Collaboration Articles
Co-Teaching:
An Illustration of the Complexity of Collaboration in Special Education.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., &
Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-Teaching: An Illustration of the Complexity of
Collaboration in Special Education. Journal Of Educational &
Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.
In this study, Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain &
Shamberger (2010), elaborate on how, although collaboration has been considered
as part of special education for many years, its being viewed in terms of
co-teaching, is rather new. Because of recent federal legislation and policy
changes related to special education providing equal access to students with
disabilities, professionals are being forced to consider co-teaching as part of
collaboration more carefully. Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger
(2010) state that many educators and researchers are eager to use and promote
co-teaching as a strategy yet, as evident in various studies on the topic, have
only attempted to understand its implementation by considering the roles of the
teachers and logistics of implementation. The authors of this study believe that
research must also be done to study the impact on student achievement and on
other professionals who are part of the collaborative team in special
education. They describe the need for further research on co-teaching in a much
broader and deeper sense. This article also depicts and describes six
approaches t co-teaching which are labeled one teach, one observe; situation
teaching; parallel teaching; alternative teaching; teaming; one teach, one
assist. Also important, it is noted that
often training on co-teaching is provided for special education teachers but
not for general education teachers.
Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger (2010) quote Hudson
& Glomb (1997), “If it takes two to tango, then why not teach both partners
to dance.” They state that because it is
so significantly different “from the traditional one teacher per classroom model, it is not reasonable to expect
educators to understand and implement it without specific instruction.”The
article concludes with statements that collaboration specifically interpreted
and implemented as co-teaching, “holds great promise” but as it stands, there
is much more to consider because of how the effective application of this can
impact students and other professionals who are involved,such as school psychologists, counselors and therapists. A
generalized summary of the findings of this study were expressed in the
following quote by Wallace, Anderson & Bartholomay (2002),“The implications
of this transition toward more collaborative and inclusive practices are
far-reaching” (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010).
On the Same Page :
Practical Techniques to Enhance Co-Teaching Interactions
Ploessl, D.M., Rock, M.L.,
Schoenfeld, N. and Blanks, B. (2010). On the Same Page: Practical Techniques to
Enhance Co-Teaching Interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic 2010 45:
158. DOI: 10.1177/1053451209349529
This article describes techniques
that can be used to help establish more successful partnerships and assist
co-teachers in working together in a more productive manner. Ploessl, Rock,
Schoenfeld & Blanks (2010) quote, “Co-teaching may be popular, but it does
not always come naturally (Mastropieri et al., 2005; Scruggs, Mastropieri,
& McDuffie, 2007; Weiss & Lloyd, 2003). Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld &
Blanks (2010) describe four areas in which these techniques are grouped. They
are communication, preparation, instruction and conflict resolution. Since
communication is such an important part of the collaborative process the
article suggests that each individual teacher strengthen skills in this area by
conducting a self-evaluation of their own personal communication habits. By becoming aware of their own personal style,
they can later work on developing or strengthening areas in communication
abilities that are lacking. Also,
knowing this will facilitate the coordinating of one’s own communication style
with another person’s. One specific technique to grow in the area of
communication is to record a planning session and analyze the dialogue. The
second area, preparation, involves planning.
This can be done independently or with the co-teacher. A helpful technique in this area can be using
technology like skyping, phone calls and/or e-mails. In the area of
instruction, it is suggested by Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld & Blanks (2010)
that teachers need to teach together.
This will help deliver instruction more One way of avoiding this is to
plan the teaching by utilizing one of the following teaching models described
in detail in this article: station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative
teaching and/or teaming. Finally,
conflicts are inevitable when co-teaching. Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld &
Blanks (2010) state that conflicts should be used as an opportunity for growth
and to strengthen the teaching partnership. In addition, they provide these
approaches to help limit differences, respect cultural differences; discuss
issues before they escalate; and think first, act later. Ploessl, Rock,
Schoenfeld & Blanks (2010) conclude by stating, “If co-teaching partners
are willing to invest time and effort in resolving conflicts, they not only can
reverse unproductive interactions but can even prevent them entirely.”
An Examination of
Co-Teaching: Perspectives and Efficacy Indicators
Hang, Q. and Rabren, K. (2009).
An Examination of Co-Teaching: Perspectives and Efficacy Indicators. Remedial
and Special Education 2009 30: 259 originally published online 11 July 2008.
DOI: 10.1177/0741932508321018.
This study set about to determine
the perspectives of general education teachers, special education teachers and
students with disabilities with respect to co-teaching. Another intention of
this study was to establish whether co-teaching is an effective way of
supporting students with disabilities academically and behaviorally. Hang and
Rabren (2009) wanted to discover co-teachings effectiveness on academic and behavioral
performance of students with disabilities as compared to the previous year when
a single teacher was delivery instruction. This study was achieved through the
participation of forty-five co-teachers and fifty-eight students with
disabilities. They were all new to the
co-teaching method of providing instruction.
There were several limitations to this study. One limitation was the
lack of a control group. The study was performed with a group of students with
disabilities across various grade levels and subject areas. This did not allow
the researchers to analyze potential differences between groups in co-taught
classrooms versus “traditional service delivery classrooms.” They were also
only able to evaluate the effectiveness of co-teaching using data from test
results in the areas of math and language arts because only these results were
available. Nonetheless, it was found that significant academic improvement was
made in the co-taught year versus the non-co-taught year. Behavior performance
included discipline issues and attendance. This was also found to have improved
in the co-taught year. Students’, general education teachers’ and special
education teachers’ perspectives in the co-taught rooms were positive. There were no significant statistical differences
in responses between the groups with regard to their perspectives. The analysis
of this study serves to provide a starting point in the move towards
co-teaching as an effective teaching model.
Consultation Articles
General Physical
Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Adapted Physical Education Consultation
Pope, Marcia.
(November, 2009)
As the title reveals,
this study examines the perceptions of general physical education (GPE)
teachers on consultation in adapted physical education (APE). Pope (2009) aims
to have :the general PE teacher’s voice…heard in order to understand how
consultations supports or detracts from successful inclusion of students with
disabilities into general PE.” Knowing this, says Pope, will help APE
specialists be better able to provide appropriate consultation services for
students with disabilities. Some
findings were that GPE teachers appreciated the support from APE specialties
however, they desired more time for consultations (frequency and duration),
receiving more strategies on inclusion, documented information from
consultations to refer back to and more information about their students with
disabilities at the time of enrollment.
In addition, they wanted to work more collaboratively with the APE
specialist and become part of the IEP process.
The consultation process: Adapted physical education
specialists' perceptions
This article is a study to take a closer look at how
adapted physical education (APE) specialists view consultation as a means for
providing services to students with disabilities. It discusses how with
increased case loads and increased diversity of students, it is impossible to
expect one teacher to have all the expertise in order to do their job
adequately. Consultation has become a valuable and viable option, especially in
middle and high school where it is more common.
However, some barriers do exist, that keep consultation from operating
effectively. The study describes
educators’ differing understandings or implementation of consultation. Some APE
specialists believe consultation and collaboration are synonymous so what they
define or label as a consultation is actually collaboration. However, often times the definition is clear
but an APE specialist chooses to write a recommendation for consultation
because it allows them more flexibility in providing service to the students.
Writing consultation gives them the freedom to provide consultation,
collaboration or direct service. One of
the APE specialists who participated in this study named Steve said the
following, “I’ve also had consultation written down where I worked directly
with a kid. And I’ve had consultation down where I’m working in collaboration
with another teacher and we’re team teaching a class . . . I don’t care really
what’s down on the IEP, really. I’m more concerned with the services the kids are
getting . . . it just leaves me a little bit more leeway. Where, the other way,
if you put direct service, then
you’re locked into that.” According to
this study, consultation is viewed as a viable means of providing services to
individuals with disabilities. Still, many things need to take place so that it
functions in the most effective way.
Just to name a few, APE specialists need to acquire adequate
communication skills and GE teachers need to become more knowledgeable about
developmentally appropriate physical education curriculum.
Adapted Physical Education Specialists' Perceptions and Role in the Consultation Process
Lytle, Rebecca K. (April, 1999)
In this study Lytle
(1999) attempts “to answer the following questions, what are the APE
specialists' perceptions about consultation as a delivery model for individuals
with disabilities? How do APE specialists define an effective consultation
model for adapted physical education? How do APE specialists define their role
in the consultation process?” She goes on to explain the dilemma of different
understandings of consultation. She defines it as a triadic model. This model
consists of an expert consulting with another professional about a third person
or persons. Often this definition or the application of this model is confused
with collaboration as well as with what many describe as collaborative
consultation. She then defines and compares different consultation models such
as the mental health model, behavioral model and process consultation model.
Through this study it was found that consultation is as effective as the
attitudes and skills of the APE specialist and the general physical education
(GPE) teacher, as well as the amount of support received from administrators.
Five roles of APE specialists as consultants were listed, as described by the
participants in this study, “advocate, educator, courier, supporter/helper and
resource coordinator.” Ultimately, Lytle (1999) finds that this study brings up
more questions about the consultation model and how it affects both the APE
specialist and the general physical education teacher. Lytle (1999) challenges
researchers, “Many potential directions for future research have come from the
data. These include examination of situational context factors, improving
consultation effectiveness, consultation training and skills, as well as a more
precise definition of consulting roles.
Inclusion Articles
Let the children have their say: children with special educational
needs and their experiences of Physical Education – a review
COATES,
J. and VICKERMAN, P. (2008), Let the children have their say: children with
special educational needs and their experiences of Physical Education – a
review. Support for Learning, 23: 168–175.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00390.x
This
article takes a closer look at students’ and teachers’ perspectives on
inclusion of children with special needs in physical education (P.E.). Coates
and Vickerman (2008) project the idea in this study that teachers think
positively about inclusion of students with special needs in general physical
education classes but, also that it is not something that can realistically be
implemented because of the way teachers are trained today. It does not prepare them for inclusion. This
study resulted in findings that fall into six categories: experiences in P.E.,
experiences of P.E. teachers, discrimination by others, feelings of self-doubt,
barriers to inclusion and empowerment & consultation. Children’s overall feelings about P.E. were
positive but they admitted to having good days and bad days depending on how
included they were in the lesson/activity. This was affected by the amount of
experience of the P.E. teacher. It was found that though inclusion in P.E. and
across curriculum is conceptualized in school policies, in reality P.E.
teachers do not have proper training to effectively put it into practice.
Children often felt discriminated by their peers and their teachers. The
teachers who are responsible and who should have used these occasions to teach
students about diversity and guide their behavior in the right direction but,
due to lack of knowledge in this area, they did not. This statement by the
authors, Coates and Vickerman (2008) sums it up, “A child should have every
opportunity to succeed in education regardless of their ability…this is
something which needs improvement if education is ever going to be as inclusive
as policy aims it to be.”
Coteaching in physical
education: A strategy for inclusive practice
M Grenier - Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 2011 - sirc.ca
This
article studies the need for collaboration among teachers of Adapted Physical
Education (APE) and General Physical Education (GPE), regardless of their
preparation and training, in order for successful inclusion of students with
disabilities to be realized. Co-teaching
is a manner in which this collaboration can occur. It is when these
collaborations do not exist that problems arise with inclusion. Students with
disabilities experience not only difficulties with the curriculum but also with
the social aspects of inclusion if educators from APE and GPE do not learn to
work together. This article goes on to
say, however, that teachers are not prepared to work in this way because they
are not trained. Much worse is that, when asked, it was not even identified as
necessary to be an effective teacher nor was inclusion considered a high
priority. It also states that, although APE teachers are trained to work with
students with disabilities, they are not prepared to work with them in an
inclusive environment (Samalot-Rivera and Porretta, 2009). Grenier wrote,
“These are…due in large part "to a lack of professional training in
consultation models and methodologies" (Lytle & Collier, 2002, p.
267).” Grenier explains then, GPE teachers establish situations that limit
students with disabilities from interacting with their nondisabled peers. So,
it is not the students’ disability that limits them socially but instead, the
teacher’s lack of knowledge of inclusion, not having the adequate support
personnel and lack of sense of community among peers. The three teachers that
participated in this study found that co-teaching was like working in a
“committed partnership.” The APE teacher, Kate, felt that this was what was
required if the goal of effective inclusion was to occur. Kate said, “I don't
leave my class until I know someone in that classroom can support the
student." In order for this to become a reality, GPE teachers should focus
more on the social aspects of inclusion and allow the APE teacher to work on
the curricular aspects of it. Teachers of both groups should allow each other
the opportunity to co-teach with each of them bringing their strengths to the
table. Also, additional training and preparation is needed. Ultimately it is
clear that APE teachers and GPE teachers can “compliment” each other for
effective inclusion of students with disabilities.
Trainee and recently qualified physical education teachers'
perspectives on including children with special educational needs
P Vickerman, JK Coates - Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2009 - Taylor & Francis
There has been a lot of discussion on the
belief that a barrier to inclusion of children with disabilities in physical
education (P.E.) comes from inexperienced and unknowledgeable physical
education teachers as well as adapted physical education (A.P.E.) teachers who
are not prepared to collaborate and co-teach.
They are not prepared because many of them have been educators and out
of teacher training programs for a number of years. This article studies
inclusion from the perspective of recently qualified teachers and teacher
trainees. Since they have recently finished or are in the process of completing
their teacher training, it may be assumed that they are better prepared than
their predecessors. This assumption comes from the fact that, in more recent
years, there is a big push for inclusive practices. These assumptions, however,
are incorrect. The study found that these recently qualified teachers and
trainees are no better qualified. Coates and Vickerman (2009) found that, “Eighty-four
percent of recently qualified PE teachers, and 43% of trainees identified their
initial teacher training had not prepared them sufficiently to work with
children with SEN in schools.” This seems to be an extremely high percentage
for recent professionals. Coates and Vickerman (2009) found that the implication
of these findings is that government and schools need to examine and make
necessary changes to teacher preparation programs if successful inclusion of
students with disability is to improve.
