Co-teaching Perspectives from Secondary Science Co-teachers and ...

J Sci Teacher Educ (2014) 25:651–680 DOI 10.1007/s10972-014-9391-2

Co-teaching Perspectives from Secondary Science Co-teachers and Their Students with Disabilities Margaret E. King-Sears • Anne Eichorn Brawand Melissa C. Jenkins • Shantha Preston-Smith

•

Published online: 22 July 2014 The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2014

Abstract An in-depth case study of one team of co-teachers’ practice from multiple perspectives is described. A high school science co-teaching team and their students with disabilities completed surveys about their perceptions of co-teaching. Additionally, observations of the two co-teachers occurred to determine roles and types of interactions for each co-teacher during science instruction. Observational data revealed effective teaching behaviors demonstrated by each co-teacher. Detailed descriptions of the co-teachers’ instruction are provided. The science educator was observed interacting with the large group twice as often as the special educator. The science educator also presented new content nearly three times as often as the special educator. The co-teacher surveys were consistent with the observational data. Both educators disagreed that the special educator was primarily the lead for instruction. Both educators strongly agreed they had an effective coteaching relationship, although the science educator indicated stronger agreement for parity in roles and responsibilities than the special educator noted. Forty-three percent of the students identified the science educator as in charge of lessons, while 43% identified both educators. Most students thought teaching was divided in half, M. E. King-Sears (&) George Mason University, 4400 University Drive MS 1F2, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. E. Brawand Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. C. Jenkins Prince William County Public Schools, Manassas, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. Preston-Smith Arlington Public Schools, Arlington, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

652

M. E. King-Sears et al.

and all students enjoyed having two teachers in science. Eighty-six percent of the students indicated team teaching was the most frequently used co-teaching model, and 14% indicated one teach, one drift. Implications for co-teachers’ reflections on their collaboration, including the relevance of student perceptions (i.e., Who is the ‘‘real’’ teacher?), and the extent to which educators are prepared at preservice and inservice levels for co-teaching are discussed. Keywords

Science Co-teaching Students with disabilities

Introduction Over 61% of students with disabilities aged 6 through 21 are educated more than 80% of the school day in general education settings as the least restrictive environment (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). For these 3.5 million students, instruction in general education settings is provided by general educators alone or co-teachers. Vannest et al. (2009) found that in one state, general education settings were often the option for students with disabilities for science instruction. Robinson (2002) noted the need to examine how instruction changes when students with learning disabilities (LD) or emotional disabilities (ED) are educated in general education science classes, whether the instructor is one science teacher or a coteaching team of a science and special educator. Although he found evidence of some instructional changes, Robinson noted the need for science educators to team with special educators to blend their content and pedagogical expertise, which could benefit all students. Moreover, he noted the necessity of professional development that focused on both how to address the needs of students with disabilities in science classes as well as how to implement co-teaching. Even though co-teaching is used for science as well as other content areas, many coteachers note they have not had much, if any, preparation about how to co-teach (Nichols, Dowdy, & Nichols, 2010). Cook and Friend (1995) define co-teaching as ‘‘two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a single physical space’’ (p. 1). Pearl and Miller (2007) note that each co-teachers’ individual expertise should lead to differences in instructional delivery that students with or without disabilities would not otherwise receive with only one teacher. Each definition emphasizes the instructional changes that occur when coteachers share their unique knowledge and skills. No co-teaching definitions found in the research and literature endorse that one teacher is always or primarily the lead with the other teacher in a supportive role, yet that is the message some school systems communicate (Seglem & VanZant, 2010). Additionally, in a summary of meta-analyses of co-teaching research that included 146 studies, Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, and McCulley (2012) found general educators provided most instruction while special educators were ‘‘typically in a subordinate role, provided support to students and suggestions to teachers’’ (p. 507). The majority of studies on co-teachers yield similar results: although both educators should be

123

Co-teaching Perspectives

653

co-planning and each has leadership for instruction, general educators remain largely in charge of the content instruction and the special educators’ roles are relegated to that of an assistant to the general educator (Boudah, Schumacher, & Deshler, 1997; Graue, Hatch, Rao, & Oen, 2007; Rice & Zigmond, 2000; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Moin, Magiera, and Zigmond (2009) observed over 50 high school science lessons taught by 10 science and special education co-teaching teams. The special educators’ roles were more like those of a paraprofessional, drifting around the classroom and assisting individual students, rather than roles of certified teachers. Although intended to be co-teaching, special educators seldom functioned as teachers with specific instructional responsibilities. The major type of instruction was whole group, with science co-teachers in the lead role. Moin et al. interviewed the teachers and found that no co-planning time was allocated for the co-teaching teams, which may have contributed to the special educators having a less active instructional role in co-teaching. All co-teachers noted lack of professional development on co-teaching itself as another problem. Essentially, the science coteachers were delivering instruction similarly to how they taught the classes when no students with disabilities or special education co-teachers were in the room; few modifications occurred. This observation conflicted with the foundational premise of forming co-teaching partnerships with science educators and special educators: to ensure varied instructional methods were in place to meet the needs of students with disabilities, which in turn could meet the needs of other students. The expectation was that science educators contribute expertise in science content, while special educators contribute expertise in differentiated instruction. To accomplish this, coteachers must figure out how to blend their expertise so that parity, such as equal roles and responsibilities, exists. Bouck (2007) stated that ‘‘both teachers need to be open to sharing instruction with the large group as well as with individual students. The precedent cannot be that the general education teachers primarily assume the large-group instructional space and special educators are left to fill the role and space of instruction to individual students’’ (p. 50). As Moin et al. noted, ‘‘the full merits of a two-teacher model were not realized’’ (p. 694) in the observed co-taught instruction. Although co-teaching is used widely in secondary schools across the United States, few science or special education teacher preparation programs are adequately preparing educators at the preservice level by modeling co-teaching or including courses or course sessions on co-teaching (Eick, Ware, & Williams, 2003; Kluth & Straut, 2003; Nevin, Thousand, & Villa, 2009). Consequently, co-teachers are reliant on their school systems for professional development (Brusca-Vega, Brown, & Yasutake, 2011; Kosko & Wilkins, 2009). Whether through preservice coursework or professional development, co-teachers need to know there are different ways, or models, of co-teaching. Models of Co-teaching Six models of co-teaching can guide co-teachers’ instructional design and delivery in ways that distinguish solo- from co-taught classes (Cook & Friend, 1995).

123

654

• • •

• •

•


One Teach, One Observe: One co-teacher leads the lesson while the other coteacher observes students. One Teach, One Drift: One co-teacher leads the lesson while the other coteacher circulates and supports students as needed. Station Teaching: Similar to a Learning Center approach with one group of students working independently at a station, while two other groups of students are with each co-teacher. Parallel Teaching: Both co-teachers instruct the same information simultaneously with the class divided about equally to form two groups. Alternative Teaching: One co-teacher instructs a larger group while the other co-teacher instructs an alternative lesson or the same lesson taught at a different level with a smaller group. Team Teaching: Both co-teachers deliver instruction interactively.

These models of co-teaching are instructive for practitioners seeking to know how they ‘‘do’’ co-teaching. Although one teach, one drift and one teach, one observe can be seen as similar (i.e., a co-teacher drifting or observing may be switching either of these behaviors as a primary role, dependent on students’ needs and requests), the other models of co-teaching are distinctive in that each requires both of the teachers to assume active instructional roles. Roles and responsibilities for each co-teacher differ with each model. For example, more equality (i.e., even distribution of roles and responsibilities, sometimes referred to as parity) is evident to the teachers and their students in the team teaching model, when each co-teacher is conducting about half of the instruction for the whole class. Conversely, co-teachers who primarily use a one teach, one observe or drift model more clearly evidence one of the teachers, which is usually the special educator, in more passive roles with few (if any) instructional responsibilities for the whole class. As such, students can perceive one teacher as the ‘‘real’’ teacher and the other teacher as an assistant (cf. Solis et al., 2012). Research on Co-teachers Dieker (2001) observed nine co-teaching teams and interviewed both the coteachers and their students. Four teams used the team teaching model in which both teachers shared equally in designing, delivering, and evaluating instruction. Importantly, each of these co-teaching teams had common daily planning time, which Dieker noted contributed to their parity. Three teams primarily used a one teach-one support (i.e., drift) model of co-teaching, with the content teacher as lead and the special educator in the supportive role, thus not taking full advantage of each teacher’s pedagogy. If special educators in co-taught classes solely provide support versus also having a lead instructional role, the benefits of having two fullycertified educators in the classes may not be achieved. For students receiving science instruction from co-teachers, the level of coordination between the educators influences the quality of instruction. Highquality instruction in co-taught classes in secondary grades is particularly important because secondary students with disabilities must meet state standards to earn a

123


655

regular high school diploma (Hartwig & Sitlington, 2008; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007). Moreover, because science and special education co-teachers may not have familiarity with models of co-teaching, more often than not, they establish one way of co-teaching and seldom deviate from that model (Murawski, 2006). Yet relying on one co-teaching model too often resembles the same instruction that occurs when one teacher is instructing. Dieker (2001) noted special educators on some co-teaching teams, particularly with limited co-planning time, were not familiar with what the daily lesson content would be. Although all nine teams had some daily or weekly structure in place for co-planning, on average, co-teaching teams had about 10 minutes per day for coplanning, but desired about 30 minutes. Although special educators in her study were familiar with the content itself, unfamiliarity with the specifics to be taught and how content was to be presented placed both co-teachers at a disadvantage for capitalizing on the strengths that each co-teacher could have brought to the instruction for all students. Furthermore, Weiss and Lloyd (2002) found that some special educators in their study were scheduled to co-teach in different classes during the same period, meaning that the special educator spent half of the time in one class and half in the other. The researchers found minimal evidence of special educators using their pedagogical expertise in co-taught settings, and more evidence that special educators circulated to provide assistance to students. Most special education co-teachers provided student support or monitored student behavior instead of working with the general educator to instruct. Fontana (2005) noted that the secondary special education co-teachers in her study acquiesced to the content teachers’ philosophical perspectives for instruction. Consequently, the secondary special education co-teachers found it more difficult to achieve parity, particularly when the special educator taught with multiple content teachers throughout the school day. In examining how special education co-teachers use time throughout the day, Vannest and Hagan-Burke (2010) found that when coteaching, special educators in their sample spent almost 20% of their time on instructional support, with almost 15% of their time focused on academic instruction. With other tasks, such as completing paperwork, planning, assessing, and participating in Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings to comprise 100% of their time, it is already clear from this research that special education co-teachers are less frequently the leaders of instruction and are more frequently instructional support. An understanding of teacher perspectives of co-teaching is emerging from research. However, not as much research has occurred about what students say or perceive. Students’ Perspectives on Co-teaching Although limited research exists, some studies have involved students of coteachers to elicit their perspectives about co-teaching. Leafstedt, Richards, and LaMonte (2007) interviewed high school students with LD in co-taught classes, including science, who reported they did not feel they received accommodations as noted on their IEPs. Students felt it was more difficult to receive assistance when they needed it when in co-taught classes, whether from general or special educators.

123

656


O’Rourke and Houghton (2008) found that students with mild disabilities enjoyed working with peers in co-taught settings, but students perceived few instructional changes from co-teachers. In a related study, Bessette (2008) asked elementary and middle school students to draw pictures of what it looked like when their coteachers worked together. She then shared the drawings with the co-teachers, who reacted to the students’ images. Co-teachers’ reactions varied, although special education co-teachers seemed most concerned that students portrayed them as more of the helper versus the leader. For example, 74% of the middle school students and 33% of the elementary students depicted the ‘‘one teach, one observe’’ co-teaching model. Middle school content teachers expressed concern when drawings indicated students’ confusion, such as talking bubbles with ‘‘What?’’ inside. Several coteachers noted the absence of co-planning time as rationale for why more students did not portray more team-teaching scenes. Embury and Kroeger (2012) interviewed different middle school students from two co-taught classes. Students described differences in co-teaching noting that one co-taught class used a variety of co-teaching models and varied which co-teacher delivered instruction, whereas the other co-taught class had the general educator as the lead teacher and the special educator acting in a support role (i.e., one teach, one drift). Students in the latter class consistently referred to the general educator as the ‘‘real’’ or ‘‘regular’’ teacher. Embury and Kroeger interpreted such descriptors as indicating the students perceived the special educator as less valid or real as a teacher and the distinctions students perceived indicated a lack of parity between the co-teachers. The students acknowledged the special educator helped students, but she was not in charge of instruction. The Current Study Magiera and Zigmond (2005) noted the importance of examining co-teaching as it is naturally occurring. To that end, this study incorporated observations of one team of co-teachers when new content was being taught to students. The purpose of the current research was to ascertain perspectives from each of the co-teachers and their students with disabilities about perceptions about co-teaching during science instruction. We hypothesized that co-teachers might each be similarly active when their task was teaching new content and that parity would be more evident during that time. Our research sought to triangulate data elicited from one team of coteachers and their students to determine how co-teachers’ perceptions may or may not align with that of their students. Four research questions guided this study: 1. 2. 3. 4.

How do science and special education co-teachers divide their roles and responsibilities when teaching new content? What do science and special education co-teachers perceive about their coteaching experience? What do students with disabilities perceive about their experiences with coteachers? In what areas do students with disabilities and each co-teacher agree and disagree regarding perceptions of their co-teaching experience?

123


657

Methods An Earth Science co-teaching team from a school system in the South Atlantic region of the United States was invited to participate in this study based on recommendation from a high school administrator and the co-teachers’ willingness to voluntarily commit to the study’s requirements. Research approval had previously been acquired for this study from both the university and the school system. At the time of this study, the co-teaching team’s instruction was within a unit related to the origin and evolution of the universe. The team consisted of one fully-certified special educator and one fully-certified science educator who agreed to videotape three to five sessions when they were demonstrating or presenting new content to students. Additionally, each co-teacher completed a survey on coteaching which yielded data regarding how each perceived aspects of their coteaching. Co-teachers also indicated which model of co-teaching they used the most and the least. Students with disabilities in their science class were asked to participate in the research by completing a survey about their experiences receiving instruction from these two co-teachers. As shown in Figure 1, data common to the observations, co-teachers’ survey, and students’ survey were compared to determine whether co-teachers’ perceptions matched their actions, and whether co-teachers’ ratings matched that of the students they taught. Co-teachers Both teachers had their master’s degree and had varying amounts of experience and preparation for co-teaching. The science educator was in his 9th year of co-teaching, had independently volunteered to be a co-teacher, and had less than 3 hours of professional development on co-teaching. In his teacher preparation program, he had one course session on co-teaching. The special educator was a beginning teacher in his 3rd year of co-teaching and was hired to be a co-teacher. He also had completed less than 3 hours of professional development on co-teaching and, prior to that, one course session on co-teaching in his teacher preparation program. The special educator co-taught two different subjects with two co-teachers (Earth Science and World History).

Fig. 1 Triangulation of Data for Co-Teaching Research

123

658


Co-teachers’ Students with Disabilities Seven students with disabilities returned the Parent Informed Consent and completed the Student Assent to participate in this research. Two of these students were female and five were male. The students were 9th and 10th graders ranging from ages 15 to 17. In accordance to federal and state guidelines, the teachers reported that students were categorized as the following on their IEP: two students with specific LD; two students with other health impairments; one student with an intellectual disability; one students who received speech and language services; and one student with traumatic brain injury. Data Sources Data were gathered through multiple sources. Video recordings were used for direct observation and analysis of the two co-teachers’ behaviors. Two different surveys were used to gather information regarding teacher and student perceptions. Observations A camcorder was set up in the co-teachers’ classrooms to record their demonstration of new content to students. We intentionally confined observational analyses to how these two co-teachers interacted (type of interaction) and what they did (role) when new content was presented. The co-teachers determined when to start and stop the video. We provided definitions as well as examples and nonexamples about what demonstration activities might be used in the science class (i.e., explicit or implicit instruction, inquiry- or activity-based learning). For consistency within this article, the term ‘‘demonstration’’ is used to refer to the presentation of new content. Additionally, we acknowledged to co-teachers that the duration of any given demonstration activity would naturally vary, based on what was being taught. That is, one session might last five minutes, while another session might last 25 minutes. Co-teachers independently operated the camcorder after being trained how to use it by one of the project directors. Therefore, the co-teachers determined what they recorded for observational analyses. Four sessions were analyzed, with an average of 14 minutes per session and a range of 8.5 to 18.5 minutes. All of the observed lessons took place in a secondary science lab classroom. The students were seated at individual desks in the center of the room. A demonstration lab table was centered at the front of the classroom in front of a chalkboard and interactive whiteboard. Student lab tables were arranged around the perimeter of the room. All of the observed content was drawn from the state prescribed Earth Science curriculum. The observations were coded in two ways. First, 5-second momentary time sampling was using to identify each of the two co-teacher’s types of interactions (e.g., whole group, small group) and roles (e.g., presenting new content, questioning, responding to students’ questions) during instruction. These data yielded percentages for each of the two co-teachers indicating who was doing what during instruction. Then, narrative coding was used to describe each of the two co-

123


659

teacher’s actions related to the Earth Science content itself. Descriptive information acquired included what was being done, how, by whom, and with whom. This combination of coding provided more contextual information and specific examples, which enabled us to derive a more robust depiction about the co-teaching observed. The co-teaching team’s videos were coded using the co-teaching observation system developed by Harbort et al. (2007) with some adaptations, including new categories and descriptions. Momentary time sampling was used by Harbort et al. and in the current study. Harbort et al. observed using 30-second intervals, while in the current study, 5-second momentary time sampling intervals were used. The researchers coded the behavior that occured exactly at the end of the 5-second time interval using methodology established by Brulle and Repp (1984). Momentary time sampling has been shown to be strongly correlated with continuous observations of behaviors with the exception of documenting low-frequency, short duration behaviors (Saudargas & Zanolli, 1990). The researchers who coded the co-teaching videos observed that there were some instances in which short-duration behaviors did not occur at the end of an interval, and therefore were not coded. While this limits the interpretation of the video results to some degree, the overall picture that is created regarding the nature of the teachers’ behaviors is not compromised due to the frequent coding schedule. In fact, Brulle and Repp found that 10- and 20-second intervals produced accurate characterizations of behavior. Therefore the use of 5-second intervals in this study added a degree of rigor and increased the probability of capturing a finer distinction of behaviors. Harbort et al. (2007) categorized co-teachers’ behaviors into three categories (interacting with whom; role; teaching format), while this research collapsed the interaction and teaching format categories into one category as the type of interaction (e.g., interacting with whole group of students, small group of students, or with the co-teacher). The current research maintained the category of coteacher’s roles, while also adding roles based on observations of multiple coteaching situations. As such, two categories of behaviors were coded (type and role), with co-teachers coded individually so that each co-teacher’s behaviors could be identified and compared to the other’s behaviors. The first category of behaviors focused on with whom each co-teacher was interacting as the type of interaction. There were six distinct types of interaction (refer to operational definitions in Table 1). There was also a code for when a coteacher was out-of-range of the video. The second category focused on each coteachers’ specific behavior (e.g., giving directions, responding to student) as the role when interacting. There were ten distinct roles coded (refer to operational definitions in Table 2). When content was inaudible, it was coded as such, and non-content related conversation was also coded in the role category. Co-Teacher Survey The Co-Teacher Survey was developed by the first author, with content developed based on topics discussed and issues identified in co-teaching literature. After successive iterations of the instrument were analyzed for content validity by expert panels (administrators who supervised co-teachers, general and special education

123

660


Table 1 Operational Definitions of Co-Teacher’s Type of Interaction During Demonstration of New Content (1) Students (2–6) small group Teachers were scored as interacting with a small group if the group consisted of two to six students. This behavior occurred during presentation of instructional material when students were placed in collaborative pairs or small cooperative learning groups, or when either teacher was re-teaching or clarifying material after initial presentation (2) Students (6?) large group Teachers were credited with interacting with a large group of students if the group consisted of more than six students. This occurred during presentation of instructional material during question/answer sessions, or role-playing (3) Student (1) Teacher interacted with one student. The student was usually in her/his desk, but could approach the teacher elsewhere in the room (4) Teacher Teachers were credited with this behavior if they were observed talking with each other. Their conversation was not directed at students and was not intended to model instructional strategy or material (5) No interaction A teacher was credited with this behavior if he/she was not interacting with any other participant in the room but could be engaged in instructional preparation (e.g., watching the school TV station, or sitting at desk in back of the room reading material unrelated to classroom instruction, erasing the board) (6) Teacher out of range (cannot see or hear) This behavior was marked on the coding form if the teacher was out of range (cannot see or hear teacher) Sources: 1. Verbatim from Harbort et al. (2007, p. 18) 2. italic content developed by authors

co-teachers, and university personnel who researched and published on coteaching), domains were finalized and changes for clarity in statements on the survey were made. The Co-Teacher Survey consisted of six domains with statements rated using a 4-point Likert scale indicating level of agreement per statement, with 1 as strongly disagree, 2 as disagree, 3 as agree, and 4 as strongly agree. Domains and corresponding reliability (using Cronbach’s a) are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Co-Teaching Relationship (CTR) a = .90 Co-Teachers’ Pedagogy and Instructional Climate (CTPIC) a = .87 Parity, divided into three sub-domains for true parity a = 85, general educator as lead a = .88, and special educator as lead a = .86 Effective Co-Planning (ECP) a = .90 Monitoring Students’ Progress to Make Changes [too few items to determine reliability for this domain] Models of Co-Teaching, using graphics and definitions of six co-teaching models as described by Cook and Friend (1995), so not conducive to reliability measures.

123


661

Table 2 Operational Definitions of Co-Teacher’s Roles During Demonstration of New Content (1) Managing behavior This behavior was scored if a teacher was engaged in discussing proper conduct with students, talking to specific student(s) who misbehaved, or talking individually with a student who had not followed instructions or rules. It was also scored if a teacher moved within close proximity to a student who was misbehaving. Teachers sometimes made gestures to students who were off-task, or used signals to regain attention of class (e.g., finger to lips, hand on shoulder, standing beside desk, clapping) (2) Presenting content-related instruction If a teacher was orally delivering content instruction to students in the form of a lecture, demonstration, or visual/audio presentation (e.g., overhead projector, or visualizer/computer), he/she was credited with engagement in this behavior. Presenting content could be a teacher lectures, presents, talks about, reviews subject matter content during whole-group, smallgroup, or one-to-one instruction. This behavior could also be modeling steps of an assignment, or a think-aloud (3) Giving directions If a teacher was orally explaining directions or steps of an assignment he/she was credited with this behavior only if the task or assignment immediately followed the directions. Modeling or describing the steps of a task or assignment to be given at a later time would be coded as ‘‘Presenting content-related instruction.’’ If the teacher is holding materials or having the materials for a task or assignment passed out while speaking about them, this would be a cue to use the ‘‘Giving directions’’ code. The code for giving directions can also be used when a teacher requests an immediate verbal or physical response. Examples: ‘‘Sam, read page four.’’ ‘‘Jay and Ann, stand up’’ (4) Responding to student This behavior was scored if the teacher appeared to be listening or responding to a student’s comment or question, moved to a student’s desk, walked to a group and sat down in a desk beside the person or bent her head as he/she listened, answered a question, or waited for a response. If this behavior was marked, it was paired with the person or persons who were the recipients of the response: small group, large group, or individual (5) Responding to teacher This behavior was scored if the teacher appeared to be listening to a teacher’s comment or question, answered a teacher’s question, or waited for a response. If this behavior was marked, it was paired with the teacher (6) Monitoring This was scored if a teacher stood or sat while watching students. Teachers were observed walking around making sure that students were on-task during presentation. Teachers were observed monitoring students moving from one activity to another. Monitoring is coded for physical transitions such as moving from large to small groups, desk to board, or changes in settings. It can also be used for independent or small group work when the students are not directly engaged with the teacher. If the teacher is listening to students speak or read to the whole group or if the student is speaking directly to the teacher, code as 10 (Listening/Waiting for Response.) If the monitoring code was marked, it was paired with the person who was last observed (7) Non-interaction instructional task To be credited with this behavior, a teacher appeared to be engaged in some type of instructional task, but was not interacting with students or the other teacher. These tasks included taking roll, entering grades, checking grades, preparing a demonstration, or writing or recording information/answers on the board while students were otherwise engaged (8) Questioning To be credited with this behavior, a teacher was involved in student engagement by prompting, or asking an academic question. Questioning for the purposes of this coding will also include modeling of self-questioning

123

662


Table 2 continued (9) Inaudible To be credited with this behavior, a teacher statement or student comment was inaudible (10) Non-content related conversation This behavior included greetings and other discussions that were not related to the content that was being presented Sources: 1. Verbatim from Harbort et al. (2007, p. 18) 2. italic content developed by authors

The quantity of statements in Domains 1–5 ranged from 3 (Domain 5) to 13. Examples of statements per Domain are: • •

•

•

•

My co-teacher and I have a good working relationship (from Domain 1 on Co-Teaching Relationship). I have improved my teaching through working with a teacher who has different skills than mine (from Domain 2 on Co-Teachers’ Pedagogy and Instructional Climate). In my co-teaching situation, one of the co-teachers usually circulates and assists as a primary role, and that teacher is usually the special education teacher (from Domain 3 on Parity, general educator as lead). During co-planning, my co-teacher and I plan for individual and small group accommodations and modifications for students who learn at different levels (from Domain 4 on Effective Co-Planning). My co-teacher and I use information we have gathered from monitoring students’ progress to plan for instructional changes (e.g., students who need more practice, students who are ready for more challenging material) (from Domain 5 on Monitoring Students’ Progress to Make Changes).

For Domain 6 on Models of Co-Teaching, co-teachers responded for specific coteaching models relative to how much of the time they used that model. Directions noted that co-teachers needed to consider responses relative to percentages adding up to ‘‘all of the time.’’ For example, one possible response was ‘‘co-teaching model you use more than half of the time (50–74% of the time).’’ Conversely, the response of ‘‘co-teaching model you use almost never or never (0–14% of the time)’’ could be used multiple times. Student Survey The Student Survey consisted of four sections. The first section elicited information about students’ characteristics (e.g., grade, subject). The next two sections featured 10 and 15 statements, respectively. In the second section, students first typed in the science educator’s name as Teacher A and the special educator’s name as Teacher B. Statements were worded as fill-in-the-blank with responses of Teacher A, Teacher B, or Both Teachers. Two

123


663

practice statements were provided to ensure students knew how to respond to statements in this section. This section of the survey was intended to elicit the students’ perceptions of teacher roles and included varied statements, such as ‘‘When I need help, the teacher I ask is…’’ and ‘‘The teacher who seems to plan the most instruction for this class is….’’ The reliability, determined via Cronbach a, for Section 2 was .70. At the end of the second section, there was an open-ended space for students to write any additional comments they wanted about this part of the survey. In the third section, students indicated their level of agreement with statements related to their personal experiences in the co-taught setting. They responded to statements (e.g., ‘‘I learn better with two teachers.’’) by clicking on one response for a 4-point Likert scale (1 as strongly disagree, 2 as disagree, 3 as agree, and 4 as strongly agree). Two practice statements preceded the 15 survey statements to ensure students knew how to respond to statements in this section. The reliability, determined via Cronbach a, for Section 3 was .90. At the end of the third section, an open-ended space was provided for students to write any additional comments about this part of the survey. In the fourth section of the survey, each co-teaching model was identified and described along with an illustration of that model. The students were told that each title, sentence, and picture represented different models that two teachers could use when working together in the classroom. Students were asked to examine each of the six models and decide: ‘‘Which model do your two teachers use the most?’’ Data Analyses The videos of the co-taught lessons were analyzed to obtain quantitative and narrative data. First, momentary time sampling at 5-second intervals was used to code each co-teacher’s type of interaction and the role of each co-teacher. Two researchers independently viewed and coded each video clip. The video was paused, and each co-teacher’s behavior was coded for the type of interaction (e.g., large group, small group, or individual) and the role of the co-teacher at the moment (e.g., giving directions, responding to student). The operational definitions shown in Tables 1 and 2 were used. Inter-rater reliability was determined after each video was viewed. The average inter-rater reliability was 96%, with a range of 94% to 98.9%. The researchers reconciled the coding differences in each video until 100% consensus was achieved prior to viewing the next video. After the quantitative analysis of the recorded lessons was completed, the videos were viewed again to develop a narrative about what was being taught (i.e., the specific Earth Science content), how it was being taught, and other illustrative information that could more clearly depict the co-teaching. The researchers viewed the lessons, made anecdotal notations about the content and methods, and transcribed co-teachers’ statements that exemplified instructional methods. For the co-teachers’ survey, all statements in each of five domains were averaged to determine each teacher’s average rating. For both the co-teachers’ and students’ survey, there were similar queries for some items, such as for identifying which coteaching model was used the most or for whether the teachers shared instruction. The average for the Likert-type responses were reported for these queries and used

123

664


to compare teacher and student perceptions. Finally, for each of the 25 statements on the Student Survey, the percentage of students who selected each response was reported.

Results Observation of the two co-teachers’ instruction was used to answer the first research question regarding how science and special educators divide their roles and responsibilities when presenting new content. For the second research question about what the co-teachers said about varied aspects of their co-teaching experience, data from the Co-Teachers’ Survey are presented. For the third research question about how students with disabilities perceive their experiences with the co-teachers, data from the Students’ Survey are presented. Finally, for the fourth research question about areas where students with disabilities and each co-teacher agree and disagree regarding perceptions of their co-teaching experiences, data from both surveys and the observations are described. Observation of Co-teachers To determine how science and special educators divided their roles and responsibilities when teaching new content, recorded lessons were observed and analyzed for types of interactions (such as with the large group or small group) and for roles (such as responding to questions, presenting content, or managing behavior). Co-teachers’ Types of Interactions The initial level of analysis from the video observations involved identifying types of interactions when new content was being presented. For the purposes of this study, type of interaction describes with whom the specified co-teacher was interacting (e.g., small group, large group). As seen in Table 3, the science educator spent an average of almost two-thirds of the observed instructional time engaged in large group interactions (66% average, with a range of 41.6% to 91.8%), while the special educator engaged in large-group interactions on average about one-third of the time (31.6% average, with a range of 5.0% to 53.6%). These data suggest that the science educator was the primary teacher leading large-group interactions, and that the special educator also led some (albeit less) time with the large group. Co-teachers’ Roles When Interacting Co-teachers’ roles were defined as the nature of interaction or behavior that teachers were engaged in for each recorded interval (e.g., presenting content, questioning, managing behavior). Data for the co-teachers’ roles are presented in Table 4. The co-teachers were both consistently visible near the front of the classroom in all of the video recordings.

123


665

Table 3 Observations of Co-teachers’ Type of Interaction by Percent and Range Science General Educator

Special Educator

Type 1. Small group

–0–

–0–

Type 2. Large group

66.0% (41.6–91.8%)

31.6% (5.0–53.6%)

Type 3. One student

–0–

–0–

Type 4. Teacher

–0–

0.2% (0.0–0.9%)

Type 5. No interaction

1.6% (0.0–6.5%)

–0–

Type 6. Out of range

0.4% (0.0–1.4%)

0.2% (0.0–0.9%)

Table 4 Observations of Co-teachers’ Roles When Interacting by Percent and Range Science General Educator

Special Educator

Role 1. Managing behavior

–0–

–0–

Role 2. Presenting content

49.0% (33.6–71.9%)

18.1% (2.3–42.1%)

Role 3. Giving directions

2.7% (0.0–9.0%)

0.6% (0.0–1.8%)

Role 4. Responding to student

8.8% (1.6–18.5%)

9.3% (4.7–22.7%)

Role 5. Responding to teacher

–0–

0.2% (0.0–0.9%)

Role 6. Monitoring

–0–

–0–

Role 7. Non-interaction instructional task

4.0% (1.2–7.0%)

–0–

Role 8. Questioning

3.3% (0.9–9.0%)

3.8% (0.9–10.9%)

–0–

–0–

0.1% (0.0–0.5%)

–0–

Role 9. Inaudible Role 10. Non-content related conversation

The science educator’s role was mostly presenting content (49.0%), responding to students (8.8%), and conducting non-interaction instructional tasks (4.0%). The special educator’s role was also presenting content (18.1%), responding to students (9.3%), and questioning (3.8%). Although the special educator was observed engaging in only 32% of the total interactions, he responded to students slightly more frequently than his science education co-teacher (9.3% compared to 8.8%) and engaged in questioning at a slightly higher rate as well (3.8% compared to 3.3%). Description of Co-teachers’ Actions Specific to the Earth Science Content As noted earlier, the new content being taught was part of a larger unit related to the origin and evolution of the universe. Three demonstrations, or presentations, of new content are described in this section. The specific objectives for the observed instruction included student understanding of: • • •

the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram and its depiction of the evolution of stars; the changing characteristics of stars through the lifespan (e.g., absolute magnitude, surface temperature, mass, energy output); and the specific characteristics of the sun and the relationship between those characteristics and the potential for life on planets in our solar system.

123

666


Hertzsprung–Russell Diagram The first demonstration session began with the special educator reviewing a previously-learned concept and questioning students to re-familiarize them with the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. The special educator used both questions and prompts to engage students in the review and referred to the diagram in the textbook. The science educator then took over to present the new content which was focused specifically on identifying the different types of stars and their characteristics. The science educator used visuals on the class whiteboard and chalkboard to support his verbal presentation of the material. Finally, the science educator wrapped up the lesson by summarizing all of the key elements and preparing the students for an independent activity. As detailed in Table 5, each co-teacher had specific aspects of the demonstration, with the science educator leading the majority of the new content demonstration. Formation of Stars Among the goals for students’ learning in the second demonstration of new content were for students to describe how stars form and for students to classify stars as to their place on the main sequence or in beginning or end points in their life cycles. For this second demonstration session, the science educator conducted the review at the beginning of the session, which is an indication that this part of the lesson may be something the co-teachers trade off. The science educator used questioning throughout the review session as a method for engaging students, evaluating student knowledge, and emphasizing critical content. For example, when the science educator asked questions that the students did not respond to, he provided the correct answer verbally and wrote it on the board. The special educator was also actively involved in the questioning by providing prompts to support the students in answering questions posed by the science educator. For example, the science educator asked the students, ‘‘What’s the star like our sun?’’ When the students did not respond to the question, the special educator prompted the students to visualize the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram stating, ‘‘Remember, it’s that band that goes diagonal…’’ His prompt elicited a correct response from multiple students. As with the first demonstration session, the science education co-teacher conducted most of the lesson. He primarily stated information while drawing or referring to a diagram (presenting content). He used some questioning. The special educator contributed most frequently by providing prompts when students were not able to quickly answer questions posed by the science educator and by providing different definitions of the key terms when asked a question by the science educator or a student. Toward the end of the second demonstration session, students were provided directions by the science educator to develop their own constellation and write a story about it. The science educator provided an example by modeling and drawing a diagram while verbally describing his thought process, ‘‘I’m going to start out with a red super giant. That will be my first star. I’m going to place that here. Then maybe I want a blue main sequence star. I’ll make that one blue.’’ He then read the list of stars and said, ‘‘I need a giant….Notice the size of my stars are appropriate for the type of star.’’ In preparing students to write a story to go along with their

123


667

Table 5 Descriptions of Effective Instructional Behaviors from the First Observation of Co-teachers When Teaching New Content Action

Description of Action

Special Education Co-teacher Reviews previously-learned content that connects to the new content to be taught

The special educator prompts students step-by-step through the process of reading and interpreting the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram to answer questions about the characteristics of different stars The special educator repeats the process asking the students to compare a red super giant to a white dwarf, then comparing a white dwarf to the sun. He has a pattern of using questions with prompts, followed by clarifying/summarizing the information provided by the students

Questions

Who can describe a red super giant? Look at what the chart is telling you. Look at the x-axis and the y-axis; the vertical side and the horizontal side. What do we see at the top of the chart?

Uses cues for concepts (e.g., x-axis is vertical)

He allows group responding, with multiple students calling out answers

Restates and summarizes key points

The special educator uses questioning followed by clarifying (restating or summarizing what the students have said in response to the questions). After asking students a series of questions eliciting responses regarding the size, temperature, and magnitude of the red super giant, the special educator summarized, So a red super giant is bigger, it’s colder, it’s also way brighter…

Uses prompts and analogies

The special educator repeats the process asking the students to compare a red super giant to a white dwarf, then comparing a white dwarf to the sun. He has a pattern of using questions with prompts, followed by clarifying/summarizing the information provided by the students

General Education Co-teacher Models new content by showing

General educator models magnitude/brightness scales by comparing the intensity of the light from a flashlight shining on the board to the intensity of the light from an overhead projector. The overhead projector is clearly much brighter and is described as having a more negative magnitude; while the flashlight beam is less bright and described as more positive

Distinguishes how what is being learned is different from students’ previous learning on concept of ‘‘scales’’

General educator explains that this is the opposite of students’ previous experiences with measurement scales

Explains using diagrams and pictures

General educator uses a diagram and picture projected on the white board to review all of the types of stars

123

668


Table 5 continued Action

Description of Action

Provides directions

Prepares students for their individual activity of designing their own constellations

Reviews and summarizes

Asks questions for review: primarily states the information and uses the diagram to illustrate his points The general educator summarizes by connecting the separate pieces of information together. So now we’ve got all of the pieces of information together. We’ve got types of stars, sizes of stars, how we classify them looking at the diagram, and tying together the life cycle of each of the stars…

constellation assignment, the science educator provided questions to guide student thinking based on his model. For example he indicated that in preparing to write his own story about a kite-shaped constellation he would ask, ‘‘How did the kite get named? Why would you pick out a kite in the sky?’’ He also provided an example of a Roman constellation myth describing how the story of the constellation Orion (the hunter) was developed in relation to Ursa Major (the bear). Types of Galaxies In the third demonstration, the goals for students’ learning were to identify and describe the three basic types of galaxies (spiral, elliptical, and irregular). The science educator began the review for this lesson by reviewing formation of stars. He asked questions, provided prompts, and wrote the main ideas on the board. He also expanded on students’ responses. As part of the review, the special educator also participated at times, by clarifying information and providing relevant examples or analogies (e.g., ‘‘This isn’t spinning over and over … it’s spinning like a Frisbee’’). At this point, for the third and subsequent demonstration sessions, there was a pattern in which effective instructional behaviors were evidenced by both coteachers, and specific instructional behaviors were more often shared than other instructional behaviors (refer to Table 6). Reviews, demonstrations, directions, and summaries were either solely or primarily provided by the science co-teacher, whereas providing analogies or clarifiers as well as responding to students’ questions was more often shared by both co-teachers. The only activity the special educator did but the science educator did not do was lead the class in reading aloud from the textbook. It should be noted that the special educator clarified vocabulary and concepts during these read-alouds (clarifying is already noted as shared by both co-teachers). Clarifying and emphasizing vocabulary and concepts were among the effective instructional behaviors used by both educators. In summary, for the first research question about how these co-teachers divided their roles and responsibilities when teaching new content, the science educator demonstrated new content, conducted reviews, provided directions, and summarized most of the time. The special education co-teacher and the science education coteacher shared instructional behaviors such as clarifying, asking and answering questions, and proving prompts, cues, and analogies. The narrative data showed that these co-teachers used a combination of co-teaching models to present this Earth

123


669

Table 6 Summary of Effective Instructional Behaviors from All Observations of Co-teachers Teaching New Content Instructional Behavior

Science Co-teacher

Reviews at the beginning of the session

X

Demonstrates new content by modeling, illustrating, explaining, showing, referring to diagram

X

Provides analogies for new content

O

Special Education Co-teacher

O

Uses prompts

X

Tells directions for individual student activities

X

Summarizes

X

Clarifies by providing relevant examples

O

O

Leads reading of textbook Responds to/expands on students’ questions

X O

O

Key: X—primary or solely observed this co-teacher doing the corresponding instructional behavior O—about evenly observed each co-teacher doing the corresponding instructional behavior

Science content. Team teaching was evident, in that both teachers were observed leading the demonstration of new content at times, and both teachers were observed supplementing or clarifying statements made by the other. Across all demonstration sessions, the science educator was clearly the teacher primarily responsible for presenting the content. He most frequently presented the content verbally, by stating information, and he consistently paired his verbal statements with diagrams or pictures. Both the science educator and special educator took on the observer role at times. However, the special educator was the only teacher who was drifting by moving to assist individual or small groups of students in tasks such as reviewing content, providing prompts, answering questions, clarifying with examples or analogies, and summarizing. Co-Teacher Survey The second research question focused on how each co-teacher perceived varied aspects of their co-teaching experience. Their responses from a web-based CoTeacher Survey were the format for acquiring each co-teacher’s perspective. For statements in each domain, a rating of 1 indicated strong disagreement, 2 for disagree, 3 for agree, and 4 for strongly agree (refer to Table 7). For Models of Coteaching, co-teachers indicated the co-teaching models they used most frequently. The co-teachers rated themselves similarly for Domain 1 on co-teaching relationships (CTR), with ratings of 3.83 and 3.92 indicating strong agreement that they each felt their co-teaching relationship was positive and effective. Across all other Domains, their ratings were quite close, with the exception of Domain 3 parity for shared leadership. The science educator’s rating of 3.25 indicates above strong agreement, whereas the special educator’s rating of 2.5 was between disagree and

123

670


Table 7 Co-Teachers’ Survey Data Domain 1 CTR

Domain 2 CTPIC

Science general educator

3.83

Special educator

3.92

Domain 3 Parity

Domain 4 ECP

Domain 5 Monitor Students

Shared

Gen Ed Leads

Spec Ed Leads

3.07

3.25

2.40

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.54

2.50

2.60

2.00

2.64

3.00

Key: 1: Strongly Disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Agree, 4: Strongly Agree CTR co-teaching relationship, CTPIC co-teachers’ pedagogy and instructional climate, ECP effective coplanning, Gen Ed general educator, Spec Ed special educator

agree. Both teachers indicated 2 ratings for special educator leads, which indicate disagreement that the special educator leads instruction. Their survey responses align with the quantitative and narrative data. That is, they concurred that the special educator was not the teacher who led instruction. What Students with Disabilities Perceive About Their Experiences with Coteachers For the third research question about what students with disabilities perceive about their co-teaching experiences, data from the Students’ Survey are presented. The researchers facilitated the students’ completion of a web-based version of the Student Survey. The co-teachers assured the researchers that students were accustomed to using computers in this manner. The co-teachers were not present in the room when the students completed the survey, and co-teachers were not shown students’ responses except in summarized form. Students alerted researchers by raising their hands when they desired any items read aloud. Students were told prior to completing the surveys that their responses would remain confidential to the researchers, which was intended to encourage honest responses. Responses to Individual Survey Items The seven students’ responses to the ten statements (i.e., ‘‘Which teacher?’’ refer to Table 8) indicated the students perceived the science educator was predominately responsible for planning instruction (85.7%) and grading (71.4%). Most students noted they learned best from both teachers (85.7%), could ask either teacher for help (71.4%), and that both teachers explain things most of the time (85.7%). Just over half of the students reported that the science educator was responsible for organizing instructional materials (57.1%). Although 42.9% of the students reported that the science educator was in charge, the same percentage indicated both educators were in charge. Lastly, 57.1% of the students recognized both teachers for being able to explain things when the student did something the wrong way, and the same percentage noted the special educator was able to explain things in different ways.

123


671

Table 8 Students’ Responses About ‘‘Which Teacher?’’ for Each Co-teacher Statements

General Educator (%)

Special Educator (%)

Both Educators (%)

1. When I need help, the teacher I ask is:

–0–

14.3

71.4

2. The teacher who grades my work the most is:

71.4

–0–

28.6

3. The teacher who seems to be in charge of the lessons the most is:

42.9

14.3

42.9

4. The teacher who walks around and helps students the most is:

57.1

–0–

42.9

5. The teacher who organizes the materials for instruction is:

57.1

14.3

28.6

6. The teacher who seems to plan most instruction for this class is:

85.7

–0–

14.3

7. The teacher who explains things most of the time is:

14.3

–0–

85.7

8. I learn best from:

–0–

14.3

85.7

9. The teacher who explains things in different ways is:

14.3

57.1

28.6

10. The teacher who explains things to me when I do something the wrong way is:

14.3

28.6

57.1

When students responded to the 15 statements with their level of agreement (refer to Table 9), all students agreed that both teachers enjoyed teaching this class and felt comfortable sharing responsibilities (14.3% agreed; 85.7% strongly agreed). Most students (85.8%) said their teachers divided the teaching in half so that one teacher was not doing more work than the other. The students reported learning more (57.1% agreed; 28.6% strongly agreed) and learning better (57.1% agreed; 42.9% strongly agreed) in this class with two teachers. Most students (71.4%) wished all of their classes had two teachers. Students did not feel having two teachers was hard (85.8%) or confusing (85.8%). Eighty-five percent of students believed that neither teacher could explain things better than the other (i.e., one teacher was not better than the other). The students also noted behavior is better with two teachers in the class (71.4%). For the statement about one teacher being in charge of behavior and the other teacher mostly in charge of teaching, 42.9% of the students disagreed (disagreed and strongly disagreed), while 57.2% agreed (agreed and strongly agreed). Responses to Similar Survey Items There were two concepts derived from the surveys and observations: students’ perceptions about their learning with these two co-teachers, and students’ perceptions about co-teaching in general. For students’ perception about their learning with these two co-teachers, on the Student Survey, Table 8 Question 8, 85.7% of the students responded they learned best from both teachers, and 14.3% indicated the special educator. On Table 9, 100% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that they:

123

672


Table 9 Students’ Responses for Level of Agreement to Statements About the Co-teachers as a Team Statements

Strongly disagree (%)

Disagree (%)

Agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)

1. When the two teachers are teaching, I think they divide the teaching in half so that one teacher is not doing more work than the other

14.3

–0–

42.9

42.9

2. The two teachers seem comfortable sharing responsibilities when they are teaching together

–0–

–0–

14.3

85.7

3. I think both teachers are equal teachers in the classroom

–0–

–0–

57.1

42.9

4. I believe both teachers enjoy teaching this class

–0–

–0–

14.3

85.7

5. I learn more when I am in this class with two teachers

–0–

–0–

57.1

28.6

6. The two teachers use more ways to teach than when I am in other classes where there is only one teacher

–0–

–0–

71.4

28.6 42.9

7. I learn better with two teachers

–0–

–0–

57.1

8. It is hard to have two teachers at the same time

42.9

42.9

14.3

–0–

9. I wish all my classes had two teachers

–0–

28.6

57.1

14.3

10. I would rather learn with only one teacher in the classroom

14.3

57.1

28.6

–0–

11. Students seem to behave better when there are two teachers in this class

–0–

28.6

57.1

14.3

12. Having two teachers makes me confused sometimes

42.9

42.9

14.3

–0–

13. I enjoy having two teachers in this class

–0–

–0–

57.1

42.9

14. One teacher is mostly in charge of our behavior, and the other teacher is mostly in charge of teaching

14.3

28.6

42.9

14.3

15. One of my teachers explains things better than the other

28.6

57.1

–0–

14.3

• • •

Learned more in this class with two teachers (Question 5); The teachers used more ways to teach than when the student was in other classes with only one teacher (Question 6); and Enjoyed having two teachers in this class (Question 13).

For students’ perceptions about co-teaching in general, data from Table 9 indicated that: • • •

All students agreed (57.1%) to strongly agreed (42.9%) that they learned better with two teachers (Question 7); Most students strongly disagreed (42.9%) or disagreed (42.9%) that it is hard to have two teachers at the same time (Question 8); and Most students strongly disagreed (42.9%) or disagreed (42.9%) that having two teachers can be confusing (Question 12).

Responses were more mixed for other statements, such as: •

Although most students wished all their classes had two teachers (71.4%), some students disagreed (28.6%) (Question 9); and

123


•

673

Although most students disagreed to strongly disagreed that they would rather learn with only one teacher in the classroom (71.4%), some students agreed (28.6%) (Question 10).

Comparison of Students’ and Co-teachers’ Perceptions of Co-teaching For the fourth research question about areas where students with disabilities and each co-teacher agreed or disagreed about their perceptions of their co-teaching experience, two types of comparisons occurred. First, we isolated statements from the Co-Teachers’ and Students’ Surveys about equality and which co-teaching model was used the most. Responses were then compared to observational data to ascertain if what students and co-teachers reported on the survey aligned with what was observed when new content was demonstrated. Second, we clustered similar concepts about the co-teaching relationship across both surveys and observations, then compared those data. Equality and Co-teaching Models The first statement isolated on the co-teachers’ and students’ survey referred to students’ perceptions of the equality of co-teachers. On the co-teaching survey, teachers responded with their level of agreement to this statement: ‘‘When coteaching, the students we teach perceive both co-teachers as having equal status.’’ The science educator strongly agreed with this statement, and the special educator agreed with this statement. On the students’ survey, Question 3 (refer to Table 9) queried for students’ level of agreement on this statement: ‘‘I think both teachers are equal teachers in the classroom.’’ All students agreed (57.1%) or strongly agreed (42.9%) that both teachers were equal teachers in the classroom. Also on the students’ survey, Question 1 (refer to Table 9), almost all of the students agreed (42.9%) or strongly agreed (42.9%) that when the two teachers were teaching, they divided teaching in half so that one teacher was not doing more work than the other teacher. Responses thus far indicate the teachers had parity, or equal status, as coteachers. However, when students were asked which teacher plans most instruction for the class, 85.7% indicated the science educator, 0% indicated the special educator, and 14.3% indicated both educators (Table 8, Question 6). Additionally, on the Co-Teachers’ Survey, both educators disagreed that the special educator was the instructional lead, although the science educator indicated he perceived they shared instructional leadership, whereas the special educator was less in agreement that instruction was shared (refer to Table 5, Domain 3). The students’ responses more consistently and definitively indicated equality, or parity, for each co-teacher, although the majority of students perceived the science educator planned most of the instruction. The co-teachers’ responses were less consistent within Domain 3 on Parity, although there was agreement or strong agreement when the statement about equal status was isolated. Although students indicated the co-teachers divided instruction in half, the observational data did not support this. In comparing the survey responses from the

123

674 Fig. 2 Students With Disabilities Identify Which Co-Teaching Model Used Most

M. E. King-Sears et al. Students with Disabilities Say: Co-Teaching Model Used the Most in Science

14%

One Teach, One Drift Team Teaching

86%

students and co-teachers to the observational data (refer to Table 3, Type 2 behavior), it was observed that the science educator led instruction with the whole group 66% of the time (range of 41.6 to 91.8%), and the special educator led instruction with the whole group 31.6% of the time (range of 5.0 to 53.6%). The difference could be attributed to that the survey elicited responses about the whole co-teaching experience for students and co-teachers, whereas the observations via video was only a portion of what occurred in the co-taught setting. Conversely, because the co-teachers chose which demonstration sessions to record, another perspective is that they would have intentionally selected sessions most representative of their equality or parity or shared leadership for instruction. When identifying the co-teaching model used the most, 86% of the students identified the team teaching model, and 14% identified one teach, one drift (refer to Figure 2). Both educators indicated they used one teach one observe, one teach one drift, and team teaching. Additionally, the special educator indicated station teaching was used. The students differed from the co-teachers in their perception that more team teaching was occurring than either co-teacher indicated. Co-teaching Relationship On the Co-Teacher Survey (refer to Table 5), co-teachers agreed (average was 3.07 for science educator and 3.54 for special educator) on the Domain 2 statements, indicating they believed they had a good co-teaching relationship. On the Student Survey for Question 4 in Table 9, 100% of the students indicated they believed both teachers enjoyed teaching their class. For Question 2 in Table 9, 100% of the students indicated the two teachers seemed comfortable sharing responsibilities when they were teaching together.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to determine whether two co-teachers and their students with disabilities were aligned in perceptions about what is going on in cotaught classes. In addition to comparing survey responses from participants,

123


675

observational data were gathered about co-teachers’ behaviors when demonstrating new content. Consequently, survey responses were also compared to observational data to determine whether what co-teachers perceive they do matches what they actually do. Isolating Domain 3 on parity from the Co-Teacher Survey (refer to Table 5), both co-teachers disagreed that the special educator led instruction. Data from both coteachers matched the observational data, with the science educator leading twothirds of the whole group instruction. As such, the observational data did not match the students’ responses; students perceived both teachers were equal in the classroom. However, on the Student Survey, the students’ entire co-teaching learning experiences were the basis for their responses, whereas our observations were confined to when new content was taught. Whether this distinction explains the differences in data is a question for future research. Observations in this study revealed that the science educator most often assumed the lead role for presenting new content. Both educators’ observed behaviors were consistent with their survey responses when they averaged ‘‘disagree’’ for statements indicating the special educator leads instruction. Conversely, the majority of students identified team teaching as the co-teaching model they experienced the most. That general educators lead most instruction in co-taught classes is consistent with what has been found in other co-teaching research (cf. Scruggs et al., 2007). Similarly, the quantity of time the special education co-teacher led instruction in this study (18%) is slightly more, but consistent with, the amount reported by Vannest and Hagan-Burke (2010), who noted special education co-teachers spent almost 15% of their time directly teaching academic skills. Although researchers note the need for administrative support and vigilance to ensure co-teachers are indeed sharing responsibilities and diversifying instruction in ways that are responsive to the needs of the students with disabilities, responsibility also rests with special education co-teachers to assert their position as one of value, and for science education co-teachers to accept that they do not always need to be the lead teacher when co-teaching is occurring. Additionally, whole group instruction was the predominant arrangement when the science co-teacher was teaching something new. Magiera and Zigmond (2005) found similar results favoring whole group instruction for 60% of the time they observed co-taught settings, albeit their study did not focus specifically on demonstration sessions. That whole group instruction is used when presenting new content in a co-taught class can be both expedient and expected, although one would expect more student involvement when an inquiry-based approach is used with science instruction. However, the way new content is demonstrated or presented may be more important than the fact that whole group instruction dominated when presenting new content. For example, are visuals incorporated (as appropriate) so that demonstrations are not totally reliant on written content (e.g., reading the text) or note-taking? If technology is used, such as SmartBoards or PowerPoint presentations, are demonstrations developed based on multi-media principles? Regardless of which co-teacher is presenting new content, the purpose for the special educator being a co-teacher is to ensure the content is demonstrated in ways that are accessible by

123

676


students with disabilities in that class (Grumbine & Alden, 2006; Kaldenberg, Therrien, Watt, Gorsh, & Taylor, 2011). To that end, the current study relied on the students’ responses to the survey and open-ended queries to ascertain whether they felt the co-teachers were responsive to their learning needs. Additionally, our observations indicated that many elements of effective instruction and differentiation were evident in this co-taught classroom (e.g., visuals, analogies, relevant examples, emphasis on vocabulary). The student survey responses indicated that the students in this co-taught class generally did feel that their learning needs were being met. The students were somewhat split between the science educator and both educators in their survey responses for who does what, particularly for who seems to be in charge of instruction, who walks around and helps students, and who organizes materials. Even so, students clearly delineated some tasks as belonging to the science educator. For example, students perceived that the science educator grades work the most and plans most instruction. Conversely, students perceived that some tasks were shared by both educators. Students felt they could ask either teacher for help; both teachers explain things most of the time; and students learn best from both teachers. Contrary to secondary students in a study by Leafstedt et al. (2007) in which students with LD did not feel help was readily available when they needed it in co-taught classes, the students with disabilities in our study consistently indicated benefits from having these co-teachers. Implications for Educational Practice Students whose co-teachers used different co-teaching models were perceived by the students as having the same ‘‘job.’’ In the current study, the students with disabilities indicated both of their teachers had the same ‘‘job.’’ Moreover, we noted from the observations that there were times that the co-teaching model of team teaching was so fluid that it was very clear both were leading the instruction. Although this co-teaching model was not as clearly evident in all observed sessions, based on the students’ perception that team teaching was the most frequent model they experienced, it is also possible that the team teaching is less evident during demonstration of new content and more evident during practice activities. As such, continued research eliciting students’ perspectives about their experiences in cotaught classes is important to know whether students perceive they receive benefits and advantages from co-teaching. Contrary to what Weiss and Lloyd (2002) found, we saw evidence that both educators were using strong pedagogical sills, such as reviewing, presenting with visuals and explanation, using analogies, and engaging students by asking questions. These can be considered high-quality or effective instruction. However, we also wonder if the responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, such as having the special educator conduct the reviews more often or providing directions for the upcoming activity. Although we observed a core set of effective teaching behaviors for our coteachers, a variety of other effective practices could have been implemented to provide further support for student learning needs. In particular, Therrien, Taylor,

123


677

Hosp, Kaldenberg, and Gorsh (2011) conducted a meta-analysis on science instruction for students with LD and found the largest effect size (1.997) for supplemental mnemonic instruction (e.g., keyword mnemonics for science terms and definitions; pegword mnemonics for hardness levels of minerals). Structured inquiry techniques yielded an effect size of .727 (considered a medium effect), and other techniques, such as peer-assisted learning, resulted in an effect size of .422 (considered a small effect). Given the empirical basis for these techniques, science and special educators who co-teach should include the techniques in their instruction. Brigham, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2011) noted the importance of activity-based approaches as opposed to reliance on lecture in teaching science to students with disabilities. For co-teachers, dividing activities versus dividing lectures can be a way to focus themselves on alternative co-teaching models and at the same time, use an approach that is more effective for students. Additionally, they found that students with disabilities could deduce logical explanations and remember more facts when their teachers provided highly-structured coaching in the form of guided questioning. The special education co-teacher in this study used cues and prompts as guided questions, whereas the science co-teacher was more likely to tell the correct answer and write it on the board. These actions can be excellent examples of what co-teachers discuss when co-planning (e.g., cue more; tell less), and how their intentional instructional behaviors evolve to be more effective. Given the preponderance of students with disabilities who receive their science instruction in general education settings (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Vannest et al., 2009), implications for science teacher education, whether at the preservice or inservice level, are to ensure science educators have adequate preparation to teach the diversity of students, including students with disabilities, who will be in their classrooms (Brusca-Vega et al., 2011; Kosko & Wilkins, 2009). As reported by Kirch, Bargerhuff, Cowan, and Wheatly (2007), who conducted an intensive weeklong professional development about how to teach students with disabilities in science, educators who believed themselves highly skilled prior to the professional development expressed some discomfort when faced with putting their newly-found skills to work in the classroom. To that end, the pairing of general and special educators as co-teachers can be but one way to increase individuals’ comfort levels, but only to the extent that co-teaching truly involved shared roles and responsibilities. Limitations This study described a single co-teaching team in a specific geographical area, and the student perspective was limited to only the students with disabilities. Students’ data are limited to survey responses and written responses to open-ended queries. Co-teachers’ data included survey content with open-ended queries as well as observation data, whereby the co-teachers determined what the researchers observed on videos. The data presented are not generalizable beyond these teams of coteacher and student participants. The researchers requested between three and five demonstration videos. Given the range of behaviors yielded from analyzing multiple demonstration videos, it is

123

678


clear that variance for each of the co-teachers occurred, indicating that the coteachers’ types of behaviors and roles when demonstrating are not static. The team of co-teachers also determined when they recorded sessions, which may have influenced results. However, given the range of results acquired, it does not seem the team sought to influence the results other than what naturally occurred when they were teaching (e.g., team teaching was not always the model featured; more equal division of responsibilities was not always evident in the video). Additionally, because demonstrations of new content were the focus for the observations, a limitation is that analyzing co-teachers’ behaviors during demonstrations does not capture parity (or lack thereof) that may be evident during other parts of their instruction. However, the converse can also be true: that one would expect to see more involvement from both co-teachers when new content is presented. Future Research Although one might expect the co-teacher with content expertise as the lead for instruction, this does not allow for the number of years of experience the special education co-teacher has teaching the content, nor does it allow for the special education co-teacher being an active contributor to the presentation of new content. One could make a case that this is the most important time of instruction for special education co-teachers to be showing what they know and can do. Certainly it is not the intent of effective co-teaching that neither teacher’s actions and expertise would be clearly evident. Co-teaching as a service delivery model will likely continue, particularly in secondary classes where content expertise provided by general educators combined with pedagogical expertise provided by special educators are critical for the learning of students with disabilities served in those co-taught classes. As such, examining the learning of students with and without disabilities in co-taught classes to ascertain whether the intended benefits are occurring is essential (Bouck, 2007). Several researchers have already ventured into this important area (Brusca-Vega et al., 2011; Van Garderen, Stormont, & Goel, 2012). For example, Fontana (2005) examined academic performance for students with LD who were co-taught during eighth grade compared to a non-co-taught control group. Significant differences were found favoring the co-taught students, evidence that academic gains can be a rationale for co-taught classes. Murawski (2006) provided professional development to co-teachers, then compared students’ achievement when receiving instruction in co-taught and single-taught classes. The single-taught classes consisted of one general education class with no students with disabilities and one special education class that serviced only students with LD. Murawski noted that even though her research did not find academic achievement and grades favoring students with LD in the co-taught classes, some students performed better on some measures. She suggested that students’ performance may not be solely dependent on whether students are co-taught. Rather, the quality of instruction provided by individual teachers was an unexplored factor related to students’ learning. To that end, future research that continues to examine learning outcomes for students with and without

123


679

disabilities as well as the quality of instruction provided by the co-teachers can help further distill critical elements that may impede or enhance co-teaching experiences for both students and co-teachers.

References Bessette, H. J. (2008). Using students’ drawings to elicit general and special educators’ perceptions of coteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1376–1396. Bouck, E. C. (2007). Co-teaching…Not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure, 51(2), 46–51. Boudah, D. J., Schumacher, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1997). Collaborative teaching: Is it an effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 293–316. doi:10. 2307/1511227 Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 223–232. Brulle, A. R., & Repp, A. C. (1984). An investigation of the accuracy of momentary time sampling procedures with time series data. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 481–485. Brusca-Vega, R., Brown, K., & Yasutake, D. (2011). Science achievement of students in co-taught, inquiry-based classrooms. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17, 23–31. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for effective practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16. Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the characteristics of ‘effective’ middle and high school co-taught teams for students with disabilities? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14–23. Eick, C. J., Ware, F. N., & Williams, P. G. (2003). Coteaching in a science methods course: A situated learning model of becoming a teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 74–85. doi:10.1177/ 0022487102238659 Embury, D. C., & Kroeger, S. D. (2012). Let’s ask the kids: Consumer constructions of co-teaching. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 102–112. Fontana, K. C. (2005). The effects of co-teaching on the achievement of eighth grade students with learning disabilities. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 11(2), 17–23. Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class-size reduction. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 670–700. doi:10.3102/0002831207306755 Grumbine, R., & Alden, P. G. (2006). Teaching science to students with learning disabilities. The Science Teacher, 73(3), 26–31. Harbort, G., Gunter, P. L., Hull, K., Brown, Q., Venn, M. L., Wiley, L. P., & Wiley, E. W. (2007). Behaviors of teacher in co-taught classes in a secondary school. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 13–23. doi:10.1177/088840640703000102 Hartwig, R., & Sitlington, P. L. (2008). Employer perspectives on high school diploma options for adolescents with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19, 5–14. doi:10.1177/ 1044207308315279 Kaldenberg, E., Therrien, W., Watt, S., Gorsh, J., & Taylor, J. (2011). Three keys to success in science for students with learning disabilities. Science Scope, 35(3), 36–39. Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Ryan, J. B., & Jones, J. (2007). High-stakes testing and students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Research Policies, 18, 160–167. doi:10.1177/10442073070180030701 Kirch, S. A., Bargerhuff, M. E., Cowan, H., & Wheatly, M. (2007). Reflections of educators in pursuit of inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 663–692. doi:10.1007/ s10972-007-9052-9 Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2003). Do as we say and as we do: Teaching and modeling collaborative practice in the university classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 228–240. doi:10.1177/0022487103054003005 Kosko, K. W., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2009). General educators’ inservice training and their self-perceived ability to adapt instruction for students with IEPs. The Professional Educator, 33, 1–10.

123

680


Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C., & LaMonte, M. (2007). Perspectives on co-teaching: Views from high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 177–184. 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, 79–85. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005. 00123.x Moin, L. J., Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2009). Instructional activities and group work in the US inclusive high school co-taught science class. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 7, 677–697. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9133-z Murawski, W. W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How can we improve? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 227–247. doi:10.1080/10573560500455703 Nevin, A. I., Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (2009). Collaborative teaching for teacher educators—What does the research say? Teaching & Teacher Education, 25, 569–574. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.009 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, 647–651. O’Rourke, J., & Houghton, S. (2008). The perceptions of secondary teachers and students about the implementation of an inclusive classroom model for students with mild disabilities. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 23–41. Pearl, C. E., & Miller, K. J. (2007). Co-taught middle school mathematics classrooms: Accommodations and enhancements for students with specific learning disabilities. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 29(2), 1–20. Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teachers reports of developments in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 190–197. Robinson, S. (2002). Teaching high school students with learning and emotional disabilities in inclusion science classrooms: A case study of four teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 13–26. Saudargas, R. A., & Zanolli, K. (1990). Momentary time sampling as an estimate of percentage time: A field validation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 533–537. doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-533 Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416. Seglem, R., & VanZant, M. (2010). Privileging students’ voices: A co-teaching philosophy that evokes excellence in all learners. English Journal, 100(2), 41–47. 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, 498–510. doi:10. 1002/pits.21606 Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J. (2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 188–203. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS), OMB #1820-0517 (2010). ‘‘Part B, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Implementation of FAPE Requirements,’’ 2010. Data updated as of August 14, 2012. Van Garderen, D., Stormont, M., & Goel, N. (2012). Collaboration between general and special educators and student outcomes: A need for more research. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 483–497. doi:10. 1002/pits.21610 Vannest, K. J., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher time use in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 126–142. doi:10.1177/0741932508327459 Vannest, K. J., Mason, B. A., Brown, L., Dyer, N., Maney, S., & Adiguzel, T. (2009). Instructional settings in science for students with disabilities: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 353–363. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9135-x Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. W. (2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary special educators in co-taught and special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 58–68.

123