Out 11111

CO-TEACHING: FROM OBSTACLES TO OPPORTUNITIES

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO College of Education ASHLAND UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership James William Chapple, MS

ASHLAND UNIVERSITY ASHLAND, OH 2009

UMI Number: 3357565

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 3357565 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________ ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

A Dissertation entitled Co-Teaching: From Obstacles To Opportunities by James William Chapple In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

Dr. Jane Piirto, Committee Chair

Date

Dr. Patricia Edwards, Committee Member

Date

Dr. Allison Dickey, Committee Member

Date

Dr. Stephen Denney, Committee Member

Date

Dr. Judy A. Alston, Director of Doctoral Studies

Date

Dr. James P. Van Keuren, Dean, College of Education

Date

Dr. W. Gregory Gerrick, Dean of the Graduate School

Date

Ashland University March, 2009 ii

CO-TEACHING: FROM OBSTACLES TO OPPORTUNITIES By James William Chapple ASHLAND UNIVERSITY, 2009 Dr. Jane Piirto, Dissertation Chair

The purpose of this study was to identify the obstacles to implementing successful coteaching teams between general and special education teachers. The research questions were first, to identify why schools are not able to implement effective co-teaching teams, and second, to identify what are the issues or obstacles to the implementation of these teams. Fifteen respondents, general education teachers, special education teachers, school administrators, university professors, and experts in the field of co-teaching were selected. There were three respondents in each category. Interviews were conducted to identify the major themes. These themes were categorized into logistical, philosophical, and relationship issues. The study found that the most essential strategy was professional development prior to and during the implementation of co-teaching.

iii

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my family who has so diligently supported me in the pursuit of this degree. My son, Joshua, has always been there for me throughout the process and continues to be my motivation to achieve higher goals. Without the loving support of family and friends the completion of this project would not have been possible.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to express my sincere appreciation to the members of my dissertation committee who worked patiently and diligently with me to complete this study. Dr. Jane Piirto, Chair, Dr. Patricia Edwards, and Dr. Allison Dickey have been a beacon of ongoing support and guidance throughout this project. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Stephen Denney for serving as an outside member of my dissertation committee. Dr. Richard Villa and Dr. Jacqueline S. Thousand have provided me with the research base and passion to make all students successful.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.

Co-teaching: The History and Background Definitions of Co-teaching……………………….…………………….….5 Approaches to Co-teaching………………………………………..………6

II.

Co-teaching: What Do We Already Know General Literature on Co-teaching Beliefs and Approaches….................13 Co-teaching Models………………………………………………...……28 Impact of Co-teaching on Teachers………………………………...……30 Administrative Issues Regarding Co-teaching…………………………...32 Literature on Co-teaching by Disability and Content Subject Area……..35 Literature on Co-teaching by Middle and High Schools………………...41 Literature on Why Co-teaching Is Not Being Implemented……………..49 Literature on Co-teaching from Meta-Analysis and Meta Synthesis.........50 Critical Theory and Special Education......................................................54

III.

Co-teaching: The Investigation Purpose and Significance of the Study…………………………………..58 The Use of Qualitative Methodology……………………………………65

IV.

Co-teaching Study: The Results Definition of Co-teaching………………………………………………..69 Experience in Education and Co-teaching……………………………….70 Benefits to Educators Who Co-teach…………………………………….71

vi

Benefits to Students in Co-taught Classrooms…………………………...75 Obstacles to Implementing Effective Co-teaching Teams……………….78 Strategies to Overcome the Obstacles to Co-teaching…………………...92 What Are the Characteristics of Effective Co-teaching Teams………….98 Summary of Results……………………………………………………...99 V.

Summary and Discussion Statement of the Problem……………………………………………….102 Review of the Methodology…………………………………………….103 Summary of the Results………………………………………………...104 Interpretation of the Findings…………………………………………...105 Logistical Issues………………………………………………………...108 Relationship Issues……………………………………………………...110 Philosophical Issues…………………………………………………….112 Relationship of this Study to the Research……………………………..112 Limitations of this Study………………………………………………..114 Implications for Practice………………………………………………..115 Recommendations for Future Research………………………………...117 Conclusions from this Study……………………………………………119

vii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Chart of themes identified by authors of studies referenced in the literature review…………………………………………………………………………………….56 Table 2: Chart of respondents participating in the study………………………………..68 Table 3: Chart of themes identified by the literature and the respondents…………….100 Table 4: Chart of themes identified by the respondents grouped by issues…………....107

viii

1

CHAPTER I

Co-Teaching: The History and Background Since the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975, policies and legislation have focused on ensuring that children with disabilities have had equal educational opportunities similar to those children without disabilities. Even with the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), the focus has continued to be on meeting the needs of children with disabilities in inclusive settings and environments. Coupled with IDEIA has been the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 (also known as No Child Left Behind) which has made educational opportunities more readily available to all children. Due to these pieces of legislation, programmatic decisions and a multiplicity of teacher delivery system configurations must be investigated. Although we know that no one single strategy or approach will be effective in meeting the needs of a diverse student body, co-teaching or collaborative teaching has been one approach that has been attempted over the years. Educators have found that a “one-size-fits-all” instructional model has not been successful either. As such, teachers must explore alternative teaching methodologies and strategies to better serve their students in inclusive classrooms. During the 1960‟s, co-teaching was first introduced as part of the progressive movement to reform educational opportunities for children (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004). Educators were seeking out ways to reform educational practices to meet the

2

needs of all learners. American education has traditionally been a “lonely profession” (Hourcade & Bauwens, 2001), and has ultimately not been as successful as educators would have hoped. Teachers working in isolation have been faced with the issues of coming up with creative and innovative ideas to meet the educational and social emotional needs of a variety of learners. As Hourcade and Bauwens (2001) stated, “as schools re-examine policies and procedures in light of contemporary challenges, the „one teacher responsible for one group of students‟ paradigm is coming into question” (p. 243). Even the impact of Brown versus The Board of Education decision in 1954, although this decision was related to segregation, has caused educators to look at the practice of “separate is not equal.” The situation that has children with disabilities being educated in segregated classrooms away from typically developing peers has been challenged by the inclusive movement. Creating appropriate educational settings and service delivery models has been at the forefront of educational reform for many years. The concept of the least restrictive environment (L.R.E.) has mandated that educators examine the practices of educating all students together in general education classrooms. As educators have explored instructional delivery approaches, the concept of collaborative or co-teaching has increased in popularity. Throughout the evolutionary process of co- or collaborative teaching there have been many attempts at defining what this approach looks like, what it felt like and how it can be implemented. Terms and definitions have included many concepts such as teaming, partnership, working together, and sharing of responsibility. In order to

3

understand the evolutionary development, we need to understand the definitions and the characteristics of the practice. Cooperative teaching has been defined as the process of “two or more educators possessing distinct sets of knowledge and skills working together to teach a heterogenous group of students in the general education classroom” (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995, p. 46). These general and special educators spend a predetermined amount of time during the day simultaneously teaching the subject matter. In this arrangement, both teachers are responsible for all of the students in the classroom setting. These authors stated that collaborative teaching allows both students and teachers to maximize their potential (Hourcade & Bauwens, 2001). Collaboration has been compared to two very familiar nursery rhymes (Adams & Cessna, 1991). Jack Sprat could eat no fat, His wife could eat no lean. And so between the two of them, They licked the platter clean. (Anonymous)

There was a little girl who had a little curl, Right in the middle of her forehead. And when she was good, she was very, very good But when she was bad, she was horrid. (Anonymous)

4

The first nursery rhyme illustrates that collaboration allows general and special education teachers to maximize their strengths to be better able to meet the needs of a diverse student body. The second recognizes the fact that when collaboration works well it is very successful and motivating; however, when it is not working well it can be devastating to both students and teachers (Adams & Cessna, 1991). Collaboration, to work successfully, must be well planned and engage a thoughtful process for educators to implement successfully. There are many factors which impact a collaborative process. Creating effective collaborative relationships takes time, patience and willingness for educators to work in parity. One of the major components of collaboration is the style of interaction between and among individuals. Friend and Cook (2007) defined interpersonal collaboration as “a style for direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work towards a common goal” (p. 7). Within this definition are several critical components. First, the most successful type of collaboration is voluntary. No matter how much collaboration is dictated by law, policy, or administrative decisions, unless people are willing to collaborate it has minimal chance of being successful. Second, included in this definition is the concept of parity. Each member of the collaborative team should have equal power. This power should lead to equal decision making directed towards activities that achieve the common goal of the collaborative team (Friend & Cook, 2007).

5

Definitions of Co-teaching Villa, et al., (2004; Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008) defined co-teaching as “two or more people sharing responsibility for teaching some or all of the students assigned to a classroom” (p. 3). They defined some of the characteristics necessary for the coteaching process to be successful as shared responsibility for the co-teachers in all aspects of teaching such as lesson planning, delivering of instruction, and evaluating student progress. Co-teaching allows teachers to blend the best of their teaching skills, strategies, and expertise to ensure that all children learn. This process increases the school‟s effectiveness at meeting the needs of their students. In order for this co-teaching approach to be more successful there are many issues that need to be discussed prior to the implementation of a co-teaching arrangement (Villa, et al., 2004; Villa, et al., 2008). Cook and Friend (1995) defined co-teaching as “two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a single physical space” (p. 2). Their definition identifies four main components that are critical to the implementation of this practice. First, this practice involves two or more professionals, who could be general and special education teachers, two general education teachers, two special education teachers, or a general and/or special education teacher, as well as a related services person such as a speech and language pathologist. The second component of their definition involves the element that the co-teachers are delivering substantive instruction and are actively involved in what is taking place in the classroom. The third component of their definition is the classroom is made up of a diverse student population. Finally, the fourth component is that instruction is taking

6

place in a single classroom. This would mean the co-teachers basically are working from a home base classroom. However, there might be times during the implementation of coteaching when groups of students are working in other environments. Salend (2008) defined co-teaching as a “teaching arrangement whereby teachers and ancillary support personnel work together to educate students in a general education classroom” (p. G-3). Teachers working in co-teaching arrangements must share responsibilities and be accountable for planning, delivering of instruction, assessment, and classroom management and discipline of all students. Co-teaching is also synonymous with collaborative teaching or cooperative teaching. Other authors (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Gately & Gately, 2001; Vaughn & Schumm 1995; Walther-Thomas 1997; Will, 1986) have similar definitions which illustrate the characteristics that define co-teaching. Working together, delivering instruction, parity among collaborators, shared responsibility, planning, preparing, and equity are all embedded in the definitions of co-teaching, collaborative teaching and cooperative teaching. As the practice of co-teaching has evolved, the necessary components have become clearer. If that is the case, then why has the practice met with so many obstacles and not been as successful as educators have anticipated? This will be the focus of the research surrounding this study. Approaches to Co-teaching Before we can explore what the barriers are and how overcoming those barriers can lead to great opportunities, we must identify and examine what are the approaches that can be used to implement co-teaching in the classroom. Authors such as Villa, et al.,

7

(2004) and Friend and Cook (2007) have defined different approaches to co-teaching. Although the approaches are similar, there are unique characteristics to each approach. Villa, et al. (2004) defined four approaches to co-teaching: supportive teaching, parallel teaching, complementary teaching, and team teaching. Supportive teaching is where one of the classroom teachers has the responsibilities for being the instructional leader and the other(s) has(have) the responsibility of providing support among the students in the classroom. In a parallel teaching arrangement, two or more teachers provide instruction or support to different groups in the classroom. Teachers working in this arrangement can rotate or move from one group to another to allow for even more flexibility. Complementary co-teaching is when one co-teacher provides something to enhance the other co-teacher‟s instruction. The final approach is team teaching, where “two or more people do what the traditional teacher has always done” (p. 9). This method of co-teaching assumes that the co-teaching team assumes the responsibility for the students in the classroom. Friend and Cook (2007) have described six approaches to co-teaching. These approaches are one teach-one drift, one teach-one assist, parallel teaching, station teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching. The approaches are similar to those described by Villa, et al., (2004) but are delineated in regards to the role of each person as a member of that co-teaching team. In Friend and Cook‟s (2007) model of co-teaching we see the following six approaches: (a) one teaching, one observing; (b) one teaching, one assisting; (c) station teaching; (d) parallel teaching; (e) alternative teaching; and (f) teaming. In one teach, one observe and in one teach, one assist, one teacher is providing

8

the instruction while the other member of the co-teaching team is either observing in the classroom or assisting students. In the station teaching approach both members of the coteaching team are actively involved in instruction. Students move from one station to the next station where instruction is being provided. In this approach, it is helpful to have a third station where students can work independently on an assignment or to complete independent seatwork. In the parallel teaching approach, we find the class being divided into two separate groups and each teacher is presenting the lesson independently. In the alternative teaching approach, one member of the co-teaching team is delivering instruction to the larger group while the other member of the co-teaching team is working with a small group on something different than the rest of the class. The small group members can be adjusted depending upon the purpose of the instruction. In the team teaching approach both teachers are actively involved in the instruction taking place in the classroom. Also, both teachers are responsible for planning and facilitating the instruction taking place in the classroom. In the Villa, et al., (2004) approaches, as well as the Friend and Cook (2007) approaches, there are many elements that must be discussed by co-teachers prior to their implementation of this process. One of the foundations of co-teaching is a sense of trust between the co-teachers. Oftentimes, co-teaching has been compared to a professional marriage in that the characteristics that build a successful marriage are similar to the characteristics that build a successful co-teaching team. In preparing for co-teaching, the two team members must discuss philosophy and beliefs of teaching, what will the classroom routines look like, how will discipline be handled, how and when will they

9

find time to plan appropriately, how will they deal with the increased noise level, how can they provide each other feedback, what are each other‟s pet peeves in teachers, and finally, how the team will resolve conflicts. When co-teaching teams have begun the process without proper planning and discussion on these, as well as other classroom routines, there can be dissatisfaction and dissention between the co-teaching members. In my own consultation practice, I have been asked to visit co-taught classrooms to assist teachers in the process. Most recently I was visiting a co-taught kindergarten classroom where a seasoned kindergarten teacher and a special education teacher had been assigned to co-teach. Although both teachers in their own right have been successful educators, being in this co-teaching situation this year has been frustrating. When I talked with them about their current situation, they both stated that they had been provided no training on co-teaching, they had no idea how to co-teach, nor did they know what their roles should be in a co-taught classroom. The situation was not benefitting the students, or the teachers. As I observed their classroom, it was evident that the kindergarten teacher was in charge of the class while the special education teacher served more as a teacher assistant or paraprofessional. Additionally there were a significant number of students with disabilities in the classroom that seemed to be more the responsibility of the special education teacher. When I asked how did this all happen, they replied, almost in unison, that the principal wanted to have an inclusive co-taught classroom this year and they were selected to do it. The teachers asked for training, support, and some assistance to make their classroom function more effectively for the students and for the teachers to work better collaboratively. Unfortunately, what was

10

done in the name of inclusion and co-teaching has had a very negative impact on the students and the teachers. As educators begin to implement more inclusive practices and to educate a more diverse student body, teachers need to engage in more collaborative practices. Coteaching is a practice, that when implemented correctly, can benefit student learning and engagement, as well as teacher satisfaction. If that is the case, why has it been so difficult to implement successful co-teaching teams between general and special educators in public schools? The purpose of this study is to delve deeper into the obstacles which prevent co-teaching teams from successfully implementing this practice and to identify strategies to make this an opportunity to advance student learning in the general education curriculum and to increase teacher effectiveness and satisfaction. By identifying the obstacles to co-teaching from those who are implementing the practice, those who administer co-teach classrooms, and experts in the field, we can turn those obstacles into opportunities for student success.

11

CHAPTER II

Co-Teaching: What Do We Already Know? Since 1975, with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children‟s Act (EHA), schools have been attempting to implement the provision of the least restrictive environment. Although the law defines a continuum of services process, children with disabilities should be educated to the maximum extent that is appropriate with children who are non disabled. The least restrictive environment for every child should always be the general education classroom with the appropriate supports and services as determined by the individualized education program (I.E.P.) team. The I.E.P. team must look at the environment where the child can obtain the maximum benefit to their educational program. All too often children with disabilities have had failed educational opportunities due to segregated environments. As the inclusive education movement has gained momentum, schools and parents focused on different ways to deliver services that benefit all children. Parent advocacy groups have demanded more inclusive settings for children. The passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 added the provision that children with disabilities were guaranteed access to the general education curriculum. Delivering services to children with disabilities, coupled with access to the general education curriculum, has required that school personnel examine collaborative or coteaching arrangements.

12

Another aspect of why co-teaching is being investigated as an effective way of delivering services is the “highly qualified teacher” requirement of the 2001 Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (i.e. No Child Left Behind) and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA). Because teachers, who are the primary provider of instruction in academic areas must be highly qualified, co-teaching has gained a renewed interest. Unfortunately, there is more to co-teaching than mandating it for it to be successful. Thousand, Nevin, and Villa (2006) reported on the results of a comprehensive review of the literature on collaborative teaching. They provided a definition of collaborative teaching, as well as a theoretical framework for collaborative teaching, and discussed many of the issues related to a collaborative teaching process. The authors analyzed the gap in the current research base and knowledge pertinent to the preparation of teachers for collaborative teaching and the administrative supports that are necessary for its success. Their review of the current research on evaluating collaborative teaching indicated that different research methods can and do yield different results. They found that the use of “descriptive analyses, surveys, qualitative case studies, quasi-experimental studies, practitioner action research, meta-analysis, and instrument development” (p. 419) had both benefits and limitations for generalization. The gap in the literature has identified two major research needs. First, what is the curriculum for preparing teachers to work in collaborative teaching situations and second, what is the administrative and logistical support from administrators to implement collaborative teaching?

13

The literature from the field of collaborative or co-teaching has been plentiful. Many authors have studied a variety of aspects with regard to co-teaching by examining current co-teaching practices. Qualitative and quantitative studies have revealed beliefs, characteristics, guidelines, roles, and responsibilities of co-teachers. A review of the literature will provide a framework and foundation for the study of this research project. General Literature on Co-teaching Beliefs and Approaches There is a significant amount of information on the beliefs and assumptions regarding co-teaching. Authors have investigated such topics as benefits and perceptions of co-teaching (Austin, 2001; Salend et al., 2002), the role of collaboration (Adams & Cessna, 1991; Murray, 2004), planning (Magiera, et al., 2006; Murawski, 2005; Murawski & Dieker, 2008; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996), the roles of teachers in co-taught classes(Piechura-Couture, Tichenor, Touchton, Macisaac, & Heins, 2006; Washburn-Moses, 2005; Weiss & Lloyd, 2003), the implementation of co-teaching (Rea & Connell, 2005), and the practices in place (Adams & Cessna, 1993). Benefits and Perceptions on Co-teaching Austin (2001) interviewed 139 collaborative elementary, middle school, and high school teachers from districts across Northern New Jersey. Each of the districts in his study were identified as being inclusionary schools and had been implementing a collaborative or co-teaching model for at least one school semester. The research questions investigated co-teachers perceived current experiences, effective teaching practices, teacher preparation for co-teaching, and identifying school based supports that facilitate collaborative teaching. Participants completed The Perceptions of Co-Teaching

14

Survey (PCTS) and a random sample of those that completed the survey participated in semi structured interviews with the researcher. The results of the study indicated there were areas where general and special education teachers differed in their perceptions. In this study, general education teachers noted that through co-teaching they increased their skills in adapting curriculum and improving classroom management (Austin, 2001). Special education teachers noted they increased the knowledge of curriculum content. With regards to successful instructional strategies, general and special education teachers cited the use of cooperative group learning and a more effective use of small groups as being the most successful. Both groups found the coteaching to be a positive experience. Teachers in the study identified the following areas that are critical to successful co-teaching experiences: adult communication in the area of providing feedback to the teaching partner, sharing classroom management, having a common planning time, and the use of cooperative group learning approaches. One factor that Austin (2001) discovered during his analysis of the survey data was the general education teacher assumed the role most often as the lead teacher and that special education teachers were responsible for remediation and modifying the lessons that were planned. Most lessons were being developed and delivered by the general education teachers. However, ironically, during the interviews, general and special education teachers stated they shared the teaching responsibilities. The final recommendations from Austin‟s (2001) study were first, that school administrators should develop and support a more collaborative model of teaching, and second, that a necessary element was to provide the staff with professional development.

15

Both preservice and inservice training is necessary for all teachers regarding the current trends and practices in inclusive education and how to work collaboratively in inclusive classrooms. Third, co-teaching teams should be well versed in instructional practices that support collaborative teaching. Salend, Gordon and Lopez-Vona (2002) studied guidelines and strategies for evaluating the experiences and perceptions of cooperative or co-teaching teams. The process the authors described can be used to validate the collaborative practices that are successful in school settings and to identify those issues or concerns that need to be addressed and changed or modified. The authors contended that not only should the coteaching teams evaluate the inclusive program, but family members, students, and community members should also offer input in this evaluation process. Conducting focus groups and surveying are two methods of securing evaluation information. Open-ended questions in an interview structure can also be used to gather data on the success of the co-teaching team. The authors suggested a best practices checklist that can be used to self-evaluate collaborative efforts and overall success of the program (Salend, et al., 2002). Included in that checklist can be items such as planning, instructional strategies that are used, roles and responsibilities, communication, planning time, administrative support, problem solving and addressing individual strengths and skills. Observations of classroom teaching and having teachers maintain teaching journals and portfolios also help the collaborative team identify strengths, concerns, and potential solutions. With more schools implementing cooperative teaching approaches to enhance inclusive practices,

16

collaborative teams must engage in reflection to validate the success of their collaborative efforts. The authors thought if cooperative teaching teams monitor their success and obstacles, they will be able to implement revisions to their service delivery model. Critical Elements in Co-teaching The literature identified several critical elements to co-teaching. The authors of these studies identified collaboration, planning, the roles of teachers in a co-teaching classroom, the process of implementation of co-teaching, and the nature of co-teaching practices as critical elements. Collaboration In a study of Colorado‟s initiative on collaboration, Adams and Cessna (1991) identified three issues related to the implementation of collaboration. The first issue was that special educators were changing their roles without a true sense of why or how to change. The second issue was there was an emphasis on one service delivery model over others. Third was teachers were attempting to make changes in their roles and responsibilities without the necessary changes to the school structures that needed to be in place to support them. The authors identified solutions to these issues by identifying structures to facilitate the change process. They stated there needed to be a common understanding of everyone‟s role in the change process. One of the necessary components to the change process is early and thoughtful planning based upon the district or building mission statement. Coupled with planning, was appropriate professional development regarding the change process.

17

The authors stated that no one service delivery model will meet the needs of all of the students (Adams & Cessna, 1991). Service delivery models might be direct instruction, consultative, and co-teaching approaches that deal with the diversity of learners in the classroom. One of the other critical factors identified was the issue of scheduling. Adults‟ schedules must reflect the needs of the students and the students must be afforded the appropriate classes, instructional settings, and resources. Ongoing training and time to implement a collaborative model are critical to the success of the change process. In order for collaborative initiatives for school reform to be effective, there must be shared understandings, an appropriate array of services offered, and the necessary structural changes in place. Murray (2004) focused on general education teachers and the skills necessary to work with special education teachers in collaborative roles. This three year personnel preparation grant was funded by the US Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) for work in the Chicago Public Schools. Forty general education teachers took part in training activities facilitated by a higher education professor and a project staff member. The high schools that participated were located in urban areas in Chicago and contained large populations of students on free or reduced lunches (80-90%), included large numbers of student of color (95-100%), and had large populations of special education students (20-29%). This school-based project consisted of weekly meetings with project staff and working with teachers during their planning time or during lunch. The topics of the meetings were characteristics of students with disabilities, social-emotional

18

development, classroom management, instructional strategies for diverse learners, and professional collaboration. As part of the initiative for including students with disabilities in general education classrooms, most of the teachers had experiences in working with special education teachers (Murray, 2004). Collaborative Team Teachers (CTT‟s) were special education teachers assigned to work in general education classrooms where there were students with disabilities. During the study, general education teachers stressed that they had limited training and understanding in working with collaborative team members. General education teachers generated lists of what they needed to do to be able to collaborate with special education teachers. The initial list of what the general education teachers would like from the special education teacher was extensive. Through the weekly meetings and ongoing discussions, the dream list was revised and narrowed. Barriers to effective collaboration were identified as lack of resources with underfunded school districts, time to collaborate, overrepresentation of students with disabilities in the schools, and a large number of students who were not identified as in need of special education services but were not being successful academically. The focus of this study was on general education teachers rather than a collaborative process between teachers. Murray (2004) recommended that studies should include both general and special education teachers to foster great collegiality. Planning One of the critical components necessary for co-teaching to be successfully implemented is the collaborative planning process. Walther-Thomas, Bryant and Land

19

(1996) identified a comprehensive planning process that is essential to create a supportive environment for co-teachers and to ensure benefit for children in inclusive settings. Not only does comprehensive planning need to take place at the classroom level, it is an essential process at the district and building level. At the district level, adequate resources can be earmarked for providing supports and services to the co-teaching team. At the building level, administrative leadership from the principal is critical for scheduled coplanning time, professional development, manageable teaching schedules, balanced classroom size, and implementing a problem solving support system to address problems as they arise. At the classroom level, planning is necessary to maintain appropriate instruction, role sharing and to expand the teachers skills and expertise. This system of multi levels of planning allows for greater input from all staff, parents, and community members in creating a more inclusive environment. Figuring out how to begin a co-teaching arrangement, future and current teachers must establish a detailed process before implementation. Murawski (2005) in an opinion article, recommended that future co-teachers take baby steps. Using the acronym (BABY STEPS), she identified nine areas that potential co-teachers should address before beginning any collaborative or co-teaching model. These nine steps are the following: Break out of your room and routine Assess the current situation and environment Begin to establish rapport with others Yelling is out! Start to provide in class supports

20

Take the initiative Exemplify best practices Provide specific how-to information about co-teaching Share the co-teaching workshop (Murawski, 2005, p. 78) Musawski‟s co-teaching worksheet was created as a planning tool for potential coteachers to use prior to implementing a co-teaching model. It addressed the philosophy of co-teaching, the attitudes, and the roles and responsibilities that future co-teachers need to discuss prior to beginning co-teach. If thoughtful preparation is implemented before beginning a co-teaching team, there will be a greater likelihood that the co-teaching team will work better and student achievement will increase. An action research study was conducted in 2006 at an elementary school in New York state to describe an inclusive school where co-teaching was being implemented (Magiera, Lawrence-Brown, Bloomquist, Foster, Figueroa, Glatz, Hepeler, & Rodriguez, 2006). The school was described by the State Department of Education as being an urban school with high student needs in relation to the district resources. An action research team of building staff and one of the researchers was established to study what made the building a successful inclusive school. The team identified teacher looping, teamwork, students with disabilities being in general education classrooms, and flexible grouping as characteristics that identified the school as having an inclusive philosophy and practice. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with administrators, general and special education teachers, and related service personnel. Each interview was

21

approximately one hour and was audio taped and later transcribed. Emergent themes and patterns were identified from interview analysis. The themes that emerged were these: (a) preparing for co-teaching, (b) coplanning, (c) the co-teaching relationship, (d) co-teaching models, and (e) planning for the next steps (Magiera, et al., 2006). Participants in the study repeatedly discussed four elements that are critical to effective co-teaching in their building. First, was strong communication between co-teachers; second, flexibility in the team‟s co-teaching practices; third, respect and trust between members of their co-teaching teams; and fourth, the flexible organization for instruction. In an opinion piece, Murawski and Dieker (2008) stated that for co-teaching to be effective there must be preplanning prior to the implementation and the teams must identify successful strategies before, during, and after the co-teaching experience. In suggesting strategies before beginning a co-teaching experience, the authors discussed the issue of volunteerism. If teachers are willing and ready to begin co-teaching there is benefit in volunteering before being asked to co-teach. A teacher initiating a co-teaching partnership can find a compatible team member. They also suggested that in order for coteaching to be successful, there must be administrator support. Talking with the school leader and gaining the approval will make the implementation process much easier. Other critical components to implementation are to have a clear, well developed plan for implementation, receive appropriate training on how to co-teach, begin small, and enter into the process well prepared.

22

They thought the time spent in preplanning for the implementation of a coteaching approach will be well worth it in the end (Murawski & Dieker, 2008). Having discussions on the strengths and needs of each team member, each team member‟s preferences, pet peeves about teaching, and ways to resolve differences help eliminate potential problems once you have begun to implement co-teaching in the classroom. Communication is also essential for a good beginning. The authors recommended informing parents of the idea that two teachers will be working together in the classroom and that both teachers will share in many of the classroom responsibilities. Finally, in the preplanning phase be sure that both teachers are committed to the plan. Muraswki and Dieker (2008) suggested several ways for the team to evaluate the success of the co-teaching experience, not only for the team members but for the students. Are the needs of all students being met in this teaching arrangement? Are the co-teachers implementing our plan as it was prepared? Is the classroom climate conducive to student learning? Do all students feel valued? Is there flexible grouping to meet the students needs? Are the co-teachers continuing to have high expectations for all students? Are all students feeling success? Are the co-teachers all having fun? Have the co-teachers addressed students‟ multiple intelligences and learning styles? They suggested additional strategies and questions that co-teaching teams need to ask to make sure that the needs of all participants, including the teachers, are being met in this arrangement (Murawski & Dieker, 2008). After co-teaching has been in practice for awhile, the team needs to gather data to evaluate the effectiveness of co-teaching. This assessment data should include student achievement data, teacher self-evaluation, as well

23

as administrator and outside feedback from other educators. Lastly, the authors emphasized co-teaching team members are in this together, so sharing in the concerns and celebrating success are the responsibilities of both team members. Roles Weiss and Lloyd (2003) conducted a grounded theory qualitative research study to discuss the roles and factors that influenced secondary special educators in co-taught classrooms. Data collection methods used were observations, interviews, and document analysis. A middle and high school building in a rural local education agency in the midAtlantic region were the sites for this study. Observations of special education teachers working in co-taught classrooms were conducted on thirty-one occasions across subject areas. Each observation was 30 minutes in length and the researcher recorded descriptive field notes in a running record format. Each special education teacher participated in two semi-structured interviews to discuss experiences and their role in the co-teaching environment. A third interview was conducted to validate the data obtained from the first two interviews. Document analysis was of recorded journal entries of the special education teacher written after each co-teaching observation. The researchers also analyzed special education policy and job descriptions for the districts participating in the study. Weiss and Lloyd (2003) found the following roles of special education teachers in co-taught classrooms were identified. These roles were “(a) providing support to students, (b) teaching the same content in separate classrooms, (c) teaching a separate part of the content in the same classroom, or (d) teaching as a team” (p. 32). The special

24

education teachers reported the roles they assumed were based upon the school and classroom organizational levels. This was also influenced by what the teacher‟s definition of what a co-taught classroom looked like. When asked why special education teachers participated in co-taught classrooms, the overwhelming response was that they felt they had to participate due to influences of community, professional, and administrative groups. The data from the teachers interviewed and classrooms observed, showed that in order for co-teaching to be successful, appropriate professional development was necessary (Weiss & Lloyd, 2003). The second finding was that it was difficult to provide “specially designed instruction” in co-taught classrooms even with a special education teacher being present. The final finding was that even with co-teaching being in place, no guidelines existed as to what the administrative expectations were for this service delivery model. The authors concluded that in order for co-teaching to be successful a clear district policy including scheduling, training on models of co-teaching, and the impact of those models on student learning and achievement, is needed. In Florida, co-teaching was investigated as a solution to a state constitutional amendment in 2002 that required schools to reduce class size. Schools were experiencing a shortage of classroom space in attempting to meet the requirements of this constitutional demand. School districts have implemented co-teaching as a solution to this issue. When attempting to implement this practice, they found that confusion and lack of understanding about what co-teaching is generated additional problems. PiechuraCouture, Tichenor, Touchton, Macisaac, and Heins (2006) identified a three step process

25

which was beneficial in creating effective co-teaching teams. First, was to match teams of teachers who shared the same educational philosophy and learning styles. Second, was to provide the teaching team with strategies that have been recognized in the literature as being successful in classrooms that have been co-taught. Third, was to attempt to reduce the barriers and obstacles before implementing a co-teaching approach. Each step of the process was implemented by three large school districts in Florida (Piechura-Couture, et al., 2006). Teacher volunteers were first solicited to participate in this project; then administrators assigned teachers to co-teaching teams. Once these teams were identified, each teacher participated in a learning styles and philosophy inventory. The teacher teams were then provided professional development in a variety of approaches to co-teaching, as well as strategies for co-teaching teams to implement as they prepared for co-teaching in their classroom. Allowing time for teams to plan is one component of any successful co-teaching team. In an attempt to identify and reduce barriers or obstacles that might be present, school administrators attended a professional development workshop on co-teaching. The barriers they identified were grouped into four categories: (a) staff development, (b) teacher dispositions, (c) resources, and (d) other, which included communication, parent support, student understanding of the process, and teacher ownership of their “own” students. Washburn-Moses (2005) examined the roles and responsibilities of 378 randomly selected special education teachers in public schools in Michigan. Their roles and responsibilities were examined in light of educational reform movements. In order to understand the focus on the changing role of special education teachers, it is important to

26

understand the current ways in which special education teachers‟ function in working with students with disabilities. Teachers of students with learning disabilities were surveyed regarding three different variables. These variables were the number of years taught, the highest degree held, and the number of endorsements held. The respondents stated that their teaching responsibilities covered more than one content area and were in a variety of educational settings (76% self contained classes; 14% co-taught classrooms, 4% as teacher consultant, and 6% were listed as other). In working with students, the teachers‟ roles focused on adapting and modifying materials and tests, making adaptations and accommodations, and managing behavior. For the co-teaching respondents, 38.7% of the teachers reported that they engaged in co-teaching daily, 45.5% indicated that they co-taught rarely, and 3.1% stated they co-taught either weekly or monthly. In the data analysis, the researcher found no difference in the roles and responsibilities of teachers by number of years teaching, highest degree held, or the number of endorsements held. Washburn-Moses (2005) concluded that even with the reform movements of inclusive education, co-teaching and collaboration, there is still a pervasive emphasis on the outdated model of self contained service delivery by special education teachers. It was also concluded that special education teachers have excessive teaching loads in out of field areas or content. Implementation No empirical studies on implementation exist. However, Rea and Connell (2005), in an opinion, article discussed co-teaching from the perspective that educators contemplating implementing co-teaching need to attend to the finer points of this

27

approach. The authors stated that implementing a new service delivery model in a school setting requires changes in the structure of the school, as well as the roles and responsibilities of all educators involved. While attending to those details, the authors presented a series of questions and provided potential answers for administrators considering implementing a co-teaching model in their building. From the administrative perspective, the questions focused on beliefs, supervision, evaluation, and some of the more intricate components of a co-teaching model. The ultimate goal of the administrator is to have a well organized, thought out plan for delivering services for all students to achieve in a co-taught setting. Practices Adams and Cessna (1993) conducted a grounded theory, qualitative research study with Colorado teachers to study the nature of co-teaching practices. Each of the coteachers selected for this study was recognized by immediate supervisors as being an outstanding co-teacher. These general and special educators talked about their coteaching experiences in focus groups held by the researchers. From the data collected during these focus groups, the authors identified three metaphors to describe what happens when co-teaching occurs. The first metaphor was that of “yin and yang.” This describes the uniqueness of co-teaching teams and honors the dignity of the two coteachers. The second metaphor was “the dance,” which describes the important elements of a co-teaching or collaborative relationship. The two teachers share the work load, share responsibility, and make important decisions together. The third metaphor is “the particle and the stream.” This describes the environment of the co-taught classroom in

28

which the individual students (the particles) thrive within the flow of the instruction (the stream). The authors described that when certain conditions exist, we know that true coteaching is occurring. The conditions that are present are the following: (a) that special educators do not feel like paraprofessionals, (b) that the teachers feel more energized and creative, (c) that the team is able to deal with discipline issues without interrupting the flow of instruction, (d) that the teacher felt a sense of trust with their co-teacher, and (d) that the co-teaching team is having fun. Co-teaching Models In a three year study, Walther-Thomas (1997) examined 18 elementary and 7 middle school teams with regards to co-teaching as a service delivery model. These 25 school-based teams were from eight districts in the state of Virginia. Each team consisted of an administrator responsible for special education in the school, and one or more general and special educators who worked in co-teaching classrooms. A total of 143 participants engaged in this research project. This qualitative study gathered data using classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. Interviews and classroom observations lasted from 45-90 minutes. All data were recorded, coded, and analyzed by the researcher. The results of the study revealed some of the benefits and persistent issues with inclusive settings as a service delivery model (Walther-Thomas, 1997). The benefits were discussed from the perspective of the students, both general and special education, and for general and special education teachers. The benefits for special education students were improved self-confidence and self esteem, increased academic performance,

29

improved social skills performance, and better peer relationships. For general education students, the benefits were improved academic performance, more time and attention from both teachers in a co-taught classroom, increased emphasis on cognitive strategies and study skills, increased emphasis on social skills, and improved classroom communities. Teachers reported increased professional satisfaction, professional growth, more personal support, and increased collaboration among faculty members. The major persistent issues were having a scheduled planning time, difficulty with student scheduling, caseload concerns, a need for ongoing and continued professional development, and a lack of administrative support. In spite of the issues that existed, Walther-Thomas (1997) found teachers and students continued to progress in the implementation of more inclusive environments, and increased emphasis on co-teaching as a beneficial strategy for all groups. During the third year of the study, many of the participants reported higher levels of professional collaboration, co-teaching, and inclusive support services than existed when the study was initiated. The Florida Department of Education implemented a pilot project in 1997 to encourage schools to implement a service delivery model of including students with disabilities in general education classrooms (Arguelles, Hughes, & Schumm, 2000). Sixty-nine elementary, middle, and high schools participated in this two year pilot. Interviews and surveys were administered to co-teachers and school administrators to identify factors that should be in place for co-teaching to be effective. The factors that were identified from the interviews conducted and the surveys completed were these: (a)

30

common planning time, (b) flexibility, (c) risk taking, (d) defined roles and responsibilities, (e) compatibility, (f) communication skills, and (g) administrative support. The authors reported these factors facilitate making co-teaching more successful for general and special education teachers, general and special education students, and school administrators. Impact of Co-teaching on Teachers Co-teaching has been seen as an opportunity for teachers to become renewed and avoid teacher burnout. Hourcade and Bauwens (2001) said the needs of students in today‟s schools require that the delivery of instruction necessitates new approaches by today‟s teachers. The opportunity to try new approaches can be a sense of renewal for teachers and students. The teacher burnout from working in isolation can be remedied. Teachers can learn new skills and curriculum from working with other teachers and students can benefit from having two or more teachers delivering instruction. Traditionally, general education teachers have expertise in curriculum while special education teachers have skills in adapting or modifying the instruction to better meet the needs of diverse learners. Critical components to the success of implementing collaborative teaching are professional development, preplanning, clearly defined job responsibilities and roles, ongoing communication and administrative support. In 2006, Kohler-Evans surveyed secondary teachers in urban and suburban schools in Seattle, Washington, regarding their attitudes and concerns about co-teaching. In preparing for this study, the author stated that “co-teaching teams have been forced into the general education classroom where veteran teachers feel insulted to have a

31

special education teacher placed in the room with the expectation that they both teach content area critical concepts” (p. 260). The author stated that special education teachers felt “homeless” after having been placed in the general education teacher‟s classroom. Special education teachers stated that this feeling of “homelessness” appeared confusing to the students in the classroom because of a lack of clarity of the role of the special education teacher. The researcher interviewed both general and special education teachers to isolate their concerns and attitudes regarding co-teaching. Participation by the teachers was voluntary and they participated in a structured interview format one to one with the researcher. Interestingly enough, the majority of the teachers participating in the survey had not voluntarily agreed to co-teach and had no prior planning to the implementation of coteaching in the classroom (Kohler-Evans, 2006). Seventy-seven percent of the surveyed teachers reported that co-teaching had influenced student achievement. Of that 77%, 100% of those respondents said that the impact on student achievement was positive. Ten percent of the surveyed teachers felt that co-teaching had no influence on student achievement. When asked to identify what was the most important feature in a coteaching relationship, teachers felt the number one requirement was having a common planning time. Additionally, the respondents stated that having a positive relationship with their partner, and having a shared responsibility and philosophy were second and third. Also receiving high ratings were mutual respect, commitment, similar styles of coteachers, and shared resources.

32

When asked if the teachers would participate in another co-teaching relationship, 97% of the teachers responded yes (Kohler-Evans, 2006). They identified the reasons for their affirmative response as being the benefits to students, that co-teaching was more fun, and having the support from an additional adult in the classroom is beneficial to all. For those respondents who stated they would not participate in another co-teaching experience, the reasons were lack of professional development and lack of resources as the main reasons. Some stated that co-teaching does not meet the needs of students with more intense or significant disabilities. When asked what the lessons learned from this co-teaching experience, the respondents stated that administrative and teacher support from the start to the end of the process was the most critical element. Additionally, the lessons learned were to start small, to seek out volunteers, to place value on co-teaching as an instructional practice, to provide mutual planning time, to practice parity among coteachers, to have fun, to not overlook the small stuff. Also important were communication, measuring student progress and remembering that students are individuals and that one size does not fit all. Administrative Issues Regarding Co-teaching One dilemma of co-teaching is the administrative practice of teacher evaluation. Wilson (2005) investigated the role of the supervisor in evaluating teaching in a co-taught setting. Since the evaluation of teaching situations can be conducted by either general or special education supervisors, the author wanted to examine and develop a reflective observation guide that could be used by both general and special education supervisors conducting classroom observations in co-taught classrooms. This project evolved from a

33

collaborative relationship between a university and a local school district administrative team consisting of central office administrators, building level administrators and general and special education supervisors. Co-teaching was taking place in three high schools and two middle schools in the district and involved thirty-eight special education teachers and sixty-five general education teachers. Teachers in these co-teaching situations questioned how they would be observed and who would do their classroom performance evaluations. The teachers generated many questions for the administrators and university faculty to discuss. This year long discussion examined many of the elements of co-taught classrooms and evolved into four phases. Each phase focused on how to best evaluate a co-taught lesson. The results of those discussions led to the creation of a co-teaching observation tool to use for teacher evaluation (Wilson, 2005). The three themes of this observation tool were (a) “Theme I: the basics: meaningful roles for each teacher, (b) Theme II: strategies to promote success for all students, and (c) Theme III: evidence of success” (p. 273). Theme I focused on the relationship and roles of the co-teachers targeted on content and process. Theme II focused on evidence of planning, teaching strategies, and modifications to increase student success and Theme III focused on the success of the students in co-taught classrooms and what evidence is present that makes it clear that students are achieving. During the field test portion of this study, the researchers determined that a pre-observation and a post-observation conference would be essential to the successful use of this observation tool. They received positive feedback from the

34

preliminary use of the guide, and general and special education supervisors stated that they had a clearer picture of how and what to evaluate in a co-taught lesson. Administrative support and ongoing evaluation of co-teaching teams has been identified as a necessary component of successful teacher collaboration. Cook and Friend (1998) said that successful co-teaching is difficult to achieve due to “lack of professional preparation, poorly defined roles, lack of clear expectations, and frustration with implementation issues” (p. 36). Other factors identified as obstacles are the role that special educators often assume as serving as aides in the general education classroom and general dissatisfaction with the co-teaching experience. As teams move through this development process of evolving into true co-teaching teams, administrative support is necessary. The stages of team development are identified are the beginning stage, the compromising stage, and the collaborative stage. During each of these stages, teams need to receive feedback from an outside person to provide objective information on the coteaching process. Gately (2005) created an informal assessment titled the Co-teaching Rating Scale that can be used by administrators to examine the effectiveness of the co-teaching team. This tool can also be used as a self-reflection and evaluation tool between the coteachers. The instrument evaluates “interpersonal communication, physical arrangement, familiarity with curriculum, curriculum goals/modifications, instructional planning, instructional presentation, classroom management, and assessment” (p 40). Following the classroom observation and completing of the rating scale, the co-teaching team, in

35

concert with the administrator, can discuss and reflect upon how well the relationship is moving through the developmental stages. Literature on Co-teaching by Disability and Content Subject Areas Inclusive practices have been investigated with regards to co-teaching by disability conditions and in different curricular areas. Although inclusion is a philosophy about students being educated in general education classrooms, several authors and researchers have studied the impact of inclusive education and co-teaching on students with learning disabilities, as well as the impact in subject content areas such as social studies, science, vocational education and language arts (Bouck, 2007; Fennick, 2001; Fontana, 2005; Magiera, et al., 2005; Mastropieri, et al., 2005; Orr, Thompson, Ross, & McAdory, 1998; Peters & Johnson, 2006; Tobin, 2005; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Weiss, 2004). Disability Areas Vaughn and Schumm (1995) used a compare and contrast process to examine the differences between responsible inclusion and irresponsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. They defined responsible inclusion as the creation of a school-based model that is student centered and that bases educational placement on the needs of the student. The goal of responsible inclusion is that all students would be placed in general education classrooms with adequate supports and services. There would always be the full continuum of services, but the accountability is to the student first in selecting the most appropriate educational environment to meet the unique needs of the child. From

36

their study of three elementary schools, the authors created guidelines for responsible inclusion. Data were gathered from meetings with key personnel (administrators, teachers, parents, and school governance and teacher association members)(Vaughn and Schumm, 1995). There were many forms of service delivery models in the schools, including coteaching, multi-age, consultation, and collaboration. The school visitations and discussion meetings yielded the following elements that support responsible inclusion: (a) strong administrative support; (b) developing and implementing school-based models of inclusion; (c) using data to make decisions on individual children, including the appropriate service delivery model; (d) allocating resources to implement the model; (e) ongoing professional development for all staff; and (f) meeting the needs of all students through curriculum approaches. The researchers reported that the individual student achievement (both academic and social progress) is more important than the service delivery model. They also concluded the research questions must go beyond the service delivery model and look at the multvariate nature of service delivery. Content Areas Co-teaching has been investigated at the vocational level, as well as in academic areas of the curriculum. Orr, Thompson, Ross and McAdory, (1998) studied vocational teachers and mentor teachers in business education, and in family and consumer sciences. These co-teaching teams spent one semester working with the University of Arkansas to identify the benefits of team teaching for professionals and students. The authors found when co-teaching teams plan together, discuss what they are going to be teaching, and

37

share information about their students, their teams worked more efficiently. They identified the benefits of co-teaching as improved instruction for the students, increased respect for the ability of their teaching colleagues, more pleasant teaching environments, and the most critical piece, the end to teacher isolation. Co-teaching has been used as a restructuring strategy to link academic and transitional curriculum for students in secondary school settings. Fennick (2001) implemented co-teaching in a survival skills class at a high school in Ralston, Nebraska. Traditionally, the course was taught by a general education teacher for juniors and seniors who were preparing for adult living. The curriculum focused on life skills such as job seeking, interviewing, budgeting, living independently, and other skills related to adult life. As a pilot study, two teams of general and special education teachers volunteered to co-teach this course. Administratively, this pilot project was supported by the building principal, who scheduled a 45 minute common planning time so teachers could prepare. The teachers co-planned and co-taught their lessons to both general and special education students. The population of the class was comprised of students with learning disabilities, with speech and language issues, with mild and moderate mental retardation, with hearing impairments, with visual impairments, with behavior disorders and of students with autism. Thirty-three percent of the students in these co-taught classes were students with disabilities. The curriculum consisted of simulations, community based experiences, and classroom experiences. The results of the first year of implementation showed greater student success and more enjoyment of teaching by the co-teaching teams.

38

Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi and McDuffie (2005), in a metaanalysis, examined the findings of several long term qualitative studies on co-teaching in the content areas of science and social studies. Data collection in these four studies involved interviews of teachers in co-teaching science and social studies classrooms, as well as students with and without disabilities. Observations were conducted anywhere from one semester to up to a two year period. Data sources were observations, field notes, videotapes of the classrooms, artifact review, and the interviews of teachers and students. The findings revealed that the academic content did not have an impact on the success of the co-teaching team. What the data revealed was that high-stakes assessments, the content covered, and how the co-teachers collaborated did have a significant impact. One of the major findings of this study was co-teacher compatibility was a major factor on the success or failure of the co-teaching team. An additional finding from this study was how roles were defined by the co-teaching team. The authors found that the teacher with the highest level of content mastery assumed the role of the dominant teacher in the coteaching classroom. In the area of mathematics, Magiera, Smith, Zigmond and Gebauer (2005) found that teachers of mathematics and special education teachers blended their skills in order to meet the diversity of students in their classrooms. The authors conducted observations in 49 co-taught classrooms at the secondary level. The researchers observed both teachers monitoring student independent work assignments. During these observations the mathematics instructor assumed the primary role of delivering instruction, while the special educator served in a more supportive role by drifting from one student to the next

39

or being an observer in the classroom. The special education teachers noted their more passive role was due to constraints placed upon them by the general education teacher. The authors concluded for these roles to be more collaborative, the co-teaching teams need to have more training in co-teaching approaches, and to have more common planning time. The co-teaching team needs to build a sense of trust in order for this role release to take place. In the content area of language arts, Tobin (2005) conducted a qualitative research study of co-teaching models implemented in elementary language arts classrooms for students with learning disabilities in inclusive settings. The researcher used a full participant observer model to co-teach in a 6th grade classroom. The Gately model of team development was used to evaluate how the co-teaching model was developed (Gately & Gately, 2001; Gately, 2005). Data were collected using audiotapes of classroom instruction, field notes, audiotaped interactions, and semi-structured interviews with three students with learning disabilities from the co-taught classrooms. The model of co-teaching utilized in this study was the one teach-one assist where the special education teachers supported the general education teacher within the co-taught classroom. Data collected were analyzed for common themes. The themes identified were (a) learning support within the co-taught classroom, (b) explicit teacher instigated literacy support, and (c) interactional instruction. The researcher found the co-teaching team evolved through Gately‟s stages of team development: beginning, compromising, and collaborative stages (Gately, 2005). The findings of this study revealed that to be more

40

effective, co-teaching teams need to overcome the barriers of lack of common planning time and administrative support (Tobin, 2005). Teaching in the field of science allows classroom instruction to be multimodal. Traditional teaching, as well as hands-on learning and experiential learning, is supportive of students with disabilities. Peters and Johnson (2006) found that co-teaching allowed for more flexibility in responding to the needs of diverse learners in inclusive classrooms. They further found co-teaching enhanced their planning and designing more appropriate instructional activities for the science classroom. They described their models of coteaching as primary/supplementary; tag-team; 50/50; tag-team-50/50; and pull out. These models are similar to those discussed in chapter I by Villa, et al., (2004) and Friend and Cook (2007). Primary/supplementary allows for one teacher to deliver the bulk of the instruction while the other teacher assists students in the classroom. Tag team is where teachers switch roles during the lesson from primary to supplementary roles. In the 50/50 approach, students are separated into two groups with each teacher delivering instruction and in the tag-team-50/50 approach the two teachers switch between the groups. In the pull out approach, one teacher provides instruction while the other pulls out small groups or individuals for a specific purpose. Teachers working in these types of co-teaching arrangements have identified information scaffolding and differentiation of instruction as being instructional strategies reinforced by these co-teaching models (Peters & Johnson, 2006). The benefits for students in co-taught science classes are helping them with self organization and being able to use their skills in the laboratory setting. For science teachers involved in co-

41

teaching had opportunities for professional growth and to build stronger collegial relationships, and the chance to find teachers with complementary pedagogical skills. The researcher also noticed increased student achievement. Literature on Co-teaching by Middle and High School Not only has the literature focused on co-teaching across curricular and disability areas, there is a body of research on co-teaching at different grade levels. Students at elementary, middle, and high school levels have opportunities to participate in co-taught classrooms (Bouck, 2007; Dieker, 2001; Fontana, 2005; Keefe, Moore & Duff, 2004; Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Nevin, 2006; Rice & Zigmond, 2000; Simmons & Magiera, 2007; Weiss, 2004; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). Middle School The effects of co-teaching on students with learning disabilities in eighth grade classrooms were the focus of a study conducted by Fontana (2005). The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of co-teaching on the academic achievement of 8th grade students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Research questions focused on investigating whether students with learning disabilities earned higher grades in co-taught English and math classes than those in resource rooms and secondly, whether teachers working in co-taught classrooms demonstrated an increase in the use of their instructional strategies. Seventeen students were selected for the target group and sixteen students for the control group. Three teachers participated in the study. Data were collected by examining student grades, scores on the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement, and informal surveys with teachers.

42

Results indicated there was significant improvement in the control population (Fontana, 2005). The target group had significant improvement in self-concept and math, but not in the area of writing. The teachers involved in the study were pleased with the co-teaching situation and opted to continue the process in the future. The study identified several obstacles. First, obtaining parity between the general and education teacher was difficult. The second obstacle was that prior administrative approval was not alone sufficient. The co-teaching teams needed ongoing administrative support. Although the teachers in this study voluntarily participated in co-teaching, the researcher implied that forced participation could impact the teachers‟ comfort level and inhibit student achievement (Fontana, 2005). The following recommendations emerged from this study: First, co-teaching arrangements need support; second, participation in co-teaching should be voluntary and that teachers participating need ongoing professional development and training; third, co-teaching successes should be shared with others; and fourth co-teachers need to recognize that conflict will arise and an approach or strategy to deal with his conflict is necessary. One of the limitations of this study was the small sample size. Bouck (2007) conducted a qualitative research study to investigate a co-teaching collaborative model of 8th grade United States history classes in an urban high school in Michigan. A participant-observer model was used in the classroom settings. The research questions focused on what the co-teaching approach looked like, what factors of coteaching were illustrated, and what can be learned from observing in a co-teaching classroom. Data were collected from classroom observations and informal teacher

43

interviews. A review of the researcher‟s field notes provided additional data. From the data collected, themes were identified. The result of this data analysis was that coteaching is a complex relationship between general and special education teachers. Teachers involved in this type of service delivery model must construct their own unique co-teaching relationship, as well as an approach to deal with tensions or conflict that might arise. Bouck (2007) viewed co-teaching as a double edged sword: it “enabled freedom as well as constrained teachers‟ autonomy; offered support but also devalued others‟ roles or resulted in feelings of being devalued; and offered new role opportunities while it supported or constrained existing roles” (p. 49). The conclusion was that teachers who are contemplating implementing a co-teaching approach need to discuss, plan, and articulate the different roles necessary for the classroom. Some of the necessary elements of that discussion should be physical arrangement, how instruction will be delivered, and classroom management. The researcher implied that the limitations of this study were the small number of teachers involved and secondly, the observations were only completed during a portion of the school year, not the entire school year. High School Some thinkers believe that the most necessary components of implementing a coteaching model is to equip the team with tips and strategies to be successful. Murawski and Dieker (2004), in an opinion article, provided a list of such tips and strategies for secondary teachers beginning to co-teach. Ongoing communication and planning are essential to the success of this co-teaching team. The critical areas that need to be

44

discussed are (a) how planning will take place, (b) how instruction will be delivered, and (c) how assessment of student progress will take place. The authors provided a graphic organizer for potential co-teachers to use in preparing to co-teach. This planning form addressed the critical areas for discussion which include hopes, attitudes, responsibilities, and expectations. Continuous and ongoing assessment of how the co-teaching model is working is critical to the success of co-teaching. The authors suggested that co-teaching teams ask themselves two questions: “Is what we are doing good for the students?” and “Is what we are doing good for us?” (p. 58). Rice and Zigmond (2000) conducted a qualitative research study to examine coteaching practices in secondary settings in Pennsylvania and Queensland, Australia. Their focus was to investigate the unique features of the service delivery model, what were the roles, responsibilities, and skills employed, and what did co-teaching teachers feel were the influences that shaped their co-teaching model. Each of the 18 teachers were interviewed for 90 minutes with a semi-structured protocol. Each interview was audio taped and transcribed. Interviewers also conducted 45 minute classroom observations, noting the activities and interactions of the two teachers. Six major themes emerged from the interview and observation data. First, for co-teaching to be implemented effectively, there needs to be a school-wide acceptance of inclusive practices and an option for coteaching to be a viable service delivery model. Second, co-teaching arrangements are beneficial for both students and teachers. Third, professional and personal compatibility are characteristics necessary for co-teaching partners. Fourth, special education teachers are seldom given equal status in co-teaching partnerships. Fifth, special education

45

teachers must prove themselves to be capable of making a contribution to the co-teaching partnership. Sixth, to implement successful co-teaching teams in schools, the team must often overcome negative views and attitudes about inclusive education from the staff and administrators. Administrative barriers that were identified were an unwillingness to commit the required time and resources to make co-teaching work. The authors found no difference between the co-teaching settings in Pennsylvania and Queensland. Another qualitative research study was conducted by Dieker (2001) to answer the following research question, How are co-teaching teams structured and what practices do they implement? Co-teaching teams were selected based upon three nominations from professors, supervisors, administrators and inclusion facilitators. The final selection of research subjects was narrowed down to seven middle school teams and two high school teams. The researcher collected four types of data: (a) classroom observations which were videotaped, (b) team data documenting the time they spend planning, (c) and face to face interviews with students and teachers involved in co-teaching. Data were analyzed by coding the videotapes, field notes, and interview data. Practices that appeared to affect perception that the teams were successful were (a) creating positive learning climates and positive perceptions of the co-teaching process, (b) providing instruction that focused on active learning, (c) allotting time to plan for the co-teaching process, and (d) setting and maintaining high expectations for student progress and achievement. Emerging from the researcher‟s data was a checklist of practices that future co-teaching teams might utilize in their planning or in their current practice. The Secondary Co-Teaching Practices

46

Checklist contains many of the practices that have been attributed to successful coteaching teams (Dieker, 2001). Weiss and Lloyd (2002) conducted a grounded theory qualitative research study to examine the roles and instructional actions of teachers working in co-teaching secondary classrooms. The focus of their study was to examine and record, through 30 minute classroom observations, the actions of special educators in co-taught classrooms. All observation data were coded and followed up with three face to face interviews with each of the 54 teachers that participated in this study. They used axial coding to identify the causal conditions and then selective coding to integrate the date they had collected into core categories. The researchers concluded there is a difference in theoretical descriptions of co-teaching and the actual implementation. In many situations, due to a lack of understanding on what co-teaching is, many special education teachers were underutilized. The authors also identified obstacles to successful co-teaching: no time to plan, little training, and the need to cover many content areas. They also found school administrators lacked the understanding about the amount of resources, time, and training necessary for co-teaching to be successful. There are many challenges facing secondary educators when attempting to implement a co-teaching service delivery model. Keefe, Moore and Duff (2004) identified some of the obstacles that secondary teachers face in infusing a co-teaching model. Concerns that were discussed from the authors‟ study of co-teaching teams were the following: (a) inadequate planning time, (b) lack of administrative support, (c) inappropriate or lack of professional development and training, and (d) resources. The

47

authors found the same concerns at the elementary level too. When examining secondary teachers, they found that general education teachers were reluctant to engage in role release with regards to content due to high stakes testing. There also appeared to be a lack of parity between general and special education teachers. Based upon the author‟s experiences in co-teaching and their review of the literature, they identified four essential areas that educators need to “know.” They were, know yourself; know your partner; know your students, and know your stuff. Another factor that emerged from their study was that co-teaching was a long term commitment to a long term relationship. When coteaching works successfully, there are feelings of accomplishment, trust, mutual respect, and a sense of camaraderie. In order to evaluate the success of co-teaching at the secondary level, district administrators invited Simmons and Magiera (2007) to determine whether effective coteaching was truly taking place at three high schools within the district. The authors had created an evaluation tool called the Magiera-Simmons Quality Indicator Model of Coteaching. This tool can be used by an outside observer in evaluation of co-taught classrooms or as a self-evaluation by teachers working in co-taught classrooms. The assessment instrument contains twenty-five quality indicators that are measurable. This tool included five categories of quality indicators. They are (a) professionalism, (b) classroom management, (c) instructional processes, (d) learning groups, and (e) student progress. The observer rates each quality indicator on the presence or absence. Using a follow-up teacher survey allows the classroom teacher to discuss and explain the process of planning, the decision making and the thinking behind the lesson being observed. In

48

this study, 9-12th grade teachers of English, social studies, mathematics and science were observed using this instrument and then interviewed about their co-teaching practices. In total, ten classroom observations were conducted and twenty-two teachers were interviewed. The researchers found that co-teaching teams were at varying levels of implementation of co-teaching in their classrooms. From the data that were collected, the authors recommended that the co-teaching teams be provided updated training on how to implement co-teaching in their classrooms. Additional recommendations were coteaching teams which were being effective be allowed to continue working together, there should be common planning time provided to the teams, the special education teachers become a part of the curricular content department, and evaluation of student outcomes be tracked. A review of the Magiera-Simmons Quality Indicators Model of Co-teaching was conducted by Nevin (2006). She identified three important reasons why this guidebook is a useful tool. First, it is valuable in an era of accountability for teachers in meeting the needs of students with diverse learning needs. Second, this assessment tool can benefit participants in co-teaching situations by providing them a way to evaluate the effectiveness of their co-teaching program and its impact on student achievement. Third, the Quality Indicators Model of Co-teaching is a useful tool to evaluate co-taught classrooms through observation, survey, and debriefing conferences. Nevin (2006) stated that Magiera and Simmons (2005) used traditional research procedures to validate their instrument and that this tool allows educators to better understand the complexities.

49

Weiss (2004) challenged the concept of co-teaching in today‟s schools as an instructional approach to meeting the needs of diverse students with learning disabilities. She said that it has not been examined in a scientific manner. The author asked educators to conduct scientific research on the quality of instruction and character of co-teaching. Additional research is necessary to evaluate what is taking place in co-taught classrooms. Practitioners and policymakers must realize the limitations of any service delivery model for meeting the needs of students with learning disabilities. Although Weiss did not condemn the practice of co-teaching, she did say that special educators have not conducted sufficient research or aligned their practices to the research. Science in the schoolhouse is about “experimenting, problem-solving, and using data to make instruction better in the future” (Weiss, 2004, p. 222). Literature on Why Co-teaching Is Not Being Implemented Only one opinion piece exists as to the key question that guides the present study. No empirical studies seem to have been conducted. This lack indicates that the present study “fills a hole” in the research literature. Friend (2007), in an opinion piece, examined the question, “If co-teaching is so valuable, why isn‟t it an option in every school?” (p. 49). Comments from teachers who discussed implementing co-teaching as an instructional option stated that oftentimes the special education teacher does not know the curriculum content, that teachers do not know their role in a co-teaching environment, and that teachers lack the time to adequately plan for co-teaching to be successful. School administrators and classroom teachers are reluctant to implement co-teaching in their buildings because of fear, lack of

50

professional development, and logistical concerns. Co-teaching is one of the many approaches that can be utilized in meeting the needs of all students, but in order for it to be successful; it should be a part of the school culture. It is also important to understand that co-teaching is only one of the successful strategies to meet the needs of students in inclusive classrooms. It should not be implemented at the expense of other approaches. Some of the logistical concerns with co-teaching are common planning time and scheduling. In order for teachers to be able to work collaboratively together, there must be a time for them to plan. The optimum would be a common planning time every day but at the minimum there should be one common planning time weekly. Additionally, teacher and student scheduling can become problematic (Friend, 2007). There should be a recommended percentage of students with disabilities that should be scheduled into a co-taught classroom. Friend recommended no more than “onequarter in elementary classrooms and one-third in middle and high school classes” (p. 51). Scheduling of teachers in co-taught classrooms can also be a logistical issue. There should be limits on the number of general education teachers that special education teachers can work with successfully in co-teaching arrangements. Student achievement must be measured in co-teaching classrooms to ensure that student goals are being met. In measuring success of the co-teaching arrangement, the school might also collect data on student discipline referrals, student attendance, and other forms of assessment data. Literature on Co-teaching from Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis Valuable information has been gleaned from both a meta-analysis and a metasynthesis of the literature on co-teaching. Murawski and Swanson (2001) used a meta-

51

analysis approach to examine the literature on co-teaching. The purpose of a metaanalysis is to use a statistical review process to a quantitative summary of finding across an entire body of research. A meta-synthesis differs from meta-analysis in that it does not focus on summarizing the findings of the research literature but rather “integrates themes and insights gained from individual qualitative research into a higher order synthesis that promotes broad understanding of the entire body of research” (Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007, p. 395). Murawaski and Swanson (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of the research on coteaching between general and special education teachers. The focus of this analysis was a comprehensive literature search to examine effect size of co-teaching. Of the 89 articles selected, there were only six that provided a sufficient amount of quantitative data to calculate the effect size. The dependent measures were student grades, achievement scores, and social and attitudinal outcomes. The selected articles were coded in the following categories: study characteristics, sample characteristics, outcome measures of the dependent variables, and effect size. Sample characteristics were number of authors, date of publication, country/state of the study, funding sources, and length of the study. Sample characteristics were age, gender, grade, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disabilities, sample size, and setting of the intervention. Outcome measures were dependent variables that could be coded for effect size and included grades, attitudes, minimum competency, achievement scores, and social outcomes. Effect size was calculated using Cohen‟s d or using t test scores. The overall results showed a mean effect size of 0.40 (effect size ranged from .08 weak to .95 strong)

52

indicating that co-teaching is moderately effective for impacting student outcomes. In response to the research questions, the researchers indicated there were insufficient data to analyze co-teaching‟s effect on gender, length of the study, or disability type. The second research question focused on whether the studies with larger effect size vary from other studies with regards to the dependent measure of focus (e.g. grades, social outcomes, achievement). This question was not able to be answered. The authors stated that in order to evaluate the success of co-teaching, there needs to be additional research that collects data in classrooms where co-teaching has been successfully implemented, as well as classrooms where it has not been working very well (Murawaski & Swanson, 2001). Finally, Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) conducted a metasynthesis of qualitative research on co-teaching in inclusive classrooms. A metasysnthesis differs from a meta-analysis in that it “integrates themes and insights gained from individual qualitative research into a higher-order synthesis that promotes broad understanding of the entire body of research, while still respecting the integrity of the individual reports” (p. 395). Thirty-two qualitative studies of co-teaching in inclusive environments were included in this meta-synthesis. Once the studies were selected that met the researcher‟s criteria, they were coded on demographic variables, the number of settings, grade level, the co-teaching model that was predominately used, the number of participants, the types of disabilities represented in the classroom setting, the schools‟ socioeconomic status, and the subjects being co-taught. They also noted as whether to co-teachers had volunteered or were assigned to co-teach.

53

The studies were read and open coded to “identify and code all seemingly relevant and consequential considerations” (Scruggs, et al., 2007, p. 397). Free coding of the studies resulted in 69 categories of the many elements of co-teaching. These 69 categories were narrowed to four superordinate categories: “(a) expressed benefits of coteaching, (b) expressed needs for success in co-teaching, (c) special and general education teacher roles in co-teaching, and (d) how instruction is delivered in co-taught classes” (p. 397). Following this process, axial coding was completed to identify relationships between and among the codes. The results in each of the four superordinate coding categories are summarized. Teachers, students with and without disabilities benefit from co-teaching; however there was teacher concern that students meet minimum skill expectations in co-taught classrooms. The expressed needs of co-teachers were identified as administrative support, that co-teachers volunteer to co-teach, that there be appropriate planning time for co-teachers; that teacher training to implement coteaching is imperative; that co-teachers need to be compatible and that co-teaching required effort, flexibility, and compromise. The third category, teacher roles, was dominated by the model of “one teach, one assist,” where the special education teacher served in a more subordinate role. The issue was compounded by the concern about the content knowledge of the special education teacher and the “turf issues” of having another teacher come into the general education classroom. The researchers determined that classroom instructional practices have not changed substantially due to co-teaching. It was determined that the instructional model used for co-teaching has not been as

54

effective as is possible. Scruggs, et al. (2007) felt that the findings of this meta-synthesis are very suggestive of contemporary practice. In reviewing the literature on co-teaching, there have been many studies with similar findings. Each study holds its own significance to the field of special education. Table 1 will assist by noting the main findings in the authors‟ studies. Critical Theory and Special Education Critical theory evolved in the 20th century from the Frankfurt School, a group of German scholars, and it has continued in popularity across a range of disciplines. Qualitative researchers who are influenced by critical theory are concerned “with empowering human beings to transcend the constraints placed on them by race, class, and gender” (Creswell, 2007, p. 27). He further said that researchers need to acknowledge their own power, engage in discussions, and use theory to interpret social action (Creswell, 2007). Critical theory is also important to the social sciences, as research “generated . . . is an ideological critique of power, privilege, and oppression in areas of educational practice” (Merriam, 1998, p. 4). DeValenzuela, Connery and Musanti (2000) examined the contributions and relevance of sociocultural theory and multicultural and critical pedagogies to professional development in special education. They sought to find what contributions critical theory could make to professional development in the field of special education. They concluded that “the achievement of educational equity and social justice requires the development of a multidimensional theoretical paradigm that is sufficiently comprehensive to address the

55

issues of power, discrimination, and status within today‟s educational system” (DeValenzuela, et al., 2000, p. 118). Popkewitz (1999) referred to critical theory as a “broad band of arguments about power-how the marginalization of people is constructed through the practices of school” (p. 2). He further stated that this is focused “on problems of social inequality and injustice produced through the practices of schooling” (p. 3). He elaborated by stating “the critical theory tradition makes the idea of social change in pedagogical practice explicit through discussions about the joining of a language of critique with a language of possibility” (p. 9). Darder (1991) stated that “the theoretical foundations of any educational practice must be understood by educators in order to develop fully the ability to evaluate their practice, confront the contradictions and transform their classrooms into democratic environments . . . ” (p. 75). When teachers do this they can “genuinely address the needs of their students-needs that result from the engagement with the real world” (p. 75). Thus, critical theory views special education studies through the lens of power and of democracy, focusing on the role and interaction of the players in the classroom in this manner.

56

Table 1 Chart of Themes, Number of Studies Showing this Recommendation, and Key to Authors of Studies Referenced in Literature Review Themes

# Of Studies

Key To Studies

Common Planning

12

1,3,4,6,10,13,15,17,19,22,23,25

Administrative Support

10

8,10,13,15.17,18,19,22,23,26

Professional Development

8

1,10,13,14,15,18,22,24

Compatibility

6

3,5,12,13,14,21

Defined Roles

5

3,14,17,25,27

Instructional Strategies

5

6,17,19,26,27

Service Delivery Models

4

1,12,15,26

Trust

4

2,6,11,13

Preparation And Planning

3

5,12,16

Collaboration

3

1,12,17

Scheduling

2

1,22

Shared Responsibility

2

2,4

Positive Environment

1

2,6

Administrative Leadership

2

14, 23

Communication

2

3,17

Voluntary

2

8,18

Conflict Resolution

2

8,21

Resources

2

10,15

Dignity

1

2

Fun

1

2

Student Benefits

1

22

57

Professional Satisfaction

1

22

Caseload

1

2

Flexibility

1

3

Risk-Taking

1

3

Improved Instructional Strategies

1

4

Classroom Management

1

4

Cooperative Learning

1

4

Evaluation Of Teams

1

19

Policy

1

26

Need For Research

1

24

High Expectations

1

6

Content Knowledge

1

25

Effectiveness

1

20

Note: These are the studies from which the themes were taken: 1. Adams & Cessna, 1991; 2. Adams & Cessna, 1993; 3. Arguelles, et al., 2000; 4. Austin, 2001; 5. Bouck, 2007; 6. Dieker, 2001; 7. Fennick, 2001; 8. Fontana, 2005; 9. Gately, 2005; 10. Keefe, et al., 2004; 11. Kohler-Evans, 2006; 12. Magiera, et al., 2006; 13. Magiera, et al., 2005; 14. Mastropierie, et al., 2005; 15. Murray, 2004; 16. Orr, et al., 1998; 17. Piechura-Couture, et al., 2006; 18. Rice & Zigmond, 2000; 19. Salend, et al., 2002; 20. Scruggs, et al., 2007; 21. Tobin, 2005; 22. Walther-Thomas, 1997; 23. Walther-Thomas, et al., 1996; 24. Weiss, 2004; 25. Weiss & Lloyd, 2002; 26. Weiss & Lloyd, 2003; 27. Wilson, 2005.

58

CHAPTER III Co-teaching: The Investigation Purpose and Significance of the Study In Chapter I, the history or development of the instructional strategy of collaborative or co-teaching was briefly examined. As educators have searched for new instructional approaches to meet the diversity of the learners in their classroom, the coteaching or collaborative teaching approach has gained momentum and teachers are attempting its implementation. Several authors have defined co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 2007; Villa, et al., 2004, 2008) and delineated various models or approaches to coteaching. Chapter II focused on the review of the current literature on collaborative or coteaching. Many authors have discussed some of the challenges and benefits of coteaching, as well as some of the critical components that are necessary to begin or implement this approach in a teacher‟s classroom. However, we continually see bad examples of a good practice in today‟s classrooms. The purpose of this study is to further investigate what are the obstacles to implementing successful co-teaching teams between general and special education teachers. The paradigm of co-teaching will be examined through the eyes of general education teachers, special education teachers, school administrators, higher education faculty, and experts in the field of co-teaching. Perhaps identifying the obstacles to this successful implementation of co-teaching, will be help identify the solutions to those

59

obstacles and make co-teaching an opportunity to better meet the needs of all students and staff participating in a co-teaching arrangement. The Research Questions The research questions addressed during this study are twofold. First, why are schools not able to implement effective co-teaching teams? Secondly, what are the issues or obstacles to the implementation of effective co-teaching teams between general and special education teachers? In order to effectively answer these two questions, the researcher will focus on a qualitative perspective by using action research and a critical theory as a research paradigm. It is the hope of the researcher that through face to face interviews with the subjects in this research project, answers to the research questions will be obtained. The Significance of the Study Across the nation, schools are being held accountable for all students and each and every student is expected to show academic progress using the general education curriculum. In the 1990 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 1990), all students receiving special education supports and services, regardless of disability, are expected to show progress in learning the general education curriculum. Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in the general education classroom has become the focus of all educators. The passage of IDEIA and NCLB has made school districts create alternative ways to deliver supports and services to students with disabilities. As districts have moved towards a more inclusive philosophy, they have developed various strategies and

60

approaches to deal with the diversity of today‟s classrooms. Rose and Meyer (2002) stated that today‟s classrooms are uniquely different than they were years ago. Cultural, educational, and legal changes have significantly altered the mix of students in regular education classrooms. Today‟s typical classroom might include students whose first language is not English; students who are not reading on grade level, students with behavioral, attentional, and motivational problems; students from varied cultural backgrounds; and students classified as gifted. In addition, there are students with particular needs, such as limited vision, motor disabilities, emotional difficulties, speech and language difficulties, and learning disabilities. (p. 5) These types of classrooms require that educators have expertise in meeting the needs of a wide range of students in their classrooms. Despite the benefits of inclusionary practices, there is little known about the necessary elements of co-teaching as a way to facilitate inclusion. Schools may not be fully ready to implement co-teaching as an instructional strategy; however, those attempting it may not be fully aware of how to implement an effective co-teaching instructional delivery approach. The results from this study will identify what are the potential obstacles to implementing effective co-teaching teams and help to delineate some of the potential solutions to those obstacles. Once these barriers are overcome, educators can successfully implement co-teaching as an approach to meeting the needs of all students, including students with disabilities. Co-teaching is an opportunity for general educators and special educators to blend their skills and expertise in one classroom.

61

Research Tradition and Paradigm This qualitative research case study will focus on identifying the obstacles to the successful implementation of co-teaching. Yin (1989) stated that case study research is often selected as a research method when the researcher “seeks answers to how or why questions, when the inquirer has little control over the events being studied, and when the object of the study is contemporary phenomenon in a real-life context” (p. 23). The Research Context and Respondents This study was conducted using fifteen respondents who were involved in the context of co-teaching either as a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a school administrator where co-teaching was being implemented, a university faculty who was either co-teaching with another faculty member or teaching about co-teaching to their students, and a person determined by the researcher to be an expert in the field of co-teaching. Three respondents were selected for each of the five categories listed above. Explanatory letters were presented to each person and informed consent was obtained from each respondent (See Appendix A). These face to face interviews were conducted by the interviewer using a list of generated questions pertinent to the respondent‟s field of expertise. Interviews were conducted to gain the participant‟s perspective regarding coteaching. Each respondent is identified only by position and number (e.g. General education teacher 1; general education teacher 2, general education teacher 3, Special education teacher 1, special education teacher 3, expert 1, school administrator 2, etc.). Respondents selected were from California, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and North

62

Carolina. Table 2 provides information regarding the respondents‟ years of experience in education, gender, and geographic areas. Instrument Used in Data Collection I generated a list of possible open ended questions to select from in creating a finalized list of questions. These initial questions were rewritten and revised to create a final formal interview protocol. The formal interview questions were used to guide the conversation with the respondent. These questions were identified as background questions, structural questions, and descriptive questions as described by Hatch (2002). Background questions were used to begin the interview process after a rapport had been established with the interviewee. Information generated from these background questions focused on the areas of certification or licensure, the number of years the respondent had been in the field of education, and the roles that the respondent had held in the education field. Hatch (2002) described structural questions as those that help the respondent‟s demonstrated the knowledge of topic, in this case co-teaching. These questions generated the respondent‟s definition of co-teaching. Hatch (2002) also stated that descriptive questions allow the respondent to discuss the particulars of co-teaching. The respondents put their knowledge into words by having the researcher ask for a description of coteaching. Descriptive questions ask about benefits of co-teaching for students and professional, obstacles to co-teaching, and describing an effective co-teaching team. Questions in the final formal interview protocol were identified for the category of the respondent‟s subgroup. Many of the questions were asked of all respondents; however, there were several questions that were role specific (e.g. questions pertinent to

63

school administrators or university professors). Appendix B contains a copy of the formal interview protocol. A key was located at the beginning of the formal interview document to assist the researcher in asking the respondent the appropriate background, structural, and descriptive questions. During the interview process, I made field notes on my copy of the formal interview document and to assist in identifying and asking clarifying question to the respondent as needed. These field notes and clarifying questions were noted on my copy. Procedures Used in Data Collection Each interview was conducted in a relaxed and comfortable setting as agreed upon by the respondent and researcher. Interviews were approximately ninety minutes in length. Some respondents were afforded follow up interviews to clarify information from the initial interview. All interviews were audio taped to allow the researcher to transcribe them for data analysis. Data Analysis Following the transcription of each respondent‟s interview, the text was analyzed for themes. Data analysis is used as a systematic search for meaning from the information gathered from the respondents. It is a way to communicate what has been learned from the research process to others. Hatch (2002) stated that “Analysis means organizing and interrogating data in ways that allow researchers to see patterns, identify themes, discover relationships, develop explanations, make interpretations, mount critiques, or generate theories” (p. 148). Merriam (1998) defined data analysis as “the process of making sense out of the data” (p. 178). She further described the process of data analysis as a means of

64

organizing, finding themes, and consolidating and reducing the information that has been gleaned from the data collection process. Initially I identified preliminary categories for the coding of respondent data. These categories were the following: (a) commonalities of definitions of co-teaching, (b) barriers to implementing co-teaching teams, (c) benefits to professionals who co-teach, (d) benefits to students in co-taught classrooms, (e) suggested strategies to overcome the barriers to implementing co-teaching teams, and (f) characteristics of effective coteaching teams. Analysis of the transcribed interviews looked for words or themes which emerged from the respondent‟s answers to the interview questions. Items were colored coded for each of the categories. During the initial coding process open coding was used. Open coding is “the first stage of coding in grounded theory, where text is read reflectively to identify relevant categories” (Gibbs, 2008, p. 150). Open coding was conducted by reading the transcribed interviews and supporting or reinforcing the researcher‟s preliminary categories. Oftentimes the elements stated by the interviewee contained descriptive words that fit into each category. Following the open coding of information, axial coding was used to compare themes among questions. Gibbs (2008) defined axial coding as “the second stage of coding in which the relationships of categories are explored and connections between them are made” (p. 147). Axial coding is also defined as “making connections between a category and its subcategories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 97). This process is a further refinement of the themes and describing their relationship to one another.

65

The final stage of data analysis is selective coding which is defined by Gibbs (2008) as, “the final stage of grounded theory in which a central phenomenon or core category is identified and all other categories are related to it” (p. 152). I identified this core category through the reflective process and by narrowing the responses of the interviewees. I anticipated that several of the coded themes would emerge as the overarching obstacles that prevent co-teaching teams from being effective. By identifying these obstacles, strategies to overcome them can be identified to turn the obstacles into opportunities. The Use of Qualitative Methodology Qualitative research has gained popularity in the social sciences in recent years. Creswell (2007) defined qualitative research as “an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry, that explore a social or human problem” (p. 15). He further described how the researcher “builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting” (p. 15). Merriam (1998) described the qualitative researcher as a person “interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how they make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world” (p. 6). She identified four characteristics of qualitative research. The first is referred to as the “emic, or insider‟s perspective, versus the etic, or outsider‟s view” (p. 6-7). The key is making sure the topic of interest in understood from the perspective of the participants, and not the researcher‟s.

66

The second characteristic is “the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis” (p. 7). The third characteristic is that fieldwork is involved in the process. The researcher is actively involved by interacting with respondents through face to face interactions with the setting, or the people involved. The fourth characteristic is that qualitative research “primarily employs an inductive research strategy” (p. 7). Merriam stated that “this type of research building abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, or theories rather than test existing theories” (p. 7). Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger, Pugach, and Richardson (2005) discussed the impact of qualitative research in the field of special education. In their article they provided an overview of qualitative studies and the impact and benefit they have provided to the field of special education. They identified some of the quality indicators that are critical to conducting and evaluating qualitative research studies in the special education field. They discussed interview studies, observation studies, document analysis, and data analysis as indicators of qualitative research that has advanced not only the practice of special education, but also special education policy (Brantlinger, et al., 2005). The present study uses qualitative methodologies as discussed above. Summary This chapter presented the research questions for this study as well as the significance that the study will have on education in the 21st century. Included was the selection of respondents by their role in co-teaching or in implementing co-teaching in their educational setting. Both the instrument and the procedures for data collection were reviewed. Once the data collection procedures were completed, the researcher began the

67

process of data analysis through the grounded theory coding process. The results of this coding process are presented in the following chapter.

68

Table 2 Respondents Participating in the Study, Years Experience in Education, Average Years in Education per Group, Gender, and Geographic Area Respondent

Years in Education

Average years per group

Gender

Geographic Area

Special Education Teacher 1

5

Female

Urban

Special Education Teacher 2

18

Female

Suburban

Special Education Teacher 3

40

Female

Rural

21 General Education Teacher 1

7

Male

Urban

General Education Teacher 2

20

Female

Rural

General Education Teacher 3

12

Female

Suburban

13 Administrator 1

9

Male

Urban

Administrator 2

40

Female

Urban

Administrator 3

22

Female

Suburban

23.67 University Professor 1

37

Female

Urban

University Professor 2

34

Female

Urban

University Professor 3

2.5

Female

Suburban

24.3 Expert 1

34

Male

Urban

Expert 2

34

Female

Suburban

Expert 3

17

Female

Urban

28.3

69

CHAPTER IV Co-Teaching Study: The Results As stated in Chapter I, the focus of this study was to investigate the obstacles to implementing successful co-teaching teams between general and special education teachers. Through an interview process three respondents in each category were asked the same questions. The categories of respondents included general and special education teachers, school administrators where co-teaching was being implemented, university professors who either taught about co-teaching or used co-teaching in higher education settings, and experts in the field of co-teaching. This chapter is organized by sections to compare results of the respondents to each of the questions. Each section will summarize the comments and coded responses using open coding and then axial coding to identify the existing categories and subcategories of their responses. Included will be a table of tabulations on how many times the respondents discussed the major components identified in the review of the literature. Definition of Co-Teaching Each of the respondents provided a definition of the term co-teaching as one of the preliminary questions asked during the interview process. There were many similarities in their definitions including the terms “two or more teachers,” “to increase student access to the general curriculum,” “shared responsibility,” and “working in the same environment or classroom.” Many of the practicing classroom general and special education teachers included additional components such as working collaboratively,

70

providing support, and working together in planning, instruction, and assessment. The response of General Education Teacher 1 provided a definition that included many of the components addressed by others. Co-teaching is “having one or more teachers work, plan, and implement lessons that benefit all learners regardless of any label put on the student.” One of the general education co-teachers interviewed stated her definition of coteaching in the following way. She stated, “I have always told people that the best coteaching is when you go into a room and you cannot differentiate who is the general education teacher versus who is the special education teacher.” Experience in Education and Co-teaching Respondents were asked two questions regarding experience. First, how many years had they been in the field of education? In total, all fifteen respondents had a combined 331.5 years in the field of education. When this figure is broken down, general education teachers had 39 years, special education teachers had 63, administrators had 71, university professors had 73.5, and experts in the field of co-teaching had 85 years of experience. In response to the second question describing their years or experiences with coteaching, the respondents indicated fewer years of actually co-teaching. The most experience was Special Education Teacher 3, who had been co-teaching for eight years. All of the respondents were licensed or credentialed in their respective fields, be it general education, special education, or administration. Those respondents who were experts in the field or who were university professors had served many roles in public

71

and private educational institutions serving students from preschool through high school. Several of the respondents had moved from the paraprofessional role to the teacher role once they had completed their education and licensing or credentialing requirements. All respondents had degrees - bachelors‟, masters‟, and doctorates - in their respective fields. Benefits to Educators Who Co-teach When asked what are the benefits to educators who co-teach, respondents indicated a number of benefits. From the analysis of the responses, benefits listed were a more reflective process of teaching, sharing of expertise of two or more people, learning from each other, supporting each other‟s strengths and weaknesses, opportunities for professional growth, reducing the loneliness of the teaching profession, increased creativity in the classroom, and the insight co-teaching makes teaching more enjoyable. An administrator interviewed stated that one of his veteran teachers who was “ready to retire . . . stated she had been reinvigorated and had never had so much fun teaching.” Administrator 1 was reminded of the time when teachers were working independently in their own classrooms. He stated, “I think back to the day when teachers really worked in isolation” and there was limited support for the solo teacher in the classroom. He felt that “any collaborative model can be of benefit to kids because you have two adults giving input into lesson planning and jumping in on teachable moments.” Expert 1 stated that, “education is the last profession in essence that trains people to work individually and mostly in isolation.” One of the major benefits of co-teaching is that teachers are working together and reducing that isolation that many teachers feel. Expert

72

3 reported that one of the benefits to professionals working in co-taught classrooms is that it allows teachers “practical benefits like teacher brain breaks and bathroom breaks!” Oftentimes, educators are fearful of entering into co-teaching because of being judged by their co-teacher. General Education Teacher 1 discussed that they had spoken to other teachers who have expressed a fear of participating in co-teaching. He elaborated by saying, “I have talked to those that have tried co-teaching and part of their nervousness is someone being critical of them as teachers.” But they have found out “it‟s the first time in their professional career that they have gotten positive feedback on their classroom instruction” from their co-teaching partner. Administrator 2 discussed the fact that co-teaching increased the classroom teacher‟s ability to be more reflective on his or her practice. He stated, “I think it forces teachers to reflect on their practice . . . reflecting on your practice is a good thing, but if you (teachers) are all by themselves, it‟s easy to just go along day to day . . . never taking time to reflect.” Special Education Teacher 1 also talked about co-teaching being “a reflective process. What a joy to share an experience together and be able to talk about it together . . . and to challenge each other and ask questions but to be there to back each other up.” Their general education co-teacher echoed the same feelings by saying that one of the benefits is, “being reflective and gaining more content knowledge . . . I love that I am a learner.” University Professor 3 felt that when he was co-teaching and heard his colleague teaching, it “provoked the thought process in me.” Embedded in their responses were the benefits of increased skills in communication, collaboration, and problem solving.

73

Oftentimes the respondents quoted the phrase that “two heads are better than one” in meeting the needs of a diverse student population. Another expert stated it this way; in co-teaching you have a “sense of affiliation, a sense of belonging, when are you working with somebody else. You are more powerful when two heads are better than one.” In terms of collegiality, one of the general education teachers stated it this way. “You are bettering your practice and you are working on your craft all year long with somebody and there are these adult conversations that we get to have when you are working with another adult.” A special education respondent stated, “What a joy to share an experience together and be able to talk about it together and to be able to challenge each other, ask questions, and be there to back each other up.” Expert 2 felt that “coteaching not only distributes the work load, it distributes the joy and delight that goes along with teaching” and that it “really puts into practice what we know is true for every occupation, that there is too much for one person to know in order to be truly effective.” He went on to say that “co-teaching is a very concrete way to bring collaborative enterprise to the heart of teaching.” Modeling was also identified as one of the benefits to professionals who engage in co-teaching. One university professor from an urban setting stated that modeling by adults working together in the public school classrooms benefits students from the inner city. He stated, “Many of our students come from single family homes . . . and they don‟t always have the role model of two people working alongside each other who are appropriate social role models.” He stated that students witnessing co-teaching in the classroom where “teachers can make jokes, laugh, and have a sense of humor” as well as

74

have “agreements and disagreements where they can work through those disagreements” and where adults find the “ability to solution-find when issues arise,” and can help students learn appropriate group problem solving. Special Education Teacher 2 also identified modeling as a benefit to co-teachers by saying “I think it is great modeling for kids when they see two teachers working together, problem solving, and being creative and working off each other‟s strengths and weaknesses.” She also supported the modeling concept by asking, “Isn‟t that what we want our students to do?” Respondents across all roles stated that one of the benefits to professionals was that co-teaching was more fun than working alone. Special Education Teacher 2 stated, “It‟s fun!” One of the university professors supported this idea by stating, “I think it‟s more fun. I think that is the number one aspect is that it brings humor, laughter and enlightenment into the classroom . . . this has an impact on the kids.” Also, Expert 2 reiterated that one of the major benefits to professionals working in co-teaching classrooms is that it “helps educators meet the legal requirement under No Child Left Behind (2002) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004).” He went on to say “NCLB holds us accountable to access and to respond to our diverse learners to be sure that all of our learners meet adequate yearly progress” and that “if you create a marriage of that masterful curriculum and master of access, you are more likely to facilitate that access” and ensure increased student achievement. Lastly, many respondents felt that a benefit to co-teaching for professionals was increased academic student achievement. Administrator 1 stated it is “very motivating to see that the kids are doing better.” Expert 2 stated “there certainly are research based

75

benefits to co-teaching” by citing the Schwab study in California where sixteen California schools “got higher overall active academic student achievement and not just for kids on IEP‟s, but all students.” Benefits to Students in Co-taught Classrooms Again, respondents across roles shared many of the same characteristics of what are benefits to students who receive instruction in co-taught classrooms. A special education teacher respondent stated that “the benefit to students is having access to quality instruction, and being in a place that they belong to be.” Those characteristics are support from two or more teachers, access to quality instruction, seeing the modeling of collaboration in the classroom, better access to the general education curriculum, improved self esteem and academic achievement, reduced label barriers, having multiple approaches to instruction, better student-teacher ratio, more opportunities for differentiated instruction, more immediacy of feedback, and more enjoyable classes. Another special education respondent stated that her kids “always say how much better they do because there is always one person there to help them.” She also shared “the benefits are having access to quality instruction, and being in a place that they belong to be.” Her thought echoed her belief in inclusive education and that all students belong together. No matter the role of the respondent, co-teaching was thought to increase student achievement and provide better access to the general education curriculum. With two or more professionals working together in the same classroom, students were afforded more diverse teaching strategies, increased approaches to delivering instruction, and more

76

immediate feedback on student performance. Special Education Teacher 3 said “an extra adult and an extra pair of hands are always a good thing. Most students could us that extra explanation . . . a new technique or strategy.” Also, Administrator 3 stated that the “resource of two professional who have two entirely different skill sets” makes coteaching a tremendous benefit to students. Special Education Teacher 2 reiterated the benefit for students in special education is “access to the core curriculum so if you pull a kid out and do an alternative curriculum, they get further and further away from passing the high school exit exam.” She elaborated further, saying, “It‟s a matter of juggling where you can fit in their instructional needs and meet their IEP goals but still have them . . . get the basics of the core curriculum so they have a shot of catching up one day.” General Education Teacher 2 stated a benefit to students would be “if someone isn‟t learning there is always a fresh idea to try. During whole group instruction there is always someone to loop in for extra support.” This extra support enhances each child‟s chance of learning the curriculum content. General Education Teacher 1 stated that when students are getting “two teachers to really thoughtfully think about their learning outcomes and a consideration for all learners” students have an increased opportunity to be more successful. General Education Teacher 3 stated that students “get more one on one time” and that “they (the students) have different personalities, and sometimes they mesh better with one person (teacher) than the other.” An expert supported the feelings expressed by co-teachers by stating it “is much easier to get corrective feedback immediately back to the students

77

because you have a reduced number of students that teachers have to respond to.” University Professor 3 stated that students “benefit from the varied perspectives and the expertise that the two people bring” to the classroom. She further stated that “learning is a collaborative effort and that students can gain from the fact that two people are up there collaborating together . . . to promote learning.” Family communication also increases when teachers co-teach. For instance, Administrator 1 stated he “found out that my co-teachers are more likely to contact the parents than in non co-teaching teams.” Administrator 3 replied, “It‟s a huge benefit in family connections from the two teachers regardless of whether or not the students have disabilities.” He elaborated that families have responded they like the concept of two teachers working in the same classroom with their children. The role of the co-teachers was shared when “both teachers are present at meetings and both teachers can compile report cards” and share information. Finally, several respondents stated that the benefit for students in co-taught classrooms is a matter of social justice. Expert 2 stated, “I think there are also social benefit and social justice issues where we have kids learning that diversity is the norm.” He stated that a co-teaching environment helps students “recognize what each student in the class has to offer.” He reiterated this is an element that is not often measured in today‟s classroom. Expert 3 stated that co-teaching in general education helps in terms of self esteem because “students with disabilities are part of the mainstream society, instead of having to go to the room down the hall and being stigmatized.”

78

With regards to behavior and classroom management, Expert 3 stated students with disabilities are “exposed to peers who are behaving appropriately which is a powerful motivator” as well as having “two teachers there for proximity control and classroom management.” With regards to classroom management, University Professor 2 stated that “sometimes a student will know how to push one teacher‟s buttons and it‟s nice to have that second teacher there that can calm the storm.” They have the flexibility to say to the student, “Let‟s go for a walk so they can tell them what is going on.” This naturally allows students a better “opportunity to engage in conversation to work out other issues that they come to school with.” Obstacles to Implementing Effective Co-teaching Teams The major focus of this study was to examine the obstacles to implementing successful co-teaching teams between general and special education teachers. From the perspective of data analysis, responses were coded as categories: teachers, general and special education, administrators, university faculty, and experts in the field of coteaching. Due to the nature of the respondents‟ roles, the obstacles they identified were somewhat specific. Obstacles were illustrated by examples of issues that have arisen from the respondents‟ roles in an educational setting. Many of the obstacles had been experienced firsthand by the respondents as they had attempted to implement coteaching. An interesting phenomenon that was gleaned from discussion with those who had implemented co-teaching was that the obstacles seemed to be different for those who had received training prior to the implementation and those who had been thrust into a co-teaching situation without having any background, training, or professional

79

development. Those who had prior training found the obstacles to be logistical issues, while those who had no prior training identified issues that were more philosophical in nature. Obstacles from General and Special Education Teacher Perspective When general and special education teachers were asked to identify the obstacles to successfully implementing co-teaching teams, their responses focused on philosophy, planning, training, and professional development. Teachers responded that the background, philosophies, and beliefs of the teachers who are going to co-teach must be discussed before implementing a co-teaching approach. How co-teachers were selected was identified as an obstacle. Teachers stated that administrative assignment of their coteacher rather than self selection was a obstacle. For instance, many teachers are resistant to change and a lack of a complementary relationship between the two teachers prevented co-teaching from being successful. Special Education Teacher 2 stated it this way, “It kind of goes back that should we require those teachers to co-teach. I think whenever anyone is required or forced it doesn‟t work. I don‟t think that‟s the way to change someone‟s point of view.” General Education Teacher 2 found that “finding someone that shares your philosophy, commitment, and passion” was essential to success. She stated that if you do not find that person who shares your same beliefs, your teaching will struggle and oftentimes fail. She stated that if you find someone who shares your belief system, you can move towards the more essential elements to creating a successful coteaching team. As she put it, “It takes a lot of dialogue and time to plan and organize and you don‟t want to waste time on your belief system.”

80

Another obstacle identified by the teachers was the changing of one‟s co-teaching partner every year. This prevented the co-teaching team from going through a team development process since the co-teaching arrangement was changed annually. General Education Teacher 1 stated it is a tremendous benefit to have the same co-teacher for multiple years. He had worked with his same co-teacher (Special Education Teacher 3) for several years at the time of the interview and stated that “it‟s a nice model for the teacher to stay with the same students and co-teacher for multiple years. If you do not then you are reinventing the wheel each year.” If you have to change co-teachers every year then you are “constantly reinventing co-teaching and doing everything over again.” His co-teacher, Special Education Teacher 3, also echoed the same feeling saying, “It‟s really important to have the same co-teacher for multiple years.” She responded they “had worked through many of the issues and we know each other‟s strengths and weaknesses so we can support each other from day one in the second year.” She illustrated this by saying, “my co-teacher is an expert in math and knows the content, while I can help the students by making graphic organizers, providing concrete examples, and making math a real world experience.” General Education Teacher 1 illustrated the drawback that happens when you change co-teachers yearly. He stated when he has a new co-teacher every year that “every co-teacher has apprehensiveness to math. They come in and say that they aren‟t very good at math, but as time goes on they get comfortable and find their rhythm.” This apprehensiveness makes the team have a shaky beginning and takes longer to function effectively. Special Education Teacher 2 discussed how she got co-teaching started in her

81

building. “I said to my friend who teaches 3rd grade, „can I put a couple of students in your class . . . during language arts?‟ We do small groups, we do rotating, it‟s just awesome!” She went on to state that, “I‟ve been doing this for five years and my principal said we need everybody to do this. I know everybody needs to do it, but . . . you want to do it with teachers who support it and know how.” General Education Teacher 3 had worked with the same co-teaching partner since the implementation of this instructional practice. She had the same teaching partner for the four years she had been co-teaching. When asked how important she thought it was that co-teachers stay together as a team, she replied “I think it is very important and if you find that bond that it needs to stay. Maybe some administrators don‟t realize that but I know mine did.” When queried further about that comment and telling her that many teachers change partners every year she replied that, “I think that would be strange. If you found a match that should be how you need to stay.” Another major obstacle was centered on the logistics of implementing coteaching. A major item was the lack of planning prior to the implementation of a coteaching model. Teachers stated that an obstacle was the lack of time to plan, prepare, and discuss many of the logistical topics that the team would need to address. These topics were classroom management, planning, grading, paperwork, classroom preparation, sharing of responsibilities, and communication and problem solving when issues arise within the team. Teachers stated they were often thrust into co-teaching situations without the proper time to plan before implementation. General Education Teacher 3 discussed how most teachers do not take the time to plan before beginning co-

82

teaching. “I think one problem is that I see that teachers sometimes don‟t take the time” to plan. “They don‟t take the time to sit and get to know each other.…and I think that is essential.” Communication between general and special education co-teachers was stated as an obstacle. Finding the time to communicate during the day about topics such as classroom management, lesson planning, student performance, and many of the other issues was mentioned several times. Special Education Teacher 1 discussed how communication has been a hurdle that her team has had to overcome. She stated, “Communication is so vitally important to the success of your team.” When face to face communication is not afforded to team members there appears to no way to address issues when they arise. As the respondent went on, she stated that “resolving difference can only be done through face to face communication and being respectful of each other.” In reflecting on times when face to face communication was not always available she mentioned a situation where she had “been personally hurt by my co-teachers saying something to other teachers rather than directly to me.” In discussing the issue face to face with her co-teacher she confronted her directly because “you need to work through that and if you can‟t then the kids will suffer.” She went on to describe how communication regarding discipline was essential. “Being on the same page with your discipline policy and what your tolerance level is for certain things.” She discussed her tolerance for noise in the classroom. Her co-teacher allowed students to do things that she thought were unacceptable. How she handled the situation was she set up a time to

83

communicate with her directly. She stated, “She needs to know that it bothers me and then we can resolve our differences.” Another theme that was identified by many of the general and special education teachers was administrative support. Teachers identified administrative issues such as scheduling, case load, class size, having a common planning time during the school day, and a lack of providing professional development and ongoing training on co-teaching as barriers to successful implementation. Special Education Teacher 1 discussed the importance of administrators creating a master schedule with co-teaching in mind. If this is not taken into consideration when planning, “a lot of times it will not happen. . . or you get a schedule solidified and it is much more difficult to change when things are up and running.” Another scheduling issue was the concept of natural proportions. She stated that there “should be a natural representation of students with disabilities in the general education classroom. There should only be 10% in the classroom.” She found when coteaching is not taken into consideration when planning the master schedule she has “about 40 to 50%” of students with disabilities in a general education classroom. Common planning time was also identified as an obstacle to the successful implementation of effective co-teaching. General Education Teacher 1 recalled, “another major concern is common planning time. I have done co-teaching with and without a common planning time.” His view was that having a common planning time “makes it so much easier, you have time to plan and have time to debrief and time to check in with each other.” General Education Teacher 2 discussed her views on planning. “I think many people think that co-teaching is easier than teaching a class on your own. They

84

seem to have the idea that if there are two of you then you have half of the work.” She went on to say that “Actually, to be effective is takes a lot more time and planning.” Lack of professional development was also mentioned by both general and special education teachers as one of the major obstacles to the successful implementation of coteaching. Special Education Teacher 2 had this to say about professional development. “This is a huge need because knowledge is the first step. We can hear about it (coteaching), but we need to know what it is and why. You need to know the research behind it.” Special Education Teacher 1 also shared her thoughts on the importance of professional development and the impact that the lack of professional development before implementation has on the co-teaching team. She stated, “People don‟t know what co-teaching is. They don‟t know what it is supposed to look like, how they are supposed to plan together, and what expectations they have for each other.” Obstacles from the Administrative Perspective Administrators who worked in buildings where co-teaching was being implemented identified many logistical issues too. One administrator identified it as “the numbers game.” It was stated that the number of students being placed in a co-taught classroom became a logistical nightmare. Oftentimes class size became unmanageable from an administrative perspective. Staffing issues were identified as one of the major administrative obstacles. Embedded in the staffing issues was providing the co-teaching team with a common planning time. The impact of co-teachers needing a common planning time impacted the master schedule within the building environment.

85

A second obstacle identified by building administrators was getting adults to get along. Collegiality among general and special education staff as well as serving as a mediator when differences arise was a major issue. Administrator 1 stated another obstacle is “getting adults to get along. Most of the time . . . I don‟t have the luxury of having two people find each other and choose each other as co-teachers.” He continued by saying that since he works in a small school setting, there is often only one teacher at each grade level. High school settings allow for more staff to self select for co-teaching. He stated he did have “some people find each other and choose to co-teach, but it‟s pretty much like an arranged type marriage.” When asked about allowing teachers to self select their co-teaching partner or having co-teaching partners assigned, Administrator 2 stated “I think it needs to be self select when possible, but I also think that in some situations professionally, we don‟t always get our way. Sometimes we do things professionally because we are professionals.” Administrator 3 worked in a building where co-teaching is the norm at each grade level. Each grade level team worked in teams “with general and special education teachers working together.” She stated that what made it “doable” was “that the grade level teams have common plan periods” and that “special educators aren‟t going to three different classrooms that have three different plans and three different assignments.” All three administrators were of the opinion that teachers had a difficult time with role release and giving up some of their territory to be effective on co-teaching teams. They stated that teacher pet peeves, such as removing items from the desk or failure to put materials away, increased the likelihood that co-teaching teams would face some

86

difficulties. Getting teachers to change their belief system to support co-teaching and student expectations was part of the administrative barriers that were identified. Administrator 1 was optimistic in changing people‟s belief systems when he stated when he worked in a middle school setting he stated that he had “changed those beliefs and expectations because we showed them that it worked and we were able to raise test scores.” Administrator 2 discussed his strategy for getting teacher buy in to co-teaching. He stated that, “I made it a topic of conversation at faculty meetings and highlighted successes. I would have the teachers talk about their practice to their peers and share what was working and what wasn‟t working.” His next step was to “schedule professional development time so that the teachers had time to talk about it.” He stated that this alleviated some of the teachers‟ fears and reservations about implementing co-teaching. The teachers would then begin to plan co-taught lessons and meet with the principal to discuss their meeting agenda and how the lessons had been planned. He continued to provide ongoing support to the new co-teaching teams and provided them with “structure to make it easier and that there was some accountability” between the team members. Administrators also stated that special education teachers were not familiar enough with the general education curriculum. They felt that content knowledge of the general education curriculum was lacking in special education teacher training and this prevented teachers in co-taught classrooms to have parity. General education teachers were serving in the capacity of teachers of the content while special education teachers were serving more in creating adaptations or modifications necessary for the classroom. Principals indicated that this was an obstacle that needed to be addressed in teacher

87

training programs where general and special education teachers would receive training in both general education curriculum and differentiation of instruction for more diverse learners in the classroom. Also identified was the administrator‟s ability to provide professional development and training prior to the implementation of co-teaching, as well as ongoing staff development. Principals stated the district professional development days were scheduled by the central office and they were unable to provide teachers the necessary skills on co-teaching before implementation. Administrator 3 “provided a week of professional development the week before school starts” and then building “monthly professional development throughout the year.” Her building provided a half day a week each month, “but we all provide professional development in faculty meetings.” Administrator 1 was principal of a new building in a large urban district. The mission and vision of this building was established on co-teaching as an instructional process that would be implemented to meet the needs of diverse learners. In hiring staff for this new building, part of the interview process was questions on their opinions about co-teaching. When he was selecting staff he stated, “I was able to bring some of the teachers over with me so they had the background and for most of the teachers in our district, co-teaching is not a new thing.” He described the process he used to hire staff. “I was able to open the school and I was able to address every teacher here before any students stepped on to the campus, telling them that this was our service delivery model here.” Continuing, he stated that, “I was able to set that expectation from the beginning so it was never a surprise to anyone nor was it a big shift because we got started with a clean

88

slate.” He described the process for professional development as being embedded into the school culture. He said professional development was ongoing as his staff “built relationships, meet as departments, met as content areas, met as small schools, met at whole school meetings, and if you can imagine there was one meeting of professional development every week.” Obstacles from the University Professor Perspective University professors discussed their obstacles from two perspectives—first, implementing co-teaching between two university professors in preservice training and secondly, from embedding co-teaching training into their course content. University professors stated that getting general and special education faculty to co-teach preservice classes had obstacles similar to those identified by general and special education teachers. Professors stated that many times they did not have sufficient knowledge on what coteaching truly is when implemented in a university setting. The University professors‟ different teaching styles and philosophies, as well as personality matches were obstacles. Two university professors stated some professors lacked self confidence and were fearful of implementing co-teaching at the university level. University Professor 3 stated, “I would say probably first and foremost would be different styles or philosophies on how to deliver content. Possible personality matches and teaching style would be the biggest barriers.” University Professor 2 stated it this way. “If a person is not open minded to coteaching or with another professor‟s perspective, then it‟s not going to work.” University Professor 1 stated that “knowledge of what co-teaching can be” can be a barrier. When professors lack “the self confidence and understanding” regarding co-teaching the fail to

89

understand that “people are there to support one another and coach….rather than evaluate or judge them.” Another obstacle to implementation was administrative support in faculty load. Two professors stated the university administration failed to recognize the importance of co-teaching and that it would impact the professors‟ load requirements. University Professor 1 stated that “the Dean is always worried about our teaching load and coteaching is something that the administration is not that familiar with.” She stated a great deal of “education on the benefits to co-teaching would be necessary for the higher ups to encourage us to do it.” University Professor 1 also discussed how faculty is allotted hours. She stated that “the realities of private hour production faced personnel decisions. In my university, faculty are allocated completely on a credit hour production.” She described the process as “literally a formula and so if there is to be co-teaching, it is certainly supported, but it requires class sizes that are twice as big.” She described her university as being numbers driven and that co-teaching could, and does take place, but that it is impacted by the number of students in a university professor‟s class. From the perspective of implementing co-teaching into the course content, faculty stated that they did not truly understand what co-teaching was to teach students how to do use it as an instructional strategy. They stated that faculty had insufficient training on different co-teaching models to prepare students to use co-teaching in their careers. They identified that university faculty had little professional development on co-teaching at the university level. University Professor 1 stated that “people would need orientation and staff development. I think that a few faculty would really struggle with it unless they

90

were told it was an expectation for their job.” University Professor 2 talked about how co-teaching was implemented at her private university. She began by talking about the fact they had not had a dean for two years but once one was hired he came in with many new ideas, co-teaching being one of them. She talked about how he started. He said “We are going to roll out co-teaching next year and everyone has to go to this co-teaching presentation all day workshop.” She said he felt that this would create the feeling of “now you are blessed to go forward and co-teach.” What she found from the faculty was there was not the ongoing support necessary to sustain the practice. She described the process that resulted from this lack of training and discussion about co-teaching as well as the time for faculty to plan before implementing it into their courses. She stated, “so inevitably, one faculty was the master of content and the other faculty member was still just walking. They were kind of stagnant and didn‟t have the ongoing professional help to support what is good co-teaching.” Obstacles from the Experts’ Perspective Experts in the field of co-teaching were identified as those people who had extensive expertise on co-teaching, on its implementation and had published numerous articles, books, or training materials on the topic of co-teaching. When asked what they felt were the obstacles to successful implementation of co-teaching teams, they identified the following issues: resistance to change, lack of knowledge on co-teaching models, trust, lack of professional buy in from school administrators and staff, lack of a school culture that supports co-teaching, dilemmas with relationship issues, lack of professional development and training, and administrative support. As Expert 2 stated, professional

91

development is required; “you would not expect an attorney to go to court without preparation or would expect a surgeon to do a new type of surgery without some kind of preparation” but “we are asking educators to function in a way that most of them have definitely not been prepared to do.” Expert 1 stated that “administrators need to provide a rationale for co-teaching. They need to have the expectation that people will be co-teaching. They need to provide training, and develop schedules that have common planning time and common teaching time.” He stated that a gradual implementation process has been the most successful at infusing co-teaching into the school culture. He described the process as “within six years all these people will have co-teaching experience. Years 1 and 2 you start with the people who are willing and then you expand your group to year 3, 4, 5, and then 6.” He discussed that this plan of implementation would “signal loud and clear that this is an expectation that we want all people to co-teach.” As an educator who had risen from classroom teacher, school administrator, university professor and expert in the field of coteaching, he had implemented this approach in school districts across the world. He stated “granted some people may choose to leave and you are giving those more time to develop, but you are having awareness assuring accountability.” Expert 3 tied a number of concepts into the obstacles to prevent co-teaching from happening successfully in school environments. During her seventeen years in the field, she too had been a general and special education teacher, an administrator, and now a university professor for eleven years. Her major focus had been on co-teaching at each level, with her emphasis now on lecturing and writing in the field of co-teaching. Her list

92

of barriers included “resistance to change, lack of professional development, a lack of administrative support, insufficient time and resources.” As she elaborated further, she oftentimes noted there is “a misunderstanding of what co-teaching entails from all parties”. . . and that inadequate input from teachers regarding preferences for partner, grade, and content” have been at the foundation of why co-teaching does not succeed. She also stated another issue is “negative perceptions of co-teaching based on the evaluation of situations that went wrong” has also been an obstacle. In the area of administrative support she felt that building level leaders have failed to “include the provision of adequate training, time for planning, and appropriate scheduling of staff.” Strategies to Overcome the Obstacles to Co-teaching During the interview process, each respondent was asked for specific strategies they felt could overcome the obstacles to implementing effective co-teaching teams they had identified. Strategies to Overcome Obstacles from the General and Special Education Perspective Both general and special education teachers identified the following strategies to overcome the obstacles they had identified to why co-teaching is not effective: having sufficient planning time, professional development, and training prior to the implementation of co-teaching as an instructional approach, teacher compatibility and match with willing participants, a vision and culture that supports co-teaching, ongoing administrative support, having sufficient planning time during the school day, providing sensitivity training, and empowering of teachers in the decision making process.

93

One of the special education teacher respondents stated in order to change teachers‟ mindsets about co-teaching would be to “give them an incredible experience, an incredible eye opening experience, with a child in their classroom where they say „wow that was great, I never in a million years would have thought but look at them now.‟” She went on to say she had a student with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair and he “transforms teachers every year.” Special Education Teacher 2 also commented on the strategy of letting teachers see co-teaching taking place and how that would also help change some teachers‟ attitudes. She stated, “Letting teachers go into other teacher‟s classrooms and observe co-teaching going on and seeing how it works” . . . so maybe they‟ll say ‟I‟ll try it‟.” She felt that “it‟s not a matter of forcing them to do it, it‟s more a matter of giving them the experience to see it and learn about it.” Special Education Teacher 3 stated the “key is our building principal and all that he provided us, people coming to talk to us and to train us and tell us that this can be done.” Her praise for her building leader continued, as she stated, “If it hadn‟t been for him, we wouldn‟t be where we are today.” She discussed that his leadership and “the vision that he has made this right for us.” He also was “very passionate about co-teaching and the constant support by coming into the class . . . and telling us we were doing a great job or asking if we needed any help” made this successful. Special Education Teacher 1 stated that “training and understanding of what co-teaching truly is and not trying to implement unless the correct amount of support is in place” are the strategies necessary to overcome barriers to implementing co-teaching. General Education Teacher 1 also discussed that having a supportive administrator is necessary. In describing her school

94

leaders she stated, “She was very supportive . . . willing to come in and help, as well as support us by giving money and the resources necessary to do what we needed to do.” Not only was the general education administrator supportive, but she also stated that they “also had a special education administrator who was wonderful as well. He was a big advocate for co-teaching and helped in providing those resources.” General Education Teacher 3 summed up her thoughts on the strategies necessary to overcome the obstacles to co-teaching like this. “It‟s all about careful matches, willing participants, time for teachers to collaborate and bond, and ongoing coaching.” General Education Teacher 3 concurred, in “Finding the right person and sticking with them is necessary. If you found a match, that would be how you would need to stay.” Strategies to Overcome Obstacles from the Administrators’ Perspective Administrators stated having professional development and training prior to the implementation would be essential for co-teaching teams to be effective. They also stated that administrators need to support a co-teaching philosophy within their building and it needs to be embedded in the school climate and culture. Administrator 2 talked about how he garnered support for teachers and mediated during conflict. “If I were an administrator in a school where co-teaching was not being implemented, I would make it clear that I felt it was important that we do this.” He discussed how he dealt with the situation when conflict arose. “I would talk with people either individually or together and see what their fears are. When people usually don‟t want to do something, it‟s because they don‟t know how or are worried about failure.” Administrative support from the perspective of providing sufficient planning time prior to the implementation, as well

95

as planning time within the school day would help address the obstacles identified. Administrator 2 went on, stating that “I would provide whatever the team needs training, support, encouragement, or just checking with them. I would provide the kind of administrative support necessary for people to grow.” Co-teaching teams need time to build relationships and accountability for student achievement. Administrators felt that having a workable master schedule where coteaching teams would have the same co-teaching partner would also help eliminate teacher fears and build relationships where those fears could be overcome. Administrator 3 described her school, which is built on an inclusive co-teaching model. She stated there were “grade level teams from K to 5. Those teams are made up of general education teachers who work together with a special educator.” She stated the master schedule “makes it flow, fluid, and doable in that the grade level teams have common plans among the classrooms.” The role of the special education teacher is much more active because “they aren‟t going to three different classrooms that have three different plans and three different assignments.” Her master plan of having special education teachers “attending the planning meeting for the grade level” helped them be a part of each grade level team. When asked about how she dealt with problems in grade level teams she stated, “As an administrator, my responsibility and my support lies in the area of having control together …. I do not waiver on my expectation of treating folks as a team.” When asked about how she dealt with problems when they come up she stated, “I treat them as a team until an individual has a problem and I treat that individual as an individual.”

96

Administrator 1 discussed how important the master schedule is in making successful co-teaching teams successful. She described the process that caused her stress. “We try to align teacher‟s preps as best as possible and it is the expectation that coteachers will plan together.” She found that an obstacle to this is that “there is so much on a special educator‟s plate that when they do have a spare minute they typically fill it with IEP‟s and case management.” The solution identified was that the administrator needs to find a way to break through that obstacle to planning. The plan is to “find supports so that our special educators can get in there and plan with the teachers.” Strategies to Overcome Obstacles from the University Perspective University professors identified professional development, administrative support, time to plan on how to implement co-teaching, modeling of people who are currently coteaching, and the opportunity to self select their co-teaching partner as the strategies that they stated would allow for co-teaching to be implemented successfully in higher education. Professors stated they felt it was imperative that co-teaching be implemented in university classes in order to prepare their students for their role in public education; however, they stated it was hard to find the time for communication between faculty and difficulties in having a strong leadership base to encourage professors to co-teach. University Professor 1 summed it up this way: “training, expectations, and teacher prep, as well as administration, as well as modeling in a guided practice situation from people who have background in co-teaching.” She had a strong background in process communication which she felt enhances the skills of successful co-teaching. She described strategies that she felt will overcome the barriers as being “getting to know one

97

another and one another‟s strengths…. having the social skill of active listening, and engaging in constructive controversy” would be helpful to implementing successful coteaching at the higher education level. University Professor 2 was optimistic in overcoming the obstacles to co-teaching by just being persistent in her request to co-teach with general education faculty. She felt that “it is changing but very slowly, so the more I get in there and co-teach in general education courses . . . the better it becomes.” Strategies to Overcome Obstacles from the Experts’ Perspective Experts stated that having a rationale and vision for co-teaching in educational settings was essential for success. They also discussed, like other groups, that professional development and training, administrative support, and knowledge of coteaching were components that needed to be in place. They stated that co-teaching must be included in not only teacher training programs but in course work for training school administrators. Expert 2 elaborated on the need for teacher training programs to include co-teaching, not only in teacher preparation but administrative preparation programs. “University teacher training programs need to change, and I think state policy needs to change so as to foster co-teaching as a practice in schools.” All three experts also stated that more data on the efficacy of co-teaching must be collected. Expert 2 also supported more data collection. “I think we also need better data that document what works and what doesn‟t work so that we get the most out of our students when we have co-teaching. We have virtually no data on student achievement.” With regards to data collection, Expert 3 felt that educators “need to collect data on co-teaching implementation and

98

effectiveness and make this data available for researchers to disseminate so we can learn from successes and failures in the field.” This data collection could help support the effectiveness of co-teaching and what works and what does not work. Expert 3 discussed that “administrators need to be involved early on. They need to know what co-teaching is and how it differs from in-class support, pull out and other reactive approaches” to working with students with disabilities. She also felt that administrators “need to recognize the importance of proactive training and the involvement of faculty for true buy-in.” What Are the Characteristics of Effective Co-Teaching Teams? When analyzing the responses to the question, “What are the characteristics of an effective co-teaching team?” the responses were similar across subgroups. Paramount to implementation was a belief that co-teaching needed to be part of the mission, vision, and belief system of the school. It should be the expectation that co-teaching is embedded in the workings of the school. There should be willingness to collaboration, an effective communication system, parity among participants, and professional development before implementation and ongoing during the process, and a common planning time. Coteachers also need to be flexible, reflective, and actively involved in the process. There must be a way for co-teachers to problem solve and build a sense of trust and collegiality in the process. Respondents were mixed on the idea of how co-teaching teams should be selected. Some discussed that co-teachers should self select their co-teaching partners, while others stated that co-teaching should be the expectation for all teachers in the

99

building. The ultimate goal of effective co-teaching teams is to increase student achievement and academic performance. One expert stated it this way, So, in essence, effective co-teachers are not two people standing in front of groups of students doing traditional instruction. It is two people who move in and out, work, facilitate groups of students, and have a range of different experiences, opportunities, options, and strategies available to support their diverse learners. (Expert 1) Summary of Results The analysis of the transcribed data from the fifteen respondents indicates that there are many similarities across roles with regards to the definition of co-teaching, the benefits to professionals and students, and characteristics of effective co-teaching teams. There are also many similar items in both the obstacles to implementing effective coteaching teams and strategies to overcome those barriers. Table 3 examines the main themes from the literature and how many of the respondents mentioned that theme in their responses. This table will provide the foundation for the next chapter, which will summarize these findings and provide a discussion of the results, as well as recommendations for future research.

100

Table 3 Chart of Themes Identified by the Literature and the Respondents.

Themes

Number of studies who mentioned this theme

Number of respondents who mentioned this theme

Common Planning

12

13

Administrative Support

10

11

Professional Development

8

15

Compatibility

6

6

Defined Roles

5

2

Instructional Strategies

5

7

Service Delivery Models

4

2

Trust

4

6

Preparation And Planning

3

9

Collaboration

3

6

Scheduling

2

3

Shared Responsibility

2

5

Positive Environment

1

2

Administrative Leadership

2

11

Communication

2

6

Voluntary

2

5

Conflict Resolution

2

3

Resources

2

2

Dignity

1

1

Fun

1

3

101

Student Benefits

1

3

Professional Satisfaction

1

7

Caseload

1

3

Flexibility

1

5

Risk-Taking

1

3

Improved Instructional Strategies

1

6

Classroom Management

1

2

Cooperative Learning

1

1

Evaluation Of Teams

1

2

Policy

1

0

Need For Research

1

2

High Expectations

1

1

Content Knowledge

1

5

Effectiveness

1

2

Note: These numbers reflect the number of times the theme was identified in the studies and the number of times the respondents mentioned this theme during their response to the interview questions.

102

CHAPTER V Summary and Discussion In an effort to help the reader examine the dimensions of this dissertation, a brief review of the statement of the problem and a review of the methodology will be provided before the discussion of the results will be presented and discussed. This review will assist the reader in having a better understanding of the results and implications obtained from this research process. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to further investigate what were the obstacles to implementing successful co-teaching teams between general and special education teachers. Through discussions with those educators or professionals most closely aligned with implementing co-teaching, obstacles to creating and implementing successful coteaching teams were analyzed. Once the obstacles were identified, strategies to overcome those obstacles were gleaned from discussions between the educator and the researcher. The research questions for this study were twofold. First, the researcher wanted to identify why schools are not able to implement successful and effective co-teaching teams in educational settings. The second was to identify what the obstacles were to implementation of effective co-teaching teams between general and special education teachers. By identifying those obstacles, strategies to overcome those obstacles were identified. Ultimately, characteristics of what would be effective co-teaching teams were identified by the respondents and common characteristics or elements of what effective teams need to have were identified.

103

Review of the Methodology The study was conducted using fifteen respondents who were involved in the context of co-teaching either as a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a school administrator where co-teaching was being implemented, a university professor who was either co-teaching with another faculty member or teaching about co-teaching as an instructional strategy, and persons determined by the researcher to be an expert in the field of co-teaching. Each of the five categories had three respondents who participated in the research. Respondents completed Human Subjects Review Board informed consent forms before their participation in the study. Interviews with each respondent were conducted face to face and were audio recorded for transcription at a later date. Respondents were only identified by role and their ordinal number (1, 2, or 3). In an effort to secure data from a larger geographic region than mu home state of Ohio, respondents were selected from California, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. I created an interview protocol using a variety of questions. Background questions provided information on the respondents‟ credentials, years in education, roles they had performed, and years co-teaching. Structural questions (Hatch, 2002) provided information on the respondents‟ knowledge of co-teaching and descriptive questions provided an opportunity for the respondent to share benefits of co-teaching for professionals and students, as well as identifying the barriers and strategies to overcome the barriers to implementing successful co-teaching teams. Respondents were also asked to describe the characteristics of effective co-teaching teams. Field notes were kept by the

104

researcher during the face to face interview process to assist with the analysis of the respondents‟ responses to the interview questions. Summary of the Results Following the transcription of the audio recorded interviews, the researcher used a coding system to identify the following categories: (a) commonalities of definitions of co-teaching, (b) barriers to implementing co-teaching teams, (c) benefits to professionals who co-teach, (d) benefits to students in co-taught classrooms, (e) strategies to overcome the barriers to implementing co-teaching teams, and (f) characteristics of effective coteaching teams. Analysis of the transcribed interviews looked for words or themes that emerged from the respondents answers to the interview questions. A grounded theory approach to coding was utilized. Open coding was used to identify the common words or themes that emerged from analysis of the data. Table 3 illustrates the common themes and the number of times it was identified from the respondents‟ transcribed interviews. Thirty-four different themes emerged from this data analysis. Following the identification of these thirty-four themes, the researcher moved to axial coding, which was to examine the commonalities among the thirty-four themes. These thirty-four themes were categorized according to three overarching characteristics. These characteristics were logistical issues, philosophical issues, and relationship issues. Table 4 illustrates how the thirty four themes were categorized by the issues. Logistical issues focused around the “how to” of implementing co-teaching, as well as the items that were necessary for co-teaching teams to work effectively. The four items identified as being the most essential in the logistical issue were these: (a) professional development,

105

(b) common planning time, (c) administrative support, and (d) learning new and improved instructional strategies. The philosophical issues were based upon having a common philosophical base upon which to begin co-teaching. The relationship issues centered on adults working together and the common elements that were necessary for two adults to deliver instruction in the same classroom. Many of the relationship issues concerned clear understanding about roles, responsibilities, and collegiality. Communication, professional satisfaction, compatibility, and collaboration were identified as the most essential characteristics for a positive relationship to develop in a co-teaching team. The results of the analysis helped the researcher examine how the three major issues interplayed in the implementation of effective co-teaching teams. It was evident that co-teaching teams will need to focus on those logistical issues that make co-teaching work, the philosophical issues upon which co-teaching can be developed, and the relationship issues that surface from two or more adults working together. Interpretation of the Findings Federal legislation such as No Child Left Behind (2002) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) have required educators to better serve all students to increase student achievement and to be more accountable for student success in the general education classroom. A “one-size-fits-all” approach has not been successful. Educators and administrators must have a more diverse approach to meeting student needs. In an effort to meet the needs of all students, educators have attempted to

106

implement co-teaching as an instructional strategy to meet the needs of all students including those students who have exceptional learning needs. In examining the findings of this study, the common themes were aligned with the critical issues of logistics, philosophy, and relationships. When evaluating the respondents‟ answers logistical and relationship issues had many more themes than the philosophy issue. It is my belief that those responding had already identified they believed co-teaching would be a successful strategy to meet the needs of all learners; however, it was the logistical and relationships issues that created many of the barriers to implementing successful co-teaching teams.

107

Table 4 Theme Identified by the Respondent’s Grouped by Issues.

Logistical Issues Professional development (15)

Philosophical Issues Risk taking (3)

Relationship Issues Professional satisfaction (7)

Common planning time (13) High expectations (2)

Collaboration (6)

Administrative leadership (11)

Communication (6)

Policy (0)

Administrative support (11)

Compatibility (6)

Preparation and planning (9)

Trust (6)

Instructional strategies (7)

Content knowledge (5)

Improved instructional strategies (6)

Flexibility (5)

Caseload (3)

Shared relationships (5)

Scheduling (3)

Voluntary (4)

Student benefit (3)

Conflict resolution (3)

Classroom management(2)

Fun (3)

Effectiveness (2)

Defined roles (2)

Need for research (2)

Evaluation of teams (2)

Resources (2)

Positive environment (2)

Service delivery models (2)

Dignity (1)

Cooperative learning (1)

108

Logistical Issues Professional Development The findings of this research have supported the literature in that there are many characteristics that make co-teaching teams effective. As the common themes emerged from the respondents‟ answers, professional development, both prior to and ongoing, emerged as the most essential requirement throughout the process of the conducting of co-teaching in classrooms. All fifteen of the respondents identified lack of professional development regarding co-teaching as the largest barrier to co-teaching teams being successful. Educators who had been implementing co-teaching found that if they had been provided professional development prior to the implementation of co-teaching their team was much more successful from the onset. They also felt that a brief initial professional development experience was not sufficient to sustain a successful teaching experience, but that ongoing professional development was necessary to sustain a positive direction for the success of their team. Teams who had attempted co-teaching without any or minimal professional development prior to the implementation found that their teams struggled from the beginning. An interesting note when respondents were discussing professional development was that they did not feel that the traditional kind of training known as “sit and get” was effective in helping teams implement co-teaching. Rather they stated professional development should revolve around examining of the models of co-teaching, thoughtful discussion with their potential co-teacher, and time to discuss and plan how the co-teachers would implement co-teaching in their particular situation. Once training

109

had been provided, respondents felt that ongoing professional development was essential to sustain their efforts. Common Planning Time The second significant obstacle was a lack of a common planning time for the coteaching team. Thirteen of the fifteen respondents stated that this was a tremendous barrier to having a successful co-teaching team. If there was not sufficient time to plan their approaches, their lessons, grading, classroom management, use of resources, and the instructional strategies, co-teaching would be nothing more than one teacher doing all of the teaching and the other teacher not knowing what to do. Respondents across all roles identified common planning time as a significant barrier. Administrative Support The third theme that was identified by eleven of the fifteen respondents was administrative support. Again, respondents across all roles stated that without administrative support co-teaching was doomed to be ineffective. Administrative support included such things as providing for professional development, creating an effective master schedule, monitoring student to teacher case load, and providing ongoing input, feedback, and helping to monitor how the team is functioning. It was administrative support that created a sense of adventure in teams who wanted to implement co-teaching as an instructional strategy. Many stated administrative support was necessary to empower teachers to step outside of the traditional role of a single teacher working in a classroom. Since many educators felt that they had not been trained in preservice programs regarding co-teaching, they felt uncomfortable in these uncharted waters. Many

110

of the teachers interviewed applauded their administrators for providing encouragement, positive feedback, and providing what the team needed to be successful. Sometimes lack of administrative support is due to the administrators being unfamiliar with co-teaching as an instructional strategy and so they did not know how to support their co-teaching teams. This indicates that professional development for administrators is also critical. Relationship Issues Professional Satisfaction and Collaboration The issue of relationships between or among co-teachers focused on adults collaborating. The themes that received the highest frequency were professional satisfaction, collaboration, communication, compatibility, and establishing a sense of trust. It was evident that most adult educators have not had training in how to collaborate with other adults in the classroom. Teacher training programs seem to have failed to provide preservice teaching candidates the skills necessary to work with and alongside other adults in the classroom. All six of the teachers identified collaboration as one of the most significant barriers to implementing effective co-teaching teams. Adults were unfamiliar to working with other adults in the classroom. Interestingly enough, the special education teachers, due to the nature of their role in working with support services such as occupational therapists, speech therapists, and physical therapists, felt more comfortable in working with other adults in the classroom. However, even in their discussions, they expressed some discomfort in co-teaching due to the issue of parity in the relationships of co-teachers.

111

Communication Involved in the collaboration efforts of co-teachers, there seemed to be a lack of opportunity to communicate and problem solve, as well as time to plan and discuss instructional strategies, teaching approaches, and ways to share the duties in the classroom. Embedded in this time to collaborate was building a sense of trust. Educators stated when co-teaching teams have time to plan and discuss prior to implementation there was a stronger sense of trust than when they had been assigned to co-teach and not been provided the necessary time to discuss how they would implement co-teaching. This lack of trust had a negative impact on how successful co-teaching teams were. Teams stated that having a way to resolve differences and address issues that were problematic was also part of the lack of collaboration skills. Teachers often times expressed being uncomfortable in facing problems with other adults. Teams stated a barrier to effective co-teaching teams is not having a professional way to resolve those differences or to face issues that arise when implementing co-teaching as an instructional strategy. Most often one member of the co-teaching team will take a more direct role as the co-teacher and the other will be in a more supportive role. True co-teaching teams must have parity between the co-teachers. Compatibility Another theme which was closely associated with the sense of trust was teacher compatibility. Teachers who were co-teaching but lacked a sense of compatibility with their teacher partner were less effective. Topics such as classroom management, defined roles, content knowledge, and conflict resolution were identified as issues that surfaced

112

when co-teaching teachers felt they were incompatible. When co-teachers had differences of opinions regarding these issues there was a lack of compatibility and the team was less effective in implementing co-teaching as an instructional strategy. Respondents stated that being assigned as co-teachers rather than self selection impacted teacher compatibility. Philosophical Issues Philosophical issues were maintaining high expectations for all students in cotaught classrooms, as well as teachers being able to let go of some of their philosophical ideas and be able to take risks in implementing co-teaching in their classrooms. Maintaining High Expectations and Risk Taking From the philosophical issue the major issue was maintaining high expectations for all students in co-teaching classrooms and facilitating risk taking of teachers to venture into using a new instructional strategy such as co-teaching. Students, no matter of their abilities, must be held to high expectations for their learning. Respondents stated that teachers must take a risk to learn how to co-teach. By stepping out of their traditional roles as teachers, co-teachers must take a risk. Without that ability to take a risk, teachers were often trapped in their mindset of traditional teaching. Relationship of this Study to the Research I compared the results of the study with the data that were collected from the literature review. As Table 1 illustrates, the themes in the literature, a variety of topics have been critical to the successful implementation of co-teaching. Table 3 examines the themes that were identified from the respondents during the interview process. It is

113

interesting to note that all of the themes identified from the literature were also identified by the respondents. The only issue that was not identified by the respondents was the idea of having a policy with regards to co-teaching in inclusive environments. Table 3 compares the review of the literature themes with those of the respondents. It was the feeling of the researcher that those practicing professionals supported what the literature has been saying regarding the implementation of effective co-teaching teams. An unanticipated outcome of this study was the fact that those teachers who had been co-teaching for a number of years identified many different obstacles to co-teaching than those respondents who had been co-teaching for less than three years. The beginning or newer co-teachers stated that the logistical issues were greater obstacles than the relationships issues. I believed prior to the beginning of this study that the issues would not be different based upon the number of years the co-teachers had been co-teaching. It was anticipated the barriers to co-teaching would not differentiate those who had been co-teaching for awhile from those who were just beginning. An additional unanticipated outcome of this study was the researcher had believed that the most critical element necessary to the implementation of successful co-teaching teams would be found in the philosophical component. If co-teachers were not of the same philosophical beliefs— that is, that all children can learn and that inclusion is essential for co-teaching to be successful—then the practice of co-teaching would not be effective. It was a surprise to me that the philosophy of inclusive education was not mentioned more by the respondents. I believe that this was the main reason why there were not more themes noted in the area of philosophical issues. Because respondents

114

were more comfortable with the philosophy of inclusive environments, there seemed to be fewer comments on philosophical issues being identified as obstacles to co-teaching. Limitations of this Study One of the limitations of this study I identified is that the respondents were selected by criterion sampling. Each respondent was selected for his or her role in the process of co-teaching but they were not selected as members who were co-teaching together. General education and special education teacher respondents were implementing co-teaching but the two respondents were not members of the same coteaching team. It is my feeling that it would have enhanced this study to have general and special education respondents who were members of the same co-teaching team. By having respondents who were all working together and in the same building, richer data might have been collected. I would recommend that for future studies, respondents from buildings who are implementing co-teaching should be selected. For example, interviewing the general education and special education co-teachers from the same team, and also the building administrator might have provided richer data. An additional limitation might be the limited number of respondents in each role category. Three respondents in each of the individual categories of general education teacher, special education teacher, school administrator, higher education faculty, and experts in the field of co-teaching might have produced different data. Another limitation to this study was my inability to visit the respondents in a coteaching setting or in an educational environment. Triangulation of data by conducting classroom observations might have further supported the identified themes and issues that

115

surfaced from this study. Due to time and financial limitations, I was unable to conduct these classroom observations. Implications for Practice In order to better serve all students in the general education classroom, it is imperative that co-teaching be included as an instructional strategy in today‟s classrooms. However, as this research study has shown, there are many obstacles that prevent coteaching teams from being effective. From the classroom teachers‟ views to the views of those who are experts in the field, many barriers prevent co-teaching from being successful when it has been implemented without a delineated and formal process to plan, implement, and support the practice. In order for co-teaching to be truly effective there must be a formal process for implementation that becomes institutionalized within the school setting. From preservice training for beginning teachers up through the ranks of university professors, the need for professional development has been documented. This professional development and training must include not only topics such as what is coteaching, how can it be implemented, what does it look like, and what are the approaches to co-teaching, but the professional development must allow for potential co-teachers to have time to discuss, plan, and implement this approach. Professional development must also include training on how adults can collaborate, communicate, and problem solve. Without these skills or training in these skills co-teaching will not be an effective classroom practice.

116

Even with the preparatory professional development and ongoing training, coteaching teams will be unsuccessful or ineffective without the time to plan. The literature and the data from the respondents of this study have repeatedly stated that there must be a sufficient amount of planning time between co-teachers. This face-to-face opportunity to prepare, plan, discuss, brainstorm, and problem solve are additional necessary components to the success of co-teaching teams. In order for teachers working as equal partners to meet the needs of the diverse learners in the classroom, there must be sufficient time to plan. Additionally, this planning time must be embedded in the instructional day. It is unfair to assume that co-teachers will find time on their own to plan; therefore, co-teaching must be supported by the administrative leader within the building. Finally, co-teaching must be included in both teacher training and administrative training programs. As we prepare new teachers and school leaders, co-teaching as an instructional strategy must be a part of the candidates‟ coursework. We must have higher education faculty members who have experience in co-teaching and who can demonstrate the practice in their university classrooms. It is necessary for faculty to model co-teaching in our courses. This practice will better prepare teachers and administrators for schools of the 21st century. For this to happen, faculty need to have the same elements that are required of classroom teachers and building administrators, professional development, skills in collaboration, common teaching schedules, and administrative support.

117

Recommendation for Further Research In order to continue on the path to implementing effective co-teaching teams, additional research must be conducted. As noted in the previous section of this chapter, the elements of professional development, common planning time, and administrative support emerged as the most common barriers to implementing effective co-teaching teams. Although these themes emerged from the literature and from my research, it seems necessary to conduct further in depth research on each of these topics. A more comprehensive study with teachers and school leaders could help further identify what forms of professional development would be most successful. Finding a school district where co-teaching has been implemented successfully and examining their comprehensive professional development plan might glean additional information on the forms of successful co-teaching professional development. It appears that professional development must be tiered. Suggested levels could be three: (1) prior to implementation, (2) during implementation, and (3) ongoing throughout the co-teaching process. There should be additional research on the professional development for school administrators to further identify the skills necessary to lead co-teaching as an instructional practice within the administrator‟s building. Overall, it would be best practice to have a format for professional development that would be tiered from the individual level, to the building level, to the district level. Furthermore, additional input from experts in the field of co-teaching might assist with identifying the professional development needs of effective co-teaching teams. From the higher education

118

perspective, additional research on how to implement co-teaching at the university teacher training perspective is necessary. A detailed study of ways to implement coteaching into teacher and administrative candidate programs must be undertaken. Secondly, it is my belief that both qualitative and quantitative data should be collected on the academic and social benefits of having students taught in co-taught classrooms. This data might further enhance the desire of school personnel to implement co-teaching as an instructional strategy. Because the ultimate goal of public education is to increase student achievement and create better access to the general curriculum, this data could help educators see the benefits to students. Seeing students show better academic performance in schools with increase the likelihood, that when provided the essential skills for educators to implement co-teaching in the classroom, educators will see the benefit of this instructional strategy. A longitudinal study on implementing co-teaching from the initial entry year in the classroom for co-teachers throughout a significant period of time of implementing coteaching should be undertaken. This study would provide some additional data on how the professional development needs of co-teaching teams has changed over time. This study could identify the changing professional development needs of this team as coteachers work through the process of implementation. Coupled with this longitudinal study of professional development and training needs, data could be collected on provided and necessary administrative support and student achievement data. This researcher would also recommend that this qualitative data be garnered through

119

interviews with co-teachers, both individual and together, as well as classroom observations of the co-taught classrooms. Conclusions from this Study This study has proven the most essential strategy for implementing successful coteaching teams is professional development. This training must occur prior to the implementation, during the implementation, and ongoing throughout the implementation. If schools are to successfully use co-teaching as an instructional strategy to meet the needs of a diverse student population in inclusive environments, then this professional training is essential. By providing professional development for general and special education teachers, school leaders, and higher education faculty, we have a much better chance that co-teaching can be successfully implemented. As expert number 3 stated, “educators need to have sufficient training for co-teaching to be successful; just doing something doesn‟t mean it‟s being done right.”

120

References Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1991). Designing systems to facilitate collaboration. Preventing School Failure, 35, 37-42. Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1993), Metaphors of the co-taught classroom. Preventing SchoolFailure, 37, 28-32. Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). Co-teaching: A different approach to inclusion. Principal, 79, 50-51. Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers‟ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 245-255. Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1995). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding the schoolhouse for all students. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Bouck, E. C. (2007). Co-teaching…Not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure, 51, 46-51. Brandtlinger. E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, M., Richardson, V. (2005) Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207. Cook, L, & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28, 1-16. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (April 1998) A conversation about teams. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Minneapolis, MN. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

121

Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bilingual education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. DeValenzuela, J. S., Connery, M. C., & Musanti, S. I. (2000). The theoretical foundations of professional development in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 111-120. Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school cotaught teams for students with disabilities? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14-25. Dieker, L. A., & Murawski. W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique trends, current trend, and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, 86, 1-13. Elementary and Secondary Act of 2001. No Child Left Behind. United States Department of Education. Fennick, E. (2001). Co-teaching: An inclusive curriculum for transition. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33, 60-66. Fontana, K. C. (2005) The effects of co-teaching on the achievement of eighth grade students with learning disabilities.The Journal of At-Risk, 11, 17-23. Friend, M. (2007). The coteaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64, 48-52. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Boston, MA: Pearson Publishing. Gately, S. E, (2005), Two are better than one. Principal Leadership, 5, 36-41. Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding co-teaching components. TEACHING Exceptional Children 33, 40-47.

122

Gibbs, G. (2008). Analyzing qualitative data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hourcade, J. J., & Bauwens, J. (2001). Cooperative teaching: The renewal of teachers. The Clearing House, 74, 242-247. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 ex seq.(2004). Keefe, E. B., Moore, V., & Duff, F. (2004) The four “knows” of collaborative teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36, 36-42. Kohler-Evans, P. A., (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids. Education, 127, 260-264. Magiera, K., Lawrence-Brown, D., Bloomquist, K., Foster, C., Figueroa, A., Glatz, K., et al. (2006). On the road to more collaborative teaching: One school‟s experience. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 2(5) Article 6, Retrieved January 14, 2008 from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol2/iss5/art6 Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., & Gebauer, K. (2005). Benefits of co-teaching in secondary mathematics classes. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37, 20-24. Mastropieri, M. A., Schruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260-270. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

123

Murawski, W. W. (2005). Addressing diverse needs through co-teaching. Kappa Delta Pi, 41, 77-82. Murawski, W. W. & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36, 52-58. Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. (2008). 50 ways to keep your co-teacher: Strategies for before, during and after co-teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40, 40-48. Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, L. (2001). A meta-analysis of the research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267. Murray, C. (2004). Clarifying collaborative roles in urban high schools. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36, 44-51. Nevin, A. I. (2006). Can co-teachers provide quality education? Let the data tell us! Remedial and Special Education, 27, 205-251. Orr, B., Thompson, C., Ross, H., & McAdory, L. (1998). Developing a team teaching project: One partnership experience. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 65, 52-56. Peters, E., & Johnson, T. (2006). Thriving in the co-taught classroom. Science Scope, 30, 56-58. Piechura-Couture, K., Tichenor, M., Touchton, D., Macisaac, D., & Heins, E. D. (2006). Co-teaching: A model for education reform. Principal Leadership, 6, 39-43. Popkewitz, T.S. (1999). Introduction: Critical traditions, modernists, and the “poets”. In T.S. Popekewitz & L. Fender (Eds.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 1-13). New York: Routledge.

124

Rea, P. J., & Connell, J. (2005). Minding the fine points of co-teaching. Education, 71, 29-35. Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of developments in Austrailian and American schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 190-197. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Developement. Salend, S. J. (2008). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative teaching teams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 196-200. Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392416. Simmons, R. J., & Magiera, K., (2007). Evaluation of co-teaching in three high schools within one school district: How do you know when you are TRULY co-teaching? TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3, Article 4. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol3/iss3/art4

125

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J., (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and teachinques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage International. Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A. I., & Villa, R. A. (2006). Collaborative teaching: Critique of the scientific evidence. In L. Florian (Ed.), International Handbook on Special Education Research, (pp. 417-428). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage International. Tobin, R. (2005). Co-teaching in language arts: Supporting students with learning disabilities. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 784-801. Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 264-271. Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (2005) Creating an inclusive school. (2nd ed.). Alexandria: VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2004). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 395-408. Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education 17, 255-264. Washburn-Moses, L. (2005). Roles and responsibilities of secondary special education teachers in an age of reform. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 151-158.

126

Weiss, M. P. (2004). Co-teaching as science in the schoolhouse: More questions than answers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 218-223. Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. W. (2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary special educators in co-taught and special education settings. Journal of Special Education, 36, 58-68. Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. (2003). Conditions of co-teaching: Lessons from a case study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 27-41. Wilson, G. L. (2005). This doesn‟t look familiar: A supervisor‟s guide for observing coteaching. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 271-275. Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411-416. Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

127

APPENDIX A EXPLANATORY LETTER AND INFORMED CONSENT

James W. Chapple 1230 Cherokee Path Vermilion, OH 44089 440.225.1547 [email protected] To Whom It May Concern: My name is James W. Chapple and I am a doctoral student at Ashland University in Ashland, Ohio. I am working on my dissertation on the obstacles of implementing coteaching teams between general and special education teachers. The title of my dissertation is “Co-teaching: From Obstacles to Opportunities.” As part of my data collection, I am soliciting volunteers of general and special education teachers, as well as school administrators, from buildings where co-teaching is being implemented. I am asking for your help to participate in this project. You are being asked to participate in two (2) ninety (90) minute interviews. There will be no identifying information in any reports or publications that will be the results of this study. Participants will only be identified by their role and a general geographic location (e.g. east coast, west coast, etc.). Due to the timeline of my research, I would appreciate obtaining your permission if you decide to participate in this project as soon as possible. There are minimal risks to participation in this study but the benefits to the field, I feel, are tremendous. Your permission is voluntary and you are free to decline to be in this study, or to withdraw from it at any given point. I have attached a copy of the informed consent that you will need to sign and return to me if you desire to participate in this study. I have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for you to use to return the permission to me. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (440) 225.1547 or [email protected]. Thank you for your support of my research. Sincerely yours, James W. Chapple Doctoral Student Ashland University

I, ________________________________________ am granting James W. Chapple, a doctoral student at Ashland University, permission to interview me in my role as a general and special education teachers who is co-teaching, or a building administrator who has co-teaching taking place in their buildings. I have read the information provided and I am agreeing to participate. I know that I may decline to be in this study, or to withdraw from the study at any point. Confidentiality of all materials will be strictly maintained throughout this research study and no district or personal identifying information will be published.

____________________________________ Signature ____________________________________ Position ____________________________________

District

____________________________________

Date

____________________________________

Email

____________________________________ Signature of Person Obtaining Consent ____________________________________

Date

130

APPENDIX B INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Interview Questions: Key:

General Education Teachers (GET) Special Education Teachers (SET) Administrators (A) University Professors (UP) Experts in the field (E)

1.

What is your educational background and licensure area? (GET, SET, A, UP, E)

2.

How long have you been in the field of education (GET, SET,A, UP, E)

3. What roles have you had as an educator? (GET, SET, A, UP, E) 4. How would you define co-teaching? (GET, SET, A, UP, E) 5. What have been your experiences with co-teaching? (GET, SET, A, UP, E) 6. What would you identify as the barriers to implementing successful co-teaching teams of general and special educators? (GET, SET, A, UP, E) 7. What would say are the benefits to professionals working in co-teaching teams? (GET, SET, A, UP, E) 8. What would say are the benefits to students of having co-teaching teams? (GET, SET, A, UP, E) 9. What strategies do you feel can overcome the barriers that you identified? (GET, SET, A, UP, E) 10. What characteristics would you say effective co-teaching teams should have? (GET, SET, A, UP, E) 11. As a school administrator, what is your role in facilitating the implementation of co-teaching teams of general and special education teachers? (A) 12. As a university professor, how do you model co-teaching for preservice teachers? (UP) 13. Is there anything else that you would like to share with me regarding the barriers to co-teaching or co-teaching in general? (GET, SET, A, UP, E)