Article Remedial and Special Education

Volume 31 Number 1
January/February 2010 24-33
© 2010 Hammill Institute on
Disabilities
Preservice Teacher Preparation for Inclusion 10.1177/0741932508324397
http://rase.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
An Exploration of Higher Education Teacher-Training
Institutions
Michael W. Harvey
Nina Yssel
Adam D. Bauserman
John B. Merbler
Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana

Performance mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of
2004 have demanded ever-greater access to the general curriculum for all students, including those with disabilities.
Inclusive classrooms and the elevated expectations for all students have a profound impact on preservice teacher prepara-
tion. This study obtained information about preservice teacher preparation for inclusive classrooms from a national sample
of faculty members in special education, elementary and secondary education, and curriculum and instruction at teacher-
education institutions. Faculty perceptions of training efforts used to prepare preservice teachers for inclusion were assessed
through electronic survey methods. The survey instrument used a 5-point, Likert-type scale and open-ended questions
focused on program elements and perceived effectiveness of inclusion and collaboration. Results indicated a high level of
agreement among respondents regarding training efforts and program effectiveness. The study identified issues with current
practices, program coordination or collaboration efforts, and training needed for preservice educators. Recommendations
for further research and programming suggestions for inclusion and collaboration are provided.

Keywords: personnel preparation; higher education; inclusion

T he No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) calls for

highly qualified (HQ) teacher educators and man-
dates that all students, including those with disabilities,
make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on challenging
state academic standards. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004),
in concert with NCLB, provides support services for
students with disabilities that allow them to benefit from
educational programming, including access to the gen-
eral education curriculum. Inclusive education has
indeed taken on new importance given the accountability
mandates for all students under NCLB.
The inclusion of students with disabilities in the gen-
eral education curriculum and classrooms has been a
goal of educational reformists for many years. Current
special education legislation, IDEA, emphasizes the
need for students with disabilities “to be involved in
and make progress in the general curriculum” (34 C.F.R.
§ 300.320(a)(2)(i)(A)). In addition, NCLB requires states
to develop a progressive assessment or reporting system
that demonstrates that all students, schools, and school
districts are making AYP in achieving proficiency on
state academic standards (34 C.F.R. § 200.6). Inclusion
and access to the general education curriculum for
students with disabilities are essential in meeting AYP
goals. It is therefore imperative that preservice teachers
are prepared for inclusive classrooms given current man-
dates under IDEA and NCLB.
The inclusive school movement has been an impetus
for change, not only in curriculum and instruction (C&I)
but also in the roles of teachers and programs preparing
teachers (Stayton & McCollum, 2002). The mandates of
NCLB include HQ teachers for all students in the K–12
system (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). These require-
ments include that the local educational agency (LEA) ensure
that all teachers are HQ in the content areas in which
they teach, that HQ teachers teach core academic subjects,
and that states develop plans that provide assistance and

24

monitor LEA classrooms to ensure that they are staffed
with teachers meeting HQ requirements (§ 1119 (a)(1)(2)
(A)(B)(C)(3)). In addition, IDEA requires that students
with disabilities are provided instruction by HQ special
education teachers (34 C.F.R § 300.18). Teacher training
institutions thus have a responsibility to ensure that all
teacher educators, especially preservice teachers, are well
prepared to meet the challenges of inclusion in the face of
NCLB and IDEA requirements.
Several studies have focused on inclusion, teacher
concerns, and training needs (Cheney & Barringer, 1995;
Little, & Robinson, 1997; Reed & Monda-Amaya,
1995). Kearney and Durand (1992) investigated the
training and preparation of preservice general educators
for inclusive classrooms; the results of their study
showed inadequate coursework in special education and
little experience in mainstreamed classroom settings.
Reed and Monda-Amaya (1995) found that preservice
general education teachers were not well prepared for
working with students with exceptional needs, with
information either infused into the curriculum or taught
in separate courses.
The lack of transdepartmental training is an issue that
researchers have focused on since the early years of
inclusive education. Johnson, Pugach, and Devlin (cited
in Kearney & Durand, 1992) argued that the interface
between general and special education is one of the most
important issues in education, and yet there was not
much interdisciplinary training for preservice teachers in
the early nineties.
More than a decade later, many of the same concerns
are still a reality. Smith and Edelen-Smith (2002) found a
lack of common vision of an integrated teacher-education
program among the majority of faculty in higher educa-
tion. Based on the results of their study, they envisioned
continuing difficulty implementing transdepartmental
teacher-training programs at the secondary level.
Recently, in a study of preservice teachers’ perceptions
of teaching students with exceptional needs, Shippen,
Crites, Houchins, Ramsey, and Simon (2005) looked at
current teacher-preparation programs and their failure to
address perceived problems in inclusive education,
specifically the area of collaboration. Based on the find-
ings of their study, Shippen et al. (2005) concluded that
dual training in general and special education may indeed
produce educators who are more willing and more capa-
ble to deal with their students’ diverse learning needs.
Brownell, Ross, Colon, and McCallum (2005)
reported that a key critical element, among others, of
effective teacher-education programs is collaboration.
Collaboration is widely recognized as a prerequisite for
Harvey et al. / Preservice Teacher Preparation 25
inclusive education. Successful inclusive schools have a
unified educational system with general and special edu-
cators collaborating to provide effective programs and
services for all students (Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen,
Cabello, & Spagna, 2004). This collaborative partnership
should start with preservice teacher education. Voltz and
Elliot (1997) stressed the importance of general and spe-
cial education teacher educators working closely
together to prepare preservice teachers to be effective
collaborators. They suggested not only common intro-
ductory courses but also a collaborative ethic in methods
courses.
The research effort that is the subject of the present
article surveyed a national sample of faculty members
from teacher-education institutions’ departments of spe-
cial education, elementary education, secondary educa-
tion, and C&I concerning preservice teacher preparation
and training in the area of inclusion. This study focused
on training efforts used to prepare preservice teachers for
inclusion as well as on perceptions of the level and effec-
tiveness of preservice teaching training in inclusion. The
study, while exploratory in nature, adds to the literature
concerning teacher training for inclusion given the
emphasis on access to the general education curriculum,
HQ teachers, and academic achievement for all students
(i.e., AYP). The research goals included quantitative and
qualitative inquiry methods guided by the following
questions: Are there differences in perceptions of the
institution’s current status of inclusive educational pro-
gramming by programs or departments? Are there differ-
ences in faculty expectations or experiences concerning
preservice teacher education inclusion instruction by
programs or departments of special education, elemen-
tary or secondary education, and C&I? and What are the
perceived issues concerning the current status of preser-
vice teacher preparation, program practices, and instruc-
tional needs in the area of inclusion in preservice teacher
education?
Method
Participants
Nationally, there are approximately 1,190 teacher-
education institutions of higher education (IHEs) that
offer programs in one or more of the following majors: (a)
special education, (b) elementary education, (c) secondary
education, and/or (d) C&I as listed by The College Blue
Book (2003). The population for this study was identified
by teacher-education institutions in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia using the data available from The
26 Remedial and Special Education

Table 1
IHE and Faculty Sample and Return Rates by OSEP Regional Resource and Federal Centers
Regional Resource and States and District of Number of IHEs Faculty Surveys Return
Federal Centers Columbia (total) IHEs Sample Returned Rate (%)

Northeast Regional CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, 47 103 15 14.5

Resource Center NY, RI, VT (8)
Mid-South Regional DE, KY, MD, NC, SC, TN, 51 115 21 18.3
Resource Center VA, WV, DC (9)
Southeast Regional AR, AL, FL, GA, LA, 52 112 20 17.9
Resource Center MS, OK, TX (8)
North Central Regional IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, 90 119 38 19.1
Resource Center OH, PA, WI (9)
Mountain Plains Regional AZ, CO, KS, MT, NE, NM, 41 94 18 19.1
Resource Center ND, SD, UT, WY (10)
Western Regional AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, 42 80 12 15.0
Resource Center OR, WA (7)
Total 51 323 703 124 17.6

Note: Overall study return rate was 19% with an accounting of all electronic-transfer issues. IHE = institution of higher education; OSEP =
Office of Special Education Programs.

College Blue Book. The sample included a two-stage sam-
pling design. The first stage identified a subset of 323
IHEs from those listed in The College Blue Book by
selecting a representative sample of IHE teacher-training
institutions listed for each of the 50 states and the District
of Columbia. A systematic approach was used with every
fourth IHE from each of the states being included in the
sample. This state-by-state selection approach accounted
for a slight oversampling (27%). The sample size was
guided by small sample-selection techniques suggested by
Krejcie and Morgan (1970). The second sampling stage
included the systematic selection of 703 faculty members
representing one faculty member from each IHE’s depart-
ment of special education, elementary education, sec-
ondary education, and C&I, based on institutional
program or departmental offerings in these majors for
teacher-education institutions identified in the first sam-
pling stage (n = 323). The final sample of IHEs identified
for this study included (a) state-supported comprehensive
institutions (29%), (b) state-supported universities (32%),
(c) independent comprehensive institutions or universities
(18%), and independent religious-affiliated institutions
(21%). The IHEs’ institutional enrollment data included
(a) 5,000 or fewer (32%), (b) 5,000 to 10,000 (23%), (c)
10,000 to 20,000 (22%), and (d) 20,000 or more (23%).
Surveys were distributed via e-mail to selected faculty
from these IHEs. A total of 124 usable surveys were
returned, representing a 19% return rate once all electronic-
transfer issues were resolved (see procedures for more
details). Table 1 summarizes key sampling elements for
this study by the number of IHEs selected, IHEs’ faculty
sample, survey returns, and return rates by the Office of
Special Education Programs’ six Regional Resource and
Federal Centers.
Participation included respondents from 41 states and
the District of Columbia. Nine states had no participation
or representation in this study (18%). Participation rates
ranged from a low of 7% to full participation (100%) by
state and the District of Columbia. Two states had par-
ticipation rates of 10% or less. Fourteen states had par-
ticipation rates between 11% and 20%. Twelve states and
the District of Columbia had participation rates between
21% and 30%. Nine states had participation rates
between 31% and 49%, and four states had participation
rates of 50% or higher.
There was a slight underrepresentation of state-
supported comprehensive institutions (–6%) and inde-
pendent comprehensive institutions or universities (–4%),
whereas there was small overrepresentation of state-
supported universities (+5%) and independent religious-
affiliated institutions (+5%) compared to the identified
IHE sample. There was a slight overrepresentation of
IHEs with student enrollment of 5,000 or fewer (+3%),
an underrepresentation of IHEs with enrollment between
5,000 and 10,000 (–5%), an underrepresentation of IHEs
with enrollments of 10,000 to 20,000 (–3%), and a slight
overrepresentation of 20,000 or more (+5%). There was
more disparity between the IHEs’ sample and represen-
tativeness of respondents concerning their departments
or positions. Special education respondents in this study
had a +15% overrepresentation, whereas elementary and
secondary educators had a –11% underrepresentation,
 Harvey et al. / Preservice Teacher Preparation 27

Table 2
Higher Education Faculty Participation by Program Area and Demographic Characteristics
Higher Education Program Area

Special Elementary/Secondary Curriculum and

Education Education Instruction Total

n % n % n % n %

Participants’ gender
Male 23 40.4 7 21.9 13 37.1 43 34.7
Female 34 59.6 25 78.1 22 62.9 81 65.3
% of Total 57 46.0 32 25.8 35 28.2 124 100.0
Participants’ age
20–30 years old 1 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8
31–40 years old 2 3.5 2 6.3 2 5.7 6 4.8
41–50 years old 17 29.8 7 21.9 15 42.9 39 31.5
51+ years old 37 64.9 23 71.9 18 51.4 78 62.9
% of Total 57 46.0 32 25.8 35 28.2 124 100.0
Participants’ race
American 1 1.8 2 6.3 4 11.4 7 5.6
Asian American 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Caucasian 54 94.7 25 78.1 30 85.7 109 87.9
Hispanic 0 0.0 3 9.4 0 0.0 3 2.4
Native American 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Biracial 0 0.0 1 3.1 0 0.0 1 0.8
Other 2 3.5 1 3.1 1 2.9 4 3.2
% of Total 57 46.0 32 25.8 35 28.2 124 100.0
Participants’ years in current position
1–2 years 12 21.4 8 25.0 9 25.7 29 23.5
3–5 years 16 28.6 7 21.9 9 25.7 32 26.0
6–10 years 11 19.6 11 34.4 11 31.4 33 26.8
11–20 years 12 21.4 3 9.4 4 11.4 19 15.4
21+ years 5 8.9 3 9.4 2 5.7 10 8.1
% of Total 56 45.5 32 26.0 35 28.5 123 100.0
Participants’ years at institution
1–2 years 7 12.3 5 15.7 5 14.3 17 13.7
3–10 years 27 47.4 18 56.3 16 45.3 61 49.2
11–20 years 14 24.6 4 12.5 10 28.6 28 22.6
21+ years 9 15.8 5 15.6 4 11.4 18 14.5
% of Total 57 46.0 32 25.8 35 28.2 124 100.0
Participants’ years in education
5–10 years 1 1.8 1 3.1 1 2.9 3 2.4
11–15 years 4 7.0 1 3.1 4 11.4 9 7.3
16–20 years 5 8.8 3 9.4 4 11.4 12 9.7
20+ years 47 82.5 27 84.4 26 74.3 100 80.6
% of Total 57 46.0 32 25.8 35 28.2 124 100.0

Note: Percentages represent data reported by category.

and C&I respondents were underrepresented by –4%
(see Table 2). Although this is a limitation, data analysis
and reporting decisions minimize this impact.
Respondents were asked to select what was the primary
mission and/or focus of their IHEs. Respondents indi-
cated their IHEs’ missions or focuses were teaching
(52%), research (24%), liberal arts (19%), or other (5%).
Table 2 presents the demographic information of sur-
vey respondents by gender, age, race, and respondent’s
years in current position, years at current institution, and
years in education. Most respondents in this study were
female (65%) and were in the upper age bracket of 51
years or older (63%). The majority of respondents indi-
cated that they were Caucasian (88%). Most had been in
their current positions from 6 to 10 years (27%), at their
current institutions from 3 to 10 years (49%), and in the
field of education for 20 years or more (81%). Most spe-
cial education faculty members (27%) indicated that they
28 Remedial and Special Education
had been in their current positions from 3 to 5 years. The
sample consisted of specifically identified departmental
faculty with returns from 57 special educators (46%), 32
elementary or secondary educators (26%), and 36 C&I
respondents (28%) for a total of 124 survey respondents.
Instrument
The Preservice Teacher Preparation for Inclusion
Assessment Survey was developed by the principal
researchers in 2004 and was pilot tested with a select
number of IHEs offering teacher-preparation training
programs in Indiana during the 2004 academic year. The
pilot test included reviewer comments regarding face, con-
tent, and construct validity of the assessment survey.
Adjustments were made to the instrument based on feed-
back from the field and results of the pilot data. The
Preservice Teacher Preparation for Inclusion Assessment
Survey design features included the following: (a) Section
I: About This Survey; (b) Section II: Demographics; (c)
Section III: Programming Practices, Expectations, and
Instructional Needs Rating Scale—1. Institutional
Inclusive Educational Programming and 2. Departmental
Expectations Concerning Inclusion Instruction; and (d)
Section IV: Narrative Inquiry. Section III of the instru-
ment used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The survey instrument
was tested for internal consistency, and a Cronbach’s
alpha of .83 was obtained for this study of national higher
education teacher-training institutions.
Procedure
Electronic transfer via e-mail of the survey instrument
was sent to the identified sample of 703 survey partici-
pants during the 2005 academic school year. Participants
were sent an e-mail from the principal researchers
explaining the research project and inviting them to par-
ticipate in the study. Participants were asked to pass the
survey along to the appropriate faculty member as
needed. The e-mail had two “hot button” links to
INQSIT, a software survey package and database. One
link gave informed consent and took study participants
to the Web-based survey. The second survey link allowed
participants to choose not to participate and provided an
explanation as to why they chose not to participate in the
survey. Forty-four e-mails (6.3%) were returned as unde-
liverable (e.g., mailbox full, incorrect address, etc.), and
eight (1.1%) had electronic transfer issues between insti-
tutions’ servers. Twenty-six respondents (3.7%) chose
not to participate with the majority indicating they no
longer taught undergraduate or preservice courses, had
significant time constraints, or were on leave or sabbati-
cal. Collectively, there were 124 electronic surveys
returned that were acceptable for analysis (19% of valid
deliverable e-mails). The initial e-mails were sent during
the spring semester of 2005. There were three follow-up
contacts by e-mail with survey links provided at 4-week
intervals to study nonrespondents. Final survey returns
and data collection occurred in June 2005.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using descriptive and nonpara-
metric inferential statistics. Frequencies and percentages
were used to report demographic data. Means, standard
deviations, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to explore
differences for specific questions by program areas.
Kruskal-Wallis tests used in this study are nonparametric
measures similar to one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) used to explore differences in the response
distribution by mean ranks. Kruskal-Wallis H statistic
has approximately a chi-square distribution under the
null hypothesis and is reported as the chi-square (χ2)
noted in the tables as statistically significant at the p <
.05 level (Norusis, 1994). Qualitative data were reported
by frequencies and percentages of central tendencies for
the instrument’s open-ended questions.
Results
Comparisons of higher education survey participants
on inclusive educational programming are presented in
Table 3 by department or program area. Survey respon-
dents strongly agreed that education majors at their insti-
tutions took an introductory course in special education.
Respondents tended to agree that their IHEs offered field
experiences where preservice teachers could collaborate
across disciplines and majors, and experiences existed
for cross-articulation in teacher education. More neutral
perceptions emerged concerning IHE supports for (a)
time to develop collaborative initiatives and courses
across disciplines and majors, (b) team teaching across
majors and disciplines, and (c) resources to develop col-
laborative initiatives and courses across disciplines and
majors. None of the items in this section was found to
have statistically significant differences in group mean
ranks.
Comparisons of survey participants on departmental
expectations for and experiences with inclusion instruction
are presented in Table 4. This section had three items that
indicated agreement. The respondents reported as impor-
tant the items concerning IHE departments’ providing
 Harvey et al. / Preservice Teacher Preparation 29

Table 3
Higher Education Participants’ Perceptions of Inclusive Educational Programming by Program Area
Elementary/ Curriculum
Special Secondary and
Education Education Instruction

Institutional Inclusive Educational Programming M SD M SD M SD df χ2

1. All education majors take an 4.61 1.06 4.56 0.91 4.69 0.79 2 0.86
introduction course in special education.
2. Courses in education are team taught 2.79 1.38 3.22 1.28 3.06 1.11 2 2.48
across majors and disciplines.
3. Opportunities exist for cross-articulation in teacher 3.49 1.33 3.84 1.27 3.59 1.20 2 1.91
education (e.g., professional development schools,
magnet schools, charter schools).
4. Field experiences offer opportunities for preservice teachers 3.68 1.22 3.88 1.23 4.11 1.02 2 3.18
to collaborate across disciplines and majors.
5. Time is provided to develop collaborative 3.11 1.30 3.47 1.16 3.49 1.22 2 2.29
initiatives and courses across disciplines and majors.
6. Financial resources are provided to develop collaborative 2.70 1.38 3.22 1.12 2.91 1.14 2 3.33
initiatives and courses across disciplines and majors.

Table 4
Higher Education Participants’ Perceptions of Departmental Expectations
Concerning Inclusion Instruction by Program Area
Elementary/ Curriculum
Special Secondary and
Education Education Instruction

Department Expectations Concerning Inclusion Instruction M SD M SD M SD df χ2

1. My department provides coursework in 4.61 0.75 4.41 0.83 4.43 0.97 2 1.88
inclusion and special needs.
2. My department provides a course in collaboration. 4.09 1.29 2.58 1.25 3.34 1.57 2 21.92*
3. My department strongly encourages cross-articulation 3.91 1.00 3.50 1.04 3.82 1.11 2 3.57
in teacher-training programs.
4. My department offers co-taught courses as part of the major. 2.71 1.27 3.03 1.33 3.14 1.12 2 3.18
5. My department provides opportunities for preservice 4.67 0.71 4.34 1.03 4.71 0.57 2 3.63
teachers to work with diverse learners.
6. My department is involved in opportunities for teacher- 3.77 1.32 3.84 1.32 3.94 1.17 2 0.27
education majors (e.g., professional development schools,
magnet schools, charter schools, service learning).
7. My department is involved in other opportunities 4.09 0.96 3.69 1.14 4.03 0.93 2 2.84
for teaching majors.

Note: *p < .001.

opportunities for preservice teachers to work with diverse
learners, departments’ providing coursework in inclusion
and special needs, and departmental involvement in other
opportunities for teaching majors. Although not statisti-
cally significant, in all cases, elementary or secondary edu-
cators rated these items lower than did other groups.
Respondents had more neutral ratings regarding
their departments’ involvement in opportunities for
teacher-education majors, encouragement of cross-
articulation in teacher-training programs, and the
departments’ offering co-taught courses as part of the
major. Statistically significant differences (χ2 = 21.92
significant at the .001 level) were reported concerning
departments offering a course in collaboration within
the major. Special educators tended to agree with this
statement, while elementary or secondary education
respondents indicated less agreement. C&I respon-
dents had ratings that tended to be neutral. This was
the only item found to be statistically significant in this
section.
30 Remedial and Special Education
Table 5
Teacher-Education Inclusion Courses Offered
at Institutions of Higher Education
Teacher-Education
Inclusion Course n % % of Total
Intro to exceptional child/SPCED 51 35
Inclusion/inclusive classrooms 38 26
Curriculum/methods/instruction 17 12
Collaboration 15 10
Diverse learners 13 9 92
Assessment/planning 4 3
Classroom management 4 3
Interventions 3 2
Total 145 100
Note: Percentages represent data reported by category.
Respondents were given an opportunity to provide addi-
tional information concerning “other opportunities” avail-
able to teaching majors regarding involvement in inclusion
instruction. The respondents indicated that field place-
ments and internships, service learning, and partnerships
with outside agencies were leading examples of other
departmental opportunities for inclusion experiences.
Analysis from the Narrative Inquiry section regarding
the current status of preservice teacher preparation, pro-
gram practices, and instructional needs in the area of inclu-
sion in preservice teacher education provided an overview
of respondents’ perceptions. When asked to identify spe-
cific courses offered to teacher-education majors concern-
ing inclusion at their IHEs, respondents most often
identified introduction courses in exceptional children or
special needs and inclusion or inclusive classrooms (see
Table 5). Respondents also identified courses in curriculum
methods or instruction, collaboration, and diverse learners.
Respondents were asked to identify specific field
experiences offered at their IHEs to teacher-education
majors concerning inclusion. Respondents most often
identified field experiences in inclusive classroom set-
tings, special education settings, and practicum and/or
student-teaching placements. Interestingly, 11% of the
respondents indicated that no specific field experiences
concerning inclusion were offered to preservice teaching
majors at their institutions.
The researchers were interested in co-taught (general
education and special education) classes offered for
teacher-education majors at IHEs. The majority of
respondents (70%) indicated that co-taught classes were
not offered at their institutions. Examples of co-taught
experiences to teacher-education majors at IHEs were
courses in methods, strategies and/or curriculum, semi-
nars, and assessment or planning classes.
Respondents indicated that their IHEs could better
facilitate cross-articulation and training efforts concern-
ing inclusion for preservice teacher-education programs
by coordinating course requirements, by providing more
faculty awareness of special education and collaboration,
and by providing more experiences in special education.
35
In addition, respondents noted that more resources,
61
73 money, time, and co-teaching opportunities would assist
83 their efforts concerning inclusion for preservice teacher-
education majors.
95
98
100 Discussion
100
This study was an exploratory investigation using a
national sample of faculty members’ perceptions of pre-
service teacher-training efforts in inclusion and collabora-
tion for IHE teacher-education majors. Findings provide a
framework for ongoing investigation of future training
needs and collaborative transdepartmental efforts focused
on developing “best practices” in meeting the challenges
of inclusion under NCLB and IDEA. The results have
implications for program services, future coursework, and
collaboration initiatives among elementary education, sec-
ondary education, C&I, and special education programs or
departments in IHEs for preservice teacher education.
This study adds to and supports program development
regarding key findings from the literature.
Respondents to the study reported several positives in
current practice in the area of teacher preparation at the
preservice level concerning inclusion. There was signifi-
cant agreement that institutions were offering coursework
to preservice teacher-education majors regarding excep-
tional children and/or special education across all depart-
ments or program areas and that students were taking
introductory courses in this area. In addition, respondents
indicated that field experiences offered opportunities for
preservice teachers at their IHEs to collaborate across dis-
ciplines and majors. Respondents also noted that oppor-
tunities were provided for preservice teacher educators to
work with diverse learners through their departments or
programs and that majors have other opportunities (e.g.,
service learning, professional-development schools, char-
ter schools) made available to them. These findings indi-
cate that IHEs have made an effort to address concerns
reported in the literature (Kearney & Durand, 1992; Reed
& Monda-Amaya, 1995).
We found that there were areas of promising practices
and potential opportunities for growth concerning col-
laboration across teacher-education majors. Respondents
seemed in agreement that their departments strongly encour-
age cross-articulation in teacher-education programs and

Table 6
Higher Education Cross-Articulation
and Training Improvements for Preservice
Teacher-Education Programs
Cross-Articulation and
Training Improvements n % % of Total
Coordinate course requirements 19 22
More faculty awareness of SPCED/ 19 22
collaboration
More experience with special 15 17
education
Resources/money/time 12 14
Co-teaching opportunities 10 11
More staff to offer more courses 8 9
None 4 5
Total 87 100
Note: Percentages represent data reported by category.
that opportunities existed for cross-articulation in
teacher education. While these finding were not solidly
in the agreement range (M = 4.00), they certainly indi-
cate that IHEs in this study support the basic principles
of cross-articulation in teacher education and are expos-
ing preservice teacher educators in special education,
elementary education, secondary education, and C&I
majors to these experiences. IHEs can use this informa-
tion to facilitate broader and richer cross-articulated
experiences among departments and programs to train
preservice teacher educators in inclusion, as suggested
by Smith and Edelen-Smith (2002). In addition, these
findings suggest that transdepartmental training efforts
in collaboration and inclusion could facilitate more pos-
itive interactions among departments and could be bene-
ficial as preservice teachers enter school systems that are
embracing co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 2007) and
response-to-intervention (RTI) (Bender & Shores, 2007)
delivery models.
The data identify several potential areas of need con-
cerning cross-articulation, team teaching, co-taught
courses, and resources in developing opportunities for
teacher training in inclusion and collaboration. There was
concern that some IHE departments did not provide a
course specifically in collaboration for preservice teacher-
education majors (see Table 4), as identified by Voltz and
Elliott (1997). Special educators indicated that course-
work in collaboration was provided, whereas C&I respon-
dents and elementary or secondary educators indicated
that collaboration courses were not necessarily part of a
teacher-education major’s course of study. Respondents
generally had neutral ratings that courses in education
were team taught across majors or that their departments
Harvey et al. / Preservice Teacher Preparation 31
offered co-taught classes as part of the major. Of those
who responded to the open-ended question (n = 82) con-
cerning co-taught classes offered at their IHEs, 70%
reported that their IHEs offered no teacher-education co-
taught classes.
To develop better offerings, respondents identified the
need for time to develop collaborative initiatives and
22
courses across disciplines or majors and for financial
44
resources to support these activities. Findings from
61 open-ended inquiry support the concerns related to
resources, money, time, and co-teaching opportunities.
75 Finally, respondents explicitly stated their IHEs needed
86 to coordinate course requirements, provide more faculty
95
100
awareness of special education and collaboration, and
100 offer more experiences with special education (see Table
6). These suggestions would facilitate improvement in
program opportunities designed to address inclusive and
collaborative practices across teacher-education majors
and departments within higher education.
The findings reported here bridge the gap between
past research concerning teacher training and inclusion
(e.g., Kearney & Durand, 1992) and current challenges
articulated in NCLB and IDEA mandates (e.g., AYP,
evidence-based practice, HQ, etc.). The results provide a
baseline with regard to IHE teacher training and inclu-
sion current practices and identified needs. The findings
serve as a call to the field restating the need for contin-
ued research of preservice training opportunities in
inclusion and collaboration. These efforts will help focus
evidence-based best practices and aid in building RTI
and co-teaching systems. Additional investigation is
needed in this area.
Limitations
The findings offer insight into current practice and
issues with preservice teacher-education programs
regarding inclusion and collaboration efforts from a
national sample. The reader is cautioned to view these
findings in light of the following limitations: (a) the time
factor, as this study was conducted in 2005 and new and
pressing issues have emerged as we continue to struggle
with reform, research to practice, fidelity, and evolving
models of delivery (e.g., RTI and co-teaching); (b) the
limited return rate; (c) the nonresponse from nine states;
and (d) the many ratings in the neutral range (M = 2.52–
3.48) with a standard deviation indicating wide variance
within respondent groups. The study should be consid-
ered exploratory. Nonresponse was an issue even with
proactive follow-up to survey participants three times
over a 3-month period. The researchers speculate that it
may have been poor timing to e-mail and electronically
32 Remedial and Special Education
transfer survey research materials in the later part of the
spring semester and into early summer given the busy
time before spring graduation and the fact that many fac-
ulty may have been going on summer break. In addition,
the volume of e-mail that faculty receive may have been
an issue. This request for participation in a nonrelated
research project may have been seen as “just one more
thing” by some faculty members.
Even with the limitations noted, this research con-
tributes to the literature supporting key issues identified by
others (Kearney & Durand, 1992; Reed & Monda-Amaya,
1995; Smith & Edelen-Smith, 2002). In addition, the find-
ings provide more recent baseline data from a national
level to engage the field in further discussion of preservice
teacher training for inclusion and collaboration.
Transdepartmental collaborative efforts to provide oppor-
tunities for effective inclusive practice can facilitate the
mandates articulated by NCLB and IDEA for student
achievement as well as guide efforts for RTI implementa-
tion and effective collaborative practice.
Recommendations
The findings and recommendations of this exploratory
national study support those articulated by other
researchers (Carey, 1999; Reed & Monda-Amaya, 1995;
Smith & Edelen-Smith, 2002; Voltz & Elliot, 1997).
To more effectively train preservice teachers in col-
laboration and inclusion, preservice teacher-education
programs and majors should develop a shared vision of
program practice and philosophy, establish an integrated
program, provide opportunities for special education and
general education to work collaboratively on preservice
training activities and opportunities, and design a struc-
tured, comprehensive training program for teaching
majors at the IHEs.
These opportunities should be supported by adequate
resources (time, money, staffing, etc.) and should be part
of a comprehensive program of teacher education sup-
ported horizontally and vertically by all stakeholders in
IHEs of teacher education.
Establishing this type of program for teacher-education
majors has the potential to move teacher education
toward producing preservice teacher educators prepared
to teach all students in inclusive settings, meeting the
needs of an inclusive and collaborative model of delivery
as articulated in both RTI and co-teaching initiatives.
This type of comprehensive program has the potential
to assist educators in meeting the goals of NCLB con-
cerning HQ teachers and AYP. Also, the goal concerning
student achievement in IDEA could be more readily
realized with the development and implementation of
this type of integrated teacher-education model at the
higher education level.
References
Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (2007). Response to intervention: A
practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L.
(2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation:
A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of
Special Education, 38, 242–252.
Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M.
(2004). Moving toward inclusive practices. Remedial and Special
Education, 25, 104–116.
Carey, L. K. (1999). Inclusion training for pre-service teachers: From
theory to best classroom practice. BC Journal of Special
Education, 21, 52–58.
Cheney, D., & Barringer, C. (1995). Teacher competence, student
diversity, and staff training for the inclusion of middle school
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 174–182.
The College Blue Book (30th ed.). (2003). New York: Macmillan.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for
school professionals (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C.
§ 400 et seq. (2004).
Kearney, C. A., & Durand, V. M. (1992). How prepared are our
teachers for mainstreamed classroom settings? A survey of post-
secondary schools of education in New York State. Exceptional
Children, 59(1), 6–11.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for
research activities. Educational Psychological Measurement, 30,
607–610.
Little, M. E., & Robinson, S. M. (1997). Renovating and refurbishing
the field experience structures for novice teachers. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30, 433–441.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, 1425
Stat. (2002).
Norusis, M. J. (1994). SPSS 6.1 base system user’s guide, part 2.
Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Reed, F., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (1995). Preparing pre-service gen-
eral educators for inclusion: A survey of teacher preparation pro-
grams in Illinois. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18,
262–274.
Shippen, M. E., Crites, S. A., Houchins, D. E., Ramsey, M. L., &
Simon, M. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of including
students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education,
29(2), 92–99.
Smith, G. J., & Edelen-Smith, P. J. (2002). The nature of people:
Renewing teacher education as a shared responsibility within col-
leges and schools of education. Remedial and Special Education,
23, 335–348.
Stayton, V. D., & McCollum, J. (2002). Unifying general and special
education: What does the research tell us? Teacher Education and
Special Education, 25(3), 211–218.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind:
A desktop reference. Jessup, MD: Education Publications
Center.
Voltz, D. L., & Elliott, R. N. (1997). Collaborative teacher role in
facilitating inclusion: Pre-service preparation for general and spe-
cial education. The Teacher Educator, 33, 44–60.
Michael W. Harvey, PhD, is an associate professor of special
education and director of the doctoral program at Ball State
University. His research interests include transition and post-
school outcomes, special education policy, and special education
administration.
Harvey et al. / Preservice Teacher Preparation 33
Nina Yssel, PhD, is an associate professor of special education at Ball
State University. Her research interests include twice exceptional
children, teacher education, and inclusive education.
Adam D. Bauserman, MA, is a doctoral candidate at Ball State
University. His research interests include transition and postschool
outcomes in the area of emotional disabilities.
John B. Merbler, PhD, is a professor of special education and chair-
person of the Department of Special Education at Ball State
University. His research interests include special education policy,
technology, and visual impairments.