dance lessons: preparing preservice teachers for coteaching partnerships

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona]On: 28 October 2014, At: 01:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Dance Lessons: Preparing Preservice Teachers forCoteaching PartnershipsAudra Parker PhD a , Patricia Alvarez McHatton a , Diedre Allen a & Leila Rosa aa University of South Florida , USAPublished online: 02 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Audra Parker PhD , Patricia Alvarez McHatton , Diedre Allen & Leila Rosa (2010) DanceLessons: Preparing Preservice Teachers for Coteaching Partnerships, Action in Teacher Education, 32:1, 26-38, DOI:10.1080/01626620.2010.10463540

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463540

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01626620.2010.10463540

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463540

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dance Lessons : Preparing Preserwice Teachers for Coteaching Partnerships Audra Parker Patricia Alvarez McHatton Diedre A l l e n Leila Rosa University of South Florida

ABSTRACT: Federal legislation (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, No Child Left Behind) mandates access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. As a response, K-12 schools are moving to coteaching models with increased frequency (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008). However, preservice teachers have not been adequately prepared for collaborative teaching in these inclusive classrooms (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Fennick & Liddy, 2001). To address this disconnect, we participated in an interdisciplinary, cross-departmental collaboration to create shared course and field experiences for a mixed group of special education and elementary education preservice teachers. Using our blogs, reflections, personal observations, meeting notes, and recorded discussions along with students’ reflections and course assignments, we provide an analysis of the experience and implications for teacher educators.

Coteaching is a seamless dance between both teachers, sharing the students ;IS their dance partner a t the same time . . . with each teacher trying not to step on the other one’s foot.

-Special education preservice teacher participating in coteaching project

(January 2009)

With recent legislative mandates-Individu- als With Disahilities Education Improvement Act and No Child Left Behind+alling for improved access to the K-12 curriculum by students with disabilities and with the emer- gence of response to intervention as a tiered approach for assisting struggling learners via high-quality instruction in the general education setting (Batsce et al., ZOOS), there is an increased emphasis on ensuring effective instruction for all students (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2008). Because students with disabilities and

struggling learners are spending larger quanti- ties of time in the general education setting, the roles of general educators and special educators in K-12 classrooms are being redefined. One outcome is the increased collaboration required between both groups as they work together in increasingly inclusive classrcmms to ensure positive outcomes for all learners (Na- tional Association of State I k c t o r s of Special Education, 2002; President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002).

One approach to supporting special education students in inclusive classrooms is to pair general education and special education teachers in coteaching partnerships. Coteach- ing is when “two o r more professionals jointly deliver substantive instruction to a diverse, or hlended, group of students in a single physical space” (Cook 6, Friend, 1995, p. 1). Research suggests that coteaching is an effective inoJel for providing a supportive instructional en-

Address correspondence to Audra Parker, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620-5650. E-mail: [email protected].

26 Action in Teucher Educution Vol. 32, No. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4

DanceLessons 27

vironment for students with disabilities in a general education setting (Pugach & Johnson, 1995; Rice & Zigmond, 2000). In inclusive classrooms, students with and without disabilities experience positive outcomes, including increased benefits both social (e.g., coopera- tion) and academic (Austin, 2001; Rice & Zig- mond, 2000). Furthermore, general and special education teachers report positive attitudes about coteaching, particularly as it relates to their professional development (Austin, 2001; Fennick & Liddy, 2001; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).

Although it is likely that teachers will be asked to work in collaborative partnerships in inclusive settings, preservice teachers- particularly, general education majors- describe feeling unprepared for this possibility (Fennick & Liddy, 2001; Sack, 1998; Welch, 1996). To address this disconnect, teacher educators are seeking new ways to model collaboration and provide preservice teachers with opportunities to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills requisite for working collaboratively in increasingly inclusive classroom settings (Dieker &I Murawski, 2003; Villa, Thousand, & Chapple, 2000). Our purpose is to describe a cross-departmental collaboration created to bridge the experiences of general and special education preservice teachers and provide a context for coteaching at the preservice level. We begin by providing a brief explanation of the cross-departmental partnership and the design of the coteaching experience. This is followed by a description of the experiences of faculty and preservice general and special education teachers, as related to key understand- ings from the literature on coteaching. We close with implications for teacher educators.

Choreographing the Dance: A Description of the Coteaching Project

Envisioning the Dance

Faculty in the Department of Special Educa- tion and the Department of Childhood Educa-

tion and Literacy Studies conceptualized this project in fall 2008 during informal conversations in a cross-departmental meeting. Fund- ing provided by an Office of Special Educa- tion Programs 325T initiative facilitated these conversations. During the meeting, faculty discovered similarities between separate classroom management courses that were independently offered in the programs. A project team formed to explore collaborative and coteaching possibilities for the courses in the following semester. We, the project team, consisted of four members: one faculty member and one doctoral graduate assistant in the elementary education program and one faculty member and one doctoral graduate assistant in the special education program. Each team member had extensive experience with classroom management courses at the university level and had successful coteaching experiences in K-12 inclusive settings.

During our initial meetings, two key goals emerged that guided the overall design of the coteaching project. First, we wanted to place a group of elementary majors and a cohort of special education students together in one cotaught university-based classroom management course. Understanding that the success (or failure) of inclusion largely de- pends on teachers’ dispositions toward inclusion (Shade & Stewart, 2001), we thought it critical to create a shared course experience that scaffolded preservice teachers’ experiences with and dispositions toward coteaching before entering the profession. The common course experience allowed us to model various coteaching structures for the preservice teachers-namely, one-teach-one-assist, sta- tion teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching (Friend &I Cook, 2003; Scruggs et al., 2007; Walther-Thomas, Korinek, McLaughlin, & Williams, 2000). In addition, the shared course provided a forum for reciprocal learning across the majors, and it enabled us to tap into the expertise of the elementary and special education preservice teachers.

Our second goal was to create coteaching opportunities in inclusive K-5 classmms. This real-world application was essential to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4

28 AUDRA PARKER ET AL.

project for the following reasons. First, preservice teachers need opportunities to work with students with disabilities. Next, we believed that an emphasis on consultation, collaboration, and problem solving at the preservice level could ameliorate teacher anxiety and facilitate positive shifts in attitudes toward inclusion (Gkangreco, Edelman, & Dennis, 1991, as cited by Shade & Stewart, 2001; Kamens, 2007; Shippen, Crites, Houchins, Ramsey, & Simon, 2005). Also, because inclusive experiences must be authentic and field based and should involve special education and general education preservice teachers (Austin, 2001; Cook & Friend, 1995), we thought it important to tie a field experience course to the respective classroom management courses. Taking it a step further, we also wanted to create coteaching pairs of elementary and special education majors. The creation of a multilay- ered approach-the preservice teachers expe- riencing coteaching as students and practicing coteaching as interns in a field experience- allowed us to build their understanding of a new construct (coteaching) while creating situations that paralleled the roles they tnay encounter as they enter the teaching profession (Winn & Blanton, 1997).

Arranging the Steps

After a semester of planning, the coteaching project began in spring 2009. The student population for the project included 29 elementary education majors and 27 special education majors. Note that the elementary education majors are part of a large program that enrolls approximately 150 new students each semester. They did not follow a structured course sequence, but the majority were in their 1st year in the program. Upon graduation, the elementary education majors are certified to teach students in Grades K-6. In contrast, the special education inajors progressed through their program as a single cohort of 27, formed in the fall before the project’s implementation. These students took all their courses together and followed a structured course sequence. The special education program provides initial certification for its graduates to work with

students with mild and moderate disabilities in K-I2 classrtmms.

Our first class meetings with the students were a series of all-day introductory seminars. Special education majors attended four seminars on Mondays and Tuesdays for the first 2 weeks, and the elementary education majors joined them for two sessions on Tuesdays only. These seminar meeting days mirrored the days that the preservice teachers would spend in K-5 classrooms for the reinainder of the semester. During the joint group seminars, we conducted some initial team-building activities across the two groups. These included “getting to know you“ icebreakers, sharing our personal school memories, assessing our initial perceptions of coteaching, and identifying common goals across the two groups. We also built a fcudational understanding of coteaching using the research literature, discussed the co\laborative project, and relayed the instructors’ expectations. At the end of these initial seminars, we paired each elementary education major with a special education major based on rankings of geographical preferences for the semester-long field experience.

O n Wednesday evenings, all preservice teachers and course instructors came together for a 3-hour classroom management course. Each week we designed classrcmn activities to enhance the preservice teachers’ understand- ings of classroom management, instructional planning, differentiated instruction, coteaching, response to intervention, and students with disabilities. The two faculty members on the project team cotaught the tnajority of the Wednesday night course instruction. How- ever, at times we split the class by major to address assignments o r course objectives unique to the two management courses. For example, in addition to having classroom inanagement objectives, the course for elementary education majors had objectives related to planning instruction, whereas the special education majors had course objectives related to developing interventions for students with more significant behavior issues. To address these course-specific objectives, we met as a whole group for half the class and separated by major for the second half.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4

DanceLessuns 29

Table 1. Coteaching Partnerships by School

Majors Inclusion

School EE SE FullDay PartialDay Nones No Partner

6 10 2 0 4 4 6 4

0 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0

Note. EE = elementaty elementary; SE = special education.

Self-contained.

The field experience began during the 3rd week of the semester. Because of program differences, the special education majors were in the field 2 days a week (Monday and Tues- day), and the elementary education majors were in the field 1 day a week (Tuesday). The nature of the field placement varied for the coteaching pairs, based on the availability of inclusive classrooms at the elementary schools participating in the project.

We originally intended to place each elementary-education-special-education pair with elementary and special education mentor teachers in the field who cotaught for some portion of the school day. Unfortunately, there were not enough coteaching teams available to accommodate preservice pairs. For example, a participating school may have agreed to host five pairs of students but had only three pairs of classroom teachers participating in inclusion. As a result, we placed students in classes with varying levels of coteaching. Some pairs were in situations where the special education and elementary education majors were together in an inclusive classroom for the entire school day. For others, the special education partner joined the elementary education major’s classroom for a portion of the day. Finally, for a limited number of partners the coteaching model was problematic. Although they were in the same school, the special education major was in a self-contained special education classroom, and the elementary education major was in a general education classroom. These pairs did not interact in the same classroom

at any point during the school day. Regardless of the nature of their coteaching partnership (see Table 1 for overview), we required each pair to plan and teach three lessons together and reflect weekly on their field experience. Partnerships that did not share a common group of students had to make special arrangements to observe and plan lessons that would be taught in the general education students’ classroom. To conduct periodic debriefings of the coteaching field experience, all the preservice teachers attended three additional 1 -hour seminars spread throughout the remainder of the semester.

Judging the Dance: An Analysis of Our Coteaching Project

Throughout the semester-long coteaching project, we collected data in a variety of forms: instructor blogs, meeting notes, students’ weekly reflections, and course assignments. As we reviewed the data, we noticed connections between our project outcomes and the literature on factors that foster successful coteaching experiences. In the following sections, we highlight three of these factors-the role of planning, the importance of support and professional development, and the nature of relationships-to discuss our experiences as coteachers of a university course and our students’ experiences coteaching in K-5 classrooms.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4


Rehearsals: Time Dedicated to Coplanning

The importance of time for coplanning in coteaching partnerships is well documented in the research literature (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Fennick & Liddy, 2001). Providing coteaching partners with time to plan together affords them opportunities to discuss lesson plans, communicate regarding individual students, review management ideas, and consider accommodations and modifications for individual learners (Arguelles, Hughes, & Schumm, 2000; Rouck, 2007). Opportuni- ties for coplanning allow coteaching pairs to clearly determine the role that each will take during their coteaching time (Arguelles et al., 2000). This may prevent the perception that the general education teacher is “the teacher” and the special education teacher is “the assistant” (Fennick & Liddy, 2001; Kovic, 1996). Unfortunately, the research literature suggests that the majority of teachers have less than an hour of mutual planning time per week (Fen- nick & Liddy, 2001; Yoder, 2000).

Coplanning a d the project team. When we reflected on the coteaching project, we readily recognized the important role that our coplanning played in project implementation. This planning took a variety of forms. First, we scheduled time to meet frequently as an instructional teain before implementing the collaborative project. Dedicated time to coplanning fidcilitated the development of our interpersonal relationships, clarified our roles in the group project, and revealed philosophi- cal underpinnings regarding the course content. Furthermore, coplanning time allowed us to begin the project with a clear vision of the project direction. hiring this common planning time, we recognized our similar work characteristics, including our strong sense of organization and need for clear communication. One faculty member commented, “It was not a ‘jump in and fly by the seat of your pants’ experience. There was a lot of preplanning.”

The preplanning involved logistical organization of the content in accordance with our key goals for both the course and field experience. Organizing the content of the classroom

management course and field experience seminars included aligning our syllabi, mapping out the content of each class meeting, deter- mining content that required separate meeting time for the two majors, preparing for the day- long seminar meetings, creating common and course specific syllabi, and gathering resources for the coteaching component of the course. Logistically, we located a classroom space for 60 students and coordinated schedules for the initial seminars, classes, and field experiences. Finally, because we were working in local K-5 elementary classrooms, we reached out to and met with schtwl administrators well in advance of iinplementing the project.

Although we allotted substantial time for the project team to participate in coplanning before imp~ementation, we did not carve out systematic time to continue meeting once the project began. Instead, we relied on our preplanned course outline and e-tnail to guide our weekly planning and course instruction. When reflecting on the project, each team member expressed a desire to continue to meet regularly throughout the experience. This common planning time would have kept all team members abreast of the weekly course activities, student issues and concerns, and field updates. Furthermore, problematic trends in the classroom environment and field experiences could have been addressed earlier with systematic communication during regularly scheduled planning time.

Coplanning opportunities for preservice teachers. We recognized, to some extent, the importance of coplanning for ourselves as members of the project team. However, we did not systematically provide our preservice teacher pairs time to plan before or during the field experience. Instead, we relied on their seeking out common planning time on their own and in the context of their various field experience schedules. Because the special education majors and elementary education majors were in the field together only on Tuesdays, carving out common planning time on their own became problematic. The lack of cotninon planning time led elementary education majors to feel “hehind the eight ball” when they arrived on Tuesdays. Problems that arose on Mondays

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4

DanceLessons 31

were not conveyed to the elementary education major; lessons taught on Mondays did not involve them; and collaboration was a challenge.

Future coplunning considerations. In align- ment with the literature on coteaching (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Fennick & Liddy, 2001), our coteaching project experiences reiterated the importance of scheduling con- sistent meeting times for coplanning before and throughout the coteaching experience for ourselves and our preservice teachers. In our project, meeting times would have provided us with opportunities to reflect on the course meetings, touch base regarding the preservice teachers’ field experiences, and address emerging logistical issues during the semester. For our preservice teachers, opportunities for coplanning before the field experience would have allowed them to engage in goal setting, build relationships, establish roles in the inclusive classrooms, and plan for instruction that met all students’ needs. Furthermore, weekly planning time built into the course or seminar meetings would have facilitated communication between the parmers, especially given the mismatch between the students’ days in the field experience. Finally, although we were unable to change the number of days that the students were in the field, we could have had students from both majors in the field together on the 1st day of the week, which would have helped them start the week on a level playing field.

Dance Instructors: Administrative and Staff Development Support for Coteaching

Support for coteaching, including administrative backing and staff development training, is an important factor in successful collaborative partnerships (Buckley, 2005; Rice & Zigmond, 2o00, Thompson, 2001; Vesay, 2004; Yoder, 2OOO). Administrative support is critical in helping address logistical challenges (e.g., scheduling, coteaching team creation), as well as in providing emotional support for teachers who may be leery of working outside their

comfort zone (Arguelles et al., 2000). Simi- larly, research suggests that administrators can show support for coteaching via professional development opportunities (Scruggs et al., 2007). This additional training can be used to support those who feel ill prepared for working in inclusive settings (Vesay, 2004), to expand teachers’ instructional repertoires (Buckley, 2005), and to enhance collaborative skills (Rice & Zigmond, 2000).

Support for the project team. We sought and received support for the project from both the school district and the university before beginning the collaborative project. Initially, we relied on leadership in our respective depart- ments to support the collaborative experience. This was key in assisting with coordinating schedules, room procurement, and research assistance. We also sought the involvement of local elementary schools through an open invitation for participation. In total, eight schools responded with interest in our project, which suggests that principals who responded supported our efforts to raise awareness of coteaching and inclusion before induction into the teaching profession. As one faculty member noted, “I think the outreach to the district ahead of time really worked well . . . that we met with district personnel who iden- tified schools and then met with principals. . . . I think that made a big difference.” Rec- ognizing the importance of receiving support from other stakeholders who were involved in the project was a vital factor in the initial phases of implementation.

Support for the preservice teachers. We provided support for the preservice teachers in terms of navigating logistics and providing professional development. Coupling the management course and the field experience required extensive logistical support for our students. This included organizing and coordinating the field placements, establishing connections with mentor teachers, and supervising and debriefing students’ lesson observations. Logistical support extended to our recognition that the students in each major needed specific guidance to complete the critical course assignments unique to each program. To address this need, we scheduled

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4


separate meeting times for the elementary and special education majors during several of the course meetings.

We supported students’ professional development in a number of ways. First we made explicit connections between course content and students’ field experiences. For example, during a session that focused on differentiated instruction, the instructors began with a brief lecture to discuss the concept of differentiat- ing to meet students’ needs. The class was then split into five groups and given a rotation schedule. Each of the four instructors led a group minilesson and activity; the fifth group worked from a guide to complete an activity. The groups rotated every 20 minutes until students had been to each activity; then, all students reconvened for a whole-group debriefing discussion about the concepts discussed. We explicitly described how the centers-and the information shared in each-illustrated differentiated instruction techniques that they could apply to their field experience.

Professional growth was also associated with the course-field pairing. For example, one special education student noted, “Coteaching was always an unknown concept; we discuss it, but we never see it.” A student descrihed a similar connection between field and class:

I was able to learn more in this semester spent in the classroom than I could have ever learned sitting in a lecture. I enjoyed the support that our class gave to our practicum setting, and found myself often using what we learned in my classroom.

Structuring the field experience and the course so that students observed coteaching, practiced what they learned in a K-5 classroom, and debriefed the learning experiences through seminar and reflection discussions helped the students make the connection between theory and practice.

The preservice teachers’ initial and final reflections regarding coteaching suggest theory-to-practice connections. For example, in their initial reflections, the majority of the students in hoth majors acknowledged that they had never heard of coteaching, much less envisioned being in coteaching partnerships

when they entered the classroom. An elementary student stated, “I really didn’t know a lot about coteaching. I thought general education teachers taught the whole class while special education teachers only worked with children that needed special help.” A special education teacher noted, “When I decided to become a special educator, I was unaware that I could end up a ‘floater’ o r coteacher.” In contrast, at the end of the coteaching project, the preservice teachers who did not know or understand coteaching, by and large, became enthusiastic supporters of the practice. A special cducation major stated, “I was a little skeptical ahwt the whole coteaching hit, hecause it inade me think that two teachers would fight for attention. . . . I soon learned that coteaching was teamwork and it was very helpful.” An elernen- tary education major noted, “Working with Karrie [all names are pseudonyms] became such an asset. We would play off of each other with ease and gain such a positive response with the students that came so naturally.”

After completing the coteaching experience, we recognized several areas in which we could have prcwided more professional development support for the students. Although all preservice teachers engaged in this project were elementary or special education majors, individuals differed greatly within their majors. As a project team, we did not do enough to acknowledge these differences, nor did we provide targeted professional development to the respective groups or individuals. For example, the field experience represented the second placement for special education majors, whereas it was the first for the elementary education majors. It did not surprise us that the elementary majors were more apprehen- sive ahout the field experience. An elementary education preservicc teacher noted, “1 have not had the courage to actidly coteach with my teacher in actual instruction. . . . I am still too nervous! Rut I have helped out in one-on-one and in group settings.” We did not plan activities to scaffold the eleinentary preservice teachers as they taught their first lessons; we also did not do enough to tap into the prior experiences of the special education preservice teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Dance Lessons 33

The differences between the two groups manifested themselves in the overall learning outcomes described by preservice teachers in each major. For example, when asked to reflect on their experience in the collaborative project, the majority of the elementary education majors described the experience holistically. They focused on the benefits of the coteaching experience and their relationships with their special education partners. An elementary education major reflected, “I have learned so much from my intern partner . . . [and] being in an inclusion classroom has really opened my eyes. . . . I learned about all different types of students and how to accommodate for all types of learners.” In contrast, less than a quarter of the special education majors discussed their collaborative partnerships in final reflections and instead focused more on pragmatics such as maneuvering course assignments. Indicative of this sentiment, one special education student wrote, “Procrastinating too much will put you behind. . . . As long as you get your work done on time, you kind of bounce through from checkpoint (due dates) to checkpoint until the final week when you have nothing big left.” We wonder to what extent did a lack of professional development support contribute to these differences.

Future considerations for support. As we reconsidered the coteaching experience, we thought that we could provide more support for the preservice teachers through building collaborative skills and being explicit with how class activities were contributing to their professional learning (Rice & Zigmond, 2000; Scruggs et al., 2007). The need for being explicit about what we were modeling is evidenced by the following quote, from one of the graduate assistants working with the project team:

I think in the beginning they weren’t understanding what you guys were doing (when we were coteaching the management course), and midway through the semester they were like “Wait a minute. Isn’t that what they are doing?” and by the end of the semester, they were in tune with what you were doing. I am just won- dering if in the first few classes to be more

explicit and say, “Look at what we are doing and how we are doing it because it is not only about what we are telling you; it is about what we are showing you.”

Similarly, we needed to be more overt about highlighting what students were learning so that it did not get lost in course logistics and assignments. As one faculty member noted, “I don’t think they knew how much they knew. . . . We need to do activities that provide that affirmation.” Finally, although the instructors split the majors into separate groups for activities, we thought that more time apart to discuss the large projects would have been helpful. The completion of these projects might be enhanced by having the coteaching partners work together across all projects, which would allow for the coteaching partnerships to share their strengths and continue developing collaboration skills.

Finding the Right Dance Partner: Compatibility in Coteaching Relationships

Finally, the compatibility of the coteachers is paramount to successful coteaching parmerships (Rice & Zigmond, 2000; Scruggs et al., 2007). Characteristics noted as components of effective coteaching relationships include compatibility in terms of teaching style and philosophy, ability to communicate well, and flexibility (Arguelles et al., 2000). The importance of the relationship is best exemplified with frequent comparisons in the research of coteaching to a marriage: “requiring effort, flexibility, and compromise for success” (Scruggs et al., 2007, p. 405). Research suggests that one way to improve the likelihood of compatible coteaching parmerships is to allow teachers to volunteer for these arrangements (Arguelles et al., 2000).

Relationships and project team. Before beginning the coteaching project, the project team members recognized their similar teaching styles, teaching philosophies, and work ethics. In fact, it was these similarities that led us to even consider the possibility of coteaching. The team members embraced teaching approaches

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4


that engaged preservice teachers in a variety of best practices to help them make meaning of the content. Each team member had a reputa- tion for designing course experiences that fea- tured a variety of small-group and whole-class discussions and application activities. Simi- lar philosophies also united the four faculty because each team member believed in the importance of setting high expectations and modeling the instructional and management approaches that composed the course content. The work ethic of each member created a sense of trust that each person would complete his o r her responsibilities as they arose. We must reiterate that the team formed because we knew that these characteristics existed before beginning the collaborative project. This self- selection that occurred among the project team members reflects a key component of successful coteaching experiences (Arguelles et al., 2000).

Relationships and the peseroice teachers. Be- cause we put together approximately 60 preservice teachers from elementary and special education, we intentionally devoted extensive class and seminar time to team-building activities to facilitate relationships across the two majors. Team building was particularly important because the special education majors completed their program as a cohort and had already been together for one semester. In contrast, the elementary education majors had no prior field experiences, and many of them were new to the program. To intermingle the students during the first seminar meetings, we strategically selected seats at group tables to mix up students from the two majors; we asked them to work in teams to consider prior experiences in schools; and we utilized various icebreaker activities to help create class community. Requiring interaction among all students, we hoped to blur the lines that separated the majors and to ease the anxiety associated with a new semester.

Although we devoted some time to teain building, we underestimated the extent to which the relationships between the two groups of preservice teachers would be affected by the special education group’s cohort design and the additional semester of experience. Because the special education tnajors were

part of a cohort of students who had taken all their courses together the previous semester, they shared a bond, which was evident in their comments, body language, and interactions with one another. The elementary education majors did not know peers in their own major, much less the students in the special education cohort. Consequently, they expressed high levels of anxiety. On the 1st day of class, an elementary student reflected, “I can see that all of the special ed students are close and know each other well. . . . Hopefully we will all develop relationships and feel comfort- able.” The perceived differences in experience also presented challenges in the field. The elementary education majors expressed “feeling behind” and thinking that they needed to do more to catch up to their special education counterparts. One elementary major noted, “At first, I was really nervous because I, as a general education major, haven’t had much of an opportunity to work with the [special education students] before.”

The room assigned for the cotaught management course also negatively affected relationship building. Not only was locating a classroom for the large group of students difficult, but the resulting assigned space was not conducive to the activities and discussions in- herent in our teaching philosophies. The large room had poor acoustics and was oppressively hot. In addition, the tables were arranged in rows and were immobile. The arrangetnent of tables and the design of the classroom led to segregated groups and the inahility to complete small-group activities and discussions- instructional strategies we used frequently in past courses. These factors made it difficult for students to hear one another during whole- class discussions. Continued team building across the majors became difficult because of the seating arrangement, and incorporating collahmtive work using flexible groups was h inde red.

We thought it also important to reflect on the relationships of the preservice teachers in the coteaching partnerships. For example, the variety of coteaching arrangements expe- rienced by the partners during the field placement contributed to the relationships they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4

DanceLessuns 35

were able to form (see Table 1). As a result, several coteaching partners did not see each other during the day, because the special education major was placed in a self-contained setting. Preservice teachers in these parmerships had to make special arrangements to observe each other and plan their coteaching lessons that would be taught in the general education student’s classroom. In many of these cases, the amount of time that the coteaching pairs worked together in the field experience affected the partnerships. The coteaching pairs who spent little, if any, time with their partners expressed feeling slighted and wished for different circumstances. An elementary education student noted that the observations in her coteaching partner’s self-contained classroom were helpful but that she wanted more: “I was a little disappointed we never actually got to teach together, but our class schedules were just so different.” Consequently, the preservice partners who were in a room together more often were able to form a stronger partnership that facilitated reciprocal learning.

The compatibility of the coteaching pairs also played a key role in all preservice teachers’ field experiences. Unlike the project team’s coteaching relationship, the preservice teachers’ partnerships were formed randomly and were based largely on regional preferences for the field experience. Some partners formed a bond right away. An elementary major noted, “I was lucky to be partnered with Martha, whom I worked very well with. We collaborated on all of our lessons and I learned a lot from her; she was always willing to teach me new things.” Those who found common ground were able to focus on collaborating and planning effective lessons to meet the needs of their students. A special education preservice teacher reflected, “My partner and I worked so well together. We have different teaching styles and different teaching back- grounds, but were able to use our differences to create a positive learning environment.” An elementary education major explained the importance of partner compatibility: ‘‘I learned a great deal about what it really means to work together and collaborate. Organization and planning are very important, but more impor-

tant than either of those is the relationship you make and build with your parmer.” Other coteaching partners struggled to find common ground throughout the semester. One elementary education preservice teacher noted, “My personality isn’t always going to compliment someone else’s. But that is life . . . and we need to learn to get along and make the best of every situation.”

Considerations for building relationships. To enhance the classroom community and build relationships across the two majors, we iden- tified two key factors. First, we wondered to what extent the special education cohort’s propensity for groupthink (Janis, 1972) affected the relationship dynamics among the preservice teachers. Throughout the project, the special education cohort viewed itself as one entity with a collective mind-set, at least when compared to the elementary cohort, as evidenced by the former’s overwhelming focus on the key assignments for the course in its final reflections. This groupthink mentality made the special education students appear less open to the elementary education students and less willing to develop new relationships. For example, the special education students self-segregated throughout the course meetings. One elementary preservice teacher wrote, “The class stresses unity in a coteach environment, but in the [class] meetings it is very divided!” We underestimated the inher- ent power of the cohort model and, specifi- cally, their groupthink mentality in affecting their learning as well as the overall experience of all stakeholders in the collaborative project. Upon further reflection, we recognized the importance of front-loading extensive community-building activities and continu- ously building relationships throughout the semester to ameliorate the impact of groupthink. One way to facilitate continued relationship building is to locate a classroom that meshes with the group’s teaching style and course goals, given that this also had a tremen- dous impact on the overall group climate.

Although we paid careful attention to the partnerships that were established to implement our coteaching project, we did not afford the same attention to the formation of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4


coteaching relationships among the preservice teacher pairs. Either allowing the preservice teachers to self-select their coteaching partners or using personality inventories to guide the partnership fortnations may facilitate creating compatible pairs.

In addition, activities such as individual/ partner goal setting and strengthslweaknesses reflections would engage the coteaching pairs in important relationship-building conversations before the field experience. Because effective coteaching partnerships are built on trust, it is critical to have a conversation with all the coteaching pairs regarding con- fidentiality. This will ensure that safe spaces have been afforded to them for sharing their experiences, and it is critical to building a positive classroom environment. A final key consideration lies in increasing the number of schools involved to ensure that all pairs are in coteaching situations that allow them to interact in the same classroom for a portion of the school day.

Preparing to Dance Again

Because inclusion is an increasingly common practice (US. Department of Education, 2008), we contend that teacher educators have an obligation to model coteaching and prepare general and special education teachers for the collaborative experiences they may have as in- service teachers in K-12 classrooms. Present- ing such opportunities at the preservice level provides a platform for dispelling myths about coteaching and preparing educators to work across disciplines to meet students’ needs. We are confident that the pairing of elementary and special education tnajors in a classroom management course, as well as in a cotaught field experience, provides preservice teachers powerful “dance lessons” that would not have been present in traditional preservice teacher education coursework.

As teacher educators, we ask our students to connect theory and practice as they reflect on their teaching experiences, and we believe that it is vital for us to do the same. By using the research literature to guide a review of our

collaborative coteaching experience, we were able to highlight ways in which we effectively incorporated theory, as well as areas in which we need to more thoughtfully reflect the literature in our practice. Our project reflections suggest that although our cross-departmental collaboration was a positive experience, we learned key lessons that provide valuable in- sights in enhancing future iterations of this project. In the end, we suggest that cross- departmental collakmation is a key to providing relevant, real-world learning for preservice teachers. It is our hope that the lessons derived from our experience resonate with teacher educators and provide guidance for those inter- ested in similar innovations.

Acknowledgment

The contents of this article were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Cooperative Agreement No. H 32 5TH 325T070022. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. I)cyartment of Education, and readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project officer, Tina Diamond. The purpose of the 325T grants are

to improve the quality of K-12 special education teacher preparation programs tu ensure that program graduates are able t o meet the [highly qualified teicher] re- quirements under Individuals With Dis- abilities Education Imprcwement Act and No Child Left Behind and are wcll prepared to assist children with high inci- dcnce disabilities in mecting State academic achievement standards. (Zelinko, Ochsendorf, &Jones, 2009, slide 5) S

References

Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). Co-teaching: A different approach to inclusion. Principal, 79(4), 50-5 1.

Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about coteaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 245-2 55.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Dancehsons 37

Batsce, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Edu- cation.

buck, E. C. (2007). &-teaching . . . not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Pre- venting School Failure, 5 1 ( 2), 46-5 1.

Buckley, C. (2005). Establishing and maintain- ing collaborative relationships between regu- lar and special education teachers in middle school social studies inclusive classrooms. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Cognition and learning in diverse settings: Vol f8. Advances in h i n g and behavioral disabilities (pp. 153-198). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). &-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Fo- cus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.

Dieker, L. A., &a Murawski, W. M. (2003). Co- teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. The High SchoolJournal, 86(4), 1-13.

Fennick, E., & Liddy, D. (2001). Responsibilities and preparation for collaborative teaching: Co-teachers’ perspectives. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(3), 229-240.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Col- laboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., & Dennis, R. (1991). Common professional practices that interfere with integrated delivery of related services. Remedial and Special Education, f2(2), 16-24.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psy- chological study of foreign-policy decisions and jkscoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about coteaching: A collaborative student teaching experience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 30, 155-166.

Kovic, S. (1996). Peer coaching to facilitate inclusion: A job-embedded staff development model. Journal of Staff Development, f7(1), 28-3 1.

National Association of State Directors of Spe- cial Education. (2002). Legislative priorities. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www .nasdse .org/govemment-rela t ions/legisla t ive- priorities.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The nation’s report cmd. Retrieved June 1,2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2008). Fre- quently asked questions about response to m- mention: A step-by-step guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved February 1,2010, from http://www2 .ed .gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecial educat ionlreportdindex. html

Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1995). collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools. Denver, CO: Love.

Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). &-teaching in secondary school: Teacher reports of develop- ments in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 190-197.

Sack, J. L. (1998, March). Side by side. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved from http://www .edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www .edweek.org/ew/articles/1998/03/25/28spec2 .hl7 .html&destination=http://www .edweek .org/ew/articles/l998/03/25/28spec2.h 17 .html&levelId=2 100

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A, & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416.

Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46( l), 3745.

Shippen, M., Crites, S., Houchins, D., Ramsey, M., & Simon, M. (2005). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of including students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education,

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Table 48: Percentage distribution of students with disabilities 6 to 21 years old receiving education services for the disabled, by educational environment and type of disability. Selected years, fall 1989 through fall 2005. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/dO7/tables/dtO7-048.asp

Thompson, M. G. (2001). Capturing the phenom- enon of sustained co-teaching: Perceptions of elementary school teachers. Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 63(02), 560A. (UMI No. AA1304 1 129)

28( 2), 92-99.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4


Vesay, J. P. (2004). Linking perspectives and practice: Influence of early childhood and early childhood special educators’ perspectives of working collaboratively in the integrated preschool classroom. Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 65(03), 826A. (UMI No. AAI3 126498)

Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Chapple, J. W. (2000). Preparing teachers to implement inclusive practices. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective schools: Piece the puzzle together (pp. 531-557). Ralti- more: Brookes.

Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V. L., & Williams, R. T. (2000). Collahoration for inclusive education: Developing successfiil programs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Welch, M., (1996). Teacher education and the nc- glected diversity: Preparing educators to teach students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 355-366.

Winn, J., & Blanton, L. (1997). The call for collaboration in teacher education. In L. Rlanton, C. Griffin, J. Winn, & M. Pugach (Eds.), Teacher education in transition (pp. 1-17). Den- ver, CO: Love.

Yoder, D. 1. (2000). Teachers: Perceptions of ele- ments and competencies/characteristics that affect collahorative teaching a t the secondary level. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61( 12), 4735A. (UMI No. AAI9996182)

Zelinko, P., Ochsendorf, R., &Jones, R. D. (2009). Leveraging federal resources: Teacher qual.

ity , research, and program improvement. Re- trieved Novemher 1, 2009, from https://www .osep-meet ing.org/Presenta t ionslwednesda y/ Zelinko,Rice,Jones-OSEP-Presentat ionY020 -%20325T.ppt

Audra Parker, an assistant professor in the Department of Childhood Education and Lit- eracy Studies at the University of South Florida, has research interests in preservice and in-service teacher beliefs and practices.

Diedre Allen, a doctoral stuJcnt in the De- partment of Childhood Education and Liter- acy Studies at the University of South Florida, has research interests that include technology and independent reading.

Patricia Alvarez McHatton, an associate professor in the Department of Special Educa- tion at the University of South Florida, has research interests in teacher preparation and culturally responsive teaching.

Leila Rosa, a doctoral student in the Depart- ment of Special Education at the University of South Florida, has research interests that include teacher preparation in culturally responsive teaching.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

1:17

28

Oct

ober

201

4

dance lessons: preparing preservice teachers for coteaching partnerships

Documents