trumbull county educational service center l eading for educational excellence

TRUMBULL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER

LEADING FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE

Effective Co-teaching

Dale Lennon

Director of Pupil Services

Trumbull County Educational Service Center

August 12, 2010

Outline Overview of inclusion Summary of research Planning Scheduling Co-teaching in action Evaluating your experience Planning

Inclusion

Inclusive education is a special education service delivery model where students with disabilities are supported in chronologically age-appropriate general education classes in their home schools and receive the specialized instruction required by their IEPs within the context of the core curriculum and general class activities.

Halvorsen & Neary, 2001

Three Major Models

Consultant model Coaching model Collaborative (or co-teaching) model

Friend & Cook, 2003

Co-teaching

Co-teaching is a service delivery mechanism Co-teaching is a means for providing the

specially designed instruction to which students with disabilities are entitled while ensuring access to general curriculum in the least restrictive environment with the provision of supplementary aids and services

Friend, 2007

Co-teaching: Research

Administrators, teachers and students perceive the co-teaching model to be generally beneficial

Scruggs, Mastropieri & McDuffie, 2007


Teachers have identified a number of conditions needed for co-teaching to be effective Sufficient planning time Compatibility of co-teachers Training Appropriate student skill level



The predominant co-teaching model is “one teach, one assist” Special education teachers often play a subordinate

role Teachers typically employ whole class, teacher-led

instruction with little individualization



Classroom instruction has not changed substantially in response to co-teaching Practices known to be effective were rarely

observed The co-teaching model is employed far less

effectively than possible


Collaboration

“Interpersonal collaboration is a style of direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal"

Friend & Cook, 2003

Benefits of Collaboration

Shared responsibility for educatingall students

Shared understanding and use of common assessment data

Supporting ownership for programming and interventions

Creating common understanding Data-driven problem solving

Friend & Cook, 2003

Obstacles to Collaboration

General educators begin with the curriculum first and use assessment to determine what was learned

Special educators begin with assessment first and design instruction to repair gaps in learning

Steele, Bell, & George, 2005

Special educators have developed a tendency to “own” students on individualized education plans (IEPs), which decreases the “voice” and participation of classroom teachers in collaborative problem solving


Obstacles to Collaboration

Promoting Collaboration

Teachers are more receptive to change when they have background knowledge and a chance to participate in the decisions rather than being given a special education mandate to follow


Most Common Approaches

One Teaching, One Drifting Parallel Teaching Station Teaching Alternative Teaching Team Teaching

Friend & Cook, 2003

One Teaching, One Drifting

One teacher plans and instructs, and one teacher provides adaptations and other support as needed

Requires very little joint planning Should be used sparingly

Can result in one teacher, most often the general educator, taking the lead role the majority of the time

Can also be distracting to students, especially those who may become dependent on the drifting teacher

Friend & Cook, 2003

Station Teaching Teachers divide the responsibility of planning and

instruction Students rotate on a predetermined schedule through

stations Teachers repeat instruction to each group that comes

through; delivery may vary according to student needs Approach can be used even if teachers have very different

pedagogical approaches Each teacher instructs every student

Friend & Cook, 2003

Alternative Teaching

Teachers divide responsibilities for planning and instruction

The majority of students remain in a large group setting, but some students work in a small group for preteaching, enrichment, reteaching, or other individualized instruction

Approach allows for highly individualized instruction to be offered

Teachers should be careful that the same students are not always pulled aside

Friend & Cook, 2003

Team Teaching

Teachers share responsibilities for planning and instruction

Teachers work as a team to introduce new content, work on developing skills, clarify information, and facilitate learning and classroom management

This requires the most mutual trust and respect between teachers and requires that they be able to mesh their teaching styles

Friend & Cook, 2003

Considerations

Teachers need to volunteer and agree toco-teach

Co-teaching should be implemented gradually Attention needs to be given to IEP setting changes

that an inclusive classroom may invoke Goals and support services need to reflect

the new learning experiences that students will receive in general education classes

Murawski & Dieker, 2004

Effective Co-planning

Pre-planning

Co-teaching requires thoughtful planning time Administrative support is essential Here is where the alignment of special and general

education occurs Make this time as focused as possible Take turns taking the lead in planning and

facilitating

Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Dieker, 2002

Provide Weekly Scheduling Co-planning Time Co-teaching teams should have a minimum of one

scheduling/planning period (45–60 minutes) per week

Experienced teams should spend10 minutes to plan each lesson

Dieker, 2001; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Effective Classroom-level Planning Co-teachers should show a shared commitment

and enthusiasm Both teachers’ names should be posted on the

door and in the classroom All meetings and correspondence with families

should reflect participation from both co-teachers Skilled planners trust the professional skills of

their partners

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Effective Classroom-level Planning (Cont.) Effective planners design learning environments for their

students and for themselves that demand active involvement

Effective co-planners create learning and teaching environments in which each person’s contributions are valued

Effective planners develop effective routines to facilitate their planning

Planning skills improve over timeWalther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996

Two Stages of ClassroomCo-planning Getting to know each other Weekly co-planning


Getting to Know Each Other

Ease into working with one another Deal with the “little” things first These typically become the

deal-breakers down the road, and preventing these road blocks earlycan make life easier


Getting to Know Each Other (Cont.) Important to spend time talking and getting better

acquainted with eachother’s skills, interests, and educational philosophies

Having a semi-structured preliminary discussion can facilitate this process

Discuss current classroom routinesand rules


Getting to Know Each Other (Cont.) Consider completing a teaching style inventory

Compare how each of you prefers to structure assignments, lessons,classroom schedule, etc

Example:http://www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html

Weekly Co-planning

Effective weekly co-planning is based onregularly scheduled meetings, rather than “fittingit in”

Important to stay focused Review content in advance of meeting


Weekly Co-planning (Cont.)

Guide the session with the following fundamental issues: What are the content goals? Who are the learners? How can we teach most effectively?


Scheduling Co-teaching

Collaborative Scheduling

Collaborative Scheduling A Collaborative Scheduling B Collaborative Scheduling C

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling A

Special educator divides teaching time between two different classes in the same day

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling A Enables students with disabilities to access a

broader range of general education classrooms, including AP and honors

Ensures the availability of direct support from a special educator for critical parts of the instructional programs

Improved ratio of students with disabilities to students without disabilities

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling A Requires effective consulting skills on the part of

the special educator Larger danger that the special educator will not be

seen as an equal partner to the general educator Could possibly disrupt the class routine

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling B

The special educator divides time between two different classes

The involvement of the special educator varies by days of the week, not within classes in the same day

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling B Advantages are similar to Collaborative

Scheduling A Co-teachers report an ability to implement a full

range of co-teaching models because of the planned involvement of both teachers in complete classes on certain days of the week

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B Challenges are similar to Collaborative

Scheduling A Teachers need to be cognizant of the presence of

two teachers on only certain days of the week Students with specific support and

accommodation requirements have to be well aligned to the schedule

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling B (Cont.) Requires general educator to be able to implement

IEP requirements in the absence of the special educator

Special educator burnout is an issue because of the greater demand of knowledge of the general education curriculum

Requires supervisory judgment regarding which teachers can effectively plan and implement this model

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Collaborative Scheduling C

The special educator serves as a resource to the interdisciplinary team

His/her schedule is established weekly on the basis of instructional activities

Requires the greatest amount of flexibility and planning by an interdisciplinary team of teachers

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Advantages of Collaborative Scheduling C Special educator is present when needed most for

instructional support Instructional need dictates the cooperative

teaching role, not the calendar or time of day Most responsive to students’ needs and schedules

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Challenges of Collaborative Scheduling C Requires the highest degree of planning and buy-

in by a team of teachers

Walsh & Jones, 2004

Co-teaching in Action

Instruction

Most difficult but also the most rewarding There are things that can be done to maximize

success and rewards: Review the different approaches to co-teaching and

think about how each might look in a classroom Discuss each other’s learning style preferences to see

how these can be incorporated into the lesson to assist students with varying styles


Instructional Tips

Develop unobtrusive signals to communicate with each other

Create signals for students that are consistent and can be used by either teacher

Vary instructional practices Clearly display an agenda for the class, which

includes the standard(s) to be covered and any additional goals


Instructional Tips

Avoid disagreeing with or undermining each other in front of the students

Strive to demonstrate parity in instruction whenever possible by switching roles often

Avoid stigmatization of any one group of students


Three Stages of Co-teaching Relationships Beginning Stage Compromising Stage Collaborative Stage

Gately, 2005

Three Stages of Co-teaching As They Apply To: Physical Arrangement Familiarity With the Curriculum Curriculum Goals and Modifications Instructional Presentation Classroom Management Assessment

Gately & Gately, 2001

Physical Arrangement

Physical Arrangement: Beginning Stage Impression of separateness

Students with disabilities vs. general education students Little ownership of materials or space by special

educator Delegated spaces which are rarely abandoned


Physical Arrangement:Beginning Stage (Cont.) Invisible walls A classroom within a

classroom


Physical Arrangement:Compromising Stage More movement and shared space Sharing of materials Territoriality becomes less evident Special educator moves more freely around the

classroom but rarely takes center stage


Physical Arrangement:Collaboration Stage Seating arrangements are intentionally

interspersed All students participate in cooperative grouping

assignments Teachers are more fluid in an unplanned and

natural way


Physical Arrangement:Collaboration Stage (Cont.) Both teachers control space: Like an

effective doubles team in tennis, the classroom is always “covered”

Space is truly jointly owned


Familiarity With the Curriculum

Familiarity With the Curriculum: Beginning Stage Special educator may be unfamiliar with content

or methodology used by the general educator General educator may have limited understanding

of modifying the curriculum and making appropriate accommodations

Unfamiliarity creates a lack of confidence in both teachers


Familiarity With the Curriculum: CompromisingCollaborative Stages

Special educator acquires a knowledge of the scope and sequence and develops a solid understanding of the content of the curriculum

Special educator gains confidence to make suggestions for modifications and accommodations


Familiarity With the Curriculum: CompromisingCollaborative Stages (Cont.)

General educator becomes more willing to modify the curriculum, and there is increased sharing in planning and teaching

Both teachers appreciate the specific curriculum competencies that they bring to the content area


Curriculum Goals and Modifications

Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Beginning Stage Programs are driven by textbooks and standards,

and goals tend to be “test-driven” Modifications and accommodations are generally

restricted to those identified in the IEP; little interaction regarding modifications to the curriculum

Special educator’s role is seen as “helper”


Curriculum Goals and Modifications: Compromising Stage

General educator may view modifications as “giving up” or “watering down” the curriculum


Curriculum Goals andModifications: Collaborative Stage

Both teachers begin to differentiate concepts that all students must know from concepts that most students should know

Modifications of content, activities, homework assignments, and tests become the norm for students who require them


Instructional Presentation

Instructional Presentation:Beginning Stage Teachers often present separate lessons One teacher is “boss”; one is “helper”


Instructional Presentation:Compromising Stage Both teachers direct some of the activities in the

classroom Special educator offers mini-lessons or clarifies

strategies that students may use


Instructional Presentation:Collaborative Stage Both teachers participate in the presentation

of the lesson, provide instruction, and structure the learning activities

The “chalk” passes freely Students address questions and discuss

concerns with both teachers


Classroom Management

Classroom Management:Beginning Stage Special educator tends to assume the

role of “behavior manager”


Classroom Management:Compromising Stage More communication and mutual

development of rules Some discussion for individual behavior

management plans


Classroom Management:Collaborative Stage Both teachers are involved in developing a

classroom management system that benefits all students

Common to observe individual behavior plans, use of contracts, tangible rewards, and reinforcers

Development of community-building and relationship-building activities as a way to enhance classroom management


Assessment

Assessment

With the current emphasis on high-stakes tests, co-teaching provides an effective way to strengthen the instruction–assessment link: Discuss grading before it becomes an issue Consider a variety of assessment options Offer menus of assignments

Share the grading load and align grading styles


Assessment: Beginning Stage

Two separate grading systems are often maintained separately by the two teachers

One grading system may also be exclusively managed by the general educator

Measures tend to be objective in nature and based only on a student’s knowledge of the content


Assessment:Compromising Stage Two teachers begin to explore alternate

assessment ideas Teachers begin to discuss how to effectively

capture students’ progress, not just their knowledge of the content


Assessment:Collaborative Stage Both teachers appreciate the need for a variety of

options when assessing students’ progress


Evaluation

Researchers have been reluctant to measure outcomes of co-teaching. This provides a good opportunity for teachers to engage in their own action research. They should begin to collect data on their own to document outcomes

Teachers and administrators should evaluate co-teaching situations at least once per year

The rule that assessment informs instruction should also apply to co-teaching: As co-teachers continue to assess their situation, they must ensure that they are improving their instruction to best meet students’ needs in an inclusive classroom

Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Friend & Cook, 2003

Evaluating Your Experience

Planning and implementation Effectiveness Strengths and gaps

Essential Ingredients for Successful Collaboration: From

the Eyes of the Practitioner to the Ears of the Administrator

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning Share long- and short-term implementation

strategies Share the research base that supports co-teaching Share anticipated need for resources

Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont.) Develop an “information sharing community” or

“community of practice” Determine the most effective methods of

communication between teams and administrators Emphasize the importance of pre-observation

conferences Incorporate the co-teaching initiative into the

team’s annual professional growth plan

Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont.) Set specific times for observation Encourage students to talk with the administrator

about the benefits from learning in collaborative classrooms

Involve parents Encourage advice and feedback on your

performance from the administrators, accept it graciously, and use it

Rea, 2005

Involve the Administrator From the Beginning (Cont.) Inform administrators of any problems or

controversies related to co-teaching efforts Teachers Support staff Parents Students

Rea, 2005

Not an All-or-nothing Approach

Teachers do not have to commit to only one approach of co-teaching

Teachers do not have to only co-teach Co-teaching is not the only option for serving

students Some students with disabilities may be in a co-

taught classroom for only part of the day

Murawski, 2005

Planning for 2010-11

Access Center

http://www.K8accesscenter.org

References Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school co-

taught teams? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14–25. Dieker, L. (2002). Co-planner (semester). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design. Friend, M., & Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals

(4th ed.). Boston: 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, 33(4), 40–47. Halvorsen, A. T. & Neary, T. (2001). Building Inclusive Schools: Tools and Strategies for

Success. Allyn & Bacon. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J. E., Nordland, 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.

Murawski, W. W. (2005). Addressing diverse needs through co-teaching: Take baby steps! Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2), 77–82.

References (cont.) Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the

secondary level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52–58. Rea, P. J. (2005). Engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative. Intervention

in School and Clinic, 40(5), 312–316. Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A. and McDuffie, K.A. (2007). Co-Teaching in Inclusive

Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. Exceptional Children, 73-4, 392-416.

Steele, N., Bell, D., & George, N. (2005, April). Risky business: The art and science of true collaboration. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children’s Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD.

Walsh, J. M., & Jones, B. (2004). New models of cooperative teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 14–20.

Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255–265.

Trumbull County Educational

Service CenterLEADING FOR EDUCATIONAL

EXCELLENCE

trumbull county educational service center l eading for educational excellence

Documents

coteaching coteaching

coteaching practices

predominant coteaching

coteaching model friend

educational excellence

experience planning

research teachers

mastropieri mcduffie