Collaborative initiatives supporting inclusive classrooms.

Abstract

This article describes collaborative work in a Professional Development School between university and school-based educators. Supporting the collaborative work between inservice teachers and teacher education faculty, we demonstrate the benefits of collaborative conceptualization, organization, and facilitation of instruction to support the meaningful and successful work of inclusive education. Design and implementation of instructional interventions geared at preparing general education preservice teachers for inclusive classrooms is discussed.

Introduction

Recently, our institution participated in a massive teacher education reform effort to redesign various programs. During this period, it was identified that preK-12 inservice teachers from our Professional Development Schools (PDS) network frequently voiced deep concerns over the unpreparedness of preservice teachers to effectively work within an inclusive system of education. This local concern mirrored more national observations that the planning and facilitation of general education teachers' learning about special education policy, inclusive education, or accommodations for curriculum must undergo a significant transformation to result in meaningful classroom change (Ferguson, Ralph & Katul-Sampson, 2002; Friend & Cook, 1990; Welsh & Brownell, 2002). University-based teacher education faculty and inservice teachers from one PDS district have collaboratively developed a solution to this recurrent concern by developing and expanding inclusive and collaborative practices.

Nationally, an indisputable reality facing individuals preparing to enter public school classrooms concerns the growing number of fully included students with disabilities (Beckman, 2001). As recent literature describes, there is an increasing number of students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, Smith, & Leal, 2001). Yet, a recent survey conducted in two teacher education courses (typically taken one to two semesters prior to student teaching) revealed that 87% of participating preservice teachers believed they would not encounter students with disabilities within their general education classrooms. This startling finding was coupled by identified issues such as lack of specific training and access to information regarding how special educators are able to contribute to the goals of the general educator. In efforts to revolutionize the experiences of preservice teachers and expand the knowledge base, a field-based model built upon the conceptual framework of Zeichner (1992) and Pugach (1996) was utilized. Specifically, efforts were focused on collaboration opportunities within an existing PDS partnership.

The Partnership

During fall 1999, two urban high schools officially partnered with our university as Professional Development Schools. Each school enrolls between 1,300 and 1,500 students in grades 9 through 12. The high schools each have approximately 18% of the student population receiving special education services. Operating within the Holmes' model of Professional Development Schools, both high schools began PDS work by focusing on preservice education (Holmes Group, 1990). Specifically, initial efforts concentrated on collaborating to design curricula and field experiences to provide powerful opportunities for preservice teachers to effectively translate theory into practice (Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Wiseman & Cooner, 1996). In spring of 2002, we focused our attention on preservice teachers ability to work in the context of inclusive classrooms.

Reflecting on Data and First Response Instructional Interventions

Prior to a summer reflective and planning process, involving both school and university-based stakeholders, data were collected via survey instruments and student journals that demonstrated a significant need for more practical training in the area of special education. The results of initial surveys revealed that:

* 85% of participants had no knowledge of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;

* Over 50% felt prepared to collaboratively plan or facilitate instruction in the classroom; yet

* 65% did not feel prepared to meet unique needs of students.

Extrapolating from these data, two assertions could be made: 1) students were unable to generalize the use of strategies as one way to meet unique needs, and 2) they had little to no awareness of the systems that support students with disabilities. In working to develop an articulated and organized instructional intervention with the outcome of improved readiness of preservice teachers to work within and support an inclusive education environment, special education teachers and the PDS liaison reviewed curriculum, feedback provided by preservice teachers, and personal reflections. The outcome of this articulation was a set of goals that ultimately created a series of seven instructional interventions or lessons. These lessons would support preservice teaching experiences and increase knowledge of relevant special education terminology and laws, models of collaboration, case conferences, modifications and accommodations in lesson planning, and dispositions that positively affect the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

The Enacted Curriculum

In order to establish a context for understanding how lessons were facilitated, it is essential to point out that: (1) PDS-based special education teachers provided all instruction, and facilitated organization of guest speakers and classroom observations; (2) 6 of 7 lessons lasted approximately 90 minutes; (3) the teacher education faculty/liaison participated in all lessons; and, (4) preservice teachers provided feedback at the completion of each session. Details of activities and experiences provided to our preservice teachers within the lessons are described.

Lesson 1: What It Means to be a Student with Special Needs PDS-based special educators began the first lesson by asking preservice teachers to complete a KWL learning inventory (Ogle, 1986). Preservice teachers responded to two pre-instruction questions: (1) what do you know about students with disabilities?, and (2) what do you want to learn? Students returned these preliminary responses with the intention that they would be returned at the conclusion of the seven lessons in order to complete the inventory by answering the question "What did you learn?" Preservice teachers then participated in a series of 20-40 minute activities designed to simulate different challenges students with disabilities encounter.

Lesson 2: The Alphabet Soup of Special Education and Special Education Laws IDEA, IEP, ED, MiMo, ADHD, LD. The abbreviations used in special education can be overwhelming and confusing to someone not in the field. The purpose of the second lesson was to introduce general education preservice teachers to the "alphabet soup of special education" particularly those acronyms they would frequently encounter in classrooms. To this end, preservice teachers participated in a scavenger hunt to match definitions to abbreviations. As a follow up activity for lesson two, the school corporation's Director and Assistant Director of Special Education provided an overview of legislation regarding students with disabilities, with a focus on the expectations of general education teachers within inclusive contexts. The underlying intent of this lesson was to familiarize students with common terminologies used within the preK-12 school context, while simultaneously discussing issues related to labeling and classification (Adelman, 1996).

Lesson 3: Inclusion, Collaborative Models and Co-Teaching Approaches Lesson three focused on providing preservice teachers with an overview of the rationales for inclusion and introduced them to a variety of collaborative teaching approaches (Pugach & Johnson, 1995). One model highlighted by the special educators was the collaborative teaching classroom, where both a general and special educator is assigned to co-teach a specific course.

Lesson 4: Collaborative Teaching Observation To help dispel some of the many misconceptions of preservice teachers, special educators arranged opportunities for preservice teachers to observe in collaborative-teaching contexts, lasting 1 period or 90 minutes. Preservice teachers were instructed to be attentive to interactions between teachers and teachers' interactions with students. The focused observation assignment required preservice teachers to follow a prescribed structure in reporting and analyzing observations that attended to descriptions of context, interpretations, and implications. Observations were followed by a debriefing session with a panel of high school students with disabilities and various members of the special education faculty.

Lesson 5: Mock Case Conferences The next lesson focused on helping preservice teachers recognize the importance of their effective participation in the variety of case conferences. Once again, special education teachers arranged for students with disabilities and a number of their special education colleagues to participate. Following an explanatory overview, preservice teachers were divided into different stations where a special education teacher and a high school student with a disability were ready to participate. Assigned specific roles (i.e., parent, teacher, administrator, student advocate), preservice teachers engaged in role-playing one of four types of conferences introduced. One critical component to these mock case conferences was the voluntary involvement of students with disabilities and the real-time coaching from special educators.

Lesson 6: Modifications/Accommodations for Students with Special Needs The last in-class lesson worked to ensure that preservice teachers acquired those skills necessary to modify/accommodate for students with disabilities in the general education environment. To this end, two special educators presented three dimensions of modifying/accommodating: (1) instructional, (2) management, and (3) environmental. Preservice teachers, along with special educators, brainstormed effective modifications and accommodations. To determine the extent preservice teachers understood how to modify/accommodate classroom materials, they returned to a content lesson plan they had created several weeks prior to the beginning of the initiative. Their assignment was to revise this plan for use in an inclusive classroom. To facilitate this assignment, students were provided a hypothetical description of a diverse 30-person class.

Lesson 7: Culminating Assignment via Reflective Essays The culminating assignment, a series of formal reflective essays, required students to synthesize, analyze, and evaluate the initiative in the context of their developing teaching philosophies. Preservice teachers were asked to describe their role in facilitating an inclusive environment in their classrooms and in maintaining the confidentiality of students with disabilities with whom they might work, define a number of special education acronyms identifying the implications of each type of disability for them as classroom teachers, and explain their role in supporting an inclusive classroom. Perhaps the most compelling question, however, asked the preservice teachers to consider whether their thinking about students with disabilities had changed.

Responding and Reflecting

It is not within the scope of this paper to thoroughly discuss the extent to which preservice teachers' knowledge, skills, and dispositions were changed. A brief overview of major themes emerging from data underscores the success of this collaborative initiative overall the extent to which individual changes in thinking were recognized was significant. At the conclusion of the initiative, preservice teachers reported not only a greater awareness of special education issues relevant to their lives as general education teachers, but also claimed increased comfort with the idea of planning and implementing effective instruction for all students in their classrooms. Many of the preservice teachers reported feeling "overwhelmed" or "frightened" at the beginning of the initiative.

   When our class first began learning about special education it
   was a little overwhelming for me, and then when I heard that a
   teacher could have up to a third of the class with special needs
   students I was really concerned. I have learned that special
   education is not about more work for the teacher; it is about
   "different" work. I had to change my perspective of special
   education as a whole. (Allison, Reflective Essay, Sp 2003)

And, as Rachel shared,

   I never really thought about educating students with disabilities.
   The thought of teaching a special needs student really frightened
   me. I did not realize how I would adjust my class to help them,
   and I did not want to have to create multiple lesson plans.
   (Reflective Essay, Sp 2003)

Upon conclusion of the initiative all preservice teachers reported an increased sense of comfort in promoting the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education environment, as well as a greater confidence in independent abilities to address the needs of all students. As Eric summarized,

   The one word I can use to describe where I have most changed is
   comfort (italics in original). Prior to this experience, I was
   uneasy and nervous about the possibility of having to teach
   children with special needs. Now, I feel much more comfortable
   and competent to succeed. I have some knowledge, but I also have
   support that I did not realize existed. (Reflective Essay, Sp 2003)

Power of Collaboration

Clearly, the initiative would not have been as rich without the intensive collaboration between the teacher educator and special education teachers. Specifically, the involvement of special educators led to preservice teachers receiving relevant, timely instruction about roles and responsibilities in working to support students with disabilities grounded in real high school classrooms. Without this contextualized expertise in the content of special education and a natural access to resources, it is doubtful that preservice teachers' learning would have been as substantial. Special education teachers brought knowledge and experiences in working with students with disabilities to the design of the curriculum for the initiative. Because of extensive knowledge, they were able to identify realistic goals and craft activities that engaged preservice teachers in ways that resulted in meaningful learning. It was not intended to make general education preservice teachers into special educators. Rather, our goals were to decrease fears and disprove erroneous theories, raise awareness of ways to make a significant difference in the educational opportunities of all students, and provide useful tools and strategies for working in inclusive classrooms. It cannot be overemphasized how significant the participation of the school-based teachers was in pushing the preservice teachers' thinking about students with disabilities and their responsibilities in teaching all students.

Future Directions

By acknowledging limitations and reaching out to school-based colleagues, the teacher educator modeled an important truth for preservice teachers: as teachers, we cannot know everything about everything. Each of the interactions with special education teachers served as an impetus for reflection about the extent to which university courses in collaboration with PDS partnerships could be used to most effectively address crucial aspects of education. One of our preservice teachers captured the essence of our goals in the following way:

   As we moved through this unit in class, I would come home in
   the evenings and tell my husband all that I learned. At times
   I felt overwhelmed by the challenging responsibilities ahead
   of me and was amazed at the multi-layered role that I was
   expected to play; no longer is teaching English simply about
   reading, writing, listening, and speaking! Teaching now
   includes collaborating, complying, and conferencing. Today, I
   no longer feel overwhelmed, but instead am pleased to know that
   all the knowledge I have acquired ... has the potential of
   reaching even more students because I will be able to
   collaborate, comply, and conference! I want to be as successful
   as possible in teaching students how to appreciate, enjoy, and
   utilize language arts. Knowing and working with the special
   education teachers is an alliance I had not contemplated before
   but now definitely look forward to. (Rebecca, Reflective Essay,
   Sp. 2003)

We will continue this collaboration and refine the initiative while considering ways this preliminary work can extend into other areas of preservice teacher preparation. This model of collaboration, utilizing the knowledge and experience of both university and school-based professionals, was met with a focus on mutual respect and acknowledged difference in preparation and expertise. While the PDS partnership created a framework for shaping and developing this initiative, true collaboration was initially conceptualized from a shared observation. It is our hope that by modeling collaboration at the preservice level of teacher training, future teachers will not only know about collaboration, but also be able to personally reflect on the influence such collaboration can initiate within the school context.

As we continue to develop and more freely articulate goals the following suggestions to establish and facilitate collaboration to support change in teacher preparation and, more longitudinally, teacher practice are presented.

* Acknowledge priorities from multiple perspectives, including those of school-based and university-based stakeholders.

* Involve administration in efforts to establish communication and bridge support systems to sustain collaborative goals.

* Amalgamate opportunities for collaboration so partnerships are embedded in larger issues that affect all stakeholders (similar to our initiative) and go deeper into the natural school context.

* Utilize skills and strengths of all stakeholders in an effort to close any divergence in facilitation or projected outcomes.

* Draw upon pre-assessments to focus collaborative undertakings, utilizing readily accessible data from interviews, surveys, discussions, or observations.

References

Adbal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Adelman, H. (1996). Appreciating the classification dilemma. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 96-112). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Beckman, P. (2001). Access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. ERIC EC Digest #E615. Alexandria, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED #E615)

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1990). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. New York: Longman.

Ferguson, D., Ralph, G., and Katul-Sampson, N. (2002). From "Special" Educators to Educators: The Case for Mixed-Ability Groups of Teachers in Restructured Schools. In W. Sailor (Ed.) Whole-School Success and Inclusive Education: Building Partnerships for Learning, Achievement, and Accountability (pp. 142-162). New York, NY: Teacher's College Press

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.

Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1995). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools. Denver: Love.

Pugach, M. (1996). What happens when we look outward. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 224-225.

Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., Smith, S., & Leal, D. (2001). Exceptional lives: Special education in today's schools (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Welch, M. & Brownell, K. (2002). Are professionals ready for educational partnerships? The evaluation of a technology-enhanced course to prepare educators for collaborations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(2), 133-134.

Wiseman, D. L., & Cooner, D. (1996). Discovering the power of collaboration: The impact of a school-university partnership on teaching. Teacher Education and Practice, 12(1), 18-28.

Zeichner, K. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development school partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 296-307.

Cathy J. Siebert, Ball State University, OH Jody S. Britten, Ball State University, OH

Britten, Ph.D., and Seibert, Ph.D., are assistant professors with research interests centered on teacher education and collaborative work in Professional Development Schools.