i0 lessons from anotherfield: applying coteaching

0,i; | i0I 1 i i i1

Lessons From Another Field: Applying CoteachingStrategies to Gifted Education

Claire E. HughesFlorida Gulf Coast University

A B S T R AC T

Because research has found that differentiation of instruc-tion for gifted students does not typically occur within thegeneral classroom, collaboration between gifted and gen-eral education teachers is critical in order to ensure appro-priate services to students with high abilities. Giftededucation teachers are now being called upon to provideservices to their students in the regular education environ-ment. This fundamental change in setting mirrors man-dated changes in special education, wherein students withdisabilities are increasingly served ai the general educationclassroom. This article provides a new definition of col-laboration within the context of gifted education andexpands on the utilization of coteaching as a collaborativestrategy. Five models of coteaching originally developedfor meeting the needs of students with disabilities wereadapted, and examples of their use with gifted students inthe general education classroom are provided.

The need for collaboration between and among profes-sionals in education has been explored for a variety of pur-poses. Collaboration has been a major component of schoolreform in areas such as improving university-school relation-ships (Munby & Hutchinson, 1998), developing various formsof teaming (Chalfant, Pysh;, & Moutrie, 1979; Creasey &Walther-Thomas, 1996), determining a variety of student ser-vice configurations (Arreaga-Mayer, 1998), providing schoolconsultation (Erchul, 1992; Kampwirth, 1999), and increasingschool-parental relationships (Palmer, Borthwick-Duffy, &Widaman, 1998). Specific fields within education have alsoexplored the potential benefits of developing collaborativerelationships. Of these, special education is notable for theemphasis recently placed in the area of collaboration (i.e.,Bauwens & Hourcade, 1997; Friend & Cook, 1996; Korinek& Walther-Thomas, 1995). In particular, the field of specialeducation has focused on the potential benefits that collabora-tive relationships between professional educators within thegeneral education classroom can have on the development of

Wendy A. MurawskiCalifornia State University, Northridge

students with special needs, as well as their general educationpeers.

Although the special education focus on collaboration inthe classroom has been primarily between special educationpersonnel and general educators, the fundamental underpin-nings and strategies developed to increase collaborative rela-

S 0 6O I I S

by Mary Schmidt on March 24, 2009 http://gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gcq.sagepub.com

* ' 0 I ia i

tionships are often applicable to other fields in education.Definitions of collaboration do not specify the job title of thepersons involved in the interactions, but rather describe a needfor professionals with common goals, shared responsibilitiesand resources, and open communication (Brown, Wyne,Blackburn, & Powell, 1979; Friend & Cook, 1996). WhileIdol, Paolucci-Whitcomb, and Nevin (1986) defined collabo-ration as an interactive process in which individuals withdiverse areas of expertise address mutually defined goalsthrough the use of creative problem solving, Friend and Cook(1996) refined the definition of collaboration as "a style forinteraction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarilyengaged in shared decision making as they work toward acommon goal" (p. 6). The Friend and Cook definitionemphasizes that collaboration is a style of interaction that canbe used with a variety ofapplications. Certain characteristics ofcollaboration that are generally accepted include mutual trustand open communication, as well as the sharing of decision-making, responsibility, accountability, resources, and planning(Brown et al., 1979; Dyck, Sundbye, & Pemberton, 1997; Idolet al., 1986; Pugach & Johnson, 1995).

Many authorities in education have posited the potentialbenefits to be gleaned from collaboration between profession-als. Broad goals for collaboration have been found to includeshifting the organizational paradigm (Villa, Thousand, Nevin,& Mageri, 1996), increasing the ability to meet diverse needs(Purcell & Leppien, 1998; Schlicter et al., 1997), achievingmore complex goals, improving social interactions, andincreasing creativity (Pugach &Johnson, 1995). More specificstudent-oriented goals include assisting with problem solving(Foley & Mundschenk, 1997; Friend & Cook, 1996), model-ing and communicating the value of collaborative behaviors(Villa et al.), and providing additional enrichment opportuni-ties (Purcell & Leppien; Schlicter et al.; Villa et al.).

Although collaboration between professional educatorsdoes seem to offer numerous benefits for the teachers involved,as well as students with exceptional needs, it is certainly not apanacea for meeting those needs (Cook & Friend, 1995), noris it without certain drawbacks or concerns. Some of the mostnoted hurdles to be overcome are inadequate teacher prepara-tion and training for collaboration (Bauwens & Hourcade,1991; Bondy & Brownell, 1997); ineffective organizationalstructures, policies, and procedures (Bauwens & Hourcade;Foley & Mundschenk, 1997; Villa et al., 1996); poor leadershipor support; lack of adequate communication; unclear goals(Bauwens & Hourcade; Cook & Friend); lack ofplanning time(Bondy & Brownell; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000; Reinhiller,1996); and different areas of expertise, frames of reference,approaches to instruction, and/or skill bases (Foley &Mundschenk; Friend & Cook, 1996).

With certain collaborative competencies in place, many ofthe barriers to collaboration can be overcome. Foley andMundschenk (1997) identified particular competencies forcollaboration, which include: knowledge of clear roles andresponsibilities; knowledge and skill in the use ofcommunica-tion skills, assessment, and instructional approaches; andknowledge and skill in the general education curricula, as wellas the adaptation of said curricula in meeting individual needs.Proper preparation, teacher willingness, and adequate supportscan make a significant impact on the success of a collaborativerelationship within the classroom (Mastropieri & Scruggs,2000; Steffes & Hof, 1999). By recognizing potential barriersand developing the collaborative competencies to overcomethose barriers, we can reap the benefits of collaboration.

A New Definition forCollaboration in Gifted Education

Professionals in gifted education have long recognized thepotential benefits ofcollaboration, as well. Purcell and Leppien(1998) defined collaboration from the perspective of giftededucation as "the dialogue and planning between professionalsin which the goal is to provide differentiated services for highachieving students" (p. 172). This definition includes the char-acteristics ofshared planning, common goals, and communica-tion, but neglects some characteristics others have foundessential, such as the need for diverse expertise and parity(Friend & Cook, 1996; Idol et al., 1986). Thus, incorporatingthe most salient characteristics, we offer a new description ofcollaboration within the context of gifted education.

Collaboration is a style for interaction that includes dia-logue, planning, shared and creative decision making, and fol-low-up between at least two coequal professionals with diverseexpertise, in which the goal of the interaction is to provideappropriate services for students, including high-achieving andgifted students.

The Changing Role of Educators ofthe Gifted

Why should educators ofgifted students increase their col-laborative relationships? Although the availability of a contin-uum of services is critical for gifted students (VanTassel-Baska,1991, 1998), the fact remains that most gifted students spendthe majority of their day in general education classrooms(Purcell, 1995). The reform movement within general educa-tion has called for activities that require higher thinking and

I I 0 6S 0 0



more stringent content standards, activities that indirectly ben-efit gifted students (Council for Exceptional Children, 1994;VanTassel-Baska, 1998). Thus, the role of the gifted educationteacher is changing significantly (Kirschenbaum, Armstrong,& Landrum, 1999; Purcell & Leppien, 1998). In many statesand school districts, the role of gifted education focuses on thedifferentiation of materials and activities within the generaleducation classroom, as opposed to a more separate model(Winebrenner, 1992). There are numerous calls throughoutthe field of gifted education to provide a more collaborativerelationship with general education (Kirschenbaum et al.;Tomlinson, Coleman, Allan, Udall, & Landrum, 1996;VanTassel-Baska, 1991; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, &Salvin, 1993) since there is ample evidence to indicate that dif-ferentiation for gifted students rarely occurs within the generaleducation classroom without such collaboration (Archambaultet al., 1993; Shaklee, 1997; Westberg et al.).

This fundamental change in gifted education mirrors themandated changes within special education, wherein studentswith disabilities are increasingly served within the general edu-cation classroom (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act,1990). The primary role of the special educator has shiftedfrom providing direct services to students in a pull-out capac-ity to providing both direct and indirect services through col-laboration and consultation with general educators. Althoughgifted education often falls under the umbrella of special edu-cation as "a part ofthe continuum ofexceptionalities" (p. 212),Shaklee (1997) noted that gifted education is often ignored andtreated as a separate entity. Thus, much ofthe literature relatedto collaboration in the field of special education does notaddress the unique concerns of students with gifts and talents.Yet, as reform in gifted education parallels the changes in spe-cial education, gifted and special education teachers are beingasked to play similar roles within the general education class-room. They are being asked to provide consultative services,collaborate with the general education teacher, and meet theneeds of students with learning differences within the contextof the general education classroom (Cline & Schwartz, 1999;Council for Exceptional Children, 1994; Shaklee). Therefore,it is increasingly important that professionals in gifted and gen-eral education work together to provide a cohesive experiencefor all students and that they both understand the distinctiveeducational experiences that are necessary for gifted students(Tomlinson et al., 1996).

Changes in teacher roles have prompted the need forincreased focus into areas such as how teachers can most effec-tively interact with one another within the classroom. Specialeducation professionals have developed numerous models ofcollaboration for the general education classroom, designed toprovide support for teachers and to describe the process in

which teachers interact with students (Reinhiller, 1996). Infact, in the area of gifted education, Kirschenbaum and col-leagues (1999) have called for a replication ofthe efforts in spe-cial education that are designed to aid students with disabilities.However, because there are different emphases between theneeds of students with disabilities and students with gifts andtalents, it is crucial that any model of teacher behaviors fromspecial education be adapted to meet the unique needs of thegifted education teacher and gifted students. Few such adapta-tions have been made. Thus, it is necessary that gifted educa-tion begin the process ofdiscussing and determining the natureand goals ofthe interactions between general and gifted educa-tion teachers, with guidance from special education models ofcollaboration that have been adapted to the needs of giftededucation.

Goals of Collaboration as Appliedto Gifted Education

It is essential that the goals of collaboration be definedbefore establishing a collaborative relationship between teach-ers. Because gifted education programs differ drasticallybetween schools, divisions, and states, the goals and intendedoutcomes of any collaborative relationship need to be clearlyaddressed by all parties involved. Naturally, these goals shouldreflect and support the goals for gifted students, the gifted edu-cation program, and the school in general.

Although scholars in special education provide strongmodels for collaboration, it is important to remember that thespecific goals of gifted education are significantly differentfrom those of special education, as the focus ofgifted educatorsis to develop the talents of students in such a manner that theybecome more different from their regular education peers.While talent development is a necessary goal for all students,the nature ofgifted students requires that the initial differencesbecome more enhanced, rather than diminished. There is no"closing of the gap" goal, but rather the necessary step of tal-ent development on an individual level. These goals mightinclude making content more complex, accelerating the rate ofinformation, providing real-world problems and audiences,and providing opportunities to students who may not qualifyfor gifted services, but who demonstrate a significant talent ina particular area. Collaborative relationships cannot be takenfor granted. Whenever educators decide to work together,there are competencies that need to be met and concerns thatneed to be addressed to ensure that educators truly share simi-lar goals for the interaction. Before engaging in collaboration,general and gifted education teachers should spend timeaddressing role clarification, role parity, and role expectations



iE0l i'S l i

(Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 1999; Friend & Cook, 1996).Additionally, Bos and Vaughn (1998) have stressed the need forcurriculum planning to identify new goals for students at vary-ing levels. They also remind educators that resources, espe-cially time and space, are frequently at a premium and shouldbe discussed before collaborating.

Trust, respect, and a belief in the value of collaborationwere identified by Friend and Cook (1996) as emergent char-acteristics; while necessary prerequisites, they "typicallyemerge and grow from successful experience with collabora-tion" (p. 10). In addition, resourcefulness, enhanced commu-nication skills, an understanding of each other's training, andthe ability to self-reflect are necessary components for an effec-tive collaborative relationship (Purcell & Leppien, 1998). Suchcollaboration between teachers can act as an opportunity formutual staff development.

In addition to general collaborative competencies, teachersworking together to benefit gifted students in the general educa-tion classroom must also value the talent-development process,understanding that providing a student with advanced content isnot reducing the educational rights ofother students, but can bean improvement in challenge for all students (USDOE/OERI,1993). Finally, both teachers must respect each other, recognizingthat the goals of gifted education may be different than the goalsof general or special education. Once goals have been discussedand are shared, teachers must then determine a service-deliverymodel that can meet these diverse needs.

One of the most rapidly emerging responses to the chal-lenge ofmeeting the needs ofa diverse group of students in thesame classroom is coteaching (Reinhiller, 1996). By adaptingand modifying existing models of coteaching, we are able tocreate new approaches designed to meet the unique needs ofgifted students in the general education classroom.

Coteaching Models as Applied toGifted Education

Cook and Friend (1995) noted that coteaching occurswhen "two or more professionals jointly deliver substantiveinstruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a sin-gle physical space" (p. 1). Steffes and Hof (1999) stressed that,for effective coteaching to occur, there must be shared respon-sibility, common planning time scheduled during the schoolday, and the use of varied instructional techniques, whileSmith and Harris (1999) more closely followed the definitionof Cook and Friend, adding only the need to select and use acoteaching model and to specify a common goal.

Cook and Friend (1995) developed five models ofcoteaching, providing a solid foundation for many researchers

and practitioners in this area (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1997;Korinek & Walther-Thomas, 1995; Vaughn, Schumm, &Arguelles, 1997). Although initially developed for special edu-cation professionals in the general education classroom, thesemodels, if modified, hold much promise for the field of giftededucation.

It is important to note, however, that critical to the notionof coteaching as described by Cook and Friend (1995) is theheterogeneity ofstudent groups. The inclusion and integrationof students with disabilities into the general education class-room, with appropriate modifications, supports, and accom-modations, is the focus of many special educators, and thediversity of student groups is a key component to successfulcoteaching experiences (Cook & Friend). While advocates forspecial education historically have fought for access to generaleducation curricula for students with disabilities (Meyen,1998), professionals in gifted education often focus on the nec-essary differentiation from the regular curriculum in order forgifted students to develop their talents (Winebrenner, 1992;VanTassel-Baska, 1998). This difference in emphases requiresthe modification of coteaching models, and, when modified,these new approaches to coteaching may not meet the originaldefinitions of those in special education. Therefore, it isimportant that general educators and their coteaching partnersdetermine the goals and needs of their entire class beforeselecting an approach to coteaching.

While the tasks, expectations, and goals are not the samefor a coteaching relationship between gifted and general edu-cators as they are for a relationship between special and generaleducators, many of the strategies can be easily applied withsome adaptations for the needs of gifted students. These adap-tations would continue to allow the collaborative relationshipwithin the classroom to support the needs of all students. It isimportant that the gifted education teacher and the generaleducation teacher develop mutual goals and continue opencommunication. When goals and activities have been speci-fied, teachers can then determine which model of coteachingwould be most appropriate for that particular situation. Bymodifying and adapting models of coteaching previously pre-sented in special education literature for the inclusion of stu-dents with varying readiness levels and needs (Cook & Friend,1995), the following five models ofcoteaching are presented asoptions for educators to further meet the needs of gifted stu-dents in the general education classroom. These modelsinclude: (a) Lead and Support; (b) Rotation; (c) SimultaneousInstruction; (d) Tiered Instruction; and (e) Team Teaching,and are summarized in Table 1.

I. Lead and Support. This model can be most easily appliedto a coteaching situation among gifted and general educationteachers. There are numerous tasks and activities that the sup-

MIjff~C 0 MMkWS:3 5 5WXf-V MA35NA AN5W~ MlW 5ilo



ili I00iI i 1

Ta b I e 1

Coteaching Approachesfor Use With Gifted Students

Model Name

Lead and Support

Rotation Teaching

Simultaneous Instruction

Tiered Instruction

Team Teaching

Description ofModels

One teacher takes a lead in the classroom instruction, while the other acts in asupport capacity, gathering information on student behaviors, participating as a silentpartner, or drifting around the room, assisting students during the instruction.

Teachers divide the material and each takes responsibility for teaching that materialto a portion of the class. The class can be divided in half so that both teachers takehalf of the class, or it can be divided into smaller groups with activities that are notteacher-led at certain stations (i.e., listening lab, independent practice). At aprespecified time, groups rotate to different stations, allowing teachers to present thesame material to the next group while differentiating questions and activities as needed.

Students are divided, and each teacher takes responsibility for the total instruction ofhis or her smaller group. The teachers plan the lesson jointly, but each presents thesame basic content to a smaller group of students, making adaptations as necessary.

One teacher works with a small group of students while the other teacher workswith the larger group. Either educator can work with the small group, and the smallgroup can be used for acceleration, review, or enrichment activities.

Both teachers share the planning, instruction, and assessment of the students andcopresent information and activities. This approach typically requires the mostplanning, trust, and communication between coteachers.

Note. Adaptedfrom: Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelinesfor creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 2(3), 1-12.

port teacher (a role that either educator can assume at varyingtimes) can provide. Guidelines for tiered products, research forindividual projects, or compacted activities can be dissemi-nated by one teacher, while the other teacher is presenting theinitial information. The support teacher also can observe stu-dent responses and behavior for referral purposes, learningstyle modifications, or acceleration opportunities. The supportteacher is able to float around the room, acting as a manager tohandle negative student behaviors. In addition, the supportteacher can assist in role-playing with the lead teacher, writethe lecture outline on the board, or model skills being dis-cussed. Finally, the "floating" teacher is available to work withindividual students who are accelerated or are working onindependent projects, while the rest ofthe class works on a dif-ferent skill or activity. For example, while one teacher leads aclassroom activity on the process of magnetism, the otherteacher can walk around, supervising the labs. The support

teacher could then draw the interactions of the two magneticpoles on the board while the lead teacher discusses them. Thesupport teacher may observe the class, script student com-ments, and determine with the coteacher which studentsappear to have mastered the material and will therefore benefitfrom differentiated instruction. The support teacher might alsorecord what types of questions students ask in order to docu-ment higher order thinking in students who may not tradi-tionally qualify for gifted programs. Such use of the supportteacher would expand the purpose in the classroom beyondinstructional activities to alternative identification.

Conversely, while the class is engaged in a higher orderthinking activity, one teacher can provide more individualizedsupport to students who need guidance. For example, thewhole class could be involved in the process of creating a mocktrial during an English lesson on the novel To Kill a Mockingbird.VA-hile the lead teacher facilitates a discussion regarding the var-

is 0,fi t " sA . M 06 i: '^ . 3I 0f f



ious complexities involved in the judicial system, the supportcoteacher assists by walking around the classroom, encouragingstudents to pay attention, directing students to additionalresources, and asking other questions unobtrusively so that thelead teacher can continue with the discussion. Other positiveaspects of this include the limited collaborative planning timenecessary, the additional support in the classroom, the oppor-tunity for increased collegiality, and the ease ofimplementation(Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 1999).

There are, however, some potential negative consequenceswhen consistently using this model. Cook and Friend (1995)cautioned coteachers to vary roles frequently and to avoidoverusing this model. They have found that ifone teacher con-stantly takes the lead during the coteaching time, the otherteacher may appear as a "visitor" or a glorified aide. This is awaste of teachers' time and talent.

II. Rotation. This approach facilitates the use of indepen-dent contracts or compacting activities, in which teachers canwork with different groups, present appropriate information,and differentiate the instruction based upon the nature of thegroups. This strategy is particularly adaptable for occasionswhen there is a need for small group instruction in materialthat is not linear in nature; skills learned in one station are notpredicated upon information presented in any other station.Teachers can more easily adapt the complexity and breadth ofthe material that is covered for the particular group and makechanges based on individual differences in a smaller group set-ting, providing a tiered lesson experience for students.

For example, classrooms organized around Problem-Based Learning might benefit from this model of coteachingbecause it allows groups to investigate multiple aspects of theproblem in depth, due to the facilitation that more than oneteacher can provide. Coteachers may facilitate activities inwhich one group of students conducts a lab to determine thepH of household cleaners, a second group uses the Internet toinvestigate the Hazmat procedures for acid spills, and a thirdgroup independently maps out alternate driving routes in thecase of a highway acid spill. All three groups move througheach of the activities, rotating areas, but the level of questionsasked, the complexity ofinformation required, and the volumeofinformation needed can be amended according to the readi-ness of the students in the group. Another example might bethe language arts classroom in which one teacher works with asmall group ofstudents on nouns, the other teacher works witha small group of students on verbs, while worksheets at variouslevels are available at a third independent station. Studentswould rotate among stations so that all students would receiveinstruction from each of the teachers, but the level of instruc-tion could be geared differently for different readiness levels.

Students benefit from the lower student-teacher ratio and

the small group interactions in which gifted students do nothave to be singled out in order to receive appropriate instruc-tion. In addition, because each teacher instructs each part ofthe class at various times, the parity of teachers is maximizedand different learning styles can be accommodated by the dif-ferences in teaching styles. Although teachers have to dividethe material and communicate the content and activities to oneanother, each can be individually responsible for the specificplanning and presentation of that material, thereby reducingthe need for common planning time.

A potential difficulty inherent to this model is theincreased noise level that typically accompanies such stations oractivities (Friend & Cook, 1996). In addition, if students arerotating areas within the same class period, teachers have towork together to closely monitor the time. Strategies such ashaving a student at each area responsible for monitoring timeor using a central class timer, as well as designing activities so asto have only one station engaged in active discussion with theothers focused on independent work, silent reading, or audioor visual activities, help eliminate these potential difficulties.Because this strategy also presupposes that the teachers are bothequally able to adapt and differentiate appropriately for theneeds of the students (Vallecoursa, deBettencourt, &Zigmond, 2000), it is important that coteachers meet anddetermine compatibility before implementation. Finally, thisstrategy is limited by the nature of the material that is beingcovered. Therefore, this model of coteaching is not appropri-ate for material that must be sequentially presented. However,this approach is extremely effective in reinforcing initial con-cepts or working with groups that are at different places in thecurriculum.

III. Simultaneous Instruction. The salient characteristic ofthis model is the lower student-teacher ratio (Cook & Friend,1995; Vallecoursa et al., 2000). This approach requires thatteachers plan together so that students receive the same con-tent, but there is significant room for differentiation inprocesses, products, and concepts. Students can be divided intoinstructional groups that reflect their educational levels, andappropriate differentiation strategies can be made within thesmall-group environment. 'While the basic content may be thesame, the teacher of gifted students can focus on higher orderconcepts and interdisciplinary connections. There are alsoopportunities for extension through enrichment and research.This model of teaching is most effective for initial exposure tomaterial, projects needing close teacher attention, hands-onactivities, and test review.

A significant advantage of this approach is the ability topresent content at multiple levels (Dettmer et al., 1999).Advanced groups can cover the material more quickly, allow-ing additional time for individual projects or research opportu-

SO I I * 6O S 0



6 *6 S I

nities within the content area. For example, if a class is study-ing Sherman's involvement in the Civil War, simultaneousinstruction allows both groups to discuss, chart, and exploreSherman's march to the sea, while the more advanced groupcan discuss the economic and political reasons involved, aswell. In the science classroom, both teachers could presentmaterial on astronomy. However, one teacher could presentthe material to half of the class in a more concrete manner,using manipulatives and models, while the other teacher couldlead the other halfin a more theoretical discussion in which thecharacteristics of an alien must reflect the nature of the planetfrom which it originates. Each group is covering the same basiccurriculum at the same time, but the content presented byteachers is manipulated to reflect the needs and abilities of thestudents within the groups.

The greatest challenge in the use of this model is reinforc-ing the parity of each group of students. It is therefore impor-tant that each group perceives that its activities are challengingand a contribution to an overall understanding of the contentmaterial. Other potential difficulties ofthis model include pre-senting material within the same time period, given differencesin abilities, teaching styles, personalities, and resultant groupdynamics. As with the rotation model, some teachers may havedifficulties with the increased noise level. Finally, the level ofdifferentiation available for gifted students is more constrainedbecause of the time-limit factor. This strategy is more appro-priate for activities that lend themselves to enrichment anddeeper knowledge within a content area, rather than linearacceleration.

IV. Tiered Instruction. In this approach, the teacher workingwith the small group should frame the differentiated activitieswithin the context ofthe classroom curriculum, materials, andactivities. If a small number of students have compacted out ofspecific material, they can work with a teacher in a small groupon independent projects or accelerated information. Forexample, if one teacher is working with the large group onmultiplication, the other teacher can work with a small groupon the process of division, more complex multiplication, ormathematical applications. Or, while one teacher instructs thelarger group on vocabulary development, the other teacher canwork with the students who have mastered that content on aresearch project that explores the etymology of related vocab-ulary. If a school is involved in the Three-Stage EnrichmentModel, one teacher can work with a large group of studentswho are engaged in Stages One and Two, while the otherteacher can work with the smaller group involved in StageThree.

This model of coteaching allows small groups of studentsto receive differentiated instruction and activities as a cohesivepart of their overall instruction. Teachers are able to pace

appropriately the material that is being covered so that certainstudents can receive advanced content while the rest of theclass is working with more fundamental material. This modelworks particularly well for material that is linear in naturebecause the second teacher is available to facilitate the acceler-ation and compacting processes. Coteachers can also supportenrichment opportunities, such as individual projects andresearch, for small groups who may have already mastered therequisite content and skills.

The greatest risk of this approach involves the process ofcontinually grouping gifted students together and the "elitist"feeling created within the classroom itself. Changing thegroupings for different subject matters and ensuring that thesmall groups interact with both teachers at different times canalleviate this risk (Friend & Cook, 1996; Vaughn, Schumm, &Arguelles, 1997). It can be arranged so that all students have anopportunity to interact within a small-group setting, with dif-ferent activities tailored to individual needs. For example, ifthehigh-ability readers meet in a small group while the rest of theclass receives other instruction, it should be arranged so thatthe lower reading groups also have an opportunity to meet andexperience more individualized instruction and activities.

V Team Teaching. Team teaching can take a variety offorms. Teachers may take turns leading a discussion; one mayspeak while the other asks follow-up higher order thinkingquestions; one may present information while the other pro-vides additional connections and enrichment information; orone may present an initial level of tiered activities while theother teaches to additional tiers. Teachers may role-play, simu-late conflict, and model appropriate questioning techniques.This strategy affords an excellent means of providing thoseskills essential for gifted students' growth, and it is often appro-priate for other students, as well. Teaching techniques such asthe use of higher order thinking skills, Problem-BasedLearning, and creative activities can be presented to the wholeclass, with content modifications made for students who arestruggling with the material. For example, one teacher can pre-sent the role of the industrialization of the North in the CivilWar, while the other teacher asks critical thinking questionsconnected to the material; one teacher can present the CreativeProblem Solving method, while the other teacher connects itto a current class topic of discussion, such as pollution; or oneteacher can discuss the metabolic activity of a cell, while theother role-plays the cell interactions.

Because this model requires the highest level of trust andcommitment between teachers, it is an approach that manycoteachers are reluctant to try. However, it is an approach thatmany veteran coteachers have reported as the most rewarding(Cook & Friend, 1995). While it does require both teachers toshare a similar level of trust in one another, a respect for all stu-

S 0 6O I I S 6



dents, a willingness to allow students to progress at unevenrates, an understanding ofindividual differences, and the desireto help students achieve and reach the next level of develop-ment and knowledge, it does not require that both teachershave the same level ofknowledge or teaching proficiency. Thebenefit ofhaving two professionals collaborate in the same set-ting provides for the differentiation of expertise; the generaleducation teacher has a mastery of the curriculum, while thegifted education teacher offers a mastery of curriculum differ-entiation, strategies for enrichment, and an insight into theneeds of higher achieving students.

This model of coteaching requires a mature relationshipbetween partners and frequently needs time to evolve. A rela-tionship built on trust and communication would necessitate asignificant commitment to the process. In addition, coteachersmust be prepared to deal with conflict resulting from differingpersonalities, time constraints, proximity, and varyingemphases within the curriculum. Due to the extremely collab-orative nature of this model, coteachers must be prepared tospend the time necessary for planning, communication, prob-lem solving, and relationship building.

Selecting and CombiningCoteaching Models

As coteachers jointly select (a) the content to be presented,(b) the process through which they are going to instruct stu-dents, (c) the products they are going to ask of students, (d) theconcepts that they are going to highlight and make explicit,and (e) the learning environment in which all of this is tooccur, they can determine which coteaching model is mostappropriate for their needs and the needs of their students. It isimportant to realize that these models can be used in tandemand at different times throughout a lesson.

For example, during a science lesson on soil erosion, theclass might begin with the gifted education teacher providingsome background information on different types of soil andestablishing the "problem" to be solved (i.e., landowners los-ing homes in Malibu due to soil erosion). In the meantime, thegeneral education teacher could be setting up experiments inlearning centers, using the Lead and Support model.

Next, the two teachers could have the students move tothe learning centers to conduct experiments, using either theRotation or Simultaneous Instruction models. If the studentsmoved from one teacher or center to another to receive differ-ent instruction, the Rotation model would be used; if the classwere divided and each group remained at one center whileteachers presented similar material at the same time, theSimultaneous Instruction model would be implemented.

Toward the end of the lesson, the two teachers could bring theclass together to present the findings in a Team Teaching modein which they both ask questions about soil erosion and facili-tate a discussion that summarizes the major findings of theexperiments and helps students suggest a course of action forthe landowners in Malibu.

Finally, using the Tiered Instruction model, the generaleducation teacher could have the majority of the class partici-pate in a follow-up activity in which they write a proposal tothe city council from the perspective of a Malibu landowner.During this time, the gifted education teacher could work witha small group of students in a more complex activity in whichthey consider the perspectives of other stakeholders in thecommunity and write counterproposals based on those per-spectives.

Such flexibility of use of the models represents the adapt-ability to individual teacher characteristics and curriculumneeds. Appropriate instruction for gifted students can beaccomplished through the flexible groupings possible with theuse of multiple coteaching models.

Summary and Future Directions

"Generalists don't feel that they can do everything, even ifreformers think they can" (Tomlinson et al., 1996, p. 171).There is an urgent need for educators to recognize and servethe needs ofgifted students in a cohesive and coherent manner.Because it is critical that a variety of service options, experi-ences, and differentiated curricula be available for gifted stu-dents (VanTassel-Baska, 1998), it is vitally important thatcollaboration between gifted and general education increase.Without such collaboration, research has consistently foundthat differentiated instruction rarely occurs within the generaleducation classroom (Archambault, et al., 1993; Westberg etal., 1993). Therefore, it is necessary for gifted and general edu-cators to embrace models ofcollaboration that will increase thechances for such differentiation.

The potential benefits ofcollaboration between gifted andgeneral educators are numerous. The selection and implemen-tation of the five models of coteaching adapted for use withgifted students offers an invaluable opportunity to reap thesebenefits. However, in order to promote the effective use ofthese models, teachers must also be aware of the dynamicsinvolved in establishing such a relationship, the support sys-tems necessary, and the roles and responsibilities required ofallparticipants.

While current literature is replete with positive anecdotalexperiences, suggestions for implementation, and guidelinesfor setting up coteaching situations, there is a significant need

0 i 'i 11 .S6iliSlI l 0wei

AlffilimilulII I I I



for more empirical data. A recent meta-analysis on coteachingfound an overall mean effect size of .40, but cautioned readersthat the various dependent measures involved make this ana-lytic procedure an "apples and oranges" comparison (Weichel& Swanson, 2000). None of the articles in the meta-analysisfocused specifically on the effects of coteaching experienceswith gifted students. Researchers are encouraged to conductexperimental studies with coteaching as the independent mea-sure and gifted student outcomes as the dependent measure. Itcannot automatically be assumed that the results foundthrough research in special education will also be found ingifted education.

Although special education is based upon a different para-digm, the reform movement has impacted both special educa-tion and gifted education in similar manners. The field ofspecial education has been prolific in providing models of col-laboration designed to promote increased interactions betweenteachers so that students may be served more appropriatelywithin the general education classroom. While the literature ingifted education has emphasized the need for increased collab-oration with general education, few models to meet this needhave been provided. Because special education is another fieldfocused on the needs of students who learn at different ratesand in different ways, gifted education will benefit by examin-ing and adapting examples of collaboration provided in specialeducation literature. The adapted models of coteaching dis-cussed in this article provide an example of the numerous pos-sibilities that present themselves when gifted educators look toestablished practices in other fields.CI

References

Archambault, F. X. Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark,B. W., Zhang, W. & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroompractices used with gifted third and fourth grade students.Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.

Arreaga-Mayer, C. (1998). Increasing active student respond-ing and improving academic performance through class-wide peer tutoring. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34,89-94.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1991). Making coteaching amainstreaming strategy. Preventing School Failure, 35(4),19-24.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1997). Cooperative teaching:Pictures of possibilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33,81-85, 89.

Bondy, E., & Brownell, M. (1997). Overcoming barriers tocollaboration among partners-in-training. Intervention inSchool & Clinic, 33, 112-115.

Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Strategiesfor teaching studentswith learning and behavior problems (4th ed.). Boston: Allynand Bacon.

Brown, D., Wyne, M. D., Blackburn, J. E., & Powell, W. C.(1979). Consultation: Strategyfor improving education. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Chalfant, J. C., Pysh, M. V., & Moutrie, R. (1979). Teacherassistance teams: A model for within-building problemsolving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 86-96.

Cline, S., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Diverse populations ofgftedchildren: Meeting their needs in the regular classroom and beyond.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Coteaching: Guidelines forcreating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children,28(3), 1-12.

Council for Exceptional Children. (1994). Towards a commonagenda: Linkinggfited education and school reform. Reston, VA:Author.

Creasey, M. S., & Walther-Thomas, C. (1996). Using planningteams to implement inclusive education effectively.Preventing School Failure, 41(1), 39-43.

Dettmer, P., Dyck, N., & Thurston, L. P. (1999). Consultation,collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs (3rded.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dyck, N., Sundbye, N., & Pemberton, J. (1997). A recipe forefficient coteaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2),42-45.

Erchul, W. P. (1992). On dominance, cooperation, teamwork,and collaboration in school-based consultation. Journal ofEducational and Psychological Consultation, 3, 363-366.

Foley, R. M., & Mundschenk, N. A. (1997). Collaborationactivities and competencies of secondary school specialeducators: A national survey. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 20(1), 47-60.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1996). Interactions: Collaboration skillsfor school professionals (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY:Longman.

Idol, L., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1986).Collaborative consultation. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 1990, PL101-476,20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

Kampwirth, T. J. (1999). Collaborative consultation in the schools:Effective practicesfor students with learning and behaviorproblems.Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

Kirschenbaum, R. J., Armstrong, D. C., & Landrum, M. S.(1999). Resource consultation model in gifted educationto support talent development in today's inclusive schools.Gfted Child Quarterly, 43, 39-47.

Korinek, L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (1995, April). Potentialroles and responsibilitiesfor co-teachers. Preparingfor the 21st cen-

I0

i ;o I 0S I I ISi1



S 0 3

tury. Paper presented at the Virginia Council for LearningDisabilities Annual Conference, Williamsburg, VA.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The inclusive class-room: Strategiesfor effective instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Meyen, E. L. (1998). Curriculum strategies introduction. In E.L. Meyen, G. A. Verguson, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.),Educating students with mild disabilities: Strategies and methods(2nd ed.; pp. 131-135). Denver, CO: Love.

Munby, H., & Hutchinson, N. (1998). Using experience toprepare teachers for inclusive classrooms: Teacher educa-tion and the epistemology ofpractice. Teacher Education andSpecial Education, 21(2), 75-82.

Palmer, D. S., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., & Widaman, K.(1998). Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for theirchildren with significant cognitive disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 64, 271-282.

Pugach, M. C., &Johnson, L. J. (1995). A new framework forthinking about collaboration. In M. C. Pugach & L. J.Johnson (Eds.), Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools(pp. 27-43). Denver, CO: Love.

Purcell, J. H. (1995). Gifted education at a crossroads: TheProgram Status Study. GCfted Child Quarterly, 39, 57-65.

Purcell, J. H., & Leppien, J. H. (1998). Building bridgesbetween general practitioners and educators ofthe gifted: Astudy of collaboration. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 172-181.

Reinhiller, N. (1996). Co-teaching: New variations on a not-so-new practice. Teacher Education and Special Education,19(1), 34-48.

Schlichter, C. L., Larkin, M. J., Casareno, A. B., Ellis, E. S.,Gregg, M., Mayfield, P., & Rountree, B. S. (1997).Partners in enrichment: Preparing teachers for multipleability classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(4), 4-9.

Shaklee, B. D. (1997). Gifted-child education in the new mil-lenium. The Educational Forum, 61, 212-219.

Smith, D., & Harris, D. (1999, April). Coteaching and reflection:How the twofuse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the Council for Exceptional Children, Charlotte, NC.Steffes, B., & Hof, C. C. (1999, April). Meeting the challenge of

creating effective coteaching teams. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children,Charlotte, NC.

Tomlinson, C. A., Coleman, M. R., Allan, S., Udall, A., &Landrum, M. (1996). Interface between gifted educationand general education: Toward communication, coopera-tion, and collaboration. GCfted Child Quarterly, 40, 165-171.

U. S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: Acasefor developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U. S.Department ofEducation, Office ofEducational Researchand Improvement.

Vallecoursa, A. L., deBettencourt, L. U., & Zigmond, N.(2000). Students with mild disabilities in general education settings:A guidefor special educators. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1991). Gifted education in the balance:Building relationships with general education. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 35, 20-25.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating the gfted.Denver, CO: Love.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Arguelles, M. E. (1997). TheABCDEs of coteaching. Teaching Exceptional Children,30(2), 42-45

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A. I., & Malgeri, C.(1996). Instilling collaboration for inclusive schooling as away of doing business in public schools. Remedial andSpecial Education, 17, 169-181.

Weichel, W. A., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). A meta-analysis ofcoteaching research: Where is the data? Remedial and SpecialEducation, 22(5), 21-28.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin,T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study.Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.

Winebrenner, S. (1992). Teaching gfted kids in the regular class-room. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

I I S 0O 0 S



i0 lessons from anotherfield: applying coteaching

Documents