THE IMPACT OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON HIGH SCHOOL

TEACHERS' ATTITUDES ABOUT STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION

NEEDS, COLLABORATION, AND INSTRUCTIONAL EFFICACY

by

Kimberly Sims

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

May 2010

UMI Number: 3407152

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMT Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3407152 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

THE IMPACT OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON HIGH SCHOOL

TEACHERS' ATTITUDES ABOUT STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION

NEEDS, COLLABORATION, AND INSTRUCTIONAL EFFICACY

by

Kimberly Sims

has been approved

March 2010

Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Debby Zambo, Chair Keith Wetzel Lisa Aaroe

ACCEPTED BY THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

ABSTRACT

The federal mandates set forth by the Individual with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act (EDEIA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) require an increase in

inclusive education for students with special education needs in the least restrictive

environment. This type of environment can be in a 'co-taught' classroom. Co-

teaching is defined as an instructional delivery approach in which a regular and a

special education teacher share responsibility for teaching some or all of the students

assigned to a general education classroom.

Given these mandates and the best way to meet students' needs, an action

research study with a mixed-methods structure to collect data was used. The purpose

is to investigate if professional development provided on co-teaching would help the

teachers at a High School in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona, understand co-teaching.

This was provided because co-teaching is an instructional practice used to comply

with the federal mandates. Over sixteen weeks, three co-teaching teams were

provided on-site professional development, resources, and support. Data were

collected through the use of both quantitative (survey and checklist) and qualitative

(open-ended survey questions, teacher journals, classroom observations/field notes,

focus group interviews, and a member check questionnaire) measures.

Quantitative analyses indicated that after trainings the participants' view on

co-teaching improved in curriculum goals and modifications, interpersonal

communication, and assessment. However, trainings did little to change ideas about

inclusive practices. Data sources indicated participants felt inclusion caused too many

students with special education needs to be in one classroom, and that teachers did

iii

not have enough training and/or say in the process. Qualitative analysis revealed the

supportive co-teaching approach was used most often, but there was limited time and

opportunities for collaboration, planning and decision making among the teams.

My work shows that the training, resources, and support that were provided

helped the teachers at this site raise their efficacy towards co-teaching. It also reveals

participants' desire for additional professional development on co-teaching in order

for them to continue to improve their co-teaching practice and best meet the needs of

students with special education needs in the least restrictive environment.

IV

I dedicate this to my husband, James Matthew Sims, for always being there for me

throughout this process. I could not have done this without your constant love and

support. I am truly blessed to have you as my husband.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to my committee for their ongoing support and for their

collective expertise. To Dr. Debby Zambo, my committee chair, for her constant

guidance, patience, and knowledge she gave me to finish. To Dr. Keith Wetzel, for

having confidence in my abilities throughout this dissertation. To Dr. Lisa Aaroe, my

mentor and friend, whose constant support and humor kept me motivated and on

track. Again, I am truly thankful and blessed to have Dr. Zambo, Dr. Wetzel, and Dr.

Aaroe for a committee.

To Dr. Richard A. Villa, Dr. Jacqueline S. Thousand, and Dr. Ann I. Nevin,

whose Guide to Co-Teaching: Practical Tips for Facilitating Student Learning served

as a valuable resource throughout my action research. Their overall expertise in the

field of special education and co-teaching is truly admired. A special thanks to Dr.

Susan E. Gately and Dr. Elias Avramidis for giving me permission to use and adapt

their co-teaching and inclusion rating scales.

I am truly fortunate to be a part of a doctoral cohort at Arizona State

University. The faculty of the program helped me grow personally and

professionally. I also made long lasting friendships, which I will cherish. I am

grateful to Dr. Amy Gray, a member of the first CTEL Ed.D cohort, for additional

resources and support and to Dr. Michele Mosco for making sure my dissertation

meet the final requirements.

Finally, without the support of Mr. Dudley Butts, Dr. Dennis Runyan, and Mr.

Tom Huffman of the Agua Fria Union High School District, this action research study

vi

would not have been possible. Special thanks to the teachers who participated in this

study. Your assistance, efforts, and kindness are greatly appreciated.

vn

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES xi

CHAPTER 1 1

Introduction and Purpose for the Study 1

Context of Study 3

Overview of the Intervention 4

Co-Teaching Defined 7

CHAPTER 2 8

Review of the Supporting Scholarship 8

Teachers' Attitude Toward Inclusion 9

Collaboration 10

Instructional Efficacy 12

Theoretical Framework for Teachers Working Together 13

CHAPTER 3 16

Methodology 16

Research Design 16

Participants 16

Data Collection 19

Instruments 20

Co-Teaching Survey 20

Member Check Questionnaire 21

viii

Page

Checklist 22

Reflective, Guided Journals 22

Classroom Observation 23

Focus Group Interview 23

Reliability and Validity 24

CHAPTER 4 25

Analysis and Results 25

Measure 1: Co-Teaching Survey 25

Open-Ended Questions 29

Measure 2: Member Check Questionnaire 32

Understandability 32

Capturing Their Beliefs 33

Measure 3: Checklist 34

Triangulating Classroom Observations and Field Notes

(Measures 4 and 5) 36

Measure 6: Journaling 37

Measure 7: Focus Group Interviews 39

CHAPTER 5 42

Discussion 42

Limitations of the Study 44

Participants 45

ix

Page

Co-Teacher Training 45

Resistance 46

Survey Design 47

Educational Implications 47

Implications for Further Research 48

Lessons Learned 48

Conclusions 49

REFERENCES 50

APPENDIX

A CO-TEACHING SURVEY INSTRUMENT 54

B MEMBER CHECK 60

C JOURNAL QUESTIONS 63

D SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST 65

E CO-TEACHING OBSERVATION FORM 69

F FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 72

G INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 75

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Teacher Demographics and Instructional Information 16

2. Co-Teaching Rating Scale Means Differences for Subscales 26

3. Co-teaching Subscale Differences 27

4. Mean Differences for Factors Interfering with Inclusion Practices 29

5. Participant Responses for Subscales 33

XI

Chapter 1

Introduction and Purpose for the Study

When I became a special education teacher in 2000,1 quickly realized how

difficult it could be for general education teachers to instruct students with special

education needs in their classrooms. Not knowing a definitive reason for this, I

intuitively felt their struggles came from having limited training on how to effectively

instruct students who learned differently. Teaching students with special education

needs can be challenging because many of these students require academic,

behavioral, physical, and/or social supports and the law mandates that their needs be

met in the least restrictive environment possible. Students with disabilities have

Individual Education Plans (IEPs) that specify their current level of academic and/or

functional performance, measurable annual goals, and the accommodations and

modifications they need to be successful in school. For many, it is in the regular

classroom where they could best master their annual IEP goals and develop their

social and communication skills (Fisher, Sax & Pumpian, 1996).

However, despite the potential importance of inclusion, my experience has

revealed that most regular education teachers become frustrated when they are not

prepared to accommodate students' needs and implement IEPs. Too often, students

with IEPs are sent to a resource room (special education classroom) as a result of by

the regular education teacher requesting so. Even though general education and

special education teachers meet during a student's IEP meeting most regular

education teachers do not understand how to transform IEPs into daily lessons and

student management. Furthermore, many of them are not interested in coordinating

their efforts and working with the special educator as a team. In general, the teachers

I have worked do not want to collaborate because they lack training, skills, and

tactics. This has unfortunate consequences. It causes students with special education

needs to miss out on valuable educational and social experiences. Teachers' beliefs

and attitudes regarding their co-teaching practice matters. When teachers lack a sense

of efficacy, or feel incapable of making a difference and having a positive effect on

students' progress, they do not see the need to be part of a team. Students with special

education needs require educators who have a positive attitude, possess a sense of

efficacy, and have the skills and knowledge they need to ensure student success in

general education classrooms when this is deemed the appropriate environment (Rice

& Zigmond, 1999; Sileo, 2003).

Regular education teachers matter and their training is important especially in

today's era of inclusion and least restrictive environments. When I was in college, I

received the skills and knowledge I needed to instruct students with special education

needs but as I tried to place my students in inclusive settings I quickly realized I had

limited training in specific content areas such as English, math, and science. Other

special education teachers I worked with had experienced similar deficits. Teachers of

students with special education needs are much more comfortable with pull-out

programs and remedial instruction. They feel less competent in the general education

curriculum. Just as a lack of training, skills, and tactics affects regular educators'

confidence, a lack of content knowledge may detract from the efficacy of special

educators. Teachers feel efficacious when they teach subjects they are familiar with to

3

certain students in specific settings (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). When special

educators have opportunities to share responsibilities, co-plan and co-teach they gain

content knowledge and gain efficacy. The best way to ensure all students succeed is to

create and support collaborative efforts between regular and special education teachers

(Murawski & Dieker, 2004). Given my experience in a high school setting, my

intuition is that co-teaching is best. However, I want more evidence for this so I

decided to investigate the impact professional development might have on co-teaching

and how it affected teachers' attitudes, collaboration, and instructional efficacy.

Context of Study

My study took place at a new high school located in the suburb of Phoenix,

Arizona. The high school opened in August 2006, and initially only served ninth-

grade students. But now it serves 9 - 12. At the school there are 89 of students with

IEPs and 53 who are English Language Learners (ELL). There are 64 certified

secondary teachers and these include 58 regular and six special education teachers,

with 43 of them holding a Bachelor's degree while the other 21 have a Master's

degree. The six special education teachers average approximately 20 to 22 students

on their caseloads. The teaching experience of the teachers at the high school range

from twenty-nine teachers with one to four years, twenty with five to nine years, ten

with ten to fourteen years, and five with fourteen or more years.

The high school was an appropriate site for my action research because it

featured four small learning communities, which are referred to as "houses." These

houses were meant to provide students with a unique open classroom environment,

4

bring teachers out of isolation, and encourage collaboration and co-teaching. The

large open classroom space at this school is flexible and encourages teachers to create

student-centered classrooms. The accommodations students with special education

needs could easily be met here because the physical design of the school provides

spaces to come together. But teachers put up partitions for privacy. It is designed to

encourage large groups of students with varying learning, physical, behavioral and

social abilities to be in a single classroom with more than one teacher overseeing their

instruction. If utilized the house system could be a site of inclusion, increased

collaboration and encourage co-teaching situations to occur. Yet this is not what I

saw. I saw teachers working in isolation and not embracing the ideal of inclusion.

Given the physical design of the this high school, the fact, teachers were not

using it and still working in isolation and the importance of the least restrictive

environment (LRE), I believe there is an increased need for co-teaching situations at

the high school level, as a way to support LRE. Therefore, the new school in my study

and the inclusive movement afford the opportunity for me to investigate whether co-

teaching classrooms are functionally effectively by providing the co-teachers with on-

site professional development.

Overview of Innovation

The purpose of my action research was to investigate the impact of

professional development co-teaching and how if it affected co-teachers' attitudes,

collaboration, and instructional efficacy. My innovation was designed to

5

1. provide knowledge to regular and special education teachers about co-

teaching.

2. provide an understanding of the four co-teaching approaches.

3. offer support and encouragement of mutual respect among regular and special

education teachers.

4. improve collaboration and co-teaching practices at the high school level.

The innovation occurred once a month over a 16 week period. Each session

lasted approximately 70 minutes during specified times set by the co-teachers

availability. Availability being during the co-teachers' prep periods or before school.

The innovation was based on the work of Villa, Thousand, and Nevin's (2008) Guide

to Co-teaching: Practical Tips for Facilitating Student Learning, but it was adapted

for the needs of the teachers and time constraints. For my innovation I provided

information from the 12 chapters of this guide. The guide is broken up into four

different parts that are: (a) introduction to co-teaching, (b) four approaches to co-

teaching, (c) changing roles and responsibilities, and (d) administrative support and

professional development. In the training the following four co-teaching approaches

by Villa et al. (2008) were taught to the participants since there is no one single

model that works: (1) supportive co-teaching (one teacher takes the lead instructional

role and the other teacher rotates among the students to provide support), (2) parallel

co-teaching (each teacher teaches half of the class and addresses the same material),

(3) complementary co-teaching (each co-teacher does something to enhance the

instruction provided by the other co-teacher), and (4) team teaching (both teachers

6

present the lesson together, either beginning the lesson or stepping in where

appropriate throughout the lesson as designated to them). I did this because Villa et

al. (2008) says no one single co-teaching model works for all. To provide targeted

information, resources, and support, I also assessed individual needs prior to training

using a 34-item checklist on co-teaching.

Providing the teachers training based on needs is important. According to

Dufour and Eaker (1998) professional development that is self-designed and self-

directed encourages teachers to take responsibility for their own growth. It also helps

them gain a sense of efficacy, have an internal locus of control, and believe they can

improve their practice based on their own efforts; they are most likely to experience

change. Therefore, I provided targeted professional development, support, and

resources to the teachers in my study.

After my trainings I investigated if the teachers' perceptions and behaviors

changed. In my study I sought to answer the following research questions:

1. Did focused staff development on best practices of co-teaching improve

teachers' attitudes toward students with special education needs?

2. How well did the teams in the training collaborate?

3. How were the teachers in the study co-teaching?

4. Did increased knowledge in co-teaching affect the teachers' attitude and

instructional efficacy?

Ultimately, the goal of professional development trainings in co-teaching was

to meet the needs of the school, the teachers, and the students.

7

Co-Teaching Defined

There are many definitions of co-teaching, but for the purpose of this study it

is defined as an instructional delivery approach in which a regular and a special

education teacher share responsibility for the planning, delivery and evaluation of

instructional techniques for a group of students with varied abilities and needs (Sileo,

2003). According to Villa et al. (2004) co-teaching is like a marriage because the co-

teachers must establish trust, develop and work on communication, share the chores,

celebrate, work together creatively to overcome the inevitable challenges and

problems, and anticipate conflict and handle it in a constructive way (Villa et al.,

2004).

I define co-teaching because it is a big part of my study and because of the

federal mandates set forth by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement

Act (IDEIA) (2004) and by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2001). These laws demand

and enforce that there be an increase in an inclusive education for students with special

education needs. However, neither specifies full inclusion for everyone. Rather, the

law states that students with special education needs should be educated in the "least

restrictive environment" when appropriate. This environment may include placing

students with special education needs in general education classrooms and transferring

their special education services to that location such as co-teaching (Friend, 2008).

Given the understanding of what co-teaching is, what I was seeing at the high

school and my goal to provide professional development I decided to delve into what

literature says. Chapter 2 provides my review of the supporting scholarship.

Chapter 2

Review of the Supporting Scholarship

The mandates in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

(IDEIA) (2004), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973), and the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990) are clear: Students with disabilities must be educated in

regular education settings to the maximum extent appropriate, regardless of their

special education needs. The mandates also prohibit the exclusion of these students

from the regular education classroom unless their education needs cannot be

accommodated in this setting.

According to the United States Department of Education (2007),

approximately half of all students with disabilities in 2004-2005 spent 80 percent or

more of their day in a general education classroom. As a result, co-teaching has

become a desirable service delivery option for teachers (Murawski & Dieker, 2004).

Co-teaching involves the pairing of a regular education teacher and a special education

teacher to work together in a classroom of diverse students (Gately, 2005). This author

further says that both educators assume full responsibility for the education of all

students in the classroom, including planning, presentation, classroom management,

and assessment. By pairing the two teachers it provides a greater opportunity to

capitalize on the unique, diverse, specialized knowledge, skills, and the instructional

approaches of them in a co-taught classroom (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend 1989;

Hourcade & Bauwens, 2002).

For co-teaching to be effective, continual training and staff development must

occur (Sileo, 2003). Professional development should involve the presentation of co-

9

teaching models, opportunities to implement these models, and time to reflect upon

instructional efforts and make necessary adjustments (Cook & Friend, 1995; Walther-

Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996). Therefore, the reason for educating the co-teachers

regarding the different approaches to co-teaching based on the fact that there is no

one single model that works for all students, teaching situations, and/or teacher and

student diverse personalities. As a result, when teachers are provided with the

training, support, and time to collaborate, it is likely that they will make attitudinal

change and, in turn, increase their willingness to participate in co-teaching (Miller &

Savage, 1995).

Teachers' attitude toward inclusion. Inclusion is defined as educating

students with special education needs in the least restrictive environment. LRE is

considered an educational placement that is closest to the general education

classroom. However, teachers' attitudes toward inclusion vary. Scruggs and

Mastropieri (1996) assert that regular and special education teachers often have

negative attitudes toward inclusive education; but, when given extended training in

co-teaching the teachers' attitudes can become more positive. For instance, Scruggs

and Mastropieri (1996) further claimed that a majority of teachers agreed with the

general concept of inclusion, and a slight majority were willing to implement

inclusion practices in their own classrooms. This finding is further supported by

Avramidis and Norwich (2002) who report that teacher attitudes are pivotal to the

successful implementation of inclusive education; and while teachers as a whole are

10

supportive of inclusive education, their attitudes towards student placement and

inclusion are mixed.

Co-teaching is considered a delivery of instruction of an inclusive education

according to the federal mandates. However, "the concept of co-teaching can be

unsettling for teachers because they have to change the way they teach to

accommodate students with special education needs and another teacher in the room"

(Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004, p. 37). Therefore, it is important for co-teachers to

have an open line of communication with each other that is clear, demands respect,

and provides trust. On the other hand, working so closely together could create the

potential for educators to disagree, miscommunicate, and breakdown their

relationship. This, in turn, could affect the academic and/or social successes of a

student with special education needs (Sileo, 2003). Clearly, for best practices of

inclusion to be successful teachers need to adopt certain attitudes and beliefs about

working with students who have special education needs. Beliefs coupled with

resources and supports matter to expand the zone of responsibility (Stanovich &

Jordan, 2002).

Collaboration. Friend and Bursuck (1999) define collaboration as "a style of

interaction professionals use in order to accomplish a goal they share" (p. 486).

Collaboration occurs when a regular and special education teacher have the

opportunity to plan together and teach together (Cooper & Sayeski, 2003).

Collaboration can occur before, during or after school. As inclusion grows in

popularity, the need increases for regular and special educators to work together, to

11

plan for, instruct, and assess students with special education needs (Henning &

Mitchell, 2002). Collaboration is becoming widely practiced in today's schools; in

fact, it is not uncommon to see a regular and special education teacher teaching

within a single classroom (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi, &

McDuffie, 2005).

An example of this can be found in McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) study of

high school teachers. These researchers found that collegial support and interaction

influenced how teachers felt about their jobs and their students. While, some

educators may see this differently and find collaboration a challenging task this is

particularly difficult for teachers at the high school level. Co-teaching at the high

school level brings a different set of challenges and typically takes longer to be

embraced by educators (Moore & Keefe, 2001; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).

Challenges include finding the time for co-teachers to plan, lack of administrative

support, and limited professional development activities on co-teaching (as cited in

Sileo, 2003). In order to meet the challenge of educating high school students with

special education needs successfully in the general education classroom, collaboration

between the regular and special education teacher and the support of the

administration are essential (Rainforth & England, 1997; Weiss & Lloyd, 2003).

According to Adams and Cessna (1993), important components of the co-

teaching relationship include both teachers: being equally responsible for what

happens in the co-taught classroom, making decisions together (i.e. grading), sharing

all roles and responsibilities, using student needs to determine classroom practice, and

12

facilitating learning and impacting knowledge. Effective collaboration exists when

each co-teacher feels their talents are being used, contributions are valued, when they

share decision making, and when they sense respect (Friend & Bursuck, 1999). This

results in teachers feeling empowered that they can make decisions collaboratively by

fostering a sense of community as a co-teacher (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Duke,

Showers, & Imber, 1980). Therefore, the teachers' need time to collaborate.

Instructional efficacy. By participating in co-teaching both teachers are able

to examine their instructional practice and if found to be effective raise their efficacy.

Teacher efficacy is a simple idea with significant implications (Tschannen-Moran &

Hoy, 2001). For instance, teacher efficacy is related to how much effort a teacher

invests in his/her teaching practice, the goals they set, and their level of aspirations

(Tschannen et al., 2001). Teachers who are co-teaching need to reflect upon their

practices and improve upon them based on what they think in order to improve their

efficacy. Reith and Polsgrove (1998) claim, "it is not enough to merely place students

with disabilities in general education classrooms without providing the appropriate

training, materials, and support to their teachers" (p. 257). Thus, the need for all

teachers to become teachers of students with special education needs. Given the

benefits of the general education classroom for some students, it is important that

classroom teachers feel comfortable and be competent at adapting and modifying

curricula and instruction, for students with special education needs (Stanovich &

Jordan, 2002). However, many teachers are hesitant and unwilling to make the

necessary accommodations that are required for students with special education

13

needs, and as a result they are reluctant to accept these students as well as the practice

of inclusion since they lack efficacy in this area (Geskie & Salasek, 1988; Jones &

Guskin, 1984). In another study by Harbort et al. (2007), they found that

differentiated instruction for most of the time was not provided by the regular

education teacher and the special education teacher was primarily monitoring

students.

Therefore, providing opportunities for teachers to attend training programs

that are relevant to their unique needs rather than adhering to a centrally administered

program for professional development will allow them to feel more control over the

process of change and realize the value of it (Clark, 1995).

Theoretical Framework for Teachers Working Together

To understand the importance of professional development and how it could

affect teachers' attitudes, collaboration, and instructional efficacy one must consider

the following theories: Vygotsky's (Vygotsky, 1987) sociocultural theory and the

More Knowledgeable Other (MKO); Johnson and Johnson's (1999) distributed

functions of leadership; and Bandura's (1997) teacher efficacy.

Looking through the theoretical lens of Vygotsky's (1987) sociocultural

theory suggests teachers can learn from each other when working with students with

special needs in the general education setting. Vygotsky's theory suggests that

learning can be passed from one individual to another through: (a) imitative learning,

in which one person tries to imitate or copy another; (b) instructed learning, which

involves remembering the instructions of one teacher and then using the instructions

14

to self-regulate; and (c) collaborative learning, which involves a group of peers who

strive to understand each other and work together to learn a specific skill.

For that reason, it can be linked to the MKO. The MKO directly relates to co-

teaching because each co-teacher is an expert in his or her field (Vygotsky, 1987).

Regular education teachers at the secondary level are content area experts whereas

special education teachers are knowledgeable in classroom modifications and

accommodations and instructional strategies. Moreover, Vygotsky (1987) believed

that there needs be attitudinal change in educating students with special education

needs. Nevertheless, Vygotsky's (1987) sociocultural theory and working reciprocally

is relevant to this study because it implies that individual learning occurs when the

teachers' of a co-teaching team are authentic in tasks and interact with each other

within their co-teaching practice and through professional development.

Another theoretical framework is Johnson and Johnson's (1999) distributed

functions theory of leadership. This suggests that each teacher should be aware of his

or her roles and responsibilities when working reciprocally within a co-teaching

classroom. Knowing their roles and responsibilities allows the co-teachers to know

what their tasks will be from one lesson to the next. For instance, one teacher may

teach while the other teacher clarifies or shares in the teaching of the lesson, and then

rotate the responsibility. Once each teacher understands their roles and

responsibilities, their overall attitude, collaboration, and sense of efficacy toward co-

teaching should improve.

15

In addition to how co-teachers learn from each other is the concept of how

competent and confident they are teaching in a co-teaching classroom. According to

Bandura (1997), teacher efficacy is based on the outcome of a cognitive process in

which people construct beliefs about their capacity to perform at a given level of

competence. These beliefs affect how much effort individuals expend, how long they

will persist in the face of difficulties, how much resilience they have in dealing with

failures, and the amount of stress they experience in coping with demanding

situations. Therefore, once each teacher feels efficacious in his or her abilities, their

level of competence and confidence will increase within their co-teaching classroom.

In chapter 2 I have provided a review of the literature and the theoretical

framework for my innovation. Chapter 3 will explain my methodology.

Chapter 3

Methodology

Research design. This was an action research study that used mixed-

methods. Both the collection and the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data were

employed because of the focus investigated (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).

Participants. Prior to the beginning of the 2009 - 2010 school year, the

administration and school counselors at the high school created pairs of teachers (one

regular education teacher and one special education teacher) to co-teach in one of the

following content areas of English, math, and science. Pairs were developed by

considering the enrollment of students with special education needs within a required

general education class, and teacher interest in co-teaching. I began with four co-

teaching teams, but due to attrition the study ended with a total of three. Demographic

and instructional information on the four different co-teaching teams was obtained

from the pre-survey and focus group interviews.

Table 1

Teacher Demographics and Instructional Information Yrs Co-

Teacher Yrs. Teaching ' , Common Co-Taught By Teams (start of study) _ f , >. Planning Course

Rita(Rl) Lynn (SI)

Jill (R2) Laura (S2)

Renee (R3)

12 14+

7 4

1 2

1 0

0

Yes

Yes

Yes

English

Science

English

Heidi (R4) Roberta (S4)

0 11

0 0

No Math

17

Team One was comprised of participant Rl who is a regular education teacher

and participant S1 who is a special education teacher. Both had no prior co-teaching

experience, but both self-selected each other to co-teach prior to the school year. Both

co-taught three periods of freshman English. First period class had a total of 32

students including nine students with special education needs and seven who were

identified as English Language Learners (ELL). Period two had 31 total students

including five students with special education needs and six who are ELL. Period

three has 36 total students including six students with special education needs and

five who were ELL. This was their first time co-teaching together.

Team Two was comprised of participant R2 who is the regular education

teacher and participant S2 who is the special education teacher. Both had no prior co-

teaching experience together, and were informed that they were co-teaching together

a week prior to the school year starting. Both co-taught three periods of a freshman

Integrated Science class in the first semester and both had the same prep period. First

period class had a total of 27 students including three students with special education

needs and two who were ELL. Period two had 26 total students including two

students with special education needs and no ELL's. Period four had 35 total students

including six students with special education needs and four who were ELL.

Participant R2 had seven years of teaching science and one and a half years of co-

teaching experience. Participant S2 had four years of teaching special education but

no content area certification and this was her first semester of co-teaching.

18

Team Three is made up of participant R3 and participant S3. Both have no

prior co-teaching experience together, and found out that they were co-teaching one

day before school started. Both co-taught two periods of English together and both

had common prep periods. However, participant S3 went on short term disability two

weeks after school started, which resulted in the attrition of this participant from the

study. Participant R3 was without a special education co-teacher for two months and

in mid October 2009 participant S4 was reassigned to co-teach with participant R3.

Participant R3 is a fifth-year English teacher with no co-teaching experience. Team

Three was then made up of participant R3 and participant S4 who was originally from

Team Four. Both participants' R3 and S4 have common prep periods and both co-

taught two periods of English together. Their first period co-taught class had a total of

37 students including nine students with special education needs and two students

who were ELL. In their third period co-taught class they had a total of 30 students

including three students with special education needs and two ELL's.

Team Four was comprised of participant R4 who was the regular education

teacher and participant S4 who was the special education teacher. Both had no prior

co-teaching experience together, and were told that they were co-teaching a few days

prior to school starting. Both co-taught two periods of math together, but both did not

have common prep periods. Their first period co-taught class had a total of 31

students including two students with special education needs and no students who

were ELL. Their other class had a total of 27 students with seven of them having

special education needs and two who were ELL. Participant R4 had less than one year

19

of teaching experience and no prior co-teaching experience. Participant S4 had 11

years of teaching special education, had content area certification in History but not in

Math, and had had prior co-teaching experience in another school district. Two

months into the school year and into the study Team Four was dissolved by the

decision of the site administration team to support the best interest of participant R4

who was overwhelmed by the demands of being a first year teacher. Participant R4 of

the co-taught classroom did however participate and complete the pre- and post-

surveys, 34-item checklist, focus group interview, and the member check

questionnaire. Participant S4 of this team was then reassigned to co-teach with

participant R3 in mid October 2009.

Data collection. Data were collected from August 2009 through December

2009. In the first week of August, I met with the co-teachers at the high school to

introduce myself and explain my study and obtained their permission to participate in

the study. During the second week of August, each participant was given a pre-survey

and a checklist to complete. Professional development training sessions began in the

first week of September and concluded in November. In the third week of September,

the participants were given their journals that included ten writing prompts for them

to respond and were then collected in the first week of December. Classroom

observations also began in the third week of September and were completed by

December. By the second week of December, the participants completed their post-

survey and focus group interviews. In January, the participants concluded by

responding to a member check questionnaire.

20

Instruments. For this study, six different data sources were used: survey,

checklist, journals, classroom observations & field notes, focus group interviews, and

a member check questionnaire. These data sources served two purposes. The first

purpose was to gain information from the participants with regards to their ideals,

practices, and perceptions of co-teaching. The second was to establish validity and

credibility. Using multiple sources allowed me to triangulate quantitative and

qualitative data, compare the results, and then used those findings to see whether they

validated each other (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). The study was designed to answer

the following research questions:

1. Did focused staff development on best practices in co-teaching improve

teachers' attitudes toward students with special education needs?

2. How well did the teams in the training collaborate?

3. How were the teachers in the study co-teaching?

4. Did increased knowledge in co-teaching affect the teachers' attitude and

instructional efficacy?

Co-teaching survey. Each participant was asked to complete a pre-survey in

the third week of August, and by the second week of December each participant

completed a post-survey. The survey was adapted from surveys used in previous

studies conducted by Gately and Gately (2001) and Arvamidis and Kalyva (2007).

Gately and Gately's (2001) Co-Teaching Rating Scale was designed to understand the

views of the co-teachers' experience in the following eight categories: interpersonal

communication, physical arrangement, familiarity with curriculum, curriculum goals

21

and modifications, instructional planning, instructional presentation, classroom

management, and assessments. The other study by Arvamidis and Kalyva (2007)

measured the teachers' attitudes towards inclusion and professional development.

The surveys consisted of 19 items. Of these 19 items, there were six multiple

choice questions related to demographics and background information, and two of the

four items related to professional development were multiple choice and the other two

questions being open-ended. A sample item for one of the open-ended questions

asked, "Please list all the professional development on co-teaching you have

participated in and provide a brief explanation of their contents." The participants

responded to a Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 (most like me) to 4 (not at all

like me) that included eight subscale items with five items each (a - e) related to co-

teaching. Again, a Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 (does not interfere) to 4

(strongly interferes) was used for one main question that included seven items (a - i)

measuring inclusion. See Appendix A for the survey.

Member check questionnaire. Lam and Bengo (2003) claimed there could be

a response-shift bias resulting from pretest overestimation or underestimation because

program participants did not have a good understanding of the knowledge, skills, or

attitude that the program intends to affect. For this reason, a member check

questionnaire was developed by the researcher and then it was administered to the

participants to help clarify if their responses at the time of the pre and post-survey

were clear and understandable. The questionnaire consisted of five questions. The

first question was a Likert type item with options ranging from 1 (most like me) to 4

22

(not at all like me). This question was a follow up to the participants' post-survey

responses regarding their co-teaching experience. Questions 2 and 3 asked if

participants understood the items at the time they took the pre-survey. Questions 4

and 5 pertained to how the professional development trainings on co-teaching helped

them think more critically about their co-teaching experience at the time they took the

post-survey. See Appendix B for the member check questionnaire.

Checklist. A 34-item checklist titled "Are we really co-teachers?" by Villa et

al. (2008) was distributed to each co-teaching team to be completed together. This

checklist determined the co-teaching teams' perceived strengths and areas of

improvement. The results from the checklist addressed whether or not the co-teaching

teams thought they were truly co-teaching and how they were planning and making

instructional decisions (research questions 2 and 3). This checklist also served as a

starting point for additional topics that were discussed during the professional

development trainings. The checklist has been validated using Mary Jo Noonan's co-

teaching relationship scale (Cramer & Nevin, 2006) and was piloted by the researcher

during the spring 2009 for its usefulness in measuring research questions 2 and 3.

Overall, the checklist was found helpful and reliable to identify co-teaching perceived

strengths and areas for improvement. See Appendix D for the checklist.

Reflective, guided journals. To address research questions 1,2,3 and 4 each

participant was given a notebook in late September to respond to a series of open-

ended questions. Journals were collected at the end of the study and then later

analyzed according to Straus and Corbin's (1998) grounded theory for identifying

23

patterns and themes. A sample journal question asked, "How do you share ideas,

information, and instructional materials." The complete list of questions can be found

in Appendix C.

Classroom observation. The researcher scheduled eight observations with

each co-teaching team and created a co-teaching instructional observation form

adapted by Gately and Gately's (2001) co-teaching rating scale. The observations

assisted in determining if the participants were really co-teaching and what co-

teaching approach was used the most (this relates to research question number 2).

Each classroom observation was one hour in duration. See Appendix E for the

classroom observational instrument.

Focus group interview. At the conclusion of the study, each co-teaching team

participated in an interview to gain further insight into co-teaching. The interview

questions were developed based on the reviews of related literature in co-teaching to

address research questions 1, 2, 3, and 4. A sample interview question asked, "Please

describe how the trainings have helped you professionally as a co-teacher." See

Appendix F for the complete list of interview questions. The purpose of the semi-

structured interviews was to investigate whether staff development trainings on best

practices of co-teaching improved the attitude, collaboration, and efficacy of the

participants, whether they were co-teaching, and how they were planning and making

instructional decisions. A tape recorder was used by the researcher during each

interview to capture the authentic dialogue that occurred. Responses were transcribed

24

and coded according to Strauss and Corbin's (1998) grounded theory to identify

patterns, themes, and ideals among participants with regard to co-teaching.

Reliability and validity. The researcher employed triangulation of data from

multiple data sources to ensure the reliability and validity of the data sources used to

answer the four research questions for this study. In a mixed-methods design, the

researcher simultaneously collected both quantitative and qualitative data, compared

the results, and then used those findings to see whether they validated each other

(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).

In chapter 3 I provided a review of my methodology. Chapter 4 will explain

my findings.

Chapter 4

Analysis and Results

My action research study employed mixed methods. The structure for this

chapter is based on the results of the following quantitative (survey and checklist) and

qualitative (open-ended survey questions, teacher journals, classroom observations,

focus group interviews, researcher field notes, and member check questionnaire) data.

Quantitative data were analyzed to provide descriptive statistics. Qualitative data

were analyzed with procedures of Strauss and Corbin's (1998) grounded theory.

Measure 1: Co-Teaching Survey. A pre and post survey was used to answer

the research questions:

1. Did focused staff development on best practices of co-teaching

improve teachers' attitudes toward students with special education

needs?

2. How well did the teams in the training collaborate?

3. How were the teachers in the study co-teaching?

4. Did increased knowledge in co-teaching affect the teachers'

instructional efficacy?

The first part of the survey was designed to capture the teachers' views on co-

teaching with 8 subscales (interpersonal communication, physical arrangement,

familiarity with curriculum, instructional planning, instructional presentation,

classroom management, and assessment). All seven participants received and took the

pre and post survey electronically via Survey Monkey (an online survey tool used to

collect data). To analyze the survey, pre and post survey means were computed for

26

each subscale (from 5-20 points). Using an Excel spreadsheet and SPSS (Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences), a numeric value for each Likert item was assigned.

The Likert items were as follows: 4=Most like me, 3=Somewhat like me, 2=Least

like me, and l=Not at all like me. Table 2 provides the individual pre and posttest

means and differences for each subscale.

Table 2

Co-Teaching Rating Scale Means Differences for Subscales

Subscale Items

Interpersonal Communication

Physical Arrangement

Familiarity with Curriculum

Curriculum Goals & Modifications

Instructional Planning

Instructional Presentation

Classroom Management

Assessment

Pretest M

15.86

16.43

18.00

18.00

14.86

15.57

17.71

17.43

Posttest M

16.00

16.00

17.29

18.14

13.86

14.43

17.00

18.71

M2-M\

0.14

-0.43

-0.71

0.14

-1.00

-1.14

-0.71

1.28

Table 2 reveals both increases and decreases. There was a slight increase in

participants' views of curriculum goals and modifications (M = 18.00 pre-survey to M

= 18.14 post-survey), interpersonal communication (M = 15.86 pre-survey to M =

16.00 post-survey), and assessment (M = 17.43 pre-survey to M = 18.71 post-survey).

However, there was a decrease in participants' views of physical arrangement (M =

16.43 pre-survey to 16.00 post-survey), familiarity with curriculum (18.00 pre-survey

to 17.29 post-survey), instructional planning (M= 14.86 pre-survey to 13.86 post-

27

survey), instructional presentation (M= 15.57 pre-survey to 14.43 post-survey), and

classroom management (M = 17.71 pre-survey to 17.00 post-survey).

For further analysis of the survey, a dependent sample t-test was conducted.

This analysis showed that none of the eight subscales on either the pre- or post-survey

showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Details are provided in Table

3.

Table 3

Co-teaching Subscale Differences *

Subscale

Interpersonal Communication

Physical Arrangement

Familiarity with Curriculum

Curriculum Goals & Modifications

Instructional Planning

Instructional Presentation

Classroom Management

Assessment

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

M SD

Pretest

3.17 1.46

3.29 2.37

3.60 3.42

3.60 1.63

2.91 2.19

3.11 3.16

3.54 2.43

3.49 3.31

Posttest

3.17 2.52

3.14 2.08

2.89 4.03

3.63 2.12

2.89 1.68

2.69 3.36

3.34 2.16

3.74 1.80

M2-M\

0.00

-0.15

-0.71

0.03

-0.02

-0.42

-0.20

0.25

t

-0.20

0.44

1.99

-0.31

1.05

1.43

0.96

-1.30

P

.85

.68

.09

.77

.33

.20

.38

.24

* df=6

The survey also measured teachers' factors interfering with inclusion

practices. The pre and post survey results collected and analyzed using Survey

Monkey. The pre survey results indicated an overall mean score of 1.95 regarding

28

factors that interfere with teachers' attitudes towards including students with special

education needs in a general education classroom. Further, pre-survey results indicate

class size most negatively impacts the participants' willingness towards inclusive

practices followed by little support from the school and/or district and limited time

for collaboration. Further, the post-survey results indicated a slight increase with

regard to factors interfering with inclusive practices (M =2.25). Again, post-survey

results reveals class sizes to most negatively interfere the most with little support

from the school and/or district next. Additional details for each item are provided in

Table 4.

29

Table 4

Mean Differences for Factors Interfering with Inclusion Practices

Items

Limited time

Limited opportunities for collaboration

Teacher attitudes

Lack of experience regarding inclusion

Little knowledge in this area

Current work commitments

Little support from school and/or district

Class size

Parent attitudes

Overall

Pretest M

1.43

2.29

1.86

2.14

1.43

1.57

2.33

3.00

1.50

1.95

Posttest M

2.29

2.43

2.00

2.14

1.71

2.00

2.86

3.14

1.71

2.25

M2-M1

0.86

0.14

0.14

0.00

0.28

0.43

0.53

0.14

0.21

Open-ended questions. The survey also was comprised of open-ended

questions regarding professional development. The participants were asked to

respond to a series of open-ended questions about the type of professional

development they had previously received, what they thought about the training, how

impactful the training was, and the type of professional development they believed

they needed in order to co-teach. Question 1 centered on what type of professional

development on co-teaching participants' had received. The pre-survey results for this

question indicated that three out of the seven participants had participated in district-

based trainings whereas three other participants reported this question was not

30

applicable. One of the participants reported having participated in school based

professional development trainings.

Qualitative data from the open-ended items on the survey helped me better

understand these and gain further insight. Two themes arose on the pre-survey about

the training: a lack of professional development and/or limited and quick professional

development. Participant R3 said,

I have had very limited exposure to co-teaching [training]. I was informed the

day before school began that I was going to have a co-teacher. I have not yet

received any professional development concerning co-teaching.

Likewise, participant S4 commented, "In-service meetings once or twice a year [in

the past] that included very brief descriptions of how to do it and what is expected."

Participant S2 said, "I have been to no trainings on co-teaching since school started."

The open-ended items on the post-survey indicated a change in attitude after

professional development on co-teaching. Two themes emerged: the need for specific

information and an appreciation for more professional development. With respect to

getting specific information, participant R3 said, "Initial co-teacher training [two day

workshop] provided by the district and the training sessions by the researcher."

Another participant (S4) commented, "On-site [school] professional development [by

the researcher] went into different types of co-teaching, roles/expectations of each

teacher, and outcomes and benefits of co-teaching were discussed."

With regard to appreciation, the following remarks were made. Participant S2

reported,

31

Both teachers appreciation for co- teaching; more training of regular education

teachers regarding what special education teacher's role is and how to treat

special education teachers as well as special education students; more

acceptance of the co-teaching practice by other regular education teachers on

campus.

Participant S4 commented, "We need more of them. More co-teaching professional

development would be beneficial for both teachers in the classroom. Everyone

involved needs to more educated in the practices of co-teaching." Participant R3 said,

"There needs to be training prior to school starting; this way the co-teachers can start

working on their relationship before they have to focus on teaching every day." While

participant Rl reported,

Support from administration to stick with the proposed co-teaching models.

Co-teachers with a special education focus should not have a [student] case

load. They should be teaching instead of working on IEPs. Provide training

before the school year starts would be beneficial.

To further inquire into professional development as it relates to co-teaching,

the principal at the high school was interviewed. The themes that emerged from this

interview were wants and beliefs. The principal wanted professional development for

his staff and had beliefs about how it should be done. The principal stated, "I would

like to see professional development be ongoing, job embedded that is either district

based or on-site." The principal further added, "It should be set up for co-teachers to

meet just like we do now for content area departments."

32

In summary, the teachers and principals views support each other. While the

teachers appreciated the training they and the principal also they need more support.

Measure 2: Member check questionnaire. In an effort to better understand

responses on the pre and post-surveys a member check process was performed with

the seven participants. This process entailed giving participants each mean for each

subscale on the pre and post survey and explaining that because means went down on

some subscales after training, they were going to be probed to explain if the survey

was understandable and if it truly captured their beliefs. The participants received the

questionnaire by email, they wrote their replies on the questionnaire, they were

collected by the special education department clerk, and then they were picked up by

me at the school site.

Understandability. During the member check process participants were asked

if they understood the items when they took the pre-survey. Counting their replies

shows that six of the seven participants did understand the pre-survey. However,

participant S4 commented, "I was not sure if the questions were geared toward me

individually or as a team."

The next question in the member check asked the participants if the

professional development trainings helped them think more critically about their co-

teaching experience at the time they took the post-survey. All seven participants

agreed that trainings made the post survey more understandable. Participant S4 stated,

"The information was more understandable and therefore my answers and comments

[on the post survey] were more accurate." Another participant (Rl) said, "After the

33

trainings, I understood the co-teaching concept more clearly so I could answer the

questions better."

Capturing their beliefs. To understand if participants felt the means were

representative, if the pre/post surveys captured their beliefs about co-teaching, they

were asked to rate their replies on a Likert-type scale of 4=Most like me,

3=Somewhat like me, 2=Least like me, and l=Not at all like me. Table 5 provides the

subscales and the number of responses by each participant in columns.

Table 5

Participant Responses for Subscales

Subscale Items

Interpersonal Communication

Physical Arrangement

Familiarity with Curriculum

Curriculum Goals & Modifications

Instructional Planning

Instructional Presentation

Classroom Management

Assessment

Most

1

1

1

5

3

3

2

2

Somewhat

6

3

2

2

2

3

2

5

Least

0

2

3

0

2

1

3

0

Not

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

There was total agreement from all seven participants that the means on

Interpersonal Communication, Curriculum Goals and Modification, and Assessment

captured their views. Other views of means were not as strong but most believed the

means captured their view. Therefore, the results are consistent with the findings from

the post-survey.

34

In sum, the results of the member check questionnaire reveal that the survey

was clearly understood by the participants. However, participants indicated that their

responses were more accurate for the post survey, even though most reported

understanding the content within the items of the pre survey. This may reflect

changes in participants' ability to think critically about their co-teaching as a result of

the professional development trainings, as indicated on the participant responses to

questions 4 and 5 of the member check questionnaire. As a result, the need for future

studies to show how retrospective self-reporting conducted at posttest time could

assess pre-post changes more accurately.

Measure 3: Checklist. Each co-teaching team was asked to take a 34-item

YES or NO checklist that focused on their co-teaching teams' perceived strengths and

areas needing improvement. This was used to determine trainings and gain insight

into research questions 2 and 3. Analysis of the checklist consisted of adding up the

number of YES and NO replies to the items and then the totals helped me address the

needs of the teachers during the trainings. The analysis of the checklist showed that

two of the three co-teaching teams had more strengths than others. The results for

Team Three (participants R3 and S3) are not reported due to the attrition of one

participant (S3).

On the checklist Team One (participants Rl and SI) responded favorably.

They perceived their team having strengths in 29 out of the 34-items. Some of their

perceived strengths included: ability to communicate their concerns freely (item

#19), model collaboration and teamwork for their students (item #27), share ideas,

35

information, and materials (item #2), share responsibility for deciding who teaches

what part of a lesson (item #9), use their meeting time productively (item #24), and

use a variety of co-teaching approaches (item #33) in their co-taught classrooms.

Areas participants' noted needing improvement were not having regularly scheduled

times to meet and discuss their work (item #23), and they did not have fun with the

students and each other when they co-taught (item #22).

Team Two (participants R2 and S2) also responded favorably with having

strengths in 23 out of the 34-items. Team Two reported that their strengths were

sharing ideas, information, and materials (item #2), sharing responsibility for

deciding who teaches what part of a lesson (item #9), communicating their concerns

freely (item #19), having regularly scheduled times to meet and discuss their work

(item #23), modeling collaboration and teamwork for their students (item #27), and

having fun with the students and each other when they co-taught (item #22). Areas in

need of improvement were not using their meeting time productively (item #24) and

not using a variety of co-teaching approaches (item #33).

Team Four (participants R4 and S4) responded much differently. They

perceived having strengths in 15 out of the 34-items. Team Four reported that their

strengths were having fun with the students and each other when they co-taught (item

#22), sharing responsibility for deciding who teaches what part of a lesson (item #9),

using their meeting time productively (item #24), and modeling collaboration and

teamwork for their students (item #27). Areas in need of improvement were not

sharing items, information, and materials (item #2), not communicating their

36

concerns freely (item #19), not having regularly scheduled times to meet and discuss

their work (item #23), and not using a variety of co-teaching approaches (item #33).

In sum, the checklist revealed that Team One rated themselves much higher

than Teams Two and Four. However, each of the teams were in agreement about

sharing responsibility for deciding who teaches what part of a lesson (item #9) and for

modeling collaboration and teamwork for their students (item #27). This to them was

a perceived strength.

Triangulating classroom observations and field notes (measures 4 and 5).

To answer research question 2 (how well did the teams in the training collaborate and

co-teach), classroom observations and field notes were gathered and analyzed.

Analysis of observations consisted of adding up the number of times one of the co-

teaching approaches taught in my innovation (supportive, parallel, complementary,

and team teaching) was used.

These calculations revealed that the supportive co-teaching approach (one

teacher takes the lead instructional role and the other teacher rotates among the

students to provide support) was the co-teaching approach used most by the co-

teaching teams. This finding from my checklist was confirmed in my field notes. On

December 11, 2009,1 captured the principal's words,

"Some of the biggest challenges that we have to overcome on our campus is

getting the special education teachers in a more direct role as an instructor

versus working in small groups; that the special education teacher needs to

know that co-teaching is their primary role not case management duties and

37

doing IEPs during their co-taught classes; and to do a better job with defining

the roles and responsibilities of the co-teachers."

Additionally, classroom observations and field notes indicated that

instructional planning was not performed together. To more clearly understand this, I

spoke with key people at the school and jotted notes after our conversations. On

November 17, 2009, analysis of these notes indicated that the co-teachers who have

common preparatory periods were not planning together and this was due to the

special education teacher using his/her time to do case management duties and/or one

of the co-teachers being pulled away to substitute. In addition, the special education

teacher who was assigned to a co-taught classroom sometimes left the co-taught

classroom to do IEPs and/or attend special education meetings. During one

observation on November 16, 2009, participant Rl stated, "My co-teacher does what

he/she believes is priority by writing IEPs, or going to special education meetings."

In summary, the classroom observations and field notes reveal that the

supportive co-teaching approach was the co-teaching approach most widely used

among the co-teaching teams. I saw the regular education teacher acting as the lead

instructor role and the special education in the supportive role. Further, my notes

indicated a lack of planning together because the special education teacher had other

work commitments (i.e., IEPs, meetings, and/or covering other teachers classrooms).

Measure 6: Journaling. Six of the seven teachers were asked to answer

prompts about their co-teaching experience and professional development in their

journals in order to address research questions 1, 2, 3, and 4. Journal entries were

38

analyzed using grounded theory. This analysis revealed the following themes:

professional development was helpful; there was limited collaboration and the special

education teachers had limited content knowledge which made them uncomfortable.

Support for the theme of professional development came from participant S1,

"All training, support, and resources have been equally helpful." Also, participant Rl

reported, "I learned about the different co-teaching models and how they look."

While participant R3 wrote, "I was a little checked out for the initial training sessions

because I was between co-teachers, but after reviewing and getting caught up on the

[training] information I understood how co-teaching is to work."

The next theme found that the co-teaching teams did not collaborate as much

as they would have liked. Participant S2 reported, "We rarely plan and this is an area

that needs to be worked on. " Moreover, participant S1 wrote, "We email and have

1:1 conversations; we have common prep but we don't plan together; my co-teacher

does all the lesson planning, that I am just here for support." While participant R3

wrote, "my co-teacher and I do not share materials; we do not plan or grade together,

nor collaborate."

In regards to the final theme of limited content knowledge participant S1

wrote, "My co-teacher [being the regular education teacher] does 100% of the content

instruction which is fine with me because I am not comfortable teaching the class

content, but when I do teach it is to follow up with what was just taught or to

introduce an activity." Where participant S4 noted, "I assist where I can by moving

freely around the classroom and explaining what my co-teacher [being the regular

39

education teacher] said in a different way." Participant R2 wrote, "I teach the content

and my co-teacher [being the special education teacher] primarily reinforces what I

teach and makes accommodations."

Overall the journals reveal that the professional development trainings were

helpful in providing resources, support, and knowledge of the different co-teaching

approaches. Yet, there was limited collaboration among the co-teaching teams for

planning and instruction. The journals also reveal that the special education teacher

did limited instruction of the content due to not feeling comfortable teaching the class

content. As a result, the special education teacher was fine with taking on a

supportive role within their co-taught classrooms while the regular education teacher

did most of the instruction.

Measure 7: Focus group interviews. All participants took part in semi-

structured interviews. The nine interview questions were developed based on the

reviews of related literature on co-teaching and addressed research questions 1, 2, 3,

and 4. Interview questions asked participants to state their views regarding their

current co-teaching experience. Analysis of interview questions with grounded theory

revealed the following themes: frustration, barriers, and discomfort.

The theme of frustration arose from the words and indicated a lack of choice

and control. The teachers believed there were too many special education students in

a co-taught classroom, and that teachers did not have a choice or say in the process.

Participant Rl remarked,

I had a positive attitude at first, but it [co-teaching] became more frustrating

and negative due to the overwhelming number of special education students

and ELL students [that] were in each of our co-taught classes. There was also

no support by the administration.

Participant S2 stated, "I do not have a choice whether I co-teach or not because this is

my current job position so I have to co-teach and I feel students with special needs are

being left behind in a regular education classroom." Where participant R2 stated, "I

would continue co-teaching if I had more say in the process and with whom I am co-

teaching with." Further, participant S4 stated, "If I had the choice to co-teach again, I

would not." Participant S1 stated, "There are too many students with special needs

and who are ELL in our co-taught classes for our co-teaching situation to be

effective."

The second theme captured were barriers due to not having a common

preparatory period, not having a consistent co-teacher, not being able to attend

trainings together, and/or lack of content knowledge. Participant R4 stated, "We do

not have a common prep period and so we never meet because of our schedules."

While Participant R2 stated, "it would be nice to have a consistent co-teacher."

Participant Rl stated, "To allow the co-teachers to attend trainings together, to know

ahead of time that you are co-teaching and with whom, and to observe other schools

where co-teaching is successful." Whereas participant Rl stated, "Co-teaching can be

beneficial and work as long as both of the teachers had a background in co-teaching

and knew the content."

41

Theme three suggested the discomfort co-teachers felt. According to

participant S2, "co-teaching is frowned upon and it needs to be supported in a better

light." Participant R2 stated, "There is no culture on our campus to embrace co-

teaching at all; that it needs to be promoted better." Participant S4 stated, "Co-

teaching as it is right now in our school and/or district is not working." Moreover, the

special education teachers expressed being uncomfortable with teaching the content.

Participant S1 stated, "I do not feel comfortable teaching English because I am not

educated in the content; English is so subjective and so I feel more comfortable just

supporting my co-teacher [being the regular education teacher] during the lesson."

Participant S2 also stated, "I would feel more comfortable if I was interested in the

content and knew the content of the co-taught class I was assigned to."

In summary, the results of the focus group interviews reveal that the

participants were frustrated because they thought they had too many students with

special education needs and ELL in their co-taught classrooms, and they did not have

a choice and/or a say in the co-teaching process. The barriers included not having a

consistent co-teacher, not having a common preparatory period, and not being able to

attend trainings together. Additionally, the participants' felt discomfort as a co-

teacher. For instance, the special education teachers did not feel comfortable teaching

the content and co-teaching on their school campus was not perceived well.

Chapter 5

Discussion

The purpose of my study was to investigate the impact professional

development had on co- teachers' attitudes, collaboration, and instructional efficacy.

The following section provides a discussion based on my analysis of the data to

answer my four research questions.

Research question one asked whether the professional development trainings

on co-teaching I provided would change my participants' attitudes toward students

with special needs. Data from my surveys, journals, and interviews, showed that even

after professional development my participants still expressed a negative attitude

towards students with special needs. To them, inclusion brought too many students

with too many special needs into one classroom, lack of administrative support, and

limited time for collaboration. These findings align with other findings. In their work

Klinger, Vaughn, Schumm, Cohen, and Forgan (1998) found inclusion is not easy.

These authors claim that regular education teachers often have poor attitudes towards

students with special needs because they feel inadequately prepared to teach them and

because of this they make few or no adaptations for them. This finding was similar

for Ellett (1993) who suggested that high school teachers might be less willing to

make accommodations for students with special needs because of large class sizes.

Keefe and Moore (2004) suggest if a school wants to include students through co-

teaching, then there needs to be a commitment not to overload a co-taught classroom,

to provide adequate planning time for co-teachers, to listen to the teachers when

planning inclusive classrooms, and to develop a process to help all teachers

43

understand what an inclusive education is and why it is important. Therefore, the

answers to research question one did not improve the teachers' attitudes towards

students with special needs due to a variety of reasons.

My research questions two and three were developed to help me understand if

and how the three co-teaching teams in my study collaborated, planned, made

instructional decisions, and co-taught. My analysis of each measure (surveys,

checklist, classroom observations & field notes, journals, and interviews) clearly

showed that there was limited collaboration among the co-teaching teams. My

investigation of four teams, showed that one was not able to collaborate because they

did not have a common preparatory period and that even though the other three had

common preparatory periods they had other work commitments that interfered with

their planning time (e.g., attending IEPs, school meetings, coaching, and/or covering

other teachers' classrooms). What I discovered runs contrary to what is suggested.

Harbort et al., (2007) and Villa et al., (2008) suggest that to be successful each co-

teacher in a co-teaching team must make a personal commitment. Commitments

involve time. Each co-teacher must agree to work together and decide when, how

long, and how often they will meet during school hours. Therefore, to be an effective

co-teacher, it takes time and commitment.

I also investigated how my participants co-taught. According to my classroom

observations, field notes, and interviews, I came to realize that my participants

thought they were co-teaching and using the supportive co-teaching approach the

most. Supportive co-teaching happens when one teacher takes the lead instructional

44

role and the other teacher rotates among the students to provide support. With a

supportive co-teaching arrangement, both co-teachers have the chance to become

familiar with each other's curriculum and teaching techniques (Villa et al, 2008).

Therefore, teachers need training in the four different co-teaching approaches for

mutual skill development (Villa et al, 2008). This way the teachers' can incorporate

different types of co-teaching approaches into their co-taught classrooms.

My final research question asked if increased knowledge in co-teaching had a

positive effect on the teachers' attitude and instructional efficacy. According to my

survey, classrooms observations and field notes, the professional development that I

provided did not help one way or the other. Focus groups showed teachers' still

retained a negative view and several of the teachers said they would not co-teach

again.

However, the participants' found that the professional development,

resources, and support provided to them were helpful. They became more aware of

the different co-teaching models and they understood the importance of meeting the

needs of students in the least restrictive environment. This finding confirms the

importance of providing extended training in co-teaching (Scruggs & Mastropieri,

1996). Teachers need to attend trainings that are relevant to their unique needs (Clark,

1995). Therefore, special education teachers need to learn content and regular

education teachers need to learn how to accommodate students with special needs.

Limitations of the Study

45

Even though I created a careful audit trail and used triangulation there were

some limitations to my work. The limitations that impeded the success of my research

included (a) small number of participants, who they were, and the limited time spent

with them, (b) changes in the implementation of the co-teaching trainings, (c)

resistance for my action research study in the district since I was an outside

(independent) researcher, and (d) survey design.

Participants. Because the study was conducted at one high school with a

limited number of co-teaching teams the participant size was small. Since the number

of participants was small and based on who the participants' were and how they were

paired together to co-teach could have affected the findings of their co-teaching

experience. Another thing is that I only had 16 weeks with them. If I had a full school

year providing additional trainings, resources, and support, then perhaps my study

would have turned out different. Also, data on number of years teaching and/or co-

teaching, knowledge of special education, or content level was not analyzed.

Co-teacher training. When it came time for implementing my innovation

with the co-teaching teams there were barriers. Professional development trainings

were to be scheduled once a month in lieu of one of the month's teacher in-service

days at the school but there was an overwhelming response by the participants that

they did not want to miss out on their in-service time with the other staff on campus.

As a result, instead of being able to meet with the co-teaching teams together, as

originally planned, I had to adjust the trainings to meet the schedules of the co-

teaching teams either before school or during their common preparatory period. This

resulted in my having to conduct more individual trainings and to make sure those

trainings were consistent. However, there were barriers to conducting trainings during

preparatory periods that included one of the co-teaching teams not having a common

preparatory period and if they had a common preparatory period it was interrupted.

For the co-teaching team that did not have a common preparatory period they were not

able to attend the trainings together to discuss planning, instruction, and roles and

responsibilities. For that reason, it definitely could have affected their overall ability to

improve their attitude and collaborative efforts as a co-teacher and/or co-teaching

team. The co-teaching teams who did have a common preparatory period had their

time interrupted by having to cover other classes due to personnel issues, and/or they

had to attend school and/or district meetings. When this occurred, trainings had to be

cancelled, rescheduled, and adjusted frequently. Consequently, this could have

resulted in my data being skewed due to the inconsistent trainings, breakdown of the

co-teaching teams and/or the interruptions during their preparatory periods. Without

structured time to meet with my co-teaching teams they were not able to share their

frustrations, concerns, and ideals for how to make co-teaching work and for it to be

seen more positively on their campus.

Resistance. As I began my dissertation process there was some resistance for

starting my action research study in the district since I was an outside (independent)

researcher. However, the guidance of my committee chair, the support of the district

superintendent and the school principal, my action research was allowed and

implemented without incident. Most importantly, I learned how to separate myself as a

47

practitioner and to become more reflective throughout the dissertation process in order

to analyze what and why I was doing it not only for me but for the co-teachers of the

study who saw me as an expert in the field of special education and co-teaching.

Survey design. The analysis of the co-teaching rating scale showed no

statistically significant differences at the p <_0.05. However, these results maybe

questionable because the employed co-teaching rating scale was designed to be a

clinical, not a diagnostic measure. In other words, although the measurement tool was

used to flesh out the participants' views of co-teaching, it did not pinpoint specific

areas of strengths and weaknesses concerning their co-teaching practices.

A further limitation is how the statistical analyses were performed. The

primary analysis that was performed was a t-test. According to Whitley and Ball

(2002) performing multiple t-tests inflates the probability of a Type 1 error. If the

statistical analyses were to be performed again, a one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) would have been performed to determine statistical significance across

variables.

Educational Implications

My work highlights the need for professional development on co-teaching at

the high school level in order for it to be effective. Co-teaching is one way to support

the federal mandates set forth by IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2001). These federal

mandates reinforce the importance of concentrating research efforts on most effective

inclusive instructional practices such as co-teaching. Additionally, for these federal,

legal mandates to be supported there needs to be a growing need for implementing

48

professional development which focuses on co-teaching and including students with

special education needs in the general education setting. However, prior to my study,

I hit a roadblock from the school district to do this very thing. Then, as I tried to

provide professional development to the participants there were many things that

interfered. If co-teaching at this school is to be an effective instructional practice, the

process of preparing teachers to co-teach needs to be a thoughtful and planned

process, which also considers teachers' viewpoints and needs. It is important to note

that teachers' perceptions and skill levels need to be at the forefront of planning

professional development trainings.

Implications for Future Research

This action research study focused primarily on providing professional

development on co-teaching. The next steps for research should include pre-training

of the co-teachers, scheduling everyone to co-teach over time, more studies on

viewpoints and experiences of co-teaching at the high school level, and explore

acceptance of which co-teaching approach is more user friendly based on

participants' needs and class setting.

Lessons Learned

As I began the research process, I learned a great deal about how to use the

information received regarding co-teaching and how to disseminate that information

out to the co-teachers and the administrators of where my action research study was

conducted. As a researcher and by being able to provide the teachers with new

material, new ideas, and a time/place to collaborate during the study, my hope was for

49

the teachers to develop a "shared vision" and "shared meaning" as it related to co-

teaching. However, I quickly learned at the beginning of the study that the co-

teachers in my study either new each other or they did not, they had limited

knowledge, training, and/or experience in co-teaching, and most importantly I learned

that co-teaching on the school campus was not well received. Nonetheless, want I do

know is that for co-teaching to be successful at the high school there needs to be

better planning and pairing of the co-teachers prior to the school year starting, so that

the co-teachers have enough time to meet, plan, and to define their roles and

responsibilities.

Conclusions

My hope is that my findings will inspire the administrative leaders at the site

level and/or at the district level to consider restructuring how professional

development (trainings) on co-teaching is provided either at the site or district level

and/or out of the district. It would be beneficial if the co-teachers were able to attend

trainings together whether it was their first year co-teaching together or not. This way

the co-teachers will have the time to collaborate to discuss planning and instruction

and to define their roles and responsibilities. Nonetheless, for co-teaching to be

embraced by all within the school, then the school leaders will need to foster an

understanding and consensus for it through professional (staff) development.

References

Adams, L. & Cessna, K. (1993). Metaphors of the co-taught classroom. Preventing School Failure, 57(4), 28-31.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (1990).

Avramidis, E. & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 367-389.

Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration and inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129-147.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J., and Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 17-22.

Clark, C. (1995). Thoughtful Teaching. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.

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

Cooper, J. M., & Sayeski, K. L. (2003). An educator's guide to inclusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cramer, E. D., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). A mixed methodology analysis of co-teacher assessments: Implications for teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(4), 261-274.

Dieker, L.A. & Murawski, W.W. (2003). Co-Teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, 86(A), 1-13.

Dufour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia.

Duke, D., Showers, B. & Imber, M. (1980). Teachers and shared decision-making: The costs and benefits of involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16, 93-106.

51

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Public Law 94-142, 94th Congress, S. 6.

Ellett, L. (1993). Instructional practices in mainstreamed secondary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26 (1), 57-64.

Fisher, D., Sax, C , & Pumpian, I. (1996). From intrusion to inclusion: Myths and realities in our schools. The Reading Teacher, 49 (7), 580-584.

Frankel, J. & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, New York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

Friend, M. (2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn't simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(2), 9-19.

Friend, M. & Bursuck, W. D. (1999). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gately, S.E. (2005). Two are better than one. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 36-41.

Gately, S. E. & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding co teaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(4), 40-47.

Geskie, M. A. & Salasek, J. L. (1988). Attitudes of health care personnel toward persons with disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes towards persons with disabilities (pp. 187-200). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479 - 507.

Harbort, G., Gunter, P., Hull, K., Brown, Q., Venn, M., Wiley, L., & Wiley, E. (2007). Behaviors of teachers in co-taught classes in a secondary school. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 13-23.

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

Hourcade, J., & Bauwens, J. (2002). Cooperative teaching: Re-building and sharing the schoolhouse. Austin, TX: PRO-Ed.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

52

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. 5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Jones, R. L. & Guskin, S. L. (1984). Attitudes and attitude change in special education. In R. L. Jones (Ed.). Attitudes and attitude change in special education: Theory and practice (pp. 1-20). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Keefe, E.B., Moore, V., & Duff, F. (2004). The four "knows" of collaborative teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36, 36-42.

Lam, T. C. M., & Bengo, P. (2003). A comparison of three retrospective self-reporting methods of measuring change in instructional practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 65-80.

Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260 - 270.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high-school teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, K. J. & Savage, L. B. (1995). Including general educators in inclusion. Paper presented at the American Council on Rural Special Education conference, Las Vegas, NV. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED381322).

Moore, V. & Keefe, E. B. (2001, April). Encouraging educators to continue team-teaching in inclusive classrooms. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Conference, Kansas City, MO.

Murawski, W. W. & Dieker, L. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Rainforth, B. & England, J. (1997). Collaborations for inclusion. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(1), 85-104.

Reith, H. J. & Polsgrove, L. (1998). Curriculum and instructional issues in teaching secondary students with learning disabilities. In E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Educating students with mild disabilities: Strategies and methods (pp. 255 - 274). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

53

Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (1999). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of developments in Australian and American Classrooms. Resources in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED432558)

Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973).

Sileo, J. (2003). Co-teaching: Rationale for best practices. Journal of Asia-Pacific Special Education, 3(1), 17-26.

Stanovich, P. J. & Jordan, A. (2002). Preparing general educators to teach in inclusive classrooms: Some food for thought. The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 173-185.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2007). The Condition of Education 2007. (NCES 2007-064). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (R. W. Rieber & A.S. Carton, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press (Original words published 1934, 1960).

Walther-Thomas, C, Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17(A), 255-264.

Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. (2003). Conditions for co-teaching: Lessons from a case study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 27-41.

Whitley, E. & Ball, J. (2002). Statistics review 5: Comparison of means. Critical Care, 6 (5), 424-428.

APPENDIX A

CO-TEACHING SURVEY INSTRUMENT

55

Co-Teaching Pre-Survey

,5L LBa^C^KajaiMI l a g

1. Please input your participant code here: I ~H

2. Gender:

Q Hale

( ) Female

3. Age:

Q 21-30

Q 31-40

4. Teaching Experience:

( J Less than one year

(^J) 1-4 years

r j ) 5-9 vears

("J) 10-14 years

Q 14+ years

5. Co-Teaching Experience:

( J No experience

( ) Less than one year

(y 1-4 years

(~ ) 5-9 years

(__) 10-14 years

( ) 14+ years

6. Please list your teaching credentials:

3

56

Go-Teaching Pre-Survey

The next questions ask you to explain your views about the professional development you have participated on co-teaching. Please take time to answer these questions as thoroughly and honestly as you can. I am interested in your thoughts.

1. What type of professional development on co-teaching have you participated in?

(~) Not applicable

f ) School based

( J District based

(jl Other (please specify)

2. Please list all the professional development on co-teaching you have participated in and provide a brief explanation of their contents?

3. I n reference to question 2, how helpful have these previous professional development on co-teaching been for you?

0 Very

(J) Seme

OLittie

Q None

4. I f you could design professional development for improving co-teaching practices in your school district, what strategies, methods, and ideas would you include?

57

Co-Teaching Pre-Survey

go'l^-(§S)=^;il^3a|l[Ssfi000©;&^Q . : ' . -V : l^'V'n ,:'~'ryy' -

In this section I want to understand your views about your co-teaching experience. below by choosing a response that best describes your viewpoint:

1. Interpersonal Communication:

(a) I am able to read the non-verbal cues of my co-teaching partner.

(b) I use humor in the co-taught classroom.

(c) 1 use open and honest communication with my co-teaching partner.

(d) I am able to trust my co-teaching partner.

fe) 1 am able to resolve disagreements when faced with problems and conflicts with my co-teaching partner.

2. Physical Arrangement:

(a) I move freely about the space in the co-taught classroom.

(b) All materials are shared in the co-taught classroom.

(c) There ts fluid positioning of both teachers in the co-taucht classroom.

{d) I have equal access to materials.

(e) I am aware of what the other co-teacher ts doing when he/she is not present.

3. Familiarity with Curriculum:

(a) I understand the curriculum standards used in my co-taught classroom.

(b) 5 am familiar with the materials used in my co-taught classroom.

(c) I am familiar with the methods with respect to the curriculum in my co-taught classroom. (c) I am confident in my knowledge of the curriculum content in which I co-teach. (e) I am comfortable teaching the curriculum in my co-taught classroom.

4. Curriculum Goals & Modifications:

(a) I am aware of the classroom goals of the co-taught classroom.

•(b) 1 incorporate modifications for students with special needs into this

(c) I incorporate student-centered objectives into the classroom curricuium.

(ti) I share responsibility for differentiating instruction.

(e) I consider the expertise and/or experience of other professionals.

Most like me

O O o o o

Most like me

o o o o o

Most like m e

o o o o o

Most like m e

O o o o o

Please respond to each

Somewhat like me

O o o o o

Somewhat like me

O o o o o

Somewhat like me

o o o o o

Somewhat like me

o o o o o

Least like m e

o o o o o

Least like m e

o o o o o

Least like m e

O O o o o

Least like m e

o O O O O

question

Not at all like me

O o o o o

Not all all like me

o o o o o

Not all like m e

o o o o o

Not all like m e

o o o o o

58

< d J 5 £ ^ '?" ' : - • ' ' • . ' :-^.:":'--'1''* -5- SmstryctBonal Planning;

(a) I plan spontaneously based on the needs of all students in the class.

(b) Planning for the co-taucht classroom is a shared responsibility.

(c) I allow time for common planning.

(c) I alter my lessons based on the needs of the students in my class.

fe) I use common planning times productively.

6„ Instructional Presenilation:

(a) 1 often present lessons in the co-taught classroom.

(b) The "chalk" passes freely between myself and my co-teaching partner.

(c) The students accept me as their teacher.

Ed) I use a variety of co-teaching approaches (e.g., supportive, parallel, complementary, team teaching) in the co-taught classroom.

(e) I am able to teach different groups of students at the same time.

7. CSassroorra Narcagement:

(a) I developed the classroom rules and routines of the co-taught classroom. (b) 1 use a variety of classroom management techniques to enhance learning of all students. (c) I share behavior management (discipline) in the co-taught

cia ssroom. (d) I am confident in my behavior management skills.

(e) I design and implement behavior management pians for students with special needs.

Host like me

o o o o o

Most like m e

O o o o o

Most like m e

o o o o o

Somewhat like me

O

o o o o

Somewhat like me

o o o o o

Somewhat like me

O

o o o o

Lease like m e

O O o o o

Least like me

o o o o o

Least like m e

o o o o o

Not all like m e

O

o o o o

Not all like me

O O O O O

Not all like m e

O

o o o o

8. I n your experience w i th assessments in the co-taught classroom do you:

(ej Vary assessments (i.e., formetive, authentic, summative, etc).

(b) Utilize test modifications as specified in IEP.

(c) Consider IEP goals as part of the grading for students with special needs. (d) Consider IEP objectives as part of the grading for students with special needs.

(e) Share responsibility for how student learning is assessed.

Most like m e

o o o o o

Somewhat like me

o o o o o

Least like m e

O o o o o

Not all like m e

O o o o o

59

Co-Teaching Pre-Survey

4fe;S§feQSb© i M ( 1 ^ 5 i i ^

1. Please rate the extent to which the fol lowing factors interfere wi th your ability to include students wi th special needs in your classroom, from 1 = Does not interfere to 4 = Strongly interferes.

(a) Limited time

(b) Limited opportunities for collaboration

(c) Teacher attitudes (i.e., regular and special education)

<d) Lack of experience regarding inclusion

(e) Little knowledge in this area

(f) Current work commitments

(c) Little support from school/district

(h) Class size {i.e., number of students with special needs)

(i) Parent attitudes

Does not interfere

o o o o o o o o o

Somewhat interferes

o o o o o o o o o

Interferes

O o o o o o o o o

Strongly interferes

o o o o o o o o o

APPENDIX B

MEMBER CHECK QUESTIONNAIRE

61

January 2010 Dear Co-teachers,

While analyzing the data received from the pre and post surveys you completed this is what I found.

The following table is results regarding your views about your co-teaching experience.

Pre Post

Pre Post

Interpersonal Communication

15.86 16.00

Instructional Planning

14.86 13.86

Physical Arrangement

16.43 16.00

Instructional Presentation

15.57 14.43

Familiarity with

Curriculum 18.00 17.29

Classroom Management

17.71 17.00

Curriculum Goals & Modifications

18.00 18.14

Assessment

17.43 18.71

^Results are based on a mean score within the suhscales (out of a possible score range of 5-20 points)

Your overall responses to these items above showed a DECREASE in Physical

Arrangement, Familiarity with Curriculum, Instructional Planning, Instructional

Presentation, and Classroom Management. However, there was an INCREASE in

Interpersonal Communication, Curriculum Goals & Modifications, and Assessment.

62

Please respond to the following questions by printing this document for me to pick up on Friday, January 22, 2010.

1. Based on my findings do you believe the table is representative of your co-teaching experience? Please circle one for each category.

Interpersonal Communication: Most like me Somewhat like me Least like me Not at all like me

Physical Arrangement: Most like me Somewhat like me Least like me Not at all like me

Familiarity with Curriculum: Most like me Somewhat like me Least like me Not at all like me

Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Most like me Somewhat like me Least like me Not at all like me

Instructional Planning: Most like me Somewhat like me Least like me Not at all like me

Instructional Presentation: Most like me Somewhat like me Least like me Not at all like me

Classroom Management: Most like me Somewhat like me Least like me Not at all like me

Assessment: Most like me Somewhat like me Least like me Not at all like me

2. Did you understand the content within the items at the time you took the pre-survey? YES NO

3. If you answered "No" to question 2 please explain below.

4. Did the professional development trainings on co-teaching help you think more critically of your co-teaching experience at the time you took the post-survey?

YES NO

5. Please explain your answer to question 4 below.

63 Thank You for Participating! ©

APPENDIX C

JOURNAL QUESTIONS

65

Open-Ended Journal Questions

1. How do you share ideas, information, and instructional materials?

2. How do you model collaboration and teamwork for your students?

3. How do you share responsibility for differentiating instruction?

4. How have the training, support and resources been most helpful? Least helpful?

5. What types of personal and/or professional problems have you encountered while

co-teaching?

6. How do you share responsibility for deciding who teaches what part of a lesson?

7. How do you provide feedback to one another on what goes on the classroom?

8. What co-teaching approach do you use most in your co-taught classroom?

9. Do you feel like you are really co-teaching? Please explain.

10. Please list recommendations for improving co-teaching practices on your campus.

APPENDIX D

SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

67

Self-Assessment Checklist: Are We Really Co-Teachers? Directions: Circle YES or NO to each of the following statements to determine your co-teaching score at this point in time.

In our co-teaching partnership:

1. We decide which co-teaching approach we are going to use in a lesson based on the benefits to the students and the co-teachers. YES NO

2. We share ideas, information, and materials. YES NO

3. We identify the resources and talents of the co-teachers. YES NO

4. We teach different group of students at the same time. YES NO

5. We are aware of what one another is doing even when we are not directly in one another's presence. YES NO

6. We share responsibility for deciding what to teach. YES NO

7. We agree on the curriculum standards that will be addressed in a lesson. YES NO

8. We share responsibility for deciding how to teach. YES NO

9. We share responsibility for deciding who teaches what part of a lesson. YES NO

10. We are flexible and make changes as needed during a lesson. YES NO

11. We identify student strengths and needs. YES NO

68

12. We share responsibility for differentiating instruction. YES NO

13. We include other people when their expertise or experience is needed. YES NO

14. We share responsibility for how student learning is assessed. YES NO

15. We can show that students are learning when we co-teach. YES NO

16. We agree on discipline procedures and jointly carry them out. YES NO

17. We give feedback to one another on what goes on in the classroom. YES NO

18. We make improvements in our lessons based on what happens. YES NO

In our co-teaching partnership:

19. We communicate freely our concerns. YES NO

20. We have a process for resolving our disagreements and use it when faced with problems and conflicts. YES NO

21. We celebrate the process of co-teaching and the outcomes and successes. YES NO

22. We have fun with the students and each other when we co-teach. YES NO

23. We have regularly scheduled times to meet and discuss our work. YES NO

24. We use our meeting time productively.

69 YES NO

25. We can effectively co-teach even when we don't have time to plan. YES NO

26. We explain the benefits of co-teaching to the students and their families. YES NO

27. We model collaboration and teamwork for our students. YES NO

28. We are each viewed by our students as their teacher. YES NO

29. We include students in the co-teaching role. YES NO

30. We depend on one another to follow through on tasks and responsibilities. YES NO

31. We seek and enjoy additional training to make our co-teaching better. YES NO

32. We are mentors to others who want to co-teach. YES NO

33. We can use a variety of co-teaching approaches (i.e., supportive, parallel, complementary, and team teaching). YES NO

34. We communicate our need for logistical support and resources to our administrators. YES NO

TOTAL YES: No:

APPENDIX E

CO-TEACHING OBSERVATION FORM

71

Co-Teaching Observation Form

General Education Teacher:

Special Education Teacher:

Subject Observed:

Date/Time:

Observation Scale

1: Evident 2: Not Evident

a. Both co-teachers moved around the classroom assisting and monitoring all students.

b. Both teachers took responsibility for instructional delivery.

c. There was evidence that a co-teaching model was utilized.

d. Both teachers are simultaneously present.

e. Inclusive language is used by both teachers in the classroom (us, our, we).

f. Both teachers were responsible for classroom management.

g. Students accepted both teachers as equals in the classroom.

h. Both teachers interjected ideas for clarification of lesson content.

i. Both teachers provided feedback to the students to guide their learning.

j . Learning expectations, directions, and procedures are clearly defi for ALL students.

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

72

Co-Teaching Models observed. Circle any/all models observed appropriately:

1. Parallel co-teaching

2. Complementary co-teaching

3. Supportive co-teaching

4. Team teaching

I Additional Comments (Field Notes): I

APPENDIX F

FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

74

Focus Group Interviews with each Co-Teaching Team

Moderator introduction, thank you and purpose (1 minute)

Ground rules (2 minutes)

Hello. My name is Kim Sims. I'd like to start off by thanking each of you for taking time to come today. We'll be here for about 50 minutes.

The reason I am here today is to get a better understanding how both of you feel about co-teaching.

I'm going to lead our discussion today. I am not here to convince you of anything or try to sway your opinion. My job is just to ask you questions and then encourage and moderate our discussion.

Do you have any questions before I proceed?

To allow our conversation to flow more freely, I'd like to go over some ground rules first.

1. Please talk (answer) one at a time stating your first name and avoid side conversations.

2. Each of you needs to answer every single question.

3. There are no "wrong answers," just different opinions. Say what is true for you, even if the other feels a different way. Please don't let the other sway you. But if you do change your mind, just let me know.

4. Let me know if you need a break.

75

Introduction of participants (5 minutes)

Interview Questions (35 minutes)

Closing question (5 minutes)

Closing (2 minutes)

Before we start talking about co-teaching, I'd like to meet each of you. Please tell me:

• Your full name • How long you have been in the field of

teaching? • Co-teaching together?

• Your current professional role in the field of education.

1. Please describe how the trainings have helped you professionally as a co-teacher?

2. How do you perceive your current experience in a co-taught classroom?

3. What has been the biggest challenges to co-teaching?

4. How are you supported as a co-teacher on this campus?

5. How often do you meet to plan and make instructional decisions?

6. Do you feel better prepared to co-teach again? Please explain.

7. Do you feel comfortable teaching the content area of your co-taught classroom? Please explain.

8. What are your thoughts about co-teaching and inclusive practices? Please explain.

9. What else can the school/district do to improve co-teaching?

Thank you for coming today and talking to me about co-teaching. Your comments have given me lots of different ways to see this issue. Again, I thank you for your time.

APPENDIX G

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

77

ARIZONA STATE ssttsr.' UNIVERSITY l;C. few 87

Tfmpr.AZ i

Phonr

To:

0 From: V

0^ Date:

Committee Action;

IRB Action Date:

IRB Protocol tt.

SUidy Titte:

Ray Buss

FAB

Mark Roosa, Chair Soc Beh IRB

03/17/2008

Exemption Grante

03/17fi>008

08O3O027S7

Regular & Special i Regular & Special Education Teachers and Regu&r Education Students Perceptions on inclusion

at Verrado High School

The above-referenced protocol is considered exempt after review by the Institutional Review Board pursuant to Federal regulations, 45 CFR Part 46.101(b)(1).

This part of the federal regulations requires that the information be recorded by investigators in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects. It is necessary that the information obtained not be such that if disclosed outside the research, it could reasonably place the subjects at risk of crimirtai or civil liability, or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employabtlity, or reputation.

You should retain a copy of this tetter for your records.