THE MANY FACES OF CO-TEACHING:

HOW DOES CO-TEACHING IMPACT STUDENTS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF

ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING?

by

KILEY THOMPSON

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of the University of West Georgia in Partial Fulfillment

of the

Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Education

CARROLLTON, GEORGIA

2010
 UMI Number: 3443013

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3443013
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 THE MANY FACES OF CO-TEACHING:

HOW DOES CO-TEACHING IMPACT STUDENTS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF

ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING?

by

KILEY THOMPSON

Approved:

Dissertation Chairperson

ift\AJR-lAs>~
Dr,r. Martha Larkin \j

Dissertation Committee Member

Jon Ponder

Dissertation Committee Membe;

P-12 Representative

Approved:

Dean, The Graduate School

y
te S
Date
 ABSTRACT

KILEY THOMPSON: The Many Faces of Co-Teaching:

How Does Co-Teaching Impact Students at Different Levels of Academic Functioning?

(Under the direction of Dr. Craig Mertler)

The evolution of special education has led to the development of service models

that provide students with disabilities the opportunity to be in the general education

classroom while facilitating the placement through additional support. As one of these

service models, co-teaching has been shown to offer benefits to students with special

needs and teachers, but little research is available regarding the impact of co-teaching on

students at different levels of academic performance. By considering student perceptions

of co-teaching and the achievement scores of co-taught students, the researcher examined

the effect of co-teaching on student performance, paying specific attention to how

students with special needs, general education students, and gifted students were

influenced by the service model.

Through the analysis of surveys, interviews, and CRCT scores, numerous trends

were noted in the data. Students from all levels of academic performance expressed

positive perceptions of co-teaching, stating the benefit of receiving extra help and having

multiple instructional perspectives in the classroom. But despite the general positive

attitudes about co-teaching, a pervasive negative assumption about co-teaching was

evident in student responses. Quantitative data revealed a significant increase in CRCT

scores for students with disabilities in a co-taught math class and no significant change in

CRCT scores for general education and gifted students.

Limitations such as small sample size and the researcher's previous relationship

with some participants may have restricted the generalizability of the results. Future

iii
research should increase the size of the study in an effort to increase the reliability of the

findings. Additionally, future studies should control for outside factors that could also

impact results, such as variability in testing content, cultural differences, and

socioeconomic status.

IV
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There is no way that I can express the level of gratitude I have for all those who

helped me along this journey. Teachers, friends, and family members have all walked

with me, guiding each step and providing me with direction, and without each of you I

could never have made it. First, I would like to thank Cohort 8, Dr. Cher Hendricks, and

all the amazing professors I have had throughout my doctoral coursework. You have

helped me to grow as a leader, a follower, and an educator. Thank you for nurturing me

and helping me see the world beyond my experiences.

Also at the top of my list is Dr. Craig Merrier, dissertation chair extraordinaire.

Thank you for letting me be neurotic and ask a million questions. You kept me focused

while reminding me that there is more to life than a dissertation. Thank you for being a

better chair than I ever could have imagined.

I would also like to thank my team, my confidantes, my co-conspirators, my

colleagues. Thank you for all your support, your laughter, your distractions, and your

good advice. You will never know how much you truly mean to me. You show me

everyday why I am proud to be an educator and your friend.

I also want to acknowledge the wisdom, strength, and spirit of my mentor and

friend, Christa Smith. Through powerful example and thoughtful discussion, you have

shown me what quality leadership looks like. There is no way to convey the impact you

have had on my understanding of superior instruction and my definition of student

v
success. Every step of the way, you are there, exemplifying the best and expecting better,

and I am a better educator because of it.

Additionally, I would like to thank my family. Each and every one of you are

amazing. You have supported me throughout this process, and I would be lost without

your direction. To my Momma Mac, you have kept my babies and kept me sane. I love

you. To my sister, I'm not sure for whom this was more difficult, you or me. You have

talked me off the figurative ledge on more than one occasion, and I appreciate it. Thank

you for making me laugh when I wanted to cry, making me write when I wanted to quit,

and making me crazy whenever you could. To my mother, thank you for teaching me the

glory and the wonder of learning, and thank you for instilling in me the need to be better.

Through your quiet leadership, you taught me the importance of respect, the value of

personal commitment, and the strength of the bond made by kindness and generosity.

You made me the woman I am today, and I love you.

Finally, I want to thank the three most important people in my life, David, Jake,

and Lillian. Because of your laughter, your love, and your patience, we have made my

dream a reality. David, you are my best friend. Even though you rarely understand why

I do what I do, you anticipate my every thought, respond before I even ask the question,

and love me despite all my imperfections. Thank you for your honesty and for being the

love of my life. Jake, thank you for reminding me how important it is to enjoy the small

things in life like good popcorn, riding a bike without training wheels, sticking your head

out of the sunroof, and playing in a big cardboard box. You are one of the funniest

people I know, and I am lucky to be your mom. Lillian, your hugs brighten my day.

Thank you for making this year of dissertation interesting.

vi
 I dedicate this work to the loving memory of my father, a devoted chicken farmer

from Buchanan, Georgia whose life work was to make a difference in the lives of others.

If he were here, I'm sure there would be lots of tears, lots of hugs, and a really

embarrassing answering machine message.

vn
 VITA

2001 B.S., Biology Education

University of Georgia, Athens, GA

2001 - 2004 8th Grade Earth Science Teacher

Sewell Middle School
Bremen, GA

2005 M.S., Interrelated Special Education

University of West Georgia
Carrollton, GA

2005 - 2008 7th Grade Special Education Teacher

Sewell Middle School
Bremen, GA

2006 - 2008 Special Education In-School Coordinator

Sewell Middle School
Bremen, GA

2009 Educational Leadership

University of West Georgia
Carrollton, GA

2008 - 2010 7th grade Mathematics/Team Lead

Bremen Middle School
Bremen, GA

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: School Improvement

Content Specialty: Educational Leadership

vin
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

VITA vii

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Overview 1
Background 1
Rationale of the Study 4
Significance of the Study 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Definitions 12

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 13

Introduction 13
History of Inclusionary Practices in Special Education 16
The Unofficial Beginnings of Special Education 17
Legal Decisions Before EAHCA 21
The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 25
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 27
Co-teaching and Its Impact 30
The Impact of Co-teaching on Teachers 31
Factors Related to the Success of the Co-teaching Relationship 41
The Impact of Co-teaching on Students 53
Summary 101

III. METHODOLOGY 103

Setting 104
Participants and Sample Selection 107
Data Collection Strategies 109
Instrumentation 112
Open-ended Survey 112
Individual Interview 113
Validity of Qualitative Data Collection 114
Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test 115
Data Analysis Strategies 117

IX
 IV. RESULTS 120
Research Question One 120
Increased Help 121
Different Instructional Perspectives 122
Positive Opinion of Co-taught Classes 123
Underlying Negative Assumption 124
Research Question Two 128
Research Question Three 130
Research Question Four 131
Unanticipated Findings 133
Roles of General Education Teacher and Special Education
Teacher 133
Difference in Student Scores at Different Grade Levels 134

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 136

Overview of the Literature 136
Summary of the Results 138
Research Question One 139
Research Question Two 142
Research Question Three 142
Research Question Four 144
Limitations 145
Small Number of Participants 146
Prior Relationship with the Researcher 147
Outside Factors Contributing to Student Achievement 148
Differences in Content 148
Implications for School Improvement 149
Recommendations 151

REFERENCES 152

APPENDICES

A. Follow-up Letter and Parent Consent Form 175

B. Student Consent Form 177
C. Open-ended Online Survey 178
D. Proctor's Guide for the Survey 181
E. Interview Protocol 182

x
 CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself. - John Dewey

Throughout the history of education, there have been differences in students.

Intellectual, behavioral, and social, these differences have mediated the quality of

education received by students and influenced the levels of success achieved. In an effort

to ensure a certain degree of social justice, groups of reformers, parents, and activists

began advocating for inclusive education, a concept that mandated the appropriate

education of all students (Osgood, 2008; Winzer, 1993). Over the years, the exigencies

of these groups led to the development of the legislation known as the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act.

Background

The concept of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) began in

the mid-1970s with the development of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act

of 1975 (Apling & Jones, 2002; Gandhi, 2007). With this federal mandate, the formal

integration of students with disabilities into schools and the general education classroom

commenced. Though most students with special needs remained segregated within

schools, the first steps toward inclusive education for students with disabilities were

taken. Throughout the 1980s, efforts toward integration were focused on mainstreaming;

that is, the placement of students with disabilities into general education classrooms with

little instructional support (Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri, 1998). In 1990, IDEA and the
 2

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) reforms continued to impel educators to accept

students with special needs into the general education classroom (Apling & Jones, 2002;

Nisbet, 2004). Comprehensive revisions of IDEA in 1997 and 2004 further articulated

the expectation of inclusion, and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001

underscored this effort (Apling & Jones, 2002; Etscheidt, 2006; Executive Summary,

2004; Gandhi, 2007; Rice, Drame, Owens, & Frattura, 2007).

Since their inception, IDEA and NCLB have been changing the educational

environment for all types of learners (Apling & Jones, 2002; Etscheidt, 2006; Executive

Summary, 2004; Gandhi, 2007; Rice et al., 2007). Legislative attempts to ensure the

delivery of quality instruction through research-based methods to all students, including

students with special needs or at-risk of failure, have altered the face of education

through the implementation of accountability measures and research-based pedagogical

best practices. These legislative mandates have focused on educating students with

disabilities using the same curriculum as is used with general education students. By

incorporating the use of differentiated instruction and instructional modifications into the

general education classroom, educators have developed more inclusive service models

for students in special education that meet the requirements established in the law (Moore

et al., 1998; Rice et al., 2007).

One product of these changes in practice is collaborative teaching (often referred

to as "co-teaching"), the practice of a general educator and a special educator sharing all

responsibilities for a class, including delivery of instruction, planning, and management

of behavior (Cook & Friend, 1995; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Walsh & Snyder, 1993).

Co-teaching became a frequently used service model for students with disabilities in the
 3

late-1990s and early-2000s after the reauthorizations of IDEA in 1997 and 2004 (Austin,

2001; Wischnowski, Salmon, & Eaton, 2004); its success with diverse groups of students

has increased its popularity (Collins, Hemmeter, Schuster, & Stevens, 1996; Dieker &

Murawski, 2003; Friend, & Reising, 1993; Reinhiller, 1996; Wheeler & Mallory, 1996).

Co-teaching is defined as the presence of two qualified teachers, a general

educator and a special educator, working together in the same classroom providing

instruction for a group of heterogeneous students, including but not limited to students

with special needs (Cook & Friend, 1995; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Jang, 2006; Keefe,

Moore, & Duff, 2004; Knackendoffel, 2005; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002). While both

teachers share responsibilities within the classroom, the special education teacher

provides expertise concerning instructional strategies and accommodation options while

the general educator provides extensive content knowledge (Gerber, 1996; Keefe, Moore,

& Duff, 2004; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002). By working together to develop an

appropriate curriculum and deliver instruction, the two teachers expand collaboration

beyond superficial modifications and create a learning environment rich in varied

experience and knowledge, an environment greatly enhanced by the act of collaborating

(Jang, 2006). Collaborative efforts such as those experienced during co-teaching

contribute to the efficacy of teachers, potentially increasing their ability to provide

adequate instruction and improve student achievement (Friend & Riesling, 1993;

Jameson, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen, & Polychronis, 2007; Ross, McKeiver,

Hogaboam-Gray, 1997; Schwab Learning, 2003; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). Further,

through the implementation of the co-teaching model, schools expand their abilities to

meet the needs of all students and provide opportunities for special education and at-risk
students to be successful in the general education classroom (Gerber, 1996; Morocco &

Aguilar, 2002; Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Tichenor, Heins, & Piechura-Couture, 2000;

Wilson & Michaels, 2006).

A great deal of research designed to examine the effectiveness of co-teaching has

been conducted (Daane, Beirne-Smith, & Latham, 2000; Edwards, Green, & Lyons,

1996; Friend, 2007; Gerber, 1996; Keefe et al., 2004; Knackendoffel, 2005; Mastropieri

et al, 2001; Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Olson & Chalmers, 1997; Salend et a l , 1997;

Wilson & Michaels, 2006). The body of literature is extensive, ranging from how the

service model impacts student efficacy to what aspects of the teaching relationship make

co-teaching successful. The benefits of co-teaching for students with special needs and

teachers have been clearly articulated; yet, one group impacted by the arrangement seems

to have been overlooked. While numerous studies explain the positive impacts of co-

teaching on students with special needs as well as those in general education (Friend &

Riesling, 1993; Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Idol, 2007; Jameson et al., 2007;

Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Tichenor et al., 2000; Wilson &

Michaels, 2006), the effects of co-teaching on gifted and talented students have been

neglected in the research. Few studies denote the potential differences of this group of

students, and fewer still examine these differences in response to the co-teaching model.

Rationale for the Study

As NCLB continues to influence the instructional practices of schools, many

teachers and administrators have begun to focus most of their attention on the subgroups

performing weakest on standardized tests, such as students with disabilities and

economically disadvantaged students (Ferretti & Eisenman, 2010; Rice et al., 2007).
 5

Because lower achievement data for these groups are preventing schools from making

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), educators devote a great deal of time and energy to

students in these subgroups, ensuring that students with disabilities and other at-risk

students receive the academic attention and remediation necessary to meet specific

curriculum standards. The changes to educational practices brought about by NCLB

have resulted in increased academic attention to minority and impoverished individuals,

more appropriate instruction for struggling students, and many positive changes in

American education (Ferretti & Eisenman, 2010; Rice et al., 2007).

As opposed to the beneficial changes made in instructional practices for

struggling students as a result of NCLB, an unfortunate consequence of the regulations is

the decrease of specialized curriculum and resources devoted to the gifted and talented

students within schools (Gallagher, 2004; Gentry, 2006). This omission could have

detrimental effects on the performance and achievement of these students. Although

academically gifted students generally perform well on standardized tests and, therefore,

give cause for little concern in a school system's quest for AYP, the schools have a

definite responsibility to challenge these individuals so that their growth is evident and

their potential can be met. The implementation of research-based instruction that focuses

on the needs of lower functioning individuals may be in conflict with the instructional

needs of higher achieving students (Henley, McBride, Milligan, & Nichols, 2007).

Because test scores appear to be used only to indicate a problem at the lower end of the

academic spectrum, teachers and administrators are forced to focus on the students

unable to meet the standards, leaving gifted students to settle for mediocre progress and

little academic growth. This diversion of attention from students who are gifted and
talented is the conundrum created by NCLB and has the potential for decreasing

educational achievement for these students.

Although researchers have evaluated the effectiveness of various instructional

methods and service models on students, research generally has not been the initiating

factor in decisions related to changes in the law (Cronis & Ellis 2000; Dorn, 2002;

Osgood, 2008). Changes in IDEA and NCLB related to requirements placed on schools

traditionally have been prompted by social movements and judicial decisions; through

litigation, revisions to IDEA have been under continual interpretation since their initial

application in the 1970s (Cronis & Ellis, 2000; Etscheidt, 2006; Gallagher, 1997; Nisbet,

2004). Despite drastic changes in implementation, service models, and instruction

instigated by the reforms, scientific studies and data have not been identified as reasons

for any modifications to IDEA or the construction of NCLB, and sufficient research has

not been conducted to support the changes required by both laws (Weiss, 2004). In fact,

an entire subgroup of the student population has been neglected in the research. The

effects of inclusive service models on gifted students are relatively unknown, and more

information is essential in making appropriate decisions related to these students.

In addition to providing enlightening information for legislative decisions and

requirements, this study will help drive instructional practices related to educating all

students. As a former special education teacher and a current general education math

teacher, I have extensive experience with inclusion and co-teaching. I have played both

the special education and the general education role in the co-teaching partnership, and I

have been parts of successful and unsuccessful co-teaching relationships.

 7

There is a great deal of value in co-teaching when implemented appropriately.

Collaborative teaching relationships can lead to increased levels of teacher efficacy and

stronger instructional practices within the classroom as well as numerous positive student

outcomes. But if true collaboration is not taking place, and the roles and responsibilities

related to instruction and organization are not shared, the resulting situation can be

destructive. Students and teachers alike could be affected by the inadequacies of the

partnership. Having experienced and observed the positives and the negatives of co-

teaching models, I became interested in ways to improve its implementation and

effectiveness especially for students who are gifted and talented.

The co-taught classroom can appear very different depending on the school

setting. Larger schools have enough teachers and classes available so they can restrict

the heterogeneity of the students in inclusive co-taught rooms. This selection of specific

students for co-taught classes allows for a mixed-ability group of students in a class, yet

at the same time limiting the extent of the variation between the most and least capable

learners. Smaller schools, however, are unable to be as selective in choosing students

placed in co-taught classrooms because of fewer available classes. In these cases, co-

taught classes could contain students ranging in ability from those with significant

learning or intellectual disabilities to students who are labeled as gifted. The disparity in

abilities within these classrooms makes meeting the needs of all the students increasingly

more difficult.

As a former In-School Coordinator for Special Education, I have listened to

numerous parents discuss their concerns about their child being in a co-taught classroom.

Parents of students with special needs were concerned that the general education
 8

classrooms would be too difficult for their child. Apprehensive about the increased

workload and higher stress level of the inclusive setting, these parents often wanted to

keep their children in the resource setting. Conversely, parents of gifted/high-achieving

students feared the curriculum would be modified to meet the needs of the special

education students and would no longer challenge their children. Parents of students who

are gifted voiced their concerns that co-teaching would result in limited achievement and

academic progress, and these parents tried to move their children to other classrooms.

Administrators and teachers continually tried to assure all parents that all students would

receive the instruction they needed, citing co-teaching benefits such as reduced

student/teacher ratio, collaborative planning, and expanded experiential knowledge. But

after observing different students in different academic settings, I began to wonder if co-

teaching was beneficial to all students.

Through this research, student opinions related to their experiences in a co-taught

classroom were assessed and related to their academic achievement with these

perceptions. The findings resulting from this research add to the literature base related to

co-teaching, revealing the nuances of how co-teaching affects students who are

performing on different academic levels. This information is valuable not only in the

larger scope of educational reform, but also in each school's daily struggles to provide

quality instruction to all students. By extending the data related to the effectiveness of

co-teaching and looking specifically at its influence on the instruction of and ultimate

achievement by students in special education, general education, and gifted groups, the

study pinpoints the specific effects of co-teaching for each subgroup of students and
 9

provides recommendations that will assist teachers and administrators in making the

challenging decisions related to placement and scheduling of all students.

Significance of the Study

Because of the increasing use of co-teaching as an inclusion teaching model, the

results obtained from this study will benefit numerous groups of students. Teachers and

administrators attempting to devise the most beneficial class structures for their schools

could use this information to organize positive learning environments for all students. By

understanding the experiences and responses related to co-teaching, administrators can

make organizational decisions appropriate for the needs of each child based on the best

practice for his/her level of academic functioning. For all educators, it is imperative that

academic and instructional decisions be based on reliable information that takes into

consideration student needs instead of convenience. Providing information about the

academic and social experiences of all students and their resulting achievement could

help inform teachers and administrators and lead to better placement for students.

Teachers also could benefit from the study because student opinions related to

beneficial and/or detrimental aspects of co-teaching will help teachers improve their

instructional practices. The findings of the study allow teachers to better understand the

differences among the academic needs of students at various cognitive levels, and the

information allows them to change delivery of instruction and planning procedures to

create a class more conducive to their students. According to research, teacher

collaboration has been shown to improve instruction and increase teacher efficacy (Lenn

& Hatch, 1992; Reinheller, 1996; Ross et al., 1997); therefore, student opinions about the

benefits and restrictions of the co-teaching service delivery model hopefully will
 10

encourage teachers modify and enrich their collaborative practices and increase the

academic learning of all students.

The improvements to organizational and instructional practices of schools and

teachers as a result of the findings of this study, such as more appropriate scheduling

options, increased differentiation strategies, and improved teaching practices also should

result in educational achievement benefits for students. Because of the information

derived from this study regarding the effect of the co-teaching model on the student

achievement of varied groups of students in co-taught classes, students with special

needs, general education students, and students who are gifted all profit. There may be

more value in the findings related to gifted students as there is little research related to the

influence co-teaching has on their learning experiences. This study's examination of the

experiences of students at various levels of academic performance provides information

that contributes to the literature and informs teachers, administrators, and students about

the optimum co-teaching learning environment.

Purpose of the Study

As the complete implementation of IDEA 2004 finds its way into schools across

the country and the full implications of NCLB are being realized, research concerning the

effectiveness of the teaching models endorsed by these laws on all students would be

valuable. In an effort to evaluate the co-teaching service delivery model, this study

attempts to answer the following primary research questions:

• What patterns exist in the perceptions of students at various levels of

academic performance (i.e., special, general, and gifted education) about their

learning experiences in a co-taught classroom?

 11

• How have these same students performed on standardized achievement tests?

What measured differences have existed between students at different

academic levels?

• How does co-teaching impact the achievement scores of students at different

levels of academic functioning?

• In what ways do the themes and patterns in perceptions about co-taught

classrooms help to explain any differences in students' academic

achievement?

The conclusions drawn from this study could help drive future educational reform by

revealing the effect of co-teaching on students with disabilities, students in general

education, and students who are gifted and talented.

The purpose of this study is to determine how the classroom experiences of

students at different levels of academic performance are influenced by co-teaching and to

examine these experiences and perceptions in light of their academic achievement.

Smaller schools often struggle with meeting the needs of all students because of the

limited options available. By examining the experiences of co-taught students at multiple

levels of academic functioning, the study reveals the effects of co-teaching on all children

of various intellectual levels and provides valuable information on how curricular and

scheduling decisions are impacting different subgroups of students.

 12

Definitions

Co-teaching - the practice of a general and special educators sharing all responsibilities

for a class, including delivery of instruction, planning, and management of

behavior (Cook & Friend, 1995; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Walsh & Snyder,

1993). The two teachers work together in the same classroom to provide

instruction to a group of heterogeneous students, including students with special

needs, general education students, and higher achieving students (Bouck, 2007;

Dieker, 2001; Gately & Gately, 2001; Jang, 2006; Kloo & Zigmond, 2008).

Inclusion - concept of including students with disabilities in the general education

classroom to the fullest extent possible (Apling & Jones, 2002; Etscheidt, 2006;

Executive Summary, 2004; Gandhi, 2007; Rice et al., 2007). For the purposes of

this study, inclusion also refers to the service model in which students with

special needs are in a general education classroom with the support of a special

education paraprofessional.

Mainstreaming - the service model in which students with special needs are in a general

education classroom without the support of any special education services (Moore

e t a l , 1998)

Collaboration - general term referring to the mutually beneficial interaction of two or

more educators related to the development of instruction, scheduling or other

professional issues. Collaboration can occur through professional learning

communities, co-teaching, and mentoring, in addition to numerous other formats

(da Costa, 1993; Thousand, Villa, & Nevins, 2006)

 13

CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

This general review of the literature includes topics that provide foundational

knowledge related to special education in addition to the findings of current research

focusing on co-teaching. The history of special education as is examined in this literature

review is divided into four major segments of time: the origins of special education, the

legal decisions before the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the

implementation of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, and the

implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In addition to the

historical perspective of inclusionary practices, current co- teaching research related to

teachers and students also is included. The benefits of co-teaching for teachers are

delineated as are the specific elements necessary for a positive co-teaching relationship.

The benefits and potential detriments of co-teaching to students with special needs and

students in general education also will be explored, but because the literature does not

address the impact of co-teaching on gifted students, the research related to gifted

students and specific characteristics of co-teaching will be examined.

Introduction

Over the course of the past 50 years, much has changed with respect to the

education of students with disabilities. Numerous legislative actions have provided legal

guidance regarding the education of all students, and extensive amounts of research
 14

concerning the appropriate instructional practices of teachers and placements of students

have been conducted. One specific area of educational reform is the inclusion of special

education students in the general education classroom; likewise, educational research has

evolved that attempted to determine the effectiveness of inclusive education.

In the 1970s and 1980s, research focused mainly on the implementation and

practice of mainstreaming students with disabilities into general education (Myles &

Simpson, 1989; Odom & McEvoy, 1990; Truesdell, 1990; Zigmond, Levin, & Laurie,

1985). In the 1990s, research began to focus on the true inclusion of students with

special needs into the general classroom and effectiveness of instructional models related

to this practice (Banerji & Dailey, 1995; Moore, Gilbreath, & Maiuri, 1998; Ritter,

Michel, & Irby, 1999). In the past 15 years, inclusion research has focused more

specifically on collaboration and co-teaching the effectiveness of these models on the

achievement of social and educational achievement of students with and without

disabilities (Keefe et al., 2004; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Murphy, Beggs, Carlisle, &

Greenwood, 2004; Rice et al., 2007).

The development of newer service models allowing students with disabilities to

be included in the general education classroom resulted mainly from the amendments to

federal legislation for students with disabilities, namely IDEA, and the development of

NCLB which demanded increased exposure for children with disabilities to the general

curriculum and strengthened requirements for service in the least restrictive environment

(Moore et al, 1998; Rice et al., 2007). Co-teaching is one of the inclusion service

delivery models that provide for the inclusion of students with special needs in general

education environments while maintaining the needed support for their academic and
 15

social success in the general education classroom (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Walsh &

Snyder, 1993).

Co-teaching involves the collaborative efforts of two teachers working together to

provide instruction to a heterogeneous group of students (Cook & Friend, 1995; Dieker &

Murawski, 2003; Jang, 2006; Keefe et al., 2004; Knackendoffel, 2005; Morocco &

Aguilar, 2002; Salend et al., 1997). The general education and special education teachers

collaborate to develop and teach the grade level curriculum to all students through the use

of numerous co-teaching instructional models, such as "one teach, one assist," "parallel

teaching," and "station teaching." Though the general education teacher typically is

identified as the content expert and the special education teacher is identified as the

accommodations and instructional differentiation expert, both teachers are active

participants in the teaching process and are responsible equally for student learning

(Gerber, 1996; Keefe et al., 2004; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002).

This partnership usually results in numerous instructional benefits for the co-

teachers including reduced student-teacher ratio, expanded background knowledge from

which to draw, and the ability to provide more direct instruction to those in need. But the

advantages of co-teaching go beyond the obvious aspects that result from adding another

teacher to the classroom, and they are not superficial. Increased teacher efficacy and

enriched pedagogical practices often are the result of positive co-teaching relationships;

research studies have verified social and academic growth of students in the co-teaching

classroom (Gerber, 1996; Kroeger & Kouch, 2006; Jang, 2006; Ross et al, 1997).

Special education programs of today are the culmination of the decisions and

opinions of many outside influences. The hands of federal legislation, frequent litigation,
 16

and social opinion have molded the face of special education from its nondescript origins

in needs-based, ungraded classrooms to a distinct field of study riddled with legal

intricacies and social implications (Cronis & Ellis 2000; Dorn, 2002; Osgood, 2008).

Because of the vast impact special education has on the entire educational system, it is

important to know the history of special education in order to fully understand the legacy

of the original practitioners (Dorn, 2002; Kauffman & Landrum, 2006). Knowledge of

the origins of certain educational policies, such as inclusion, and the steps taken to

achieve these policies can provide a deeper understanding of their intent and, thus, lead to

improved practice.

History of Inclusionary Practices in Special Education

The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet. - Aristotle

The question of when special education began has many answers. Some think

that special education originated from necessity after school attendance became

compulsory in all states in 1918 (Dorn, 2002; Compulsory education, 2009). Special

education as it is called today resulted when services were needed to relieve classroom

teachers of behaviorally difficult students or students who did not fit the physical or

intellectual expectations of teachers. Others feel that a sense of social responsibility

developed prior to the enforcement of compulsory education laws, and this social

conscience led to the formation of special education practices. Individuals of this mind

cite the acts of numerous individuals such as Jean Marc Itard, Samuel Gridley Howe, and

Dorthea Dix as leaders in the movement for specialized education (Dorn, 2002;

Kauffman & Landrum, 2006; Pantheon of disability history, 2008; Osgood, 2008;

Winzer, 1993). But whatever the impetus for the decision to separate students with
 17

academic, sensorial, physical, and/or behavioral issues from the general population of

students set in motion the development of intense sets of rules and regulations related to

the education of students with special needs used today.

The unofficial beginnings of special education. Throughout the nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries, the United States was in a time of great transition (Osgood,

2008; Winzer, 1993). The ever-changing face of American society had a great impact on

the development of the educational system and the instructional methods used with

children of school age. Early in the 1800s, most Americans lived in rural communities,

and relatively few children received formal education. Urbanization, industrialization,

and immigration throughout the nineteenth century vastly changed the way people lived

and interacted and caused a surge in the number of people living in cities, an increase in

the heterogeneity of the population, and transformation in the expectations for children in

society (Osgood, 2008; Winzer, 1993). Moving from a mostly agrarian economy to one

that depended largely on industry, Americans began to realize the need for formal

education to prepare a skilled work force, and societal expectations began to reflect this.

These changes were even more stressful for persons with disabilities (Winzer, 1993).

Once able to contribute to the community and family through certain menial and

uncomplicated aspects of agricultural development, individuals with disabilities became

more visible in the industry-dependent society of the nineteenth century and began to be

viewed as social and educational liabilities.

A movement supporting strong governmental involvement in social issues and the

implementation of regulations to manage public welfare called Progressivism led to the

implementation of compulsory education (Compulsory education, 2009; Dorn, 2002;

 18

Osgood, 2008; Winzer, 1993). With this requirement came the development of new

issues. As children poured into public schools across the nation, discrepancies in ability

became more apparent (Handler, 2007; Osgood, 2008). Most people felt contempt for

individuals with disabilities and saw the need for organizational changes in order to

remedy schools of the malady of such students. Advocates of the Progressive movement

saw these differences as an opportunity to continue implementation of educational

reform, to attend to the needs of special students, and to protect the general population

from these students' abnormalities. As school reformers responded to the differences in

student abilities and new services and institutions were developed, teachers began to

acknowledge the presence of disabilities much more readily and identified the need for

specialized instruction.

One response to the disparity among students was the development of educational

institutions (Kauffman & Landrum, 2006; Osgood, 2008; Winzer, 1993). Although many

individuals with significant disabilities already resided in institutions or asylums, the lack

of educational provisions or structures to meet their needs caused concern, thus leading to

the development of specialized institutions specifically designed to provide academic and

social instruction to these students (Handler, 2007; Kauffman & Landrum, 2006; Osgood,

2008; Winzer, 1993). Winzer's (1993) written history of special education described the

religious and social concerns many reformers hoped to address in specialized institutions,

constructing an isolated environment significantly different from the educational settings

of public schools.

In larger cities, students with disabilities not relegated to institutions often were

placed in separate classrooms within the school, in ungraded classes where any student
 19

unable to maintain a certain level of progress was sent to catch up to his/her peers

(Handler, 2007; Osgood, 2008; Winzer, 1993). By removing these students from the

general populations, schools relieved the pressure on teachers to instruct difficult or

different students and also provided a distinctly different curriculum directed at the needs

of these diversified students.

Often, students in these classes originated from markedly different backgrounds,

and, many being immigrants, may not have spoken the same language (Handler, 2007;

Osgood, 2008; Winzer, 1993). While the intention of educators was not to segregate

students with disabilities from the general population, that was the result, and the learning

environment created within these classrooms many times was unproductive. By

indiscriminately placing all troublesome or struggling students into one class, schools

developed a haven for unruly behavior and limited academic progress. Fortunately, after

the establishment of specific methods for the identification and labeling of certain

disabilities in the early 1900s, classes were developed to meet the specific needs of

certain disabilities. Classes were altered to address the needs of the mentally

handicapped, blind, speech impaired, and numerous other disabilities. These

advancements continued throughout the 1920s until disability-specific instruction in

specialized classrooms was common practice in most urban public schools.

By the 1930s, special education had become recognized by most as a necessary

and valuable division of public education (Osgood, 2008). The National Education

Association had formed the Division of Special Education, and teachers were receiving

professional training related to the instruction and treatment of students with disabilities,

specifically those with cognitive deficiencies. Educators began to develop instructional

 20

practices intended to achieve academic success with students with disabilities, and the

field of special education began to advance (Osgood, 2008; Wizner, 1993). Rural schools

struggled with the identification and teaching of students with disabilities, but teachers in

these settings developed strategies to address student needs, such as peer tutoring and

grouping (Osgood, 2008).

As time passed, the social opinion of special education continued to fluctuate and

be impacted by current events and research (Osgood, 2008; Wizner, 1993). In the 1930s,

long time special education advocated, such as Samuel Gridley Howe and Alexander

Graham Bell, waivered in their support of special education because of revelations in the

study of heredity and evolution. World War II had its own impact on public opinion,

igniting an attitude of acceptance for persons with disabilities and causing an increase in

attention to educating students with special needs. As educators began focusing

attentions on specialized curricula, students in need of such curricula were being placed

in segregated classes within public schools in order to provide specific instruction to meet

their needs (Wizner, 1993). As curricular and instructional developments increased,

isolation from the general population also increased, and over time, these special

classrooms became as remote as the institutions that were so common prior decades. At

that point, society's obligation to advance the education of children with disabilities

waned once more, and students became not only physically separated from their general

education peer, but socially separated as well.

From necessity and social conscience, special education as a recognized division

of public education was initiated and developed over the course of two centuries

(Handler, 2007; Osgood, 2008; Winzer, 1993). Although it is difficult to pinpoint a

 21

moment of conception, the teaching of students with disabilities has been an issue for

debate since the early 1800s. Various outside factors such as war and scientific

development greatly affected the views of the public, and the fluctuating stance of public

opinion heavily impacted the course of the field of special education. The education and

placement of students with disabilities varied throughout the early history of the field

from institutionalization to segregation to isolation, depending on the popular

philosophies of the time. Although the specifics of when and how special education

began may be debatable, the initialization of federal mandates related to educating

students with special needs is not. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of

1975 (EAHCA) officially began the mandate for special education in American schools.

But this piece of legislation did not initiate federal recognition of the educational needs of

students with disabilities.

Legal decisions before EAHCA. In the 1950s and 1960s, three federal court

decisions greatly impacted special education and were among many litigious the catalysts

for the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975: Brown v. the Board of

Education, Mills v. the Board of Education for the District of Columbia, and the

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania (Robinson,

1983; Wizner, 1993). The 1954 Brown v. the Board of Education was the judicial

cornerstone for all education discrimination cases, and Mills v. the Board of Education

for the District of Columbia and PARC v. Pennsylvania came at a critical time for

students with disabilities. The civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s had laid the

foundation for the judicial decisions that acknowledged the right to education for children

with disabilities and were seminal cases in the extensive history in litigation related to
 22

children with disabilities (Gangemi, 1984; Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Robinson, 1983;

Taylor, 2004; Wizner, 1993). Prior to this time, society's dismissal of children with

disabilities and judicial decisions that reflected this belief allowed local and state school

administrators to make their own decisions related to the education for students with

special needs (Robinson, 1983).

No court case had quite the impact on the inclusion of disadvantaged students as

Brown v. the Board of Education, the landmark decision that changed the face of

American education forever. While Brown did not specifically relate to the inclusion of

students with special needs, it did pronounce the injustice of the "separate but equal"

policy and clarified the right to education and due process for all children (Gangemi,

1984; Robinson, 1983). Initially, the impact of the Brown decision on the inclusion of

students with disabilities was not evident in public schools, but the statement it made

regarding the expectation of the state to provide an equally appropriate education to all

students had a profound effect on future litigation for these students. The Brown decision

opened the door for students with disabilities who had been denied the right to attend

public school by providing a judicial foundation on which to mount their complaints

(Colker, 2006; Gangemi, 1984; Robinson, 1983). Advocates for persons with disabilities

followed the lead of the civil rights movement and began to advocate more strenuously

for educational rights for all students with disabilities (Colker, 2006; Hardman &

Dawson, 2008).

PARC v. Pennsylvania was the first major case after Brown v. Board of

Education to address the inclusion of students with special needs (Gangemi, 1984;

Keogh, 2007; Robinson, 1983). The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children
 23

brought a class action suit against the state of Pennsylvania for denying a public

education for students with mental retardation (PARC v. Pennsylvania, 1972). This

litigation was the first of its kind to demand rights for individuals with mental retardation

similar to those granted to all races by Brown v. Board of Education. A consent decree

occurred before the case went to trial to resolve the issue, outlining numerous issues of

contention and providing protection for students with mental disabilities against unfair

exclusion from public schools.

At the time, school districts were preventing students with mental retardation

from attending school based on state statutes related to the trainability of students

(Gangemi, 1984; PARC v. Pennsylvania, 1972; Robinson, 1983). The state statutes

alleviated a school's responsibility for providing an education to any student not meeting

the requirements. PARC representatives argued that these statute denied students and

parents due process and withheld the students' rights to public education granted to all

children by the Constitution and certain laws of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs also

claimed the statute's assumption that certain students were uneducable and untrainable

lacked a "rational basis" (Gangemi, 1984; PARC v. Pennsylvania, 1972).

As in Brown v. Board of Education, the PARC case dealt specifically with a

child's access to public education but stated little about the quality of that education

(Gangemi, 1984), however, certain requirements were specified in the consent agreement

that resolved the case (Gangemi, 1984; PARC v. Pennsylvania, 1972; Robinson, 1983).

The state agreed to provide free public education for all children, including those with

mental disabilities (PARC v. Pennsylvania, 1972). According to the agreement, the

education of these students was to be "appropriate to his learning capacity" (PARC v.

 24

Pennsylvania, 1972, p. 5) and should include any services or programs offered to all

students, including preschool. Due process was also granted to students and parents

when educational placement was in question (Robinson, 1983). The agreement reached

by PARC and the state of Pennsylvania strengthened the legal foundation for litigation

concerning access to public education for students with disabilities and served as a

precursor to future federal special education legislation.

After PARC v. Pennsylvania extended the principles of the Brown decision to

students with mental retardation, another legal battle broadened the scope of equal access

to include children of all disabilities (Robinson, 1983). Mills v. Board of Education

(1972) was another class action lawsuit brought on behalf of seven children with various

disabilities who had been denied access to public education in the District of Columbia

without due process. The plaintiffs claimed that they could benefit from an education in

the public school, yet they had been excluded by the local board of education. Though

the District of Columbia had been serving some students with disabilities within its

school system, the vast majority had been overlooked or dismissed. The board of

education admitted their denial of a public education to certain students citing a lack of

funding as the reason for the (Gangemi, 1984; Robinson, 1983). The judge granted a

decision in favor of the children, and, more importantly, affirmed the school's

responsibility to provide an education to all students, no matter the disability, and

required schools to provide a hearing and review for any changes made to educational

placements for these students (Gangemi, 1984; Mills v. Board of Educ, 1972; Robinson,

1983). The verdict validated the prior finding in the PARC case and extended its

meaning to further articulate the legal requirements related to the education of students
 25

with disabilities. These judicial decisions and many others partnered with a changing

social opinion led to the development of legislation that would irrevocably change

American education forever (Gangemi, 1984; Osgood, 2008; Robinson, 1983; Winzer,

1993).

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Prior to 1967, the

legislation related to children with disabilities lacked any definitive requirements

regarding the quality or location of their education (Wizner, 1993). At the time, many

students with disabilities were educated in segregated institutions or in homes and often

the education was provided by parents or volunteers in a private setting (Colker, 2006;

Handler, 2007; Wizner, 1993). Other children with disabilities were not educated at all.

Over time, a concept begun in Sweden, known as "normalization," helped to change

social perception related to exceptional children and adults. This concept as well as the

legal challenges contributed to legislative changes in America regarding educational

practices for exceptional children (Cronis & Ellis, 2000; Phillips, 2008). Normalization

was a philosophy that focused on the integration of individuals with disabilities into the

general population. The belief that more growth and development could be seen in

children who regularly interacted with their nondisabled peers led people to advocate for

such circumstances in schools and prompted a change in federal law that mandated

inclusion rather than exclusion of persons with disabilities (Cronis & Ellis, 2000; Phillips,

2008; Winzer, 1993).

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, multiple pieces of legislation were passed that

eventually led to the passage of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped

Children Act (EAHCA), in 1975 (Colker, 2006; Gangemi, 1984; Wizner, 1993). The
primary purpose of EAHCA was to mandate a free, appropriate, education for individuals

with disabilities. This mandate also required the development of specific organizational

structures within public schools to provide for the education of students with disabilities

and reduce the usage of institutions (Colker, 2006). This law had multiple requirements,

including free appropriate public education for all students, education in the least

restrictive environment (LRE), and a strengthened requirement for due process

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2005; Keogh, 2007; Wizner, 1993). One of

the most important components of the law was LRE, an educational obligation to teach

students with their non-disabled peers "to the maximum extent appropriate" (Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act, 2005). This legislation galvanized the expectation for

students with disabilities to be taught in a public education setting as much as possible

and initiated an increase in inclusionary practices in public schools (Keogh, 2007;

Wizner, 1993).

But at the time EAHCA was developed, inclusion of students with special needs

was seen as allowing individuals with disabilities to attend a regular school instead of an

institution or specialized school (Handler, 2007; Taylor, 2004). Few options existed for

students with disabilities in public schools, and the realization of EAHCA and its

presumption of integration brought with it the need for new service models that would

ensure education in the least restrictive environment (Colker, 2006; Handler, 2007;

Taylor, 2004). With the implementation of the LRE requirement came the development

of the continuum of special education services (Taylor, 2004). As educators began to

assess the needs of students with respect to the least restrictive environment, options for

instructional services came to be viewed in a linear arrangement, extending from a

 27

general education setting with no support to intense levels of structure and support in an

isolated setting such as a special school, hospital, or even home. Because most schools at

the time did not have extensive programs for students in need of special education,

schools were forced to develop service options that satisfied the integration continuum of

services established in the law (Colker, 2006; Cronis & Ellis, 2000; Handler, 2007;

Taylor, 2004).

As EAHCA reached full implementation, special education services evolved to

meet the requirements of the legislation, providing students with disabilities access to

public education and, in some cases, exposure to the general education curriculum

(Colker, 2006; Handler, 2007; Taylor, 2004). A decade after the enactment of EAHCA,

A Nation at Risk, a commentary on the state of American schools in the mid-1980s,

changed the public's perception of education and led the federal government to

reexamine its involvement in the process of instructing children (Hardman & Dawson,

2008). Negative commentary related to the performance of American schools incited

reform efforts at the national level and led to the reexamination of EAHCA.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After its enactment in 1975,

EAHCA was reauthorized numerous times because of the funding appropriations, judicial

decisions, and changes in public opinion related to the education of students with

disabilities (Yell, Shriner, & Katsivannis, 2006). In 1990, EAHCA once again was

amended and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

However, all of the original mandates from the original law and succeeding amendments

remained in the law. Although some aspects of the original law were altered, such as

adding two new categories of disability and requiring a transition plan for students 16
 28

years of age or older, the presumption of integration into general education not only

remained a tenant of the legislation but was emphasized to a greater degree (Colker,

2006; Yell et al., 2006; Zirkel, 2005).

IDEA was reformed again in 1997. The role of parents in the decision-making

process was reinforced in the new law, and the requirements in individualized education

plans (IEPs) were modified to necessitate a transition plan for all students with special

needs ages 16 or older (Yell et al., 2006). Another major aspect of the reformed

legislation was the requirement for the assessment of students with disabilities in order to

ensure their appropriate academic growth (Daniel, 2008). This modification shifted the

focus of IDEA from merely providing access to public education to ensuring that the

education truly benefited the children with disabilities, thus making a powerful statement

regarding the goals of special education. Students with disabilities now were being

expected to perform academically, and schools were required to provide meaningful

instruction to facilitate learning. In addition to the change in purpose, the newly amended

version of IDEA also supported to a greater extent the inclusion of all students with

disabilities in the general education classroom, a movement initiated in EAHCA, but

given much more weight in the reauthorization of IDEA 1997 (Cronis & Ellis, 2000).

Since the reforms of 1997, every amendment to IDEA has required that students

with disabilities have access to the general curriculum, and that requirement has gained

strength over time (Daniel, 2008; Rice et al., 2007; Yell et al., 2006). These expectations

were strengthened by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the IDEA

reforms of 2004. NCLB specifically stated the importance of having high academic
 29

standards for students with disabilities and providing instructional supports to allow such

students to reach them (Daniel, 2008).

IDEA was amended once more in 2004; one of the major purposes of the new

IDEA was to align its mandates with those of NCLB. IDEA 2004 compelled educators to

keep students with disabilities in the general education classroom to the greatest extent

possible in order to reach the academic standards established by each state (Daniel, 2008;

Thousand et al., 2006; Vannest, Mahadevan, Mason, & Temple-Harvey, 2009; Yell et al.,

2006). Reform efforts also attempted to ensure that students with disabilities received

valuable instruction specific to the needs of the individual. While this had been a part of

legislation in the past, it had new meaning in the light of NCLB. Special educators now

were obligated to become highly qualified, teach the general curriculum to their students

with disabilities using methodologies that met the unique learning needs of each

individual, and to assess annually the success or failure of their students and, ultimately,

their teaching.

Least restrictive environment and the presumption of inclusion are viewed as

fundamental aspects of IDEA and fundamental expectations for parents of children with

disabilities. These two concepts have withstood the test of time and been reinforced

through litigation and legislative reformation (Daniel, 2008; Yell et al., 2006; Zirkel,

2005). If anything, the presumption for inclusion has grown stronger over time, and

students with disabilities are more likely to be taught the general curriculum in a general

education classroom now than any other time in the history of special education (Kloo &

Zigmond, 2008).
 30

But while legislative mandates initiated the move to a more inclusive learning

environment for students with special needs, other aspects of instruction had to change in

order to make inclusion a successful reality. Service models have developed and changed

over the last 15 years in order to accommodate the changes in federal legislation (Gately

& Gately, 2001; Moore et al, 1998; Rice et al, 2007), and a plethora of research related

to service models like inclusion and co-teaching has been conducted (Bouck, 2005;

Daane et al., 2000; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Olson & Chalmers, 1997). The

expectation of inclusion and the resulting service models impact students and teachers

alike, influencing a range of aspects such as teacher efficacy and student academic

performance (Wischnowski et al., 2004; Ross et al., 1997).

Co-teaching and Its Impact

The implementation of federal legislation coupled with litigation related to the

education of students with disabilities has led to the rapid evolution of special education

over the course of the past 50 years. From its mediocre origins in segregated institutions

with little to no beneficial instruction to the integration in general education classrooms

and mandated accountability, special education has changed a great deal over the past

five decades (Daniel, 2008; Osgood, 2008; Yell et al., 2006). None the least of these

changes is the development of supportive service models to facilitate the inclusion of

students with disabilities into the general education classroom, such as co-teaching

(Dieker, 2001; Gately & Gately, 2001). Co-teaching occurs when two teachers, one

general educator and one special educator, work together in the same classroom to jointly

provide instruction to a group of heterogeneous students (Bouck, 2007; Dieker, 2001;

 31

Gately & Gately, 2001; Jang, 2006; Kloo & Zigmond, 2008). The resulting instructional

environment has numerous benefits to students and teachers.

The impact of co-teaching on teachers. A large amount of research has been

conducted on co-teaching, including the professional, social, and pedagogical benefits of

teachers. Co-teaching has been noted to stimulate the enhancement of teaching

techniques and prompt teachers to examine their own personal assumptions and teaching

philosophies (Jang, 2002; Lenn & Hatch, 1992; Reinheller, 1996). When performed

appropriately, co-teaching can allow teachers the opportunity to learn from each other

through communication and observation and can also initiate the development of a

collaborative working environment that may lead to increased levels of teacher efficacy

and professionalism (Davis-Wiley & Cozart, 1998; Ross et al., 1997).

Roth and Tobin (2001, 2002; Roth, Tobin, Carambo, & Dalland, 2004, 2005)

have done extensive research related to the impact of co-teaching on teachers, students,

and the learning environment. Their studies have focused on using co-teaching and

dialogue as a tool for teacher education and evaluation (Roth et al., 2004; Roth & Tobin,

2002) and as a means for reaching at-risk students (Tobin & Roth, 2005). Through their

research, they have seen extensive benefits for teachers in the act of intense collaboration

through co-teaching. Teachers benefit from the collegial and communal interactions that

occur through planning and developing lessons and providing instruction for students

(Roth & Tobin, 2002). Advantages to co-teaching included a reduction of stress related

to work, increased opportunities to work with children, reduced behavioral problems in

the classroom, and a collective body of knowledge and experience enriched by the act of

working together. By participating in a quality collaborative relationship, teachers

 32

develop as individual practitioners by learning from their interactions with their partners,

as well as enhancing the classroom learning community by contributing to the growth of

the collective experience. This and other studies have established that effective co-

teaching results in an increase in teacher efficacy, improved instruction, and individual

professional growth.

The impact of co-teaching and collaboration on teacher efficacy. Teacher self

efficacy is the self-perception of a teacher concerning how well he/she can achieve the

goal of educating students (Coladarci & Breton, 1997; Edwards et al., 1996; Ross et al.,

1997). Based on the work of Bandura (1977), an individual's efficacy is comprised of

the understanding that certain behaviors will lead to student learning and the belief that

the individual can perform these behaviors. These two beliefs may be influenced by

numerous factors such as past experiences, collegial interactions, and administrative

involvement (Ross et al., 1997). Failure in past experiences or poor collaborative

relationships can lead to low teacher efficacy, which can hinder personal cognitive

functioning and the strength of goal commitment (Bandura, 1989; Bandura, Barbaranelli,

Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Ross et al., 1997). In addition to its personal effects, teacher

efficacy can also greatly impact student achievement and overall school effectiveness

(Edwards, Green, & Lyons, 1996; Ross et al., 1997).

Teacher efficacy can be influenced by a variety of factors, and inclusionary

practices have been shown to decrease teacher efficacy (Ross et al., 1997). In a study

conducted in four 9th grade classrooms, "destreaming," the practice of heterogeneously

grouping students to eliminate academic strata, had a negative impact on teachers' beliefs

of their abilities. This change in teaching environment led teachers to feel overwhelmed
 33

by the prospect of differentiating instruction and initiated a drop in teacher efficacy.

Teachers were concerned about meeting the needs of students at both ends of the

academic spectrum and felt that the change in classroom make-up would negatively

impact student motivation and achievement. But through assessments demonstrating

student success and teacher collaboration with peers, negative feelings subsided, and

teacher efficacy returned to higher levels. Teachers in the study referred to the emotional

support of their colleagues as being instrumental in the process, and others noted that a

collective power developed within the collaborative group that enabled each member to

grow professionally. Although teachers in the study were not co-teaching, their

collaboration resulted in similar circumstances. The teachers planned together, discussed

successful strategies for the classroom, and developed strong collegial bonds that

provided support throughout the teaching process. The varied perspectives and

approaches shared in the collaborative group contributed to the rebounding of teacher

efficacy. Without such beneficial supports, students may have been impacted by low

teacher-efficacy, reducing their motivation to learn and limiting their ability to make

progress.

Similar results were found in the Brownell and Pajares study (1996) where

researchers assessed the importance of teacher efficacy and collegial relationships on the

perceived success of educating students with special needs. This study focused on the

perceptions of the general education teachers, and the findings revealed the correlation

between a positive collaborative relationship and a successful teaching experience. Two

hundred general education teachers within a Southeastern county school district

participated in the study, being asked to complete a series of surveys. These surveys
 34

were then analyzed using path analysis techniques. The results indicated that teacher

efficacy and collegiality with the special education teacher greatly impacted the rate of

success. The study also found that collegial relationships with special educators and

other general education teachers impacted teacher efficacy, revealing the cyclic nature of

interpersonal dynamics and self-efficacy.

These two studies and numerous others indicate the value of close professional

collaboration and its influence on teacher efficacy (Brownell & Pajares, 1996; da Costa,

1993; McClure, 2008; Ross et al., 1997). Collaboration has been shown to improve the

practices and outlooks of teachers with lower professional efficacy (Ross, 1994).

Additionally, collaborative relationships in which there is a component of constructive

feedback that involves the mutual flow of communication and observation, such as co-

teaching, increase teacher efficacy more than other more casual forms of collaboration

(da Costa, 1993).

The impact of co-teaching on instruction. In addition to improving teacher

efficacy, collaboration and co-teaching also improve instruction. In a meta-analysis

concerning the importance of teacher efficacy, Ross (1994) found that collaboration

could positively impact the instructional practices of teachers having lower self-efficacy.

Teachers with lower self-efficacy were less likely to implement innovative instructional

practices, but when collaboration was initiated, these teachers became more likely to

implement such activities. Similar effects have been noted in co-teaching situations

when teachers are exposed to new instructional strategies (Banjeri & Dailey, 1995; Jang,

2006; Murawski & Hughes, 2009). The benefits of the collaboration that occur while co-

teaching are evident in improved classroom practices and varied pedagogy, a product of
 35

the collegial interactions that occur while planning lessons and instructing students.

Teachers become exposed to new concepts and build on the ideas of their partners,

resulting in enriched instruction.

Co-teaching and collaboration impact instruction in many ways. One of which is

the introduction of multiple fields of expertise to the planning and development of

content and the delivery of instruction (Patterson, Syverud, & Seabrooks-Blackmore,

2008; Rice & Zigmond, 2000). Fundamentally-different instruction is an important and

valuable result of collaboratively planning and teaching (Friend & Riesing, 1993). When

teachers with different backgrounds and fields of study share ideas and knowledge with

each other and their students' lessons become more interesting and effective

(Knackendoffel, 2005; Patterson et al., 2008; Rice & Zigmond, 2000). The union of

different perspectives and ideas create a more comprehensive curriculum and allow

students to benefit from the knowledge of two teachers. Also, topics for instruction can

be divided so that teachers can focus on topics about which they are more knowledgeable

or passionate (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1991; Patterson et al., 2008). By allowing teachers

the opportunity to share their enthusiasm for certain concepts and utilize their expertise to

collaboratively develop quality instruction, co-teaching helps facilitate the improvement

of content delivery.

Co-teaching also improves instruction because it enables more versatility in the

classroom. Having two teachers in one classroom provides the opportunity to use

flexible grouping and other instructional delivery models that may reduce student-teacher

ratio, allow for remediation, and enable critical observation of students (Bauwens &

Hourcade, 1997; Cook & Friend, 1995; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Friend & Riesing,
 36

1993). Five distinct approaches to instructional delivery have been noted in co-teaching,

each with its specific benefits to students and appropriateness for certain situations (Cook

& Friend, 1995; Dieker, 2001; Knackendoffel, 2005). "One teach, one assist", "station

teaching", "parallel teaching", "alternative teaching", and "team teaching" are all options

for providing instruction when co-teaching. "One teach, one assist" occurs when one of

the co-teachers is providing instruction while the other moves around the room offering

support and redirection to students. This strategy is helpful during whole group

instruction when students have difficulty staying on task or following a lecture. "Station

teaching" is when co-teachers teach different material to small groups within the class.

Students are rotated during the class period so that all students eventually receive the

same instruction while still benefitting from a reduced student-teacher ratio. Similarly, in

"parallel teaching", the students are divided into two groups. The co-teachers teach the

same material to a smaller group so as to offer more opportunity for student response,

allow students to be more comfortable in a smaller group, and provide more direct

attention to student activities. Another teaching format used in co-teaching is "alternative

teaching". This occurs when the class is divided into two groups and the teachers teach

different materials based on the students' needs. This format allows teachers to

remediate or accelerated, as needed. "Team teaching" is another option for providing

instruction in a co-taught classroom. With this method, both teachers are involved

directly in the teaching of material to the whole group. Team teaching allows teachers to

respond to the comments and questions of their co-teacher and the students. These

options for instructional format allow co-teachers to improve instruction and design

lessons to meet the needs of the specific students in their classroom.

 37

The use of these different teaching formats improve instruction in and of

themselves, but presenting lessons using these formats can also facilitate dialogue that

can improve instruction. Roth and Tobin and other colleagues worked extensively with

co-teaching as a means for teacher training and evaluation (Roth & Tobin, 2001, 2002;

Roth et al., 2005). In their research, co-teachers taught classes together and then

discussed the positive and negative aspects of the classes. Newer teachers learned

instructional strategies from the input and actions of their co-teachers and became aware

of the unconscious teaching characteristics that cannot be described in a classroom (Roth

& Tobin, 2001, 2002; Roth et al., 2005). Observations within the classroom allow co-

teachers to see positive instructional tactics, and collaborative planning and reflective

dialogue help co-teachers to improve lessons (Roth & Tobin, 2001, 2002; Roth et al.,

2005; Tannock, 2009). In the research of Roth and Tobin (2001; 2002; Roth et al., 2005),

new and experienced teachers benefitted from the interactions associated with co-

teaching and instructional practices improved as a result of these interactions.

By providing teachers the opportunity to examine their personal beliefs and

concepts related to teaching, co-teaching also has been shown specifically to improve

instruction. When studying co-teaching in a higher education setting, Davis-Wiley and

Cozart (1998) found that working together to provide instruction for students resulted in

consistent quality instruction that allowed both teachers to utilize their own creativity and

personality while expanding their knowledge beyond their previous experiences. Both

teachers involved in the study reported professional growth as a result of the

collaboration and felt the experience helped them become stronger educators. Similar

results were noted by Lenn and Hatch (1992) in their experiences with co-teaching.
 38

Through co-teaching and the merger of their teaching styles and philosophies, they

became better instructors.

The impact of co-teaching on professional growth. While benefits to instruction

are obvious in the research, improvements resulting from the collaborative partnership

extend beyond merely improving instruction. A metaanalysis of qualitative research

found that teachers involved in co-teaching situations experienced growth in many areas

of their professional lives (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). Teachers reported

a development in their understanding of student needs and how to meet those needs.

Observing and interacting with colleagues from other fields allowed teachers to expand

their teaching repertoire and be supported in new ventures (Patterson et al., 2008;

Scruggs et al., 2007). The interactions and dialogue involved in collaboratively planning

and teaching a class result in teacher reflections on personal practices, recognition of

weaknesses and strengths, and exposure to new teaching strategies which benefit teachers

and enable dynamic professional growth (Banjeri & Dailey, 1995; Jang, 2006; Rice &

Zigmond, 2000; Tobin & Roth, 2005).

In a 1995 study of the effects of inclusion, Banjeri and Dailey noticed a theme

related to teachers when examining the benefits co-teaching. Teachers involved in co-

teaching partnerships grew professionally through the interactions of the collaborative

team, noting improvements in the planning of classroom strategies and the understanding

of students with special needs. Parents in the study also remarked on the development of

the practices of the co-teaching partnership and commended teachers for their efforts to

make a positive learning environment for students. The anecdotal data revealed

improvements in program effectiveness resulting from the collaboration of the teachers.

 39

Similar findings also were reported in a 2006 when Jang examined the benefits of

co-teaching on students and teachers. The researcher studied 8th grade students and

teachers in co-taught classes and regular instruction classes. While the study did not

focus on co-teaching as a special education service model, the impact of the collaboration

and co-instruction of two teachers was applicable to co-teaching as an inclusionary

practice. Jang (2006) referred to the benefits of the intersubjectivity that occurs in co-

teaching. Intersubjectivity is the dialogue that occurs within the partnership in which

teachers share ideas, plans, and thoughts about instructions. This exchange of concepts

resulted in the enhancement of teaching practices and more effective problem solving.

Despite challenges in the implementation and practice of co-teaching experienced by the

participants, the study revealed a development of instructional practices and classroom

management techniques, and the teachers involved in the study developed professionally

through the interactions with their co-teacher.

Growth in the professional practices and techniques of the teachers as a result of

the interactions and observations of their partners was evident through the data collected

in the Jang (2006) study. These improvements manifested mainly in classroom

management techniques and instructional materials. Co-teaching has also been noted to

stimulate the enhancement of teaching techniques and prompt teachers to examine their

own personal assumptions and teaching philosophies (Lenn & Hatch, 1992; Reinheller,

1996). By communicating pedagogical beliefs and considering alternate viewpoints,

teachers can gain perspective about teaching and learning that can help them to grow as

instructors. When performed appropriately, co-teaching can allow teachers the

opportunity to learn from each other through communication and observation and can
 40

motivate teachers to critically analyze classroom norms (Davis-Wiley & Cozart, 1998;

Scruggs et al., 2007). By reflecting on beliefs and assumptions, teachers can identify

misconceptions and gain a broader understanding of the act of teaching.

Another example of the professional benefits of co-teaching can be found in

Bowles's (1994) study of two professors' collaboration efforts. Bowles states that the

"synergy of the shared teaching arrangement results in self-examination and improved

teaching" (p. 13). In his explanation of the improvements, Bowles attributes the

personal and professional growth to negotiated order theory, a social theory that

considers the importance of interaction and reevaluating social norms. Through finding

solutions to problems and reacting to the ever-changing dynamics of a situation,

individuals involved in a collaboration develop a better understanding of the situation and

a new approach to their work. A vital characteristic of a successful collaboration is the

sharing and understanding of different points of view and approaches to problems.

Through the exchange of ideas, teachers become a stronger partnership, enabling them to

accomplish more as a collaborative pair than the two individuals could accomplish alone.

The idea of collaborative capabilities beyond individual efforts is evident

throughout the research. By working together to develop an appropriate curriculum and

deliver instruction, the two co-teachers expand collaboration beyond superficial

modifications and create a learning environment rich in varied experience and

knowledge, an environment made better by the act of collaborating (Jang, 2006).

Collaborative efforts such as these contribute to the efficacy of teachers, potentially

increasing their ability to provide adequate instruction and improve student achievement

(Ross et al., 1997). Further, through the implementation of the co-teaching model,
 41

schools expand their ability to meet the needs of all students and provide an opportunity

for special education and at-risk students to be successful in the general education

classroom (Morocco & Aguilar, 2002). But despite the high expectations researchers and

educators have for co-teaching, the benefits will only be realized if the service model is

successfully implemented. Co-teaching partners should be confident, competent

participants who are resolved to being equals in the classroom (Friend & Reising, 1993;

Keefe et al., 2004). Teachers should share responsibilities within the classroom and

make decisions together, communicating their needs and their students' needs in a safe

environment (Adams & Cessna, 1993; Keefe et al., 2004). If such aspects of co-teaching

are not in place, the service model may be counterproductive, negatively impacting the

learning process and teacher efficacy (Gordon, 1996; Hatcher, Hinton, & Swartz, 1995).

The resulting impacts could initiate a cyclical response of negativity within the co-

teaching relationship.

Factors related to the perceived success of the co-teaching relationship.

Research has revealed numerous factors that contribute to the success of the co-teaching

relationship. For many, especially those in administrative roles, student achievement is

the sole evidentiary factor indicating the success of co-teaching. But for others, student

achievement is just a by-product of a successful relationship, not the factor that makes it

so. Teachers working in co-teaching situations have indicated that these factors include

teacher expectations for students (Austin, 2001; Daane et al., 2001; Lifshitz, Glaubman,

& Issawi, 2004; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002), teacher expectations for the co-teacher (Jang,

2006; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Salend, et al, 1997), collegiality and shared

responsibility between the co-teachers (Austin, 2001; Daane et al., 2001; Edwards et al.,
 42

1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Jang, 2006; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Pugach & Wesson,

1995; Ross et al., 1997; Salend et al., 1997), high levels of content knowledge (Dieker &

Murawski, 2003; Mastropieri et al., 2005), organizational structures (Austin, 2001; Daane

et al., 2001; Jang, 2006; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Salend et al., 1997), and other smaller

factors such as age of students, school climate, and personality compatibility (Daane et

al, 2001; Olson & Chalmers, 1997).

Teacher expectations for students. Teacher expectations for students and the

incongruence between the expectations of the two teachers can impact the perceived

success of the co-teaching relationship (Lifshitz et al., 2004; Dieker & Murawski, 2003;

Mastropieri et al., 2005). A contributing factor to such conflict may be a lack of

preparation or familiarity on the part of the general education teacher. Teacher

knowledge of and agreement with inclusionary practices can impact greatly teacher

efficacy (Buell, Hallam, & Gamel-McCormick, 1999; Lifshitz et al., 2004; Morocco &

Aguillar, 2002; Olson & Chalmers, 1997; Ross et al., 1997). If teachers understand how

to teach students with disabilities, have a firm grasp on methods of curricular

accommodations, and feel knowledgeable about such instructional practices, they are

more confident in their abilities and more accepting of students with disabilities in the

general education classroom (Buell et al., 1999). The converse may also be true. A lack

of knowledge concerning students with special needs and the teaching practices involved

with including such students can result in a decrease in teacher efficacy (Ross et al.,

1997). Reservations related to behavioral issues also negatively impact the confidence

and comfort of some general educators (Austin, 2001). Having little training in

classroom management techniques, many general educators feel inadequate when dealing
 43

with significant behavior problems. Such a decline in efficacy may be regained through

collaborative efforts, but many teachers may never overcome the initial setback (Ross et

al., 1997).

Teachers may also have specific expectations concerning students' abilities.

These expectations, both academic and behavioral, can impact the students' success

(Austin, 2001; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Olson & Chalmers, 1997). When working in a

collaborative team, if the two teachers' expectations are not aligned and not equally

responsive, conflict may occur (Olson & Chalmers, 1997). Especially at the secondary

level, general education teachers must understand the needs and limitations of students

with special needs and work diligently to find each student's level of functioning to

provide a rigorous curriculum at which students can be successful (Dieker & Murawski,

2003). Defining these individual standards by combining the set curriculum with IEP

goals requires the collaborative efforts of both educators and the provision for flexibility

in these expectations as the course progresses.

Teacher expectations for the co-teacher. When collaborative teams are

established, certain ideas and fears come to mind for many teachers. These

preconceptions can be so overwhelming that Knackendoffel (2005) reminds teachers to

"throw out any preconceived notions" (p. 11) and allow the relationship to develop

through the interactions and exchanges between the individuals. Yet many teachers

become fixated on the need to establish their domain and maintain control over their

physical and instructional territory (Salend et al., 1997). Even when co-teaching is

perceived as a positive experience by both teachers, territorial issues may arise. If the

special educator is going into the general education classroom, he/she may be more
 44

cautious or out of place. Similarly, the general education teacher may have an

established location and routine in which he/she retains the control of the room (Salend et

al., 1997). Teachers have likened this aspect of co-teaching to moving into another

person's home (Salend et al., 1997), stating that sharing such a personal space with a

stranger can impact instruction and practices until each individual understands how to act

and react within the partnership.

These expectations also extend beyond the physical classroom and into classroom

management and the delivery of instruction (Jang, 2006; Mastropieri et al., 2005;

Tannock, 2009). Observations made in a study of various co-teaching relationships noted

the importance of harmonious personalities and teaching methods (Morocco & Aguilar,

2002), citing the quality of the relationship between co-teachers and their similarities in

philosophy as the potential reason for teacher equality and effective collaboration. When

working collaboratively with another teacher, teaching styles and values may be in direct

conflict or may challenge personal philosophies related to pedagogical beliefs (Daane et

al., 2001; Jang, 2006). Such conflict can cause confusion in the classroom, resulting in

behavior management problems, as well as lead to tension in the co-teaching relationship

(Mastropieri et al., 2005). Differences can be overcome through communication and

compromise, but fundamental differences, such as management techniques, educational

theory, and personal teaching practices, may initiate attitudes that stifle communication

and have a detrimental effect on the co-teaching relationship.

Collegiality between the co-teachers. In addition to the numerous expectations of

both teachers involved, co-teaching is also impacted by the collegiality of the two

educators (Edwards et al., 1996; Keefe et al.; Knackendoffel, 2005; Mastropieri et al.,
 45

2005; Olson & Chalmers, 1997). While a certain level of collegiality must develop over

time, an initial level of respect is necessary to begin an open, collaborative relationship

(Keefe et al., 2004; Mastropieri et al., 2005; Tannock, 2009). The importance of content

in middle and high schools makes co-teaching a much more difficult venture (Keefe et

al., 2004; Rice et al, 2007; Olson & Chalmers, 1997). At the secondary level, many

educators believe less respect is given to special educators and those who work well with

students with special needs (Olson & Chalmers, 1997; Rice et al., 2007). This perception

of inequality can devalue the collaborative effort and throw a collaborative team off-

balance, causing them to stumble from the beginning. In a 1993 study of teachers'

collaborative relationships and their effects on students, da Costa delineated the

connections between teacher relationships and efficacy and how these two variables

impact instruction. Findings revealed that collaboration impacted general teacher

efficacy, which in turn impacted the roles of the teacher within the classroom. Teachers

with higher efficacy provided more support for students and offered more feedback to

promote learning. Other researchers have indicated that co-teaching and collaboration

can increase efficacy because it provides an opportunity for collegial support (Edwards et

al., 1996), reiterating the importance of collegiality in the co-teaching relationship.

Common philosophies/personalities. Even in the initial planning stages of co-

teaching it is critical that both teachers have similar personalities and teaching

philosophies (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1991; Suissa, 2008). Research focusing on

collaborative teaming and interdisciplinary work indicates the importance of creating

common ground between the team members through the examination of beliefs related to

teaching and learning in order to increase the likelihood for success (Oberg, 2008;
 46

Shapiro & Dempsey, 2008). In an effort to establish commonalities between the

individuals, it is important to at a minimum discuss and acknowledge the philosophies of

each teacher (Shapiro & Dempsey, 2008). Communications regarding educational

philosophies are as important as those dealing with student and instructional issues

(Suissa, 2008). However, some researchers suggest that mere discussions related to

philosophies are not enough. Educational philosophers have explained teaching

philosophy as being foundational to a person's nature, an aspect of pedagogy that is

integral to a teacher's sense of being (Suissa, 2008; Ulveland, 2003). Researchers also

have linked personality and temperament with philosophical beliefs and feel that these

personal aspects of the teacher impact instructional practices within the classroom

(Petress, 2003; Shapiro & Dempsey, 2008; Suissa, 2008). If this is true, it may be a

relatively unchanging aspect of an individual that could be difficult to modify or restrict

in order to comply with the needs or beliefs of a co-teacher (Suissa, 2008).

Understanding the importance of teaching philosophies and their impact on classroom

practices should imply the need for communication related to these values and should

impact organizational practices related to the initiation of co-teaching partnerships

(Knackendoffel, 2005).

Commitment to co-teaching. In addition to the need for compatible philosophies,

numerous sources relate the importance of a willingness to co-teach and a commitment to

making it work. Teachers having positive conceptions of co-teaching and a commitment

to the process make sacrifices in order to support collaborative efforts and ensure equality

within the partnership (Shapiro & Dempsey, 2008). Conversely, negative attitudes

related to the practice of co-teaching have been shown to reduce the likelihood of success
(Knackendoffell, 2005; Worrell, 2008). Negative attitudes can also lead to low levels of

commitment within a partnership, resulting in difficulties throughout the collaborative

process and a disruption of synergy (Toremen & Karakus, 2007; Worrell, 2008). These

findings have dynamic implications for the initial phases of partnership development and

stress the importance of teacher selection and preparation in the success of the co-

teaching relationship.

Shared responsibilities. One aspect of the co-teaching relationship that may

contribute to collegiality is sharing the responsibilities within the classroom (Austin,

2001; Knackendoffel, 2005; Mastropieri et al., 2005; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002).

Teachers involved in a team teaching relationship should be equally responsible for all

students, as well as the planning and delivery of instruction (Knackendoffel, 2005; Rice

et al., 2007). Yet, despite this understanding of shared responsibilities, research has

found that most co-teaching relationships, especially at the secondary level, have an

unequal distribution of roles within the classroom (Austin, 2001; Mastropieri et al., 2005;

Morocco & Aguilar, 2002). In most cases, the general education teacher is the lead

teacher, and the special educator plays a more managerial, task-oriented role (Austin,

2001; Mastropieri et al., 2005). Studies have indicated that special education teachers

deliver instruction for a significantly lower percentage of class time than their general

education partners (Morocco & Aguilar, 2002), while general educators spend less time

helping students than special education teachers do. Even co-teaching relationships

perceived to be successful can divide their classroom roles unequally (Mastropieri et al.,

2005), relying on the general education teacher to lead instruction while the special

education teacher assists. Once these roles have been established, they are rarely
 48

changed, and students may interpret these roles as a power dynamic between the teachers,

viewing the general education teacher as higher on the educational hierarchy than the

special educator (Morocco & Aguillar, 2002).

Even though teachers tend to play specific roles within the classroom, successful

co-teachers share the responsibility of teaching all students (Daane et al., 2001; Kohler-

Evans, 2006; Olson & Chalmers, 1997; Rice et al., 2007). When general education

teachers take responsibility for the learning of special education students, both teachers

can collaborate on appropriate methods of instructions and participate in the delivery of

instruction (Daane et al., 2001; Olson & Chalmers, 1997). Similarly, when special

educators expand their focus to include all students within the classroom, not just those

with a special education label, the potential positive impact of co-teaching increases

(Rice et al., 2007). Students with special needs feel less conspicuous in the general

education classroom, and the teachers can collectively work toward the goal of teaching

all students. Sharing responsibilities can contribute to the collegial relationship of the

teachers and lead to increased support for all students (Olson & Chalmers, 1997).

Communication. Communication is a significant contributor to collegiality and

the overall co-teaching relationship (Austin, 2001; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Jang, 2006;

Knackendoffel, 2005; Rice et al., 2007; Salend et al., 1997). Communication early in the

relationship can help co-teachers navigate pedagogical differences in areas such as

planning, content integration, teaching, and evaluation (Shibley, 2006). These

discussions allow each teacher to voice his/her opinions concerning these areas and

provide occasion to negotiate differences and organize roles and responsibilities. After

initial conversations have helped plan for the future, consistent communication
throughout the relationship is necessary to solve problems and devise appropriate

instruction as the year progresses (Knackendoffel, 2005; Kohler-Evans, 2006; Shibley,

2006). Additionally, if the lines of communication are open and trust and respect are

present in the relationship, co-teachers have the opportunity to point out practices and

procedures that may need improvement (Rice et al., 2007). Open discussions about

instructional techniques and delivery methods can result in the professional development

of both teachers and improve the collaborative relationship (Pugach & Johnson, 1995;

Rice et al., 2007; Shibley, 2006).

Conversations related to students, instruction, and daily activities are inevitable

within even the weakest co-teaching partnerships. Gately and Gately (2001) suggest a

multi-stage process through which each partnership progresses, delineating the type and

depth of communication collaborating teachers use in different phases of their

relationship. The beginning stage is characterized by "guarded, careful communication"

that lacks open and honest dialogue. Because teachers within the beginning stages of

communication have difficulty addressing conflict, many partnerships in this stage result

in one teacher being the boss while the other acts as supporter or aide within the

classroom. A lack of content knowledge may also contribute to restrictions within the

communication. Conversely, familiarity with the content adds to the collegiality felt

between the special educator and the general education teacher and allows for the balance

of power and responsibility to be more equitable (Gately & Gately, 2001; Morocco &

Aguilar, 2002). As is exhibited in the findings of this study, many co-teaching pairs

remain in the beginning stage for the extent of their relationship, resulting in stifled
 50

professional growth among the teachers and a lack of agreement related to the functions

and goals of the class (Dugan & Letterman, 2008; Jang, 2006).

The second stage of communication established by Gately and Gately (2001) is

the compromising stage. In this stage, teachers give and take within the professional

exchanges, compromising on some factors in an effort to achieve a positive collaborative

relationship. Sharing of space and certain aspects of instruction, including modifications

and accommodations, classify this stage. Gately and Gately also defined a third and final

stage of communication, the collaborating stage. This stage is characterized by honest

communication in which each partner is free to speak his/her mind and expects equal

levels of respect. One of the partnerships within this study could be categorized between

compromising and collaborating. The eighth grade team exhibited the characteristics

present in both stages of communication and since educational improvement results from

the degree to which teachers communicate (Worrell, 2008), their assessment that their co-

teaching relationship was successful seems accurate.

Conversations between co-teachers should address two specific areas, concerns

and disagreements and instruction and management (Austin, 2001; Bauwens &

Hourcade, 1991; Jang, 2006; Knackendoffel, 2005; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Rice et al.,

2007; Salend, et al., 1997). Addressing these areas has been shown to add to the richness

of the collaborative relationship and build collegiality among co-teachers (Salend et al.,

1997), while neglecting such differences can deteriorate the relationship and also

contribute to self-doubt and a loss of confidence among the teachers (Jang, 2006; Salend

et al., 1997). Knackendoffel (2005) states that communication provides a venue for

interactions based on equality and respect that results in positive solutions to student-
 51

related problems. Without such discussions, not only does collegiality diminish, but

inconsistency in the teaching practices of the co-teachers may lead to feelings of

negativity from the students and from each other (Gerber & Popp, 1999; Mastropieri et

al., 2005).

Content knowledge. Because collegial conversations should often times focus on

the development of instruction, content knowledge is imperative, especially at the

secondary level (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Keefe et al., 2004; Mastropieri et al., 2005;

Rice et al., 2007). In the research of Salend, Johansen, Mumper, Chase, Pike, and

Dorney (1997), some of the most valuable conversations between co-teachers focused on

content-specific curricular decisions that resulted in the modification of instructional

practices and teacher beliefs. Knowledge of content allows co-teachers to utilize more

diverse delivery models and builds a sense of trust concerning instruction (Morocco &

Aguillar, 2002; Rice et al., 2007). Content knowledge can act as a foundation on which

to base initial conversations and build a collegial relationship, but a lack thereof may

have the opposite effect, resulting in an automatic deficiency on the part of the special

education teacher (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Keefe et al., 2004; Salend et al, 1997).

Organizational structures. While most of the factors contributing to the perceived

success of the co-teaching relationship are specific to the two individuals involved in the

partnership, a certain degree of the success is related to organizational structures that

need to be in place (Austin, 2001; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Olson & Chalmers, 1997;

Salend et al., 1997). Administrative support has a significant impact on the co-teaching

situation, leading teachers to value inclusion and professional collaboration (Salend et al.,

1997). Beyond the administrative influence on the faculty, school leaders also control
 52

scheduling. If a principal supports co-teaching efforts, he/she can ensure that co-teaching

partners volunteer for the team and that co-teachers have shared planning times built into

the schedule. Repeatedly throughout the research, teachers lament the need for more

planning time (Austin, 2001; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Olson & Chalmers, 1997;

Salend et al., 1997), blaming lack of time for the limited participation of the special

educator in the planning of instruction. It has been cited as the most important limiting

factors in co-teaching (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Kohler-Evans, 2006). When teachers

do not have joint planning time, it seems to be to their detriment, yet when it is available

to them, it is often not utilized appropriately or as it was intended (Austin, 2001; Dieker

& Murawski, 2003).

Other factors. Numerous other factors play a role in the success of the co-

teaching relationship. Level of students, personality compatibility, and school climate all

impact the collaborative effort to some degree (Hoy & Hoy, 2006; Keefe et al., 2004;

Olson & Chalmers, 1997). Co-teaching ventures at the secondary level seem to be more

difficult than those at the elementary level because of the wider achievement gap between

general education students and those with disabilities (Keefe et al., 2004). Also, the

focus on content at the secondary level requires more diverse skills on the part of the

special educators and may lead to an unequal partnership if content knowledge is lacking

(Olson & Chalmers, 1997). Differences in personality may also impact compatibility in

ways that may be unable to be resolved (Keefe et al., 2004; Olson & Chalmers, 1997).

Another aspect that may impact co-teaching is school climate. A good deal of

collegial interaction and collaboration has to do with organizational culture and the norms

present in a particular setting. Hoy and Hoy (2006) state that teachers can interpret
 53

events differently based on the tacit, or understood, assumptions within the school. Such

assumptions may greatly impact co-teaching relationships, and thereby impact the

perception of success or failure within the classroom (Brownell & Pajares, 1996; da

Costa, 1993). Aspects of school culture as abstract as the understood relationships

between colleagues and as concrete as anecdotal information passed amongst the faculty

can impact the willingness to change and the receptivity to new ideas (Hoy & Hoy,

2006). These varied aspects of school culture may be to blame for teacher resistance to

co-teaching situations, and the perception of continued validation of tacit assumptions

may perpetuate these difficulties.

All these factors, expectations, collegiality and the like, greatly impact the success

of a co-teaching relationship, and without a successful relationship, the benefits to

teachers and students cannot be realized. Cultivating a positive collaborative relationship

is integral to the professional growth of teachers and the improvement of instruction

through observation and dialogue. Similarly, student benefits can only result from

successfully established co-teaching situations in which both teachers actively participate

in planning, administering, and assessing instruction.

Impact of co-teaching on students. For the past three decades, mainstreaming

and inclusion service models have been blurring the lines between general and special

education without providing instructional support within the classroom (Apling & Jones,

2002; Etscheidt, 2006; Gandhi, 2007; Rice et al, 2007). Co-teaching allows all students

the opportunity to learn the general curriculum and provides academic support within the

classroom to address individual student needs (Gerber & Popp, 1999). In addition to the

benefits realized by teachers, the special relationship that develops through co-teaching
 54

and the many factors that contribute to successful implementation have been shown to

impact everything from student enjoyment of the subject to student self-efficacy within

the classroom to retention of the content (Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Murphy et

al., 2004). A variety benefits have been shown for students receiving co-taught

instruction, and some researchers have concluded that co-teaching can "improve the

impact of teaching on student learning" in certain populations (Morocco & Aguilar, 2002,

p. 343). But despite the research supporting co-teaching, many remain uncertain of the

benefits of the service model (Dugan & Letterman, 2008; Weiss, 2004; Zigmond, 2006).

In order to examine the impact of co-teaching on all students, it is important to examine

its effects on students at different levels of academic functioning and examine how each

group responds to being in a co-taught classroom.

The differences in ability may greatly impact the effectiveness of the service

model, resulting in mediocre, or even detrimental, outcomes. In order to determine the

overall impact of co-teaching on student achievement, the performance of students at

various levels of ability should be examined. The methods for determining different

levels of ability are established already in Georgia schools through the identification of

special education students and gifted students. The criterion for each program is

specifically delineated by Georgia policies and procedures and relates directly to

classroom performance and student achievement (Georgia Comprehensive Rules and

Regulations, 2007), two characteristics potentially impacted by the implementation of co-

teaching.

Identification of students with special needs in Georgia. Researchers of co-

teaching often examine its effects of co-teaching on students with special needs, and this
 55

results in data that focuses on a diverse population of students. The disabilities that meet

the Georgia state requirements for special education are varied, and there are multiple

criteria and regulations regarding the qualification of students into support programs,

many of these regulations being federally driven. Georgia's eligibility requirements

mimic that of the federal governments as stipulated in IDEA 2004 (Georgia

Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, 2007). There are 12 eligibility categories

recognized by Georgia: autism spectrum disorder, deafblind, deaf/hard of hearing,

emotional and behavioral disorder, intellectual disability, orthopedic impairment, other

health impairment, significant development delay, specific learning disability, speech-

language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment. Each of these

categories has its own criteria for identification, and result in a special education

population that is diverse in its abilities and needs. According to the 2008-2009 Special

Education Annual Report (Georgia Department of Education, 2009b), emotional and

behavioral disorders, intellectual disabilities, other health impairments, and specific

learning disability are the four most common disabilities diagnosed in Georgia schools

during the 2008-2009 school year. Each of these disabilities in some way impacts the

academic performance of students and requires specific accommodations and

modifications in the classroom to ensure success in the classroom.

When determining eligibility for students with an emotional and/or behavioral

disorder (EBD), several things must be taken into consideration (Georgia Comprehensive

Rules and Regulations, 2007). EBD can be distinguished by the inability to develop and

maintain relationships with others, repeated inappropriate behavior or feelings, a

"pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression" (p. 8), and an inability to learn that
 56

cannot be explained by intellectual deficiencies or other health factors. If a child shows

one or more of these characteristics for an extensive period of time and these factors

interfere with his/her education and academic performance, the student may be identified

as a student with EBD. In order for this to be determined, numerous forms of data are

required. Observations of behaviors over a period of time, psychological evaluations

using multiple assessments, and a social history including the intensity, duration, and

frequency of inappropriate behaviors are necessary for a child to be identified as having

an emotional or behavioral disorder. Additionally, the inappropriate behaviors and

academic difficulties cannot be caused by a "lack of appropriate instruction" (p. 9),

cultural differences, any other disability, including intellectual disabilities, visual

impairments, or deafness. Students with social maladjustment are not included in this

classification of disability. If a child meets these requirements, then he/she may be

placed in special education under the label of EBD to receive supportive services related

to the disability.

Another type of disability frequently identified in Georgia is intellectual

disability. In order for a student to qualify as having intellectual disability there must be

significantly reduced intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior (Georgia

Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, 2007). Specifically, a child's IQ must be below

70 as determined from more than one assessment and supported by an observation

conveying the student's need for support in an academic setting. Also, adaptive behavior

deficits must be determined by the use of certain standardized measures. In order to

qualify, a child must score at least two standard deviations below average in one of the

categories, conceptual, social, or practical, or in the composite score. The information

 57

used to complete the measures of adaptive behavior must be gathered from two sources,

one at school and one in the child's home. Limitations to this disability are similar to

those of EBD; a student is not considered to have an intellectual disability if the deficits

are due to inadequate instruction, cultural differences, or any other disability. But if all

the criteria are met and no other explanatory factor can be found, a child is determined to

have an intellectual disability.

In addition to emotional and behavioral disorders and intellectual disabilities,

many students with special needs are classified as having specific learning disabilities.

With this disability, students have processing deficits that prevent them from achieving

grade level standards (Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, 2007). Diagnosis

of this disability has recently changed from a discrepancy method of identification to the

student's response to intervention (Jackson, Pretti-Frontczak, Harijusola-Webb, Grisham-

Brown, & Romani, 2009; Stuebing, Barth, Molfese, Weiss, & Fletcher, 2009). Prior to

IDEA 2004, students identified as having a specific learning disability had at least a 20

point discrepancy between their ability (IQ scores) and their performance (achievement

scores), but the current regulations require extensive data collection and interventions in

order to ensure that difficulties are not related to inadequate instruction (Georgia

Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, 2007). Decisions for eligibility related to a

specific learning disability are determined based on a student's scores on at least two

assessments such as the Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) or other norm-

referenced tests, responses to interventions over the course of at least 12 weeks, and a

documented evaluation of the student's academic strengths and weakness. After

adequate data has been collected and discussed, the eligibility team can determine if there
 58

is a specific learning disability in one or more of the following areas: oral expression,

listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension,

reading fluency skills, mathematics calculations, and/or mathematical problem solving.

Other health impairment (OHI) is another frequently encountered disability in

Georgia schools. With this disability, students with a variety of health issues that impact

academic performance can receive services through special education programs. Most

students who obtain qualification under the OHI label have illnesses or conditions that

inhibit attention or the ability to maintain "alertness with respect to the educational

environment" (Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, 2007, p. 14). In order

for students to be eligible for services, evaluations must include a medical assessment of

the problem(s) and documentation from an educational professional of how the problem

is impacting academic performance. Once these data have been collected, the eligibility

team determines that achievement deficits are not because of other factors, such as

insufficient instruction, emotional problems, and other issues, and decides if services are

necessary in order to ensure student learning.

No matter what label is determined for a student or how different the disabilities

are, students with special needs all have one thing in common. They are experiencing

significant difficulties in academic performance and need extra supports in place in order

to achieve success. And while the special education population is varied in its needs,

many of these students can benefit from similar services and instructional delivery

models. Co-teaching, specifically, has been shown to benefit students with special needs

in a variety of different setting and age groups by allowing students with special needs to

remain in a general education classroom and be exposed to the general curriculum while
 59

still having the support and instructional intervention of the special education teacher

(Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Salend et al, 1997).

Gains in social adjustment, academic achievement, and personal efficacy have resulted

from students with special needs being taught in a co-taught setting and prove co-

teaching to be an effective service model for special education.

Benefits of co-teaching on students with special needs. Legislative initiatives

have greatly changed the placement and education of students with disabilities over the

past 30 years (Apling & Jones, 2002; Etscheidt, 2006; Executive Summary, 2004;

Gandhi, 2007; Rice et al., 2007). Once segregated from the general population with

limited exposure to the general curriculum, students with special needs now spend

increasingly more time in the general classroom. The co-taught classroom has allowed

these students to be in regular classrooms with their peers while still receiving ample

support and instructional modification from both teachers (Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp,

1999). Some are concerned that co-teaching threatens the fundamental beliefs of special

education, the foundational practice of individualized education, and they cite some

questionable or negligible effects of the co-taught classroom as reasons to doubt its valor

(Dieker, 2001; Dugan & Letterman, 2008; Murawski, 2006; Zigmond, 2006). Although

there may be occasion when students with a special education label may need to be

pulled out for more one-on-one instruction, many believe co-teaching allows for students

to interact with peers and avoid the stigma of special education classrooms yet maintain

the necessary educational scaffolding to ensure success (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1991;

Cook & Friend, 1995; Daane et al., 2001). Benefits cited in the research include

improvements in social behaviors, increases in student achievement, higher grades in

academic classes, and enhancements to classroom experiences (Daane et al., 2001;

Dieker, 2001; Friend, 2007; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; Murawski & Hughes, 2009;

Schwab Learning, 2003).

Social benefits. Numerous studies have been conducted that taut the social

benefits of co-teaching for students with special needs (Kroeger & Kouch, 2006; Salend,

et al, 1997; Tichenor, Heins, & Piechurn-Couture, 2000; Wischnowski et al., 2004).

Many claim the interactions of students with disabilities with their general education

peers will help strengthen knowledge of appropriate behavior and provide supports to

encourage social development, and some qualitative studies have revealed the rapid

development of skills because of the modeling of appropriate behaviors by the higher-

level learners (Kroeger & Kouch, 2006; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Salend et al., 1997).

Because of the integration of general and special education students, a co-taught

classroom is highly conducive to the teaching of social competence and the discreet skills

that enable positive interactions (Warger & Rutherford, 1993). Thus, social development

is a frequently-cited benefit of the co-teaching service model.

In a typical general education classroom, the teacher lacks the time and expertise

necessary to teach the discreet skills of social development, but co-teaching provides the

needed support for the teaching of such skills (Warger & Rutherford, 1993). The

knowledge of the special educator combined with the natural interactions with peers that

occur in the general education classroom setting allow for appropriate behaviors to be

taught in a structured, deliberate way and enables teachers to implement interventions

when necessary. Planning for such non-academic lessons can help move students toward

IEP goals and make gains in their social readiness (Murawski & Dieker, 2004). The
 61

numerous steps involved in teaching social skills to students with disabilities, such as

providing reinforcements for prosocial behaviors and conducting pre- and post-

interaction discussions with students, can be accomplished through the collaboration of

the general and special educators and provide students with highly transferable skills for

relating to their peers (Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Warger & Rutherford, 1993).

Many studies have revealed the social benefits of co-teaching, intentional and

unintentional, for students with special needs (Kroeger & Kouch, 2006; Salend et al.,

1997; Tichenor et al., 2000). In a case study of two teachers initiating a co-teaching

relationship in a kindergarten class, journals revealed an increase in the acceptance and

social wellness of all students, disabled and non-disabled (Salend et al., 1997). Students

grew socially as a result of their interactions with peers and came to understand what

positive academic behaviors looked like, such as attending to the teacher and reading a

book independently, after watching their classmates. Teachers also felt that as the

teachers' collaborative relationship developed, the positive interactions between the

students increased and the social climate became more encouraging and supportive. In a

2000 study of parent perceptions of a co-taught class, the majority of parents claimed the

inclusivity of the class and involvement of two teachers allowed their children to learn

social skills at their own pace and respond appropriately to their peers (Tichenor et al.).

In both of these aforementioned studies, the respect and collaboration modeled by the

teachers frequently was observed in the students, and the successful co-teaching

relationship contributed to the social benefits received by the class.

Other studies also have shown social growth as a result of co-teaching and the

instructional practices made possible in that setting. Kroeger and Kouch (2006)
 62

examined a co-taught math class in which peer tutoring was used to facilitate acquisition

of math skills. Students with disabilities gained confidence in their abilities, and attitudes

about the subject matter improved as a result of the inclusive setting and the interactions

among the students. The teachers were able to use peer-assisted learning strategies to

engage students in lessons, and the inclusive setting and collaborative relationship of the

teachers provided a learning environment filled with social learning opportunities.

Students with disabilities became active members of the general education classroom and

felt supported by teachers and peers through the instructional practices of the class.

Other studies have revealed the positive impact of cooperative learning activities and

natural peer supports in co-taught classrooms (Dieker, 2001; Mastropieri et al., 2001).

Students benefit from the close interactions with peers in a positive academic

environment, allowing them to make progress toward meeting IEP goals related to

socialization.

Through the interactions of students with special needs with their general

education peers, co-teaching scaffolds the learning process and allows students to learn

social skills in a safe environment with less fear of failure (Dieker, 2001; Kroeger &

Kough, 2006; Mastropieri, et al, 2001; Salend et al., 1997; Tichenor et al., 2000). The

comfort and positive climate achieved in the co-taught classroom allows students with

disabilities to gain self esteem in the classroom and become more confident in their

capabilities (Daane et al., 2001; Gerber, 1996; Wischnowski et al., 2004). Social growth

and an increase in self esteem have been seen in both general education students and

students with special needs after being in a co-taught class. In a 1996 study of the

efficacy of co-teaching in the seven school divisions of the Metropolitan Educational

 63

Research Consortium in Richmond, Virginia, focus group discussions with students

revealed that students felt confident in the co-taught classroom because of the supports in

place to ensure success (Gerber). Daane, Beirne-Smith, and Latham (2001) reported

similar findings when interviewing teachers and administrators involved in co-teaching.

Participants commented on the social development of the students with special needs and

the parental praise of the impact of co-teaching on student self esteem.

Academic/classroom benefits. In addition to specific social benefits, such as

increased self esteem and the opportunity to teach social skills, co-teaching can result in

certain academic benefits that are evident in the classroom. These benefits include

increased academic progress, increased amounts of support within the classroom, higher

grades and the ability to use flexible grouping within the classroom (Friend, 2007;

Gerber, 1996; Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). The additional

instructional supports and pedagogical synergy created by co-teaching helps students

with special needs make progress toward academic goals while receiving the instructional

modifications and accommodations needed to be successful in the classroom (Daane et

al., 2000).

Studies of parent and student perceptions of co-teaching have revealed that

students with special needs and their parents agree co-teaching has had a positive impact

on performance and attitude (Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999). Students stated they

felt more relaxed in the co-taught classroom as opposed to a regular classroom, and they

felt there was more opportunity for help. Similar results have been noted in other studies,

revealing attitudinal changes in students and increased involvement in the classroom

(Gerber, 1996; Kroeger & Kouch, 2006). These improvements could be caused by an
 64

increase in student-teacher interaction that occurs in co-taught classrooms (Gerber &

Popp, 1999; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Research has shown that co-teaching results in

more individual attention to students with special needs in a general classroom than to

those in a solo-taught class (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Although the increase in one-

to-one communication was small (approximately 2 interactions per 6.6 class periods), it

may alter the perceptions of students about the accessibility of teachers and thereby

improve attitudes and performance in class.

In a 2006 study of students' perceptions of co-taught classes, Wilson and

Michaels discovered several similar themes. Students in the study felt supported by both

teachers and stated that help was "readily available" in the classroom (p. 214). The

presence of such pervasive instructional supports and teacher assistance led students to be

very positive about the experience. Co-teaching allowed students to work in a variety of

different groups and receive instruction in different ways through the use of grouping

techniques and co-teaching delivery methods. These variations in the classroom

contributed to the positive learning environment and enabled teachers to answer student

questions and support student learning throughout the learning process.

By increasing the amount of assistance and one-to-one contact with students, co-

teaching also can help facilitate an increase in academic progress for students with

special needs. Numerous factors of co-teaching contribute to the student outcomes

evident in the research, and whether it is the smaller student-teacher ratio or the

culmination of pedagogical skills developed through collaboration, co-teaching helps

students tap into their potential and develop the skills necessary for success (Friend,

2007; Moore & Gilbreath, 1998; Salend, et al, 1997). Studies have shown an increase in
 65

the attainment of academic skills and an improvement in the scholastic performance of

students in a co-taught classroom. Teachers have praised the academic gains of students

with special needs and have cited co-teaching as the reason for such improvements

(Friend, 2007). A 1997 study conducted by Walther-Thomas revealed consistent

academic benefits when co-teaching was being used. The study involved multiple

schools, including both elementary and high schools, for approximately three years,

offering an extensive look at the impact co-teaching had on student performance at

different ages. Teachers felt that students with special needs benefited academically from

being in the co-taught classroom and noted academic growth and maturity in students

with disabilities at all grade levels. While in this study and most other research the

advancements are evident through qualitative measures, the progression of students

toward curricular goals and the acquisition of certain preacademic skills have led

researchers, teachers, and students, alike, to praise co-teaching for its benefits (Friend,

2007; Salend et al., 1997; Walther-Thomas, 1997).

The academic growth driven by co-teaching also may prompt an improvement in

student grades. Several studies of co-teaching have revealed higher grades for students

with disabilities in a co-taught classroom (Gerber, 1996; Murawski & Swanson, 2001;

Tichenor et al., 2000; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Students have indicated that increased

attention from teachers and additional scaffolding to support learning allowed them to

gain a better understanding of the curriculum and perform better on class activities and

assessments (Gerber, 1996; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Similar findings were found in a

meta-analysis of the research in 2001 (Murawski & Swanson). Two separate studies in

the meta-analysis reported an increase of grades when students with disabilities were in
co-taught classrooms, resulting in a small to moderate mean effect size of 0.32. While

other studies indicate that there is no statistical difference in the grades of student in co-

taught classes and those who are not (Murawski, 2006), students seem to perceive that

co-teaching leads to the increase in classroom performance and increased learning

thereby resulting in higher grades (Gerber, 1996; Wilson & Michaels, 2006).

Achievement benefits. The benefits of co-teaching identified in the research are

not limited to social and academic gains. Another potential advantage is the increase in

achievement for students with disabilities. Increases in achievement would include a

raise in standardized and/or norm-referenced tests and improvements in scores on

curriculum-based measured. Various types of achievement have been documented in the

literature, ranging from standardized tests to assessments of rudimentary skills for

students with more significant disabilities (Friend & Riesling, 1993; Jameson et al.,

2007). Early uses of co-teaching restricted participating students to "academically able"

students with special needs (Gerber, 1996), but participation has been broadened to

include more severe disabilities within the general education classroom (Jameson et al.,

2007). An experimental study of the effectiveness of embedded instruction in a general

education setting compared with that of one-on-one instruction in the resource setting

provided quantitative data to support inclusion and co-teaching (Jameson et al., 2007).

Students being shown flash cards or other visual stimuli during transitions, breaks, or

other appropriate times during the day acquired the appropriate skills at the same rate or

quicker than those in the resource room receiving direct instruction. This and other

studies focusing on the effects of co-teaching on students with significant disabilities

supports the use of co-teaching as an effective instructional model, providing evidence of

 67

the success for students with more significant disabilities (Jameson et al., 2007; Moore et

al., 2007).

Other studies have assessed co-teaching by using a more typical definition of

student achievement. Many researchers, while attempting to investigate the effectiveness

of co-teaching, examined achievement data, looking for trends in the scores of students

with disabilities (Friend & Riesling, 1993; Schwab Learning, 2003; Weiss & Lloyd,

2002). After co-teaching was implemented in a rural school district in New York,

researchers evaluated the practice by looking at quantitative and qualitative data related

to co-teaching (Wischnowski et al., 2004). The study of the effectiveness of the co-

teaching model revealed adequate performance of students with disabilities on statewide

standardized tests. Further achievement testing using the Kaufmann Test of Educational

Achievement showed that most co-taught students with disabilities continued to make

progress in a co-taught setting, and none showed regression. Another assessment of

collaborative inclusionary practices, including co-teaching, showed an increase in the

average student statewide test score over a four year period (Idol, 2006). When asked if

co-teaching and inclusion would impact state test scores, most teachers predicted the

increase or felt scores would not be impacted by the collaborative practices being

implemented in the schools.

Another assessment of school improvement efforts in specific schools revealed

achievement gains for students in co-taught classrooms. Schwab Learning (2003)

examined 16 schools as they increased inclusionary practices and collaborative efforts

among their staff members. Schools involved in the study showed overall achievement

gains, more students qualifying for the gifted program, and a reduction in student failure.
 68

One middle school raised its Academic Performance Indicator (API) 30 points, a much

greater gain than the 6 point gain set as a goal by the school, and an elementary saw a 111

point increase in API. These gains in student achievement in addition to various other

improvements and numerous anecdotal accounts of student success substantiated claims

made supporting collaborative efforts, including co-teaching.

Similar findings were noted in a meta-analysis conducted by Murawski and

Swanson in 2001. When examining studies related to the achievement of students with

special needs in a co-taught class, the mean effect size of the study was 0.40, revealing

that co-teaching has a moderate impact on student academic performance. Despite

variance in effect size at different grade levels, general student achievement did improve

in all ages examined, and reading and language arts scores seemed to be impacted the

most by co-teaching. But these findings are limited by the small number of studies

pertaining to the achievement scores of students, and a lack of research in this area

restricts the ability to generalize about the impact of co-teaching on student achievement.

Few studies have focused on student achievement when examining the impact of co-

teaching, creating a need for more research in this area.

Gaps and inconsistencies in the body of literature leave some to question the

value of co-teaching (Scruggs et al., 2007; Weiss, 2004). Though certain types of

benefits for students with disabilities have been firmly established in the research, others,

such as gains in achievement, lack the quantitative support necessary to claim them with

certainty. In her assessment of current research related to co-teaching, Weiss (2004)

relates co-teaching's lack of foundation in experimental results. She states that it is

possible "the acceptability of co-teaching is outpacing its effectiveness" (p. 219). In a

 69

review of research, Weiss and Brigham (as cited in Weiss, 2004) indicate a clear

weakness in the research base. After reviewing over 700 articles, books, and chapters

related to co-teaching, they determined that in most research the definition for success

was vague and often determined by participants, such as teachers and students. Also,

qualifications for improvement were frequently subjective or unclear. As Weiss and

other researchers have indicated, the current body of literature is shallow and inconsistent

in certain areas, specifically pertaining to student outcomes, and the pervasive use of co-

teaching may be unsupported by scientific findings (Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Weiss,

2004). The lack of sufficient data related to student achievement weakens the argument

supporting co-teaching, and more research is needed to confirm its positive impact on

achievement asserted in the few previous studies.

Possible disadvantages. Although the vast majority of research related to co-

teaching and students with disabilities is positive, some studies have found negative

impacts of the service model on student efficacy and overall understanding (Bear, Clever,

& Proctor, 1991; Klingner, Vaughn, Schumm, Cohen, & Forgan, 1998). Co-teaching as

an inclusionary practice may cause students with disabilities to doubt their abilities and

grow self-conscious of their academic performance. Students have reported benefiting

more from a pull-out model because it lacks the distractions and social pressures of the

co-taught classroom. These aspects of the literature may bring to light serious

shortcomings of co-teaching.

In a 1991 study of the perceptions of students in integrated classes, Bear, Clever,

and Proctor found that the self esteem related to academic performances was significantly

different in handicapped and non-handicapped students. Student perceptions of the class

 70

and his/her performance were assessed using a standardized measure. The findings

showed that students with a learning disability in co-taught classrooms had significantly

lower appraisals of their academic competence than their non-disabled counterparts in the

same classroom. These students also had negative feeling about their global self worth.

Bear, Clever, and Proctor indicated that the placement of students with disabilities into

the general education classrooms can increase their awareness of their academic

shortcomings, negatively impacting their feelings of self worth and social and academic

competence. Students with a disability had strong negative opinions about their abilities

in academic achievement, as well as behavior and conduct, an aspect not necessarily

associated to the diagnosed disability.

These negative student perceptions about personal academic capabilities could

cause students to doubt the effectiveness of co-teaching. A study of student preferences

related to co-teaching revealed students with disabilities preferred to be taught in a pull-

out model instead of the inclusion/co-taught classroom (Klingner et al, 1998). Students,

disabled and non-disabled, were asked questions regarding co-teaching and preferable

ways to receive instruction. When asked about the best way to get help and remediated

instruction, students indicated that being pulled out of the general education classroom

was more beneficial. Students with special needs preferred this option for service

delivery because of smaller class sizes, differentiated curriculum, and fewer distractions.

Non-disabled students agreed, saying when students received assistance within the

general education classroom, it interfered with their ability to concentrate. The majority

of students questioned praised co-taught classes for their benefits to socialization, but
 71

preferences for pull-out related to academic achievement and delivery of instruction were

evident in their responses to other questions.

Benefits of co-teaching on general education students. While the research

related to co-teaching and its impact on students with disabilities is limited in some

aspects, the research concerning general education students is even more restricted.

Because co-teaching is a special education service model, most researchers focus studies

on how students with special needs respond to collaborative instructional efforts, but

some studies have extended their data collection to include the general population

(Gerber, 1996; Little & Dieker, 2009; Tichenor et al., 2000). Because different types of

students are in the heterogeneous mix of co-taught classrooms, it is important to examine

the effects of co-teaching on students at different levels of performance in order to truly

evaluate the effectiveness of the service model.

Co-teaching research dealing with general education students consists of themes

similar to those found in students with special needs. Most literature is generally

positive, revealing students benefits that include an increase in grades, additional help

and support, and certain social improvements (Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Idol,

2007; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Tichenor et al., 2000). Few researchers have examined

the impact of co-teaching on the achievement on general education students, and the

findings have been inconsistent for those who have (Idol, 2007; Little & Dieker, 2009;

Neugebauer, 2008). But despite the lack of depth, most of the literature reveals either a

positive or negligible impact of co-teaching on students in the general education

population.
 72

Studies concerning the perceptions of students without disabilities and their

parents have revealed positive attitudes about co-teaching, referring to the adaptability of

instructional techniques and increased teacher availability as benefits (Gerber, 1996;

Gerber & Popp, 1999; Little & Dieker, 2009; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Although some

parents have been concerned about the slower pace of the class, most felt the students

involved in co-taught classrooms were adequately challenged (Gerber, 1996). Because

co-teaching focuses on the success of all students, innovative and research-based

instructional strategies and differentiation techniques can be utilized for general

education students as well, leading to the maximizing of student potential (Little &

Dieker, 2009). Students leave co-taught classes feeling positive about the experience,

hopeful to participate in another co-taught class, and prepared for future academic

endeavors (Little & Dieker, 2009; Wilson & Michaels, 2006).

Social benefits. Although social skills training is not a distinct aspect of most

general education curriculum, students learn what is socially appropriate through

interactions with their teachers and their peers. Because of this, many students benefit

socially from being in co-taught classrooms. Benefits such as increased self esteem and

acceptance of others result from being in a co-taught environment (Gerber, 1996; Idol,

2006; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Tichenor et al., 2000). While social goals for general

education students may not be articulated in lesson plans, being in an inclusive

environment with two knowledgeable educators taking advantage of teachable moments

leads to the conveyance of valuable understandings about people and society to students

(Sapon-Shevin, 2003). Co-teaching offers the opportunity for students to gain knowledge

about how to interact with others and support their peers while gaining confidence and a
 73

feeling of self worth. Through conversations about inclusion and acceptance, teachers

can help students gain a broader understanding of social justice and potentially reduced

future bullying and harassment.

Research regarding the evaluation of inclusionary practices in schools offers

valuable data about general education students in co-taught settings (Gerber, 1996; Idol,

2006). Idol (2006) examined eight schools, four elementary and four secondary, as they

increased the number of students involved in general education curriculum and set a goal

of full inclusion. Co-teaching was used as one of the primary service models utilized to

reach this goal, and data were gathered from teachers regarding its success. In the

elementary schools, most teachers felt that students in general education became more

accepting of students with disabilities after being in inclusion classes with them, and one

school reported increased growth in social skills after co-taught classes had been

implemented. While some teachers reported that general education students did not

change socially as a result of inclusion and co-teaching, no negative social effects were

reported by any of the elementary schools. In the secondary schools, however, 16% to

33% of respondents felt that the behaviors of general education students worsened as a

result of the inclusion of students with special needs in to the general education

classroom. Although the majority of teachers still felt that students either improved or

remained constant in their behaviors, the increase in negative feedback may be related to

their age, and their maturity may affect how they respond to co-taught classes.

Gerber and Popp (1999) examined parent and student responses to collaborative

practices in ten different schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools. Their

findings were generally positive in all aspects and showed beneficial results with regards
 74

to students. Parents of students without disabilities felt their children benefitted from

being in a mixed-ability classroom, stating that their children expanded their

understanding of students with disabilities. Parents reported that students gained

acceptance and appreciation for the diversity of the class, and they praised the parallels of

co-teaching to societal differences. With the heterogeneous mixture of students and two

teachers to scaffold social understanding, students are enabled to interact with different

types of children and learn how to respond appropriately to those differences.

In the same study, parents and students reported an increase in self esteem as a

result of being in the co-taught classroom (Gerber & Popp, 1999). Students stated they

felt more confident in the co-taught classes because of the additional support in the

classroom and the better grasp they had on content. As their grades and comprehension

increased, they began to feel surer of their abilities to perform well, and their self esteem

increased. In this and other studies, parents have also commented on the increase in self

esteem of students in a co-taught classroom (Gerber & Popp, 1999; Tichenor et al.,

2000). The variation of instructional practice and approach enabled students to

understand the concepts being taught, thereby resulting in an increase in confidence

related to school performance. Parents and students, alike, recognize the value of

additional support and its impact on student efficacy.

Academic/classroom benefits. In addition to the social benefits realized in general

education students, co-teaching offers several classroom benefits, as well. An increase in

assistance and student-teacher interaction and higher grades have been reported as

potential results of being in a co-taught class (Gerber, 1996; Klingner et al., 1998; Little

& Dieker, 2009; Tichenor et al, 2000; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). These benefits relate
 75

to each other, one potentially resulting from the other. When a student can get more help

from the teacher, his/her understanding of the concept increases, which results in higher

grades. According to the research, these increases may also contribute to the higher

levels of self esteem that have been noted in studies of co-teaching (Gerber & Popp,

1999; Tichenor et al., 2000). Similar to the academic advantages noted for students with

special needs, increased student-teacher interaction and higher grades could be the result

of the addition of one teacher to the classroom, but many feel that the synergy created by

the collaborative partnership makes the resulting instructional practices much more

beneficial, leading to higher levels of learning (Gillespie & Israeltel, 2008; Jang, 2006;

Little & Dieker, 2009; Patterson et al., 2008; Rice & Zigmond, 2000).

In Walther-Thomas's three-year study (1997), teachers reported improvements in

the academic performance of general education students at-risk for failure. Students with

a history of low academic performance and little familial support struggled in the regular

classroom. Co-teaching provided students in these situations the opportunity for

additional support and monitoring, despite the lack of a special education label. This

benefit was significant in the middle grades, reporting improvements in the success level

of almost all unidentified, at-risk students. Other studies concerning the effectiveness of

co-teaching show that most students without disabilities did not show regression on

achievement tests while receiving instruction in the co-taught classroom (Wischnowski et

a l , 2004).

In a 2009 study of the effectiveness of co-teaching, Little and Dieker noted

classroom benefits to both middle and high school students. When co-teaching was

implemented in the middle school, all students involved in the pilot classroom mastered
the course objectives with a C or better. Homework completion also improved,

averaging between 90% and 100% completion each grading period. When examining the

impact of co-teaching on high school students, researchers noted a decrease in failure

rate. Prior to the implementation of co-teaching, 40% of students failed the course being

studied, and the rate of failure reached as low as 10% while teachers were collaborating.

Teachers attributed these gains in the co-taught classroom to their ability to address

specific learning needs through various instructional practices and the monitoring of

individual situations and assignment completion. By creating a positive classroom

environment with appropriate supports in place, co-teaching improved student

understanding of concepts and increased final grades in the course.

Other studies of co-teaching have noted that the service model had no impact on

student grades (Idol, 2006; Murawski, 2006). Murawski's (2006) study comparing the

impact of different inclusionary models on student grades and achievement showed that

general education students' grades did not change significantly when co-teaching was

implemented. Yet students in the general education classroom with no support showed a

small drop in their grades during the 10 weeks the study was conducted. No statistical

analysis was conducted on class grades, but the change in grades for students not in the

co-taught classroom was evident in the raw data and class averages. Other studies saw

similar results in general education students (Idol, 2006). The inclusion of students with

special needs and implementation of co-teaching had no impact on student performance

or grades, and in some cases, teachers felt the situation caused an improvement in grades.

The vast majority of respondents agreed that inclusionary practices, including co-

teaching, had no detrimental impact on general education students.

 77

Achievement benefits. The social and classroom benefits of co-teaching are

pervasive in the literature (Gerber, 1996; Idol, 2006; Little & Dieker, 2009; Murawski,

2006; Tichenor et al., 2000), but some studies also indicate the realization of limited

achievement benefits for general education students (Idol, 2006; Neugebauer, 2008). Just

as the differentiated instruction and pedagogical structures made possible by co-teaching

are said to improve classroom performance, some feel these differences lead to long-term

learning improvements and an increase in scores on standardized and state-mandated

tests. Though there are not many studies in this area, certain studies confirm this belief

and others lack the evidence to disprove it. Conflicting results and limited research

restrict the conclusions about the impact of co-teaching on the achievement of general

education students.

In their examination of co-teaching implemented in a middle school, Little and

Dieker (2009) found that all students participating in the service model passed the eighth

grade competency test. Students involved in the co-taught classroom had very positive

attitudes about instruction and learning, noting higher levels of motivation and a

constructive environment for learning. While the study lacked statistical analysis or the

proper experimental methodology to determine the cause of the improved achievement

for general education students, their observations of these students in a co-taught

classroom point to potential benefits related to the service model. Another study with

similar results studied the effect of co-teaching on student achievement in relation to the

minimum competency tests for ninth graders (Walsh & Snyder, 1993). Results showed a

higher passing rate for students in co-taught classes than those in the comparison group.

While the achievement levels of students were not separated into students with
 78

disabilities and students without disabilities, results indicated that all students benefited

from the instructional setting. Researchers felt that the overall performance of the co-

taught classes was because of the diverse capabilities of the two teachers to meet the

needs of a diverse group of learners.

In another study that examined test scores of student in co-taught classrooms, the

outcomes were not as consistent (Idol, 2006). When studying the impact of co-teaching

on elementary students, Idol found that the majority of schools noted increases in the

average score on statewide testing. Additionally, 36% of respondents involved in the

study felt that co-teaching and other inclusionary practices caused test scores to increase

for general education students. Another 33% felt the service model had no impact on test

scores. When researching secondary schools, Idol found that 58% to 68% of teachers

surveyed thought that the inclusion of students with disabilities into the general education

classroom had no impact on other students. Data revealed the average student scores

noticeably increased in most schools after the implementation of co-teaching and other

inclusionary practices. These findings support the impressions of Little and Dieker

(2009), but other studies dispute these results.

Murawski's (2006) examination of student grades and achievement scores in

different class types showed no significant change to student achievement for those in a

co-taught classroom. In order to examine the achievement of students in multiple subject

areas, Murawski used the Test of Written Language III (TOWL-3), Test of Reading

Comprehension III (TORC-3), and Range Achievement Test - Revised (RAT-R) and

examined the mean scores to determine if co-teaching had a significant effect on their

performance. Although differences existed in the scores of different ability groups (i.e.
 79

special education and general education), it was determined that no significant

differences existed between co-taught, mainstreamed, and general education classrooms,

da Costa's (1993) study of different types of collaboration, including co-teaching, also

showed no significant difference between those in a co-taught setting and those in the

general education setting.

A 2008 dissertation study specifically examined the impact of co-teaching on the

achievement of students without disabilities in science and social studies classes

(Neugebauer). The researcher found significant differences in the means of those in co-

taught classes and those not in co-taught classes. In both subject areas, general education

students in co-taught classes scored lower on the state achievement test than those in a

general education class. The results then were analyzed with regards to gender, race,

socioeconomic status, and ELL status. Although significant differences in achievement

were evident across these characteristics, each group (boys/girls, white/African

American/Asian, etc) had similar responses to the co-taught condition. Each group being

taught in the co-taught classroom had lower test scores than their general education

classroom counterparts. The consistency of these findings across subject area, gender,

race, and numerous other characteristics speaks to the negative impact co-teaching

seemed to have on general education students in this study.

While some studies did not find substantial achievement benefits of co-teaching

to general education students, most of their findings did show that co-teaching did not

negatively impact their achievement or progress (Idol, 2006; Little & Dieker, 2009). Yet,

other studies found that co-teaching did negatively impact student achievement

(Neugebauer, 2008). Such contradictions in the literature fuel the debate over the value
 80

of co-teaching for all students (Murawski, 2006). But questions related to student

achievement are not the only ones being asked with regards to co-teaching. Many

question the impact of co-teaching on aspects of instruction and content comprehension,

stating that co-teaching may fall short of what much of the research claims it to be (Jang,

2006; Wilson & Michaels, 2006; Zigmond, 2006).

Possible disadvantages. Though the majority of the literature speaks to the value

of co-teaching, some researchers have found the service model to have negative effects

on students (Jang, 2006; Neugebauer, 2008; Wilson & Michaels, 2006; Zigmond, 2006),

and others question the use of co-teaching without adequate research about its impact on

all types of students (Weiss, 2004; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Ranging from a changing

curriculum to confusion in the delivery of instruction, the negative aspects of co-teaching

impact student progress and potentially impede academic performance. Because the

literature about the impact of co-teaching on general education students is limited,

information regarding the negative impact of co-teaching is inconclusive. But these

findings are significant enough to warrant further investigation and analysis.

The shortcomings of co-teaching are noted most often in secondary schools when

the discrepancies between students with disabilities and the general population are larger

and more apparent (Jang, 2006; Wilson & Michaels, 2006; Zigmond, 2006). In her study

of students in a co-taught secondary classroom, Zigmond (2006) was concerned that

complex reading materials would impede student learning for students with disabilities.

Contrary to her original concerns, her study revealed that teachers in the co-taught

classrooms had altered the curriculum to meet the needs of the students with disabilities,

greatly reducing the level of rigor and limiting the use of complex textual resources. As a
 81

result, expectations for students were significantly lower for students in the co-taught

class, and students were not expected to read higher-level texts or provide written

responses of any substantial length. Students lost the opportunity to learn how to interact

with expository texts and began to rely heavily on teachers to impart knowledge and

interpret information, reducing the amount of critical thinking and analysis done by the

students.

Other researchers have expressed a concern about the curricular integrity of co-

taught classes in addition to other negative aspects (Dugan & Letterman, 2008; Gerber,

1999; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Wilson and Michaels (2006) explored the opinions of

students related to their experiences in a co-taught classroom. Students were asked

questions about co-teaching, including both benefits and drawbacks to the situation.

While the majority of students made positive comments about co-teaching, some

remarked on the negative aspects of the structure of the classroom and the different

perspectives of the teachers. Some students felt the additional support provided in the

classroom was often a distraction. When teachers repeated directions or pulled small

groups to modify and/or remediate instruction, students were unable to attend to their

own tasks. Students also commented on the differences in grading and explanation by

the two teachers. The inconsistency in instruction and assessment were viewed as

drawbacks to co-teaching by 28% of the general education students surveyed. Another

study of student responses to co-teaching revealed a similar concern (Dugan &

Letterman, 2008). When students were asked to comment on their team taught college

course, consistency among the teachers was noted as a concern. The differences in

teacher expectations and methods for grading caused students to become frustrated. But
 82

despite these negative aspects of co-teaching, the majority of students in both studies felt

the service model was beneficial to their learning and hoped to participate in co-taught

classes in the future (Dugan & Letterman, 2008; Wilson & Michaels, 2006).

Similarly, in her study of co-teaching in a secondary mathematics class, Jang

(2006) found that students were confused by the different approaches of the two teachers.

Though the teachers tried to maintain similar instructional strategies, they often used

different mathematical techniques to solve problems. This caused confusion in some

students. The two teachers also differed in their approach to discipline and student

expectations. These differences exacerbated the inconsistencies and caused conflict

within the co-teaching relationship. Although some students were confused by the

differences in instruction related to problem solving, the discrepancies did not have a

negative impact on student performance. Those students involved in the co-taught

classroom showed improvements on the post-test that were not seen in students in the

traditional classroom. While they may have felt uncomfortable and lacked the

confidence in knowing the "right" way to solve problems, the varied instruction had a

positive impact on the overall student performance on the final assessment.

The issue of inconsistent instructional practices and behavioral expectation is

evident in other research findings (Gerber, 1996). And although the disadvantages of co-

teaching noted in the literature are frequent, they are always accompanied by numerous

positive aspects to counterbalance the negatives. In general, most research has found co-

teaching to be beneficial to general education students, improving social interactions and

acceptance, providing better and more appropriate instruction in the classroom, and

promoting confidence on state-mandated tests (Gerber, 1996; Idol, 2006; Klingner et al.,
 83

1998; Little & Dieker, 2009; Murawski, 2006; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Tichenor et al,

2000; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). But there are some studies that have shown serious

concerns about the effectiveness of co-teaching (Neugebauer, 2008; Zigmond, 2006).

The modifications made to curriculum in order to make it appropriate for the special

needs population could have detrimental effects on general education students,

preventing them from receiving the full extent of the academic standards. These

alterations in addition to the confusion created by two teachers using different teaching

techniques could restrict student learning in a co-taught environment.

The impact of co-teaching on gifted students. Students at different levels of

academic performance can respond differently to certain instructional practices. As seen

in the research, all students do not react in the same way to co-teaching. Positive effects

of co-teaching are evident in most students, but larger gains and more consistent benefits

occur for students with special needs (Gerber, 1996; Murawski & Swanson, 2001;

Tichenor et al., 2000; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Because the disparity in academic

performance often can be great within the co-taught classroom, it is important to consider

how students at different levels of scholastic achievement respond to a collaborative

inclusion classroom. Special education students and their general education counterparts

are often studied in the co-taught classroom, investigating their social and academic

responses to the service model. Gifted students, on the other hand, rarely are considered

in the research. This oversight creates a gap in the literature and calls for further

assessment of the value of co-teaching gifted students. In order to examine how co-

teaching impacts gifted students, it is necessary to define the criteria for identifying gifted

students.
 84

Identification of gifted students in Georgia. There are numerous ways to define

gifitedness, focusing on multiple or individual criteria to determine exceptionalities.

Many experts and governmental bodies determine giftedness as a percentage of the

population, the top three to ten percent of the student body being considered gifted

(Allan, 1991; Neumark, 2008; Slavin, 1991). Georgia defines gifted students as any child

"who demonstrates a high degree of intellectual and/or creative ability(ies), exhibits an

exceptionally high degree of motivation, and/or excels in specific academic fields"

(Georgia Comprehensive Rules & Regulations, 1998, p. 1). Students in this category are

in need of specialized instruction and curriculum to meet their academic needs and to

ensure they reach their potential. Just as students with special needs are identified

through specific criteria as established by the Georgia Comprehensive Rules and

Regulations, giftedness is determined through a series of assessments and observations

(Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, 1998). Giftedness can be determined

through high scores on a test of intelligence as well as achievement. Scores on the

intelligence test should be at or above the 99th percentile for students kindergarten

through 2nd grade or 96th percentile for students 3rd through 12th grade. If a child does

not meet these standards, he/she can be qualified for eligibility through the multiple-

criteria process, as well.

Multiple-criteria identification assesses a student in four areas of giftedness:

mental ability, achievement, creativity, and motivation (Georgia Comprehensive Rules

and Regulations, 1998). In order to qualify for the gifted program, a child must meet the

standards for giftedness in three of the four areas. The assessments used to determine

qualification must be the most recent editions of nationally-normed tests, and all data
 85

must have been gathered within the past two years. When examining mental ability,

students must score at or above the 96th percentile on a composite or component portion

of the test. Because of the nature of intelligence/mental ability tests, all tests must be

given individually by a qualified examiner. In order to meet the criteria in achievement,

students must score at or above the 90th percentile in the composite, reading, or math

portions of an achievement test. Student products may also be used to determine

eligibility in achievement. When using student products, a panel of three qualified

evaluators must rank the product above 90 on a scale of 0 to 100.

Creativity and motivation use criteria similar to mental ability and achievement

for qualification in the gifted program (Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations,

1998). When assessing creativity, a standardized test of creativity must be given, and a

score of greater than 90th percentile must be achieved. Student products may also be

used to determine creativity, with procedures similar to those used when determining

achievement. Motivation can be determined through a standardized assessment,

observations, and/or grades. When using a standardized rating scale, the student must

score 90th percentile or higher. Products or observations must receive a score of 90 or

higher from a panel of 3 qualified evaluators in order to meet the standards for giftedness.

The third alternative to determine qualification for motivation is grade point average.

Using the cumulative grade point average over the course of two years, a child must have

between 3.5 and 4 grade point average in order to be considered gifted in this area. If a

child meets these criteria in three out of the four areas, mental ability, achievement,

creativity, and motivation, then he/she is considered to be gifted.

 86

Gifted students in co-taught literature. The literature, though extensive in some

aspects, is still developing concerning the impact of co-teaching on student achievement.

While several studies have analyzed the effect of this model on students with special

needs and general education students (Gerber, 1996; Idol, 2006; Klingner et al., 1998;

Little & Dieker, 2009; Murawski, 2006; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Tichenor et al, 2000;

Wilson & Michaels, 2006), the performance of gifted students is rarely mentioned in the

literature. When researchers do comment on the performance of gifted students in a co-

taught classroom, most comments lack the depth and relevancy of the remainder of the

study and are mentioned as secondary information (Gerber, 1996). But it is important to

examine research including the noted responses of gifted students in a co-taught situation,

however brief, in an effort to determine the best placement for instruction for all students.

In his study of the implementation of co-teaching in several schools, Gerber

(1996) examined the responses of students, teachers, administrators, and parents when

asked about co-teaching. Though not a major aspect of his research, the thoughts of

some parents of gifted students were recorded in his findings. Parents of higher achievers

showed concern for the level of instruction being provided in the co-taught classroom.

Questioning the rigor and depth of the curriculum, these parents felt that the

modifications to the curriculum might impede the progress of gifted students and thereby

negatively impact their education. Gerber commented on other general understanding by

all parents and students that the co-taught class was on a different level from other

general education classes, stating, "the inclusion class is lower" (p. 35). Though no data

were given to substantiate these claims and no assessments were used to determine if
 87

gifted students were negatively impacted, the perception of co-teaching being detrimental

to academic gains was present.

Theoretically, the presence of two teachers should enable the modification of

instruction to meet the needs of students at all points on the academic spectrum.

Differentiation should be easier with the expertise of two qualified educators to plan and

administer instruction designed to meet the diverse needs of the group (Dieker &

Murawski, 2003; Little & Dieker, 2009; Tannock, 2009). But because co-teaching is a

special education service model, the majority of curricular modifications are focused on

the needs of students with disabilities (Gerent, 1998; Santamaria & Thousand, 2004).

Specifically, in Gerent's 1998 paper about the importance of collaboration and co-

teaching strategies, she employs three examples of classes in which co-teaching and

collaboration enabled the successful inclusion of students with disabilities. One of her

example classrooms was composed of several students with special needs, a group of

general education students, and several students identified as gifted. Though mentioned

in the demographics of the classroom, no consideration for their needs as learners was

mentioned. Differentiation focused solely on those needing supports and scaffolding for

lessons. While the co-teachers effectively met the needs of the special education

students, providing two separate levels of modification, little attention was given to the

gifted students. The goals of educators of gifted students are very different from those of

students with special needs (Hughes & Murawski, 2001). These differences in focus and

intent may cause gifted students to be affected differently by co-teaching than general

and special education students. While advocates for the gifted support the use of a

collaborative model, the co-teaching models suggested require modification from the
 88

generally accepted definition. Heterogeneous grouping is mentioned, but differentiation

from the general curriculum to promote the development of the talents of gifted students

is essential (Hughes & Murawski, 2001).

Despite the lack of attention given to gifted students in co-teaching literature, it is

important to assess how gifted students may respond to the service model so that

informed placement decisions can be made. Co-teaching is a compilation of factors that

can impact the progress and productivity of students, and while there are numerous

characteristics that may or may not be present in the learning environment created when

co-teaching occurs, certain characteristics of co-teaching are inevitable consequences and

will impact student performance. Aspects such as heterogeneous grouping, reduced

student-teacher ratio, and collaboration between teachers have been noted as having an

impact on student achievement (Allan, 1991; Balduf, 2009; Brownell & Pajares, 1996; da

Costa, 1993; Leahey, 2006; National Institute on Student Achievement, 1998; Slavin,

1991). Because the literature concerning the impact of co-teaching on gifted students is

limited, these factors can be examined in order to predict the overall effects of co-

teaching on this population.

Inclusion/heterogeneous grouping and gifted students. The benefits and

detriments of ability grouping and heterogeneous grouping have been debated for

decades, and large amounts of research have been conducted in an effort to squelch the

debate (Allan, 1991; Balduf, 2009; Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Kulik & Kulik, 1984,

1992; Rogers, 1991; Slavin, 1991). The research indicates no clear consensus because

positive results are evident in both types of instructional groups (Castle, Deniz, &

Tortora, 2005; Hunt, 1996; McCoach, O'Connell & Levitt, 2006; Neihart, 2007;
Neumark, 2008; Slavm, 1991; Venkatakrishnan & Wiham, 2003). The different types of

homogenous grouping and the various grouping practices that occur within

heterogeneous classes have specific characteristics, each resulting in positive and

negative aspects of their implementation. Throughout the long history of this debate, the

research has defined many of the positive and negative aspects of both practices, in all

their forms.

A large body of literature purports the value of homogeneous grouping and/or

tracking on the education of gifted students (Allan, 1991; Balduf, 2009; Cramond &

Brodsky, 1996; Delcourt, Cornell, & Goldberg, 2007; Kulik, 1992, 1993; Kulik & Kulik,

1984, 1992; Matthews & Kitchen, 2007; Neihart, 2007; Rogers, 2007). In its various

forms, homogenous group has been shown, in some instances, to positively impact

student achievement, self efficacy, and involvement (Adams-Beyers, Whitsell, & Moon,

2004; Allan, 1991; Balduf, 2009; Cramond & Brodsky, 1996; Delcourt et a l , 2007;

Kulik, 1992, 1993; Kulik & Kulik, 1984, 1992; Matthews & Kitchen, 2007; Neihart,

2007; Rogers, 2007). Similarly, in a study assessing the perceptions of gifted students

concerning ability-grouped and mixed-ability classes, gifted students felt they performed

better in homogenous groupings which allowed them to receive appropriate levels of

instruction (Adams-Beyers et al., 2004). These perceptions were validated by research

indicating that gifted student make more progress and obtain higher achievement scores

when placed in homogeneous groups (Delcourt et al., 2007; Hunt, 1996; Kulik, 1993;

Rogers, 1993; Venkatakrishnan & Wiliam, 2003).

In order to realize the full benefits of homogeneous grouping, it is important to

recognize the reason for the children to be divided in such a way. Gifted students need
 90

different content, curriculum, and instruction that will challenge them and enable them to

be successful (Balduf, 2009). To successfully improve the achievement of gifted

students, it is not enough to merely place them in a group with like-minded individuals.

Although interaction with other gifted student is beneficial to the learning process

(Rogers, 1993, 2007), the true value of homogeneous grouping occurs when the

curriculum for gifted students is actually modified to reflect the learning needs of the

intellectually-capable students (Hockett, 2009; Johnson, 2000; Kulik, 1993; Neihart,

2007; Neumark, 2008; Rogers, 2007). The principles of curriculum development for

gifted students are different than those for general and special education students,

reflecting the need for content and tasks that address the gifted student's ability to work

at higher metacognitive levels (Hockett, 2009). Without these changes, ability grouping

is much less effective (Kulik, 1993).

But despite the numerous studies showing the positive impact of ability grouping,

many researchers have found it to be much less beneficial (Gamoran & Berends, 1987;

Sapon-Shevin, 1994, 2003; Sapon-Shevin & Schniedewind, 1993; Slavin, 1991).

Slavin's (1990) synthesis of research showed no academic benefits to homogeneously

grouping students. After examining 29 studies, Slavin determined the effect of ability

grouping and tracking on student achievement to be zero. This is in gross contradiction

to the findings of Kulik and Kulik (1984) in their meta-analysis of the literature in which

they found significant positive effects of the practice. Slavin blames the use of invalid

experiments for the difference in their findings (Slavin, 1991). Some researchers

compared the achievement gains of students in different tracks to those of untracked

students without controlling for courses taken. According to Slavin, these differences in
 91

curriculum exposure and varied learning experiences would account for all the academic

gains made by those in higher tracks reported in Kulik and Kulik's meta-analysis (Slavin,

1990). In his original synthesis and again in his response to critics of his synthesis,

Slavin (1990,1991) states that ability grouping shows no significant academic gains and

may have a negative impact on student self esteem at all levels of academic functioning.

Other researchers point to social reasons for the need for heterogeneous classes

(Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Sapon-Shevin, 1994, 2003; Sapon-Shevin & Schniedewind,

1993). Gifted students need the opportunity for socially-inclusive interactions in order to

learn how to behave in a diverse culture, and inclusive classrooms help to foster an

attitude of acceptance needed to participate in a democratic society (Sapon-Shevin, 1994,

2003). When students must leave the general education classroom to receive special

instructional services, it can lead to alienation and elitism at both ends of the academic

spectrum (Sapon-Shevin, 1994). Through interacting with scholastically diverse students

and collaboratively learning with them, students develop the ability to work with a

variety of people with a variety of skill sets, preparing them for life in a culturally diverse

world (Sapon-Shevin & Schiedewind, 1993).

Another argument for the value of mixed-ability classes is the impact of ability

grouping on students' attitudes toward school. In a 1987 study of the research related to

the impact of tracking on secondary students, Gamoran and Berends found that students

in the higher academic track had a more positive attitude about school and its

requirements. Conversely, many students in lower tracks held an anti-school attitude and

broke school rules more frequently. These trends led to stereotyping within the tracks

and an increase in negative teacher perceptions about students in the lower track. These
 92

social consequences resulting from tracking reemphasize the value of heterogeneous

grouping to provide equality in opportunity and instruction (Gamoran & Berends, 1987;

Sapon-Shevin, 2003; Slavin, 1991).

Despite the arguments that ability and mixed-ability grouping are mutually

exclusive, there may be an alternative that offers the benefits of both techniques.

Providing flexible ability groups within a heterogeneous classroom enables gifted

students the opportunity to benefit from accelerated curriculum while also allowing gifted

students to interact with students at multiple levels of academic functioning (Johnson,

2000; Richards & Omdal, 2007; Rogers, 1991, 2007; Slavin, 1991). Cramond and

Brodsky (1996) compare giving all students the same instruction to making them all wear

the same size shoe, citing the use of flexible grouping as the method for appropriately

differentiating curriculum and activities to meet the needs of all students. Flexible

grouping involves temporarily grouping students for a skill, unit of study, or task based

on ability, interest, or previous knowledge (Richards & Omdal, 2007). Students study the

same material but they "diverge in terms of specific skills to be addressed and in the

depth and complexity of the topic based on their learning needs" (p. 427), allowing

gifted students to achieve academic growth while maintaining interactions with their

peers. By using grouping techniques that are "dynamic," "situational," and "periodic"

(Cramond & Brodsky, 1996, para. 7), teachers can provide instruction that supports

individual needs while preventing the stigmatizing effects of tracking. Warning about the

detrimental effects of uniform instruction for all types and levels of learners, researchers

validate the use of situational ability grouping in a heterogeneous classroom (Cramond &

Brodsky, 1996; Rogers, 2007).

 93

Richards and Omdal (2007) conducted a study of the effects of tiered instruction

on student achievement. Teachers in the study implemented tiering practices as a

treatment in a portion of the classes while maintaining traditional teaching habits in

others to act as the control. Academic gains were assessed using a pretest/posttest

methodology. Data analysis revealed significant growth for students with lower

academic performance with students in this treatment group performing as well as the

middle-performing students on the posttest and better than the middle-performing

students in the control group. Students in the high-achieving group performed equally

well in the treatment group and control group. Researchers indicated that the full extent

of the value of the tiering procedures for gifted/high-achieving students may not be

evident in the data because of the ceiling effect. Thus, it is undecided whether the

maximum benefits of flexible grouping are relevant only to lower achieving students or if

these grouping techniques have a similar impact on higher functioning students, as well.

Other studies that examined the use of flexible ability grouping showed an

increase in student achievement for all groups, especially for students performing below

grade level (Castle et al., 2005; McCoach et al., 2006). In a study of the use of within

class ability grouping for reading instruction in kindergarten, McCoach, O'Connell, and

Levitt (2006) was a negative correlation between fall reading achievement and gains in

reading achievement with the use of flexible grouping. Students who scored higher on

the initial assessment showed smaller gains than those with lower initial scores. In a

similar study, Castle, Deniz, and Tortora (2005) noted gains for all student groups, but

reported more success with below-goal students. In both studies, instructional

interventions and differentiation techniques were not noted, and in the Castle, Deniz, and
Tortora study, additional focus seemed to be put on students with lower academic

functioning (Castle et al., 2005; McCoach et al., 2006). Ineffective differentiation for

gifted/high-achieving students and specific intent to increase the achievement of at-risk

students could impact the degree of growth in gifted/high-achieving students.

Reduced student-teacher ratio. Another aspect of co-teaching that has been

investigated in the research is reduced student-teacher ratio. Common perceptions of

student-teacher ratio (STR) stem from general teacher beliefs that one-on-one instruction

is the optimum setting for student learning (Anderson, 2000; National Institute on

Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment, 1998; Robertson, 2005). This

intuitive understanding that smaller classes equate to a more effective learning

environment has led to numerous debates in educational and political arenas. Proponents

of reducing STR cite three specific characteristics that bring about improvements in

student achievement: fewer behavior problems that detract from instruction, greater

understanding of individual student needs, and greater teacher efficacy and satisfaction

(Anderson, 2000). These results lead to improved instruction and, in turn, increase

student achievement.

Most studies conducted to assess the true value of small class size have seen

positive outcomes, especially for younger students, but there is some conflict about

whether these benefits are extensive enough to justify their cost (Reichardt, 2001;

Robertson, 2005; Thompson & Cunningham, 2001). Benefits resulting from a smaller

STR include increased student-teacher interaction, more attention to individualized

student needs, and lower behavior problems in the classroom (Reichardt, 2001;

Thompson & Cunningham, 2001), and these benefits can potentially lead to increased
 95

student achievement for all students. But these increase come at a cost. Decreasing STR

requires more teachers and classrooms, a large financial burden for states and school

districts. Many debate the value of the small increases in student achievement reported in

the research and question the efficiency of using educational funds to decrease STR. Yet

many states have implemented reform programs based on the significance of smaller

classes and reduced STR, substantiating the belief that student learning is worth the price.

A great deal of research has been conducted over the years to support reducing

student teacher-ratio in an effort to improve student learning and performance (Achilles,

Finn, & Bain, 1997; Finn, Gerber, & Boyd-Zaharais, 2005; Mitchell & Mitchell, 2001;

Thompson & Cunningham, 2001), and the research related to the concept of reducing

STR led to several large-scale reform efforts in states such as Wisconsin, California,

South Carolina, Indiana, and Tennessee in which class sizes were reduced (Gilman &

Kiger, 2003; Reichardt, 2001; Thompson & Cunningham, 2001). These states began

programs in which reducing STR was a mainstay of reformation endeavors to increase

student achievement. Program evaluations of the state improvement efforts revealed

numerous positive and negative outcomes ranging from increased student achievement

for certain groups of students to decreased social competence. While each state's data

had specific nuances as a result of the actual reforms implemented, the collective research

about reducing STR led to strong assumptions about the value and impact of smaller

classes. The primary findings of the program evaluations of Indiana, Wisconsin, North

Carolina, Tennessee, and California indicate increases in student achievement for

students, specifically ethnic minorities and at-risk populations (Gilman & Kiger, 2003;

Mitchell & Mitchell, 2001; Smith, Molnar, & Zahorik, 2003; Thompson & Cunningham,
 96

2001). Some educational reformists actually promote reducing class size as a method for

decreasing the achievement gap between white and minority students (Achilles et al.,

1997; Thompson & O'Quinn, 2001).

Additionally, earlier and more extensive exposure to smaller classes increases the

extent of the academic benefits for students (Finn et al., 2005; Gilman & Kiger, 2003;

Mitchell & Mitchell, 2001; Smith et al., 2003; Thompson & Cunningham, 2001). Grades

k through 3rd see the most benefit from reduced class sizes, and those participating in

such classes for multiple years maintain the academic gains for longer periods of time,

some maintaining advanced academic functioning through the seventh grade (Gilman &

Kiger, 2003; Mitchell & Mitchell, 2001; Smith et al., 2003; Thompson & Cunningham,

2001; Wang, 2000). A study conducted by Finn, Gerber, and Boyd-Zaharias (2005)

noted a significant increase in the graduation rates of students who attended smaller

classes for at least four years, conveying the long-term impact reducing class sizes and

lowering STR can have on students. The positive impact of class size reductions may be

because of the increase in student achievement in these early years, altering student

efficacy and changing their outlook on intelligence and academic success (Jackson et al.,

2009).

In the large-scale state reforms, most states saw gains in overall student

achievement, but some results were not as dramatic as expected (Gilman & Kiger, 2003).

Indiana's class-size reduction program showed benefits to student achievement in the

initial phases of implementation, but studies of its impact after several years of execution

showed negligible improvements. Other researchers have claimed that large

improvements in student achievement are only evident in at-risk populations, limiting the
 97

extent of the advantages of an extremely expensive practice (Mitchell & Mitchell, 2001;

Smith et al., 2003; Thompson & Cunningham, 2001). Additionally, researchers have

noted the inability to attribute all academic gains noted in the data to reducing the

student-teacher ratio (Mitchell & Mitchell, 2001). But these limited quantitative results

may be outweighed by the benefits to instructional climate and the attitudes of students,

parents, and teachers (Robertson, 2005).

Another aspect of reducing STR that must be considered is the method used to

achieve a smaller ratio. Though most studies reduced STR by implementing smaller

class sizes, some researchers and state-led reform efforts also used co-teaching as a

method for lowering STR (Graue, Hatch, Rao, & Oen, 2007; Wang, 2000). If changes in

instructional practices were implemented to utilize the reduction in STR, the resulting

data was similar to that in smaller classes. Students received more appropriate instruction

in smaller groups which led to greater understanding of the curriculum and better

academic performance. But most co-taught classrooms studied did not change their

teaching practices. In their 2007 study of classrooms involved in SAGE, a Wisconsin

program for reducing STR, Graue, Hatch, Rao, and Oen found that students involved in

classes with a 15:1 STR performed better on achievement measures than those in 30:2

classes. Ineffective teaching methods, such as "tag-team teaching" (p. 688) and the

frequent use of one of the teachers as a substitute teacher for absent colleagues may have

contributed to the differences in achievement data. In the nine co-taught classrooms

involved in their study, only one consistently divided the classroom to utilize the lower

student teacher ratio. No data was reported to determine if there was a difference in the

achievement of students in this class.

 98

Although the extent of the academic benefits for reducing STR vary among

researchers, the overall findings in the literature show a positive relationship between

student achievement and lower STR, whether this ratio is achieved through smaller

classes or co-teaching (Graue, et al., 2007; Gilman & Kiger, 2003; Mitchell & Mitchell,

2001; Wang, 2000; Smith et al., 2003; Thompson & Cunningham, 2001). Various factors

improve as a result of a smaller STR, including teacher efficacy, knowledge of student

understanding, individualized instruction, and instructional climate. These improvements

lead to increased acquisition of content and better performance on assessments. While

many still debate whether the sometimes small increases in student achievement are

worth the expense (Reichardt, 2001; Thompson & Cunningham, 2001), the positive

impact on most students and the lack of negative consequences to student learning

strengthen the argument of those in favor of reducing STR. Though the majority research

focuses mainly on the overall impact of reducing STR, it can be inferred that the benefits

realized by the whole groups also exist within the gifted population.

Collaboration of teachers. The value of teacher collaboration is well established

in the literature (Chance & Segura, 2009; Esposito, 2008; Gideon, 2002; Hendler &

Nakelski, 2008; Saphier & West, 2009), and numerous school reform initiatives cite

collaboration and the building of professional learning communities as ways to improve

school culture and student achievement (Gideon, 2002; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006;

Newmann et al., 2001; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). Researchers cite the benefits to

instruction and teacher efficacy when teacher collaboration takes place (Banjeri &

Dailey, 1995; Brownell & Pajares, 1996; da Costa, 1993; Jang, 2006; Murawski &

Hughes, 2009; Ross et al., 1997), and these improvements have a positive impact on
student learning (Esposito, 2008; Hendler & Nakelski, 2008; McClure, 2008; Strahan &

Hedt, 2009). While the effect of collaboration on gifted students has not been directly

studied, collaborative efforts in some districts are used specifically to benefit gifted

students and meet their special learning needs (Esposito, 2009). Programs as such have

been met with national accolades and apparent success. Additionally, the overall

increases in student achievement are evident within the literature, and it can be assumed

that improvements in academic performance would be present in all subgroups of the

student population, including gifted students.

Several schools have undergone reform efforts that have included organizational

changes to increase teacher collaboration, and these changes have induced noted

improvements to student achievement (Chance & Segura, 2009; Gideon, 2002; Linek,

Fleener, Fazio, Raine, & Klakamp, 2003). After the implementation of organized

collaboration within David Crockett High School in Austin, Texas, student achievement

increased significantly and retention rates reduced because of the changes that resulted

(Gideon, 2002). Another study revealed collaboration to be the key component of reform

efforts that initiated improvements in student achievement and school climate (Chance &

Segura, 2009). After organizational structures were implemented to facilitate teacher

collaboration and cultural norms were altered so that communication and involvement

was expected, teachers became focused on student needs, adjusting their instructional

practices to address the diversity of the students. They also became engaged in the

decision-making process in the school, developing teacher buy-in to school improvement

efforts. As a result, pass rates on graduation tests increased, Adequate Yearly Progress

improved, and attendance and graduation rates increased.

 100

A similar study was conducted to assess how changing the focus for curriculum

development and teaching preparation from teacher-focused to student-focused would

impact student performance (Linek et al., 2003). Collaborative efforts within schools and

communication among decision makers were increased in an effort to focus on student

needs. Data revealed that student achievement increased in all schools over the five-year

period, and teachers and administrators participating in the study felt the increase in

achievement was directly related to increased communication and collaboration and a

change in focus toward student-needs. These benefits and numerous others are noted

throughout the research. Factors such as improved curricular content and retention,

increased teacher efficacy, and more individualized instruction lead to increases in

student performance that are evident in attendance, discipline, and test scores (Chance &

Segura, 2009; Esposito, 2008; Gideon, 2002; Hendler & Nakelski, 2008; Linek et al.,

2003; McClure, 2008; Saphier & West, 2009).

The characteristics and implications of co-teaching are various and difficult to

define, but the three main aspects of the practice^ heterogeneous grouping, reduced

student-teacher ratio, and collaboration, have instigated large amounts of research

(Chance & Segura, 2009; Gideon, 2002; Linek et al., 2003; Mitchell & Mitchell, 2001;

Sapon-Shevin, 1994,2003). Certain aspects, such as teacher collaboration, indicate a

pervasive benefit to all students, creating support for the use of co-teaching in all settings.

Others, such as heterogeneous grouping, may only be optimal for students with special

needs and their general education peers. Such findings may highlight some reservations

for advocates of gifted students when considering the use of co-teaching (Hunt, 1996;

Kulik, 1993; Venkatakrishnan & Wiliam, 2003). With such variation in the research, it is
 101

important to conduct further studies to clarify the impact of co-teaching on the

achievement and academic performance of all students. Although the research is

growing in this area, no studies have focused on the impact of co-teaching and other

inclusive service models on high achieving and gifted students. As co-teaching becomes

more common place and administrators being to utilize this collaborative format as a

method for improving instruction and meeting student needs, it is imperative to fully

understand the implications of the practice and know its impact on all types of students in

order to best meet the needs of the learners. It is evident that further research should be

conducted to define the benefits of co-teaching on students with special needs and the

general population, as well as identify the impact of the service model on students

identified as gifted.

Summary

The preceding literature review examines information related to the history of

special education and the relevant research associated with co-teaching. By highlighting

the educational struggles of students with disabilities, the historical perspective provides

foundational information regarding the evolution of inclusionary practices in the United

States. From the rudimentary origins in one-room school houses and institutions

(Osgood, 2008; Winzer, 1993), special education has developed into a complex division

of American education defined by legislation and refined by litigation (Gangemi, 1984;

Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Robinson, 1983; Taylor, 2004; Wizner, 1993). Through the

ebb and flow of social convictions and the persistence of parent concern, many of the

misconceptions and prejudices impeding the education of students with disabilities have

been washed away and students have the opportunity to learn (Osgood, 2008; Wizner,
 102

1993). Through the development of legislation such as IDEA and NCLB, beneficial

service models for students with disabilities have been developed, and these students are

receiving quality instruction in the general education classroom (Apling & Jones, 2002;

Etscheidt, 2006; Executive Summary, 2004; Gandhi, 2007; Rice et al., 2007; Yell,

Shriner, & Katsivannis, 2006).

In addition to the history of special education, the review of current co-teaching

research conveys the literature base as it stands, denoting the strengths and weaknesses of

recent studies. The information provides beneficial details concerning the current state of

special education and the understandings and shortcomings provided by the current body

of literature. The plethora of information related to the advantages of co-teaching for

students with special needs clearly denote specific benefits (Daane et al., 2001; Dieker,

2001; Friend, 2007; Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005;

Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Murphy et al., 2004 Schwab

Learning, 2003). Findings such as increased social integration, higher class grades, and

improved achievement scores demonstrate the positive impact of the service model.

Additionally, the co-teaching literature provides ample foundation for further research

related to the effects of co-teaching on general education and gifted students. In the

following chapter, the methods for data collection will be articulated, providing a

comprehensive explanation of the study.

 103

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

As changes in federal laws begin to impact service models and instructional

techniques for students at all levels of academic achievement, more research must be

conducted in order to reveal the impact of co-teaching on all students. Because the

literature pertaining to co-teaching is limited in its scope, studies focusing on the effects

co-teaching has on the perceptions and achievement of students at different levels of

academic performance are necessary. IDEA protects the rights of students with

disabilities and NCLB seeks to maintain a certain level of performance by all children,

therefore much of the legislation is focused on students on the lower end of the

achievement scale. In an effort to ensure continued academic growth by all students, this

study examines the progress of students with special needs, general education students,

and students identified as gifted.

In order to determine student perceptions of co-teaching and how these

perceptions compare to student achievement, this study utilized triangulation mixed-

methods to collect and analyze data gathered from special education, general education,

and gifted students. The mixture of qualitative and quantitative data was analyzed

together in order to determine larger themes and validate findings, providing a more

informed view of co-teaching and its influence on students. These methods attempted to

answer the following research questions:

 • What patterns exist in the perceptions of students at various levels of

academic performance (i.e., special, general, and gifted education) about their

learning experiences in a co-taught classroom?

• How have these same students performed on standardized achievement tests?

What measured differences have existed between students at different

academic levels?

• How does co-teaching impact the achievement scores of students at different

levels of academic functioning?

• In what ways do the themes and patterns in perceptions about co-taught

classrooms help to explain any differences in students' academic

achievement?

Setting

This study took place in a small, bedroom community 60 miles west of Atlanta.

The area had recently seen growth because of the arrival of new industries and an influx

of commuters from the Atlanta area. Research was conducted in the only middle school

in the city school district. Servicing approximately 430 students, Bremen Middle School

(BMS) is a small middle school centered on community involvement and high academic

standards. The student population has little ethnic variation with 10% of its student body

being a minority and 90% Caucasian, and the percentage of economically disadvantaged

students is below the state average at 23% (Georgia Department of Education, 2009a).

The percentage of students participating in special education is consistent with the state

average at 12%, and 95% of these are classified as mild disabilities. Gifted students

comprise 26% of the student body.

 BMS facilitates the teaching of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students,

providing one team at each grade level. Each team consists of five to six general

education teachers and one special education teacher. There are six non-academic

teachers in addition to two paraprofessionals who also work with students. A principal,

assistant principal, a counselor, two administrative assistants, a media specialist, and a

registrar enable the organization to run effectively. Faculty members work together to

serve the student population, and collaboration is an important aspect of planning and

continual school improvement.

The school's commitment to collaboration is exemplified in the special education

department's attempt to meet the state initiative to serve 90% of its special education

students in regular education 80% of the day. In an effort to meet this initiative, co-

teaching opportunities are provided in all grade levels in most content areas. No

mathematics small-group/resource classes are taught at BMS for students with special

needs. All students participate in the general education classroom through co-teaching,

inclusion (general education classroom with the assistance of a paraprofessional), or

mainstreaming (general education classroom with no classroom support from the special

education department). For students with special needs, the success of the co-teaching

environment is assessed during the annual Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting

when the IEP committee reviews test scores, grades, and observations to determine

placement.

Similarly, there are specific services available for gifted students at BMS also.

Gifted education classes are provided at all grade levels in multiple formats. Some

students are taught using the cluster model, a group of eight to twelve students in the
 106

general education classroom receiving differentiated instruction, or in a gifted classroom

containing 21 or fewer gifted and/or high-achieving students all receiving the same high-

level instruction. Multiple teachers at each grade level are certified to teach gifted

students. All math classes throughout the school utilize the cluster model, but not all

gifted students are in the specified gifted clusters. Several gifted students are in classes

without a gifted cluster, and other gifted students are in co-taught math classes.

The co-taught math classrooms at Bremen Middle School can be classified as co-

taught because of several unifying characteristics. In the co-taught math classes in sixth,

seventh, and eighth grades, there were two certified teachers in each classroom, and they

were jointly responsible for the planning, delivery, and assessment of instruction. Both

teachers were assigned to the classroom for the entire class period and were expected to

attend and participate in class activities on a daily basis. The partnerships in seventh and

eighth grades had common planning time during each day, but all three partnerships

worked together to discuss and plan activities at least once per week. The duration of

these planning sessions varied, but both teachers in each partnership provided input into

the organization of activities and delivery of instruction. In all three partnerships, the

general education teacher was considered to be the "lead" teacher by the co-teachers, but

the special educator and the general educator were both active participants in activities in

the classroom on a regular basis. Some training was provided to facilitate the

development of a positive co-teaching relationship, but no administrative monitoring was

in place to ensure the quality of the partnership.

Co-teaching as the preferred service model for students with special needs was the

decision of school and district administration, and the individuals selected to participate
were determined based on student need, scheduling mandates, and administrative

decision. During the 2009-2010 school year, it was decided that all students in special

education would participate in the general education classroom. Because of this, all

general education math teachers were required to co-teach at least one class period, but

certain accommodations were made when determining the special education partner.

Personality conflicts and content specialty were taken into account when administrators

assigned partnerships. Because of this, the same special education teacher co-taught the

sixth and eighth grade math classes.

Participants and Sample Selection

The target population in this study included middle school students at multiple

levels of academic performance who were being co-taught in a general education

mathematics classroom during the 2009-2010 academic year who were not co-taught

during the 2008-2009 school year. While the accessible population was restricted to one

school in west Georgia, the results can be generalized to other students in similar school

settings. Students were assigned to classes by a computer program that responded to the

parameters determined by the state (class size, limitations pertaining to specific

disabilities, etc.), the service models determined appropriate by the IEP committee, and

by class schedules predetermined by the administration. Classes were determined before

the study began and were not rearranged in order to accommodate the needs of the study.

For this study, purposive sampling methods were used to identify potential

student participants in co-taught math classes. Math classes were selected for use in this

study because all grade levels have co-taught math classes containing gifted students.

Other subject areas either used other models to serve students with special needs or relied
 108

on a pull-out model to provide modified instruction to gifted students, eliminating all

other subject areas from possible use in this study. To begin the process of selecting

participants, the researcher compiled a list of all students in co-taught math classes for the

2009-2010 academic school year. This list was cross-referenced with students in co-

taught math classes the previous year, and all students who were co-taught both years

were eliminated from the study. The students then were sorted into the appropriate group

(special education, general education, gifted). Students classified as special education

and gifted were identified based on the Georgia requirements for qualification. The

various types of disability and areas of giftedness were not considered for this study.

Gifted and special education qualification must have been met prior to the initiation of

data collection, and any student who became qualified during the study was not utilized

in the study. The third group being assessed in the study, general education students,

were defined as any student not classified as gifted or special education. Seventy-eight

general education students met these criteria. In order to obtain groups comparable in

size, one-fourth of the general education students were randomly selected to participate.

An online list randomizer was used in order to select participants

(http://www.random.org/lists/). The website generated a randomized list of the students,

and the first twenty general education students on the list were selected. Eighteen special

education students, twenty general education students, and eleven gifted students

qualified for participation in the open-ended survey portion of the study. Once these

students were identified, permission for participation in the study was obtained from

parents by sending a letter and consent form home with students. In some cases, a

follow-up phone call was necessary to obtain a signed consent form. If consent was not
 109

received from a student, the next person on the list was contacted for participation. In the

case of the students with special needs and gifted students, the entire population was

contacted initially, and permission was obtained for all students.

A similar method was used to determine participants for the interview portion of

the study. The same online list randomizer was used to randomize the lists of special

education, gifted, and general education students who participated in the open-ended

survey. The first five students on each list were selected to participate in the interview

portion of the study.

Data Collection Strategies

Prior to data collection, parental consent was obtained. An informative letter

stating the purpose and basic methodology of the study and a consent form (Appendix A)

were sent home for parental approval. Students also were asked to sign a form of assent

(Appendix B) before any data was collected.

In order to answer the first research question, "What patterns exist in the

perceptions of students at various levels of academic performance (i.e., special, general,

and gifted education) about their learning experiences in a co-taught classroom?", the

researcher collected multiple forms of data from the selected students over the course of 8

weeks. Initial data was collected through an open-ended online survey (Appendix C).

The survey had a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of 4.2 (Burke & Greenberg, 2010). . In

order to accommodate any student who had reading difficulties, a reader was provided.

Each student's reading level, as determined through previous monitoring in reading

classes, was verified, and all students with a reading level of 4.2 or below were provided

a reader to read the survey aloud to the student. The co-teachers of these students were
 110

also consulted to determine if the reader needed to assist the student with typing in

his/her responses.

The questionnaire was administered to students in a classroom during the weekly

extended learning time, and each grade level took the survey at a different time. The

researcher administered the survey at different time intervals on the same day. A

standard set of instructions were read by the researcher to ensure all students understood

the purpose of the survey and how to respond to the questions (Appendix D). The reader

only read the questions to his/her specific student. All inquiries about the survey during

the administration were answered by the researcher. If it was necessary for the reader to

assist with typing responses, the reader read each question to the student and typed

his/her exact response. The questionnaire administered focused on the students' opinions

of co-teaching and how they felt the service model had impacted their academic

performance. Through respondent commentary, the survey provided general information

concerning the experiences of students at Bremen Middle School in co-taught

mathematics classrooms and how those experiences affected their learning and

achievement.

In addition to an open-ended survey, interviews were conducted with five students

randomly selected from each group (i.e., special education, general education, and

gifted). Interview questions (Appendix E) asked of the students related to issues and

ideas evident in surveys and literature and mainly focused on student perceptions of co-

teaching and its impact on their achievement and classroom performance. Students were

interviewed individually by the researcher in order to collect specific responses to issues

raised in the online survey and to obtain anecdotal data about personal experiences in co-
 Ill

taught classes, focusing specifically on the positive and negative aspects of the learning

environment. Students were questioned about how co-teaching had specifically impacted

student learning and student achievement.

The second and third research questions are "How do co-taught students at

different levels of academic functioning perform on standardized achievement tests?

What differences exist between students at different academic levels?" and "How does

co-teaching impact the achievement scores of students at different levels of academic

functioning?" These questions were addressed through the analysis of quantitative data.

The Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) is the state-mandated test used to

measure students' knowledge and understanding of the Georgia Performance Standards,

the basis of the curriculum in all content areas in Georgia. Testing occurred during a

nine-day window in April, and testing protocols were followed to ensure that

administration of the test was standardized. The mathematics portion of the CRCT

consisted of two 3 5-question sections administered in 70-minute time periods and was

administered to the students on the third day of testing (Georgia Department of

Education, 2010). All gifted and general education students completed the test in their

homeroom classes in groups of approximately 28-32 students. Some special education

students were administered the test in smaller groups using the modifications and

accommodations indicated by their individualized education plan. These modifications

and accommodations may have included using a calculator, having the test read to them,

and/or the utilization of extended time. As is part of the standardized procedure, all tests

were sent to the State Department of Education for scoring.

 112

Instrumentation

Multiple sources of data were used to answer the research questions in the study.

Qualitative measures included an open-ended survey and interviews, and the CRCT was

used as the quantitative measure of achievement. These different sources of data

provided information related to the differences in the perceptions of student groups and

their academic performance.

Open-ended survey.

Description. The open-ended survey was a five-question online survey developed

by the researcher in order to gather data related to the perceptions of students in co-taught

math classes. Questions pertained to students' perceptions of the co-teaching model and

how they believed that it impacted their learning. Specifically, the questions were

intended to elicit responses from students that provided information regarding the social,

academic, and achievement benefits and detriments of co-teaching. The surveys for

special education, general education, and gifted students were identical except for

identifying characters in the title to distinguish the category of the respondent to the

researcher. For example, students labeled as special education were asked to complete

the survey entitled "Co-teaching Survey 1." General education and gifted students took

the surveys entitled "Co-teaching Survey 2" and "Co-teaching Survey 3," respectively.

The responses to the open-ended survey led to the development of the interview protocol.

Administration. Administration of the surveys took place during the weekly

extended learning time for all students. All sixth graders took the survey during the first

20 minutes of extended learning time. Laptop computers were set up in a vacant

classroom, and the appropriate surveys were accessed on each computer. The
 113

participating students entered the classroom and were directed to an appropriate laptop.

Oral instructions (Appendix D) were provided to the group explaining the purpose of the

study, how to respond to the questions, and what to do when the survey was complete.

The survey consisted of five questions, and students were asked to type a response in a

dialogue box for each question. Students with reading and writing difficulties were

provided a reader/scribe in an effort to accommodate for academic differences. Students

were given as much time as they needed to complete the survey. Similar procedures were

used in the following weeks for seventh and eighth grade students.

Individual interviews.

Description. Five students from each academic performance category were

randomly selected to participate in interviews. Interview questions were devised from

the responses on the open-ended survey. Themes coded in the data pertaining to the

impact of co-teaching on student performance were further explored through questions

that specifically address these issues. Any repetitive idea or concept that became

apparent in the survey responses resulted in at least one question about its relevance and

importance. Additionally, probing questions were developed to clarify any ambiguous

responses in the data. In the interview, students were asked questions and allowed to

respond verbally.

Administration. All interviews were done individually during the weekly

extended learning time or during non-academic class time. Students were given a brief

description of the study and the purpose of the interview. All sessions were recorded so

that an accurate transcript of each interview could be developed. The researcher loosely
 114

followed the protocol, using the previously developed questions to guide the interview

and follow-up questions to any topics of interest. Each interview lasted 5 to 10 minutes.

Validity of qualitative data collection. In this study, numerous steps were taken

to ensure descriptive, process, and interpretive validity. Because original goals for the

study included determining if co-teaching is a beneficial teaching model for all students,

it seemed that ensuring these aspects of validity would make certain that the appropriate

conclusions were drawn with regards to all students. Efforts to increase validity focused

on asking valid questions, ensuring accuracy of results, and improving the accuracy of

the data collected.

Once questions were developed for the survey and the interviews, they were

reviewed by a group of special education, general education, and gifted teachers at the

school to ensure that potential responses to the questions would be what the researcher

intended. The group of teachers reviewed the questions for bias, confusing wording, and

relevance to the topic. This added to the descriptive and interpretive validity of the

findings. Other methods added to the descriptive validity by making sure data was

accurately obtained. Written transcripts of survey and interview results were utilized in

the analysis of data. Survey data was obtained directly from the online survey where

participants entered their responses, and interview transcripts were created from audio

recordings of the interviews. By asking interview respondents to review a copy of their

interview transcript, member checking was also utilized in order to ensure that transcripts

were accurate.

In order to increase process validity, the researcher used triangulation, member

checks, and accurate data recording. Numerous forms of data were collected in an effort
 115

to find repetition of themes. Surveys and interviews offered different formats in which to

gather and analyze data, and member checks ensured the accuracy of collection methods.

Qualitative measures also were compared to quantitative data, adding another perspective

on themes and patterns found in interviews and surveys. These methods were utilized

throughout the data collection period to make certain that information was correct and

conclusions were appropriate. Consistent reflection on the process of data collection and

how new data related to the information previously gathered also added to the

triangulation and drove the development of questions for interviews and the recognition

of themes. This consistent reflection and circulation of the data in addition to member

checking, expert reviews of questions, and accurate data collection resulted in increasing

the validity of the study.

Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test.

Description. The CRCT is the state-mandated achievement test taken in Georgia

at the end of each school year to assess student attainment of the state performance

standards. Questions in the Math section are based on the Georgia Performance

Standards established by the state. Scores range from 650 to 900 and above, and scale

scores are constructed independently for each content area and grade level. While scaled

score values are the same and the numeric value designated for meeting and exceeding

the standards are the same, the mean, standard deviation, and standard error of

measurement are different for each content area (Georgia Department of Education,

2009c).

Administration and scoring. The CRCT was given using standardized and

conditional administration. All gifted and general education students were tested
 116

receiving the standardized administration in the general education classroom.

Standardized instructions were used to initiate each section. The Math section contained

two subsections consisting of 35 multiple choice questions each. Students were given at

least 45 minutes and up to 70 minutes to complete each section on a scannable answer

sheet. Each content area was given on a different day, and answer sheets were sent to an

external testing center for scoring.

Certain special education students received a conditional administration of the

CRCT if it was deemed necessary by the IEP committee. Common accommodations for

students receiving a conditional administration included being tested in a small group,

having the test read to them, using a calculator, writing in the test booklet, and/or having

additional time. Standardized instructions were used to initiate each section, and the test

itself was the same as that administered to students receiving the standardized

administration. Student answers were recorded on a scannable answer sheet, and these

answer sheets were sent to an external testing center for scoring. While a conditional

administration affected the standardization of the test, these accommodations could not

be neglected because a student's IEP legally binds schools to make such provisions.

Validity and reliability. Content validity for the CRCT was established through

several stages in the test's development (Validity and Reliability for the 2009 CRCT,

2009). Items were field tested, and Georgia educators examined the items and the

resulting data looking for potential biases and invalid items. These steps addressed the

item validity of the test and relied on the expertise of Georgia educators to determine the

relevancy of each test question. The initial test administration was used to establish
 117

standards for each test, and the number of correct answers required for a student to meet

or exceed standards was determined.

After validity of the CRCT was established, the reliability of the test was

assessed. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient and the standard error of measurement

(SEM) were used to determine the internal reliability of the CRCT (Validity and

Reliability for the 2009 CRCT, 2009). The Cronbach's alpha for the Mathematics

section for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade was 0.92, and the SEM for the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade

Mathematics sections were 3.26, 3.16, and 3.20, respectively. These indices were

consistent with previous administrations and support the reliability of the scores for

determining a student's knowledge of the content. Tests to determine stability and

equivalence of the test and multiple forms of the test were not conducted.

Data Analysis Strategies

The qualitative data collected from the open-ended survey and interviews was

analyzed using similar techniques. Survey responses were printed from the computer and

coded based on prevalent themes and concepts. Themes and prevailing ideas were

determined based on recurrent words or phrasing and consistent perceptions within the

student responses. Categories and tally marks were used to denote responses or portions

of responses containing the same theme or idea. A running list of themes and specific

dynamics within the themes were maintained throughout the initial stages of analysis.

The data was analyzed as a whole first to determine if any themes existed among all

students, then the data was sorted according to academic performance (i.e. students with

special needs, general education students, and gifted students) in order to reveal any

prevalent ideas among the groups. After a preliminary analysis of the data was
 118

concluded, the researcher reviewed the themes to clarify their meanings and parameters

and decide if any themes overlap or coincide. Contradictions in themes were also noted.

The trends noted in the data were used to develop questions for the individual

interviews. Probing questions provided more depth to the data and clarified concepts that

may have been vague in the original data. After interviews were conducted, a transcript

of the questions and responses was created. Transcripts of the interviews were coded,

and data was analyzed in relation to data collected earlier. Procedures consistent with

those used for the survey data were used to analyze the interview transcripts, as well.

Information was reviewed to determine trends and patterns among the respondents as a

whole and among special education students, general education students, and gifted

students.

When test scores were returned to the school, analysis of the quantitative data was

conducted. In order to answer research question number two, CRCT data was

disaggregated by academic performance group, and an analysis of variance, ANOVA,

was applied to the CRCT data from the Spring of 2010 to determine if co-teaching

impacted the student groups differently. If the p-value resulting from the ANOVA was

found to be significant (at an a-level equal to .05), Scheffe tests for multiple comparisons

were used to determine which means were significantly different.

A separate analysis of CRCT scores were used to answer the third research

question, "How does co-teaching impact the achievement scores of students at different

levels of academic functioning?". CRCT scores from Spring of 2009 and Spring 2010

for all participants were obtained and separated into academic performance groups,

special education, general education, and gifted students. The utilization of these scores
 119

established a repeated-measures structure for the data, and three Mests (i.e., one for

general education students, one for special education students, and one for gifted

students) were completed in order to determine if there was a significant difference

between scores for student in a co-taught classroom and those not in a co-taught

classroom.

The fourth research question, "In what ways do the themes and patterns in

perceptions about co-taught classrooms help to explain any differences in students'

academic achievement?" was answered using a compilation of the data collected through

qualitative and quantitative measures. The themes determined through analysis of the

open-ended survey questions and interviews were synthesized with the data and analysis

of CRCT scores to determine if student perceptions of progress and learning explained

any differences in achievement. Mean CRCT scores for each group were compared

informally to responses and themes noted for each group as a whole, and individual

scores were also informally compared to specific response and attitudes exhibited in

interviews.
 120

CHAPTER FOUR

Results

The procedures outlined in the methodology section of the study provide

information as to how data were collected. Qualitative and quantitative data pertaining to

co-teaching were collected in order to answer the four research questions:

• What patterns exist in the perceptions of students at various levels of academic

performance (i.e., special, general, and gifted education) about their learning

experiences in a co-taught classroom?

• How have these same students performed on standardized achievement tests?

What measured differences have existed between students at different academic

levels?

• How does co-teaching impact the achievement scores of students at different

levels of academic functioning?

• In what ways do the themes and patterns in perceptions about co-taught

classrooms help to explain any differences in students' academic achievement?

Through analysis of survey data, interview data, and CRCT scores, these four questions

were successfully answered. The results are organized and presented by research

question.

Research Question One

In an effort to determine the patterns in student perceptions related to co-teaching,

multiple forms of qualitative data were collected. Students at three levels of academic
 121

performance (i.e., special, general, and gifted education) were given a five-question,

open-ended survey. Additionally, interviews were conducted with a sample of students

from each group. These data provided information that revealed numerous themes

related to the perceptions held by students about co-teaching. Students at all levels of

academic functioning felt that co-teaching increased the level of help available in the

classroom and allowed students access to different opinions on the curriculum and

instructional opportunities. All groups also had positive comments about co-teaching,

despite underlying negative assumptions related to co-teaching.

Increased help. Throughout the surveys and interviews, students repeatedly

mentioned the increased levels of help in the co-taught classroom as a benefit to the

service model. In 48 surveys, additional and more expedient assistance with classroom

tasks and/or problems was mentioned by 30 students. One student with special needs

wrote, "You get more help when you need it." Reemphasizing this theme, a general

education student wrote, "[Co-teaching] will increase my [CRCT] scores because I get

more help and it creates a better learning environment for me and my classmates." Gifted

students also commented on the value of additional support in the co-taught classroom,

stating, "I would much rather be in a co-taught classroom, because I get more help that

way." Similar comments were noted in the interviews. Of the 14 students interviewed,

86 % spoke of increases in the level and quality of support in the co-taught classroom

when compared to a typical math class.

The types of help being referred to by the students extended beyond providing

large-group guidance on math problems. Students listed several specific ways in which

teachers expanded the level of support in the classroom. Students mentioned one-on-one
 122

support received in the classroom. One general education student specifically noted the

individualized modifications, such as a change in seating or working in an isolated

environment that she received as a result of being in the co-taught class, stating "If...

the environment that I'm in is too loud for me to focus or something like that, then the

teacher can take me somewhere else and give me one-on-one time." Students in all

groups commented on the efficiency of having two teachers to help answer questions.

Some gifted students felt the opportunity for additional questioning "might slow some

people down," referring to the repetition of concepts. But special education students

disagreed, stating, "With the extra help and with two different teachers, we learned things

faster, and we can move on faster."

Different instructional perspectives. The benefit of having different

instructional perspectives was a persistent theme in the interviews and surveys of all three

groups of academic functioning. Mentioned in 50% of interviews and 18% of surveys

aggregated across the three academic groups, teaching multiple ways to problem-solve

and reason through mathematical content positively impacted student learning.

According to students, co-teaching provides learners access to a variety of instructional

styles and opinions, allowing them the opportunity to see different viewpoints of the

curriculum. When asked to describe the positive aspects of being in a co-taught class,

one general education student wrote, "You have two teachers' opinions about things and

two [sic] different ways to work out things most of the time." This theme was more

evident with general education students, yet different instructional perspectives were

indicated as a benefit by members of all groups. Students commented that "you get

information from two people" allowing you two methods to learn the concepts and
 123

strengthening core understandings of the topic. One gifted student stated that "learning it

two different ways" helped him perform better on CRCT and allowed him to develop as a

math student. He said, "Whenever there was something... I didn't understand the first

way, the co-teacher taught it another way. I might understand it more another way

around."

Although many students viewed the versatility in teaching styles and curriculum

as beneficial to their education, other students commented that differing opinions from

the teachers confused them and negatively impacted their learning. One student

remarked, "One teacher teaches it a way I understand and one teacher teaches it a way

that's more complicated." Another student conveyed that additional instructional

perspectives amplified student confusion about math concepts and left individuals "all

messed up" and frustrated. While this theme was not as prevalent as its positive

counterpart, students in both the special education and general education groups

mentioned different teacher opinions and tactics as negative aspects to co-teaching.

Positive opinion of co-taught classes. As a result of receiving additional help

and benefiting from different instructional perspectives in the co-taught math class, most

members of all three groups held positive opinions about their experience with co-

teaching. Eleven out of eighteen students with special needs, fifteen out of twenty-four

general education students, and seven out of nine gifted students responded to the survey

that co-teaching was beneficial to their understanding of mathematical concepts.

Comments such as, "Being in a co-taught math class has made me understand math a lot

better" and "It helped me understand how to do my work," emphasized the value students

placed on their co-taught experience. Special education and general education students
 124

affirmed the use of co-teaching for the ease of instruction and individualized

modifications. All special education students and three out of five general education

students interviewed had positive opinions about the service model. General education

students cited one-on-one time and increased opportunity for questions without

embarrassment or time constraints as positive aspects of co-teaching, and students with

special needs appreciated the additional help received in the co-taught classroom.

The responses of gifted students also reflected positive opinions about co-

teaching, but their statements did not refer to the personal benefits of the service model.

Rather, all gifted students interviewed stated that co-teaching had positively impacted

student learning, yet most of the comments referred to how co-teaching affected the

learning of struggling students. One gifted students stated that co-teaching did not impact

her learning, but it did help "a bunch of students." Some gifted students actually listed

the capabilities of the higher-achieving students as a benefit to co-teaching, stating that

"people who might not have gotten it could get it explained from people who got it pretty

easily" and "people who get the subject might be able to help people who don't get it."

Although three of the five gifted students interviewed felt their learning had been

impacted by co-teaching, their responses expressed little excitement and commitment.

Comments such as "It has [helped] a little," "It helped me understand more things that I

might not have thought about," and "It might have impacted me," show the temerity of

the students' responses related to personal growth.

Underlying negative assumptions. Though not apparent in survey results, an

underlying negative assumption related to co-taught classes was evident in the interviews

of students with special needs and gifted students. Three of the four special education
 125

students and four of the five gifted students interviewed made one or more comments

revealing a negative impression of co-teaching. While some students in interviews and

surveys obviously disliked co-teaching and made clear comments to express their dislike,

the comments made by special education students and gifted students in the interviews

were not intended to convey negative messages. In most cases, the statements were

intended to reflect positively on co-teaching, yet the repeated nuances of the students'

comments expressed something different. As revealed in their comments, gifted students

and students with special needs often began the year with certain assumptions about the

quality of instruction and curriculum in the co-taught classroom, and these assumptions

may or may not have been altered by the experiences in the classroom.

Despite the strong positive message conveyed by student comments in the surveys

and interviews, special education students also expressed negative perceptions of co-

teaching. When asked their personal opinions about being in a co-taught math class,

students responded as though the expected answer was negative. For example, when

asked how she felt when she determined her math class was co-taught, one student said,

"I didn't really care because I knew I needed help and everything." Another student

responded, "It doesn't really bother me. Actually, I kind of like it." Although the

comments were not negative, they revealed an underlying attitude that co-teaching was

inferior in some way. The contradiction in student responses continued with a student

who spoke very highly of co-teaching and its impact on her learning, stating that the co-

taught math class helped her a great deal, yet when asked if she would choose to be in a

co-taught class next year, she responded, "I'd probably choose the regular [class]."
 126

Just as students with special needs expressed their positive outlooks on co-

teaching but hinted at their negative assumptions, gifted students made similar comments.

When asked how she felt when she found out her math class was co-taught, one gifted

student said, "I don't really mind, because I like helping people." Other students

expressed their early concerns that they might be too advanced to benefit for a co-taught

class. One student described the co-taught class as a "lower-level class" and another

commented, "I thought I might not learn as much." These comments and other similar

statements conveyed the perspective of gifted students that co-taught classes are focused

on the needs of slower learners and do not support gifted learners.

While the majority of students expressed positive attitudes about being in a co-

taught class and merely hinted at their negative assumptions, a few individuals openly

discussed their dislike for the service model. In the surveys, three of the twenty general

education respondents and two of the eighteen special education respondents openly

expressed their aversion to co-teaching. Comments such as, "You get made fun of [sic],"

"One teacher talks and the other looks as us so I don't feel comfortable [sic]," and "The

other teacher gets paid just to sit there [sic]," explain some of the reasons these few

students do not think co-teaching is academically beneficial. One general education

student expressed his concerns in an interview, stating, "It's not good to be in a special ed

class. It makes you feel stupid." These perspectives expressed the honest outlook on co-

teaching of certain students but were limited to students in special education and general

education in the data.

 127

Table 1

Perceptions on Co-teaching of Students at Different Levels of Academic Performance

Increased help Special Education Eighty-six percent of students

Different instructional
perspectives
Positive opinion of co-
taught classes
Underlying negative
assumptions
General Education
Gifted
Special Education
General Education
Gifted
Special Education
General Education
Gifted
Special Education
General Education
Gifted
interviewed mentioned
increases in the level and
quality of support in the
classroom.
Five out of the nine
interviewed felt different
perspectives were beneficial,
but some referred to the
difference in styles as
confusing.
Three of the nine students
surveyed viewed different
perspectives as beneficial to
learning.
Twenty-six out of forty-two
students surveyed stated they
personally benefitted from
being in a co-taught math
class.
Seven out of nine gifted
students surveyed had positive
opinions about co-teaching, but
in interviews, students noted
they did not personally benefit
from it.
Three out of four students
interviewed made comments
related to the inferiority of a
co-taught class.
One student interviewed made
comments related to the
inferiority of co-taught classes.
Four out of five students
interviewed stated concerns
related to the level and speed
of delivery of the content.

In response to the research question, "What patterns exist in the perceptions of

students at various levels of academic performance (i.e., special, general, and gifted
education) about their learning experiences in a co-taught classroom?" numerous themes

were noted across all three groups of academic performance (Table 1). All three groups

suggested academic benefits from being in a co-taught math class because of increased

levels of support and multiple perspectives on the curriculum. Underlying negative

assumptions related to being in a co-taught class were noted in special education students

and gifted students, while overt negative attitude related to the service model were

evident in a small number of students in special education and general education.

Research Question Two

Research question two focuses on the performance of students at all levels of

academic achievement on achievement tests. In order to discern what differences exist

between special education, general education, and gifted students' performance on

standardized achievement tests, CRCT data from Spring of 2010 were analyzed. As

shown in Table 2, the mean score on the math section of the CRCT for special education

students was 800, and the standard deviation was 27.95. Mean scores for general

education and gifted students were 828 and 874, respectively. The standard deviation

was 26.92 for general education students, and 42.04 for gifted students. In order to

determine if any significant differences in scores existed between the three groups, a one-

way ANOVA was conducted. The resulting/>-value was less than 0.0001. Using a

probability (a) level of 0.05, it was determined that a significant difference between

scores did exist.

 129

Table 2
Summary of Results ofOne-way ANOVA on Mean Math CRCT Scores

n Mean Score Standard F-ratio

Deviation

Special Education 18 800 27.95 22.25*

General Education 75 828 26.92
Gifted 11 874 42.04
*p <.0001

Scheffe tests were used to determine specifically which group means were

significantly different from the others (Table 3). The resulting level of significance

between students in special education and general education students was 0.002. The p-

value was less than 0.001 when comparing general education students and gifted students

and when comparing special education students with gifted students. These results

revealed there were significant differences on math CRCT scores between each academic

group when compared to the other two.

Table 3

Summary of Results of Scheffe Tests on Math CRCT Scores

Mean Difference Significance

Special Education compared with General -28.01 .002

Education

Special Education compared with Gifted -73.88 < .001

General Education compared with Gifted -45.87 < .001

Research Question Three

The third research question asked how co-teaching impacts the achievement of

students at different levels of academic functioning. Students co-taught during the 2009-

2010 school year were examined to identify those who had not been co-taught the

previous year. The CRCT scores from Spring of 2009 and 2010 were collected for each

student who fit into this category. Three repeated-measure t-tests were conducted, one

for students with special needs, one for general education students, and one for gifted

students, and the results were used to determine if there were a significant difference

between math CRCT scores when students are in a co-taught math class and when they

are not.

As seen in Table 4, the findings for students with disabilities revealed substantial

benefits from co-teaching. The mean difference for special education students was

-12.11, and the resulting/?-value was 0.0152. Because this is less than 0.05, there was a

significant difference between the scores of students in special education when they are

co-taught and when they are not. Additionally, because the mean difference between

student scores from 2009 and 2010 is negative, students with special needs made

significant gains in their CRCT scores when in a co-taught class.

When examining general education and gifted students' scores, the findings were

not as distinct. The mean difference between CRCT scores from 2009 and 2010 was -

3.70 for general education students and -20.45 for gifted students. The/?-value when

comparing CRCT scores for general education students was 0.114, revealing an

insignificant difference between 2009 and 2010. Similarly, the p-vahie for gifted

students was 0.092, deeming the differences between the math CRCT scores of gifted
 131

students when they were co-taught and when they were not co-taught not to be

significant.

Table 4
Summary of Results of Repeated-Measure t-Tests on Math CRCT Scores from 2009 and
2010

Mean Score Mean T-Statistic Significance

Difference

Special 2009 788.28

-12.11 -2.70 .015
Education 2010 800.39

General 2009 825.03

-3.70 -1.60 .114
Education 2010 828.40

Gifted 2009 853.82

2010 874.27

According to the data, the CRCT scores of students with special needs were

significantly different when they were co-taught. Calculations revealed that scores

increased when students were in a co-taught classroom. The resulting data from general

education and gifted students did not reveal similar results. Differences in the data for

students at these two levels of academic functioning were not significantly different when

in a co-taught class.

Research Question Four

Research question four combines the findings of the previous three questions by

examining the ways the themes and patterns in perceptions about co-teaching help to

explain any differences in students' academic achievement. Reasoning for the significant
differences in the 2010 CRCT scores of all three groups was not addressed in the

qualitative findings, but certain themes evident in the data may explain other differences.

Significant differences in math CRCT scores of students with special needs when

they were co-taught and when they were not could be explained by the specific benefits

noted by the students. Increased levels of support in the co-taught classroom and

exposure to multiple methods for discovery and instruction could have led to an increase

in learning. All four students in special education interviewed responded that they felt

their scores on the CRCT would improve because of being in a co-taught math class.

Eleven out of eighteen students with disabilities surveyed affirmed that co-teaching was

beneficial to their learning for reasons such as the different methods of teaching, smaller

groups, and increased time to work. These positive aspects of co-teaching noted by

students could support the significant increase in math CRCT scores.

When the math CRCT scores of co-taught general education and gifted students

were compared with the scores from the previous year when students were not co-taught,

there were no significant differences. The findings from the surveys and interviews do

not provide information to explain this lack of change. All three groups of academic

performance agreed that increased levels of support are present in the co-taught

classroom and different perspectives on mathematical content contribute to an overall

positive opinion of co-teaching. But despite these benefits, no significant improvements

were noted in the scores of students in general education or gifted students.

The absence of a significant difference in the scores of gifted students is also

contradictory to the underlying assumption that co-taught classes are inferior to typical

math classes. The undercurrent of negativity related to co-teaching that was evident in
 133

interviews with gifted students would have been supported by a decrease in the CRCT

scores of gifted students. The consistency of their scores could help to explain the

possible inaccuracy of their perceptions.

Unanticipated Findings

Through the analysis of the data, themes unrelated to the research questions

became evident. Qualitative and quantitative data revealed interesting findings about

perceptions and ramifications of co-teaching related to how students understand the roles

of both teachers in the classroom and how co-teaching may impact students at different

grade levels. Although the unanticipated results do not directly relate to the research

questions posed in this study, the findings are relevant and should be acknowledged.

Roles of the general education teacher and special education teacher.

Although some students acknowledged the partnership of co-teachers, most students

described the relationship between the general education teacher and the special

education teacher as that of teacher and helper. In the interviews, two out of four special

education students, two out of five general education students, and three out of five gifted

students made some reference to the subservient role of the special education teacher.

Students frequently referred to the special education teacher as a substitute teacher and

referenced the general education teacher as the "main" teacher in the classroom. When

asked to describe some possible negative aspects of co-teaching, one gifted student

stated, "The only bad thing is that the co-teacher sometimes inserts herself [sic] or

himself where they aren't needed, such [sic] as a teacher is getting on to a child and the

co-teacher decides to butt in and voice her opinion." Similar comments from students at
 134

all levels of academic performance convey lower levels of student respect for the special

education teacher.

Difference in student scores at different grade levels. When reviewing the

scores of students in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades, notable differences existed

between the changes in math CRCT scores from 2009 (not co-taught) to 2010 (co-

taught). Superficial observations revealed that students in seventh and eighth grades

appeared to be making larger gains than students in sixth grade. In order to determine if

the differences between scores in 2009 and 2010 were significant at each grade level,

repeated-measure t-tests were conducted for each grade-level. Student data were not

grouped by academic performance. As shown in Table 5, the difference between math

CRCT scores when students were not co-taught and when they were co-taught were

significant at all three grade levels, but an important difference existed between the

grades. The mean difference is the statistic resulting from subtracting the mean 2010

math CRCT score from the mean 2009 math CRCT score. For sixth grade students, the

mean difference was 6.02, yet for seventh and eighth grade students, it was -19.57 and -

11.13, respectively. On average, students in seventh and eighth grades made significant

gains in their math scores when they were in a co-taught classroom. Scores of students in

sixth grade made a significant decline.

Table 5
Summary of Results of Repeated-Measure t-Tests of Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Grade
Students
Mean Difference T-statistic Significance
Sixth grade 6.02 2.18 .03
Seventh grade -19.57 -6.60 < .001
Eighth grade -11.13 -2.44 .028
 135

After collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data from students with

special needs, general education students, and gifted students, several themes have been

revealed, and statistically significant findings have become evident. Student perceptions

of co-teaching are generally positive, indicating academic benefits from increased levels

of support in the classroom and diversity in learning opportunities. And while most

students speak to the beneficial aspects of co-teaching, there is an attitude of inferiority

related to co-taught classes. The positive aspects noted by students help to explain the

significant difference in math CRCT scores of co-taught students with disabilities when

compared with their scores when they were not co-taught, yet the themes noted in the

qualitative analysis do little to explain the absence of change in the scores of general

education and gifted students.

 136

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of co-teaching on the

achievement of students at different levels of academic performance and to examine

student perceptions related to their experiences in a co-taught math class. By considering

the effects of co-teaching on student perceptions and achievement, improvements in the

classroom setting could be made to provide beneficial learning environments for students

at all levels. Current co-teaching practices dictate that students from a wide variety of

educational backgrounds and abilities comprise the heterogeneous group of students in

the class, including students with disabilities, general education students, and gifted

students. With limited literature on the impact of co-teaching on general education

students and practically no studies related to the impact co-teaching has on gifted

students, this study provided beneficial research that could be used to make informed

decisions about student placement and educational environment.

Overview of the Literature

The research related to co-teaching is vast and examines aspects of co-teaching

ranging from its influence on teacher efficacy to the various instructional practices made

possible by the service model to its social and academic impact on students with special

needs (Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Jang, 2002; Lenn & Hatch, 1992; Murphy et

al., 2004; Reinheller, 1996; Ross et al., 1997). Benefits of student with disabilities are

clearly documented in the literature (Daane et al., 2001; Dieker, 2001; Friend, 2007;
Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Schwab Learning, 2003). Social

benefits include opportunities for natural peer interactions with adequate teacher support

(Warger & Rutherford, 1993), acceptance of others (Salend, et al, 1997; Tichenor et al.,

2000), and increased involvement in academic activities (Dieker, 2001; Kroeger &

Kouch, 2006; Mastropieri et al., 2001). Academic benefits, such as increased progress

(Friend, 2007; Moore & Gilbreath, 1998; Salend, et al, 1997), higher grades (Gerber,

1996; Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Tichenor et a l , 2000; Wilson & Michaels, 2006), and

maintenance of achievement scores (Wischnowski et al., 2004), are also noted in the

literature. Some studies have even shown an increase in achievement scores over the

course of several years (Idol, 2006; Schwab Learning, 2003), but this finding is

inconsistent in the literature (Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Weiss, 2004).

Though the research is limited, similar results are noted with general education

students. The additional support in the classroom and the synergy of the co-teaching

partnership have been shown to lead to increased academic performance and certain

social benefits for general education students (Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Idol,

2007; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Tichenor et al., 2000). Data related to the effect of co-

teaching on the student achievement of general education students is sparse, but positive

(Idol, 2007; Little & Dieker, 2009; Neugebauer, 2008), indicating a beneficial or

negligible impact on scores. Yet despite the relatively positive findings, some

researchers are apprehensive of boasting the success of co-teaching. Concerns for the

curricular integrity of co-taught classes have been examined, and instructional

inconsistencies and reduced rigor of content have been noted as negative aspects of the

service model, especially at the secondary level (Dugan & Letterman, 2008; Gerber,
 138

1999; Wilson & Michaels, 2006; Zigmond, 2006). It is still unclear in the literature if

these concerns produce a legitimate risk for the academic well-being of general education

students.

Despite the overwhelming amount of research related to co-teaching (Dugan &

Letterman, 2008; Gerber, 1999; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Idol, 2007; Little & Dieker, 2009;

Neugebauer, 2008; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Tichenor et al., 2000; Wilson & Michaels,

2006; Zigmond, 2006), there is a lack of data related to gifted students. Few studies

mention gifted students (Gerber, 1996; Gerent, 1998), and none focus attention on the

academic or achievement responses of gifted students to the co-teaching model. This

study was conducted in an effort to add to the body of literature on co-teaching by

focusing on three specific groups of academic performance, students with disabilities,

students in general education, and students identified as gifted, and examining their

achievement data in light of their perceptions about their learning experiences in a co-

taught math class.

Summary of the Results

In an effort to answer the four research questions, multiple types of data were

collected from students in co-taught math classes. An online survey and interviews were

conducted with students of all three levels of academic performance, special education,

general education, and gifted. Additionally, CRCT scores from 2009 and 2010 were

obtained to provide insight about how achievement scores differed when students were

co-taught and when they were not. Qualitative and quantitative data were used separately

and in conjunction with each other to develop an informed opinion of the impact of co-

teaching on the achievement of students at multiple levels of academic functioning.

 139

Research question one. Research question one asked, "What patterns exist in the

perceptions of students at various levels of academic performance (i.e., special, general,

and gifted education) about their learning experiences in a co-taught classroom?". Data

from surveys and interviews were analyzed, and four major themes were noted. As seen

in numerous studies, additional help within the classroom was seen as a beneficial factor

in the co-taught math class (Gerber, 1996; Klingner et al, 1998; Little & Dieker, 2009;

Tichenor et al., 2000; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Students stated that having an

additional teacher in the classroom allowed for more questions to be answered, increased

the amount of one-on-one time, and helped students achieve a greater understanding of

the concepts. Similar benefits for students with special needs and general education

students have been mentioned in other studies (Gerber, 1996; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005;

Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Although students in the study suggested that the increased

levels of support in the classroom through modifications and teacher availability were the

reasons for their enhanced learning, previous researchers also point to the value of the co-

teaching partnership and the increased instructional opportunities and quality related to

collaboration to explain the academic growth (Gillespie & Israeltel, 2008; Jang, 2006;

Little & Dieker, 2009; Patterson et al., 2008; Rice & Zigmond, 2000).

Another theme noted in the data was the presence of different instructional

perspectives. The majority of respondents viewed the variety in instruction as beneficial

to their understanding of mathematical reasoning and problem solving. One gifted

student cited this aspect of the co-taught classroom as the reason he felt his achievement

scores improved, stating, "If I couldn't remember one of the [ways to solve a problem] on

CRCT, then I could just think of the other. I always remembered one or the other."
 140

Certain student responses in a 1996 study (Gerber) of the perceptions of students in a co-

taught class mirrored this mentality, responding positively to differences in personality

and instruction. But while most students in this study thought the versatility in

instruction was beneficial to learning, some students found it confusing when co-teachers

taught different ways to solve problems. Similarly, in a 2006 Wilson and Michael's

study, 28% of students surveyed did not like the inconsistency in instruction and

assessment in the co-taught classroom, and other studies have noted similar issues in their

findings (Dugan & Letterman, 2008; Jang, 2006).

Because of the increased help and different perspectives on the curriculum and

instruction, most students had a positive opinion of co-teaching, the third theme evident

in the data. Sixty-three percent of all students surveyed stated that co-teaching was

beneficial to their understanding of mathematical concepts, in addition to numerous other

students who thought co-teaching benefited them socially or was beneficial to other

students. Past research reported similar findings in the perceptions of students in special

education and general education (Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp, 1999; Little & Dieker,

2009). Students in past studies stated that co-teaching influenced them to become more

involved in classroom activities, teachers saw an improvement in student attitudes related

to school, and researchers noted an increase self-esteem (Gerber, 1996; Gerber & Popp,

1999; Kroeger & Kouch, 2006).

While in opposition to most of the students surveyed and interviewed, some

students maintained openly negative opinions about the co-teaching model. Five of the

forty-eight students surveyed expressed overt negative opinions. Reasons for their

aversion varied from social perceptions to the inefficiency of having two teachers in the
same room. Similar negative attitudes were evident in Gerber's 1996 study of the

perceptions of co-teaching in which some students disliked the behavioral restrictions

resulting from increased supervision and the differing instructional styles of the two

teachers. Although in the minority, some students with special needs and general

education respondents in this study did not like varying instructional methods or the

social stigma that came from being in a co-taught math class. The explicit negative

attitudes of these students, while minimal in number, provide insight into the opinions of

all students and may explain the reasoning for the final theme.

Most students expressed a positive attitude about co-teaching, touting the

additional individualized attention and availability of teachers as reasons for liking the

co-taught classroom. But analysis of the data collected in interviews and surveys

revealed an underlying assumption of inferiority related to the co-taught classroom.

Students responded to questions about their opinion of co-teaching as if the expected

answer were negative and some gifted students referred to co-taught classes in ways that

indicated tiiese classes were viewed as slower and less rigorous. While an unstated

negative perception of co-teaching is not present in the literature, some of the concepts

mentioned by students (slower/watered down curriculum, fewer opportunities for

learning) are also noted in the co-teaching literature (Gerber, 1996; Zigmond, 2006).

Zigmond's findings in 2006 validate the concerns for losing the integrity of the

curriculum in a co-taught class. Her study of how low reading-levels impacted student

performance in a co-taught social studies classroom revealed that teachers reduced

requirements and modified content to the point of losing valuable information.

 142

Research question two. In order to examine the quantitative differences between

students at various levels of academic performance, CRCT scores from special education

students, general education students, and gifted students were analyzed. It was

determined that there were significant differences on math CRCT scores between each

academic group when compared to the other two. No previous research that has

examined the achievement scores of students with disabilities, general education students,

and gifted students in relation to each other could be located, yet the findings corroborate

the reasoning for the groupings. Students in each group performed significantly different

from other groups of academic performance, validating the need for differentiation of

instruction and various levels of support (Castle et al., 2005; McCoach et al., 2006;

Richards & Omdal, 2007).

Research question three. After comparing achievement scores of co-taught

students at different levels of academic performance, CRCT data from 2009 and 2010

were compared in order to determine the impact co-teaching had on student achievement.

Significant changes were found in students with disabilities, revealing gains in math

CRCT scores after being in a co-taught class. Other researchers (Friend & Riesling,

1993; Schwab Learning, 2003; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002) have found similar results when

examining the achievement data of students with disabilities after co-teaching. Results in

similar studies using statewide testing as the achievement instrument have shown

adequate performance by students in special education with results ranging from

maintaining scores similar to previous years to making significant gains (Idol, 2006;

Schwab Learning, 2003; Wischnowski et al., 2004). The findings of this study

corroborate the literature.

 143

Unlike the results for students with disabilities, the scores for general education

students and gifted students were not significantly different from the previous year. The

smaller mean difference (-3.7) for general education students did not indicate a

statistically significant change. And although the mean difference for gifted students'

scores was much larger (-20.45), the/?-value was greater than 0.05. While the data

revealed no significant differences, the smaller number of gifted students in the group

may have impacted the results, preventing potentially significant changes from being

evident.

The body of literature describing the impact of co-teaching on the achievement of

general education and gifted students is extremely limited, but most of what is known is

consistent with these findings. Most studies found that co-teaching had no statistical

impact on scores (da Costa, 1993; Murawski, 2006), but when changes were evident,

general education teachers perceived that improvements on achievement tests were

caused by participation in co-taught classrooms (Walsh & Snyder, 1993). Because the

body of literature related to the impact of co-teaching on student achievement is weak,

these results help to bridge some gaps between policy and reasoning. Even though co-

teaching has not been shown to significantly increase achievement scores for general

education and gifted students, participating in the service model does not have a negative

impact. Additionally, there seem to be achievement benefits for students with disabilities

and social benefits for all students. These findings, in conjunction with the current body

of literature, indicate academic gains for students with special needs and positive

experiences for the majority of students, thereby potentially validating current co-

teaching practices.
 Research question four. Research question four required that the achievement

scores of students at different levels of academic performance be analyzed in light of

student perceptions related to co-teaching in order to explain why certain trends occurred

in the data. The major revelation in the data was the significant increase in CRCT scores

of students with disabilities. When examining this difference in regards to the qualitative

data collected pertaining to perceptions of student learning, several of the themes could

explain the improvement in scores. Increased help in the classroom and exposure to

multiple teaching methods and approaches to the content could allow students with

special needs the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of the material and

therefore perform better on the assessment. This finding supports previous research

(Friend, 2007; Gerber, 1996; Wilson & Michaels, 2006) in which these specific themes

were cited in addition to an increase in self esteem and higher levels of involvement as

reasons for improvement in grades and achievement.

Other findings, the lack of change in scores for general education and gifted

students, were not explained by the themes established in the data from interviews and

surveys. The positive opinions of co-teaching noted in the data would have supported

growth in achievement scores, and the underlying negative assumptions related to co-

teaching would have corroborated a decline in scores, but neither change was evident in

the data. And although the lack of change cannot be explained through the qualitative

data collected in this study, it does agree with findings in previous studies (da Costa,

1993; Murawski, 2006). Many studies in the literature found that no significant change

in achievement scores resulted from being in a co-taught class.

 145

An alternate theory is that the negative assumptions of co-teaching impeded the

effectiveness of co-teaching strategies, limiting improvements to student learning. Hoy

and Hoy (2006) suggest that tacit or understood beliefs can impact perception and

performance. If students believed that being in the co-taught math class was somehow

inferior to a typical class, it may have limited their achievement. Yet there was no

distinction in the survey and interview data of students with special needs and all other

students related to the perception of the inferiority of co-teaching, and because the scores

of students with disabilities did change significantly, it seems unlikely that student

negativity hindered student progress of general education and gifted students.

Limitations

In this study, numerous limitations existed that could have potentially reduced the

integrity and generalizability of the results. The small number of students that met the

requirements for participation may have resulted in skewed statistical results and themes

that cannot be assumed to be standard for all students within the group. Additionally, the

researcher was the teacher for a large portion of the students participating in the study.

The students' prior relationship with the researcher and their experience with her in the

co-taught classroom may have modified their responses on surveys and interviews.

Constructs of the study itself were also limiting. Because so many factors contribute to

the academic achievement of students, it is erroneous to assume that changes in student

scores on the CRCT were the result of the co-teaching experience alone. Similarly, this

study did not account for differences in the content being assessed from year to year. The

changes in the actual test and the criteria used to determine scores may have influenced
 146

student scores. These ambiguous aspects of the study may limit the transferability of the

results.

Small number of participants. The study took place in a small, rural

community in West Georgia. Because the student body was small, the number of

students in a co-taught math class for the 2009-2010 school year who were not in a co-

taught math class the previous years was very small. Only 18 students with special

needs, 78 general education students, and 11 gifted students qualified for the study. Even

when using all the students that met the requirements in all the groups, the researcher

risked not having enough data to denote true themes and limited the validity of the

statistical data. For example, when determining if there was a significant difference in

the mean score from 2009 and 2010 for each group (i.e. special education, general

education, and gifted), the mean difference had to be much higher for the smaller groups

in order to be considered significant. For special education students, the mean difference

in score was -12.11, a statistically significant amount as determined by the p-value of

.015. In contrast^ the mean difference for gifted students was -20.45, and it was not a

statistically significant difference. Because there were 18 students with special needs and

only 11 gifted students, the resulting scores and their significance look much different.

Another drawback to having a small number of participants is that one outlier can

greatly impact mean scores and analysis. In this study, one gifted student had a 44 point

decrease in her math CRCT score from 2009 to 2010, going from a score of 844 to 800.

The score from 2010 barely met the state-determined minimum score for meeting the

standards. Discussions with her math teachers revealed no academic struggles over the

course of the year, and one teacher suggested that the student had potentially
misnumbered, filling in answers for questions next to the wrong numbers on the answer

document. The drastic reduction in her score is not typical in the data and potentially

caused inaccurate assumptions to be drawn from the data. Recalculation of the data

revealed the actual impact of the individual student's score. When the t-test was

conducted without the student's data, the mean difference between scores became

significant (p = .0229) with a mean difference of -26.9. The significance was impacted

greatly because of one student's score. Because of this, the limitations to the small

number of students participating should be considered when interpreting the results.

Prior relationship with the researcher. In addition to having a small number of

students from which to gather data, other limitations exist in the study that relate to the

small size of the school. The main concern for the validity of the data collected was

related to the participants' prior relationship with the researcher. Because the researcher

conducting the study was also one of the math teachers participating in the study,

information gathered through the surveys and interviews could have been biased or

students could have modified their answers in an effort to please the researcher. Steps

were taken to reduce the impact of the relationship, such as ensuring anonymity on the

surveys and speaking with children prior to data collection to reassure them that their

answers would in no way hurt feelings or impact student grades in the classroom. But

despite all attempts, there is no way to guarantee all students provided honest and

accurate responses. The potentially modified responses of students could have impacted

the development of themes in the data and the analysis of student perceptions about co-

teaching.
 148

Outside factors contributing to student achievement. Various factors have

been shown to contribute to student achievement, extending from instruction practices to

those well beyond the classroom. Factors such as teacher performance, student

background, and cultural characteristics have all been shown to impact student

achievement and could have impacted the results of this study (Archibald, 2006; Marks,

Creswell, & Ainley, 2006). As the researcher has controlled for none of these factors, it

is important to understand the risk of assuming co-teaching was the sole reason for

changes in math CRCT scores. Because the number of external and internal

characteristics impacting student achievement was so vast, it was determined to be

impossible to control for all potential co-factors. Therefore, the results of the study

should be reviewed with the understanding that other mediating factors could have played

a role in the changes of scores from 2009 to 2010.

Differences in content. The Georgia CRCT is a criterion-referenced test which

assesses student knowledge of the Georgia Performance Standards. These standards

change from grade-level to grade-level and often change in topic, as well as difficulty.

The differences in content on the CRCT could have caused changes in student scores or

disguised student growth because of an increase in difficulty. The intent of CRCT is not

to show growth from one year to the next but to determine whether or not a student has

mastered specific skills as determined by the performance standards (Georgia Department

of Education, 2009c). The scores at different grade levels are not intended to be

compared to each other because they are assessing different content and may be normed

on different scales. But because CRCT is the only consistent achievement test taken by

all grade levels and the scaled scores are relatively comparable (800 is always considered
"Meeting Standards" and 850 is considered to be "Exceeding Standards"), it was used in

this study to determine the potential impact of co-teaching. It is important to realize the

potential differences in scores due to the difficulty and content of the curriculum and

consider the results in light of this knowledge.

Throughout the study, multiple measures were taken to ensure the data collected

were valid and reliable and the conclusions drawn were appropriate and relevant. But

despite these steps, certain limitations exist in the study. Small group populations and the

students' prior relationship with the researcher could have impacted the validity of the

results. The wide array of factors that contribute to student achievement could also have

influenced the data, restricting the level of influence truly caused by co-teaching.

Additionally, differences in CRCT content across the grade levels could also affect

student performance. These factors in isolation and together act to potentially limit the

relevance of the study and to potentially restrict its generalizability.

Implications for School Improvement

School improvement has been a focus for government and educational leaders

alike in recent years (Nettles & Herrington, 2007). The push to increase learning and

optimize teacher effectiveness has caused school leaders to examine all aspects of the

learning environment in an effort to find ways to improve student performance. Co-

teaching has been one of the many strategies employed to enhance achievement (Murata,

2002), and because this study focuses on the impact of the widely-used service model on

students from different levels of academic performance, the results provide powerful

findings that can inform the decisions of teachers and administrators. And as has been

documented in the literature, these decisions, both instructional and organizational, can
 150

have a significant impact on student achievement (Nettles & Herrington, 2007). It is

imperative to provide change agents and school leaders with accurate research on which

to base decisions and implement initiatives. Without developing an understanding for the

need for change and building a foundational knowledge of the benefits of the change,

systemic and sustainable change cannot occur, and school improvement initiatives, such

as co-teaching, will not be successful (Aldeman & Taylor, 2007). By providing

information relevant to the impact of co-teaching on students at all levels of achievement,

this study can help further school improvement efforts.

In their 2005 description of the framework for school improvement, Reezigt and

Creemers describe the influence of contextual factors on the school factors for

improvement. External dynamics, such as federal legislation, parent/community

pressures, and financial support, impact the innerworkings of the school and shape the

types of changes that take place. At the school-level, Reezigt and Creemers note three

key elements that respond to the external influences and produce change within schools:

improvement culture, improvement processes, and improvement results. This study

could be used to develop a culture for change and inform teachers and administrators of

potential strategies and outcomes related to co-teaching, affecting all three school-level

elements in the framework for school improvement (Reezigt & Creemers, 2005). Co-

teaching, as a school improvement strategy, has been found to enhance school climate

and teacher efficacy (Brownell & Pajares, 1996; da Costa, 1993; McClure, 2008; Ross et

al., 1997). Studies have found it to be beneficial to students' social and academic

development (Gerber & Popp, 1999; Kxoeger & Kouch, 2006; Pugach & Wesson, 1995;

Salend, et al 1997). Through the utilization of the co-teaching model, teachers and
 151

administrators could facilitate systemic change within their schools, and by contributing

to the literature base and filling certain gaps in the research, this study provides additional

knowledge for informed decision making.

Recommendations

The research base for co-teaching is broad, yet several areas lack the depth of

study essential to assure accuracy in the findings. Future research should continue to

focus on the impact of co-teaching on the achievement scores of general education and

gifted students. The lack of research related to these groups prevents policy makers,

teachers, and administrators from having an accurate picture of the consequences or

benefits for all students in a co-taught classroom. A replication of this study, with certain

modifications to sampling and analysis procedures, would enrich the body of literature

and provide additional data related to the impact of co-teaching. In an effort to reduce

limitations, future researchers should increase the number of students in each group to

reduce the risk of statistical bias. Researchers should also control for other external

factors which have been shown to influence student achievement, such as socioeconomic

status, background, and other cultural factors (Archibald, 2006; Marks et al., 2006),

thereby strengthening the link between co-teaching and the changes in student scores.

Additionally, steps should be taken to control for the content differences at each grade

level on the CRCT. Furthering the research in this manner could help build a stronger

understanding of the implications co-teaching has on all students and inform teachers and

administrators about its impact on student achievement.

 152

References

Achilles, C , Finn, J., & Bain, H. (1997). Using class size to reduce the equity gap.

Educational Leadership, 55(4), 40-43.

Adams, L., & Cessna, K. (1993). Metaphors of the co-taught classroom. Preventing

School Failure, 37(4), 28-33.

Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S., & Moon, S. (2004). Gifted students' perceptions of the

academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous

grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 7-20.

Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2007). Systemic change for school improvement. Journal of

Educational & Psychological Consultation, 17(1), 55-77.

Allan, S. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping

and the gifted?. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60-65.

Anderson, L. W. (2000). Why should reduced class size lead to increased student

achievement?. CEIC Review 9(2), 6-7. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED440198)

Apling, R., & Jones, N. L. (2002) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA): Overview of major provisions. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved from

http ://usinfo. state.gov/usa/infousa/educ/files/ideaover.pdf

Archibald, S. (2006). Narrowing in on educational resources that do affect student

achievement. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(A), 23-42.

 153

Austin, V. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial & Special Education,

22(4), 245-256.

Balduf, M. (2009). Underachievement among college students. Journal of Advanced

Academics, 20(2), 274-294, 369.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.

Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729-735.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C , Caprara, C.V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact

of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206-

1222.

Banerji, M., & Dailey, R. (1995). A study of the effects of an inclusion model on students

with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(8), 511-

522.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1997). Cooperative teaching: Pictures of possibilities.

Intervention in School & Clinic, 33(2), 81-86.

Bear, G., Clever, A., & Proctor, W. (1991). Self-perceptions of nonhandicapped children

and children with learning disabilities in integrated classes. Journal of Special

Education, 24(4), 409-426.

Bouck, E.C. (2005). Service delivery and instructional programming in rural, suburban,

and urban secondary special education: An exploratory study. Rural Special

Education Quarterly, 24(4), 18-25.

Bouck, E. (2007). Co-teaching... not just a textbook term: Implications for practice.

Preventing School Failure, 51(2), 46-51.

Bowles, P. D. (1994). The collaboration of two professors from two disparate disciplines:

What it has taught us. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading

Conference, San Diego, CA.

Brownell, M., & Pajares, F.(1996). The influence of teachers' efficacy beliefs on

perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior

problems: A path analysis. Research Bulletin, 27(3-4). Retrieved from ERIC

database. (ED409661)

Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1999). A survey of general and

special education teachers' perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion.

InternationalJournal of Disability, Development, and Education, 46(2), 143-156.

Burke, V., & Greenberg, D. (2010). Determining readability: How to select and apply

easy-to-use readability formulas to assess the difficulty of adult literacy materials.

Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 4(1), 34-42.

Castle, S., Deniz, C , & Tortora, M. (2005). Flexible grouping and student learning in a

bight-needs school. Education & Urban Society, 37(2), 139-150.

Chance, P., & Segura, S. (2009). A rural high school's collaborative approach to school

improvement. Journal of Research in Rural Education (Online), 24(5), 1-12.

Coladarci, T., & Breton, W. (1997). Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special

education resource-room teacher. Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 230.

Colker, R. (2006). The disability integration presumption: Thirty years later. University

of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(4), 789-862.

 155

Collins, B. C , Hemmeter, M. L., Schuster, J. W., & Stevens, K. B. (1996). Using team

teaching to deliver coursework via distance learning technology. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 19(1), 49-58.

Compulsory education. (2009). National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved

from

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Education/CompulsoryEducationOverview/ta

bid/12943/Default.aspx

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices.

Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-17.

Cramond, B., & Brodsky, R. (1996). Serving gifted students through inclusion in the

heterogeneously grouped classroom. Roeper Review, 19(1), A-l.

Cronis, T.G., & Ellis, D. (2000). Issues facing special educators in the new millennium.

Education, 120(4), 639-648.

Daane, C , Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators' and teachers'

perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades.

Education, 121(2), 331-338.

da Costa, J. (1993). A study of teacher collaboration in terms of teaching-learning

performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED3 62472)

Daniel, P. (2008). "Some benefit" or "maximum benefit": Does the No Child Left Behind

Act render greater educational entitlement to students with disabilities. Journal of

Law and Education, 37(3), 347-365.

 156

Davis-Wiley, P., & Cozart, A.C. (1998). Are two instructors better than one?: Planning,

teaching, and evaluating a deux. Paper presented to Mid-South Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Delcourt, M., Cornell, D., & Goldberg, M. (2007). Cognitive and affective learning

outcomes of gifted elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4),

359-381.

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

taught teams for students with disabilities?. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 14-

23.

Dieker, L., & Murawski, W. (2003). Co-Teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues,

current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13.

Dorn, S. (2002). Reading the history of Special Education. In Paul, J. L. (Ed.), Rethinking

professional issues in Special Education (pp. 279-298). Westport, CT:

Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated.

Dugan, K., & Letterman, M. (2008). Student appraisals of collaborative teaching. College

Teaching, 56(1), 11-15.

Edwards, J., Green, K., & Lyons, C. (1996). Teacher efficacy and school and teacher

characteristics. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New York. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED397055)

Esposito, J. (2008). Collaborative teaching helps small district gain big. District

Administration, 44(8), 16.

 157

Etscheidt, S. (2006). Least restrictive and natural environments for young children with

disabilities: A legal analysis of issues. Topics in Early Childhood Special

Education, 26(3), 167-178.

Executive Summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2004). Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsurnm.html

Ferretti, R., & Eisenman, L. (2010). Delivering educational services that meet the needs

of all students. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 378-383.

Finn, J., Gerber, S., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2005). Small classes in the early grades,

academic achievement, and graduating from high school. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 97(2), 214-223.

Friend, M. (2007). The coteaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 48-52.

Friend, M., & Reising, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the

present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 6.

Gallagher, J. (1997). Least restrictive environment and gifted students. Peabody Journal

of Education, 72(3&4), 153-165.

Gallagher, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind and Gifted Education. Roeper Review, 26(3),

121.

Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools:

Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED288855)

Gandhi, A. (2007). Context matters: Exploring relations between inclusion and reading

achievement of students without disabilities. International Journal of Disability,

Development & Education, 54(1), 91-112.

 158

Gangemi, L. (1984). After Rowley: The handicapped child's right to an appropriate

education. University of Miami Law Review, 38 (321).

Gately, S., & Gately Jr., F. (2001). Understanding coteaching components. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40-47.

Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, r. 160-4-2-.38 (1998). Retrieved from

http://www.doe.kl2.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/160-4-

2.38.pdf?p=4BElEECF99C

D364EA5554055463F1FBB77B0B70FECF5942E12E123FE4810FFF53501CAA

E8CB828385D2BCE08D0AlA4EA&Type=D

Georgia Comprehensive Rules and Regulations, r. 160-4-7-.05 (2007). Retrieved from

http://public.doe.kl 2.ga.us/_documents/doe/legalservices/l 60-4-7-.05 .pdf

Georgia Department of Education. (2009a). 2008-2009 Bremen Middle School Report

Card. Retrieved from

http://public.doe.kl2.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=102&SchoolId

=7738&T=1&FY=2009

Georgia Department of Education. (2009b). 2008-2009 Special Education Annual Report.

Retrieved from

http://www.doe.kl 2.ga.us/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=l 05&PTID=51 &

CTID-76&Source=Enrollment&PID=37&StateId=ALL&T=l«&FY=2009

Georgia Department of Education (2009c). 2009 CRCT Score Interpretation Guide.

Retrieved from

http://www.doe.kl2.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/2009%20CRCT%20Score%20
 159

Interpretation%20Guide.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6F0A3C5E3453BFAD942A6

0427D0698D21AC541B2D9D52F5 Al &Type=D

Georgia Department of Education. (2010). Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency

Test Test Examiner's Manual. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.kl2.ga.us/DMGetDocument.

aspx/CRCT_grade3 -

8_Examiners_Manual_2010.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6883D

14A933B82E491ED97246E8D5A428C3FC324DC61FCF0D&Type=D

Gentry, M. (2006). No Child Left Behind: Gifted children and school counselors.

Professional School Counseling, 10(1), 73-81.

Gerber, P. (1996). The efficacy of the collaborative teaching model for academically-able

special education students: A research report. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED411657)

Gerber, P., & Popp, P. (2000). Making collaborative teaching more effective for

academically able students: Recommendations for implementation and training.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(3), 229.

Gerent, M. (1998). Successful inclusion of students with disabilities: Modifying content

delivery and materials in inclusive classrooms. Paper presented at the meeting of

the Annual China-U.S. Conference on Education, Beijing, China. Retrieved from

ERIC database. (ED429379)

Gideon, B. (2002). Structuring schools for teacher collaboration. Education Digest, 68(2),

30-35.
Gillespie, D., & Israetel, A. (2008). Benefits of co-teaching in relation to student

learning. Paper presented at the meeting of American Psychological Association,

Boston, MA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED502754)

Gilman, D., & Kiger, S. (2003). Should we try to keep class sizes small?. Educational

Leadership, 60(7), 80-85.

Gordon, R. (1996). Teachers, teams,...and their students. Paper presented at the meeting

of American Educational Research Association, New York. Retrieved from ERIC

database. (ED460937)

Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class-size

reduction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 670-700.

Handler, B. (2007). Who's in the classroom down the hall?: An examination of

demographic shifts within segregated special education classrooms, 1975-2005.

American Educational History Journal, 34(2), 379-393.

Hardman, M., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum

and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing

School Failure, 52(2), 5-11.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Hatcher, T., Hinton, B., & Swartz, J. (1995). Team-teaching in graduate level HRD:

Participant's attitudes and perceptions. Academy of human resource

development. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Human Resource

Development, St. Louis, MO. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED398357)

 161

Hendler, S., & Nakelski, M. (2008). Extended day kindergarten: Supporting literacy and

motor development through a teacher collaborative model. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 36(1), 57-62.

Henley, J., McBride, J., Milligan, J., & Nichols, J. (2007). Robbing elementary students

of their childhood: The perils of No Child Left Behind. Education, 128(1), 56-63.

Hockett, J. (2009). Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general

education and gifted education quality indicators. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 32(3), 394-440,442.

Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Instructional leadership: A learning-centered guide

(2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Hughes, C , & Murawski, W. (2001). Lessons from another field: Applying coteaching

strategies to gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 195-204.

Hunt, B. (1996). The effect on mathematics achievement and attitude of homogenous and

heterogeneous grouping of gifted sixth grade students. Journal of Secondary

Gifted Education, 8(2), 65-73.

Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education.

Remedial & Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1412 (West 2005).

Jackson, S., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Harjusola-Webb, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Romani, J.

(2009). Response to Intervention: Implications for early childhood professionals.

Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(4), 424-434.

Jameson, J., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J., Riesen, T., & Polychronis, S. (2007). A

comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in the special education

classroom. Education & Treatment of Children, 30(\), 23-44.

Jang, S. (2006). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school

teachers. Educational Research, 48(2), 177-194.

Johnson, D. (2000). Teaching mathematics to gifted students in a mixed-ability

classroom. ERIC Digest E594. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED441302)

Kauffman, J. M. & Landrum, T. J. (2006) Children and youth with emotional and

behavior disorders: A history of their education. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed, Inc.

Keefe, E.B., Moore, V., & Duff, F. (2004). The four "knows" of collaborative teaching.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 36-42.

Keogh, B. (2007). Celebrating PL 94-142: The Education of All Handicapped Children

Act of 1975. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 65-69.

Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. (1998). Inclusion or pull-

out: Which do students prefer?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 148-158.

Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Co-teaching revisited. Preventing School Failure,

52(2), 12-20.

Knackendoffel, E. A. (2005). Collaborative teaming in the secondary school. Focus on

Exceptional Children, 37(5), 1-16.

Kohler-Evans, P. (2006). Co-Teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the

kids. Education, 127(2), 260-264.

 163

Kroeger, S., & Kouche, B. (2006). Using peer-assisted learning strategies to increase

response to intervention in inclusive middle math settings. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 38(5), 6-13.

Kulik, J. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and

contemporary perspectives. (Report no. NRC-G/T-9204). Retrieved from ERIC

database. (ED350777)

Kulik, J. (1993). An analysis of the research on ability grouping. NRC/GT Newsletter.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED367095)

Kulik, C , & Kulik, J. (1984). Effects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: A

meta-analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological

Association, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED255329)

Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-Analytic Findings on Grouping Programs. Gifted

Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73-77.

Leahy, S. (2006). A survey of selected teachers' opinions to the effects of class size on

student achievement among middle school students (master's thesis). Retrieved

from ERIC database. (ED494718)

Lenn, E.E., & Hatch, J. A. (1992). Making a kindergarten methods course make more

sense: A teacher and professor team up. Paper presented at the meeting of the

National Association for the Education of Young Children, New Orleans, LA.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED352182)

Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. (2004). Attitudes towards inclusion: The case of

Israeli and Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European Journal

of Special Needs Education, 19(2), 171-190.

Linek, W., Fleener, C , Fazio, M., Raine, I., & Klakamp, K. (2003). The impact of

shifting from how teachers teach to how children learn. Journal of Educational

Research, 97(2), 78-89.

Little, M., & Dieker, L. (2009). Coteaching: Two are better than one. Principal

Leadership, 9(8), 43-46.

Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-Teaching in middle school classrooms under

routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with

disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes. Learning Disabilities Research

and Practice, 20(2), 79-85.

Marks, G., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in

student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research

& Evaluation, 12(2), 105-128.

Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K.

(2001). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and

challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-2"/rl.

Matthews, D., & Kitchen, J. (2007). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions

of students and teachers in public secondary schools. The Gifted Child

Quarterly, 57(3), 256-271.

McClure, C. (2008). The benefits of teacher collaboration. District Administration,

44(10), 82-83.

McCoach, D. B., O'Connell, A., & Levitt, H. (2006). Ability grouping across

kindergarten using an early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of

Educational Research, 99(6), 339-346,384.

 165

Mills v. Bd of Educ. 348 F. Supp. 866. (D.D.C. 1972).

Mitchell, D., & Mitchell, R. (2001). Evaluating the impact of California's class size

reduction initiative on student achievement: Third year evaluation report.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED466009)

Moore, C , Gilbreath, D., & Maiuri, F. (1998). Educating Students with Disabilities in

General Education Classrooms: A Summary of the Research. Retrieved from

ERIC database. (ED419329)

Morocco, C , & Aguilar, C. (2002). Coteaching for content understanding: A schoolwide

model. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 13(4), 315-347.

Murata, R. (2002). What does team teaching mean? A case study of interdisciplinary

teaming. Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 67.

Murawski, W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary english classes: How can

we improve?. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(3), 227-247.

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

level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.

Murawski, W., & Hughes, C. (2009). Response to Intervention, collaboration, and co-

teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing

School Failure, 53(4), 267-277.

Murawski, W., & Swanson, H. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where

are the data?. Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258-67.

Murphy, C , Beggs, J., Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2004). Students as 'catalysts' in the

classroom: The impact of co-teaching between science student teachers and

 primary classroom teachers on children s enjoyment and learning of science.

International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1023-1035.

Myles, B., & Simpson, R. (1989). Regular educators' modification preferences for

mainstreaming mildly handicapped children. Journal of Special Education, 22(4),

479-491.

National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment. (1998).

Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED420108)

Neihart, M. (2007). The socioaffective impact of acceleration and ability grouping:

Recommendations for best practice. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330-341.

Nettles, S., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of

school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school

improvement policy. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736.

Neugebauer, N.G. (2008). TAKS scores of general education students in secondary co-

teach classes in a Texas school district (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas

A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Neumark, V. (2008). Best practice for all is best practice for the most able. The Times

Educational Supplement,,(4811), 28-31.

Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). School instructional

program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED451305)

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the

public and educators. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED387925)

Nisbet, J. (2004). Caught in the continuum. Research and Practice for Persons with

Severe Disabilities , 29(4), 231-236.

Oberg, G. (2009). Facilitating interdisciplinary work: Using quality assessment to create

common ground. Higher Education, 57(4), 405-415.

Odom, S., & McEvoy, M. (1990). Mainstreaming at the preschool level: Potential

barriers and tasks for the field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,

10(2), 48-62.

Olson, M., & Chalmers, L. (1997). Attitudes and attributes of general education teachers

identified as effective inclusionists. Remedial & Special Education, 18(1), 28-36.

Osgood, R. L. (2008). The history of Special Education: A struggle for equality in

American public schools. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

Pantheon of disability history. (2008). Museum of Disability. Retrieved from

http://www.museumofdisability.org/original_pantheon_itard.asp.

Patterson, K., Syverud, S., & Seabrooks-Blackmore, J. (2008). A call for collaboration:

Not jack of all trades. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45( 1), 16-21.

Penn. Asso. for Retarded Children v. Penn., 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13874 (E.D. Perm.

1972).

Petress, K. (2003). An educational philosophy guides the pedagogical process. College

Student Journal, 37(1), 128.

Phillips, K. (2008). Normalization. Great Neck Publishing. Retrieved from Research

Starters - Education database.

Pugach, ML, & Wesson, C. (1995). Teachers' and students' views of team teaching of

general and learning-disabled student in two fifth grade classes. Elementary

SchoolJournal, 95(3), 279.

Reezigt, G., & Creemers, B. (2005). A comprehensive framework for effective school

improvement. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 16(4), 407-424.

Reichardt, R. (2001). Reducing Class Size: Choices and Consequences. Retrieved from

ERIC database. (ED456532)

Reinhiller, N. (1996). Coteaching: New variations on a not-so-new practice. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 19(1), 34.

Richards, M.R.E., & Omdal, S.N. (2007). Effects of tiered instruction on academic

performance in a secondary science course. Journal of Advanced

Academics, 18(3), 424-453,489-491.

Rice, N., Drame, E., Owens, L., & Frattura, E. (2007). Co-instructing at the secondary

level: Strategies for success. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 12-18.

Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teachers reports of

developments in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice (Lawrence Erlbaum), 15(4), 190-197.

Ritter, C , Michel, C , & Irby, B. (1999). Concerning inclusion: Perceptions of middle

school students, their parents, and teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly,

18(2), 10.

Robertson, H. (2005). Does size matter?. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 251-252, 257.
Robinson, S. (1983). Rowley: The court's first interpretation of The Education of All

Handicapped Children Act of 1975. The Catholic University Law Review, 32

(941).

Rogers, K. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted

and talented learner. Executive summary. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED343330)

Rogers, K. (1993). Grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper

Review, 16(1), 8-12.

Rogers, K. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis

of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382-396.

Ross, J.A. (1994). Beliefs that make a difference: The origins and impacts of teacher

efficacy. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Council for Curriculum

Studies in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED379216)

Ross, J. A., McKeiver, S., Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1997). Fluctuations in teacher efficacy

during implementation of destreaming. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(3),

283.

Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (2001). The implications of coteaching/cogenerative dialogue for

teacher evaluation: Learning from multiple perspectives of everyday

practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(1), 7-29.

Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an urban teacher education program: An

activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture & Activity, 9(2), 108-131.

 170

Roth, W., Tobin, K., Carambo, C , & Dalland, C. (2004). Coteaching: Creating resources

for learning and learning to teach chemistry in urban high schools. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 882-904.

Roth, W., Tobin, K., Carambo, C , & Dalland, C. (2005). Coordination in coteaching:

Producing alignment in real time. Science Education, 89(4), 675-702.

Salend, S., Johansen, M., Mumper, J., Chase, A., Pike, K. M., & Dorney, J. (1997).

Cooperative teaching: The voices of two teachers. Remedial and Special

Education, 18(\), 3.

Santamaria, L. & Thousand, J. (2004). Collaboration, co-teaching, and differentiated

instruction: A process oriented approach to whole schooling. International

Journal of Whole Schooling, 1(1), 13-27.

Saphier, J., & West, L. (2009). How coaches can maximize student learning. Phi Delta

Kappan, 91(4), 46-50.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Why gifted students belong in inclusive schools. Educational

Leadership, 52(4), 64-68,70.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Inclusion: A matter of social justice. Educational Leadership,

61(2), 25-28.

Sapon-Shevin, ML, & Schniedewind, N. (1993). Why (even) gifted children need

cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 62-63.

Schwab Learning. (2003). Collaboratively speaking: A study on effective ways to teach

children with learning differences in the general education classroom. Retrieved

from http://www.calstat.org/publications/pdfs/2003sumEinsertpdf
 171

Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive

classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4),

392-416.

Shapiro, E., & Dempsey, C. (2008). Conflict resolution in team teaching: A case study in

interdisciplinary teaching. College Teaching, 56(3), 157-162.

Shibley, I. A. (2006). Interdisciplinary team teaching: Negotiating pedagogical

differences. College Teaching, 54(3), 271-274.

Slavin, R. (1990, January 1). Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary

Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED322565)

Slavin, R. (1991). Are cooperative learning and untracking harmful to the gifted?

Response to Allan. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 68-71.

Smith, P., Molnar, A., & Zahorik, J. (2003). Class-size reduction a fresh look at the data.

Educational Leadership, 61(1), 12-74.

Strahan, D., & Hedt, M. (2009). Teaching and teaming more responsibly: Case studies in

professional growth at the middle level. Research in Middle Level Education

Online, 32(8), 1-14.

Stuebing, K., Barth, A., Molfese, P., Weiss, B., & Fletcher, J. (2009). IQ is not strongly

related to response to reading instruction: A meta-analytic interpretation.

Exceptional Children, 76(1), 31-53.

Suissa, J. (2008). Teaching and doing philosophy of education: The question of style.

Studies in Philosophy & Education, 27(2/3), 185-195.

Tannock, M. (2009). Tangible and intangible elements of collaborative

teaching. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(3), 173-178.

Taylor, S. (2004). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the

least restrictive environment. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities (RPSD), 29(4), 218-230.

Thompson, C , & Cunningham, E. (2001). The lessons of class size reduction. First in

America special report. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED465003)

Thompson, C , & O'Quinn, S. (2001). Eliminating the black-white achievement gap: A

summary of research. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED457250)

Thousand, J., Villa, R., & Nevin, A. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning

and teaching. Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 239-248.

Tichenor, M., Heins, B., & Piechura-Couture, K. (2000). Parent perceptions of a co-

taught inclusive classroom. Education, 120(3), 569-574.

Tobin, K., & Roth, W. (2005). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing in

urban science education. School Science and Mathematics, 105(6), 313-322.

Toremen, F., & Karakus, M. (2007). The obstacles of synergy in schools: A qualitative

study on teamwork. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1), 639-645.

Truesdell, L. (1990). Behavior and achievement of mainstreamed junior high special

class students. Journal of Special Education, 24(2), 234-245.

Ulveland, R. (2003). Team teaching and the question of philosophy. Education, 123(4),

659-662.

Validity and Reliability for the 2009 CRCT. (2009). Georgia Department of Education.

Vannest, K., Mahadevan, L., Mason, B., & Temple-Harvey, K. (2009). Educator and

administrator perceptions of the impact of No Child Left Behind on special

populations. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 148-159.

Venkatakrishnan, H., & Wiham, D. (2003). Tracking and mixed-ability grouping in

secondary school mathematics classrooms: A case study. British Educational

Research Journal, 29(2), 189-204.

Walsh, J., & Snyder, D. (1993). Cooperative teaching: An effective model for all

students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children,

San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED361930)

Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that

teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4),

395.

Wang, M. (2000). How Small Classes Help Teachers Do Their Best: Recommendations

from a National Invitational Conference. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED440198)

Warger, C , & Rutherford Jr., R. (1993). Co-teaching to improve social skills. Preventing

School Failure, 37(4), 21-27.

Weiss, M. P. (2004). Co-teaching as science in the schoolhouse: More questions than

answers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 218-223.

Weiss, M. P. & Lloyd, J. W. (2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary

special educators in co-taught and special education settings. Journal of Special

Education, 30(2). 58-68.

Wheeler, E. J., & Mallory, W. D. (1996). Team teaching in educational research: One

solution to the problem of teaching qualitative research. Paper presented at the

meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, NY.

Retrieved on from ERIC database. (ED398204)

Wilson, G., & Michaels, C. (2006). General and special education students' perceptions

of co-teaching: Implications for secondary-level literacy instruction. Reading &

Writing Quarterly, 22(3), 205-225.

Winzer, M. A. (1993). The history of Special Education: From isolation to integration.

Gallaudet University Press: Washington, D.C.

Wischnowski, M., Salmon, S., & Eaton, K. (2004). Evaluating co-teaching as a means for

successful inclusion of students with disabilities in a rural district. Rural Special

Education Quarterly, 23(3), 3-14.

Worell, J. (2008). How secondary schools can avoid the seven deadly school sins of

inclusion. American Secondary Education, 36(2), 43-56.

Yell, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act of 2004 and IDEA regulations of 2006: Implications

for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional

Children, 39(1), 1-24.

Zigmond, N. (2006). Reading and writing in co-taught secondary school social Studies

classrooms: A reality check. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(3), 249-268.

Zigmond, N., Levin, E., & Laurie, T. (1985). Managing the mainstream: An analysis of

teacher attitudes and student performance in mainstream high school programs.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(9).

Zirkel, P. A. (2005). A primer of special education law. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 38(1), 62-63.

 176

Appendix A

Kiley Thompson
2440 Crosstown Parkway
Bremen, Georgia 30110
April 20, 2010

Dear parent:

My name is Kiley Thompson, and I am a teacher at Bremen Middle School. I am

currently working on my dissertation in order to complete my doctorate in the field of
School Improvement. As a part of completing this degree, I will be completing a research
project pertaining to the impact of co-teaching. I will be conducting short surveys and
interviews with students in order to gain information regarding their perceptions of how
co-teaching is affecting their learning. I will also be looking at their math CRCT scores
from this year and last year to determine if there is a difference in their performance.

Your child meets the qualifications necessary to participate in my study, and I would like
to ask that he/she participate. His/her information will be kept confidential, and I will be
the only person with access to his/her answers. The findings of my study will be reported
in my dissertation, but various methods will be utilized to ensure confidentiality. Your
child's participation will in no way impact their grade or class work.

Attached is a permission slip. If you will allow your child to participate in the study,
please sign the form and return it to the school.

Sincerely,

Kiley Thompson
7th grade math
 177

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

A UTHORIZA TION FOR A MINOR TO SER VE
ASA SUBJECT IN A RESEARCH STUDY

Dear Parents,

Your child is being asked to participate in a research study that will be conducted at
Bremen Middle School. The principal of the school has approved this study. The
researcher is Kiley Thompson (770 537-4874), a student/instructor at The State
University of West Georgia. Her supervising professor is Dr. Craig Mertler (678 839-
6096).

The purpose of the study is to collect data related to how students are impacted by co-teaching
and how they perceive co-teaching effects their learning. By adding data to the current literature,
the study hopes to inform administrators and teachers about the appropriateness of co-teaching
for all students. The study will take place at Bremen Middle School and will last for
approximately 6 weeks. An open-ended survey will be administered to students, and individual
interviews will be conducted with a small group of students. An audio recorder will be utilized
during the interviews, and students will be given the opportunity to review their transcripts. The
math CRCT scores of the students will also be analyzed.

Students, teachers, and administrators could benefit from the information provided by the study.
Informed decisions about the best placement for students at all levels of academic performance
could guide future curricular decisions and help provide optimum learning environments for all
students. Only Kiley Thompson will have access to the data collected in this study. Your
child's participation in this project is strictly confidential. Only the researcher and
supervising professor will have access to your child's identity and to information that can
be associated to your child's identity.

Your child's participation is voluntary. You may withdraw your child from this study at
any time by notifying the researcher and supervising professor.

Please check the appropriate box below and sign the form:

| | I give permission for my child to participate in this project. I understand that I will
receive a signed copy of this consent form. I have read this form and understand it.

| | I do not give permission for my child to participate in this project.

Student's name

Signature of parent or guardian Date

Return this form to the school
 178

Appendix B

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

A UTHORIZA TION FOR A MINOR TO SER VE
AS A SUBJECT IN A RESEARCH STUDY
Dear Student,

You are being asked to participate in a research study that will be conducted at Bremen
Middle School. The principal of the school has approved this study. The researcher is
Kiley Thompson (770 537-4874), a student/instructor at The State University of West
Georgia. Her supervising professor is Dr. Craig Mertler (678 839-6096).

The purpose of the study is to collect data related to how students are impacted by co-teaching
and how they perceive co-teaching effects their learning. By adding data to the current literature,
the study hopes to inform administrators and teachers about the appropriateness of co-teaching
for all students. The study will take place at Bremen Middle School and will last for
approximately 6 weeks. An open-ended survey will be administered to students, and individual
interviews will be conducted with a small group of students. An audio recorder will be utilized
during the interviews, and students will be given the opportunity to review their transcripts. The
math CRCT scores of the students will also be analyzed.

Students, teachers, and administrators could benefit from the information provided by the study.
Informed decisions about the best placement for students at all levels of academic performance
could guide future curricular decisions and help provide optimum learning environments for all
students. Only Kiley Thompson will have access to the data collected in this study. Your
child's participation in this project is strictly confidential. Only the researcher and
supervising professor will have access to your identity and to information that can be
associated to your identity.

Your participation is voluntary. You may withdraw from this study at any time by
notifying the researcher and supervising professor.
Please check the appropriate box below and sign the form:

I | I will participate in this project. I understand that I will receive a signed copy of
this consent form. I have read this form and understand it.

| I I do not wish to participate in this project.

Student's name

Signature Date
RETURN THIS FORM TO THE SCHOOL
 179

Appendix C

1. Has being in a co-taught math class changed how well you

understand things in math? Explain.
3
.iLJ JJ^

2. Do you think being in a co-taught math class will affect your

score on the math section of the CRCT? Explain.
3

*
3. How do you think being in a co-taught math class is different
from a regular math class?
3

4. What do you think are some good things about being in a co-
taught math class?
3
jJJ JS^

5. What do you think are some bad things about being in a co-
taught math class?
3
AJ .iT
 180

Co-teaching Survey 2
Exit this survey

1. Has being in a co-taught math class changed how well you

understand things in math? Explain.
~]

2. Do you think being in a co-taught math class will impact your

score on the math section of the CRCT? Explain.

3. How do you think being in a co-taught math class is different

from a regular math class?
" J

4. What do you think are some good things about being in a co-
taught math class?

5. What do you think are some bad things about being in a co-
taught math class?
 181

1 . Has being in a co-taught math class changes how well you

understand things in math? Explain.
3

*
2. Do you think being in a co-taught math class will affect your
score on the math section of the CRCT? Explain.

3. How do you think being in a co-taught math class is different

from a regular math class?
• TJ

4. What do you think are some good things about being in a co-
taught math class?
3
JU jif1
5. What do you think are some bad things about being in a co-
taught math class?
3
JJJ .LT 1
 182

Appendix D

Proctor's Guide for the Survey

Prior to students entering the classroom, the correct number of each kind of survey will
be pulled up on the computers. The arrangement of the computers around the room will
be random. Types of surveys will not be grouped together. Children will enter the
classroom and be directed to an appropriate computer. Students labeled as special
education will be assigned a computer with the special education survey pulled up on the
screen, general education students will be assigned to a computer with the general
education survey pulled up on the screen, and gifted students will be assigned to a
computer with the gifted survey pulled up on the screen. Those needing the survey read
to them will a reader sitting next to them throughout the administration.

The researcher will read what is in italics after all children are seated.

Good afternoon and thank you for helping me today. You

may or may not know that I am currently working on my
dissertation. A dissertation is a really long research paper that
tells about what a person has learned in a study or experiment
he/she has conducted. In the next few minutes, you will be taking a
survey about your experiences in a co-taught math class. The
information you give me will be used in my dissertation. I am
focusing my study on the impact of co-teaching on students, and
hopefully it will help us make good decisions about the best
learning environment for students.
When I tell you to begin, please read each question on the
screen and type in a response. Provide as much information as
you can. If you need help typing your response or you do not
understand the question, please raise your hand and someone will
come over to help you. There are five questions. Please respond
to all the questions in the dialogue box below each question. When
you are done, raise your hand and someone will be over to give
you further instructions.

Are there any questions?

Please begin the survey.

 183

Appendix E

Interview Protocol

• How do you feel about co-teaching? Do you like it? Why or why not?

• How do you think being in a co-taught class different than being in a typical math class?

• How do you usually do in math class? What kind of math student are you?

• Do you believe that co-teaching has impacted that? Why or why not?

• What do you think are the benefits of being in a co-taught math class? Drawbacks?

• How do you think co-teaching has affected your learning in your math class?

• How do you think co-teaching impacts the learning of other students in your class?

• What specific aspects of co-teaching do you think impact your learning?

• How do you think you will do on the CRCT in math?

• How do you think being in a co-taught math class will affect your performance on the

CRCT?