See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326505401

Simulated Individualized Education Program Meetings: Valuable

Pedagogy Within a Preservice Special Educator Program

Article  in  Teacher Education and Special Education The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children · July 2018
DOI: 10.1177/0888406418788920

CITATION READS

1 402

4 authors, including:

Tracy Gershwin Mueller Lori Peterson

University of Northern Colorado University of Northern Colorado
23 PUBLICATIONS   335 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Postsecondary goal achievement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tracy Gershwin Mueller on 31 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

788920
research-article2018
TESXXX10.1177/0888406418788920Teacher Education and Special EducationMueller et al.

Original Article
Teacher Education and Special Education
1­–18
Simulated Individualized © 2018 Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children
Education Program Meetings: Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Valuable Pedagogy Within a DOI: 10.1177/0888406418788920
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418788920
journals.sagepub.com/home/tes
Preservice Special Educator
Program

Tracy Gershwin Mueller1, Aimee Massafra1 ,

Jason Robinson1, and Lori Peterson1

Abstract
Research about Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting outcomes indicates special
educators are unprepared and uncertain about practices designed to encourage meaningful
IEP team participation. In response to these challenges, we crafted a simulated IEP (SIEP)
project for preservice special education teachers as part of their licensure program. Using
research-based simulation guidelines, preservice special education teachers were required to
prepare, participate, and debrief with IEP team member volunteers and professors about the
process. To evaluate the social validity of the SIEP project, we conducted qualitative interviews
with 60 graduates of the program. Findings revealed five major themes that highlight value
in the experience, including (a) valuable preparation for the future, (b) practical application
of educational theory, (c) a safe space to learn and make mistakes, (d) real-world practice
collaborating as a team, and (e) an opportunity to gain meaningful feedback. Following the
presentation of themes, we discuss implications for practice and future research.

Keywords
Individualized Education Program meeting preparation, simulated learning, preservice special
educator preparation, family–professional partnerships, collaboration

One major hallmark within the Individuals Notably, one of the most common barriers to
With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) parent participation at IEP meetings includes
includes regulations specific to the develop- the behaviors of special education profession-
ment of a child’s Individualized Education als, namely the special education teacher (Bez-
Program (IEP) designed to provide the student dek, Summers, & Turnbull, 2010; Hilton &
a free and appropriate public education Henderson, 1993). Numerous researchers note
(FAPE). Within these guidelines lies a specific that special educators use excessive jargon/
focus on the creation of an IEP that is designed acronyms, exhibit “power over parent”
to meet the student’s unique needs, in collabo- behaviors at IEP meetings, demonstrate
­
ration with designated IEP team members,
especially the parent (IDEA 2004, Section 1
University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, USA
1414(d)(1)(B)). Despite multiple IDEA reau-
thorizations that aimed to strengthen the parent Corresponding Author:
Tracy Gershwin Mueller, University of Northern
role (1990, 1997, 2004), multiple barriers to Colorado, 501 20th Street, Campus Box 141, Greeley,
parent involvement during the IEP meeting CO 80639, USA.
continue to exist. Email: [email protected]
2 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

d­isproportionate and heightened focus on education practice in schools. Of note, not

paperwork rather than parent involvement, and only is parent participation at IEP meetings an
exclude parents during IEP meeting discussions important component of IDEA but it is also
(see Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014; Elbaum, identified as a predictor of student post-school
Blatz, & Rodriguez, 2016; Fish, 2008; Martin, employment success (Test et al., 2009). Given
Huber-Marshall, & Sale, 2004; Salas, 2004; the already identified barriers to meaningful
Stoner et al., 2005). Unfortunately, researchers IEP meetings, it seems almost necessary for
have gathered enough data to support the notion preservice programs to provide opportunities
that educator practice and IDEA regulations to learn and practice implementing effective
focus more on the parents physically attending IEP meeting strategies before entering the
the IEP meeting, rather than actually participat- field. Furthermore, despite parent trainings
ing in a meaningful way (Wolfe & Durán, 2013; directed toward increasing parent involve-
Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014). Consequently, further ment at IEP meetings, researchers point out
studies highlight parent distrust, poor commu- that parent advocacy and involvement are
nication, strained relationships, and conflict likely to increase as a result of facilitative
between the educators and parents, including educator practice (Goldman & Burke, 2017).
overwhelming numbers of potentially prevent- Thus, it behooves candidates to generate
able due process hearings (Feinberg, Beyer, & meaningful IEP meeting practice opportuni-
Moses, 2002; Lake & Billingsley, 2000). ties. Because IEP meetings are dependent on
This exclusion and lack of parent participa- an actual student and IEP team composition,
tion in IEP meetings is not due to a lack of one promising practice designed to potentially
research-based guidance (Henderson & Mapp, address this challenge includes the use of sim-
2002). On the contrary, many of these chal- ulated IEP (SIEP) meetings.
lenges are attributed to a lack of preservice spe-
cial education teacher (hereafter referred to as The Promise of Using
candidate) preparation regarding collaborative Educational Simulations in
IEP meeting practices (Elbaum et al., 2016;
Simon, 2006), including the skills, ethics, and
Preservice Programs
facilitative behaviors that are required to build Using methodical planning and implementa-
partnerships with families (Epstein & Sanders, tion guidelines for practice, medical simula-
2006; Ferrara & Ferrara, 2005; Lazar, Broder- tions have proven to be an essential experience
ick, Mastrilli, & Slostad, 1999; Lord-Nelson, used for the preparation of a variety of medi-
Summers, & Turnbull, 2004). In fact, research- cal professionals (Barrows, 2000). After con-
ers highlight a gap in candidate instruction and ducting repeated simulation research, Barrows
practice specific to building collaborative fam- (1987, 1993, 2000) identified four simulation
ily–professional partnerships (Lawrence- design principles found to contribute to the
Lightfoot, 2003; MacLure & Walker, 2000). knowledge, skill, and practical application of
Likewise, parents are provided little guidance, the experience. These principles include (a)
support, and often confusing information about prevalence (i.e., simulations should reflect
their rights to participate in a meaningful IEP common challenges likely to occur in prac-
team discussion about their child (Fitzgerald & tice), (b) instructional importance (i.e., simu-
Watkins, 2006). The lack of educator and fam- lations should be varied and require specific
ily preparation is a concern given the impor- skill sets), (c) clinical impact (i.e., simulations
tance of family–professional partnerships, and should represent rare situations in practice),
the implications poor partnerships can have on and (d) social impact (i.e., simulations should
the IEP team, educator practice, parent satisfac- be designed with the potential to have an
tion, and most importantly, student outcomes impact on the individual or group).
(Feinberg et al., 2002). Using these simulation techniques from
Failure to prepare future educators to the medical field, educational researchers
engage with families throughout the IEP have adopted and applied simulation technol-
meeting process poses challenges for special ogy, including providing candidates with
Mueller et al. 3

simulations focused on student–teacher con- Furthermore, recent technological advance-

ferences (Dotger, 2011, 2015), parent–teacher ments have facilitated access to an even more
conferences (Dotger, 2010; Dotger, Dotger, diverse spectrum of simulated opportunities as
& Tillotson, 2010), and collaborative ses- part of educator preparation. Programs such as
sions with educational colleagues (Dotger & TeachLive and Second Life provide candi-
Ashby, 2010; Lee & Powell, 2006). These dates with opportunities to practice content
simulations included learning objectives delivery, implement instructional and behav-
focused on (a) building rapport with col- ioral strategies, and perform other daily spe-
leagues and parents (Dotger & Ashby, 2010; cial educator tasks, while simultaneously
Dotger, Harris, & Hansel, 2008), (b) address- working with student avatars within virtual
ing academic and behavioral concerns with learning environments (Dieker, Rodriguez,
parents (Dotger, 2015; Dotger et al., 2008; Lignugaris-Kraft, Hynes, & Hughes, 2014;
Dotger et al., 2010), (c) collaborating with Hartley, Ludlow, & Duff, 2015). Simulations
colleagues for the purposes of advocating for through these virtual learning environments
students (Dotger & Ashby, 2010), and (d) allow candidates to develop proficiency in
engaging in team-based instructional decision educational pedagogy through repeated prac-
making (Lee & Powell, 2006). For example, tice without the risk of losing valuable instruc-
Dotger and colleagues (2008) created and tional time or negatively impacting student
enacted six different semester-long (15-week) learning (Dieker et al., 2014; McPherson,
role play scenarios, referred to as the parent– Tyler-Wood, McEnturff, Ellison, & Peak,
caregiver conferencing model, used with the 2011). These opportunities also address the
intent to create authentic problem-based learn- research to practice gap by encouraging candi-
ing opportunities for candidates using trained dates to consider solutions to challenges expe-
actors to act as parents. The process included rienced when implementing evidence-based
participating in the simulation, reflecting on strategies during simulations (McPherson
their performance, and constructing a commu- et al., 2011). Despite these benefits, there are
nication plan to address skills in need of three potential challenges of using virtual sim-
improvement for the next simulation. Exam- ulations worth noting. First, considerable time,
ples of these simulations included listening to effort, and expertise are required to create and
and addressing parent concerns, and collabo- enact virtual simulations for candidates. Sec-
rating with parents to address student aca- ond, it is possible the virtual world and ava-
demic and behavioral needs. At the end of the tar’s appearance may seem less convincing
course, a focus group with the participants than a real person, thereby challenging candi-
revealed the simulations were described as dates to immerse themselves in simulations.
valuable, authentic, and meaningful. Dotger Finally, high costs are typically associated
and colleagues (2010) have continued to with purchasing such programs (Graetz, 2006).
implement simulated parent–teacher confer- Despite the benefits and challenges found
ences using qualitative and quantitative with using educational simulations for candi-
research designs that demonstrate measurable dates, little research exists specific to the
candidate growth in ethical sensitivity, multi- unique characteristics of IEP meetings. When
cultural awareness, and collaboration with conducting a search using educational research
families. Of note, Dotger’s simulation research databases (e.g., Academic Search Premier,
uses actors, rather than real parents or educa- EBSCO, ERIC, and PsycINFO), only one
tors, thereby raising questions about the study about SIEP meetings surfaced. Werts,
authenticity of the simulations. Nevertheless, Mamlin, and Pogoloff (2002) conducted a
results are positive enough for researchers to workshop training followed by SIEP meetings
suggest simulations should become core peda- that utilized volunteer faculty members to act
gogy within teacher education programs (Dot- as IEP team members. Using qualitative meth-
ger, 2013, 2015; Dotger & Smith, 2009; odology, 21 candidates provided insight into
Shulman, 2005). their perceptions and experiences with the
4 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

process. The areas identified as the most effec- the family background. Second, the candi-
tive in preparing the candidates included IEP dates were required to play the role of the stu-
meeting preparation, attendance, and talking dent’s special educator and conduct the IEP
with parents during the IEP meeting. Although meeting with the parents and other IEP team
informative, the authors noted the study could members. Faculty deliberately chose to
benefit from more data collection, including include this simulation across the three
researching participants after they entered the courses with the intent to provide candidates
teaching profession. To date, there are no other practice learning to apply course knowledge,
published SIEP studies reported in preservice skills, and behaviors that translate to generat-
programs. ing FAPE for a case student. A description of
Because simulations show such promise as SIEP project requirements per course is avail-
core pedagogy for preservice programs, there able by request.
is an identified need to conduct similar
research that investigates IEP meeting simula- Planning procedure. Candidates were placed
tions. The current study was designed to into groups of four to five, provided a case
examine the experiences and perceptions of vignette (student), and assigned one of three
graduates from a large preservice special edu- core course faculty members to serve as IEP
cation program that uses SIEP meetings with case manager. The project occurred over a
actual family members and educational pro- 6-week period within a semester-long (15-
fessionals within a realistic in-person IEP week) course. The applied content addressed
meeting as content pedagogy. We explored in the SIEP project was taught in each of the
one major research question: three cohort courses. Each candidate was
required to create and complete all necessary
Research Question 1: What were the components of the student’s IEP using the
experiences of the special education gradu- state generated IEP form, in addition to devel-
ates who participated in the SIEP meet- oping a behavior intervention plan designed to
ings? address the case student’s academic, behav-
ioral, and social needs. Indeed, we acknowl-
edge that the introduction of student problem
Method behavior and a behavior intervention plan was
an added layer that is not typical for the major-
SIEP Project Procedures ity of IEP meetings; however, we remained
Candidates enrolled in their final semester of ambitious in addressing the need for candi-
coursework (before student teaching place- dates to know and understand how to collabo-
ments) were required to participate in a SIEP rate with families regarding student problem
project that used an IEP case vignette, based on behavior as well. As the candidates completed
real student information and data. Within this their IEP and behavior intervention plan, the
semester, candidates were enrolled in a practi- faculty case managers were available for sup-
cum block (i.e., courses 2 days a week and field port when requested, including answering
placements 3 days a week) that consisted of questions and meeting with the case study
advanced behavior assessments and interven- group as needed. After the candidates received
tions, advanced assessment, and strategies their case study files and subsequent data, a
designed for working with students who are core faculty member whose research focuses
identified as having significant needs. Each on family–professional partnerships, including
cohort ranged between 20 and 25 candidates. the use of Facilitated IEPs for conflict preven-
The SIEP project required candidates to tion and resolution (Mueller, 2015, 2017;
participate in two key IEP meeting processes. Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2008; Mueller &
First, the IEP meeting planning included Vick, 2017), provided the candidates with a
becoming familiar with the case student’s aca- workshop of research-based IEP meeting strat-
demic, behavioral, and social needs, as well as egies and required readings that present best
Mueller et al. 5

practices for IEP meetings (see Dabkowski, team member roles were determined based on
2004; Diliberto & Brewer, 2012; Mueller, the case vignette provided (described later).
2009), including strategies used to encourage Immediately before the SIEP meetings
active family participation and problem solv- began, the candidates randomly selected, by
ing during issues of conflict (Mueller, 2017). choosing a piece of paper out of a basket, one
of the following four areas of the IEP/behavior
Meeting procedure.  When it was time to con- intervention plan to address at the meeting: (a)
duct the SIEP meeting, the candidates acted as present levels of performance, (b) IEP goals,
the special education team. Throughout this (c) behavior plan, and (d) accommodations,
process, they were required to comply with all modifications, and services. These roles were
IEP meeting regulations, including sending a randomly selected before the meeting so that
meeting notice to families and providing fami- each candidate was prepared to address all
lies a copy of the procedural safeguards. Due areas of the IEP. Next, the SIEP meeting was
to the low readability of procedural safeguards conducted with all IEP team members acting
(Fitzgerald & Watkins, 2006), candidates were within their respective roles. Each candidate
also encouraged, but not required, to send an was provided the opportunity to present data,
accompanying parent friendly version of the discuss, encourage shared decision making,
procedural safeguards to the parents (e.g., lim- and answer any questions throughout the pro-
ited educational jargon). In addition, candi- cess. SIEP meetings averaged 1 hour and 15
dates were encouraged to follow the intent of minutes. At the end of the meeting, volunteer
the law by encouraging family participation SIEP team members, university faculty case
through contact prior to the IEP meeting (i.e., managers, and candidates debriefed and dis-
pre-meeting). Due to the nature of the simula- cussed the process. A description of the SIEP
tion schedule, this activity was completed by project procedures is available by request.
emailing a letter prior to the SIEP that
requested family input about the case student.
Case managers acted as the family members
Case Vignettes
and responded to the questions. Case vignettes used in this project depicted a
After completing the IEP and behavior variety of age, gender, skill, and behavioral
intervention plan paperwork, the candidates needs. All case vignettes were created using
conducted a SIEP meeting with volunteer actual student data. However, to meet the
community members who work in the field of objectives for each of the three courses, fac-
special education (i.e., special education ulty made minor adjustments to the case, spe-
directors, teachers, related service profession- cifically adding more data. All SIEP meetings
als), real parents of a child with a disability, were planned as triennial reviews to provide
and educational faculty who acted as the other candidates the opportunity to document com-
IEP team members. Contrary to other simula- prehensive evaluation results and determine
tion research (Dotger et al., 2008), actors were eligibility for services. In addition, simulated
not used in this study. Instead, we specifically case vignettes presented academic or develop-
recruited individuals who regularly attend IEP mental concerns, and emotional or behavioral
meetings either as a professional in the field, concerns. While most students who have IEPs
family member, or an undergraduate educa- would not have such comprehensive con-
tion student to play the student role (if needed). cerns, these components were necessary to
These volunteer SIEP team members played support the course objectives in the methodol-
the following roles: family member (e.g., par- ogy courses.
ent, grandparent); special education director; Candidates received case study data in sev-
general education teacher; related service pro- eral phases. First, they were provided a gen-
fessionals, as needed (e.g., speech–language eral description of the student demographics
pathologist); case student (if aged 15 years or and needs. Next, as a team, they were required
older); and advocate/attorney, as needed. The to fill out and submit a form that asked them
6 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

to identify what they knew about the case translated to a more difficult scenario label.
(after reading through the material provided) Diverse family characteristics were also used
and what they still needed to know for each of for the vignettes with the intent to provide can-
the following domains: educational, cogni- didates an opportunity to work with diverse
tive, social/emotional/behavioral, communi- family demographics (e.g., single parent,
cative, physical, and transition. The candidates same-sex couple, Spanish speaking parent). In
were provided one week to complete their addition, each IEP meeting included a meeting
questions and submit them to their case man- catalyst that created a problem-solving situa-
ager. The objective of this phase was for the tion for the IEP team. Table 1 provides five
candidates to read through the student infor- example case vignettes used in the SIEP meet-
mation and determine what data they need to ings. It is important to note that we provided
continue with the IEP process. This practice each group with a different vignette, so that the
intended to reflect real-world experiences that entire cohort would have the experience to
require educators to gather data based on either participate in, or observe, a range of
identified student need. For the second phase, vignettes that represented various levels of
case managers provided the SIEP teams with prevalence, instructional importance, clinical
data the team requested. The teams worked impact, and social impact (Barrows, 2000).
through the process of analyzing data and
identifying other data they needed. Following SIEP meeting observations.  Recalling the work
this second review, case managers provided of Bandura (1965) that supports the value of
the third phase of data based on the remaining observational learning, and the need for can-
data that was requested. Next, the candidates didates to experience multiple IEP meeting
were required to create an IEP and plan for the scenarios, all other class members were pres-
meeting. Prior to the SIEP meeting, they held ent to observe the other SIEPs. Thus, by the
a group meeting with the case manager to end of the SIEP meetings, candidates partici-
review information and ask clarifying ques- pated in—and observed—at least four other
tions, as needed. varied meetings. In addition to these repeated
Volunteer IEP team members were pro- observations, all cohort members had the
vided student and family demographics and opportunity to hear feedback provided by the
IEP meeting scenarios that ranged in level of volunteer IEP team members and faculty.
difficulty (e.g., mild, moderate, extreme).
Using Barrows’s (2000) simulation principles, Authenticity and Relevancy
we designed IEP case vignettes that repre-
sented prevalence, instructional importance,
Measures
clinical impact, and social impact. The level of In an effort to assess the authenticity and rel-
IEP meeting difficulty determined for the case evancy of the simulations, three measures
was based on the course professors’ profes- were utilized with the candidates and the vol-
sional judgment, volunteer IEP team mem- unteer SIEP team members. These measures
ber’s expertise, and peer reviewed literature were linked to simulation research that
about IEP meeting practice (Feinberg et al., emphasizes the importance of establishing
2002; Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Using these and developing teacher identity (Dotger,
guidelines, the estimated effort involved in 2011) and assessing perceptions of authentic-
resolving the scenario (potential disagree- ity and relevancy among candidates (Dotger
ment) and the frequency that the scenario et al., 2008).
would likely occur in a real IEP meeting were
further analyzed to assure the candidates were Candidates.  Candidate measures included two
provided cases of instructional importance and procedures: (a) survey completed prior to the
clinical/social impact. Thus, the more effort start of the simulation project (premeasure-
required to resolve the scenario and/or the ment) and after the entire project was com-
higher the frequency of likely occurrence pleted (postmeasurement) and (b) candidate
 Table 1.  Sample Simulated IEP Scenarios.

Simulation design principle(s)

(Barrows, 2000) level of
IEP scenario with meeting catalyst Level of difficulty (mild, moderate, extreme)/required skills representation (low, medium, high)
Traditional nuclear family (mother and father) Mild/discuss legal guidelines related to service dogs and Prevalence: Medium
requests that the family dog be in-school therapy therapy dogs, requirements and responsibility for service Instructional performance: High
dog dog training, and alternative options to meet the child’s Clinical impact: Medium
needs for which the parents are making the request Social impact: High
Divorced parents with divergent perspectives Moderate/techniques to include student in the Prevalence: High
blame each other for child’s behavior challenges development and presentation of IEP goals (student-led), Instructional performance: High
(secondary age); however, they are both against refocus parent on plans to support the student; engaging Clinical impact: Medium
child receiving services under the category of the child, and presentation of data in a manner that Social impact: High
Emotional Disturbance and child’s postsecondary supports parents in recognizing child concerns versus
goals. The child (student) is present for this creating a situation where parents feel threatened or
meeting defensive; acknowledging parents’ concerns, discussing
child’s strengths related to the postsecondary goal and
how annual goals will address child’s needs
Same sex parent family unit (two mothers) with Extreme/respectful and sensitive dialogue related Prevalence: Medium
adopted child requests the district purchase to same-sex parenting and children who may have Instructional performance: High
specific assistive technology without data to experienced trauma; discussion of providing services Clinical impact: High
support necessity and one parent is a practicing and accommodations based on child’s needs identified Social impact: High
attorney who uses legal background to question through evaluation; make decisions and provide guidance
teachers, and emphasize school’s accountability, based on family law, school district policy, and parental
records meeting rights
Parent whose primary language is Spanish or Mild/prepare for meeting by verifying language and Prevalence: High
American Sign Language requires an interpreter in family dynamics; follow school district policy to secure Instructional performance: High
meeting interpreter; respectfully communicate with parent Clinical impact: Medium
throughout the meeting, rather than the interpreter Social impact: High

Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program.

7
8 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

video analysis reflection. Each is described in Data Collection

detail below.
Data were collected using qualitative inter-
Candidate pre-/post-survey.  Before and after views with special education program gradu-
participating in the SIEP meeting, candidates ates who participated in the SIEP project
were asked to anonymously complete a survey during their preservice program. In an effort
that involved self-assessing their confidence to safeguard against potential research bias,
and preparedness related to special education interviews were conducted by a trained doc-
teacher responsibilities during IEP meetings. toral student who did not have any personal or
Topics addressed in these surveys included professional history with the participants who
writing IEP goals, leading and answering completed the SIEP project. The interview
questions during IEP meetings, resolving con- protocol consisted of open-ended questions
flict with parents, and engaging in team-based that focused on the graduates’ experiences
problem solving with students, parents, and with the SIEP process and their perception of
colleagues. Candidates who completed the how the SIEP experience may or may not
postsurvey also answered questions pertain- have impacted their current work as a special
ing to how authentic the SIEP meeting experi- educator. Although a question protocol was
ence felt and whether it was helpful to their used during the interviews, the interviewer
professional development. Postsurvey results encouraged participants to share their thoughts
showed candidates consistently described the and experiences beyond protocol questions
SIEP project as authentic, valuable, and inte- (Marshall & Rossman, 2010). The interviews
gral to their professional development. were conducted over the phone, averaged one
hour in length, and were recorded using a dig-
Candidate SIEP meeting reflections. Fol- ital audio recorder.
lowing the SIEP meeting, candidates were
also provided the opportunity to observe and
Participants
evaluate their performance through the SIEP
meeting video of their team, using the SIEP Participants were recruited using purposeful
Student Video Analysis Form (form is avail- sampling (Patton, 2002). After obtaining insti-
able by request). During this reflective pro- tutional review board (IRB) approval, we
cess, the candidates were asked to critically recruited graduates from our special educa-
analyze their meeting performance using tion preservice program through three emails
quality indicators of effective IEP meeting using alumni connections. Due to the explor-
practice (see Dabkowski, 2004; Diliberto & atory nature of the study, criteria for inclusion
Brewer, 2012; Mueller, 2009). required that the participants successfully
graduated from the preservice program, and
Volunteer SIEP meeting feedback. Volunteer that they were able to recall personal experi-
SIEP team members provided feedback ences with the SIEP project. First, a descrip-
through a form (available by request) that tion of the study was provided with a request
required the participants to rate their experi- that interested individuals contact the first
ences with the SIEP meeting process using a author. One week later, a follow-up email was
Likert-type scale. The feedback form also sent to those individuals who had not yet
included an open response section that responded. Finally, one week later, we made
allowed the SIEP volunteer team members to one final attempt to contact any individuals
provide positive feedback and any noted areas who had expressed an interest, but had not yet
in need of improvement for the candidates. scheduled an interview. Because the SIEP
This information was provided to help the meeting project had been used with candi-
candidates understand the differences between dates for a number of years, we deliberately
the actual simulation and what occurs in the reached out to graduates who could represent
real world. cohorts that had completed the SIEP activity
Mueller et al. 9

over the last seven years since it had been independent coding, the three raters met to dis-
implemented. After obtaining the names and cuss and compare codes. When disagreements
contact information for graduates, we could occurred, the three raters discussed the issue
still locate; approximately, 88 graduates were until mutual agreement about the code was
contacted and invited to participate. Of this established. Finally, after all coding was com-
number, 16 indicated an interest but did not pleted, using peer debriefing procedures
follow through with scheduling an interview, (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger, Pugach, &
one person denied participation, and 11 indi- Richardson, 2005), the three reviewers com-
viduals did not respond at all. Thus, after talk- piled the selective codes, categorized them
ing with the interested participants, 60 met the according to related topics, and identified the
criteria and agreed to participate in the study. qualitative themes.
Participants included graduates who com-
pleted their preservice program in the follow-
ing years: 2007 (n = 7), 2008 (n = 3), 2009 (n
Trustworthiness
= 2), 2010 (n = 7), 2011 (n = 10), 2012 (n = 6), To establish credibility (Brantlinger et al.,
2013 (n = 8), and 2014 (n = 17). The level of 2005), we used three recommended credibil-
education among participants ranged from a ity practices to encourage qualitative research
BA to an MA degree. Meanwhile, experience rigor: (a) investigative triangulation (i.e., use
in education ranged from 0 to 9 years, with of three raters for data analysis), (b) peer
participants reporting that since the SIEP debriefing (i.e., use of multiple raters for data
meeting they have held between 0 and 230 IEP analysis who are familiar with the phenom-
meetings. Current job descriptions included ena—IEP meetings), and (c) member check-
working as a special educator with students ing (i.e., 30 participants were asked to review
who represented a range of student needs (e.g., and confirm the accuracy of the findings).
mild to severe disabilities) and all school lev-
els, elementary through transition programs.
Two participants were not teaching during the
Findings
time of the interview and two participants Five outcomes of the SIEP project were iden-
worked in other related areas (health care and tified and described as valuable preservice
community service development). Meanwhile, pedagogy that contributed to the participant’s
one participant was not employed at the time growth as a special education teacher: (a)
of the study. valuable preparation for the future, (b) practi-
cal application of educational theory, (c) a
safe space to learn and make mistakes, (d)
Data Analysis
real-world practice collaborating as a team,
Interviews were transcribed verbatim through and (e) an opportunity to gain meaningful
the use of a digital transcription service. Due feedback.
to the large amount of interview data, two spe-
cial education program doctoral students, who
Valuable Preservice Pedagogy
worked as special education teachers and were
trained in qualitative inquiry, independently Participants repeatedly referred to the SIEP
coded all of the transcripts using the NVivo project as “a valuable experience,” with one
qualitative software program (Richards, 2002), participant sharing, “I think it’s one of those
specifically, open, axial, and selective coding things that’s had the biggest impact on me.”
procedures (Corbin & Strauss, 2007). The two Most participants also indicated that the
doctoral students generated and used a diction- experience assisted them with transitioning
ary code list to follow as a guide for data anal- into their current role as a special educator.
ysis. Using the dictionary code list, the first One participant reported, “I just couldn’t
author, acting as an independent rater, coded a imagine going into teaching and not having
little over 25% (n = 15) of the interviews. After had that experience before.” In addition, par-
10 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

ticipants discussed value in two key compo- was very helpful because it prepared me for
nents, the written IEP and conducting the my first year of teaching. When I was with all
actual IEP meeting. For example, one partici- these other colleagues that have been teaching
pant shared, “[It] really felt like you’re doing for ten years, I didn’t feel as behind.” Another
all the prep work for the IEP, you know, tak- participant stated, “I think that it really did
ing all the data, writing the IEP, sharing it, prepare me to become a special educator. It
and having a meeting with parents.” Many really addressed some of the issues that might
other participants also highlighted the value be occurring in the education field right now.”
of learning to conduct an IEP meeting before All of these educators talked about how the
entering the field. knowledge and skills they gained as a result of
Participants described the SIEP project as their participation in the SIEP project were
“beneficial” and “helpful” to the development directly applied to their teaching responsibili-
of their IEP preparation, knowledge, and skill ties and expectations.
set. For example, one participant shared, “I
think that the different role-playing, whether Preparation to conduct a variety of IEP meet-
it was different staff, or parents, or students, ings. Participants also addressed how the
was . . . beneficial in just seeing all the differ- SIEP project prepared them to lead a variety
ent variables that could come up at an IEP.” of IEP meetings. One participant shared,
Another participant stated that it was help- “The [SIEP] . . . helped me prepare for a real
ful to have an opportunity to “practice doing IEP and how to lead an IEP, if you’re the case
as much of the process as I could prior to hav- manager.” Participants reported that in addi-
ing to do it as a teacher.” One participant also tion to participating in their own SIEP meet-
reported that the project provided a different ing, observing other SIEP meetings was
perspective to the IEP process: “It was kind of equally beneficial. One participant discussed
the first time that you were responsible for this finding by saying it “helped anticipate
evaluating test results and making a decision things that could come up in a meeting
. . . that really helped me.” When describing because . . . there were all these different situ-
how the SIEP project helped prepare for the ations that could come up.” Another partici-
future, one participant said, “The procedures pant shared, “The best part of the mock IEP is
and the process of the IEP was the biggest part that it’s not just one situation. You got to
that the mock IEP helped me prepare.” Other observe all these different situations, differ-
participants also echoed this sentiment. ent cases, different types of parents. That
really helps . . . to prepare for what real IEPs
will look like.”
Valuable Preparation for the Future
Participants described the SIEP project as Partnering with parents of children with disabili-
valuable preparation for the future in three ties.  Another important facet of the SIEP proj-
key areas: (a) working as a special educator, ect included participants sharing that it
(b) preparation to conduct a variety of IEP prepared them to communicate and collabo-
meetings, and (c) partnering with parents of rate with parents. Participant responses indi-
children with disabilities. cated this learning component was a
meaningful aspect of the project. For exam-
Working as a special educator. Participants ple, one participant simply stated, “It’s
indicated the SIEP project helped them pre- enhanced my parent communication.” Partici-
pare for the “real world” including how to pants also indicated that the experience helped
conduct their first “real IEP meeting.” For them to “understand the parents’ perspective.”
example, one participant shared, “It was a One participant shared, “I think it [SIEP meet-
great experience . . . because it prepared me ing] gives you an understanding from a parent
for what I have to do now.” Meanwhile, one perspective of what they’re going through and
participant aptly shared, “I think [the SIEP] what they’re looking for and how you can best
Mueller et al. 11

partner with families before you’re put in that Specifically, participants shared that the proj-
situation for real.” ect allowed them to make mistakes to learn
from, without the pressure of a “real student at
stake.” One participant shared, “It kind of
Practical Application of Educational
gave me an opportunity to get all the mistakes
Theory out of the way.” Participants also indicated it
Participants shared that the SIEP project was beneficial to have the SIEP experience
afforded them with the opportunity to take before having to conduct a real meeting on
everything they learned throughout their their own. One participant shared, “[It] was
teacher preparation program and put it into great that the professors gave a safe environ-
practice. One participant described this oppor- ment to hold an IEP meeting, so that when I
tunity by saying, “[It’s] getting an idea of what did have to hold one on my own, it wasn’t the
a real IEP meeting would be like more than just very first one.” Another participant described
reading about it or hearing about it in classes this process as being able to “test the waters”
and things like that.” Another participant stated, for the first time “in a safe environment.” one
“I thought it was really helpful because instead participant also shared, “If you failed . . . you
of just in theory, it was, you know, in practice. were in a safe environment.” Meanwhile,
The student’s life and putting together a plan, another participant shared, “It made me feel at
instead of just reading about how it’s done.” In least comfortable to step in . . . to treat it as a
addition, one participant shared, “[It] was a learning experience, especially as a new
practical application of what we were learning teacher.” Overall, these participants described
and it gave a chance to flush out and under- the SIEP as “a chance to make mistakes before
stand better what we were learning in class and you have to go out in the real world.”
how it would apply once we were teaching full-
time.” Specifically, participants indicated that Real-World Practice Collaborating as
the SIEP project gave them the opportunity to a Team
apply what they had learned by practicing the
skills they had acquired before stepping into Participants highlighted the value of collabo-
the classroom. For example, one participant rating with their peers throughout the SIEP
shared, “I think the greatest thing is that it project. Specifically, they shared that it helped
[SIEP] gives you practice.” The participant them better understand the perspectives of
then added, “Until you’re in that situation other special education teachers, as well as
where you actually you have to present those strategies required to work together and prob-
findings and actually talk to them [parent], I lem solve with families. For example, one
don’t think you truly understand and compre- participant said, “It was nice having so much
hend how they should be presented, or how you collaboration and different viewpoints on
should talk to parents.” Of note, participants things.” Other participants indicated that
shared the sentiment that by providing special working with a group to develop and present
education preservice teachers with the opportu- the SIEP was an important collaborative expe-
nity to practice the skills they learned through- rience. One participant shared, “My experi-
out their preparation program, they felt more ence was really how to collaborate as a team
prepared to conduct IEP meetings as a special because my colleagues were a part of this
education teacher. mock IEP and we had to make sure everyone
had their part of the IEP.” Meanwhile, partici-
A Safe Space to Learn and Make pants also emphasized the real-world applica-
tion of the collaborative process. Relatedly,
Mistakes one participant shared, “The reality is, you
The SIEP project was described as a learning have to be a pro at coordinating all these peo-
opportunity that afforded participants the abil- ple [colleagues] and communicating with
ity to conduct IEP meetings in a safe space. them on the job, so you might as well figure
12 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

that piece out in college.” Some participants education preparation programs. One promis-
even addressed the value of learning with var- ing practice that can address this dilemma is
ious IEP members who were not in ­agreement: the use of SIEP meetings. Indeed, literature
“You may not always be on the same page and supports the use of simulated learning experi-
[the SIEP] just gave you that experience as ences in a variety of professional preparation
well.” Meanwhile, all of the participants programs (Dieker et al., 2014; Shulman,
echoed the “real-world application” of how 2005); however, very little exists related to IEP
and why special educators need to be able to simulation. Thus, findings from this study
collaborate with other people. ought to be considered and added to the grow-
ing body of teacher preparation pedagogy lit-
erature.
An Opportunity to Gain Meaningful
The intent of this study was to measure the
Feedback social validity of the SIEP project. Simply put,
Participants described positive experiences we wanted to know whether the project was a
with receiving feedback from professors and valuable experience for these special educa-
IEP volunteer team members. Feedback was tion teachers. Due to the large amount of data,
described as “balanced” and “meaningful.” Bal- follow-up manuscripts also address the effec-
anced feedback included identifying what par- tiveness of the SIEP project, including teacher
ticipants did well and what they needed to work skills learned and challenges related to the
on for the future. For example, one participant SIEP process. Participants were asked about
shared, “There was a lot of positive feedback the knowledge and skills they learned as a
and there was some negative feedback, I feel result of the SIEP project, and the challenges
like it was appropriately balanced. They did a they still faced during the first few years as a
good job sandwiching it.” Meanwhile, another novice educator. Data were analyzed to deter-
participant described the balance in feedback by mine five key skills were acquired from the
saying, “They do a really good job of letting SIEP project: (a) building relationships with
you know where you did well and what you parents, (b) using facilitation strategies to
could work on for future IEPs.” Participants maximize meeting effectiveness, (c) writing
also reported that the feedback provided by the IEP document as a collaborative team, (d)
their professors gave them the opportunity to applying conflict resolution strategies, and (e)
reflect on their individual performance and to utilizing skills for legal compliance. Mean-
identify what to do and what not to do during an while, Massafra, Mueller, and Robinson
IEP meeting in the future. One participant sum- (2018) also identified five major challenges
marized this concept by saying, “[The feed- experienced by the graduates during their first
back] was helpful . . . it made us reflect and few years of teaching despite SIEP project par-
think back to what we said and our demeanor.” ticipation, including (a) building and maintain-
The opportunity to receive performance feed- ing positive relationships with parents, (b)
back and use that feedback to improve future scheduling IEP meetings, (c) obtaining sup-
performance was repeatedly described as valu- port from colleagues and administrators, (d)
able to participants. navigating IEP software, and (e) experiencing
low confidence leading IEP meetings. When
asked how the SIEP experience could have
Discussion
better prepared them to meet these challenges,
Much has been written about the IEP meeting participants suggested four additional activi-
experience for educators and families, describ- ties: (a) more preservice opportunities to learn
ing it as overwhelming, daunting, and in some and practice strategies to foster meaningful
cases, rife with conflict (Feinberg et al., 2002; family–professional partnerships, (b) prepar-
Lake & Billingsley, 2000; Mueller, 2017). Yet, ing administrators to support novice special
little research has attempted to proactively educators in cultivating meaningful family–
address this dilemma in preservice special professional partnerships and navigating the
Mueller et al. 13

IEP process, (c) exposure to IEP software, and like today. These individuals further illustrated
(d) providing more opportunities to practice the authenticity and relevance of the case
IEP meeting skills throughout their prepara- vignettes and several opportunities the project
tion program. provided, particularly the availability of feed-
Meanwhile, findings from this study indi- back, highlighting the value, and promise of
cated the candidates described value in the using IEP simulations in preservice special
simulation project and recommended that the education programs. Consequently, implica-
project continue to exist in the undergraduate tions for both practice and future research are
program, including the need for even more discussed in the next section.
simulated opportunities. Participants over-
whelmingly described the SIEP project as a Implications for Preservice Education
valuable component of their preservice pro-
gram. The SIEP project was described as con-
Practice
tributing to the preparation of the participants’ Researchers Korthagen and Kessels (1999)
ability to better understand the IEP meeting found that most novice special educators
process, including techniques that can be used experience a gap between what they learned
to collaborate with colleagues and parents. in their preservice program and what they can
Relatedly, participants shared the value of actually implement in practice. Additional
learning in a safe environment that allowed research in the field of special education prep-
them to apply theory to practice, collaborate aration also indicates most preservice pro-
with peers, and gain feedback from experts in grams lack application-based opportunities
the field. These findings are promising con- beyond field experience (Lazar et al., 1999).
sidering the myriad studies that highlight how Consequently, the inclination that candidates
educators act as barriers to meaningful IEP could apply recently gained IEP knowledge
outcomes (Elbaum et al., 2016; Stoner et al., acquired from university lectures and practi-
2005). When a real IEP takes place, it is chal- tioner articles to a simulated experience is
lenging and possibly too late, to provide feed- very promising.
back to educators regarding the improvement Several implications for preservice pro-
of IEP meeting skills. Although such feedback grams are worthy of consideration. First, pre-
might improve future meetings and change service programs might benefit from the
educator practice, the damage may already be identification of key components of the SIEP
done with parents having formed opinions project so that a curriculum, or guide, could be
about the process, teachers, and school. After made available to teacher preparation pro-
all, research indicates that the majority of par- grams. The availability of this resource could
ent experiences with the IEP meeting dictates provide explicit strategies designed to improve
their perception of being included as a mem- candidate knowledge and skills. Second, pre-
ber of the team, and ultimately parent satisfac- service programs might consider extending
tion (Wolfe & Durán, 2013; Zeitlin & Curcic, this practice into other educator preparation
2014), a critical perspective to promote parent fields; thereby, encouraging the development
participation. of collaborative skills across disciplines
Perhaps one of the most exciting findings throughout the IEP meeting process. Given the
within this study was the participants’ descrip- new requirements that personnel preparation
tion of the SIEP project as “real-world” appli- grants be interdisciplinary, this study provides
cation. In fact, the term or reference to a great opportunity for the SIEP model to be
“real-world” application came up repeatedly replicated in interdisciplinary programs. A
throughout all of the themes. Numerous par- good place to start would include preservice
ticipants described the project as one of the general educators. Of note, researchers report
most valuable experiences within their prepa- that next to the student and parents, general
ration program, which, ultimately, helped them education teachers speak the least in IEP meet-
prepare for what their job would likely look ings (Martin et al., 2006). Thus, given the large
14 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

amount of students with disabilities who are ideas, researchers could also expand this line of
included in general education classrooms, it work by observing candidates as they conduct
would likely benefit all preservice educators to real IEP meetings with families and colleagues
partner for simulations (e.g., general educator, during their student teaching, and potentially
speech–language pathologist, school psychol- postgraduation, to measure quantitative
ogist, administrator). Finally, findings from growth. This research could investigate
this study and other simulation research (Dot- whether the SIEP meeting generalizes to prac-
ger et al., 2008) suggest that more than one tice, and if not, it could potentially identify
SIEP meeting might be even more beneficial. challenging areas that may need further atten-
For example, Dotger and colleagues (2008) tion in preservice programs. Other promising
implemented six different semester-long role- research might include interviewing volunteer
play parent–caregiver conferencing scenarios. SIEP meeting participants to further evaluate
The qualitative and quantitative measures used the authenticity and relevance of the simula-
in their study demonstrated change in educator tions. Such investigation could contribute to
practice when using a variety of simulations. the validation of applying Barrows’s (2000)
Consequently, these researchers and our study four simulation design principles (i.e., preva-
suggest multiple simulations could be a bene- lence, instructional importance, clinical impact,
ficial component used as core pedagogy within and social impact). Furthermore, as simula-
teacher education programs (Dotger, 2015; tions through virtual learning environments
Shulman, 2005). Dotger et al. (2008) fittingly (e.g., TeachLive and Second Life) do not
summarized the value of educational simula- require face to face interaction, investigating
tions by saying, “It holds solid potential for the benefits of these simulations for distance
helping educators prepare for the social com- learners or other learners for whom in-person
plexities of the profession” (p. 346). simulations are unavailable or difficult to
access represents another promising direction
Limitations and Implications for for future research. In addition, given the
amount of time and effort involved in design-
Future Research ing the SIEP project, it might be worth con-
This research study sought to explore the per- ducting a comparative study with two groups:
ceptions and experiences of graduates from a (a) SIEP meetings among peers playing IEP
preservice program at one university; therefore, team member roles and (b) SIEP meetings with
three limitations are worth noting. First, this community volunteers (the design used in this
study only reports the perceptions of the partici- study). The comparison of the perceptions, out-
pants’ experiences. There were no controlled comes, and experiences of the two groups of
study designs utilized to actually measure participants could indicate whether the simula-
changed candidate behavior. Second, this was a tion produces the same outcomes regardless of
study of graduates who participated in SIEP who plays the role of the IEP team members
meetings at one institution. Finally, researchers (i.e., volunteers vs. candidates’ peers). Finally,
did not have access to additional sources to con- it might be telling to also interview administra-
firm participants’ reported preparedness for tors who could provide insight into program
their role as special educators. Thus, the study graduates’ preparedness for the IEP process.
should not be generalized to the larger popula-
tion. Instead, this study ought to be considered
Conclusion
as the first of many suggested research studies
designed to measure the value of using SIEP The process of developing an IEP, ranging
meetings in teacher preparation programs. from gathering student data to the meeting,
Future research that looks to expand this requires the integration of legal mandates,
line of inquiry could be valuable to the prepara- instructional pedagogy, collaboration tech-
tion of special educators. In addition to investi- niques, and communication skills. This depth
gating the aforementioned preservice practice of knowledge and skills often leaves teacher
Mueller et al. 15

educator programs in a quandary about the Bezdek, J., Summers, J. A., & Turnbull, A.
most effective way to prepare candidates to (2010). Professionals’ attitudes on part-
lead effective and meaningful IEP meetings. nering with families of children and youth
The SIEP process was implemented as a with ­disabilities. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45,
culminating assignment that attempted to
­
356-365.
address this challenge by actively engaging
Blackwell, W. H., & Rossetti, Z. S. (2014). The
candidates in applying information obtained development of Individualized Education
throughout their program. The experiences Programs: Where have we been and where
described by the program graduates provided should we go now? SAGE Open, 4(2), 1-15.
promising support for the value of using the doi:10.1177/2158244014530411
SIEP process in preservice special education Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach,
programs. Graduates identified experiences M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative stud-
that represented an integration of a variety of ies in special education. Exceptional Children,
knowledge, behaviors, and skills, including 71, 195-207.
feeling better prepared for the IEP process. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of quali-
tative research: Techniques and procedures
Ultimately, as university programs continue to
for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.).
address the challenges of preparing candi-
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
dates to meet the growing demands of the spe- Dabkowski, D. M. (2004). Encouraging active
cial educator role, we hope this study provides parent participation in IEP team meetings.
a glimpse into a promising exercise worthy of Teaching Exceptional Children, 36, 34-39.
consideration for preservice pedagogy. Dieker, L., Rodriguez, J., Lignugaris-Kraft, B.,
Hynes, M., & Hughes, C. (2014). The potential
Declaration of Conflicting Interests of simulated environments in teacher educa-
tion: Current and future possibilities. Teacher
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of
Education and Special Education, 37, 21-33.
interest with respect to the research, authorship,
doi:10.1177/0888406413512683
and/or publication of this article.
Diliberto, J. A., & Brewer, D. (2012). Six tips for
successful IEP meetings. Teaching Exceptional
Funding Children, 47, 128-135. doi:10.1177/00400
The author(s) received no financial support for the 59914553205
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Dotger, B., & Ashby, C. E. (2010). Exposing con-
ditional inclusive ideologies through simulated
ORCID iD interactions. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 33(2), 114-130.
Aimee Massafra https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
Dotger, B. H. (2010). “I had no idea”: Developing
3919-9216
dispositional awareness and sensitivity through
a cross-professional pedagogy. Teaching and
References Teacher Education, 26, 805-812.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ rein- Dotger, B. H. (2011). From know how to do now:
forcement contingencies on the acquisition Instructional applications of simulated inter-
of imitative responses. Journal of Personality actions within teacher education. Teacher
and Social Psychology, 6, 589-595. Education and Practice, 24, 132-148.
Barrows, H. S. (1987). Simulated (standardized) Dotger, B. H. (2013). “I had no idea!” Clinical sim-
patients and other human simulations: A com- ulations for teacher development. Charlotte,
prehensive guide to their training and use in NC: Information Age Publishing.
teaching and evaluation. Chapel Hill, NC: Dotger, B. H. (2015). Core pedagogy: Individual
Health Science Consortium. uncertainty, shared practice, formative ethos.
Barrows, H. S. (1993). An overview of the uses of Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 215-226.
standardized patients for teaching and evaluating Dotger, B. H., Harris, S., & Hansel, A. (2008).
clinical skills. Academic Medicine, 68, 443-453. Emerging authenticity: The crafting of
Barrows, H. S. (2000). Problem-based learning: simulated parent-teacher candidate confer-
An approach to medical education. New York, ences. Teaching Education, 19, 337-349.
NY: Springer. doi:10.1080/10476210802438324
16 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

Dotger, B. H., & Smith, M. J. (2009). “Where’s Hilton, A., & Henderson, C. J. (1993). Parent involve-
the line?” Negotiating simulated experiences ment: A best practice or forgotten practice?
to define teacher identity. New Educator, 5, Education and Training in Mental Retardation,
161-180. 28, 199-211.
Dotger, S., Dotger, B. H., & Tillotson, J. (2010). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
Examining how preservice science teachers (2004), Section 1414(d)(1)(B).
navigate simulated parent–teacher conver- Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking
sations on evolution and intelligent design. theory to practice: Changing the pedagogy of
Science Education, 94, 552-570. teacher education. Educational Researcher,
Elbaum, B., Blatz, E. T., & Rodriguez, R. J. (2016). 28(4), 4-17.
Parents’ experiences as predictors of state Lake, J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analy-
accountability measures of schools’ facilita- sis of factors that contribute to parent-school
tion of parent involvement. Remedial and conflict in special education. Remedial and
Special Education, 37, 15-27. Special Education, 21, 240-256. doi:10.1177/
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects 074193250002100407
for change: Preparing educators for school, Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential
family, and community partnerships. Peabody conversation: What parents and teachers
Journal of Education, 81, 81-120. can learn from each other. New York, NY:
Feinberg, E., Beyer, J. M., & Moses, P. (2002). Ballantine Books.
Beyond mediation: Strategies for appropriate Lazar, A., Broderick, P., Mastrilli, T., & Slostad, F.
early dispute resolution in special education. (1999). Educating teacher for parent involve-
Eugene, OR: National Center on Alternative ment. Contemporary Education, 70(3), 5-10.
Dispute Resolution. Lee, S., & Powell, J. V. (2006). Manifestation
Ferrara, M. M., & Ferrara, P. J. (2005). Parents of pre-service teachers’ interpersonal skills:
as partners: Raising awareness as a teacher Effects of simulated and real experiences.
preparation program. The Clearing House, 79, Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
77-81. 34, 317-339.
Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions Lord-Nelson, L. G. L., Summers, J. A., & Turnbull,
of parents of students who receive special edu- A. P. (2004). Boundaries in family–profes-
cation services. Preventing School Failure: sional relationships: Implications for special
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, education. Remedial and Special Education,
53, 8-14. doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14 25, 153-165.
Fitzgerald, J. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). MacLure, M., & Walker, B. (2000). Disenchanted
Parents’ rights in special education: The read- evenings: The social organization of talk in
ability of procedural safeguards. Exceptional parent-teacher consultations in UK second-
Children, 72, 497-510. ary schools. British Journal of Sociology of
Goldman, S. E., & Burke, M. M. (2017). The Education, 21, 5-24.
effectiveness of interventions to increase par- Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing
ent involvement in special education: A sys- qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
tematic literature review and meta-analysis. California: SAGE.
Exceptionality, 25, 97-115. Martin, J. E., Huber-Marshall, L., & Sale, P.
Graetz, K. S. (2006). The psychology of learn- (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high,
ing environments. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional
Learning spaces (pp. 6.2-6.14). Boulder, CO: Children, 70, 285-297.
EDUCAUSE. Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Greene, B. A.,
Hartley, M. D., Ludlow, B. L., & Duff, M. C. Gardner, J. E., Christensen, W. R., Woods, L.
(2015). Second life®: A 3D virtual immersive L., . . . Lovell, D. L. (2006). Direct observations
environment for teacher preparation courses in of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing
a distance education program. Rural Special the need for student IEP meeting instruction.
Education Quarterly, 34(3), 21-25. Exceptional Children, 72, 187-200.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new Massafra, A., Mueller, T. G., & Robinson, J. (2018).
wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, Novice special educator experiences and
and community connections on student achieve- ­challenges with the IEP process: Implications
ment. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational for teacher preparation and future research.
Development Laboratory. Manuscript submitted for publication. Greeley,
Mueller et al. 17

Colorado: School of Special Education, Welcome to our world: Parent perceptions of

University of Northern Colorado. interactions between parents of young chil-
McPherson, R., Tyler-Wood, T., McEnturff Ellison, dren with ASD and education professionals.
A., & Peak, P. (2011). Using a computerized Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
classroom simulation to prepare pre-service Disabilities, 20, 39-51. doi:10.1177/15407
teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher 9691454454
Education, 19, 93-110. Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L.,
Mueller, T. G. (2009). IEP facilitation: A promis- Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P.
ing approach to resolving conflicts between (2009). Evidence-based secondary transi-
parents of children with disabilities and school tion predictors for improving postschool out-
districts. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41, comes for students with disabilities. Career
60-67. Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32,
Mueller, T. G. (2015). Litigation and special educa- 160-181.
tion: The past, present, and future direction for Werts, M. G., Mamlin, N., & Pogoloff, S. M.
resolving conflicts between parents and school (2002). Knowing what to expect: Introducing
districts. The Journal of Disability Policy Studies, preservice teachers to IEP meetings. Teacher
26, 135-143. doi:10.1177/1044207314533382 Education and Special Education, 25, 413-
Mueller, T. G. (2017). Promoting collaborative 418.
partnerships with families. In J. M. Kauffman Wolfe, K., & Durán, L. K. (2013). Culturally and
& D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special linguistically diverse parents’ perceptions of
education (2nd Ed., pp. 773-792). New York, the IEP process: A review of current research.
NY: Routledge. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse
Mueller, T. G., Singer, G. H. S., & Draper, L. Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 4-18.
(2008). Reducing parental dissatisfaction Zeitlin, V. M., & Curcic, S. (2014). Parental
with special education in two school districts: voices on Individualized Education Programs:
Implementing conflict prevention and alterna- “Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!”
tive dispute resolution. Journal of Educational Disability & Society, 29, 373-387. doi:10.108
and Psychological Consultation, 18, 191-233. 0/09687599.2013.776493
Mueller, T. G., & Vick, A. M. (2017). An investi-
gation of Facilitated Individualized Education
Program (FIEP) meeting practice: Promising Author Biographies
procedures that foster family-professional col- Tracy Gershwin Mueller is a professor in the
laboration. Teacher Education and Special School of Special Education at the University of
Education. Advance online publication. Northern Colorado. Her research interests are in
doi:10.1177/0888406417739677 the area of family-professional partnerships,
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and conflict prevention and alternative dispute reso-
evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: lution, teacher preparation and professional
SAGE. development, and positive behavior interven-
Richards, L. (2002). Nvivo 7 [Computer soft- tions and supports for students with challenging
ware]. Bundoora, Victoria, Australia: QSR behaviors.
International.
Aimee Massafra is a doctoral student in the School
Salas, L. (2004). Individualized educational plan
of Special Education at the University of Northern
(IEP) meetings and Mexican American par-
Colorado. Her research interests are in the areas of
ents: Let’s talk about it. Journal of Latinos and
evidence-based practices for students with autism
Education, 3, 181-192.
and challenging behaviors, teacher preparation and
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the
professional development, training and support for
professions. Daedalus, 134, 52-59.
paraprofessionals, and family-professional partner-
Simon, J. B. (2006). Perceptions of the IEP require-
ships.
ment. Teacher Education and Special Education:
The Journal of the Teacher Education Division Jason Robinson is an assistant professor in the
of the Council for Exceptional Children, 29, School of Special Education at the University of
225-235. doi:10.1177/088840640602900403 Northern Colorado. His research interests include
Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angell, effective teacher preparation, applied behavior
M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P. (2005). analysis, and inclusion.
18 Teacher Education and Special Education 00(0)

Lori Peterson is an assistant professor in the postsecondary outcomes for individuals with
School of Special Education at the University of exceptionalities, assessment of students with
Northern Colorado. Her research interests are is the exceptionalities, and teacher preparation and pro-
areas of self-determination, transition planning, fessional development.

View publication stats