Sub-topics+to+be+Developed

What does the professional (education) literature say about co-teaching?
__What is the literature around this topic and who are the authors we can cite __ We found the studies and literature reviews below (and under the //Research// //Team// tab of this wiki) to be methodologically sound with relevant findings. For the full articles, look under the //Research// //Team// tab. In some instances, articles were not research-based but contained relevant information which could be utilized in the modules. Those articles were considered as resources and uploaded under the //Resource// tab.

__Are there studies that inform whether or not co-teaching is having an impact upon student performance /learning __ See the table under “FAQ Questions” for mixed results on student outcomes.

__What are the described ‘best practices’ around co-teaching __ Weiss and Brigham (2000) had reviewed 700 articles and dissertations which studied aspects of co-teaching, and only 23 studies met their criteria: co-teaching partners were special and general educators, they taught in the US, and evaluation data were collected. Nine studies addressed the advantages and disadvantages reported by teachers. The most clear observation that can be drawn from this literature is that co-teaching means different things to different teachers in different schools. No particular vision or metaphor describing co-teaching appears to be associated with stronger teacher perceptions of effectiveness than are the others. However, teachers who report positive perceptions of co-teaching are most often voluntary participants in the model. Further, teachers with positive perceptions of co-teaching report mutual respect for one another, higher levels of administrative support for co-teaching and collaboration, more planning time, and greater commonality in their beliefs about classroom instruction and behavior management (Weiss & Brigham, 2000, p. 236) Rea, McLaughlin, and Walther-Thomas (2002) identified organizational structures that were present in a school where successful outcomes occurred: multiple opportunities for communication (weekly interdisciplinary team meetings and common planning time), supportive administration (limited special education caseloads and planning professionals’ schedules to allow for co-teaching). A planning log was an effective tool for co-teaching partners to jointly write their instructional plans while articulating their ideas (Welsh, 2000). Schwab Learning (2003) studied sixteen California schools involved in co-teaching and describes the critical components to establishing and sustaining co-teaching in the schools. They address school readiness, starting co-teaching, and supporting co-teaching. __If there are studies, what are their limitations - what do they suggest as ways to improve the practice, what recommendations are made __ Some of the following are limitations of current research:  Despite its expansiveness, the pool of studies on co-teaching yields minimal insights due to methodological flaws, including lack of student outcome data, failure to adhere to rigorous design, irrelevant research questions, biasness due to either positive or negative experiences with co-teaching, incomplete information about measurement, overreliance on self-report data among participants, and minimal descriptions of what was implemented (For example: Co-teaching models, teacher preparation for their new roles, and support for co-teaching. There is an emphasis on satisfaction with co-teaching (includes teachers, students, and parents), with little regard for student learning. The success or failure of co-teaching is often attributed to a teacher’s personality or teaching style, leaving more questions than answers for the implementation of effective co-teaching models (Weiss & Brigham, 2000). Murawski and Swanson (2001) performed a meta-analysis of six studies, having eliminated 31 studies for failing to meet their criteria (quantitative data was disclosed and it was possible to derive the intervention’s effect size, partners were special service providers and general educators, co-teaching lasted longer than 2 weeks). They concluded that these 6 studies were limited in the following ways:
 * For my Research group colleagues—please re-read your set of articles and see if you can glean anything re. BEST PRACTICES and put them here. See articles listed below: ||  ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg (2008)
 * Friend, Cook, Hurley, Chamberlain, & Shamberger (2010)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">McDuffie, Kandrum, & Gelman (2008)
 * Murawski (2006)
 * Walsh & Snyder (1993)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Only one study had a randomized design.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Student information was provided by only some of the studies (Half reported gender, four reported types of disabilities).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Four studies reported numbers of teacher participants.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Half addressed effect sizes for SWDs.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">“None of the studies reported explicit measures of treatment integrity” (p. 265).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Recommendations are summarized below: __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">What could be measured to ascertain whether or not co-teaching is impacting student learning __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The following outcome measures have been included in the literature: __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Address the roles/ responsibilities of gen/sped/and paraprofessionals __ __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">General & Special Educators’ Roles/Responsibilities __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">. Karge, McClure, and Patton (1995) found that special educators perceived that the attitude of general educators was the most important factor in the success of co-teaching. General educators perceived that special educators were minimally involved in supporting co-teaching effort. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Adams and Cessna (1993) used the following metaphors to describe co-teaching: <span style="font-family: 'times new roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Major obstacles to co-teaching reported by special and general education teachers were:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Reform student teaching by preparing and placing student teachers in co-teaching situations. Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2010) reported academic gains, as well as students’ expressing multiple benefits (less wait time to get help, more content was covered, received two instructional styles, improved behavior, and less disruptions).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Both pre- and in-service teacher preparation needs to address the development of interpersonal, management, and instructional skills (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002; Welsh, 2000).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Some teachers tended to use their planning time to include socialization. This detracted from their productivity. In such cases, Welsh (2000) recommended that pre- and in-service teacher would benefit from training in effective use of planning time.
 * For my Research group colleagues—please re-read your set of articles and see if you can glean anything re. RECOMMENDATIONS and put them here. See articles listed below. (A single asterisk indicates they are missing from the table under FAQ. If they address student outcomes, they need to be added to the table, otherwise they don’t belong there. A double asterisk indicates that there is incomplete info in the table cells under FAQ, please provide. Look at table for comments in red font. Thanks!)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg (2008)**
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">Friend, Cook, Hurley, Chamberlain, & Shamberger (2010)*
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">McDuffie, Kandrum, & Gelman (2008)*
 * Murawski (2006)**
 * Walsh & Snyder (1993)** ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Social and behavioral measures
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Disciplinary referrals (Johnston, 1994; Schwab Learning, 2003)
 * //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Self-esteem Index //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> (Johnston, 1994)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Suspension rates, in and out of school (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Attendance (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Report card data. However, these need to be analyzed via quantitative methods, not simply whether or not improvement has been demonstrated (Murawski & Swanson, 2001).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Grades (Harris, Harvey, Garcia, Innes, Lynn, Munoz, Sexton, & Stoica, 1987; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Retention rates (Walsh & Snyder, 1993)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">GPA (Flicek, Olsen, Chivers, Kaufman, & Anderson ,1996)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Statewide assessments (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Idol, 2006; Johnston, 1994; Mote, 2010; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002; Schwab Learning, 2003)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Standardized tests
 * //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Iowa Test of Basic Skills //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> (Johnston, 1994; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002)
 * //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Stanford Achievement Test //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> (Flicek, Olsen, Chivers, Kaufman, & Anderson ,1996)
 * //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Woodcock Johnson III //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> //RE// (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) (Welsh, 2000)
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Yin and Yang- Each teacher brings their own strengths into the classroom, each with their own unique role. Together they contribute to student learning.
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The dance-Each partner shares equally in student learning and classroom responsibilities.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The particle and stream-The general educator is responsible for the instructional pace of the class while the special educator supports and serves struggling individual students. The goal is for the particle (struggling student) to be able to re-enter the stream (the pace of peers’ learning) once they’ve caught up.
 * For my Research group colleagues—please re-read your set of articles and see if you can glean anything re. GENERAL EDUCATORS, SPECIAL EDUCATORS, AND PARAPROFESSIONALS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES and put them here. See articles listed below: ||  ||   ||   ||   ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg (2008)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">Friend, Cook, Hurley, Chamberlain, & Shamberger (2010)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">McDuffie, Kandrum, & Gelman (2008)
 * Murawski (2006)
 * Walsh & Snyder (1993)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Lack of resources (Karge, McClure, & Patton,1995)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Lack of administrative support (Weiss & Brigham, 2000; Rice & Zigmond, 2000)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Excessive caseloads (Weiss & Brigham, 2000)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Failure to resolve conflicts over roles and responsibilities (Weiss & Brigham, 2000)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Lack of professional development opportunities to acquire new skills (Weiss & Brigham, 2000)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Lack of common planning time (Weiss & Brigham, 2000)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Complexities of student scheduling (Weiss & Brigham, 2000)

School climate, culture assessment
__**Administration**__ - receptiveness, readiness, support How to determine / select staff to participate in co-teaching as a service delivery - Jamie, Travis Providing professional development, fidelity checks, and coaching - Laura, Tracey Planning challenges and support (e.g. use of technology) - Jamie, Travis Scheduling challenges and guidance - Jamie, Travis Expectations for co-teachers performance - Laura, Tracey How are co-teachers evaluated / assessed - Laura, Tracey Provide examples relevant and specific to elementary, middle, and high school settings - Elem - Laura, Tracey MS, HS, - Jamie, Travis

Various approaches to co-teaching and when are they appropriate, what drives the choice?
Service delivery model, LRE, student needs, time documentation of service delivery Team teaching Station teaching Alternative teaching Parallel teaching One teach, one assist One teach, one observe Team teaching - distinguish between general ed team teaching and gen ed/sped team teaching (e.g. ratio)

Requisite skills / attitudes needed for co-teaching & the subsequent approaches selected
Pre-assessment / self-evaluation / reflection Self-examination of attitudes, intentions, beliefs around students and the Least Restrictive Environment Openness, clear communication, and flexibility Relationship, team building Effective, seamless, use of technology (provide examples - specific, concrete) Use of formative assessment to inform/ guide instruction Classroom management and behavior management (philosophy) Grading practices

Developing requisite skills
Determine the target teaching behavior focus What does it look like, how does it sound What do we need to plan for how we do this