Collaborating across boundaries.

Abstract

The article describes the cooperative efforts by general educators and special educators from university and public school settings to implement collaborative teaching practices. The project examined the effects of general education/special education collaborative teaching of various stakeholders in a rural community of southeast Georgia.

Introduction

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (1997) and the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) have placed increased focus on providing high quality learning opportunities to all learners within the general education setting. In order to meet these mandates it is necessary for general and special education teachers to work collaboratively in the school setting (Hutchinson & Martin, 1999; Maheady, Michielli-Pendl, Mallette & Harper, 2002). As schools began to implement general and special education collaborative teaching, it became apparent that teacher preparation programs had not prepared their teacher education candidates to work collaboratively (Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003; Glatthorn, 1990). Past experiences with the use of collaborative models has taught us that there are certain preconditions that need to be met and specific skills that need to be developed. Among the most important preconditions are administrative support and time allotted for joint planning (Dettmer, Thurston & Dyck, 2001; Pugach & Johnson, 2002.). School administrators report that it is necessary to retool teachers on various skills such as additional subject content information, process skills and the dispositions necessary for effective collaborative teaching (Jobe, Rust & Brissie, 1996).

We know, however, that the skill set inferred in collaboration is developmental in nature and the best results occur when teachers are supported as they grow in their collaboration understandings, skills and dispositions (Cook, 2002; Friend & Cook, 1991). Recently the state of Georgia, recognizing the importance of equipping all candidates with the understandings, skills and dispositions necessary to teach all learners, offered grant funding to develop model programs that provide teacher candidates the opportunity to learn about and observe general education/special education collaborative teaching.

The Study

The purpose of the research project is to examine the effects of general education/special education collaborative teaching on various stakeholders in a rural community of Southeast Georgia. Specifically, four perspectives are being examined:

(1) the perceptions of collaborative teachers at the higher education and elementary public school teaching levels regarding the collaborative process; (2) the perceptions of pre-service teachers regarding the collaborative process; (3) the effects of elementary public school collaborative teaching on P-5 students; and (4) the perceptions of administrators regarding the collaborative teaching process. Participants involved include two university instructors (one elementary general education and one special education), two public school P-5 teachers (one elementary general education and one special education), two school administrators, six pre-service practicum students (4 general education and 2 special education), and fifteen general and special education P-5 students (10 general education and 5 special education). To date, the project has run for one semester and will continue for minimally, one more year.

Within the project, collaboration is found at several different levels. First, the university faculty and the elementary school faculty participated in two one-day workshops. One workshop focused on gaining an understanding of co-teaching models and decision-making about how co-teaching models should look. A second workshop centered on the collaborative teaching teams reporting and reflecting on their co-teaching and planning. In addition to the workshops, two planning meetings were held to complete the assignment and scheduling of pre-service teachers at the elementary school.

The professional development and planning set the stage for the collaborative teaching that occurred in the project. At the university level, one general education faculty member and one special education faculty member co-taught a survey course on special education, "Introduction to Special Education." Collaboration was discussed as part of the course topic but it was not the focus of the course. Collaboration was the focus of a practicum course, "PPB Practicum," that was a part of the block of courses taken with the special education survey course. The special education faculty member supervised the practicum students Who were placed in a third grade classroom where the general education teacher and the special education teacher were collaboratively teaching the language arts block.

Data on the effects of general education/special education collaborative teaching on the various stakeholders was collected from multiple sources. Undergraduate students enrolled in the "PPB Practicum" gave a presentation as a capstone experience that addressed (a) their impressions of collaborative teaching in the elementary and university classrooms and (b) their beliefs and dispositions toward special education/general education co-teaching. The practicum students also kept journals during the experience where they recorded general impressions of what they observed of co-teaching in the elementary classroom. To determine the university/elementary faculty satisfaction, the four co-teachers were interviewed about their experiences. The principal and vice-principal of the elementary school were interviewed about their level of satisfaction with the co-teaching arrangement in the school. Elementary students in the co-taught third grade language arts block were interviewed about their perceptions of the collaborative teaching model. The data from these multiple sources has yielded preliminary findings that will be shared in the following sections.

Results

Teachers

Perceptions of Collaborative Teachers--When asked to reflect on their general impressions of collaborative teaching, the elementary public school teachers reported that they had learned valuable teaching strategies from one another. Their perspectives of their own students also changed. By viewing their students in a collaboratively taught classroom, each teacher learned an important lesson about making modifications and setting expectations. Both came to realize that general and special education learners were more alike than they were different, and they came to a consensus that they were both underestimating the abilities of the special needs learners. While the general education teacher discovered that she could modify her instruction to reach all learners, the special education teacher discovered that accommodations were not always needed for learner success. Their responses indicate that this experience facilitated their professional growth. In contrast, when the university co-teaching team members were individually asked the same question, they both acknowledged the benefits of collaborative teaching; however, their responses focused on the pragmatic aspects of collaborating such as complimenting one anothers' strengths, offsetting each others' weaknesses, and the overall joy of the experience.

The strengths of collaborative teaching--When questioned about the strengths of collaborative teaching, all four teachers identified the following professional benefits: sharing ideas, shared workload, better use of instructional time, immediate availability of a colleague, and opportunity for shared reflection. They perceived the advantages for students to include heating multiple perspectives, modeling how teachers work together, individualized attention, and enhanced instruction. In addition, the public school teachers identified improved self-esteem for the special education students as they learned successfully beside the general education students. University co-teachers added that the university students were beneficiaries of early exposure to best teaching practices modeled.

The weaknesses of collaborative teaching--When queried about the weaknesses of collaborative teaching, both teams perceived that lack of consistent planning and reflection time and the development of a true teaching partnership were weaknesses. The university team added that the process was time consuming for teachers.

Necessary conditions and/or supports for successful collaborative teaching--The identified conditions and/or supports from the elementary teachers' perspective included: selecting teachers who have the commitment to and the personalities for collaborative teaching; securing support from the administration; having colleague support so the partnership is recognized; selecting students who would benefit from a collaborative teaching setting; having parental support; and evaluating continuously to monitor and adjust the program. The conditions and/or supports identified by the university team were willingness to adjust course loads, funding projects of this type, finding common planning and teaching times, and securing administrative support.

Expansion of collaborative practices at respective sites--Both collaborative teams perceived that collaborative teaching practices could be expanded at their school site (elementary and university) but with some caveats. The elementary team indicated that the program could be expanded with the involvement of the right teachers and students. They could see expanding it to support science and social studies instruction. The university team believed that expansion was possible only if issues surrounding funding and workload were resolved.

Administrators

General Impression of Collaborative Teaching--Impressions of both administrators were favorable. While one administrator focused on the professional growth of one of the team teachers, the other administrator focused on the importance of collaborative teaching as it related to the "No Child Left Behind" legislation and the accountability for test results on all students.

Strengths of Collaborative Teaching--Both administrators agreed that the major benefits for teachers were team-building with the sharing of ideas, planning together, and communicating with one another. Both administrators agreed that for the general education students, the major benefit was learning to be more accepting and understanding of peers with special learning needs.

Weaknesses of Collaborative Teaching--Administrators differed in what they identified as major weaknesses for the teachers. While one administrator felt the major weakness was lack of collaborative planning time, the other administrator reported general education teachers' lack of understanding regarding what collaborative teaching really entails. When asked about weaknesses of the collaborative teaching setting where students were concerned, both administrators were most concerned about whether or not the learning needs of the students were being met.

Necessary Conditions and/or Supports for Collaborative Teaching--Administrators differed significantly in their responses to this question. One administrator focused on the importance of having a good collaborative team that is willing to work and on support from the administration (e.g., scheduling). The other administrator focused on the importance of having a broad understanding of the impact of the "No Child Left Behind" mandates and the implications for the achievement of all students.

Expanding the Use of Collaborative Practices at Respective Sites--Both administrators were cautiously optimistic in their responses with the following caveats: all learners must benefit from the collaborative environment and all teachers must be rewarded or recognize the rewards in working collaboratively.

PPB Students

Capstone Experience--Students enrolled in the PPB Practicum were required to give a 5-10 minute presentation addressing (a) their impressions of collaborative teaching in the elementary and university classrooms and (b) reflecting on their beliefs and dispositions toward collaborative teaching. They identified the following as strengths for elementary students: more individualized attention, maximizing instructional time, a positive experience for children, more attention to different learning styles, and integration of all students. Regarding strengths of the university collaborative teaching, PPB students focused on benefits to teachers such as having someone to plan with, complementing each other's teaching strengths. They also reported the following related caveats: collaborative teaching requires a commitment of energy and time to stick with it and make it work. PPB students reported the weaknesses of collaborative teaching to be inequity in sharing of roles/responsibilities, general education students inadequately prepared to interact with special education students, and a mismatch in teacher personalities that creates problems. When reflecting on their beliefs and dispositions toward collaborative teaching, three themes emerged. Students felt that (a) the need to control might keep them from wanting to team teach; (b) they did not want to team for an entire day, and (c) most did not want to team teach as a novice teacher.

Journals--Journals were kept as part of the PPB requirements. The students' general impressions of the elementary team teaching included (a) the apparent lack of collaborative teaching as they understood/perceived collaboration (e.g., one teacher led the lesson while the other assisted); (b) the potential for more help for students, especially the special education students; (c) the potential for fewer management problems, and (d) the potential for teachers to complement each others' strengths.

Elementary students

The 13 Portal Elementary students who participated in the co-taught language arts block were interviewed regarding their views of collaborative teaching practices. Four questions were asked. A sample of their responses follows.

Description of classroom--When asked what it was like to be in a classroom where two teachers were teaching elicited generally favorable responses from the students. Fun, good, and can ask more questions with two teachers in the room were positive comments made. Some students felt that there was more work with two teachers.

Description of what was liked in the collaboratively taught classroom--Students' most common response to this question was they liked working in groups. Description of what was not liked in the collaboratively taught classroom - Dichotomous responses were given. Some students indicated that there was nothing that they disliked. Other students felt that both teachers were mean.

Description of whether or not they would like to be in a collaboratively taught classroom all the time--Overwhelmingly, the students responded that they would like to be in a collaboratively taught classroom all the time. Reasons why varied but included the following: it's more fun; get more help; get more work done; learn a lot more; it's exciting; twice as much is said so can learn twice as much.

Discussion

The findings of this project are preliminary, reflecting the results of the first semester of co-teaching. The participants' perceptions of collaborative teaching are shifting and broadening as they have more experience with either observing or doing collaborative teaching. Their responses suggest that this experience confirmed the benefits and caveats that are ascribed to collaborative teaching in the literature. For example, while teachers, administrators and PPB students all identified the challenge of providing allocated planning time, all participating groups recognized the benefits of collaborative planning for the teachers and students. Further, they recognized the preconditions, skills and dispositions that are essential for successful collaborative teaching. While the co-teaching teams' responses clearly demonstrated that they understood the developmental nature of collaborative teaching, the university students' responses suggest that they have a limited understanding of how the collaborative relationship evolves over time. They expected to see a fully developed, polished model from the very beginning of its implementation. This expectation seems to color their view about their readiness/willingness to co-teach as beginning teachers. They are reticent to co-teach as novice teachers because they believe they have little to offer the collaborative relationship; their perception is that they must be experienced teachers in order to participate. Their response has taught us that we need to more closely mediate the students' observations of co-teaching so that students better understand the developmental steps that teachers take as they learn to collaborate. We have learned that we cannot assume preservice teachers recognize that collaborative teaching practices, like all other teaching practices, are dynamic, growing and changing with experience.

References

Cook, B. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 262-277.

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L., & Dyck, N. (2001). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs (4th ed.). Boston, Allyn & Bacon.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do special educators need to know and be prepared to do for inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 42-50.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1991). Principles for the practice of collaboration in schools. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 6-10.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1990). Cooperative professional development: Facilitating the growth of the special education teacher and the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11 (3), 29-34.

Hutchinson, H.L., & Martin, A.K. (1999). Fostering inclusive beliefs and practices during preservice teacher education through communities of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 234-250.

Individuals With Disabilities Act Amendments, 20 U.S.C. [section] 1400 (1997).

Jobe, D., Rust, J.O., & Brissie, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities into regular classrooms. Education, 117(1), 148-153.

Maheady, L., Michielli-Pendl, J., Mallette, B., & Harper G.F. (2002). A collaborative research project to improve the academic performance of a diverse sixth grade science class. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(1), 55-70.

No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. [section] 6203 (2001).

Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L.J. (2002). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools (2nd ed.). Denver: Love.

Amy Heaston, Georgia Southern University, GA Stephanie L. Kenney, Georgia Southern University, GA LaTonya McGruder, Portal Elementary School, GA Mary Ann Nelson, Georgia Southern University, GA Susan Puckett, Portal Elementary School, GA Victoria Zwald, Georgia Southern University, GA

Heaston is an Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education. Kenney is Associate Dean of Undergraduate Teacher Education. McGruder is a teacher of third grade general education students. Nelson is an Assistant Professor of Special Education. Puckett is a special education teacher of students grades three through five. Zwald is a Clinical Instructor of Early Childhood Education.