The face-to-face lecture has a long tradition in universities as a means of teaching theory (Jones, Reference Jones2007). Jones (Reference Jones2007) has argued that the power of the lecture format is in its immediacy and presence. The legacy of the lecture format has continued to the present, and with the growth of distance/online tertiary education, there has been an increase in the use of lecture recordings accessed via the internet by both online and on-campus higher education students (Copley, Reference Copley2007; Preston et al., Reference Preston, Phillips, Gosper, McNeill, Woo and Green2010). It has been argued that the shift from face-to-face to online delivery of course content, rapidly being adopted in the tertiary environment, has often been made without associated shifts in course delivery format and pedagogy (Guertin, Bodek, Zappe, & Kim, Reference Guertin, Bodek, Zappe and Kim2007). Questions could be asked as to whether the lecture format is ideal for courses that are offered simultaneously on multiple campuses and remotely via the internet where immediacy and presence are either impractical or unachievable. Furthermore, the lecture format has been found to have limitations in terms of linking theory to practice and in terms of developing students’ profession-specific skills (Hanson & Sinclair, Reference Hanson and Sinclair2008). Thus an exploration of alternatives to the traditional lecture in preparing people for the teaching profession is warranted.
Striking a balance between theory and practice in the design of teacher education courses is problematic and has become almost synonymous with teacher education (Bates, Reference Bates2002; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, Reference Korthagen, Loughran and Russell2006). The problem has been exacerbated since the 1960s when responsibility for teacher training fell to the universities (Davis & Roper, Reference Davis and Roper1982; Russell, Reference Russell and Calderhead1988). According to Skilbeck and Connell (Reference Skilbeck and Connell2004, p. 12):
There is widespread criticism of educational theory courses, notably by students in training, beginning teachers, and school principals. Teachers in their initial years in the profession express frustration over coursework for which they generally perceive little value intellectually or practically. Most find considerable difficulty in explaining the relevance of educational research and theory to their teaching.
Similarly, Levine (Reference Levine2006) argued that we are in danger of preparing teachers who know much about theory and little about practice. The perceived disconnect between theory and practice in teacher education programs persists, and calls for new and more effective pedagogies, including in inclusive education courses (Florian, Young, & Rouse, Reference Florian, Young and Rouse2010), need to be heeded (Meijer, de Graaf, & Meirink, Reference Meijer, de Graaf and Meirink2011; Yayli, Reference Yayli2008).
Inclusive education is an area in which preservice teachers have traditionally struggled to bridge the gap that they perceive exists between the theories taught at university and the practical demands upon teachers in primary and secondary school contexts (Lancaster & Bain, Reference Lancaster and Bain2010). Inclusive education is underpinned by the belief that schools should be responsive to student diversity, including (but not limited to) making adjustments to meet the educational needs of students with disability (Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin, Reference Sharma, Loreman and Forlin2012). Given the focus on inclusive teaching practices in professional standards for teachers (e.g., Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011), it is increasingly important for preservice teachers to have a strong sense of self-efficacy regarding their ability to implement inclusive practices (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Loreman and Forlin2012). However, many preservice teachers have reported feeling underprepared to teach students across a diverse range of needs and abilities (Hemmings & Woodcock, Reference Hemmings and Woodcock2011). The reasons they proffer for this sense of underpreparedness include their own lack of experience as a student in inclusive schools, their lack of experience in working with students with diverse needs, the limited time devoted to inclusive education in their teacher education programs, and the increasing demands placed on classroom teachers to effectively include all students (Hemmings & Woodcock, Reference Hemmings and Woodcock2011).
Within the context of teacher education, studies of inclusive education require consideration of both philosophical and political issues (theory), as well as practical aspects of learning and teaching for students with diverse abilities (Tait & Purdie, Reference Tait and Purdie2000). Teachers’ beliefs about inclusion have a significant influence on their ability, and their willingness, to implement inclusive educational practices (Forlin & Chambers, Reference Forlin and Chambers2011; Stella, Forlin, & Lan, Reference Stella, Forlin and Lan2007). Thus, teacher educators have an important role in designing effective courses for preservice teachers to prepare them to meet the educational needs of all students (Forlin, Reference Forlin2006). Forlin (Reference Forlin2006) reported that the most effective approaches to preservice teacher education regarding inclusive education have been those that combine direct instruction with direct contact with people with disabilities (self-advocates). But such approaches represent administrative challenges where large cohorts of preservice teachers are studying across multiple campuses, and by distance/online. The need to cater for both online and on-campus preservice teachers and to address the perceived gap between theory and practice in teacher education warranted this exploration of an alternative to the traditional lecture.
In this paper, we report how the teaching team of an Australian preservice teacher course on inclusive education developed an alternative to the lecture through creating a series of online video-recorded interviews between the academic course coordinator and a range of professionals in the fields of special education and inclusion. We hypothesised that involving professionals and adopting a conversational approach would help demystify inclusive education and enhance the accessibility of the content for the preservice teachers. The paper provides an evaluation of the extent to which this alternative approach was successful in terms of promoting engagement, enhancing learning, and connecting the theory and practice of inclusive education from the perspective of participating preservice teachers. The central research questions that this study sought to answer were:
1. In the view of preservice teachers, how effective were the online video-recorded interviews in assisting them to connect theory and practice in inclusive education?
2. In the view of preservice teachers, what were the strengths and weaknesses of this delivery format in facilitating their engagement and learning in inclusive education?
The results and their implications are discussed in the context of teacher education, particularly regarding inclusive education.
Method
Context
The study was conducted within the Faculty of Education of the University of Tasmania – a multi-campus Australian university. The specific context of the study was an inclusive education course, ‘Inclusive Practices in Education Settings’, a core course across the faculty's undergraduate programs in 2011. The course was broadly scoped and constructed to cater for a diverse preservice teacher cohort. The goals of the course were to enable the preservice teachers to: (a) evaluate educational policies and professional teacher standards that relate to inclusive education; (b) identify and explain the diversity of students’ needs and abilities; and (c) design learning experiences tailored to individual student needs. In total, 332 preservice teachers undertook the course in 2011; of these, 221 were enrolled in on-campus study and 111 studied through the online delivery mode. To ensure the consistency and accessibility of content across the diverse cohort, it was expedient for recordings communicating key course content (timetabled as ‘lectures’) to be available online through the university's learning management system (LMS).
The Video-Recorded Interviews
As an alternative to digitally recorded live lectures or narrated PowerPoint® presentations delivered by an individual academic, this course's series of ‘lectures’ involved the course coordinator (the academic in charge of the design and teaching of the course) interviewing a range of individuals about topics relevant to inclusive education. In all, 11 interviews related to a weekly focus were conducted, recorded on a portable digital camera, and uploaded to the LMS for access by preservice teachers throughout the semester. The interviews ranged from 30 to 75 minutes in length.
Those involved in the interviews included consultants, support providers, senior academics and program directors representing a range of government and nongovernment sectors. Each interview provided an opportunity for the participant to identify their particular role and experience before responding to the open question: ‘What does the term “inclusive practices in education” mean to you?’ Following the ensuing discussion, each interviewee was asked to advise preservice teachers on how they might best engage in inclusive educational practices and to recommend resources relevant to the topic discussed (see Appendices A and B for examples). Other questions were tailored to suit the specific topic of each interview. These topics included: (a) individual education plans (IEPs); (b) students who are gifted and talented; (c) positive behavior support for inclusive education; (d) information and communication technologies for inclusive education, focusing on students with physical and sensory impairments; (e) inclusive literacy, focusing on students with learning difficulties; (f) inclusive numeracy; (g) transitions from early childhood education; (h) transitions from secondary school; (i) students with an autism spectrum disorder; (j) students for whom English is an additional language; and (k) home, school, and community relationships.
Data Collection
In line with faculty requirements, all preservice teachers in the course were invited to participate in a voluntary and anonymous ‘Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (SETL)’ questionnaire about the course at the end of the semester in which it was taught. SETL questionnaires were completed and returned by 170 (51%) of the total cohort. The questionnaires included 15 evaluation questions with 5-point Likert scale response options (strongly disagree to strongly agree) and two open-ended questions: ‘What were the best aspects of this course?’ and ‘What aspects of this course are most in need of improvement?’ Of the 170 questionnaires returned, 82 included written comments about the video-recorded interview dialogues. These comments assisted in designing an online survey to evaluate the preservice teachers’ perceptions of the video-recorded interview dialogues used within the course in greater depth.
The online survey consisted of 13 items, five of which were demographic questions and eight items that related directly to the video-recorded interviews. The latter are included in Table 1. Five of these items regarding the use of the video-recorded interviews used the same Likert scale response options as the SETL questionnaires, whereas two questions required respondents to rank options in order from 1 to 5. An open-ended opportunity to provide further written feedback was also provided as the last item of the online survey.
Items in the Online Survey Relating to the Video-Recorded Interviews
Having gained approval from the relevant Human Research Ethics Committee, we invited all preservice teachers who had studied the course to complete the online survey. Those who agreed to participate were informed of the nonidentifiability of the data and were asked to provide informed consent as a condition of participation. A total of 154 preservice teachers completed the survey, representing 46% of the on-campus cohort and 48% of the distance/online cohort. These participation rates represented 47%, 30%, 52%, and 60% of the preservice teachers enrolled in the course from the Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Human Movement, Master of Teaching, and combined degree (such as the Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Teaching and the Bachelor of Music and Bachelor of Teaching) programs, respectively. Table 2 provides a summary of the participants’ demographics. In addition to a quantitative analysis of overall responses to the questions, cross-tabulations of responses between each of the five demographic questions and each of the five statements that involved Likert scale response options were conducted to evaluate the statistical probability of relationships between these variables.
Summary of the Survey Participants' Demographic Information
aRounded to the nearest whole number.
Results
Overall, survey respondents expressed positive views on the use of video-recorded interviews as part of the course on inclusive education. A total of 83% strongly agreed or agreed that the video-recorded interviews improved their understanding of the course content and that the video-recorded interviews helped connect theory and practice (see Figures 1 and 2).
Responses to ‘The Video-Recorded Interviews Improved my Understanding of the Course Content’.
Responses to ‘The Video-Recorded Interviews Helped Connect Theory and Practice’.
Also, 77% strongly agreed or agreed that the video-recorded interviews were engaging and interesting (see Figure 3). Responses were favourable toward the interviewees, with 95% strongly agreeing or agreeing that the individuals involved in the video-recorded interviews showed relevant expert knowledge and, together, represented a wide range of experiences (see Figures 4 and 5).
Responses to ‘The Video-Recorded Interviews Were Engaging and Interesting’.
Responses to ‘The People Involved in the Video-Recorded Interviews Showed Relevant Expert Knowledge’.
Responses to ‘Together, the People Involved in the Video-Recorded Interviews Represented a Wide Range of Experiences’.
The following responses to the open-ended item (Item 8) provide further illustration of the above findings:
It was also appreciated that this course more strongly connected theory/research and practice, in showing how these ideas have been put into practice by different people.
The breadth of experience and views represented by using the interview format gave practical information about merging theory and practice.
Content was brilliant and informative. It placed the theory in real life contexts. Interviews covered a great deal of information and were handled excellently.
These interviews strongly supported the content covered and were engaging. They were a huge part of why this course was so successful.
These interviews . . . made it possible to sit and watch people while listening and it was a completely different experience . . . these people provided information from a common sense perspective. I think all lectures should be replaced with interviews!
Although there were no items that directly solicited comparisons between the video-recorded interview approach and other lecture-delivery approaches, a number of respondents indicated a preference for the video-recorded interviews, as exemplified in the following quotes provided verbatim:
I also found myself forming questions while listening to the conversational interviews, which I don't when I listen to a lecture (chalk and talk style).
I found that the method used (interviews) was more engaging than that of previous lectures. This could be due to the fact it was a completely different concept, or due to the large amount of information that we received from the lectures. I feel it was beneficial!
I found the fact that these people are real and possibly people that we will have contact with during our careers invaluable. I found the video interviews to be more informative and easier to follow than a traditional lecture. The conversational style itself is conducive to extracting diverse, practical information.
This has been by the far the best course I have undertaken throughout my degree . . . and I found it a great way to learn. I would highly recommend other lecturers to follow suit.
The cross-tabulation of responses suggested that significant differences (p values equal to or less than .05) in the perceptions of the video-recorded interviews existed between groups within the sample of preservice teachers. In particular, preservice teachers studying by distance/online were especially favourable toward the video-recorded interviews compared with their on-campus peers, with more positive responses regarding the content (p < .01), the connection between theory and practice, the level of engagement and interest, and the knowledge of interviewees (Items 1 to 4 in Table 1). Females responded more positively than males regarding the extent to which the interviews improved their understanding of the content and understanding the connection between theory and practice (Items 1 and 2 in Table 1).
Significant differences were also found between the age brackets of preservice teachers in relation to the extent to which they found the video-recorded interviews engaging and interesting (Item 3 in Table 1), with those in the 40–49 age bracket responding most positively and those in the below 24 age bracket responding the least positively. The age variable may also be related to the significant differences in responses across the programs of enrolment (p < .01), as those enrolled in the graduate-level entry Master of Teaching responded most positively, while those enrolled in the undergraduate Bachelor of Human Movement responded least positively in terms of how engaging and interesting they found the video-recorded interviews (Item 3 in Table 1).
The novelty of the approach did not seem to account for the positive perceptions toward this approach for the majority of respondents. This was particularly evident in responses to the question, ‘What was the best thing about the video-recorded interviews?’ to which the lowest ranked response overall was ‘Because it was something different’ (see Table 3). In contrast, ‘The practical information’ was ranked the number one best aspect of the video-recorded interviews by 61 of the 154 respondents, followed by ‘The people who were interviewed’, which 50 respondents ranked as the second best aspect.
Responses to the Question, ‘What Was the Best Thing About the Video-Recorded Interviews?’
aIn order from overall highest ranked aspect (highest ranked, with lowest mean).
Responses to the question, ‘What was the worst thing about the video-recorded interviews?’ show that the duration of the videos was perceived as an issue (see Table 4).
Responses to the Question, ‘What Was the Worst Thing About the Video-Recorded Interviews?’
aIn order from overall highest ranked aspect (highest ranked, with lowest mean).
Additionally, responses to Item 8 included the following comments:
The only disadvantage to some of the recorded interviews was that some interviewees went on tangents (interesting and appropriate ones) and extended the duration a little too long.
The people interviewed had relevant information; however, I found the interviews were quite long. Could there have been more discussions of shorter duration?
For the question about the ‘worst thing’, only the first point was of concern. The duration of the interviews was often quite long, meaning I began to lose concentration after a long time.
Respondents were polarised in their perceptions of the importance of having face-to-face lectures, with 44 ranking the absence of face-to-face lectures as the number one worst aspect about the video-recorded interviews, whereas 50 ranked this issue as the least problematic of the five options. To illustrate, responses to Item 8 included the following comments:
I liked how all the video recordings were readily available throughout the semester . . . We could easily partake in watching the interviews when we were able to, and not being restricted by when they were available.
I felt the duration of the interviews was well timed, content informative and personally don't find a lot of value in face-to-face lectures.
The only thing which I can criticise about the subject is how frustrating it is to listen to lectures online when enrolled in the subject ‘on campus’.
I would much prefer face-to-face lectures/interviews, rather than online lectures/interviews.
Discussion
The findings identified in this study are consistent with the SETL data regarding preservice teachers’ positive perceptions of the use of video-recorded interviews. Overall, the results suggest that the video-recorded interview dialogues were perceived to be effective in helping preservice teachers understand the connection between the theory and practice of inclusive education. This study adds to previous research reporting on effective teacher education courses that prepare preservice teachers to cater for student diversity (Forlin, Reference Forlin2010; Sharma et al., 2008; Stella et al., Reference Stella, Forlin and Lan2007).
Considering the general decline in the tendency of higher education students to complete surveys (Sax, Gilmartin, & Bryant, Reference Sax, Gilmartin and Bryant2003), the overall response rate of 46% of the cohort was strong for any mode of administration. Notwithstanding, the group who were the least positive (those enrolled in the Bachelor of Human Movement) also were the least likely to complete the online survey, whereas the group who were the most positive (those enrolled in the Master of Teaching) were also the most likely to complete the online survey, with participation rates of 30% and 52%, respectively. This representation may have influenced the data, and thus some degree of caution regarding the overall findings is warranted.
The data for Items 4 and 5 (Figures 4 and 5) suggest that the relevant expert knowledge and range of experiences of the people involved in the videos were considered to be important factors in connecting theory and practice. Research has shown that preservice teachers and beginning teachers place different value upon the expertise of academics and practitioners, favouring that of practitioners (Allen, Reference Allen2009; Yayli, Reference Yayli2008). The interview dialogue approach used in the current study attempted to capitalise on this preference for field practitioner knowledge. Having an educational academic and an educational practitioner engage in dialogues modelled how theory and practice can be symbiotic, in contrast to the perceived dichotomy that has been previously reported (Allen, Reference Allen2009; Hascher, Cocard, & Moser, Reference Hascher, Cocard and Moser2004).
The conversational style of the interview dialogue may also have highlighted the interconnectedness of theoretical concepts and their practical implications for the preservice teachers within this context. Also, consideration of the connection between theory and practice provided a basis for the sequence of questions in the interviews, which moved naturally from definitions of ‘inclusive education’ and characteristics of students (theory) to educational strategies to cater for student diversity suitable for implementation in classroom contexts (practice). Hence, the overall design of this course, not just the format of the content delivery, may have impacted upon the extent to which preservice teachers understood the relationships between theoretical and practical knowledge.
The relationship between higher education students’ engagement and learning is well documented (Caulfield, Reference Caulfield2010; Dixson, Reference Dixson2010; Oliver, Tucker, Gupta, & Yeo, Reference Oliver, Tucker, Gupta and Yeo2008). Thus, the respondents’ views that the video-recorded interviews improved the extent to which they learned the course content could, at least in part, be explained by the degree to which they found this format ‘engaging and interesting’ (see Item 3 in Table 1). Although we did not provide respondents with a definition of ‘engagement’, many respondents in this study reported finding the interview format to be engaging and interesting, as illustrated by data for Item 3 (see Figure 3). The breadth of qualitative responses regarding the perceived effect of the interviews on engagement included comments that corresponded to the three dimensions of engagement proposed by Chapman (Reference Chapman2003) and supported by Zepke and Leach (Reference Zepke and Leach2010): cognitive investment, active participation, and emotional commitment. The qualitative data also suggested that the professional calibre of the individuals involved in the interviews, the conversational tone of the dialogue, and the topics of discussion all contributed to the overall success of this approach in terms of the preservice teachers’ perceived engagement in and learning through the interviews.
In light of international trends in higher education generally (Sherer & Shea, Reference Sherer and Shea2011) and teacher education more specifically (Bound, Reference Bound2010), comparisons between the responses of different demographics within the sample warrant a targeted discussion. First, the results suggest that the use of video-recorded interview dialogues was perceived to be particularly effective by preservice teachers studying online. With increased demand and competition for tertiary online education (Rovai & Downey, Reference Rovai and Downey2010), together with the rapid growth of online teacher education courses in the 21st century (Engleman & Schmidt, Reference Engleman and Schmidt2007), catering effectively for the needs of online preservice teachers has become increasingly important. There has often been a sense of isolation between higher education students and faculty staff involved in online education (McElrath & McDowell, Reference McElrath and McDowell2008), and the sense of community experienced by online students has been shown to correlate with their level of engagement and learning (Sadera, Robertson, Song, & Midon, Reference Sadera, Robertson, Song and Midon2009). Comments from some respondents suggested that being able to see people involved in a conversation promoted a sense of connection to a learning community:
Seeing the interviewees personalised the information and I found I retained a lot of information from the lecture, more so than from a reading or [narrated] PowerPoint. . . Seeing the tutor is a huge plus for recorded lectures and makes me feel more valued as a distance student.
As an on-line student the video-recordings (visual) made the learning real and made me feel a part of a ‘real’ learning environment.
Second, females (as a group) responded more positively to the video-recorded interviews than males (as a group) regarding the extent to which the interviews helped them to understand the course content and to make pertinent links between theory and practice. Females have been found to have stronger preferences for abstract random (nonlinear and emotional) learning styles than their male counterparts (Lau & Yuen, Reference Lau and Yuen2010). Thus, it could be argued that the social and conversational nature of the interview format was more suited to the learning styles of female preservice teachers. Females typically represent the majority of primary and secondary school teachers in New Zealand (Cushman, Reference Cushman2005) and Australia (Louden & Rohl, Reference Louden and Rohl2006), as well as in the UK (Skelton, Reference Skelton2003) and the USA (Johnson, Reference Johnson2008). Considering the learning styles favoured by females within the design of teacher education courses could enhance overall preservice teacher satisfaction and outcomes. Also, the finding of Forlin (Reference Forlin2001) that female teachers were more likely to experience stress in relation to classroom issues of inclusive education provides another reason to ensure that the needs of this population are effectively addressed in teacher education courses. The interview format for delivery of course content could serve as an example of such a consideration.
Third, the results indicate that, as a group, preservice teachers in the 40–49 years age bracket responded most positively regarding the interview dialogue format and that those less than 24 years of age responded the least positively. Several explanations for these results seem plausible. The life experience of mature-age higher education students can predispose them to deep learning approaches (Richardson, Reference Richardson1995). This deep learning approach may have contributed to the appreciation of the interview expressed by the mature-age preservice teachers. In contrast, younger preservice teachers may prefer the structure of a more didactic approach to delivering content. The following comment from a mature-age respondent in a Bachelor of Human Movement class, composed mainly of preservice teachers enrolled directly from secondary school, seems to support this explanation:
Most of [the] Human Movement [students] did not watch them, or stopped watching them. I am an exception; I believe this is because of my age (30). It is my understanding that they found it boring. It is also my understanding that they prefer structure.
Alternatively or additionally, the interview format may have been more in line with the socially embedded, relational, and practical support which mature-age preservice teachers have been found to prefer (Uusimaki, Reference Uusimaki2009).
As mentioned previously, one of the reasons some preservice teachers feel underprepared to cater for student diversity is their own lack of experience as a student in inclusive schools (Hemmings & Woodcock, Reference Hemmings and Woodcock2011). As dramatic changes in the way schools cater for student diversity have occurred in recent decades (Forlin, Reference Forlin2006), a lack of experience with inclusive education may be more typical for mature-age preservice teachers, as there would often be a contrast of educational experience between their own schooling and expectations for Australian classrooms in the second decade of the 21st century. Mature-age preservice teachers’ need for immersion in the culture of inclusive education may represent another reason why they seemed to derive greater benefit from having access to professionals whose working life has been dedicated to supporting students with special educational needs, as was afforded by the video-recorded interviews.
There are three primary reasons that the video-recorded interview approach as an alternative to the traditional lecture delivery format seemed to be particularly appropriate for a course on inclusive education for preservice teachers. First, in the case of the course in the current study, the choice to deliver an online resource supported the provision of equivalent learning opportunities for all preservice teachers, whether they were enrolled online or on one of the three campuses at which the course was offered. Notwithstanding, there remains a tension in this choice, as the polarisation of preservice teacher views on the relevance of face-to-face lectures supports Jones's (Reference Jones2007) argument that the immediacy and presence of face-to-face lecture delivery is a strength of this format.
Second, as a third-year course in a 4-year program and a second-year course in a 2-year program for those with a prior degree, the preservice teachers were perhaps better prepared for the interview format as a content delivery mode, involving a deep, self-directed learning approach, than they may have been in their first year of university study. Evidently, the approach also seemed to enhance the educational experience for populations of preservice teachers (i.e., females and mature-age students) particularly in need of developing confidence regarding the classroom issues associated with inclusive education.
Third, as the topics of ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive education’ can be viewed from a range of philosophical and theoretical positions (Byrne & Wills, Reference Byrne and Wills2001), and given the breadth of the content in this course, it was appropriate to solicit a range of perspectives on inclusive education and to draw these perspectives from a range of professionals with specialised areas of expertise. As beliefs have a significant influence on teachers’ ability to implement inclusive education (Forlin & Chambers, Reference Forlin and Chambers2011), it was important that the preservice teachers be exposed to a range of philosophical positions in order to develop and justify their own. The results of this study suggest that the interviews with professionals was an effective way to provide respected perspectives on inclusive education that, in the preservice teachers’ minds, were not divorced from the ‘reality’ of classroom practice.
A limitation of this study was that we did not directly assess the effect of the interviews upon learning outcomes for the preservice teachers. Course evaluation data showed that, in general, preservice teachers who consistently accessed the learning resources (including the interviews) achieved higher grades than preservice teachers who did not consistently access the learning resources. Although both the survey data and overall course evaluation data would be consistent with a claim that the interviews did in fact improve preservice teacher engagement and learning, and their understanding of the connection between theory and practice, further research would be needed to establish a causal relationship between these variables. Ideally, an evaluation of how the preservice teachers actually applied what they learned regarding inclusive practices in their subsequent professional experience placements or first appointments would be conducted to extend the findings of this study. Nonetheless, documenting a causal relationship between the use of the interviews and the preservice teachers’ proficiency with implementing inclusive practices would pose a range of methodological challenges.
Also, as the research described in this paper did not include direct comparisons with other specific delivery formats, such as the use of narrated presentations, recorded guest lecturers, or face-to-face lectures, comparative studies focusing on achievement data would be valuable. Research isolating demographic variables such as study mode, gender, and age would also be particularly useful for testing the generality of results from this study in terms of the contexts in which interview dialogues are most effective.
The survey data identified several important ways in which this learning and teaching approach could be enhanced. In particular, responses to Item 7 (‘worst thing’) and Item 8 (‘further feedback’) suggest that editing the videos and providing additional support material to accompany the interview recordings would have improved their effectiveness. Suggestions included the provision of accompanying lecture notes, written transcripts of the interviews, and short lecture-style videos summarising the key points discussed in the interviews. Respondents also indicated that further video editing would have reduced the duration of the videos and removed any repetitious or less relevant content. The findings of this study and experiences with the 2011 offering of the course on inclusive education informed several changes to the course in 2012. We decided to continue with the use of the series of video-recorded interviews, but the series was revised by (a) adding new interviews to strengthen preservice teachers’ understanding of specific topics, (b) further editing of interviews to reduce duration where appropriate, and (c) developing supporting material (notes) for each interview.
It would seem to be in the interests of an industry and of those preparing to enter that industry that there be strong links between field professionals and academics, and, in the case of this study, the interview dialogues proved a productive way to achieve this goal. The majority of the interviewees considered it a part of their professional role to contribute to the preparation of preservice teachers and most expressed a personal desire to increase awareness of their field of practice. With this potential for mutual benefit, a positive by-product of arranging and conducting the interviews for this course on inclusive education was the development of professional relationships between the course coordinator (interviewer) and the education professionals (interviewees). As the themes of communication, connectedness, and collaboration are central to inclusive education (Ashman & Elkins, Reference Ashman and Elkins2011) and were emphasised throughout the course, it seemed fitting that these themes be modelled in the course's design and delivery.
Conclusion
Despite the important practical implications of professional and ethical standards in terms of catering effectively for student diversity, preservice teachers have often experienced difficulty in connecting the theory and practice of inclusive education. This paper reported on a study into how one cohort of preservice teachers perceived online video-recorded interviews as a way of connecting theory and practice in inclusive education, as well as what they viewed as the strengths and weaknesses of this delivery format. Overall, participants considered the video-recorded interview dialogues to be beneficial in terms of improving their understanding of course content and helping to connect theory and practice. They found the interviews engaging and interesting, and appreciated the knowledge and range of experiences represented by the interviewees. They also valued the practical information provided through the interviews but would have liked to receive accompanying support material and shorter interview segments. The video-recorded interviews seemed particularly relevant for mature-age female preservice teachers studying online. As higher education providers continue to explore ways to create a synergy between theory and practice for diverse preservice teacher cohorts, this study suggests that the use of video-recorded interviews may be an effective supplement or alternative to the traditional university lecture for courses on inclusive education for preservice teachers.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Suzie Wright for her assistance with the development of the online survey.
Appendix A
Structure for the Week 3 Online Video-Recorded Interview
INCLUSIVE PRACTICES IN EDUCATION
Questions/direction:
1. [Interviewee name], could you please tell us a little bit about yourself, your experiences and your role with [organisation name]?
2. What does the term ‘inclusive practices in education’ mean to you?
3. What do you mean by the term ‘gifted or highly able’?
4. What are the characteristic learning needs of students who are highly able?
5. How can teachers identify students who are highly able?
6. Can you tell me a bit about the profiles of highly able students?
7. What are the options for ensuring optimal educational experiences for students who are highly able?
8. Are there any models recognised to be effective for differentiating the curriculum to cater for the learning requirements of students who are highly able?
9. What are the characteristics of success for students who are highly able?
10. Are there any other resources you would recommend for preservice teachers to prepare them to provide quality learning experiences for students who are highly able?
Appendix B
Structure for the Week 8 Online Video-Recorded Interview
INCLUSIVE PRACTICES IN EDUCATION ESH 303/ESH 603
Questions/direction:
1. [Interviewee name], could you please tell us a little bit about yourself, your experiences and your role as an [name of title]?
2. What does the term ‘inclusive practices in education’ mean to you?
3. What is ASD and how is it recognised and diagnosed?
4. What are the characteristic learning needs of students who have ASD?
5. What are the options for ensuring optimal educational experiences for students who have ASD?
6. What support is available to students/parents/schools for supporting students who have ASD?
7. What are some important educational approaches or strategies that optimise the learning experiences of students with ASD?
8. Are there any other resources you would recommend for preservice teachers to prepare them to provide quality learning experiences for students who have ASD?
