What Are High-Leverage Practices for Special Education Teachers and Why Are They Important?

Abstract

Improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities and others who struggle in school largely depends on teachers who can deliver effective instruction. Although many effective practices have been identified to address the academic and behavioral needs of students who struggle in school, including those with disabilities, these practices are not used extensively in classrooms. This article provides a rationale for and description of major changes that are occurring in teacher preparation programs that are designed to improve the practice of beginning teachers. This is followed by a description of a set of high-leverage practices that was recently approved by the Council for Exceptional Children. These practices represent an initial attempt to delineate a core curriculum for special education teacher preparation to support the changes that are occurring in teacher education.

Keywords

change/innovation effective practice personnel preparation staff development/inservice

Teachers currently face unprecedented demands for educating a diverse range of students to high levels of performance, as all students are expected to exit high school prepared for college or a career. To reach this challenging goal, teachers must be prepared to use practices that have been shown to be effective in improving student performance. This is especially important for students who historically have struggled to meet achievement standards, including those from high poverty backgrounds and students with disabilities (Baker et al., 2014; McLeskey et al., 2017; National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2015; National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2015). In addition, effective teachers must balance a focus on academic learning with skills in responding to students’ social/emotional and behavioral needs (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2010).

More than anything else, improving educational outcomes for students who struggle in school depends on providing teachers who can deliver effective instructional practice (Ball & Forzani, 2011). Although many effective practices have been identified to address the academic and behavioral needs of students who struggle in school, including those with disabilities, extensive use of these practices in classrooms is not common, even among experienced teachers (Cook, Cook, & Landrum, 2013). While this research-to-practice gap has been widely discussed in the professional literature in special education (e.g., Cook & Odom, 2013), very limited attention has been given to the influence of how teachers are prepared to use these practices, either during initial teacher preparation or as part of professional learning for practicing teachers (Bryk, 2009; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008).

Over the last decade, a growing group of teacher education scholars from across disciplines (including mathematics, reading, science, and special education) have recommended major changes in how teachers are prepared that are intended to improve the practice of beginning teachers (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; McLeskey & Brownell, 2015; Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012). These scholars have emphasized the need to identify a limited number of effective teaching practices that all teachers should learn to use, and determine methods for systematically preparing candidates to use these practices.

In the sections that follow, we describe and provide a rationale for the changes in teacher preparation that are being proposed, and discuss why these changes show promise for improving special education teachers’ use of effective practices. We then describe a set of high-leverage practices (HLPs) recently approved by the Council for Exceptional Children that represent an initial attempt to delineate a core curriculum for special education teacher preparation that supports this new direction. Finally, we discuss articles that follow in this special issue, which address some of the critical issues that must be attended to as teacher education and professional development are redesigned to support candidates as they learn to use effective practices in classrooms.

Why Center Teacher Preparation in Clinical Practice?

A general consensus has emerged among scholars in teacher education that most teacher preparation programs are not organized and structured to systematically support candidates in learning to use effective practices in classrooms (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman et al., 2009; McLeskey & Brownell, 2015; Windschitl et al., 2012). To support this contention, they point out that the majority of time and effort in teacher preparation programs is typically spent talking about teaching and effective practices, rather than preparing candidates to use effective practices in the classroom. This is reflected in the disconnect between coursework and field experiences in most preparation programs. While some programs have begun to address this shortcoming by increasing the amount of time candidates spend in schools (Clift & Brady, 2005; Zeichner, 2010), connections between methods courses and clinical experiences have remained very limited or nonexistent in most teacher preparation programs (Forzani, 2014; Grossman et al., 2009; McLeskey & Brownell, 2015).

Given this disconnect between coursework and field experiences, the specific practices that candidates learn to use during their preparation programs are largely left to chance. As Grossman and McDonald (2008) have pointed out, “university-based teacher educators leave the development of pedagogical skill in the interactive aspects of teaching almost entirely to field experiences, the component of professional education over which we have the least control” (p. 189). Therefore, candidates in most preparation programs learn to use practices primarily because they happen to encounter them in field settings or because of the particular expertise of their supervising teachers. There is thus no guarantee that these practices are learned well, or that they are the most important or effective practices that candidates should learn to use (McLeskey & Brownell, 2015).

The NCATE (2010) addressed these issues in a position statement that strongly supports making substantial changes in teacher preparation. This group took the position that teacher education should be turned upside down and centered in clinical practice. They further stated that

teacher education must shift away from a norm which emphasizes academic preparation and course work loosely linked to school-based experiences. Rather, it must move to programs that are fully grounded in clinical practice and interwoven with academic content and professional courses. This demanding, clinically based approach will create varied and extensive opportunities for candidates to connect what they learn with the challenge of using it, while under the expert tutelage of skilled clinical educators. (NCATE, 2010, p. ii)

More recently, the successor to NCATE, the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) has enacted these recommendations as part of revised standards for approving teacher preparation programs. These CAEP (2013) Accreditation Standards for Educator Preparation place high-quality clinical practice at the center of teacher preparation (see Note 1). More specifically, in Standard 2, Clinical Partnerships and Practice, CAEP requires teacher preparation programs to ensure “that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P–12 students’ learning and development” (p. 6).

In response to these changing expectations, teacher education is “undergoing a major shift . . . toward specifying teaching practices” (McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanaugh, 2013, p. 378) and systematically preparing candidates to use these practices in classrooms (McLeskey & Brownell, 2015). These ideas rely, at least in part, on research related to the acquisition of expertise in other professions (Ericsson, 2006; Ericsson & Pool, 2016). This research has revealed that to develop professional expertise, a deliberate and systematic approach to instruction is required, which is designed to improve performance on specific tasks that can then be integrated into representative performance. Practice that supports the acquisition of expertise should focus on clear goals, offer repeated opportunities for deliberate practice, and include feedback or coaching about the quality of the practice (Feltovice, Prietula, & Ericsson, 2006).

As educators have begun to identify core practices, they have focused on determining those that have the “highest leverage” for increasing the capacity of novice teachers to improve student outcomes and reach ambitious learning goals (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015; Forzani, 2014; McLeskey & Brownell, 2015). These practices have thus been called HLPs, and can be defined as those practices that are essential to effective teaching and fundamental to supporting student learning. In the following section, we describe a set of HLPs for special education teachers that was recently approved by the Board of Directors of the Council for Exceptional Children.

HLPs for Special Education Teachers

While most professions have developed lists of knowledge and competencies or skills related to teacher preparation, the knowledge base for skilled teaching practice is largely underdeveloped (Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002). Furthermore, the preparation of candidates in many teacher preparation programs is not informed by the knowledge base on teacher and student learning, but instead is left to “the past experiences, skills and worldviews of (the candidates’) instructors and cooperating teachers” (Windschitl et al., 2012, p. 879). To address these shortcomings, scholars in a range of disciplines have begun to identify essential practices that are intended to provide a clear focus for teacher preparation (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman et al., 2009; Windschitl et al., 2012).

Given the need to improve academic and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities, it is particularly important to develop a set of HLPs for special education teachers (McLeskey & Brownell, 2015). An examination of HLPs that have been developed in other disciplines, including elementary education (Davis & Boerst, 2014) and core practices for all educators (TeachingWorks, n.d.), reveals that these HLPs do not address the skills effective special educators use to deliver intensive, specialized instruction (Riccomini, Morano, & Hughes, 2017) and effective behavioral supports (Sugai, Simonsen, Bradshaw, Horner, & Lewis, 2014) that are often needed to support students with disabilities. There is thus a need to develop a set of HLPs that address the practice of effective special education teachers.

In July 2016, the Board of Directors of the Council for Exceptional Children approved a set of HLPs for special education teachers in Grades K–12. These 22 HLPs are included in Table 1, and address practices related to collaboration, assessment, social/emotional/behavior, and instruction (for a more extensive description of each of the HLPs, including research and policy support for these practices, see McLeskey et al., 2017). The following sections provide information regarding how the HLPs were developed and a description of the criteria that were used to identify these practices. This is followed by a brief discussion of considerations related to the use of these HLPs as the core curriculum for teacher preparation.

Table 1.

High-Leverage Practices for K–12 Special Education Teachers (CEC, 2017).

Practice type	Practice
Collaboration	1. Collaborate with professionals to increase student success
	2. Organize and facilitate effective meetings with professionals and families
	3. Collaborate with families to support student learning and secure needed services
Assessment	4. Use multiple sources of information to develop a comprehensive understanding of a student’s strengths and needs
	5. Interpret and communicate assessment information with stakeholders to collaboratively design and implement educational programs
	6. Use student assessment data, analyze instructional practices, and make necessary adjustments that improve student outcomes
Social/emotional/behavioral	7. Establish a consistent, organized, and respectful learning environment
	8. Teachers provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students’ learning and behavior (behavior focus)
	9. Teach social behaviors
	10. Conduct functional behavioral assessments to develop individual student behavior support plans
Instruction	11. Identify and prioritize long- and short-term learning goals
	12. Systematically design instruction toward a specific learning goal
	13. Adapt curriculum tasks and materials for specific learning goals
	14. Teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to support learning and independence
	15. Provide scaffolded supports
	16. Use explicit instruction
	17. Use flexible grouping
	18. Use strategies to promote active student engagement
	19. Use assistive and instructional technologies
	20. Teach students to maintain and generalize new learning across time and settings
	21. Provide intensive instruction
	22. Teachers provide positive and constructive feedback to guide students’ learning and behavior (learning focus)

Development of HLPs for K–12 Special Education Teachers

The Council for Exceptional Children, in collaboration with the Teacher Education Division of CEC and the CEEDAR Center at the University of Florida, appointed a HLP Writing Team in the fall of 2014. The purpose of this group’s work was

to provide those involved in special education teacher preparation and professional development with a set of HLPs that were identified through consensus among special educators. These HLPs may be used to design a cohesive set of practice-based opportunities to support teacher candidates and practicing teachers in learning to put this know-how to use on behalf of the complex learners they teach. (McLeskey et al., 2017, p. 11)

The HLP Writing Team initially met in January 2015, determined a tentative structure for the HLPs (i.e., the practices would address collaboration, assessment, social/emotional/behavioral, and instruction), agreed upon criteria for selection of the HLPs, and generated a list of almost 40 practices. As this work was done, the HLP Writing Team kept in mind a particular conception of an effective special education teacher. These teachers were viewed as

flexible problem solvers who not only have expertise in using highly effective practices, but also must be highly proficient in monitoring the effectiveness of these practices with individual students and making decisions regarding changes in practice as they are needed. This routine analysis of practice and its impact on important student outcomes is foundational for effective special education teachers. Furthermore, given the disproportionate number of students with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds, special education teachers must have expertise in delivering instruction and behavioral interventions in a culturally responsive manner. (McLeskey et al., 2017, p. 8)

Over the ensuing year, the HLP Writing Team sought feedback regarding draft lists of HLPs through focus groups, conference presentations, surveys, and meetings with stakeholder groups that primarily included special education teachers, administrators, and teacher educators. Throughout these activities, attempts were made to include professionals who had experience and expertise related to the full range of students with varying disabilities to ensure that the HLPs were applicable for all special education teachers in Grades K–12.

The HLP Writing Team subsequently met several times to consider the feedback that had been provided, and made substantial changes in the list of HLPs. The HLP Writing team met in January 2016 and developed a final draft that included 22 practices. Minor changes were made in this list based on further feedback from stakeholders and a meeting with the Representative Assembly of CEC in April 2016. The final list of HLPs was then approved by the CEC Board of Directors in July 2016.

Criteria for Developing the HLPs

The HLP Writing Team leaned heavily on the work of scholars in teacher education to determine the criteria that were used to identify the HLPs for special education teachers. As the criteria in Table 2 indicate, HLPs must be applicable and important to the work of teachers. This includes practices that are frequently used in the classroom and that have high potential for improving student outcomes. These practices must represent the essence of effective practice for special education teachers. HLPs must also be applicable and important to teacher education, in that novices can learn them and they can be taught to a reasonable level of proficiency during the course of teacher preparation. To ensure that this occurs, the number of HLPs must be limited in number (i.e., around 20) so that sufficient time is available to prepare candidates to use these practices in classrooms.

Table 2.

Criteria for Identifying High-Leverage Practices.

Applicable and important to	Criterion
Everyday work of teachers	Focus directly on instructional practice
	Occur with high frequency in teaching
	Research-based and known to foster important kinds of student engagement and learning
	Broadly applicable and usable in any content area or approach to teaching
	So important that skillfully executing them is fundamental to effective teaching
Teacher education	Limited in number (about 20) for a teacher education program
	Can be articulated and taught
	Novices can begin to master
	Can be practiced across university and field-based settings
	Grain size (i.e., how detailed should the practice be) is small enough to be clearly visible in practice but large enough to preserve the integrity and complexity of teaching
	System (or group of HLP) considerations
	Embody a broader theory regarding the relationship between teaching and learning than would individual practices
	Support more comprehensive student learning goals (the whole is more than the sum of its parts)

Source. Ball, Sleep, Boerst, and Bass (2009); Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald (2009); McDonald, Kazemi, and Kavanaugh (2013); Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, and Stroupe (2012).

Note. HLP = high-leverage practice.

In addition to these criteria, the selection of HLPs was guided by the previously described conception of an effective special education teacher. This included the perspective that the role of special education teachers included activities that were important to improving student outcomes related to collaboration (e.g., working with other professionals to improve student outcomes), assessment (e.g., formative assessment to guide instructional decision making), social/emotional/behavior (e.g., establishing a consistent, organized, respectful learning environment), and instruction (e.g., using explicit instruction). The HLPs were also selected to ensure that they would be largely complementary, and provide a foundation for effective practice for a special education teacher that could be built upon as professional learning and growth occurred during the early years of practice.

Further Considerations Regarding HLPs for Special Education Teachers

We offer four additional considerations to provide a context for using HLPs as the core curriculum for teacher preparation programs. These include the following:

It is important to note that these practices are not all that is required for effective teaching. Knowledge is required as a foundation for learning to use HLPs. This includes both knowledge related to effective practices and knowledge of the content being taught (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Lane, 2014; VanDerHeyden & Allsopp, 2014). However, this knowledge is best learned if it is closely coupled with opportunities to use knowledge in practice.

Given the unpredictable nature of classrooms, effective teachers must learn to respond to unexpected events using judgment and improvization. What learning to use HLPs does is provide candidates with a foundation of critical effective practices that can be used consistently to improve student outcomes and build teacher confidence as they develop as professionals. They then learn to use teacher judgment as needed based on the ongoing collection of formative assessment data, experience in the classroom, and careful observation of how their responses influence student outcomes.

As the HLPs were developed, it was assumed that they would be delivered based on teacher knowledge of culturally responsive practice (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). This perspective was included in the previously described conception of an effective special education teacher that helped guide the development of the HLPs, and is also reflected in the preface to each of the four areas that provide a structure for the HLPs (i.e., collaboration, assessment, social/behavior/emotional practices, and instruction). For example, the preface to the instruction section notes that effective special education teachers “value diverse perspectives and incorporate knowledge about students’ backgrounds, culture, and language in their instructional decisions” (McLeskey et al., 2017, p. 17). Given the disproportional representation of students from high poverty settings and different cultural and language backgrounds who are identified with disabilities (Klingner et al., 2016; U.S. Department of Education, 2016), knowledge and use of culturally responsive practices is essential to ensuring the effective use of HLPs to meet the needs of all students with disabilities.

The set of HLPs for special education teachers should be considered as a sound starting point, and should remain open to criticism and empirical evaluation by the field. More specifically, these HLPs should be collectively owned, critically evaluated, and refined by teacher educators, researchers, and practitioners through systematic research and development activities that always consider evidence of increased student learning or improved behavior outcomes as the ultimate criterion for effectiveness. The HLPs should thus evolve over time, as research addresses their utility and effectiveness as a core curriculum for teacher preparation.

Discussion

This article provides a rationale for changes that are being proposed in teacher education, and why these changes may improve special education teachers’ use of effective practices in classrooms. A set of HLPs for special education teachers that was recently developed by the Council for Exceptional Children was briefly described. The use of a set of practices as the core curriculum for teacher education coupled with centering teacher preparation in clinical practice are substantial changes that offer teacher educators the opportunity to re-imagine special education teacher preparation in ways that improve teacher practice. While the development of a set of HLPs is a starting point, we have much to learn regarding how to best support novices as they learn to use these practices in classrooms.

In this special issue, we address critical issues related to the changes that are occurring in teacher education that are aimed at better preparing teachers to use effective practices in the classroom. The next article by Brownell and colleagues describes a continuum of pedagogies that may be used from college classrooms to K–12 settings to support candidates as they learn to use effective practices, and addresses what we currently know and what we need to learn about how to use these practices effectively. This is followed by an article by Maheady and colleagues that addresses the substantial changes that must occur in the relationship between teacher education programs and local schools to support the preparation of preservice teachers in using effective practices. Billingsley and colleagues then address the implications of the use of HLPs as a core curriculum for both teacher preparation and professional development to provide a seamless system of professional learning for teachers from initial preparation through induction and continued professional learning. The special issue then concludes with a brief commentary regarding work that Mark Windschitl and his colleagues have been involved in related to the development and use of HLPs to support practice-based preparation of science teachers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Aronson

Laughter

(2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86, 163–205.

Baker

Lesaux

Jayanthi

Dimino

Proctor

C. P.

Morris

. . . Newman-Gonchar

(2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx

Ball

D. L.

Forzani

(2009). The work of teaching and the challenge of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497–511.

Ball

D. L.

Forzani

(2011). Building a common core for learning to teach: And connecting professional learning to practice. American Educator, 35, 17–21, 38–39.

Ball

D. L.

Sleep

Boerst

Bass

(2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109, 458–476.

Ball

D. L.

Thames

M. H.

Phelps

(2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.

Bryk

(2009). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23–30.

Bryk

Gomez

Grunow

LeMahieu

(2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Clift

Brady

(2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

(Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Cook

Landrum

(2013). Moving research into practice: Can we make dissemination stick? Exceptional Children, 79, 163–180.

11.

Cook

Odom

(2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–144.

12.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards. Washington, DC: Author.

13.

Davis

Boerst

(2014). Designing elementary teacher education to prepare well-started beginners. Ann Arbor, MI: TeachingWorks. Retrieved from http://www.teachingworks.org/support-resources/keeping-current/working-papers

14.

Ericsson

(2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In Ericsson

Charness

Feltovich

Hoffman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685–705). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Ericsson

Pool

(2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

16.

Feltovice

Prietula

Ericsson

(2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In Ericsson

Charness

Feltovich

Hoffman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 41–67). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Forzani

(2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 357–368.

18.

Grossman

Hammerness

McDonald

(2009). Redefining teaching: Re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 273–290.

19.

Grossman

McDonald

(2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184–205.

20.

Hiebert

Gallimore

Stigler

J. W.

(2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.

21.

Klingner

J. K.

Brownell

M. T.

Mason

L. H.

Sindelar

P. T.

Benedict

A. E.

Griffin

G. G.

. . . Park

(2016). Teaching students with special needs in the new millennium. In Gitomer

Bell

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 639–717). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

22.

Lane

(2014). Evidence-based reading instruction for grades K-5 (Document No. IC-12). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

23.

McDonald

Kazemi

Kavanaugh

(2013). Core practices of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 378–386.

24.

McLeskey

Barringer

Billingsley

Brownell

Jackson

Kennedy

. . . Ziegler

(2017). High leverage practices in special education: The final report of the HLP Writing Team. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform. Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/portfolio/ccsc-2017-high-leverage-practices/

25.

McLeskey

Billingsley

(2008). How does the stability of the teaching force influence the research-to-practice gap? A perspective on the teacher shortage in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 293–305.

26.

McLeskey

Brownell

(2015). High-leverage practices and teacher preparation in special education (Document No. PR-1). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/best-practice-review/

27.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015). The nation’s report card. Retrieved from https://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/groups?grade=4

28.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2015). Achievement gaps. Retrieved http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/

29.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

30.

Riccomini

Morano

Hughes

(2017). Big ideas in special education: Specially designed instruction, high-leverage practices, explicit instruction, and intensive instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50, 20–27.

31.

Sugai

Simonsen

Bradshaw

Horner

Lewis

(2014). Delivering high quality school-side positive behavior support in inclusive schools. In McLeskey

Waldron

Spooner

Algozzine

(Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools: Research and practice (pp. 306–321). New York, NY: Routledge.

32.

TeachingWorks. (n.d.). High-leverage practices. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. Retrieved from http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/high-leverage-practices

33.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Thirty-eighth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Parts B and C. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2016/parts-b-c/index.html

34.

VanDerHeyden

Allsopp

(2014). Innovation configuration for mathematics (Document No. IC-6). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration/

35.

Windschitl

Thompson

Braaten

Stroupe

(2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878–903.

36.

Zeichner

(2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89–99.