Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 1
General and Special Educator’s Perceptions of Co-Teaching in Inclusive Middle Schools
A Master’s Research Project Presented to
The Faculty of the Patton College of Education
Ohio University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Education
by
Sarah Cecilia Blank, M.Ed.
Intervention Specialist Mild-Moderate
July 2013
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 2
This Master’s Research Project has been approved
for the Department of Teacher Education
Dianne M. Gut, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Special Education
____________________________________
John E. Henning, Ph.D., Professor and Chair of the Department of Teacher Education
X
Checking this box indicates this document has been submitted and successfully cleared a
plagiarism check. Supporting documentation has been provided to the Department Chair.
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 3
Cooperative teaching, more commonly known as co-teaching, is a method of
collaborative teaching that is implemented in many schools. Including students with disabilities
in the general education classroom is required in schools, according to the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975. This law was later revised, and is now referred to
as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 (Horrocks, White, & Roberts
2008). Rather than have the general educator instruct an entire class alone, a special educator is
in the classroom to enhance the lessons according to the students’ needs, help manage behaviors,
and improve academic success (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).
Several studies have researched the perceptions of co-teaching among general and special
educators, typically resulting in positive perceptions (Austin, 2001; Bessette, 2007; Dieker,
2001; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). These positive perceptions are reported
when certain factors are part of the co-teaching environment, such as proper training, mutual
planning time among teachers, and support from administration. However, when teachers do not
volunteer for the position, or there is a lack of communication between teachers, especially when
the role of both general and special education teachers are not clearly defined, the co-teaching
experience is perceived more negatively and can lead to an unsuccessful teaching environment
for students in the co-taught class.
The aim of this research was to determine middle school general and special education
teachers’ perceptions of co-teaching in four rural school districts in the Appalachian region. As
co-teaching is a relatively new model of inclusion, further research is needed to determine the
perceived advantages and disadvantages. This research will contribute to this field of study in
that it also identifies further steps that are needed to make co-teaching successful in schools.
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 4
According to Idol (2006) the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
mandated that students with disabilities should be included in the general education classroom.
In 1990, this law was revisedand became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and
revised in 1997 and again in 2004 (2006, p. 77). There has been a steady increase in the
inclusion of students since the 1990s. Austin (2001) defined inclusion as “the instruction of all
students, with and without disabilities, in the general education classroom, unless substantial
evidence is provided to show that such a placement would not be in the student’s best interests”
(p. 245). Additionally, No Child Left Behind in 2004 influenced the methods in which children
are educated and opened the eyes of schools to the importance of including all students in the
general education classroom (Ross-Hill, 2009, p. 188).
Including students with disabilities can be overwhelming for the general educator who is
responsible for making necessary accommodations for all of their students (Burstein, Sears,
Wilcoxen, Cabello, &Spagna, 2004, p. 104). For this reason, co-teaching among general and
special educators has grown in popularity. This is emphasized when Dieker (2001) says, “Coteaching has been described in the research as a model that emphasizes collaboration and
communication among all members of the team to ensure that the needs of all students are met,”
(p. 14). Rather than have the general educator try to manage the whole class alone, having a
special educator present in the classroom as well can enhance the lessons according to students’
needs, help manage behaviors, and improve academic success.
The issue of co-teaching is a fairly new method to address the inclusion of students with
disabilities, and still needs some improvement. This research focused on current perceptions of
co-teaching. Additionally, this research identified further steps needed to make co-teaching
successful in schools. This review of literature compares current research articles that highlight
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 5
the benefits of co-teaching and elements that make it successful as well as research that discusses
areas of improvement needed in co-teaching. Several articles that include both qualitative and
quantitative data on both sides of the argument will be reviewed.
Review of Literature
Models of Co-teaching
Dieker(2001) defines the different models of co-teaching. The first model, called “one
teach, one drift,” is the most commonly used model. “One teach, one drift” is when one teacher
(usually the general educator) leads the class and the other moves throughout the classroom to
make sure everyone is on track. The second model is “station teaching,” when teachers divide
the class into two or more stations, and each teacher spends at least half of the period with one
group, and then switch. The third model is “alternative teaching,” where one teacher (most often
the general educator) teaches the large group and the other teacher (usually the special educator)
works with a smaller group of students to re-teach any necessary information. The final model,
“parallel teaching,” is when both teachers are teaching at the same time, and they both lead
discussion (p. 15). Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) add another model, called “team
teaching,” which is when both co-teachers balance the responsibilities of the class in such a way
that both teach the same amount in front of the classroom (p. 393). Each model is beneficial in
different environments, depending on the class, the needs of the students, and the style both
teachers prefer. However, when two teachers co-teach, it is essential to discuss what model of
co-teaching they will use.
Elements of Successful Co-teaching
Access to materials, professional development, collaboration time, and support of
administrative staff are all elements that must be in place in order to create a successful co-
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 6
teaching environment (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, &McCully, 2012). Support from administration
is another key element highlighted by Bickmore, Bickmore, and Hart (2005). If administrators
support co-teachers and stop by the classroom to ensure successful implementation, co-teaching
is more likely to be a success. The likelihood of funding, professional development, and
assistance in conflict resolution are greater when administrative support is also present. In a
metaanalysis of co-teaching, Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) reported a number of
interviewed co-teachers found administrative support to be the most crucial element, as reported
by one co-teacher, “Administrative support—that would be number one. Number two—picking
the right teacher” (p. 403). This statement leads to the second element of successful co-teaching,
which is volunteering to co-teach.
According to Pugach and Winn (2011), “In general, findings suggested that volunteers
for co-teaching were more satisfied than nonvolunteers and that volunteers reported greater
mutual respect for their co-teachers than those who did not volunteer,” (p. 37). In this situation,
“volunteering” means having two teachers offer to co-teach in the same subject or grade level,
rather than the administrator assigning two teachers to co-teach. Usually when two teachers
volunteer, their compatibility is also positive. In Kohler-Evan’s2006 article appropriately called
“Co-Teaching: How to Make This Marriage Work in Front of the Kids,” volunteering is one of
the most important elements. “One of the benefits of the co-teaching relationship is the
opportunity for professional growth that comes from giving and getting feedback from a wellrespected peer” (p. 262).The author found greater mutual respect among teachers that volunteer
for co-teaching, and they can discuss which model would be beneficial to their classroom.
Bessette (2008) notes that before pairing two people to co-teach, it’s important that they
respectfully discuss things like their teaching philosophy, opinions, and expectations (not only of
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 7
each other, but of their teaching methods) (p. 1394). While there is no concrete way to co-teach,
having two people with compatible personalities makes the lessons run more smoothly.
Similarly, along with having general and special educators who volunteered for the
position, it is also important that they have a mutual planning period. Austin (2001) argues,
“offering feedback to one’s partner, sharing classroom management, providing daily mutual
planning time, and using cooperative learning techniques are perceived to be important in coteaching practices” (p. 254). This helps the general educator create a lesson that is mindful of all
students, and allows the special educator to contribute appropriate accommodations to the lesson.
Before two people begin their journey as co-teachers, it is suggested that they both attend
professional development, according to Idol in 2006 (p. 90). Professional development is when
teachers take courses or attend lectures, either voluntarily or as required through the school; to
improve their teaching. In order to have the most successful co-teaching experience, training that
is both effective and appropriate needs to take place. This includes learning about the different
models of co-teaching and useful related strategies that should be implemented throughout the
co-teaching experience (Ross-Hill, 2009, p. 191). Having two co-teachers that fully understand
what co-teaching is and how to best implement this method of inclusion will make the
experience much smoother.
To summarize, it is important to have administrative support so that the proper tools are
implemented and any potential conflicts can be resolved. Additionally, professional development
is very important so that both teachers understand possible models of co-teaching, which ones
are appropriate for them, and how to use them in their classroom. Volunteering for a co-teaching
position leads to the most successful results, especially when the co-teachers have a mutual
planning time, which is usually one period of the school day in which they can plan lessons,
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 8
assess student work, and spend time to reflect on lessons taught. With all of these elements in
place, both teachers and students can benefit from an inclusive setting.
Benefits of Co-teaching
Bessette (2008) considers co-teaching to be “one of the most popular service delivery
models for increasing instructional equity for students with disabilities in heterogeneous
classrooms” (p. 1376) Dieker explains that students’ needs are better understood because the
teacher-student ratio is reduced and teachers have more time to pay attention to individual needs.
In addition, teachers are better supported for the same reason, because there is another adult in
the room to help with behavior management. Magiera and Zigmond (2005) point out that the
student-teacher ratio is lower, which leads to more positive behavior management as well as two
professionals supporting one another. Additionally, this method of inclusion often allows
teachers to learn from each other in an environment that is most often highly beneficial for all
students (p. 79). When students are included in the general classroom, they associate more with
their same-age peers.
A study by Hang and Rabren included seven southeastern U.S. schools from all age and
grade levels, as well as first-year general and special education co-teachers. The data for this
study was gathered through observations, surveys, and a record analysis (2009).The aim of this
study was not only to determine the perspectives of teachers and students with disabilities, but to
determine how effective co-teaching was academically by looking at students’ “Stanford
Achievement Test (SAT) scores, attendance records, and discipline referrals” of students with
disabilities in the year they spent in a co-teaching class as opposed to the year without coteaching (p. 260). Hang and Rabren note that “students with disabilities increased their selfconfidence, learned more, had sufficient support, and exhibited better behaviors in co-taught
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 9
classrooms.” The study goes on to say that both teachers and students agreed that their academic
performance greatly improved (p. 266). Further, improvements in the classroom led to higher
attendance: “students in inclusive classrooms attended significantly more days of school than did
students in pull-out special education programs” according to Rea, McLaughlin, and WalterThomas (2002, p. 216) who studied how well students with disabilities in an 8th grade middle
school co-taught classroom performed when compared with students receiving pull-out special
education services. Similar to Hang and Rabren’s findings, Rea, McLaughlin, and WalterThomas measured effectiveness using “academic achievement, daily school attendance, and
disciplinary infractions” (p. 205). Not only did these students improve attendance rates, but in
comparison to students in pullout programs, the students’ grades improved in all core subjects in
co-taught settings (p. 219). The more students are present in the classroom, the more information
they receive and there is less need to spend crucial class time catching up on missed work. Cotaught classrooms allow students to learn in an environment with higher standards, and they
often meet the content standards in the general education classroom because the appropriate
support is immediately available.
Not only do the students with disabilities benefit, but the students without disabilities
benefit from co-teaching because the lessons are more varied and creative from having two
teachers in the room (Dieker, 2001, p. 20). In 2001, Austin studied co-teaching in relation to
teachers’ perceptions, effective practices, necessary professional development, support of
teachers, and students’ success. One hundred thirty-nine teachers of all grade levels from nine
New Jersey school districts that used the co-teaching method completed several surveys for this
study (p. 246). This study specifically noted various demographic characteristics, such as
experience level and gender of teacher, as well as whether or not they volunteered. Co-teaching
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 10
“promoted a tolerance for differences and a general sense of acceptance, and it provided general
education peer models for students with disabilities” (p. 251). Not only did the students perform
well, but the general and special educators also believed they improved in their teaching (p. 248).
Students with disabilities are in the Least Restrictive Environment, which exposes them to the
general curriculum in greater depth than they would in a pull-out setting. When all students are
contributing members of the classroom, it creates a positive learning environment where all
students succeed.
Issues in co-teaching
By contrast, there are some issues with co-teaching that still need to be addressed in some
schools. Burke and Sutherland (2004) explain that some teachers express concern about the coteaching method of inclusion indicating, “teachers may feel challenged, hopeful, and desirous of
what can be accomplished, but they also may feel frustration, burden, fear, lack of support, and
inadequacies about their ability to teach children with different kinds of problems” (p. 165).
Most of these issues can be resolved through implementation of the elements of co-teaching
previously explained.
Kohler-Evans (2006) highlighted the issue of co-teachers’ compatibility. The
collaboration of general and special educators is beneficial in that the general educator’s content
knowledge is emphasized, while the special educator’s expertise is in accommodating and
modifying the curriculum. If they do not have a compatible relationship, it might not benefit the
students. Often times, as Kohler-Evans points out, veteran teachers might get the impression they
are not good at what they do because they have an extra teacher in their classroom, or special
educators may feel like they do not belong anywhere since they merely go to another teacher’s
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 11
homeroom every day. As opposed to being assigned jobs, volunteering for the position of coteaching results in much more successful results (p. 260).
Although several articles indicated support from administration, in general, schools tend
to lack this support. Horrocks, White, and Roberts (2008) examined administrators’ attitudes
towards inclusion by surveying a random sample of 571 principals in Pennsylvania schools. The
reason for this study was because past research showed that a large number of schools do not
require background knowledge or experience in special education to become a principal (p.
1462). However, if support from administration is considered a highly valuable aspect of coteaching, it would be beneficial for principals to have investment deeper understanding of that
area of education. Without this support, it is difficult to receive proper training, and teachers may
not have someone to mediate potential issues in their co-taught classroom. Despite the fact that
“the majority of the respondents did not have formal training in special education (71%) [,] most
stated they had some experience supervising or educating children with autism (83%) (p. 1465).
Most of the principals were in favor of including children with disabilities in a co-taught
classroom. Additionally, there was an even higher level of support if the principal did have
experience with special education (p. 1471).
Similarly, if the administration is unable to support co-teachers in ways that are required
for this method to be successful, the necessary professional development in co-teaching may not
be present. Ross-Hill studied the attitudes of teachers towards the inclusion of students with
special needs in 2009. He was largely inspired by Cooper and Fazio’s “theory of cognitive
dissonance” (p. 190) which stated that “attitudes formed through learning may change when
exposed to new paradigms,” and through this, he hypothesized that the attitudes of teachers
would influence the success of teacher performance in a co-teaching situation. Dissonance was
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 12
defined as a break in consistency of something, in this case, the attitudes of teachers. If teachers
are apprehensive about co-teaching because they are not sure how to accommodate students with
disabilities, their success will be affected. Ross-Hill (2009) found that one of the bigger issues in
co-teaching is a lack of professional development and training for the administration, which has
the potential to lead to misconceptions and frustration in both teachers and students (p. 191). The
study concluded by saying that the majority of teachers agree with the idea of co-teaching, but
“further research could explore the administrator’s role and support level during inclusive
practices” (p. 196). For this reason, Rea, McLaughlin, and Walter-Thomas (2002) pointed out
that those without proper information might believe that “special education will become diluted
and no longer ‘special’” (p. 204). It was their assumption that once students are in the general
education class, they will not receive the proper supports they need. However, the Least
Restrictive Environment requirement from IDEA (1997), demands that students are educated in
the general education setting as much as possible, which typically results in better social and
academic skills. Further on in the same study, it was noted that “once included in classrooms
with higher expectations, appropriate role models, and true opportunities for generalization of
skills, students with disabilities will experience improved outcomes” (p. 204). Although the
comment on special education becoming diluted was later refuted in the same article, the point is
that without proper information and training, co-teaching can be misunderstood.
Co-teaching in Rural Middle Schools
Previous research on co-teaching in rural middle schools has highlighted some potential
issues. Areas of concern in this setting, as noted by Miller and Wienke (2000), include limited
qualified special and general educators, as well as proper resources like funding and materials.
This can lead to other road blocks such as limited ability to attend professional development that
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 13
might be far away, which is more difficult to access in rural areas. In 2003, Hammond and
Ingalls also brought up the issue of finding it difficult to access proper teacher training programs.
Rural schools often serve more students who are economically disadvantaged, which is too often
correlated with “increased crime, violence, drug abuse, student drop-out problems, and teacher
retention” (p. 25). While this is not the case all of the time, it is a common issue among rural
schools.
Additionally, there tends to be more research on co-teaching in elementary than
secondary educational settings: “if adaptations and modifications are made, they are more likely
to be performed by elementary than secondary teachers,” according to Miller and Wienke (2000,
p. 260-261). The authors go on to point out that teachers in the middle school setting may only
have a few periods a day with each student with disabilities, which could lead to difficulties
creating the proper supports.
Pugach and Winn (2011) mentioned issues that have been brought up consistently
throughout the research: co-teachers should volunteer and be compatible; and a high need for
administrative support and common planning time. They also suggest that special educators
might take a “backseat role” to general educators because they may no longer have their own
classroom (p. 40). Again, because middle school teachers spend less time with each student, the
co-teaching teams might disagree with one another about loyalty to certain students. Pugach and
Winn point out, “Because teachers who team seem to rely first on their own team members for
assistance, principals may have to manage conflict that emerges as a result of the strength of
team allegiance, encourage informal communication networks across teams, and work to
integrate teachers who are feeling marginalized” (p. 42). However, as previously stated, lack of
administrative support might lead to a breakdown in the co-teaching model. If these issues arise
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 14
among teachers, and the administration is less willing to facilitate support and assistance in coteaching, the success of the model has the potential to be threatened.
On the contrary, Dieker (2001) pointed out that co-teaching in the middle school can
benefit from having peer supports right in the classroom. At an age where social development is
so crucial, it is highly beneficial to have students with exceptionalities included in the regular
classroom. Another finding was that teachers’ attitudes were paramount, including having high
expectations. Having the supports of both general and special educators in the classroom
benefitted the students, and the typically developing peers even noted that they appreciated their
friends being part of their class (p. 19). This is a very positive observation, and if the line
between students with and without disabilities can be blurred through the implementation of
accommodations in the classroom, students with disabilities have very high potential.
Regardless of issues related to co-teaching in rural middle schools, “all students should
simply be included, by right, in the opportunities and responsibilities of public schooling”
(Hammond & Ingalls, 2003, p. 26). For this reason, the aim of this study was to determine
middle school general and special education teachers’ perceptions of co-teaching in four rural
school districts in the Appalachian region. As co-teaching is a relatively new model of inclusion,
further research is needed to determine the perceived advantages and disadvantages. This
research contributes to the field of study in that it also identifies further steps needed to make coteaching successful in schools.
Methods
Demographics
The purpose of this study was to determine middle school general and special education
teachers’ perceptions of co-teaching in four rural school districts in the Appalachian region. The
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 15
participants were all middle school general and special educators who co-teach in grades six
through nine. According to the Ohio Department of Education website, of the four schools,
School A has a daily enrollment of 1,603 students. Of those enrolled, 2.4% are multi-racial,
98.6% are white, 50% are economically disadvantaged, and 20.3% have a disability. The 20102011 School Year Report Card indicates the school’s designation is Excellent, as they met 25/26
indicators, and the Adequate Yearly Progress is rated as being “Not Met,” but their Value-Added
is measure is “Met.”
The Ohio Department of Education Website reported School B has a daily enrollment of
2,653 students, of whom 2.0% are black, 4.9% Asian, 2.1% Hispanic, 3.9% multi-racial, and
87% white. Of the students enrolled, 38% are economically disadvantaged, 2.0% speak another
language, and 18.4% have a disability. School B has a designation of Effective, as they met 19/26
indicators, their Adequate Yearly Progress is “Not Met,” and their Value-Added measure is
“Met” according to the 2010-2011 school report card.
School C has an average daily enrollment of 1,240 with 0.9% of these students
identifying as black, 1.2% multi-racial, and 96.9% white. Of the students, 61.1% of the students
at School C are economically disadvantaged, and 21.5% have a disability. This school has a
designation of Excellent, and have met 24/26 indicators, they also “Met” their Adequate Yearly
Progress, and are rated “Above” on the Value-Added measure.
The fourth school, School D enrolls 844 students daily where 1.3% of these students are
multi-racial, 98% white, 63.4% economically disadvantaged, and 23.6% have a disability. School
D is designated in Continuous Improvement according to the 2010-2011 School Year Report
Card. They have met 11/26 indicators, have “Not Met” their Adequate Yearly Progress, and are
“Below” on the Value-Added measure.
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 16
These particular schools were chosen because are representative of the schools in
Appalachia.
Participants
Participants in this study were middle school general and special educators in
Southeastern Ohio that participate in a co-teaching setting. They were selected because they met
the qualifications of having participated in co-teaching in middle schools. The survey to measure
teachers’ perceptions was sent to teachers in four Southeastern Ohio middle schools, who
consented to participate by clicking on an embedded link that took them to the survey. Of the
participants, 27% were aged twenty to thirty, thirty-one to forty, and forty-one to fifty, and 18%
were over fifty-one years old. Forty-five percent of participants had their Bachelor’s degree, and
sixty-four percent had their Master’s degree. Sixty-four percent of participants taught general
education, and forty-five percent taught special education. The majority of participants taught in
seventh and eighth grade. While seventy-two percent of the participants had teaching experience
exceeding six years, eighty-one percent of the participants have co-taught for five years or fewer.
Instrument
The instrument used for data collection in this study was a survey created by the
researcher to gather information about the perceptions of general and special educators toward
co-teaching in middle school. The survey consisted of twenty-nine multiple choice or openended questions. The first questions were multiple-choice and asked for demographic
information about the participants. They answered questions about their level of education, what
grade level and type of teacher they are (special or general educator), and age. The survey also
asked how many years the participants taught as well as co-taught. Finally, the survey asked how
often they engaged in the various types of co-teaching.
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 17
The remaining questions were multiple-choice but requested an open-ended explanation.
The first of these was how much support teachers felt they had from their administration, and
how positive they perceive their relationship to be with their co-teacher. The survey then asked if
both the students in special and general education benefit from co-teaching. Participants were
asked if they received professional development in co-teaching, and whether or not they
volunteered to co-teach. They were asked if the they and their co-teachers have mutual planning
time, and whether or not participants felt they improved their teaching through the co-teaching
experience.
Open-ended questions were also included. Participants were asked what the roles of both
the general and special educators were in their co-teaching situation, and to describe a typical
day of co-teaching. They were asked how co-teaching does and does not benefit the students.
The survey ended by asking if there were any other comments the participants would like to add.
See Appendix A for a copy of the survey instrument.
Procedure
The superintendents of each school gave approval for their teachers to participate in this
survey after a brief explanation and link to the survey. Following approval by the university’s
internal review board, the survey was sent via email to the middle school general and special
education teachers. Participants received an email from the researcher containing a description of
the research and an invitation to participate in the research to complete the co-teaching survey.
Participates indicated consent by clicking on the link to the survey embedded in the email. Two
weeks after initially sending out the survey, a reminder was sent out along with the survey link to
the teachers. After another two weeks, the data was aggregated to determine teachers’
perceptions of co-teaching. The responses were aggregated in the researcher’s Qualtrics account,
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 18
and the data was analyzed and interpreted. To ensure there was no bias in the research, the
survey was completely anonymous. The same survey was given for both general and special
educators, and questions were worded in a way that showed no preference toward one
occupation, teaching style, or opinion.
Results
After receiving a total of 12 responses, five from special educators and seven from
general educators who participated in co-teaching in Southeastern Ohio middle schools, the data
was compiled. First, demographic information about the participants is provided, including age,
education level, experience teaching and co-teaching, and whether they were a general or special
educator.
All Participants
Table 1 summarizes the demographic data from all eleven participants that participated in
the survey. Column A reflects the questions asked; column B indicates the numerical responses
and equivalent data.
Table 1
General and Special Educators’ Demographic Data
Item
Number responding (%)
Age
20-30
3 (27%)
31-40
3 (27%)
41-50
3 (27%)
51+
2 (18%)
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 19
Level of Education
Bachelor’s Degree
5 (45%)
Master’s Degree
7 (64%)
Grade Level Taught*
Grade 5
2 (18%)
Grade 6
2 (18%)
Grade 7
8 (73%)
Grade 8
7 (64%)
Grade 9
1 (9%)
Years of Experience Teaching
Less than 1
1 (9%)
1-5
2 (18%)
6-15
4 (36%)
15+
4 (36%)
Years of Experience Co-Teaching
Less than 1
4 (36%)
1-5
5 (45%)
6-15
1 (9%)
15+
1 (9%)
*Note. Grade level taught adds up to over 100% (specifically, 182%) because most teachers
teach more than one grade level.
Special Education
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 20
Table 2 summarizes the demographic data from the five special educators who
participated in the survey. Column A reflects the questions asked; column B indicates the
numerical response and equivalent percent.
Table 2
Special Educators’ Demographic Data
Item
Number responding (%)
Age
20-30
2 (40%)
31-40
2 (40%)
41-50
0 (0%)
51+
1 (20%)
Level of Education
Bachelor’s Degree
3 (60%)
Master’s Degree
2 (40%)
Grade Level Taught*
Grade 5
2 (40%)
Grade 6
2 (40%)
Grade 7
4 (80%)
Grade 8
3 (60%)
Grade 9
1 (20%)
Years of Experience Teaching Special Education
Less than 1
1 (20%)
1-5
1 (20%
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 21
6-15
2 (40%)
15+
1 (20%)
Years of Experience Co-Teaching
Less than 1
3 (60%)
1-5
1 (20%)
6-15
1 (20%)
15+
0 (0%)
*Note. Grade level taught adds up to over 100% (specifically, 240%) because most teachers
teach more than one grade level.
Model of co-teaching used. When asked what type of co-teaching the special educators
implement, sixty percent indicated the most common method used was one teach, one drift,
which means one teacher has more responsibility leading the class, and the other supports the
students. The other forty percent indicated team teaching is their most commonly used method of
co-teaching, which is when both teachers plan and teach together at the same time.
Support. The majority of special educators strongly agreed that they had a strong amount
of support in co-teaching from their administration; however one participant indicated they
strongly disagreed with that statement, and said, “Admn. Doesn’t pay much attention once the
scheduling is done and students and staff are divvied up into co-teaching classes. Haven’t seen
much input regarding what co-teaching actually is or could be.” Even a participant that indicated
they agree with having a strong amount of support said, “The administration supports our coteaching, but do not come around or supply a lot of training that would be necessary.”
Relationship with co-teacher. When asked if the participants felt they had a positive
relationship with their co-teacher, twenty percent felt they strongly agreed, forty percent felt they
agreed, and forty percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. One participant who
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 22
agreed to having a positive relationship with their co-teacher stated, “I have a positive
relationship with them and I work well with them. However, I do not always feel that I am a full
co-teacher.”
Benefits to students. Forty percent of the participants either agreed or strongly agreed
that the students in special education benefited from co-teaching, indicating the reason for this
being more social interactions, and exposure to the regular curriculum while receiving extra help.
The only participant that said they neither agreed nor disagreed implied that only if co-teaching
is implemented properly would students in special education succeed. This participant said, “It
depends. They sure can if the 2 teachers can work out a respectful give-and-take. The students
without IEPs can benefit as well from having another teacher (not an aide or assistant, though
aides of course can be valuable) actually teaching.” It is important to note this participant is the
same one that indicated how little the administration participates once the co-teaching
placements are assigned.
Almost the same exact breakdown was given when participants were asked if students in
general education benefit from co-teaching: Forty percent indicated they agreed or strongly
agreed, and the same person indicated they neither agree nor disagree. When asked to explain,
two participants said, “see above,” meaning their answer was the same as when asked about
benefits to students in special education.
Professional development.A review of the literature indicates that one of the most
important elements of successful co-teaching is receiving professional development before
beginning the co-teaching experience. Of the participants who identified as special educators, the
results were mostly negative: forty percent neither agreed nor disagreed, saying, “We were left to
ourselves. Do not remember having been observed when team teaching existed.” Of the forty
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 23
percent who disagree or strongly disagreed, one participant spoke of how her master’s program
emphasized inclusion throughout the program, but no related professional development had been
organized.
Volunteer or assigned to co-teach. Similar to the results related to the question about
professional development, the majority of participants indicated they did not volunteer for the
position. In fact, when asked to explain their answer, most said they were assigned to the
position of co-teaching. The one participant that said they volunteered to co-teach also agreed
that they participated in professional development, so it is possible that this school has a more
developed model of co-teaching.
Co-planning. Unfortunately at this point in the survey, two participants stopped
responding. Of the three remaining special education participants, all of them said they do not
have a mutual planning time, and only meet during the time they co-teach together.
Impact on teaching. All special education teachers agreed that their professional
development in teaching has improved by working with another teacher in the classroom. One
said, “I learned a lot from watching another educator work with the students, especially in my
first years.” Another participant said, “It has been good for me to get out of my insulated pull-out
classes, see other teaching styles, get other curriculum ideas, and get to know so many more of
the students.”
Co-teaching roles.When asked, “What are the roles of both the general and special
educators in your co-teaching situation,” two responders described the one teach, one drift model
of co-teaching: “It depends on the situation. Usually as the special educator, I drift around and
help the students out, but I also pull them out for tests to be read aloud and other situations,” and
the other said, “general ed. teacher teachers, I see a need and try to fill it.” Being exposed to
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 24
higher standards is a benefit of co-teaching, as one participant explained. On the other hand, “in
both co-teaching classrooms the pace is very fast, and there are fewer opportunities to give the
students with IEPs the extended time and small groups that their IEPs promise” shows a
contrasting opinion.
Additional comments.When asked if there were any other comments the participants
would like to add, one participant said that they would co-teach again if the school district could
afford to hire another teacher.
General Education
Table 3 summarizes the demographics of the six general educators who participated in
the survey. Column A reflects the questions asked; column B indicates the numerical responses
and equivalent percentages.
Table 3
General Educators’ Demographic Data
Item
Number responding (%)
Age
20-30
1 (16.67%)
31-40
1 (16.67%)
41-50
3 (50%)
51+
1 (16.67%)
Level of Education
Bachelor’s Degree
1 (16.67%)
Master’s Degree
5 (83.3%)
Grade Level Taught*
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 25
Grade 5
0 (0%)
Grade 6
0 (0%)
Grade 7
4 (66.6%)
Grade 8
4 (66.6%)
Grade 9
0 (0%)
Years of Experience Teaching General Education
Less than 1
0 (0%)
1-5
1 (16.67%)
6-15
2 (33.3%)
15+
3 (50%)
Years of Experience Co-Teaching
Less than 1
1 (16.67%)
1-5
4 (66.6%)
6-15
0 (0%)
15+
1 (16.67%)
*Note. Totals for grade level taught add up to over 100% (specifically, 133.2%) because most
teachers teach more than one grade.
Model of co-teaching.When general education teachers were asked what model of coteaching they implement, almost all indicated one teach, one drift was most common. The
majority indicated their second most commonly used method was alternative teaching, where
one teacher leads a large group and the other a small group, and very few indicated they ever
used parallel or team teaching.
Administrative support.A review of the current literature emphasized the importance of
administrative support, but when participants were asked if they receive strong support, the
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 26
results were very mixed. Twenty-eight and one-half percent of the participants disagreed with
this statement, saying, “There has been no real training in co-teaching. Administration wants it to
work but offers little guidance. I wish there were more procedures and expectations in place,”
and “There seems to be no model and no consistency about what it needs to look like for coteaching.” The participants that neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement said, “My
principal supports my teaching however I choose to implement it. It doesn’t really have any
bearing whether I’m co-teaching or not as long as teaching and student learning occur,” and,
“My administrator would allow this if the schedule would permit.”
There were two participants that agreed that there was administrative support, and one
said, “Over the past two years, I have participated in a co-teaching program with student interns.
My administration is supportive, but this is something I had to seek out on my own, not
something that the administration told me about or advocates.” This final statement seems as if
although they agree that they have support, they are very independent in the process.
Relationship with co-teacher.On a positive note, all of the general education teachers
said they either agreed or strongly agreed that they have a positive relationship with their coteacher. Comments such as, “We have an excellent working relationship,” and “We eased into
the co-teaching relationship, and I think the year-long program and starting with easier strategies
to implement has helped strengthen our relationship” were made. The only suggestion made in
this area was indicating a need for mutual planning time because of the communication issues as
a result of lacking common planning time.
Benefits for students.All of the general education participants either agreed or strongly
agreed that students in both general and special education benefit from co-teaching, but because
general educators are typically not accountable for the grades of students with IEPs, they could
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 27
only account for social improvements and the ability to have a more differentiated lesson.
However they all indicated that in one way or another, all students benefit from co-teaching.
Professional development.When asked about professional development for co-teaching,
the results were fairly mixed. About one third of the participants indicated they strongly
disagreed when asked about receiving professional development, but did not expand on their
response. Of the participants that said they had professional development, two people expanded
on this question and explained they received their training at the local university.
Volunteer or assignedto co-teach. Contrary to the results of the special education
teachers, the majority of general education participants said they volunteered to co-teach. One
participant said, “I have asked for this kind of support for years and I am very happy to have two
co-taught classes. I worried that there would be too many IEP students in those classes but I find
the extra support helps all the students in the class.” Another said they volunteered and that they
“agreed to co-teach.”
Common planning time. Two of the six general education participants said they had a
mutual planning time with their co-teacher, one specified by saying, “Because my co-teacher is
the student intern in my classroom, we share the same planning period,” and the other said, “We
have the same schedule.” Having the same schedule would strongly benefit both teachers, but
that was not the case for all participants. The remaining sixty-six percent of the participants
disagreed when asked if they have a mutual planning time. One indicated that “there should be!”
and another said that because they co-teach with several teachers, it isn’t possible, but that it
would benefit them if given the opportunity.
Impact on teaching. While some of the general education participants said they
improved their professional development through this experience, about half of them neither
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 28
agreed nor disagreed with the statement. One participant said, “Having another teacher in the
classroom allows me to try different methods and encourages me to remain open to different
ideas,” as well as, “I have learned a lot through this experience!” One participant, who also
mentioned they lacked both professional development andmutual planning time, said, “Maybe a
little…I feel like we fly by the seats of our pants most of the time. Maybe more years of
experience would help that.”
Co-teaching roles.Of the participants that responded to this question, the majority
indicated that the general educator teaches the content, and the special educator assists students if
extra help is needed.
Benefits to students. When asked how co-teaching benefits students, there were many
responses. General educators said that “Students get way more help. My co-teacher is able to
grade them in whatever way she sees fit and can make sure their work is turned in and
understood since the group is small.” They also said that the confidence of all students increases,
and fewer students end up “under the radar.” One teacher said, “Students are able to get direct
help when they return from an absence or when they didn’t understand something. Students are
able to ask both of us questions- so we are both quicker at getting to students, and we can explain
the concept in different ways.” The same participant started to discuss how co-teaching does
NOT benefit the students, but realized it was actually a good thing and said, “I can’t think of
many. Sometimes students have more of a connection with me or the intern, and they hesitate to
ask for help from the other. But I think this is actually a benefit, because they at least have the
other teacher they are more comfortable with.”
The only other ways co-teaching does NOT benefit the students, as stated by general
education participants include, “the only factor that concerned me was the time factor, but even
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 29
though we took longer to get through a lesson it appeared that they learned the concept well.”
The other comment made was, “I have a hard time not being involved in the grades of the IEP
students. If we had common planning time the Sp.Ed. teacher and I could have more connection
in our discussion of grading assignments and student progress. This is the great failing…no
planning time!” So even though these are listed as negatives, as mentioned earlier, in most cases
when co-teaching isn’t successful it is because of a lack of the appropriate elements.
Discussion and Recommendations
The results from the survey confirm that although both special and general educators in
Southeastern Ohio middle schools agree with the idea of co-teaching, there are some elements
that have yet to be addressed. These findings are confirmed by the majority of studies in the
current literature. Overall, general and special education participants felt co-teaching benefits all
students in areas of social and academic growth. However according to several participants,
certain elements of co-teaching are not present in schools and the method in which schools
facilitate co-teaching needs to be more purposeful and in-depth.
It is important that teachers have mutual planning time. Dieker points out, “the literature
on co-teaching supports the observation that time to plan is essential; but this time must be
focused and a priority for both team members” (2001, p. 22). Unfortunately, although the
importance of mutual planning time was emphasized in the literature, only two participants
indicated they have mutual planning time, and further explanation indicated this is only because
their co-teacher is their student intern who has the same teaching schedule. Other participants felt
they “fly by the seats of our pants most of the time.” If a co-teacher works with several teachers,
it is difficult to find time to meet with each of them, and unfortunately, one participant reported
lack of funding is what led to fewer co-teachers, thus more responsibilities. Kohler-Evans (2006)
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 30
reported, “If the co-teaching team fails to plan together, co-teaching should not be used. Schools
should make mutual planning a high priority. It is that important!” (p. 262). Planning time can be
as little as fifteen minutes or as long as one hour per day, but it would highly benefit the team to
work together to plan for their co-taught lessons.
About half of the participants indicated they volunteered to co-teach. Participants
explained that they did because “it sounded like a great opportunity for myself and my students,”
and “the extra support helps all the students in the class.” However, some co-teachers reported
they were assigned to a co-teaching classroom, and there was “no such option at my school” to
volunteer to co-teach. Volunteering for the position of co-teaching is important because as
Kohler-Evans points out, “many teachers are self-conscious and reluctant to allow a peer to
watch them teach, especially when the other is an expert in his/her field” (2006, p. 262). When a
team volunteers to co-teach, the chances of them already having a positive relationship are
greater, and it is recommended that co-teaching is an option rather than an assignment.
Fortunately, most participants reported a positive relationship with their co-teacher, but
volunteering to work together increases the likelihood of a compatible relationship.
Although only half of participants agreed that they volunteered to co-teach, it is
encouraging to note that almost all participants either agreed or strongly agreed that they had a
positive relationship with their co-teacher. Additionally, all participants agreed that students in
both general and special education benefit, which is consistent with Austin’s findings when he
said, “a majority of the co-teachers surveyed and interviewed had not volunteered for the
experience and yet a major percentage indicated that they considered co-teaching worthwhile”
(2006, p. 252). Benefits of co-teaching, according to survey participants included more attention
given to students, focused lessons, and increased social interactions. Participants reported
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 31
improving their own practices in addition to getting to view other styles of teaching. Further
research is suggested to determine not only teachers’ perceptions of co-teaching, but students’
perceptions.
When asked if participants felt they had support from administration, results were very
mixed, indicating three disagreed or strongly disagreed, two neither agreed nor disagreed, and six
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Administrative support is a key element in coteaching, as noted by Horrocks, White, and Roberts (2008). “The support and leadership of
principals are documented as integral components for successful school change and successful
inclusion”(p. 1464). Reasons suggest it is because administration that approves decisions,
determines what professional development will take place, and decides to what departments
resources will be allocated (p. 1464). Although the results on perceptions were mixed, when
asked to explain, the majority of participants indicated that administrative support did not
correlate with administrative presence in the classrooms. One participant said, “There has been
no real training in co-teaching. Administration wants it to work but offers little guidance. I wish
there were more procedures and expectations in place” which aligns with Bessette’s findings
when she said, “As one middle-grade special educator put it, ‘we never got any direction on it
[co-teaching] and if you ask the administration, they want us to team teach but they’re like, ‘Oh,
you’ll figure it out!’” (2008, p. 1384). Because administrative support is critical but obviously
lacking proper implementation, this area needs to be addressed and is especially important
because administration organizes and arranges for professional development.
In co-teaching, there is a “need for training to promote learning of more flexible thinking;
strategies, and practical skill development; different co-teaching models; use of technology;
characteristics of disabilities; collaborative consultation skills; group interpersonal skills; and
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 32
communicating more effectively,” according to Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007, p.
404). The current study found participants’ responses to receiving professional development are
similar to reports of administrative support: four disagreed or strongly disagreed, two neither
agreed nor disagreed, and five agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.Moreover, when
participants did receive professional development, they noted it was at the local university, and
occasionally on their own time rather than through the school district where they are employed:
“I have chosen to participate in seminars through the university that support the co-teaching
model,” and “I attended workshops last year and one of the workshops this year, both offered at
OU for mentor teachers interested in co-teaching” are two examples of this. Other participants
indicated no professional development was provided, despite its noted importance. It is clear that
professional development in co-teaching needs more emphasis, and Rea, McLaughlin, and
Walter-Thomas suggested, “Practicing professionals, (i.e., teachers, specialist, and
administrators) need ongoing professional development opportunities to enhance their skills
related to effective classroom instruction, management, communication, and collaboration”
(2002, p. 220). If more guidance is provided for co-teaching, both teachers and students would
improve in their performance in the classroom. Future research should focus on exactly what
type of professional development in co-teaching is available and where.
Professional development should also be focused on the different methods of co-teaching.
When asked what style of co-teaching participants implement, eight participants chose “one
teach, one drift” as their most often used style. This is when one teacher has more responsibility
leading the class and the other supports the students. Most frequently, the general educator
teaches the content, and the special educator supports students who need assistance. Participants
reported often using “alternative teaching,” which is when one teacher leads a large group and
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 33
another leads a smaller group. However, if more professional development was available on coteaching, participants may have been more aware of other styles they could implement. Further
research is suggested to determine the most effective model of co-teaching, and for which types
of learners.
Implications for Practice
Findings from this research reveal participants were able to reflect upon their own
perceptions and practices in co-teaching. Administrators will have access to the findings which
provides suggestions for necessary alterations to the co-teaching situations that take place in their
schools.
To improve the practice of co-teaching, it is suggested that some steps be taken. While
there is no concrete plan to make co-teaching work, research has shown several elements lead to
positive results. The more involved and present administration is throughout the school, the
better the outcome. It is one thing to have an administration that schedules/requires co-teaching,
but if administrators are involved in the planning and implementing, research shows it creates a
much better teaching environment.
Before co-teaching takes place (or as soon as possible, if it is already implemented in a
school), administration should either provide professional development or, if possible, see if
local universities offer professional development to inform teachers about the research that
supports co-teaching, different styles they can implement, and how to get started. Once teachers
are models of successful co-teaching, they can meet in co-teaching pairs to plan for their classes.
Research has continually emphasized mutual planning time as an important factor in successful
co-teaching, so it is suggested that planning periods are scheduled so that co-teachers have that
time together.
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 34
If schools carry out the conditions of co-teaching previously mentioned, “students with
disabilities increased their self-confidence, learned more, had sufficient support, and exhibited
better behaviors in co-taught classrooms, according to Hang and Rabren “2013, p. 266). Overall,
this research showed that Southeastern Ohio middle school teachers in both general and special
education agree with this statement, but that it needs more planning and support.
Conclusion
Overall, general and special educators agree that co-teaching is an effective method, but
there are some areas that need improvement. While most had a positive relationship with their
co-teacher, providing mutual planning time would be beneficial. Having administration be more
present in classrooms and provide more professional development related to co-teaching would
help co-teachers understand exactly what is expected of them in the inclusion classroom.
Participants reported that students in both general and special education benefit from coteaching, and improving the previously mentioned areas would create an even more successful
co-teaching environment.
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 35
References
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching.Remedial and Special Education, 22,
245-255. doi:10.1177/07419325010220040
Bessette, H. J. (2008). Using students’ drawings to elicit general and special educators’
perceptions of co-teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1376-1396.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.007
Bickmore, D. L., Bickmore, S. T., & Hart, L. E. (2005). Interdisciplinary teaming as an induction
practice. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 30-52.
Burke, K. & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitude toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. experience.
Education, 125, 163-172.
Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., &Spagna, M. (2004). Moving toward
inclusive practices. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 104-116.
Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school cotaught teams for students with disabilities? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14-23.
doi:10.1080/10459880109603339
Embury, D. C. &Kroeger, S. D. (2012) Let's ask the kids: Consuming constructions of coteaching. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 102-112.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). What’s ‘special’ about special education? The Phi Delta
Kappan, 76, 522-530. doi: 10.2307/20405389.
Guthrie, J. W. & Springer, M. G. (2004). A nation at risk revisited: Did “wrong” reasoning result
in “right” results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Education, 79, 7-35.
Hammond, H. & Ingalls, L. (2003). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Survey results from
elementary school teachers in three southwestern rural school districts. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 22, 24-30.
Hang, Q. &Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 36
indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 259-268. doi:
10.1177.0741932508321018
Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the
effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 186-205.
Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals’ attitudes regarding inclusion of
children with autism in Pennsylvania public schools. J Autism DevDisord, 38, 14621473. Doi: 10.1007/s10803-007 0522-x
Idol, L. (2006).Toward inclusion of special education students in general education.Remedial
and Special Education, 27, 77-94.
Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids.
Education, 127, 260-264.
Lipsky, D. K. (2005). Are we there yet? Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28, 156-158.
Magiera, K. &Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine
conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in cotaught and solo-taught classes? The Division of Learning Disabilities of the Council for
Exceptional Children, 20, 79-85.
McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (209). 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.
McLesky, J., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P., &Rentz, T. (2004). Is inclusion an illusion? An
examination of national and state trends toward the education of students with learning
disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
19, 109-115.
Miller, K. J., Wienke, W. D., & Savage, L. B. (2000). Elementary and middle/secondary
educator’s pre and post training perceptions of ability to instruct students with disabili
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 37
ties. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19, 1-12.
Murawski, W. W. & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are
the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267.
Pugach, M. C. & Winn, J. A. (2011). Research on co-teaching and teaming: an untapped
resource for induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24 , 36-46.
Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., &Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with
learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Council for Exceptional Children,
68, 203-222.
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude toward inclusion practices and special needs students.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9, 188-198.
Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002).Evaluating cooperating teaching teams.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 185-299.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Council for Exceptional Children,
73, 392-416.
Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., &McCulley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction:
The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching.Psychology in Schools, 49, 498510. doi:10.1002/pits.21606
Tremblay, P. (2012). Comparative outcomes of two instructional models for students with
learning disabilities: inclusion with co-teaching and solo-taught special education.
Journal of Research in Special Education Needs,1-8. doi: 10.1111/j.14713802.2012.01270.x
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 38
Appendix A
Survey for General and Special Educators’ Perceptions of Co-Teaching in Middle Schools
Q1 What is your level of education?




Bachelor's Degree (1)
Master's Degree (2)
Doctoral Degree (3)
Other (4)
Q2 If you answered "other" in the previous question, please explain:
Q3 What do you teach? Choose all that apply.
 General Education (1)
 Special Education (2)
Q4 What grade(s) do you teach? Choose all that apply.





Grade 5 (1)
Grade 6 (2)
Grade 7 (3)
Grade 8 (4)
Grade 9 (5)
Q5 How old are you?




20-30 (1)
31-40 (2)
41-50 (3)
51+ (4)
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 39
Q6 How many years have you taught?




Less than 1 year (1)
1-5 (2)
6-15 (3)
15+ (4)
Q7 How many years have you co-taught?





Less than 1 year (1)
1-5 (2)
6-15 (3)
15+ (4)
Never (5)
Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 40
Q8 What style of co-teaching do you implement?
Most often (1)
Often (2)
Sometimes (3)
Never (4)
One teach, one
drift: one has
more
responsibility
leading the class
and the other
supports the
students. (1)




Alternative
teaching: one
teacher leads a
large group
while another
leads a small
group (2)




Parallel teaching:
class is divided
into two parts
and both teach at
the same time (3)




Team teaching:
both teachers
plan and teach
together at the
same time (4)




Q9 I feel I have a strong amount of support in co-teaching from my administration
Choose one:
(1)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)





Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 41
Q10 Please explain your answer:
Q11 I feel I have a positive relationship with my co-teacher
Choose one:
(1)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)





Q12 Please explain your answer:
Q13 I feel the students in special education benefit from co-teaching
Choose one:
(1)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)





Q14 Please explain your answer:
Q15 I feel the students in general education benefit from co-teaching
Choose one:
(1)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)





Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 42
Q16 Please explain your answer:
Q17 I received adequate professional development for co-teaching
Choose one:
(1)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)





Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)





Q18 Please explain your answer:
Q19 I volunteered to co-teach
Choose one:
(1)
Q20 Please explain your answer:
Q21 My co-teacher and I have a mutual planning time
Choose one:
(1)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)





Co-Teaching in Middle Schools 43
Q22 Please explain your answer:
Q23 I feel I have improved my professional development through this experience
Choose one:
(1)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongly
Agree (5)





Q24 Please explain your answer:
Q25 What are the roles of both the general and special educators in your co-teaching situation?
Q26 Please describe a typical day of co-teaching.
Q27 In what ways does co-teaching benefit the students in your co-teaching situation? Provide
specific examples.
Q28 In what ways does co-teaching NOT benefit the students in your co-teaching situation?
Provide specific examples.
Q29 Are there any other comments you would like to add?