inthemap. Duringthedatacodingprocess,tenunusualmapswereidentifiedbythecoders.Theseweresetasideandalloftheresearchersmetandreachedconsensusonthecodingcategories.

Reliability Initiallythreecodersweretrainedtousethecodingsheet.Onlytwoweretrainedtoreliability;subsequentlythethirdcoderwasdropped.Ofthe98totalmaps,elevenwereusedfortraining,sevenwereusedforreliability,andtenmapswerecodedbyconsensus;allmapswereusedinthisstudy.Theprimarycoderindependentlycodedtheremaining70maps.Thesemapswereorganizedintobatchesoftenandonemapineachbatchoftenwasusedtoreassessreliability,thusaccountingfortheseventotalusedtoassessinter-raterreliability.SeeTable1forinter-raterreliability.

Results

TheprocessfordevelopingtheConceptMapAnalysisFormresultedinfouroverarchingcategories:Communication,theRoleofSchool/Teach-ers,Perception ofFamily Issues, andOther (for those responsesnotfittingwithintheotherthreecategories).Datawereanalyzedinthreedistinctphases.Initially,descriptiveanalyseswereconductedtoexamine

Table 1. Inter-rater reliability results for seven randomly selectedmaps.

Totalresponses Numbercoded %agreement

Map1 10 8 80Map2 21 19 91Map3 9 7 78Map4 21 18 86Map5 20 18 90Map6 9 8 89Map7 32 31 97



thenumberofresponsesineachcategoryandthenumberofresponsesperparticipantineachofthethreecategories.Toexamineifchangesoccurredfromthepre-coursemapstothepost-coursemaps,aseriesofMcNemartestswereusedtoexaminepotentialchangesbetweensub-topicsineachcategory.TheMcNemartest“…assessesthesignificanceofthedifferencebetweentwodependentsampleswhenthevariableofinterestisadichotomy”(McNemar,n.d.).McNemar’stestisconsideredappropriateforpairedcategoricaldataandhasbeenusedinapreviousstudyofconceptmaps(Correa,Hudson&Hayes,2004).Table2indicatestheaggregatenumberofresponsesforeachtopiconstudents’pre-courseandpost-coursemapandtheresultsoftheMcNemartests.Finally,chisquareanalyseswereusedtoexaminedifferences in the twosetsofholisticscoresbetweenthepre-courseandpost-coursemaps. Thefirst of the categories,“Communication,”wasdefined as theinteractionsbetweenparentsandteachers.Thiscategoryyieldedfoursubtopicsincludinginteractionsrelatedtotheflowthroughofinforma-tionandpaperwork,theverbalcaringconversationsbetweenparentsandteachers,andresourcesharing.Overall students’addedto theirperceptionsof“Communication.”TheaveragenumberofresponseswithinthefoursubtopicsincreasedfromM=75.5(SD=29.1)onthepre-coursemapstoM=103.75(SD=35.05)onthepost-coursemaps. Theaveragenumberofpre-courseresponsesperstudent inthe“Communication”categorywas6.22(SD=5.56)andincreasedinthepost-coursemapstoM=8.5(SD=7.09).Within“Communication”therewasanincreaseinthenumberofresponsesonpost-coursemapsinthesubtopicofPurpose of Communication: Getting the Job Done,buttheresultwasnotsignifi-cant.ResultsrevealedasignificantchangeonthesubtopicAdvocacy for Children and Their Families(z=2.74,p<.01). Thesecondcategory,“RoleofSchool/Teachers,”coveredfivesubtop-ics specific to thework teachersdowith children in theeducationalenvironment.This category included improving academic and socialoutcomesandenhancingchildren’sself-esteem,aswellastheteacher’sroleasproblemsolverandproviderofsupportsandaccommodations. Overthecourseofthesemester,students’alteredtheirperceptionofthe“RoleofSchool/Teachers”byrecordingfeweroverallresponsesin this category. The average number of responses across the fivesubtopics reducedon thepost-coursemap fromM=97.6 (SD=99.30)toM=69.6(SD=88.34).TheaveragenumberofresponsesperstudentchangedfromM=9.96(SD=8.68)toM=7.12(SD5.64).OnlythesubtopicImproving Academic Outcomes/Pedagogyshowedasignificantchangeinthestudents’perceptionswithastrongreductioninpost-courseresults(z=1.95;p<.05).



“PerceptionofFamilyIssues”wasthethirdand largestcategorywith eleven subtopics identified. “Perception of Family Issues” wasdefinedas teachers’ perceptions of the issues families face raisingachildwithadisability.Subtopicsinthiscategoryincludedtheadvocacyroleofparents,thesupportsfamiliesneed,theroleoffamilystructure,resources,financialconcerns,andfamilycharacteristicssuchasvalues,habits,cultureandreligion. Thedescriptiveresultsofthepost-coursemapsreflectedanincrease

Table2.Numberofstudentresponsesonpre-courseandpost-coursemapspertopic.

Topic Pre-course Post-course McNemar Responses Responses pvalue

Communication Mechanismforgettinginformation betweenhomeandschool 47 58 .50Purposeofcommunication: Gettingthejobdone 85 127 .66Purposeofcommunication: CaringProfessional 112 95 .23Advocacyforchildrenandtheirfamilies 58 135 .01* Role of School/Teachers Improvingacademicoutcomes/pedagogy 173 82 .05*Improvingsocialoutcomes 37 19 .22Enhancingself-esteem 27 14 .41Providingsupportandaccommodations 234 219 .13Problemsolving/readyforanything 17 14 .28 Perception of Family Issues Rolesofparents 20 38 .03*Familiesneedhelp 14 15 .72Familyactivitiesimpactedpositively bydisabilityissues 15 6 .72Familyactivitiesimpactednegatively bydisabilityissues 19 17 1.00Familystructure 12 13 .79Familystructure—parent 6 6 .37Familystructure—siblings 11 11 1.00Familystructure—extendedfamily 3 9 1.00Interactionswithinfamily 29 26 .45Financialconcerns 4 24 .01*Familycharacteristics 49 82 .01*Familyresources 8 26 .01*

*indicatesasignificantchangeintheparticipants’responses.



instudents’perceptionsof“FamilyIssues.”Familyissuesweremarkedonpre-coursemapsinM=15.83(SD=12.81)cases,butincreasedtoM=22.75(SD=20.98)instancesinthepost-coursemaps.Themeannumberofre-sponsesperstudentinthiscategoryincreasedfromM=3.81(SD=6.12)toM=5.49(SD=5.10).Foursignificantchangeswerenotedonsubtopicsinthiscategory.First,post-coursemapsindicatedmorestudentsincludedtheRole of Parents ontheirmaps(z=2.37;p.03).ResultsalsoshowedasignificantincreaseinthenumberofparticipantswhoincludedFinan-cial Concerns(z=3.36;p.01)Family Characteristics (z=3.13;p<.01) andFamily Resources (z=2.74;p .01) intheirpost-coursemaps. Chisquareanalysiswasusedtodeterminechangesinthecategoricaldatausedfortheholisticscores.Thefirstanalysisforthe“Position”ofteacherorfamilyasexpertrevealednochangeovertimewiththeteacherpositionedastheexperton73%ofthepre-coursemapsand65%ofthepost-coursemaps(X 2

(1)=1.22;p>.05).Thesecondanalysisoftheholisticdatawasconductedforthe“PriorityorFocus”ofthemap.Resultsrevealednochangeovertimeinstudent’sperceptions(X 2(1)=.02;0>.05).Studentsperceivethespecialeducationsystemtobethefocuspriortothecourse42.86%andafter42.86%.Thechildwasperceivedasthefocuson30%ofthepre-coursemapsandon32.68%ofthepost-schoolmaps.

Discussion

TheprocessfordevelopingtheConceptMapAnalysisformresultedinfouroverarchingcategories:(a)Communication,(b)RoleofSchool/Teacher,(c)PerceptionofFamilyIssues,and(d)Other(foranyitemsthatfelloutsidethemajorcodes).Studentgenerateddataguidedthedevelopmentoftheanalysisform.Theanalysisformcontinuedtodevelopthroughoutthecodingprocessasourintentwastorepresenteveryitemthestudentshadincludedaspartofdataanalysis.Onlytwoitemsfromthe98pre-andpost-coursemapswerecoded“other.”Codingthedatawasdifficultandlaborintensiveandrigoroustrainingwasrequiredinordertoreachacceptablereliabilitylevels.

Communication Overallstudentsaddedtotheirperceptionsofcommunicatingwithfamilies.Initiallystudentsviewedcommunicationasbeinganinterac-tionbetweentheparentandtheteacher,generallycarriedoutbyverbalmeans.Bytheendofthecourse,studentsexpandedtheirviewofthePurpose of Communication: Getting the Job DonetoincludeAdvocating for Children and Their Families.Specifically,studentsexpandedtheircommunication role to exceed completing the IEP and the required



paperwork process to include sharing information on resources andrelated services. Students moved away from communication as be-ingamethodofinteractiontobeingatoolformeetingchildren’sandfamilies’ needs. Post-course maps demonstrate communication as atwo-wayprocesswhereinfamilieswereabletosettheagendaforsomeoftheinteractionsratherthansimplyrespondingtoteacherdirectives.Thisfindingdirectlylinkstothein-classconsensusbuildingactivities,whichemphasizesfamilies’rolesasteammembers.Overall,thetoneofpost-coursecommunicationresponsesrepresentedamorerespectfulandmorereciprocal interactionwith families.Studentsrelinquishedtheroleof“powerbroker”andembracedtheroleofadvocate.

Role of Teacher Itisnotsurprisingthatthestudentsbegantheclassbyfillingtheirconceptmapswithitemssupportingthetraditionallyperceivedroleofteacherastheacademicleader.Studentsareinfluencedbytelevision,newspapers,andothermedia,aswellastheirindividualmemoriesofschool,allofwhichsupportalimitedviewofteachertasks.Students’overallperceptionofteachersreflectedthisstereotypicalteacherasthepurveyorofknowledge,e.g.,teachinglessons,assessingprogress,meet-ingestablishedstandards.Thisperceptionwassupportedbypreviousteachereducationcoursework,whichemphasizedteachingmethodsandcontentofinstruction.Methodstextstypicallyendwithachapteronhowtomakethecurriculummoremeaningfulbyincludingconnectionswithparentsandfamilies;incontrast,thiscoursemovedtheroleoffamiliestotheforefront,recognizingthepositiveimpactoffamilyinvolvementin children’s education. This finding raises questions regarding thesequenceofcourseworkinteachereducationprograms:Whereshouldcoursesthattrytochangebeliefsanddispositionsbelocatedwithinaseriesofcontentandmethodscourses? Thevalueofthistypeofcourseisthattherewere50%fewerpost-courseresponsesreflectingthestereotypicalperspectiveofteacherre-sponsibilities.Thepost-coursemapsshowedthatstudentsseeteachingasmorecomplexandcollaborative.Post-coursemapsdemonstratedthatteachers’workgoesbeyondlessonplanninganddeliveringofinstructionandexpandsoutintothecommunity.Representativemapsincludeditemssuchasteaming,sharingresources,andshowingcompassiontowardbothchildandfamilychallenges.Whilewecannotchangetheresultswhichfoundthatstudents’perceptionsofinteractionswithfamiliesdidnotmeettheidealstandard,wedocelebratethefactthatthesestudentsexpanded their conceptions of the role of teacher to includepositiveinteractionswithfamilies.



Perception of Family Issues Studentsalsochangedintheirunderstandingofthecomplexityoffamilycharacteristicsandthechallenges families face.Thiswas thelargestcategory,withelevensubtopics;ofthose,foursubtopics,Role of Parents, Financial Concerns, Family Characteristics, and Family Re-sources,eachshowedsignificantchange.TherewasanoverallincreaseinthenumberofresponseslistedundertheRole of Parents,asthirty-eightofthestudentsincludeditemsunderthissubtopicintheirpost-coursemaps.Whilethischangeissignificant,itisdisappointingthatmoreofthestudentsdidnotrecognizetheimportanceoftheparents’roleasacollaboratorinchildren’seducation.Astudent’strueunderstandingoffamily-centeredinteractionswouldpromoteaviewoftheroleoftheparentsasprimaryindeterminingthoseissuesorconcernsthatwerecrucialtobeaddressedfortheirindividualchild(Trivette,Dunst,Boyd,&Hamby,1995).Thecoursetext,“CaregiverConversation”assignment,andconsensusbuildingactivityeachemphasizedtheindividualnatureoffamilies’concernsandtheimportanceofpartneringwithparentstodeterminethebestwaytoattendtotheseconcerns. Eighty-twoofthetotal98post-coursemapsincludedatleastoneitemrepresentativeofFamily Characteristics,e.g.,familysize,configuration,habits,culture,beliefs,traditions,religion.Studentsclearlydevelopedabroaderperspectiveofthecharacteristicsthatdefineandcontributetothedistinctivequalitiesofeachfamilysystem.The“CrossingtheLine”activityandthe“FamilyofOrigin”project,aswellasthecoursetext,clearlyexpandedthestudents’perceptionsofthemultiplecharacteristicsthatmakeupfamilies. Additionally,throughthe“CaregiverConversation”projectstudentshadtheopportunitytovisitwithafamilycontainingachildwithdis-abilities.Thisdirectinteractionwithaspecificfamilyencouragedthestudents to lookbeyondtheirownperceptionsof familyandexpandtheirunderstandingofchildanddisabilityissues.Teacherswhopossessabroadunderstandingofthevariousattributesthatdefineafamilyareinabetterpositiontocraftinteractionsbaseduponeachfamily’suniquecharacteristics(Bauer&Shea,2003;Turnbull,Turnbull,Erwin,&Soodak,2006;Umansky&Hooper,1998). Anothersubtopicfromthiscategorythatshowedasignificantincreaseonpost-coursemapswasFinancial Concerns;however,onlyone-fourthofstudents’mapsincludedaniteminthissubtopic.Whilesignificant,this result was disappointing given that three entire class sessionsfocusedonissuesofpovertyandsocialstatus.Reflectionsonthetwoin-classactivitieslinkedtothistopicseemedtoindicatethatstudentsrecognized themagnitudeof these issues,yetdespite thisemphasis,



manystudentsfailedtoseetheseissuesasaprioritywhenconsideringtheirinteractionswithfamilies.Thistransformationobviouslyrequiresdirectexperienceswithchildrenandfamiliesexperiencingsocioeconomicchallenges;however,atthispointintheireducation,thestudentshavenothadalotofdirectexperienceinschools. Studentswillsubsequentlycomeface-to-facewithpovertyandso-cialstatusissuesastheyareplacedin“atrisk”schoolsinhighpovertyareas.Wehope that studentswill then remember these experiencesandapplyappropriate interactions regardless of families’ socialandeconomicconditions.Thesedisappointingresultsmayalsobedue tostudents’perceptionsoftheoverarchingconditionsofdisabilityandalltheimplicationsthatfollowadisabilitydiagnosis—theydonotenvisionalackofsocialstandingand/oreconomicresourcesasanadditionallayerofcomplexitythatcanchallengefamiliesofchildrenwithdisabilities. Family Resources wasthefinalsubtopicunderthiscategoryinwhichpost-courseresponsesrevealedsignificance.Itisencouragingthatstu-dentsarebeginningtorecognizeextraneoussupportsystemsseparatefromfinancialresourcesorresourcesavailablethroughtheschoolsystem,i.e.,friends,neighbors,asbeingcrucialtofamilysystemscontainingachildwithadisability.Yetonlyone-fourthofthestudentsincludedanentryontheirmapsunderthissubtopic.Theirexperiencesinterview-ingfamiliescontainingachildwithadisabilityduringthe“CaregiverConversation”assignmentmayhaveenlightenedthemonthecomplexityofday-to-dayactivitiesthesefamiliesfaceandtheimportanceofaccess-ingsupports.Additionally,anunderstandingoffamilies’dependenceoncommunityprogramsaddressingtheneedsofchildrenwithdisabilitiessurfacedduringsomeoftheseinterviews.Again,itisimportanttonotethatthesestudentshavehadlimitedinteractionwithschoolsandtheirsubsequentinteractionswithfamiliescontainingchildrenwithdisabili-tiesduringpracticumplacementsandstudentteachingwillallowthemtogrowinunderstandingoftheimportanceofextraneousresourcestothesefamilies.

Holistic Scores Theresultoftheholisticscoringprocedurethatexaminedthepositionof“expert”wassurprisingatfirstglance.Preserviceteacherspositionedtheteacherastheexpertin73%ofthepre-coursemapsand65%ofthepost-coursemaps.Itwasthoughtthatexperienceinthecoursewouldchangestudents’perceptionsonwhotheypositionedastheexpert.Giventhefocusofthecourseandthe“family-centered”perspectiveframingofthecourse,theinstructorexpectedtoseeasignificantchangeintheteacherandfamily(TF)jointlypositionedasexperts.Itisimpossibleto



determineifthestudents’werepositioningtheir“self”(p.7)asHarre&vanLangenhove(1999)describe,orthemselvesastheunknownteacherexperttheyarehopingtobecome;thefactremainsthatthestudents’forcedpositioningofthefamilyasasubordinatemayleadtorestric-tionsthatarenotfavorable.Familiespositionedassubordinateswillbelesslikelytoinitiateconversations,askforclarification,sharefamilycircumstances, share resources orparticipate inadvocacy (Turnbull,Turnbull,Erwin,&Soodak,2006).Thelossofanyofthesebehaviorsdamagestheteacher-familyrelationship. WhileIDEAmayespousea“person-first”perspective,itwasevidentintheconceptmapsthatpreserviceteachersweremorefocusedonthesystemratherthanthe“child.”ItwasthelegalitiesofIEPs,IFSPsandIDEAthatcapturedtheattentionofstudentsratherthanthehumanbeingsthelawanditsmandatorydocumentsweredesignedtoprotect.Whiletheinstructorapproachedtheclassfromachildandfamilycen-teredperspective,itappearedtomakelittleimpactwhenviewingtheirmapsfromaholisticperspective. Atthebeginningofthecourse,thestudentsfocusedonspecialedu-cationasasystem;bytheendofthecourse,regardlessofthenumerousactivitiesinwhichtheyparticipatedandthefamilystoriestheyheard,theydidnotmoveawayfromseeingthefocusoftheclassonthespecialeducationsystemanditsrequirements.Thisfocusonthesystemraisesconcernsforteachereducatorsandourapproachtoteachingthelawanditsrequirements.Perhapsinourconcernforchildrenandfamilieswetoozealouslyimpressonourstudentstheirresponsibilitiesunderthelaw.Indoingso,itispossiblethatteachereducationstudentsonlyseethelawasaseriesofrulesandregulationsthatmustbefollowedorelseriskbeingoutofcompliance.Asteachereducatorswemaybefailingtounderscorethesensibilitiesinthelawthatprotectchildrenandtheir families. Itseemsimperativetorectifythissituation; if infactourstudentsteachthewaytheyaretaught,theymaybetakingaheavyhandedapproachwithfamiliesastheyworkthroughtheirlegallymandatedassignments.Forexample,itispossiblethatourstudentsaresendingmessagestothefamiliestheyencounterthatcompletingtheIEPismoreimportantthanthepeopleinvolvedintheprocess.

Limitations

Itisimportanttoexaminethebenefitsandchallengesofusingcon-ceptmapsasatoolforevaluatingteachingefficacy.Asusedinthisstudy,conceptmapsprovedtobeverystudentfriendly—theywerecompletedaspartofanin-classactivitywithnogradesassigned.Thisformatwas



relativelystress-freeforstudents.Studentswerecompletelyfreetoincludewhateverconceptsheldimportancetothemontheirmaps,studentswerenotpromptedastowhattoinclude,andallstudentsreceivedthesameinstructionsregardingthebasicsofmapconstruction.Thestudentswerenotinformedthattheirmapswouldbeusedtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofthecourse.Thesesamebenefitsinusingconceptmapsalsocontributedtothechallenges.Asubstantialnumberofunexpecteditemsappearedonthemapsduetothefreedomthestudentshadinconstructingthem.Whilethisfreedomprovidedrich,robustdata,italsocomplicateddataanalysisandcontributedtothecumbersometaskofcodingresponses.Asasolutiontothedatacodingcomplexity,wedevelopedtheprocedureof stemconceptsas itwas important forus toacknowledgestudents’perspectivesinincludingspecificitemsontheirmaps. Therearelimitationstotheconceptmappingprocedure.Althoughstudents are encouraged to ask questions about mapping, they areconstructingtheirmapsimmediatelyafterbeingtaughtaboutthem.Theremaybesome limits tostudentsunderstandingof theprocess.Whilesomestudentstookthetimetocreatecomplexmaps,othersdidnottakesufficienttimetodeveloptheirmaps.Anotherlimitationisthatwedonotknowhowmuchpriorknowledgestudentsmaypossessaboutagiventopic; forexample,somestudentsmayhavefamilymemberswithdisabilitiesmakingthemprivytodisabilityissues.Thesestudentsmayconstructmoredetailedmapsbaseduponindividualexperienceratherthancoursecontent.Afurtherlimitationisthatwechosetogiveeveryitemstudentslistedequalpriority.Usingourmethodology,creditforasubtopicwasgivenifstudentsincludedarepresentativeitemontheirmaps.Wedidnotgiveadditionalemphasistoconceptsthatwereincludedmultipletimesanditemswerenotweightedbytheirrelativepositiononthemaps;i.e.,thestemconceptreceivednomorecreditthanitemsondistantbranches.Duringcoding,theinstructorofthecoursehaddifficultyachievingreliabilitywiththeothercoders.Thismaybeduetotheintimacyshehadwiththesubjectmatterandcourseactivi-ties.Thisintimacymadeiteasytoprojectherinterpretationsintothedefinitionsofthecategories.

Conclusion

This study addressed the question of whether a single semestercoursewoulddevelopandenhancepreserviceteachers’attitudestowardscollaboratingwiththeirstudents’families.Whilechangeswerenotedinourstudents’overallperceptionsofthreemajorcategories,“Communi-cation,”“RoleofTeacher,”and“PerceptionofFamilyIssues,”significant



findingsinmorespecificsubtopicswerelimited.Thisisnotsurprisingconsideringthecomplexnatureofimplementingchangeinbeliefs(Hun-zicker,2004;Nespor,1987;Shechtman,1994),yettherigorousformatandcontentofasinglecoursefocusedonfamilyinvolvementinitiatesthe“transformative”experiencesofpreserviceteachersandcontributestodisequilibriumin thinkingabout theirpotential interactionswithchildren’sfamilies.Itisimperativethatteachereducatorscollaboratewithcolleaguesdeliveringpedagogicalcourseworkandfieldexperiencestoensurethatissuesoffamilyinvolvementareeffectivelyembeddedwithinsubsequentcourses.Includingtheseimportantconceptsinallpreserviceteacherexperiencesassuresthetransformationofpreserviceteachers’beliefsaboutfamilieswillcontinue.

ReferencesBanks,J.A.(1997).Educating Citizens in a Multicultural Society.NewYork:

TeachersCollegePress.Banks,J.A.(1998).Approachestomulticulturalcurricularreform.InE.Lee,D.

Menkart,&M.Okazawa-Rey(Eds.).Beyond heroes and holidays: A practi-cal guide to K-12 antiracist, multicultural education and staff development.Washington,DC:NetworkofEducatorsontheAmericas.

Bauer,A.M.,&Shea,T.M.(2003).Parents and schools: Creating a successful partnership for students with special needs.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Mer-rillPrenticeHall.

Beyerbach,B.A.,&Smith,J.M.(1990).Usingacomputerizedconceptmappingprogramtoassesspreserviceteachers’thinkingabouteffectiveteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27,961-971.

Brickhouse,N.W.(1990).Teachers’beliefsaboutthenatureofscienceandtheirrelationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3),53-62.

Bronfenbrenner,U.(1979).The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Chavkin,N.F.(1991).Building amulti-ethnicfamily-school-communitypartner-ship:CoalitionforPRIDE. School Community Journal, 1,33-36.

Choy,S.,&Chen,X.(1998).Toward better professional development in 1993-94.(NCES98-230).U.S.DepartmentofEducation,NationalCenterforEduca-tionStatistics.Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.

Christenson,S.,&Sheridan,S.M.(2001).Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning.NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Clark,C.M.,Peterson,P.L.(1986).Teachers’thoughtprocesses.InM.C.Whitrock(Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching,(3rded.,pp.225-296).NewYork:Macmillan.

Cochran-Smith,M.(2003).Inquiryandoutcomes:Learningtoteachinanageofaccountability.Teacher Education and Practice,15(4),12-34.

Correa,V.I.,Hudson,R.F.,&Hayes,M.T.(2004).Preparingearlychildhood



specialeducatorstoserveculturallyandlinguisticallydiversechildrenandfamilies:Canamulticulturaleducationcoursemakeadifference? Teacher Education and Special Education, 27,323-341.

Dunst,C.J.(1985).Rethinkingearlyintervention. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5,165-201.

Epstein, J.L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

Epstein,J.L.(2002).School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.

Epstein,J.L.,Sanders,M.G.,&Clark,L.A. (1999).Preparing educators for school-family-community partnerships: Results of a national survey of col-leges and universities. CenterforResearchontheEducationofStudentsPlaced at Risk, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, and HowardUniversity,Washington,DC.

Finkelstein,N.E. (1980).Family-centeredgroupcare.Child Welfare, 59, 33-42.

Giallourakis,A.,Pretti-Frontczak,K.,&Cook,B.(2005).Understanding family involvement in the preparation of graduate students: Measuring family-centered beliefs, skills, systems, and practices. Cambridge, MA: HarvardFamilyResearchProject.

Gray,S.F. (2001).Acompilationofstatemandates forhomeschoolpartner-ship education in pre-service teacher training programs. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Harre,R.,&vanLangenhoveL.(1999).Thedynamicsofsocialepisodes.InR.Harre&L.vanLangenhove(Eds.),Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action(pp.1-31).Malden,MA:BlackwellPublishers,Inc.

Hashweh,M.Z. (1996).Effectsofscienceteachers’epistemologicalbeliefs inteaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,47-63.

Henderson,A.,&Berla,N.(Eds.).(1994).A new generation of evidence: The fam-ily is critical to student achievement. Columbia,MD:NationalCommitteeforCitizensinEducation.

Hiatt-Michael,D.(2001).Preparing teachers to work with parents.ERICClear-inghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Washington, DC. (ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.EDO-SP-2001-2)

Hunzicker,J.(2004).Thebeliefs-behaviorconnection:Leadingteacherstowardchange.Principal, 84(2),44-46.

Jones,M.G.,&Vesilind,E.M.(1996).Puttingpracticeintotheory:Changesintheorganizationofpreserviceteachers’pedagogicalknowledge.American Educational Research Journal, 33,91-117.

Karge,B.D.,Sandlin,R.A.,&Young,B.L.(1993,April).Analysisofbeginningteacherconcerndata to restructurepreservice teachereducation.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Atlanta,GA.

Kinchin,I.M.(2000).Usingconceptmapstorevealunderstanding:atwo-tieranalysis. School Science Review, 81,11-14.

Lynn,L.(1997,September/October).Teaching teachers to work with families.



HarvardEducationLetterResearchOnline.RetrievedFebruary23,2005,fromhttp://edletter.org/past/issues/1997-so/teaching.shtml

Mahoney,G.&Bella,J.(1998).Anexaminationoftheeffectsoffamily-centeredearlyintervention.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 83-95.

Markham,K.M.,&Mintzes,J.J.(1994).Theconceptmapasaresearchandevaluationtool:Furtherevidenceofvalidity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31,91-101.

McNemar(n.d.).Significancetestsfortwodependentsamples:McNemar,mar-ginalhomogeneity,sign,andWilcoxontests.(n.d.).RetrievedMarch15,2005,fromhttp://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/mcnemar.htm

Meisels, S. J. & Shonkoff, J. P. (1990). (Eds.). Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention. Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Morine-Dershimer,G.(1993).Tracingconceptualchangeinpreserviceteachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9,15-26.

Morris,V.G.,&Taylor,S.I.(1997,March).Family involvement in education: The role of teacher education. Paperpresentedatthe1997AnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.Chicago,IL

NationalParentTeacherAssociation.(1999).Thenationalstandardsforparent/familyinvolvementprograms.Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.pta.org/archive_article_details_1118251710359.html

Nespor,J.(1987).Theroleofbeliefsinthepracticeofteaching.Journal of Cur-riculum Studies,19,317-328.

Olmstad,P.P.,&Rubin,R.I.(1982).Linkingparentbehaviorstochildachieve-ment:Fourevaluationstudiesfromtheparenteducationfollowthroughprogram.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8,317-325.

Olson,J.&Singer,M.(1994).Examiningteacherbeliefs,reflectivechangeandtheteachingofreading.Reading Research and Instruction, 34(2),97-110.

Perlander,F.(2000).Thebestqualitycooperationbetweenparentsandexpertsinearlyintervention.Infants and Young Children, 12(3),32-45.

Reiss,J.(1997).Does your state’s title XXI SCHIP Plan promote the development and maintenance of quality systems of care for children with special health needs: Issues and criteria for SCHIP Plan review and analysis.RetrievedOc-tober31,2004fromhttp://www.ichp.edu/schip/materials/893253826.html

ScottStein,M.R.,&Thorkidsen,R.J.(1999).Parent involvement in education: Insights and applications from the research. Research for the practitioner series.Bloomington,IN:PhiDeltaKappa.

Shartrand,A.M.,Weiss,H.B.,Kreider,H.M.,&Lopez,M.E.(1997).New skills for new schools: Preparing teachers in family involvement.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityMedicalSchool.

Shechtman,Z.(1994).Challengingteacherbeliefsviacounselingmethods:Adescriptivestudy.Teaching Education, 6(2),29-40.

Tichenor,M.(1998).Preserviceteachers’attitudestowardparentinvolvement:Implicationsforteachereducation. The Teacher Educator, 33,248–259.

Trent,S.C.,Pernell,Jr.,E.,Mungai,A.,&Chimedza,R.(1998).Usingconceptmapstomeasureconceptualchangeinpreserviceteachersenrolledinamulticultural education/special education course. Remedial and Special



Education, 19,16-31.Trivette,C.M.,Dunst,C.J.,Boyd,K.,&Hamby,D.W.(1995).Family-oriented

program models, helpgiving practices, and parental control appraisals.Exceptional Children, 62,237-248.

Turnbull,A.P.,Summers,J.A.,&Brotherson,M.(1984).Working with families with disabled family members: A family systems perspective. Lawrence,KS:UniversityofKansas.

Turnbull,A.P.,&Turnbull,H.R.,III(2001).Families, professionals, and ex-ceptionality: Collaborating for empowerment(4thEd.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Merrill.

Turnbull,A.P.,Turnbull,R.,Erwin,E.,&Soodak,L.(2006).Families, profes-sionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnership and trust(5thEd.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation,Inc.

Turner,J.(2000).Parentinvolvement:Whatcanwelearnfromresearch?Mon-tessori LIFE, 12(2),37-39.

Umansky,W.&Hooper,S.R.(1998).Young children with special needs.(3rdEd.). UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Merrill/PrenticeHall.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(1994).Strong families, strong schools.Washing-ton,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation. (1997).New skills for new schools: Preparing teachers in family involvement. Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEdu-cation.

Download - Promoting Family-Centered Teaching: Can One Course Make a ... · 42 Promoting Family-Centered Teaching Issues in Teacher Education about families within the context of the course,

Top Related