Co-Teaching
A Literature Review
Saskatchewan Ministry of Education
Contents
Part 1
What is Co-Teaching?
Part 2
Rationale for Co-Teaching
Part 3
The Evidence
Part 4
The Challenges
Part 5
Implementation Considerations
Part 1
What is Co-Teaching?
What is Co-Teaching?
Co-teaching is defined as
“two or more professionals delivering
substantive instruction to a diverse
or blended group of students in a
single physical space.”
Cook & Friend, in Murawski & Swanson, 2001, p. 258
What is Co-Teaching?
 Involves two or more professionals,
typically a general educator and a
special educator
 Instruction within the same physical
space
 A sharing of teaching responsibilities
 Instruction provided to a heterogeneous
group of students
What is Co-Teaching?
A service delivery model that is
based on the philosophy of inclusion
and supports collaborative practice
among professionals.
“Educators must pull together by
sharing their work through
collaboration; too much knowledge
and too many skills are needed for
any single professional to keep up
with and master all of them.”
Friend & Pope, 2005, p. 59
“Co-teaching provides a vehicle for
school communities to move from
feelings of isolation to feelings of
community and collaboration.
Another way of saying this is that
the ‘lone arranger’ model of
teaching is replaced with a coteaching model.”
Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004, xv
Co-Teaching Approaches
Supportive
Teaching
One teacher leads and the other
observes or offers assistance
Parallel
Teaching
Teachers work with groups and
Complementary
Teaching
A teacher enhances the
instruction provided by the other
teacher (i.e., mini lesson)
Team
Teaching
Both teachers share the planning
and the instruction in a
coordinated fashion.
present the same information.
What is Co-Teaching?
“Coteaching arrangements … are
one promising option for meeting
the learning needs of the many
students who once spent a large
part of the school day with special
educators in separate classrooms.”
Friend, 2007, p. 48
Part 2
Rationale for Co-Teaching
Rationale for Co-Teaching
 It promotes principles of inclusion and
collaborative practice among teachers
 It provides a number of benefits for
students, teachers, and organizations
Benefits for Students
 Access to general education curriculum
and classroom teacher
 Minimizes instructional fragmentation
 Reduces social stigma associated with the
“pull-out” model
 Positive effects on self-esteem
 Enhances academic performance
 Stronger peer relationships
 Increases individualized instruction
Benefits for Teachers
 Opportunity for professional growth
 Increases job satisfaction
 Sharing of knowledge, skills, and resources
 Reduces student-teacher ratio
 Special educators increase their
understanding of general education
curriculum and classroom expectations
 General educators increase their ability to
adapt/modify lessons
 Improves communication between special and
general education teachers
Benefits for Organizations
 Promotes and sustains inclusive practices
 Enhances sense of community within general
education classrooms
 Fewer referrals for special education services
 Parent satisfaction
 Staff more united
Part 3
The Evidence
Quantitative Data
There is very little quantitative data
regarding the effects of co-teaching.
Most frequently cited quantitative
research is the meta-analysis
conducted by Murawski & Swanson
(2001). Their review resulted in six
studies with sufficient quantitative
information to calculate an effect size.
Effect Size
“We use the concept of ‘effect size’ to
describe the magnitude of gains from any
given change in educational practice and
thus to predict what we can hope to
accomplish by using that practice.”
Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2004, p. 402
 0.08 and above = large effect size estimate
 0.50 = moderate effect size estimate
 0.20 and less = a small effect size estimate
Murawski & Swanson’s Results
 The six studies revealed an average total
effect size of 0.40 for the co-teaching
approach
 An average effect size for reading and
language arts of 1.59 (three/six studies)
 An average effect size for mathematics of
0.45 (three/six studies)
 An average effect size for social outcomes
of 0.08 (one/six studies)
Murawski & Swanson’s Review
 All six studies occurred in the 90s (19911998)
 All but one study occurred over one
academic year
 The sample sizes varied from 59 to 706
 The studies included different grade levels
i.e., K-3, 3-6, and 9-12
 The studies focused on different outcomes
from academic achievement to social
benefits
Murawski & Swanson’s
Conclusion
“The limited data suggest that coteaching can have a positive impact
on student achievement.”
Contrary Research Perspectives
“Co-teaching often times involves
teachers not working with one kid for
sustained periods in a sustained
manner [but] working with kids fleetingly
in the back of the room or with groups of
kids. … Many kids need individualized
services.”
Fuchs in Lawton, 1999, p. 4
Concluding Remark
While many authors support the use
of co-teaching as a promising option
for meeting the needs of students with
disabilities, they also agree that more
experimental and quantitative
research is required to fully
substantiate co-teaching as an
effective option.
Part 4
The Challenges
Common Challenges
 Finding common planning time
 Providing administrative support
 Need for ongoing training
 Relationship factors
 Special education teachers
restricted to teaching in only a few
general education classrooms
Part 5
Implementation
Considerations
Implementation Considerations









The teaching partnership
Pre-planning
Selecting & scheduling teachers
Selecting & scheduling students
Co-teaching approaches
Professional development
Common planning time
Assessment
Administrative support
The Teaching Partnership
“Partners much establish trust,
develop and work on communication,
share the chores, celebrate, work
together creatively to overcome the
inevitable challenges and problems,
and anticipate conflict and handle it in
a constructive way.”
Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004, p. 3
Building and Maintaining
Positive Relationships
 Trust and respect
 Commitment to team goals
 Effective interpersonal, collaborative, and
conflict resolution skills
 Understanding of self and partner
 Continuous investment of time
Stages to Co-Teaching

Beginning Stage

Compromising Stage

Collaborative Stage
Obstacles that Impede
Teamwork







Low self-esteem
Burnout
Fear of conflict
Dealing with anger poorly
Lack of shared vision
Self-righteousness
Poor communication
Roles and Responsibilities
“The biggest challenge for educators is in
deciding to share the role that has
traditionally been individual: to share the
goals, decisions, classroom instruction,
responsibility for students, assessment of
student learning, problem solving, and
classroom management. The teachers
must begin to think of it as our class.”
Ripley, in Cramer, 2006, p. 13
Pre-Planning
Eight Components:
1. Interpersonal communication
2. Physical arrangement
3. Familiarity with the curriculum
4. Curriculum goals and modifications
5. Instructional planning
6. Instructional presentation
7. Classroom management
8. Assessment
Selecting Teachers
Issue:
Volunteer for co-teaching versus
assigned to co-teaching
“Administrators need to understand that a teacher’s
initial reluctance to co-teach is not necessarily a
permanent barrier to implementing co-teaching or
any other innovation. … McLaughlin (1991) found
that teacher commitment to an innovation (e.g., coteaching) only comes after teachers have acquired
initial competence in the new skills necessary to
implement the innovation.”
Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004, p. 122
Scheduling Teachers
Issue: Special education teacher not able
to co-teach in every general education
classroom
A number of authors suggest that the
special educator limit their co-teaching to
one or two classrooms per year.
Selecting Students
“One size does not fit all. Although
co-teaching seems to be a promising
practice, this does not mean that
every student can have his/her
educational needs met this way.”
Kohler-Evans, 2006, p. 3
Selecting Students
Possible Criteria:
 Can the goals of the IEP be met within the general education
class?
 Will inclusion in the general education class be motivating for
the student?
 Is the student likely to benefit from the instruction provided by
two teachers?
 Will the student’s learning be enhanced by attending a cotaught general education class?
 What effect will the student’s presence have on the rest of
the students in the class?
Scheduling Students
 Co-teaching can be used with any
grade level - preschool to high
school.
 Co-teaching can be used with any
subject area, although the literature
refers most often to language arts
and mathematics.
Common Planning Time
 Schedule co-teachers prep time together
 Provide substitute coverage a few times
during the year
 Use school-wide activity days
 Plan before and after school
 Combine two classes and release teacher
 Release teachers from some committee
responsibilities
 Administration cover classes from time to
time
“The real issue is not just about
adding or manipulating time, but
changing the fundamental way that
teachers do business when they do
sit down face-to-face to plan. ”
Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004, p. 80
Professional Development
 An understanding of co-teaching
 Development of interpersonal,
collaborative, and conflict resolution skills
 Instructional strategies
 Knowledge and skills for differentiating
instruction
 Characteristics of learners with different
learning needs
Assessment
 Student assessment
 Assessing the co-teaching
relationship
Administrative Support
“The findings of several studies …
involving collaborative activities share a
theme that school administrators are
highly influential in shaping the school
culture and are often looked to as a
source of leadership necessary to cause
systemic change.”
Sharpe & Hawes, 2003, p. 3
Essential Elements to the
Change Process
Common
Vision
Incentives
Knowled
ge and
Skills
Resource
s
Action
Plan
Result
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Confusion
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Resistance
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Anxiety
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Frustration
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Treadmill
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Change
Adapted from Knosler, in Pearl, n.d.
Co-Teaching Resources
Books
 A Guide to Co-Teaching: Practical Tips for
Facilitating Student Learning (Villa, Thousand, &
Nevin, 2004)
 The Co-Teaching Manual (Basson & McCoy,
2007)
 Co-Teaching Lesson Planning Book (Dieker,
2007)
 Guidebook for the Magiera-Simmons Quality
Indicator Model of Co-Teaching (Magiera &
Co-Teaching Resources
Articles
 Gately, S.E. & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding
coteaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children,
33(4), 40-47
 Noonan, M. J., McCormick, L., & Heck, (2003). The coteacher relationship scale: Applications for professional
development. Education & Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 38(1), 113-120
 Murawski, W. W. & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis
of co-teaching research: Where is the data? Remedial and
Special Education, 22(5), 258-267
Co-Teaching Resources
Videos/DVDs:
http:www.nprinc.com/co-teach/vpw2r.htm
 The Power of 2 - M. Friend
 Complexities of Collaboration - M. Friend
 Collaborative Planning and Teaching - R. Villa
 How to Co-Teach to Meet Diverse Student Needs - ASCD
 Teacher Collaboration: Opening the Door Between
Classrooms - The Master Teacher
“The practice of co-teaching has the potential
to be a wonderful strategy for meeting the
needs of all students. Working in partnership
with another teacher, bouncing ideas off of
one another, planning and orchestrating the
perfect lesson, having two pair of eyes and
four hands, creating something that is better
than that which each partner brings …what
better way to teach?”
Kohler-Evans, 2006, p. 3
“If the goal is for all students to be fully
included in the mainstream of school life,
then co-teaching is a strategy that should
be considered. … Co-taught classrooms
foster an atmosphere where diversity is
accepted as having a positive impact on all
students, where labels are avoided, and
where everyone is thought of as a unique
individual with gifts and needs.”
Mitchell, 2005, p. 17