• Home
• Articles
• Essays
• Add site

Co-Teaching: A Review

Co-Teaching: A Review


The topic researched for this assignment focused on the use of co-teaching strategies in the classroom. This area of study was selected because my principal is considering using co-teaching strategies to support the lower performing students on campus. The purpose of this research is to examine the effectiveness and development of co-teaching strategies at the national and state levels.

Research questions guiding this study are:
1. How is co-teaching implemented in the classroom?
2. What impact does co-teaching have on student achievement?

Definitions utilized in this research are:
1. Co-teaching-Two or more teachers delivering instruction to a diverse group of students in a single space
2. Parallel teaching-Teachers plan instruction together and form heterogeneous groups in the classroom. Each teacher instructs one of the groups. The content covered is the same, but the instructional delivery or learning styles vary.
3. Team teaching-There is one primary teacher in the classroom. The secondary teacher circulates, provides assistance, and suggests adaptations to meet the needs of struggling students.

Macro-Perspective
A review of national information sources in regard to co-teaching reveals differing viewpoints about implementation and effectiveness in the classroom.

Implementation of Co-teaching
A study of co-teaching showed there were several different ways to integrate this strategy into the classroom. Research on the national level indicated there were three ways co-teaching was used in the classroom: the co-teaching model, the parallel teaching model, and the team teaching model. In the co-teaching model, the general education teacher and the special education teacher worked together on an equal status to "meet the needs of all students in the general education classroom"(Murawski, 2005, p. 77). This meant that both teachers were responsible for delivering instruction to the students. Teachers who participated in co-teaching were expected to become experts on their partner's teaching style since they were required to communicate and trust one another as they planned their instruction. While teaching, co-teaching partners constantly switched roles so that no one teacher was always providing small group instruction. They also switched students into different group so that every student interacted with one another, and no one group was labeled the "dummy" group (Murawski, 2005).

In the parallel teaching model, the class was divided into two groups. Each teacher taught the same content, but varied the instructional delivery to meet the needs of the students in her group. This model was used when a small group of students needed "how-to" skills or strategies to complete the lesson (Lawton, 1999, Setting up the Partnership section). The special education students were given remedial instruction or manipulatives in a separate area of the classroom to insure their mastery of the content. The third model, team teaching, was used in classrooms that were just beginning to experiment with collaborative teaching. This model allowed one teacher to deliver the curriculum while the other teacher circulated the classroom clarifying and re-teaching information. Team teaching provided an introductory example of how collaborative teaching would compliment the general education classroom (Murawski, 2005).

Most of the research indicated that co-teaching classrooms had similar characteristics. Most teachers who were involved in this process agreed to co-teach voluntarily (Lawton, 1999). Cook and Friend believed that this "increased the chances of co-teaching being successful". (Murawski, 2005, p. 79) In all cases, the teachers were given or made time to plan and coordinate instruction for the classroom (Lawton, 1999; Murawski, 2005). This allowed teachers to individualize instruction to meet the needs of all students in the classroom. Some experts felt that the special needs students should not be more than ten percent of the population so the educators were not overwhelmed. However, one professor noted that he had seen "classes work where up to twenty-five percent of the students were identified disabled (Lawton, 1999, Growing Interest section). Others claimed that co-teaching could be accomplished without costing more money. To accomplish this, one high school put the special education students in regular classes and mainstreamed their teachers as well. They reduced their special education classes from twenty-one self-contained classrooms to four. The high school featured co-teaching in each of the core subjects in classrooms with special education students. They accomplished this without costing the school additional funds for staffing (Lawton, 1999).

Impact on Student Achievement
Nationally, researchers evaluated the effectiveness of co-teaching on the academic achievement of low performing students. The results were measured both quantitatively and subjectively. In the quantitative analysis, researchers compared six studies (Self et al., 1991; Klinger et al., 1998; Rosman, 1994; Vaughn et al., 1998; Lundeen & Lundeen, 1993; Walsh & Snyder, 1993) on the effectiveness of co-teaching. The studies focused on elementary students in kindergarten through 6th grade and high school students. Both math and language arts classes were studied. In reading, there was a high level of effectiveness in the early elementary grades, but in 3rd grade through 6th grade the impact of co-teaching was much less. In the high school reading classes, the effectiveness was low. However, Klinger indicated that in the area of reading, learning disabled students showed a gain in skills with co-teaching (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Overall, the researchers reported that co-teaching was moderately effective in the language arts classroom. In math, the effectiveness was moderate indicating that there was a positive impact on student achievement, but not as high as in the reading classes (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Researchers also measured the impact of co-teaching on the social achievement of students in the general classroom. Walsh indicated that co-teaching was ineffective on the social skills and attitudes of the students. The study reported there was "no difference in attendance, discipline, or grades" (Murawski & Swanson, 2001, p. 262). However, all the studies combined showed that co-teaching did moderately reduce the number of referrals in co-teaching classrooms (Murawski & Swanson, 2001).

The impact of co-teaching on student achievement was measured subjectively as well. Teachers chronicled stories of struggling students who blossomed under the co-teaching model. Teachers stated that "the students benefited academically from having two teachers present, each with different strengths". (Lawton, 1999, Introduction section) Murawski and Swanson declared that the research was inconclusive, and further analysis was needed to show true effectiveness (2001). However, all research indicated that co-teaching had a positive effect on both general education students and students with special needs.

Micro-Perspective
Research at the state level documents similar discoveries about the implementation and effectiveness of co-teaching strategies.

Implementation of Co-teaching
Two studies were researched to ascertain the necessary components needed to implement co-teaching models in a Texas classroom. In both studies, the classrooms showed similar characteristics as found in the national research. One study was conducted using the co-teaching model (Langerock, 2000). In this instance, a general education teacher along with a special education teacher shared the duty of instructing the classroom. Both teachers used data from the previous year along with a pre-test given to all students to plan instruction. They set aside time each day to plan and collaborate on lessons. Both felt this was a necessary component to the co-teaching process. In the classroom, they used peer-tutoring and heterogeneous groups to help the students learn from one another and see other students as "sources to be tapped to complete projects" (Langerock, 2000, p. 31). Both teachers believed their students excelled in cooperative learning because they modeled this strategy through co-teaching (Langerock, 2000).

In a different study, English and Spanish speaking students in a middle school in Texas were exposed to the team teaching model ( Hadi-Tabassum, 1999). Two science teachers designed a unit on the study of energy systems in a dual language environment. The same content was taught to two groups; one in English and one in Spanish. Both teachers collaborated on each lesson, and needed time to plan on a regular basis. In this study, the teachers focused on different ways to assess the learner's progress. In order to accommodate all students, the teachers developed portfolios and teacher-made exams to assess academic progress, and rubrics to monitor social interaction. They believed this was an important piece to the team teaching model. All students were taught and assessed on the same content, but the assessment was individualized to meet their needs (Hadi- Tabassum, 1999).

Impact on Student Achievement
On the state level, the implementation of co-teaching had a positive effect on student achievement. In the co-teaching model, low performing readers worked with the general education teacher and the special education teacher for one school year. After a comparison of the pre- and post- test scores, the target student group all made gains in reading. The students increased between 1-20% on the state standardized test. Students also increased in instructional reading levels from one to three grade levels. There was a noticeable improvement in their vocabulary skills and fluency as well. In writing, the students gained one to three points on the state standardized writing assessment. Students showed improvements in their grammar, writing skills, spelling, and punctuation. Teachers also noted the use of figurative language and symbolism in their writing as well (Langerock, 2000).

In the team teaching model, the student achievement was impacted as well. This model used a portfolio to measure the student's grasp of the content taught each day and the student's language proficiency. The study provided evidence of a student's growing progress as both his writing improved and his knowledge of the scientific process. The team teaching model also showed growth in students' social skills and attitudes. Students were given a Likert-scale survey with several "I agree/disagree statements" about the classroom before the co-teaching began, and they were given the same survey at the conclusion of the unit. The post-test showed an increase indicating that the students were more motivated to achieve in science than before the team teaching was implemented (Hadi-Tabassum, 1999)

Summary Assessment and Recommendations
Research questions guiding this project were:
1. How is co-teaching implemented in the classroom?
2. What impact does co-teaching have on student achievement?

In researching the implementation of co-teaching on both a national and state level, several important themes arose in my findings. Firstly, I discovered there are a myriad of ways to incorporate co-teaching in the classroom. By using the team teaching model, teachers were able to experiment with collaborative teaching techniques. This model allowed the special education teacher or bilingual teacher to provide much needed assistance to lower performing students who needed the general classroom content explained using multiple instructional strategies. The parallel model and co-teaching model provided a true collaborative environment where both educators teach the content; sometimes in two different groups, and sometimes switching roles as the principle teacher of the classroom. These models showed the versatility of co-teaching techniques. Teachers interested in experimenting with these strategies could find the strategy that complimented their personal teaching style. I also discovered that effective co-teaching teams usually exhibited two characteristics. Most successful co-teaching teams volunteered to be part of the collaborative team, and took time each daily to plan lessons together. Co-teaching teams believed that without these two components, the teams would have stagnated or destructed. Co-teaching was only successfully implemented when teachers accepted the challenges it presented.

More importantly, the research focused on the impact of co-teaching strategies on student achievement. After reviewing several studies and literature, I found that there is little quantitative data on the effectiveness of co-teaching. Instead, most of the research emphasized the process of co-teaching, and the subjective results teachers reported from their experiences. However, the quantitative results revealed that co-teaching did improve the reading levels of students at the elementary levels. In high school, it was much less successful. Co-teaching also provided much needed support for the learning-disabled students, and studies showed that those students improved in reading as well. In math, the collaborative strategies were only moderately effective, and studies indicated that there was very little improvement with co-teaching. In reviewing the impact of co-teaching on the students' social skills and attitudes, the research was inconclusive. Co-teaching was shown to reduce office referrals in some cases, but did not impact the students' attitudes, attendance or grades. However, using the subjective observations of teachers, co-teaching was labeled as an effective teaching practice that greatly benefited the students. In all instances, the teachers reported that co-teaching impacted the students in a positive manner both academically and socially.

Reccomendations
After reviewing the literature related to co-teaching strategies, I offer the following recommendations: Co-teaching can be a wonderful addition to a classroom with lower performing students if the following protocol is followed: Teachers must accept this challenge voluntarily, and must be given time each day to properly plan instructional strategies. When the teachers are given these accommodations, co-teaching has proven to benefit the students in the classroom. Co-teaching showed the most effectiveness in the area of reading and writing. Analysis of the data showed there was a definite improvement in the students' reading levels, fluency, vocabulary development, writing style, spelling, and punctuation. I recommend that co-teaching be implemented in a Language Arts classroom and a Social Studies classroom on my campus using the team teaching model. Research indicated that the team teaching model provided teachers with a non-threatening bridge from a traditional classroom to a collaborative one. Teachers would begin to work collaboratively, not individually. The general education teacher would be responsible for the instruction of the classroom, but the special education teacher or bilingual teacher would become an invaluable resource to the students in the classroom. Theoretically, this will enable further collaboration leading to the eventual use of the co-teaching model. By following this researched implementation plan, co-teaching on my campus will become a successful endeavor for both students and teachers.


REFERENCES:

Hadi-Tabassum, S. (1999). Assessing students' attitudes and achievements in a multi-cultural and multi-lingual science classroom. [Electronic Version] Multicultural Education, 7, 15-20.

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

Langerock, N. L. (2000). A Passion for Action Research. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 26-34.

Lawton, M. (1999). Co-teaching: Are Two Heads Better Than One in an Inclusive Classroom? [Electronic Version] Harvard Education Letter, March/April. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1999-ma/coteaching.shtml

*Lundeen, C., & Lundeen, D. J. (1993, November). Effectiveness of mainstreaming with collaborative teaching. Paper presented at the annual convention of American Speech- Language-Hearing Association, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 127).

Murawski, W.W. (2005). Addressing Diverse Needs Through Co-Teaching: Take Baby Steps. Kappa Delta Phi Record, 41, 77-82.

Murawski, W.W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A Meta-Analysis of Co-Teaching Research-Where are the data?. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267.

*Rosman, N. J. S. (1994). Effects of varying the special educator's role within the algebra class on math attitude and achievement. Master's thesis. University of South Dakota, Vermillion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 993).

Posted by: Sarah S.

Best Custom Writing Sites

Sites that provide custom writing services are better alternative to downloading pre-written paper samples, especially if you temporarily can't handle writing your own paper for some reason, and can not afford risking your course and reputation for plagiarism detection failure. The prices for custom written essays are affordable, but if you need 15-pages long master level report overnight, you better prepare to spend a noticeable sum.