Co-Teaching at the Pre-Service Level: Special Education Majors Collaborate with English Education Majors

Author(s):  
Patricia Alvarez McHatton ◽  
Patricia L. Daniel
1977 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 540-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Parish ◽  
Gerald M. Eads ◽  
Nancy H. Reece ◽  
Mary A. Piscitello

In a study designed to determine whether future teachers have negative attitudes toward groups of exceptional children based upon the labels attached to these children, 13 special education majors and 32 students majoring in other fields of education were administered the Personal Attribute Inventory at the beginning and conclusion of an introductory course in special education. Results for labels, physically handicapped, educable mentally handicapped, and learning disabled, indicated that the latter two were evaluated significantly less positively than the first on both pre- and post-course testings. There were no significant differences between the respondents' pre- and post-course ratings of the three labels. Interestingly, special education majors were significantly more positive in their pre- and post-course evaluations than non-special education majors. These findings certainly are not supportive of “mainstreaming” children who have been categorized as either learning disabled or educable mentally handicapped.


1978 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 290-290
Author(s):  
Yoram Hartogson ◽  
Joseph Trainer ◽  
Norman M. Chansky

1978 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 56-57
Author(s):  
Ellen J. Hofeldt ◽  
Larry L. Hofeldt

College students and university mathematics professors frequently ask, “Do special education majors need detailed training in mathematics?” This article will assert and delineate the necessity of an all-encompassing background for special education teacher trainees. The special education teacher trainee certainly needs no less thorough training in any area than a regular elementary teacher trainee.


2002 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Riccomini

In this study, the comparative effectiveness of two forms of feedback (instructor delivered corrective feedback and a Web-based model comparison feedback) was examined on two complex tasks. Forty-six university students enrolled in an introductory special education course designed for non-special education majors were randomly assigned to two treatment groups. Both groups completed a behavior-analysis and an instructional-analysis task after viewing vignettes on streamed video from the course Web page. The first group-received instructor delivered corrective feedback (CF) on the behavior-analysis task and then received Web-based model comparison feedback (MCF) on the instructional-analysis task. The second group-received MCF on the behavior-analysis task and then received CF on the instructional-analysis task. Students' performance was significantly better on the criterion task when they received instructor delivered corrective feedback.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document