effects of collaboration on preservice teachers in special education and general education programs...

Effects of Collaboration on Preservice Teachers in Special Education and

General Education Programs

Susan Bert, Stephanie McBride,

Barb Ruben

Portland State University

ORATE Conference

February 2005

Rationale for Research

With the move towards more inclusive classrooms general educators and special educators will need to work together. By starting at the preservice level we wondered if we could help future teachers be more comfortable with both inclusive practices and professional collaboration.

Research questions

• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward professional collaboration?

• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and inclusive education practices?

• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy related to teaching students with disabilities?

• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ ability to design instruction to meet the needs of diverse students?

• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ ability to identify and contact professional resources to support the teaching of their students?

Collaboration Research Context

Educational Policy,Foundations &

Administrative Studies(EPFA)

Graduate TeacherEducation Program

(GTEP)

Special EducatorProgram(SPED)

Counselor EducationProgram

Graduate School of EducationPortland State University

Collaboration Research Context

Educational Policy,Foundations &

Administrative Studies(EPFA)

Graduate TeacherEducation Program

(GTEP)

Special EducatorProgram(SPED)

Counselor EducationProgram

Graduate School of EducationPortland State University

GTEP Secondary Cohort (N = 23)

SPED CohortElementary & Secondary

(N = 33)

2004-05 GTEP/SPED Collaboration Research

Participating Graduate Students

GTEP (N=23)

• 1+ year program started in summer 2004

• Secondary content areas include language arts/literacy, social studies, music, art, foreign languages

• 9-hour school-based practicum in fall, half-time student teaching in Winter, full-time student teaching in spring

• enrolled in introductory SPED course in fall

SPED (N=33)

• 1+ year program started in summer 2004

• Mix of students with elementary & secondary program emphasis

• 9-hour school-based practicum in fall & winter, full-time student teaching in spring

• No required coursework with GTEP faculty

• Attended scheduled SPED/GTEP collaboration activities each term

Timeline of Collaborative Activities Fall 2004

GTEP + SPED cohorts meet to co-plan a lesson

(Oct. 27, 2004)

SPED students visit GTEP

practicum sites (Nov. 5, 2004)

GTEP students revise and teach

the co-planned

lesson

GTEP + SPED cohorts meet to debrief about co-planned

lesson (Nov. 17, 2004)

Pre-surveys collected(before 1st meeting)

Post-meeting reflections collected Post-meeting

reflections collected

GTEP students submit lesson

plans and reflections

Timeline of Collaborative Activities Winter 2005

GTEP + SPED cohorts meet to problem-solve classroom

management scenarios using Critical Friends Group protocol

(adapted from McEntree, Appleby, Down, et. al. (2003).(February 9, 2005)

GTEP students complete a work

sample with differentiated lesson plans

Post-surveys collected

Post-meeting reflections collected

Work samples reviewed for indications of

differentiation

Timeline of Collaborative Activities Spring 2005

GTEP + SPED cohorts will meet during full-time student

teaching for collaborative discussions

Randomly selected

students from each cohort will be interviewedPost-meeting

reflections collected

Research data analyzed and

reported

Collaboration Measures

• Pre/post attitude survey (Likert scale ratings & open-ended responses)

• Written reflections following each GTEP-SPED meeting

• Co-planned lesson plans and reflections(fall term)

• Work samples reviewed for differentiation (winter & spring terms)

Pre/post Attitude Survey• Areas of concentration

– Beliefs about collaboration among general and special education teachers

– Beliefs about inclusion– Beliefs about ones’ own ability to teach students with disabilities

• Respondents – pre-survey (N=39) – post-survey (N=24)

• Activities between surveys– 3 GTEP/SPED meetings at PSU– SPED students spend half a day at GTEP school site– Development and implementation of co-planned lesson

• Survey offered online in September 2004 and February 2005

24 20-30 years12 31-40 years

2 41-50 years1 over 50

Age (check one)

61.5 %

30.8 %

5.1 %

2.6 %

Ages of General Education and Special Education Graduates Students (N=39)

20-30 years

31-40 years

41-50 years

Over 50 years

0

5.310.5

47.4

36.8

05101520253035404550

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Not my responsibility My responsibility

Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators

0

13 13

34.839.1

0510152025303540

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Post-survey84.2% 73.9%

51.3

33.3

12.8

2.600

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Possible Impossible


58.3

25

12.5

4.200

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Post-survey84.6%

83.3%

2.6 2.6

12.8

25.6

56.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Unnecessary Necessary


04.2

12.5

37.5

45.8

05101520253035404550

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Post-survey82% 83.3%

53.8

30.8

15.4

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Something I want to do Not interested


62.5

25

12.5

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings


38.5 38.5

15.4

0 00510152025303540

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

My job Not my job

Beliefs about Inclusion

30.4

52.2

17.4

0 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Post-survey77% 82.6%

43.6

30.825.6

0 0051015202530354045

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Beneficial Detrimental


21.7

47.8

30.4

0 005101520253035404550

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings


38.5

33.3

28.2

0 00510152025303540

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Enhances learning of all Detracts from learning of all


30.4

43.5

26.1

0 0051015202530354045

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings


7.7

48.7

35.9

7.7

005101520253035404550

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Realistic Unrealistic


17.4

39.1

30.4

8.7

4.3

0510152025303540

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings


28.9

39.5

28.9

2.600

510152025303540

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Necessary Unnecessary


17.4

47.8

26.1

8.7

005101520253035404550

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings


33.330.8

28.2

7.7

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Capable Not capable

Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities

40.9

27.322.7

8.7

0051015202530354045

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings


17.9

41

20.517.9

2.6051015202530354045

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Knowledgeable Uninformed


13.6

59.1

13.6 13.6

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings


7.7

23.1

30.828.2

10.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Unprepared Prepared


0

26.1

13

52.2

8.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Post-survey38.5%60.9%

2.6

12.8

20.5

35.9

28.2

0510152025303540

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Pre-survey

1 2 3 4 5

Uncomfortable Comfortable


0

17.4

30.4

34.8

17.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

1 2 3 4 5Ratings

Post-survey64.1%52.2%

Findings from Reflective Writings

THREE questions asked at end of each collaborative session:

– Benefit/opportunities– Concerns/obstacles– Key learning / insights

Themes related to Benefits/Opportunities

THEMES Fall WinterGTEP/SPED

N = 23/32

GTEP/SPED

N = 16/28

Structured process for communication

0/1 20/30

Fresh perspectives 3/5 2/5Feedback 6/0 5/0Exposure to experiences of others

1/7 1/1

Equity/parity (everyone heard) 0/0 0/12Outcome can be productive 8/0 2/1

What students wrote about Benefits:

After meeting on November 17, 2004…GTEP: “Having support and extra ideas as I wrestled with planning and

trying to uncover new ways to engage my students.”SPED: “These students are going to be in our class and we need to

work together to best help all students be successful.”

After meeting on February 9, 2005…GTEP: “Sharing without interruptions- all voices heard, no one

dominates- forced listening”SPED: “This meeting was awesome. I really felt like our group worked

well together and came out with some great solutions”

Themes related to Concerns/Obstacles to Collaboration

THEMES Fall WinterGTEP/SPED

N = 23/32

GTEP/SPED

N = 16/28

Equity/parity of investment 8/0 1/2

Unclear expectations/purpose 4/8 0/1

Lack of receptivity 0/5 0/0

Lack of familiarity/comfort 1/2 5/2

Diverse groupings 2/2 0/0

Time issues 1/2 5/2

Lack of/too much structure 0/1 7/12

What students wrote about Obstacles:

After meeting on November 17, 2004…

GTEP: “Logistics of finding time in busy schedules to allow proper collaborations” (6 x’s)

SPED: “Not having enough experience to give specific feedback”

After meeting on February 9, 2005…

GTEP: “Did not know each other well - made it a little awkward”

SPED: “I’m still not sure we are benefiting from the process, not that

collaboration is a bad thing…just tricky!”

Themes related to Key Learning / Insights

THEMES Fall WinterGTEP/

SPEDN =

23/32

GTEP/SPED

N = 16/28

Different perspectives add value/ collaboration is mutually beneficial

9/15 16/39

Offers more solutions/ideas 8/0 13/4

Appreciation of skills of others 6/2 7/1

Varying capacities to collaborate 2/4 0/0

Attitudes about students with special needs vary

2/1 1/5

Key Learning/ Insights Fall meeting: November 17, 2004

GTEP: “It isn’t that hard to differentiate for your SPED kids. It’s much harder

to NOT differentiate…at least in the long run.” “Key learning point was just how helpful collaboration can be, and

how it relieves the burden from the general ed teacher.”

SPED: “I learned the importance of how general ed and sped teachers need

to work together, without an understanding of how each approaches their job, the process is easily broken down.”

Key Learning/ InsightsWinter meeting: February 9, 2004

GTEP: “Different points of view- more people in group = more insights”

(6 different students)

SPED: “Realized how dependent general ed teacher are on us.” “There are a lot of good insights when people collaborate.” “I think the collaboration process gives understanding of each group’s

[special education and general education] jobs. It will pay off in the future!”

September Responses to Open-ended Survey Question:

“What is the role of the general ed teacher?”

GTEP students wrote about their responsibility to access, differentiate, accommodate. Although there is one mention of collaboration with parents and students there is no mention of working with special education resources in the school or district.

SPED students also wrote about the classroom teachers role in differentiation and accommodation but they also mention that, “The role of the classroom teacher is to provide the same educational

opportunities she would for any of her students. This includes collaborating with other professionals to maximize interventions.”

GTEP students still saw their role as accommodating and differentiating but this time they mention… “Finding out about the IEPs” “Seeking help from specialists” “Applying for the aid from SPED efforts”

Now in thick of their first quarter of student teaching, one GTEP student wrote… “I know it is my job to do this but it seems overwhelming for a new

teacher.”

Slight change in February 9th responses

SPED students saw the role of the general ed teacher was to… “Be open to including sped students. Acknowledge they need assistance from

sped teachers. They must work with the IEP and understand that they can look other places for support.”

Expanding on the collaborative nature of the work, one SPED student wrote… “To work with others and determine the needs of the students- then provide

services/accommodations for those needs.”

Another SPED student wrote… “Each teacher should strive to provide as much support as possible with the

help of the SPED teachers and with the support of the administration.” The was a possible softening of the SPED perspective towards

classroom teachers at least by one SPED student who wrote… “The educational "plan" should be balanced between the needs of the

individual and the needs of the overall class.”

Slight change in February 9th responses

Implications so far….

• Collaboration requires trust and a lot of time• Collaboration requires a structure to insure

emotionally safe, efficient productive use of time

• All parties need to feel ownership for the process

• Everyone’s perspective needs to stay focused on the outcome - best practices for ALL students

• …………….

effects of collaboration on preservice teachers in special education and general education programs...

Documents

gtep students

sped students

effect of collaboration

teaching students

professional collaboration

effects of collaboration

gtep faculty

sped n