This article was downloaded by: [University of Delaware]On: 05 October 2014, At: 23:52Publisher: 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

Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Coteaching: AQualitative StudyDr. Katrina Arndt a & Jeffrey Liles aa St. John Fischer College , USAPublished online: 02 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Dr. Katrina Arndt & Jeffrey Liles (2010) Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Coteaching: AQualitative Study, Action in Teacher Education, 32:1, 15-25, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2010.10463539

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463539

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

Preserwice Teachers’ Perceptions of

Coteaching: A Qualitatiwe Study Katrina Arndt Jeffrey Liles St. John Fischet College

ABSTRACT: This study explored preservice teachers’ perceptions about coteaching. Two classes of preservice teachers in special education and social studies were paired and asked to modify a lesson plan for students with disabilities. Qualitative data were collected and analyzed, and themes were extracted. Two findings emerged: First, preservice teachers were open minded about coteaching but had concerns about the process. Second, preservice teachers held a “separate spheres” framework about their respective fields. Conclusions sug- gest that teacher preparation programs must consider how the latent function of their organiza- tions may circumvent their curricular attempts to socialize students into effective coteaching dispositions and practices. Implications for practice include developing content competence in all secondary teachers, providing opportunities to practice collaboration with other teach- ers and differentiating instruction, and building preservice teachers’ awareness of the gap between discourse about schools and their own practices.

Inclusive education and coteaching are more common than ever before. In the United States, the advent of the No Child Left Behind Act mandates that all students be assessed on the basis of state standards, includ- ing students in special education. As a result, students with disabilities have been included in increasing numbers of general education classes and taught with general education cur- ricula in inclusive settings (buck , 2007, p. 47). What is meant by “students with disabili- ties” varies, and literature around coteaching is not often specific about which students are included in this broad category; our experi- ence is such that increasing numbers of stu- dents with learning disabilities and multiple and severe disabilities are included in general education classes.

The outcome is that of increasing numbers of teachers being asked or required to collabo-

rate with a colleague in a coteaching scenario to provide instruction to a class that includes students with disabilities. For teacher prepara- tion programs, increasing attention has been paid to how to best prepare preservice teachers (PSTs) for the real possibility that they will be asked to coteach when they enter the field. What has apparently happened is not enough attention has been paid to the institutional arrangement and relationship between special and general education courses within teacher education programs. The structure of PST education is the issue.

How PSTs are introduced to coteaching and what their attitudes are about coteach- ing have been subjects of some study. Two examples are a quantitative examination of PST attitudes toward teaching children with disabilities (Henning 6r Mitchell, 2002) and the impact of an inclusionary field experience

Address correspondence t o Dr. Katrina Amdt, St. John Fisher College, 3690 East Avenue, Wilson 109, Rochester, NY 14618. E-mail: karndtbsjfc.edu.

Action in Teacher Education Vol. 32, NO. 1 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

16 KATRINA ARNDT AND JEFFREY LILES

on preservice elementary education majors (Yellin et al., 2003). Henning and Mitchell (2002) explored preservice secondary social studies teachers’ attitudes toward teaching children with disabilities before and after being exposed to several class sessions specifi- cally devoted to preparing for inclusion. They found that students improved their feelings of teaching efficacy after the class sessions.

Yellin and colleagues (2003) evaluated the impact o f inclusive field experience on preservice elementary teachers. Two groups of students experienced a traditional course; a third group was taught with a model called excellence in collaborative experiential learning. The researchers found that, overall, students in this study held “generally positive attitudes to working with special education students” (p. 16) regardless of the course format they experienced. In a study similar to Yellin and colleagues’, Stella, Forlin, and Lan (2007) explored the effects of an inclusive education module. They found that after 10 weeks, pre- service secondary teachers “demonstrated more willingness to include students with mild social or behavioral problems” (p. 175). In addition to evaluating the impact of programs on PSTs, researchers have examined PSTs’ attitudes.

Silverman (2007) explored the epistemo- logical beliefs and attitudes of preservice and in-service teachers, arguing that “due to the tremendous potential of teachers’ attitudes and beliefs to influence their behavior toward students, it is vital that they develop attitudes and beliefs that are conducive to fostering the success of all students” (p. 49). She found a positive correlation hetween high-level episte- mological beliefs and positive attitudes toward inclusion.

Jung (2007) studied PSTs’ attitudes and confidence levels in working with students with special needs. He found that PSTs’ atti- tudes were more favorable during preparation before student teaching than after and that student teachers held positive attitudes toward limited forms of inclusion, based on their lack of confidence in their skills. Jung called for future research regarding “what happens to these teachers once they are operating within the context of the real world’’ (p. 11 I ) , as

premised on his assumption that PSTs’ beliefs “continue to be mediated by experience and the context of schools” (p. 11 1).

Some recommendations for teacher prepa- ration programs are emerging. Carnell and Tillery (2005) reviewed their PST training program and how they explicitly modeled coteaching in methods classes. Three-week cycles of coteaching were implemented in four methods classes (mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts), and coteaching was modeled as course content was covered. In addition, PSTs were instructed in coopera- tive learning techniques, learning strategies, technology, and designing resources.

It is important to note an assumption shared by all these authors: The manifest function of the preparation program and its curriculum will affect the attitudes of the PSTs and, by extension, their practice. This assump- tion is one that needs study.

Henning and Mitchell (2002) moved in a direction that critiques this assumption. They found that their departments “were housed in different buildings, graduate students hardly crossed paths, and undergraduates rarely set foot in each other’s classes” (p. 22). This is not uncommon. Kluth and Straut (2003) noted that in their arrangement, which included teaching hack-to-back methods classes in spe- cial education and general education,

the structural requirements of our teaming arc seemingly simple, contiguous blocks of time and ;1 classroom that is available for the entire time period, yet accommodat- ing such time and space issues within a busy university is often tantamount to performing a miracle. (p. 237)

It is not just the PSTs’ attitudes or the ef- ficacy of one model over the other as much as it is the structures of specid and general edu- cation. We believe that the reality of separate departments for special education and general education in PST education contributes to issues that arise in coteaching arrangements. We agree with Cook (2002), who reported that “inany reformers feel that providing sepa- rate special education coursework reifies the disjointed nature of special and general educa-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Coteaching 17

tion and advocate for merging the two teacher preparation programs” (p. 263).

Researchers’ Position

We are critical of existing pedagogy in PST education in special education and social studies that reinforces limiting constructs about disability, ability, and responsibility for instruction. Traditional teacher-training programs that separate instruction for special education from content instruction exemplify the belief that special education is so different from typical instruction that it warrants and needs to be taught in isolation. We propose that differentiated instruction is possible and preferable for all children; as such, coteaching can be an effective model to support this goal.

We believe that all teachers need practice differentiating instruction and coteaching. We know that students need to see faculty in varied roles and will use the models they see in the field (Camell & Tillery, 2005; Kluth & Straut, 2003). PSTs need to see coteach- ing; they need to practice coteaching; and they need to critically reflect on this practice. Teacher education needs to transmit the ideal that teaching includes having the attitude, knowledge, and skills to teach students with and without disability labels.

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to explore attitudes about and practices of preservice special and social studies education teachers toward coteaching through a planned collab- orative activity between two classes.

Method

This was a qualitative study of the attitudes and beliefs of PSTs in special education and social studies education about coteaching, and it included systematic instruction and ex- ploration of coteaching models and modeling coteaching for students. PSTs practiced co-

planning, coteaching, and assessing a content area lesson, and they reflected on the process of collaboration. This process was documented through written reflections, focus groups, and presentations.

During one semester, we collected PST work samples and reflections from our courses that included explicit instruction and experi- ence with coteaching. We audiotaped and transcribed presentations about the process of collaborating. At the end of the semester, we conducted two focus groups with PSTs to gather data about their perceptions of coteach- ing. We met after each focus group to discuss key ideas and important aspects of the session.

Setting

We are both faculty members in a small col- lege in the Northeast United States, teach- ing in an education department that serves roughly 1,OOO PSTs, who compose one third of the student body. The college is in a suburb of a midsized urban area, and PST fieldwork includes placement in urban and suburban schools that include high-need schools. All PSTs in this study were enrolled in a sequence of classes that included supervised experience in classroom settings, and all were student teaching. All expected to graduate the follow- ing semester.

Participants

This research was conducted with two classes of PST education teachers: one group of 12 PSTs in elementary and special education and one group of 17 PSTs in secondary so- cial studies. Participants were predominantly young White adults ranging in age from 19 to 23. One PST in social studies was chang- ing careers and was in his 40s with a family. The majority of special education PSTs were women ( 11 of 12); the majority of social stud- ies PSTs were men (14 of 17).

Instruction in Coteaching

PSTs in the special education course were provided with four readings about coteaching;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

18 KATRINA ARNDT AND JEFFREY LILES

they reviewed a video with examples of co- teaching; and they were given case studies of two students with disabilities. The readings were selected from the available literature at the time and included Ar@elles, Hughes, and Schumm (2000), Gately and Gately (2001), Fennick (2001), and Fisher and Frey (2001).

Two case studies were developed and presented to the PSTs. In the case study, one student, Meredith, was described as having severe and multiple impairments. She did not use speech to communicate; instead, she used an alternative communication device called a DynaVox. The second student, Jack, was de- scribed as having a learning disability and little experience with general education coursework and expectations. At the same time, PSTs in the social studies class were given the task of designing and teaching a 50-minute lesson. PSTs in both classes were instructed that they would be assigned a coteacher and the lesson would be adapted to include both Meredith and Jack. The co~~aborative teams of one PST in special education and one PST in social studies were to decide how this collaboration took place and what adaptations to make.

Over the course of the semester, the spe- cial education PSTs read and discussed the four articles about coteaching and collabora- tively developed a philosophy statement about coteaching. The 12 special education PSTs were each assigned to 1 or 2 of the 17 social studies PSTs for collaboration; 5 special edu- cation PSTs had 2 partners and adapted each social studies lesson with the social studies PST who developed it.

Data Collection

We requested and received institutional re- view board permission from our institution to conduct research, and we obtained informed consent from all PSTs in our classes. We col- lected data in three ways. First, we collected written reflective assignments from the social studies class and made copies for our use. These reflections, two to five typed pages from each student, were assigned near the end of the semester. Students reflected on the process of collaborating with another PST, on

the readings, and on the videos they viewed about coteaching. Second, PSTs in the special education collaboration class were required to provide a written reflection and an oral presentation addressing five guiding questions:

1. What would I do again when I co- teach? What would I change?

2. What beliefs about teaching, inclusion, and assessment did this process help me articulate?

3 . What was my role? How did my role evolve?

4. How did I identify and make tncdifica- tions to the lesson?

5. How effective were the strategies from the readings?

Third, at the end of the semester, we con- ducted two focus groups with bath groups of PSTs about their perceptions of coteaching and the coursework they completed related to coteaching. Focus groups opened with the question “What do you rhink of coteaching?“ and they were conducted with five to seven students. Each focus group included special education and social studies PSTs. All pre- sentations and focus groups were audiotaped. Transcripts of presentations and focus groups totaled 82 double-spaced pages; PSTs’ work samples totaled more than 300 single-spaced pages.

Data Analysis

We transcribed the audiotapes of presentations and copied written reflective assignments, re- sulting in a bound packet for review and cod- ing. Each author completed some transcrip- tion of presentation audiotapes as a way of providing a first review of some data. We then conciuctect initial ctxling separately; afteward, we met to compare and discuss emerging codes and to refine them as needed. Analysis pro- ceeded in an inductive $ashion in the tradition of grounded theory (Ehgdan &a Riklen, 1998).

Initial codes informed focus group ques- tions. Initial codes included topics such as attitudes, conditional acceptance of roles, commitment to coteaching, finding essential

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Coteaching 19

points to teach, changing procedures, prepara- tion of lessons, isolation of fields, and roles for each coteacher. Focus group questions were tailored to solicit data about the PSTs’ attitudes and beliefs. As additional data was transcribed and analyzed, we refined and satu- rated the codes.

Findings

Two findings emerged from this research. First, PSTs were open minded about coteaching but had concerns about the process, and special education and social studies PSTs felt equally anxious about their preparation to manage students and content. The special education PSTs were concerned about their command of the content, and the social studies PSTs were concerned about teaching students with disabilities. Second, PSTs conceptualized their fields-special education and social studies- as separate spheres of knowledge and practice, quite isolated from each other, and they per- ceived their roles as coteachers as different as well.

Finding 1 : PST Perceptions of Coteaching

Open minded. Some PSTs reported that they and their coteaching partners felt open minded. For example, Nancy (all student names are pseudonyms), a special education PST, commented:

He was very excited and said that he was really looking forward to learning more about it, and all that put me at ease and it was kind of like OK, he’s going to be open minded about this, and we’re gonna work well together.

An open attitude was similarly supported by Tom, a social studies PST, who wrote, “I like the idea of coteaching. . . . The biggest benefit I see in coteaching is the fact that it goes so well with the constructivist method of teaching.” Students’ comments reflect the attitude of most of the PSTs; they expressed feeling vested in the idea of coteaching.

Some PSTs were unqualified supporters of coteaching. This group included special education and social studies PSTs. Todd, a special education PST, noted, “Overall I thought it was a great experience and if I ever am a coteacher it’s the only way to go. Gotta go coteaching, all the way.” His sentiment was echoed by Don, a social studies PST: “The more I learn about coteaching, the more I think I would enjoy implementing the con- cept into my own teaching. . . . The idea of working with another teacher to better facili- tate student learning is brilliant.” In case after case, both groups of PSTs were open minded and optimistic about the idea of coteaching.

Concerned. Although the students sup- ported the idea of coteaching, their concerns and fears were tied to practical elements out- side their control, such as administrative sup- port, mutual commitment to coteaching, and lack of preparation in their teacher-training program related to content competence.

One concern of the PSTs was that of administrative support, as indicated by Ar- giielles and colleagues (2000). Joy, a social studies PST, commented, “There needs to be administrative support. . . . Coteaching will only work when both teachers are willing to work together. There needs to be an under- standing that there is no longer my classroom, your classroom; it’s our classroom.” Similarly, Jared, also a social studies PST, wrote, “It is important that the administration supports coteaching.”

A second concern was that of having a coteaching partner who shared a commit- ment to the process. For example, Nancy, a special education PST, commented, “I was very like ‘oh no’ like ‘they’re [social studies PSTs] gonna hate me, they’re gonna be like “why are we doing this, why do we include special ed kids?”’ I was very nervous.” A social studies PST, Susie, was also concerned about commitment; she wrote, “Effective coteach- ers must believe that coteaching is the best option available and direct all their energies to ensuring that it happens.” Research with teachers supports both these considerations for coteaching-the need for administrative support and the need for both teachers to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

20 KATRINA ARNDT AND JEFFREY LlLES

vested in the experience with a willing at- titude of a shared classroom (Keefe & Moore, 2004; Luckner, 1999).

Social studies PSTs also expressed doubts about how their teaching role might change. Jason commented,

I became a little worried at first because being a special education teacher was not my first choice. After the initial scare 1 realized that with the help of a quality special education teacher that it might be beneficial to have two teachers in the same room.

Jason’s comment seems premised on the idea that he is not prepared to teach students with disabilities and does not expect to be- and this attitude is one that is reinforced by separate teacher programs for PSTs in special and social studies education. Our second find- ing helps us to understand why these concerns emerge.

common knowledge was problematic. One way that this may play out in the classroom is for the special education teacher to have a role that includes supporting and assisting the content teacher; the result can be a percep- tion from students that the special education teacher is a teaching assistant. In their study of coteaching at the secondary level, Keefe and Moore (2004) found exactly that-students “seem to view the special education teacher as an educational assistant” (p. 83).

Tasha, a special education PST, com- mented,

When 1 looked at it [lesson plan from social studies PST], 1 had one page, and there’s no standards, and when 1 first looked at it 1 was in a panic. I was like “what is he saying, I don’t even know what he’s talking about!” There’s big words like totalitarian, and 1 was like “Oh, god! 1 don’t even know what’s going on!” [laughs] So 1 was like in a panic.

Tasha’s panic related to vocabulary and the differences in lesson planning and content knowledge. In general, these concerns present

Finding 2: Candidate Perceptions of Their Fields

The second finding is that PST~ conceptual- ized coteaching as a process of two teachers from different fields working together. Two

significant barriers to equal participation in coteaching relationships. Sean, Nancy’s cote- aching partner, said, __ -

themes emerged: a sense of the different knowledge bases from special education and social studies resulting in separate spheres of practice and a sense of the different roles the PSTs had in designing a lesson. These were connected and so reflect a belief that special education instruction is different from con- tent instruction. Limited conceptualization of working together and devaluation of special education as a field are implicit in both groups of PST attitudes.

Different knowledge bases. PSTs in the special education course were often unfamiliar with the content of the social studies lessons. Here, Jamie made a comment that represented many: “Her lesson plan was called the Darfur crisis in Sudan. No idea what that’s about. I’m not knowledgeable about that.” Jamie was clear that she was unfamiliar with current events and content-and this lack of shared

As far as modifying my lesson plan, I was lost. I really do not have too much prior knowledge about certain disabilities even though 1 took Human Exceptionalities [a survey course in special education] in the ti l l . In that class, we really only learned about disabilities, not how to teach stu- dents with disabilities.

PSTs in social studies did not feel ready to include students with disabilities and work with special education coteachers. Our teacher preparation program likely creates and rein- forces this attitude; it does not provide explicit instruction for content area students in the differentiation of instruction for all students, nor does it prepare them to teach a diverse range of students.

A comment from a social studies PST in a focus group expresses a similar lack of familiar-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Coteaching 2 1

ity with special education strategies for mak- ing modifications and adaptations:

We’re secondary; we have a history major and then we have our education classes. And there’s not real continuity between the two and then they kind of come to- gether in student teaching and we have to learn how to make that context accessible to the students in a way that’s meaningful for them. So 1 think that with special ed it’s more you’re thinking about strategies.

A final comment from a social studies PST came from a focus group, and it reflects beliefs within both groups: “The education portion of it, I think, has a lot of the same background. But when it comes to the content, that’s where it gets different, obviously.” The crux of the issue is that the PST thinks that it is obvious that the content is markedly differ- ent. Silverman (2007) noted, “Special and general educators need to view one another as equal, mutually supportive partners in educat- ing all students” (p. 43). This is not possible without the shared belief that both teachers are prepared to teach the content and a di- verse range of students. Unless PST education models the thinking that all PSTs need the skills and dispositions to provide high-quality instruction for all students-with and without disabilities-the separate-spheres mentality will remain a barrier to collaborative and in- clusive education.

Separate spheres. Related to the different knowledge bases was the belief that the roles of the two PSTs were distinct. We identify this assumption as a separate-spheres model: The special education teacher and the con- tent teacher occupy and practice within two distinct roles, even when they enter into the same classroom. Courtney, a special educa- tion PST, commented about the challenge of identifying and fulfilling teaching roles in the secondary classroom, thereby highlighting separate-spheres thinking:

I agree that the content teacher and spe- cial education teacher should both have the same role and you shouldn’t be able to tell who’s who in the classroom. But I

think it’s a lot easier for that to be done in an elementary classrmm than in ado- lescence because in adolescence you have a content area such as history or English and usually the content teacher knows so much more about that than the spe- cial education teacher, so it’s that much harder for the special education teacher to actually teach a lesson just like the content teacher.

She believed that not only must she be competent in her special education sphere, but she must also be able to teach exactly as the social studies teacher does. She must cross over into the social studies sphere and teach in the same way in order to feel successful and be perceived by her partner as such. Teaching in the same way is limiting because it sets up teaching as a zero-sum game. We saw this with Lou, a social studies PST, who struggled to reconcile the separate spheres:

I feel that a solid knowledge of the cur- riculum would be the first and most im- portant thing for the special education teacher to develop. If the special educa- tion teacher does not have a solid grasp on general curriculum knowledge, then the general educator will not trust handing instruction over to himher.

What his comment implies is the need for the special education PST to be able to demonstrate proficiency in a sphere other than special education such that the social studies teacher permits entry into coteaching. We also see him privileging the social studies sphere in that he does not ask what knowledge he needs to develop before the special educa- tion teacher can trust him to coteach. So the separate-spheres model presents some complex obstacles to coteaching instruction for PSTs. Research has demonstrated that, once in the field, content teachers develop attitudes about special education teachers that are not always positive. For example, in their research with high school coteaching pairs, Keefe and Moore (2004) found a division of labor that resulted in limited roles for special education teachers. One general educator commented

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

22 KATRINA ARNDT AND JEFFREY LlLES

about a special education coteacher: “I don’t even know why she’s here, quite frankly. She’s a nice person, the kids like her, hut 1 don’t understand the point of having her in my classroom” (p. 83).

Discussion

We set out to systematically study our PSTs’ perceptions about coteaching in inclusive classrooms. Like other researchers, we assume that their perceptions matter, not only when they first enter inclusive classrooms as student teachers, but also later on when they become either in-service content teachers or special education teachers. A second assumption, also present in the work of others, is that our teacher education content and pedagogy have some influence on these perceptions and subsequent professional practices. In a recent study of 603 PSTs on three continents, Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman (2008) con- cluded that “the content and the pedagogy of a programme are by far the most significant predictors of pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments, and concerns about inclusion” (p. 783). The findings in this study are consis- tent with this conclusion, but they also bring to light other issues regarding the impact of teacher preparation programs for discussion and further research.

Two findings emerged in this study. Al- though our students expressed some con- cerns about practical obstacles to coteaching, they were open minded and accepting of co- teaching as an effective method in inclusive classrooms. This is consistent with the find- ings of Jung (2007), who argued “the type of academic preparation appear[s] to have an impact on attitudes of PSTs in teacher education programs” (p. 110). In other words, the academic programs and manifest goals of teacher education programs are most often generally achieved. This is important because it suggests that we can influence our PSTs’ at- titudes and values and increase the likelihood that they will adopt best practices in their own classrooms. Rut it also raises questions about the latent functions and outcomes of teacher

education programs, which we address as fol- lows.

lung (2007) concluded that although PSTs inay adopt positive attitudes about co- teaching before student teaching, something happens to them in the field that may cause a decline in their favorable attitudes. Studies of teacher socialization offer a similar conclusion (Achinstein, Ogawa, & Speiglman, 2004). The implication is that teacher educators send the PSTs into the field with the knowledge and attitudes to successfully coteach, only to have that attitudinal framework mediated and undermined by the culture and practices within schools. Although we do not neces- sarily disagree with this, we do agree with Achinstein and colleagues (2004), who stated, “Teacher socialization is also affected by pre- professional preparation” (p. 560). Thus, our second finding suggests that we take a closer look at the hidden curriculum about social- ization around coteaching. We understand hidden curriculum to he “the organizational features and routines of school life that pro- vide the structure needed to develop the psy- chological dispositions appropriate for work and citizenship in industrial society” (Feinberg & Soltis, 1992, p. 21).

Our second finding-that the PSTs conceptualized coteaching as a process of two teachers from different fields working together-also indicates that the structure and design of our program shape our students’ perceptions in a way that can later interfere with their ahility to develop and put into practice effective coteaching models. In a re- cent study of multicultural teacher education, Furman (2008) acknowledged the impact of the hidden curriculum in teacher education. Citing Widecn and colleagues (1998), Fur- man explained that “powerful messages ahout what it means to teach and learn” (p. 62) are conveyed to teacher candidates by this hid- den curriculum. The consequence of these messages is a “disjuncture between apprcyach of programs and the goals of multicultural education” (p. 62). Roth, Lawless, and Tobin (2000) highlighted this disjuncture as it per- tains to coteaching and argued that although “university teacher education classrooms con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Coteaching 23

tinue to be filled with talk about strategies, techniques, and skills, . . . discontinuities per- sist between university discourses about teach- ing and the practice of teaching” (p. 1). We saw this disjuncture and hidden curriculum at work in our study.

Our classes were separate, and our sec- tions were taught at different times on dif- ferent days. We gave separate assignments, and we graded them separately. We note that we asked the social studies PSTs to complete their lesson plans; then we asked special edu- cation PSTs to complete their assignment to adapt the plan. We did not align our syllabi, timing, or assignments. Coplanning did not even resolve this: We did plan together, yet we still did not model cotaught practice. Our dispositions and practice prevented us from seeing that we reinforced a separate-spheres model, as pointed out to us when we were done.

As researchers, we focused only on the manifest outcomes of teacher education- that some action that we take with PSTs af- fects their perceptions and, subsequently, their practice. That is laudable, but we know that school and curriculum have not only manifest functions and outcomes but latent functions and outcomes as well. In this study, the la- tency is the structure of our programs, and the outcome is the PSTs’ believing in a separate- spheres model and having a linear, narrow view of their individual roles as coteachers.

Limitations

In this study, PSTs in special education were in an elementary program, and social studies PSTs were in a secondary content program. This was a significant limitation in that the special education PSTs were being dually certified in general childhood education and childhood special education; that is, they will not be teaching at the secondary level. Their program requirements included a broad content grounding, as is appropriate for teach- ers who will deliver all content areas at the elementary level. Because of their program, they lacked in-depth content knowledge in social studies, which was expected. However,

the PSTs in this study did complete a liberal arts core that included coursework in history.

The perceived lack of content knowledge may have presented a barrier to collaboration related to planning the content of the lesson and to the gap that students reported in their content knowledge. This study proceeded de- spite our awareness of this limitation, for two reasons. First, preparation for secondary spe- cial education teachers in many places in the United States similarly requires little depth of content-specific knowledge. Amdt is certified as a special education teacher for Grades K-12 and taught special education at the secondary level for many years-including coteaching content-with no content training other than a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. Second, secondary special education teachers with sig- nificant content knowledge must manage the collaborative process of coteaching-the focus of this study.

Implications for Practice

Three implications for teacher preparation programs emerged from this study. First, sec- ondary special education PSTs need to be competent in the content they teach. They need not necessarily pursue certification in a particular content, but they do need to be comfortable discussing lesson plans and directly teaching whole-group activities. Sec- ond, PSTs in all areas need practice col- laborating and differentiating instruction. All teachers are responsible for differentiated in- struction, and this needs to be communicated clearly and regularly for all PSTs. Students with disabilities are increasingly present in general education, and all teachers will teach students with disabilities-this needs to be addressed as well. Third, PST educators need to be aware of and so work to address the gap between their discourse about practices in schools and their own practices.

Secondary special education teachers need content cumpetewe. If PSTs believe that spe- cial education PSTs at the secondary level do not have adequate content preparation to ef- fectively deliver instruction to the class, this could become a barrier to effective coteaching.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

24 KATRINA ARNDT AND JEFFREY LlLES

Because coteaching is expected in the class- room with greater frequency than ever before (Argiielles et al., 2000; Henning & Mitchell, 2002), developing mutually respectful and sup- portive relationships with other teachers is essential. A perception of p c m preparation for teaching is highly problematic, given that coteaching often includes the ccmceptualiza- tion of equally shared roles. If the special educa- tion PST perceives herself or himself as being unprepared to teach content (or is perceived by a content coteacher as such), a coteaching relationship will be difficult to develop.

One way to manage this is to require that PSTs in adolescence education complete an inclusive teacher-training program and graduate with certification to teach general and special education for their content area. Incorporating instruction typically included in special education into methods courses for content areas could provide special education content and models of coteaching; thus, pro- fessors in special education and adolescence education could model coteaching, providing integrated instruction in a content and spe- cial education.

Teacher candidates need practice collahorat- ing and differentiating instruction. A second im- plication from this study is that all PSTs need opportunities to practice coteaching skills and have time to reflect about that process. This includes arranging coteaching in field experi- ence and explicit instruction in working as a team member to provide instruction for stu- dents with and without disability labels.

For elementary PSTs, many teacher edu- cation programs are inclusive; coursework is designed around training PSTs to become cer- tified in elementary and special education. As part of coursework in special education, many programs design courses or activities within courses that explicitly tcach collaboration and coteaching skills. Another area specifically addressed as part of many special education programs is instruction in how to differentiate and modify content instruction and assign- ments for a range of diverse students’ needs.

At the secondary level, this content is not always available or expected. Including this content in secondary teacher education

programs is needed. Some social studies PSTs felt little responsibility for adapting curricula or methods of delivering instruction. Other social studies PSTs were open to adaptations but did not feel skilled in designing or suggest- ing adaptations. This needs to be addressed in teacher preparation programs.

Teacher educators need to consider the hufden curriculum of their programs. Even with atten- tion to the aforementioned implications, the disjuncture between the manifest curricular intentions and outcomes for PSTs and the latent messages delivered by the organization and structure of programs may socialize PSTs in ways that actually undermine our efforts. Al- though our students were open minded a b u t coteaching, they developed a limited and nar- row way of thinking ahwt coteaching-that is, the separate-spheres framework-as a result of the traditional, linear organizational struc- ture of our coursework. Teacher educators should work to close the gap between their discourse about practices in schools and their own practices.

Directions for Future Research

There are several directions for future re- search. First, investigations into PSTs’ atti- tudes and beliefs about coteaching at multiple points of their preservice education would provide valuable information about the effec- tiveness of existing programs and preparation for coteaching. Why special education PSTs did not identify any conditions necessary for coteaching was not clear, and an exploration of attitudes and beliefs would be instructive. A second avenue of exploration includes (1) modeling coteaching in higher education by having a content professor and a special edu- cation professor teaming to provide instruc- tion (as in Kluth & Straw, 2003) and (2) in- vestigating PSTs’ perceptions of coteaching. Finally, explorations in K-12 education could include investigating coteaching practice in elementary and secondary settings to identify and work with model coteaching teams, which would provide information to effectively pre- pare PSTs and districts to support and imple- ment effective coteaching practice.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Coteaching 25

References

Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Speiglman, A. (2004). Are we creating separate and unequal tracks of teachers? The effects of state policy, local conditions, and teacher characteristics on new teacher socialization. American Educa- tional ResearchJournul, 41(3), 557-603.

Argiielles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). Co-teaching: A different approach to inclusion. Principa4, 79(4), 50-51.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bouck, E. C. (2007). &-teaching . . . not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Pre- venting School Failure, 51 (2), 46-51.

Carnell, L. J., & Tillery, M. W. (2005). Preparing preservice teachers for inclusive coteaching: A new approach for mathematics instruc- tion. Teaching Children Mathematics, I I (7), 384-389.

Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service general educa- tors enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 262-277.

Feinberg, W., & Soltis, J. F. (1992). School and soci- ety. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fennick, E. (2001). Coteaching: An inclusive cur- riculum for transition. Teaching Exceptional Children 33(6), 60-66.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 148-157.

Furman, J. S. (2008). Tensions in multicultural teacher education research: Demographics and the need to demonstrate effectiveness. Educa- tion and Urban Society, 41(1). Retrieved June 16, 2009, from http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/ con tent/abstract/4 I/ 115 5

Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understand- ing co-teaching components. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40-47.

Henning, M. B., & Mitchell, L. C. (2002). Prepar- ing for inclusion. Child Study Journal, 32(1), 19-29.

Jung, W. S. (2007). Preservice teacher training for successful inclusion. Education, I28( l) , 106-1 13.

Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 77-88.

Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2003). Do as we say and as we do: Teaching and modeling collaborative practice in the university classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 228-240.

Luckner, J. L. (1999). An examination of two coteaching classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 144(1), 24-34.

Roth, W., Lawless, D., & Tobin, K. (2000). To- wards a praxeology of teaching. Canadian Journal of Education, 25( l) , 1-15.

Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Im- pact of training on pre-service teachers’ atti- tudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability 63 Society, 23(7), 773-785.

Silverman, J. C. (2007). Epistemological beliefs and attitudes toward inclusion in pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Educa- tion, 30(1), 42-51.

Stella, C. S. C., Forlin, C., & Lan, A. M. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course on attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 161-179.

Yellin, P. G., Yellin, D., Claypool, P. L., Mokhtari, K., Carr, R., Latiker, T., et al. (2003). ‘‘I’m not sure I can handle the kids, especially, the, uh, you know special ed. kids.” Action in Teacher Education 25( l), 14-19.

9 9 9

Katrina Arndt is an assistant professor of spe- cial education in the Ralph c. Wilson School of Education at St. John Fisher College.

Jeffrey Liles is an assistant professor of ado- lescence and social studies education in the Ralph C. Wilson School of Education at St. John Fisher College.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

elaw

are]

at 2

3:52

05

Oct

ober

201

4