Best Practices for Co-Teaching Literacy in the Secondary

Hamline University Hamline University

DigitalCommons@Hamline DigitalCommons@Hamline

School of Education Student Capstone Theses and Dissertations School of Education

Fall 12-13-2016

Best Practices for Co-Teaching Literacy in the Secondary Best Practices for Co-Teaching Literacy in the Secondary

Language Arts Classroom Language Arts Classroom

Anne Robenhorst Hamline University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all

Part of the Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Robenhorst, Anne, "Best Practices for Co-Teaching Literacy in the Secondary Language Arts Classroom" (2016). School of Education Student Capstone Theses and Dissertations. 4244. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all/4244

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Education at DigitalCommons@Hamline. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Education Student Capstone Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Hamline. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].

https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/

https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all

https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all

https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse

https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fhse_all%2F4244&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/784?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fhse_all%2F4244&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all/4244?utm_source=digitalcommons.hamline.edu%2Fhse_all%2F4244&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected],%[email protected],%[email protected]

BestPracticesforCo-TeachingLiteracyintheSecondaryLanguageArtsClassroom

1

BESTPRACTICESFORCO-TEACHING

LITERACYINTHESECONDARYLANGUAGEARTSCLASSROOM

by

AnneRobenhorst

Acapstonesubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirements

foradegreeofMastersinLiteracyEducation.

HamlineUniversity

December2016


2

TableofContentsChapterOne:Introduction................................................................................................................4Background 5Co-teachingStruggles 7SharingtheResearch 8

ChapterTwo:LiteratureReview..................................................................................................10Introduction 10WhatisCo-teaching? 13One-teach,one-observe.............................................................................................................................................14Stationteaching.............................................................................................................................................................15Parallelteaching............................................................................................................................................................15Alternativeteaching....................................................................................................................................................16Teaming............................................................................................................................................................................16Oneteach,oneassist...................................................................................................................................................16

ResearchontheEffectivenessofCo-teaching 17BestPracticesinCo-teaching 19Professionaldevelopmentandadministrativesupport..............................................................................21

SecondaryLiteracyInstructionBestPractice 22Wordstudy......................................................................................................................................................................23Cognitivestrategiesforcomprehension.............................................................................................................24Rereading.........................................................................................................................................................................26StudentEngagement...................................................................................................................................................26

Summary 28ChapterThree:Methodology.........................................................................................................30OverviewoftheChapter 30ResearchParadigm 31SettingandParticipants 32DataCollectionandRationale 33Datacollectiontechnique1:Interview...............................................................................................................33Datacollectiontechnique2:Questionnaire......................................................................................................33Datacollectiontechnique3:Statetestingandgradereportreview......................................................34

Ethics 34Summary 35

ChapterFour:Results.......................................................................................................................36OverviewoftheChapter 36StudentOutcomes 36Co-taughtStudentPerceptions 37AdministratorInterview 40TeacherInterviewandQuestionnaire 42Summary 48

ChapterFive:Conclusions..............................................................................................................50MajorLearning 50Literaturereview..........................................................................................................................................................50

ResearchQuestionandConclusions 51Limitations52Futureresearch 52Sharingthedata 53


3

Summary 53AppendixA...........................................................................................................................................55AppendixB...........................................................................................................................................56

AppendixC...........................................................................................................................................58

AppendixD..........................................................................................................................................59AppendixE...........................................................................................................................................61

AppendixF...........................................................................................................................................62References...........................................................................................................................................63


4

ChapterOne:Introduction

Co-teachingisdefinedasapartnershipbetweenageneraleducationteacherandspecial

educationteacherwiththegoalofprovidinginstructiontoadiversegroupoflearnersboth

withandwithoutdisabilities(Friend,Cook,Hurley-Chamberlain,&Shamberger,2010).Co-

teachinghasbeenpartofmyprofessionalexperiencesincemysecondyearofteaching.My

experienceshaveledmetobelievethat,whenimplementedwithplanningandstudent

outcomesinmind,itisaverypowerfulmodel.Theseexperienceshavealsoinfluencedmy

decisiontofurthermyeducationandprofessionalgrowthintheareaofliteracyeducation.

Thesetwointerestareashavegreatlyinfluencedtheresearchthathasguidedthispaper.

InthischapterIwilldiscussmybackgroundandmyjourneywithco-teaching.Iwill

alsointroducemyresearchquestionandexplainhowthisquestionandresearchwill

providemewithbothprofessionalandpracticalguidance.Thisthenlendsitselftosomeof

thestrugglesthatmyteachingpartnerandIhaveexperiencedovertheyearsintheco-

teachingenvironment.

OnequestionthatIhavebeencuriousaboutforthepastseveralyearsis:which

modelsofco-teachingandliteracyinthelanguageartsclassroomarethemosteffectiveatthe

secondarylevel?Thisoverarchingquestionalsoleadstoother,morespecificquestions.

Theseinclude:Whatarethebestpracticesforco-teachingingeneral?Whichcomponents

ofliteracyinstructionshouldbeincluded?Whatcomponentsofco-teachinghelptomake

themodelmostsuccessful?WhatarethebestpracticesofEnglishlanguageartsinstruction

thatshouldbeincluded?Isitokayformetopullstudentswhoarestrugglingoutofthe

largergroup?Ihaveconductedsomeresearchandreadingonmyown.However,Ihavenot

cometodefinitiveanswers,buttheabovequestionshaveledmetothiscapstoneresearch.


5

Background

WhenIwasfirsthiredasasecondaryspecialeducationteacherinthesummerof

2011,Iwasnotentirelysurewhattoexpect.Ihadjustcompletedmyfirstyearwith

elementarystudentswithbehavioralandemotionaldisabilities.WhenIwastoldthatI

wouldbeco-teachingwithanEnglishteacher,Iwasbothexcitedandwary.Wouldthis

teacherwelcomemeintoherclassroom?Wouldsheseemeasaparaprofessionalinstead

ofalicensedteacher?Whatdidsheknowaboutadaptingthingsforstudentswithspecial

needs?Fortunately,Ishouldnothaveworried.

Forthepastfouryears,Ihavebeenworkingasaspecialeducationteacheratahigh

school.MyBachelor’sofArtsinEnglish-CreativeWritingaswellasabackgroundinEnglish

LanguageLearningweredecidingfactorsinmybeinghired.Sincearrivingatthisschool,I

havehadtheopportunitytoco-teachinaninthgradegeneraleducationlanguageartsclass

withanamazingco-teacher.Duringthefirstyear,co-teachinginvolvedlearningthebasics

ofthecurriculumandensuringthatallstudentswhorequiredadaptationsand

accommodationswereprovidedthem.BecauseIhadnotyetmasteredthecontent,myco-

teacherandIdevelopedamodelthatinvolvedmereteachingandreviewingthecontenton

adailybasis.Thisallowedmetobecomemorefamiliarwiththecontentaswellasthe

students.Ialsotookchargeofthere-teachingbecauseIfeltmorecomfortableafterhaving

itmodeledbymyteachingpartner.ThefollowingyearIfeltmoreconfidentwithmy

knowledgeofthecurriculumandmyownskillsasateacher.Ourpartnershiphasgrown

intoamuchmoreequitableteam-teachingsituation;inourcurrentmodel(oneteach-one

assist)webothintroducenewmaterialwhiletheotherteachercirculatesaroundtheroom

andviceversa.Thishasallowedustomeetindividuallywithstudentstodiscusstheir


6

writingandgivemoreattentiontothosewhostruggle.Myco-teachingpartnerandIhave

beenabletomeetatleastweeklytogooverourplansandtomakeanyadjustmentsbased

onstudentneed—somethingthatIfoundtobeanintegralpiecetoourpartnership.We

havealsobeenabletoadaptassignmentstogetherinordertoensurethatallstudentshave

theaccesstothecurriculumatthelevelthatismostappropriateforthem.Overall,ithas

beenoneofthemostrewardingpartsofmyteachingcareersofar.

Themodelthatmyco-teacherandIcurrentlyuseinvolvesbothofusintroducing

contentandreviewingmaterial.Wesharetheworkload.Eachofusgradesassignments,

meetswithstudents,andpreparesfortheclassesduringacommonpreptime.Whenoneof

usispresentingnewconceptsorcontent,theotherisgenerallycirculatingtheroomand

checkinginwithstudents.Webothalsocollaborateonmakingadaptationsand

accommodationsforstudentswithdisabilitiesorotherstudentswhoarestruggling.Wetry

tosharetheloadandensurethatourstudentsarereceivingwhattheyneed.Currently,this

isanidealpartnership.

Ihavelearnedagreatdealfrommyteachingpartner,shehasbeensupportive,

flexible,andkind.Wediscoveredthatourpartnershipwashighlybeneficialtoourstudents

withandwithoutdisabilities.Throughourownprogressmonitoring,wehaveseengainsin

themajorityofourstudents.However,muchofoursuccessandfeedbackhasbeenstrictly

anecdotal—fromstudentsorparents.Webothareconstantlyreviewingandrevisingwhat

wepresentinordertomeettheneedsofstudentseachclass.Theseneedsaremostoften

relatedtoliteracy—especiallycomprehensionandwrittenexpression.Thisworkhas

impactedmyprofessionaldevelopmentagreatdeal.


7

Myowneducationaljourneyhasledmetofocusonliteracyeducation,andteaching

studentstobecomestrong,thoughtfulreadersisahighlightofmyjob.However,Ioftenfeel

thatthereisadisconnectbetweenlanguageartscurriculumandliteracyinstruction.Ihave

struggledbetweenknowingthatallstudentsneedexplicitliteracyinstructionandstill

havingtofollowthecurriculumoftheprogramatmyschool.Iseethatwespendtime

readinganovelwithstudents,butneverreallyteachthemhowtounderstandwhatthey

arereadingortothinkdeeplyaboutthecontent.Thisissomethingthatcontinuestowear

onmyconscienceasateacher.Fortunately,throughProfessionalLearningCommunity

(PLC)work,Ihavebeenabletodiscusstheneedtoengageinexplicitliteracyinstruction

withinallcontentareas—includinglanguagearts.Myworkwithliteracyeducationhas

pushedmetofurtherreadingintotheareaofliteracy.Authorsthathaveparticularly

influencedmyownpracticeincludeKellyGallagher(2004)andDougBuehl(2008).These

areauthorsthatIcontinuouslyrevisitandwhosupportmypracticebothindividuallyand

intheco-teachingmodel.However,despitetheidealpartnershipandsupportivework

environment,co-teachingisnotwithoutchallenges.

Co-teachingStruggles

Co-teachingisbotharewardingandhighlycomplexteachingmodel.Attimes,we

facechallengessuchasclasssize(sometimesuptothirty-sixstudents),ratio(morethan

halfoftheclasswithspecialeducationneeds),andplanningtime.Oftenco-teachersare

simplyassignedtoeachother.Thiswasthecaseforme.Fortunately,Iwasabletodevelop

apositiverelationshipanddevelopgoalsandstrategiesthatwebothfeltbenefitedthe

students.


8

Whentransitioningtothehighschoollevel,studentsmaystrugglewiththeamount

ofmaterialandthereadingloadthatisexpectedofthem.Itissometimesdifficulttocreate

anatmospherewhereallstudentsareabletofeelsuccessfulandhavetheirvoicesheard.

Weoftenstrugglewithstudentswhohavefeltdisenfranchisedforyearsabouttheir

educationandtendtobebehavioralproblemswhileotherstudentswhowouldliketo

engageandlearnfeelingfrustratedbecausetheycannotgettheattentionthattheywould

likeordeserve.Studentswhostrugglewithbehaviorsareoftenscheduledintoourclass;

thesestudentsdonothavespecialeducationservices.Itmaybeassumedthathavingtwo

teachersshouldhelptomakeitlessstressfulthanitwouldbeforasingleteacher.Attimes,

wehavehadmorestudentswithIndividualizedEducationPlans,504plans,andEnglish

LanguageLearnerneedsthanstudentswithoutanyneeds.Thishascreatedanatmosphere

thatcanbeespeciallydifficulttomanage.Throughcollaborationwithotherco-teaching

teams,wehavediscoveredthattheyoftenhavesimilarsituationsandchallenges.This

involvementhasledtomyengagementincurriculumdevelopmentandleadershipwithin

mybuilding.

SharingtheResearch

Asamemberofourdistrict’s7-12CurriculumReviewCommittee,Iamfortunate

enoughtobeabletoadvocateforstudentandteacherneeds.Ihavebeengiventheunique

opportunitytohaveperspectivesfromboththespecialeducationandgeneraleducation

lenses.Inordertobestadvocate,itisimportantformetohaveabetterunderstandingof

whichaspectsoftheco-teachingmodelaremostsuccessfulandbeneficialforallstudents.

Certainmodelsarebettersuitedtodifferentlevelsandneedsofstudents,aswellasage

groups.


9

Inthischapter,Ihaveoutlinedmyownpersonalexperienceswithco-teaching.

Additionally,Ihaveintroducedmyresearchquestionandhowtheresearchwillimpact

bothmyownpracticeandmyabilitytoshareitwithothersinmyprofessionalsetting.In

thenextchapter,Iwillreviewcurrentliteratureandresearchpertainingtosecondaryco-

teachinginthelanguageartsclassroom.Iwillgiveabriefreviewofdifferenttypesof

modelsthathavebeenexplored,whichhavebeensuccessfulandshareanyspecificdata

relatedtostudentsuccess.Iwillfurtherexplorethisbydiscussingtheinitialreasonfor

introducingco-teachingintothegeneraleducationsetting.


10

ChapterTwo:LiteratureReview

Introduction

Thepurposeofthisstudyistoexaminewhichco-teachingandliteracypracticesare

mosteffectiveinthesecondarylanguageartsclassroom—specificallyforgradesnineand10.

Thischapterwilldiscussthehistoryofco-teachinganddifferentmodelsofco-teaching.

Additionally,itwilldiscussinclusivepracticesthatstemmedfromtheamendedIndividuals

withDisabilitiesEducationAct(IDEA)in2004,andmandatesputforthfromNoChildLeft

Behind(NCLB)(2002)and,mostrecently,ResponsetoIntervention(RTI).Thischapter

willreviewtheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthisservicedeliverymethodandhowto

makethesepartnershipsthemosteffective.Finally,thebestpracticesinliteracy

instructionthatwillbestcomplimenttheco-teachingmodelwillbeexplored.

Intoday’sdiverseclassrooms,thereareavarietyofwaystomeettheuniqueneeds

ofstudents.Onesuchmodelisco-teaching,whichprovidessupportandspecialized

servicestoindividualstudentsinthegeneraleducationenvironment.Thoughcollaboration

betweenspecialeducationteachersandgeneraleducationteachershasbeenanintegral

partofspecialeducationsincethe1980’s,moreinclusivepracticeshavebeengrowingover

theyears(Friend,Cook,Hurley-Chamberlain,andShamberger,2010).

Co-teaching:Wherediditcomefrom?

Manylawsandmandateshaveinfluencedspecialeducationovertheyears.The

EducationoftheHandicappedAct,P.L.91-230waspassedbycongressin1970inorderto

addresstheneedsofstudentswithdisabilities.In1975,theEducationforAllHandicapped

ChildrenAct,PL94-142waspassed.Thislawofferedafreeandappropriateeducationfor

allstudentswithdisabilitiesfromagesthreetotwenty-one.Italsofocusedonspecial


11

educationservicesthatwouldberequiredtomeettheneedsofstudentswithdisabilities.

Friend,Cook,andHurley-Chamberlain(2010)citeDunn(1968)andLeafstedtetal.,(2007)

bypointingoutthat,adecadeearlier,concernswerebeingraisedbyeducationalleaders

abouttheeffectivenessofspecialeducationservicesinthepulloutorresource

environment.Parentswerealsopushingformoreinclusionarypracticesfortheirchildren

withdisabilities.Furthermore,Friend,Cook,andHurley-Chamberlain(2010)discusshow

the1980’sand1990’swereatimeofchangeinrelationtofederalandstatemandatesthat

addressededucationforstudentswithdisabilities.Outcomesforstudentswithdisabilities

hadbeenfoundtobeunsatisfactory.Legislationpushedforincreasedexpectationsrelated

toacademics.Theyfurthersuggestthatamajorconcernwasrelatedtothelackofprogress

forstudentsinspecialeducationclassroomswhencomparedtotheirsamegradepeers

whodonotreceivespecializedservices.

OneofthemostsignificantlawstohavebeenpassedwasIDEA,whichcalledfor

increasedinclusivepracticesforstudentswithdisabilities.Additionally,itallowsstatesto

besuedfornotprovidingtheappropriatecontinuumofservicescalledforinthelaw.Over

theyears,IDEAhasbeenreauthorizedandupdated.Essentially,itcalledfortransition

servicestobeincludedinastudent’sIndividualizedEducationPlan(IEP).Additionally,it

addeddisabilitycategoriesoftraumaticbraininjuriesandautismandtheireligibility

criteria.AlateramendmentrequiredIEPstoincludeaplanforstudentstohaveaccessto

generaleducationcurriculum(http://idea.ed.gov/).IDEAencouragesschoolstohavehigh

expectationsforallstudents,includingthosewithdisabilities.Thismeansprovidingaccess

tothehighestqualityofinstructionwithintheleastrestrictiveenvironment.


12

Anotherlawthatinfluencedthewaysthatstudentsreceivespecialeducationservicesis

NCLB(NoChildLeftBehind[NCLB],2002),whichwasimplementedin2001.Thislaw

statesthatallstudentsreceiveinstructionfromhighlyqualifiedteachers.Becausenotall

middleandhighschoolspecialeducationteachersareconsidered“highlyqualified”ineach

individualsubjectarea,asdefinedbyNCLB,thishascausedadministratorsofschoolsto

rethinkwaystoappropriatelyusestaffandtheirindividualareasofexpertise(Conderman,

2011,p.24-25).NCLBrequiredallstudents,evenstudentswithdisabilities,tobeheldto

statestandards.Overall,theintentofthislawwastoincreasestudentoutcomes,teacher

andschoolaccountabilityandqualityofeducation.Becauseallstudentswouldnowbe

requiredtomeetstatestandards,theyneededaccesstogeneraleducationcurriculumand

“highlyqualifiedteachers”.InordertomeetthestandardsofNCLBandIDEA,schoolshave

trieddifferentmodelsandmethodsofeducatingstudentswithdisabilities—including

increasedtimeinandaccesstothegeneraleducationcurriculum.Co-teachingisonewayto

ensurethatallstudentsarereceivingahigh-qualityeducationinthegeneraleducation

setting.

Mostrecently,ResponsetoIntervention(RTI),whichsprungfromupdatedSpecific

LearningDisabilitiesqualificationcriteria(IDEAreauthorization2006)hasbeen

introducedinmoreschoolsandisbeingmandatedbysomestates.RTIisanalternative

modeltoidentifyingstudentswithlearningdisabilities.Previously,studentswithlearning

disabilitieshadtomeetfederalcriteriathroughamodelthatindicatedadiscrepancy

betweentheirintellectualability(IQ)andtheiracademicachievement.Thismodeloften

leftstudentswhorequiredspecializedsupportfromqualifyingbecausetheydidnot

demonstratea“largeenoughgapordiscrepancy”tomeetcriteriaforspecialeducation


13

services.RTIcallsforhighquality,research-basedinstructionanddatacollection.This

processisfocusedonproactivestrategies,ratherthanwaitingforstudentstomeetnarrow

criteria(MurawskiandHughes,2009).Often,theinterventionsrelatedtoRTIinvolve

pullingstudentsoutoftheirlargergeneraleducationclassesinordertoengageinsmall

groupinstruction.MurawskiandHughes(2009)citeDupuisetal.,(2006)inpointingout

thatthereisstillastigmaattachedtostudentswhoarepulledoutoftheirgeneral

educationsetting.Onewaytoavoidthismaybethroughthemodelofco-teaching.Inthis

modelstudentsofallabilitiesandneedsreceiveinstructionfromtwoteachersinavariety

ofdifferentmodels.Thespecialeducatorcanbringherexpertiseandexperienceandmeld

withtheexpertiseandexperienceofthegeneraleducator.

WhatisCo-teaching?

CondermanandHedin(2014)defineco-teachingas,“oneapproachforhelping

studentswithdisabilitiesaccessarigorousgeneraleducationcurriculumintheleast

restrictiveenvironmentwhilereceivingsupportfromtwocertifiedteachers”(p.157).The

term“co-teaching”canbeusedsynonymouslywithcollaborationorteamteaching.

However,co-teachingisadifferentmodeltoprovidingservicesforstudentswithspecial

needs.Collaborationtendstorefertotheoutsideworkthatspecialandgeneraleducators

doinordertosupportstudentswithdisabilities.Teamteachingisoneofthemodelsused

intheoverarchingmodelofco-teaching(Friend,2014).AuthorsHangandRabren(2009)

defineco-teachingbyfollowingcomponents:

(a)twocertifiededucators,includingageneraleducationteacheranda

specialeducationteacher;

(b)deliveryofinstructionbybothteachers;


14

(c)aheterogeneousgroupofstudents—studentswithandwithout

disabilities;

(d)asingleclassroomwhereallstudentsreceiveinstructionregardlessof

educationallabel(p.259)

Thepurposeofco-teachingistomakethegeneraleducationcurriculummore

accessibleforstudentswithdisabilitieswhileprovidingspecializedinstructionand

strategiestosupporttheirlearning.Itisonewayforstudentstoreceivespecialeducation

servicesandisoneoftheleastrestrictivewaystodoso.Ideally,itisahighlysymbiotic

relationship.

Thereareavarietyofco-teachingmodelsthataresuggestedtobeeffective.Some

researchers,authors,andteachersprefertoavoidtheuseof“model”and,instead,use

“approach”.Forthepurposeofcontinuity,theterm“model”willbeused.Itissuggested

thatnoco-teachingteamuseanyonemodelatalltimes.Theideaisthat,becausethereare

twoinstructors,thereisahigherlevelofflexibilityinordertomeetstudentneeds.Inthe

secondaryclassroom,co-teachinggenerallyinvolvesonespecialeducationteacherandone

generaleducationteacherworkingtogetherduringoneclassperiodononecorecontent

area:socialstudies,English,mathematics,orscience.Friend(2014)suggeststhat,within

theco-teachingapproach,thereareseveralmodelsthatco-teachersmayuse

interchangeablybasedontheinstructionalobjectivesandthestudentneedsinone

particularclass.

One-teach,one-observe.

IntheOne-teach,One-observemodel,oneteachermaintainstheroleofleadinstructor.

Thisisamodel“inwhichoneteacherleadslarge-groupinstructionwhiletheothergathers


15

academic,behavioral,orsocialdataonspecificstudentsortheclassgroup"(Friend,2014).

Theobservingteachermayalsobegatheringdataonstudentbehavior.Abenefitofthis

modelisthattheteamrequireslittlecommonpreparationtimeforthis.However,the

weaknessofthismodelisthatthestudentswillmostlikelyviewtheobservingteacherin

anassistiverole,ratherthanaspartofateam(Fazel,2011).

Stationteaching.

Thestationteachingmodelallowsforbothteacherstoengagestudentsinsmall

groupinstruction.Itisdescribedas,“threenonsequentialpartsandstudents,likewise

dividedintothreegroups,rotatefromstationtostation,beingtaughtbytheteachersat

twostationsandworkingindependentlyatthethird”(Friend,2014).However,onemajor

benefitisthatitallowsstudentsmoredirectandindividualizedtimewitheachteacher.

Also,thistypeofmodelallowsforabilitylevelgroupingwhichcangreatlybenefit

strugglingstudents(Friend,2014).

Parallelteaching.

Parallelteachingdividestheclassintohalves.Inthismodel,bothteachersengagein

directinstruction.Itallowstheteacherstoteachspecificobjectivesorthesamecontent.

Studentsdonotswitchbetweenthetwoteachers.Thismodelcouldbeespeciallyuseful

whenco-teachingteamswouldliketoprovidetwolevelsofreadings,butwillbestudying

thesametopic.Thismodelalsoallowsforanalysisoftwodifferentperspectivesor

rationales(Friend2014).Thetwogroupscombineandhavealargegroupdiscussion,

Socraticseminar,ordebate.


16

Alternativeteaching.

Inthismethod,oneteacher,instructsthemajorityofthestudentswhiletheother

teachesstudentswithdisabilitiesorstrugglingstudents,orthosewhoachieveathigher

levels(Fazel,2011).Thismodelshouldbeusedoccasionallywhenasmallgroupof

studentsmayneedspecialattention,orwhenahandfulofstudentsdidpoorlyonan

assessmentandrequirere-teaching.Pre-teachingisalsoanotherpositiveuseforthis

model.Thiskindofgroupingmayalsobenefitastudentwithsignificantbehavioralneeds

byplacinghimorherwithpeerswhowillnotrespondtooff-taskordisruptivebehavior

(Friend,2014).

Teaming.

Friend(2014)andFazel(2011)outlinethattheteamingmodeliswhentwo

teachersbothengageindirectinstructionofawholegroupofstudents.Thisrequiresthe

twoteacherstohaveaverycomfortablerelationship,astheyarebothresponsiblefor

instructingstudentsinterchangeablybytakingturnsasleadinstructorthroughoutthe

lesson.Itissuggestedthatthismodelshouldbeusedoccasionally.Thismodelhasbeen

especiallybeneficialinmyownpractice--whileoneteacherinstructsandtheothermodels

note-taking.

Oneteach,oneassist.

Oneteach,oneassistisanmodelinwhichoneteacherisleadingthedirect

instructionofthestudents,whiletheotheriscirculatingamongthestudentsofferinghelp

anddirection.Friend(2014)suggestsperScruggs,Mastropieri,andMcDuffie(2007)that

thisisoneofthemostusedandleasteffectivemodelsofco-teaching.Researchsuggests

thatthismodelcanleadtopullingstudentattentionawayfromthecorecontent,and


17

developingalevelofdependencyonthespecialeducator.Itisrecommendedthatthis

modelbeusedrarelyorseldom.Itissuggestedthatthismethodshouldbeusedasa“start

uptechnique”asnewco-teachingpartnersaregettingtoknoweachotheranddevelop

theirownstyleofco-teachingthatismostappropriateforthecontentareathattheyare

teaching.

Brown,etal.(2013)suggestthatwhenconsideringwhichmodeltouse,teaching

partnersshouldconsider:whichobjectivesneedtobemastered,ifdifferentiatedobjectives

areoccurring,andwhichtypesofgroupingorenvironmentalarrangementswillbeselected

forthatlesson.Becauseco-taughtclassesincludeaheterogeneousgroupofstudents,the

needsofeachstudentwillvary.Whilesomestudentsmayrequiresimpleaccommodations,

otherstudentsmayrequireadditionalopportunitiesforre-teachingorpracticeinorderto

reachmastery.Behavioralneedsofstudentsshouldalsobetakenintoconsideration.

Reviewinginformalandformalassessmentdatacanalsoaidco-teachingteamswhenthey

developlessonsanddeterminewhichmodelofco-teachingtoimplementforeach

objective.MostimportantlyBrownsuggest,“Theabilitytobeflexibleandrespondtothe

needsofthestudentandthelessonisaskillthatisacquiredthroughpracticeandis

essentialtotheimpactofthisdeliverymodel”(p.88).

ResearchontheEffectivenessofCo-teaching

Thoughco-teachinghasbecomeamorepopularservicedeliverymodelforstudents

withmildtomoderatedisabilities,theresearchaddressingitseffectivenessislimited.

Despitethis,theresearchthatisavailablehasfoundthatitdoespositivelyimpactstudent

outcomesforthosewithdisabilities.Friendetal.(2009)foundthatstudentswithlearning

disabilitiesinco-taughtclassesperformedbetterrelatedtoattendanceandreportcard


18

grades.However,overallachievementonhigh-stakestestsdemonstratednosignificant

gains.Thiswasfoundforstudentsbothwithandwithoutdisabilities.McLaughlin,Rea,and

Walther-Thomas(2002)andIdol(2006).Additionally,whencomparingstudentswithina

resourceclassroomtostudentsinco-taughtcourses,andgeneraleducationclasseswithout

co-teachingMurawski(2006)found“nosignificantdifferencesacrosssettings,commenting

thatthefailuretofindincreasedachievementinco-taughtclassesmayhavebeentheresult

oflackoftrainingandthus,unevenimplementation.”

Parker(2010)studiedtheimpactofco-teachingwithinthe10thgradegeneral

educationclassroom—specificallyimpactsongeneraleducationstudents.Theresearcher

usedstandardizedtestscoresintheareasofreadingandmathematicstodetermine

whethertherewasdirectimpactongeneraleducationstudents.Thisstudyfoundthat

therewasadisproportionateamountofstudentswhowereconsideredunderachievingor

belowproficiencyasrelatedtotestscoresinlanguageartsclasses.Theauthorsuggested

thatthedesignofco-teachingistoprovidesupportandaccommodationswithstudents

withdisabilities.Throughusingtheco-taughtmodeltoassistlowperforminggeneral

educationstudentsthelackofheterogeneity“couldbeasignificantfactorinoverallstudent

achievement.Studentleaderswouldbewisetoensurethatthegeneraleducationstudents

inco-taughtclassesareheterogeneousintheiracademicabilities”(p.102).Thestudy

determinedthattheoverallachievementofgeneraleducationstudentsisnotlikelytobe

negativelyimpactedbytheco-teachingmodel.

MurawskiandSwanson(2001)conductedameta-analysisofthedatacollectedon

co-teachingeffectiveness.Theypointedoutthedifficultywithgatheringaccuratedataasit

hasbeenmostlyanecdotal.Thereisalsoalackofconsistencybetweenuseofdifferentco-


19

teachingmodelsaswellasbetweencontentareas.However,theresearchersfoundthatco-

teachingwasslightlyormoderatelyeffectiveforimpactingstudentoutcomes.These

outcomesincludebehavior(socialskills,referrals),academicachievement,peer

acceptance,attendance,andtheattitudesofthoseinvolved.

Thelimitedamountofdatasupportingtheefficacyofco-teachingismostlikely

impactedbythelackofconsistencyacrossclassrooms,schools,subjectareas,andteachers.

Becauseofthislackofconsistency,therecontinuestobeagapintheresearchidentifying

co-teachingasaneffectivemodelforstudentswithlearningdisabilities.However,the

researchthathasbeencitedhasfoundthat,whencomparedtoresourceor“pullout”

classrooms,studentsperformathigherlevelsintheco-taughtenvironment.

BestPracticesinCo-teaching

Becausethereareavarietyofmodelstoco-teaching,itisoftenunclearwhichmodel

isthemosteffectiveorwhichwillbestfitthecurriculumthattheteamisteaching.

Researchershavetakenacloserlookatwhichco-teachingteamsarethemostsuccessful

andhowtheycanensurethattheyaremeetingtheneedsofallstudentsintheir

environments.

AuthorsMagieraandSimmonsdevelopedtheMagiera-SimmonsQualityIndicator

ModelofCo-Teachingbasedonthemesofeffectiveco-teachingteamshighlightedseveral

studiesconductedbyFriendandCook,2003;Dieker,2001;RiceandZigmond,2000;

Wallace,etal.,2002.Theindicatorsthatwereselectedtomeasuresuccessfulco-teaching

instructionatthesecondarylevelincluded:sharedresponsibilityforpresentationof

instruction,followingaccommodationsforstudentswithdisabilities,bothteachers

providingsubstantialinstructiontoallstudents,andtheprocessoflearningisemphasized


20

inadditiontotheparticularcontent.Theseindicatorssupporttheideathattheco-teaching

partnershipisonethatisatruepartnership,wherebothmembersshareresponsibilityfor

allaspectsofclassroominteractions.

Walther-Thomastetal.(1996)discusstheimportanceofmulti-levelpreparation

andsupportforeffectiveco-teaching.Asidefromhavingvoluntarymembersofstafffor

eachco-teachingteam,itisintegralthatthereisdistrictandschool-wideplanning.This

typeoftypeofplanningincludestheappropriateallocationofresourcesandfundingfor

staff.Additionally,initialandongoingprofessionaldevelopmentshouldbeprovidedfor

thoseprofessionalsinvolvedinco-teachingteams.Principalsandotheradministrativestaff

shouldbeawareoftheelementsofco-teachinginordertosharethisinformationwith

parentsandcommunitymembers.Teachersshouldbeprovidedwithcommonplanning

timeandcontributeasintegralmembersofeachIEPteam.

Riceetal.(2007)conductedastudytodeterminewhichskillsorattributesmight

assistspecialeducatorswhenworkinginaco-teachingpartnershiporwhenworkingas

consultants.ThisstudyalsofocusedonhowaK-12districtsustainedapolicyofinclusive

educationforover12years.Researchersconductedfocusgroups,interviews,and

observationswereconductedinordertogatherdata.Fromthecollecteddataandfeedback,

theauthorsofthestudywereabletodeterminethattherewereseveralmajorstrengths

thatspecialeducatorspossessedwhenworkingeffectivelywithgeneraleducationteachers

inaco-teachingpartnership.Thecasestudiesandinterviewsoutlinedthatmaintaining

professionalismthroughcommunicationandsharingofexpertisewasoneofthebestways

thatsupportedpartnerships.Additionally,idealco-teachingpartnerswerearticulateand

wereabletomodelinstructionandmeetstudents’needs.Additional,strengthsincluded


21

accurateassessmentofstudentprogress,beingabletoanalyzeteachingandteaching

styles,workingwithawiderangeofstudents,andgainingknowledgeofcoursecontent.

Theauthorsstressedthatbeingreflective,flexible,andopen-mindedwereimportant

attributesforco-teacherstoembraceinordertomaintainsuccessfulpartnerships.

Inorderforco-teachingteamstobehighlyeffective,Dieker,(2001)maintainsthat

rolesandresponsibilitiesofboththespecialeducatorandthegeneraleducationteacher

mustbeclearlydefined.Furthermore,Walther-ThomasandBryant(1996)statethatin

orderforco-teacherstoeffectivelyteachtheymustspendtime:(a)gettingtoknoweach

other;(b)sharingteachingskills;and(c)co-planninginstructionalstrategies.Supporting

this,Friendetal(2010),citedatathatindicatesthatitisimperativethatteachersengaging

inco-teachingcomewillinglyandvoluntarilytothepartnership.Researchcitedfrom

(Scruggsetal.2007)foundthatthemostsuccessfulteamsfoundwaystomotivatestudents

andincreasedsharingofindividualexpertise.Additionally,whenteamswerenot

voluntarilyplaced,theytendedtostrugglewithcollaborationaswellashaveincreased

conflictinrelationtoteachingstyles.Often,thespecialeducatorsassumedtheroleofa

teachingassistantratherthanapartofateachingteam.

Professionaldevelopmentandadministrativesupport.

Throughoutmuchoftheresearchonco-teaching,theimportanceofadministrative

supporthasbeenacommonfactor.Co-teachingteamsfindthat,whentheyhavethe

supportandguidanceoftheiradministrativeteams,theyareabletoengageinmeaningful

co-teachingandpositivelyimpactstudentoutcomes.However,whenadministrative

supportandprofessionaldevelopmentarenotinplace,co-teachingteamsoftenhave

negativeexperiencesandfeellessvalued.


22

MagieraandSimmons(2007)recommendthatco-teachingpracticesbenefitfrom

pairsofco-teachersthatvolunteertoworktogether.Theysuggestthatthesepairsshould

begiventrainingonco-teachingandthoserelationshipsshouldbefosteredforalong-term

relationship.Inordertofurthersupporttheirpractice,co-teachersshouldalsovisitand

observeotherco-teachingpairsinordertoexchangeideasandinstructionalpractices.

Commonplanningtimealsoleadstomoreconsistent,thoughtful,anddifferentiated

instruction.Anadditionalsuggestionincludedtheimportanceofdepartmental

membershipinthecontentareabythespecialeducationteacher,whichprovidesthese

teacherswithopportunitiestoshareideasandnetworktofocusonneedsofthestudents

withdisabilitiesinastrategicway.Friendetal(2010)alsopointsoutthat,despitethe

ultimateunderstandingthatco-teachingshouldbeandcanbeabeneficialmodelforall

students,itisimportanttorealizethatprofessionalsrequiretrainingandongoing

professionaldevelopmentinorderforbenefitstobefullyreached.

Inorderforco-teachingteamstoengageinmeaningfulandwell-informedpractice,

itisimportantforthemtohavethesupportoftheiradministrativeteam.Teachersshould

alsobevolunteersandbegivenopportunitiesforspecifictrainingrelatedtoco-teaching.

SecondaryLiteracyInstructionBestPractice

Inordertoincreasetheeffectivenessofco-teachinginthesecondarylanguagearts

classroom,teachersshouldusebestpracticeliteracyinstruction.Malgren,K.andTrezek,B.

(2009)discusstheimportanceandnecessityofliteracyinstructionforstruggling

adolescentreaders.TheyciteScammeccaetal.(2007),whodeterminedthatadolescenceis

nottoolatetoprovidereadingandliteracyintervention.Additionally,olderstudentswith

disabilitiesarepositivelyimpactedfromexplicitliteracyinstruction—particularlyatthe


23

wordandtextlevel.Areasthatassiststudentthemostinclude:wordstudy,word

meanings,andcomprehensionstrategies.Theauthorsconcludedthatsecondaryreaders

couldalsobenefitfrominstructionrelatedtodecoding,segmenting,andspellingwhen

providedwithgraphosyllabicanalysis.Graphosyllabicanalysisreferstodirectinstruction

relatedtobreakingwordsapartbysyllableaswellasprovidingvocabularyinstruction.

Strugglingreadersalsobenefitfromexplicitinstructionincomprehension

monitoringstrategies.InapracticebriefaddressingadolescentliteracybytheCenteron

Instruction,authorssuggestthatactivatingpriorknowledge,usinggraphicorganizers,

teachingcomprehensionmonitoringstrategiesandteachingsummarizationskillsare

effectivewaystohelpstrugglingstudentsbecomesuccessfulreaders.Modelinggood

readinghabitsthroughthink-aloudsisanotherwaytohelpstudentstolearntothinkabout

theirownreadingandthoughtsduringreading.Interventionsthathavedemonstrated

promiseinassistingstrugglingreadershaveincludedteachingstudentstorecognize

differentstructuresoftexts.Studentsshouldbetaughthowtodistinguishbetween

narrativeandexpositorytexts.Additionally,teachingstorygrammarelementshelpsthem

tohaveabasisfordifferentpartsofastory.

Wordstudy.

Directvocabularyinstructionisnecessarywhetheritiscontent-specificorwords

theymaybeparticularlydifficultorcomplex(MalgremandTrezek,2009;Armbrusteretal.,

2001).Itissuggestedthatspecificwordinstructiontakeplace.Thisinvolvesdefinitions,

non-examples,synonyms,antonyms,andanalogies.Increasedvocabularyandword

understandingisanintegralparttobecomingaproficientreaderastheconnectionsthat

studentsmakewithpreviouswordsanddefinitionsultimatelybecomeapartofastudent’s


24

backgroundknowledge.Readingdevelopmentisgreatlybenefitedfromwordsbeingtaught

insemanticclusters(RoskosandNeuman,2014).

AuthorandteacherKellyGallagher(2004)alsostressestheimportanceofword

studyinordertoincreasecomprehensionforsecondaryreaders.Thefirstwaythathe

engageslearnersinwordstudyisthroughhavingstudentsmemorizeprefixes,suffixes,

roots,andtheirmeanings.Thishelpsstudentslearntobreakwordsapartanddevelopand

understandingofthewordbasedonpartialmeanings.Additionally,Gallagherhasstudents

breakwordsaparttoseeiftheycanlocate“sound-alikes”whichgivesstudentsan

opportunitytodiscernevenapartialmeaningandmakeaneducatedguess.Authors

Harvey“Smokey”DanielsonandStevenZemelmenciteresearcherIsabelBeck(Becketal.,

2013)intheirbookSubjectsMatter:Exceedingstandardsthroughpowerfulcontent-area

reading(2014).Beckdevelopedatieredmodelrelatedtovocabularyacquisition,which

helpsteacherschoosewhichwordsstudentsshouldspendthemosttimelearningrelated

totheirimportanceandusagefrequencyinthefuture.HarveyandDanielsonalsooutlinea

varietyofvocabularyinstructionlessonsandmodels.Eachoftheseaddressesneedsofthe

studentbefore,during,andafterreading.

Cognitivestrategiesforcomprehension.

Alverman(2002)citedastudybyShoenbacketal.,(1999)thatfoundthatstudents

whoweretaughtcomprehensionstrategiesgainedconfidenceintheirreadingabilities.

Alvermanexpandedthisbydiscussingtheimportanceofengagingstudentsin

“metacognition”—essentially,teachingthestudentstothinkabouttheirthinkingasthey

readandreacttotext.Teachersencouragethisbydiscussingwithstudentsreadinggoals,


25

fix-itstrategiesforunderstandingtext,andhowtoextendtheirknowledgebeyondwhat

thetextsaysexplicitly.

Tofurthersupporttheideathatstudentsareaidedbylearninghowtomonitortheir

thinkingduringreading,MalgremandTrezek(2009)refertofindingsfromtheNational

ReadingPanel(NRP)andsupportedbyArmbrusteretal.,2001;BiancarosaandSnow,

2006)thatsuggestthestrongestcomprehensionstrategiesincludecomprehension

monitoring,theuseofsemanticorganizers,questiongenerating,understandingand

recognizingstorystructure,andsummarizing.Thesestrategiesareeasilytransferableto

othertextsandsituations.Additionally,itbenefitsstudentstolearnandunderstandstory

elementssuchas:character,setting,conflict,resolution,andtheme.Studentsmayalsobe

encouragedtouseagraphicorganizerwiththestorystructurethroughoutthereading.

Thishelpstosupportthestudent’sabilitytocheckforunderstanding.

MalgremandTrezek(2009)additionallyciteVallecorsaanddeBettencourt(1997)

whofoundthattheuseofgraphicorganizershasbeenbeneficialinrelationtostudents’

abilitytorecallinformation.Gallagher(2004)providesavarietyofgraphicorganizersin

ordertodeepenstudents’comprehensionthroughmetaphoricalthinking.Hesuggeststhat

studentsarebetterabletoreachdeepermeaningoftextswhentheycanunderstand

metaphorandthatthroughpracticetheycangeneralizethisskilltoother,morecomplex

texts.Thesegraphicorganizershelptoguidestudentstoadeeperunderstandingthrough

guidedandscaffoldedthinkingwithspecificgoalsforeachorganizer.Itisimportanttonote

thatgraphicorganizersareonlyonetooltohelpstudentsreachdeeperunderstandingof

text.Theyshouldbeselectedcarefullyandintroducedinameaningfulwaythathelps

studentstotakeownershipoftheirownlearning.


26

Rereading.

RoskosandNeuman(2014)supporttheideathatstudentsshouldanalyzeandlook

moredeeplyatindividualwords,details,organization,anddeterminehowsupporting

detailsilluminatetheoverallthemeofatext.TheyciteShanahan(2012)whoreferstore-

readingas“close-reading”—whichshouldoccurbothduringandafterreading.Roskosand

Neuman(2014)gotociteresearchsupportingthatre-readingincreasescomprehension

andimprovesastudent’sabilitytomonitorandassesshisorherownunderstandingwhen

engaginginunfamiliarornewmaterial.

Gallagher(2004)stressesthenecessityofrereadingtextsforhigherlevelsof

understanding.Hereferstothisasfirstandseconddraftreading.Manycomplextextsare

oftentoodifficulttounderstandafteraninitialreading.Hestressestheimportanceof

reducingstudentanxietybyreferringtothefirstreadthroughasa“firstdraftreading”.In

thisdraft,Gallagherencouragesstudentstogetthebasicsfromthetext.Theseinclude:

characters,setting,thelanguageandhowthetextislaidout,aswellasthemajorplot

elements.Healsostressestheimportanceofframingthetextbybuildingthestudents’

backgroundknowledgetopreparethemforreadingthedifficulttext.Inthe“seconddraft

reading”studentsareaskedtoanalyzewhatthetextisreallysaying—makeinferencesand

usetextualevidencetosupportthem.Throughcreatinganatmosphereinwhichre-reading

isexpected,rewardedandvalued,studentsaregiventheopportunitytogeneralize

rereadingasanecessaryskillthatstrongreadershave.

StudentEngagement.

Alvermann(2002)suggeststhateffectiveliteracyinstructionforadolescentsshould

especiallyfocusonself-efficacyandstudentengagement.Theauthorstressesthe


27

importanceofastudent’sself-conceptofhisorherabilityasareaderasbeingasignificant

factorthatimpactshowmotivatedheorsheistolearninanysubjectarea.Furthermore,

adolescentliteracyinstructionshouldengageandbuildonstudentbackgroundknowledge.

Teachersshouldfindwaystoincludestudents’culturalbackgrounds,feelings,and

experiencesintotheliteracyinstruction,aswellastogivestudentsavarietyofwaysto

respondandengageincooperativelearningwiththeirpeers.Anadditionalsuggestionfor

increasedengagementforadolescentreadersinvolvestheutilizationofhypermedia

projects,journalwriting,andstudent-leddiscussions.

RoskosandNeuman(2014)citeresearchthatdigitalreadingisanincentivefor

bothyoungerandlowerachievingstudents.Thisresearchstatesthatthemoreimmediate

feedbackfrome-booksandappscanaidinkeepingstudentsengagedandmotivated

(Grinshaw,Dungworth,McKnight,andMorris,2007;Zucker,MoodyandMcKenna,2009).

Withincreasedtechnologyinclassroomsandworkingwithstudentswhoare“digital

natives,”ithasbecomeincreasinglyimportanttoengagestudentsintasksthatarerelevant

tothemandtheirculture.Thisalsoprovidesopportunitiesforengagingstudentsincritical

literacyactivities.

Researchershavealsofoundtheneedtobuildrelevancythroughscaffoldingandthe

useoflinkedtextsets(LTS).AframeworkforLTSincludesengagement,exploration,and

expansionphases.Ineachofthesephases,studentsareintroducedtosupplementary

materials(videos,shortstories,novels,movietrailers,songs,newsarticles)inorderto

supportoverallthemeandessentialquestionsforaliteratureunit.Ineachphasethe

materialsareutilizedtoengagestudentsinmeaningfulconversations,deeperthinking,and

makingconnectionstotheirownexperiencesandbeliefs.TheideaofLTSistoscaffoldhigh


28

schoolstudents’readingofcomplextextsaswellastoincreaseengagementandhigher

levelthinking(Elish-Piper,Wold,Schwingendorf,2014).

Collaborationwithpeersisalsoameaningfulstrategytoguidestudentstodeeper

meaningandhigherlevelthinking.Whenstudentsareabletoshareideasandchecktheir

understandingwithotherstudents,theyhaveincreasedownershipintheirownlearning.

Gallagher(2004)pointsoutthatitisintegralthatstrugglingreadershavetheopportunity

tohavemeaningfulconversationsaboutwhattheyarereadingwiththeirpeers.Hebegins

theschoolyearbyassigningvariousrolessuchasdiscussionleader,note-taker,and

organizerinordertofocusgroupdiscussions.Thisisoftenbecausestudentshavenotbeen

explicitlytaughthowtoengageinmeaningfuldiscussions.Healsoincludesavarietyof

grouptasksthathelptofocusstudentdiscussionandtomeetlessonobjectives.Suggestions

thatheincludesare:double-entryjournals,envelopeswithguidingquestions,groupexams,

conversationlogs,themetriangles,silentexchanges,andtroubleslips.

Intheco-taughtclassroom,twoinstructorscanbestimplementthesupports

outlinedabove.Specificwordstudyandcognitivecomprehensionstrategiescanbe

adaptedtomeetindividualstudentneedsorbetaughtasawholeclass.Additionally,

throughgivingstudentsopportunitiestofurtherengageintextsbycollaboratingwiththeir

peersandincreasingtheirabilitytoreread,theyaregivenopportunitiestothinkona

higherlevelandreachdeepermeaningofwhattheyread.

Summary

Co-teachingisamodelthathasevolvedovertimeinordertoaddresstheneedsof

studentswithlearningdisabilitiesandmeetexpectationsoutlinedbyfederalandstate

mandates(IDEA2004,NCLB2001).Thereareavarietyofmodelstoco-teachingthatcan


29

beutilizedtomeetlessonobjectivesandstudentneeds,aswellastobuildonthestrengths

oftheindividualteachers.Despitethewidespreadimplementation,therecontinuestobea

gapintheresearchprovingco-teaching’seffectiveness.Thisismostlikelyduetothewide

rangeofmodels,students,andsubjectareasacrosswhichco-teachingisused.However,

therearesomestudiesthathaveindicatedaslightincreaseinstudentoutcomes.Many

authorshaveaddressedthecomponentsnecessaryforasuccessfulco-teaching

partnership.Thesecomponentsinclude:commonplanningtime,clearrolesand

responsibilities,supportiveadministrativestaff,professionaldevelopment,shared

resources,sharedexpectationsrelatedtostudentoutcomesandbehaviors,andvoluntary

partnerships.

Inordertoeffectivelysupportstudentsinthesecondaryliteracyclassroom,the

previouslyaddressedresearchandliteratureindicatedthatsecondarystudentsbenefitfor

explicitteachinginavarietyofareasaswellasopportunitiestocollaborate.Students

especiallybenefitfromvocabularyinstructionandwordwork.Atthesecondarylevelthis

involvesteachingacademicvocabularyaswellasteachingstudentswordpartsandtheir

meanings.Studentsshouldalsobeinstructedinmetacognitivestrategiesinorderto

monitortheirthinkingbefore,during,andafterreading.Thismayinvolvetheuseof

graphicorganizerstohelpscaffoldstudentsthinking,readinggoals,summarizing,

paragraphshrinking,understandingstorystructureandstorygrammar,andteachingfix

upstrategiestomonitorcomprehension.Inthenextchapter,Iwilldescribethemethods,

datacollectionprocedure,anddataanalysistechniquesthatIwillusetoanswermy

researchquestion:Whichco-teachingandliteracypracticesaremosteffectiveinthe

secondarylanguageartsclassroom?


30

ChapterThree:Methodology

Thisstudyexaminedtheresearchquestionofwhichmodelsofco-teachingand

literacyinthelanguageartsclassroomarethemosteffectiveatthesecondarylevel.My

researchwillhelptoinformthepracticesofninthandtenthgradeEnglishandspecial

educationteachersatafirstringsuburbanhighschoolintheMidwest.

Thisresearchwasbasedonanonymousquestionnairescompletedbytwo

secondarylanguageartsteachersandonespecialeducationteacheratthisschoolwho

teachgradesnineandtenabouttheirco-teachingexperiences.Researchalsoincludedat

leasttworecordedinterviewswithselectedco-teachersinorderpaintapictureofwhatthe

co-taughtclassroomlanguageartsclassroomlookslikeforeachofthem.Anonymous

questionnaireswerecompletedbystudentswithintheco-taughtlanguageartsclassboth

withandwithoutspecialeducationservices.Interviewsoftheschool’sassociateprincipal

wasconductedabouthisunderstandingofco-teachingandliteracytechniques,aswellas

expectationsandoutlookforthefuture.Inordertoprovidestatisticalperspectivesonthe

efficacyofco-teachingandvariousliteracystrategiesinthesecondarylanguagearts

classroom,datawasalsogatheredonstudentgrowthandoutcomesonstatereading

assessmentsaswellasareviewofacademicgradecomparisons.

OverviewoftheChapter

Thischapteroutlinesthemethodologiesthatwereusedinordertoanswerthe

researchquestion.First,thequalitativeresearchparadigmwasdescribedaswellaswellas

thereasonsinformingmydecisionstousethiskindofresearch.Descriptionsofthe

participantsandthesettingofthisresearchareincluded,aswellaspresentthethreedata

collectionmethodsthatwereutilizedtofindtheanswertomyresearchquestion.To


31

concludethischapter,adescriptionoftheprocedurebywhichthedataontheco-teaching

practicesandliteracyinstructioninthisschoolwasanalyzed.

ResearchParadigm

Theresearchparadigmtoaddresstheresearchquestioninvolvedmixedmethods.

Mixedmethodsresearchinvolvesgatheringandanalyzingbothqualitativeandquantitative

data.Thistypeofresearchprovidesbothopenended(qualitative)andclosed

(quantitative)setsofdata(Creswell,2014).Inthefieldofresearchandanalysis,mixed

methodsisafairlynewmodel.WhileJohnCreswell(2014)suggeststhatqualitativedatais

themostbeneficialformofdatacollectiontoanswermyresearchquestion,Ifeltthata

reviewofclassroomgradesaswellasstatetestingscorescouldaddanadditional

perspectiveand,perhaps,moreconcretedata.

Qualitativedatawasgatheredbywayofanonymousquestionnairesandinterviews.

Questionnairesweredistributedtotwosetsofco-teachingpartnersaswellasbetween20

and30sophomorestudentsenrolledinco-taughtlanguagearts.Manyofthesestudents

hadaco-taughtEnglishclassin9thgrade.Studentrespondentswerebothwithandwithout

IndividualEducationPlans.Basedonthereviewofthevariousstudiesandliterature,

gatheringquantitativedataonco-teachinghasmanylimitations.Theselimitationsinclude

butarenotlimitedto:lackofconsistentuseofco-teachingmodelsbetweenclassrooms,

lackofconsistentuseofliteracystrategiesandinstructionbetweenclassrooms,andlackof

consistentstudentneedsbetweenclassrooms.Becausethereissomuchvariability

betweenco-taughtclassrooms,gatheringqualitativedataisdifficultandoftenfilledwith

gaps.Manystudiestendtoendwithmorequestionsthansoliddataandsignificantdata

supportingwhichmodelsarebest.However,gatheringsomestateassessmentdataand


32

makingcomparisonsbetweenco-taughtandnon-co-taughtcoursescouldprovidesome

valuabledatainordertoanswermyresearchquestionsinamorecomprehensivemanner.

SettingandParticipants

ThesettingofthisstudywasatahighschoolintheMidwestwithapproximate

enrollmentof2,200studentsduringthefalltrimesterofthe2015-2016schoolyear.This

highschoolislocatedinafirst-ringsuburbandisconsideredurban.District-widestudent

ethnicityisreportedas:50%white,21%Asian,16%Black,11%Hispanic,and1%

AmericanIndian.28%ofstudentsenrolledinthedistrictspeaklanguagesotherthan

Englishathome.Primarily,theselanguagesinclude:Spanish,Karen,andHmong.Atthe

highschool,studentsofvariousethnicitiesandracesmakeupthefollowingpercentages:

2%Twoormoreraces,1%AmericanIndian,16%Asian,11%Black,8%Hispanic,and63%

White.38%ofstudentsattendingthisschoolreceivefreeorreducedlunch.Basedonstate

assessmentsinreading,41%ofstudentsmeetstandards,28%exceedstandards,and16%

partiallymeetstandards.Approximately10%ofstudentsattendingthishighschoolhave

individualizededucationplans(IEPs).

Theparticipantsofthisstudyconsistedoftwogeneraleducationlanguagearts

teachersandonespecialeducationteacherwhoworkwithbothninthandtenthgrade

students.Additionalparticipantswereapproximately20to39studentswithintheco-

taughtenvironment.Thesestudentsweretenthgradestudentswithandwithoutspecial

educationservices.Theschool’sassociateprincipalwasalsointerviewedasapartofthis

studyinordertoprovidemorecomprehensiveandwell-roundedperspectivesofco-

teachinginthisenvironment.


33

DataCollectionandRationale

Datacollectiontechnique1:Interview.

Oneofthequalitativeresearchmethodsthatwasutilizedinthisstudywillinvolve

interviews.Structuredinterviewswithpredeterminedquestionswereconductedwithboth

co-teachersaswellaswiththeassociateprincipalinthebuilding.Theseincludedquestions

addressingvariousaspectsofco-teachingandliteracyinstruction.GeoffreyMills(2013)

suggeststhatusingstructuredandformalinterviewsallowstheresearchertoask

consistentquestionsacrossparticipants.Byusingthismethod,questionsweredeveloped

insuchawaythatelicitedinformationthatwillbestaddresstheresearchquestion.John

Creswell(2014)suggeststhatthereareavarietyofwaystointerviewparticipants.

However,hesuggeststhatface-to-face—one-on-one,in-personinterviewsprovide

historicalinformationandallowstheresearchercontroloverthequestions.Thisprovided

avarietyofperspectivesandinformationaboutco-teachingpracticesinthelanguagearts

classroomatthisschool.

Datacollectiontechnique2:Questionnaire.

Togatherfurtherdatarelatingtotheresearch,anonymousquestionnaireswere

distributedtobothco-teachingpartnersaswelltostudentsenrolledinco-taughtEnglishin

gradeten.Thisallowedforthecollectionoflargeamountsofdatainarelativelyshort

periodoftime.OneconcernthatCreswellmentionsregardingquestionnairesinvolvesthe

students’abilitytoreadandwrite.Thoughthisisavalidconcern,workingwithsecondary

studentsenrolledinageneraleducationlevelclassensuresthatthestudentswereableto

readthequestionsandanswerinwrittenform.Inordertogatherdataefficiently,the

questionnaireincludedaLikertscale.Questionnairesweredistributeddigitallyasthis


34

schoolusesone-to-oneiPadsandallstaffhaveiPadsaswell.AsCreswellsuggests,the

surveyalsoincludedan“othercomments”section.Afewadditionalfollowupquestions

wereincludedinthequestionnaireaswell.Challengeswiththismethodcouldinvolvelack

ofcompletionorreturningthequestionnaire.Inthecaseofstudents,somemaynotfindthe

purposevalidorengagingandtheymaynottakethetaskseriously.Itmaybenefitthe

researchtoofferasmallincentive,suchaschocolateorcandyaftercompletingthe

questionnaire.Questionsinthisquestionnairehavebeenadaptedfromotherresearch

relatedtosimilartopics(Conderman,2011;Smith,2012).

Datacollectiontechnique3:Statetestingandgradereportreview.

Thequantitativesectionoftheresearchinvolvedareviewofstatetestingdatafrom

specificstudentshavingbeenenrolledinclassesthatwerebothco-taughtandwithouta

secondteacher.Atthesecondarylevel,thestaterequiresonestatereadingtestduring

tenthgrade.Reviewofthesescoreswasfocusedprimarilyonstudentswhomet,exceeded,

partiallymet,ordidnotmeetstatestandards.Areviewofstudentswhohavebeenenrolled

inco-taughtlanguageartsinbothninthandtenthgradesoccurred.Additionally,areview

ofseveralnon-co-taughtsampleclasseswithothergeneraleducationteachersinboth

ninthandtenthgradewasconducted.Bygatheringthesetwotypesofdata,itwasexpected

tohelptriangulatewhetherornotperspectivesandqualitativedatamatchwithstudent

outcomesthroughbothstandardizedtestingandreportcardprogress.

Ethics

Inordertoprotecttheparticipants’rightsaswellastoensurethattheirresponses

andfeedbackwereanonymous,severalguidelinesandprocedureswerefollowed.Human

SubjectsResearchProtocolsfromHamlineUniversitywerealsofollowed.Additionally,


35

safeguardsthattheschooldistricthasinplacetoprotectstudentandstaffwereadheredto.

Therefore,aletteroutliningthepurposeandproceduresofthestudyaswellasan

informedconsentwasprovidedtoeachparticipantinthisstudy.Questionnaireswere

administeredthroughananonymouswebservice.Additionally,interviewswereconducted

privately.Areviewofstatetestingdataandstudentgradeswasusedsolelyforthepurpose

ofdatacollectionandnamesorotherspecificidentifyingattributeswerenotutilizedinthe

dataanalysis.Allofthisdatawaskeptinasecurefilingcabinetwhennotinuse.Interview

andquestionnairedatawascoded.Individualstudentnameswerenotgathered.Oneyear

afterthecompletionofthisresearchproject,allcollecteddatawillbedestroyed.

Summary

Theprimarysourceofdatacollectionforthisstudywasgatheredthrough

anonymoussurveystostudentsandinterviewswithadministratorsandteachers.

Additionalstatisticaldatawasgatheredfromstatetestingscoresandacademicgrades.


36

ChapterFour:Results

Thepurposeofthisstudywastodeterminewhichmodelsofco-teachingandliteracy

inthelanguageartsclassroomaremosteffectiveatthesecondarylevel.Inordertoanswer

thisquestion,bothqualitativeandquantitativeresearchwasconductedatafirst-ring

suburbanhighschoolintheMidwest.Anonymousaggregatedatawascollectedtocompare

10thgradestatereadingscoresbetweenco-taughtsectionsandnon-co-taughtsectionsof

English.Togatherqualitativedata,interviewsandanonymoussurveyswereconducted.

Studentsinoneco-taughtsectionof10thgradeEnglishcompletedananonymoussurvey.

Co-teacherscompletedshortquestionnairesandthenparticipatedinrecordedinterviews

relatingtoco-teachingandliteracy.Finally,oneadministratorwasinterviewedabouthis

knowledgeofandgoalsrelatingtoco-teachingandhowthemodelimpactsstudent

outcomes.

OverviewoftheChapter

Thischapterreviewsthedatacollectedfrombothqualitativeandquantitative

research.First,studentstatereadingscoresfromco-taughtsectionsofEnglishclassesare

comparedtonon-co-taughtsections.Next,areviewofstudentresponsesfroman

anonymousquestionnairegivenina10thgradeco-taughtlanguageartsclassisdiscussed.

Aninterviewwithanadministratorregardingperceptions,support,andeffectivenessofco-

teachingwasreviewed.Co-teacherquestionnairesandinterviewswerealsoexamined.

StudentOutcomes

Inordertogatherfurtherinformationonstudentoutcomes,statereadingtest

scoreswerepulledforstudentsfromtwoconsecutiveschoolyears(AppendixF).A

comparisonwasthenmadeofallninthgradeEnglishclassesbetweenco-taughtsections,


37

non-co-taughtsections,andsectionswherestudentsreceivedthreetrimesters(year-long

instruction)ofninthgradeEnglish.Inthechartbelow,percentagesofstudents

experiencinghigh,medium,orlowgrowthsince8thgradeareincluded.Theoverallresults

fromthiscomparisonarevaried.

Inthreeofthefourco-taughtsectionsofEnglish9,thereisalargerpercentageof

studentsexperiencinghighgrowththanintheentiregradelevelcombined(includingsix

othernon-co-taughtsections).However,inthreeofthefourco-taughtclasses,thereare

alsoalargerpercentageofstudentsachievinglowgrowththaninallofthegradelevel

combined.Therewasalowerpercentageofmediumgrowthinco-taughtsectionsthanin

theclassasawhole.Thisdatasuggestthattherewasalargergapbetweenhighgrowth

studentsandlowgrowthstudentsthaninalloftheclassescombined.Withinthedata

collected,itwasdeterminedthatstatereadingscoresareneithersignificantlybetternor

significantlyworseforstudentswhoareinco-taughtclassescomparedtothosewhoare

not.

Thisdatawassimilartootherquantitativestudiesofco-teachingeffectiveness.

Friendetal.(2009)foundthattheco-teachingmodelpositivelyimpactedstudent

attendanceandacademicgrades.WhileinstudiesbyMcLaughlin,Rea,andWalther-

Thomas(2002)andIdol(2006),showedthatnosignificantgainswerefoundon

achievementinhighstakestesting

Co-taughtStudentPerceptions

Anonymousquestionnairesweredistributedtoatenthgradeco-taughtclass

consistingof34students.Nineofthesestudentswereidentifiedashavingindividualized

educationplans.Twoofthesestudentshad504plans(provideaccommodationsinthe


38

learningenvironmentforstudentswithdisabilitiesorsignificanthealthconcerns).

Seventy-fourpercentofstudentscompletedaquestionnaire.Whenaskediftheyhad

learnedmoreintheco-taughtclassthaninotherclassesthatarenotco-taught,nearlyhalf

ofthestudentrespondentsindicatedthattheywereunsure,while10otherstudents

respondedthattheyagreeorstronglyagreethattheylearnedmoreintheco-taughtclass.

Studentswerealsoaskedtoindicateareasofreadingandwritingwheretheyfelt

thattheyhadmadethemostgrowthoverthetrimester.Themostcommonareasthatwere

indicatedasgrowthareasincluded:readinglevel,fluency,andcomprehension.Several

studentsalsosharedthattheyfeeltheirvocabularyincreasedaspartofthiscourse.64%of

studentsrespondedthattheyfelttheybecamebetterwritersasaresultofbeingintheco-

taughtclass.Mostcommonareasthatwereidentifiedasbecomingstrongwere:using

evidence,organization,developingathesisstatement,andeditingtheirwork.

Severalstudentsalsowrotethattheyfeltthat“all”oftheirwritingskillsincreased.

Studentrespondentsidentifiedwritingasahighergrowthareathanreading.Over60%of

studentssaidtheystronglyagreedoragreedwiththeideathattheygottogettoknow

theirteachersandclassmatesbetterintheco-taughtsectionthanintheirotherclasses.The

followingtableindicatesthatthemajorityofstudentsstronglyagreedthattheyfeltthey

werebetterwritersasaresultofbeingintheco-taughtclass.

Table1-StudentResponsesRegardingWritingSkills


39

Table2

StudentResponsesRegardingReadingSkills

Astheabovechartdemonstrates,studentsagreedorwereunsureaboutwhetheror

nottheirreadingskillsgotbetterasaresultoftheco-taughtclass.Anothersignificantarea

ofpositivityincludedthestatement,“IfeellikeIhavereceivedmorehelpinthisclassthan

inothernon-co-taughtclasses.”Approximately73%ofstudentsagreedorstronglyagreed

thattheyfeltthisstatementwastrue.Infollowuptothisstatement,studentsalso

respondedwithapproximately73%whostronglyagreedoragreedtothefollowing

statement,“IfeltlikeIgottoknowmyteachersandclassmatesbetterinthisclassthanin

otherclasses.”

Whenrespondingtothestatement,“Iparticipatedmoreofteninthisclassmore

oftenthaninothernon-co-taughtclasses,”students,over50%ofstudentsidentifiedthat

theyfeltthiswasatruestatement.Studentswrotethataspectstheylikedbestaboutthe

classwere:theteachers,thenovelFlight(2007)byShermanAlexie,gettingtoworkwith

theirfriends,gettingtohavediscussions/workwiththeirpeers.Ingeneral,student

responseswereeitherneutralorpositive.Acrossallstatements,nomorethanfour

studentsrespondedwith“stronglydisagree”or“disagree”.


40

Therewereseveraloutlyingsuggestionsfromstudentswhenaskingwhatteachers

coulddobetter.Theseinvolvedcommentsonhowtheyfeltthattheteachersshouldbeless

strictregardingbehavioralexpectations.Specificexamplesincluded:“pleasehaveless

chaoticstudentsandmakethesilentonestalkmore;”“Belessstrictandlessusdowhatwe

want”;“Don’tbetooweird”and“Givememoretimetocompleteexitslips.”Onlyhalfof

studentswhocompletedthesurveyleftspecificwrittencomments.

Generally,studentresponsessuggestedthattheyfelthavingtwoteachersallowed

formorequestionstobeanswered.Theyalsorespondedthattheywereabletoreceive

morehelp.Morestudentsrespondedthattheywereunsureorundecidedabouttheir

readingskills.Abouthalfoftherespondentsidentifiedspecificareasofgrowthincluding

fluency,comprehension,andvocabulary.Somestudents,however,respondedinwritten

formthattheyfelttheywerealready“goodorverygood”readerstobeginwith,sotheydid

notseeamajordifferenceinreadingability.

Studentsurveyresultsindicatedthatmoststudentsfoundthattheco-taught

environmenthasapositiveimpactontheirliteracyskillsrelatedtowritingaswellas

reading.Studentsrespondedthattheyfeltthattheco-taughtenvironmentallowedfor

increasedattentionandhelpwhenneeded.

AdministratorInterview

Theadministratorinterviewedaspartofthisstudyhasbeenworkinginan

administrativeroleatthisschoolforthepastsixyears.Duringhisfirstthreeyearsatthis

schoolheworkedasaDeanofStudentsandwasthedirectsupervisortotheSpecial

EducationDepartment.Hehasabackgroundinschoolpsychology,whichhelpedhiminhis


41

leadershiprolewiththisdepartment.Hewas,andcontinuestobeastrongproponentofco-

teaching.Whenaskedwhatco-teachinglookedlikeinhisbuilding,hesaidthat,

Thereareavarietyofpartnershipsatdifferentstagesofdevelopmentbetweenboth

specialeducationandgeneraleducationaswellasbetweenEL(EnglishLanguage)

andgeneraleducation.However,theidealpartnershipwouldbeonewhereanyone

couldwalkintotheclassroomandnotbeabletotellwhothecontentareateacheris

andwhothespecialeducationorELteacheris.(E.Singer,personalcommunication,

November30,2015)

Healsosuggestedthattherearethreedifferentlevelsofpartnershipsinthis

schoolbasedonthelevelofexperience:

1. Seamless,fluidenvironmentwithbothteachersinstructing,

2. Contentteacherprimarilyinstructing,whiletheELorSpecialEducationteacher

providesre-teaching,review,andenrichment

3. Burgeoningpartnershipswhereeachpartnerisworkingtoidentifytheirroles

withintherelationship

Thisadministratorthenwasasked,“Howdoyouthinkco-teachinginthelanguagearts

classroomcanimpactstudentliteracy?”Heresponded,

ThisisassumingIknewatonaboutliteracy,butyoucanmeetstudentswherethey

are.Youcanbreakituptomeeteachstudent.Youcanprovideenrichmentonboth

endsofthespectrum,andhavedifferentiationtimetoworkonliteracyskills.We

canmeetmorestudents’needs.Notjuststudentswithspecialneeds.Allstudents

areenrichedinthatenvironment.(E.Singer,personalcommunication,November

30,2015)


42

TheAssistantPrincipalwentontodiscusshowhewouldliketoseeanexpansionof

interdisciplinaryco-teachingpartnerships.Healsostatedthatongoingprofessional

developmentandcommonpreparationtimeareimportantcomponentswhenconsidering

co-teachingpartnershipsuccess.Hediscussedtheideaofhavinganinterdisciplinaryco-

teachingprofessionallearningcommunityfocusedondifferentiation.

Theviewpointsrepresentedbythisadministratorfocusedonvoluntary

partnershipswhereeachpartnerisabletotakeovertheentireclassasneeded.Hestressed

theimportanceof“buyin”andrecruitmentinordertocreatesuccessfulandlong-lasting

co-teachingpartnerships.Further,headdressedtheincreasedabilitytodifferentiateand

meetmorestudentneedsatavarietyoflevelswhenaclassroomisbeingrunbytwo

teacherswhoaccesstheirareasofexpertise.Finally,hesuggestedthatprofessional

developmentforco-teachersshouldbeongoing.

TeacherInterviewandQuestionnaire

Threeteachersweregivenaquestionnaireandinterviewedaspartofthisresearch.

Theseteacherswereselectedbecausetheyaretheonlyteachersinthebuildingwho

currentlyco-teachlanguageartsclasses.Therearenoeleventhortwelfthgradelevelco-

taughtlanguageartscoursesoffered.Twooftheseteachersarelanguageartsteachers.The

otherisaspecialeducationteacherwhohasbeenworkingwiththeEnglishdepartmentas

aco-teacherforthepastfiveyears;thisspecialeducatorworkswithbothofthelanguage

artsteachers.ShehasaBachelor’sdegreeinbothcreativewritingandSpecialEducation

andhasworkedatthisschoolforsixyears.Sheprimarilyworkswithninthandtenthgrade

students.Languageartsteacheronehasbeenteachinginthedistrictforthepasttwenty

years.Shehasworkedwithavarietyofstudentsandiscurrentlycurriculumleaderfora


43

programtotargetat-riskstudentsandprovidethemwithmoresupportatschool.Shehas

beenco-teachingwiththespecialeducationteacherforthepastsixyears.Shehasa

Master’sdegreeinEducationandhastaughtsomemulti-disciplinaryclassesinthepastand

primarilyteachesninthandtenthgradestudents.Thesecondlanguageartsteacherhas

beenteachingatthisschoolforthreeyears.Oneofthoseyearswasinalong-term

substituteposition.Sheprimarilyteachestenth,eleventh,andtwelvegradestudents.

Twoco-teachingmodelswereidentifiedthroughtheinterviewprocessasbeingthe

mostpopularandviewedasthemosteffective.Theseweretheteamteachingmodeland

thealternativeteachingmodel.Teachersfoundthesetobethemostusefulbecauseit

allowedthemtobothbeseenasequalpartnersbyeachotheraswellasbythestudents.

Perceptionofinstructorsbythestudentswassomethingthatintervieweesidentifiedas

beingveryimportantwhenestablishingapartnershipandmaintainingpositive

relationshipswithstudents.Thefollowingtablesummarizesintervieweeperspectives

relatedtoco-teachingexperiences.

Table3TeacherPerspectivesRegardingCo-teachingExperiencesPositivePerspectives ChallengesHavingthesupportofanotherprofessionalintheclassroom

Lackofcommonplanningtime

Learningfromtheotherperson Challengeswhenpartnershipsareassignedbyothersandnotapersonalandprofessionalchoice

Developingcurriculumandmakingadaptationstogether

Classeswithhigherproportionsofstudentswithincreasedneeds.

Positivestudentoutcomes(comprehension,writtenlanguage,grades,behavior,attendance,academicsuccess)

Lackofongoingprofessionaldevelopmentorsupport


44

Intervieweesindicatedthattheyaddressedliteracyinavarietyofways.Becausethere

isawiderangeofabilitylevels,teachersdirectlyteachreadingstrategies.Someofthese

strategiesinclude,directlyteachingvocabularyandwordparts,previewingthetext,

accessingpriorknowledge,andprovidingmultipleopportunitiesforre-reading,and

providingreadingguideswhenstudentsareexpectedtoreadindependently,andusing

think-aloudstomodelhowgoodreadersthinkaboutandrespondtotext.Somequestions

andresponsesareincludedbelow.

Whatdoestheco-teachingmodellooklikeinyourownclassroom,howdoyouincorporate

itintopractice?

LanguageArtsTeacher#1:Myco-teacherandIsharetheteachingroleswithinour

classroom.Oneteacherleadsalesson,whiletheotheraddstothediscussion,asks

clarifyingquestions,orassistsstudentswithcontentunderstandingandbehaviors(J.

Johnson,personalcommunication,November10,2016).

LanguageartsTeacher#2:It’shardtopinpointwhichmodelspecifically,butwetendto

bothdotheteaching.Ithelpsthatstudentsseebothofusasteachers.Insteadofasone

personsupportandonepersontakingthelead(B.Stahlman,personalcommunication,

December1,2015).

Doyoufeelliketherehasbeenanymodelthathasbeentheleasthelpfulornotas

helpfulasothers?

Languageartsteacher#1:Allmodelshaveatimeandplace,dependingontheneedsof

thestudentsLeasthelpfulisprobablyparallelteaching(J.Johnson,personal

communication,November10,2016).


45

Languageartsteacher#2:Inmypastexperiencethemodelofpullingstudentsout

orjustwhenonepersonsupportsitreallyturnsintojustabehaviorcheckandother

studentsarekindofjustlike,“whoisthislady?(B.Stahlman,personalcommunication,

December1,2015)”

Doyouandyourco-teachersharetheteachingroles?

Languageartsteacher#1:Myco-teacherandIsharetheteachingroleswithinour

classroom.Oneteacherleadsalessonwhiletheotheraddstothediscussion,asks

clarifyingquestions,orassistsstudentswithcontentunderstandingandbehaviors(J.

Johnson,personalcommunication,November10,2016).

Languageartsteacher#2:Asmyco-teacherislearningthecontentit’salittlelessso,

butIhaveconfidenceinthefuturethatwewillsharemoreteachingespeciallyaswetry

tointegratealittlemorereadingskillsfocus(B.Stahlman,personalcommunication,

December1,2015).

Languageartsteacher#1:Myco-teacherstartsclassoffbygettingtheclasssettledand

thenreviewingdailyexpectationsaswellasfutureassignments.Shethengoesintothe

vocabularylessonfortheday.Itendtointroducethenewmaterial,butwebothsupport

eachotherandarerespectfulofwhenandhowweaddinformationtowhatweare

talkingabout(J.Johnson,personalcommunication,November10,2016).

Specialeducationteacher:Itisdifferentwitheitherofmyco-teachers.Onepartnership

isolderandmoreestablished,soIfeelmorecomfortablewiththecurriculumandmore

abletojumpinandoutoftheinstructionalprocess.Intheotherenvironment,I’mstill

learningthecurriculum,soItendtodomorereviewandre-teachingaswellasspend


46

moretimewithadaptationsanddifferentiation(A.Robenhorst,personalreflection,

November12,2016).

Howdoyouandyourteachingpartnerassessstudentsandmonitortheirprogress?

Languageartsteacher#1:Dailyassignmentsandactivities,observation,formativeand

summativeassessments,individualmeetingswithstudents(J.Johnson,personal

communication,November10,2016).

Languageartsteacher#2:Inourclass,weusedailyexitslips.Studentsaregivena

guidingquestionforthedayandaskedtodemonstratetheirknowledgeorskillatthe

endofclass.Wealsohavesmalldailyformativeassignmentsandlargeunit-based

summativeassignments.Manyofthesesummativeassessmentsareessays(B.

Stahlman,personalcommunication,December1,2015).

Specialeducationteacher:Itdependsontheclass.ButIreallyenjoytheexitslipsthat

wedoinourtenthgradeclass.Itisalotofdaily“grading,”butitisagreatwaytokeepa

pulseontheclass.IfeelthatIhavereallygottentoknowthestudentsmuchbetter

throughtheexitslipsaswell.Inbothclassesweusesformativeassignmentsand

summativefinalprojects,essays,orexams.Thekeyforbothclassesisthatwecheckin

withallofthestudentsalot.Itisnicetohavetwobodiesforthis(A.Robenhorst,

personalreflection,November12,2016).

Allthreeintervieweesrespondedthattheymonitorstudentprogressthroughformative

andsummativeassessments.Oneco-teachingpartnershipusesdailyexitslipstoaddressa

varietyofskillsonaday-to-daybasiswhileassessinggrowththroughlargersummative

assessmentsthatincludeexams,essays,andprojects.Theotherco-teacherindicatedthat

sheandherco-teacherusealargervarietyofdailyassignmentsandsummative


47

assessmentsthatincludeessays,projects,andexamsaswell.Theyfindthathaving

studentsengageinagreatdealofeditingandrewritinghasbeenoneofthemostbeneficial

strategieswhenitcomestothisskillarea.Theyalsodoone-to-oneconferencingabout

writtenlanguageskills.Theysharedthatthisissomethingthatislesstime-consumingwith

twoteachers.

Allco-teachersrespondedthattheyfeltthatco-teachingisaneffectiveservice

deliverymodel.However,theystressedtheneedforadministrativesupportinorderto

havetheappropriateratiosofstudentswithintheco-taughtenvironment.Finally,they

discussedtheneedforapositiveandvoluntaryrelationshipbetweenco-teachingpartners.

Oneco-teacherhadhadnegativeexperiencesinthepastwhereherpartnerdidnotfeel

comfortablewithteachinganentireclass;thereforetheteamteachingmodelwasnot

somethingtheywereabletouse.This,inturn,resultedinfeelingthatthepartnershipwas

imbalancedandnotassupportiveforallstudents.

Overall,thethreeco-teachersthatwereinterviewedrespondedthattheyviewco-

teachingasamodelofteachingthatcanbehighlyeffectivewithworkingwithallstudents.

Whenaddressingliteracy,theyrespondedthattheyusedavarietyofstrategiesincluding:

activatingpriorknowledge,usingthink-alouds,providingopportunitiesforre-readingor

closereading,andprovidedavarietyofwaysforstudentstorespondandreceivefeedback.

Whenaskedhowtheyaddressliteracyintheirco-taughtclassroom,theyshared:

LanguageartsTeacher#2:Definitelydoadirectinstructionofvocabularyincluding

wordpartsandpartsofspeechaswellasgrammar.Ialsoliketoteachmetacognition

relatedtoreading.Monitoringreading.Iliketomodelquestionaskingwhilereading.Iused

todomoreclosereading,buttimehasgotteninthewayofthat.OnethingthatIhavebeen


48

wantingtodopushingforwardisworkingonsmallpracticing.Insteadofdoingaclose

readingoffiveparagraphsdoingaclosereadingonasentenceortwosoyoucanworkon

thosestrategieswhileitsnotsotimeinvolving(B.Stahlman,personalcommunication,

December1,2015).

Theyalsocommentedontheimportanceofvoluntarypartnershipswhereeachpartner

feelsasiftheyareabletoshareequitablyinallresponsibilities.Languageartsteacher#2

responded,“Co-teachingissomethingthatshouldbeseenassomethingtoaspireto,not

somethingthatissimplyachore.Itisavaluableandenjoyableprofessionalopportunity

thatbenefitsallstudents(B.Stahlman,personalcommunication,December1,2015).”

Allthreeteachersfocusedontheimportanceofexperiencedteachersworkingwith

otherexperiencedteachersaswellastheimportanceofvoluntarypartnerships.Other

similarthemesincludedcommonpreptimeandsharingoftheinstructionalload.

Summary

Severalcommonthemescametothesurfacethroughthisresearch.Student

perceptionsarepositivelyimpactedintheco-taughtclassroom.However,student

academicprogress,whenmeasuredonlythroughhighstakestesting,appearstobehighly

variablebetweensections(teachers).Additionally,thereappearstobea“feastorfamine”

discrepancyintheco-taughtsectionsofEnglish.Thismeansthat,intheco-taughtsections,

thereappearstobehigherproportionsofstudentsonthe“highgrowth”and“lowgrowth”

endsofthespectrum.Administrativeperceptionsofco-teachingtendtoalignwiththe

beliefsofco-teachingpartnershipsinmostareas.Theseareasincludetheideathat

partnershipsmustbeenteredintovoluntarilyandbesupportedbyadministrationthrough

professionaldevelopmentandmaintenanceofclassroomsize(ratioofstudentswith


49

specialneedstogeneraleducationstudents).Whenexploringwhichmodelsofco-teaching

andliteracyinthelanguageartsclassroomaremosteffectiveatthesecondarylevel,

quantitativedatagathereddoesnotdirectlysupporttheeffectivenessofco-teaching,the

qualitativedatasuggestthatco-teachingiscomplexandrequiresmorethanonevariableto

measureitssuccess.Thelearnings,limitations,andconclusionsofthisstudywillbe

discussedinthefollowingchapter.


50

ChapterFive:Conclusions

Thepurposeofthisstudywastodeterminewhichmodelsofco-teachingandliteracy

inthelanguageartsclassroomaremosteffectiveatthesecondarylevel.Inthischapter,I

sharemypersonallearningasaresearcherandwriter,andwillpresentmajorfindingsof

thisresearchaswellasitslimitationsandimplicationsforteachers,administratorsaswell

asareasforfurtherresearch.

MajorLearning

Literaturereview.

Theliteraturereviewofthiscapstonewasthemostchallengingandmostrewarding

partoftheprocess.Theimplicationsofthevariousresearchstudieshelpedtosetupmy

ownframeworkfordatacollectionaswellastohonemyownresearchquestion.Authors

thatIfoundtobethemostrelatedtomyresearchquestionaswellasthemostcompelling

includedMarilynFriend(2010)whoseresearchfocusesspecificallyonco-teachingfrom

thespecialeducationmindset.Muchofherresearchandpublicationsfocusesonvarious

modelsofco-teachingaswellaschallenges,implicationsandguidelinesforteachers.

WendyMurawskiandLisaDieker(2004)havealsopublishedavarietyofguidelinesand

researchstudies.Thesepublicationsincludeinformationforbothteachersand

administrators—emphasizingtheimportanceofbuy-inandsupportfrombothareas.They

outlinefivemainactionswhenpreparingtoco-teach:assessingthecurrentenvironment,

moveinslowly,involveanadministrator,gettoknowyourpartner,andcreateaworkable

schedule.Further,theypointoutthat,“Thismethodofinstructionislikelytoincreasethe

outcomesforallstudentsinthegeneraleducationsetting,whileensuringthatstudents


51

withdisabilitiesreceivenecessarymodificationsyetareprovidedinstructionbyacontent

expert”(52).Bothauthorsstresstheimportanceofthoughtfuldevelopmentofco-teaching

partners,interestandbuy-infromteachers,supportfromadministrators,aswellas

commonplanningtime.

Eachauthorspendstimefocusingontheimportanceofdifferentiationwithinthe

classroomforstudentswithavarietyofstrengthsandneedsandhowco-teachingcan

provideanenrichedenvironmentforallstudents.Friendfrequentlystressedtheideathat

itisdifficulttogatherspecificdatabecauseitisnotbeinggatheredinacontrolledclinical

setting.Teachers’styles,curriculum,studentdemographicsallimpacttheenvironmentand

makeitverydifficulttogatherconclusivedatabecauseofthesefactors.Gatheringgrowth

datafromyeartoyearisalsodifficultbecauseofthesereasonsevenifthestudentshave

hadthesameteacherovertime.

ResearchQuestionandConclusions

Inordertodeterminewhichmodelsofco-teachingandliteracyinthelanguagearts

classroomaremosteffectiveatthesecondarylevel,student-basedfeedback,anonymous

surveyswereconductedintwoco-taughtclassesoftenthgradeEnglishandinterviews

wereconductedwithtwolanguageartsteachersandonespecialeducationteacherwhoco-

teachinthatenvironment.Additionally,aninterviewwasconductedwithone

administrator.Inrelationtothestudentfeedback,herewasnotmuchvarianceinthe

responsesinregardtostudentperceptionoftheirownreadingandwrittenlanguageskills.

Morestudentsrespondedfavorablytofeelingthattheyhadbecomebetterwritersthan

thosewhobelievedtheyhadincreasedtheirreadingskills.Alargepercentageofstudents

respondedthattheyfelttheyreceivedmorehelpintheco-taughtclassthanintheirother


52

non-co-taughtclasses,whichdemonstratesalevelofsupportthatisespeciallybeneficial

forstudentswhorequireincreasedrepetitionofnewmaterialsinordertoachievemastery

basedontheirindividualeducationplan(IEP)adaptationsandgoalsteachersandthe

administratorfeltthatco-teachingcanbeaverypositiveexperiencethatleadtopositive

outcomesforstudents.Themodelthatteachersindicatedthatwasmosteffectivewasthe

teamteachingmodelwherebothteachersareresponsiblefordirectinstructionofstudents

onadailybasis.Thesharedrolewasseenasawaytocreatesharedresponsibilityaswell

astoallowstudentstoseebothteachersinrolesofauthorityratherthanonemainandone

support.

Limitations

Onemajorlimitationofthisstudywasthelackofstudentresponses.Alongerperiod

oftimefordatacollectionwouldhavehelpedtoyieldadditionaldatafrombothninthand

tenthgradestudents.Thisstudywaslimitedbecauseoftheavailablesampleofstudentsat

thetimebasedonco-taughtclasssectionsbeingoffered(therewereonlytwotenthgrade

sections).Anothermajorlimitationcouldbemyownpersonalbiasrelatedtothetopic.Asa

co-teacherwithaspecialeducationbackground,myperspectivesandexperiencesmay

haveimpactedhowIchosetocollectdata,thequestionsthatwereasked,andmyown

feelingsandthoughtstowardsthedatathatwascollected.Also,becausebothco-teachers

areteacherswhoIworkwithpersonally,myinterviewsandquestionnairescouldhave

beenskewedbecauseIwouldbethepersoncollatingallofthedata.

Futureresearch

Becausethefocuswillcontinuetobeoninclusiveclassrooms,itwillbeimportant

continuetoexploretheimplicationsofco-teachingaswellastoprovideresearch-based


53

anddatadrivenguidelinesforallofthoseinvolved.Individually,itisimportanttogather

studentfeedbackaswellastrackstudentgrowthinavarietyofways.Thisis,ingeneral,

goodpractice(cite).However,gatheringmyownlongitudinaldatawillhelptosupport

positiveimpactsofco-teachingaswellastohelpinformcurriculumandinstructional

decisionsthatImayneedtomake.

Sharingthedata

Theresultsofthisstudyhavehighlightedareasofstrengthwithinteaching

partnershipsaswellassomeareasthatcontinuetobeachallengetobothstudentsand

professionals.Itisimportanttosharethedata,conclusions,andlimitationswithstake

holdersaswellasdecisionmakerswithintheenvironmentwherethestudytookplace.As

thepushforincreasedinclusionforstudentswithavarietyofneedscontinuestogrow,itis

importantfordecisionstobemadebasedfromstudentandteacherfeedbackaswellas

withtheoutcomesofstudentsinmind.Iwillsharethisdatawiththeadministratorsaswell

aswiththelanguageartscurriculumreviewcommittee(ofwhichIamamember).

Additionally,resultswillbesharedwiththeteacherswhoutilizetheco-teachingmodel—

especiallythosethatworkwiththeLanguageArtsdepartment.

Summary

Thecapstonewritingprocesshasbeenoneofthemostdifficultacademic

experiencesthatIhaveevergonethrough.Inmanyways,ithasbeentransformativeand

hashelpedmetodiscovermyownlimitations,strengthsandareasoffuturegrowth.I

chosearesearchquestionthat,whileverymuchtiedtomyownpracticeanddailyteaching

experiences,wasnoteasilyanswered.Thiswasdiscoveredthroughouttheliterature

review.Whiletherewereseveralotherstudieswithsimilarquestions,theconclusions


54

werenearlyalwaysthesame.Otherstudiesconcludedthat,thereisnooneclearand“best”

co-teachingmodel.However,basedonstudentfeedbackinthisstudy,itcanbeconcluded

thattheco-taughtliteracyenvironmentisapositiveone.Though,therearemanyvariables

thatimpacttheoutcomesofstudents,including:studentpopulation,teacherbackground,

teacherexperience,behavioralexpectations,instructionalmaterials,classsize,andthe

relationshipbetweentheteachingpartners.Theseshouldalsobeconsideredwhen

determiningtheeffectivenessofteachingmodels.Co-teachingcanbeapowerfultooltouse

inordertohelpallstudentsincreasetheirliteracyskillsandtoensurethatstudentswith

disabilitiesarebeingprovidedsupportintheleastrestrictiveenvironmentpossible.


55

AppendixA

Co-TeacherQuestionnaireWhatgradedoyouteach?Whatis/areyourlicensurearea(s)?Withinyourco-teachingteam,whichteacherareyou?_______GeneralEducationTeacher _______SpecialEducationTeacherWhatmodeldoyoufollowmostasaco-teacher?Oneteach—oneassist StationTeaching ParallelTeachingAlternativeteaching TeamTeachingWhatdoesthismodellooklikeinyourownclassroom,howdoyouincorporateitintoyourpractice?Doyoufeelthatyouandyourco-teachersharethedeliveryofinstructioninanequitableway?Pleaseexplain.Whatisyourrelationshiplikewithyourco-teachingpartner?Whatdoyouthinkitmeanstobeaco-teacher?Howdoyouandyourco-teachingpartnerteachliteracy?


56

AppendixB

LanguageartsCo-TeacherInterviewQuestionsAdditionalquestionsmaybeaddeddependentonanswersgivenbasedonthefollowing

questions.

1. Whichmodelsormodelsofco-teachingdoyouthinkyouandyourco-teacherutilize

themostoften?

a. Arethereanythatyoufindtobethemosthelpful?

b. Leasthelpful?

Whatdoesthismodellooklikewithinyourclassroom?

2. Doyouandyourco-teachersharetheteachingroleswithinyourclassroom?Please

explain.

3. Howmanyyearshaveyoubeenco-teaching?

4. Whatisyourrelationshiplikewithyourco-teachingpartner?

5. Whatdoyouwishyouwouldhaveknownbeforeyoubeganco-teaching?

6. Whatkindsofprofessionaldevelopmenthaveyoureceivedtohelpsupportyourco-

teaching?

7. Whatkindsofprofessionaldevelopmenthaveyoureceivedtoaddressyour

students’literacyneedsinyourclass?

8. Howdoyouaddressliteracywithinyourco-taughtclassroom?Forexample,doyou

directlyteachvocabulary,comprehension-monitoringstrategies,closereadingor

re-reading,doyouincreaseengagementthroughcollaboration?

9. Howdoyouandyourteachingpartnerassessstudentsandmonitortheirprogress?


57

10. Doyouseeco-teachingasaneffectiveservicedeliverymodel?Whyorwhynot?


58

AppendixC

AdministrativeInterviewQuestions

1. Whatdoesco-teachinglooklikeinyourbuilding?

2. Whatwouldlikeco-teachingtolooklikeinyourbuilding?

3. Doyoufeelthatco-teachingisaneffectiveservicedeliverymodel?

4. Whatisyourvisionforco-teachinginthisbuilding?

5. Howareco-teachingpartnersselectedinthisbuilding?

a. Wouldyouliketoseeitbedonedifferently?Ifyes,howso?

6. Howdoyouthinkco-teachinginthelanguageartsclassroomcanimpactstudent

literacy?

7. Areyouawareofthedifferentmodelsormodelsundertheco-teachingumbrella?

8. Whatwouldchangeswouldyouliketoseeregardingco-teachinginthisbuilding?

9. Doyouthinkthatco-teachingpartnershipsgetenoughcommonplanningtime?

Professionaldevelopmentaroundco-teaching?

10. Whatwouldasuccessfulco-teachingpartnershiplookliketoyou?


59

AppendixD

StudentCo-TeachingQuestionnaireIfeellikeIhavereceivedmorehelpinthisclassthaninothernon-co-taughtclassesSA A U D SDIlearnedmoreinthisco-taughtclassthaninmyotherclassesthatarenotco-taught.SA A U D SDIenjoyedcomingtothisclassmorethanmyothernon-co-taughtclasses.SA A U D SDIfeelthatmyreadingskillshavegottenbetterbecauseofbeinginthisco-taughtclass.SA A U D SDWhataresomethingsrelatedtoyourreadingskillsthatyouthinkhavegottenbetter?IfeelthatIamabetterwriteasaresultofbeinginthisco-taughtclass?SA A U D SDWhichpartsofwritingdoyoufeelyouarebetterat?Behavioralexpectationsinthisclasswereclearerthaninmyothernon-co-taughtclasses.SA A U D SDAssignmentandinstructionalexpectationsinthisclasswereclearerthaninmyothernon-co-taughtclasses.SA A U D SDDidyoufeelthatyoucouldaskmorequestionsinthisclassthaninatypicalclass?Icouldaskmorequestionsinthisclassthaninatypicalclass?SA A U D SDIcollaborated(workedwith)otherstudentsmoreofteninthisclassthaninothernon-co-taughtclasses.SA A U D SDIhadmorefuninthisclassthaninmyothernon-co-taughtclasses.SA A U D SDWhatwasthemostfun?IfeltlikeIgottoknowmyteachersandclassmatesbetterinthisclassthaninotherclasses.


60

SA A U D SDIparticipatedmoreinthisclassmoreoftenthaninothernon-co-taughtclasses.SA A U D SDMyfavoritepartofthisclasswas:IfIhadonesuggestiontogivemyteachersaboutthisclassitwouldbe:


61

AppendixE

AdditionalStudentResponseTable


62

AppendixF

StateTestingGrowthbyClassSectionSection HighGrowth LowGrowth MediumGrowthBlank 21.05% 31.58% 47.37%0001-01CT 36.36% 36.36% 27.27%0001-02 41.38% 13.79% 44.83%0001-03 38.46% 15.38% 46.15%0001-04 50.00% 20.00% 30.00%0001-05 27.27% 36.36% 36.36%0001-06 11.11% 44.44% 44.44%0001-07CT 66.67% 8.33% 25.00%0001-08 35.71% 28.57% 35.71%0001-09 42.86% 28.57% 28.57%0001CO-01 22.22% 33.33% 44.44%0001CO-02 25.00% 12.50% 62.50%0001CO-03 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%0002-01 20.00% 0.00% 80.00%0002-02 55.56% 44.44% 0.00%0002-03CT 26.67% 40.00% 33.33%0002-04 50.00% 10.00% 40.00%0002-05 50.00% 16.67% 33.33%0002-06CT 50.00% 35.71% 14.29%0002-07 16.67% 41.67% 41.67%0002-08 38.10% 33.33% 28.57%0002-09 62.50% 25.00% 12.50%0002CO-01 60.00% 0.00% 40.00%0002CO-02 10.00% 30.00% 60.00%0002CO-03 0.00% 60.00% 40.00%TOTAL 35.96% 27.68% 36.36%


63

References

Brown,N.B.,Howerter,C.S.2.,&Morgan,J.J.(2013).Toolsandstrategiesformakingco-

teachingwork.InterventioninSchool&Clinic,49(2),84-91.

doi:10.1177/1053451213493174

Buehl,D.(2009).Classroomstrategiesforinteractivelearning(3rded.).Newark,Del:

InternationalReadingAssociation.

Conderman,G.,&Hedin,L.R.(2014).Co-teachingwithstrategyinstruction.Interventionin

SchoolandClinic,49(3),156-163.

Creswell,J.L.(2014).Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethodsmodeles.

LosAngeles:Sage.

Danielson,L.,&Zemelman,S.(2004,2014).Subjectsmatter:Exceedingstandardsthrough

powerfulcontent-areareading(2nded.).Portsmouth,NH.:

Elish-Piper,L.,Wold,L.S.2.,&Schwingendorf,K.,(2014).Scaffoldinghighschoolstudents'

readingofcomplextextsusinglinkedtextsets.JournalofAdolescent&AdultLiteracy,

57(7),565-574.doi:10.1002/jaal.292

Fazel,Z.(2011).Thedevelopmentofatrainingprogramforsecondaryleveleducatorsonco-

teaching(Psy.D.).AvailablefromProQuestDissertations&ThesesGlobal.

(863480528).Retrievedfrom

http://search.proquest.com/docview/863480528?accountid=28109

Friend,M.(2014).Co-teaching:Strategiestoimprovestudentoutcomes.NationalProfessional

Resources,Inc.


64

Friend,M.,Cook,L.,Hurley-Chamberlain,D.,&Shamberger,C.(2010).Co-teaching:An

illustrationofthecomplexityofcollaborationinspecialeducation.Journalof

EducationalandPsychologicalConsultation,20(1),9-27.

doi:10.1080/10474410903535380

Gallagher,K.(2004).Deeperreading:Comprehendingchallengingtexts,4-12.Portland,Maine.:

StenhousePublishers.

Hang,Q.,&Rabren,K.(2009).Anexaminationofco-teaching:Perspectivesandefficacy

indicators.Remedial&SpecialEducation,30(5),259-268.Retrievedfrom

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=44316497&site=eh

ost-live

Idol,L.(2006).Towardinclusionofspecialeducationstudentsingeneraleducation:A

programevaluationofeightschools.RemedialandSpecialEducation,27(2),77-94.

doi:10.1177/07419325060270020601

IndividualsWithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementAct,Pub.L.No.108-446(December3,

2004)

Magiera,K.,&Simmons,R.(2007).Evaluationofco-teachinginthreehighschoolswithinone

schooldistrict:HowdoyouknowwhenyouareTRULYco-teaching?Teaching

ExceptionalChildren,3(3)

Mills,G.E.(2013).Actionresearch:Aguidefortheteacherresearcher(5thed.).Boston:

Pearson.


65

W.&Dieker,L.A.(2004).Tipsandstrategiesforco-teachingatthesecondarylevel.Teaching

ExceptionalChildren,36(5),52-58.Retrievedfrom

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=507905621&site=e

host-live

Murawski,W.W.,&Hughes,C.E.(2009).Responsetointervention,collaboration,andco-

teaching:Alogicalcombinationforsuccessfulsystemicchange.PreventingSchool

Failure:AlternativeEducationforChildrenandYouth,53(4),267-277.

doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.4.267-277

Murawski,W.W.,&LeeSwanson,H.(2001).Ameta-analysisofco-teachingresearch:Where

arethedata?RemedialandSpecialEducation,22(5),258-267.

doi:10.1177/074193250102200501

NoChildLeftBehindActof2001,Pub.L.No.107-110,§115,Stat.1425(2002)

Parker,A.K.(2010).Theimpactsofco-teachingonthegeneraleducationstudent(Ed.D.).

AvailablefromProQuestDissertations&ThesesGlobal.(733910071).Retrievedfrom


Rea,P.J.,McLaughlin,V.L.,&Walther-Thomas,C.(2002).Outcomesforstudentswithlearning

disabilitiesininclusiveandpulloutprograms.ExceptionalChildren,68(2),203-222.

doi:10.1177/001440290206800204

Roskos,K.,&Neuman,S.B.2.,(2014).Bestpracticesinreading.ReadingTeacher,67(7),507-

511.doi:10.1002/trtr.1248

Smith,V.M.(2012).Co-teaching:Acasestudyofteachers'perceptions(Ed.D.).Availablefrom

ProQuestDissertations&ThesesGlobal.(1039147424).Retrievedfrom



66

Documents

Best Practices for Co-Teaching Literacy in the Secondary