Co-taught Ideas Copy

8/13/2019 Co-taught Ideas Copy

1/8

Teacher eadership

Co-Teaching:Getting to KnowYour Partner

Mr. Salvatorean dMs. Happa weregetting to know oneanotlier. They werein anewco-teaching partnership,designed by theschool administrator,sincejust before theschoolyear began.Mr. Salvatorehad beenasolo fourth-gradeteacherfor 15 years. Heenjoyedteaching and maintainingcompleteinstructional responsibility for studentsin his classes .

Ms. Happa was new to theschool.She had beenateacherfor 7years an denjoyed collgial interactions on behalfof students for whom s he and otherteachers shared responsibility.

In the be ginning oftheir teachingarrangement Ms. Happa was comfort-able inas upportiverole becauses hewanted to learn about the students andMr.Salvatore s teachings tyle. As timepassed however she w anted a moreactive instructionalrolean d increasedopportunities tointeractwith students,especiallyin the upcoming implemen-tation ofresponse to interventionRTI).32 COUN CIL FOR EXCEPTIONA L CHILDRE N

Jane M Sileo

Co-teaching is analogousto aprofes-sional marriage (Scruggs, Mastropieri,& McDuffie, 2007)inwhich teachingpartners collaborate to provide instruc-tional services to students with disabil-ities and othersatriskofschool failureasaresultofthe negative conse-quencesofenvironmental events.R egrettably,inmany instances co-teachers are carelessly placed togetherand therefore, completely miss outonthe development stages criticalin arelationship. A sinconventional mar-riage, skipping the time to developastrong relationship may lead to com-munication problems and misunder-standings, as well as ending the rela-tionship. T hese difficulties betweenadults can negatively affect studentsinco-teaching settings. For example, stu-dents may receive conflicting messageswhen there is frictionin aco-teachingrelationship and the teachers are notsynchronizing classroom logisticsorlesson design and delivery. The situa-tion may be especially complexfor stu-

dents with information-processing diffi-culties. A saresult, they may not knowwhich direction to followorwhichteacher to ask for assistance. A notherconse quen ce, often called staff split-ting, may occur when teachers do notget along: the old gameof he said,she said. A lways savvy students canreadanuncomfortable and tense rela-tionship and may usearift betweenteacherstom anipulateasituationtotheir advantage. H ere,ofcourse,as inmany families, one teacher says noto request but the other teacher may sayyes. The processofstaff splitting mayincrease friction between the co-teach-ers. Thu s, like parents, teachers mustcommunicate with each other andensure they are on the same pageregarding interactions with children.

Effective communicationiskeytonavigating professional relationships,whether teachers are thrown togetheror have time to get to know eachother. The important consideration,aswith family life and parents who have


2/8

children's best interests at heart, isthat most teachers enter the professionbecause they want to help children.To ultimately benefit studen ts, then,this article presents problem-solvingstrategies to facilitate communicationbetween co-teachers.Getting S tarted; TheReifrtionsiiip Building StageBefore beginning a co-teaching rela-tionship, teachers first must know themeaning of co-teaching, as well aslogistics involved with the process.

Co-teaching is an instructional deliverymodel used to teach students with dis-abilities and those at risk of education-

planning, delivering, and evaluatinginstruction for all students (Arguelles,Hughes, Schumm, 2000; Villa,

Effect ive communicat ion i s key tonavigat ing profess ional relat ionsh ips

al failure in the least restrictive, mostproductive, integrated classroom set-tings where both general and specialeducators share responsibility for

Thousand, Nevin, 2008). The prac-tice provides teachers with an opportu-nity to share professional expertise. Inmost instances, general educators areTE HING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAY /JUNE 2011 33


3/8

considered mastersof content andspecial educators are viewed as mas-tersof access (Villa et al., 2008). Thisdelineation of competencies suggeststhat general educators have exclusiveknowledge of curriculum, whereasspecial educators have sole knowledge

regard, parity is the next issue theyshould address in their relationship.Parity implies equa l sta tus, or eq ualityin substance. In a co-teaching relation-ship, parity suggests that all classroomresponsibilities are shared equally,including instructional planning and

Co-teachers inabil i ty to discuss nitty-gritty detai lsregarding shared c lassroom space, ins truct ional noise l evel s ,

d i sc ip l ine , and dai ly chores often leads to unresolved i s sues thatinterfere with efforts to col laborate on hehalf of students.

of instructional processes for studentswho are identified as having disabili-ties or being at risk.Unfortunately, attempts to mergethe knowledge bases in co-teachingsettings often causes confusionbetween teachers. Therefore, teachingpartners need to communicate openlyabout issues that arise. The situationcorresponds to newly married couples:Each person enters the relationshipwith diverse individual and culturalmores, which must be meshed to forma harmonious home. Co-teachers cometogether with dissimilar personal andprofessional values that they mustidentify, state, and combine in an effortto create positive academic and socialclimates for all students in their class-room settings.

In a recent study, Scruggs and col-leagues (2007) found that co-teachersbelieve personal compatibility is themost important factor for co-teachingsuccess. Thus, once teachers under-stand the definition of co-teaching theycan begin to talk about the practicali-ties of their relationship. Teachersshould first discuss their philosophy ofeducation, specifically how they feelabout teaching together in an inclusiveclassroom. Did they choose co-teach-ing, or was it chosen for them? If co-teaching was chosen for them, is it aprocess to which they can commit fora full school year?

Most teachers are willing to worktogether to benefit students for whomthey share responsibility. In that

delivery, discipline, grading, and col-laborating with parents, among othertasks. Co-teachers inability to discussnitty-gritty details regarding sharedclassroom space, instructional noiselevels,discipline, and daily choresoften leads to unresolved issues thatinterfere with efforts to collaborate onbehalf of students. Co-teachers need todiscuss the basics of their parinership.

M s. Happa s and M r. Salvatore s hasti-ly arranged relationshipdid not allowthem an opportunity to talk aboutissues ofparityand other fundamen-tals important totheir professionalassociation. Fortunately, theyrecog-nized the weakjiess in their relation-ship andrather than allow it to deteri-orate, theydecided to use a portion oftheir common planning time to addr esstheir rolesand r esponsibilities. Someissueswere easy to discuss, whereasothers took a bitlonger.

For example, they had commonideas about shared classroom space,discipline, daily chores, and communi-cating with parents. M r. Salvatore wasmor e than willing to share his class-room with M s. Happa. He understoodthe need for both teachers to have sepa-ratedesks or at least discrete places fo rtheir instructional materials an dbelongings. Healso acknowledged thatmaterialsfor a particular lesson shouldbe stored in the classroom so that theywere readily available for instruction.As aresult he arranged for a kidney-

shaped table in theclassroom fo r M s .Happa to use during their lessons. Thestudentswere accustomed t o M rSalvatore s disciplinaryplan, so, it waseasy for M s. Happa to follow hisapproach.

Th eteachersalso decided to shar edaily chores, such as attendance takingand lunch count. Since M s. Happa wasnot always in the room for attendanceand lunch count activities, she per-formed other routine tasks during theday. For example,she often accompa-nied students to the cafeteria, therebyallowing M r. Salvatoretime to catch upwith his e-mail messages.

M s. Happa and M r. Salvatorerecog-nized the importance ofparity in par-ent-teacher interactions an d decidedthat they would communicate, jointlywhen possible, with all parents. As amatter offact on back-to-school night,theyco-presented an overviewof theschoolyear and anticipatedclassroomevents. Thisapproach allowedparentsto view bothteachers as equal partnersin the classroom.

Effective strategies for communicat-ing with parents include (a) using var-ious modes of communication, (b)inviting parents to visit or attendschool events, (c) engaging families incurriculum planning, and (d) provid-ing parents with resources to helptheir children succeed in school(Salend, 2010). Communication withparents is essential in building strongcollaborative and co-teaching relation-ships, which ultimately benefit stu-dents. The advantage of a co-teachingpartnership is that both teachers cancommunicate with parents to keepthem informed of their child ren s aca-demic and social growth and develop-ment. When this communicationoccurs, the teachers also learn aboutparental concerns and aspirations fortheir children.

Instructional noise is another issueto which co-teachers must attend.Classroom noise can become a prob-lem if one teacher prefers teaching in aquiet setting and the other is comfort-able with a noisy instructional envi-ronment. Figure 1 shows various types

34 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN


4/8

of classroom structures that many co-teachers use or consider as they plan(Friend Bursuck, 2009].

Mr.Salvatore believed that noisy class-roomsweresigns ofcollaborativelearn-ing:on the otherhand Ms. Happabelieved that students should collabo-rate, but in a quiet manner. The easi-est solution was to discussacceptablenoiselevels within theclassroom an dtoacknowledgethat the intensity mayincreaseor decrease, depending on theco teaching structure e.g., one teach,one observe; team-teaching: stationteaching;o ne teach, one driftaroundthe classroom).

Ms. Happa and Mr.Salvatore wereable to accommodate this variability byplanning instructionalactivities fo rboth quiet and no isy classrooms. Forexample, a no isy lesson might be onein which the students work togetherusingrulers to measurevarious itemsin the classroom. A quietlesson mightbe onewherestudents work in pairs todetermine the meaning of a poem.

M ann ing : H ie M ar r iag e /Co Teaciiing StageAfter talking about minor details intheir relationship, co-teaching partnersmust address the area of instruction.Most co-teachers, initially, were soloteachers and, like Mr. Salvatore, maynot be comfortable sharing responsibil-ity for instructional decisions. There-fore, it is essential for them to addressissues related to curriculum planningand instruction. Critical topics to dis-cuss include concerns such as who Plans and teaches the lessons, Prepares and organizes instructional

materials, Chooses co-teaching structures that

complement the lessons and stu-dents' abilities,

Identifies assessment processes thatdetermine students' acquisition ofknowledge and ability to demon-strate skills and competencies,

Grades assignments.

Figure 1. Description of Co Teaciiing Structures1. O ne Teach One Observewhen one teacher is responsible for wholegroup instruction while the other teacher observes the students and gathersinformation on their academic, social, and behavioral skills. This co-teach-ing structure allows co-teachers an opportunity to gather information about

their students, and each other as well,2. Parallel Teachingwhen the co-teachers place the students into two equal

groups and each teacher simultaneously teaches the same material to his orher small group. The benefit of this co-teaching structure is that it allowsfor increased teacher interaction and student participation as well as differ-entiation of instruction,3. Station Teachingwhen the co-teachers arrange the students into two orthree equal groups, and the students rotate through each of the instructionalstations. In this structure, the stations should not build on one another, butrather be nonsequential. The advantage of this co-teaching structure is thatit also allows for increased teacher and student interactions.4. Alternative Teachingwhen one teacher teaches the whole group and theother teacher teaches a small group of students. The grouping for this struc-

ture should change according to students' needs. This co-teaching structureallows either teacher the opportunity to teach (e.g., remediation, preteach-ing, vocabulary development, and enrichment activities) for a short periodof time.5. One Teach One Assistwhen one teacher Instructs the whole group andthe other teacher assists individual students. The co-teaching structure

allows the drifting teacher the opportunity to provide brief periods of indi-vidualized instruction to students who may be struggling with the academiccontent.6. Team Teachingwhen both teachers deliver instruction simultaneously toa large group of students. This structure affords the team teachers the

chance to interact with the students. It also provides them with an opportu-nity to ask clarification questions of one another, thereby eliminating thepotential confusion in instruction.

Such planning is crucial, especially forteachers who may experience arrangedpartnerships as a result of school dis-trict decisions and policies to imple-ment RTI, which seeks to prevent aca-demic failure in children who incur dif-ficulty learning, RTI uses early instruc-tional assistance, frequent measures ofacademic progress, and increasinglyintense research-based instruction. Assuch, it requires general and specialeducators to collaborate actively toensure implementation of lessons thataddress a wide array of instructionalneeds in general education classroomsand provide access to the general edu-cation curriculum for diverse learners(Murawski Hughes, 2009),

As stated previously, special educa-tors may be considered as the masters

of access who, at first have limitedfamiliarity with curriculum andinstructional materials. Consequently,they may assume several supportiveroles in co-teaching settings, such as(a) providing back-up support to stu-dents, (b) teaching a component of thecurriculum, and (c) team-teaching(Weiss Lloyd, 2003). Special educa-tors often assume more participatoryinstructional roles when they feel con-fident with curricular content,

lent and colleagues (2003) foundthat a mutually satisfying co-teachingrelationship emerges when teachersfocus on technical aspects of planning,which ultimately benefit them, as wellas the students. These teachers recog-nize the significance of identifyingtheir roles, responsibilities, sequences.

TE HING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MAY/JUN E 2011 35


5/8

and most importantly, who was goingto do wha t (p. 209). In addition, theteachers feel it is imperative to havestructured planning time, rather thanimpromptu planning 5 minutes beforeclass sessions. These delineations helpdefine co-teaching relationships. Whenteachers are equal partners in instruc-tional processes, they outwardly showfew distinctions between them (Trentet al.,2003;Weiss&Lloyd, 2003).Therefore, it is imperative that co-teachers discuss planning and instruc-tional techniques.Problem Solving: IheOngoing Relationship StageWhat should teachers do when prob-lems arise? As in o ther relationships,when things go wrong the partnersneed an opportunity to sit down andaddress issues in a structured manner.Similarly, co-teachers must discussissues that confront them in a well-thought-out and orderly process.Luckily, co-teachers can find variousproblem-solving models (Berkeley&Ludlow, 2008; Sinclair, 1998) that canbe modified to meet specific needs.

Sinclair's (1998) classic model is aseven-step process that includes (a)identifying issues; (b) developing alter-native courses of action; (c) analyzingrisks and benefits of each course ofaction; (d) choosing a course of action;(e) taking action; (f) evaluating resultsof the action; and (g) assuming respon-sibility for the consequences, correctingpotentially negative consequences, orre-engaging in the decision-makingprocess. Although some issues can beresolved rather quickly, others aremore intricate and demand consider-able time to disentangle them. A struc-tured problem-solving model allows co-teaching partners to elucidate largerproblems and hopefully avoid abreakup. The following scenariodemonstrates how teachers may useSinclair's problem-solving model intheir co-teaching relationship.

Afterapproximatelya month ofgettingto knoweacho ther and the students,M s. Happa and M r. Salvatorehit aroad bump in theirteaching relation-

ship. They had a solid foundation, yetM s. Happabelieved shecould offermore to theirprofessional association.As aresult she explained to M r.Salvatorethat she would like to con-tribute toinstructional design anddelivery. Although they haddiscussedvariolas co teachingmodels, M s . Happaand M rSalvatore struggled with class-room implementation. They had a ten-dency to follow the one teach, oneassist model, with M r Salvatorelead-ing the lessons.

M r. Salvatore enjoyed collaboratingwithM s. Happa; however he wasuncertain about sharinginstructionalresponsibility for the students. M s.Happa explained to M r Salvatore thatshe earned a M aster'sDegree in SpecialEducation and wasknowledgeableabout the curriculum, as well as appro-priateinstructionalstrategies.

Th eco teachers weretruly in abind.They knew it was theirresponsibility toensure a quality ed ucation for stu-dents. Yet, differences in how to pro-videinstruction had the potential tointerfere with the process. So, theydecided toresolve their issues usingSinclair's (1998) model ofproblemsolving.

Step : Identify the issues.M s. Happa and M r. Salvatore werehaving difficulty communicating. Onthe one hand, Mr. Salvatore wantedM s. Happa in the classroom, but onthe other, he did not want to shareinstructional design and delivery. M s.

Step 2: Develop alternativecourses of action.M r. Salvatore and M s. Happa knewthey shared the same goal: to affordsuccess for all students. They just haddifficulty figuring out how to achievetheir goal. On the one hand, they couldmaintain the status quo and plod alongin their disjointed efforts. On the other,they knew this approach was notappropriate and they needed alterna-tive practices to work together. M s.Happa and M r. Salvatore decided togenerate various solutions to theirdilemma. After a lengthy discussion,they narrowed down their choices tothree options. The first choice was togive up and end their relationship. Thesecond alternative was to speak withthe principal to see if she could easethe situation. The third option was forM r. Salvatore to observe M s. Happa co-teaching in another classroom.Step 3: Analyze the risks and benefits of each course of action.M s. Happa and M r. Salvatore dis-cussed each alternative. They decidedthat Option 1, giving up and endingthe relationship, was not an option,especially because of the potentialdeleterious effects on the students.They were frustrated. They knew theyhad a solid foundation; they just hit aspeed bump. They also knew they didnot want to stay the course and endup hating co-teaching and each other.The risks of Option 1 were just toohigh; they had to identify anotheralternative.

A structured problem so lv ing model a l lows co teach ing partnersto e lucidate larger problems and hopefu l ly avoid a breakup.

Happa felt underappreciated becauseshe was a competent teacher andwanted the opportunity to demonstrateher skills and knowledge. Althoughshe tried many times, she could notget M r. Salvatore to understand the co in co-teaching. She did not wantto be in charge of his class; rather,she wanted to share instructionalresponsibilities.

M s. Happa and M r. Salvatore knewthat they were both good teachers andthere had to be a way to work together.They discussed Option 2, speakingwith the principal. Eor M s. Happa, th ebenefit of discussion with the principalwas that she would receive support forher position. The principal was a firmbeliever in co-teaching. There wererisks involved, however, in sharing the

36 COUNCIL FOR E XCE PT IONAL CHIL DRE N


6/8


7/8

Step 7: Assume respons ibility forthe consequences correct poten-tiolly negotive consequences orre-engoge In the decision-mokingprocess.After the observation, Mr. Salvatoredecided to share responsibility forinstructional design and delivery withMs.Happa. Because he had observed amathem atics lesson, Mr. Salvatoredecided to start co-teaching in mathe-matics. Ms. Happa was comfortablewith his decision. They co-planned thelesson to ensure they were bothengaged in the instructional processes.The lesson was a huge success withoutany hitches.

As an aside, Ms. Happa and Mr.Salvatorehave beenco teaching suc-cessfully for 8years an dadvocatefortheprocessamong their colleagues.

inal ThoughtsThe beginning stage of any co-teachingrelationship is similar to the initialaspects of any dating relationship. Atfirst, the relationship is great, and thepartners are blissful and happy. Astime evolves, however, newly formed

relationships need to be nurtured tocreate a stronger relationship, becauseperforming as a team is hard work, if itis to be successful and long lasting.New couples in any relationship oftenargue about simple things, such asleaving the cap off the toothpaste tubeor which of the partners is responsiblefor doing laundry, vacuuming, or cook-ing. The same can be said for new co-teaching partners. The teachers maydisagree about leaving the lid off thewhiteboard marker or putting awayinstructional materials at the end of theday.

In either marriage or co-teaching,the key to success is compromise andcollaboration. All co-teachers must beflexible for their relationship to flour-ish. Therefore, co-teaching partnersmust communicate throughout therelationship to ensure the relationshipfocuses on what is most important inco-teachingchildren's academic andsocial growth and development.ReferencesArguelles, M. E., Hug hes, M. T., Sch um m,

J. S. (2000). Co-teaching: A differentapproach to inclusion. Principal, 79(4),48, 50-51.

Berkeley, T. R., Lud low, B. L. (200 8).Ethical dilemmas in rural special educa-tion: A call for a conversation about the

ethics of practice. Rural Special EducationQuarterly, 27(1 /2) , 3 -9 .

Friend, M., Bursuc k, W. D. (2009).Including students with special needs: Apractical guide for classroom teachers 5thed.) . Columbus, OH: Merr i l l .

Murawski , W. W , Hughes, C. E. (2009).Response to intervent ion, col laborat ion,and co - teaching: A logical co mbinat ionfor successful systemic change. Prevent-ing School Failure, 53, 267-277. doi : 10.32001PSFL53.4.267-277

Salend, S. J. (2010). Creating inclusiveclassrooms: Effective and reflective prac-tices (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusiveclassrooms: A metasynthesis of qual i ta-tive research. Exceptional Children 47392-416.

Sileo, J. M., van Garderen , D. (2010).Creating optimal opportunities to learnmathemat ics: Blending co- teaching st ruc-tures wi th research-based pract ices.TEACHING Exceptional Children. 42(3) ,14-21.

Sinclair, C. (1998). Nine unique features ofthe Canadian code of ethics for psycholo-gists. Canadian Psychology/PsychologieCanadienne, 39, 167-176. doi : 10.1037/h0086805

n-ent, S. C , Driver, B. L., Woo d, M. H .,Parrott, P. S., Martin, T. F., Smith W. G.(2003). Creating and sustaining a specialeducat ion/general educat ion par tnership:A story of evolut ion, chang e, and uncer-tainty. Teaching and Teacher Edu cation.19 , 203-219. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)0014X

Villa, R. A., Th ous and , J. S., Nevin, A. I.(2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practicaltips for facilitating stu dent learning 2n ded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Weiss, M. P., Lloyd, J. (2003). Conditionsfor co-teaching: Lessons from a casestudy. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 26, 27-41. doi: 10.1177/088840640302600104

Jane M. Sileo (New Y ork CEC), AssistantProfessor, Department of EducationalStudies, State U niversity of New York at NewPaltz.Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Jane M. Sileo,Department of Educational Studies, StateUniversity of New York at New Paltz,SCB150, 1 Hawk Drive, New Paltz NY 12561(e-mail: [email protected]).Note: The names of the co-teachers in thisarticle are pseudonyms.TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 43,No. 5,pp. 32-38.

Copyright 2011 CEC.38 COUNCIL FOR E XCE PT IONAL CHIL DRE N


8/8

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Co-taught Ideas Copy

Documents

Transcript of Co-taught Ideas Copy