Running head: RESEARCH PROPOSAL 1

Research Proposal

Conflict Resolution in Co-Teaching Relationships

Research Internship

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Janet Van Heck

RESEARCH PROPSAL 2

Co-teaching has become common place in many schools across the United States. It

places two teachers in one classroom both overseeing and delivering the instruction to a

combination of special education and general education students (Friend & Cook, 2009).

Educational practices in collaborative processes such as co-teaching support the spirit and

intentions of federal and state mandates that promote the education lf all children in general

education settings. Although there are practices common in the field for teachers to utilize in

their co-teaching experiences, there are other determining factors which can decide the success

or failure of the collaboration between two teachers. Division of labor, determining who will do

what in the classroom, as well as other elements such as whether the teachers have chosen to

teach together, can make it more or less likely that the teachers will be able to have a successful

co-teaching relationship and be able to teach together without conflict (Sims, 2008). Once there

is conflict, it must be resolved.

Pre-Service and In-Service training have suggested to be successful in helping teachers

practice and demonstrate higher levels of interest and more positive attitudes about co-teaching.

A co-teaching Experiences and Attitudes Survey was developed for the study to measure aspects

of co-teaching as it is understood and experienced by practicing teachers. Their findings suggest

that professional development in co-teaching may be associated with greater teacher confidence

and interest in co-teaching and more positive teacher attitudes about this instructional practice

(Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013).

Co-teaching is analogous to a professional marriage in which teaching partners

collaborate to provide instructional services to students with disabilities and others at risk of

school failure as a result of the negative consequences of environmental events. Regrettably, in

many instances co-teachers are carelessly placed together and therefore, completely miss out on

RESEARCH PROPSAL 3

the development stages critical in a relationship. As in conventional marriage, skipping the time

to develop a strong relationship may lead to communication problems and misunderstandings, as

well as ending these relationships (Sileo, 2011; Stivers, 2008).

Co-teaching has become very popular, but it does not always come naturally. The

greatest obstacle to successful co-teaching is often the lack of preparedness of the educators

involved, for although co-teaching does rely on the research-based instructional practices used in

independent instruction, it also requires an additional set of skills that are rarely used when

teaching alone. Co-teaching requires commitment not only to working within an equal

partnership but also to developing new competence in areas such as creating shared lesson plans,

communicating frequently and effectively with fellow teachers, and resolving differences in a

way that strengthens, rather than weakens, the collaborative relationship (Ploessl, 2010).

Although co-teaching may be here to stay, co-teachers do not always stay around. There

can be many issues related to obtaining and more importantly, keeping good co-teaching teams.

Educators frequently relate co-teaching to a marriage; unfortunately, research clearly indicates

that many co-teaching marriages result in struggle, separation or even divorce (Murawski &

Dieker, 2008).

In a study conducted in Washington state 15 urban and suburban districts were included

in a survey of co-teachers. Seventy-seven percent of the teachers surveyed said that co-teaching

influenced student achievement. When asked, “What was the most important feature in a co-

teaching relationship?” The number one response was common planning time and having a

positive working relationship with one’s co-teaching partner. The next most important feature

RESEARCH PROPSAL 4

involved shared responsibility and philosophy between teachers. Mutual respect, shared

resources, similar style, and equal commitment were also highly rated (Kohler-Evans, 2006).

In another study, certain foundational beliefs, properties, and results of co-teaching that

foster co-teaching in practice, was examined. The symbiotic pair enacted co-teaching with the

results of completely committing to the partnership and integrating their separate knowledge and

skills. They came into the partnership with specific ideas about how their work together should

progress toward these goals from inception of co-teaching. These colleagues possessed a frame

of thinking and the types of communication skills that allowed them to work together in ways

that were mutually beneficial and satisfying. They were prepared and willing to put their ideas

and skills into action to serve their students (Flesner, 2007).

Limitations of Prior Research

Although there has been mention of stresses and misgivings between co-teachers in the

literature and many ideas about how to succeed as co-teachers, there is little mention of a

procedure for addressing conflict once is arises. There are many plans for success and

recommendations for how to begin and manage your relationship, but there seems to be no

acknowledgement of conflict resolution specifically or using techniques for conflict resolution

that are widely accepted by management professionals in and out of the field of education.

Purpose of This Research

The purpose of this research is to determine whether an intervention in the form of an in-

service training for teachers who are presently in a co-teaching situation will help them have

more positive attitudes about co-teaching and better prepare them for dealing with conflict with

their co-teacher when it occurs. A survey will be developed to give to the participants before and

RESEARCH PROPSAL 5

after the training. The training will consist of an overall definition of what co-teaching is, what

the accepted models of co-teaching are, a film by an expert in the field on the Power of Co-

teaching, Marilyn Friend, an example of a contract between two teachers to establish division of

labor, and the several steps of conflict resolution. There is not a lot of data-driven research on

co-teaching, and there is not much on co-teaching professional developments either.

The research questions are: will the intervention result in more positive results for time

spent planning? Will the co-teachers work better with their co-teacher? Will they implement and

use co-teacher models? Will conflict resolution techniques, if needed, have been used?

Method

Participants

The participants will be twenty (20) co-teachers, both special education and general

education teachers who are presently co-teaching, regardless of experience with co-teaching or

prior trainings. The selection process will be non-probability convenience sampling.

Administration at a high school which will have at least 20 co-teachers will be approached and

asked for permission to conduct the study at their school. If teachers presently are a co-teacher,

then they will be given the survey. Based on the survey results, they will be selected if they

seem that they would benefit from the intervention.

The setting of the training will likely be the library of the high school where the study has

been selected to take place. The library should be large enough to accommodate all of the

participants and will provide the audio/visual equipment needed for the presentation.

RESEARCH PROPSAL 6

Research Design

The research design will be a quantitative quasi-experimental design with a control group

and a pre-test and a post-test. Ten (10) of the teachers will receive the training, and 10 will not

receive the training. Both groups will be given the pre-test and the post-test. The supervising

administrator should also attend so that he/she can be trained in conflict resolution as the

mediator of the conflict.

A pre-test will be given, asking fourteen questions. Then, an intervention discussed

under the purpose of the research section, will take place with half of the total group. A post-

test, asking the same fourteen questions, will be given to both the intervention and control

groups. The pre-test/post-test survey has ten questions and is based on a likert scale, where

participants strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree. The results will be

based on an intervention that includes conflict resolution training.

Measurement

The dependent variable will be co-teaching relationships. The survey taken after the

training will be an on-line survey given two weeks after the training to see whether the co-

teachers had an opportunity to implement what they learned in the training. The independent

variable will be conflict resolution. The variables will be measured by the intervention. There is

currently no evidence of reliability or validity. The survey may be viewed in Figure 1. The

survey is designed to measure whether the teachers had a better relationship in general after the

intervention, including whether they implemented the conflict resolution technique presented in

the training.

RESEARCH PROPSAL 7

The survey was created to answer the research questions and to look for relationships

between survey questions. Pre-Service and In-Service training have suggested to be successful in

helping teachers practice and demonstrate higher levels of interest and more positive attitudes

about co-teaching (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013). For example, we can consider whether regular

meetings result in more positive relationships, or whether a general education teacher

volunteered to teach the class is able to truly adapt to working with a partner. The qualitative

nature of the open-ended questions, “What does co-teaching mean?” and “Do you use the co-

teaching models in your classroom together?” will give the researcher an opportunity to delve

deeper into answering whether there is a clear understanding of what co-teaching is and whether

teachers with healthier relationships use the models and use them successfully. The question as

to whether dissatisfaction with division of labor is related to having a conflict with the co-teacher

can be answered. Additionally, the survey can answer whether the training was successful in

resolving conflict between teachers. The researcher can also look for a relationship between

setting up contracts and having a lack of conflict.

Procedures

The independent variable will be conflict resolution. The variables will be measured by

the intervention. There is currently no evidence of reliability or validity. The survey may be

viewed in Figure 1. The survey is designed to measure whether the teachers had a better

relationship in general after the intervention, including whether they implemented the conflict

resolution technique presented in the training. The intervention will involve five phases of

training between current co-teachers, particularly teachers who are currently teaching together.

It will involve a training for current co-teachers, both general education and special education.

Teachers who currently teach together will sit with each other. The purpose of the training is to

RESEARCH PROPSAL 8

show strategies to teachers who actually co-teach together. Participants will be told that that will

learn about the models of co-teaching, watch a film presented by Marilyn Friend, learn about and

work on a contract for distribution of duties in the classroom, and learn about basic conflict

resolution techniques and practice the techniques on an issue that may have arisen in their

relationship. This training will take approximately 1 hour.

Phase 1 of the Intervention. The first phase of the intervention will involve simply

providing a definition of co-teaching. This will provide clarification of who the training is for

and will provide an opportunity for discussion of what may occur in a co-teaching relationship.

The definition chosen is from Friend and Cook, experts in the field of co-teaching: “When a

general education teacher and the special education service provider (either a special education

teacher or related service provider) participate in lesson or activity planning together and work

together in the same classroom to instruct both students with and without disabilities” (2009).

Phase 2 of the Intervention. The second phase of the intervention will involve a power

point presentation on the models of co-teaching. The participants will be instructed on how each

model can be used to better teach the curriculum being presented. Diagrams of how each model

works will be presented to instruct the participants on how to apply the models to their current

co-teaching situation. It is important to know the models so that the teachers can provide variety

in the way they instruct their students and know which models work best with which curriculum.

After reviewing the models and making a selection, the teachers can decide together how to put

them into action. Approaching co-teaching situations with well-developed instructional plans

ensures that classroom interactions between the partners as satisfying as they are successful

(Ploessl, 2010).

RESEARCH PROPSAL 9

The first model is called one teach, one observe. One teacher leads and another

purposefully observes individual students and/or student-teacher interactions. Teachers would

use this model in a number of situations: when questions arise about students, to check student

progress, or to compare target students to others in class. The second model is called one teach,

one drift. This is where one teacher provides assistance during large group instruction while the

other teacher monitors. This can be used in a variety of instances: when the lesson lends itself to

delivery by one teacher, when one teacher has particular expertise for the lesson, in new co-

teaching situations, to get to know each other, or in lessons stressing a process in which student

work needs close monitoring (Friend & Cook, 2009; Ploesl, 2010).

Parallel teaching is the next model. Teachers jointly plan instruction, but each may

deliver it to half the class or in small groups. This model requires joint planning time. It may be

used: when a lower adult-student ratio is needed to improve instructional efficiency, to foster

student participation in discussions, or for activities such as drill and practice, re-teaching, and

test review. Participants will also be instructed on station teaching. Teachers divide content and

students. Students may rotate to each teacher as well as work independently based on needs. It

may be used in a variety of situations: when content is complex but not needing to be in any

particular order, in lessons in which part of planned instruction is review, or when several topics

make up instruction (Friend & Cook, 2009; Ploesl, 2010).

Alternative teaching is very popular. One teacher works with a small group of students

pre-teach, re-teach, supplement, or enrich instruction, while the other teacher instructs the large

group. This should be used in situations where students’ mastery of concepts taught or about to

be taught varies tremendously, when extremely high levels of mastery are expected for all

RESEARCH PROPSAL 10

students, when some students are working in a parallel curriculum (Friend & Cook, 2009). The

last model is called team teaching. In this model, both teachers share the planning instruction of

students in a coordinated fashion. It is useful when two heads are better than one or experience

is comparable, during a lesson which the teachers have considerable experience and a high sense

of comfort, when a goal of instruction is to demonstrate some type of interaction to students, or

in a co-teaching situation in which instructional conversation is appropriate.

Models will be discussed and examples will be given when to use them. Participants will

discuss with their co-teachers which models are best suited for their style of instructional

delivery. They will be asked to provide an example of a time that they would use one of the

models and how it would benefit instruction.

Phase 3 of the Intervention. The participants will be shown a film on co-teaching

models. It will provide a more thorough description, examples, and straightforward illustrations

of these approaches. They will watch the DVD The Power of Two (Friend, Burrello, & Burrello,

20005). The film is intended to give further clarification and provide inspiration on how to use

the models creatively.

Phase 4 of the Intervention. Contracts may be developed and agreed upon mutually by

the co-teachers to determine who does what in the classroom, in grading, planning, preparing,

and presenting (Murawski & Dieker, 2008). Participants will be shown an example in Table 1,

and then asked to create a contract with their co-teacher. This requires some hashing out of the

duties (Kohler-Evans, 2006). Obviously duties related to keeping and being familiar with the

IEPs would be the special education teacher’s job while the leading of the general education

RESEARCH PROPSAL 11

instruction would be the general educator’s responsibility. Participants will be asked to think of

at least five duties for each teacher.

Phase 5 of the Intervention. The final phase of the intervention will involve examining

areas of conflict resolution such as prevention, communication, and a specific conflict

management method for individuals. Participants will be shown a power point presentation.

Then, they will be asked to apply the strategy to their own situation, fictional or real.

Communication is a very important part of conflict resolution. It can and should be used

to diffuse a potential conflicting situation. Hopefully, resolutions can be made without going to

an administrator, although sometimes this is necessary. This is one reason administrators also

need good skills in dealing with conflict between adults (Terry, 1996).

Effective listening behaviors are also a preventative measure in dealing with conflict. By

listening to concerns as they are being formulated, this may prevent a conflict later. Nine

techniques are advocated by the author: listen (silently), encourage, focus (restate), demonstrate,

reinforce, clarify (rephrase), comment, negotiate (evaluate alternatives), direct (guide) (Marcus,

et al, 2012).

Terry (1996) presents a three-part strategy for dealing with conflict on an individual

basis. Co-teachers will be asked to implement these three integral steps to resolve conflict in

their relationships. The three components are: empathy, disarming, and feedback/negotiation.

The first aspect involves empathy. In this aspect, one first asks the person a series of

specific questions designed to find out what he/she means. Try to avoid being judgmental, and

constantly ask for more specific information. Attempt to see the world through the critic’s eyes,

RESEARCH PROPSAL 12

and if the person attacks you with vague, insulting labels, ask him/her to be more specific and to

point out exactly what it is about you or what you did that the person dislikes.

The second aspect is disarming the critic. This part needs to be used in conjunction with

empathy. The participant should agree with the individual with regard to some point. Avoid

sarcasm or defensiveness, and always speak the truth.

The third aspect is feedback and negotiation. This technique is used following the use of

empathy and after disarming the critic. Some issues may remain that need to be negotiated.

Make certain to base comments on facts. Compromises may be necessary, and leave

defensiveness out of the conversation (Terry, 1996).

Participants in the current study will be asked to think of a situation where they can use

this technique and role play the technique to see how it works for them. Hopefully, the

technique will be successful and will resolve a conflict that two co-teachers may have.

Data Analysis

Data will be analyzed as an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Descriptive statistics will

include standards means and deviations. Inferential statistics will include the F score and a p-

value from the ANOVA.

Reliability/Credibility

Interrater reliability will be used to establish reliability for this study. A second person

will observe the dependent variable data. They will collect scores then compare with the first set

of scores that are collected. This is the most appropriate measure for this type of study.

RESEARCH PROPSAL 13

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to determine whether an intervention in the form of an

in-service training for teachers who are presently in a co-teaching situation will help them have

more positive attitudes about co-teaching and better prepare them for dealing with conflict with

their co-teacher when it occurs. The findings indicated that those who had a better relationship

with their co-teacher had less conflict. If the general education teacher had volunteered for the

co-teaching situation, then there were positive results. Whether the teachers planned together

had a positive effect, and if they had determined a satisfactory division of labor determined

whether there was any conflict. Overall, the intervention had a positive effective.

Prior Research.

Teacher training on co-teaching has previously been found successful in helping teacher

develop more positive attitudes about co-teaching and help teachers demonstrate a higher level

of interest. Professional development in co-teaching may be connected with greater teacher

confidence and interest (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013). In another study, teachers commented that

common planning time and having a positive working relationship with one’s co-teaching

partner were important to success. Mutual respect, shared resources, similar style, and equal

commitment were also highly important (Kohler-Evans, 2006).

Implications

An implication of future research is the testing of each of the models presented by Friend

& Cook, and determine by using inferential statistics if there is significance in their use among

students with mild to moderate disabilities.

RESEARCH PROPSAL 14

Future Practice

An implication for practice may be to have regular meetings of co-teachers and to use the

models. It is important to take time to reflect together on failures and successes.

RESEARCH PROPSAL 15

References

Flesner, D. M. (2007), Experiences of co-teaching: Crafting the relationship. (Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Florida).

Friend, M. (Co-Producer with L. Burrello & J. Burrello). (2005). The power of two (2nd ed.)

[DVD]. Bloomington, IN: Elephant Rock Productions.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2009). Interactions: Collaborative skills for school professionals,

(6thed.) New York, NY: Pearson.

Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-Teaching: How to Make This Marriage Work in Front of the

Kids. Education, 127(2), 260-264).

Marcus, L. J., Dorn, B.C., McNulty, E.J. (2012). The walk in the woods: A step-by-step

method for facilitating interest-based negotiation and conflict resolution. Negotiation

Journal, 11, 337-349.

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(4), 40-48.

Pancsofar, N, & Petroff, J. G. (2013). Professional development experiences in co-teaching:

Associations with teacher confidence, interests, and attitudes. Teacher Education and

Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for

Exceptional Children, 36(20), 83-96. doi: 10.117/0888406412474996

RESEARCH PROPSAL 16

Ploessl, D. M. (2010). On the same page: Practical Techniques to enhance co-teaching

interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 158-168.

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

Children, 43(5), 32-38.

Sims, E. (2008). Sharing command of the co-teaching ship: How to play nicely with others.

The English Journal, 97 (5), 58-63.

Stivers, J. (2008). Strengthen your co-teaching relationship. Intervention in School and Clinic,

44(2), 121-125. Doi: 10.1177/1053451208214736

Terry, P. M. (1996). Conflict management. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 3

(3), doi: 10.1177/107179199600300202

RESEARCH PROPSAL 17

Co-Teaching Survey

Please indicate how much you agree with each statement, using the scale below.

Are you a general education teacher or a special education teacher?_______________________

1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3= neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree

1. What does co-teaching mean? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. I work well with my co-teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I have a good relationship with my co-teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I volunteered to become a co-teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I lesson plan with my co-teacher on a regular basis. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I have regular meetings with my co-teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I believe that some special education students belong in the general education environment. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I agree with my co-teacher on classroom management, such as discipline, policies, and procedures. 1 2 3 4 5

9. What co-teaching models do you use?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. I agree with my co-teacher on using co-teaching models such as alternative, parallel, one teach/one assist. 1 2 3 4 5

RESEARCH PROPSAL 18

11. I am satisfied with the division of labor such as grading, reviewing accommodations, and teaching lessons. 1 2 3 4 5

12. I have a contract set up with my co-teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

13. I have experienced conflict in my teaching experience with my co-teacher. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I feel we have been successful at resolving issues that have arisen between us. 1 2 3 4 5

15. We have used conflict resolution techniques in our relationship. 1 2 3 4

Are you a general education teacher or a special education teacher?_______________________

Previous years of co-teaching experience: ____________

Figure 1.

RESEARCH PROPSAL 19

Table 1

Contract

Both teachers can make a contract to divide up the work so that the division of labor is fair.

Teacher 1: Notes for Lessons: preparing and

presenting

Pacing of Lessons

Practice problems

IEP documentation

Bathroom passes

Teacher 2: Warm-up questions

Homework assignments

Common Core Curriculum: ensure

compliance with pacing

Assessments: preparing, providing

answer keys, handling make-ups

Lesson Plans: input and maintenance

of plans

RESEARCH PROPSAL 20