ABCDEsofCo-Teaching Vaughn 1997

http://tcx.sagepub.com/TEACHING Exceptional Children

http://tcx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/4.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/004005999703000201

1997 30: 4TEACHING Exceptional ChildrenSharon Vaughn, Jeanne Shay Schumm and Maria Elena Arguelles

The ABCDEs of Co-Teaching

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Council for Exceptional Children

can be found at:TEACHING Exceptional ChildrenAdditional services and information for

http://tcx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tcx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Nov 1, 1997Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF WASHINGTON LIBRARY on August 18, 2014tcx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF WASHINGTON LIBRARY on August 18, 2014tcx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Tiffany Royal is a fifth-grade teacher atFlamingo Elementary School in Miami. Forthe past 3years she has co-taught languagearts and social studies for part of the schoolday with Joyce Duryea, a special educationteacher. For both teachers, the idea of work-ing coUaboratively with another teacher wasnot part of their original plan for teaching.Joyce said:

When I was preparing to be a spe-cial education teacher it never oc-curred to me that I would need toknow how to co-teach in a generaleducation classroom. I alwaysthought Iwould have my group ofstudents with special needs andthat is the way it would be.

4 THE COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Tiffany felt the training she received tobecome an elementary teacher did little toprepare her for her present position. Shecommented:

I was taught about curriculum andclassroom management, but not co-teaching. I suppose these changestook everyone by surprise.

Tiffany and Joyce are part of a growingnumber of teachers whose "solo" teachingroles have changed in the past few years.For both Joyce and Tiffany, the changes arefor the better. Tiffany said:

We learn so much from each other.Really, Joyce has taught me how toimplement strategies that are goodfor other students in the class, notjust the students with special needs.It is wonderful to have a partner tobounce ideas off who really under-stands the kids.

Joyce put it this way:I think I'm a better teacher now,and Idefinitely have a much betterunderstanding of what goes on inthe general education classroomand what kinds of expectations Ineed to have for my students.

Both teachers agree that their co-teach-ing has had real benefits for the students.They are convinced that the benefits are notjust for students with special needs but forall students. As Joyce, the special educationteacher, said:

I am able to provide some supportfor all of the students in the class.Mind you, Inever lose sight ofwhyI'm in here, to assist the studentswith identified special needs, butthere are benefits for other students,as well.

at UNIV OF WASHINGTON LIBRARY on August 18, 2014tcx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Both Joyce and Tiffany feel lucky towork with each other. but are also awarethat co-teaching is not always so mutuallysatisfying. They know of other teachers whoare working in co-teaching situations wherethe partnerships are not nearly as success-ful. Co-teaching is a bit like a marriage. Bothpartners have to feel that they are giving100% and have to want things to work out.This is particularly true when their philoso-phies about teaching and discipline aredifferent (see box page 9. "Common Co-Teaching Issues").

Modifying Models foreo-Teaching Roles

Tiffany and Joyce are not unusual in thatthey had little preparation for co-teaching.As experienced teachers, both had goodideas about how they would establish theirclassrooms and instruct their students. Theywere just not clear about how they woulddo it together.What roles do teachers often implement

when co-teaching? Having observed in morethan 70 co-teaching classrooms, we haveidentified several typical practices that teach-ers implement. We feel that when thesepractices are refined, they provide moreeffective and efficient uses of teachers' timeand skills. 1\vo practices that need modifi-cation are grazing and tag-team-teaching.

Grazing

In grazing, one teacher stands in front of.the room providing an explanation orinstruction. and the other teacher movesfrom student to student checking to see ifthey are paying attention or following along.Often. in co-teaching situations. teachers areinvolved in grazing; and yet they report tous that they are not sure it is a good use oftheir time. Unfortunately. they are uncertainabout what else they could be doing duringthis time that would be more effective.We suggest that teachers replace graz-

ing with teaching on purpose-giving60- second. 2-minute. or 5-minute lessonsto individual students. pairs of students, or

even a small group of students. Teaching onpurpose often involves a follow-up to aprevious lesson or a check and extension ofwhat is presently being taught. Teacherswho implement "teaching on purpose" keepa written log of information for each specialeducation student who needs follow-up.Sometimes this follow-up work is related tokey ideas, concepts. or vocabulary from thelesson or unit. Teachers may realize that se-lected students are still unsure of critical in-formation; during "teaching on purpose"lessons, they approach the student. checkfor understanding. and then follow up witha mini-lesson.

You may wonder how students can payattention to the presentation at hand if theco-teacher is moving from student tostudent and "teaching on purpose." Stu-dents quickly adjust to the role of the sec-ond teacher and, in fact, often want theteacher to check in with them.

Tag-Team-Teachlng

In this familiar scenario. one teacher standsin the front of the room providing a lessonor presentation. and the other teacher eitherstands in the back of the room or sits at adesk involved in another activity. When thefirst teacher has completed the lesson, heor she moves to the back of the room or sitsat a desk, and the second teacher takes over.Teachers often use tag-team-teaching be-cause they are unsure of how else they candeliver instruction to the class as a whole.Further, they have been provided few alter-native models for how two teachers mighteffectively teach together.We have identified several alternative

models-Plans A through D-to grazingand tag-tearn-teaching. We suggest that youtry all the just select the onethat makes most sense to your teachingteam (Bauwens, Hourcade, &Friend. 1989).

A: One Group-One LeadTeacher, One Teacher "Teachingon Purpose"

As we previously suggested, teaching onpUTpOse is an effective alternative to usualmodels of co-teaching. Also called"Supportive Learning Activities" (Bauwens& Hourcade. 1995), Plan A provideseffective roles for both teachers.

In this structure, the general educationteacher does not always assume the leadrole, nor does the special education teachersolely serve in the role of teaching onpurpose. Teachers can use the PlanningPyramid Unit or Daily Lesson Form (seeSchumm. Vaughn, & Harris, 1997; Schumm.Vaughn. &Leavell, 1994) to record the keyideas they want every student to know andthen monitor the progress of students withspecial needs through teaching on purpose.Teachers can also use the Co-Teaching DailyLesson Plan Form (Figure 1 shows sampleitems from this form with teachers' plansadded) provided in Figure 2.

Two Groups: Two TeachersTeach Same Content

In Plan B, the students in the class form twoheterogeneous groups. and each teacherworks with one of the groups. The purposeof using two smaller groups is to provideadditional opportunities for the students ineach group to interact, provide answers, andto have their responses and knowledgemonitored by the teacher. This co-teachingarrangement is often used as a follow-up tothe whole-group structure in Plan A.Because small-group discussions andteacher instruction always result in some-what different material being addressed ineach group, teachers may want to pull thegroups together to do a wrap-up. Thepurpose of a wrap-up is to summarize thekey points that were addressed in eachgroup, therefore familiarizing the wholeclass with the same material. A wrap-upalso assists students in learning to criticallysummarize key information.Some teachers wonder whether students

must always be heterogeneously groupedor if it ever makes sense to group studentsbased on their knowledge and expertiseabout the designated topic. We feel that itdoes; the next co-teachingmodel addressesthat issue.

c: Two Groups: One TeacherRe-teaches, One Teacher TeachesAltemative Information

In Plan C, teachers assign students to oneof two groups. based on their levels ofknowledge and skills for the designated

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN NovIDEC 1997 5


0'

FigureI

CO,TEACH

INGDAILYLESSON

PLAN

S

Date

Whatareyou

Whichco-teaching

Whatarethespecific

Whatmaterials

Howwillyou

Informationaboutstudents

goingtoteach?

techniquewillyouuse?

tasksofbothteachers?

areneeded?

evaluate

learning?

whoneedfoUow-up

work

Roots

at1dsfettts

PlattP:

Ms.P:Workw

itttOM

Celerystaib,

CotMpletiottof

bul:H

avebulparaphrase

tOl5197

Assigtlstud

ettts1

0group.

carrots.co

lored

labreport.

sRpsbefore

dffferettt

groups.

Ms.l:

Mot1Horthe

water.la

bno1I

booI- ,... (j ;I; t= o '"", z


Figure2

CO,TEACHINGDAILYLESSON

PLANS

COpyME!

GeneralEducator

_SpecialEducator

_

-J ::I: Z C'l '" ::l a z > r- (") :r i= o ;>:> '"z z ........ o Pi ..... \0 \0 "'J "'J

Date

Whatareyou

Whichco#teaching

Whatarethespecific

Whatmaterials

Howwillyou

Informationaboutstudents

going

toteach?

techniquewillyouuse?

tasksofbothteachers?

areneeded?

evaluate

learning?

whoneedfollow#upw

ork


Collllllon Co-Teaching IssuesBased on extended observations and interviews with more than 70 generaleducation/special education teacher teams, we have identified several issuesthat co-teachers must address if they are to be successful.Whose students are these?Address this issue before co-teaching begins: Who is respon-sible for the students in the classroom? The general educationteacher is responsible for all of the students in the class, buthow do these responsibilities change when the special educa-tion teacher is in the room? Who is responsible for the studentswith special needs? Under what conditions do these responsi-bilities change?

Perhaps the issue that warrants the most discussion prior to co-teaching is grading. Special education teachers are accustomedto grading based on the effort, motivation, and abilities of thestudents. General education teachers are accustomed to grad-ing based on a uniform set of expectations that is only slightlyadjusted to reflect issues of effort, motivation, and student abil-ities. Making joint decisions about how grades will be handledfor in-class assignments. tests. and homework will reduce thefrictions frequently associated with grading special educationstudents in general education classrooms. Working together,teachers can develop guidelines for grading to use with bothstudents and parents.Whose classroom management rules do we use?Most general and special education teachers know the typesof academic and social behaviors they find acceptable and un-acceptable. Over the years, they have established consequencesfor inappropriate behaviors. Rarely is there disagreement be-tween teachers about the more extreme behaviors. The subtleclassroom management difficulties that are part of the ongo-ing routines of running a classroom. however, can cause con-cerns for teachers. Often. the special education teacher is unsureabout when he or she should step in and assist with classroommanagement. Teachers should discuss their classroom man-agement styles and the roles they expect of each other in main-taining a smoothly running classroom.What space do I get?When special education teachers spend part of their day in-structing in general education classrooms, it is extremely use-fulto have a designated area for them to keep their materials.Adesk and chair that are used only by special education teach-ers provide them with a "base" from which to work and con-tribute to their position of authority.What do we tell the students?An issue repeatedly brought up by teachers is how much in-formation should be given to students. Should students be in-


formed that they will have two teachers? Should students knowthat one of the teachers is a special education teacher and thatshe will be assisting some children more than others? The stu-dents should be informed that they have two teachers and that

teachers have the same authority. We think it is a goodidea to introduce the special education teacher as a "learningabilities" specialist who will be working with all of the stu-dents from time to time. It is our experience that students will-ingly accept the idea of haVing two teachers and like it verymuch. In interviews we have conducted. many students whohave participated in co-teaching classrooms tell us that havingtwo teachers is better because everyone gets more help.What do we tell the parents?Teachers are often unsure of how much they should tell par-ents about their new teaching arrangement. One of the concernsthat teachers have is how parents might react to having a spe-cial education teacher in the classroom for part of the day. Itis our experience that these programs are most successful whenparents are brought in early and are part of the planningprocess. Thus. parents are part of the process from the begin-ning and are able to influence the development of the program.Parents of average- to high-achieving children may express con-cerns that their children's education may be hampered becausestudents with special needs are placed in the classroom. Teach-ers report that these students fare as well or better, academi-cally and socially, when students with special needs are in thegeneral education classroom; and all students benefit from thesupport provided by the special education teacher (Arguelles.Schumm, &Vaughn. 1996).How can we get time to co-plan?The most pervasive concern of both general and special edu-cation teachers in co-teaching situations is obtaining sufficienttime during the school day to plan and discuss instruction andstudent progress. This is of particular concern for special edu-cation teachers who are working with more than one generaleducation teacher. Teachers report that planning often comeson their own time. Even when a designated period is estab-lished for co-planning. teachers report that this time gets takenaway to be used for meetings and other school managementactivities. Teachers need a minimum of 45 minutes of unin-terrupted planning time each week if they are likely to have asuccessful co-teaching experience. One suggestion made byseveral of the teacher teams with whom we have worked is todesignate a day or a half-day every 6-8 weeks when teacherscan meet extensively to plan and discuss the progress of stu-dents. as well as changes in their instructional practices.


topic. Although students with special needsare often in the group that requires re-teach-ing, this is not always true. The criterion forgroup assignment is not ability but skill levelon the designated topic. Though ability andskill level for the designated topic are oftenrelated, they are not the same. This is oftenreferred to as flexible grouping, because thegroup to which students are assignedis temporary and relates solely to theirknowledge and skills for the designatedtopic. As the topic and skills that are ad-dressed change, so does group composition.In a co-teaching situation, it is tempting

to have the special education teacher alwaysprovide instruction for students in there-teaching group and to have the generaleducation teacher provide instruction forstudents who are ready for alternativeinformation. In our experience, the specialand general education teachers find it mosteffective to alternate between groups. Thisallows both teachers an opportunity towork with the full range of students andcurriculum content.

D:Multiple Groups: TwoTeachers Monitor/Teach; ContentMay Vary

Plan D is much like using learning centersor cooperative learning groups. Activitiesrelated to the topic or lesson are arranged indesignated areas throughout the classroom.(One area may have computers, anothermay have audio equipment, etc.) Groups ofstudents either alternate working in each ofthe designated areas, or are assigned to workin a particular area that responds to theirspecific needs. Teachers can perform one ofseveral roles: Monitoring student progress. Providing mini-lessons to individualstudents or small groups of students.

Working with one group of studentsduring the entire period while the otherteacher monitors the remaining studentsand activities.This multiple-group format allows all or

most students to work in heterogeneousgroups, with selected students pulled forspecific instruction. Plan Dcan be particu-larly effective in language arts when stu-dents with specific reading disabilitiesrequire specific and intensive small-groupinstruction.

E: One Group: Two TeachersTeach Same Content

Plan E is perhaps the most difficult toimplement and certainly extremely chal-lenging for teachers who are first learning toco-teach. In Plan E, two teachers are. directing a whole class of students, and bothteachers are working cooperatively andteaching the same lesson at the same time.For example, in one classroom where thiswas implemented, a general educationscience teacher was presenting a lesson onanatomy; and the special education teacherinterjected with examples and extensions ofthe key ideas. The special education teacheralso provided strategies to assist the studentsin better remembering and organizing theinformation that was presented.

A Co-Teaching Plan of Action

As mentioned earlier, these five approachesto co-teaching are part of a coordinatedeffort to implement multiple types ofco-teaching and grouping procedures thatcan and should be implemented.Let's visit Tiffany and Joyce again to

see how they are planning for effectiveco-teaching.Tiffany and Joyce co-plan to determine

the critical information they want to coverfor selected units. Using a pyramid plan,they consider information they think allstudents should know, most studentsshould know, and some students shouldknow. They organize this information inwriting (see Schumm et al., 1997). Tiffanyand Joyce then consider the activities thatthey will implement to ensure learning onthe part of all students. While consideringclassroom activities, they think about thematerials they need and the co-teachingstructures they intend to use. Because bothteachers are highly familiar with the five co-teaching alternatives described in this arti-cle, they refer to them by theirletter names (A, B, C, D, or E) and then de-cide which teacher will play which role. De-cisions about the co-teaching structure

Tiffany and Joyce will implement are closelyrelated to learning goals and activities. Thefollowing is a typical plan for a unit of study:1. Plan A is commonly implementedduring the first and second day of a newunit. In this way, one teacher can providecritical information to the class as a whole,and the second teacher can providemini-lessons.2. On the third day of the unit, Tiffany andJoyce have decided to use Plan B, whichallows most students to interact with thenew material. The teachers can also ascertain which students understand the newmaterial and at what level of understand-ing they are operating. Plan Bprovides keyopportunities for the teachers to expand,clarify, and extend learning.3. On Days 4 and 5, the teachers decide toimplement a whole-class project in whichstudents are asked to work in heterogeneousgroups (Plan D). One teacher takes the leadto explain the project, while the secondteacher assists the students with specialneeds to ensure they are following thedirections. When students form smallgroups, both teachers work actively witheach group. At the end of Day 5, theteachers provide a brief quiz covering thematerial presented during the week. Theinformation from this quiz is then used todetermine their co-teaching activities for thefollowing week.4. Because six students performed poorlyon the quiz, the teachers use Plan Con Day6. While one teacher re-teaches the studentswho performed poorly, the other teacherprovides an alternative lesson to the rest ofthe class.5. During Day 7, they return to the whole-group structure of Plan A.6. For Days 8 and 9, the teachers uselearning centers and small groups (Plan D).Thus, designing the co-teaching

structures they intend to implement eachday is an integral part of planning andinstruction for Tiffany and Joyce. When

planning for theunit as a

TEACHING ExCEPTIONAL CHILDREN NovIDEC 1997 9


whole, both teachers consider how they will teach the critical in-fonnation and the roles each teacher will play. Like most teachers.Tiffany and Joyce often have to make changes as they teach. butthey always feel they have a common roadmap or understandingof where and how they want students to learn and the roles theycan play to facilitate that learning.

......1Arguelles. M. SChumm. J. 5. & Vaughn. S. (1996). Executive swnmaries for

ESElFEFP PilDt Program. Tallahassee. FL: Repol1 submilled 10 FloridaDepanment of Education.

Bauwens. J. & Hourcade. J. J. (1995). Cooperotive teaching: Rebuilding theschoolhouse for all students. Austin. TX: Pro-Ed.

Bauwens. J Hourcade. J. J & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: Amodel for general and special education integration. Remedial andSpecial Education. 10(2). 17-22.

Dieker. L. A. & Barnell. C. A. (1996). Effective co-teaching. TEACHINGExceptional Children. 29(1), 5-7.

Kluwin. T. N.. Gonsher. w., Silver, K.. & Samuels, J. (1996). The E. T. class:Education together. TEACHING Exceptional Children. 29(1). H-I S.

SChumm. J. 5., Vaughn. 5. & Harris. J. (1997). Pyramid power for collabo-rative planning for content area instruction. TEACHING ExceptionalChildren. 29(6), 62-{;6.

SChumm. J. 5. Vaughn. 5. & Leavell. A. (1994). Planning pyramid: A frame-work for planning for diverse student needs during content area instruction.The Rrotiing Teadzer. 47(8). 608-61S.

Sharon Vaughn (CEC Chapter # 121). Professor, Depanment of SpecialEducation. University of Texas at Austin. Jeanne Shay SChumm(CEC Chapter # 121). Professor; and Maria Elena Arguelles. GraduateAssisraIU. University ofMiami. Office ofSchool-Based Research. Florida.

Address rorresporuJence to Sharon Vaughn. Depamn.ent ofSpecial Education.University ofTexns at Austin. SchoolofEducation SZB 306. Austin TX 78712-1290 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Copyriglu 1997 CEC.

TIPS FORCO-TEACHINGGradingDieker and Barnett (1996) suggesthaving both teachers check, discuss,and then assign grades for studentwork. This process allows teachers, to become familiar with each other'sstandards and is especially helpfulwhen student's work is borderline.

Space

To avoid issues related to territory, bothteachers should move into a differentclassroom rather than one teachermoving into the other's space(Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995; Kluwin,Gonsher, Silver, & Samuels, 1996).

PlanningAsking community volunteers oruniversity students who are majoring ineducation to direct certain classroomactivities or accompany studentsto schools assemblies may allow forsome extra planning time (Bauwens &Hourcade, 1995).


74-,;,,9, ,4.

,],


Documents

ABCDEsofCo-Teaching Vaughn 1997