Teachers’ Beliefs About Co-Teaching

VANCE L. AUSTIN

ABSTRACT

Theproliferation of inclusion in public schools has aye, 1997; Zigmond & Baker, 1995) have examined the
prompted the development of several models of collaborative attitudes of general and special educators with respect to
instruction. In response to that trend, this study provides some rele-
vant information about the current state of practice from the per- adaptations and interventions used in teaching students in
spective of essential stakeholders: the collaborating teachers. This heterogeneous classrooms, very few have investigated these
investigation focused primarily on important factors affecting col- teachers’ perceptions of collaboration and the concurrent
laborative teaching, including effective strategies that were both effects of collaboration on student learning. Because effective
valued and used, important teacher preparations, and valued
school-based supports. Information relative to these issues was
teaching is a vital component of the educational process for
both students without and, particularly, with disabilities, it is
gathered by using the Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey, an
instrument developed by the author. A number of survey respon- incumbent upon collaborative teachers to provide quality in-
dents were selected randomly to participate in a semistructured struction for all students in their classrooms. To ensure that
interview. Of the 139 participants who returned the completed sur- this goal is achieved, these teams of teachers must be opti-
vey, 92 represented intact collaborative teaching partners. From mally prepared for collaboration. The essential elements
this respondent pool, 12 co-teachers were interviewed. Based on
needed to equip collaborative teachers to accomplish this
the most significant findings of the study, two conclusions were
posited. First, general education co-teachers were perceived as imposing task may be best determined by asking the teachers
doing more than their special education partners in the inclusive themselves. This study, an examination of the perceptions of
classroom. Second, co-teachers who had access to the collabo- collaborative teachers, provided valuable information in this
rative practices, preparations, and supports listed in the survey endeavor.
considered them less valuable in practice than in theory.
Current trends in public education, despite the reser-
vations presented in position papers by advocacy groups such
as the LDA (1993), the Council for Learning Disabilities

(CLD; 1993), and the National Joint Committee on Learning

Disabilities (NJCLD; 1993) are moving in the direction of

LEHE POPULARITY OF THE INCLUSION MODEL IN

schools has been growing since the early 1990s. Inclusion, as
greater inclusion for students with disabilities (Lipsky &
Gartner, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Current
research points to three models of inclusive teaching: (a) the
it is currently defined, refers to the instruction of all students, consultant model, in which the special educator serves as a
with and without disabilities, in the general education class- consultant to the general educator in areas pertaining to cur-
room, unless substantial evidence is provided to show that riculum adaptation, skills deficit remediation, and assessment
such a placement would not be in the student’s best interests modification; (b) the coaching model, in which the special
(Learning Disabilities Association [LDA], 1993; U.S. De- and general educators take turns coaching each other in areas
partment of Education, 1999). In conjunction with this trend, of the curriculum and pedagogy in which they are the
there has been an increase in the use of collaborative teaching acknowledged &dquo;experts&dquo;; and (c) the teaming or collaborative
as a model of instruction. Although researchers (e.g., Lack- model, in which the special and general educator share equi-

245
tably the tasks of lesson
planning, implementation, and as- What does this say about the model of col-
sessment (Fishbaugh, 1997; Pugach & Seidl, 1995). The laboration used and the need for curricular
latter model, according to some researchers (e.g., Friend & changes in teacher preparation programs?
Cook, 1994; Pugach & Seidl, 1995), is the most efficient in
valuing the contribution of both collaborative teachers
through equitable tasking and responsibility, and although METHOD
some models of inclusion utilize the special education
teacher as a consultant (Katsiyannis, Conderman, & Franks,
1995; Wiggle & Wilcox, 1996), a growing body of literature Participants
recommends the teaming or collaborative model (e.g., Bou- One hundred thirty-nine collaborative teachers from nine
dah, Schumacher, & Deschler, 1997; Dynak, Whitten, & Dy- school districts in northern New Jersey who taught in kinder-
nak, 1997; King-Sears, 1995; Miller & Savage, 1995; Minke, garten through 12th grade participated in this study. The
Bear, Deemer, & Griffen, 1996; Pugach & Seidl, 1995; Villa, researcher had previously identified these districts as districts
Thousand, & Chapple, 1996; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & in which an inclusion model was established and the teachers
Land, 1996). had been collaborating for at least a semester. The names of
Because a collaborative model is both recommended potential participants in each of the districts were obtained
and used in inclusive classrooms, one might infer that the through contact with the superintendents or directors of spe-
interaction of co-teachers has been examined extensively and cial services or pupil personnel. The researcher personally
that the criteria for an ideal model have been defined. How- invited these potential participants to complete the survey as
ever, this assumption is unsupported (Lackaye, 1997), and a means of informing stakeholders about the current state of

only a few studies have evaluated current practice (e.g., Fen- inclusion collaborative teaching within their respective dis-
nick, 1995; Minke et al., 1996). tricts and northern New Jersey at large. Because the popula-
Since 1975 public schools have moved from a position tion of collaborating teachers was small, the entire accessible
recognizing that students with disabilities are entitled to a free sample was used.
and appropriate education with adequate support services to Teachers who participated were employed in public ele-
one in which the placement of such students supercedes the mentary, middle, and high schools within the nine districts
concerns about the quality and type of service provided. and were certified in New Jersey in elementary education
Inclusion continues to gain momentum in schools and gamer (K-8), secondary education (9-12), or special education
popular support from important constituents. Given the (K-12). The districts were located within one county in
importance of the perceptions of the teachers themselves in northern New Jersey and were considered middle income, as
the assessment of collaborative teaching and its effect on the determined by the Annual Report Card issued by the New
inclusion process, an examination of the dynamic relation- Jersey Department of Education (&dquo;Comparing the Districts,&dquo;
ship between these key constituents and their evaluation of 1999). In addition, the school districts reported similar enroll-
the efficacy of co-teaching was both timely and needed. ments, ranging from 6,400 to 7,800; average class sizes rang-
Accordingly, this study was designed to provide infor- ing from 27 to 31; student-to-faculty ratios ranging from 12.0
mation relative to the following questions: to 13.7; and amounts spent per pupil ranging from $9,767 to
$10,122 (&dquo;Comparing the Districts,&dquo; 1999). Further investi-
~
How do co-teachers perceive their current gation of the participant special education teachers revealed
experience in the classroom? that of the 46 special educators in the final paired sample, 40
~
What teaching practices do collaborative specialized in high-incidence disabilities, specifically learn-
educators find effective? ing disabilities, whereas of the remaining 6, 4 indicated that
they concentrated on working with students with emotional/
~
What kind of the teacher preparation do behavioral disorders and 2 reported expertise in working with
co-teachers recommend? students with severe and multiple disabilities. Finally, each of
~
According to collaborative practitioners, the nine districts included in the study employed a minimum
what school-based supports facilitate of six collaborative teaching pairs, as determined by school
collaborative teaching? data provided by the office of special services or the office of
the superintendent of schools.
~ Are students in inclusive classrooms being
An examination of teacher traits derived from the demo-
adequately prepared both academically and graphic data solicited in the survey provided the following
socially, and do they like learning in such an representative data. First, a majority of the special education
environment? How is this determined?
teachers (73.8%) as well as general education teachers
~
Who does more in the collaborative partnership- (70.2%) surveyed taught at the secondary level (including in
the special educator or the general educator? middle schools). Second, the subjects taught by the majority

246
of special education teachers were the sciences (49.2%) fol- As a confirmatory step in the refinement process, a draft
lowed by social studies (46%); for general education teach- of the survey was submitted to nine experts for review. These
ers, social studies (32.0%) was the most commonly taught expert consultants were selected based on their experience
subject, followed by the sciences (25.3%) and English/ with survey research (e.g., survey construction). Each con-
language arts (22.7%). Third, an analysis of the level of edu- sultant was asked to review the survey for validity, clarity,
cation achieved by both special and general education teach- and relevance and was requested to recommend improve-
ers responding to the survey indicated that whereas 41.3% of ments. Finally, a pilot study was conducted in Fall 1998,
the special education teachers held a bachelor’s degree as using a modified version of the survey. The results of the pilot
compared to 34.2% of general education teachers, a greater were examined and used to further modify and improve the

percentage of general education teachers (65.8%) held a mas- validity, clarity, and relevance of the survey instrument.
ter’s degree or higher as compared to special education teach- A qualitative instrument, the Semi-Structured Interview:
ers (58.2%). Fourth, the survey results indicated that the Perceptions of Co-Teaching script (see Note), was developed,
mean years of teaching experience for the special educator using the Interview Format with Probing Questions model
participants was 15.5, compared to 18.7 for the general edu- provided by Cox (1996) and incorporating relevant criteria
cation participants, representing a level of significance of suggested by Bannister, Burman, Parker, Taylor, and Tindall
p .017 between the groups. Furthermore, the demographic
=
(1994); Downs, Smeyak, and Martin (1980); Shipley and
data revealed that 85.7% of the special education co-teacher McNulty Wood (1996); and Seidman (1998). A major feature
participants and 73.7% of the general education co-teacher of this design was that the interview questions were written in
participants were women. Finally, the survey results revealed sets, and each set was developed to examine a particular issue
that only 28.0% of general education co-teacher participants of relevance to the collaborative teaching experience. The
as well as 26.7% of special education co-teacher participants first question in each set was typically one that could be an-
volunteered for their inclusive classroom teaching assign- swered &dquo;yes&dquo; or &dquo;no&dquo; (Cox, 1996). Subsequent subsets of
ments, suggesting that the majority of these co-teacher par- probing questions related to each set were designed to elicit
ticipants were conscripted for the assignment. deeper explanation, relative to the participant’s response to
the initial question. The researcher posed the same questions
to each participant in the same way, in order to ensure con-
Instruments
sistency and, therefore, a more reliable response analysis.
All participants were assessed by using a single survey Use of this format enabled the quantification of responses and
instrument, The Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey (PCTS; therefore simplified the summary of the data.
see Note). The survey consisted of two major components:

Part I sought demographic information; Part II solicited in-

formation according to four specific categories relevant to
Data Collection Procedures
teacher perceptions of collaboration. The researcher personally distributed the survey and a cover
The researcher developed the survey in consultation letter to each participant. The cover letter explained the pur-
with Fennick (1995). In addition, the following sources were pose of the survey, described the researcher’s expectations of
examined in selecting the most appropriate survey items: the participant teachers, and informed participants of their
Collaborative Team Performance Survey and Part II: Collab- right to decline or withdraw from participation at any time.
orative Team Assessment Inventory (Hebert, 1998); &dquo;Percep- The investigator reiterated the purpose of the study, ensured
tions of Co-Teachers&dquo; (Bixler, 1998); Survey of Barriers to that each participant understood the directions for item re-
Collaboration, Analysis of General and Special Education sponses, and answered participants’ questions. Finally, the
Roles (Lackaye, 1997); &dquo;Attitudes and Attributes of General participants completed the survey during a free period on the
Education Teachers Identified as Effective Inclusionists&dquo; (Ol- same day that the questionnaires were distributed; the re-

son, Chalmers, & Hoover, 1997); &dquo;Essential Elements for searcher returned the following day to collect the completed
Successful Collaboration&dquo; (Gaut, 1994); and &dquo;Development surveys from the individual teachers.
of a Scale to Measure Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education&dquo; Next, an equal number of general education and special
(Wilczenski, 1995). Further, the survey design was developed education co-teachers were chosen randomly from the survey
within the parameters recommended by Fowler (1988, 1995), respondents who indicated willingness to participate in a
Alreck and Settle (1995), and Dillman (1978). Each item cat- follow-up interview. Each co-teacher thus identified was con-
egory in Part II of the survey was developed to provide use- tacted by telephone and was scheduled for an interview. In
ful information specific to one of four categories: Co-Teacher addition, the researcher asked each participant for permission
Perceptions of Current Experience, Recommended Collabo- to audiotape the interview. These audiotapes were subse-
rative Practices, Teacher Preparation for Collaborative Teach- quently transcribed to facilitate the accurate interpretation of
ing, or School-Based Supports That Facilitate Collaborative responses. Most interview sessions lasted approximately
Teaching. 20 minutes. Finally, all interviews were conducted at the ear-

247
liest opportunity in vacant classrooms within the interview- English/language arts, and math classes at the secondary
ees’ schools. level. This finding was based on the accessible study sample,
which although not anticipated based on national research
trends, seemed to indicate either that there was a low re-
Data Analysis Procedures
sponse rate from co-teachers at the elementary level
thator

TheSurvey. The data were analyzed using the statis- inclusive education is more developed at the secondary level
ticalpackage SPSS 9.0 for Windows (SPSS, 1999), with the than the elementary level in the districts surveyed. In addi-
significance level for statistical tests set at .05. The scaled re- tion, there was a significant correlation for the total years
sponse for each survey item was assigned a number from 1 to teaching between paired special education and general edu-
5 to ensure equal distribution across the scale, with an un- cation co-teachers. Also, of the co-teachers surveyed, special
qualified response assigned a 0, which did not affect scoring. education co-teachers taught more classes and subjects
Analyses were conducted to determine the frequency of collaboratively than did their general education partners
responses of collaborative general education teachers and col- (p = .001). Finally, only 37 of the 135 co-teachers respond-
laborative special education teachers across specific demo- ing indicated that they had volunteered for the co-teaching
graphic categories (e.g., novice teachers vs. veteran teachers, assignment.
male teachers female teachers, volunteers vs. nonvolun-
vs.

teers). Demographic categories that produced such nominal

data were examined by means of cross-tabulations. T tests of Survey: Part 11
paired samples were conducted on demographic categories Part II of the survey solicited the perceptions of co-teacher
that produced ordered or interval data.
participants relative to current experience, recommended col-
Cross-tabulations were conducted on the data from each laborative practices, teacher preparation, and school-based
survey item in Part II to determine the frequency of responses supports that facilitate co-teaching. To permit the comparison
of the special education co-teachers and the general educa- of theperceptions of general education teachers with those of
tion co-teachers. Comparisons of responses of special edu-
special education teachers, only data from respondents with
cation co-teachers and general education co-teachers for each an identified co-teaching partner were used, resulting in an
survey item and between the &dquo;value&dquo; and &dquo;employ&dquo; cate- N of 92. Analysis of each item involved the use of cross-
gories were accomplished by using a Wilcoxon’s matched- tabulation to record the frequencies of responses of both the
pairs signed-ranks test, which accounted for the pairing of general and special education co-teachers, as well as the Wil-
each co-teacher team. This test was selected primarily be- coxon’s matched-pairs signed-ranks test as the most ap-
cause of its singular design, which enables the researcher to
propriate nonparametric test to compare the responses of
analyze and compare data both between paired sources (i.e., matched participants (a teamed special education and general
special vs. general education co-teachers) and their respec- education co-teacher).
tive responses under two categories (e.g., &dquo;value&dquo; vs. &dquo;partic-
ipate&dquo;). Co-Teacher Perceptions of Current Experience Cat-
The Interview Protocol. The semistructured interview egory. In this category of items, a significant percentage
(p .001) of both general and special educators indicated
=

protocol was designed to provide a focused and categorical that they believed the general education co-teacher did the
response to both the set and probing questions (Cox, 1996). most in the inclusive classroom. In addition, there was a con-
The analysis of the responses was facilitated by the use of pre-
sensus among special education and general education co-
coded categories (Tuckman, 1998). Tuckman recommended
teachers that, generally, they worked well together, solicited
that at least 20% of the responses be recorded verbatim
each other’s feedback, and benefited from working together.
(audiotaped) and then coded by at least two judges or raters Further, both groups generally agreed that co-teaching was a
if more than one interviewer was used, in order to provide a
worthwhile experience that contributed to the improvement
sample of responses with which to determine intercoder reli- of their teaching. In view of its level of significance, the
ability. Because the researcher was the sole interviewer and results of the Wilcoxon’s matched-pairs signed-ranks test
the respondent sample consisted of 12 interviewees, inter-
conducted on the data from Survey Item 3 (&dquo;I do more than
coder reliability did not represent a threat to instrumentation
my partner)&dquo; are displayed in Table 1.
validity. Finally, the interview responses were analyzed and
coded to facilitate the identification of trends, which en-
hanced the interpretation of the data. Recommended Collaborative Practices Survey Cate-
gory. The significant findings for item responses within this
category included the fact that a majority of special and gen-
RESULTS eral educators agreed that, in theory, they should meet daily
to plan lessons, but those who actually met daily disagreed
A review of the demographic data revealed that most of the about the effectiveness of such a practice. Similarly, a major-
co-teachers surveyed co-taught in social studies, the sciences, ity of special and general educators indicated that whereas

248
 TABLE 1. Wilcoxon’s Test Results for &dquo;Perceptions of Current Experience&dquo; Item 3°

Note. n value for negative ranks

= number of pairs of co-teachers in which fewer sp)ecial education co-teachers disagreed with item statement. n value for positive
ranks number of pairs of co-teachers in which more special education co-teachers; agreed with item statement. n value for &dquo;ties&dquo; number of co-teachers in which
= =

both partners agreed or disagreed with item statement.

a&dquo;I do more than my partner.&dquo; bspecial education/general education teacher respons es. IZ test results based on negative ranks. dTotal number of paired co-teachers
responding to item.
*p < .05.

they valued shared classroom management and instructional

duties, they did not in share these responsibilities.
practice TABLE 2. Frequency Data for Co-Teachers’
Furthermore, a higher percentage of special and general edu- Responses to Survey Item 11 z
cators agreed that co-teachers should establish and maintain
specific areas of responsibility than disagreed; however,
when asked whether they actually used this practice, a major-
ity of these co-teachers said that they did not.
Subsequent review of the responses of special educators
differentiated by area of specialization (e.g., specific learning
disabilities, emotional/behavioral disorders, severe and mul-
tiple disabilities) revealed no significant differences. Thus,
the author was able to compare special education co-teacher
and general education co-teacher responses as discrete and
representative, without concern for the effects of differences
between types of special educators.

Teacher Preparation for Collaborative Teaching

Note. N = 92.
Category. Within this category, one of the most important &dquo;’Student Teaching Placement in a Collaborative Class-Value.&dquo;
findings was that a significantly large percentage of special
education co-teachers (91.3%) considered the placement of
student teachers in a collaborative teaching assignment to be
either useful or very useful, and a smaller percentage (70.5%)
of general education co-teachers considered it useful. This TABLE 3. Frequency Data for Co-Teachers’
difference was determined to be statistically significant Responses to Survey Item 15°
(p .024) by a Wilcoxon’s matched-pairs signed-ranks test
=

(see Table 2). Another statistically significant difference

(p = .035) was identified for Survey Item 15, &dquo;Preservice
courses in collaborative teaching-Value.&dquo; A greater percent-

age of special education co-teachers (46.7%) than general

education co-teachers (29.5%) considered this preparation
very useful (see Table 3). In addition, a larger percentage of
special education co-teachers (65.2%) than general education
co-teachers (37.8%) said that they believed that preservice
special education courses for general education teachers were
ideally useful in preparing them to work in an inclusive envi-
ronment. Of further significance was the disparity between
co-teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of a particular
teacher preparation in theory versus their appreciation of it Note. N = 92.
in practice. a&dquo;Preservice Courses in Collaborative Teaching-Value.&dquo;

249
 School-Based
Supports That Facilitate Collaborative The Semistructured Interview: Perceptions
Teaching Category. A significant finding within this cat- of Co-Teaching
egory was the difference between the percentage of co-
teachers who considered the provision of mutual planning Data from the semistructured interviews revealed that most of
time to be ideally important to effective collaborative teach- the co-teachers found the experience to be positive. A major-
ing and those whose actual experience of the provision of ity of co-teachers identified cooperative learning and the use
mutual planning was less than ideal, causing them to rate of small groups as the two instructional techniques they
mutual planning time as being of little importance to effective found most effective. Further, these co-teachers indicated that
co-teaching. Similar results were found for each of the items they generally considered co-teaching to have contributed
within this category. In addition, a comparison of co- positively to their professional development: Special educa-
teachers’ responses to the survey items according to the value tion co-teachers cited an increase in content knowledge, and
they attributed to them and the access they had to them are general education co-teachers noted the benefits to their skill
displayed in Figures 1 and 2. in classroom management and curriculum adaptation. In ad-

FIGURE 1. Comparison of percentages of very important and important responses of special education co-teachers in value versus access

categories.

250
dition, most co-teachers stated that they were satisfied with perception. The preeminent reservation was that the inclusion
their present co-teaching assignment but not with the level of of some students might be expressly for socialization, despite
support received from the school, noting that they needed the evident disparity in academic achievement of these stu-
more planning time. dents compared with their general education peers. Further,
Most co-teachers interviewed expressed the belief that some of the interviewees expressed concern for the poten-
the collaborative teaching strategies they were using were tially disruptive effects of some students with disabilities on
effective in educating all their students, citing a reduced the academic performance of classmates without disabilities.
student-teacher ratio as the principal benefit. Further support In a positive vein, co-teachers reported that they believed
for this belief, as expressed by the co-teachers interviewed, their students were receptive to co-teaching, citing a high
included a reduced student-teacher ratio, the benefit of degree of student participation, an increased tolerance level
another teacher’s expertise and viewpoint, the value of reme- for differences, and evidence of cooperation with teachers
dial strategies and review for all students, and the opportunity and each other. In addition, co-teachers indicated that the
for the students without disabilities to gain some understand- most common type of disability represented by students
ing of the learning difficulties experienced by many students receiving special education services in their classrooms was a
with disabilities. Similarly, the teachers stated that they specific learning disability, with the degree of involvement of
believed inclusive education was socially beneficial for stu- the disability in the mild to moderate range.
dents with and without disabilities because it promoted a tol- Finally, more special education than general education
erance for differences and a general sense of acceptance, and co-teachers said that they were primarily responsible for the
it provided general education peer models for students with modification of lessons and remediation of learning difficul-
disabilities. However, there were several exceptions to this ties, whereas more general education than special education

FIGURE 2. Comparison of percentages of very important and important responses of general education co-teachers in value versus access

categories.

251
co-teachers reported that they were principally responsible special education partners in the inclusive classroom. This
for lesson planning and instruction. Nevertheless, the major- may be due to the fact that the special education co-teacher is
ity of co-teachers interviewed indicated that they shared most typically the visitor in the classroom and is often viewed as
of their teaching responsibilities (see Table 4). the expert on curriculum adaptation and remediation,
whereas the general education co-teacher is often regarded as
being more expert in the content area.
DISCUSSION Further, in each of the three categories &dquo;Recommended
Collaborative Practices,&dquo; &dquo;Teacher Preparation for Collabora-
In examining the findings of this study, certain inferences can tive Teaching,&dquo; and &dquo;School-Based Supports That Facilitate
be drawn and possible explanations can be discussed based Collaborative Teaching,&dquo; the results showed a significant dif-
on the significant outcomes. These are addressed here, in the ference between the number of co-teacher responses in the
order in which they were identified within the study. Value column as compared to those in the Employ column.
First, the demographic data revealed that the majority of An examination of the distribution of responses across the
the co-teachers taught social studies, the sciences, English/ Likert-type scale suggests that some of these co-teachers may
language arts, and mathematics. Bixler (1998) posited that not have access to many of the recommended practices,
one explanation for such an outcome might be that subjects preparations, and school-based supports. However, because
such as English and language arts may be more conducive the percentage of don’t know responses was small, a more
than others to verbal instruction and student participation; co- plausible explanation for this disparity might be that whereas
teachers of English and language arts may find the subjects many of the co-teachers surveyed have access to or employ
more rewarding and thus more attractive due to the greater these recommended practices and supports, the ones they are
opportunity for interaction with students. In addition, En- employing are not as effective as anticipated.
glish may be a more comfortable and familiar subject to This interpretation has particular relevance for the im-
instruct for both the special education and general education provement of collaborative practice, and in response, this re-
co-teachers. searcher suggests the following. First, school administrators
Also important to the study was the discovery that a should develop and promote a model of collaborative teach-
majority of the co-teachers surveyed and interviewed had not ing that is supported by quality research and practice, such as
volunteered for the experience and yet a major percentage the cooperative model (e.g., Friend & Cook, 1994) or the
indicated that they considered co-teaching worthwhile. Fur- teaming model (e.g., Fishbaugh, 1997). Second, schools and
ther study of the importance of volunteering for a collabo- school districts might seek out effective inservice training
rative teaching assignment would help to explain these programs or work at developing them in collaboration with
findings. state education agencies and local colleges and universities.
Perhaps the most compelling outcome of this study is Third, state education departments should carefully review
that the special education and general education co-teachers the curricula of the teacher preparation programs within their
agreed that general education co-teachers do more than their purview to ensure that they are effective. Finally, schools

TABLE 4. Areas of Co-Teacher Responsibilities in the Inclusive Classroom

Note. N = 12. Dashes indicate that no data were reported in that cell.

252
should strive to be responsive to the express needs of their co- disruptive effects of some students with disabilities on the
teachers with respect to logistical and administrative support. learning environment. These concerns warrant further study
Another conclusion based on the findings of the study is of the effects of inclusion on the social development of stu-
that the special education co-teachers might consider preser- dents both with and without disabilities in order to decrease
vice courses and training in collaborative teaching signifi- the sense of alienation and increase the social acceptance of
cantly more useful in facilitating collaborative teaching than students with disabilities in these classrooms.
do the general education co-teachers. This may be due to the Finally, the results of the interviews supported those of
special educators’ realization that they are more likely than prior studies in the area of the receptivity of students to co-
general educators to be assigned to an inclusive classroom teaching (e.g., Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Whinnery, King,
(e.g., Bixler, 1998; Hebert, 1998). The implication of this Evans, & Gable, 1995). The co-teachers reported being en-
finding is that teacher preparation programs need to promote couraged by student participation, acceptance of differences,
the importance of training in collaborative teaching and and cooperation with teachers and each other. This finding
inclusive education for all teachers. It would seem important, may mean that students are generally amenable to the collab-
for the sake of parity, that both the special education teacher orative teaching model and therefore are likely to benefit
and the general education teacher receive sufficient qual- from it. In response to this receptivity, teachers may be in-
ity training in collaborative teaching techniques to ensure spired to continue co-teaching, buoyed by the enthusiasm of
their competency if they are assigned to teach in an inclusive their students.
classroom. The following limitations of this study necessitate cau-
Furthermore, the majority of co-teachers interviewed in tion in the interpretation of the results and restrict the gener-
this study stated that they believed co-teaching contributed alizability of the findings. First, the final participant sample
positively to the academic development of all their students. (N =
92) was relatively small; however, every participant
This finding contrasted with those of Boudah et al. (1997); included in the study was a co-teacher with an identifiable
D’Alonzo, Giordano, and VanLeeuwen (1997); and Zigmond, partner who had also returned a completed survey. This addi-
Fulmer, Volonino, Woolery, and Bean (1993). The rationale tional refinement allowed the researcher to conduct matched-
provided by co-teachers in this study in support of this obser- pairs tests on the data, confident that the results would
vation included the following factors: the reduced student- represent only the responses of actual co-teaching partners.
teacher ratio, the benefit of another teacher’s expertise and A second limitation that may have influenced the find-
viewpoint, the value of remedial strategies and review for all ings involves the socioeconomic status and geographic loca-
students, and the opportunity for the students without disabil- tion of the population sample. The fact that all the co-teacher
ities to gain some understanding of the learning difficulties participants taught in school districts considered middle class
experienced by many students with disabilities. Although the and were located in suburban and urban settings in northern
co-teachers interviewed reported improved academic out- New Jersey limits the generalizability of the findings. Fur-
comes based on test scores and assignment grades, no arti- ther, the limitations inherent in all survey research represent
facts or grade books were made available to the interviewer a third factor that may have had a mitigating effect on the
for confirmation. findings: The researcher must assume that the survey partici-
Similarly, whereas the majority of co-teachers inter- pants are responding candidly to the survey items; there is no
viewed believed that inclusion contributed positively to the way to verify the accuracy of the reported data.
social development of their students, consistent with the find- A fourth factor that may have influenced the findings
ings of prior research (e.g., D’Alonzo et al., 1997; Klinger, was the participants’ predisposition to collaborative teaching

Vaughn, Schumm, Cohen, & Forgan, 1998; Peltier, 1997; as a desirable methodology, which may have caused them to

Staub, Spaulding, Peck, Gallucci, & Schwartz, 1996), there select responses that were favorable to co-teaching or gener-
were several notable exceptions. The principal reservation ally considered positive. For example, the findings showed
involved the inclusion of students with disabilities solely for that most of the co-teachers had not volunteered for co-
the purpose of social integration, when these students were teaching (72%); however, the results from the subscales indi-
not capable of achieving the academic goals of the course; cated that 86.9% of special education co-teachers and 95.6%
this served to accentuate their differences from other students of general education co-teachers agreed that collaborative
and contribute to their sense of alienation. teaching was a worthwhile professional experience.
Another concern some of the co-teachers expressed was Another limitation that may have influenced the results
the potentially deleterious effect of students with disabilities of this study was the interview format. Similar to the survey,
on the social and academic performance of the students with- the veracity of the responses to the interview questions was
out disabilities. Specifically, these co-teachers stated that they assumed. There was, however, no way for the researcher to
had observed some students without disabilities emulating ensure this. All participants were volunteers and therefore
the undesirable behaviors of some students with disabilities. potentially biased for or against the efficacy of collaborative
In addition, several others expressed misgivings about the teaching and inclusion.

253
 IMPLICATIONS methods of investigation. The findings of this study showed
that, according to the majority of co-teachers, inclusion facil-
The following recommendations, derived from the findings itated the social development of students, with and without
and conclusions of this study, suggest possible improvements disabilities, in their classrooms; however, this perception was
in practice and areas for further research. based on teacher observation of student behavior in response
First, offering feedback to one’s partner, sharing class- to collaborative teaching. The co-teachers in this study did
room management, providing daily mutual planning time, not solicit student and parent perceptions, nor did they use
and using cooperative learning techniques are perceived to be a reliable instrument to measure student social status or

important co-teaching practices. The implications of the iden- goodness of fit. These investigative approaches might pro-
tification of these practices for future preservice and inservice vide important additional data in response to this research
teacher preparation are self-evident, but more critical is the question.
need for school districts to incorporate these and other rec- Further should involve the perceptions of
investigations
ommendations in the planning stage of an inclusion program. the principal stakeholders-the students themselves-in the
Further research is needed to validate the usefulness of these success of collaborative teaching. The majority of special
and other collaborative practices and to explore the reasons education and general education co-teachers involved in this
for their effectiveness. study stated that they believed their students were receptive to
Second, teacher preparation programs, particularly at collaborative teaching. These co-teachers cited observations
the preservice stage, need curricula that are relevant to the of student behavior that they interpreted to indicate receptiv-
current trend toward inclusive education. Student teachers ity. This qualitative method of inquiry, however, represents
should be prepared to teach collaboratively in an inclusive only one perspective.
classroom because teachers are increasingly being assigned In conclusion, based on current trends in education, the
to teach in them (e.g., Katsiyannis et al., 1995; Villa et al., inclusion model appears to be gaining wide acceptance as a
1996; Walther-Thomas et al., 1996). Effective teacher educa- viable service option for many students. This reality should
tion programs, at a minimum, should incorporate courses in compel school districts and teacher education programs to
collaborative teaching that conform to the models recom- provide training, practices, and supports that prepare teachers
mended in the literature (e.g., Fishbaugh, 1997; Mostert, to serve in inclusive classrooms. To ignore this responsibility
1998; Pugach & Seidl, 1995) for all student teachers, regard- is to shortchange these teachers and, ultimately, their stu-
less of specialization. Further investigation of what an effec- dents.
tive teacher preparation curriculum in collaborative teaching
should include and how to implement such a curriculum is VANCE L. AUSTIN, PhD, is an assistant professor at Hofstra University in
needed. the Department of Counseling, Research, Special Education, and Rehabilita-
Third, the support of school administration is important tion. His research interests include the investigation of effective collaborative
if collaborative teaching is to be effective. Conversely, one teaching practices and models of inclusive education, programs that facilitate
the education of students with emotional/behavioral disorders, and the appli-
might infer an increased risk of failure without such endorse- cation of "knot theory" to reading instruction. Address: Vance L. Austin, 012
ment. An effective inclusive program requires the commit- Gallon Wing, Department of Counseling, Research, Special Education, and
ment of administrators, faculty, staff, and parents to provide Rehabilitation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549; e-mail: Vance.
the necessary allocation of human and material resources to [email protected]
increase the likelihood of its success.
In addition, further research is needed in the investiga- NOTE
tion of the effectiveness of collaborative teaching in facilitat-
The Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey and the Semi-Structured Interview:
ing the academic development of students with and without Perceptions of Co-Teaching script may be obtained by contacting the author
disabilities. The reports of co-teachers in this study showed at the address provided for correspondence.
that collaborative teaching was perceived to be effective in
facilitating the academic development of students, both with REFERENCES
and without disabilities; however, these reports were based on
observations of improved services such as more individual- Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook (2nd
ed.). Chicago: Irwin.
ized attention due to reduced student-teacher ratio, the value
Bannister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1994). Qual-
of review provided for all students, another teacher’s exper- ity methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, MA: Open
tise, and the incentive to reach higher goals, not on quantita- University Press.
tive measures of students’ test scores or report card grades Bixler, L. L. (1998). Perceptions of co-teachers: An exploration of charac-
teristics and components needed for co-teaching. Dissertation Abstracts
taken before and after the inclusion experience.
(03A), 780.
International, 59
Future studies should also examine the effects of inclu-
Boudah, D. J., Schumacher, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1997). Collaborative
sion on the social development of students from other per- instruction: Is it an effective option for inclusion in secondary class-
spectives, such as those of the students, and use different rooms? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 293-316.

254
Comparing the districts: The ’98 high school report. (1999, February 7). The Mostert, M. P. (1998). Interprofessional collaboration in schools. Needham
New York Times, 14, pp. 10-11. Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Council for Learning Disabilities. (1993). Concerns about the full inclusion National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1993). A reaction to full
of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms. inclusion: A reaffirmation of the right of students with learning disabil-
Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 126. ities to a continuum of services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26,
Cox, J. (1996). Your opinion, please: How to build the best questionnaires in 590-593.
the field of education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Olson, M. R., Chalmers, L., & Hoover, J. H. (1997). Attitudes and attributes
D’Alonzo, B. J., Giordano, G., & VanLeeuwen, D. M. (1997). Perceptions by of general education teachers identified as inclusionists. Remedial and
teachers about the benefits and liabilities of inclusion. Preventing School Special ,Education, 18 28-35.
Failure, 42, 4-11. Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. review of the research. Contemporary Education, 68, 234-238.
New York: Wiley. Pugach, M. C., & Seidl, B. L. (1995). From exclusion to inclusion in urban
Downs, C. W., Smeyak, G. P., & Martin, E. (1980). Professional interview- schools: A new case for teacher education reform. Education and Urban
ing. New York: Harper & Row. , 379-395.
Society, 27
Dynak, J., Whitten, E., & Dynak, D. (1997). Refining the general education Pugach, M. C., & Wesson, C. L. (1995). Teachers’ and students’ views of
student teaching experience through the use of special education collab- team teaching of general education and learning-disabled students in
orative teaching models. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 64-75. two fifth-grade classes. Elementary School Journal, 95, 279-295.
Fennick, E. (1995). General education and special education teachers’ per- Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teach-
ceived responsibilities and preparation for collaborative teaching. Dis- ers College Press.
sertation Abstracts International, 56
(09A), 3432. Shipley, K. G., & McNulty Wood, J. (1996). The elements of interviewing.
Fishbaugh, M. S. E. (1997). Models of collaboration
. Needham Heights, San Diego, CA: Singular.
MA: Allyn & Bacon. SPSS, Inc. (1999). Statistical package for the social sciences (Version 9.0).
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1988). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, Chicago: Author.
CA: Sage. Staub, D., Spaulding, M., Peck, C. A., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, I. S. (1996).
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Using nondisabled peers to support the inclusion of students with dis-
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. abilities at the junior high school level. Journal of the Association for
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1994, November). Co-teaching: Principles, prac- Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 194-205.
tices, and pragmatics. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Tuckman, B. W. (1998). Conducting educational research (5th ed.). Orlando,
Council for Learning Disabilities, San Diego, CA. FL: Harcourt.
Gaut, J. A. (1994). Essential elements for successful collaboration. Disserta- U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Twenty-first annual report to Con-
tion Abstracts International, 56
(01A), 159. gress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-
Hebert, P. L. (1998). Perceptions of general education teachers and special tion Act. Washington, DC: Author.
education teachers on the conditions, skills, and processes necessary for Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Chapple, J. W. (1996). Preparing teachers to
collaborative teams. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (02A), 455. support inclusion: Preservice and inservice programs. Theory Into Prac-
Katsiyannis, A., Conderman, G., & Franks, D. J. (1995). State practices tice, 35, 42-50.
on inclusion: A national review. Remedial and Special Education, 16, Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective
279-287. co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Edu-
Kauffman, J. M. (1995). Why we must celebrate a diversity of restrictive , 255-265.
cation, 17
environments. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 225-232. Whinnery, K. W., King, M., Evans, W. H., & Gable, R. A. (1995). Percep-
King-Sears, M. E. (1995). Teamwork toward inclusion: A school system and tions of students with learning disabilities: Inclusion versus pull-out ser-
university partnership for practicing educators. Action in Teacher Edu- vices. Preventing School Failure, 40, 5-9.
cation, 17
, 54-66. Wiggle, S. E., & Wilcox, D. J. (1996). Inclusion: Criteria for the preparation
Klinger, J. K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998). of educational personnel. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 323-
Inclusion or pull-out: Which do students prefer? Journal of Learning 328.
Disabilities, 31, 148-158. Wilczenski, F. L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudes toward
Lackaye, T. D. (1997). General education teachers’ views of academic inter- inclusive education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55,
ventions for students with learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts 291-299.
International, 58(03A), 818. Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. M. (1995). Concluding comments: Current and
Learning Disabilities Association. (1993). Position paper on full inclusion of future practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Educa-
all students with learning disabilities in the regular classroom. Journal tion, 29, 245-250.
of Learning Disabilities, 26
, 594-598. Zigmond, N., Fulmer, D., Volonino, V., Woolery, R., & Bean, R. (1993,
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the April). Students with LD in elementary mainstream social studies: What
remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 762- are they doing? What are they learning? Paper presented at the annual

796. meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta,

Miller, K. J., & Savage, L. B. (1995, March). Including general educators in GA.
inclusion. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Council on
Rural Special Education, Las Vegas, NV. Received July 6, 2000
Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teach- Revision received November 29, 2000
ers’ experiences with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special edu- Initial acceptance September 13, 2000
cation reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 152-186. Final acceptance December 6, 2000

255