Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]On: 09 October 2014, At: 12:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20
Teachers’ voices concerningcollaborative teams within an inclusiveelementary schoolJane Leatherman aa Indiana University‐Purdue University , Fort Wayne, USAPublished online: 08 May 2009.
To cite this article: Jane Leatherman (2009) Teachers’ voices concerning collaborativeteams within an inclusive elementary school, Teaching Education, 20:2, 189-202, DOI:10.1080/10476210902718104
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210902718104
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teaching EducationVol. 20, No. 2, June 2009, 189–202
ISSN 1047-6210 print/ISSN 1470-1286 online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/10476210902718104http://www.informaworld.com
Teachers’ voices concerning collaborative teams within an inclusive elementary school
Jane Leatherman*
Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, USATaylor and FrancisCTED_A_371980.sgm10.1080/10476210902718104Teaching Education1047-6210 (print)/1470-1286 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis202000000June [email protected]
This qualitative study examined aspects of the inclusive program in an elementaryschool in a rural section of the upper Midwest of the United States. This articledescribes a university and elementary school research partnership to studycollaboration among the general education teachers and the special education staff(teachers and assistants) in the inclusive elementary school. Interviews, focusgroups, and observations were analyzed to determine how the school approachedthe challenges of collaboration and then implemented solutions. The findings areinterwoven through the teachers’ voices and the researcher’s observation notesabout the challenges of scheduling, team-teacher characteristics, and modeling andsupport in the classroom. The implications of the findings describe how thecollected information is used to enlighten pre-service teachers enrolled in a collegecourse on collaboration.
Keywords: collaboration; college course work; general education and specialeducation; implications
Introduction
Recent United States federal laws – No Child Left Behind (2002) and Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (2004) – encourage and support collaboration betweengeneral education and special education teachers in the inclusive classroom (USDepartment of Education, 2004). Given that these inclusive classrooms are moreprominent in schools, educators need to explore and evaluate different models ofinclusion for students with mild disabilities. This paper presents action researchconducted with an elementary school and university faculty on collaboration as acomponent of inclusive schools. This study presents the challenges of collaboration asrevealed by the participants, and the creative methods of teachers and administratorsto meet the needs of collaboration. These components were then incorporated in thecontent of a college course on collaboration. Research, practice, and application allintertwine to describe collaboration in this paper.
Literature review
Inclusion of students with mild disabilities in the regular education classroom contin-ues to grow into many forms (Katsiyannis & Conderman, 1995). For this article,“mild disabilities” include students with mild cognitive disabilities, learning disabili-ties, and attention difficulties. There is a trend in education to educate most students
*Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
190 J. Leatherman
with learning disabilities in the general education classroom (Elbaum, 2002). Thegeneral education classroom is considered the least restrictive environment forstudents with mild disabilities because they receive more than 79% of their specialeducation and related services in the general education classroom (OSEP, 2001). Thedefinition of “inclusion” for this article includes students receiving appropriateeducation in their neighborhood school with their age-appropriate peers (Timmons,2006).
Merits of inclusion
There continue to be debates about the nature of inclusive classrooms and schools inthe United States (McLeskey, Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004). Salend andDuhaney (1999) conclude that inclusive programs seem to be the most effective forstudents with mild disabilities. According to Hornby (1999), children with disabilitieshave a valid right to be involved in the general education classroom community.Abbott (2006) expands on the previous definition to encompass inclusion as pertain-ing to students’ human rights to provide them with learning opportunities to reachtheir goals. Therefore, teachers are charged with providing an environment where allchildren feel welcome.
Cluster inclusion places students with disabilities in a few select classrooms atgrade level, and the general and special education teachers implement team-teachingin those rooms. According to Vaughn, Bos, and Schumm (2003), inclusive educationneeds to be the shared responsibility of general and special educators to make itsuccessful. It is the decision of the team-teachers to design their delivery modelaround their own styles and characteristics. Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland,Gardizi, and McDuffie (2005) concur that for successful team-teaching, outstandingworking relationships are needed. The inclusive school combines the viewpoints toinclude both students with and without special needs in the same general educationclassroom with general and special education team-teachers (Yell, 1998). In this light,collaboration of the teaching staff in an inclusive school is responding to the needs ofthe students in the school and in the community.
There are multidimensional aspects that influence the implementation of an inclu-sive program. One critical factor is the attitude of the general education teacher towardstudents with disabilities (Abbott, 2006). There are many issues that influence thegeneral education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Several studies found that if theteachers had positive experiences in inclusive classrooms or with students with disabil-ities, they would exhibit more positive attitudes toward inclusion (i.e., Leatherman &Niemeyer, 2005). However, other studies showed little correlation between teachers’experiences with children with mild disabilities and their positive attitudes (i.e.,Marshall, Ralph, & Palmer, 2002). The experiences of teachers in inclusive classroomsare diverse, and there remain some variances within the field.
Connected to the aspect of the attitude of the general education teachers is thevoluntary nature of team-teaching in the inclusive classroom. Teachers must volunteerto team-teach or co-teach. The inclusive classroom has to have the commitment of theteaching staff involved in order for it to be successful (Buckley, 2005). Salend,Johansen, Mumper, Chase, Pike, and Dorney (1997) state that these collaborativeteams also need to address roles, teaching styles, and philosophy of learning. Theseteam-teachers need planning and collaboration time for the success of the program(Abbott, 2006). There are multiple aspects to consider when general education and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teaching Education 191
special education teachers are responsible for educating the same group of students inone inclusive classroom.
According to Salend et al. (1997), administrative support is a vital component ofimplementing the inclusive program. The administrator needs to demonstrate a genu-ine belief in an inclusive philosophy of equal education, not just another practice inthe school. Therefore, support from administrators to arrange collaboration time,provide space and resources, and coordinate teamwork is essential for the inclusiveprogram to be successful (Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck, 2005). Each of these dynamicsof attitudes, collaboration, and administration within the inclusive classroom adds tothe complexities of schools providing appropriate education for all students.
Methods
This study examined multiple aspects of an elementary school’s implementation of aschool-wide cluster inclusion program. The findings for this paper are a small part ofa two-year qualitative research study. A qualitative research design allows for inves-tigation of subjects and events within their natural environment (Merriam, 2002). Forthis specific aspect of the research study, a case-study design investigated the insightsand interpretations of the complexities of collaboration and co-teaching (Yin, 2003).The narratives within the focus groups and interviews represent the teachers’ views oftheir professional life (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005).Interviews, focus groups, and observation field notes frame the aspects of the qualita-tive research.
Participants
There were eight general education teachers, three special education teachers, twospecial education instructional assistants, and the principal participating in a two-yearresearch project to study the inclusive program at their elementary school in the ruralMidwest of the US. The school was implementing an all-grades (K-5) cluster inclu-sion program. This program placed students identified with special needs in the sameclassrooms at their respective grade level. The number of cluster classrooms dependedupon the number of students with mild special needs per grade level. For the kinder-garten through to third grade, there was one classroom per grade level, and thatgeneral education teacher was paired with a special education teacher or specialeducation instructional assistant. For the fourth and fifth grades, there were two class-rooms each, containing students with and without special needs. The two generaleducation teachers were teamed with a special education teacher or instructional assis-tant assigned to the classroom, depending on the number of students in the classroomsand the grade levels. Each of the teachers and instructional assistants participated inindividual interviews, quarterly focus groups, and classroom observations over thecourse of the two-year research period.
Setting
The pre-school through to grade-five school is in a rural area of the upper Midwestsection of the United States. The elementary school enrolled approximately 625students in each of the two years of the study. The students with mild disabilitiescomprised approximately 19% of the total school population. The “mild disabilities”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
192 J. Leatherman
category includes students with mild cognitive disabilities, learning disabilities, andattention difficulties. The percentages per grade level were not calculated because ofthe nature of the research data collected.
Special education teacher and instructional assistant assignments were distributedby the number of students with and without special needs, and the expertise and expe-rience of the teachers and assistants. The number of children in each class is presentedas the average for that grade or class during the two-year research project. There wasone special education teacher assigned with the kindergarten (18 children) and first-grade classes (19 children). The second-grade class (21 children) had one instructionalassistant, and the third-grade class (22 children) had one special education teacher.The fourth grade (22 each class) and fifth grade (21 each class) had a special educationassistant and special education teacher, respectively. The classrooms had very similarnumbers of students and because the classrooms had such similar averages, thenumber of students was not specifically addressed with this type of research to look atthe overall components of collaboration.
The goal of the inclusive program was to meet the Individualized EducationProgram (IEP) specifications for children with special education needs while includingthem in the regular classroom. The complexity of such an endeavor was realized bythe participating teachers as they voiced concerns and collaborated in the inclusiveclassrooms. The eight inclusive classrooms were a mix of students with and withoutmild disabilities being exposed to similar grade-level material and individual assistancewhen needed (pull-out). The teachers and instructional assistants utilized several differ-ent forms of team teaching – one teaching and one monitoring, teachers with smallgroups of students functioning at different levels and similar levels, and independentwork with teachers working the room by providing individual feedback to all students– to create a continuous dialogue between teachers and students at each distinctive level.
Data sources
The data sources for this study included individual interviews of members directlyaffected by the inclusion model, focus-group dialogue sessions with those samemembers, and classroom observations with field notes conducted by the researcherand the special education inclusion coordinator.
Many aspects of the inclusive program were studied throughout the two-yearresearch project, and there is a plethora of data from the participants. However, onlythe concept of collaboration will be highlighted in this paper. The specific componentsof collaboration drawn from the individual interviews, observations and field notes,and focus group data were analyzed and served as the triangulation of the data sources.Data sources for this particular segment of the study are transcripts from seven indi-vidual interviews, transcripts from two focus groups, and notes from three observa-tions that focused on the specific collaboration theme within the inclusion model.Each of these sources contributed a slightly different view of the complexities of thiscollaborative program, as will be shared through the participants’ own voices.
Individual interviews
Fifteen 45-minute individual interviews were scheduled twice during the two-yearperiod, in April of both years. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed intonarrative texts. The questions asked during the individual interviews that yielded
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teaching Education 193
comments about collaboration were as follows: How have you grown professionallysince the implementation of the inclusion program? Describe an incident that you haveexperienced this year. Give details. Include everyone who was involved. How did thisincident impact your learning and teaching? In the second year of the research, thequestions above were asked, and the participants were asked to compare and contrastthe two years’ experiences in the cluster inclusion program.
The interviews allowed the participants to reflect on the many aspects of the inclu-sive program and how these practices had influenced their teaching and learningprocesses in the inclusive classroom. They discussed aspects of the inclusive programthat were successful and the challenges of the program and the changes made in theinclusive program.
Focus groups
Six 70–90-minute focus-group dialogue sessions were audio-taped and transcribedinto narrative texts. These focus groups were attended by the general education andspecial education teachers, the special education instructional assistants, and the prin-cipal involved in the inclusive program. The questions were open-ended and wereasked for each of the focus groups. They were asked to share positives and challengesof the inclusive program and resources to make the program more successful. Theparticipants were invited to discuss their views focusing on the inclusive program.These public arenas provided an opportunity to express views, and at the same time tohear how they were similar or different in the thinking to others in the program(Krueger & Casey, 2000).
Classroom observations and field notes
The series of observations were detailed in descriptive objective written notesand were meant to capture the teacher in his or her natural environment (Marshall &Rossman, 2006). Nineteen 30–45-minute classroom observations were conducted toobserve first-hand the classroom strategies of inclusion. For this specific aspect ofcollaboration, three observations and the corresponding field notes will be high-lighted. After each classroom observation, the teacher and researcher discussed theevents. The researcher recorded field notes (after each observation) to identify andnote the thoughts and feelings about the observations and situations that occurred(Kleinman, 2002). These field notes were used as a data source to provide a frame-work from which to consider the teachers’ behaviors and actions in the classroom(Merriam, 2002).
Data analysis
Drawing from the three different data sources, the teachers’ descriptions wereanalyzed for insights into their understanding of inclusion and collaboration as theschool implemented the cluster inclusion program. The data analysis consisted oforganizing and cataloging the evidence into identifiable material to attempt to compre-hend the different sources (Merriam, 2002).
Member checks (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) were used to ensure accuracy ofthe teachers’ voices in the stories they shared during the individual interview. Theparticipants received copies of their individual interview transcription and time to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
194 J. Leatherman
expand or clarify the text to represent their perspectives. This process further contrib-uted to the evaluation, as it gave participants an opportunity to self-reflect on theirexperiences and contributions to the collaboration process.
Each phase of data analysis was designed to reduce the data into “manageablechunks” and allow interpretation of the data as the researcher formulated meaning andinsights from the words and actions of the participants (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).Specifically, the interview and focus group data were analyzed and categorized forthemes as they evolved from the written transcription. Written observation notes wereexamined to determine the relationships between the behaviors in the classroom andthe comments made in the interviews and focus groups (Merriam, 2002). The fieldnotes from the observations were then analyzed to obtain clarity of the events thatsurrounded the teachers’ behaviors (Kleinman, 2002). The insights and interpretationswere brought to light as teachers reflected on inclusive practices.
After all the information from the data sources was categorized by topics, a contentanalysis was conducted to extract similar themes and ideas within each teacher’s inter-view or focus group (Patton, 2002). Triangulation was used to compare the emergentthemes from the three different data sources. This triangulation of data increased thematch between the emergent themes. From this analysis, a description of the teachers’views on collaboration evolved, based on the comparison of responses (interviews andfocus groups) and behaviors (observations and field notes).
Findings
The findings are presented as the voices of teachers from the interviews and focusgroups, combined with supporting evidence from observations and field notes. Thethree themes which emerged related to collaboration and team-teaching are schedulingchallenges, team-teaching characteristics, and modeling/support within inclusiveclassrooms.
Scheduling challenges
A major theme presented by the participants was the need for more collaboration timebetween the regular education teachers, special education teachers, and instructionalassistants. The participants stated the program needed additional personnel in order toprovide the collaboration time and special education resources for instruction in theclassrooms. During the first year of the program, an instructional assistant providedthis statement of the problem.
I need more time to collaborate with the homeroom teacher that I am with because I ampulled out for cafeteria duty and recess duty. I walk in and she hands me what I have todo and we do it. If we had prep time, I would know ahead of time, and I might be ableto pull something that I thought was appropriate.
The participant’s words, combined with the observation and field notes of this event,illuminate the need for the planning time. The instructional assistant walked in theclassroom approximately two minutes before the reading group was to begin, receivedbrief instructions from the general education teacher, and sat down with her group ofstudents. She needed to read the notes from the teacher to know the page numbers thestudents were to read. The instructional assistant was very successful in her reading
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teaching Education 195
group because she had worked with the teacher for several years and understood thebasic premise of the lesson. However, the lack of collaboration and a central planningtime hindered the instructional assistant’s preparedness for the lesson. Her wordsexpress her frustration of not being as effective as she thought she could be if she hadthe collaborative planning time. This observation and field notes support the lack ofplanning time as an issue.
Teachers expressed the challenge of collaboration in the inclusive program duringthe second focus group discussion in the first year of the research project. This isevidenced from several teachers’ comments about time. The following quotes arefrom general education and special education teachers and instructional assistantssharing challenges of the inclusive program; the topic is time to collaborate. “We havenot had time to collaborate at all, to plan ahead, or anything. So I hope that canchange.” Another teacher had this to say: “[F]inding the time to plan. It was very, veryvaluable.” A special education teacher stated, “time to collaborate with the specialed[ucation] team. We have had almost zero [time].” These statements are representa-tive of other concerns conveyed in the focus group on how to collaborate and planaccordingly to meet the needs of all the students in the cluster inclusion classrooms.
Another observation brought to light some challenges that the teachers voiced. Inone third-grade classroom, the special education teacher and the general educationteacher were both available to students to discuss drafts of a writing assignment. Allchildren were instructed to be at their individual desks engaged in various stages of awriting assignment. The teachers were both so in-tune to the individual students whocame to their desk for one-on-one assistance that they both neglected to be aware ofthe total classroom, including students who were not on task. The individual feedbackto students was very appropriate; however, there were several students who tookadvantage of the teachers’ focus with individual students and choose not to work onthe assigned project. This issue of responsibilities could be addressed if more time wasavailable for planning, collaborating, and reflecting.
From both the observations and the focus groups, it was supported that generaleducation and special education teachers and instructional assistants need time tocollaborate and plan in order to meet the needs of all the children in the inclusiveclassroom. These two observations and focus-group comments show that the class-room can function, but it is more beneficial for all educators to be comfortable withtheir responsibilities in the team-teaching setting.
Additional examples of the complexities of scheduling were voiced through theindividual interviews completed at the end of the first year of the study. One specialeducation teacher said:
Math seems a lot of the time put on the back burner because it is just really hard to find[time]. We don’t have the same prep times; I have to have my IA’s cover more classesfor me to break away to meet with that math teacher.
A fourth-grade teacher adds that the time and the connections made are important.
You have to plan, and you have to plan early. So I can’t wait till Friday to plan lessonsfor next week, because you have to meet the schedule of another teacher. If you wait tillthe very last and that person can’t meet with you, you are going to have trouble for nextweek. I think scheduling and keeping in contact with other teachers is very important.
A third-grade general education teacher says:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
196 J. Leatherman
I definitely need more planning time. I meet with the other teachers after school becausethere is just not enough time to plan it. Or the delay days are the days we have our great-est lesson, we have all that time. We can plan our lesson book, but to come up with theadditional activities and modify there is just not enough time.
An instructional assistant also felt the need to plan with the special education teacher,who was in charge of the students with IEPs. She says:
The only negative about our program is the time for collaboration. For me to communi-cate how my kids are doing in the classroom to (special education teacher) because sheis the one that really knows the IEPs because she wrote them. The only thing is collab-oration time is zero.
This teacher feels the pain of limited collaboration but feels the principal is supportive.
More collaboration time, I think that (the principal) has bent over backwards for ustrying to come up with time for us to be able to meet with each other and the special edteachers.
By the second year of the study there were creative solutions to the scheduling ofcollaboration time. This instructional assistant, who stated earlier her need for plan-ning time, shared an innovative solution during her second-year interview.
During the research interview, I heard myself stating the problems we were havingthe first year. I looked at the situation and decided on my own to make a change in theschedule where I had control of it and just make it happen. I decided I would go to theregular ed[ucation] classroom during the planning time. I now eat my lunch while I planwith the regular ed[ucation] teachers by choice. The ideal change would have been tohave a separate lunch and plan time, but I am flexible and really value being a part ofthe planning.
A general education teacher offered this resourceful solution during her second-yearinterview:
Yes, it was my idea to have the planning on each weekday morning where an aide comesin with your class from eight to eight-fifteen because our contract time is seven forty-five. Then that gives us a half an hour one day a week because there are five grade levelsso the aide can rotate from room to room.
Both of these solutions were offered by the participants directly involved in the inclu-sive program. Both of these participants felt the challenge of collaboration anddecided to suggest ways to improve the issues of planning time.
Team-teaching characteristics
A second theme that dealt with collaboration and team-teaching was the idea of char-acteristics of teams of the teachers working together to provide instruction in theinclusive classroom. There are many variables to consider for the teachers to feel apart of the team in the inclusive classroom. This special education teacher sees thisinclusion program as the ideal of team-teaching.
I see the program that we have now as a team-teaching situation where both the generaleducation teacher and the special education teacher work together, they plan together,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teaching Education 197
they divide up the instruction part, they divide up the grading part, like there are basicallytwo teachers working together, teaching together, planning together, doing lessonstogether, they both have equal roles.
There are additional examples of team-teaching pairs that worked well together. Oneexample from a second-year interview is the special education teacher who voicedpositives about his relationship with the math teacher.
She and I do what we kind of learned was called a duet style, where even when we don’tplan enough together, we still get up there and kind of banter with each other a little bitwith the kids, and it is definitely not one person, not just one person leading and oneperson just kind of helping out. It is she and I doing it together.
An example of these teams working well is taken from an observation and field notesduring the second year of the research study. In a third-grade class, the special educa-tion teacher and the general education teacher are team-teaching a lesson on compo-nents of letter writing. Both are presenting material and both offering individualstudents assistance. During the observation period, there is frequent exchange of theroles as the teachers presented the content on a transparency with additional white-board explanations. There seems to be a connection between the two teachers andwithout prior knowledge of which teacher was in which role (general or special educa-tion), it would have been difficult to say which teacher was “in charge” of this specificlesson. The educators clearly felt comfortable with the teaching style of each other,and the students responded to the teachers equally. The previous teacher’s wordssupport the observation of the team-teaching that seemed to work well. These team-teachers had similar or complementary planning and teaching styles, and theconnections were apparent in the classroom. This match worked well, unlike one team-teaching triad in the first year of the study.
Another aspect of the team-teaching is those pairs or triads that seemed to havedifferent teaching and planning styles or characteristics, and this caused stress. Inindividual interviews, one newer special education teacher was paired with twoveteran teachers in the fourth-grade cluster inclusion classes. His responsibilitieswere split between the third and fourth grades because of the number of students inthose two grades. He had this to say about his experiences with the collaboration andteam-teaching.
One of my frustrations this year was the inability to work or collaborate effectively withthe classroom teachers. We were all friends, but when it came time to help each othermeet the needs of all students, we struggled. This caused frustrations on both sides.I didn’t realize their desire to learn new strategies until it was too late and frustration hadset in. At the end of the year the [grade level] teachers and I had a nice meeting wherewe all released our tensions. The only problem was that it was too late. I didn’t feel likethings would change soon enough for me.
One of the general education teachers who worked in the triad felt similar pains.
He still waits till the last minute to do everything. The (other general education teacher)and I are not the last minute type people, and it drives us crazy. A lot of times it is notthe best that he could do because he waits till the last minute to do it. I think (othergeneral education teacher) and I could have done the program without his help.
The other general education teacher in this triad said:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
198 J. Leatherman
It is a little frustrating. We were under the assumption that we were going to have allthree of us equal. He doesn’t really do his part. I show him what I do, and I have evencome up with my own ideas for adaptations. He just says okay, that is fine. And that iswhat (the other general education teacher) does, she does social studies, and she willmake her own adaptations for the IEP and says this is what we are going to do with these.But I thought he was going to be doing the IEP planning for science and social studies.But it hasn’t worked out that way.
Matching teacher characteristics of planning and implementation for team-teachingsituations is very challenging, yet important. This study brought to light examples ofteams that seemed to work well and those that seemed to struggle. Making sure theteacher characteristics are complementary of the teachers involved is crucial to thesuccess of the team.
Modeling/support within the inclusive classroom
A third component of collaboration was the special education teacher modeling orproviding support to the general education teacher in the inclusive classroom. Thegeneral education teacher is the expert in the grade-level curriculum and the specialeducation teacher is the expert in adaptations and organizational skills. This combina-tion is a success for all students in the classroom. The kindergarten general educationteacher had this to say:
I think having (special education teacher) in there to model strategies helps me; she isalways good to offer. If I have a center or an activity that maybe is too hard for the kids,she is always there to say, you know you could have done this, or you may want to adaptit that way, we could have done it this way. She has been a real good support wheremaybe that is not my background to be able to provide ideas to change or modify myclassroom or my teaching. Just being able to see her and how she handles situations andchildren, even not just those kids with the IEPs but the other kids that struggle, how shehandles those helps me.
Another general education teacher said:
I have learned a lot from just the special ed[ucation] teachers being in our classrooms.Having to modify lessons, how to make adjustments to the lessons. I just think that is abenefit to all of the students, even the ones that aren’t in the program, I am still able tohelp them. It’s so borderline, so if they need additional assistance then I know myresources and I know how to change some of those lessons to help modify them.
Another teacher feels she could benefit from observing the special education teachermodifying a lesson as he taught, but scheduling conflicts prevent that: “I could bene-fit from watching (special education teacher) teach a lesson to the class and see howhe would modify, to see what he would do during that class time to meet the needsof those kids”. These three general education teachers see the value of collaborationand team-teaching as the support of the special education teacher in the inclusiveclass.
In these inclusive classes, the collaborating teachers may plan together, teachtogether, or model together to meet the needs of all the students in the classroom.These teachers and instructional assistants felt that collaboration is an effective wayto challenge all the students to perform their best with the grade-level curriculum.They expressed challenges, and there are observations to support those challenges.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teaching Education 199
The educators also presented the positives of the collaboration situations, with twocreative solutions offered by a teacher and instructional assistant.
Discussion
This qualitative research design included interviews, focus groups, and observationswith field notes. Teachers discussed their supports, concerns, and challenges concern-ing collaboration as they were interviewed, and participated in focus groups and class-room observations. The teachers were able to analyze and reflect upon their classroompractices of collaboration in the first two years of the cluster inclusion program.During the first year, the biggest challenge included time for collaboration betweengeneral education and special education teachers, and instructional assistants. Anotherchallenge was the cohesion among all participants of the inclusion program. Thesuccesses of the program were exemplified in the general education teachers who feltthe special education teachers were good models and support for them. The secondyear of the program provided results of the successful inclusive program, whichincluded creative scheduling, planned collaboration time, and team-teaching matchesthat were successful for the teachers as well as the students in the inclusive class-rooms. There are still challenges, such as appropriate team-teaching schedules andmaintaining appropriate team-teaching pairs or triads, which remain as the programcontinues to grow and meet the needs of all students and teachers.
Throughout the presented narratives, several themes emerged. The collaborationand team-teaching literature (i.e., Friend, 2000) is supportive of teachers needingtime to collaborate and reflect on teaching practices. Interviews, focus groups, andobservations all point to a need for collaboration time as valuable for success ofinclusive practices. The participants’ comments reveal that teams and collaboratingteachers need daily planning meetings, as supported by previous research conductedby Austin (2001).
There need to be shared feelings of contributions for all teachers involved. If not,the special education teacher may feel like a visitor or not an equal contributor in theinclusive classroom (Austin, 2001). This uneasy feeling was expressed by the specialeducation teacher working with the veteran general education teachers. Likewise, thegeneral education teachers felt the special education teacher was not doing the assignedjob. These teachers’ characteristics were different in presentation style and planningbehaviors, and that difference added to the strain felt in the team (Mastropieri et al.,2005). However, two other groups of team-teachers expressed satisfaction in their co-teaching situations. These issues of team-teaching styles need to be addressed to over-come the challenges of inclusion. Weiss and Brigham (2000) concur that the teachers’complementary personalities are important variables in co-teaching success stories.
Mastropieri et al. (2005) suggest that effective team teachers defer to each otherwith their areas of expertise. The general education teachers have expertise in thegrade-level curriculum, and the special education teachers have expertise in the adap-tations and organizational skills for different disabilities of the different students. Thiswas expressed by three different general education teachers, acknowledging that theywould benefit from the special education teacher making adaptations for the class andfor individual students. The general education teachers felt comfortable with grade-level context and curriculum but expressed the value of the special education teachers’knowledge of adaptations to enhance the individual students’ success in the inclusiveclassroom.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
200 J. Leatherman
Implications for practice in the college classroom
The researcher/instructor took the newly gleaned information to another level ofperspective and incorporated the data and ‘voices’ into the content of the college-levelcourse on collaboration. Austin (2001) recommends courses on collaboration andcollaborative teaching techniques in all pre-service teacher preparation programs. Thedata from the research were incorporated with the information from the college text.Additionally, as part of the integration of the material, a special education teacher anda general education teacher were guest speakers in the college class, to provide theirown voices of collaboration. They shared their own process of collaboration and veryconcrete examples of their classrooms. The college pre-service teachers were able tohear first-hand how the collaboration works in their inclusive classroom.
Since the administrator is a critical player in the collaboration puzzle, the principalof the inclusive school could be asked to share his or her ideas of how to make collab-oration work in a school. Additionally, course assignments require the students tointerview a pair of general education and special education teachers who collaborate.They ask the same questions of each teacher, and compare and contrast the answers tosee both sides of the collaboration process.
Future research
This study investigated one elementary school in a rural area of the upper Midwestsection of the United States. Future research could compare and contrast schools indifferent locations; for example, rural versus urban. Another aspect to consider forfuture research would be how similar or different collaboration and team-teachingare in the secondary schools, as this research looked only at elementary schools.Expanding the research scope would give us a clearer picture of the complexities ofchallenges faced by inclusive schools. As for implementing the research into acollege course on collaboration, the instructors could be one general education andone special education teacher. This would provide the pre-service teachers withinteractive and sustained viewpoints of the inclusive components of collaborationand team-teaching. Additionally for the pre-service teachers, they could participatein field experiences that are team-taught or collaborative in nature. The teachers’and instructional assistants’ voices are presented in this research, but the voicesmissing are those of the students. Future research could ask students their views ofco-teaching and how it affects their learning. Collaboration and team-teaching willcontinue to be a part of public schools, and we need to investigate more solutions tothe challenges of collaboration.
Conclusions
This qualitative research study investigated multiple aspects of an elementary school’sjourney through implementation of a school-wide cluster inclusion program. Thespecifics of this article focused on issues of collaboration and co-teaching as revealedin the interviews and focus groups and supported by observations in the inclusiveclassroom.
Challenges and successes of inclusion and collaboration were presented throughthe voices of teachers and assistants being heard. The themes which emerged ofscheduling challenges, team-teacher characteristics, and modeling and support in theinclusive classroom presented successes and problem-solving aspects of the inclusive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teaching Education 201
program. The implications from the findings influenced the professional developmentof pre-service teachers enrolled in a college course. Collaboration is a current teachingtrend that manifests itself in many different forms. It is up to the researchers and prac-ticing teachers to give life to the voices that continue to enhance the inclusive schoolexperience for students with and without disabilities, and for general education andspecial education teachers.
ReferencesAbbott, L. (2006). Northern Ireland head teacher’s perception of inclusion. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 627–643.Austin, V.L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education,
22(4), 245–255.Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative
studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207.Buckley, C. (2005). Establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships between regular
and special education teachers in middle school social studies inclusive classrooms. InT.E. Scruggs & M.A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Cognition and learning in diverse settings: Vol18, Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp.153–198). Oxford: Elsevier.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. ThousandOaks: Sage.
Dettmer, P., Thurston, L., & Dyck, N. (2005). Consultation, collaboration and teamwork.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Elbaum, B. (2002). The self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis ofcomparisons across different placements. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,17(4), 216–226.
Friend, M. (2000). Perspective: Myths and misunderstandings about professional collabora-tion. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 130–132.
Hornby, G. (1999). Inclusion or delusion: Can one size fit all? Support for Learning, 14(4),152–157.
Katsiyannis, A., & Conderman, G. (1995). State practices on inclusion. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 16(5), 279–287.
Kleinman, S. (2002). Emotions, fieldwork and professional lives. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitativeresearch in action (pp. 375–394). London: Sage.
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus-groups: A practical guide for applied research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Leatherman, J.M., & Niemeyer, J.A. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Factorsaffecting classroom practices. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 23–36.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.
Marshall, J., Ralph, S., & Palmer, S. (2002). ‘I wasn’t trained to work with them’: mainstreamteachers’ attitudes to children with speech and language difficulties. International Journalof Inclusive Education, 6(3), 199–215.
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005).Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failure, and challenges.Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260–270.
McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P., & Rentz, T. (2004). Is inclusion an illusion? Anexamination of national and state trends toward the education of students with learningdisabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,19(2), 109–115.
Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis.The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (2001). To assure the free appropriate publiceducation of all children with disabilities. Twenty-third annual report to Congress on theimplementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC:Office of Special Education Programs.
Patton, M.Q. ( 2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newberry Park, CA: Sage
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
202 J. Leatherman
Salend, S., & Duhaney, L. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and withoutdisabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 114–126.
Salend, S., Johansen, M., Mumper, J., Chase, A., Pike, K., & Dorney, J A. (1997). Cooperativeteaching: The voices of two teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 3–11.
Timmons, V. (2006). Impact of multipronged approach to inclusion: Having all partners onside. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4–5), 469–480.
US Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary. (2004). No child left behind:A toolkit for teachers. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/nclb-teachers-toolkit.pdf
Vaughn, S., Bos, C., & Schumm, J.S. (2003). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-riskstudents in the general education classroom (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Weiss, M.P., & Brigham, F.J. (2000). Co-teaching and the model of shared responsibility:What does the research support? In T.E. Scruggs & M.A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances inlearning and behavioral disabilities (Office of the Deputy Secretary 245) (vol. 14,pp. 217). Oxford: Elsevier.
Yell, M.L. (1998). The legal basis of inclusion. Educational Leadership, 10, 70–73.Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
12:
57 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
