TRUMBULL COUNTY
EDUCATIONAL
L
SERVICE CENTER
EADING FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE
Effective Co-teaching
Dale Lennon
Director of Pupil Services
Trumbull County Educational Service
Center
August 12, 2010
Outline







Overview of inclusion
Summary of research
Planning
Scheduling
Co-teaching in action
Evaluating your experience
Planning
Inclusion

Inclusive education is a special education
service delivery model where students with
disabilities are supported in chronologically
age-appropriate general education classes in
their home schools and receive the specialized
instruction required by their IEPs within the
context of the core curriculum and general
class activities.
Halvorsen & Neary, 2001
Three Major Models



Consultant model
Coaching model
Collaborative (or co-teaching) model
Friend & Cook, 2003
Co-teaching


Co-teaching is a service delivery mechanism
Co-teaching is a means for providing the
specially designed instruction to which
students with disabilities are entitled while
ensuring access to general curriculum in the
least restrictive environment with the provision
of supplementary aids and services
Friend, 2007
Co-teaching: Research

Administrators, teachers and students perceive
the co-teaching model to be generally
beneficial
Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007
Co-teaching: Research

Teachers have identified a number of
conditions needed for co-teaching to be
effective




Sufficient planning time
Compatibility of co-teachers
Training
Appropriate student skill level
Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007
Co-teaching: Research

The predominant co-teaching model is “one
teach, one assist”


Special education teachers often play a subordinate
role
Teachers typically employ whole class, teacher-led
instruction with little individualization
Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007
Co-teaching: Research

Classroom instruction has not changed
substantially in response to co-teaching


Practices known to be effective were rarely
observed
The co-teaching model is employed far less
effectively than possible
Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007
Collaboration

“Interpersonal collaboration is a style of
direct interaction between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared
decision making as they work toward a
common goal"
Friend & Cook, 2003
Benefits of Collaboration





Shared responsibility for educating
all students
Shared understanding and use of common
assessment data
Supporting ownership for programming and
interventions
Creating common understanding
Data-driven problem solving
Friend & Cook, 2003
Obstacles to Collaboration


General educators begin with the curriculum first
and use assessment to determine what was learned
Special educators begin with assessment first and
design instruction to repair gaps in learning
Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
Obstacles to Collaboration
Special educators have developed a tendency to
“own” students on individualized education plans
(IEPs), which decreases the “voice” and
participation of classroom teachers in
collaborative problem solving
Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
Promoting Collaboration

Teachers are more receptive to change when they
have background knowledge and a chance to
participate in the decisions rather than being given
a special education mandate to follow
Steele, Bell, & George, 2005
Most Common Approaches





One Teaching, One Drifting
Parallel Teaching
Station Teaching
Alternative Teaching
Team Teaching
Friend & Cook, 2003
One Teaching, One Drifting



One teacher plans and instructs, and one teacher
provides adaptations and other support as needed
Requires very little joint planning
Should be used sparingly


Can result in one teacher, most often the general
educator, taking the lead role the majority of the time
Can also be distracting to students, especially those
who may become dependent on the drifting teacher
Friend & Cook, 2003
Station Teaching





Teachers divide the responsibility of planning and
instruction
Students rotate on a predetermined schedule through
stations
Teachers repeat instruction to each group that comes
through; delivery may vary according to student needs
Approach can be used even if teachers have very different
pedagogical approaches
Each teacher instructs every student
Friend & Cook, 2003
Alternative Teaching




Teachers divide responsibilities for planning and
instruction
The majority of students remain in a large group setting,
but some students work in a small group for preteaching,
enrichment, reteaching, or other individualized instruction
Approach allows for highly individualized instruction to be
offered
Teachers should be careful that the same students are not
always pulled aside
Friend & Cook, 2003
Team Teaching



Teachers share responsibilities for planning and
instruction
Teachers work as a team to introduce new content,
work on developing skills, clarify information, and
facilitate learning and classroom management
This requires the most mutual trust and respect
between teachers and requires that they be able to
mesh their teaching styles
Friend & Cook, 2003
Considerations




Teachers need to volunteer and agree to
co-teach
Co-teaching should be implemented gradually
Attention needs to be given to IEP setting changes
that an inclusive classroom may invoke
Goals and support services need to reflect
the new learning experiences that students will
receive in general education classes
Murawski & Dieker, 2004
Effective Co-planning
Pre-planning





Co-teaching requires thoughtful planning time
Administrative support is essential
Here is where the alignment of special and general
education occurs
Make this time as focused as possible
Take turns taking the lead in planning and
facilitating
Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002
Provide Weekly Scheduling Coplanning Time


Co-teaching teams should have a minimum of one
scheduling/planning period (45–60 minutes) per
week
Experienced teams should spend
10 minutes to plan each lesson
Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Effective Classroom-level
Planning




Co-teachers should show a shared commitment
and enthusiasm
Both teachers’ names should be posted on the door
and in the classroom
All meetings and correspondence with families
should reflect participation from both co-teachers
Skilled planners trust the professional skills of
their partners
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Effective Classroom-level
Planning (Cont.)




Effective planners design learning environments for their
students and for themselves that demand active
involvement
Effective co-planners create learning and teaching
environments in which each person’s contributions are
valued
Effective planners develop effective routines to facilitate
their planning
Planning skills improve over time
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Two Stages of Classroom
Co-planning


Getting to know each other
Weekly co-planning
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Getting to Know Each Other



Ease into working with one another
Deal with the “little” things first
These typically become the
deal-breakers down the road, and preventing these
road blocks early
can make life easier
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Getting to Know Each Other
(Cont.)



Important to spend time talking and getting better
acquainted with each
other’s skills, interests, and educational
philosophies
Having a semi-structured preliminary discussion
can facilitate this process
Discuss current classroom routines
and rules
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Getting to Know Each Other
(Cont.)

Consider completing a teaching style inventory


Compare how each of you prefers to structure
assignments, lessons,
classroom schedule, etc
Example:http://www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html
Weekly Co-planning



Effective weekly co-planning is based on
regularly scheduled meetings, rather than “fitting
it in”
Important to stay focused
Review content in advance of meeting
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Weekly Co-planning (Cont.)

Guide the session with the following fundamental
issues:



What are the content goals?
Who are the learners?
How can we teach most effectively?
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996
Scheduling Co-teaching
Collaborative Scheduling



Collaborative Scheduling A
Collaborative Scheduling B
Collaborative Scheduling C
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Collaborative Scheduling A

Special educator divides teaching time between
two different classes in the same day
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Advantages of Collaborative
Scheduling A



Enables students with disabilities to access a
broader range of general education classrooms,
including AP and honors
Ensures the availability of direct support from a
special educator for critical parts of the
instructional programs
Improved ratio of students with disabilities to
students without disabilities
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Challenges of Collaborative
Scheduling A



Requires effective consulting skills on the part of
the special educator
Larger danger that the special educator will not be
seen as an equal partner to the general educator
Could possibly disrupt the class routine
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Collaborative Scheduling B


The special educator divides time between two
different classes
The involvement of the special educator varies by
days of the week, not within classes in the same
day
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Advantages of Collaborative
Scheduling B


Advantages are similar to Collaborative
Scheduling A
Co-teachers report an ability to implement a full
range of co-teaching models because of the
planned involvement of both teachers in complete
classes on certain days of the week
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Challenges of Collaborative
Scheduling B



Challenges are similar to Collaborative
Scheduling A
Teachers need to be cognizant of the presence of
two teachers on only certain days of the week
Students with specific support and
accommodation requirements have to be well
aligned to the schedule
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Challenges of Collaborative
Scheduling B (Cont.)



Requires general educator to be able to implement
IEP requirements in the absence of the special
educator
Special educator burnout is an issue because of the
greater demand of knowledge of the general
education curriculum
Requires supervisory judgment regarding which
teachers can effectively plan and implement this
model
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Collaborative Scheduling C



The special educator serves as a resource to the
interdisciplinary team
His/her schedule is established weekly on the
basis of instructional activities
Requires the greatest amount of flexibility and
planning by an interdisciplinary team of teachers
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Advantages of Collaborative
Scheduling C



Special educator is present when needed most for
instructional support
Instructional need dictates the cooperative
teaching role, not the calendar or time of day
Most responsive to students’ needs and schedules
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Challenges of Collaborative
Scheduling C

Requires the highest degree of planning and buyin by a team of teachers
Walsh & Jones, 2004
Co-teaching in Action
Instruction


Most difficult but also the most rewarding
There are things that can be done to maximize
success and rewards:


Review the different approaches to co-teaching and
think about how each might look in a classroom
Discuss each other’s learning style preferences to see
how these can be incorporated into the lesson to assist
students with varying styles
Murawski & Dieker, 2004
Instructional Tips




Develop unobtrusive signals to communicate with
each other
Create signals for students that are consistent and
can be used by either teacher
Vary instructional practices
Clearly display an agenda for the class, which
includes the standard(s) to be covered and any
additional goals
Murawski & Dieker, 2004
Instructional Tips



Avoid disagreeing with or undermining each other
in front of the students
Strive to demonstrate parity in instruction
whenever possible by switching roles often
Avoid stigmatization of any one group of students
Murawski & Dieker, 2004
Three Stages of Co-teaching
Relationships



Beginning Stage
Compromising Stage
Collaborative Stage
Gately, 2005
Three Stages of Co-teaching As
They Apply To:






Physical Arrangement
Familiarity With the Curriculum
Curriculum Goals and Modifications
Instructional Presentation
Classroom Management
Assessment
Gately & Gately, 2001
Physical Arrangement
Physical Arrangement: Beginning
Stage

Impression of separateness



Students with disabilities vs. general education students
Little ownership of materials or space by special
educator
Delegated spaces which are rarely abandoned
Gately & Gately, 2001
Physical Arrangement:
Beginning Stage (Cont.)


Invisible walls
A classroom within a
classroom
Gately & Gately, 2001
Physical Arrangement:
Compromising Stage




More movement and shared space
Sharing of materials
Territoriality becomes less evident
Special educator moves more freely around the
classroom but rarely takes center stage
Gately & Gately, 2001
Physical Arrangement:
Collaboration Stage



Seating arrangements are intentionally
interspersed
All students participate in cooperative grouping
assignments
Teachers are more fluid in an unplanned and
natural way
Gately & Gately, 2001
Physical Arrangement:
Collaboration Stage (Cont.)


Both teachers control space: Like an
effective doubles team in tennis, the
classroom is always “covered”
Space is truly jointly owned
Gately & Gately, 2001
Familiarity With the Curriculum
Familiarity With the Curriculum:
Beginning Stage



Special educator may be unfamiliar with content
or methodology used by the general educator
General educator may have limited understanding
of modifying the curriculum and making
appropriate accommodations
Unfamiliarity creates a lack of confidence in both
teachers
Gately & Gately, 2001
Familiarity With the Curriculum:
CompromisingCollaborative Stages


Special educator acquires a knowledge of the
scope and sequence and develops a solid
understanding of the content of the curriculum
Special educator gains confidence to make
suggestions for modifications and
accommodations
Gately & Gately, 2001
Familiarity With the Curriculum:
CompromisingCollaborative Stages
(Cont.)


General educator becomes more willing to modify
the curriculum, and there is increased sharing in
planning and teaching
Both teachers appreciate the specific curriculum
competencies that they bring to the content area
Gately & Gately, 2001
Curriculum Goals and
Modifications
Curriculum Goals and
Modifications: Beginning Stage



Programs are driven by textbooks and standards,
and goals tend to be “test-driven”
Modifications and accommodations are generally
restricted to those identified in the IEP; little
interaction regarding modifications to the
curriculum
Special educator’s role is seen as “helper”
Gately & Gately, 2001
Curriculum Goals and Modifications:
Compromising Stage

General educator may view modifications as
“giving up” or “watering down” the curriculum
Gately & Gately, 2001
Curriculum Goals and
Modifications: Collaborative Stage


Both teachers begin to differentiate concepts that
all students must know from concepts that most
students should know
Modifications of content, activities, homework
assignments, and tests become the norm for
students who require them
Gately & Gately, 2001
Instructional Presentation
Instructional Presentation:
Beginning Stage


Teachers often present separate lessons
One teacher is “boss”; one is “helper”
Gately & Gately, 2001
Instructional Presentation:
Compromising Stage


Both teachers direct some of the activities in the
classroom
Special educator offers mini-lessons or clarifies
strategies that students may use
Gately & Gately, 2001
Instructional Presentation:
Collaborative Stage



Both teachers participate in the presentation
of the lesson, provide instruction, and
structure the learning activities
The “chalk” passes freely
Students address questions and discuss
concerns with both teachers
Gately & Gately, 2001
Classroom Management
Classroom Management:
Beginning Stage

Special educator tends to assume the
role of “behavior manager”
Gately & Gately, 2001
Classroom Management:
Compromising Stage


More communication and mutual
development of rules
Some discussion for individual behavior
management plans
Gately & Gately, 2001
Classroom Management:
Collaborative Stage



Both teachers are involved in developing a
classroom management system that benefits all
students
Common to observe individual behavior plans, use
of contracts, tangible rewards, and reinforcers
Development of community-building and
relationship-building activities as a way to
enhance classroom management
Gately & Gately, 2001
Assessment
Assessment

With the current emphasis on high-stakes tests, coteaching provides an effective way to strengthen
the instruction–assessment link:

Discuss grading before it becomes an issue
Consider a variety of assessment options
Offer menus of assignments

Share the grading load and align grading styles


Murawski & Dieker, 2004
Assessment: Beginning Stage



Two separate grading systems are often
maintained separately by the two teachers
One grading system may also be exclusively
managed by the general educator
Measures tend to be objective in nature and based
only on a student’s knowledge of the content
Gately & Gately, 2001
Assessment:
Compromising Stage


Two teachers begin to explore alternate
assessment ideas
Teachers begin to discuss how to effectively
capture students’ progress, not just their
knowledge of the content
Gately & Gately, 2001
Assessment:
Collaborative Stage

Both teachers appreciate the need for a variety of
options when assessing students’ progress
Gately & Gately, 2001
Evaluation

Researchers have been reluctant to measure outcomes of
co-teaching. This provides a good opportunity for teachers
to engage in their own action research. They should begin
to collect data on their own to document outcomes


Teachers and administrators should evaluate co-teaching situations
at least once per year
The rule that assessment informs instruction should also apply to
co-teaching: As co-teachers continue to assess their situation, they
must ensure that they are improving their instruction to best meet
students’ needs in an inclusive classroom
Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Friend & Cook, 2003
Evaluating Your Experience



Planning and implementation
Effectiveness
Strengths and gaps
Essential Ingredients for
Successful Collaboration: From
the Eyes of the Practitioner to the
Ears of the Administrator
Involve the Administrator From
the Beginning



Share long- and short-term implementation
strategies
Share the research base that supports co-teaching
Share anticipated need for resources
Rea, 2005
Involve the Administrator From
the Beginning (Cont.)




Develop an “information sharing community” or
“community of practice”
Determine the most effective methods of
communication between teams and administrators
Emphasize the importance of pre-observation
conferences
Incorporate the co-teaching initiative into the
team’s annual professional growth plan
Rea, 2005
Involve the Administrator From
the Beginning (Cont.)




Set specific times for observation
Encourage students to talk with the administrator
about the benefits from learning in collaborative
classrooms
Involve parents
Encourage advice and feedback on your
performance from the administrators, accept it
graciously, and use it
Rea, 2005
Involve the Administrator From
the Beginning (Cont.)

Inform administrators of any problems or
controversies related to co-teaching efforts




Teachers
Support staff
Parents
Students
Rea, 2005
Not an All-or-nothing Approach




Teachers do not have to commit to only one
approach of co-teaching
Teachers do not have to only co-teach
Co-teaching is not the only option for serving
students
Some students with disabilities may be in a cotaught classroom for only part of the day
Murawski, 2005
Planning for 2010-11
Access Center
http://www.K8accesscenter.org
References








Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school cotaught teams? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14–25.
Dieker, L. (2002). Co-planner (semester). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals
(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gately, S. E. (2005). Two are better than one. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 36–41.
Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding co-teaching components. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40–47.
Halvorsen, A. T. & Neary, T. (2001). Building Inclusive Schools: Tools and Strategies for
Success. Allyn & Bacon.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J. E., Nordland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K.
(2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260–270.
Murawski, W. W. (2005). Addressing diverse needs through co-teaching: Take baby steps!
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2), 77–82.
References (cont.)






Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the
secondary level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52–58.
Rea, P. J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 312–316.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A. and McDuffie, K.A. (2007). Co-Teaching in Inclusive
Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. Exceptional Children, 73-4, 392416.
Steele, N., Bell, D., & George, N. (2005, April). Risky business: The art and science of
true collaboration. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children’s Annual
Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Walsh, J. M., & Jones, B. (2004). New models of cooperative teaching. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 36(5), 14–20.
Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching:
The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255–265.
Trumbull County
Educational
Service Center
LEADING FOR EDUCATIONAL
EXCELLENCE