Collaboration, Consultation & Inclusion Articles

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. 

Link to Article: Co-teaching: Complexity of Collaboration in Special Education

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

Link to Article: Practical Techniques to Enhance Co-Teaching Interactions

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.

Link to Article: An Examination of Co-Teaching

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)

Link to Article: GPE Teacher's Perceptions of APE Consultation

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

R Lytle, D Collier - APAQ, 2002 - journals.humankinetics.com
Link to Article: The Consultation Process: APE 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)

Link to Article: APE Specialists' Perceptions and Role in the Consultation Process

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

Link to Article: Let the Children Have Their Say

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

Link to Article: A Strategy for Inclusive Practice

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

Link to Article: Trainee and Recently Qualified PE Teachers Perspectives

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.