Preparing all teachers for collaboration.

Abstract

This paper describes a study around a parallel classroom experience in separate, discipline courses. It was designed to bridge the separate discipline/separate program gap in teaching for inclusive practices in education.

Introduction

In an increasingly complex world constantly informed by growing knowledge bases, professionals find themselves collaborating with experts outside of their specific disciplines to seek solutions. This is as true in education as it is in the business world (Welch, 1998). Recent federal legislation such as P.L. 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, which mandates inclusion of children with special needs in the regular classroom has forced space-sharing and much closer partnerships between regular and special education teachers. Teacher preparation institutions must respond to the federal mandate for inclusion by changing how they prepare teachers for these partnerships (Gable & McLaughlin, 1993; Welch, 1996), and have been doing so by revamping teacher certification programs across the nation. A survey of practicing general education teachers in Indiana revealed that only 20% felt prepared to teach students with disabilities (Collings, 1999). These figures appear to be a realistic assessment of the sense of preparedness of many general education teachers. A survey of 35 Illinois general education teacher preparation programs revealed that the instruction about teaching students with disabilities was both limited and inadequate (Reed & Monda-Amaya, 1995).

Expanding dual certification programs has been seen as one solution (Kerns, 1996; Campbell & Fyfe, 1995; Heston, Raschke, Kliewer, Fitzgerald & Edmiaston, 1998; Keefe, Rossi, de Valenzuela & Howarth, 2000). Another solution has been an interdisciplinary teaming approach within single major programs (Miller & Stayton, 1998). A third solution has been to more fully utilize partnerships with local schools to give students a better understanding of inclusive practices (Carey, 1997; Evans, 1996; Long & Morrow, 1996).

A potential consequence of genuine efforts to prepare preservice teachers for inclusive classrooms is a reconceptualization of the practice of teacher education. Such efforts, though, can be met with resistance to change on behalf of faculty members and the problems of limited resources and time, crowded state certification standards, competing interests and lack of familiarity with inclusion among faculty in traditional general education teacher preparation (Campbell & Fyfe, 1995).

In Schools of Education where regular and special education departments have existed historically as separate entities and have had separate and distinct course sequences that kept the two bodies of students separate, making room for inclusion material can be daunting. A first response might be to add one course on inclusion taught by the experts on disabilities in special education. A better response would be team-teaching a specific course on inclusion with both special and general education represented on both sides of the desk. An example of this type of co-taught course was reported by Jensen and Kiley Shepston in 1997, where authors found that cross-disciplinary students enrolled in methods and strategy courses reported their course experiences to be beneficial and to portray "real-life" experiences. However, there are several factors that might prohibit this from happening at an institution. Such a solution might require massive approvals from department, school, and university levels. Also, the students' individual fields of study may be crowded with specific programmatic requirements leaving no time in their schedules for an additional course. When university collective bargaining agreements exist that discourage team teaching by salary barriers, the problem becomes even more difficult.

Statement of the Problem

With the ultimate goal of preparing special education and general education teachers to collaborate in the classroom to meet the needs of all the children present, the two populations should be given the opportunity to collaborate in a preservice setting. This paper describes one project designed to bridge the separate discipline/separate program gap in teaching for inclusive practice. It can be seen as a first step in a path towards a team-taught course. Two faculties participated in the pilot project, one from the Department of Early Childhood and Special Education and the other from the Department of Elementary Education.

Project Description

The plan was to develop a real life problem-based learning assignment that would be simultaneously addressed by students in two core courses from the two different programs. To give the students an opportunity to examine the problem from the perspective of the other discipline, a pen pal exchange of solutions to the posed problem was coordinated.

Thirty students from a methods course in Special Education and 34 students from a methods course in Elementary Education were presented with an in-class, problem-based learning assignment. Both classes separately viewed a video depicting a third grade classroom experiencing the inclusion of a Downs Syndrome child who had previously been in a separate special education classroom. After viewing the video, all students were assigned into groups by the professors in their respective classes. Students were asked to respond with group members to seven study questions. Questions consisted of:

1) Identify the problems you see the child exhibiting in this case study.

2) What strategies did the teacher(s) use to handle those problems?

3) What would your goals be for the child? Instructional? Behavioral?

4) As a teacher, what would you do to meet those goals?

5) What would you expect our co-teacher in an inclusion classroom to do?

6) How much time do you think you would need for co-plannng? When would this planning occur?

7) Summarize what your role would be like in an Individualized Education Plan/Multi-Disciplinary Team meeting for the student.

The two classes exchanged their responses to the questions and compared their answers. Students were then given time to process this information in class with their instructor and to formulate questions that they would ask of their pen pals in the other class.

Results

When the groups compared their answers they found both similarities and differences in their responses. In all cases, though, the lists of differences were longer than the lists of similarities. Some differences revolved around vocabulary. Other differences represented alternate ways of both naming and solving the presenting problem. The Special Education students focused more on specific behavioral goals for the identified child while the Elementary Education students described more specific curriculum goals. The area of most confusion in the groups' responses was in the various roles that the special education teacher and the regular education teacher would play in their shared classroom. While the literature on inclusion describes a collaboration of peers when describing the relationship of the two teachers working together in the inclusive classroom, this was totally absent from the students' responses. Both sides complained that the role described for them was that of an "aide" for the identified child. While both groups of students agreed that the teachers would need planning time, even within groups the differences varied from an hour per week to an hour per day. The most popular suggestion as a planning period was "over lunch" with 15 minutes before or after school as the runner-up. Only one of the elementary education groups suggested having a scheduled planning period which would indicate an acknowledgement that administration might be supportive of the inclusion process by providing such a planning period for the co-teachers.

Conclusions and Implications

The project had immediate positive results as an opportunity for developing critical thinking skills. Two sets of students responded to the same video segment but defined the problem differently depending on their "world view" as a regular or special education teacher. Donald Tripp (1993) described this limitation in his book on developing professional judgment, "... we construct our world through reflection, but how and on what we reflect is largely determined by our world view ... We must ... change our awareness through deliberately setting out to view the world of our practice in new ways" (p. 12). In this project, the students were able to gain insight from learning how professionals from a different discipline would approach a common problem. Problem solving skills are seen as a necessary ability in order to develop collaborative skills (Smith & Leonard, 2005).

Another positive consequence of the project was a dawning respect for the legitimacy of the other discipline and its practitioners. Such respect will be essential to successful professional collaboration in the future. At the same time, though, the project alerted the students to real differences in "world views" that will need to be accommodated in joint problem-solving efforts.

In a limited way, students also glimpsed a model for future collaborations. While it would have been ideal for the students to share a room with each other and with both professors simultaneously, this was not possible. Instead, the students were fully aware that the two professors had collaborated across department lines to arrange this classroom experience for them. As a result of their study with preservice teachers, Henning and Mitchell (2002) recommended that instructors model collaboration in elementary and special education methods courses as well as co-plan and co-teach.

There is potential for expanding and improving the project through the use of technology. An on-line "chat room" could be provided so that students could have more immediate and direct interaction as they proposed resolutions to a professional "critical incident." The professors would also be able to monitor the conversations and provide additional guidance. The students (and professors) in the two disciplines could also alert their peers to on-line resources which they might feel would help their colleagues to understand the "world view" of the other discipline. The use of technology at the preservice level has the potential to develop professional habits to learn about or exchange information and ideas about inclusion through online resources such as listservs, e-mail, and newsgroups (Jeffs & Banister, 2006).

In retrospect, the most important result of the project was the confirmation of the professors' concern that students need more preparation at the undergraduate level for professional collaborations across disciplines. The traditional mode of separate preparation of students within narrow disciplinary guidelines can result in graduates who are, at best, naive about what their professional counterparts from different fields have to offer and, at worst, disrespectful and suspicious.

The project also suggested certain elements that would be essential in a collaborative venture across departments. Lack of a common vocabulary was a major problem that could be eliminated by generating vocabulary lists ahead of time from both areas of specialization. Specific guidelines for collaboration should also precede the project rather than be left to chance. Specific directions and guided questions were used in supporting students to be more focused and have clear expectations. More importantly, the pilot project set the stage for change by dealing directly with some elements of resistance from students from different disciplines (Cambell & Fyfe, 1995). Once accepted as a common assignment for two required courses, it can be a non-threatening avenue for familiarizing faculty with the issues of inclusion. It requires no additional resources and very little time. It gives faculty from complimentary disciplines an opportunity to work together rather than to compete. This project is not presented as a final solution, but rather as a stepping stone towards a team-taught course where collaboration can be modeled throughout an entire semester.

References

Campbell, D.M., and B. Fyfe. (1995). Reforming teacher education: The challenge of inclusive education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Liberal Arts Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.

Carey, L.K. (1997). Inclusion training for pre-service teachers--From theory to best classroom practice. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 21 (2), 52-58.

Collings, G.D. (1999). A statewide snapshot of the potential for the preparation of educators and administrators in special education. Contemporary Education, 70(3), 46-52.

Evans, D. (1996). Restructuring teacher preparation programs for inclusion: The change process in one university. Contemporary Education, 68(1), 52-56.

Gable, R.A., and V.L. McLaughlin. 1993. Unifying general and special education teacher preparation. Preventing School Failure, 37(2), 5-11.

Henning, M.B. & Mitchell, L.C. (2002). Preparing for inclusion. Child Study Journal, 32(1), 1929.

Heston, M.L., D. Raschke, C. Kliewer, L.M. Fitzgerald, and R. Edmiaston. (1998). Transforming teacher preparation in early childhood education: Moving to inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21 (4), 278-292.

Jeffs, T. & Banister, S. (2006). Enhancing collaboration and skill acquisition through the use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 407-433.

Jensen, R.A., and Kiley Shepston, T. (1997). Creating collaborative learning environments for preservice and inservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Keefe, E.B., P.J. Rossi, J.S. de Valenzuela, and S. Howarth. (2000). Reconceptualizing teacher preparation for inclusive classrooms: A description of the Dual License program at the University of New Mexico. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(2), 72-82.

Kerns, G.M. (1996). Preparation for role changes in general education and special education: Dual certification graduates' perspectives. Education, 117(2): 306-315.

Long, J.C., and J. Morrow. (1995). Research analysis of Professional Development School graduates and traditional Phase! and Phase II graduates. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Detroit, MI.

Miller, P.S., and V.D. Stayton. (1998). Blended interdisciplinary teacher preparation in early education and intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18(1), 49-58.

Reed, F., and L.E. Monday-Amaya. (1995). Preparing preservice general educators for inclusion: A survey of teacher preparation programs in Illinois. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18(4), 262-274.

Smith, R. & Leonard, P. (2005). Collaboration for inclusion: Practitioner perspectives. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38, 269-279.

Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. London: Routledge.

Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(I), 26-37.

Welch, M. (1996). Teacher education and the neglected diversity: Preparing educators to teach students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(5), 355-366.

Vicki A. McGinley, West Chester University, PA

Gail Bollin, West Chester University, PA

McGinley, Ph.D., is Chair and Associate Professor of Special Education, and Bolin, Ph.D., is a professor of Elementary Education, at West Chester University.