Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Next Article in Journal
Transforming Islamic Education through Lesson Study (LS): A Classroom-Based Approach to Professional Development in Southern Thailand
Previous Article in Journal
A Systematic Literature Review of Integrated STEM Education: Uncovering Consensus and Diversity in Principles and Characteristics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Non-Formal Education for the Inclusion of Unaccompanied Migrant Children in Italy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/educsci14091030
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Inclusive Education Virtual Professional Development: School-Based Professionals’ Knowledge of Best Practices

by
Cristin Montalbano
1,*,
Julie Lang
1,*,
James C. Coviello
2,
Jessica A. McQueston
3,*,
Joseph A. Hogan
4,
Jenelle Nissley-Tsiopinis
5,6,
Francesca Ciotoli
7 and
Fred Buglione
1
1
New Jersey Coalition for Inclusive Education, Wayne, NJ 07470, USA
2
Department of Administrative and Instructional Leadership, St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY 11432, USA
3
School of Teaching and Learning, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX 77340, USA
4
Department of Special Education and Literacy, Kean University, Union, NJ 07083, USA
5
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
6
Perelman School of Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
7
School of Education, St. Thomas Aquinas College, Sparkill, NY 10976, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 1030; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091030
Submission received: 30 June 2024 / Revised: 12 September 2024 / Accepted: 13 September 2024 / Published: 20 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Inclusive Education Experiences and Intersections of Identity)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigated the effectiveness of a five-session virtual professional development program designed to increase the knowledge of inclusive education practices among school-based professionals from 26 schools on a topic of their choice. Participants, including administrators, general and special education teachers, child study team members (i.e., school psychologists, school counselors, and social workers), and others, demonstrated statistically significant increases in content knowledge on Accommodations and Modifications, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Co-teaching, and Differentiation, as measured by pre- and post-assessments. Utilizing multilevel modeling and dependent samples t-tests, the results confirm the usefulness of virtual professional development in building knowledge of inclusive education practices. The findings provide empirical support for virtual training and offer insights into best practices for delivering professional development in inclusive education, suggesting future research should investigate the long-term impacts on classroom practices and student outcomes.

1. Introduction

There is an ongoing need for high-quality professional development and training for teachers and other school-based staff members, especially within the highly specialized field of special education. Researchers have long studied the importance of including students with disabilities in the general education classroom [1]. However, many states and districts continue to struggle to adopt inclusive practices [2], and educators and other school professionals often need further training to support students with disabilities in inclusive settings [3]. While in-person training has been shown to be effective in improving instruction [4], this modality is inherently limited, given finite financial resources and time for educators, trainers, and organizations to travel to various school sites across a given state. Online professional development is not new, as many schools looked towards it previously to help build capacity and have welcomed the potential savings in cost and increased flexibility [5].
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck and disrupted the traditional operations of schools, administrators, teachers, and school community members were forced to rely on virtual means to continue to meet the needs of learners. In addition to shifting to virtual instruction, schools also shifted professional development to online platforms [6]. Though brought on by less-than-ideal circumstances, this increase in online professional development provided an opportunity to expand the reach of training for inclusive practices, given the relative ease of attending a virtual professional development session [5]. As educators and all school-based staff members emerge from the aftermath of COVID-19, it is important to develop an understanding of professional development practices that yield effective results and consider how lessons learned from these experiences might inform future decisions regarding the adoption of different training modalities that aim to improve inclusive practices.
This study aims to examine the effectiveness of a virtual professional development model in increasing educators’ and other school-based professionals’ knowledge about inclusive practices for students with disabilities. Like schools, organizations providing professional development shifted from an in-person to an online model of content delivery, pivoting from a blend of in-person didactic training, coaching, and technical assistance across five site visits to synchronous and asynchronous learning sessions. This research aims to draw lessons regarding effective professional development for teachers and other staff providers and provides evidence for district and school-site leaders to help inform decisions on training modalities. The virtual professional development program outlined in this study has the capacity to help further inform learning opportunities geared towards inclusive education that will ultimately help increase accessibility, scalability, and sustainability. This study seeks to answer the following research question:
RQ: Does a five-session virtual professional development program increase participant content area knowledge around various topics in inclusive education?

2. Literature Review

Researchers in the field of professional development for inclusive education are concerned with systemic reform of educator training to ensure it addresses the needs of all learners, especially those who have previously been excluded or marginalized within traditional education. In the United States, students with disabilities have historically been excluded and segregated into separate schools or classrooms, though, in recent decades, these students are increasingly being integrated into classrooms with students without disabilities in an attempt to educate them in what is termed a “least restrictive environment” by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [7]. It is, therefore, crucial for professional development to be tailored to increase educator knowledge of effective practices for inclusive education. Continually changing trends in the field of inclusive education and stubbornly low rates of inclusion in some states [8,9] have supported the need for effective and widely accessible professional development for teachers and administrators. Many researchers focus on examining the effectiveness of inclusive teaching practices and placements in increasing the academic skills and knowledge of students with disabilities [10,11]. This research base is robust and has been ongoing for several decades, with findings consistently supporting the effectiveness of inclusive placements [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18], including for those students with extensive support needs. For instance, one matched pair study [15] examined students with extensive support needs and observed the increased academic progress, social interactions, and access to the curriculum for students included in general education as compared to separate settings.
However, when implementing greater inclusion for students with disabilities, multiple barriers exist, including varying levels of teacher familiarity and training for inclusive practices, limited resources, and organizational restrictions [19]. Creating more inclusive educational environments can be complex, involving systemic change for both instructional practices and broader institutional processes [20]. At the school, district, and state levels, pathways for implementing inclusive education are required for developing and sustaining inclusive schools. Inclusive education research focuses on strengthening schools’ capacity for change [8,21] through the development of an inclusive culture [22,23], including addressing the beliefs and perceptions about students with disabilities [24]. Similar research focuses on practical considerations for fostering greater inclusion, like creating organizational flexibility that encourages collaborative problem-solving and shared responsibility [10]; instituting models of multi-tiered systems of support [25]; implementing a model of co-teaching [26]; effectively modifying the curriculum [27]; and addressing complexities of scheduling for students and educators [2]. Overall, the body of research concerning inclusive instructional practices centers on the creation of learning environments where all students belong and learn, a process of capacity-building that requires effective professional learning opportunities for both general and special educators, and all school-based professionals with whom students interact.
To further highlight this point and focus specifically on teachers, the U.S. Department of Education [28] identifies teachers as the “single most important factor in raising student achievement”, a view that bolsters the potential value of effective professional development. We adopt the definition of professional development as purposeful processes and activities aimed at enhancing teachers’ and other educational practitioners’ professional knowledge to improve student outcomes [5]. Professional development includes various professional learning methods, including coursework, workshops, conferences, seminars, observation visits, or in-service training [29].
Though receiving more recent attention, online professional development is not new [29] and has taken many forms, often mirroring in-person structure delivered using a single method or a combination of online, in-person, synchronous, and asynchronous formats [5]. Research on the effectiveness of online professional development has shown that, among other factors, it can increase content knowledge and teacher perceptions of self-efficacy [30]. Elements of quality in online professional development include programming that is based on current practice [31,32,33] and focuses on the applicable context, hands-on activities, and social interaction [34]. This work aligns with recent conceptions of adult learning theory, where, as Merriam [35] (p. 95) highlights, the “linking of the individual’s learning process to his or her context makes for a richer, more holistic understanding of learning in adulthood”.
The global COVID-19 pandemic necessitated emergency remote teaching and learning for many K-12 school districts for the spring and fall of 2020, resulting in a sudden pivot to online professional development for teachers and other school-based staff members. Studies on the short- or long-term effects, if any, of these changes to online teacher professional development are therefore limited given the three-year timeframe since the pandemic began. Initial research conducted after 2020 has identified similar pre-pandemic benefits to professional learning that is delivered remotely or online, including increased flexibility and access due to reduced costs and time for in-person travel, greater immediacy of participation, and shared networking across diverse communities [5]. However, the challenges associated with this modality involved uncertainty in using online technologies, a lack of access to devices and reliable internet, and the isolating nature of working remotely [5]. Despite these barriers, online professional development has remained a learning modality for teacher professional development since the COVID-19 pandemic has waned.
The research on professional development for inclusive education demonstrates that inclusive best practices produce positive outcomes for students with disabilities [36,37,38,39,40]. This is supported by the research findings of Peterson-Ahmad and colleagues, who stated, “well prepared teachers produce higher student achievement, are more likely to remain in the field of teaching and are well-developed in the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in the classroom” [41] (p. 2). Teachers and other school staff members are essential to the implementation of inclusive education, as they create learning experiences for students [11], which includes planning for a wide range of learning needs. For educational reforms to be effective, teachers must be equipped with professional knowledge, positive attitudes toward the changes, and practical skills for implementation [42,43]. Students’ behavior, achievement, and attitudes are expected to improve when teachers gain new skills through professional development and successfully apply them in the classroom [44,45,46]. However, national teacher shortages have challenged the need for high-quality teaching staff, specifically in special education and within disadvantaged communities [24]. This challenge is exacerbated by the increasing number of students receiving special education services [47], the high cost and limited special education funding, and a lack of high-quality professional development relating to inclusive education [48,49]. It is more critical than ever that all teachers and other school-based staff members participate in professional development supporting inclusive education and teaching practices.
Improving educational outcomes for students, especially for students with disabilities, through professional learning experiences is a complex endeavor. While there is a growing body of research about the challenges and responses to the need for online professional development resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic [5], much of what exists focuses on supporting teachers’ knowledge and skills in using technology and adapting in-person instruction to remote learning [49]. One challenge is finding research that specifically targets supporting teachers’ and other school-based professionals’ understanding of inclusive education and inclusive teaching practices. Additionally, Tooley and Connally [50] found that evaluating professional development outcomes is uncommon. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about how to measure outcomes and, in some cases, even how to track basic information about professional development activities. Consequently, in many areas, there is a significant lack of systematic data collection on both the professional development provided and its impact [51]. This study seeks to analyze the data collected from online professional development and contribute a new understanding of how professional learning specific to inclusive education can be reshaped and adapted to enhance its delivery, support, and overall impact.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design

The main purpose of this research was to examine how a five-session virtual professional development program impacted content knowledge for school-based personnel around particular educator topics. It was hypothesized that all participants would display statistically significant increases in content knowledge at post-assessment. To examine this question, researchers employed a within-subjects, repeated measures design. where all participants engaged in the professional development opportunity at their respective schools. Content knowledge was measured at the beginning and the end of the five-learning session period. The initial professional development program and data collection were completed as part of a statewide grant. A secondary analysis of data was completed for the purpose of this study. Thus, the IRB determined that this was exempt.

3.2. Participants

Participants extended from a statewide grant geared towards improving knowledge of and efficacy with implementing best practices in inclusive education. Schools serving kindergarten through twelfth-grade students were invited to apply for short-term professional development support. Accepted schools included those spanning the state’s north, central, and southern regions with lower district-level inclusion rates. In total, 45 schools were accepted to participate. Thirty-three schools were able to complete the professional development support in its entirety, as others faced many barriers related to virtual instruction during the pandemic.
Furthermore, only 26 participating schools utilized the same pre- and post-assessments across the implementation period. Of the 26 participating schools, 12 were elementary school level, 3 were elementary/middle school level, 6 were middle school level, 2 were middle/high school level, and 3 were high school level. Participants included administrators, general education teachers, special education teachers, related service providers, and other school staff members as part of a contingency within the grant. The majority of the participants were general and special education teachers. See Figure 1 for a breakdown of the various roles of participants. A total of 431 school-based staff members participated across the 26 schools with analyzable data, with an average of 16.5 and a range of 5 to 42 participants per school. The sample consisted of 351 females, 68 males, and 12 individuals whose gender was not specified.

3.3. Description of Virtual Professional Development Program

Each virtual professional development program provided to schools included five synchronous sessions beginning with an orientation session. Five synchronous sessions were provided in a weekly professional learning community (PLC) format. The participants were given access to five content-related webinars and accompanying resources and activities for each topic. The participating schools self-selected support topics from a menu of options, including Accommodations and Modifications (Acc_Mods), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Co-teaching, and Utilizing Differentiation to Support Inclusive Education (Differentiation). The offered topics were selected for multiple reasons, including preferences of the funding agency, state-specific needs, and the alignment of topics with central best practices of inclusive education. The schools then selected topics based on their staff’s needs and preferences for support.
The virtual professional development support lasted between four and six weeks, depending on participant availability. Inclusion facilitators employed by grant funding led the sessions. The inclusion facilitators had extensive experience in coaching and implementing best practices in inclusive education across elementary, middle, and high schools. The sessions lasted between 40 and 60 min. Typically, one PLC session occurred during each week of participation. Prior to the five learning sessions, there was an introductory meeting with the participants, which consisted of the assigned inclusion facilitator introducing themselves, explaining the project, and then administering a pre-assessment of the topic. The learning sessions followed a consistent format of content delivery blended with interactive activities and discussion in breakout rooms. Zoom was the main platform used to facilitate sessions; however, Google Meet was also utilized on occasion when a school preferred this platform. After the five learning sessions were completed, participants completed a post-assessment.
Across all topics, the participants were systematically provided with information and resources pertaining to state-specific legal codes, research findings, definitions, historical foundations, overarching principles, and practical applications. The content was further enriched through diverse learning activities, including case studies, video analyses, targeted discussions, jigsaw activities, resource explorations, and choice boards. The combination of sharing salient background information and facilitating meaningful activities was strategically utilized to enhance participant outcomes related to content knowledge. Table 1 highlights the key content covered for each topic and provides sample assessment items.

3.4. Measures

The participants completed pre- and post-assessments at the beginning and end of the five professional development sessions. The pre- and post-assessments included 20 multiple-choice questions to measure content knowledge related to specific topics. The content knowledge questions targeted state-specific legal codes, definitions, historical foundations, and practical application aspects of each topic area. For examples across topics, please see Table 1. The total scores on the pre- and post-assessments were calculated by adding the number of correct responses and dividing by the number of items. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for all assessments. The alpha coefficients for the Accommodations and Modifications, UDL, Co-teaching, and Differentiation assessments were 0.78, 0.81, 0.54, and 0.77, respectively.

3.5. Data Preparation

The research team screened all data for missing values, outliers, and violations of assumptions, including normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. The barriers to participant schedules impacted full participation, leading to more missing data than expected. Across the packages and pre- and post-assessments, the percentages of missing data ranged from 7.1% to 40.2%; however, all data were missing randomly as determined by the multiple non-statistically significant results of Little’s MCAR analyses across topic areas. To maintain sample sizes, expectation maximization (EM) methods were used to impute values for missing data and to maintain statistical power [52]. All analyses were conducted with and without missing data. No differences in statistical significance were observed. No significant outliers and no violations of assumptions were revealed after the analyses of frequency distributions, box plots, scatterplots, partial regression plots, and correlational data.

3.6. Data Analysis Approach

Descriptive statistics were calculated using the mean scores and standard deviations of the pre- and post-assessments. In accordance with best practices for hierarchically structured data, multilevel linear mixed modeling was utilized for analyses of Co-teaching and Differentiation [52,53]. This type of analysis is typically used to strategically account for variance when the data are influenced by a grouped or nested structure [52]. The main advantage of linear mixed modeling is that it permits researchers to control for the variance related to group membership separately from the variance due to individuals. Using the pre- and post-assessments, the research team investigated changes in content knowledge over these two time points. Each participant was considered his or her own group (i.e., Level-2 variable) within which the two time points were nested. Additionally, participants were nested within schools. Since there were smaller numbers of schools for both Co-teaching and Differentiation, a dummy variable was used for schools and integrated into analyses at Level-2 instead of as a Level-3 variable. This helped researchers account for the unobserved variance explained by school differences, as there was not enough power to model a Level-3 variable [54].
The research team first fit unconditional models and calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) using variance components to determine the amount of variance in content knowledge growth in Co-teaching and Differentiation explained by the grouping structure. Full models were then fit. The Level-1 variable was pre- and post-assessment data. The Level-2 variable was participants, and the dummy variable for school was integrated as a Level-2 predictor. Time (Level-1 variable) and school (Level-2 variable) were modeled as fixed effects to ensure model convergence [53]. Intercepts were modeled as random to permit variation across participants.
Dependent samples t-tests were conducted for UDL and Accommodations and Modifications, as the sample sizes were insufficient to provide the power needed to utilize linear mixed modeling [55,56]. All data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25.0.

4. Results

In this study, the researchers examined growth in content knowledge from pre- to post-assessment, addressing the main research question as follows: Does a five-session virtual professional development program increase participant content area knowledge around various topics in inclusive education? Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 1. To examine our research question, the data from all professional development support topics were analyzed independently, as pre- and post-assessments were content-specific. Descriptive statistics and results for each topic of support are provided below.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 presents the number of schools per topic area, mean scores, standard deviations, minimum scores, and maximum scores for all pre- and post-assessments. The participants displayed some content knowledge related to the topics prior to the professional development support, as pre-assessment scores ranged from 57% to 70%. In addition, the participants displayed growth from pre- to post-assessment, as average scores at post-assessment ranged from 74% to 89%.

4.2. Co-Teaching

Multilevel, mixed linear analysis was conducted to examine whether a five-session professional development program increased participant content knowledge of Co-teaching. Table 3 shows the results for the unconditional model, which indicated statistically significant variation across time points, as indicated by the Wald Z test after the significance level was divided by two [57]. The ICC value, which was 0.4167, indicated that 41.67% of the variance in content knowledge was attributable to the grouping structure of the data (e.g., time points within participants).
Table 4 summarizes the fixed effect estimates of the full model. After accounting for time points and school, the participants’ grand mean was 0.66 (66%). The results show that time was positively related to participants’ content knowledge, thus indicating statistically significant changes in content knowledge from pre- to post-assessment. The participants’ scores increased about 6% from pre- to post-assessment. The school was not a significant predictor of content knowledge in the model.

4.3. Differentiation

Multilevel, mixed linear modeling was conducted to determine whether a similar five-session professional development program increased participant content knowledge of best practices in Differentiation. Table 5 shows the results for the unconditional model, which indicated statistically significant variation across time points, as indicated by the Wald Z test after the significance level was again divided by two [57]. The ICC value, which was 0.26, indicated that 26% of the variance in content knowledge related to Differentiation was attributable to the group structure of the data (e.g., time points within participants).
Table 6 captures the fixed effect estimates of the full model. The participants’ grand mean is 0.57 (57%) after accounting for time points and school. The results show that time was positively related to participants’ content knowledge of best practices in Differentiation, thus indicating statistically significant changes in content knowledge from pre- to post-assessments. The participants’ scores increased by about 11% from pre- to post-assessment. Similarly to Co-teaching, school was not a significant predictor of content knowledge in the model.

4.4. Universal Design for Learning

To examine whether a five-session professional development program increased participant content knowledge of best practices in UDL, a dependent samples t-test was conducted to compare the pre- and post-assessments related to content knowledge around UDL. This topic area has a smaller sample size (n = 54) with only four schools. The dependent samples t-test revealed a statistically significant increase in content knowledge with a large effect size after participation in the five-session professional development program (t (53) = 9.24, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.57).

4.5. Accommodations and Modifications

Similarly to UDL, the topic area of Accommodations and Modifications had a smaller sample size (n = 64) with only three schools. As such, a dependent samples t-test was utilized to compare pre- and post-assessment data related to content area knowledge of Accommodations and Modifications. The dependent samples t-test revealed a statistically significant increase in content knowledge with a large effect size after participation in the five-session professional development program (t (63) = 8.68, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.16).

5. Discussion

We know from extant literature that professional development can impact teachers’ expectations about the abilities of students with disabilities [58] and can positively impact teacher self-efficacy and attitudes about inclusive education [59]. Despite this common understanding in the field, school districts continue to experience challenges with helping staff members develop the necessary skills and competencies to develop and utilize best practices in inclusive education [24]. In order to assist with this challenge, our research team evaluated the efficacy of various five-session virtual professional development programs that were necessitated by the global pandemic. As the field of education continues to learn from and adjust to the aftermath of COVID-19, it is important to develop an understanding of professional development modalities and practices that yielded effective outcomes, as this can help increase school-based staff member access to high-quality support to meet the needs of all students by utilizing best practices in inclusive education.
The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether the five virtual professional development sessions led to a measurable increase in knowledge regarding inclusive instructional practices that foster learning environments where all students feel a sense of belonging and can achieve success. The key components of this approach included supporting teachers and other school-based staff members around one topic of choice as follows: Co-teaching, Differentiation, Accommodations and Modifications, or Universal Design for Learning. The results of this study indicated strong and statistically significant gains in content knowledge for all topics of support. Multilevel analysis revealed that participants’ scores improved by approximately 6% for the Co-teaching training from pre- to post-assessment. After a similar analysis of the Differentiation package, the results indicated that participants’ scores increased by approximately 11%. The dependent t-test analyses indicated a statistically significant enhancement in content knowledge in the areas of UDL, as well as Accommodations and Modifications.
The findings of this study indicate that five-session virtual professional development programs are highly effective at building content knowledge around best practices in inclusive education for a wide range of school-based professionals. Across all the topic areas, the participants displayed large, statistically significant gains in content knowledge. The development of content knowledge around best practices is the cornerstone of helping school-based professionals utilize and implement research-based strategies within classrooms [43,44,45,46]. Through understanding the best practices in Co-teaching, Differentiation, Accommodations and Modifications, and UDL, teachers and other school staff members are better equipped to support the needs of all students, including those with significant support needs, within a general education classroom.
In addition, this research team identified a critical gap in professional development literature related to the lack of empirical support for various professional development programs and modalities. Despite the increasing reliance on virtual platforms for educator training [29,53], there has been limited rigorous analysis of their effectiveness in enhancing content knowledge, which is fundamental to enhancing pedagogical skills. This study contributes to the field by providing empirical evidence on the impact of structured virtual sessions on educators’ mastery of inclusive instructional practices. Furthermore, it offers insights into how specific training elements, such as Co-teaching, Differentiation, Accommodations and Modifications, and Universal Design for Learning, can be effectively delivered in a virtual format to achieve measurable improvements. This study’s methodological rigor, including the use of pre- and post-assessments and multilevel and dependent t-test analyses, strengthens the validity of its findings and underscores the potential of well-designed virtual professional development programs. Most professional development programs and/or modalities do not have strong empirical support, making this study’s contributions particularly valuable in guiding future professional development initiatives and policy decisions.
As a main component of our research, we also intentionally included a cross-section of school-based staff members to ensure all providers fully understand best practices in inclusive education, which is a core element of a successful inclusive school community. This approach increased accessibility for staff beyond special education teachers, who typically receive professional development in this area. The benefits extend to students with and without disabilities and improve teacher retention rates, as well-prepared teachers achieve higher student success and are more likely to remain in the profession. This builds on previous research highlighting the positive outcomes of focusing on building best practices for students with and without disabilities [36,37,38,39,40,41].
Even though this research fills a significant gap in the extant literature and in practice centered on professional development for educators and other school-based staff members, there are some limitations of note. First, while the impact of these professional development programs was widespread, our sample size was relatively small and consisted of a sample of convenience, which limited the ways in which the data could be analyzed and impacted generalizability. Additionally, we know that content knowledge is an effective impetus for change in classroom-based practices, but this study was unable to examine how participating in these virtual opportunities impacted the implementation of best practices within classrooms. The student outcomes were unable to be correlated to the implementation of inclusive educational practices.
To address these limitations and other gaps in research on professional development around best practices in inclusive education, future research should employ an experimental design that integrates treatment and control groups with increased measurement opportunities to gather more information related to changes in self-efficacy, attitudes and beliefs, and classroom-based practices. Furthermore, future research should include comparison studies of various professional development models (e.g., virtual professional development, job-embedded professional development, etc.) to further focus on best practices in building teachers’ and other school-based professionals’ capacity to support all learners, especially those with extensive support needs. Lastly, this study could be replicated during a time not impacted by a global pandemic and worldwide emergency.

6. Conclusions

As schools continue to navigate the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the insights from this research highlight the importance of embracing virtual professional development as a sustainable, accessible, and scalable approach. This study highlights the efficacy of virtual professional development programs to increase the knowledge and understanding of inclusive instructional practices among school-based professionals in one state. The results of this study demonstrate the efficacy of virtual professional development in enhancing school-based professionals’ understanding of inclusive instructional practices. Significant gains were observed across all areas of training, with notable increases in content knowledge regarding Co-teaching, Differentiation, Accommodations and Modifications, and UDL. Specifically, the post-training mean scores improved for Co-teaching (0.74), Differentiation (0.81), Accommodations and Modifications (0.75), and UDL (0.89). These findings suggest that virtual professional development can effectively equip school-based professionals with the content knowledge needed to foster inclusive educational environments for all students, including those with disabilities. As schools continue to adapt to post-pandemic realities, virtual training remains a valuable and scalable method for promoting professional growth and inclusive practices in education.

Author Contributions

C.M.—project administration, methodology, formal analyses, writing, reviewing, and editing; J.L.—inclusion facilitator, conceptualization, writing, reviewing, and editing; J.C.C.—conceptualization, writing, reviewing, and editing; J.A.M.—IRB, conceptualization, writing, reviewing, references, and editing; J.A.H.—writing, reviewing, editing, and references; J.N.-T.—methodology, formal analyses, and reviewing; F.C.—conceptualization and original introduction and literature review preparation; F.B.—project administration, reviewing, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was deemed exempt from IRB approval.

Informed Consent Statement

The initial data collection occurred as part of standard operating procedures for the non-profit agency as part of their project evaluation process for non-research purposes. This research team conducted a secondary analysis of the data. Thus, the secondary analysis was not subject to IRB approval, as it occurred after all data was collected.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available by request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

This research would not have been possible without the support of the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Special Education, the New Jersey Coalition for Inclusive Education, and all of the students for whom we all work so diligently to support in their educational endeavors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kart, A.; Kart, M. Academic and Social Effects of Inclusion on Students without Disabilities: A Review of the Literature. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. DeMatthews, D.; Mawhinney, H. Social Justice Leadership and Inclusion: Exploring Challenges in an Urban District Struggling to Address Inequities. Educ. Adm. Q. 2014, 50, 844–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tristani, L.; Bassett-Gunter, R. Making the Grade: Teacher Training for Inclusive Education: A Systematic Review. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 2020, 20, 246–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Van Driel, J.H.; Berry, A. Teacher Professional Development Focusing on Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educ. Res. 2012, 41, 26–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Perry, E. Teacher Professional Development in Changing Circumstances: The Impact of COVID-19 on Schools’ Approaches to Professional Development. Educ. Sci. 2022, 13, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abdelhafez, A. Digitizing Teacher Education and Professional Development during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Acad. Lett. 2021, 295, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2021 Annual Report to Congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Available online: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/2021-individuals-with-disabilities-education-act-annual-report-to-congress/ (accessed on 29 March 2024).
  8. Ainscow, M. Inclusion and Equity in Education: Making Sense of Global Challenges. Prospects 2020, 49, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sapon-Shevin, M. Inclusion: A Matter of Social Justice. Educ. Leadersh. 2003, 61, 25. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cole, S.M.; Murphy, H.R.; Frisby, M.B.; Robinson, J. The Relationship between Special Education Placement and High School Outcomes. J. Spec. Educ. 2022, 57, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hattie, J. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement; Routledge: London, UK, 2008; ISBN 9780415476171. [Google Scholar]
  12. Causton-Theoharis, J.N.; Theoharis, G.; Orsati, F.; Cosier, M. Does Self-Contained Special Education Deliver on Its Promises? A Critical Inquiry into Research and Practice. J. Spec. Educ. Leadersh. 2011, 24, 61–78. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cole, C.M.; Waldron, N.; Majd, M. Academic Progress of Students across Inclusive and Traditional Settings. Ment. Retard. 2004, 42, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Fisher, M.; Meyer, L.H. Development and Social Competence after Two Years for Students Enrolled in Inclusive and Self-Contained Educational Programs. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabl. 2002, 27, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gee, K.; Gonzalez, M.; Cooper, C. Outcomes of Inclusive versus Separate Placements: A Matched Pairs Comparison Study. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabl. 2020, 45, 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kleinert, H.; Towles-Reeves, E.; Quenemoen, R.; Thurlow, M.; Fluegge, L.; Weseman, L.; Kerbel, A. Where Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities Are Taught: Implications for General Curriculum Access. Except. Child. 2015, 81, 312–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Peetsma, T.; Vergeer, M.; Roeleveld, J.; Karsten, S. Inclusion in Education: Comparing Pupils’ Development in Special and Regular Education. Educ. Rev. 2001, 53, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wagner, M.; Kutash, K.; Duchnowski, A.J.; Epstein, M.H. The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study and the National Longitudinal Transition Study: Study Designs and Implications for Children and Youth with Emotional Disturbance. J. Emot. Behav. Disord. 2005, 13, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dymond, S.K.; Renzaglia, A.; Chun, E.J. Inclusive High School Service Learning Programs: Methods for and Barriers to Including Students with Disabilities. Educ. Train. Dev. Disabil. 2008, 43, 20–36. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kleinhammer-Tramill, J.; Burrello, L.C.; Sailor, W. Special Education: A Critical Perspective on Reframing Public Policy for Students with Disabilities. In Unifying Education Systems: Leadership and Policy Perspectives; Burrello, L.C., Sailor, W., Kleinhammer-Tramill., J., Eds.; Routledge Member of the Taylor and Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 3–20. ISBN 9780415524698. [Google Scholar]
  21. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Inclusive Education: The Way of the Future Reference Document. Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/48223/pf0000162787 (accessed on 23 March 2024).
  22. Ainscow, M.; Sandill, A. Developing Inclusive Education Systems: The Role of Organisational Cultures and Leadership. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2010, 14, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dyson, A.; Howes, A.; Roberts, B. A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of School-Level Actions for Promoting Participation by All Students. Available online: https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=276 (accessed on 29 January 2024).
  24. Billingsley, B.; Bettini, E. Special Education Teacher Attrition and Retention: A Review of the Literature. Rev. Educ. Res. 2019, 89, 697–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Batsche, G. Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports for Inclusive Schools. In Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools; McLeskey, J., Waldron, N.L., Spooner, F., Algozzine, B., Eds.; Routledge Member of the Taylor and Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 183–196. ISBN 9780415626064. [Google Scholar]
  26. Scruggs, T.E.; Mastropieri, M.A.; McDuffie, K.A. Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. Except. Child. 2007, 73, 392–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, S.-H.; Wehmeyer, M.L.; Soukup, J.H.; Palmer, S.B. Impact of Curriculum Modifications on Access to the General Education Curriculum for Students with Disabilities. Except. Child. 2010, 76, 213–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. U.S. Department of Education. Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality; U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
  29. Choy, S.P.; Chen, X. Toward Better Teaching: Professional Development in 1993-94; U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
  30. Bragg, L.A.; Walsh, C.; Heyeres, M. Successful Design and Delivery of Online Professional Development for Teachers: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Comput. Educ. 2021, 166, 104158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brown, J.A.; Woods, J.J. Evaluation of a Multicomponent Online Communication Professional Development Program for Early Interventionists. J. Early Interv. 2012, 34, 222–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Griffin, C.C.; Dana, N.F.; Pape, S.J.; Algina, J.; Bae, J.; Prosser, S.K.; League, M.B. Prime Online: Exploring Teacher Professional Development for Creating Inclusive Elementary Mathematics Classrooms. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 2017, 41, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Marquez, B.; Vincent, C.; Marquez, J.; Pennefather, J.; Smolkowski, K.; Sprague, J. Opportunities and Challenges in Training Elementary School Teachers in Classroom Management: Initial Results from Classroom Management in Action, an Online Professional Development Program. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2016, 24, 87–109. [Google Scholar]
  34. Bonk, C.J.; Zhang, K. Introducing the R2D2 Model: Online Learning for the Diverse Learners of This World. Distance Educ. 2006, 27, 249–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Merriam, S.B. Adult Learning Theory for the Twenty-first Century. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2008, 2008, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ackah-Jnr, F.R. The Teacher Should Be Learning: In-Service Professional Development and Learning of Teachers Implementing Inclusive Education in Early Childhood Education Settings. Int. J. Whole Sch. 2020, 16, 93–121. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bartolo, P.A.; Björck-Åkesson, E.; Giné, C.; Kyriazopoulou, M. Ensuring a Strong Start for All Children: Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care. In Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap; Emerald Group Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 19–35. [Google Scholar]
  38. Forlin, C.; Sin, K.F. In-Service Teacher Training for Inclusion. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  39. Graham, L.; Scott, W. Teacher Preparation for Inclusive Education: Initial Teacher Education and in-Service Professional Development; Melbourne Graduate School of Education: Melbourne, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sharma, U. Preparing to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  41. Peterson-Ahmad, M.B.; Hovey, K.A.; Peak, P.K. Pre-Service Teacher Perceptions and Knowledge Regarding Professional Development: Implications for Teacher Preparation Programs. J. Spec. Educ. Apprenticesh. 2018, 7, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bransford, J.; Darling-Hammond, L.; LePage, P. Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do; Jossey-Bass: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lipowsky, F.; Rzejak, D. Key Features of Effective Professional Development Programmes for Teachers. Ricercazione 2015, 7, 27–51. [Google Scholar]
  44. Desimone, L.M. Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures. Educ. Res. 2009, 38, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cate, I.M.; Markova, M.; Krischler, M.; Krolak-Schwerdt, S. Promoting Inclusive Education: The Role of Teacher’ Competence and Attitudes. Insights Into Learn. Disabil. 2018, 15, 49–63. [Google Scholar]
  46. U.S. Department of Education. Report on the Condition of Education 2022; U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  47. Billingsley, B.; DeMatthews, D.; Connally, K.; McLeskey, J. Leadership for Effective Inclusive Schools: Considerations for Preparation and Reform. Australas. J. Spec. Incl. Educ. 2018, 42, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Holmqvist, M.; Lelinge, B. Teachers’ Collaborative Professional Development for Inclusive Education. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2021, 36, 819–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Francom, G.M.; Lee, S.J.; Pinkney, H. Technologies, Challenges and Needs of K-12 Teachers in the Transition to Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. TechTrends 2021, 65, 589–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tooley, M.S.; Connally, K. No Panacea: Diagnosing What Ails Teacher Professional Development before Reaching for Remedies; New America: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Donath, J.L.; Lüke, T.; Graf, E.; Tran, U.S.; Götz, T. Does Professional Development Effectively Support the Implementation of Inclusive Education? A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2023, 35, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-020-545-938-4. [Google Scholar]
  53. Heck, R.H.; Thomas, S.L.; Tabata, L.N. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling with IBM SPSS, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-041-581-711-0. [Google Scholar]
  54. Snijders, T.A.; Bosker, R.J. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling; Sage: London, UK, 1999; ISBN 978-076-195-890-1. [Google Scholar]
  55. Luke, D.A. Multilevel Modeling; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004; ISBN 978-076-192-879-9. [Google Scholar]
  56. Singer, J.D.; Willett, J.B. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-019-515-296-8. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hox, J.J. Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-113-697-534-9. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ruppar, A.L.; Neeper, L.; Dalsen, J. Special Education Teachers Perceptions of Preparedness to Teach Students with Severe Disabilities. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabl. 2016, 41, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hernandez, D.A.; Hueck, S.; Charley, C. General Education and Special Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusion. J. Am. Acad. Spec. Educ. Prof. 2016, 11, 79–93. [Google Scholar]
Education 14 01030 g001
Figure 1. Breakdown of participant roles across topic areas.
Figure 1. Breakdown of participant roles across topic areas.
Education 14 01030 g001
Table 1. Topic-specific content summary and sample assessment items.
Table 1. Topic-specific content summary and sample assessment items.
TopicSummary of Content CoveredSample Pre- and Post-Assessment Items
Co-Teaching
  • Introduction/Overview
  • Building Relationships
  • Co-Planning
  • Co-Teaching Models
  • Wrap-Up/Review
  • Which statement best describes co-teaching?
  • According to the Administrative Code, who has instructional responsibility for students with IEPs in a co-teaching setting?
  • What is the overall goal of the co-teaching partnership?
  • Which co-teaching model is used to instruct students in smaller, rotating groups?
Differentiation
  • Introduction/Overview
  • Preparing for Differentiation and Differentiating Instruction by Content
  • Differentiating Instruction by Process and Environment
  • Differentiating Instruction by Product and Evaluating Student Performance
  • Wrap-Up/Review
  • Which statement best describes differentiated instruction?
  • What is the difference between differentiation and accommodations/modifications?
  • What is one example of how a teacher can differentiate instruction by content?
  • What is the first question a teacher might ask themselves when thinking about designing assessments in a differentiated classroom?
Accommodations and Modifications
  • Introduction/Overview
  • Getting to Know Your Learners
  • Accommodations
  • Modifications
  • Implementing Accommodations and Modifications
  • Wrap-Up/Review
  • _____ alter(s) the curriculum based on student needs.
  • _____ change(s) what a student is expected to learn and demonstrate.
  • What do instructional accommodations include?
  • Other than observations and interviews, ____ are another way to collect and analyze data to determine the effectiveness of accommodations and modifications.
UDL
  • Introduction/Overview
  • Learner Variability, Brain Science, and Principles of UDL
  • Goals, Methods, Materials, Assessment
  • Learning Environment
  • Putting It Together
  • Wrap-Up/Review
  • What is the main goal of UDL?
  • What is an example of an Invisible Barrier?
  • Which of the following is not a key principle of UDL?
  • If reading is a barrier to learning in a science lesson, what option could be offered to help?
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of pre- and post-assessments.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of pre- and post-assessments.
# of SchoolsnMSDMinMax
Co-Teaching Pre61020.680.110.300.90
Co-Teaching Post61020.740.090.401.00
Differentiation Pre132110.700.150.151.00
Differentiation Post132110.810.160.151.00
Acc_Mods Pre3640.570.150.201.00
Acc_Mods Post3640.750.160.451.00
UDL Pre4540.680.160.150.95
UDL Post4540.890.100.551.00
Table 3. Unconditional model for participant content knowledge: Co-teaching.
Table 3. Unconditional model for participant content knowledge: Co-teaching.
VariableEstimateSEt-Ratio
Fixed Effect
      Intercept0.71 ***0.0178.83
VariableVarianceSEWald Z
Random Effect
      Repeated Measures0.0070.007.14 ***
      Intercept0.0050.003.95 ***
Note. The Wald Z test was conducted as one-tailed for specified reasons. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Multilevel model of participant content knowledge: Co-teaching.
Table 4. Multilevel model of participant content knowledge: Co-teaching.
Full Model
VariableEst.SEt-Ratio
Fixed Effects
      Intercept 0.660.0229.45 ***
      Time0.060.016.85 ***
      School0.000.010.73
VariableVarianceSEWald Z
Repeated Measures
      Time 10.010.0015.41 ***
      Time 20.0020.0012.42 **
      Intercept0.0010.0015.03 ***
Note. The Wald Z test was conducted as one-tailed for specified reasons. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Unconditional model for participant content knowledge: Differentiation.
Table 5. Unconditional model for participant content knowledge: Differentiation.
VariableEstimateSEt-Ratio
Fixed Effect
      Intercept0.76 ***0.0183.60
VariableVarianceSEWald Z
Random Effect
      Repeated Measures0.020.0010.27 ***
      Intercept0.010.003.80 ***
Note. The Wald Z test was conducted as one-tailed for specified reasons. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Multilevel model of participant content knowledge: Differentiation.
Table 6. Multilevel model of participant content knowledge: Differentiation.
Full Model
VariableEst.SEt-Ratio
Fixed Effects
      Intercept0.570.0321.16 ***
      Time0.110.019.78 ***
      School0.000.011.21
VariableVarianceSEWald Z
Repeated Measures
      Time 10.010.0026.26 ***
      Time 20.020.0027.17 ***
      Intercept0.010.0025.74 ***
Note. The Wald Z test was conducted as one-tailed for specified reasons. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Montalbano, C.; Lang, J.; Coviello, J.C.; McQueston, J.A.; Hogan, J.A.; Nissley-Tsiopinis, J.; Ciotoli, F.; Buglione, F. Inclusive Education Virtual Professional Development: School-Based Professionals’ Knowledge of Best Practices. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091030

AMA Style

Montalbano C, Lang J, Coviello JC, McQueston JA, Hogan JA, Nissley-Tsiopinis J, Ciotoli F, Buglione F. Inclusive Education Virtual Professional Development: School-Based Professionals’ Knowledge of Best Practices. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(9):1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091030

Chicago/Turabian Style

Montalbano, Cristin, Julie Lang, James C. Coviello, Jessica A. McQueston, Joseph A. Hogan, Jenelle Nissley-Tsiopinis, Francesca Ciotoli, and Fred Buglione. 2024. "Inclusive Education Virtual Professional Development: School-Based Professionals’ Knowledge of Best Practices" Education Sciences 14, no. 9: 1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091030

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop