collaboration and coteaching duchart

Collaboration and Co-Teaching: General and Special Education FacultyAuthor(s): Barbara Duchardt, Leslie Marlow, Duane Inman, Paula Christensen and Mary ReevesSource: The Clearing House, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Jan. - Feb., 1999), pp. 186-190Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30189441 .

Accessed: 18/06/2013 12:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ClearingHouse.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:35:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30189441?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Collaboration and Co-Teaching: General and Special Education

Faculty BARBARA DUCHARDT, LESLIE MARLOW, DUANE INMAN,

PAULA CHRISTENSEN, and MARY REEVES

he old saying "Two heads are better than one"

describes one of the positive effects of working together. Businesses have promoted the effectiveness of teamwork for years, and today many books about working together to solve problems or complete tasks are best sell- ers (Bondy et al. 1995; Pugach and Johnson 1995; Thomas, Correa, and Morsink 1995; Katzenbach and Smith 1994).

Teacher educators are increasingly realizing the benefits of teamwork. Co-planning and co-teaching practices are being established between and among faculty of several dis- ciplines (Hafernick, Messerschmitt, and Vandrick 1997). With school restructuring, systemic reform, and least restrictive environment practice taking center stage, co- planning and co-teaching may provide powerful ways to address the needs of diverse populations of students in both higher education and general education (K-12).

Opportunities for co-planning and co-teaching are not inherent within the structure of higher education. Like the organizational structure in public schools (Skrtic, Sailor, and Gee 1996), the higher education structure leaves little time for creative and innovative interdisciplinary professional team planning, curriculum development, and collaborative teaching. Therefore, while collaborative teaching efforts have been documented (Hafernick, Messerschmitt, and Vandrick 1997), the creation of a higher education model that takes into account the unique aspects of college teaching is only now being explored in depth.

Barbara Duchardt is an associate professor of special education at Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana. Leslie Marlow is an assistant professor elementary education, and Duane Inman is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction, both at the University of Memphis. Paula Christensen is an assistant professor of counselor education at Northwestern State University, Natchitoches. Mary Reeves is an assistant professor of mathematics education at the State University of New York at Oswego.

Implementation In 1993, the special education faculty at Northwestern

State University of Louisiana initiated collaborative opportunities with the general education faculty for co-planning and co-teaching. This effort was funded by a grant received from Part B, discretionary funds of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The primary goals of this collaborative effort were for special education and general education faculty to (a) collaborate and model co-planning and co-teaching for students as part of the general elementary education methods block, Content and Techniques of Teaching in the Elementary School, (b) improve the knowledge base of undergraduate general elementary education majors about students with diverse needs, (c) share the results of these efforts with colleagues interested in teacher collaboration, and (d) develop a co-planning and co- teaching model for implementation within the state.

In fall 1993, the special and elementary education faculty (i.e., language arts, mathematics, science, social studies) met once a week over lunch to discuss course content and service delivery in the four classes of the undergraduate elementary education methods block. The special education faculty observed in the methods classes in order to become more aware of the goals, objectives, and class requirements of each general education faculty member. After those observations, the group met again to discuss teaming arrangements. Finally, individual team members met to co- plan a lesson.

Key Questions

During each formal and informal collaborative meeting, the faculty members involved generated and discussed multiple questions. Those questions were boiled down into five categories: concerns, teaming, pre- and inservice teacher needs, planning time, and evaluation. As each semester progressed, answers to the questions evolved, resulting in the following list of questions and answers and the development of the Co-Planning and Co-Teaching Model (figure 1):

186



Vol. 72, No. 3 Collaboration and Co-Teaching 187

FIGURE 1 Co-Planning and Co-Teaching Model

STAGES

* Choose a teacher you trust * Find pockets of time to plan * Brainstorm * Prepare the lesson * Co-teach the lesson * Support your partner * Evaluate the lesson

RESULTS

* Collaborating and developing trust * Learning to be flexible and collegial * Finding pockets of time to co-plan * Learning through trial and error * Forming teaching and learning partnerships * Challenging ourselves and developing

professionally * Solving problems as a team * Meeting the needs of diverse learners * Meeting the needs of teachers as problem solvers

Question 1: As this project begins, what are your concerns about co-planning and co-teaching with faculty from another area (special education or elementary education)?

Special education faculty generally felt that with certain modifications the inclusion curriculum would fit nicely with the elementary education curriculum in all areas. Hav- ing had previous experience in public school elementary and middle school education and special education, they had already seen that the two types of education were not so very different in theory and that preservice teachers needed to learn how to apply the theory to accommodate all students.

The special education faculty did, however, have two concerns. The first was expressed by the faculty in gifted/talented education, who feared that the emphasis on inclusion would result in the elimination of ability grouping and challenging activities for that group of students. The second was expressed by those faculty members who taught courses on mild/moderate and severe/profound disabilities; they were concerned that the elementary curriculum was predetermined to such an extent that there would be a lack of flexibility on the part of the general education faculty and the purposes of the project would not be addressed.

Elementary education faculty members had more concerns than the special education faculty. In the initial planning meetings, they appeared to be more negative about the collaborative effort. Their primary concerns included finding the time for planning and for meetings, having to share space with another teacher, trying to add more content to an already over-full curriculum, lack of knowledge about inclusion and special education, loss of autonomy, and loss of instructional time. These concerns are similar to those

reported by many teachers when faced with more content to be taught in a finite amount of time and with the perceived invasion of their classroom by another professional (Phillips, Sapona, and Lubic 1995).

As a result of the concerns felt by all faculty members, the elementary-special education teams were tentative at first in their communications with one another, as if they were "cooking in someone else's kitchen" (Phillips, Sapona, and Lubic 1995, 268). However, as the teams con- tinued to work together, the blending of each person's expertise strengthened the content of the lessons and the way they were presented. All participants in the project reported that they learned to be more flexible, to focus on individual strengths, and to prioritize concepts and address only those that were perceived to be most important. Ulti- mately, the preservice special and elementary educators agreed that they shared the primary goal of providing an effective instructional model for their students.

Question 2: How will we decide which special education faculty and elementary education faculty will team together?

Collaboration in teaching is generally described as the sharing of expertise in delivering a "seamless" lesson, solving a problem, working on a project, or any similar activity. Because most teacher education programs do not train teachers to develop a multidisciplinary, collaborative mind- set, difficulties seem to arise when teacher educators are expected to model teamwork and collaboration they have not experienced themselves (Pugach and Johnson 1995; Thomas, Correa, and Morsink 1995).

Thus, in the collaboration we are describing here, the matter of who should team together was tricky at first. However, because all of the individuals had worked together on diverse committees at various times, they were aware of one another's similarities and differences in teaching styles, techniques, and management skills. It then became simply a matter of open communication, with each individual identifying those co-planner/teacher characteristics with which he or she would be most comfortable. It was also agreed that the composition of the teams was not nec- essarily permanent. If at any point, for any reason, a team member wanted to work with a different person, he or she could do so with no questions asked. This agreement appeared to provide each person with reassurance about the flexibility and workability of the plan. Once the ground rules were established, with everyone taking an active part in the discussion, team pairs formed smoothly.

Question 3: What are the needs of the preservice and inservice teachers who are (or will be) involved in inclusive education?

To determine what specific content should be integrated into the existing elementary methods curriculum, the team members decided to obtain feedback from focus groups (Krueger 1997; Morgan 1997). The groups, which included the team teachers, classroom teachers, administrators, uni-



188 The Clearing House January/February 1999

versity faculty, school district supervisors, parents of children with disabilities, and preservice teachers, met on three occasions. At each meeting, individuals were asked for responses to predetermined sentence stems, such as the following:

* A quality, full-inclusion preservice methods class addresses the following content ....

* Higher education faculty can teach preservice teachers how to....

* Advice I would give to preservice teachers about teaching students with diverse needs would be....

* Schools can foster respect for all children regardless of race, socioeconomic status, gender, culture, disability, etc., by....

* When making changes in the classroom, one must con- sider ....

* Parents, teachers, and administrators can work together by ....

* Components or ways of restructuring for full inclusion are ....

Upon completion of the focus group meetings, the preservice special and elementary education teams discussed, as a large group and in team-pairs, implementation of the concepts that had been discussed in the group meetings. The concepts fell into three major areas: students (motiva- tion, management, attitudes), instruction (modifying instruction, curriculum, and physical environment), and professional development (managing stress, sharing ideas, acquiring/using problem solving, decision making, respon- sibility taking, and collaboration skills).

Question 4: When and how do we find the time to sit down and plan our team-teaching lessons ?

The faculty members decided that every effort should be made to ensure a pleasurable experience. Therefore, for the first meeting, individual teams simply made a commit- ment to a time and place in which to meet, which in most cases included breakfast, lunch, or an afternoon dessert with coffee.

After the initial meeting (of thirty minutes to an hour, depending on the individuals involved), project participants found that a few minutes on the phone, or a couple of minutes when passing in the hall, was all the contact that was needed to get organized as a team. That ease of contact probably occurred because each team member had a foundation and experience in education. No discrepancies in back- ground, such as inexperience in higher education or lack of public school teaching, were factors affecting planning.

During pre-teaching preparation, teams discussed content and concerns for students with diverse needs. Graphic orga- nizers and/or lesson plans were constructed by team pairs for each team teaching experience and included content specified by the focus groups as well as established content within the specific courses. An example of a graphic organizer for social studies team teaching is found in figure 2.

Throughout the planning phase, each team member discussed various accommodations, modifications, management plans, instructional strategies, and differentiated cur- ricula that could be used with the particular content. Generally, this information was provided to preservice students in class through a series of questions such as, "How could this activity be adapted for use with a child who lacks fine motor coordination?" "Is there an instance where a

cooperative group should include all of the gifted students? Why or why not?" "Is it more important to implement het- erogeneous or homogeneous grouping? Provide some examples of each."

Question 5: After reviewing the videotaped lessons, student comments, and discussion with all team members, how would you describe and evaluate the co-planning and co- teaching experience?

All team members cited the experience of co-planning and co-teaching as a positive learning experience. As the project unfolded, the concerns that had originally been expressed were addressed and resolved. The preservice special and elementary education faculty realized that they shared two major concerns: how to meet individual student differences and how to address multiple learning-modes. The team members agreed that they learned from one another-not only content information and information about students with diverse needs but also a wide range of examples, techniques, and strategies that they could all use in training preservice teachers. Although some loss of instructional time did occur, many of the issues addressed in the different content areas were expanded upon because of the different viewpoints expressed by each team teacher. That expansion of ideas, along with the variety of examples and strategies, resulted in the perception of enhanced professional development by those involved.

Everyone involved in this project stated that the co-planning and co-teaching experience had been an enjoyable one. However, when asked if they would want to be involved in a similar project again, perhaps in another loca- tion or with another set of faculty, an unequivocal yes was not forthcoming. To succeed, such a cooperative effort requires people who are sensitive to one another's needs and who are willing to truly cooperate. In this project, all team members were sensitive to the classroom needs of the others and to the climate of the class. Participants developed mutual trust through exploration of similar interests, establishment of professional and personal rapport, and use of similar pedagogy styles. Everyone involved worked to enhance classroom climate, not to radically change it. Therefore, any cooperative effort would first and foremost require team members who interact in this manner.

Finally, participants concluded that teachers should not look at education only from the perspective of a general education teacher, a special education teacher, or a language arts, mathematics, science, or social studies teacher. Integration of content ideas and expertise in pedagogy



Vol. 72, No. 3 Collaboration and Co-Teaching 189

FIGURE 2 Graphic Organizer for Social Studies Team Teaching

Topic: Charts, Graphs, Tables

Objectives (each 1. Define decoding and student will be able to): encoding in relation to

the topic. 2. Identify given graphs,

tables, and charts. 3. Encode information into

appropriate graph, table, or chart.

4. Identify uses of math and language arts skills in social studies activities.

5. Identify arrangements for collaborative grouping.

6. Create a list of ways to adapt population studies for diverse learners.

Introduction: 1. Use of specialized access skills

2. Reasons for student difficulties with graphs, charts, tables

3. Defining; examples; nonexamples

4. Scope and sequence

Content/Activities: 1. Encoding data a. Gathering information b. Presenting in

understandable form c. Content enhancement

procedures (types) d. Practice (tofu/rice)

2. Decoding data a. What must be known b. Problems c. Samples

3. Population study a. Attribute b. Raw data c. Raw data table d. Statistics e. Bar graph f. Summary

Review/Questions: Reciprocal teaching technique

through co-planning and co-teaching teams produces teachers more capable of working with a diverse population of students. That results in a more global teaching perspective, one that focuses on broader, collective goals and on the needs and abilities of all students.

Application

It has been said that it takes a whole village to raise a child. Today, it can also be said that it takes a whole school to educate a child. No longer can a teacher in a classroom of diverse learners meet all the educational, social, and

emotional needs of his or her students. It takes collaboration among all professionals in a school system to educate all students. Therefore, preservice teacher education must model, demonstrate, and promote the collaborative effort that is required in today's schools-among classroom teachers, counselors, speech therapists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and other school professionals. Although there are many ways to collaborate, the Co-Plan- ning and Co-Teaching Model developed as an outgrowth of this project is presented to assist other educators who are beginning to collaborate.



190 The Clearing House January/February 1999

Stage 1: Choose a teacher you trust. Any obstacles that could result from misunderstandings or ineffective communication must be prevented. As soon as the lines of communication are open, begin to discuss the goals and objectives of your endeavor. The more you talk about the lesson, the more you will begin to understand each other. From these discussions, trust can be established and a greater interpersonal rapport created.

Stage 2: Find pockets of time to plan. Planning can occur quite effectively in short periods of time, usually several ten-minute sessions. After reading the basic topic material, meet with other team members in small blocks of time to discuss course content. As you work together each time, the amount of time needed to plan will become less. Eventually, planning can occur as you walk from one place to another or by phone or e-mail.

Stage 3: Brainstorm. After reading the material, each team member, through brainstorming, should list several options for the co-teaching lesson, basing decisions on individual areas of expertise. Brainstorming helps identify the strengths of each partner and allows planning to proceed smoothly and quickly.

Stage 4: Prepare the lesson. Discuss, prepare, and develop a written guide for the co-teaching lesson. Outline form works well and provides the basic information for everyone involved in the process. Initially, indicate which team member will do which aspect of the lesson. Make preparations for videotaping the lessons in order to evaluate and revise your plan for co-teaching the next time.

Stage 5: Co-teach the lesson. The first time you co-teach, you are testing new instructional arrangements. However, the preparation time will pay dividends by making you well prepared. Until you implement the lesson, you have no idea if the first four stages are working or if you need to develop additional strategies for working together.

Stage 6: Support your partner One of the skills that most teachers possess is the ability to be flexible and add or highlight important points throughout the lesson. This is done during team teaching to help one another embellish a

point. Now is not the time to be possessive about "your" classroom. The two partners must establish an easy, confident working relationship, so that both feel comfortable contributing information simultaneously.

Stage 7: Evaluate the lesson. When viewing the videotape after the first lesson, you will probably realize that with some polishing you can fine tune your presentation. Having others view your teaching will also provide valuable insights.

Conclusion

Co-planning and co-teaching arrangements can result in nine positive outcomes: (1) collaborating and developing trust, (2) learning to be flexible and collegial, (3) finding pockets of time to co-plan, (4) learning through trial and error, (5) forming teaching and learning partnerships, (6) challenging oneself and developing professionally, (7) solving problems as a team, (8) meeting the needs of diverse learners, and (9) meeting the needs of teachers as problem solvers. All teachers in higher education, public schools, and private schools can learn to develop a collaborative teaching environment that will benefit themselves and their students.

REFERENCES

Bondy, E., D. D. Ross, P. T. Sindelar, and C. Griffin. 1995. Elementary and special educators learning to work together: Team building processes. Teacher Education and Special Education 18 (3): 91-102.

Hafernick, J. J., D. S. Messerschmitt, and S. Vandrick. 1997. Collaborative research: Why and how? Educational Researcher 26 (9): 31-35.

Katzenbach, J. R., and D. K. Smith. 1994. The wisdom of teams. New York: Harper Business.

Krueger, R. 1997. Developing questions for focus groups. Focus Group Kit, 3. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

Morgan, D. 1997. The focus group guidebook. Focus Group Kit, 1. Port- land, Ore.: Portland State University.

Phillips, L., R. H. Sapona, and B. L. Lubic. 1995. Developing partnerships in inclusive education: One school's approach. Intervention in School and Clinic 12 (5): 262-72.

Pugach, M., and L. Johnson. 1995. Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools. Denver, Colo: Love Publishing.

Skrtic, T. M., W. Sailor, and K. Gee. 1996. Voice, collaboration, and inclusion: Democratic themes in educational and social reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education 17 (3): 142-57.

Thomas, C., V. Correa, and C. Morsink. 1995. Interactive teaming. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill.

