MAKING COLLABORATIVE TEACHING MORE EFFECTIVE FOR ACADEMICALLY ABLE STUDENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND TRAINING.

Abstract. Collaborative teaching is being used more and more in serving academically able students with disabilities, including a large number of students with learning disabilities. The focus of this article is a series of recommendations to improve collaborative teaching. The recommendations were generated as a result of an intensive study of collaborative teaching in elementary, middle, and high school programs through interviews with administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The recommendations are divided into (a) general recommendations addressing service delivery, administrative, and communication issues and (b) training recommendations for new and indirectly involved personnel, parents, and university pre- and inservice programs.

Since the inception of P.L. 94-142 in 1975, models of service delivery in special education have been implemented that enable students with disabilities to be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). One common placement intended to comply with the LRE requirement is the general education classroom where students with disabilities are mainstreamed with their typical peers. Successful mainstreaming is predicated on teacher and student support that may take many different forms, such as teacher consultation, diagnostic-prescriptive services, or resource room help.

Recently, the model of collaborative teaching or coteaching has been used to serve students with disabilities who have been placed in general education classrooms, primarily because they were judged to be academically able. These students are cognitively within normal ranges and are thought to be able to compete at approximately their age and grade level. The great majority of these students are students with learning disabilities. This is not surprising since learning disabilities is the number one high-incidence disability.

Collaborative teaching is a "keep-in" rather than "pullout" model of service delivery, and is a rather radical departure from the past. In collaborative teaching, special educators come to general education classrooms to co-teach with general educators, and the expertise of teachers is viewed as complementary. The general educator shares expertise in all aspects of curriculum, effective teaching, and large-group instruction, whereas the special educator contributes knowledge in such areas as learning styles and strategies, clinical teaching, and behavior management (Parrott, Driver, & Eaves, 1992). Over time, the expertise of the teachers becomes coincidental. A popular definition of collaborative teaching explains the process:

   Cooperative teaching (or co-teaching) refers to an educational approach in
   which general and special educators work in a coactive and coordinated
   fashion to jointly teach academically and behaviorally heterogeneous groups
   of students in educationally integrated settings (i.e., general classrooms)
   ... Specifically, in cooperative teaching both general and special
   educators are simultaneously present in the classroom, maintaining joint
   responsibility for specified instruction that is to occur within that
   setting. (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989, p. 18)

Despite the growing popularity of collaborative teaching, little systematic research has been conducted to gauge its effectiveness (Boudah, Schumacher, & Deshler, 1997). The literature is replete with information on how to implement a collaborative teaching system (e.g., Bauwens et al., 1989; Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995; Friend, Reising, & Cook, 1993), forging collaborative relationships, communicating effectively (e.g., Friend & Cook, 1996; Hudson & Glomb, 1997; Voltz, Elliott, & Cobb, 1994), and adapting collaborative teaching according to varying instructional needs (e.g., Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck, 1993; King-Sears, 1997). The data show academic viability, with most students with LD making academic gains (Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Elbaum, 1998), augmented self-esteem, reduced social stigma among collaborative students and general parental satisfaction with the collaborative teaching model (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988; Lowenbraun, Madge, & Affleck, 1990; Madge, Affleck, & Lowenbraun, 1990). Further, Walther-Thomas (1997) reported benefits such as teacher satisfaction, professional and personal growth, and improved academic performance and peer relationships. Gerber and Popp (1999, in press) found that administrators, teachers, parents, and students were enthusiastic about the collaborative teaching model and perceived successful academic outcomes and positive effects on self-esteem and behavior management.

Whereas collaborative teaching is viewed as a workable model for teaching students with disabilities who are academically able, there has been little investigation into what can be done to improve the system and practices as they currently exist. Walther-Thomas (1997) identified a number of challenges and barriers that impact the success of collaborative teaching in schools, including planning time, scheduling, caseloads, administrative support, and staff development.

The purpose of this article is to proffer a set of recommendations to improve collaborative teaching based on an in-depth investigation of that service delivery model. Additional components of the study, which are reported elsewhere (Gerber & Popp, 1999, in press), address the experiences, perceptions, and insights of school personnel, parents, and students.

METHOD

Participants

The sample of participants was taken from the seven school districts that comprise the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC). Five school districts participated in the study, providing an urban, suburban, and rural mix of schools.

Four elementary, four middle, and two senior high schools were studied. All had implemented collaborative teaching programs for at least two years. Four subgroups of informants were taken from the 10 schools (a) administrators, including principals, assistant principals, and special education coordinators; (b) special and general education teachers who worked in collaborative classrooms; (c) parents of students with and without disabilities; and (d) students with and without disabilities.

School Profiles

The average number of years' experience that schools had had with collaborative teaching was 3.89. Elementary schools had collaborative classes in grades two through five; middle schools in grades six through eight in math, science, social studies and English; and high schools in grades nine through twelve in math, science, social studies, and English.

The teachers in the participating schools had a wide range of training experiences in collaborative teaching. The most common form of training was attending professional conferences and workshops, some of which were sponsored by the teachers' school division. In some schools, teachers had obtained theoretical and practical knowledge through their university training program or had read articles on collaborative teaching and observed in collaborative classes. However, not all teachers were trained in collaboration prior to being assigned to a collaborative situation.

The schools in the study included a diversity of students with disabilities. The great majority were identified as having learning disabilities via the eligibility requirements of the Commonwealth of Virginia (greater than 85%). Some students had diagnoses of mental retardation and emotional disturbance. A few students had orthopedic disabilities, traumatic brain injuries, speech impairments, health impairments and developmental disabilities.

Procedures

The research team was comprised of a university-based researcher and representatives from the participating school divisions. These representatives were knowledgeable about collaborative teaching in theory and practice. They were themselves collaborative teachers, both special and general educators, as well as principals and special education coordinators. This research team designed and piloted the instrument for the study. All items on the instrument were consistent with the available literature on collaborative teaching.

Interviews. One-on-one interviews were conducted with administrators. All other data were collected via separate focus group interviews with the remaining subgroups of participants. Typically, each study site yielded six separate interview sessions. The number of participants from each school is shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Participants in Interviews per School

Schools         Administrators   Teachers     Students
                                            (General Ed.)

Elementary #1         2              8            5
Elementary #2         1              5            5
Elementary #3         1             12           10
Elementary #4         1              8            0
Middle #1             2             10            6
Middle #2             1             18            4
Middle #3             1             14           10
Middle #4             1              8            0
High #1               2             12            8
High #2               2              8            5
Total                 14           103           53

Schools           Students         Parents         Parents
                (Special Ed.)   (General Ed.)   (Special Ed.)

Elementary #1         8               8               8
Elementary #2         5               0               4
Elementary #3        17               6               4
Elementary #4         0               0               0
Middle #1             6               2               5
Middle #2             4               5               3
Middle #3            10               6               6
Middle #4             0               0               0
High #1              10               3               5
High #2              10               2               2
Total                70              32              37

All interviews were audiotaped with the consent of the participants. All tapes were later transcribed verbatim for data analysis. The average lengths of interviews were: 45 minutes for administrators, 90 minutes for collaborative teachers, 30 minutes for parents, and 25 minutes for students.

Interviews were conducted in the spring of the school year to allow for the collaborative teaching program at each school to have taken shape. The interviews of parents, teachers, and administrators were conducted by the lead researcher of the project whereas the student interviews were done by a graduate student skilled in group interviewing. (Appendix A shows the protocols used during the interviewing.)

Data Analysis

The data set was analyzed separately in three phrases (Krueger, 1994; Miles & Huberman, 1984, 1994; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Phase one consisted of data reduction. Phase two focused on data reduction and verifying conclusions. Finally, in phase three conclusions were linked to the emergence of patterns, and these themes were then linked to collaborative teaching.

The data were confirmed by auditing audiotapes, transcripts and field notes. In addition, a research assistant checked the study themes and conclusions for accuracy. A further step was taken in the treatment of the data. That is, a force-field group technique was employed by the research team to generate recommendations in two areas: general recommendations and training recommendations.

RESULTS

After recommendations were divided into two groups, general and training, they were put into clusters to emphasize their relationship with each other. Each set was thought to be necessary for a collaborative teaching system to be effective and efficient. General recommendations focused on what could be done to improve the collaborative teaching delivery system directly. Training recommendations, on the other hand, concentrated on how preservice and inservice teachers could be prepared to work with colleagues and students within the flamework of collaborative teaching. Since all recommendations were deemed equally important, they were not put in priority order.

There were three clusters of general recommendations-delivery of services, administrative issues, and communication. Training recommendations were divided into four rather narrow clusters-new personnel, indirectly involved personnel, parent training, and the university role.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Delivery of Services

This cluster contains four recommendations: (a) defining collaboration, (b) setting limits, (c) maintaining multiple service delivery options, and (d) ensuring program continuation.

Defining collaboration. Collaborative teams should spend a minimum amount of time and effort collaborating in the classroom to qualify as truly collaborative programs. Criteria can be identified in terms of hours, percentages, or IEP goals met. Absolute standards are difficult to establish. Therefore, at a minimum, criteria for "true collaboration" should be set by schools and/or collaborative teams on an a priori basis and be judged according to that standard.

Establishing limits. Schools should be mindful that there are limits to the effectiveness of the collaborative model when resources are overtaxed. Therefore, there should be a limit on the number of students with disabilities in collaborative classes. Limits, however, should not necessarily be set by percentage, ratio or disability category. Rather, the criteria of "academically able" and the severity of disability and support required should be the chief considerations, irrespective of disability. Numbers of students with disabilities and the level of student needs also should be commensurate with individual classroom resources, including staffing. Furthermore, collaborative classrooms should not be treated as "dumping grounds" for students with special needs not eligible for special education.

Maintaining multiple service delivery options. Collaborative classes should be only one option available to students with disabilities. A continuum of services should exist, including self-contained classes, resource rooms, and other mainstreaming environments. In special cases, special education students might be part of a collaborative classroom (primarily), but also attend a resource room for more intensive work. This would allow for students with more severe disabilities to be educated in more restrictive educational settings, when needed.

Ensuring program continuation. Students and their parents should be assured that the collaborative teaching program will be continued at the student's next grade level and at the next educational level. Thus, elementary, middle, and high schools should plan cooperatively for a well-articulated collaborative program through the grades. Furthermore, teachers should agree on at least the minimum curricula to be offered at each grade level (i.e., English, mathematics, language arts) throughout the educational continuum, including what curricula should be available through a collaborative model. Individual schools should then decide whether they want to offer collaborative classes beyond those subjects.

Administrative Issues

The administrative issues cluster also contains four recommendations: (a) strategic scheduling, (b) planning time, (c) voluntary participation, and (d) program evaluation.

Strategic scheduling. Scheduling is crucial to the success of the collaborative teaching model. Putting the student first should drive the decision-making process during schedule development to protect the integrity of the program. Scheduling should be done after a thorough identification of individual student profiles and needs. To increase the likelihood of acceptance by general educators, special educators and other support staff should be scheduled to be in collaboratively taught classrooms on a regular basis. Only then can issues such as student mix, reasonable numbers, and number of collaborative teams (to name a few) be planned adequately. By scheduling to address these considerations first, the administrative school team is acknowledging support for the model.

Planning time. Effective collaborative teaching is predicated on planning time for teacher teams. Planning times should be a priority for all schools-elementary, middle and high school levels. It is important that administrators consider freeing collaborative teachers of various schoolwide duties (i.e., bus, lunchroom) in order to ensure sufficient planning time. In addition to regular planning, time should be allocated for preplanning and team-building sessions and sessions for problem solving and long-range goal setting.

Voluntary participation. It is important that teachers collaborate on a voluntary basis to counter resistance that often occurs when a change such as collaborative teaching is introduced. When teachers are forced into collaborative roles, it undermines the collaborative program in general and the collaborative relationships of the teachers in particular. In addition to voluntary participation by current school staff, willingness to co-teach can be included in the criteria for recruiting new teachers. Furthermore, it is important that consideration be given to matching teachers in terms of compatibility, including teaching philosophy and teacher style, to facilitate the formation of viable co-teaching teams.

Program evaluation. Administrators and teachers on an annual basis should evaluate collaborative teaching programs formally and systematically. In addition, views about the program should be solicited from parents of students with and without disabilities, and students themselves. Successes should be celebrated and shared with the school community, challenges should be openly discussed and efforts should be made to address concerns that arise.

Communication

This cluster contains two recommendations: (a) informing parents and (b) reporting success to multiple audiences.

Informing parents. To parents whose children are in collaborative classes, the program should be thoroughly explained prior to or at the beginning of the school year. Special education parents should have opportunities to learn more about the program than information provided at IEP conferences. General education parents need information about all aspects of the program as well. Printed material should be available that explains the goals and objectives of the program and other pertinent information about the collaborative teaching system. (Also, see training recommendations.)

Reporting on success. The success of collaborative teaching programs should be reported formally to the general faculty, parents, and the public. In this way the entire school community becomes knowledgeable about this schoolwide program, which engenders interest, support, and concern for the program. Such reporting can counter resistance to change and has the potential to impact the entire school and the nurturing of a collaborative culture.

TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS

New Personnel

Recommendations in this cluster address the needs of teachers entering collaborative relationships for the first time and administrators who have not worked with the collaborative model.

First-time collaborative teachers. Because collaborative teaching is a role that requires a variety of complex instructional and interpersonal skills, it is important that first-time collaborators be trained prior to entering a collaborative classroom. A set of prerequisite skills should be attained through training, and teachers should not become collaborative teachers before these skills are acquired. This can occur through university-based programs or district- and school-based professional development opportunities. Furthermore, mentorships, school-based staff as consultants, problem-solving sessions, and sessions for teacher dialogue to share best practices can be vehicles to support new and ongoing collaborative efforts.

New administrators. Because the success of a collaborative teaching program is predicated in a large part on the support of building administrators, new administrators should receive training to ensure they understand the many facets of the program. Access to the training teachers receive and similar opportunities to dialogue with other administrators can be used to build a knowledge base and to develop a repertoire of skills and supports for the collaborative teaching program.

Indirectly Involved Personnel

Two subgroups were identified in this cluster for training recommendations: (a) general education teachers who are not co-teaching and Co) guidance counselors.

General educators. Schools where collaborative teaching programs occur should hold an annual training session for all faculty to discuss the progress of the collaborative teaching program and to foster support for it. Also, the training should have as a goal the recruitment of faculty as future collaborative teachers.

Guidance counselors. Guidance counselors should be thoroughly trained about the goals and specific objectives of the collaborative teaching program. Such training is helpful to them when they formulate or assist in the formulation of the master schedule. In addition, guidance counselors should be made aware of the growth of collaborative classes (in student numbers) as the year progresses and the impact of that growth on the collaborative class.

Parent Training

Parents. Parents of both general and special education students need to be familiar with the collaborative teaching program and its impact on their child. In this way there is more potential participation and monitoring of their child's educational progress. It is advisable to offer a series of training workshops about the collaborative program throughout the school year. In no way should written material developed for informational purposes be substituted as training.

University Role

Universities. In their role as trainers of pre- and inservice teachers, universities should incorporate skills for effective collaborative teaching in their training programs. Team building, communication, problem-solving, and conflict-resolution skills should be added to traditional instructional strategies. Learning strategies and accommodations and modifications of general education curriculum also should be addressed. Further, all preservice teachers should learn about the parameters and constraints in collaborative teaching. This may be done via new course development or may be interspersed in existing general education and special education coursework.

DISCUSSION

Collaborative teaching is one approach to reforming service delivery to students with mild to moderate special needs and complying with the LRE requirement. The recommendations identified by the administrators, teachers, parents, and students who experienced the model in this study are consistent with the literature on change, proponents of collaborative teaching and other inclusive practices, and ongoing research.

The success of any reform is dependent on its perceived effectiveness (Cuban, 1988; Rossman, Corbett, & Firestone, 1988), and it is the culture that defines effectiveness (Bliss, Firestone, & Richards, 1991; Rossman et al., 1988). Thus, any significant change in the way we do business as educators requires the buy-in of administrators and teachers and the flexibility to adapt to local needs (Cuban, 1988). A number of the study participants' recommendations speak to this. Listed as being important to successful implementation was establishing a vision for the collaborative program, which includes defining collaboration consistent with the context of the school, setting realistic expectations and limits, and placing the collaborative model as one of several service delivery options. Idol (1997) suggested this is one of the first questions that should be asked (considering parents, school-, and district-level players) when building collaborative and inclusive schools. King-Sears (1997) included shared vision, attention to the change process, and ongoing support as critical components for the foundation in building inclusive classrooms. Time is needed to develop and articulate this definition and allow it to evolve based on the continuous evaluation and dialogue also included in the recommendations.

Acknowledgment of the role of the administrator, especially the principal, in establishing a collaborative climate also is consistent with previous research in both the special education (Tindall, 1996; Walther-Thomas, 1997) and the general education (Kirby & Blase, 1991) literature. Thus, the principal can set the tone for acceptance of collaborative teaching as one component of collaborative school improvement. Allocations of resources including appropriate staff, scheduling considerations, and guarded planning time send the message that the collaborative teaching program is supported by the administration. Support is emphasized further through communicating the successes of the program to internal and external audiences and evaluating the program to promote ongoing improvement.

The need for training opportunities and adequate time for planning has been identified as a challenge or barrier to effective collaborative teaching and other inclusive practices (Gelzheiser, Meyers, Slesinski, Douglas, & Lewis, 1997; King-Sears, 1997; Redditt, 1991; Walther-Thomas, 1997; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996; Wolery, Wefts, Lisowski, Caldwell, & Snyder, 1995). Study participants voiced concern that adequacy of resources and level of student need be considered when making service delivery decisions and that a continuum of options be available to meet the diversity of need that may exist. Such considerations are consistent with the call for "responsible inclusion" (Malloy & Lillie, 1997; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). The study participants echoed Vaughn and Schumm (1995), who defined responsible inclusion as including the following elements: consideration of the student first, voluntary teacher participation, provision of adequate resources, school-based models to meet local needs, maintenance of a continuum of service options, continual evaluation and revision, and provision of ongoing professional development opportunities.

An area for further investigation is whether the existence of collaborative teaching impacts the whole school culture, nurturing peer support in professional development and creating schools as communities of adult as well as child learners (Johnson & Pugach, 1996). The call for such learning organizations transcends collaborative teaching and special education, and is found in the general education literature (Fullan, 1993; Senge, 1994). The potential of collaborative teaching to support this broader initiative could strengthen the viability of this service delivery model in meeting the needs of students with disabilities while supporting growth for students and adults throughout the school. Questions of "feasibility, sustainability, and effectiveness for all learners" (Vaughn & Schumm, 1996, p. 107) are significant components of interventions that must be addressed in order for schools to adopt changes in their practice.

There is no formula to effect successful change, but there is "lore-'knowledge and wisdom gained through experience' in abundance that can sensibly inform these efforts" (Peshkin, 1988, vii). This study sought to capture just such "lore." The wisdom and knowledge of administrators, teachers, parents, and students gained through experiences was tapped to identify recommendations to inform efforts to improve the collaborative teaching model. Collaborative teaching is among the latest attempts to integrate students with disabilities into general education classrooms. This service delivery model affects many students with LD because they are academically able and therefore good candidates for inclusion. However, there is concern in the learning disabilities community about the efficacy of this model (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995). Researchers have questioned whether intensity of instruction provided to students with LD in the general education classroom is sufficient and whether the general education classroom can effectively incorporate special education strategies. Yet a "keep-in" rather than "pull-out" model that is accompanied by direct services in the general education classroom has never really been tried. Collaborative teaching is just such a model.

At this point it is fruitful to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the model in an empirical sense and make adjustments accordingly. In that way the system will improve and, hopefully, so too will the outcomes of students with disabilities in general education classrooms--most notably those with learning disabilities.

REFERENCES

Affleck, J. Q., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenbraun, S. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54, 339-348.

Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 163-180.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 2, 19-24.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1995). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding the schoolhouse for all students. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Bliss, J. R., Firestone, W. A., & Richards, C. E. (Eds.). (1991). Rethinking effective schools: Research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Boudah, D. J., Schumacher, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 293-316.

Cuban, L. (1988). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 341-344.

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., & Dyck, N. (1993). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1996). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Friend, M., Reising, M., & Cook, L. (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.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Sometimes separate is better. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 22-26.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Gelzheiser, L. M., Meyers, J., Slesinski, C., Douglas, C., & Lewis, L. (1997). Patterns in general education teachers' integration practices. Exceptionality, 7(4), 207-228.

Gerber, P., & Popp, P. A. (in press). The collaborative teaching model and academically-able special education students: Perspectives from teachers and administrators. Thalamus.

Gerber, P. J., & Popp, P. A. (1999). The collaborative teaching model and the views of students with and without learning disabilities and their parents: Perspectives from the consumers. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 288-296.

Hudson, P., & Glomb, N. (1997). If it takes two to tango, then why not teach both partners to dance? Collaboration instruction for all educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 442-448.

Idol, L. (1997). Key questions related to building collaborative and inclusive schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 384-394.

Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1996). The emerging third wave of collaboration: Beyond problem solving. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (pp. 197-204). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

King-Sears, M. E. (1997). Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(3), 1-22.

Kirby, P. C., & Blase, J. J. (1991). Teachers' perceptions of principals affect collaborative efforts. NASSP Bulletin, 75(538), 111-115.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Schumm, J. S., & Elbaum, B. (1998). Outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 153-161.

Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lowenbraun, S., Madge, D., & Affleck, J. Q. (1990). Parental satisfaction with integrated class replacement of special education and general education students. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 37-40.

Madge, S., Affleck, J. Q., & Lowenbraun, S. (1990). Social effects of integrated classroom and resource room/regular class placement on elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 439-445.

Malloy, W., & Lillie, D. (1997). Responsible inclusion. Case in Point, 10(2), 9-13.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Parrott, P., Driver, B., & Eaves, D. (1992). Collaborative teaching must be a collaborative venture. Chesterfield, VA: Chesterfield Public Schools.

Peshkin, A. (1988). Foreword. In G. B. Rossman, H. D. Corbett, & W. A. Firestone (Eds.), Change and effectiveness in schools: A cultural perspective (pp. vii-ix). Albany: SUNY Press.

Redditt, S. (1991). Two teachers working as one: Co-teaching for special/regular education integration. Equity and Choice, 8, 49-56.

Rossman, G. B., Corbett, H. D., & Firestone, W. A. (Eds.). (1988). Change and effectiveness in schools: A cultural perspective. Albany: SUNY Press.

Senge, P. M. (Ed.). (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Currency, Doubleday.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tindall, E. R. (1996). The principal's role in fostering teacher collaboration for students with special needs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 264-270, 290.

Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). Classroom ecologies: Classroom interactions and implications for inclusion of students with learning disabilities. In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 107-124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Voltz, D. L., Elliott, R. N., Jr., & Cobb, H. B. (1994). Collaborative teacher roles: Special and general educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 527-535.

Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: Benefits and problems teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 395-407.

Walther-Thomas, C. S., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255-Cover 3.

Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Lisowski, L., Caldwell, N. K., & Snyder, E. D. (1995). Experienced teachers' perceptions of resources and supports for inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 15-26.

NOTES

This study was funded by the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC), which is headquartered at Virginia Commonwealth University. Thanks are extended for the cooperation of the executive director and the seven school divisions that are members of MERC.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Paul Gerber, Div. of Educational Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284.

APPENDIX A

Administrator Questions 1. How long has the collaborative teaching program existed in this school?

2. What grades, subjects, and course levels are involved with the collaborative teaching program?

3. What categories of students with disabilities are served in your school?

4. What percentage of students with disabilities are served in the collaborative teaching program?

5. What is the average ratio of special education students to regular education students in the collaborative classroom?

6. What percentage of regular education teachers are involved in the collaborative teaching program?

7. What percentage of special education teachers are involved in the collaborative teaching program?

8. Was there any training prior to the implementation of this model? Please explain.

9. How have teaching strategies of collaborative teacher teams changed as a result of this model?

10. What characteristics do good collaborative teachers possess?

   Probes: -parity
           -different content and process

11. Do state standards for staffing special education facilitate the use of the collaborative model? Or hamper?

12. What type of staff development was completed prior to, and is ongoing, using this model?

13. What are the parents' perceptions of the effectiveness of the model? Has it changed over time? How?

Teacher Questions

1. Student Impact

How effective is the collaborative teaching model for special education students? For regular education students?

   Potential Probes:   -student learning
                       -behavior
                       -motivation
                       -attitude
                       -attendance

2. Teacher Impact

From the regular education perspective, what are the advantages and disadvantages of collaborative teaching? From the special education perspective, what are the advantages and disadvantages of collaborative teaching?

3. Necessary Elements

What are the necessary elements of a successful collaborative classroom?

   Probes:

   3.1 Are there particular teacher characteristics that facilitate the use of
   the collaborative model? Is there a certain level of parity of teaching
   skills required to mold a successful team? Does it help if teachers have
   different process and content skills?

   3.2 What support do you need from administrators?

   3.3 What type of staff development is helpful for an effective
   collaborative teaching program?

4. Perception of Parent Feelings

How receptive have parents been to this model (special vs. regular education)?

   Probes:

   4.1 What are the concerns of regular education parents with regard to the
   collaborative model? The special education parents? Are these concerns
   warranted?

   4.2 Has parental opinion changed during the use of this model?

5. Issues

Are there any other issues, comments, or concerns you wish to bring up regarding collaborative teaching?

Student Questions

1. Do you like having two teachers in your classroom?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having two teachers in your classroom?

3. Thinking of your collaborative class (not the class with one teacher):

Are your grades better? Y/N  Why?

Do you get enough attention? Y/N Why?

Do the students in your class behave better? Y/N Why?

Do you feel more sure of yourself? Y/N Why?

Is it easier for you to remember things? Y/N Why?

Do you feel more organized? Y/N Why?

Do you enjoy coming to class? Y/N Why?

Do you find it easier to work on your own? Y/N Why?

Are you learning new ways to help you Y/N Why? do your work?

4. Would you like to be in a class like this one next year?

Parent Questions

1. What is your understanding of the collaborative teaching classroom?

2. What impact has the collaborative teaching model had on your child?

   Probes:   -learning       -skills
             -attention      -motivation
             -behavior       -retention
             -grades         -confidence
             -organization

3. Compare your child's experience in a collaborative setting to a noncollaborative setting?

Probe (wait): - Discuss advantages and disadvantages

4. Any additional issues, comments, or concerns regarding the collaborative program not already mentioned?

PAUL J. GERBER, Ph.D., is professor of education, Virginia Commonwealth University. PATRICIA A. POPP, M. Ed., is a doctoral candidate, The College of William and Mary.