Running Head: CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
1
Co-teaching and Collaboration:
How co-teaching teams determine which model can be most effective.
by
Jennica S. Brocious
A project submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY
Ogden, Utah
(Date)
Approved
____________________________________
Committee Chair, Melina Alexander, Ph.D
____________________________________
Committee Member, Patrick Leytham, Ph.D
____________________________________
Committee Member, Kristine Geier M.ED
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
2
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Helping students succeed in the classroom has led to schools utilizing their resources
with more effective and creative means such as co-teaching (Kohler-Evans, 2006). The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires students with disabilities be taught
in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The least restrictive environment is the environment
where, to the greatest extent possible, children with disabilities are educated with their peers who
are not disabled. This indicated that IDEA favors inclusion of students with disabilities in the
general education classroom. One way to assist general education teachers in this task is to
provide the in class support of a special education teacher through co-teaching (Nichols, Dowdy
& Nichols, 2010). Co-teachers need to work on their relationship and find a balance in their roles
as content and process specialists to help all students in the classroom (Wilson, 2008). Further
research is needed to understand when, where and with whom co-teaching is best implemented
(Murawski & Swanson, 2001).
Co-teaching is a research-based intervention often used to help students with learning
disabilities access the general curriculum and experience success in the education environment.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
support but do not mandate co-teaching as a response to intervention (RTI) (Brown, Howerter,
&Morgan, 2013). NCLB has had a major influence on the amount of co-teaching in schools
since its implementation. More than half of the students with a specific learning disability spend
80% of their time in the general education setting (Cortiella, 2007).
How well co-teaching works in the classroom is often dependent on how well the
teachers get along. The relationship of co-teachers is a critical variable that predicts whether
students with disabilities have success in inclusive environments (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz,
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
3
Norland, Gardizi & McDuffie, 2005). Often, teachers are assigned a co-teaching partner without
being given the choice of whom they will be working, and the relationship can be strained from
the beginning (Kohler-Evans, 2006). The relationship that co-teachers develop throughout the
year helps establish protocols and the environment in the classroom impacting the success of the
strategy (Kohler-Evans, 2006).
Although co-teaching has demonstrated to be an effective strategy at giving students
needed support, many teachers are unsure how to implement different co-teaching models to find
the best way of working together and helping students. Unless teachers have a clear knowledge
of the most effective co-teaching technique, students are unlikely to experience the full benefit of
co-teaching. Co-teachers are frequently placed together with little or no training and therefore are
uncertain about what model to use in the classroom and how to implement a successful coteaching partnership (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Often, co-teachers lean toward the model, "one
teach, one assist" because they do not know there are other ways to co-teach (Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Murawski & Swanson (2001) claimed that more research will
give experts a better understanding of the relationship between the special educator and general
educator. This research relates to understanding how co-teachers collaborate with one another in
finding the most effect model of co-teaching in their classroom.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
4
Literature Review
This literature review will first discuss the aspects of No Child Left Behind and IDEA in
how it relates to classrooms becoming a more inclusive setting when teaching students with
disabilities. Second, the literature review will focus on the research about the co-teachers’
relationship and how that can lead to a successful environment. Next, the six universally
accepted models of co-teaching will be examined. Lastly, this review will review co-teaching
models most frequently used in research and their outcomes.
Co-Teaching and No Child Left Behind
In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) added further amendments with a
main goal to allow students with disabilities the opportunity to access the same curriculum given
to their non-disabled peers in the least restrictive environment (Nichols, Dowdy & Nichols,
2010). The law was then reauthorized in 2004, with the most recent changes in regulations
occurring in 2006. The final regulations regarding the alignment between IDEA and No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) set a new standard of how students with disabilities were taught, by
encouraging reading first, wanting to ensure that every child could read by the end of third grade
(U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Many schools throughout the country opted to allow
students with disabilities to be taught in several different ways knowing that it is required
through the continuum of services. Some of the more common options include an inclusion
classroom instead of being pulled out during the day at the elementary level, a resource
classroom, where students are taught in small groups daily, or give students at least one period a
day when they receive special education services at the secondary level. Co-teaching was not
mandated by either IDEA or NCLB but was supported. It has become a trend for providing
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
5
educational services to students with disabilities in the general education environment (Ploesl,
Rock, Schoenfeld, & Banks 2010; Pugach & Winn, 2011).
In a study reviewing Nichols, Dowdy and Nichols (2010) they noted that from the
twenty-four school districts they observed, many implemented co-teaching as a way to meet the
mandate of NCLB. A problem arose when schools initiated co-teaching without proper staff
development for both the special education teacher and the regular education teacher. It appeared
that educators were implementing co-teaching to comply with NCLB and as an RTI for students
with disabilities (Nichols et al., 2010). NCLB also set out a requirement that all students,
including those with disabilities, be taught by a highly qualified teacher in the least restrictive
environment. By implementing co-teaching in the school, legislative expectations were being
met while students with disabilities were being taught with the instruction and support they
required (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010).
Co-teaching is not a product of NCLB. Prior to NCLB, co-teaching was already initiating
collaborative opportunities between general educators and special educators. In 1993,
discretionary funds of the IDEA act were granted to the Northwestern State University of
Louisiana special education department to bring about a collaborative effort between teachers
(Duchardt, Marlow, Inman, Christensen & Reeves, 1999). The co-planning and co-teaching
arrangements found nine positive outcomes: collaborating and developing trust, finding time to
co-plan, learning by trial and error, meeting the needs of diverse learners, learning to be more
flexible and collegial, helping teachers to become problem solvers, forming and building
partnerships, solving problems as a team, and lastly challenging oneself and developing
professionally. Limitations were not listed in the study, but making time to meet together as coteachers seemed to be inherent (Duchardt et al., 1999).
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
6
What is co-teaching?
There are many forms of co-teaching, but the overall definition is two educators, - for
special education this means a special education teacher and a general education teacher are in
the classroom providing instruction and support to a diverse group of students (Kohler-Evans,
2006). Co-teaching is not a teacher and an assistant, teacher’s aide, or paraprofessional; coteaching is two or more co-equal faculty members working together (Dieker & Murawski, 2003).
Student needs influence the type of co-teaching that is executed in the classroom (Friend, et al,.
2010). Co-teaching can look different in a classroom depending on the model used for a lesson.
Types of Co-Teaching
Many researchers have agreed that there are six different types of co-teaching (Friend,
Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain &Shamberger, 2010; Sileo, 2011; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson &
McCulley, 2012).

One Teach, One Observe: One of the teachers is responsible for the instruction and lesson
of the classroom while the other teacher observes classroom behavior. The co-teachers
are given the opportunity to collect data on their students' academic, social and
behavioral skills as well as each other.

Parallel Teaching: Students are separated into two equal groups and placed at different
ends of the classroom. Each small group is taught by one of the teachers teaching the
same material. This allows for students to be taught in a small group setting and gives
more opportunities for students to respond to the different forms of instruction.

Station Teaching: Students are divided into three groups and are directed to a station in
the classroom. At two stations a teacher will teach the students material and at one station
the students will work individually. The material presented at each station is non-
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
7
sequential so that it does not matter at what station the students start. This allows for
students to have plenty of student-to-teacher interaction as they will be with a teacher in
two out of the three stations.

Alternative Teaching: One teacher is teaching the majority of the classroom while the
other teacher takes a small group and teaches them separately. The small group can
change according to the needs of the students. Students can be pre-taught concepts, given
additional help on harder concepts, work on vocabulary development or enrichment
activities for a short period of time.

One Teach, One Assist: One teacher gives instruction to the whole classroom while the
other teacher monitors students to assess who needs individual help. This helps students
receive individualized help in the classroom without leaving the classroom.

Team Teaching: Both teachers are in front of the classroom instructing by taking turns.
Teachers may show opposite views and lead a discussion in the classroom. They may
also show a variety of ways on how to solve a problem. This type of co-teaching benefits
students by enabling them to see different points of view.
Friend, et al. (2010) agreed that with the co-teaching approach, teachers are able to
address students with disabilities individualized educational program (IEP) goals and objectives
while still being taught in the least restrictive environment and obtaining access to the general
curriculum. Understanding that there are six different models of co-teaching, teachers need to
meet with one another and plan out units to be taught with more than one model in mind. It is
important for teachers to choose a structure that complements the students' abilities in the
classroom and the lesson given (Sileo, 2011). By planning together what type of model should be
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
8
taught, teachers help strengthen and build their relationship to create a successful learning
environment.
Co-Teachers Relationship
Co-teaching can be doomed from the start if one teacher leads in a different direction
than the other teacher expects, or if one partner is more domineering over territory and content
area (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Some schools may decide to thrust co-teaching onto teachers.
This could be more harmful than beneficial to students because veteran teachers could feel
insulted and special educators could feel homeless by not being welcome into the general
education teachers classroom (Kohler-Evans, 2006). In the Kohler-Evans (2006) survey,
research found that 77% of the participants said that co-teaching led students to achieve
academic gains. The overall impact was positive on the students and the teachers. The majority
of teachers replied a positive working relationship with the other teacher involved was the most
important feature in a co-teaching relationship (Kohler-Evans, 2006).
There are three main phases in a classroom that teachers need to discuss once their
partnership is established: the planning, the instruction, and how the assessment will be handled.
By meeting together and communicating, teachers are able to determine what instructional
technique will be most effective and efficient in helping all students meet the academic standards
(Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Teachers should try to get the same planning period if they are able
or coordinate a time during the week to meet and build their relationship. Co-teachers should be
doing just that, co-teaching: the special education teacher is planned to teach certain days or
certain lessons and not just observe behavior the entire time.
The most daunting aspect according to Murawski & Dieker (2004), of co-teaching is that
co-teachers overcome how to share the instruction time in the classroom. Since the
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
9
implementation of NCLB, high stakes testing has become a focal point of the classroom. Due to
NCLB’s implementation, it is important that teachers not only plan lessons together, but also
assessments. Teachers should talk about assessment, grading preferences, and philosophies about
co-teaching to help provide purposeful assessment and prevent later misunderstandings or
conflicts (Conderman & Hedin, 2012).
Wilson (2008), researched how co-teachers can utilize their time in the classroom to
create a beneficial learning environment for the students while the other teacher is presenting a
whole class instruction. The co-teacher can walk around the room overseeing student
performance and behavior, and cue students to focus and stay on task. The co-teacher can help
by targeting a specific student or forming a mini-group. Observing student behavior, questions,
and responses allows for the co-teachers to adjust the lessons for future instruction. The coteacher can help make assignments, and adjust them for modifications that may need to be made
for students with disabilities. The co-teacher is able to help by verbalizing possible confusion,
sharing a different point of view, as well as helping with notes and homework (Wilson, 2008).
Austin (2001) examined teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Results indicated that both
special educators and general educators found that scheduled planning time, administrative
support, and in-service training are needed to create a successful co-taught environment. One of
the questions in the survey asked the teachers how they viewed their main role in the classroom.
Special educators said their main role was to modify lessons and remediate. General educators
felt they were responsible for the majority of the lesson planning and instruction (Austin, 2001).
By establishing roles in the classroom and sharing responsibilities rather than one teacher
becoming the leader, co-teachers are able to grow and maintain a healthy relationship.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
10
Kohler-Evans (2006) also recommended that the main aspect for co-teachers in
establishing a healthy relationship is to “communicate, communicate and communicate more”
(pp. 263). Teachers can create unobtrusive signals to help communicate during a lesson, create
the agenda together, and discuss their teaching style preferences (Murawski & Dieker, 2004).
Co-teaching should be fun and give room for practice and mistakes. Co-teachers should
remember that one size does not fit all. The key to a successful co-teaching partnership is
compromise and collaboration (Sileo, 2011).
Co-teaching Outcomes
The research findings detailed above indicate teachers want a positive environment in
their classroom but co-teaching can create tensions. Bouck, (2007), illustrated how this tension
could be seen as a constraint or an opportunity for teachers. The co-teachers had more freedoms,
supported each other and could play a new role in the classroom, but at the same time the coteachers felt that their role was devalued (Bouck, 2007). The relationship built by teachers allows
for the classroom to either succeed or have difficulties.
The benefits of co-teaching can be analyzed by the perceptions of students with
disabilities, general education students, and the teachers involved. A three year study by
Walther-Thomas (1997) looked at 18 elementary schools and seven middle schools, involving
119 teachers and 24 administrators. The aim of the study was to help understand the benefits and
problems faced by students and educators. Students with disabilities were observed experiencing
more self-confidence and self-esteem by being included in the regular education setting.
Researchers noted that students struggled at first to adjust to the higher expectations of the
classroom, but by the end of the year all students, including those in the general education
population, showed academic progress. General education students were given teacher time and
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
11
attention that they otherwise would not see in a one teacher environment. Also, general education
students were able to learn new strategies and study skills. Co-teaching increased all students'
social skills and peer relationships by helping create a classroom community (Walther-Thomas,
1997).
Not only can co-teaching benefit students but also benefit teachers by allowing teachers
to grow professionally. Teachers reported in the study to be professionally satisfied with their
jobs and indicated they saw the programs improving over time. Co-teaching helped teachers
support one another and additionally increased collaboration among the faculty members.
Conversely, Walther-Thomas (1997), noted many problems, some becoming more
serious the longer they were not addressed. Those problems included finding planning time to
work together due to different preparation periods at a secondary level. Students with disabilities
would often be scheduled into another resource class at the same time a co-taught class was
taught, limiting their chances of being placed in a co-taught class. Another concern for the
special educator was that co-teaching took time away from working on their case load. Some of
the special educator's caseloads in the study were so large they could not help the general
education teacher meet demands for the co-taught class, creating a stressful situation. All
participants in the study expressed they had administrative support, but would like more time to
work on staff development to create a more cohesive environment (Walther-Thomas, 1997).
Not every study concludes with mostly positive reactions to co-teaching. The studies of
Magiera & Zigmond (2005) found when students with disabilities were co-taught they had more
interaction with a teacher, yet if the special educator was not in the room the general educator
would interact less frequently with the student with disabilities. Whole classroom instruction was
prevalent throughout the eleven middle schools that participated in the study, which suggests
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
12
there was little training on co-teaching before it was implemented in the classroom (Magiera &
Zigmond, 2005). Yet by executing co-teaching practices in the classroom it allows students with
disabilities to improve at all school system levels when they are given more access to the general
education curriculum (Walsh, 2012).
Student Perceptions of Co-Teaching
In 2012, Embury and Kroeger investigated student perceptions of co-teachers in two
classrooms. Seven students in a seventh grade language arts co-taught classroom and an eighth
grade language arts co-taught classroom were given individual interviews. The researchers noted
that in the seventh grade classroom they used primarily the one teach/one assist model of coteaching. Whereas, in the eighth grade classroom they used a mixture of station teaching, parallel
teaching, and team teaching strategies. The different roles that teachers played in the classroom
had an effect on student perceptions of their teachers. In the seventh grade classroom, the general
education teacher was referred to as the “real teacher” and viewed the special education teacher
as a helper, and not someone who was in control of the learning process or the classroom
(Embury & Kroeger, 2012). When the students in the eighth grade were asked about their
teacher’s roles, three out of four of the students interviewed indicated they had the same job. Due
to such cohesiveness in the classroom the roles of the teachers in the eighth grade room were
more interchangeable than the roles used in the seventh grade classroom. Generally students in
both classrooms found that having two teachers in the room helped decrease wait time when they
wanted help on an assignment and it also was beneficial in maintaining order and discipline in
the classroom. The researchers concluded that when teachers show behavior towards each other
that is respectful as well as change things up in the classroom to fit the needs of the lesson, it can
create a community of inclusive learners and teachers.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
13
The Joliet Township high school surveyed teachers and students about their views on coteaching in 2010. By and large there was a positive outlook at having two teachers in the
classroom from students’ point of view. Over eighty percent of the students reported that both
teachers helped and taught all students, enforced classroom rules and expectations, and
understood the course content. Sixty to over seventy percent of the students expressed that both
teachers had high expectations, having two teachers in a classroom helped them to do better,
work cooperatively with others, try harder and made them feel they were more likely to graduate
high school. They found two major themes in student responses that it allowed students to
receive help quicker, and taught them different approaches to teaching. At the same time, student
responses also voiced that they did not like seeing different teaching styles, at times teachers
might have different rules or expectations and that there was always someone watching you.
Overall research suggests that co-teaching is beneficial for the students and if anyone is
falling behind, it is the teachers in the classroom. In the survey by Bacharach, Heck & Dahlberg
(2011), they noted five critical elements of co-operating teachers were: sharing leadership in the
classroom, trust and respect for each other, communicating, along with planning, and teaching
together. When looking at research, teachers should understand what type of co-teaching model
is being used when planning lessons based on research.
Co-Teaching Methods in Research
Team Teaching and Station Teaching
Research by Gurgur & Uzuner (2011), studied the benefits of team teaching and station
teaching in a second-grade classroom in a low-income district located in Turkey. The classroom
had 33 students, with two students identified as needing special education. This was the first time
that either teacher had worked with each other, and also the first time that either teacher was in a
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
14
co-teaching assignment. The teachers tried to implement a team teaching approach where they
would take turns teaching the classroom. In this classroom when the general educator was
teaching, they often would forget to explain the objectives of the lesson and only provide whole
classroom instruction. When the special educator was teaching, the general educator would
interrupt the special educator to remind them about discipline problems happening in the
classroom (Gurgur & Uzuner, 2011).
When this particular pair of teachers then tried station teaching in the classroom the
results were both positive and negative (Gurgur & Uzuner, 2011). Students were well placed in
groups, but there was a lack of instruction and management on how the groups rotated and how
students were to manage themselves at the station where they were independent.
During this time, the teachers were given co-planning and reflection meeting times, but
due to the general educator not wanting to be involved in the co-teaching process, meetings were
either not held or were short. The special educator cited that the general educator would arrive
late and come unprepared to meetings. This behavior hindered the success of station teaching
and team teaching in the classroom. The researchers noted that when cooperation from the
general education teacher could not be accomplished, the co-teaching model of one-teach/oneassist would then be applied in the classroom as it requires less cooperation between the teachers
(Gurgur & Uzuner, 2011).
Parallel, Team, and Station Teaching
Embury (2010), researched student engagement and teacher perception when teachers
changed their teaching strategy of one teach/one assist to parallel, team and station teaching.
Embury looked at two students in three different classrooms, one with an IEP and one who was
teacher recommended without any known disabilities, to compare their engagement levels
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
15
between the co-teaching. The teachers participating in the study also received training prior to
the collection of data. In the classroom that was modeling station teaching, students’ engagement
increased, and students took responsibility for their own learning. The seventh grade math coteachers who Embury studied were open to new ideas; both licensed in the content area, and had
already worked with each other for quite some time. These teachers used the team teaching
model and found that acknowledging each other’s skills helped to establish effective practices in
the classroom (Embury, 2010).
Embury (2010) then looked at student engagement levels and found that the mean of the
engagement level of the six students observed during one teach/one assist was at 84.83%. There
was a higher engagement level for team teaching and station teaching among all six students
with station teaching mean engagement levels at 93.83% and team teaching mean engagement
levels at 91.16%. Two students were observed four times in a parallel teaching model and were
measured with mean engagement levels of 94% (Embury, 2010).
Parallel Teaching
In a junior high school located in southeast Iran researchers implemented a parallel
teaching strategy to help students in their English as a foreign language class (Aliakbari &
Bazyar, 2012). Students were first given a proficiency test and divided into a control group and
an experimental group. The control group had one teacher in the classroom, and the experimental
group and two teachers trying out the parallel model of co-teaching. In the experimental group
each teacher taught their own group, in the same classroom setting, with the same material and
did not change their roles, position, or groups during instructional time. The sessions were held
once a week and at the end of two months students were given a post test. Results showed that
there was no significant difference in being taught by a single teacher from being taught with a
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
16
parallel format of co-teaching. Students found that they were not accustomed to the experience
of parallel teaching, and would lose focus in a noisy classroom caused by simultaneous teaching.
The researchers did note that even though the results of the research were not completely
positive they found that the teachers enjoyed teaching in the parallel teaching format and that
with more practice they felt it would improve student progress (Aliakbari & Bazyar 2012).
Station Teaching
In the research done by Bronson & Dentith (2014) they looked into a Kindergarten
classroom in urban schools who utilized co-teaching. They found that in one particular classroom
that used station teaching there was a high level of success and the reading scores of the students
were above average. Students in the classroom not only had a special educator and a general
educator, but they also had a teacher assistant in the classroom who helped at stations. At one
observation, the researchers noted that there were six small groups rotating around the
classroom. In this session, the six learning centers that students could go to had clear directions,
purposeful structure and set up with meaningful activities. Three of the groups had no adult
supervision yet students were working independently or with their small groups seamlessly.
Having these learning centers provided the students an effective way to support goals and
develop a range of skills (Bronson & Dentith, 2014).
One Teach-One Assist
Case studies conducted by Mastropieri et al. (2005) evaluated four different co-teaching
examples. The first case study observed two teams of teachers during a unit on the ecosystem
taught at the upper elementary and middle school grades. The research noted that these teams
worked well due to their collaboration efforts but did not mention what models of co-teaching
they used in the classroom. The second case study looked at how a middle school social studies
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
17
team had struggles in their co-taught efforts due to co-planning, teaching style and behavior
management. The third case study monitored three teams of co-teachers in a high school history
setting and noted the roles each teacher played and how end-of-year testing had an emphasis in
the classroom. A significant deficiency of the entire study is that only one model of co-teaching
was described across the studies, limiting the data analyzed. The classroom in the last case study
identified as using the one-teach/one-assist model in a high school chemistry course. Due to lack
of content knowledge, the special education teacher played more of a role as an aide, rather than
a teacher (Mastropieri et al., 2005). Many special educators do not have a degree in the content
taught. In these situations, it is important for special education teachers to become co-learners,
and ask questions so they can be prepared to understand the main ideas of the lesson (Rice,
Drame, Owens & Frattura, 2007).
The goals in another study by Mageria, Smith, Zigmond & Gebauer (2005) sought to
ascertain how co-teaching looked in the classroom and how it benefitted students. They found
that in 24 of the 49 observed classrooms the special educator assumed the role of being an
observer or assistant. Team teaching was observed in only nine out of the 49 classrooms, and
across their entire study, only twenty minutes of observed time was small group or alternative
teaching happening. The researchers concluded that special education teachers should examine
their role as facilitators to help students understand the material. The special education teachers
should also work with the general education teachers to enrich the lessons to be more dynamic
than what normally happens in a mathematics classroom (Magiera, et al., 2005).
A noted deficit in the literature reviewed was the lack of specificity as to what coteaching model was implemented in the research (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson & McCulley, 2012).
Even though there are six models of co-teaching, some models appear to be forgotten or
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
18
overlooked in research such as one-teach/one observe. Instead it appears as a definition in a
literature review before the research, rather than actual data studied. Also, research tends to lean
toward station teaching and not on alternative teaching.
Summary
Finding an effective method of co-teaching increases student growth and teacher
relationships. When co-teachers communicate with one another about what is going on in the
classroom and how they can improve it, there is always success. The research suggests that
districts who use co-teaching as a response to intervention rather than a research based decision
find that co-teaching is not being utilized correctly. Co-teaching comes with challenges, but
when teachers are willing to communicate they can increase student success. There are different
models of co-teaching yet research fails to illustrate if any particular model helps students more,
but instead, it shows how the co-teaching model implemented in the classroom is more of a
personal teaching preference. If presented well, co-teaching can help students succeed not only
academically, but also personally.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
19
PURPOSE
Based on the literature reviewed, co-teaching can provide benefits for teachers and
students. Even though there are six models of co-teaching, the dominant model is “one-teach,
one assist”. This model is not highly recommended, nor the most effective (Scruggs et al., 2007).
Murawski & Swanson (2001) claimed more research into co-teaching models will help teachers
build their relationship in order to help all students in the classroom. The purpose of this research
is to look at the process of how co-teachers discover which method of co-teaching works best for
the students and for them. Students will be taught with three different methods of co-teaching
throughout the research; (a) team teaching (b) station teaching and (c) alternative teaching. By
collecting data through co-teacher discussion, student data, and surveys the research will seek to
answer the following question:
1) When co-teachers are collaborating together, what influences them in determining which
model of co-teaching to use when planning a lesson and be most effective?
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
20
METHOD
Step 1: Selecting a Focus
To address the question of the study, an action research approach will be used. The focus
of this study is co-teaching, and how teachers work together to find the best method of coteaching to plan their lessons and be collaborative.
Step 2: Clarifying Theories
Through the literature review it was discovered that there are primarily 6 types of coteaching. For this project three were selected; team teaching, station teaching and alternative
teaching.
The independent variables of this research will be the co-teaching method in which the
students are taught. Students will be exposed to three methods of co-teaching (a) team teaching
(b) station teaching and (c) alternative teaching. The co-teachers are planning on implementing
the three methods of co-teaching in the following manor:
Team teaching: The teachers will take turns on who is introducing the lesson for the day.
When the instructors get to the examples for each lesson they will also rotate who teaches
examples on how to solve problems. The co-teachers will have a discussion with each other
while solving examples to show the students that there are different ways to solve problems.
While one teacher is instructing the class the other teacher may be monitoring student behaviors,
getting ready for the next portion, or helping students follow along. Other procedures may
happen but are unforeseen at the moment. This method was chosen due to it being highly used in
the classroom on a day to day basis.
Station teaching: Students will be placed in groups of four to five students based on
where they are sitting so they may move their desks together quickly. Students will then be
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
21
instructed on the three different station “areas” of the room. Students will rotate by two groups at
a time. For part of their assignment two of the student groups will come out into the small hall
and work with one of the teachers. Another station will be group work at their desks together and
students will be helped by a teacher’s aide in the classroom when needed. The last station will be
in one area of the room and students will be instructed by the other teacher. Stations will rotate
every 15-20 minutes depending on activities planned. This method was picked to help the
students have higher engagement levels in the classroom.
Alternative teaching: The co-teachers will make a list of 10-15 students who either need
remedial help on a math skill previously taught, or who are on track to receive an enrichment
activity in math. One of the teachers will take this small group out of the classroom and into the
other teacher’s classroom and provide instruction while the other teacher is with the remaining
students. The teacher who is with the majority of the students will choose to teach a new
approach to a concept, teach a new concept, or help students with assignments. This will be
determined by student needs noticed by the co-teachers and the time frame of the curriculum
map.. This method was chosen to give students help in smaller groups and break apart the
schedule in the classroom.
Step 3: Identifying Research Questions
This research will be highly relevant in increasing collaboration with the co-teacher
throughout the year. The researcher will have daily debriefs with the co-teacher as well as survey
the students on a weekly basis to get feedback about the co-teaching process and methods used.
This will help the co-teachers to understand what type of co-teaching models students prefer and
if it has any influence on student performance as evidenced by assessments and grading.
Step 4: Collecting Data
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
22
Participants
There are two main participants in this research, the general education teacher and the
special education teacher. This is the third year that the participants have co-taught together
teaching an eighth grade math class at a Title One junior high school located in northern Utah,
chosen due to convenience and accessibility to the researcher. The co-teachers have received no
formal training on co-teaching but will be familiarized with the different co-teaching models to
be used. In addition teachers will share the same preparation period to help with their coplanning, and debriefing sessions. Approximately 35 students will be given surveys, fifteen of
the students in the classroom will be students identified as having a learning disability. Teacher
consent and parent consent/student assent will be obtained before students are allowed to
participate in completing the survey.
Instrumentation
The researcher created a small questionnaire that will be filled out on a daily basis by the
general educator and the special educator during the debriefing sessions (see Appendix A). The
special educator will also record debriefing sessions as the co-teachers collaborate with one
another to discuss what worked during the previous day’s lesson and what needs to be changed.
The dependent variable in this research will be the daily debriefing sessions, and surveys.
The researcher created a survey (see Appendix B & C) for students and teachers based on the
best practices determined by Johnson & Christensen (2008). Students will be given an online
survey with a Likert scale along with an open ended question; the researcher will analyze the
surveys by comparing the data from weekly reports. The teacher will also be given an online
survey at the end of each week, to give the researcher overall feedback on the weeks progression.
Participants will receive the online surveys to help the researcher collect data efficiently, the
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
23
Likert scale is being used to obtain feedback from participants. Reliability and validity will be
assured by limiting outside factors by having the same students, teacher, and classroom
environment will be used. The researcher will be surveying the students at the end of each week
with the same instrumentation. The researcher will hand out the surveys to a pilot group as well.
Procedure
The researcher will first obtain Internal Review Board (IRB) approval for the proposed
research. Once approved, the researcher will contact and obtain permission from the district and
school to implement the research involving the students (See Appendix D & E). The general
education teacher will be given a letter of consent at the start of the school year to show
agreement in participating in the research study (See Appendix F) Also, students will be given a
letter of intent with consent informing parents about their students’ involvement in the research
and asking for permission that they fill out a survey at the end of the each week through the
duration of the research.(See Appendix G). The survey will be created using SurveyGizmo and
distributed to the students and teacher with a link attached to the researcher’s website for easy
access. The duration of this research will be approximately four weeks.
The researcher, who is the special educator and the general educator have the same
preparation period on a daily basis and will utilize fifteen-twenty minutes of that time to have a
debriefing session. Since the preparation period is in the morning and before the co-taught class
is instructed, the co-teachers will discuss about the previous day’s lesson during the debriefing
session and how to improve the lesson taught that day. The debriefing session will include a
daily questionnaire that can provide the researcher with feedback on the previous day’s lesson.
The debriefing sessions will focus on how the teachers used a method of co-teaching and
whether they felt it worked or would like to try a different method. Co-teachers will also discuss
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
24
student performance on assessments and assignments along with student behavior in the
classroom during instructional time. Other topics unforeseen at the moment may also be
discussed. The debriefing sessions will take place face to face in one of the teacher’s classrooms.
The debriefing sessions will also be recorded, and transcribed to help maintain reliability on
reporting outcomes. The confidentiality of the teachers will be maintained on the transcriptions.
During the research study, students will be given a short survey at the end of the week to
obtain feedback on their opinion of the co-teaching experience. By assessing student learning
preferences, the co-teachers can discuss the results of the surveys during a debriefing session to
help plan how they will teach throughout the week.
Step 5: Analyzing Data
Data Analysis
Data for the debriefing sessions will be analyzed by finding themes throughout the
transcriptions and coding. Data will be collected from the surveys taken by the students and by
the teacher. Data will be collected via the survey tool. Data will then be analyzed by looking at
the means and percentages of each response. Open ended questions in the survey will be
analyzed qualitatively.
Step 6: Reporting Results
Results will be reported to the Masters of Education department at Weber State
University and presented during the researcher’s defense.
Step 7: Taking Informed Action
Results will also be given to the co-teachers involved in the study so they may take
informed action and create a learning environment that is beneficial for the students and to them.
Other options on taking informed action will be discussed during the researchers defense.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
25
References
Aliakbari, M. & Bazyar, A. (2012). Exploring the impact of parallel teaching on general
language proficiency of EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 16(1), 55-71.
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and special education, 22(4),
245-255.
Bacharach, N. L., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. R. (2011). What makes co-teaching work?
Identifying the essential elements. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal
(CTMS), 4(3), 43-48.
Bouck, E. C. (2007). Co-teaching…Not just a textbook term: Implications for practice.
Preventing School Failure, 51(2), 46-51.
Bronson, C.E. & Dentith A. M. (2014) Partner teaching: A promising model. Educatation.
134(4), 506-520.
Brown, N., Howerter, C. S., & Morgan, J. (2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching
work. Intervention In School & Clinic,49(2), 84-91. doi:10.1177/1053451213493174
Conderman, G., & Hedin, L. (2012). Purposeful assessment practices for co-teachers. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 44(4), 18-27.
Cortiella, C. (2007). Rewards and roadblocks: How special education students are faring under
No Child Left Behind. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved
from: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Evaluatingperformance/Special-education-At-a-glance/Special-education-References.html
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
26
Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues,
current trends, and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13.
Duchardt, B., Marlow, L., Inman, D., Christensen, P., & Reeves, M. (1999). Collaboration and
co-teaching: General and special education faculty. Clearing House, 72(3), 186.
Embury, D. (2010) Does co-teaching work? A mixed method case study evaluation of coteaching as an intervention. University of Cincinnati.
Embury. D. & Kroeger, S. (2012) Let’s ask the kids: Constructions of co-teaching. International
Journal of Special Education. 27(2), 102-112.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal Of
Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.
doi:10.1080/10474410903535380
Gurgur, H. & Uzuner, Y. (2011). Examining the implementation of two co-teaching models:
team teaching and station teaching. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15:6,
589-610. doi: 10.1080/13603110903265032
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L., (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids..
Education, 127(2), 260-264.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
27
Nichols, J., Dowdy, A., & Nichols, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An educational promise for children
with disabilities or a quick fix to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind?
Education, 130(4), 647-651.
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co‐teaching in middle school classrooms under routine
conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in
co‐taught and solo‐taught classes?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2),
79-85.
Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., & Gebauer, K. (2005). Benefits of co-teaching in
secondary mathematics classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 20-24.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005).
Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges.
Intervention In School & Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.
Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary
level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A Meta-Analysis of Co-Teaching Research Where
Are the Data?. Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 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.
Rice, N., Drame, E., Owen, L., & Frattura, E. M. (2007). Co-instructing at the secondary level.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 12-18.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
28
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392416.
Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching Exceptional Children,
43(5), 32-38.
Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & Mcculley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction:
The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology In The Schools,
49(5), 498-510. doi:10.1002/pits.21606
U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (2001). No Child Left
Behind. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
Walsh, J. M. (2012). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement.
Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-35. Doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.555791
Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers
and principals report over time. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395.
Wilson, G. (2008). Be an active co-teacher. Intervention In School & Clinic, 43(4), 240-243.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
29
APPENDIX A:
Debriefing Session Questionnaire
Date of Discussion_________________Teacher filling out questionnaire___sped____gen ed
Question
What type of coteaching was used in
the lesson? (Circle all
that apply)
Team Teaching
Station
Teaching
Who instructed the
most during the
lesson?
Sped Teacher
Gen Ed Teacher
What worked?
What needs to be
improved?
Additional Notes.
Alternative
Teaching
Other (Specify):
It was equal.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
30
APPENDIX B:
Student Survey
Choose the number that best describes your feelings for each question.
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. Having two teachers in
the classroom has
helped me to focus in
class.
2. I liked how the two
teachers taught this
week
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3. I was able to get help
from either teacher
when I needed help.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I saw both teachers
teach during the week.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6. Both teachers knew
what was going on in
the classroom.
1
2
3
4
5
7. I feel like I have
improved my math
skills this week.
1
2
3
4
5
5. I worked with other
students this week.
8. What are your thoughts
about having two
teachers in the
classroom?
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
31
APPENDIX C:
Teacher Survey
Choose the number that best describes your feelings for each question.
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
2. Behavior
management was
shared between
teachers
3. Both teachers
understood the
objectives for the
classroom.
4. I had time to plan
the lessons with my
co-teacher.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
5. Students interacted
with us equally.
1
2
3
4
5
6. I feel like students
enjoyed how this
week was taught.
1
2
3
4
5
1. I liked how this week
was taught.
7. What are your
thoughts about
having two teachers
in the classroom?
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
32
APPENDIX D:
IRB Approval
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
33
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
34
APPENDIX E:
District and School Approval
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
35
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
36
APPENDIX F:
IRB STUDY #XXXXXXXXXX
WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY
INFORMED CONSENT
[Co-teaching and Collaboration: How co-teaching teams determine which model can be most
effective]
You are invited to participate in a research study that will look at how co-teaching teams determine
which method of co-teaching is most effective for students. You were selected as a possible subject
because of your enrollment in a co-taught class. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions
you may have before agreeing to be in the study.
The study is being conducted by Jennica Brocious a Masters student in the department of Education at
Weber State University.
STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to look at daily reports from co-teachers on their experience in the
classroom and assess which methods they used where outcomes were both positive for teachers and
students.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:
If you agree to participate, you will be one of approximately thirty subjects who will be participating in
this research.
PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY:
If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things:
Meet with the co-teacher/researcher on a daily basis for a debriefing session that will last approximately
15-20 minutes.
Fill in the questionnaire on a daily basis with the co-teacher/researcher.
Agree that debriefing sessions will be recorded and transcribed.
RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:
The risks of completing the questionnaire are being uncomfortable answering the questions. There
may be a possible loss of confidentiality from the debriefing sessions, though it is a low risk. There
may be risk that is currently unforeseeable.
BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY
You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. Benefits of participating in the study include
understanding what types of teaching helps students have success in the classroom.
ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:
Participation in this study is voluntary; students are under no obligation to participate and may
withdraw at any time. There is not an alternative for this study.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
37
COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
In the event of physical injury resulting from your participation in this research, necessary medical
treatment will be provided to you and billed as part of your medical expenses. Costs not covered by
your health care insurer will be your responsibility. Also, it is your responsibility to determine the extent
of your health care coverage. There is no program in place for other monetary compensation for such
injuries. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
If you are participating in research which is not conducted at a medical facility, you will be responsible
for seeking medical care and for the expenses associated with any care received.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute
confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be
held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published and databases in which results may
be stored.
Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data
analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State
University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, and (as allowed by law) state
or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission
scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your
medical and/or research records.
CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS
For questions about the study, contact the researcher Jennica Brocious at 801-402-6500 or the
researcher’s Dr. Melina Alexander at 801-656-8742
For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns
about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee
IRB@weber.edu.
VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY
Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any
time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your
decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with
Weber State University.
SUBJECT’S CONSENT
In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study.
I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in
this study.
Subject’s Printed Name:
Subject’s Signature:
Date:
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
38
(must be
dated by the subject)
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent:
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent:
Date:
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
39
APPENDIX G
IRB STUDY #XXXXXXXXXX
WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY
INFORMED CONSENT
[Co-teaching and Collaboration: How co-teaching teams determine which model can be most
effective]
You are invited to participate in a research study that will look at how co-teaching teams determine
which method of co-teaching is most effective for students. You were selected as a possible subject
because of your enrollment in a co-taught class. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions
you may have before agreeing to be in the study.
The study is being conducted by Jennica Brocious a Masters student in the department of Education at
Weber State University.
STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to look at daily reports from co-teachers on their experience in the
classroom and assess which methods they used where outcomes were both positive for teachers and
students.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:
If you agree to participate, you will be one of approximately thirty subjects who will be participating in
this research.
PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY:
If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things:
Completing a survey at the end of each week for the duration of four weeks. The amount of time to take
the survey should be no more than ten minutes each time given.
RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:
The risks of completing the survey are being uncomfortable answering the questions. There may be
risk that is currently unforeseeable.
BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY
You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. Benefits of participating in the study include
understanding what types of teaching helps students have success in the classroom.
ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY:
Participation in this study is voluntary; students are under no obligation to participate and may
withdraw at any time. There is not an alternative for this study.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
40
COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
In the event of physical injury resulting from your participation in this research, necessary medical
treatment will be provided to you and billed as part of your medical expenses. Costs not covered by
your health care insurer will be your responsibility. Also, it is your responsibility to determine the extent
of your health care coverage. There is no program in place for other monetary compensation for such
injuries. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
If you are participating in research which is not conducted at a medical facility, you will be responsible
for seeking medical care and for the expenses associated with any care received.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute
confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be
held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published and databases in which results may
be stored.
Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data
analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State
University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, and (as allowed by law) state
or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission
scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your
medical and/or research records.
CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS
For questions about the study, contact the researcher Jennica Brocious at 801-402-6500 or the
researcher’s Dr. Melina Alexander at 801-656-8742
For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns
about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee
IRB@weber.edu.
VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY
Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any
time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your
decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with
Weber State University.
SUBJECT’S CONSENT
In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study.
I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in
this study.
CO-TEACHING AND COLLABORATION
41
Subject’s Printed Name:
Subject’s Signature:
Date:
(must be
dated by the subject)
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent:
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent:
Date:
If the study involves children who will be providing their assent on this consent document, rather than
on a separate assent document, use the following signatures:
Printed Name of Parent:
Signature of Parent:
Date: