693370

research-article2017
ISCXXX10.1177/1053451217693370Intervention in School and ClinicDaFonte and Barton-Arwood

Teacher Education
Kristin Sayeski, Associate Editor
Intervention in School and Clinic 2017, Vol. 53(2) 99­–106
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2017
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053451217693370
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693370
isc.sagepub.com

Collaboration of General and Special Education

Teachers: Perspectives and Strategies

M. Alexandra Da Fonte, PhD1 and Sally M. Barton-Arwood, PhD2

Abstract
Schools today focus on inclusive models of education for students with disabilities that include higher expectations and
increased teacher accountability. Within this inclusion framework, both general and special education teachers have
responsibilities for the education of diverse learners. Collaboration skills take time to develop, with many potential barriers
that can limit successful teamwork. Therefore, teacher preparation programs have a responsibility for preparing general and
special education teachers for collaboration with a focus on strategies to minimize potential barriers and support outcomes
for students with disabilities. In order to be more responsive to teacher candidates’ development, a first step is to understand
their perspectives about collaboration. This article outlines the hopes and fears of both general and special education preservice
candidates regarding collaboration and how their perspectives align with documented views of practicing teachers. Strategies
to minimize fears and potential barriers for successful collaboration in school settings are presented.

Keywords
collaboration, general education teachers, preservice training, special education teachers

With increased expectations for inclusive models of K–12
education for students with disabilities, there has been an
emphasis on effective collaboration among general and spe-
cial education teachers (Lingo, Barton-Arwood, & Jolivette,
2011). Collaboration has been defined as a professional
partnership between two or more coequal educators, who
share responsibility, accountability, and resources (Friend
& Cook, 1990). Effective collaboration occurs when pro-
fessionals voluntarily participate and have mutual goals
(Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014) “to provide a coherent edu-
cational program to support student’s academic achieve-
ment” (Ketterlin-Geller, Baumer, & Lichon, 2015, p. 52).
Specifically, when working with students with disabilities,
collaboration is more than just working together (Hamilton-
Jones & Vail, 2014; Robinson & Buly, 2007) and “takes
effort, diligence, and training” (Robinson & Buly, 2007,
p. 84). As such, preparing general and special education
teachers for collaboration should begin within the context
of teacher preparation programs (Conderman & Johnston-
Rodriquez, 2009).
There has been limited information on how preservice
candidates view collaboration between general and special
education teachers (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014) and how
these perspectives align with practicing teachers. As a result,
this article provides perspectives regarding collaboration as
offered by general and special education preservice teacher
candidates and how these align to in-service teachers. A
group of 26 preservice teacher candidates (i.e., six future
general educators and 20 future special educators) were
brought together from two universities in the same south-
eastern U.S. town to discuss their perspectives about col-
laboration. Using a structured activity protocol from
National School Reform Faculty (McClean & Mattoon,
2014), two faculty members guided the general and special
education preservice teacher candidates in identifying and
discussing their hopes and fears about general and special
educator collaboration. Three major themes emerged from
this discussion and included (a) time management, (b)
1
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
2
Belmont University, Nashville, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
M. Alexandra Da Fonte, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt
University, Box 228, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203-5721,
USA.
Email: alexandra.dafonte@vanderbilt.edu
100 Intervention in School and Clinic 53(2)
content knowledge, and (c) communication. The candidates’
perspectives are outlined under each theme. Additionally,
how the perspectives align with documented views of prac-
ticing teachers are discussed, and strategies to support suc-
cessful collaboration are highlighted under each theme.
Having Time Set Apart to Collaborate
The first theme that emerged from the discussion was
focused on time. “Having time set apart to collaborate” was
a quote from one of the candidates that reflected a hope
about collaboration and mirrored other hopes presented by
candidates. Candidates also expressed the importance of
“having time for productive conversations.” The preservice
general and special education candidates additionally
expressed fears related to lack of time to collaborate.
Specifically, one candidate stated, “Lack of time and pas-
sion to collaborate,” suggesting that not finding time for
collaboration may be related to not having passion to
collaborate.
The challenges in finding time to collaborate have fre-
quently been cited as one of the top barriers in collaboration
(Lawrence-Brown & Muschaweck, 2004). Time is a shared
resource that is commonly mentioned as a scarcity (Berry,
Daughtrey, & Wieder, 2009; Friend & Cook, 1990), and
certainly, even before they begin their teaching careers,
these preservice teacher candidates were thinking about the
paucity of time. Within educational literature, educators
have indicated that there is limited time for collaboration
due to increased paperwork, responsibilities, and activities
(Leonard & Leonard, 2003). In attempts to create time for
collaboration, teachers and principals have agreed upon the
importance of aligning schedules with predetermined time
blocks in order to jointly prepare lessons, to have more in-
depth conversations about what has and has not worked in
the classroom, and to examine current data while determin-
ing the need for additional data (Berry et al., 2009).
Time Management Strategies
To address the issue of time for collaboration, it is fre-
quently recommended that school administrators support
general and special education teamwork by incorporating
planning time into schedules (Berry et al., 2009). However,
as the issue of time continues to be cited as a challenge,
educators need strategies to support finding time for col-
laboration that they have the power to access and control
(Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004). The use of established-pro-
cesses meetings is a potential strategy educators can use to
be more efficient in their collaboration time.
When teachers do find time to collaborate, frequently the
conversations are not in-depth or goal directed (Lawrence-
Brown & Muschaweck, 2004). Murawski (2012) identified
several strategies that can support more efficient and effec-
tive meetings when there is limited time. First, teachers
should not use their precious planning time for rapport
building and should instead use the time to stay focused on
their work with students. Building rapport and getting to
know colleagues are important elements of collaboration;
however, planning and meeting time should be goal directed
with a specific agenda to guide anticipated outcomes of the
meeting. Many times, collaborative meetings involve plan-
ning for the academic success of students with disabilities
in the general education classroom, and as such, teachers
can use a standard process for planning that can be routinely
become part of the meetings. One planning process is the
What, How, Who approach (Murawski, 2012) in which
teachers address three key questions. What refers to the
content that needs to be taught and includes the standards,
big ideas, essential questions, objectives, and time frames.
The teacher with the strongest content knowledge can take
the lead on the what discussion. Next, both teachers can
equally talk about how the content will be taught, with a
focus on which co-teaching approach could be used to sup-
port access to the content for all students. Each teacher’s
comfort level with the content will guide which co-teaching
model is selected (e.g., parallel teaching, one teach-one
assist). Finally, the who centers on which students may need
additional behavioral or academic supports and what type
of supports are needed (e.g., differentiation, accommoda-
tions, modifications). Many times, this part of the discus-
sion can be led by the special education teacher or specialist
(Murawski, 2012).
Gaps in Content Knowledge
The second theme that arose in the discussion between gen-
eral and special education teacher candidates was the “gaps
in content knowledge.” Although preservice candidates
expressed hope through a “willing[ness] to learn from each
others” and appeared open to learning and implementing
new practices, preservice special education teachers talked
about feeling unprepared on content-specific knowledge.
One candidate feared that she did not have the knowledge
of general education class and content. Another candidate
feared that she “will not be able to help the gen educator
enough in terms of preparing them to teach my students.”
Other candidates expressed fears around feeling unprepared
to teach all students and not knowing enough about indi-
vidualized educational programs (IEPs). Concerns about
adequate content knowledge from preservice candidates
make sense as they begin to consider their and their future
colleagues’ preparation. Although both general and special
education teachers’ knowledge and skills may overlap in
various areas (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriquez, 2009),
these professionals will also receive content-specific train-
ing to their area of expertise (Mock & Kauffman, 2002).
One key consideration of these challenges is that preser-
vice special education teacher candidates tend to be certi-
fied to teach Grades K–12 (Geiger, Crutchfield, & Mainzer,
Da Fonte and Barton-Arwood 101

2003). Due to the broad range in grade levels, these prepa- DISABILITY FACT SHEET
ration programs are broader in the specific pedagogies of
People First Language (PFL) highlights the person, not the
instruction (Brownell et al., 2009) as they tend to focus
disability. The purpose of PFL is to decrease and eliminate
more on specialized content related to student characteris-

PEOPLE FIRST LANGUAGE

generalizations and stereotypes, by focusing on the person
tics, accommodation, and modifications (Mock & Kaufman, rather than the disability. PFL suggest that we place the
2002) to ensure IEP and differentiation of instruction occurs person first; the disability is not and will not be the primary
(Bateman & Linden, 2012). The broad aspect of these spe- description of the individual.
cial education teacher preparation programs is needed to Examples
ensure all professional standards (e.g., Council for Do… Dont’s…
Exceptional Children, Interstate Teacher Assessment and
Support Consortium) are being met. On the other hand, • Disabled child
• Child with a disability
training of general education teachers often has a heavy • Mute
• Nonverbal
• Confined in a
emphasis on subject matter pedagogy (Brownell et al., • Uses a wheelchair
wheelchair
2009) and on subject- and grade-level-specific content, • Congenital disease
• Birth defect
especially at the secondary level with the increased com-
plexity in specific content areas (Dieker & Murwaski,
2003). These differences provide both strengths and chal- Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and autism are both
general terms for a group of complex disorders of brain
lenges—the strengths being that opportunities are provided development. These disorders are characterized, in varying
to both general and special education teachers to merge spe- degrees, by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and non-
cific knowledge and skills required for success in their verbal communication and repetitive behaviors.
future careers, and opportunities for collaboration are
opened between educational fields. On the other hand, these Characteristics Teaching Strategies
differences also provide challenges as both general and spe-
cial education teachers may not feel prepared for their Can be associated with: • Communication
AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER

unique roles and responsibilities. • Intellectual disability supports

• Communication difficulties • Behavioral plan
(i.e., verbal/non-verbal) • Social skill sup-
Content Knowledge Strategies • Difficulties with social ports
interactions • Sensory need
Due to potential gaps in the content knowledge, a possible • Difficulties in motor coor- supports
strategy is to create information sheets (i.e., a fact sheet, dination • Highly structured
• Attention activities
academic content sheet, student fact sheet, or IEP fact sheet)
• Engaging in repetitive • Predictable rou-
designed to minimize knowledge gaps (Sayeski, 2009). For behaviors tines
example, special education teachers can create a fact sheet • Unusual response to envi- • Task analysis
for general education teachers. Fact sheets could serve to ronmental stimuli • Visual supports
define, outline, and describe student characteristics based • Various sensory needs
• Physical health issues (e.g.,
on disability category that can also include ways to accom-
sleep, gastrointestinal)
modate the student’s strengths and areas of needs (e.g., aca- • Difficulties with transitions
demic, social). See Figure 1 for an example of a disability or changes in routines
fact sheet.
Similarly, general education teachers can create aca- Some can excel in:
• Visual skills
demic content sheets for special education teachers. In these
• Music
content sheets, specific content knowledge and instructional • Math
sequence are outlined. This will provide special education • Art
teachers with a better understanding of the instructional
plans being developed in order to identify and outline the
accommodations and modifications needed for a specific Figure 1.  Example of a disability fact sheet.
student. In supporting the use of content sheets, special edu-
cation teachers can also consider this difference in content these student fact sheets, the goal is to outline specific char-
knowledge as an advantage, as they can learn valuable sub- acteristics of the students, including strengths and areas of
ject matter that can be used in their teaching (Mastropieri needs, so that the general education teachers have a better
et al., 2005). Figure 2 is an example of a scope-and-sequence understanding of the students’ abilities. See Figure 3 for an
content sheet. Special education teachers can also create example of a student fact sheet. Last, special education
student fact sheets for the general education teachers. In teachers can also create IEP fact sheets to help ensure that
102 Intervention in School and Clinic 53(2)

SCOPE AND SEQUENCE SHEET

Name: Michelle Harvey Grade: Kindergarten

Special education teacher: Mr. Caylor Disability category: Autism
General education teacher: Ms. Crain Content area: Reading

Student’s Progress
Area Skill GP
In-Progress Mastered
Hold book right side up

Turn pages correctly

Move from front to back of the book

Concepts of Print and Print Awareness

Identify parts of the book and their functions

Recognize, name, and match uppercase letters

Recognize, name, and match lowercase letters

Recognize and state the alphabet (in order)

1-on-1 correspondence between oral and printed words

Distinguish between letter, words, and sentences

Recognize environmental print

Track print (front-back of the book, top-bottom, left-right)

Recognize first name in print

Figure 2.  Example of a scope-and-sequence content sheet.

Note. GP = grading period.

the students’ IEPs are being accurately implemented in the
general education classroom or in other services. The key in
these IEP fact sheets is to highlight the necessary compo-
nents of the IEP, accommodation, modifications, or adapta-
tions needed. Figure 4 provides an example of an IEP fact
sheet.
A Partner in Communication
The third and most discussed theme from the hopes and
fears of preservice teacher candidates was centered on com-
munication. As the teacher candidate responses were cate-
gorized, issues regarding relationships and conflict
management also seemed part of the communication theme.
Preservice candidates indicated that they wanted communi-
cation between general and special education teachers, and
there was hope that lines of communication would stay
open. The phrase partner in communication was even used,
suggesting that the preservice candidates were thinking
about long-term working relationships and collaboration.
There were also comments on the importance of under-
standing each other, being open to others’ perspectives, and
having colleagues who bring different experiences to the
table. One candidate focused on “teachers hav[ing] mutual
respect and always keep[ing] children in mind.”
Additionally, a preservice candidate commented that she
“hope[ed] I always play nice,” suggesting a possible avoid-
ance of conflict, which was an issue that was frequently
articulated in the fears (e.g., how do we get along, respect,
value).
The preservice candidates’ comments aligned with edu-
cational literature. Communication has been identified as
an integral part of collaboration (Paulsen, 2008), with edu-
cators indicating the importance of communication in form-
ing positive relationships (Keefe et al., 2004). In one survey,
a teacher suggested that in a co-taught classroom, getting
along is more important than knowing what to teach (Keefe
et al., 2004). Even though content knowledge has been
identified as an important element in collaborative relation-
ships (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriquez, 2009), this
teacher’s comment reflected the critical importance of col-
laboration. Perspectives about how others may not value
inclusion have also been identified in the literature in terms
of identifying educator perceptions and views. Although
Da Fonte and Barton-Arwood 103

STUDENT FACT SHEET

Name: Michelle Harvey Grade: Kindergarten

Special education teacher: General education teacher: Ms. Crain

Mr. Caylor

The student…

Michelle is a six-year-old girl with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). She knows letters and letter sounds and approximately 50 sight words
including number words. Michelle can identify numbers 1-100, and can put the alphabet and numbers 1-30 in order. She is an over responder
and is in a constant “fight or flight” mode.  

Communication skills

Michelle is learning to use Proloquo2go on the iPad to communicate. She will currently use the iPad to make requests. We are working on
teaching her to use Proloquo2go to express emotions and/or ask for a break when she is upset. Michelle exhibits delayed echololia very
frequently (i.e., repeating phrases heard in her favorite TV shows). She will occasionally look to adults to repeat a phrase after her. At times,
it can be difficult to understand what Michelle is saying verbally, because she replaces certain sounds with others. For example, instead of
saying “cookie,” she says “bookie.” She is also a very picky eater. At school, she eats Cool Ranch Doritos, oatmeal cream pies, strawberry
pudding, and strawberry milk.

Behavior

Although improving, Michelle exhibits aggressive behaviors, such as hitting, kicking, scratching, or throwing objects when upset. Michelle
exhibits many ritualistic behaviors (e.g., stepping on certain cracks in the floor, repeating a task several times before moving on).

Social skills

Michelle is increasingly tolerant of parallel play. She does not currently initiate interactions with peers, but has recently demonstrated interest
in doing so. Playing with peers is difficult, because they will not necessarily follow “her rules.”

The strengths…

Michelle is a very fast learner when motivated. She thrives on routine and responds well to a token economy. She has mastered many basic
skills and continues to make significant gains in the areas of reading, math, communication, behavior, and fine motor skills. She can work
for approximately 20-25 minutes when motivated to do so.

The challenges or areas of need…

It is very challenging to assess how much Michelle truly knows, because she demonstrates her knowledge on her own terms. Michelle has
many sensory needs. Transitions are difficult for her, particularly when transitioning to a non-preferred activity, and gets very upset when
her routine is changed.

Figure 3.  Example of a student fact sheet.

studies have indicated that teachers may philosophically
support inclusion, there is evidence that teachers are more
receptive to the inclusion of students with milder disabili-
ties as compared to students with more complex needs
(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
Communication Strategies
Effective communication is essential for successful general
and special education collaboration and frequently centers
on critical issues related to assessment outcomes, curricular
needs, and behavioral concerns (Dieker & Murawski,
2003). There are multiple strategies that can support
collaborative communication. To begin, general and special
education teachers should take time to get to know each
other and develop positive relationships, and this can begin
in teacher preparation programs. Positive experiences of
preservice candidates with their future collaborators during
their field-based experiences should be considered and
planned. Although the opportunities to role-play and prac-
tice communication skills are important, the preservice can-
didates described in this article were brought together to
enjoy refreshments and engage in low-stakes social interac-
tions and discussions as part of relationship building
(Katsiyannis, Ellenburg, & Action, 2000). “By stressing the
importance of developing positive peer relationships during
104 Intervention in School and Clinic 53(2)

IEP FACT SHEET

Name: Michelle Harvey Grade: Kindergarten

Special education teacher: Mr. Caylor Disability category: Autism

General education teacher: Ms. Crain Content area: All content areas

Things to work on…

General
1.  Requesting a break and expressing emotions when upset
2.  Transitioning between activities independently
3.  Transitioning to new places in the school
4.  Working for up to 30 minutes with minimal prompting or sensory breaks
5.  Engaging in two exchanges of turn taking with a peer
Language arts Math
1.  Matching rhyming words 1.  Filling in missing numbers 1-100
2.  Receptively or expressively identifying functional sight words 2.  Adding with manipulatives or dots
3. Answering “who,” “what,” and “where” questions verbally or with PCS
symbols

Accommodations…
• Visual schedule (photographs paired with PCS symbols),
• Token board (works for three Minnie Mouse stickers before earning back up reinforcer chosen from a reinforcer menu)
• Provide breaks as needed (can work for up to 20-25 minutes when calm)
• Set visual timer during breaks
• Flexible time limits for completing a task
• Video modeling (very helpful when introducing anything new, such as a new location, new task, etc).
• Deep pressure/sensory breaks

Reinforcers…
Minnie Mouse, tools (Handy Manny), making faces in the mirror, iPad, bubbles, alphabet

Figure 4.  Example of an individualized educational program fact sheet.

teacher training, pre-service teachers can establish these
skills early and make the students’ needs the top priority
once they begin teachers” (Katsiyannis et al., 2000, p. 119).
Additionally, once they begin working in schools, general
and special education teachers should be proactive in taking
time to get to know each other.
There are multiple forms offered to support communica-
tion and relationship building. For example, Murawski and
Dieker (2004) offered a tool that collaborative educators can
use to reflect on perspectives and preferences. This tool,
called SHARE, supports educators in “Sharing Hopes,
Attitudes, Responsibilities, and Expectations” (Murawski &
Dieker, 2004, p. 55). Another tool, called the Collaborative
Teaching Introductory Worksheet, guides educators to indi-
cate their preferences in addressing common classroom
situations, such as assessment, student behavior, homework,
and grading (Keefe et al., 2004, p. 39). Although these tools
can be useful, teachers need to also remember the impor-
tance of spending time getting to know their school partners
in an informal ways (e.g., favorite hobbies or foods; Keefe
et al., 2004).
Next, teachers should also consider that there might be a
language barrier between general and special education. For
example, in discussing how quickly and accurately a stu-
dent may read (i.e., the number of words read correctly in 1
min), a special education teacher may use the word fluency.
However, for some general education teachers, fluency is
related to expression as well as accuracy and rate, and their
term for fast and accurate reading is automaticity (Robinson
& Buly, 2007). General and special education teachers need
Da Fonte and Barton-Arwood 105
to be aware that using different terms for the same concept
may have the potential for confusion and conflict in com-
munication. Other common terms that have been misunder-
stood between the fields of general and special education
are differentiated instruction, inclusion, remediation, and
collaboration (Robinson & Buly, 2007). Once clarified,
these terms can help ensure that the teachers are the same
page when communicating.
As suggested earlier, teachers may not consider the
importance of communication skills until there are differing
perspectives or conflict. When those situations occur, teach-
ers must be prepared with a tool kit of strategies. The basic
process to manage conflict and disagreement should include
identifying the issue(s) and alternative actions (Sileo, 2011).
When teachers are sorting out the issues, it is important to
be effective in listening to what each other has to say.
Listening is an essential skill in effective communication
for collaboration and building relationships (Friend &
Cook, 2010). As teachers work to improve their listening
skills, they should be aware of several factors that limit
effective listening. Friend and Cook (2010) identified that
listening may be hampered when people (a) respond to first
impressions or assumptions; (b) have insufficient time and
make a hurried response, not completely understanding the
speaker’s point; (c) do not clear their minds and daydream;
(d) craft a response before the speaker is finished; and (e)
attend to only part of the speaker’s message. Steps that
teachers can take to support enhanced listening include (a)
tuning into the speaker and not allowing distractions, (b)
mentally reviewing and categorizing information provided
by the speaker into themes, and (c) writing down informa-
tion when the speaker shares a lot of information. In gen-
eral, collaboration has the potential to be more successful
when educators listen to learn and understand the other per-
son (Cramer & Stivers, 2007).
Conflict is inevitable in collaborative relationships. An
important first step is to understand that conflict is not nec-
essarily negative. “An important aspect of conflict manage-
ment is the recognition that divergent opinions are necessary
for the group to find a high quality solution” as educators
have noted that “it’s good to see opposing opinions”
(Lawrence-Brown & Muschaweck, 2004, p. 155). As teach-
ers work to resolve conflict and to determine alternative
actions, Brown, Howerter, and Morgan (2013) offered an
outline for a conflict resolution plan that first includes iden-
tifying issues that lead to the conflict. After issues are iden-
tified, the plan leads teachers to then determine the (a)
multiple alternative course of action for consideration, (b)
pros and cons of each course of action, (c) selected course
of action, (d) evaluation of selected course of action, and (e)
follow-up. Conflict is natural as individuals work together.
When teachers are open to understanding that situations
will arise, having a plan in place ahead of time has the
potential to facilitate more efficient resolution. As a result,
successful conflict resolution has the potential to build a
stronger collaboration experience.
Final Thoughts
This column examined the perspectives of general and spe-
cial education preservice teacher candidates. The themes of
time, content knowledge, and communication emerged as
important to this group of future teachers. Although this
was a small group of teacher candidates, their hopes and
fears aligned with some of the previous literature on prac-
ticing teacher perspectives on collaboration. Based on these
themes, strategies to support hopes and effective collabora-
tion and dissuade fears were outlined, including (a) time
management (e.g., Murawski, 2012), (b) content knowl-
edge (e.g., Sayeski, 2009), and (c) communication and con-
flict resolution (e.g., Murawski & Dieker, 2004).
The landscape of today’s classrooms is changing. All
PreK–12 educators are expected to be able to support and
teach a wide range of learners, including students with dis-
abilities. With educational reform focused on improving
teacher instruction and student learning, a major focus has
been on teacher collaboration (Lingo et al., 2011). With the
potential of such expansive job responsibilities, the prevail-
ing view is that “educators perform better when they work
together” (Leonard & Leonard, 2003, p. 1). It is critical to
remember that collaboration is more than just having a con-
versation with a colleague. Collaboration should take into
account that all team members should demonstrate strong
communication skills, the ability to share knowledge, and
willingness to find the time to support teamwork where all
members are responsible and accountable. Because collab-
oration skills may not come naturally to many educators, it
is important for preservice teacher training programs to
consider how to embed collaborative skills to ensure future
teachers have the necessary abilities to support their stu-
dents and collaborative efforts. Since there is some indica-
tion that preservice and practicing teachers share similar
perspectives on general and special education collabora-
tion, issues surrounding and strategies to support profes-
sional collaboration can be targeted during field and clinical
placements. The best way to learn about skills is to witness
and participate in successful collaboration experiences
(Gut, Oswald, Leal, Frederiksen, & Gustafson, 2003), as
both general and special education teachers could use ongo-
ing professional development on the various collaboration
and team models to effectively support students with spe-
cial needs (Wiggins & Damore, 2006).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Brittany “Paige” Bennett for her
technical assistance and support on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
106 Intervention in School and Clinic 53(2)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards
integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.
Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M. A. (2012). Better IEPs: How to
develop legally correct and educationally useful programs
(5th ed.). Verona, WI: Attainment Company.
Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2009). Collaboration:
Closing the effective teaching gap. Retrieved from Centre for
Teaching Quality website: http://www.teachingquality.org/
content/collaboration-closing-effective-teaching-gap
Brown, N. B., Howerter, C. S., & Morgan, J. J. (2013). Tools
and strategies for making co-teaching work. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 49(2), 84–91.
Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klinger, J. K.,
Penfield, R. D., Dimino, J., & Sindelar, P. T. (2009). The role
of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher
quality. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 391–411.
Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriquez, S. (2009). Beginning
teachers’ views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School
Failure, 53(4), 235–244.
Cramer, S., & Stivers, J. (2007). Don’t give up! Practical strate-
gies for challenging collaborations. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 39(6), 6–11.
Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the sec-
ondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions
for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1–14.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predic-
tor for success in school reform. Journal of Education and
Psychological Consultation, 1, 69–86.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills
for school professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Geiger, W. L., Crutchfield, M. D., & Mainzer, R. (2003). The status
of licensure of special education teaches in the 21st century
(COPSSE Document No. RS-7E). Gainesville: University of
Florida Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
Gut, D. M., Oswald, K., Leal, D. J., Frederiksen, L., & Gustafson,
J. M. (2003). Building the foundations of inclusive educa-
tion through collaborative teacher preparation: A university–
school partnership. College Student Journal, 37, 111–127.
Hamilton-Jones, B. M., & Vail, C. O. (2014). Preparing special
educators for collaboration in the classroom: Pre-service
teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of
Special Education, 29, 76–86.
Katsiyannis, A., Ellenburg, J. S., & Acton, O. M. (2000). Address
individual needs: The role of general educators. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 36(2), 116–121.
Keefe, E. B., Moore, V., & Duff, F. (2004). The four “knows”
of collaborative teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
36(5), 36–42.
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baumer, P., & Lichon, K. (2015).
Administrators as advocates for teacher collaboration.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(1), 51–57.
Lawrence-Brown, D., & Muschaweck, K. S. (2004). Getting
started with collaborative teamwork for inclusion. Catholic
Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 8(2), 146–161.
Leonard, L., & Leonard, P. (2003). The continuing problem with
collaboration: Teachers talk. Current Issues in Education,
6(15), 1–10.
Lingo, A. S., Barton-Arwood, S., & Jolivette, K. (2011). Teachers
working together. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(3),
6–13.
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, failures, and challenges. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260–270.
Mock, D. R., & Kauffman, J. M. (2002). Preparing teachers for full
inclusion: Is it possible? Teacher Educator, 37(3), 202–215.
Murawski, W. W. (2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more
efficiently. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8–15.
Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for
co-teaching at the secondary level. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 36(5), 52–58.
McClean, L. E., & Mattoon, M. (2014). Hopes and fears activity.
Retrieved from National School Reform website: http://www.
nsrfharmony.org/free-resources/protocols/a-z
Paulsen, K. J. (2008). School-based collaboration: An introduction
to the collaboration column. Intervention in School Clinic,
43(5), 313–315. doi:10.1177/1053451208314494
Robinson, L., & Buly, M. R. (2007). Breaking the language bar-
rier: Promoting collaboration between general and special
educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 83–94.
Sayeski, K. L. (2009). Defining special educators” tools.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(1), 38–44.
doi:10.1177/1053451209338398
Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(5), 32–38.
Wiggins, K. C., & Damore, S. J. (2006). “Survivors” or
“friends”? A framework for assessing effective collaboration.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(5), 49–56.