Running head: SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Secondary Special Education Co-Teachers Speak Out
1
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Abstract
A random sampling of middle and high school special education co-teachers in three states
responded to content on a co-teaching survey. The survey was designed so that co-teachers
could respond to each of their multiple co-teaching situations. Results indicate that....
2
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Co-teaching is being used more frequently as a service delivery model for students
with disabilities and other diverse learning needs. Studies on co-teaching focus on
interpersonal co-teaching relationships between general and special educators, the amount of
time provided for co-planning, and the extent to which co-teachers use varied co-teaching
models for instruction (Bouck, 2007; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Magiera and Zigmond
concluded that all students receive more instructional interactions under co-teaching
conditions. However, general educators interact less frequently with students with disabilities
when special education teachers were in the classroom. Bouck found that co-teaching
resulted in both desired and undesired impacts. For example, she noted co-teaching created
freedom and constrained teachers’ autonomy; offered assistance for students but could
sometimes devalue teachers’ roles; and offered new role opportunities for some teachers
while also supporting or limited existing roles.
In a metasynthesis of thirty-two qualitative investigations of co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms at the secondary level, Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) concluded that
co-teachers were generally supportive of co-teaching as a service delivery model, although a
number of important needs were identified including: teacher preparation, sufficient planning
time, and mastery of content by special education teachers. The researchers also identified
that some version of “one teach, one assist,” which has one co-teacher as a lead and the other
in the role of assisting versus leading instruction, was the most utilized model of co-teaching
reported in their investigations by a considerable margin. The general education teacher was
most often the lead teacher, while the special education teacher usually moved about the
classroom interacting with individual students as needed.
Isherwood and Barger-Anderson (2008) concluded that interpersonal relationships
among co-teachers, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and administrative support and
validation are factors that affect the development of successful co-teaching relationships.
3
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
They also found that the frustration of special education teachers with their lack of content
knowledge led to anxiety that contributed to dysfunctional co-teaching relationships. General
education teachers consistently indicated that they did not feel comfortable delegating
instructional roles to special education teachers, and considered that a division of
responsibilities would be professionally disrespectful. Giving teachers a voice about the coteacher with whom they will instruct all students is a starting point for successfully
implementing co-teaching models in schools. It is also critical for teachers to accept the
redefining of the traditional roles to which they are accustomed. For example, neither coteacher may be accustomed to planning with someone else, teaching differently, or having
someone else talking to students when new content is presented. Nonetheless, these behaviors
are hallmarks of effective co-teaching situations. Successful co-teachers learn from each
other in ways that blend, versus stifle, each teacher’s pedagogical knowledge and skills.
Teacher Pedagogy
Most current research indicates that special educators are left with insufficient
opportunities to use their strong pedagogical skills with students who need those skills the
most, because general educators lead the content instruction (McDuffie, Mastropieri, &
Scruggs, 2009; Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009; Murawski, 2006). For example, Moin,
Magiera, and Zigmond investigated whether classes with two teachers delivering science
education were better than solo-teaching in addressing the needs of students with learning
disabilities. The researchers used a narrative observation protocol to measure student
interactions, such as what the teachers were doing, what the students were doing, the
organization of the class, and the materials used. For teacher interaction, interviews were
conducted to elicit teachers’ experiences with co-teaching and their general perceptions of the
co-teaching model including benefits, drawbacks, and possible improvements. Results
indicated that the instability of the co-teacher pairs as well as the special education teachers’
4
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
science knowledge affected the co-teaching relationships. Participants indicated that the
previous years’ co-teaching occurred with different co-teachers, and they would prefer
permanence of pairs to improve instruction and exchanging of expertise. In the successful
co-teaching cases, the special educators’ content knowledge was acquired through prior
training or gained through continuity with the same general education teacher over many
years. Lack of co-teaching training in pairs also had an effect on the general education
teachers’ awareness of special education curricular adaptations. For example, one general
educator shared that she did not really adapt her teaching style for individual students; she
taught the same way for all students. Clearly pedagogical decisions were either not made in
concert with the special educator as part of co-planning, or the general educator’s decisions
regarding pedagogy seem more unilateral versus collaborative. Such situations can be
evidence of the lack of parity the two educators experience, which is a concern in some coteaching situations.
Parity in the Classroom
Multiple studies found that the special educators’ co-teaching role is more of an
instructional assistant than an instructional equal with general education content teachers
(Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009; Scruggs et al., 2007). Hang and Rabren (2009) examined
teachers’ perspectives of co-teaching revealing that 90% of the general educators and 93% of
special educators believed they were primarily responsible for monitoring students’
behaviors. These results prompt the question: If both general education and special education
teachers think they are primarily responsible for managing students’ behavior, does there
need to be clarification of these responsibilities among co-teachers? The researchers suggest
that this problem may be a result of insufficient planning time.
Harbort et al. (2007) focused on teacher interactions and examined roles and actions
of members of co-teaching teams consisting of special educators and general educators in the
5
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
high school setting. The researchers found that special educators’ role was primarily
confined to monitoring students’ behaviors. However, this is not the most effective use of
highly-trained special educators because their expertise is not being maximized. The
researchers found that special educators were interacting with the large group during
instruction 43% of the time, mostly in a monitoring role. In addition, the general education
teachers spent 30% of the time presenting information to students, whereas special educators
spent less than 1% of the time presenting information.
Scheeler, Congdon, and Stansberry (2010) found that co-teachers giving immediate
corrective feedback via bug-in-ear (BIE) technology on a specific teaching behavior in
general education classroom settings increases engagement in the instructional process and
parity of both teachers in a co-teaching team. Their results show that immediate corrective
feedback delivered by peer coaches using BIE technology was effective in increasing
effective teaching techniques. Moreover, the co-teachers’ behaviors were maintained across
time and generalized across settings. Teachers were receptive of the BIE device as a
nonintrusive, efficient way to deliver and receive feedback in real time.
Buckley (2005) conducted a qualitative study examining how general and special
education teachers perceive their roles in middle school co-taught classrooms. Results
indicated that the special education teachers believed that they were a benefit to both students
with learning disabilities (LD) and without disabilities because of the special educators’
knowledge of strategies and accommodations. The special educators felt a collaborative
relationship involved experts in different areas and perceived their general education
counterparts as being responsible for content area instruction in the classroom, as well as the
pace of the classroom. Similarly, general education teachers defined their roles through the
lens of accountability, and saw themselves as the leaders of their classrooms who were
responsible for content area instruction. Special education teachers also tended to feel that
6
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
students with LD needed to be spoken for, as in special educators advocating for varied
pedagogy responsive to their needs; while general educators felt this action caused students to
be dependent and unprepared for the real world. Additionally, some of the special educators
were frustrated at having to adapt themselves to the regular education teachers’ philosophies
of classroom roles, and explained that some people feel threatened when you try to correct or
change them.
Effective Co-planning
With the co-teaching of students with disabilities being more prominent in schools
today, the co-planning between general and special educators needs to be a priority. In
analyzing interview data, Moin et al. (2009) reaffirmed that in successful co-teaching cases,
the co-teaching model was implemented school wide or strongly endorsed and supported by
the administration. In the successful cases of administrators encouraging adoption of the coteaching model school-wide, it was reported that they demonstrated supports such as
scheduling co-planning time for co-teaching pairs weekly, and organizing summer
professional development seminars for both members of the co-teaching pair together.
Monitoring Student Progress
Many middle and high schools rely on the co-teaching model to deliver content
instruction to adolescents with IEPs, particularly to prepare students for participation in the
state’s high-stakes assessments (Nichols, Dowdy, & Nichols, 2010). Fontana (2005)
investigated how the academic achievement of eighth graders with learning disabilities was
influenced by the co-teaching model of service delivery, as compared to the resource room
model of service delivery the participants had their seventh grade school year. Results
indicated significant improvement in the final averages of the co-taught eighth-grade group
when compared with their final averages as seventh graders, as well as an increase in selfconcept and math scores. Additionally, McDuffie et al. (2009) found no additional value was
7
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
added when peer-tutoring was implemented in co-taught classrooms, however, noted that
students in co-teaching settings performed significantly better than those in non-co-teaching
settings (p = .019) in identification items on a cumulative posttest measure.
Magiera and Zigmond (2005) compared the instructional experiences of special
education students in co-taught and non-co-taught classes in secondary schools under the
routine condition of limited preparation about how to co-teach, and limited or no co-planning
time for teachers. The researchers found significant differences for the targeted students with
disabilities in co-taught and non-co-taught settings, in terms of general education teacher
interaction and individual instruction. General education teachers spent significantly less
time attending to students with disabilities when the special education teacher was present;
and students with disabilities received significantly more individual instruction from the
special education teacher. Their observation tool was adapted from Boudah et al. (1997) in a
co-teaching study that focused on who interacted with students, the participation of students,
and the type of academic or non-instructional interactions students had with co-teachers.
Zigmond (2006) explored the reading and writing demands of high school social
studies classes in a re-analysis of narrative notes collected in a larger co-teaching study. She
found that accommodating to the skill level of students is very limiting as a long-term
solution because filtering the content to be delivered ahead of time limits the role of a special
education co-teacher to assist in modifying and adapting course material. For example,
students may give up learning how to read and become dependent on their teacher as their
primary source of information because teachers are accommodating to the reading
deficiencies of their students. PKS ADD TRANSITION SENTENCE TO LEAD TO
MODELS OF CO-TEACHING
8
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Models of Co-Teaching
As previously mentioned, Scruggs et al. (2007) found the “one teach, one assist” coteaching model to be the most widely used in their metasynthesis of literature on co-teaching.
This approach often has the special education teacher playing a subordinate role because
general educators perceive that special educators may not know the content, the general
educators’ consider the classroom to be their “turf,” and there are more general education
students in the classroom. Six co-teaching models are identified by Cook and Friend (1995)
and Friend and Bursuck (2002). The six co-teaching models and definitions are:

One Teach, One Observe: One co-teacher leads the lesson while the other co-teacher
observes students.

One Teach, One Drift: One co-teacher leads the lesson while the other co-teacher
circulates and assists students as needed.

Station Teaching: Similar to a Learning Center approach with content and students are
divided between stations (or Learning Centers), and students rotate from one coteacher’s station to another.

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 coteacher 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.
Scruggs et al. (2007) found that co-teachers participating in interviews noted they
used the following co-teaching models the least: parallel teaching, team teaching, alternate
teaching, and station teaching. One co-teacher reported that parallel teaching did not seem to
be effective because each group was distracted by the teachers’ loud voices. The researchers
9
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
pointed out that although the alternate teaching model typically occurs in the same classroom,
in this study, alternate teaching featured the special education and general education coteachers instructing students in different classroom settings.
Boudah et al. examined the effects of a collaborative instructional (CI) model in
inclusive secondary classes, which included students with mild disabilities and low-achieving
students. The baseline results indicated that co-teaching teams spent about 62% of class time
involved in non-instructional activities, 19% of the time circulating to work with individual
students, 9% of the time presenting content, 8% of the time mediating student learning, and
5% of time devoted to exchanging roles. However, after training in the CI Model, co-teachers
devoted a greater percentage of instructional time to mediating the learning of students in
their classes (22%) and exchanging instructional roles (18%). Other positive results
regarding instructional actions indicated a three-percent decrease in both the percentage of
time that co-teacher teams presented content (6%), and circulated to work with individual
students (16%). There was also an eight-percent decrease in non-instructional activities
(54%) in one class period.
Kilanowski and Foote (2010) found that co-teaching is cited as the least documented
model of instruction, while the implementation of one-to-one student support emerged as the
most prevalent model. Gurgur and Uzuner (2010) analyzed the opinions of special and
general education teachers, regarding both preparing for, and planning lessons in their coteaching approach. The educators interviewed indicated that each model of co-teaching has
advantages and disadvantages so cannot be said which one is the most effective, as it changes
according to the lesson taking place. The researchers also concluded that the one teach, one
assist model may have been implemented as a possible solution to the lack of adequate
planning problem. For example, co-teachers who have little or no co-planning time may be
10
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
deferring to the co-teaching model which seems most conducive to one teacher leading and
the other following along in a less active instructional role.
The Current Study
Secondary special education co-teachers not only work with different content
teachers, they work with teachers who have different teaching styles. Consequently, special
educators can also feel like chameleons, particularly when they need to shape their
instructional behaviors to fit the diverse teaching styles of the content teachers. Some of the
shaping of instructional behaviors should also be occurring for general education co-teachers,
because general education co-teachers likely co-teach with one special educator. There is a
difference, then, for special educators who co-teach multiple subjects across a school day
with multiple general education co-teachers. The purpose of this study was to elicit
information from secondary special education co-teachers about their perceptions of how coteaching was being implemented by them and their general education partners. The primary
research questions were:
1. When asked about specific instructional responsibilities, what do respondents believe
are the responsibilities of the general educator, special educator, or both educators?
2. How do special education co-teachers rate their instructionally-related behaviors and
interactions with general education co-teachers in the five domains of co-teaching
relationship, pedagogy and instructional climate, parity, co-planning, and monitoring
students’ progress to make changes?
3. Which models of co-teaching do special education co-teachers identify as most used
to least used?
4. Do special education co-teachers who volunteer to be co-teachers rate any of the
domains higher/differently than special education co-teachers who were told they
would be co-teachers?
11
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
5. Which models of co-teaching do special education co-teachers who volunteer to be
co-teachers identify as most used to least used?
6. Do special education co-teachers with more experience as a co-teacher rate any of the
domains higher/differently than special education co-teachers with less experience?
7. Which models of co-teaching do special education co-teachers with more experience
as a co-teacher identify as most used to least used?
8. Which models of co-teaching do special education co-teachers with less experience as
a co-teacher identify as most used to least used?
9. Do special education co-teachers with different amounts of professional development
rate any of the domains higher/differently?
10. Which models of co-teaching do special education co-teachers with different amounts
of professional development more experience as a co-teacher identify as most used to
least used?
11. Do special education co-teachers with different amounts of preparation during their
teacher preparation program rate any of the domains higher/differently?
12. Which models of co-teaching do special education co-teachers with different amounts
of preparation during their teacher preparation program identify as most used to least
used?
13. Do special education co-teachers with different amounts of preparation either via
professional development and/or during their teacher preparation program rate any of
the domains higher/differently?
14. Which models of co-teaching do special education co-teachers with different amounts
of preparation either via professional development and/or during their teacher
preparation program as identify as most used to least used?
12
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
15. Do special education co-teachers agree or disagree that they had to overcome
interpersonal challenges?
16. Do special education co-teachers agree or disagree that students perceive the coteaching team as equal?
17. Do special education co-teachers agree or disagree that they had to overcome
challenges?
18. Do special education co-teachers agree or disagree that co-teaching is an effective
service delivery for students with disabilities?
19. Do special education co-teachers agree or disagree that daily co-planning is not
difficult to coordinate?
13
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Method
Recruitment of Participants
Special educators teaching sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth grades in four states
(Virginia, Delaware, West Virginia, and Maryland) were targeted as the total population of
educators from which a random selection occurred to determine recipients of the web-based
survey. Twenty-five percent (or one in four) of the special educators were randomly selected
to receive an electronic mail (email) message inviting them to participate in the co-teaching
survey. Because we desired responses from current co-teachers, special educators who were
not current co-teachers (i.e., that semester; that year) were asked to delete the email because
they were not the targeted respondents. Notably, it was not possible to determine which nonrespondents were or were not currently co-teaching, which precluded determining accurate
response rates. An initial email and one follow-up email inviting special education coteachers to participate in this research were sent in late May and early June of that school
year.
Characteristics of Participants
The co-teaching participants’ characteristics are identified in detail in Table 1. Ninetyone of the special educators, who completed all or most of the survey, were secondary special
education co-teachers. About half of the of the participants taught middle school grades 6-8,
and the remaining half of the participants taught high school grades 9-12. Regarding the coteachers’ ages, about the same number of special educators were under 40-years-old (38.5%)
as were over 51-years-old (39.6%). For gender, just over four-fifths of special educators were
female, with about one-fifth male. Most co-teachers were Caucasian (81%), followed by
African-American (9%).
Over half of the participants had their master’s degree (63.3%), 33.3% had their
bachelor’s degree, and 3.3% had educational specialist degrees. Almost all of the participants
14
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
had full certification in special education (90%), while 10% were working toward full
certification. About three-fourths of the participants were also considered highly qualified
according to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation requirements, the remaining
teachers had not yet acquired highly qualified status or were unsure. Almost one-third of the
participants were beginning teachers, with between one and five years of teaching experience.
About one-quarter of the participants had six to ten years of teaching experience, almost
another quarter of the participants had eleven to fifteen years of teaching experience, and the
rest of the participants had over sixteen years of teaching experience.
Data were also collected regarding the number of years each participant had
experience as a special education co-teacher. Over half of the participants were beginning coteachers, with one to five years of co-teaching experience, a little over one quarter of the
participants had six to ten years of co-teaching experience, and the rest had eleven or more
years of co-teaching experience. Co-teachers identified the disability labels for students they
co-taught, and the disability category that most co-teachers instructed was learning
disabilities (96%). Eighty-seven percent of the students taught by the co-teachers fit the
category of emotional disturbance, and 74% of the students had the disability label of autism.
Demographics of Schools
Characteristics of the schools where participants co-taught are identified in Table 2.
Fifty-six percent of the schools were geographically located in suburban areas, 33% were in
rural areas, and 11% were in urban areas. Forty-five percent of the schools had a population
of less than 1,200 students, 32% had between 1,201 and 1,800 students, and 23% had more
than 1,801 students. Seventy-two percent of the schools were located in the Southeast of the
United States, 6% were located in the Southwest, and 22% were located in the Mideast.
The survey also asked special education co-teachers about their school’s diversity.
Forty-seven percent of the schools had 25% or less minority students enrolled, 31% of the
15
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
schools had between 26% to 50% minority students enrolled, and 22% of the schools had
more than 51% minority students enrolled.
The special education co-teachers were also queried about the socio-economic status
of students at their school. Thirty-one percent of the schools had less than 25% of the
students on free and reduced lunch programs, 42% of the schools had 25% to 49% of the
students on free and reduced lunch programs, and 27% of the schools had more than 50% of
the students on free and reduced lunch programs.
Participants’ Preparation and Experiences with Co-Teaching Completed 1-9-10 AEB
Years of co-teaching experience and the amount of preparation for co-planning and
co-teaching are displayed in Table 3. It’s specified that just over half (58%) of the co-teachers
had from one to five years of co-teaching experience. Overall, most co-teachers (86%) had
ten or fewer years of co-teaching experience. In contrast, about one-fifth (21%) of the
teachers had 11 or more years of teaching experience. Additionally, thirty-eight percent of the
co-teachers were hired to be co-teachers, and about the same percentage (40%) was told by
administrators that they would be co-teachers.
Close to half (52%) of the special education co-teachers surveyed reported having less
than three hours of professional development for co-planning and co-teaching, and about onefourth (26%) of the co-teachers had from one to three days. In addition, 22% of the coteachers reported having more than three days of co-teaching professional development.
Regarding teacher preparation for co-teaching, 61% of the co-teachers surveyed reported
having some coursework in co-planning/co-teaching. Specifically, 44% had at least one
course session, and 17% of the co-teachers experienced three or more course sessions in coteaching preparation.
16
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Co-Teaching Instrument
The Co-Teacher Survey was developed by the primary investigator, with successive
iterations of the instrument analyzed for content validity by administrators who supervised
co-teachers, general and special education co-teachers, and university personnel who
researched and published on co-teaching. The Co-Teacher Survey is a web-based survey with
an opening statement that the recipients must be co-teaching that school year in order to
participate in the research study. If they are not currently co-teaching, they are directed to
close the survey. For recipients who are currently co-teaching, they continue with the
Electronic Informed Consent as the first page of the survey. Recipients must indicate their
Informed Consent before clicking to the next page of the survey.
The beginning of the survey elicits information about demographic characteristics
about the participants themselves, including how much preparation they have completed
about co-teaching and whether they volunteered or were told they would be a co-teacher, as
well as the school in which they teach. Participants also indicate from a listing of
instructional tasks whether they believe the primary responsibility belongs to the general
educator, the special educator, or both educators. A series of statements comprise each of the
six domains of the survey:
1) Co-Teaching Relationship (CTR), which is defined on the survey as the interpersonal
skills and collegial rapport that co-teachers experience. The 13 items in this domain
were found highly reliable (α = .90).
2) Co-Teachers’ Pedagogy and Instructional Climate (CTPIC), which is defined on the
survey as one or both of the co-teachers’ learning content and methods that improve
instruction and create an effective instructional environment. This learning promotes
the effective design and delivery of instructional content and behavior management
17
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
techniques as a result of working with one or more co-teachers. The 13 items in this
domain were found highly reliable (α = .87).
3) Parity, which is defined on the survey as the equality that each co-teacher experiences
within the co-teaching experience. Each co-teacher feels that his or her contributions
are elicited, valued, and respected. Instruction is designed and implemented by both
co-teachers. The 13 items in this domain were found acceptable for reliability (α =
.73). When further disaggregated for true parity, general educator as lead, and special
educator as lead, the corresponding Cronbach alphas were ,85, .88, and .86.
4) Effective Co-Planning (ECP), which is defined on the survey as the two educators
discussing and developing, in advance of their co-teaching (excluding hallway or brief
informal interactions or conversations), the way that they will co-teach the content
and manage the instructional environment. The 11 items in this domain were found
highly reliable (α = .90).
5) Monitoring Students’ Progress to Make Changes, which is defined on the survey as
activities that co-teachers do to determine how well students are learning so that the
co-teachers can provide responsive instruction. There were too few items to determine
reliability for this domain.
6) Models of Co-Teaching, which is defined on the survey as co-teachers planning and
implementing one of the co-teaching models initially described by Cook and Friend
(1995). In this survey, we used co-teaching models, definitions, and graphics from
Cook and Friend, and Friend and Bursuck (2002). The scale for this domain switched
from the amount of agreement to co-teachers indicating the percentage of time they
used each co-teaching model.
Participants indicate whether they strongly disagree (rating of 1), disagree (rating of
2), agree (rating of 3), or strongly agree (rating of 4) with the statement. Statements
18
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
throughout are intentionally worded negatively (e.g., I have not improved my teaching
through working with a teacher who has different skills than mine.) to ensure respondents are
reading each statement. At varied points throughout the survey, space for open-ended queries
occur so that respondents can add comments about a specific item or domain as they desire.
The Co-Teaching Survey is also designed so that co-teachers who co-teach with more
than one co-teacher can respond more than one time to each section of the survey which
queried regarding a specific co-teaching team. This is referred to as looping (CITE NEEDED
“When the same question or set of questions is asked multiple times for different options it is
termed as looping. Looping allows you to dynamically "loop" through a set of questions
based on responses to a multiple choice question.”). The looping option was inserted into this
version of the Co-Teacher Survey because in earlier versions, special education co-teachers
indicated that their responses changed based on which co-teacher they were responding for.
The maximum number of times respondents could loop through a section was limited to four,
so co-teachers could respond for up to four co-teaching situations (i.e., teams) with which
they were currently teaching.
Respondents did not identify their names at any point during the survey. However, if
they wanted their name to be entered for the raffle of several iPods, they did need to provide
an email address for contact information. This information was separated from their survey
responses so that anonymity was maintained.
Results
Instructional Responsibilities
Special education co-teachers noted which instructional responsibilities they believed
belonged to the general educator, themselves as the special educator, or both educators.
Refer to Table 4 for the listing of eleven instructional tasks and the special education coteachers’ responses for the person, or the people, that each responsibility or task belonged to.
19
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
In summary, at least 65% of participants indicated that both teachers are equally responsible
for the designated classroom tasks.
For all eleven tasks, “both educators” was more frequently identified (65% to 97%
range) as who had the responsibility for the task. Almost all of the special education coteachers noted that the following tasks were shared by both educators: behavior expectations
(93%), parent contact (93%), and working with students with disabilities (97%). Conversely,
special educators were infrequently (2% to 6% range) noted as having the primary
responsibility for tasks, with most tasks as both educators and, less frequently, the general
educator. Additionally, lesson planning (33%) and providing accommodations and
modifications to students (35%) were the highest areas that had the highest percentages with
a response of “general educator” responsible for the task.
Domains AEB drafted overall domain results 1-10-12
Special education co-teachers also rated their instructionally-related behaviors and
interactions with general education co-teachers in the five domains of co-teaching
relationship, pedagogy and instructional climate, parity, co-planning, and monitoring
students’ progress to make changes. In the first domain, 90% of survey respondents
identified their co-teaching relationship as being a positive experience, as displayed in Table
5. Ninety-three percent of co-teachers reported both teachers having sufficient content
knowledge and proficiency with methods to improve instruction and create an effective
instructional climate in the second domain. Regarding parity in the third domain, 80% of the
co-teachers rated themselves as having shared roles, or an equal experience in their
instructional settings. Meanwhile, 69% percent of respondents reported the general educator
to have the lead role in the co-taught classroom. However, only 12% of co-teachers rated the
special educator as having a primary teaching role. In the fourth domain, 76% of the
respondents reported having an effective co-planning process. Finally, the results for the fifth
20
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
domain indicate that 84% of co-teachers participate in ways to monitor students’ progress to
make changes.
Individual statements taken from selected domains in the survey regarding the extent
to which special education co-teachers are in agreement are highlighted in Table 6. The
majority of special education co-teachers surveyed (94.3%) are in agreement that co-teaching
is an effective service delivery for students with disabilities, and just over half (66%) agree
that students perceive their co-teaching team as equal. In addition, close to half of survey
participants agreed that they have not had to overcome interpersonal challenges (66%) and
that daily co-planning is difficult to coordinate (57%).
Survey data was analyzed to determine whether special education co-teachers who
volunteer to be co-teachers rate any of the domains higher/differently than special education
co-teachers who were told they would be co-teachers. Independent samples t-tests indicate
that there is not a significant difference between co-teachers who did or did not volunteer for
co-teaching positions in ratings of pedagogy and instructional climate, t(67)=-1.44, p = n.s.;
co-teaching relationships, t(87)=-.89, p = n.s.; parity indicating shared responsibilities,
t(67)=-1.16, p = n.s.; and parity indicating general educator as lead teacher, t(67)=104, p =
n.s. Results indicate there is a significant difference in ratings for effective co-planning,
t(66)=-2.71, p = .001, for the special educator as lead teacher, t(67)=-2.30, p = .03, and for
progress monitoring, t(66)=-2.50, p = .02. Co-teachers who did not volunteer to be coteachers provided significantly lower ratings in these three areas. Means and standard
deviations are reported in Table 7.
Co-teaching Models AEB drafted 1-16-12
Special education co-teachers identified models of co-teaching by the most used to
least used as detailed in Table 8. The co-teaching models used most frequently by co-teachers
are the “one teach, one observe” and “one teach, one drift.” In contrast, the models of station
21
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching were reported to be
implemented the least by survey respondents.
The differences between use of models of co-teachers who volunteered for coteaching positions and those who did not are identified in Table 9. Independent samples ttests indicate that there is not a significant difference between co-teachers who did or did not
volunteer for their frequency of us of five of the six models of co-teaching. Some co-teachers
responded for a model they used the most and the least versus providing a response for every
model of co-teaching. For One Teach One Observe, the t(34)=-1.63, p = n.s.; for One Teach
One Drift, the t(65)=-1.82, p = n.s.; for Station Teaching, t(60)= 1.71, p = n.s.; for
Alternative Teaching, t(34)=-1.63, p = n.s.; for Team Teaching, t(63)= 7.95, p = n.s. There
was a statistically significant result for Parallel Teaching, t(62)= 2.23, p = .03, indicating that
co-teachers who did not volunteer used Parallel Teaching significantly more than co-teachers
who did volunteer to co-teach.
Discussion
The NCLB regulation regarding highly qualified statues may be the reason for so
many special educators having a master’s degree.
. These data may be representative of the fact that recent general education graduates
are entering the classroom with more knowledge of special education strategies than in the
past, and are willing to co-teach in their school settings.
. It makes sense that the majority of students with disabilities in co-taught classes
were categorized under these 3 disabilities because they are instructed in the general
education curriculum and are expected to participate in state assessments including their
grade level objectives.
22
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
23
According to Buckley (2005), teachers’ perceptions of their co-teaching roles may be the
most significant factor in building and maintaining relationships.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html
50 states
54.24
25.14
and D.C.
(including
BIA
schools)
Outside regular
Public separ
class
facil
< 21%
Alabama
67.05
23.57
16.67
Private separ
facil
21-60%
6.61
1.77
1.17
Public resid
facil
1.26
0.12
0.28
0.28
0.45
Private resid
Home hosp envir
facil
> 60%
0.51
0.54
0.34
Overall at least 65% of participants indicated that both teachers are responsible for the
designated classroom tasks for each category.
This data differs from previous research studies regarding parity which found that the
special educators’ co-teaching role is more of an instructional assistant than an instructional
equal with general education content teachers (Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009; Scruggs et
al., 2007).
The results of the current study suggests there has been an improvement in coteaching based on comparisons to previously completed research which indicates that general
educators lead the content instruction, leaving special educators with insufficient
opportunities to use their strong pedagogical skills with students who need those skills the
most (McDuffie, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009; Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009;
Murawski, 2006).
100.0
All envir
100.0
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
References
Bouck, E.C. (2007). Co-teaching…not just a textbook term: Implications for practice.
Preventing School Failure, 51, 46-51. doi:10.3200/PSFL.51.2.46-51
Boudah, D.J., Schumacher J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an
effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disability
Quarterly, 20, 293-316.doi:10.2307/1511227
Buckley, C.Y. (2005). Establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships between
regular education and special education teachers in middle school social studies
inclusive classrooms. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 18, 161–
208.doi:10.1016%2FS0735-004X%2805%2918008-2
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for effective practice. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 28(2), 1-12.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W.D. (2002). Including students with special needs: A practical
guide for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gurgur, H., & Uzner, Y. (2010). A phenomenological analysis of the views on co-teaching
applications in the inclusive classroom. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,
10, 311-331.
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy
indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 259-268.
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(1), 13-23. doi:10.1177/088840640703000102
Isherwood, R. S., Barger-Anderson, R. (2008). Factors affecting the adoption of co-teaching
models in inclusive classrooms: One school’s journey from mainstreaming to
inclusion. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 2, 121-128.
24
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C. J., Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and teachers:
A survey of current practices. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 4356.
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, 7985.
McDuffie, K.A., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T. (2009). Differential effects of peer
tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and
student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75, 493-510.
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
and Mathematics Education, 7, 677-697. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9133-z
Murawski, W.W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught English classes: How can we
improve? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 227-247.
doi:10.1080/10573560500455703
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.
Scheeler, M. C., Congdon, M., & Stansberry, S. (2010). Providing immediate feedback to
co-teachers through bug-in-ear technology: An effective method of peer coaching in
inclusion classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1), 83-96.
doi: 10.1177/0888406409357013
25
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392416.
Zigmond, N. (2006). Reading and writing in co-taught secondary school social studies
classrooms: A reality check. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 249-268.
26
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
27
Table 1
Demographics of Participants
Grades Taught
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Education Level
Certification in Special
Education
6th to 8th grades
44%
9th to 12th grades
59%
20-30 years
17.6%
31-40 years
20.9%
41-50 years
22%
51+ years
39.6%
Male
19%
Female
81%
African-American
9%
Asian-American
1%
Caucasian
81%
Hispanic (includes Latino)
2%
Pacific Islander
1%
Bi- or multi-racial
3%
No response
3%
Bachelor's Degree
33.3%
Master's Degree
63.3%
Educational Specialist
3.3%
Fully certified
90%
Working toward full certification
10%
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Highly Qualified
Years Teaching
28
Yes
78%
No
15%
Unsure
6%
1-5 years
28%
6-10 years
23%
11-15 years
19%
16-20 years
11%
21-25 years
7%
26+ years
13%
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
29
Table 2
Demographics of Schools Where Participants Co-Taught
School
Size of School
Location of School
School’s "Minority
Enrollment"
Students on Free or Reduced
Lunch
Rural
33%
Suburban
56%
Urban
11%
Less than 600 students
12%
601 to 1,200 students
33%
1,201 to 1800 students
32%
1,801+ students
23%
Southeast
72%
Southwest
6%
Mideast
22%
Less than 5 percent
9%
5 to 25 percent
39%
26 to 50 percent
31%
51 to 75 percent
20%
76 to 95 percent
1%
96 percent or more
1%
Less than 25 percent
31%
25 to 49 percent
42%
50 to 74 percent
21%
75 percent or more
7%
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
30
Table 3
Co-Teaching Experience and Preparation for Co-planning and Co-teaching
Years Co-Teaching
1-5 years
58%
6-10 years
How Acquired Position
Amount of Professional
Development
28%
11-15 years
9%
16-20 years
2%
21-25 years
2%
26+ years
1%
Approached by administrator
12%
Hired to be a co-teacher
38%
Independently volunteered
10%
Told by administration
40%
None
1 to 3 hours
14.3%
37.4%
3.35
3.31
1 day or less
14.3%
1 to 3 days
12.1%
3.1
More than 3 days
22%
2.7
Teacher Preparation for
No portion of a course
39%
1.9
Co-planning/Co-teaching
At least one course
34%
2.87
At least 3 course sessions
6%
3.04
1 course
10%
Several courses/sessions
11%
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
31
Table 4
Classroom Responsibilities
Task
General
Special
Both
Educator
Educator
Educators
Knowledge of Instructional Content
16%
-
84%
Behavior Expectations for Students
1%
6%
93%
Daily Lesson Planning
35%
-
65%
Long Term Planning
33%
-
67%
Instructional Routines
16%
2%
83%
Organizational Routines
19%
2%
79%
Providing Accommodations
33%
-
67%
Student Evaluation (e.g., Grading)
22%
2%
76%
Material(s) Preparation for Lessons
25%
-
75%
Parent Contact
4%
3%
93%
Working with Students with Disabilities
17%
-
97%
and Modifications to Students
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
Table 5 (AEB added draft table 1-12-12)
Overall Domain Averages
RAW
Domain
1
2
3
4
mode
Co-Teaching
Relationship
Pedagogy and
Instructional
Climate
Parity
Shared
General
Educator Lead
Special
Educator Lead
3.3
6.7
35.5
54.5
4.00
3.00
2.9
4.3
51.4
41.4
4.3
15.7
41.4
38.6
3.00
10.0
31.4
40.0
28.5
3.00
20.0
68.6
5.8
5.7
2.00
Effective CoPlanning
5.6
16.9
62.0
15.5
Effective Progress
Monitoring
4.3
11.6
59.4
24.6
3.00
6.00
32
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
33
Table 6 (AEB added draft table 1-12-12)
Individual Statements from the Survey
___________________________________________________________________________
Do special education co-teachers
1
2
3
4
Raw Mode
agree or disagree that:
They had to overcome
23.9%
42%
20.5% 13.6%
2.00
interpersonal challenges.
Students perceive the
co-teaching team as equal.
7.9%
23.6%
24.7%
43.8%
4.00
Co-teaching is an effective
service delivery for students
with disabilities.
2.9%
2.9%
40%
54.3%
4.00
Daily co-planning is not
24.3%
32.9%
30%
12.9%
2.00
difficult to coordinate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
34
Table 7 (new-PKS)
Domain Rating Differences between Non-Volunteers and Volunteers for Co-Teaching
Positions
Domain 1: Co-Teaching
Relationship
Domain 2: Pedagogy and
Instructional Climate
Mean
Std. Deviation
Non-Volunteers
3.26
0.92
Volunteers
3.41
0.63
Non-Volunteers
3.16
0.90
Volunteers
3.41
0.54
Non-Volunteers
2.96
0.95
Volunteers
3.20
0.74
Non-Volunteers
2.66
0.77
Volunteers
2.64
0.97
Non-Volunteers
1.64*
0.47
Volunteers
2.03
0.78
Non-Volunteers
2.56*
0.82
Volunteers
3.03
0.63
2.76*
0.83
3.21
0.64
Domain 3: Parity
Shared
General Educator Lead
Special Educator Lead
Domain 4: Effective CoPlanning
Domain 5: Effective Progress Non-Volunteers
Monitoring
Volunteers
*p < .05 am not sure I’ve got these right?
Anne – double check you’re not finding errors. I always need another
set of eyes after me (and vice versa!). The table needs to be checked
for APA.
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
35
Table 8 (AEB added draft table 1-12-12)
Frequency Models of Co-teaching Used by Special Education Co-teachers
Co-Teaching Model
0% 14%
15% 34%
35% 49%
50% 74%
One Teach, One
Observe
75% 89%
90% 100%
27.8%?
72.2%
RAW
mode
1.00
One Teach, One
Drift
35.3
14.7
20.6
8.8
14.7
5.9
Station Teaching
1.6
1.6
6.3
11.1
23.8
55.6
6.00
Parallel Teaching
6.2
4.6
7.7
4.6
16.9
60
6.00
Alternative
Teaching
1.5
3.1
12.3
4.6
15.4
63.1
Team Teaching
13.6
24.2
12.1
9.1
15.2
25.8
1.00
6.00
6.00
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
36
Table 9 (new-PKS)
Models of Co-Teaching Differences between Non-Volunteers and Volunteers for CoTeaching Positions
One Teach One Observe
One Teach One Drift
Station Teaching
Parallel Teaching
Alternative Teaching
Team Teaching
Mean
Std. Deviation
Non-Volunteers
3.16
0.18
Volunteers
3.41
0.08
Non-Volunteers
2.56
0.16
Volunteers
3.03
0.09
Non-Volunteers
2.76
0.17
Volunteers
3.21
0.10
Non-Volunteers
3.26*
0.15
Volunteers
3.41
0.09
Non-Volunteers
2.96
0.19
Volunteers
3.20
0.11
Non-Volunteers
2.66
0.15
Volunteers
2.64
0.15
*p < .05 am not sure I’ve got these right?
Anne – double check you’re not finding errors... ? The table needs to
be checked for APA.
Draft 1.16.12 SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION CO-TEACHERS
4.2 no m
5.2 no n
6.2afim
6.2bcdeg
6.2hjkl
7.2a,c,d,e,f,g,k,l,m,n,o
8.2a,b,d
Co-Teaching Relationships Good?
Effective pedagogy and instructional climate
Parity exists; shared responsibilities.
Parity is general educator as lead.
Parity is special educator as lead.
Effective co-planning
Students' progress monitored for changes
37
Median
3.35
3.31
3.1
2.7
1.9
2.87
3.04
Not much
Some preparation on
Lots of preparation
preparation on co-
co-teaching
on co-teaching
teaching
Co-Teaching
Relationships Good?
Effective pedagogy
and instructional
climate
Any statistically significant differences?