Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
Effectiveness of the Co-Teaching Model
on Seventh-Grade English and Language Arts Achievement
for Special Education and Lower-Achieving Students
LaDonna S. Peeples
Valdosta State University
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the co-teaching model. Co-teaching (N = 14) and
resource student (N = 14) achievement, behavior, and attitudes in the English/Language Arts
classroom were analyzed. T-tests were used to compare pre and post student grades, survey
responses, and behavior incidents. Interviews and teacher field notes were also compared to
determine student attitudes about co-teaching and the resource setting. Results indicated that
there was not a significant difference in achievement after the intervention between the groups (p
= 0.23). Analysis of student behavior showed the regular education participants had a significant
reduction in behavior incidents (p = 0.02). Qualitative data revealed an increase in positive
attitudes about the co-teaching classroom setting for both groups.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
3
Effectiveness of the Co-Teaching Model on Seventh-Grade English and Language Arts
Achievement for Special Education Students and Lower Achieving Students
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 2004, is a law created to bring accountability to schools
for student learning. The federal government held schools accountable by using high-stakes tests
such as the Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT). Schools are compared to
other schools using their testing results, but NCLB does not give methods or techniques to
achieve the standards set by the government. Schools were labeled as “Needs Improvement” or
“Does not meet the standard,” for different reasons other than overall academic achievement;
some schools had high rates of non-attendance while others had high numbers of special needs
students who did not meet the standards, and some schools had a combination of both.
The standards expected all students to perform to the same standard. The idea of all
students reading and performing on the same grade level was ideal, but many teachers
considered this idea unrealistic when by nature students who received special education services
had documented deficits. Most educators believed that the standards enforced by the state were
minimal. For example, the school involved in the current research was required to have 66% of
its students meet or exceed the state standard in 2007. The results for progress were by
percentage points gained per year, but a problem existed when there were disproportionate
numbers of students with special needs.
NCLB caused all schools to be considered the same, no matter their student population.
For example, smaller schools with smaller populations of special needs students were compared
to those with higher populations of special needs students. The government made an exception
for this stringent rule. There were a few students who were not included in the standard scores.
These students were the ones who meet eligibility for Moderately Intellectual Disabled (MOID)
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
4
placements. They participated in a modified curriculum, different from that of the majority of
students. In lieu of the regular state requirements, these students created Georgia Alternate
Assessment (GAA) portfolios. These portfolios demonstrated understanding of one grade level
benchmark. Portfolios were reviewed by state education representatives. Unfortunately, only 1%
of a district’s students were eligible to participate in this type of assessment. Those students who
were not eligible for GAA, no matter the deficit, were expected to meet the same standards as
students who functioned significantly higher academically, and the schools were held
accountable.
Unlike NCLB, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 pertained
specifically to special education services. IDEA mandated that all students be included in the
general education setting when possible. Many schools had trouble deciding how they would
adhere to IDEA and NCLB simultaneously. Schools were forced under IDEA to place students
with special needs into rigorous classes. Without appropriate support these students were
unlikely to meet the standard set by NCLB. Lack of support related to inadequate school funding
or lack of highly qualified personnel.
Some schools were forcefully transformed into using a full inclusion delivery model, in
which all students regardless of disability or effects of disability were included in the general
setting to maximize educational opportunities for students with special needs. Both schools in
which the researcher had worked had changed in part or wholly to this type of setting. In one
middle school in Savannah, all students were placed in regular classrooms. During the 20072008 school years, sixth grade students at the researcher’s current school were taught in the
general education setting the majority of the time. Pull-out services (or the resource model) were
allowed for students who were consistently failing in English and Language Arts with the co-
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
5
teacher special educator but students had to remain in the co-teaching environment according to
the district. A resource Mathematics class was required for students with special needs who were
considered bubble students. These students scored between 785-815 on the CRCT in the areas of
Mathematics and English and language arts. During 2008-2009, there is no resource connections
class but there was only one resource Mathematics class. A resource setting was when there was
one special education teacher who planned and executed lessons without the assistance of a
general educator. Some teachers were concerned whether students, who are mildly disabled, with
significant learning deficits, were truly benefiting from these educational services. One teacher in
Savannah spoke of her dismay as a student with severe disabilities was placed into her class
without a full time paraprofessional. This student did not speak or write and required a different
curriculum from the rest of her peers. Much of the teacher’s time was used trying to find
activities for the student who was many grade levels behind the remainder of special education
students.
Instead of forced full inclusion, schools should be able to determine placement of
students based upon the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) by analyzing individual student
needs, which was the true intent of the federal mandate. Often there were difficulties in
providing adequate instructional support for these students. Over the last six years, the researcher
has observed that students were often served in overcrowded classrooms for English and
Mathematics and were not served appropriately in the academic areas of Social Studies and
Science. Both aforementioned school sites did not have enough special educators to work, even
as consultants, with the regular educators who had students with disabilities in their classes.
Teacher caseloads reached up to 70 students in one site. At the current research site each special
educator had over 15 students on their caseload.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
6
Special needs students often were lost in the regular curriculum, trying to keep up with
their non-disabled peers but without the adequate support. If these students continued to receive
special services but were unable to pass the rigorous tests set forth by the government, they will
not receive a high school diploma, but instead will receive a Certificate of Attendance. These
students were at-risk for dropping out of school as well as not being able to find jobs.
The community in which the current research was conducted was considered a
metropolitan low income, rural area. The demographics for the community in which this research
was conducted were 48% White, 48% Black, 2% Hispanic, 2% other. During the 2007-2008
school years, this inner city school was 99% Black with 100% of students receiving free or
reduced-price lunch. More than 20% percent of the student population received special education
services at that time. During the 2008-2009 school year the school demographics included 97%
Black, 2% White, and 1% other. All students at the school continued to be eligible to receive free
lunch. There were 738 students enrolled in the school during this research and 13.41% of
students received special education services.
This high percentage of students with special needs led to serious problems for the
community. Students with low achievement were at risk for dropping out of school. Also if these
students continued in school but were unable to pass the Georgia High School Graduation Test
they did not receive a diploma.
This Title I inner-city school was labeled as “Needs Improvement” for four consecutive
years, and the 2006-2007 school year was the first time that this school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP). The 2007-2008 year found the school back on the “Needs Improvement” list.
Schools like this one that are consistently labeled as “Needs Improvement” look for some
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
7
method to accelerate student achievement on standardized tests to avoid sanctions imposed by
the state.
The school in this study participated in a program titled Learning-Focused Schools. All
faculty members were required to be trained and to implement strategies learned from this
educational program. The school also followed a Corrective Action Plan for district monitoring
of special education programming throughout the district.
One strategy, described in the Corrective Action Plan to Address Focused Monitoring of
Special Education Programming, was to improve the performance of students with disabilities by
increasing the co-teaching opportunities for those students. This school’s sixth-grade scores
increased in the 2006-2007 school year including those students with a disability and this grade
participated in co-teaching in English/Language Arts and Mathematics. Special Education
teachers also worked as consultants for general education teachers in the sixth-grade to help with
students who struggled in other academic classes.
Co-teaching was seen as one way that schools moved to comply with both NCLB and
IDEA. It allowed schools to maximize the instructional support for students with special needs
by participating in cooperative teaching (co-teaching). Recent training by Claudia Parker and
Corine Alt (2007) defined co-teaching in this way:
Co-teaching is defined as two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to
a group of students with diverse learning needs. This approach increases instructional
options, improves educational programs, reduces stigmatization for students, and
provides support to the professionals involved. Co-teaching is an appropriate service
delivery approach for students with disabilities who can benefit from general curriculum
if given appropriate supports. It is an inclusive service-delivery option for students with
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
8
disabilities in which there is one certified special education teacher or other staff and one
certified general education teacher. For students with disabilities co-teaching increases
achievement and test scores as a result of higher teacher expectations, increases social
skills and self-esteem, reduces behavior problems, and reduces curriculum fragmentation
and “missed” activities (p. 21).
Co-teaching had been strongly endorsed as a model for delivering instruction to students
who legally required additional assistance, without taking them out of the class with their nondisabled peers. Lowering student-teacher ratios enabled more students to be actively involved in
learning activities. With more teachers in the classroom, there was an opportunity to focus on the
specific needs of the student and not the needs of the class as a whole in relation to the
curriculum. Many students with special needs did not truly digest the information presented in
the classroom in most cases because they did not fully understand the concepts being presented;
they participated but did not truly understand the information (Ainscow, 2000).
More individualized instruction for student’s leads to an increase in potential regular
academic knowledge and increased high-stakes testing scores. Supporters of co-teaching
believed that when students with special needs were given access to the general curriculum and
the high expectations of their peers and general educators, they performed better (Parker & Alt,
2007). When pushed to achieve, supporters also believe that, no matter the disability, these
students will be able to come closer to meeting the standard, or may actually meet the standard.
With the GPS and NCLB requirements, teachers were forced to include more information
each year that students were responsible for knowing at the time of state testing (Zigmond,
2006). Teachers must find methods to teach to all students who are included in their classes
despite ability. Collaborative groups were one strategy used in Learning Focused Training for
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
9
students to meet several performance standards at the same time. Unfortunately, from experience
working with other educators, many teachers were reluctant to allow group assignments often
because of the concern about behavioral issues and the close monitoring and supervision needed.
Murphy, Grey, and Honan (2005) discussed the problem that teachers face when
attempting to instruct students in a heterogeneous grouping, in relation to student engagement.
They discussed the problem of having three sets of students in the classroom (high performing,
average, and low performing students) who must meet the same academic goals. Utilizing the coteaching model had the potential to reduce this problem because this model allowed a smaller
teacher to student ratio. According to Magiera and Zigmond (2005), the physical presence of the
teachers reduced stigma of students receiving special needs services, which possibly increased
student participation and decreased negative behaviors. Friend (2007) also supported the idea of
having two teachers in order to meet the needs of diverse students. Having two teachers allowed
for more hands-on activities, differentiated instruction, and catering to specific learning styles, as
opposed to one teacher attempting to accommodate the needs of students with special needs,
slow learners, gifted students, and the regular body of students.
According to Zigmond (2001), co-teaching was expected to enhance the participation of
students with disabilities as full classroom members as well as “improve performance outcomes
for students with disabilities.” Byford and Cate-Clements (2006) found that students in grades 911 reported learning better when they were active participants in the learning process. Dieker
(2001) also found that students were more engaged in the learning environment as active
participants. Only one student out of 54 felt that co-teaching did not benefit their learning. The
one differing student then stated that “you can’t get away with anything (p. 8).” The teachers in
that co-teaching pair rarely used pen and pencil and created engaging activities for their students.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
10
Engaging students in meaningful lessons assisted them in attending long enough to
understand the information presented. If students were not interested in the lesson they were less
likely to learn the information. Lower performing special education students were able to
observe the final products of their regular education peers and did ask questions of their nondisabled peers, increasing engagement. These students were able to see the process that leads to
the final product. At the previous work site of the researcher, a Georgia’s Choice/America’s
Choice School, group work was encouraged. Many staff development meetings focused on
assisting students in working in groups. The rationale for these trainings was that the regular
education students served as models for the students with disabilities. It was believed that while
regular educated students worked through problems, their peers were able to see how to work
through problems, they heard their peers speak through the process (meta-cognitive skills), and
felt less intimidated because they were exposed to the mistakes as other students solved
problems. They no longer felt as if they were the only people who were wrong.
Teachers were required to take the Introduction to Special Education course in college
but most teachers felt that one course did not give enough training to work effectively with
students with disabilities. Not only did the co-teaching model provide extensive assistance to
students but it also provided extensive professional support for the teachers (Magiera &
Zigmond, 2005). As stated previously, the student-teacher ratio was divided when there are two
teachers in the classroom, which resulted in fewer behavior problems. Also the special education
teacher gave more information to the regular educator about strategies for meeting individual
student needs. Several teachers at the research site welcomed the thought of a special educator
assisting in their classes. They stated that working collaboratively with a special educator
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
11
allowed them to be able to teach more of the content but also simultaneously provide more
assistance to the students with special needs.
In a co-taught environment, it was possible “that while the general educator ensured the
lesson was content-driven and standards based, the special educator ensured explicit and direct
instruction (Murawski, 2006, p. 239)” as well as individualizing the lesson. Most teachers in the
school relied on special educators for information about various disabilities and did not
understand the impact of the disability on the education of the student until they began teaching a
student with that disability for extended times. This type of “find your way” trial-and-error
method of dealing with students with special needs caused problems for the teacher as well as the
student. Sometimes teachers did not fully understand the scope of the student’s issues until well
into the semester. Regular educators were willing to make accommodations for student learning
but often did not know how to implement the accommodations. The special educator showed the
regular education teacher simple changes, such as color-coding materials, modeling writing,
assisting note taking, and assigning peer tutors.
Students also benefited from having two teachers in the classroom because of the
different teaching styles. Some students worked better with one teacher on certain subjects in
class as opposed to others. Vlachou, Didaskalou, and Argyrakouli (2006) found that students in
Greek schools reported preferring in-class support or co-teaching as compared to other service
delivery options even though they had never been specifically exposed to co-teaching. In Greek
schools this was not a service delivery option. These middle grades students were lower
achieving students with troubled backgrounds and difficulties in academic classes. Unlike the
United States, this system did not have a set of criteria to qualify for special education services.
These students were considered to need special education services.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
12
Most research on co-teaching showed improvements in student behavior but not
academics when a special educator was included in the general classroom (Murawski, Swanson,
Weichel, & Lee, 2001). There were many variables that possibly affected the results of coteaching research; scheduling, teacher personalities, and teacher educational philosophy were
only a few. There was little or no quantitative analysis of research in this area. More research
needed to be conducted because most research results focused on the difference in student
behaviors in class.
No Child Left Behind required states to “establish challenging standards; to implement
assessments that measured student’s performance against those standards; and held schools
accountable for achievement) while simultaneously ensuring that students with special needs
were included in the general setting with their non-disabled peers (Browder, Wakeman, Flowers,
Rickelan, Pugalee, & Karvonen, 2007, p. 2).” In order for schools to make Adequate Yearly
Progress, or “meet the standard” given by the federal government, administrators and teachers
must find a way to work together to maximize student learning time and potential.
Watkins (2005) believed that the inclusive classroom should increase positive behaviors
academically and behaviorally. Assisting students in attaining the Georgia Performance
Standards or GPS, regular curriculum, became easier in the co-teaching environment because
there were more opportunities for students to take part in non-traditional activities. This study
attempted to determine if a difference existed for special education and lower achieving students
in the co-teaching setting in comparison to the pullout (resource) setting in the areas of academic
achievement, behavior, and student attitudes receiving services.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
13
Research Questions
Research question 1. Will student achievement in a co-teaching setting differ from
student achievement in a resource setting for special education and low achieving students?
Research question 2. Will student behavior incidents decrease in a resource setting as
compared to a co-teaching setting?
Research question 3. Will student attitudes toward English/Language Arts differ in a coteaching setting compared to a resource setting?
Definition of Variables
Behavior incidents. Behavior incidents were defined as inappropriate or negative
behaviors that caused classroom disruptions. Before an incident was documented, students were
given two warnings. The third time a student disrupted class, a Discipline Procedures Language
Arts procedure step was carried out.
The first step of the procedure consisted of the student being moved to the courtesy desk
and given a page to copy. This page was the first Georgia Performance Standard Page which
outlined the seventh grade expectations from the Georgia Department of Education. If the
behavior did not improve or the next behavior incident that occurred (following the two
warnings) the student would be teacher exchanged with a persuasive essay to copy and a
response consisting of three paragraphs. These pages had to be taken home and signed by the
student’s parent. Teachers also called home at this step. If these pages were not turned in to the
teacher the following day the student was referred automatically to the administrator, parent
would be called, and the student would have to sit at the courtesy desk until the situation was
resolved. If the behavior still did not improve a parent-teacher conference would be scheduled.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
14
Co-teacher. A co-teacher was a certified regular educator or certified special education
teacher who was engaged in the teaching process in a classroom cooperatively delivering
instruction to a group of diverse learners. This term usually referred to the special educator.
Co-teaching classroom setting. Co-teaching classroom setting was the regular
classroom setting where the general educator taught with a special educator. Regular classroom
instruction was the process of delivering instruction with a group of students blended or
homogenous with one regular education teacher.
Resource setting. Resource setting was the small group setting with the special
education teacher delivering instruction. Students included in the resource setting were mainly
students receiving special education services but contained some students who did not receive
special education services but were considered low performing because of their scores on tests
and quizzes during the first 6 weeks of the study.
Student achievement. Students’ academic achievement was determined by achievement
test scores in English and Language Arts. Student achievement included English and Language
Arts vocabulary tests, benchmark tests, unit tests and post-tests. These tests included fill in the
blank and multiple choice questions from stories, books, and the English and Language Arts
Georgia Performance Standards for seventh grade. These tests were created by the regular and
special educator.
Students’ attitudes. Students’ attitudes were determined by their answers given in a pre
and post-survey about their academic achievement, classroom behavior, and attitudes about
English and Language Arts. Students in all four academic classes were given the survey during
the fifth week of the study prior to being separated to different settings. After students were
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
15
separated for six weeks in the resource setting, they were given the survey again. The researcher
looked for differences in the students’ opinions before and after intervention.
Interviews were also conducted with six students by the researcher from reoccurring
themes from the pre-post survey during the twelfth week of the study. The interview guide
consisted of eight questions derived from comments or similarly answered questions that the
interviewer identified as reoccurring in the pre-post survey responses.
Methods
Participants
Each grade level in the school consisted of three academic teams. Each team consisted of
an English, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science teacher, and each class consisted of 12 to
29 students. Participants for this research included one regular education seventh-grade English
and Language Arts teacher, one seventh-grade English and Language Arts special education
teacher, and 28 seventh grade students in a southeastern Georgia middle school. The average age
of students participating in the study was 12. Table 1 displays student demographic information
and the academic level using 2007-2008 CRCT score results for the participants.
During the first 3 weeks of school, student scores were reviewed to determine who was
failing in English and Language Arts. The three lowest scoring regular education students and
the four lowest scoring special education students were chosen from each academic class to
participate in this research. Table 1 shows 28 students from four English and Language Arts
classes were included in this research. Comments and questionnaires from the other students in
the class were used to see possible trends in thinking of students.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
16
Table 1
Co-teaching and Resource Setting Participants
Variables
Regular Education
Special Education
Black
14
12
White
0
0
Hispanic
0
0
Other
0
2
Age
12
12
M = 792, SD = 20.57
M = 803, SD = 22.59
CRCT Mean and SD
*Passing score is 800
Students from two classes (Academic 1 and Academic 2) served as a control group to
compare to the intervention group that came from two other classes (Academic 3 and 4). There
were 11 students who were failing in Academic 1, four of whom were special education students.
The four failing special education students and the lowest achieving regular education students
(N=3) were part of the control group. Academic two participants in the control group consisted
of four failing students receiving special education services and three regular education students.
This control group participated in the co-teaching curriculum without changes to placement
during the 12-week study. The total number of students in the control group was 14.
In Academic 3, seven students were part of the treatment (resource) group. Three were
students participating in special education services, one who received special services but was
passing with a low score, and three students not receiving services but also had lower testing
averages compared to the rest of the class. Academic 4 participants consisted of four students
receiving services for special education and three students who participated in general
curriculum without services. Those four students and three of the lowest test averaging regular
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
17
education students were in the resource class (see Table 2). There were 14 students who
participated in the treatment group.
Although the school’s registrar randomly assigned all students included in this study,
students were later rearranged to achieve the goal of having a maximum of 18 students in each
co-teaching English and Language Arts and Mathematics co-teaching classroom. Participation in
the study did not change a student’s registration in the school’s database. The pullout class was
held in a resource Mathematics classroom.
Table 2
Participants by Academics for Co-teaching and Resource Settings
Setting
Co-teaching
(Academic 1 & Academic 2)
Resource
(Academic 3 & Academic 4)
Lower Achieving
Special Education
6
8
6
8
The teacher/researcher was a trained special educator with seven years of teaching
experience as a special educator, four years of co-teaching experience, and had regular education
certification. She had also been trained as a co-teacher trainer for the school. The regular
education teacher had seven years of educational experience in schools with four years teaching
experience in English and Language Arts. The regular educator had been co-teaching with the
special educator for one year and was receptive to participation in the study. Both teachers had
similar styles of handling discipline infractions and student behaviors.
The co-teacher assisted the regular educator with information pertaining to student
disabilities. The majority of students in the classes were on the special educator’s caseload the
previous year. The special educator/researcher was responsible for creating and implementing
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
18
the student’s IEP. The researcher/educator had access to the students’ prior grade level work,
psychological evaluations, Individualized Education Plans, and parental information.
Intervention
The study was conducted in two classrooms over a period of 12 weeks with four
academic English and Language Arts classes. Academic 1 and Academic 2 were a control group
and were compared to Academic 3 and Academic 4. During the first 6 weeks of the study, all
classes were co-taught with the teachers sharing planning and the delivery of instruction. At
week seven of the study, the regular educator and special educator continued sharing in the
planning of instruction but Academic 3 and Academic 4 were split into separate classes. The
special educator/researcher, during the second 6 weeks of the study, taught lower achieving and
special education students in the resource classroom; similarly, the regular educator taught the
higher achieving regular and special education students.
Students were given permission slips and information for parents during week five of the
study, which was prior to the treatment. Parents of students with Individualized Education Plans
or IEPs were asked if an amendment could be made to their child’s IEP to include instruction in
a resource setting for small group and more individualized instruction. Students continuing to
receive special education services in the regular education setting also received amendments with
parent permission stating that their services would be consultative or on an as needed basis.
Parents were assured that both teachers would continue to plan lessons together and follow the
same Georgia Performance Standards that they had been utilizing.
During the sixth week of the study, parents were given letters reminding them that
students would be pulled from co-teaching classes or remain in the general setting for a period of
6 weeks during the sixth week of the study. The researcher organized students by their test
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
19
averages in English and Language Arts and determined which students would be pulled out and
which would remain in the regular classroom. Student surveys were also given during week 5 of
the study to determine student attitudes about English/Language Arts. At week 7 of the study,
students appearing to need more assistance as evidenced by failing and low test scores, were
pulled from Academic 3 and Academic 4 and were assigned to the resource setting for the
intervention. During week 9 of the study, students were given the questionnaire again. At the
final week of the study, six students participated in an interview conducted by the researcher.
Interviewees were chosen by randomly choosing every fifth person from the regular educator’s
grade book until six participants were chosen.
Throughout this study, the same content was taught to all students; those in the resource
setting were able to receive more individualized small group instruction. For example, if an
assignment required students to write a five-paragraph essay, those students who needed help
with creating sentences and paragraphs would have more time with the teacher and access to
more activities and technological tools to enhance learning. As previously stated, all teachers at
the school site participated in Learning Focused Schools training and implementation. Students
were taught using graphic organizers, films, projects, and textbook activities. Students continued
to use these activities while in the co-teaching setting and resource setting.
Both teachers utilized the Seventh Grade English and Language Arts Unit Map to guide
instruction. The teachers co-planned both formally as well as informally in meetings in the
evening and on weekends. Regular planning time was limited due to IEP meetings, grade level
meetings, English/Language Arts meetings, and parent conferences. The smaller class size
decreased student teacher ratio for the pullout group and allowed for more individualized
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
20
instruction. Although the regular educator also had a smaller group of students; this group was
larger than the treatment group taught by the special educator.
The Least Restrictive Environment was often disregarded to meet state requirements and
funding issues. In this research, the investigator wanted to produce evidence supporting or
denying the effectiveness of co-teaching for regular education and special education students
who are lower achieving. Unless students were eligible for the MOID (moderately impaired)
students were required to be in the regular education classroom despite their documented skill.
Regardless of repeated failure of the CRCT and consistent deficits in meeting promotion criteria
yearly, many students were forced to remain in the general education setting unable to keep up
with the pace and information.
Parents also had inquired about separate classes for their students but because of funding
and laws such as NCLB schools were required to inform parents that the services were not
offered. When asked about the problems with LRE and student achievement the director of
special education for the school system stated, “because of the small number of students enrolled
at the school there had to be a certain percentage of students in the co-teaching environment.”
Funds were not available for an additional floating teacher. Although teachers were willing to be
trained and further their education to advance themselves as well as assist students in advancing;
the laws and policies made serving the students appropriately difficult.
Data Collection
Achievement tests. Academic achievement tests were created by the general education
teacher and special educator. These tests consisted of material learned weekly and were
cumulative. Achievement tests included bi-weekly vocabulary exams, benchmark exams, unit
tests, and post-tests. Tests ranged from 20 to 50 questions. During the co-teaching period and the
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
21
resource period students were given the same materials and tests. These test score averages for
students in co-teaching and resource settings were compared to determine if a difference in
scores existed by student placement. Scores of students in the co-teaching setting were compared
to scores from students participating in the resource setting. Academic achievement scores of the
two groups were compared using a t-test. Tests were compared to determine if a significant
difference in achievement existed after the intervention for the co-teaching participants and the
resource participants.
Student Behavior Form. When students were documented for inappropriate behaviors
the date was recorded with notes on the Discipline Procedure Language Arts sheet; the
researcher transferred these data to the Student Behavior Form (See Appendix A). The data
sheets were documented at the time the incident occurred. This procedure did not change when
classes were separated for the intervention. Both teachers continued to document behaviors on
the procedures sheet.
Co-teaching Student Pre-Post Questionnaire. At the fifth week of the study, students
were given a 10-item questionnaire (Appendix B), which included student demographic
information. Participants were asked to include their gender and age. The questionnaire consisted
of seven multiple-choice questions pertaining to academic achievement in English and Language
Arts during the previous year, their preference in service delivery, and three open-ended
questions were also included. Responses were analyzed for themes that occurred frequently, and
themes were used to create an interview guide.
Observational Notes/Field Notes. Both teachers wrote down significant quotes from
students, events, and their personal thoughts during the second 6 weeks of the study. Teachers
wrote notes, weekly on Mondays during the intervention, about significant events that happened
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
22
during instruction with each academic class. For example, if a student exhibited extreme
behavior difficulties or refused to participate or follow instructions, these behaviors were
documented. This information was included in qualitative results.
Interview. At the conclusion of the co-teaching period, six students were chosen to
participate in an eight item open-ended question interview by randomly choosing every fifth
student. Students included in the interview were three students receiving special services and
three who were students participating in regular education. These students were asked questions
that generated from the Co-teaching Pre-Post Questionnaire’s open-ended questions.
Students’ responses were written down during the interview for later review. Inflections
in tone and facial expressions were noted. The interview comparisons assisted the researcher
with finding more information about how student’s attitudes were similar and different about the
co-teaching experience. The interview was coded by the researcher to find similar themes among
the six students who were interviewed.
Results
Results from the study provided insight about student’s academic achievement, behavior,
and co-teaching attitudes from selected students from four English and Language Arts co-taught
classes. The co-teaching group was compared to themselves and then to the resource group to
determine if the control group had a statistical difference from the beginning to the end of the
intervention. Likewise, the resource group was compared to themselves and then to the coteaching group to determine if a statistical difference existed in achievement.
To determine if there was a difference in student achievement by pre and post measures
for the intervention testing averages were used from student reports to run a matched pairs t-test.
The differences of the scores were not significant (see Table 3). The co-teaching pre and post
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
23
assessment achievement scores were not significantly different (p = 0.10) and the differenmce of
the resource achievement scores (p = 0.07) was not significant (see Table 4). To determine
whether students who experienced the intervention had higher achievement scores after the study
compared to those who participated in the co-teaching setting, achievement post scores for coteaching and resource settings were then compared using a t-test assuming equal variances.
Means and standard deviations (SD) for academic achievement for co-teaching and resource
students are shown in Table 5. There was also no significant difference between scores for those
who participated in the co-teaching setting or the resource intervention setting. These results
show that although there were increases in averages between both the co-teaching and resource
participant’s achievement scores the increase of averages was not enough to be significant.
Table 3
Comparison of Pre and Post Academic Achievement Scores for Co-teaching Setting
Co-teaching
N
M
t-value
p
Pre-Intervention
14
64.11
-1.36
0.10
Post Intervention
14
67.79
*<.05, **p<.01
Table 4
Comparison of Pre and Post Academic Achievement Scores for Resource Setting
Resource
N
M
t-value
p
Pre-Intervention
14
69.86
-1.58
0.07
Post Intervention
14
73.29
*<.05, **p<.01
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
24
Table 5
Comparison of Co-teaching and Resource Setting Achievement scores
Setting
N
M
SD
t-value
p
Co-teaching
14
67.78
12.04
-1.23
0.23
Resource
14
73.28
11.69
*<.05, **p<.01
The Student Behavior Form provided the researcher with information pertaining to the
amounts of times students exhibited inappropriate behaviors in English and Language Arts. A ttest was run to determine if there was a difference in student behavior incidents for students in
the co-teaching setting and those in the resource setting. The results of the t-test are shown in
Table 6. The analysis of the data shows there was a significant difference for students
participating in the resource setting (p = 0.02) in relation to a reduction of behavior incidents for
students who participated in the resource setting.
Table 6
Behavior Incidents of students in Co-teaching and Resource setting
Setting
N
M
SD
t-value
p
Co-teaching
14
1.64
0.25
2.59
0.02
Resource
14
1.00
0.62
*<.05, **p<.01
The Co-teaching Student Pre-Post Survey provided information about how students felt
about their experiences in the co-teaching setting pre and post intervention. Once student
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
25
responses were collected they were analyzed, and open-ended responses were coded by themes.
The same survey was given to students during the last week of the intervention to determine if
percentages were different from when the intervention began. For the co-teaching group, only
one student felt that English was a hard subject before and after the intervention. From the coteaching group two students felt that English was a hard subject. After the intervention, those
two students had changed their response to reasonable. The majority of students in the coteaching setting (79%) felt that having a co-teacher was a “good idea” in response to item two on
the questionnaire. Likewise, the resource group felt that the co-teacher was a positive aspect in
their education. Two regular education students felt that it was “good to have two teachers”
because you can split the classes. Over 90% of the control group and 100% of the intervention
group believed that students benefit when there are two teachers assisting them in the classroom.
Interestingly, less than 20% of students felt that one teacher was more important than the other.
The majority of students responded in the open-ended section of the questionnaire that both
teachers are equally important.
The researcher and regular educator both took field notes once a week on Mondays
pertaining to student behavior. These notes were reviewed for similar themes from students.
Gathering these qualitative data assisted the researcher in gaining more insight about students’
opinions and attitudes. Both teachers noted that students were more likely to answer questions in
class. The regular educator noted that students turned in more homework when the groups were
separated. The special educator noted that the resource setting students were more supportive of
each other and more positive about their learning experience.
One student, who is the focus of a program called SWIM (Supports With Imagination
and Meaning) through the special education program at the school, increased his time in the
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
26
classroom to 100%. He came to class everyday and spent the majority of the class period in the
class. His school day is set with many breaks because of his disability. With coaxing from a
female peer he chose several times not to go on his breaks but stay and work in class. Prior to the
intervention and after the intervention the student has not been present for a full class period. His
personal paraprofessional stated that, “he and the other students seemed happier and had better
relationships when they were in the resource small group.” Students in the resource setting
appeared to be more concerned about their peers academics and behaviors. Students gave each
other support on assignments without being asked by the teacher and talked to each other about
appropriate behaviors. Students would not let each other get into physical confrontations and
counseled each other about grades and consequences. The resource setting seemed to provide
more emotional support for students. During the intervention, similar sayings and responses were
coded and used to create the interview guide.
The final method of collecting data during the study was to conduct personal interviews
with six students chosen from the study. Questions from the interview protocol were drafted
from the student questionnaire. Of those interviewed, 100% stated that they preferred having two
teachers. All students reported it is easier to learn or understand with two teachers. One student
reported that behavior is better with two teachers but not necessarily teaching together at the
same time. Students felt that they could talk more freely about problems and issues with the both
teachers. The special education teacher reported that students gave personal information and
comments more freely in the resource setting. The students all reported liking the idea of two
teachers, but they wanted to be able to split classes. The majority of students felt that their
education was not different with two teachers. Many students were surprised to discover that the
researcher was a special educator but they all said that the researcher made the information
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
27
“easier to understand and easier to ask for help.” According to the information gathered in the
interviews, students felt as if they were supported more in the resource setting. Students appeared
to like the freedom of having an option of two teachers. Having two teachers “on call” seemed to
be an idea that most of the students shared. Although the researcher thought that many of the
students would be upset when realized they had been taught by a special education teacher, they
did not care because the knew “the information was the same.”
Discussion
Over the past years, special education has changed to include a variety of settings.
Resource setting has become a setting that is looked down upon in the educational field. The
Least Restrictive Environment should determine where students are served for their educational
needs. Unfortunately, student needs are not always at the hierarchy when placement is
considered. Research pertaining to co-teaching and resource setting data has often been
inconclusive. During a 12-week study, the researcher sought to gather more information about
differences in achievement, behavior, and attitudes of students participating in the co-teaching
and resource setting.
Significance/Impact on Student Learning
According to the data gathered, student achievement was not affected by the change of
settings for students. The analysis of t-tests revealed that there was no significant difference is
scores for achievement in the co-teaching setting. These data do not support previous literature
(Parker & Alt, 2007) that showed students were more likely to receive higher achievement scores
in the co-teaching environment. Although there was a slight increase of overall test averages for
both groups of students there was not a strong enough change to be significant when inferential
statistics testing was completed.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
28
Results from the behavior analysis were found to be contradicting to previous literature.
Friend (2007) as well as Magiera and Zigmond (2005) found that behavior incidents were less
likely to occur in a co-teaching environment. This study found that the students in the resource
setting displayed more appropriate behaviors than those in the co-teaching environment. In
conclusion, students in the resource setting showed a reduction in behaviors incidents.
Student attitudes about Language Arts changed also during the study. Both co-teaching
and resource setting participants overwhelmingly agreed that having two teachers was important
and that it was a good idea to have two teachers in every class. Students connected the idea that
co-teaching was to help students to better understand the subjects. Interestingly, students did not
make a differentiation between regular education and special education they just said, “those
who need help.” Students also felt that they were more likely to answer questions in class
because the classes were not as formal.
Implications and Limitations
More research needs to be done on co-teaching. For those students who are equipped to
be in the co-teaching environment, it is a wonderful idea but for those students who struggle with
basic concepts should not be forced to try do assignments that they are unable to do. No Child
Left Behind and other policies have not equipped schools with the funding for schools to be able
to appropriately serve special education students that are falling behind in the curriculum.
Although the current research findings did not support this statement, in relation to academics, a
more lengthy study may provide evidence of the importance of the resource class. Case studies
starting from elementary to middle school could possibly show the difference of the settings. Coteaching is not the ideal for every student. The Least Restrictive Environment should guide
student placement not funding and policies.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
29
When students are placed in to general curriculum with the reading level of a second
grader and expected to perform at the same rate it is not feasible to have them in a general
setting. To be fair No Child Left Behind should have tests that are modified for students who
have documented reading deficits and comprehension deficits. The adapted tests should be given
at the beginning of the year and then at the end to determine progress. Students are often
discouraged when they receive their scores and have tried and continually fail the test. All
students do not need an adapted tests but there are students who fail every year and it is
disheartening to schools, teachers, parents, and most of all students.
Factors Influencing Implementation
The reliability of this research could be called into question because the special educator
had training in both regular education and special education and this is not common practice.
Ideally both teachers should be experts in the regular education subject matter. The general
educator, who participated in the research, stated that “I want to model what you do in the
morning with the first academics and then I can do that in the afternoon.” By having a teacher
who is trained to break information down in a longer study the achievement data could possibly
show an increase in achievement. There was also a change in the original study plan. Instead of
splitting the entire four classes, the study was limited to implementing the intervention in the last
two academic blocks.
Special education teachers are often not as trained in subject matter as their counterparts.
Funding needs to be set aside for this also, because if students are to be equally educated so need
to be the teachers. This was not the case in this situation but it could possibly have been the case
in previous academic experiences for students. Some students reported last year to the researcher
that they had never written an essay or had to write lengthy assignments but they were promoted
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
30
to the sixth grade and were overwhelmed by the amount of work they had to do. Some students
had been in resource most of their academic careers. Many students “shut down.” Unfortunately
they could not escape writing because the seventh grade is focused on helping to prepare
students for the writing test in the eighth grade.
Also unique to this study is that the special educator looped to the seventh grade with the
students. Looping is also an idea that could possibly assist students who are forced to be placed
in the co-teaching environment. A study can look at CRCT scores as well as academic
achievement over the two years. Although there were no significant differences found with the
student scores, students became more open about family life and personal problems. Looping
could possibly create a bond with the teacher increasing student relations and decreasing student
behavior incidents.
One student confided in the researcher that she had “run away from home and she felt
like she did not have anyone to talk to.” Another confided that she did not know what to do about
going to visit her mother’s grave. A male student told me that his mom was on drugs “really
bad” and she was in jail and his dad died before he met him. She said her grandmother told her
that she should talk to her teacher about her problem. The student did not know if she should go
visit the grave of her mother, who died last year, because she did not want to see her
grandmother (adopted) cry. After talking to the student, she contacted the teacher through email
and told her that “everything went well with my family and everything I’m glad I went and it
made my grandmother so happy I went and she didn’t even cry but I did. She was strong for me
and everybody so thank you for your help this is J*****.” So although the findings found that
there were no differences in academic achievement with the intervention, there was a difference
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
31
in behavior, attitudes and perceptions about school. School seemed to be a place where they are
comfortable and cared about.
The research has changed the way that both teachers deal with students emotionally.
Once they were in a small group students talked more about things that were going on
academically and personally. One student learned how to walk away from a fight. She was proud
afterwards and was able to talk to the student with whom there was an altercation the next day.
These findings can make teachers more aware of students emotionally. By checking on them
daily and being supportive emotionally, it may decrease many of the inappropriate behaviors that
exist. The general education co-teacher already has made more personal connections with some
students also. She even baked cookies to recognize that she had seen the change that they were
trying to make.
Again although the results do not show positive results in achievement the changes in
some individuals made the research worth it. Some students who felt like there was no one to
listen now know inadvertently through this research experience that there is someone that cares
at school. Of course, all special education teachers are not trained in regular education like in this
research but they could be. More opportunities should be allowed for special educators to be
involved with regular education workshops. If teachers want to learn they should be able to do
so. Weekend workshops should be available for those who are unable or unwilling to go during
the school day. Early elementary resource teachers should definitely be trained for both regular
education and special education. Those factors could potentially increase the student knowledge
by the time they reached middle school and there would be less difficulty in orienting them to the
co-teaching environment in middle school.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
32
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
33
References
Ainscow, M. (2000). The next step for special education: Supporting the development of
inclusive practices. British Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 76-80.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S.Y., Flowers, C., Rickelan, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M.
(2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for
students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The
Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 2-16.
Byford, J., & Cate-Clements, C. (2006). Teaching characteristics: A student’s
perspective. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 3(1), 21-25.
Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics of effective middle and high school co-taught
teams for students with disabilities? Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 14-20.
Friend, M. (2007). Improving instruction for students with learning needs: The co-teaching
partnership. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 48-51.
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine
conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in cotaught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 79-85.
Murawski, W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How can we
improve? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(3), 227-246.
Murawski, W., Swanson, H., Weichel, W., & Lee, H. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching
research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258-275.
Murphy E., Grey, I. M., & Honan, R. (2005). Co-operative learning for students with difficulties
in learning: A description of models and guidelines for implementation. British Journal
of Special Education, 32(3), 157-163.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
34
Parker, C. & Alt, C. (2007, July 11-13). Introduction to Co-teaching. (Available from the GLRS
South Georgia Center, 245 N. Robinson St., Lenox, GA, 31637.)
Vlachou, A., Didaskalou, E., & Argyrakouli, E. (2006). Preferences of students with general
learning difficulties for different service delivery modes. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 21(2), 201-216.
Watkins, D. (2005). Maximizing learning for students with special needs. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 41(4), 154-158.
Zigmond, N. (2001). Special education at a crossroads. Preventing School Failure, 45(2), 70-75.
Zigmond, N. (2006). Reading and writing in co-taught secondary school social studies
classrooms: A reality check. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22(3), 249-267.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
35
Appendix A
Student Behavior Form
Student
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Date
Behaviors and Events:
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
36
Appendix B
Co-teaching Student Pre-Post Questionnaire
Name: ___________________________
Date: __________________________
Age: ______
Please circle the following descriptors that apply to you:
Gender: Male or Female
Ethnicity: Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic
Other
Directions: Please finish the following statements with one of the word choices below. Please
answer the following statements as truthfully as you can. Do not worry that your name is on the
questionnaire, remember you will be assigned a number when the information is analyzed or put
into numbers by the computer and your name will not be included. There is no right or wrong
answers. Please raise your hand if you have any questions and someone will come to help you.
At any point you may discontinue participation without penalty. Raise your hand when complete.
1. English and Language Arts is _____________________________ to understand.
a. easy
b. hard
c. reasonable (not too easy and not to hard)
2. Last year in English/Language Arts, I usually made ___________ on my tests.
a. A
b. B
c. C
d. D
3. I can earn better test grades in English and Language Arts than I have currently (right now).
a. yes b. no
4. I complete my English/Language Arts homework ________________ per week.
a. Never
b. 1 time
c. 2-3 times
d. All of the time
5. I think it is a _____________________ idea to have two teachers in a classroom.
a. good
b. bad
c. I don’t think it makes a difference.
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
37
6. It is ________________ when I ask my teacher for help.
a. Scary (uncomfortable)
b. easy (I don’t have a problem asking for help)
c. difficult (hard for me)
7. When I am confused or need help I ________________ask the teacher for help.
a. Never
b. Seldom (Few times per day)
c. Frequently (Many times)
d. Always (Each time I don’t understand)
Directions: The last three questions are for you to write what you think. They have multiple
parts. (Please answer each part of the questions).
8. Imagine you could choose one class (Science, Math, Social Studies, and Language Arts) each
day where you would have two teachers. Which class would you choose?
___________________________________________________________________________
Why did you choose this class?
_____________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
9. When you do cooperative activities, you often have a roles such as Recorder, Manager, and
Illustrator. When two teachers teach the same class, what should their roles be?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Is one teacher more important than the other? Explain your answer.
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
10. Do you pay attention during most of your class time?
____________________________________________________
What are some things that you do to keep paying attention?
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
38
Appendix C
Observational Notes/Field Notes
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
39
Appendix D
Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol
Time of Interview: 8:00
Date: October 31, 2008
Place: Newbern 7th Grade Special Education Office Room 201
Interviewer: Researcher
Interviewee:
This interview will be used to assist with a Valdosta State University project that will assist in
gaining knowledge about the perceptions of students, about the educational delivery models,
during the 2008-2009 school year. The interview will be conducted by me. No students’ names
will be published with this data; students will be identified by letters only. This interview will
take about 15 minutes.
Educational Delivery Models-Interview Questions
1. Did you prefer having one teacher or two? Prompt: Explain. Tell me more.
2. Do you feel that your education was different when there was only one teacher?
Prompt: Do you think you learned more? Do you feel you learned less? Did you think
class went smoother with one teacher?
EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-TEACHING
40
3. Do you feel that having two teachers makes English class easier? Prompt: Can you
explain why or how?
4. Did you know one teacher is certified to teach special education also?
5. Which teacher do you think is the special educator? Prompt: Explain
6. Was it easier or harder asking for help when there were two teachers? Prompt: Can you
explain why you think that was?
7. Do you think it would benefit students to have more than one teacher in every class?
Prompt: Which classes?