245

Teachers’ Beliefs About Co-TeachingVANCE L. AUSTIN

ABSTRACT

The proliferation of inclusion in public schools hasprompted the development of several models of collaborativeinstruction. In response to that trend, this study provides some rele-vant information about the current state of practice from the per-spective of essential stakeholders: the collaborating teachers. Thisinvestigation focused primarily on important factors affecting col-laborative teaching, including effective strategies that were bothvalued and used, important teacher preparations, and valuedschool-based supports. Information relative to these issues wasgathered by using the Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey, aninstrument developed by the author. A number of survey respon-dents were selected randomly to participate in a semistructuredinterview. Of the 139 participants who returned the completed sur-vey, 92 represented intact collaborative teaching partners. Fromthis respondent pool, 12 co-teachers were interviewed. Based onthe most significant findings of the study, two conclusions wereposited. First, general education co-teachers were perceived asdoing more than their special education partners in the inclusiveclassroom. Second, co-teachers who had access to the collabo-rative practices, preparations, and supports listed in the surveyconsidered them less valuable in practice than in theory.

LE POPULARITY OF THE INCLUSION MODEL INHE POPULARITY OF THE INCLUSION MODEL INschools has been growing since the early 1990s. Inclusion, asit is currently defined, refers to the instruction of all students,with and without disabilities, in the general education class-room, unless substantial evidence is provided to show thatsuch a placement would not be in the student’s best interests(Learning Disabilities Association [LDA], 1993; U.S. De-partment of Education, 1999). In conjunction with this trend,there has been an increase in the use of collaborative teachingas a model of instruction. Although researchers (e.g., Lack-

aye, 1997; Zigmond & Baker, 1995) have examined theattitudes of general and special educators with respect toadaptations and interventions used in teaching students inheterogeneous classrooms, very few have investigated theseteachers’ perceptions of collaboration and the concurrent

effects of collaboration on student learning. Because effectiveteaching is a vital component of the educational process forboth students without and, particularly, with disabilities, it isincumbent upon collaborative teachers to provide quality in-struction for all students in their classrooms. To ensure that

this goal is achieved, these teams of teachers must be opti-mally prepared for collaboration. The essential elements

needed to equip collaborative teachers to accomplish thisimposing task may be best determined by asking the teachersthemselves. This study, an examination of the perceptions ofcollaborative teachers, provided valuable information in thisendeavor.

Current trends in public education, despite the reser-vations presented in position papers by advocacy groups suchas the LDA (1993), the Council for Learning Disabilities(CLD; 1993), and the National Joint Committee on LearningDisabilities (NJCLD; 1993) are moving in the direction ofgreater inclusion for students with disabilities (Lipsky &

Gartner, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Currentresearch points to three models of inclusive teaching: (a) theconsultant model, in which the special educator serves as aconsultant to the general educator in areas pertaining to cur-riculum adaptation, skills deficit remediation, and assessmentmodification; (b) the coaching model, in which the specialand general educators take turns coaching each other in areasof the curriculum and pedagogy in which they are the

acknowledged &dquo;experts&dquo;; and (c) the teaming or collaborativemodel, in which the special and general educator share equi-

246

tably the tasks of lesson planning, implementation, and as-sessment (Fishbaugh, 1997; Pugach & Seidl, 1995). Thelatter model, according to some researchers (e.g., Friend &

Cook, 1994; Pugach & Seidl, 1995), is the most efficient invaluing the contribution of both collaborative teachers

through equitable tasking and responsibility, and althoughsome models of inclusion utilize the special education

teacher as a consultant (Katsiyannis, Conderman, & Franks,1995; Wiggle & Wilcox, 1996), a growing body of literaturerecommends the teaming or collaborative model (e.g., Bou-dah, Schumacher, & Deschler, 1997; Dynak, Whitten, & Dy-nak, 1997; King-Sears, 1995; Miller & Savage, 1995; Minke,Bear, Deemer, & Griffen, 1996; Pugach & Seidl, 1995; Villa,Thousand, & Chapple, 1996; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, &

Land, 1996).Because a collaborative model is both recommended

and used in inclusive classrooms, one might infer that theinteraction of co-teachers has been examined extensively andthat the criteria for an ideal model have been defined. How-

ever, this assumption is unsupported (Lackaye, 1997), andonly a few studies have evaluated current practice (e.g., Fen-nick, 1995; Minke et al., 1996).

Since 1975 public schools have moved from a positionrecognizing that students with disabilities are entitled to a freeand appropriate education with adequate support services toone in which the placement of such students supercedes theconcerns about the quality and type of service provided.Inclusion continues to gain momentum in schools and gamerpopular support from important constituents. Given the

importance of the perceptions of the teachers themselves inthe assessment of collaborative teaching and its effect on theinclusion process, an examination of the dynamic relation-ship between these key constituents and their evaluation ofthe efficacy of co-teaching was both timely and needed.

Accordingly, this study was designed to provide infor-mation relative to the following questions:

~ How do co-teachers perceive their currentexperience in the classroom?

~ What teaching practices do collaborativeeducators find effective?

~ What kind of the teacher preparation doco-teachers recommend?

~ According to collaborative practitioners,what school-based supports facilitatecollaborative teaching?

~ Are students in inclusive classrooms beingadequately prepared both academically andsocially, and do they like learning in such anenvironment? How is this determined?

~ Who does more in the collaborative partnership-the special educator or the general educator?

What does this say about the model of col-

laboration used and the need for curricular

changes in teacher preparation programs?

METHOD

ParticipantsOne hundred thirty-nine collaborative teachers from nineschool districts in northern New Jersey who taught in kinder-garten through 12th grade participated in this study. Theresearcher had previously identified these districts as districtsin which an inclusion model was established and the teachers

had been collaborating for at least a semester. The names ofpotential participants in each of the districts were obtainedthrough contact with the superintendents or directors of spe-cial services or pupil personnel. The researcher personallyinvited these potential participants to complete the survey asa means of informing stakeholders about the current state ofinclusion collaborative teaching within their respective dis-tricts and northern New Jersey at large. Because the popula-tion of collaborating teachers was small, the entire accessiblesample was used.

Teachers who participated were employed in public ele-mentary, middle, and high schools within the nine districtsand were certified in New Jersey in elementary education(K-8), secondary education (9-12), or special education(K-12). The districts were located within one county in

northern New Jersey and were considered middle income, asdetermined by the Annual Report Card issued by the NewJersey Department of Education (&dquo;Comparing the Districts,&dquo;1999). In addition, the school districts reported similar enroll-ments, ranging from 6,400 to 7,800; average class sizes rang-ing from 27 to 31; student-to-faculty ratios ranging from 12.0to 13.7; and amounts spent per pupil ranging from $9,767 to$10,122 (&dquo;Comparing the Districts,&dquo; 1999). Further investi-gation of the participant special education teachers revealedthat of the 46 special educators in the final paired sample, 40specialized in high-incidence disabilities, specifically learn-ing disabilities, whereas of the remaining 6, 4 indicated thatthey concentrated on working with students with emotional/behavioral disorders and 2 reported expertise in working withstudents with severe and multiple disabilities. Finally, each ofthe nine districts included in the study employed a minimumof six collaborative teaching pairs, as determined by schooldata provided by the office of special services or the office ofthe superintendent of schools.

An examination of teacher traits derived from the demo-

graphic data solicited in the survey provided the followingrepresentative data. First, a majority of the special educationteachers (73.8%) as well as general education teachers

(70.2%) surveyed taught at the secondary level (including inmiddle schools). Second, the subjects taught by the majority

247

of special education teachers were the sciences (49.2%) fol-lowed by social studies (46%); for general education teach-ers, social studies (32.0%) was the most commonly taughtsubject, followed by the sciences (25.3%) and English/language arts (22.7%). Third, an analysis of the level of edu-cation achieved by both special and general education teach-ers responding to the survey indicated that whereas 41.3% ofthe special education teachers held a bachelor’s degree ascompared to 34.2% of general education teachers, a greaterpercentage of general education teachers (65.8%) held a mas-ter’s degree or higher as compared to special education teach-ers (58.2%). Fourth, the survey results indicated that themean years of teaching experience for the special educatorparticipants was 15.5, compared to 18.7 for the general edu-cation participants, representing a level of significance ofp = .017 between the groups. Furthermore, the demographicdata revealed that 85.7% of the special education co-teacherparticipants and 73.7% of the general education co-teacherparticipants were women. Finally, the survey results revealedthat only 28.0% of general education co-teacher participantsas well as 26.7% of special education co-teacher participantsvolunteered for their inclusive classroom teaching assign-ments, suggesting that the majority of these co-teacher par-ticipants were conscripted for the assignment.

Instruments

All participants were assessed by using a single surveyinstrument, The Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey (PCTS;see Note). The survey consisted of two major components:Part I sought demographic information; Part II solicited in-formation according to four specific categories relevant toteacher perceptions of collaboration.

The researcher developed the survey in consultationwith Fennick (1995). In addition, the following sources wereexamined in selecting the most appropriate survey items:Collaborative Team Performance Survey and Part II: Collab-orative Team Assessment Inventory (Hebert, 1998); &dquo;Percep-tions of Co-Teachers&dquo; (Bixler, 1998); Survey of Barriers toCollaboration, Analysis of General and Special EducationRoles (Lackaye, 1997); &dquo;Attitudes and Attributes of GeneralEducation Teachers Identified as Effective Inclusionists&dquo; (Ol-son, Chalmers, & Hoover, 1997); &dquo;Essential Elements forSuccessful Collaboration&dquo; (Gaut, 1994); and &dquo;Developmentof a Scale to Measure Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education&dquo;

(Wilczenski, 1995). Further, the survey design was developedwithin the parameters recommended by Fowler (1988, 1995),Alreck and Settle (1995), and Dillman (1978). Each item cat-egory in Part II of the survey was developed to provide use-ful information specific to one of four categories: Co-TeacherPerceptions of Current Experience, Recommended Collabo-rative Practices, Teacher Preparation for Collaborative Teach-ing, or School-Based Supports That Facilitate CollaborativeTeaching.

As a confirmatory step in the refinement process, a draftof the survey was submitted to nine experts for review. These

expert consultants were selected based on their experiencewith survey research (e.g., survey construction). Each con-sultant was asked to review the survey for validity, clarity,and relevance and was requested to recommend improve-ments. Finally, a pilot study was conducted in Fall 1998,using a modified version of the survey. The results of the pilotwere examined and used to further modify and improve thevalidity, clarity, and relevance of the survey instrument.

A qualitative instrument, the Semi-Structured Interview:Perceptions of Co-Teaching script (see Note), was developed,using the Interview Format with Probing Questions modelprovided by Cox (1996) and incorporating relevant criteriasuggested by Bannister, Burman, Parker, Taylor, and Tindall(1994); Downs, Smeyak, and Martin (1980); Shipley andMcNulty Wood (1996); and Seidman (1998). A major featureof this design was that the interview questions were written insets, and each set was developed to examine a particular issueof relevance to the collaborative teaching experience. Thefirst question in each set was typically one that could be an-swered &dquo;yes&dquo; or &dquo;no&dquo; (Cox, 1996). Subsequent subsets ofprobing questions related to each set were designed to elicitdeeper explanation, relative to the participant’s response tothe initial question. The researcher posed the same questionsto each participant in the same way, in order to ensure con-sistency and, therefore, a more reliable response analysis.Use of this format enabled the quantification of responses andtherefore simplified the summary of the data.

Data Collection Procedures

The researcher personally distributed the survey and a coverletter to each participant. The cover letter explained the pur-pose of the survey, described the researcher’s expectations ofthe participant teachers, and informed participants of theirright to decline or withdraw from participation at any time.The investigator reiterated the purpose of the study, ensuredthat each participant understood the directions for item re-sponses, and answered participants’ questions. Finally, theparticipants completed the survey during a free period on thesame day that the questionnaires were distributed; the re-searcher returned the following day to collect the completedsurveys from the individual teachers.

Next, an equal number of general education and specialeducation co-teachers were chosen randomly from the surveyrespondents who indicated willingness to participate in afollow-up interview. Each co-teacher thus identified was con-tacted by telephone and was scheduled for an interview. Inaddition, the researcher asked each participant for permissionto audiotape the interview. These audiotapes were subse-quently transcribed to facilitate the accurate interpretation ofresponses. Most interview sessions lasted approximately20 minutes. Finally, all interviews were conducted at the ear-

248

liest opportunity in vacant classrooms within the interview-ees’ schools.

Data Analysis Procedures

The Survey. The data were analyzed using the statis-tical package SPSS 9.0 for Windows (SPSS, 1999), with thesignificance level for statistical tests set at .05. The scaled re-sponse for each survey item was assigned a number from 1 to5 to ensure equal distribution across the scale, with an un-qualified response assigned a 0, which did not affect scoring.

Analyses were conducted to determine the frequency ofresponses of collaborative general education teachers and col-laborative special education teachers across specific demo-graphic categories (e.g., novice teachers vs. veteran teachers,male teachers vs. female teachers, volunteers vs. nonvolun-teers). Demographic categories that produced such nominaldata were examined by means of cross-tabulations. T tests ofpaired samples were conducted on demographic categoriesthat produced ordered or interval data.

Cross-tabulations were conducted on the data from each

survey item in Part II to determine the frequency of responsesof the special education co-teachers and the general educa-tion co-teachers. Comparisons of responses of special edu-cation co-teachers and general education co-teachers for eachsurvey item and between the &dquo;value&dquo; and &dquo;employ&dquo; cate-

gories were accomplished by using a Wilcoxon’s matched-pairs signed-ranks test, which accounted for the pairing ofeach co-teacher team. This test was selected primarily be-cause of its singular design, which enables the researcher toanalyze and compare data both between paired sources (i.e.,special vs. general education co-teachers) and their respec-tive responses under two categories (e.g., &dquo;value&dquo; vs. &dquo;partic-ipate&dquo;).

The Interview Protocol. The semistructured interview

protocol was designed to provide a focused and categoricalresponse to both the set and probing questions (Cox, 1996).The analysis of the responses was facilitated by the use of pre-coded categories (Tuckman, 1998). Tuckman recommendedthat at least 20% of the responses be recorded verbatim

(audiotaped) and then coded by at least two judges or ratersif more than one interviewer was used, in order to provide asample of responses with which to determine intercoder reli-ability. Because the researcher was the sole interviewer andthe respondent sample consisted of 12 interviewees, inter-coder reliability did not represent a threat to instrumentationvalidity. Finally, the interview responses were analyzed andcoded to facilitate the identification of trends, which en-hanced the interpretation of the data.

RESULTS

A review of the demographic data revealed that most of theco-teachers surveyed co-taught in social studies, the sciences,

English/language arts, and math classes at the secondarylevel. This finding was based on the accessible study sample,which although not anticipated based on national researchtrends, seemed to indicate either that there was a low re-

sponse rate from co-teachers at the elementary level or thatinclusive education is more developed at the secondary levelthan the elementary level in the districts surveyed. In addi-tion, there was a significant correlation for the total yearsteaching between paired special education and general edu-cation co-teachers. Also, of the co-teachers surveyed, specialeducation co-teachers taught more classes and subjectscollaboratively than did their general education partners(p = .001). Finally, only 37 of the 135 co-teachers respond-ing indicated that they had volunteered for the co-teachingassignment.

Survey: Part 11

Part II of the survey solicited the perceptions of co-teacherparticipants relative to current experience, recommended col-laborative practices, teacher preparation, and school-basedsupports that facilitate co-teaching. To permit the comparisonof the perceptions of general education teachers with those ofspecial education teachers, only data from respondents withan identified co-teaching partner were used, resulting in anN of 92. Analysis of each item involved the use of cross-tabulation to record the frequencies of responses of both thegeneral and special education co-teachers, as well as the Wil-coxon’s matched-pairs signed-ranks test as the most ap-

propriate nonparametric test to compare the responses of

matched participants (a teamed special education and generaleducation co-teacher).

Co-Teacher Perceptions of Current Experience Cat-egory. In this category of items, a significant percentage(p = .001) of both general and special educators indicatedthat they believed the general education co-teacher did themost in the inclusive classroom. In addition, there was a con-sensus among special education and general education co-teachers that, generally, they worked well together, solicitedeach other’s feedback, and benefited from working together.Further, both groups generally agreed that co-teaching was aworthwhile experience that contributed to the improvementof their teaching. In view of its level of significance, theresults of the Wilcoxon’s matched-pairs signed-ranks test

conducted on the data from Survey Item 3 (&dquo;I do more than

my partner)&dquo; are displayed in Table 1.

Recommended Collaborative Practices Survey Cate-gory. The significant findings for item responses within thiscategory included the fact that a majority of special and gen-eral educators agreed that, in theory, they should meet dailyto plan lessons, but those who actually met daily disagreedabout the effectiveness of such a practice. Similarly, a major-ity of special and general educators indicated that whereas

249

TABLE 1. Wilcoxon’s Test Results for &dquo;Perceptions of Current Experience&dquo; Item 3°

Note. n value for negative ranks = number of pairs of co-teachers in which fewer spranks = number of pairs of co-teachers in which more special education co-teachersboth partners agreed or disagreed with item statement.a&dquo;I do more than my partner.&dquo; bspecial education/general education teacher responsresponding to item.

*p < .05.

they valued shared classroom management and instructionalduties, they did not in practice share these responsibilities.Furthermore, a higher percentage of special and general edu-cators agreed that co-teachers should establish and maintainspecific areas of responsibility than disagreed; however,when asked whether they actually used this practice, a major-ity of these co-teachers said that they did not.

Subsequent review of the responses of special educatorsdifferentiated by area of specialization (e.g., specific learningdisabilities, emotional/behavioral disorders, severe and mul-tiple disabilities) revealed no significant differences. Thus,the author was able to compare special education co-teacherand general education co-teacher responses as discrete andrepresentative, without concern for the effects of differencesbetween types of special educators.

Teacher Preparation for Collaborative TeachingCategory. Within this category, one of the most importantfindings was that a significantly large percentage of specialeducation co-teachers (91.3%) considered the placement ofstudent teachers in a collaborative teaching assignment to beeither useful or very useful, and a smaller percentage (70.5%)of general education co-teachers considered it useful. This

difference was determined to be statistically significant(p = .024) by a Wilcoxon’s matched-pairs signed-ranks test(see Table 2). Another statistically significant difference

(p = .035) was identified for Survey Item 15, &dquo;Preservice

courses in collaborative teaching-Value.&dquo; A greater percent-age of special education co-teachers (46.7%) than generaleducation co-teachers (29.5%) considered this preparationvery useful (see Table 3). In addition, a larger percentage ofspecial education co-teachers (65.2%) than general educationco-teachers (37.8%) said that they believed that preservicespecial education courses for general education teachers wereideally useful in preparing them to work in an inclusive envi-ronment. Of further significance was the disparity betweenco-teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of a particularteacher preparation in theory versus their appreciation of itin practice.

)ecial education co-teachers disagreed with item statement. n value for positive; agreed with item statement. n value for &dquo;ties&dquo; = number of co-teachers in which

es. IZ test results based on negative ranks. dTotal number of paired co-teachers

TABLE 2. Frequency Data for Co-Teachers’Responses to Survey Item 11 z

Note. N = 92.

&dquo;’Student Teaching Placement in a Collaborative Class-Value.&dquo;

TABLE 3. Frequency Data for Co-Teachers’Responses to Survey Item 15°

Note. N = 92.

a&dquo;Preservice Courses in Collaborative Teaching-Value.&dquo;

250

School-Based Supports That Facilitate CollaborativeTeaching Category. A significant finding within this cat-egory was the difference between the percentage of co-teachers who considered the provision of mutual planningtime to be ideally important to effective collaborative teach-ing and those whose actual experience of the provision ofmutual planning was less than ideal, causing them to ratemutual planning time as being of little importance to effectiveco-teaching. Similar results were found for each of the itemswithin this category. In addition, a comparison of co-

teachers’ responses to the survey items according to the valuethey attributed to them and the access they had to them aredisplayed in Figures 1 and 2.

The Semistructured Interview: Perceptionsof Co-Teaching

Data from the semistructured interviews revealed that most of

the co-teachers found the experience to be positive. A major-ity of co-teachers identified cooperative learning and the useof small groups as the two instructional techniques theyfound most effective. Further, these co-teachers indicated that

they generally considered co-teaching to have contributedpositively to their professional development: Special educa-tion co-teachers cited an increase in content knowledge, andgeneral education co-teachers noted the benefits to their skillin classroom management and curriculum adaptation. In ad-

FIGURE 1. Comparison of percentages of very important and important responses of special education co-teachers in value versus accesscategories.

251

dition, most co-teachers stated that they were satisfied withtheir present co-teaching assignment but not with the level ofsupport received from the school, noting that they neededmore planning time.

Most co-teachers interviewed expressed the belief thatthe collaborative teaching strategies they were using wereeffective in educating all their students, citing a reducedstudent-teacher ratio as the principal benefit. Further supportfor this belief, as expressed by the co-teachers interviewed,included a reduced student-teacher ratio, the benefit ofanother teacher’s expertise and viewpoint, the value of reme-dial strategies and review for all students, and the opportunityfor the students without disabilities to gain some understand-ing of the learning difficulties experienced by many studentswith disabilities. Similarly, the teachers stated that theybelieved inclusive education was socially beneficial for stu-dents with and without disabilities because it promoted a tol-erance for differences and a general sense of acceptance, andit provided general education peer models for students withdisabilities. However, there were several exceptions to this

perception. The preeminent reservation was that the inclusionof some students might be expressly for socialization, despitethe evident disparity in academic achievement of these stu-dents compared with their general education peers. Further,some of the interviewees expressed concern for the poten-tially disruptive effects of some students with disabilities onthe academic performance of classmates without disabilities.In a positive vein, co-teachers reported that they believedtheir students were receptive to co-teaching, citing a highdegree of student participation, an increased tolerance levelfor differences, and evidence of cooperation with teachersand each other. In addition, co-teachers indicated that themost common type of disability represented by studentsreceiving special education services in their classrooms was aspecific learning disability, with the degree of involvement ofthe disability in the mild to moderate range.

Finally, more special education than general educationco-teachers said that they were primarily responsible for themodification of lessons and remediation of learning difficul-ties, whereas more general education than special education

FIGURE 2. Comparison of percentages of very important and important responses of general education co-teachers in value versus accesscategories.

252

co-teachers reported that they were principally responsiblefor lesson planning and instruction. Nevertheless, the major-ity of co-teachers interviewed indicated that they shared mostof their teaching responsibilities (see Table 4).

DISCUSSION

In examining the findings of this study, certain inferences canbe drawn and possible explanations can be discussed basedon the significant outcomes. These are addressed here, in theorder in which they were identified within the study.

First, the demographic data revealed that the majority ofthe co-teachers taught social studies, the sciences, English/language arts, and mathematics. Bixler (1998) posited thatone explanation for such an outcome might be that subjectssuch as English and language arts may be more conducivethan others to verbal instruction and student participation; co-teachers of English and language arts may find the subjectsmore rewarding and thus more attractive due to the greateropportunity for interaction with students. In addition, En-glish may be a more comfortable and familiar subject toinstruct for both the special education and general educationco-teachers.

Also important to the study was the discovery that amajority of the co-teachers surveyed and interviewed had notvolunteered for the experience and yet a major percentageindicated that they considered co-teaching worthwhile. Fur-ther study of the importance of volunteering for a collabo-rative teaching assignment would help to explain these

findings.Perhaps the most compelling outcome of this study is

that the special education and general education co-teachersagreed that general education co-teachers do more than their

special education partners in the inclusive classroom. Thismay be due to the fact that the special education co-teacher istypically the visitor in the classroom and is often viewed asthe expert on curriculum adaptation and remediation,whereas the general education co-teacher is often regarded asbeing more expert in the content area.

Further, in each of the three categories &dquo;RecommendedCollaborative Practices,&dquo; &dquo;Teacher Preparation for Collabora-tive Teaching,&dquo; and &dquo;School-Based Supports That FacilitateCollaborative Teaching,&dquo; the results showed a significant dif-ference between the number of co-teacher responses in the

Value column as compared to those in the Employ column.An examination of the distribution of responses across the

Likert-type scale suggests that some of these co-teachers maynot have access to many of the recommended practices,preparations, and school-based supports. However, becausethe percentage of don’t know responses was small, a more

plausible explanation for this disparity might be that whereasmany of the co-teachers surveyed have access to or employthese recommended practices and supports, the ones they areemploying are not as effective as anticipated.

This interpretation has particular relevance for the im-provement of collaborative practice, and in response, this re-searcher suggests the following. First, school administratorsshould develop and promote a model of collaborative teach-ing that is supported by quality research and practice, such asthe cooperative model (e.g., Friend & Cook, 1994) or theteaming model (e.g., Fishbaugh, 1997). Second, schools andschool districts might seek out effective inservice trainingprograms or work at developing them in collaboration withstate education agencies and local colleges and universities.Third, state education departments should carefully reviewthe curricula of the teacher preparation programs within theirpurview to ensure that they are effective. Finally, schools

TABLE 4. Areas of Co-Teacher Responsibilities in the Inclusive Classroom

Note. N = 12. Dashes indicate that no data were reported in that cell.

253

should strive to be responsive to the express needs of their co-teachers with respect to logistical and administrative support.

Another conclusion based on the findings of the study isthat the special education co-teachers might consider preser-vice courses and training in collaborative teaching signifi-cantly more useful in facilitating collaborative teaching thando the general education co-teachers. This may be due to thespecial educators’ realization that they are more likely thangeneral educators to be assigned to an inclusive classroom(e.g., Bixler, 1998; Hebert, 1998). The implication of thisfinding is that teacher preparation programs need to promotethe importance of training in collaborative teaching andinclusive education for all teachers. It would seem important,for the sake of parity, that both the special education teacherand the general education teacher receive sufficient qual-ity training in collaborative teaching techniques to ensuretheir competency if they are assigned to teach in an inclusiveclassroom.

Furthermore, the majority of co-teachers interviewed inthis study stated that they believed co-teaching contributedpositively to the academic development of all their students.This finding contrasted with those of Boudah et al. (1997);D’Alonzo, Giordano, and VanLeeuwen (1997); and Zigmond,Fulmer, Volonino, Woolery, and Bean (1993). The rationaleprovided by co-teachers in this study in support of this obser-vation included the following factors: the reduced student-teacher ratio, the benefit of another teacher’s expertise andviewpoint, the value of remedial strategies and review for allstudents, and the opportunity for the students without disabil-ities to gain some understanding of the learning difficultiesexperienced by many students with disabilities. Although theco-teachers interviewed reported improved academic out-

comes based on test scores and assignment grades, no arti-facts or grade books were made available to the interviewerfor confirmation.

Similarly, whereas the majority of co-teachers inter-

viewed believed that inclusion contributed positively to thesocial development of their students, consistent with the find-ings of prior research (e.g., D’Alonzo et al., 1997; Klinger,Vaughn, Schumm, Cohen, & Forgan, 1998; Peltier, 1997;Staub, Spaulding, Peck, Gallucci, & Schwartz, 1996), therewere several notable exceptions. The principal reservationinvolved the inclusion of students with disabilities solely forthe purpose of social integration, when these students werenot capable of achieving the academic goals of the course;this served to accentuate their differences from other studentsand contribute to their sense of alienation.

Another concern some of the co-teachers expressed wasthe potentially deleterious effect of students with disabilitieson the social and academic performance of the students with-out disabilities. Specifically, these co-teachers stated that theyhad observed some students without disabilities emulatingthe undesirable behaviors of some students with disabilities.

In addition, several others expressed misgivings about the

disruptive effects of some students with disabilities on thelearning environment. These concerns warrant further studyof the effects of inclusion on the social development of stu-dents both with and without disabilities in order to decrease

the sense of alienation and increase the social acceptance ofstudents with disabilities in these classrooms.

Finally, the results of the interviews supported those ofprior studies in the area of the receptivity of students to co-teaching (e.g., Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Whinnery, King,Evans, & Gable, 1995). The co-teachers reported being en-couraged by student participation, acceptance of differences,and cooperation with teachers and each other. This findingmay mean that students are generally amenable to the collab-orative teaching model and therefore are likely to benefitfrom it. In response to this receptivity, teachers may be in-spired to continue co-teaching, buoyed by the enthusiasm oftheir students.

The following limitations of this study necessitate cau-tion in the interpretation of the results and restrict the gener-alizability of the findings. First, the final participant sample(N = 92) was relatively small; however, every participantincluded in the study was a co-teacher with an identifiablepartner who had also returned a completed survey. This addi-tional refinement allowed the researcher to conduct matched-

pairs tests on the data, confident that the results would

represent only the responses of actual co-teaching partners.A second limitation that may have influenced the find-

ings involves the socioeconomic status and geographic loca-tion of the population sample. The fact that all the co-teacherparticipants taught in school districts considered middle classand were located in suburban and urban settings in northernNew Jersey limits the generalizability of the findings. Fur-ther, the limitations inherent in all survey research representa third factor that may have had a mitigating effect on thefindings: The researcher must assume that the survey partici-pants are responding candidly to the survey items; there is noway to verify the accuracy of the reported data.

A fourth factor that may have influenced the findingswas the participants’ predisposition to collaborative teachingas a desirable methodology, which may have caused them toselect responses that were favorable to co-teaching or gener-ally considered positive. For example, the findings showedthat most of the co-teachers had not volunteered for co-

teaching (72%); however, the results from the subscales indi-cated that 86.9% of special education co-teachers and 95.6%of general education co-teachers agreed that collaborativeteaching was a worthwhile professional experience.

Another limitation that may have influenced the results

of this study was the interview format. Similar to the survey,the veracity of the responses to the interview questions wasassumed. There was, however, no way for the researcher toensure this. All participants were volunteers and thereforepotentially biased for or against the efficacy of collaborativeteaching and inclusion.

254

IMPLICATIONS

The following recommendations, derived from the findingsand conclusions of this study, suggest possible improvementsin practice and areas for further research.

First, offering feedback to one’s partner, sharing class-room management, providing daily mutual planning time,and using cooperative learning techniques are perceived to beimportant co-teaching practices. The implications of the iden-tification of these practices for future preservice and inserviceteacher preparation are self-evident, but more critical is theneed for school districts to incorporate these and other rec-ommendations in the planning stage of an inclusion program.Further research is needed to validate the usefulness of theseand other collaborative practices and to explore the reasonsfor their effectiveness.

Second, teacher preparation programs, particularly at

the preservice stage, need curricula that are relevant to thecurrent trend toward inclusive education. Student teachersshould be prepared to teach collaboratively in an inclusiveclassroom because teachers are increasingly being assignedto teach in them (e.g., Katsiyannis et al., 1995; Villa et al.,1996; Walther-Thomas et al., 1996). Effective teacher educa-tion programs, at a minimum, should incorporate courses incollaborative teaching that conform to the models recom-mended in the literature (e.g., Fishbaugh, 1997; Mostert,1998; Pugach & Seidl, 1995) for all student teachers, regard-less of specialization. Further investigation of what an effec-tive teacher preparation curriculum in collaborative teachingshould include and how to implement such a curriculum isneeded.

Third, the support of school administration is importantif collaborative teaching is to be effective. Conversely, onemight infer an increased risk of failure without such endorse-ment. An effective inclusive program requires the commit-ment of administrators, faculty, staff, and parents to providethe necessary allocation of human and material resources toincrease the likelihood of its success.

In addition, further research is needed in the investiga-tion of the effectiveness of collaborative teaching in facilitat-ing the academic development of students with and withoutdisabilities. The reports of co-teachers in this study showedthat collaborative teaching was perceived to be effective infacilitating the academic development of students, both withand without disabilities; however, these reports were based onobservations of improved services such as more individual-ized attention due to reduced student-teacher ratio, the valueof review provided for all students, another teacher’s exper-tise, and the incentive to reach higher goals, not on quantita-tive measures of students’ test scores or report card gradestaken before and after the inclusion experience.

Future studies should also examine the effects of inclu-sion on the social development of students from other per-spectives, such as those of the students, and use different

methods of investigation. The findings of this study showedthat, according to the majority of co-teachers, inclusion facil-itated the social development of students, with and withoutdisabilities, in their classrooms; however, this perception wasbased on teacher observation of student behavior in responseto collaborative teaching. The co-teachers in this study didnot solicit student and parent perceptions, nor did they usea reliable instrument to measure student social status or

goodness of fit. These investigative approaches might pro-vide important additional data in response to this researchquestion.

Further investigations should involve the perceptions ofthe principal stakeholders-the students themselves-in thesuccess of collaborative teaching. The majority of specialeducation and general education co-teachers involved in thisstudy stated that they believed their students were receptive tocollaborative teaching. These co-teachers cited observationsof student behavior that they interpreted to indicate receptiv-ity. This qualitative method of inquiry, however, representsonly one perspective.

In conclusion, based on current trends in education, theinclusion model appears to be gaining wide acceptance as aviable service option for many students. This reality shouldcompel school districts and teacher education programs toprovide training, practices, and supports that prepare teachersto serve in inclusive classrooms. To ignore this responsibilityis to shortchange these teachers and, ultimately, their stu-dents.

VANCE L. AUSTIN, PhD, is an assistant professor at Hofstra University inthe Department of Counseling, Research, Special Education, and Rehabilita-tion. His research interests include the investigation of effective collaborativeteaching practices and models of inclusive education, programs that facilitatethe education of students with emotional/behavioral disorders, and the appli-cation of "knot theory" to reading instruction. Address: Vance L. Austin, 012Gallon Wing, Department of Counseling, Research, Special Education, andRehabilitation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549; e-mail: Vance.Austin@Hofstra.edu

NOTE

The Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey and the Semi-Structured Interview:Perceptions of Co-Teaching script may be obtained by contacting the authorat the address provided for correspondence.

REFERENCES

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook (2nded.). Chicago: Irwin.

Bannister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1994). Qual-ity methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, MA: OpenUniversity Press.

Bixler, L. L. (1998). Perceptions of co-teachers: An exploration of charac-teristics and components needed for co-teaching. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 59(03A), 780.

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

255

Comparing the districts: The ’98 high school report. (1999, February 7). TheNew York Times, 14, pp. 10-11.

Council for Learning Disabilities. (1993). Concerns about the full inclusionof students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms.Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 126.

Cox, J. (1996). Your opinion, please: How to build the best questionnaires inthe field of education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

D’Alonzo, B. J., Giordano, G., & VanLeeuwen, D. M. (1997). Perceptions byteachers about the benefits and liabilities of inclusion. Preventing SchoolFailure, 42, 4-11.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method.New York: Wiley.

Downs, C. W., Smeyak, G. P., & Martin, E. (1980). Professional interview-ing. New York: Harper & Row.

Dynak, J., Whitten, E., & Dynak, D. (1997). Refining the general educationstudent teaching experience through the use of special education collab-orative teaching models. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 64-75.

Fennick, E. (1995). General education and special education teachers’ per-ceived responsibilities and preparation for collaborative teaching. Dis-sertation Abstracts International, 56(09A), 3432.

Fishbaugh, M. S. E. (1997). Models of collaboration. Needham Heights,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1988). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1994, November). Co-teaching: Principles, prac-tices, and pragmatics. Paper presented at the annual conference of theCouncil for Learning Disabilities, San Diego, CA.

Gaut, J. A. (1994). Essential elements for successful collaboration. Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 56(01A), 159.

Hebert, P. L. (1998). Perceptions of general education teachers and specialeducation teachers on the conditions, skills, and processes necessary forcollaborative teams. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(02A), 455.

Katsiyannis, A., Conderman, G., & Franks, D. J. (1995). State practiceson inclusion: A national review. Remedial and Special Education, 16,279-287.

Kauffman, J. M. (1995). Why we must celebrate a diversity of restrictiveenvironments. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 225-232.

King-Sears, M. E. (1995). Teamwork toward inclusion: A school system anduniversity partnership for practicing educators. Action in Teacher Edu-cation, 17, 54-66.

Klinger, J. K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998).Inclusion or pull-out: Which do students prefer? Journal of LearningDisabilities, 31, 148-158.

Lackaye, T. D. (1997). General education teachers’ views of academic inter-ventions for students with learning disabilities. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 58(03A), 818.

Learning Disabilities Association. (1993). Position paper on full inclusion ofall students with learning disabilities in the regular classroom. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 26, 594-598.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and theremaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 762-796.

Miller, K. J., & Savage, L. B. (1995, March). Including general educators ininclusion. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Council onRural Special Education, Las Vegas, NV.

Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teach-

ers’ experiences with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special edu-cation reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 152-186.

Mostert, M. P. (1998). Interprofessional collaboration in schools. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1993). A reaction to fullinclusion: A reaffirmation of the right of students with learning disabil-ities to a continuum of services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26,590-593.

Olson, M. R., Chalmers, L., & Hoover, J. H. (1997). Attitudes and attributesof general education teachers identified as inclusionists. Remedial andSpecial Education, 18, 28-35.

Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: Areview of the research. Contemporary Education, 68, 234-238.

Pugach, M. C., & Seidl, B. L. (1995). From exclusion to inclusion in urbanschools: A new case for teacher education reform. Education and Urban

Society, 27, 379-395.Pugach, M. C., & Wesson, C. L. (1995). Teachers’ and students’ views of

team teaching of general education and learning-disabled students intwo fifth-grade classes. Elementary School Journal, 95, 279-295.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teach-ers College Press.

Shipley, K. G., & McNulty Wood, J. (1996). The elements of interviewing.San Diego, CA: Singular.

SPSS, Inc. (1999). Statistical package for the social sciences (Version 9.0).Chicago: Author.

Staub, D., Spaulding, M., Peck, C. A., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, I. S. (1996).Using nondisabled peers to support the inclusion of students with dis-abilities at the junior high school level. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 194-205.

Tuckman, B. W. (1998). Conducting educational research (5th ed.). Orlando,FL: Harcourt.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Twenty-first annual report to Con-gress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Chapple, J. W. (1996). Preparing teachers tosupport inclusion: Preservice and inservice programs. Theory Into Prac-tice, 35, 42-50.

Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effectiveco-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Edu-cation, 17, 255-265.

Whinnery, K. W., King, M., Evans, W. H., & Gable, R. A. (1995). Percep-tions of students with learning disabilities: Inclusion versus pull-out ser-vices. Preventing School Failure, 40, 5-9.

Wiggle, S. E., & Wilcox, D. J. (1996). Inclusion: Criteria for the preparationof educational personnel. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 323-328.

Wilczenski, F. L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudes towardinclusive education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55,291-299.

Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. M. (1995). Concluding comments: Current andfuture practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Educa-tion, 29, 245-250.

Zigmond, N., Fulmer, D., Volonino, V., Woolery, R., & Bean, R. (1993,April). Students with LD in elementary mainstream social studies: Whatare they doing? What are they learning? Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta,GA.

Received July 6, 2000Revision received November 29, 2000Initial acceptance September 13, 2000

Final acceptance December 6, 2000