Collaborative Teaching: A Roadmap To Successful Inclusion: Ntroduction

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 11, ISSUE 7, JULY-2020
ISSN 2229-5518
Collaborative Teaching: A Roadmap to

Successful Inclusion
Nazia Hassan Khan
Abstract__Realizing the need for procedures and tools to implement inclusion, the review research provides avenues for
implementation of inclusive education on real pragmatic grounds. It explores the multifaceted options for pedagogical
practices and instructional strategies within a diverse classroom. It asserts that "Collaborative Teaching" can be used as a
potential tool for successful implementation of inclusive education. It highlights different models of Collaborative teaching
unfolding the procedures to deliver quality teaching to diverse learners within the mainstream setting.It identifies the
significance of Co-teaching for children with and without disabilities by exploring the facts that how the educators from
different fields (general education and special education) pool their diverse expertise to form a powerful resource hub for a
diverse classroom. It then reviews strategies for co-teaching and recognizes "Cooperative Learning" and "Peer Tutoring" as
strong pillars of co-teaching and explores different strategies used under the umbrella of cooperative learning and peer
tutoring. It also highlights some of the dilemmas of collaborative teaching and explains identity formation, time constraint,
lack of training and comprehension towards co-teaching models, non-supportive administration, and burnout problems in
detail as key problems in practicing collaborative teaching. It considers the evaluation areas of co-teaching along with
possible proposed methods to not to leave implementation of inclusive education un-attended followed by the possible
strategies to improve collaborative teaching by capacity building, improved communication with parents of children with and
without disability, and integration of technology.
Key Words: Inclusive education, Collaborative Teaching, Cooperative Learning, Peer Tutoring
INTRODUCTION According to Acedo (2008), the philosophy of

A merger of regular and special education is,
inclusive education is deep rooted in the
commonly, termed as inclusive education (Wade
phenomenon of education for all (EFA). It is such
& Zone, 2000). According to Wade and Zone, the
a system which not only benefits special
philosophy of inclusive education is
population but also serves as a guiding principle
underpinned by the concept that all students
to build a diverse society that is more justice and
should have opportunity to be educated in same
democratic in nature. Acedo further asserted
school despite of their individual differences of
that inclusive education is a promising
culture, ethnicity, language, religion, and health.
mechanism for providing high-quality education
This, also, refers to the idea that inclusive
to all students with and without special needs
education is a system of remedial education for
because it focuses on the presence, achievement,
reducing the risks, of marginalization and
and participation of all the children. This implies
exclusion of children with special needs,
that inclusion rejects exclusion of children in any
associated with special needs education (Florian,
context. It encourages every child to be the part
2008).
of a mainstream school and it also helps
ISSN 2229-5518
extending boundaries of EFA because it is a One of the most appropriate approaches to
continuous process (Acedo, 2008). undertake and manage inclusive education is
Halinen and Jarvinen (2008) also collaborative teaching or co-teaching because it
supported the argument that inclusive provides an opportunity to the students with
education benefits all the diverse learners special needs to get access to the mainstream
because inclusion not only means to schools, regular educators, and general
provide equal high-quality educational curriculum (Magiera, Smith, Zigmond, &
opportunities to children with and Gebauer, 2005) while accommodating children
without needs but it also with special needs in accordance with their
implies to deploy identical and equal strategies pertinent individualized educational program
and procedures to assure successful learning for (IEP) (Millward, Baynes, Dyson, Riddell, Banks,
children with and without special needs. All the Kane, & Wilson, 2002).
above facts indicate that giving respect, value

The main purpose of this literature review is to
and acceptance to difference is core theme of

highlight the significance of co-teaching in the
Inclusion (Carrington & Valeo, 2003). This

context of creating and managing effective
implies that Inclusive education is a system of

inclusive classrooms. So, the scope of this paper
education which provides prospects to

will mainly encompass the rationale for
dissimilar groups of children to study in a

collaborative teaching, impact of team teaching
collaborative and positive environment.

on different stakeholders of inclusive education,
Diversity of learners and maintenance of quality

critical analysis of various models of
education for all students are the focal points of

collaborative teaching, different strategies
an inclusive environment. The role of schools in

adopted by the co-teachers during co-teaching,
providing quality teaching for diverse learners

dilemmas of co-teaching, role of school
becomes crucial when schools are facilitating

administration, and some helpful suggestions to
students with inclusive education environment

evaluate and improve co-teaching in an inclusive
(Wade & Zone, 2000).

ISSN 2229-5518
classroom. Role of school administrator and role many ways (Ludlow, 2011). Educating special
of technology in the execution of collaborative children in regular classroom cannot be done by
teaching will also be discussed. What is the a general educator only. There might be certain
situation of collaborative teaching in Pakistan issues related to a particular disability which a
will also be the point of concern in the literature general educator may not understand to handle.
review. Therefore, collaboration between a regular
teacher and a special educator is essential for

RATIONALE FOR CO-TEACHING IN THE
CONTEXT OF INCLUSION educating children with special needs in a
regular classroom (Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004)

Inclusive educational practices emphasize on
and thus pairing of general teachers with special
the integration of children with disabilities in
educators becomes unavoidable (Welch, 2000).
the mainstream schools and more specifically
Snell and Janney (2005) also supported this
regular classrooms with a commitment of
argument that for a successful and effective
providing sense of belonging and acceptance
inclusion, collaborative teaching plays a vital
(Voltz, Brazil, & Ford, 2001) but it has been
role because the primary underlying principle of
evidenced that sometimes inclusion does work
co-teaching is to provide a supportive
for children with disabilities and sometimes it
environment to students with diverse learning
fosters uncertain circumstances for
needs to fulfill their academic as well social
administration, teachers and students with and
needs. Snell and Janney are of the
without disabilities. One of the core reasons
why some schools cannot implement inclusion view that collaborative teaching avoids
in its true spirit is the degree of collaboration segregation of students with special needs and
among the teachers. Contemporary practices provides scaffolding for including students with
and literature indicate that co-ordination of distinct learning needs into the regular
special educator with the staff of general classroom. Moreover, cooperative teaching
education schools is becoming inevitable in assists to promote a sense of ownership and
membership among the pupils because the

ISSN 2229-5518
stigma of being excluded is eliminated. It clearly concepts like common goals, conformity to
draws one’s attention to the fact that co- spend efforts to assemble resources, capacity
teaching is a tool that can create a conducive building of participants in terms of high morale
and encouraging learning environment for and consistency, problem solving nature of
student with special needs. They do not need to communication, and contribution of every
be pulled out of the classrooms for member in diagnoses and rectification of
accommodation of their diverse needs because problems which special children might
all the required essentials are being provided encounter while being included in a general
within a single inclusive classroom with the classroom. All these crucial features of
cooperation of co-teachers. collaboration prove to be the basic advocates of
paring general educators with regular

The philosophy of collaboration revolves
teachers in such a way that they should have a

around the effective and efficient interaction of
shared responsibility of fostering learning

people for attainment of a common goal (Welch,
capabilities of special children beyond the

2000). In the context of collaboration among
special and excluded classroom environment.

special and general educators, if the teachers do
Welch (2000) identified shared responsibility as

not know how to communicate and cooperate
a key factor contributor to the success of

with each other in order to make education
collaboration which is quite thought provoking

accessible, for children with special needs, in an
for me because the sense of accountability and

inclusive classroom then mere pairing of diverse
interdependency stretches the boundaries for

teachers will happen and may not yield the
ideas and resources required to better fit a

desired outcome. Alliance of general and special
special child in an inclusive classroom and this

educators in an inclusive classroom will work if
will lead the two major parties of collaboration

they put efforts together with a sense of sharing
to work effectively and they will be able to pool

the responsibility because according to Welch
most of the resources required for enhancing

(2000), the core ideology of collaboration lies in
inclusive educational practices. They will be in a

ISSN 2229-5518
better position to combine all the concrete as mainstream schools but the most highlighting
well abstract reserves to better serve the impression that his work left is that paring
educational and psychological needs of special special educators
children. The philosophy of collaboration is not with general teachers may assist in pooling
just confined to that of meager interaction and effective and diverse resources. Resources
this philosophical differentiation has been made become diverse in such kind of collaboration
clear by Donato (2004). In his review of a because both the collaborators come from
research he stood by the stance that diverse fields of training and experience.
collaborative activities have more wide range of Pedagogical strategies, content correlation and
impact on the environment as a whole as handling children without disabilities are the
compared to interaction. So, when general and core values of training and experience of general
special educators will join hands together for educators while special educators are supposed
collaboration and not only for interaction, they to be expert on classroom- management and
might create strong association with mutual differentiated instructional practices. Magiera,
advantages for all the stakeholders of an Smith, Zigmond, and Gebauer (2005) supported
inclusive classroom including both types of this argument of pooling resources from two
educators and students with and without diverse field and stated that co-teaching may
diverse learning needs. emerge to be the most convincing merger of
special and regular education because the

Another vigorous philosophy scaffolding the
general educator is more expert in content area

need of pairing general educators with special
and knows nothing or less about how to meet

educators is diversity of resources. Hansen
the needs of children with special needs while

(2007) gave a comprehensive elaboration on the
the special educator has his excellence in

infusion of special educators in mainstream
handling individual learning demands of

classrooms. He stood by the stance that opposes
diverse learners. So the integration of special

exclusion of special educators from the
educators in general classrooms means to bring

ISSN 2229-5518
two different disciplines together and serve the lesson. For example, the observer teacher may
diverse learning needs with diverse resources. circulate around the class, during the lesson, and
observe various behaviors of the diverse learners

MODELS OF CO-TEACHING
and may plan for appropriate accommodations for
Co-teaching are the instructional strategies used
the upcoming lecture.
by the co-teachers which are adopted by keeping
This model seems better in the sense that one
in mind the learning needs of diverse students,
teacher observes for the diverse learning needs of
space, goal and objectives of the lesson, and
the individuals while other is delivering the lesson,
number of the students (Friend & Cook, 2010).
but it may not work effectively because the role of
Snell and Janney (2005) identified six basic co-
special educator (the observer) is limited to
instructional models for inclusive classrooms.
observations only. This may become a cause of
The models are:
conflict between the co-teachers. Moreover, this
1. One teach, one observe model treats all the students a single group and in
2. One teach, one assist a larger group it is usually difficult to assess
3. Station Teaching whether everyone is receiving the same attention

4. Parallel Teaching
of the teacher or not.
5. Alternate Teaching
6. Team Teaching ONE TEACH, ONE ASSIST MODEL

This model works on the same pattern of one
ONE TEACH, ONE OBSERVE MODEL

teach one observe model but with a slight
In this model one teacher, usually, the general difference. Instead of gathering data through
educator performs the role of lead teacher and observations, the special educator assumes the
takes the responsibility of delivering the content of role of support teacher. The support teacher
the topic. On the other hand, the other co-teacher provides assistance to students while the lead
performs the duty of an observer and records data teacher is delivering the content. Support may
which may assist the co-teachers to plan next be required in re- explaining the task to
individuals or small groups, dealing with

ISSN 2229-5518
behavior problems, responding questions, or learning needs will be allowed to work
clarifying directions to students. Underuse of independently on stations.
special
PARALLEL TEACHING
educator’s skills is, once again, the major
drawback of this model and special educator Class is divided into two heterogeneous groups
may feel unvalued while working in this under this teaching model and same content is
model. delivered to both groups by the same teacher on
alternate turns. Snell and Janney acclaimed that

STATION TEACHING
the co-teachers have to be vigilant while
In station teaching the co-teachers plan their forming the groups and should consider that
work/content/lesson with mutual planning students with special needs or diverse learning
unlike the previous two models but both the must not be grouped always in the same group.
teachers teach separately on different work The co-teachers should be rotated around.
stations with in the class. Students rotate, under

The strength of this model is that co-teachers
supervision or independently, across the co-
plan the lesson with mutual consent and
teachers and both the teachers deliver content
synchronize information with each other.
to the students.
Moreover, when both the teachers are playing
The benefit of this model is that the capabilities active roles in the class, their morale and
of the special educator are not underutilized excitement will be high to perform at their best
and both the teachers perform an active (Conderman, 2011). But the teachers to face a
teaching in the class (Conderman, 2011). One of more demanding situation of classroom
the crucial challenge associated with this model management because the noise level in parallel
may be of pacing the students on different teacher may increase (Vaughn, Schumm, &
stations (Rice & Zigmond, 2000). Moreover, Arguelles, 1997).
classroom management will also become

ALTERNATE TEACHING
challenging when students with diverse
ISSN 2229-5518
teach the content on the same time in front of a
According to Condeman (2011), this teaching single group. Teachers may adopt different
model is suitable for the children who have been strategies to impart knowledge, for example,
the victims of school or classroom truancy and, they may dramatize the content, may arrange
therefore, need pre-teaching, re-teaching, or debate on the topic to be delivered, or may
reviews from one of the teachers while the lead demonstrate the content through physical aids
teacher is delivering the content. Snell and (Snell & Janney, 2005). The co-teachers may
Janney (2005) recommend that the co-teachers exchange their mutual roles and should have
should alternate their roles and group pre-planned for this shift of roles because
composition of students while utilizing this otherwise, conflict may arise and students may
model because this activity will avoid the get disturbed.
occurrence of role conflict.

The strength of this model is that the co-
Rice and Zigmond (2000) discussed the strengths teachers are equally responsible for content
and challenges related to the model and stated delivery and thus one may not consider him or
that the model is robust in providing equal her more superior or inferior to the other
opportunity to the co-teachers to maintain same (Gurgur & Uzuner, 2011). But the challenge
status. Moreover, all the students benefit from associated with the model is of crucial nature
the small group exercises held in the class but the because when both the teachers are leading the
challenge is appropriate formation of groups. class, a high degree of commitment and more
Teachers have to consider that groups must not time for planning is required (Vaughn,
always select the same students every time. Schumm, & Arguelles, 1997).
TEAM TEACHING
Various Teacher to Teacher Collaboration
Gurgur and Uzuner (2011) described team models like Leader and Teacher-Observer Dyad,
teaching as a model adopted by the co- Two Teachers- Divided Class, Team Teaching
teachers where both the teachers plan and and Varying Co-Teaching Models have been
ISSN 2229-5518
suggested by educationists (Walker, Scherry,  Cooperative Learning
Gransbery, 2001). These authors have  Peer Tutoring
elaborated the mentioned models in detail and COOPERATIVE LEARNING
the one which, being a teacher to special Cooperative learning is an instructional
children, found comparatively prevailing is technique which produces effective results when
teacher-observer dyad. used as an intervention for learners with diverse
This model provides opportunities to both learning needs (Gillies, 2006). The major reason
educators for applying their knowledge and for cooperative learning to be more effective may
expertise. At one time general teacher may work be because peer- bonding appears to be stronger
as lead teacher while special teacher being as compared to teacher-student relationship and
observer circulates around the students to assist children tend to be more expressive to their peer
them for their difficulties. At other time roles can (Seifert, 2005). This implies that a peer may be
be reordered thus giving special educator a more known to the academic and social
chance to deliver instructions on the topic they problems/needs of a child requiring intervention.
are proficient on. In this model class

Reading is one of the two basic skills that need
management skills are essential for both
particular attention from the first phase of
educators so they have to equip themselves with
primary education. If students are identified
content knowledge and class management skills
with problems in this area, teachers should look
at the same time.
for student-centered instructional interventions
STRATEGIES HELPFUL FOR CO-TEACHERS that encourage active students’ participation.
Co-operative learning can serve the purpose

Co-teachers may apply variety of strategies
best in classroom setting where students can
while teaching an inclusive class. Among all
master the particular area while cooperating,
other strategies, the most appealing and most
helping, and respecting each other (Durukan,
appropriate strategies I found are:
2011). Doymus (2007) also supported
ISSN 2229-5518
cooperative learning techniques for testing and approach allowing diversity of opinion to be
prevailing problems and finding positive integrated for the solution of a common
solutions in classroom settings. Gillies (2006) problem or completion of a mutual task.
advocated cooperative learning as a teaching- Moreover, in this learning-centered environment
learning technique that satisfies the educational students learn together and improve critical
and social needs of students with and without thinking by sharing views over a specific area.
diverse learning needs. She further asserted that PRINCIPLES OF CL

cooperative learning benefits both parties, that According to Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec
is, students and teachers because sometime peer (1998), the reason why CL performs more
are more aware of the problems faced by a effectively as compared to other instructional
friend. So while working in a group they may strategies is rooted in five essential
help teacher in understanding needs of a elements/principles. They described these five
particular child and in this way teacher may be components as:
able to plan for an effective solution or

 Positive Interdependence
intervention without consuming much time.  Individual accountability
 Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction
Shaaban (2006) emphasized the importance of
 Interpersonal and Small Group Skills
CL by refereeing to the fact that CL is  Group Processing
theoretically relevant to the acquisition of The above discussion yields that if due
language because maximum opportunities for a considerations are given to the mentioned
purposeful classroom in a positively supportive components and teachers supervise the group
environment is the core characteristic of CL. CL for following these principles, cooperative
provides an opportunity to the learners to work learning can produce positive and effective
as small-group and strive for the achievement of results for academic as well as social needs of all
a common goal while utilizing everyone’s the students with and without diverse needs.
expertise (Faryadi, 2007).

PEER TUTORING
This implies that CL is a learner-centered
ISSN 2229-5518
that peer-tutoring has multifaceted
Peer tutoring is a pedagogical strategy that capitalizations and it serves in many
engages two students, for the sake of learning dimensions including improved academic skills,
activity, to teacher one another (Ginsburg- self-concept, interdependency, and driving
Block & Lee, 2005). It has been considered as force to perform and participate. Mcduffie,
an operative and successful approach for Mastropieri, and Scruggs (2009) found in their
catering the needs of student with disabilities study, of 203 7th-grade students with and
in an inclusive classroom (Scruggs & without special needs, that students involved in
Mastropieri, 2012). Thus, it is another effective peer-tutoring under the umbrella of co-
strategy that can enhance the effectiveness of teaching performed far better than the teacher-
co-teaching and this can make inclusive led class.
practices more functioning with respect to

Peer tutoring is a strategy that scaffolds co-
high achievements in content areas and other
teachers to get a better understanding of the
social skills (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz,
individual learning needs, of students with and
Norland, Gardizi, & McDuffie, 2005).
without special needs, through the peers
Ginsburg-Block and Lee (2005) reported that (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007). It has been
this instructional strategy is one of the most evidenced that in co-taught class where peer-
appropriate strategies to instruct a diverse tutoring is deployed, students interact more
range of students in inclusive classrooms. The with their peer as compared to communicating
mentioned authors have done a comprehensive with teachers (Ginsburg-Block & Lee, 2005).
work in investigating the effects of different Thus when there is more
peer tutoring models and found out that this interaction between students, they may be well
strategy helps students to be involved with an acquainted with their learning needs and this
active approach instead of the passive approach may, significantly, assist the co-teachers to plan
of a teacher-led class. They further acclaimed their further suitable activities while keeping
ISSN 2229-5518
individual learning needs in their minds own the responsibility of their roles about deciding
(Mastropieri et al., 2005). How peer- tutoring the content and development of appropriate
works in an inclusive classroom can be better multiple choice questions. After this, peers
understood with the help of models of peer administer each other for the performance of their
tutoring discussed below. roles and finally mark each other for their
MODELS OF PEER-TUTORING performance. The peers switch over their mutual
roles once the one time activity is over and get

Literature evidenced two most commonly adopted
ready for the next activity with exchanged roles.
models of peer tutoring.
This gives them an opportunity to be benefitted by

1. Reciprocal Peer Tutoring
each other’s abilities.
2. Classwide Peer Tutoring
CLASS WIDE PEER TUTORING (CWPT)
RECIPROCAL PEER TUTORING (RPT)
CWPT is another strategy of peer tutoring
RPT is a peer tutoring model in which students are
dividing whole class into two competitive teams
paired for learning purpose and they are supposed
and learning game is structured between both
to alternate their mutual roles of tutor and tutee for
the teams (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
a set of activities (Ginsburg-Block, 2005). Ginsburg-
Report by the U.S. department of education
Block is of the view that RPT can be most
further elaborated and indicated that in CWPT
effectively used in elementary levels, specifically
technique pairs are made within each team and
for the students having learning difficulties in the
roles of tutor and tutee are assigned in each pair.
subject of mathematics.
Then a task is given to each pair and is marked
Mickelson, Yetter, Lemberger, Hovater, and Ayers after its completion. After this, roles of tutor and
(2003) explained the structure and scheme of tutee are exchanged within each session for the
reciprocal peer tutoring. According to these new task and game finishes on aggregating
authors, RPT is a formalized and structured marks of every team. The co-teachers are
technique in which both the members of the dyad responsible for deciding about which content is
ISSN 2229-5518
to be used. In order to measure the effects of Although the literature above has
CWPT, teachers prepare structured tests for the revealed the effectiveness of collaborative
unit used in peer tutoring session and evaluate in the context of inclusive classrooms and
the performance on the basis of pre-tests and has also provided empirical evidences of
post tests (Maheady & Gard, 2010). the positive impacts of co-teaching on the
academic as well as social life of the

The benefits of CWPT technique are documented
students with diverse needs. The
in the context of direct and indirect learning
implementation of collaborative teaching
benefits (Scruggs & Mastrpieri, 2012). Scruggs
is not simple to capitalize; rather schools
and Mastropieri conducted a study on secondary
encounter several philosophical,
schools, in which they deployed CWPT model
pragmatic, and administrative dilemmas
and probed that CWPT helped students to not
while implementing collaborative
only master the targeted content but a visible
teaching (Kruse & Louis, 1997). Some of
improvement was observed in the non targeted
the crucial barriers to execution of
content areas as well. Maheady and Gard (2010)
collaborative teaching, identified by the
supported this argument by adding that CWPT
literature (Cahill & Mitra, 2008; Trent,
program has multidimensional direct and
1998) are:
indirect positive impacts on the academics and
 Identity formation
social life of the students with and without
 Time constraint
special needs because it keeps the pupils
 Lack of training
engaged, most productively, in an activity for
 Lack of comprehension towards co-
every session. Therefore, students learn to use teaching models
their learnt strategies, in a specific content area

 Non supportive administration
for mastering the other areas as well.

 Burnout Problem
Need of time is to gain a clear understanding

DILEMMAS OF CO-TEACHING
of how the above factors can hamper the
ISSN 2229-5518
planning and execution of collaborative significant position for success and failure of
teaching. Therefore, a description of the above inclusion and co-teaching.
mentioned elements is provided below.

Probing into the role-demand of the school
ROLE OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR
administrator, in the context of collaborative
As the field of education is progressing with the
teaching, an administrator is required to focus
passage of time and contemporary concepts are
on various aspects. According to Dove and
making education more meaningful as
Honigsfeld (2010), the school administrator is
compared to the past, multifaceted challenges
responsible for planning, arranging, and
are also emerging. One of the emerging
organizing sources for collaboration in
challenges faced by the education sector is to
accordance with the special needs of the school.
provide the most facilitating inclusive education
In this regard, it is essential for the school
to the students with and without special needs
principal to provide time to the collaborating
(Friend & Cook, 2010). In order to meet this
staff to discuss the challenges and the possible
challenge of providing a nurtured inclusive
solutions to the prevailing issues of collaborative
education system, the role of an administrator
teaching or an inclusive classroom. Moreover,
becomes more crucial because providing
Dove and Honigsfeld elaborated, the
inclusive education by capitalizing collaborative
arrangement and supply of the required material
teaching is not confined to mere pairing of two
for a co- taught should also be the responsibility
teachers from diverse fields (Wilson, 2005). The
of the administrator because if the co-teachers
school administrators posit such a leadership
are to arrange the educational material, it will
position that is required to commit with other
consume a major part of the time and less time
staff members to provide necessary learning
will be left with the teachers to plan, implement,
opportunities and environment to the student
and evaluate their co-teaching model. The
with and without diverse learning needs
significance of the role of an administrator in co-
(Friend & Cook, 2010). This implies that the role
teaching is more precisely elaborated by
of the school administrator occupies a
ISSN 2229-5518
Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2007). They  Exhibit abilities in collecting information
argued that a successful principal can execute a and problem-solving
successful inclusive model and for a principal to

 Observing and evaluating the co-teaching
be successful, it is necessary that he should be
teams
able to:
It may be easily elicited from the points

 Communicate administrative support and
mentioned by Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and
leadership
Fulmer that the role of an administrator
 Select capable and agreed partners for co-
encompasses a wide range of issues related to
teaching
collaborative teaching and the co-teachers may
 Provide professional development not be able to implement and exercise the
opportunities on continual basis practice of collaborative teaching without the
administrative support.
 Establish balanced and appropriate
Friend (2008) found in a study about
ratio of students with special needs in
collaborative teaching that, most often, the co-
a co- taught class
teachers complaint about the non-supportive
 Provide flexible scheduling to the
attitude of the principal. Moreover, they
participants, of collaborative
identified such a non-supportive behavior as an
teaching, for co- planning
indicator for the failure of collaborative
 Develop and assess appropriate IEPs

teaching. The reason behind the non-supportive
behavior of the school administrator might be

 Collaboratively develop the philosophies
lack of knowledge and training about the issues
of co-teaching
related to inclusive education, special education,
 Communicate obvious policies about the and collaborative teaching (Friend & Cook,
discipline issues 2010). Therefore, the need for capacity building
should not only be confined to the preparation

ISSN 2229-5518
of the collaborative teachers, rather the school classroom. According to Salend (2001), in the
principals should also undergo intense context of evaluating the co-teaching teams, the
professional development programs related to purpose of evaluation may take different
inclusion and collaborative education (Garrison- positions. For example, the evaluation is
Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). necessary to know about:
EVALUATING THE CO-TEACHING TEAMS  The proper execution of the co-teachers’

roles
From the literature elaborated above, it is self-
 The proper integration and execution of
explanatory that co-teaching impacts the
the instructional strategies and models
academic and social life of children with and
of co-teaching
without special needs in a very positive and
 The proper practice of appropriate
progressive way. But after implementing assessment of students’ achievements
collaborative or cooperative teaching models in
the inclusive classroom, it would be unjust to Snell and Janney (2005) also advocated for the
presume that the co-teachers are teaching significance of a comprehensive evaluation
effectively and they are fulfilling the diverse procedure of the co-teaching practice. Snell and
needs of the diverse learners in a very Janney argued that evaluation is necessary
appropriate manner (Salend, Gordon, & Lopez- because it provides an impression to the co-
Vona, 2002). Therefore, the need for a robust teachers about their work. It enables the co-
reflective system to project the true picture of teachers to analyze their interpersonal
experiences of the co- teachers is inevitable effectiveness. Snell and Janney further
(Salend, 2001). The existence of such an elaborated that a comprehensive evaluation
insightful system will allow the administrator should be included in the schedule of the school
and the co-teachers as well to analyze and practices as a regular yearly exercise because it
evaluate their planning, pedagogical practices, helps the co-teachers to assess the change
and assessment strategies in an inclusive occurred in the academic achievements,
behavior, attitudes, friendships, social skills, and

ISSN 2229-5518
referrals. Simmons and Magiera (2007)  Interviews (Unstructured, semi-

structures, structured)
highlighted the need for evaluation process in a
 Surveys
way that it helps the partner teachers to know
 Self-rating
about how truly they are co-teaching and it also
 Best practice check-lists
assists them to make necessary modifications in
 Observations
case if problems arise between the co-teachers or
 School records (comparison of records
the co-teaching becomes vulnerable to any before and after implementation of co-
teaching)
internal or external risk.
The authenticity of all the above mentioned
In order to evaluate the performance of the co- information techniques is well established in the
teaching teams, data is essential to be gathered literature (Creswel, 2012), therefore, the data
and the task of gathering data can be completed collected through the techniques may be utilized
with the collaboration of the co-teachers, to analyze the impacts and effectiveness of the
students, and the parents (Snell & Janney, 2005). co-teaching practice in the context of academic
According to Wischnowski, Salmon, and Eaton as well social life of the students with and
(2004), information about the experience of without diverse learning needs. The work done
collaborative teaching can be gathered from by Wischnowski, Salmon, and Eaton (2004), in
parents, students, teachers, and other staff the context of evaluating co-teaching, is
members by capitalizing the following appreciable. They employed various methods in
techniques: order to gather information about the co-
teaching practices prevailing in a rural district of

 General discussion with
New York. A specimen of evaluating a specific
students, teachers, and parents
area of co-teaching along with the proposed
asking about their experience of
method of evaluation is being presented from
co-teaching
the work of the mentioned researchers.
ISSN 2229-5518
EVALUATION AREA METHOD
Information about co-teachers training Professional development review Co-
teaching method applied in the class Observations
Effects of the model on students Comparison of test results
Accommodations requirement IEP review
Classroom rules Teacher interviews/ documents
Compliance of classroom rules Observations
TABLE 1. EVALUATION AREAS AND PROPOSED

METHODS
Similar type of questions can be posited by the learning needs. Therefore, school principals
evaluators to obtain a comprehensive should facilitate the co-teachers to utilize
knowledge about the effectiveness of co- various techniques of gathering information and
teaching and on the basis of the information take decisions for the modification or revision of
collected through these methods; certain their plans, strategies and goals.
positive changes can be integrated in the process

IMPROVING CO-TEACHING
of collaborative teaching. These positive changes
will be strengthen the scaffolding of inclusive It may be elicited from the literature above that
education and will enhance the effectiveness of collaborative teaching serves as a tool to execute
cooperative teaching which in turn will help the inclusive education programs in an appropriate
school to provide a congenial learning manner. Some issues related to the planning and
environment to the children with diverse implementation of collaborative teaching has

ISSN 2229-5518
already been discussed in the previous sections comprehensive knowledge about the technology
and, now, the consideration is on the being used inside the class for the betterment of
possibilities to resolve the dilemmas associated the diverse learners. This may be perceived as an
with collaborative teaching and to analyze some addition to the burdens of co-teachers but an
certain areas essential to improve for improving appropriate embedding of suitable technology
co-teaching practices in the inclusive classrooms. inside an inclusive class is expected to become
The exercise of co-teaching may be improved by the prerequisite of a co- taught class (Scherer,
focusing on the following dynamics:
2004).
o Intensive Capacity Building

Mason (2008) described the use of
o Integration of Technology
technology as a powerful tool enhancing the
o Improving communication
between the partners command and strength of the collaborating
teachers. He refers technology as a third

INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY
teacher in a co-taught inclusive classroom.
The absolute significance of technology in the Mason suggested the integration of
field of education has already achieved technology in a co-taught class in the
worldwide recognition. Starcic (2010) mentioned following possible manners:
that previously the usage of technology in

 A small number of designated computers
schools was related with only the technology in the class
teacher. That is, the teacher who led the class for  Multimedia presentations
most of the time was expected to provide every  Smart boards
content-knowledge other than computer or  Electronic white boards
technological skills. But, now in the present era,  Individual laptops or computers for
students in the class
situation has been changed with the emergence
 Hand-held technologies, such as, ipads,
of inclusion. In a co-taught class both the ipods, or cell phones
 Electronic books
teachers are supposed to possess a
 Mobile technology carts that move around
ISSN 2229-5518
as and when required and it also assisted the co-teachers in
 Educational software maximizing the benefits of collaborative teaching
 Specific educational websites designed while overcoming the barriers encountered
to improve reading, writing, and during teaching students with LD. CACSR
problem- solving skills of the children helped the co-teachers in the following avenues:
with and without special needs

 It enabled the co-teachers to preplan
Kim, Woodruff, Klein, and Vaughn (2007) also their instructional strategies and set
supported the idea of integrating technology in goals based on individual needs
co-taught classrooms and argued that the  It assisted the teachers for delivering
responsible co-teaching is not merely affiliated the content knowledge on critical
with the placement. Rather it also depends reading to the students with LD
significantly on the way instructions are being  It allowed the partner teachers to
provided to the class. Kim, Woodruff, Klein, and evaluate the effects of responsible co-
Vaughn conducted a study to investigate the teaching on students with and without
effects of technology and computer based LD
programs on literacy learning of the children

The implications of the above discussion on
with learning disabilities. These LD children
integration of technology are quite obvious in
were placed and taught in an inclusive
terms of effective and responsible co-teaching. It
classroom taught by two teachers. The co-
may deduced from the above findings that in
teachers were provided with the technological
order to execute a co-teaching model in an
assistance of software called computer- assisted
inclusive classroom, the presence of
collaborative strategic reading (CACSR). The
technological assistance is inevitable because it
findings of the study confirmed that the practice
not only helps the co- teachers to reduce the
of collaborative teaching was highly facilitated,
barriers and obstacles related to co-teaching but
with the help of technology, in multi-dimensions
also enhances the capacity building of the
ISSN 2229-5518
partners and amplifies the range of benefits from Inclusion of children with disabilities is
collaborative teaming. emerging as a contemporary issue under the
umbrella of education for all because it provides

Besides technology, a term assistive technology
equal chance to all children to study in a mutual
posits significant place in education of children
setting instead of segregating some of the
with special needs. Assistive technology (AT) is
students to special schools, classroom or units.
termed as a service or device that directly
Although educators support the concept of
assists a child who is suffering from any kind
inclusion of special students into regular schools
of disability (McLaren, Bausch, & Ault, 2007).
but pragmatically these educators feel reluctant
The services provided under the umbrella of
to practice it. One of the possible reasons is that
AT may include variety of therapies and
inclusion may fail to produce required results
interventions to improve the living, learning,
because the ordinary teachers do not possess
and social skills of the children with special
expertise required to deal with children with
needs (Scherer, 2004). McLaren, Bausch, and
special needs. Their qualification, professional
Ault (2007) mentioned in their work that every
trainings, and professional experience do not
child who is on an IEP is obvious to obtain AT
support them to manage a diverse range of
within his natural settings. Therefore, the
students. This deficiency calls for presence of a
schools that are providing inclusive education
special educator in the classroom who is well
and are capitalizing collaborative teaching
versed with educational and emotional needs of
need to be considerate for professionally
special children. The special educator will
preparing their co-teachers for embedding
cooperate with ordinary teacher to maintain a
technology and AT in their classrooms because
congenial environment inside the classroom and
technology has emerged as one of the
also will assist regular teacher to deal with
significant factors that made inclusion and
children having special needs. This cooperation
collaborative teaching possible ( Mason, 2008).
may be labeled as Co-teaching or collaborative
CONCLUSION
teaching. Co- teaching has significant positive
ISSN 2229-5518
impacts on the diversity of students and it has teaching may have even negative impacts on the
been empirically proven that students learning classroom and students’ performance may get
under the cooperation of two diverse teachers worse in every aspect. Other problem that may
achieved far better than the students who have become a hurdle to co-teaching is weaker
been taught in exclusive and segregated administrative behavior. If the principal is not
environment. Co-teaching influences not only active in supervising the collaborative team,
children with special needs but children without results may be drastically damaging. School
special needs also perform well under the headmaster is the authority which can reinforce
models of collaborative teaching. The varied co-teachers to collaborate properly and
range of students does not only achieve accelerate positive outcomes. The mere
academically but co- teaching also pushes them implementation of cooperative teaching does not
to learn how to well behave socially and how to ensure effective outcomes. Rather, the model
cooperate each other on different tasks. It helps needs to be evaluated on regular bases, so that,
students with and without special needs to the process of co-teaching may undergo
develop good problem-solving skills, progressive development while escalating the
communication skills, and decision making possibility of positive academic as well as social
skills. It promotes acceptance towards diversity consequences for the children with and without
among students as well as teachers. special needs. In order to promote inclusion
through collaborative teaching, administration

Co-teaching is not free of barriers and problems.
may perform well with the collaboration of govt.
Any model of co-teaching cannot be
polices. Govt. authorities should chalk out
implemented successfully if some constraints are
inclusion based educational policies which
not being tackled vigilantly. One of the crucial
support integration of assistive technology
dilemmas of co-teaching is personality clash of
within the inclusive classrooms and should also
co-teachers. If the paired teachers are not able to
develop intensive capacity building programs
synchronize and cooperate with each other, co-
for co-teachers so that they may be technically
ISSN 2229-5518
and professionally equipped to deal with a Faryadi, Q. (2007). Enlightening the advantages
of cooperative learning. Retrieved from ERIC
diverse range of children. Digital Dissertions.
REFERENCE LIST Florian, L. (2008). Special or Inclusive

Education: Future Trends. British Journal
Acedo, C. (2008). Inclusive education: pushing the of Special Education , 35 (4), 202-208.
boundaries. Prospects , 38 (1), 5-13.
Friend, M. (2008). Co-Teaching: A Simple
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' Beliefs Solution That Isn’t Simple After All. Co-
About Co-Teaching. Remedial and Teaching: A Simple Solution That Isn’t
Special Education , 22 (4), 245-255. Simple After All , 2 (2), 9-19.
Cahill, S., & Mitra, S. (2008). Forging Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions:
Collaborative Relationships to Meet the Collaboration Skills for School Professionals.
Demands of Inclusion. Kappa Delta Pi Record , New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
44 (4), 149-151.
Garrison-Wade, D., Sobel, D., & Fulmer, C.
Carrington, S. & Robynson, R. (2003). A case (2007). Inclusive Leadership: Preparing
study of inclusive school development: a journey Principals for the Role that Awaits Them.
of learning. Inclusive Education , 141-153. Educational Leadership and Administration ,
19 (1), 117-132.
Conderman, G. (2011). Middle School Co-
Teaching: Effective Practices and Student Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers' and Students' Verbal
Reflections. Middle School Journal , 42 (4), Behaviours During Cooperative and Small-
24-31. Group Learning. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology , 76 (2), 271-287.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of Collaboration in
Pedagogical Discourse. Annual Review of Ginsburg-Block, M., & Lee, S.
Applied Linguistics , 24 (1), 284-302. (2005). Peer Tutoring. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL
Coteaching and Collaboration: Opportunities to Gurgur, H., & Uzuner, Y. (2011). Examining
Develop Teacher Leadership and Enhance the Implementation of Two Co-Teaching
Student Learning. TESOL Journal , 1 (1), 3- 22. Models: Team Teaching and Station
Teaching. International Journal of Inclusive
Doymus, K. (2007). Effects of cooperative Education , 15 (6), 589-610.
learning strategy on teaching and learning
phases of matter and one-component phase Hansen, S. D. (2007). Ending Special Educators'
diagrams. Journal of chemical education , 84 Isolation. Principal Leadership , 7 (9), 37-40.
(11), 1857-1860.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998).
Durukan, E. (2011). Effects of Cooperative Cooperation in the classroom. Edina:
Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) Interaction Book Company.
Technique on Reading-Writing Skills.
Keefe, E., Moore, V., & Duff, F. (2004). The Four
Educational research and reviews , 6 (1), 102- "Knows" of Collaborative Teaching.
109. Teaching Exceptional Children , 36 (5), 36-42.
ISSN 2229-5518
Kim, A., Woodruff, A., Klein, C., & Vaughn, S. McDuffie, K., Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T.
(2006). Facilitating Co-Teaching for Literacy in (2009). Differential Effects of Peer Tutoring in Co-
General Education Classrooms through Taught and Non-Co-Taught Classes: Results for
Technology: Focus on Students with Learning Content Learning and Student- Teacher
Disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly , 22 Interactions. Exceptional Children , 75 (4), 493-
(3), 269-291. 510.
Kruse, S., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Teacher Teaming McLaren, E., Bausch, M. E., & Ault, M. J. (2007).
in Middle Schools: Dilemmas for a Schoolwide Collaboration Strategies Reported by Teachers
Community. Educational Administration Providing Assistive Technology Services. Journal
Quarterly , 33 (3). of Special Education Technology , 22 (4), 16-29.
Laron, W. C., & Goebel, A. J. (2008). Mickelson, W., Yetter, G., Lemberger, M.,
Putting Theory into Practice: A Hovater, S., & Ayers, R. (2003). Reciprocal Peer
Professional Development Tutoring: An Embedded Assessment Technique
School/University Co-Teaching Project. to Improve Student Learning and Achievement.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Retrieved from
Learning , 8 (2), 52-61. http://ore.gen.umn.edu/artist/articles/Mickelson.
pdf
Ludlow, B. (2011). Collaboration. Teaching
Exceptional Children , 43 (3), 4. Millward, A., Baynes, A., Dyson, A., Riddell, S.,
Banks, P., Kane, J., & Wilson, A. (2002).
Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., &
Individualised Educational Programmes. Part II:
Gebauer, K. (2005). Benefits of Co-Teaching in
Raising the Attainment of Pupils with Special
Secondary Mathematics Classes. Teaching
Educational Needs. Journal of Research in
Exceptional Children , 37 (3), 20-24.
Special Educational Needs , 2 (3), 1-11.
Maheady, L., & Gard, J. (2010). Classwide Peer
Rice, N., Drame, E., Owens, L., & Frattura, E. M.
Tutoring: Practice, Theory, Research, and
(2007). Co-Instructing at the Secondary Level:
Personal Narrative. Intervention in School and
Strategies for Success. Teaching Exceptional
Clinic , 46 (2), 71-78.
Children , 39 (6), 12-18.
Mason, C. Y. (2008). Co-Teaching with
Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-Teaching
Technology: The Power of "3". Retrieved from
in Secondary Schools: Teacher Reports of
http://www.edimprovement.org/wp-
Developments in Australian and American
content/uploads/2010/09/Co-Teaching-with-
Classrooms. Learning Disabilities: Research &
Technology.pdf
Practice , 15 (4), 190-197.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2007). The
Inclusive Classroom : Strategies for Effective Salend, S. (2001). Creating Inclusive Classrooms:
Instruction . New Jersey: Upper Saddle River. Effective and Reflective Practices.
New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., Graetz, J., Norland,
J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K.
Studies in Co-Teaching in the Content Areas: (2002). Evaluating Cooperative Teaching
Successes, Failures, and Challenges. Teams. Intervention in School and Clinic , 37
Intervention in School and Clinic , 40 (5), 260- (4), 195-200.
270.
ISSN 2229-5518
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M. (2012). Peer‐ U.S. Department of Education. (2010).

Mediated Instruction in Inclusive Secondary Classwide Peer Tutoring. Retrieved
Social Studies Learning: Direct and Indirect from
Learning Effects. Learning Disabilities Research http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/interve
& Practice , 27 (1), 12-20. ntion_reports/wwc_cwpt_091410.pdf
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Arguelles, M. E.
(2007). Co-Teaching in Inclusive (1997). The ABCDEs of Co-Teaching.
Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Teaching Exceptional Children , 30 (2), 1-4.
Research. Exceptional Children , 73 (4), 392-
Voltz,L.D., Brazil, N., & Ford, A. (2001). What
416.
Maters Most in Inclusive Education: A Practical
Seifert, K. (2005). Learning about Peers: A Missed
Guide for Moving Forward. Intervention in
Opportunity for Educational Psychology. The
School and Clinic , 23-30.
Clearing House , 78 (5), 239-243.
Wade, S. E. (2000). Inclusive Education: A
Shaaban, K. (2006). An initial study of the
casebook and readings for prospective and
effects of cooperative learning on reading
practicing teachers. New Jersey: Lawrence
comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and
Erlbaum Associates.
motivation to read. Reading Psychology , 27
(5), 377-403. Wade, S. E., & Zone, J. (2000). Creating
Inclusive Classrooms: An Overview. In S. E.
Scherer, M. J. (2004). Technology Made
Wade, Inclusive Education: A Casebook and
Inclusive Education Possible. Washington:
Readings for Prospective and Practicing
American Psychology Association.
Teachers (pp. 1-3). New Jersey: Lawrence
Simmons, R., & Magiera, K. (2007). Evaluation Erlbaum Associates.
of Co-Teaching in Three High Schools Within

Walker, B. J., Scherry R. J., & Gransbery, C.
One School District: How Do You Know
(2001). Collaboration in the Schools: A
When You Are Truly Co-Teaching?
Theoratical and Practical View. In V. J. Risko,
Teaching Exceptional Children Plus , 3 (3), 1-12. & K. Bromley, Collaboration for Diverse
Learners (pp. 33-49). New York: International
Smith, P. (2001). Collaborative Teaching. ADE
Reading Association.
Bulletin , 1 (128), 60-65.
Welch, M. (2000). Collaboration as aTool for
Snell, M., & Janney, R. (2005). Inclusion. In S. E. Wade, Inclusive Education: A
Collaborative Teaming. Sydney: Paul casebook and Readings for Prospective abd
H. Books Publishing Co. Practicing Teachers (pp. 71- 96). New Jersey:
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Starcic, A. (2010). Educational Technology for
the Inclusive Classroom. Turkish Online Wilson, G. L. (2005). This Doesn't Look
Journal of Educational Technology , 9 (3), 26- Familiar: A Supervisor's Guide for
37. Observing Co-Teachers. Intervention in
School and Clinic , 40 (5), 271-275.
Trent, S. (1998). False Starts and Other Dilemmas
of a Secondary General Education Collaborative Wischnowski, M., Salmon, S. J., & Eaton,
Teacher : A Case Study. Journal of Learning K. (2004). Evaluating Co-teaching as a
Disabilities , 31 (5), 503-513. Means for Successful Inclusion of Students
ISSN 2229-5518
with Disabilities in a Rural District. Rural

Special Education Quarterly , 23-3, 3-4.

Collaborative Teaching: A Roadmap To Successful Inclusion: Ntroduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collaborative Teaching: A Roadmap To Successful Inclusion: Ntroduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & ENGINEERING RESEARCH, VOLUME 11, ISSUE 7, JULY-2020

Collaborative Teaching: A Roadmap to

INTRODUCTION According to Acedo (2008), the philosophy of

extending boundaries of EFA because it is a One of the most appropriate approaches to

continuous process (Acedo, 2008). undertake and manage inclusive education is

Halinen and Jarvinen (2008) also collaborative teaching or co-teaching because it

provide equal high-quality educational curriculum (Magiera, Smith, Zigmond, &

opportunities to children with and Gebauer, 2005) while accommodating children

above facts indicate that giving respect, value

and acceptance to difference is core theme of

Inclusion (Carrington & Valeo, 2003). This

implies that Inclusive education is a system of

education which provides prospects to

dissimilar groups of children to study in a

collaborative and positive environment.

Diversity of learners and maintenance of quality

education for all students are the focal points of

an inclusive environment. The role of schools in

providing quality teaching for diverse learners

becomes crucial when schools are facilitating

students with inclusive education environment

(Wade & Zone, 2000).

of technology in the execution of collaborative children in regular classroom cannot be done by

situation of collaborative teaching in Pakistan issues related to a particular disability which a

review. Therefore, collaboration between a regular

teacher and a special educator is essential for

regular classroom (Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004)

education schools is becoming inevitable in assists to promote a sense of ownership and

membership among the pupils because the

be pulled out of the classrooms for member in diagnoses and rectification of

cooperation of co-teachers. collaboration prove to be the basic advocates of

paring general educators with regular

teachers in such a way that they should have a

shared responsibility of fostering learning

capabilities of special children beyond the

special and excluded classroom environment.

Welch (2000) identified shared responsibility as

a key factor contributor to the success of

collaboration which is quite thought provoking

for me because the sense of accountability and

interdependency stretches the boundaries for

ideas and resources required to better fit a

special child in an inclusive classroom and this

will lead the two major parties of collaboration

to work effectively and they will be able to pool

most of the resources required for enhancing

inclusive educational practices. They will be in a

educational and psychological needs of special special educators

diverse learning needs. emerge to be the most convincing merger of

special and regular education because the

general educator is more expert in content area

and knows nothing or less about how to meet

the needs of children with special needs while

the special educator has his excellence in

handling individual learning demands of

diverse learners. So the integration of special

educators in general classrooms means to bring

observe various behaviors of the diverse learners

2. One teach, one assist a larger group it is usually difficult to assess

3. Station Teaching whether everyone is receiving the same attention

6. Team Teaching ONE TEACH, ONE ASSIST MODEL

ONE TEACH, ONE OBSERVE MODEL