WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY - Yolajennicabrociousmastersportfolio.yolasite.com/resources/... · Web viewTeachers should try to get the same planning period if they are able or coordinate

Running Head: CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION1

Co-teaching and Collaboration:

How co-teaching teams determine which model can be most effective.

by

Jennica S. Brocious

A project submitted in partial fulfillment

Of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY

Ogden, Utah

(Date)

Approved

____________________________________

Committee Chair, Melina Alexander, Ph.D

____________________________________

Committee Member, Patrick Leytham, Ph.D

____________________________________

Committee Member, Kristine Geier M.ED

CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION 2

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Helping students succeed in the classroom has led to schools utilizing their resources

with more effective and creative means such as co-teaching (Kohler-Evans, 2006). The

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires students with disabilities be taught

in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The least restrictive environment is the environment

where, to the greatest extent possible, children with disabilities are educated with their peers who

are not disabled. This indicated that IDEA favors inclusion of students with disabilities in the

general education classroom. One way to assist general education teachers in this task is to

provide the in class support of a special education teacher through co-teaching (Nichols, Dowdy

& Nichols, 2010). Co-teachers need to work on their relationship and find a balance in their roles

as content and process specialists to help all students in the classroom (Wilson, 2008). Further

research is needed to understand when, where and with whom co-teaching is best implemented

(Murawski & Swanson, 2001).

Co-teaching is a research-based intervention often used to help students with learning

disabilities access the general curriculum and experience success in the education environment.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

support but do not mandate co-teaching as a response to intervention (RTI) (Brown, Howerter,

&Morgan, 2013). NCLB has had a major influence on the amount of co-teaching in schools

since its implementation. More than half of the students with a specific learning disability spend

80% of their time in the general education setting (Cortiella, 2007).

How well co-teaching works in the classroom is often dependent on how well the

teachers get along. The relationship of co-teachers is a critical variable that predicts whether

students with disabilities have success in inclusive environments (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz,


Norland, Gardizi & McDuffie, 2005). Often, teachers are assigned a co-teaching partner without

being given the choice of whom they will be working, and the relationship can be strained from

the beginning (Kohler-Evans, 2006). The relationship that co-teachers develop throughout the

year helps establish protocols and the environment in the classroom impacting the success of the

strategy (Kohler-Evans, 2006).

Although co-teaching has demonstrated to be an effective strategy at giving students

needed support, many teachers are unsure how to implement different co-teaching models to find

the best way of working together and helping students. Unless teachers have a clear knowledge

of the most effective co-teaching technique, students are unlikely to experience the full benefit of

co-teaching. Co-teachers are frequently placed together with little or no training and therefore are

uncertain about what model to use in the classroom and how to implement a successful co-

teaching partnership (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Often, co-teachers lean toward the model, "one

teach, one assist" because they do not know there are other ways to co-teach (Scruggs,

Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Murawski & Swanson (2001) claimed that more research will

give experts a better understanding of the relationship between the special educator and general

educator. This research relates to understanding how co-teachers collaborate with one another in

finding the most effect model of co-teaching in their classroom.


Literature Review

This literature review will first discuss the aspects of No Child Left Behind and IDEA in

how it relates to classrooms becoming a more inclusive setting when teaching students with

disabilities. Second, the literature review will focus on the research about the co-teachers’

relationship and how that can lead to a successful environment. Next, the six universally

accepted models of co-teaching will be examined. Lastly, this review will review co-teaching

models most frequently used in research and their outcomes.

Co-Teaching and No Child Left Behind

In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) added further amendments with a

main goal to allow students with disabilities the opportunity to access the same curriculum given

to their non-disabled peers in the least restrictive environment (Nichols, Dowdy & Nichols,

2010). The law was then reauthorized in 2004, with the most recent changes in regulations

occurring in 2006. The final regulations regarding the alignment between IDEA and No Child

Left Behind (NCLB) set a new standard of how students with disabilities were taught, by

encouraging reading first, wanting to ensure that every child could read by the end of third grade

(U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Many schools throughout the country opted to allow

students with disabilities to be taught in several different ways knowing that it is required

through the continuum of services. Some of the more common options include an inclusion

classroom instead of being pulled out during the day at the elementary level, a resource

classroom, where students are taught in small groups daily, or give students at least one period a

day when they receive special education services at the secondary level. Co-teaching was not

mandated by either IDEA or NCLB but was supported. It has become a trend for providing


educational services to students with disabilities in the general education environment (Ploesl,

Rock, Schoenfeld, & Banks 2010; Pugach & Winn, 2011).

In a study reviewing Nichols, Dowdy and Nichols (2010) they noted that from the

twenty-four school districts they observed, many implemented co-teaching as a way to meet the

mandate of NCLB. A problem arose when schools initiated co-teaching without proper staff

development for both the special education teacher and the regular education teacher. It appeared

that educators were implementing co-teaching to comply with NCLB and as an RTI for students

with disabilities (Nichols et al., 2010). NCLB also set out a requirement that all students,

including those with disabilities, be taught by a highly qualified teacher in the least restrictive

environment. By implementing co-teaching in the school, legislative expectations were being

met while students with disabilities were being taught with the instruction and support they

required (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010).

Co-teaching is not a product of NCLB. Prior to NCLB, co-teaching was already initiating

collaborative opportunities between general educators and special educators. In 1993,

discretionary funds of the IDEA act were granted to the Northwestern State University of

Louisiana special education department to bring about a collaborative effort between teachers

(Duchardt, Marlow, Inman, Christensen & Reeves, 1999). The co-planning and co-teaching

arrangements found nine positive outcomes: collaborating and developing trust, finding time to

co-plan, learning by trial and error, meeting the needs of diverse learners, learning to be more

flexible and collegial, helping teachers to become problem solvers, forming and building

partnerships, solving problems as a team, and lastly challenging oneself and developing

professionally. Limitations were not listed in the study, but making time to meet together as co-

teachers seemed to be inherent (Duchardt et al., 1999).


What is co-teaching?

There are many forms of co-teaching, but the overall definition is two educators, - for

special education this means a special education teacher and a general education teacher are in

the classroom providing instruction and support to a diverse group of students (Kohler-Evans,

2006). Co-teaching is not a teacher and an assistant, teacher’s aide, or paraprofessional; co-

teaching is two or more co-equal faculty members working together (Dieker & Murawski, 2003).

Student needs influence the type of co-teaching that is executed in the classroom (Friend, et al,.

2010). Co-teaching can look different in a classroom depending on the model used for a lesson.

Types of Co-Teaching

Many researchers have agreed that there are six different types of co-teaching (Friend,

Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain &Shamberger, 2010; Sileo, 2011; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson &

McCulley, 2012).

One Teach, One Observe: One of the teachers is responsible for the instruction and lesson

of the classroom while the other teacher observes classroom behavior. The co-teachers

are given the opportunity to collect data on their students' academic, social and behavioral

skills as well as each other.

Parallel Teaching: Students are separated into two equal groups and placed at different

ends of the classroom. Each small group is taught by one of the teachers teaching the

same material. This allows for students to be taught in a small group setting and gives

more opportunities for students to respond to the different forms of instruction.

Station Teaching: Students are divided into three groups and are directed to a station in

the classroom. At two stations a teacher will teach the students material and at one station

the students will work individually. The material presented at each station is non-


sequential so that it does not matter at what station the students start. This allows for

students to have plenty of student-to-teacher interaction as they will be with a teacher in

two out of the three stations.

Alternative Teaching: One teacher is teaching the majority of the classroom while the

other teacher takes a small group and teaches them separately. The small group can

change according to the needs of the students. Students can be pre-taught concepts, given

additional help on harder concepts, work on vocabulary development or enrichment

activities for a short period of time.

One Teach, One Assist: One teacher gives instruction to the whole classroom while the

other teacher monitors students to assess who needs individual help. This helps students

receive individualized help in the classroom without leaving the classroom.

Team Teaching: Both teachers are in front of the classroom instructing by taking turns.

Teachers may show opposite views and lead a discussion in the classroom. They may

also show a variety of ways on how to solve a problem. This type of co-teaching benefits

students by enabling them to see different points of view.

Friend, et al. (2010) agreed that with the co-teaching approach, teachers are able to

address students with disabilities individualized educational program (IEP) goals and objectives

while still being taught in the least restrictive environment and obtaining access to the general

curriculum. Understanding that there are six different models of co-teaching, teachers need to

meet with one another and plan out units to be taught with more than one model in mind. It is

important for teachers to choose a structure that complements the students' abilities in the

classroom and the lesson given (Sileo, 2011). By planning together what type of model should be


taught, teachers help strengthen and build their relationship to create a successful learning

environment.

Co-Teachers Relationship

Co-teaching can be doomed from the start if one teacher leads in a different direction

than the other teacher expects, or if one partner is more domineering over territory and content

area (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Some schools may decide to thrust co-teaching onto teachers.

This could be more harmful than beneficial to students because veteran teachers could feel

insulted and special educators could feel homeless by not being welcome into the general

education teachers classroom (Kohler-Evans, 2006). In the Kohler-Evans (2006) survey,

research found that 77% of the participants said that co-teaching led students to achieve

academic gains. The overall impact was positive on the students and the teachers. The majority

of teachers replied a positive working relationship with the other teacher involved was the most

important feature in a co-teaching relationship (Kohler-Evans, 2006).

There are three main phases in a classroom that teachers need to discuss once their

partnership is established: the planning, the instruction, and how the assessment will be handled.

By meeting together and communicating, teachers are able to determine what instructional

technique will be most effective and efficient in helping all students meet the academic standards

(Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Teachers should try to get the same planning period if they are able

or coordinate a time during the week to meet and build their relationship. Co-teachers should be

doing just that, co-teaching: the special education teacher is planned to teach certain days or

certain lessons and not just observe behavior the entire time.

The most daunting aspect according to Murawski & Dieker (2004), of co-teaching is that

co-teachers overcome how to share the instruction time in the classroom. Since the


implementation of NCLB, high stakes testing has become a focal point of the classroom. Due to

NCLB’s implementation, it is important that teachers not only plan lessons together, but also

assessments. Teachers should talk about assessment, grading preferences, and philosophies about

co-teaching to help provide purposeful assessment and prevent later misunderstandings or

conflicts (Conderman & Hedin, 2012).

Wilson (2008), researched how co-teachers can utilize their time in the classroom to

create a beneficial learning environment for the students while the other teacher is presenting a

whole class instruction. The co-teacher can walk around the room overseeing student

performance and behavior, and cue students to focus and stay on task. The co-teacher can help

by targeting a specific student or forming a mini-group. Observing student behavior, questions,

and responses allows for the co-teachers to adjust the lessons for future instruction. The co-

teacher can help make assignments, and adjust them for modifications that may need to be made

for students with disabilities. The co-teacher is able to help by verbalizing possible confusion,

sharing a different point of view, as well as helping with notes and homework (Wilson, 2008).

Austin (2001) examined teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Results indicated that both

special educators and general educators found that scheduled planning time, administrative

support, and in-service training are needed to create a successful co-taught environment. One of

the questions in the survey asked the teachers how they viewed their main role in the classroom.

Special educators said their main role was to modify lessons and remediate. General educators

felt they were responsible for the majority of the lesson planning and instruction (Austin, 2001).

By establishing roles in the classroom and sharing responsibilities rather than one teacher

becoming the leader, co-teachers are able to grow and maintain a healthy relationship.


Kohler-Evans (2006) also recommended that the main aspect for co-teachers in

establishing a healthy relationship is to “communicate, communicate and communicate more”

(pp. 263). Teachers can create unobtrusive signals to help communicate during a lesson, create

the agenda together, and discuss their teaching style preferences (Murawski & Dieker, 2004).

Co-teaching should be fun and give room for practice and mistakes. Co-teachers should

remember that one size does not fit all. The key to a successful co-teaching partnership is

compromise and collaboration (Sileo, 2011).

Co-teaching Outcomes

The research findings detailed above indicate teachers want a positive environment in

their classroom but co-teaching can create tensions. Bouck, (2007), illustrated how this tension

could be seen as a constraint or an opportunity for teachers. The co-teachers had more freedoms,

supported each other and could play a new role in the classroom, but at the same time the co-

teachers felt that their role was devalued (Bouck, 2007). The relationship built by teachers allows

for the classroom to either succeed or have difficulties.

The benefits of co-teaching can be analyzed by the perceptions of students with

disabilities, general education students, and the teachers involved. A three year study by

Walther-Thomas (1997) looked at 18 elementary schools and seven middle schools, involving

119 teachers and 24 administrators. The aim of the study was to help understand the benefits and

problems faced by students and educators. Students with disabilities were observed experiencing

more self-confidence and self-esteem by being included in the regular education setting.

Researchers noted that students struggled at first to adjust to the higher expectations of the

classroom, but by the end of the year all students, including those in the general education

population, showed academic progress. General education students were given teacher time and


attention that they otherwise would not see in a one teacher environment. Also, general education

students were able to learn new strategies and study skills. Co-teaching increased all students'

social skills and peer relationships by helping create a classroom community (Walther-Thomas,

1997).

Not only can co-teaching benefit students but also benefit teachers by allowing teachers

to grow professionally. Teachers reported in the study to be professionally satisfied with their

jobs and indicated they saw the programs improving over time. Co-teaching helped teachers

support one another and additionally increased collaboration among the faculty members.

Conversely, Walther-Thomas (1997), noted many problems, some becoming more

serious the longer they were not addressed. Those problems included finding planning time to

work together due to different preparation periods at a secondary level. Students with disabilities

would often be scheduled into another resource class at the same time a co-taught class was

taught, limiting their chances of being placed in a co-taught class. Another concern for the

special educator was that co-teaching took time away from working on their case load. Some of

the special educator's caseloads in the study were so large they could not help the general

education teacher meet demands for the co-taught class, creating a stressful situation. All

participants in the study expressed they had administrative support, but would like more time to

work on staff development to create a more cohesive environment (Walther-Thomas, 1997).

Not every study concludes with mostly positive reactions to co-teaching. The studies of

Magiera & Zigmond (2005) found when students with disabilities were co-taught they had more

interaction with a teacher, yet if the special educator was not in the room the general educator

would interact less frequently with the student with disabilities. Whole classroom instruction was

prevalent throughout the eleven middle schools that participated in the study, which suggests


there was little training on co-teaching before it was implemented in the classroom (Magiera &

Zigmond, 2005). Yet by executing co-teaching practices in the classroom it allows students with

disabilities to improve at all school system levels when they are given more access to the general

education curriculum (Walsh, 2012).

Student Perceptions of Co-Teaching

In 2012, Embury and Kroeger investigated student perceptions of co-teachers in two

classrooms. Seven students in a seventh grade language arts co-taught classroom and an eighth

grade language arts co-taught classroom were given individual interviews. The researchers noted

that in the seventh grade classroom they used primarily the one teach/one assist model of co-

teaching. Whereas, in the eighth grade classroom they used a mixture of station teaching, parallel

teaching, and team teaching strategies. The different roles that teachers played in the classroom

had an effect on student perceptions of their teachers. In the seventh grade classroom, the general

education teacher was referred to as the “real teacher” and viewed the special education teacher

as a helper, and not someone who was in control of the learning process or the classroom

(Embury & Kroeger, 2012). When the students in the eighth grade were asked about their

teacher’s roles, three out of four of the students interviewed indicated they had the same job. Due

to such cohesiveness in the classroom the roles of the teachers in the eighth grade room were

more interchangeable than the roles used in the seventh grade classroom. Generally students in

both classrooms found that having two teachers in the room helped decrease wait time when they

wanted help on an assignment and it also was beneficial in maintaining order and discipline in

the classroom. The researchers concluded that when teachers show behavior towards each other

that is respectful as well as change things up in the classroom to fit the needs of the lesson, it can

create a community of inclusive learners and teachers.


The Joliet Township high school surveyed teachers and students about their views on co-

teaching in 2010. By and large there was a positive outlook at having two teachers in the

classroom from students’ point of view. Over eighty percent of the students reported that both

teachers helped and taught all students, enforced classroom rules and expectations, and

understood the course content. Sixty to over seventy percent of the students expressed that both

teachers had high expectations, having two teachers in a classroom helped them to do better,

work cooperatively with others, try harder and made them feel they were more likely to graduate

high school. They found two major themes in student responses that it allowed students to

receive help quicker, and taught them different approaches to teaching. At the same time, student

responses also voiced that they did not like seeing different teaching styles, at times teachers

might have different rules or expectations and that there was always someone watching you.

Overall research suggests that co-teaching is beneficial for the students and if anyone is

falling behind, it is the teachers in the classroom. In the survey by Bacharach, Heck & Dahlberg

(2011), they noted five critical elements of co-operating teachers were: sharing leadership in the

classroom, trust and respect for each other, communicating, along with planning, and teaching

together. When looking at research, teachers should understand what type of co-teaching model

is being used when planning lessons based on research.

Co-Teaching Methods in Research

Team Teaching and Station Teaching

Research by Gurgur & Uzuner (2011), studied the benefits of team teaching and station

teaching in a second-grade classroom in a low-income district located in Turkey. The classroom

had 33 students, with two students identified as needing special education. This was the first time

that either teacher had worked with each other, and also the first time that either teacher was in a

Tyler, 08/28/14,

Find out how to cite. http://www.jths.org/assets/1/7/09-10_Co-Teaching_Student_and_Teacher_Survey.pdf


co-teaching assignment. The teachers tried to implement a team teaching approach where they

would take turns teaching the classroom. In this classroom when the general educator was

teaching, they often would forget to explain the objectives of the lesson and only provide whole

classroom instruction. When the special educator was teaching, the general educator would

interrupt the special educator to remind them about discipline problems happening in the

classroom (Gurgur & Uzuner, 2011).

When this particular pair of teachers then tried station teaching in the classroom the

results were both positive and negative (Gurgur & Uzuner, 2011). Students were well placed in

groups, but there was a lack of instruction and management on how the groups rotated and how

students were to manage themselves at the station where they were independent.

During this time, the teachers were given co-planning and reflection meeting times, but

due to the general educator not wanting to be involved in the co-teaching process, meetings were

either not held or were short. The special educator cited that the general educator would arrive

late and come unprepared to meetings. This behavior hindered the success of station teaching

and team teaching in the classroom. The researchers noted that when cooperation from the

general education teacher could not be accomplished, the co-teaching model of one-teach/one-

assist would then be applied in the classroom as it requires less cooperation between the teachers

(Gurgur & Uzuner, 2011).

Parallel, Team, and Station Teaching

Embury (2010), researched student engagement and teacher perception when teachers

changed their teaching strategy of one teach/one assist to parallel, team and station teaching.

Embury looked at two students in three different classrooms, one with an IEP and one who was

teacher recommended without any known disabilities, to compare their engagement levels


between the co-teaching. The teachers participating in the study also received training prior to

the collection of data. In the classroom that was modeling station teaching, students’ engagement

increased, and students took responsibility for their own learning. The seventh grade math co-

teachers who Embury studied were open to new ideas; both licensed in the content area, and had

already worked with each other for quite some time. These teachers used the team teaching

model and found that acknowledging each other’s skills helped to establish effective practices in

the classroom (Embury, 2010).

Embury (2010) then looked at student engagement levels and found that the mean of the

engagement level of the six students observed during one teach/one assist was at 84.83%. There

was a higher engagement level for team teaching and station teaching among all six students

with station teaching mean engagement levels at 93.83% and team teaching mean engagement

levels at 91.16%. Two students were observed four times in a parallel teaching model and were

measured with mean engagement levels of 94% (Embury, 2010).

Parallel Teaching

In a junior high school located in southeast Iran researchers implemented a parallel

teaching strategy to help students in their English as a foreign language class (Aliakbari &

Bazyar, 2012). Students were first given a proficiency test and divided into a control group and

an experimental group. The control group had one teacher in the classroom, and the experimental

group and two teachers trying out the parallel model of co-teaching. In the experimental group

each teacher taught their own group, in the same classroom setting, with the same material and

did not change their roles, position, or groups during instructional time. The sessions were held

once a week and at the end of two months students were given a post test. Results showed that

there was no significant difference in being taught by a single teacher from being taught with a


parallel format of co-teaching. Students found that they were not accustomed to the experience

of parallel teaching, and would lose focus in a noisy classroom caused by simultaneous teaching.

The researchers did note that even though the results of the research were not completely

positive they found that the teachers enjoyed teaching in the parallel teaching format and that

with more practice they felt it would improve student progress (Aliakbari & Bazyar 2012).

Station Teaching

In the research done by Bronson & Dentith (2014) they looked into a Kindergarten

classroom in urban schools who utilized co-teaching. They found that in one particular classroom

that used station teaching there was a high level of success and the reading scores of the students

were above average. Students in the classroom not only had a special educator and a general

educator, but they also had a teacher assistant in the classroom who helped at stations. At one

observation, the researchers noted that there were six small groups rotating around the

classroom. In this session, the six learning centers that students could go to had clear directions,

purposeful structure and set up with meaningful activities. Three of the groups had no adult

supervision yet students were working independently or with their small groups seamlessly.

Having these learning centers provided the students an effective way to support goals and

develop a range of skills (Bronson & Dentith, 2014).

One Teach-One Assist

Case studies conducted by Mastropieri et al. (2005) evaluated four different co-teaching

examples. The first case study observed two teams of teachers during a unit on the ecosystem

taught at the upper elementary and middle school grades. The research noted that these teams

worked well due to their collaboration efforts but did not mention what models of co-teaching

they used in the classroom. The second case study looked at how a middle school social studies


team had struggles in their co-taught efforts due to co-planning, teaching style and behavior

management. The third case study monitored three teams of co-teachers in a high school history

setting and noted the roles each teacher played and how end-of-year testing had an emphasis in

the classroom. A significant deficiency of the entire study is that only one model of co-teaching

was described across the studies, limiting the data analyzed. The classroom in the last case study

identified as using the one-teach/one-assist model in a high school chemistry course. Due to lack

of content knowledge, the special education teacher played more of a role as an aide, rather than

a teacher (Mastropieri et al., 2005). Many special educators do not have a degree in the content

taught. In these situations, it is important for special education teachers to become co-learners,

and ask questions so they can be prepared to understand the main ideas of the lesson (Rice,

Drame, Owens & Frattura, 2007).

The goals in another study by Mageria, Smith, Zigmond & Gebauer (2005) sought to

ascertain how co-teaching looked in the classroom and how it benefitted students. They found

that in 24 of the 49 observed classrooms the special educator assumed the role of being an

observer or assistant. Team teaching was observed in only nine out of the 49 classrooms, and

across their entire study, only twenty minutes of observed time was small group or alternative

teaching happening. The researchers concluded that special education teachers should examine

their role as facilitators to help students understand the material. The special education teachers

should also work with the general education teachers to enrich the lessons to be more dynamic

than what normally happens in a mathematics classroom (Magiera, et al., 2005).

A noted deficit in the literature reviewed was the lack of specificity as to what co-

teaching model was implemented in the research (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson & McCulley, 2012).

Even though there are six models of co-teaching, some models appear to be forgotten or


overlooked in research such as one-teach/one observe. Instead it appears as a definition in a

literature review before the research, rather than actual data studied. Also, research tends to lean

toward station teaching and not on alternative teaching.

Summary

Finding an effective method of co-teaching increases student growth and teacher

relationships. When co-teachers communicate with one another about what is going on in the

classroom and how they can improve it, there is always success. The research suggests that

districts who use co-teaching as a response to intervention rather than a research based decision

find that co-teaching is not being utilized correctly. Co-teaching comes with challenges, but

when teachers are willing to communicate they can increase student success. There are different

models of co-teaching yet research fails to illustrate if any particular model helps students more,

but instead, it shows how the co-teaching model implemented in the classroom is more of a

personal teaching preference. If presented well, co-teaching can help students succeed not only

academically, but also personally.


PURPOSE

Based on the literature reviewed, co-teaching can provide benefits for teachers and

students. Even though there are six models of co-teaching, the dominant model is “one-teach,

one assist”. This model is not highly recommended, nor the most effective (Scruggs et al., 2007).

Murawski & Swanson (2001) claimed more research into co-teaching models will help teachers

build their relationship in order to help all students in the classroom. The purpose of this research

is to look at the process of how co-teachers discover which method of co-teaching works best for

the students and for them. Students will be taught with three different methods of co-teaching

throughout the research; (a) team teaching (b) station teaching and (c) alternative teaching. By

collecting data through co-teacher discussion, student data, and surveys the research will seek to

answer the following question:

1) When co-teachers are collaborating together, what influences them in determining which

model of co-teaching to use when planning a lesson and be most effective?


METHOD

Step 1: Selecting a Focus

To address the question of the study, an action research approach will be used. The focus

of this study is co-teaching, and how teachers work together to find the best method of co-

teaching to plan their lessons and be collaborative.

Step 2: Clarifying Theories

Through the literature review it was discovered that there are primarily 6 types of co-

teaching. For this project three were selected; team teaching, station teaching and alternative

teaching.

The independent variables of this research will be the co-teaching method in which the

students are taught. Students will be exposed to three methods of co-teaching (a) team teaching

(b) station teaching and (c) alternative teaching. The co-teachers are planning on implementing

the three methods of co-teaching in the following manor:

Team teaching: The teachers will take turns on who is introducing the lesson for the day.

When the instructors get to the examples for each lesson they will also rotate who teaches

examples on how to solve problems. The co-teachers will have a discussion with each other

while solving examples to show the students that there are different ways to solve problems.

While one teacher is instructing the class the other teacher may be monitoring student behaviors,

getting ready for the next portion, or helping students follow along. Other procedures may

happen but are unforeseen at the moment. This method was chosen due to it being highly used in

the classroom on a day to day basis.

Station teaching: Students will be placed in groups of four to five students based on

where they are sitting so they may move their desks together quickly. Students will then be


instructed on the three different station “areas” of the room. Students will rotate by two groups at

a time. For part of their assignment two of the student groups will come out into the small hall

and work with one of the teachers. Another station will be group work at their desks together and

students will be helped by a teacher’s aide in the classroom when needed. The last station will be

in one area of the room and students will be instructed by the other teacher. Stations will rotate

every 15-20 minutes depending on activities planned. This method was picked to help the

students have higher engagement levels in the classroom.

Alternative teaching: The co-teachers will make a list of 10-15 students who either need

remedial help on a math skill previously taught, or who are on track to receive an enrichment

activity in math. One of the teachers will take this small group out of the classroom and into the

other teacher’s classroom and provide instruction while the other teacher is with the remaining

students. The teacher who is with the majority of the students will choose to teach a new

approach to a concept, teach a new concept, or help students with assignments. This will be

determined by student needs noticed by the co-teachers and the time frame of the curriculum

map.. This method was chosen to give students help in smaller groups and break apart the

schedule in the classroom.

Step 3: Identifying Research Questions

This research will be highly relevant in increasing collaboration with the co-teacher

throughout the year. The researcher will have daily debriefs with the co-teacher as well as survey

the students on a weekly basis to get feedback about the co-teaching process and methods used.

This will help the co-teachers to understand what type of co-teaching models students prefer and

if it has any influence on student performance as evidenced by assessments and grading.

Step 4: Collecting Data

Tyler, 09/02/14,

I feel like this section needs help, or something more…but I’m not sure what?? Ideas?


Participants

There are two main participants in this research, the general education teacher and the

special education teacher. This is the third year that the participants have co-taught together

teaching an eighth grade math class at a Title One junior high school located in northern Utah,

chosen due to convenience and accessibility to the researcher. The co-teachers have received no

formal training on co-teaching but will be familiarized with the different co-teaching models to

be used. In addition teachers will share the same preparation period to help with their co-

planning, and debriefing sessions. Approximately 35 students will be given surveys, fifteen of

the students in the classroom will be students identified as having a learning disability. Teacher

consent and parent consent/student assent will be obtained before students are allowed to

participate in completing the survey.

Instrumentation

The researcher created a small questionnaire that will be filled out on a daily basis by the

general educator and the special educator during the debriefing sessions (see Appendix A). The

special educator will also record debriefing sessions as the co-teachers collaborate with one

another to discuss what worked during the previous day’s lesson and what needs to be changed.

The dependent variable in this research will be the daily debriefing sessions, and surveys.

The researcher created a survey (see Appendix B & C) for students and teachers based on the

best practices determined by Johnson & Christensen (2008). Students will be given an online

survey with a Likert scale along with an open ended question; the researcher will analyze the

surveys by comparing the data from weekly reports. The teacher will also be given an online

survey at the end of each week, to give the researcher overall feedback on the weeks progression.

Tyler, 09/02/14,

Should I list this by where I mention the independent variable?


Participants will receive the online surveys to help the researcher collect data efficiently, the

Likert scale is being used to obtain feedback from participants. Reliability and validity will be

assured by limiting outside factors by having the same students, teacher, and classroom

environment will be used. The researcher will be surveying the students at the end of each week

with the same instrumentation. The researcher will hand out the surveys to a pilot group as well.

Procedure

The researcher will first obtain Internal Review Board (IRB) approval for the proposed

research. Once approved, the researcher will contact and obtain permission from the district and

school to implement the research involving the students (See Appendix D & E). The general

education teacher will be given a letter of consent at the start of the school year to show

agreement in participating in the research study (See Appendix F) Also, students will be given a

letter of intent with consent informing parents about their students’ involvement in the research

and asking for permission that they fill out a survey at the end of the each week through the

duration of the research.(See Appendix G). The survey will be created using SurveyGizmo and

distributed to the students and teacher with a link attached to the researcher’s website for easy

access. The duration of this research will be approximately four weeks.

The researcher, who is the special educator and the general educator have the same

preparation period on a daily basis and will utilize fifteen-twenty minutes of that time to have a

debriefing session. Since the preparation period is in the morning and before the co-taught class

is instructed, the co-teachers will discuss about the previous day’s lesson during the debriefing

session and how to improve the lesson taught that day. The debriefing session will include a

daily questionnaire that can provide the researcher with feedback on the previous day’s lesson.

The debriefing sessions will focus on how the teachers used a method of co-teaching and


whether they felt it worked or would like to try a different method. Co-teachers will also discuss

student performance on assessments and assignments along with student behavior in the

classroom during instructional time. Other topics unforeseen at the moment may also be

discussed. The debriefing sessions will take place face to face in one of the teacher’s classrooms.

The debriefing sessions will also be recorded, and transcribed to help maintain reliability on

reporting outcomes. The confidentiality of the teachers will be maintained on the transcriptions.

During the research study, students will be given a short survey at the end of the week to

obtain feedback on their opinion of the co-teaching experience. By assessing student learning

preferences, the co-teachers can discuss the results of the surveys during a debriefing session to

help plan how they will teach throughout the week.

Step 5: Analyzing Data

Data Analysis

Data for the debriefing sessions will be analyzed by finding themes throughout the

transcriptions and coding. Data will be collected from the surveys taken by the students and by

the teacher. Data will be collected via the survey tool. Data will then be analyzed by looking at

the means and percentages of each response. Open ended questions in the survey will be

analyzed qualitatively.

Step 6: Reporting Results

Results will be reported to the Masters of Education department at Weber State

University and presented during the researcher’s defense.

Step 7: Taking Informed Action


Results will also be given to the co-teachers involved in the study so they may take

informed action and create a learning environment that is beneficial for the students and to them.

Other options on taking informed action will be discussed during the researchers defense.


References

Aliakbari, M. & Bazyar, A. (2012). Exploring the impact of parallel teaching on general

language proficiency of EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied

Linguistics, 16(1), 55-71.

Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and special education, 22(4),

245-255.

Bacharach, N. L., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. R. (2011). What makes co-teaching work?

Identifying the essential elements. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal

(CTMS), 4(3), 43-48.

Bouck, E. C. (2007). Co-teaching…Not just a textbook term: Implications for practice.

Preventing School Failure, 51(2), 46-51.

Bronson, C.E. & Dentith A. M. (2014) Partner teaching: A promising model. Educatation.

134(4), 506-520.

Brown, N., Howerter, C. S., & Morgan, J. (2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching

work. Intervention In School & Clinic,49(2), 84-91. doi:10.1177/1053451213493174

Conderman, G., & Hedin, L. (2012). Purposeful assessment practices for co-teachers. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 44(4), 18-27.

Cortiella, C. (2007). Rewards and roadblocks: How special education students are faring under

No Child Left Behind. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved

from: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Evaluating-performance/

Special-education-At-a-glance/Special-education-References.html


Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues,

current trends, and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13.

Duchardt, B., Marlow, L., Inman, D., Christensen, P., & Reeves, M. (1999). Collaboration and

co-teaching: General and special education faculty. Clearing House, 72(3), 186.

Embury, D. (2010) Does co-teaching work? A mixed method case study evaluation of co-

teaching as an intervention. University of Cincinnati.

Embury. D. & Kroeger, S. (2012) Let’s ask the kids: Constructions of co-teaching. International

Journal of Special Education. 27(2), 102-112.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An

illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal Of

Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.

doi:10.1080/10474410903535380

Gurgur, H. & Uzuner, Y. (2011). Examining the implementation of two co-teaching models:

team teaching and station teaching. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15:6,

589-610. doi: 10.1080/13603110903265032

Johnson, B. & Christensen, L., (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids..

Education, 127(2), 260-264.


Nichols, J., Dowdy, A., & Nichols, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An educational promise for children

with disabilities or a quick fix to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind?

Education, 130(4), 647-651.

Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co‐teaching in middle school classrooms under routine

conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in

co‐taught and solo‐taught classes?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2),

79-85.

Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., & Gebauer, K. (2005). Benefits of co-teaching in

secondary mathematics classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 20-24.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, 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 & Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.

Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary

level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.

Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A Meta-Analysis of Co-Teaching Research Where

Are the Data?. Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258-267.

Pugach, M.C., & Winn, J.A. (2011). Research on co-teaching and teaming: An untapped

resource for induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24, 36-46.

Rice, N., Drame, E., Owen, L., & Frattura, E. M. (2007). Co-instructing at the secondary level.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 12-18.


Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive

classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-

416.

Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching Exceptional Children,

43(5), 32-38.

Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & Mcculley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction:

The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology In The Schools,

49(5), 498-510. doi:10.1002/pits.21606

U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (2001). No Child Left

Behind. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html

Walsh, J. M. (2012). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement.

Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-35. Doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.555791

Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers

and principals report over time. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395.

Wilson, G. (2008). Be an active co-teacher. Intervention In School & Clinic, 43(4), 240-243.

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html


APPENDIX A:

Debriefing Session Questionnaire

Date of Discussion_________________Teacher filling out questionnaire___sped____gen ed

Question

What type of co-teaching was used in the lesson? (Circle all that apply)

Team Teaching Station Teaching

Alternative Teaching

Other (Specify):

Who instructed the most during the lesson?

Sped Teacher Gen Ed Teacher It was equal.

What worked?

What needs to be improved?

Additional Notes.


APPENDIX B:

Student Survey

Choose the number that best describes your feelings for each question.

Question Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1. Having two teachers in the classroom has

helped me to focus in class.

1 2 3 4 5

2. I liked how the two teachers taught this

week

1 2 3 4 5

3. I was able to get help from either teacher when I needed help.

1 2 3 4 5

4. I saw both teachers teach during the week.

1 2 3 4 5

5. I worked with other students this week.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Both teachers knew what was going on in

the classroom.

1 2 3 4 5

7. I feel like I have improved my math

skills this week.

1 2 3 4 5

8. What are your thoughts about having two

teachers in the classroom?


APPENDIX C:

Teacher Survey

Choose the number that best describes your feelings for each question.

Question Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1. I liked how this week was taught.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Behavior management was shared between teachers

1 2 3 4 5

3. Both teachers understood the objectives for the classroom.

1 2 3 4 5

4. I had time to plan the lessons with my

co-teacher.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Students interacted with us equally.

1 2 3 4 5

6. I feel like students enjoyed how this week was taught.

1 2 3 4 5

7. What are your thoughts about having two teachers in the classroom?


APPENDIX D:

IRB Approval



APPENDIX E:

District and School Approval



APPENDIX F:

IRB STUDY #XXXXXXXXXX

WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT

[Co-teaching and Collaboration: How co-teaching teams determine which model can be most effective]

You are invited to participate in a research study that will look at how co-teaching teams determine which method of co-teaching is most effective for students. You were selected as a possible subject because of your enrollment in a co-taught class. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.

The study is being conducted by Jennica Brocious a Masters student in the department of Education at Weber State University.

STUDY PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to look at daily reports from co-teachers on their experience in the classroom and assess which methods they used where outcomes were both positive for teachers and students.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:

If you agree to participate, you will be one of approximately thirty subjects who will be participating in this research.

PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY:

If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things:

Meet with the co-teacher/researcher on a daily basis for a debriefing session that will last approximately 15-20 minutes.

Fill in the questionnaire on a daily basis with the co-teacher/researcher.

Agree that debriefing sessions will be recorded and transcribed.

RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:

The risks of completing the questionnaire are being uncomfortable answering the questions. There may be a possible loss of confidentiality from the debriefing sessions, though it is a low risk. There may be risk that is currently unforeseeable.

BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY

You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. Benefits of participating in the study include understanding what types of teaching helps students have success in the classroom.

ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:Participation in this study is voluntary; students are under no obligation to participate and may withdraw at any time. There is not an alternative for this study.


COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY

In the event of physical injury resulting from your participation in this research, necessary medical treatment will be provided to you and billed as part of your medical expenses. Costs not covered by your health care insurer will be your responsibility. Also, it is your responsibility to determine the extent of your health care coverage. There is no program in place for other monetary compensation for such injuries. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are participating in research which is not conducted at a medical facility, you will be responsible for seeking medical care and for the expenses associated with any care received.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published and databases in which results may be stored.

Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your medical and/or research records.

CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS

For questions about the study, contact the researcher Jennica Brocious at 801-402-6500 or the researcher’s Dr. Melina Alexander at 801-656-8742

For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee [email protected].

VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY

Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Weber State University.

SUBJECT’S CONSENT

In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study.

I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study.

Subject’s Printed Name:

Subject’s Signature: Date:

mailto:[email protected]


(must be dated by the subject)

Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent:

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: Date:


APPENDIX G

IRB STUDY #XXXXXXXXXXWEBER STATE UNIVERSITY

INFORMED CONSENT

[Co-teaching and Collaboration: How co-teaching teams determine which model can be most effective]

You are invited to participate in a research study that will look at how co-teaching teams determine which method of co-teaching is most effective for students. You were selected as a possible subject because of your enrollment in a co-taught class. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.

The study is being conducted by Jennica Brocious a Masters student in the department of Education at Weber State University.

STUDY PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to look at daily reports from co-teachers on their experience in the classroom and assess which methods they used where outcomes were both positive for teachers and students.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:

If you agree to participate, you will be one of approximately thirty subjects who will be participating in this research.

PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY:

If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things:

Completing a survey at the end of each week for the duration of four weeks. The amount of time to take the survey should be no more than ten minutes each time given.

RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:

The risks of completing the survey are being uncomfortable answering the questions. There may be risk that is currently unforeseeable.

BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY

You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. Benefits of participating in the study include understanding what types of teaching helps students have success in the classroom.

ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:

Participation in this study is voluntary; students are under no obligation to participate and may withdraw at any time. There is not an alternative for this study.


COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY

In the event of physical injury resulting from your participation in this research, necessary medical treatment will be provided to you and billed as part of your medical expenses. Costs not covered by your health care insurer will be your responsibility. Also, it is your responsibility to determine the extent of your health care coverage. There is no program in place for other monetary compensation for such injuries. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are participating in research which is not conducted at a medical facility, you will be responsible for seeking medical care and for the expenses associated with any care received.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published and databases in which results may be stored.

Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your medical and/or research records.

CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS

For questions about the study, contact the researcher Jennica Brocious at 801-402-6500 or the researcher’s Dr. Melina Alexander at 801-656-8742

For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee [email protected].

VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY

Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Weber State University.

SUBJECT’S CONSENT

In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study.

I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study.

mailto:[email protected]


Subject’s Printed Name:

Subject’s Signature: Date:

(must be dated by the subject)

Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent:

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: Date:

If the study involves children who will be providing their assent on this consent document, rather than on a separate assent document, use the following signatures:

Printed Name of Parent:

Signature of Parent: Date:

Documents

WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY - Yolajennicabrociousmastersportfolio.yolasite.com/resources/... · Web viewTeachers should try to get the same planning period if they are able or coordinate