Lessons on literacy: an experience in co-teaching.

Abstract

Many elementary classrooms are moving toward a co-teaching model. This paper, through a series of questions and responses, examines one elementary teacher's experiences in a co-taught classroom. Specifics about the organization and evolution of the co-teaching experience are shared. The interviewed teacher reflects upon how this experience shaped, and continues to shape, her thinking about literacy instruction. Recommendations to enhance literacy in co-taught classes are shared.

Introduction

Two teachers working together in one classroom is becoming a popular option in many school districts around the country (Welch, Brownell, and Sheridan (1999). This approach, often referred to as co-teaching, is defined as "two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students in a single physical space" (Cook & Friend, 1995, p. 2). Cook and Friend (1996) contend that coteaching increases students' instructional options, improves programs, reduces stigmas for special needs students, and provides for more professional collaboration. Recently, this teaching approach, which emphasizes shared responsibility, has been routinely utilized by a special education and a regular education teacher (Ripley, 1997); however, it can also be an effective model for two general education teachers. This paper examines one elementary teacher's experience in a co-taught classroom and explores how this experience shaped, and continues to shape, her thinking about literacy instruction. We share this experience through a series of questions and responses.

What was your first experience with co-teaching?

My first experience with co-teaching began quite by accident. My pre-service education had not really prepared me to handle a regular classroom but I always assumed that I would be the sole teacher, not sharing my classroom with another professional.

I had been hired to teach in a local school district. On the first day of teacher inservice, my principal explained that she had an influx of new students and that available classroom space did not match her needs. There would be 100 third grade students, four third grade teachers, but only two third grade classrooms. She explained how she planned to put two teachers and 50 students together in each of the two third grade classrooms. She said that we would be team teaching. My first response was, "What is team teaching?" Her answer was a simple, "You will just teach together". I was too naive to be scared.

I now know that team teaching first gained popularity in the late 1950's but did not become a widespread practice until the early 1970's (Friend & Reising (1993). Documented early experiences involved two general education teachers. These early ventures into team teaching provided the roots for our modern day conception of co-teaching (Friend & Reising, 1993) which has evolved to include meeting the needs of special education students in a general education classroom.

How did you prepare for this teaching approach?

My teaching partner was also a first year teacher. Not really knowing how to handle the situation with 50 students and two teachers, we decided to be flexible in our grouping and to try it all. There were times when we were together in the classroom with all of the students, both teaching. Sometimes one was teaching and the other monitoring; Vaughn, Schumm, and Arguelles (1997) call this grazing. There were other times when we divided the students and the classroom in half, each of us taking a corner or moving into the hallway. We were both surprised at the levels of abilities we found in the 50 students whom we shared and we began thinking about how to best meet their needs. Neither of us had received any training in working with students who functioned either above or below the "normal" range. We intuitively recognized that we would have to think about instruction in different ways if we were to provide for all of them. Our immediate solution to what seemed like an insurmountable problem was to pair up with the other two third grade teachers and ability group all of our 100 students for both reading/language arts and math.

We recognized that we needed to know something about our students' reading abilities before we grouped them so my teaching partner taught the 50 students while I sat in the hallway and informally tested each child. I was quickly finding out the value of informal assessment. The other two third grade teachers followed the same procedure with their 50 students. When we finished, we grouped the students into four fairly homogeneous groups.

How did you organize reading instruction?

I was very excited that I was working with the top ability group for the reading/language arts block. I enjoyed using quality trade books and planning higher level thinking activities. I was convinced that, since these students had mastered the basics, they were the only ones who were ready for creative, hands-on activities. Integrating reading and writing seemed to be a natural by-product of our evolving collaborative community. My students learned to summarize and predict and to talk about their thinking processes. They read real literature, discussed authentic and personal connections, extended literature with their writing, and designed creative products to demonstrate their learning.

While I was working with this top group, my teaching partner was working with the lowest of the four ability groups. Today, these students would probably be classified as special needs. Her students could not read the stories in the basal readers. Neither of us had been expecting non-readers in third grade! My partner spent much of her time using flash cards, drilling her students on basic sight words. She taught isolated phonics skills and used worksheets. The other two third grade teachers had the middle two ability groups. Their instruction fell somewhere in the mid-range of this continuum of services. Allington and Cunningham (2002) remind us of the importance of providing all students with time to engage in quality literacy practices. Slower students sometimes need increased amounts of time; co-teaching provides an extra teacher to provide that time. All students deserve authentic, meaningful activities Routman, 2000).

How did you integrate literacy instruction?

We tried to incorporate various literacy activities throughout the day. During science and social studies instruction we heterogeneously grouped our students. We sensed that many issues, both academic and social, would begin to surface if the low students were always together. Students who are consistently placed in the low group suffer from damaged self esteem and are often irreparably damaged (Routman, 2000). So, with these low students in mind, we purposely created groups that were balanced across intellectual abilities. We never even considered the effect that ability grouping might have on the average and above-average or gifted students.

We flexibly manipulated state-mandated time requirements and created opportunities to infuse literacy strategies and experiences into our integrated curriculum. Our students read, wrote, listened, and communicated orally as they explored science and social studies concepts. There were many authentic opportunities for small group instruction/practice in literacy related areas. As the so-called low readers became interested in a topic, their enthusiasm or their need-to-know propelled them to exceed our expectations. Allington and Cunningham (2002) stress the dangers of curriculum fragmentation, especially with struggling readers. We created opportunities for pieces of information to be meaningfully connected and for the content knowledge to seamlessly connect. Because there were two instructors, we found it easy to assess strengths/weaknesses and to provide for literacy needs as we observed these students working collaboratively. Quality trade books replaced textbooks.

To my surprise, these low students responded most appropriately to the activities aimed at tapping critical/creative thinking. Working in a co-teaching situation requires partners to re-examine their beliefs and assumptions about the teaching-learning process (Cross & Walker-Knight, 1997). I began to re-think my expectations for all students and to re-examine the place of authentic literacy in the curriculum.

How did you plan for literacy instruction?

By the end of the year, we had weekly planning meetings where we discussed our teaching strategies and considered the role we would each play in subsequent lessons. Sessions were lengthy but focused. Vance (2001) found that teachers involved in coteaching situations considered scheduled planning time critical to success. These collaborative conversations are vital if teachers are to effect their students' literacy in positive ways (Routman, 2000). It was from my partner teachers that I learned the true meaning of collaboration. Our discussions were deep, meaningful, and student-centered. We examined state and district reading/language arts guidelines and looked at lists of required skills and strategies not only for our grade level but also for the preceding and subsequent grades. We collaboratively considered how we could best cover these required areas in meaningful ways while at the same time allowing our students to have some input about what they were interested in learning. We perused quality children's literature and cataloged books that would be appropriate for various content/subject areas. Our main focus was on expanding all our students' critical and creative abilities, not just routinely teaching lists of prescribed skills. We wanted our students to make authentic connections among all school subjects and to see relationships between what we were doing in school and their real life activities.

We all shared in the assessment, planning, teaching, and management of our 100 students. We identified students with special needs, on both ends of the spectrum, and designed instructional activities to meet those needs. Dieker and Barnett (1996) contend that planning discussions should be expanded to include evaluation of the teaching process, including such issues as how to teach, evaluate, and adapt. We planned a situation where we shared responsibility for our students, took on different roles, and were able to capitalize on our own strengths and interests. Current research (Cross & Walker-Knight, 1997) indicates the importance of building a collaborative community where all stake holders feel accepted and supported and where all members' needs are met. Our collaborative planning was critical to our success.

What lessons did you learn about literacy practices?

I now know a lot more about effective literacy instruction, but, I can look back and see some quality instruction and the beginnings of what has evolved into my child-centered, constructivist philosophy. Frank Smith's Twelve Difficult Ways to Make Reading Easy and One Difficult Way to Make Reading Hard (1983) reinforces what I instinctively knew: my main goal should be to assess what each of my children need and then to determine how to give it to them. Other literacy lessons that I learned from this experience include: the role of phonics instruction (and how some kids can just figure it out on their own), the idea that writing and reading are reciprocal processes; the essential inclusion of quality children's literature, and the understanding that all students can create and think critically and creatively. I learned the true meaning of holistic, child-centered instruction and was able to view literacy strengths and needs not only through my own eyes, but also through the eyes of my three teaching partners. I had the opportunity to switch fluidly from the position of observer to teacher and to refine my philosophy about how students learn to read, write, and communicate. I began to recognize that literacy is part of all we know and do and that reading is more than memorizing lists of words or practicing endless skills. The reciprocal relationship between reading and writing became clear to me. I began to appreciate and value quality children's literature. I learned these lessons because I was involved in this collaborative experience and was thrust into a situation where I had to really examine teaching and learning and consider what was best for children. These experiences provided the building blocks that I continue to use in the construction of my ever evolving teaching and learning philosophy. The unique part of this venture was not that my teaching partners and I were meeting the literacy needs of our students, but that we were doing it collaboratively.

How does this compare to today's concept of co-teaching?

Brauwens, Hourcade, and Friend (1989) contend that in co-teaching classrooms two professionals collaboratively share responsibility for all aspects of the students' educational experience including developing and implementing learning objectives, planning content/curricular integration, classroom management, and assessment/evaluation of learning. Friend and Cook (2003) describe the following six approaches to co-teaching:

* One Teach, One Observe: Both teachers pre-determine the type of assessment data that is needed; one teacher observes and collects that data while the other teacher teaches.

* One Teach, One Drift: One teacher is mainly responsible for the instruction and the other provides individual assistance to students in need.

* Parallel Teaching: The class is divided and both teachers cover similar information.

* Station Teaching: Students are divided into groups; content is divided among teachers. Teachers move from one station to another, teaching the same information to a different group of students.

* Alternative Teaching: One teacher teaches the large group; another teacher works with small groups who need individual attention.

* Team Teaching: Teachers simultaneously teach the same material to one group of students. They take turns teaching, building on each other's content/comments. This is sometimes called tag teaching.

These approaches mirror the types of instructional patterns my teaching partners and I followed. The variety of configurations provided the flexibility we needed and allowed us to build on each others' strengths. Further, this experience forced us to recognize the differing abilities in our students and placed us in a situation where we had to determine what each of them needed. Because we could flexibly assume different roles, we were in a position to better assess and meet their needs.

What were some of the challenges you faced?

We struggled with what Gately and Gately (2001) identified as the eight components prevalent in a co-teaching relationship. These components are: interpersonal communication, physical arrangement, familiarity with the curriculum, curriculum goals and modifications, instructional planning, instructional presentation, classroom management, and assessment. Within each of these components, Gately and Gately describe stages that teachers might go through as they move from a rudimentary, beginning level partnership to true collaboration. They analyzed each of these components separately and described how a partnership might look and feel at each of the levels. In the beginning stages, teaching partners are really just two professionals sharing a physical space, each with their own competencies, background knowledge, philosophy, and teaching styles. Often times, there is a lack of total trust and communication is guarded. Teachers are still functioning individually and independently. As the process continues, partners move to a more collaborative stage where they begin fluid, natural, and unplanned movement through the invisible walls that had previously been set up in the classroom. They feel an authentic connection to all the students. Communication becomes more honest and open as teaching partners read and react appropriately to each other's verbal and nonverbal cues. Rules and expectations that benefit all students in the class are collaboratively developed and maintained. Teaching partners jointly consider all students as they share, modify, and differentiate curriculum concepts.

My co-teaching experience validates the findings of Gately & Gately's research. My teaching partners and I began as separate entities but were compelled to consider the problems that surfaced in the areas of communication, curriculum, management, assessment, and instruction. We straggled through the stages, not sure where we were going but eventually arriving at the collaborative stage in many of the identified areas. Adams, Cessna, and Friend (1992) compare this learning to work together process to partners in a dance learning to complement and support each other's movements.

To what do you attribute the success of your endeavor?

As our team delved deeper into this co-teaching experiment, we recognized the need to tear down physical walls in our school. Metaphorically, these walls represented our separate space. Our desire to become one large learning community necessitated breaking through both physical walls and psychological blocks. The beauty of this model was that the tearing down was an outgrowth of the process. Often, a new concept is forced, the walls are torn down ... and then teachers receive a mandate to adjust their teaching. I believe our success was somehow linked to this metaphor and to the authenticity of our problem-solving process. Walter-Thomas (1997) reminds us that teachers involved in successful co-teaching situations are willing to navigate through the basic implementation woes or "work through the muck" (p. 108).

Do you have any concluding thoughts?

Literacy instruction in our classroom was enhanced by this teaming model. Having more than one teacher increased the knowledge base from which decisions were made, provided different teaching styles, and increased the possibility of matching instruction to students' learning styles. Being able to group in a variety of ways provided more opportunities for individualized instruction aligned with specific needs. This flexible grouping also provided observation opportunities which in turn led to assessment options that would not be available in a one-teacher classroom. Although, we had no quantitative data to validate our success, recent research has shown positive benefits for both students and teachers involved in co-teaching situations. Walter-Thomas (1997) found that students involved in co-taught classrooms show gains in both social and academic areas and that they benefit from having the time and expertise of two teachers. Friend & Reising (1993) report that teachers report professional satisfaction and more opportunities for support and growth when they co-teach.

My philosophy about how students learn and about my role in teaching was shaped by the four years that I worked as a member of this collaborative team. I learned to redefine literacy as we jointly considered what was best for each of our students. The time that I spent with my colleagues was invaluable as we planned and implemented effective lessons and looked for the literacy connections. I have maintained the philosophy that this experience engendered. I work best in a collaborative situation; I value the opinions and feedback of my peers. Our team was able to meet the literacy needs of our students because we took the time to pool our expertise and our resources, to assess our students' needs, and to collaboratively plan meaningful experiences. Co-teachers are challenged to view literacy through a different lens. Our students had a unique literacy experience because of our collaborative community. As a university faculty member, I see the need to provide my pre-service teacher education students with the skills, strategies, and knowledge that will enable them to successfully work in collaborative situations. (Cook & Friend, 1995).

How can literacy be developed in co-taught classrooms?

I can offer the following suggestions to help elementary teachers in co-teaching classrooms:

* Solicit administrative support. The administration must provide a commitment of both material and human resources. (Austin, 2001). Encourage discussion of relevant literacy-related issues and best practices.

* Provide adequate, scheduled and unscheduled communication opportunities for all concerned parties. Authentic connections emerge when partners truly understand and engage in the process. Communication ensures that everyone is on the same page as far as literacy-related goals/objectives, classroom management, expectations, and responsibilities.

* Use the expertise of all teaching partners. Each brings a different level of knowledge, a variety of background experiences, a unique definition of literacy, and a multitude of ideas about how literacy can best be enhanced.

* Integrate content areas whenever possible. Infuse literacy throughout the program. Focus on how reading, writing, speaking, and listening are part of the entire curriculum.

References

Adams, L, Cessna, K. & Friend, M. (1992, October). Co-teaching: Honoring uniqueness and creating unity. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Council for Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, Mo.

Allington, R. & Cunningham, P. (2002). Schools that work: Where all children read and write (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Austin, V. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22 (4), 245-255.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10 (2), 17-22.

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

Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1996, September). Co-teaching: What's it all about? CEC Today.

Cross, L. & Walker-Knight, D. (1997). Inclusion: Developing collaborative and cooperative school communities. The Educational Forum, (61), 269-277.

Dieker, L. & Barnett, C. (1996). Effective co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 7, 5-7.

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

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), 6-10

Gately, S. & Gately, F. (2001). Understanding coteaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 40-47.

Ripley, S. (1997). Collaboration between general and special education teachers. (Report No. EDO-SP-56-5). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 409 317)

Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating. Portsmouth, NH: Boston.

Smith, F. (1983). Essays into literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. & Arguelles, M. (1997). The abcde's of co-teaching. The Council for Exceptional Children, 9, 4-10.

Walter-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 395-407.

Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S.M. (1999). What's the score and game plan on teaming in school: A review of the literature on team teaching and school-based problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 36-49.

Palka, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor of Literacy, Tichenor, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Elementary Education