Advertisement

A Case Study of Special Educator Professional Development in a Virtual World

  • Peter Blair
  • Mimi M. Recker
  • Nancy K. Glomb
Chapter
Part of the Educational Media and Technology Yearbook book series (EMTY, volume 41)

Abstract

A wide variety of legislation impacts the jobs of special education teachers in the United States. In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was signed into law, mandating that states develop standards and report outcomes for all students in the key areas of math and reading. In 2004, the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) came into effect calling for accountability and “assessments of how students with disabilities progress within the general curriculum” (Lynch & Adams, 2008). This is implemented by writing individual education plans (IEPs) that state goals for individual students with disabilities. Another recent approach by states (including the state of Utah) is the development of a standardized “common core” for language arts and mathematics instruction. This is used by all teachers to guide the assessment of all students within grade levels (Samuels, 2011). In the state of Utah, this is called the Utah Core Standards. For Utah special education teachers and speech-language pathologists (SLP), hereafter called special education professionals, writing standards-based IEP goals using the Utah Core Standards are required by the law (Lynch & Adams, 2008; Samuels, 2011).

References

  1. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dickey, M. D. (2011). The pragmatics of virtual worlds for K-12 educators: Investigating the affordances and constraints of ActiveWorlds and SecondLife with K-12 in-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Boston Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Gamage, V., Tretiakov, A., & Crump, B. (2011). Teacher perceptions of learning affordances of multi-user virtual environments. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2406–2413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lombard, M., Ditton, T. B., & Weinstein, L. (2009, November). Measuring presence: The temple presence inventory. Paper presented at Presence 2009: 12th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Lynch, S., & Adams, P. (2008). Developing standards-based individualized education program objectives for students with significant needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2013). Lessons from the virtual classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  12. Samuels, C. A. (2011). Special educators look to align IEPs to common-core standards. Education Week, 30(15), 8–9.Google Scholar
  13. Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M. J., & Barab, S. A. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: Effects of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Online Curriculum DevelopmentBrigham Young University-IdahoRexburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Instructional Technology and Learning SciencesEmma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services, Utah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations