CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

CO-TEACHING IN AN INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

A CASE STUDY OF A SPECIAL EDUCATION LITERACY COURSE CO-TAUGHT BY

A SPECIAL EDUCATION FACULTY MEMBER AND AN ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION FACULTY MEMBER

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts in Special Education,
Educational Therapy

By

Amy Ellen Sheldon

August 2012
The thesis of Amy Ellen Sheldon is approved:

Rachel Friedman Narr Date

Renee Ziolkowska Date

Wendy W. Murawski, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

ii  
 Table of Contents

Signature Page ii

Abstract vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Review of Literature 4

Co-Teaching Defined 4

Legal Issues Regarding Co-Teaching in IHE 4

Co-Teaching In IHE 6

Logistics of Co-Teaching in IHE 6

Benefits to Co-Teaching in IHE 9

Barriers to the Co-Teaching in IHE Process 13

Co-Planning in IHE 15

Elements of effective co-planning 15

Benefits to co-planning 16

Barriers to co-planning 17

Co-Instructing in IHE 19

Importance of multiple approaches 19

Benefits to co-instruction 23

Barriers to co-instruction 25

Co-Assessing in IHE 27

Clarifying co-assessment 27

Evaluation of Co-teaching in IHE 29

Self-reflection by co-teaching faculty 29

iii  
 Administrator valuation 30

Student evaluations and reflections on co-teaching 35

Limited Research on Co-Teaching in IHE 38

Chapter 3: Methods 40

Setting 40

University 40

SPED 406 40

Participants 42

Faculty participants 42

Student participants 43

Materials and Data Collection 44

Permanent products 44

Surveys 45

Planning documentation 47

Reflections 48

Analysis Procedures 449

Permanent products 49

Surveys 50

Planning documentation 56

Reflections 57

Chapter 4: Results 59

Permanent Products 59

Syllabus/Schedule 59

iv  
 PowerPoint presentations 60

Surveys 64

Likert Scale 64

Multiple choice and short answer questions 71

Short answer questions 73

Planning Documentation 91

Reflections 98

Student reflections 98

Faculty reflections 103

Chapter 5: Discussion 111

Implications of the Study 111

Faculty perceptions 111

Student perceptions 112

Co-planning implications 118

Co-instructing implications 121

Co-assessing implications 129

Limitations of the Study 131

Future Research 135

Conclusion 136

Chapter 6: References 139

Appendix 146

Permanent Products 147

Course syllabus 147

v  
 Course schedule 152

Sample PowerPoint presentation with notes 157

S.H.A.R.E. Worksheet 171

Surveys 173

Pre-survey 173

Post-survey 178

vi  
 ABSTRACT

CO-TEACHING IN AN INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

A CASE STUDY OF A SPECIAL EDUCATION LITERACY COURSE CO-TAUGHT BY

A SPECIAL EDUCATION FACULTY MEMBER AND AN ELEMENTARY

EDUCATION FACULTY MEMBER

By

Amy Ellen Sheldon

Master of Arts in Special Education,

Educational Therapy

As educational trends and laws shift towards inclusion, teachers who work with students with

special needs must be prepared to educate these students. One way to teach students with

disabilities in a general education classroom is through a collaborative or co-teaching model

of two teachers (typically a general education and a special education teacher) who are

equally responsible for all students. Teacher candidates at the University level must be, at

the very least, exposed to co-teaching. This case study provides an in depth analysis of the

collaborative teaching that occurred in an institute of higher education teacher preparation

course. It follows the professors co-planning, co-instruction, and co-assessment of the course

as well as student and faculty reflections of the experience. Also included are implications of

the study, limitations, and suggestions for further research.

Keywords: co-teaching, institutes of higher education, co-teaching in IHE, faculty co-

teaching, university co-teaching, professors co-teaching, collaborative teaching in college

vii  
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Collaboration is a societal interaction most people first experience in preschool as

‘sharing’, ‘playing nicely’, ‘working together’, or ‘cooperating’. The importance of

collaboration only increases with age. In fact, the top five skills most desired by Fortune 500

companies (in order of importance) are teamwork, problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills,

oral communication, and listening (From "Creativity in Action" Creative Education

Foundation, 1990: Odyssey of the Mind Newsletter, Fall 1995), all of which are aspects of

collaboration. Collaboration in the field of education is equally important. Current trends in

K-12 education (e.g., inclusion, co-teaching, Response to Intervention) are moving away

from previous generations’ emphasis on independence and isolation, toward encouraging

educators to work collaboratively. There has been a distinctive shift from viewing students

in various classes from “my kids” to “our kids”. In this collaborative view of education,

general education teachers, special educators, specialists, administrators, and other educators

are jointly responsible for student achievement and must work together for the benefit and

education of students. The responsibility of educating students no longer falls solely on the

one classroom teacher. This new collaborative push has led to multidisciplinary, trans-

disciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and inter-disciplinary education in which teachers are

expected to work collaboratively with peers and colleagues from other areas of education, or

with backgrounds that may differ from their own.

This move towards collaborative teaching in K-12 also drives institutes of higher

education (IHE) - specifically Colleges of Education and teacher training programs – to

concurrently model, research, and review the effects of collaborative instruction. Though co-

teaching at the college level is not a new phenomenon (e.g., Kirwan & Willis, 1976), the

1
rationale for having multiple professors has increased. As a result college level courses,

including teacher training courses (e.g., Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008) and even

undergraduate courses (e.g., Bakken, Clark, & Thompson, 1998) are being increasingly co-

taught.

Co-teaching has been defined as “two or more educators who co-plan, co-instruct,

and co-assess a group of students…” (Murawski, 2003, p.10). Co-teaching is a content

delivery method that when used by professors in IHE engages college students through the

sharing of professors’ multiple perspectives, allows for varied instruction beyond just lecture,

and helps to foster collaboration between students. Though barriers to co-teaching do exist

and are multiple, the benefits to students and faculty should not be overlooked. If university

faculty are tasked with the responsibility to prepare teachers to co-teach in the K-12

classroom, they too need to be able to effectively co-teach themselves. Essentially,

professors must “practice what they preach.” Professors who co-teach are equally

responsible for the education of the students in their combined class. Unfortunately very

little research exists to determine what elements are critical to ensure successful collaboration

in higher education, especially for teacher training.

This case study involves a foundational reading course that was co-taught by faculty

from two different departments in a College of Education. The professors (one from the

department of Special Education, one from the department of Elementary Education) co-

taught a special education course on literacy instruction for students with disabilities. They,

like many co-teachers in the literature, stated that they enjoyed the co-teaching process,

thought their students benefitted from their interactions, and would look forward to co-

teaching again in the future. With these positive experiences, why aren’t more college level

2
courses being co-taught? Certainly, there is much more to collaborative instruction than

merely enjoying its process. In fact, it is important to know what requirements are necessary

for effective co-teaching and if having those elements in place results in positive student

outcomes.

After reviewing the literature on co-teaching in higher education, this case study lays

out the process and procedures these two professors followed when co-teaching (one of

whom was co-teaching for the first time), and reports the results of data collected on co-

planning, faculty perceptions, and student perceptions of the experience. Following an

analysis of the results, a discussion is provided with critical implications, the limitations of

the study, and suggestions for further research.

3
 Chapter 2: Review of Literature

Co-Teaching Defined

Co-teaching, sometimes also referred to as “collaborative teaching” or “team

teaching”, can be defined as “two or more educators who co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess

a group of students…in the same …classroom” (Murawski, 2009, p. 8). The essence of co-

teaching is that “two significantly different orientations toward teaching are blended” (Cook,

2004, p. 6). Also important in the literature is the emphasis on the need for parity or equity

between teachers in the co-teaching relationship (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008) and the

importance of, and the need for, shared responsibility (Gately & Gately, 2001). Gately and

Gately state that co-teachers should “work together to develop a differentiated curriculum

that meets the needs…of students… in an effort to enhance the learning environment” (2001,

p. 41). While most of these authors are referring to co-teaching in its frequent use as a

service delivery option for students with special needs in K-12 classrooms, that is not the

only use of collaborative teaching. Indeed, co-teaching is also used in a variety of ways at

the college and university levels in Institutes of Higher Education (IHE).

Legal Issues Regarding Co-Teaching in IHE

Co-teaching got its start as a result of major changes in the area of education law and

shifts in education trends. The following laws and legal issues helped lead to the eventual

implementation of co-teaching in both K-12 and IHE. In 1973 Congress passed Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act making it illegal for programs that received federal funds, schools

and universities included, to “discriminate against an individual on the basis of disability”

(Rothstein, 2000, p. 22). Then in 1975, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act

(EAHCA; PL 94-142), in addition to setting up the first federal guidelines for special

4
education, also introduced the concept of “least restrictive environment” (LRE). LRE

addresses where a student with disabilities should receive his or her services. The LRE for

students with disabilities is determined for each particular individual, and is expected to be

where that student has the ability to function socially, physically, and emotionally most like

their nondisabled peers while also receiving the behavioral, educational, and instructional

support they need. For most students with disabilities, the LRE is often considered the

general education classroom. The EAHCA became the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, reemphasizing the concepts of the LRE. In its

reauthorization in 1997 and again in 2004, IDEA (later renamed to the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Improvement Act) also mandated the involvement of general

educators, further strengthening the need for on-going collaboration between educators.

In the early 21st century, additional legislative changes and policy shifts occurred. In

2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) enacted a system of standards and assessments

placing pressure on the states to improve the achievement of students who were considered

impoverished as well as student with disabilities, noting that “each state must make adequate

yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of achievement at grade level for all students by 2014”

(Friend & Bursuck, 2012, p.14). Thus, schools began to face the pressure of making AYP,

while concurrently finding more students with disabilities in general education classrooms

with highly qualified general educators but no specialized service support.

As a result of these laws, more students with disabilities than ever before began to be

taught in general education classrooms, thus supporting an eventual shift towards inclusion

(Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004). This push precipitated a shift from

special educators working solely in their own classrooms to working part of the day in the

5
general education classrooms, as the general education classrooms became the LRE of more

and more of the students on their case load. K-12 students who received special education

services morphed from being students who almost never interacted with the mainstream to

being “our students” in the general education classrooms, adding to the diversity of the

student population. To meet students’ needs in these inclusive classes, special educators and

general educators needed to collaborate and co-teach.

Co-teaching in IHE

Team teaching has been considered a viable teaching method in IHEs for years

(Plotnicov, 1985). It has traditionally been used when multiple courses have been joined or

when faculty in different disciplines were teaching an interdisciplinary course. As schools

have become more inclusive, however, IHE faculty responsible for teacher training began to

include content on collaboration and co-teaching within teacher preparation courses in order

to prepare teacher candidates to co-teach (Duchardt, Marlow, Inman, Christensen, & Reeves,

1999). Teaching about co-teaching can certainly be done by a solo instructor, but

demonstrating co-teaching by two instructors would serve as a model for university students.

This instructional style is different than traditional solo teaching at the college level and

required additional planning and logistics. The next sections address these issues and

describe how university faculty have dealt with them.

Logistics of Co-Teaching in IHE

There are many logistical issues associated with co-teaching at IHEs that have little to

do with the actual instruction in the classroom. These issues affect the administration of the

course and the persons responsible for organizing the logistics and “paperwork” of the course

at the university level. This type of organization differs from the course organization related

6
to which content and material will be covered. To clarify, this organization focuses on the

structure of the co-taught course itself and includes: how the course will be listed and

described in the catalog or list of classes (Gailey & Carroll, 1993), where the class will be

held – what room and at what time (Kluth & Straut, 2003), which professors will be co-

teaching the course, and so on. One atypical co-teaching experiment at the IHE level from

1985 consisted of weekly lectures of 300-400 students followed by small group discussion

groups of 16 or so students led by two professors, as well as an additional four graduate

student teaching assistants (Plotnicov). The organization of this co-teaching course was

massive, and while not all co-teaching courses are as large, they do face some similar

logistical issues.

One such issue is who will co-teach the course. Though it is rare that the prospect of

co-teaching itself can attract qualified professionals and educators to the university, Wilensky

(2003) describes a case in which a well-known professional in the field of Human Ecology

was drawn to Cornell University for the “prospect of co-teaching this interdisciplinary

growth and development course” (p.3). It is, perhaps, more common that professors decide

to co-teach a course (Letterman & Dugan, 2004; Kluth & Straut, 2003) or are specifically

asked to do so by a colleague (Vogler & Long, 2003). Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg

(2008) wrote about finding faculty for co-taught teacher education courses that were offered

at their university. They utilized an application and scoring rubric in which interested faculty

were “rated on their rationale for wanting to co-teach, their plan for building the co-teaching

relationship, the expected number of students enrolled and the professionalism of the

application” (p. 10). It should be noted that some of the co-taught courses in that study were

co-taught by two university faculty members while other courses were co-taught by a

7
university faculty member and a public school teacher, a different variation of the co-

teaching in higher education.

In addition to procuring co-teaching personnel, appropriate funding must also be

secured. Some researchers (e.g., Vogler & Long, 2007) noted a stigma attached to the

financials associated with co-teaching, while others (e.g., Cruz and Zaragoza, 1997)

questioned the legitimacy of funding two teachers to teach one course. In some cases,

additional funding was required for the extra support and the extra people (Plotnicov, 1985),

while other times the co-teachers combined two smaller classes into one larger class (e.g,

Kluth & Straut, 2003). For example, Kluth and Straut described the combination of two

courses, a special education course called Academic Curricular Adaptations, and a general

education course entitled Elementary Social Studies Methods and Curriculum, for students

within a similar student cohort. As financial issues at the University level are complicated,

further research and discussion will be needed to help sort out the financials of co-teaching in

IHE.

Another logistical issue that administrators have to consider is where and when the

co-taught classes can be held. Research has shown that administrators can support their co-

teaching faculty by ensuring convenient and appropriate class times and room placements.

Kluth and Straut, (2003) with their combined courses and student cohort, were able to use the

same room for both class times as they scheduled one right after the other in the same room.

This allowed Kluth and Straut to co-teach during the time available and stay in the same

room the whole time. Over time, Kluth and Straut developed administration and colleague

support that allowed them to maintain their back-to-back classroom times in subsequent

semesters.

8
Benefits to Co-Teaching in IHE

Vogler and Long, who have studied team teaching in higher education, found that co-

teaching in IHE may provide additional benefits to the university, college, and departments

(2007). For example, they note that co-teaching helps build a sense of faculty community

and allows for mentorship and assistance for new faculty, as well as challenge and diversity

for seasoned faculty. By being able to observe their colleagues, something that is rarely done

at the college level (Vogler & Long, 2003), professors can become better teachers thereby

creating a more diversely skilled faculty for the college. Through this collaboration, faculty

who typically teach alone would then also be skilled at working with a colleague. Martin and

Wilson (1998) also highlighted the mentor-mentee relationship that can develop between

seasoned and new faculty while co-teaching. They emphasize how beneficial this can be,

provided professors can demonstrate a sense of parity in the classroom to the students.

Vogler and Long (2003) concur saying that co-teaching can help new faculty “learn the

culture of the department and university” (p. 123).

Additionally, co-teaching – when done well – increases student learning. Gailey and

Carroll (1993) note that interdisciplinary co-teaching helps students make better connections

with the curriculum. Gailey and Carroll specify that for undergraduate students, whose area

of focus can be all over the place, this process of integration can sometimes take years. They

note that co-teaching interdisciplinary courses can help to make connections between content

that college students are learning in their multiple courses. Bakken, Clark, and Thompson

(1998) agreed, noting that with co-teaching, “instruction can be unified rather than

fragmented or divided into separate studies” (p. 156). Wilson and Martin (1998) tested this

by combining two seemingly different teacher education methods courses and integrating the

9
content. The classes met three times a week, focusing on specific methods for social studies

and science on one day, specific “pedagogy” for math another day, and “reserved [the third

day] for exploring strategies useful for all three disciplines” (p. 2). Wilson and Martin found

despite the planning time commitment and students’ perception of a lack of parity between

the co-teachers (not felt by the professors), that the “benefits of team teaching far outweigh

the problems” (p. 11). They reported a continued dedication to co-teaching and say they will

work to improve their skills and collaboration. Additionally, they hope to incorporate other

multi-disciplinary co-taught courses into their co-teaching repertoire.

Similarly, Gailey and Caroll in 1993 co-taught a business and literature course

because they felt that in business when “theory meets practice, the theoretical imperatives

often become muddled…[and] literacy works [to help] encourage this kind of connection” (p.

36). Being able to combine disciplines also helps to keep the curriculum strong. Kirwan and

Willis, in 1976, found “a tendency across the country [for] watered-down courses” and they

felt that “co-teaching presents as an attractive alternative” (p. 654). Having that co-teacher in

the classroom can help to keep faculty on their toes because a colleague is always observing

the classroom (Wilson & Martin, 1998).

The combination of having two professors in the same classroom also benefits student

learning due to the ability to demonstrate more than one perspective. Duchardt and

colleagues found that co-teaching helps to combine the two professionals’ areas of expertise,

as well as results in lessons that contain more than one view or perspective. These lessons

were viewed as stronger, both in content and in design (Duchardt, et al., 1999). Other

researchers also discuss the benefit of combined professor perspectives. Vogler and Long

(2007) reported that co-teaching allowed for the exposure of divergent views when presented

10
by multiple instructors. Duchardt et al. (1999) said that the “blending of each person’s

expertise strengthened the content of the lessons and the way they were presented” (p. 187).

Vogler and Long (2003) wrote that they were each “specialists” in their field but that they

could come together to share their expertise. In their example, Kenneth Vogler was a

“specialist” in social studies while Emily Long was the “specialist” in language arts, but they

came together to co-teach a combined social studies/language arts teacher candidate methods

course. Similarly, Gailey and Carroll (1993) co-taught a non-teacher education course. Joan

Gailey, a professor from the college of business, and Virginia Carroll, a literature professor,

co-taught a literature infused interdisciplinary business course in order to give their students

different perspectives to looking at business concepts. Though their combined course was

self-described as “rigorous”, the students reportedly “love” it as evident in the student

evaluations, while noting a preference for what the professors describe as the “challenge of

the interdisciplinary curriculum” (p. 6).

Students also report that having the second perspective in the classroom is beneficial

to them (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008; Vogler & Long, 2007). Vogler and Long

shared that one student said he enjoyed that “both [professors were] able to build off what

was said” (p. 5). Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2008) also found that students identified

hearing multiple perspectives from instructors as a benefit of co-teaching. They quoted a

student as saying “I love having two perspectives to listen to. They complement each other

and one keeps the other on track” (p. 12).

In addition to being able to share multiple perspectives, co-teaching can allow for the

infusion and use of more diverse teaching styles in higher education as well. Vogler and

Long (2007) noted that when co-teaching they found they were more willing and able to

11
share and utilize different styles of teaching which, in addition to being of interest to faculty,

can also can benefit student learning. For example, Kluth and Straut (2003) who co-taught

two courses, a social studies methods course as well as a course on “Academic Curricular

Adaptations,” were able to implement a “first-day-of-class icebreaker/simulation” (p. 231).

In this activity, they had students role-play that they were back to the 1960s and had them

interacting and talking with each other and the environment to teach about the race divide

and racism in the 1960s. Also, professors found they were more open to including the

different co-teaching approaches, described later, such as parallel teaching (Kluth & Straut,

2003), station teaching (Kluth & Straut, 2003), and team teaching (Vogler & Long 2003)

because they were working with a partner.

Beyond improving student learning, another benefit to faculty who co-teach could be

a collaborative working environment. This not only benefits faculty, but when demonstrated

by professors, the modeling of collaboration can also be of benefit to students. The modeling

of appropriate and beneficial co-teaching to teacher candidate students who may be co-

teaching in the future (Bakken, Clark, & Thompson, 1998) can be a positive side effect of co-

teaching. Green and Isaacs (1999) shared that, due to the push towards inclusion which

might require teacher candidates to co-teach in their new teaching positions, then it is the

“responsibilities of the University for role modeling [co-teaching] for students” (p. 98)

Additionally, co-teaching allows for the “integration of content ideas and expertise in

pedagogy through co-planning and co-teaching teams produce teachers more capable of

working with a diverse population of students” (Duchardt, et. al., 1999, p.188-189). A

collaborative environment also helps to “foster student enthusiasm and inquiry” and

“promote interdisciplinary learning” (Letterman & Dugan, 2004, p. 76). Though many

12
benefits to co-teaching clearly exist, in order for quality co-teaching to occur, several barriers

must be discussed and addressed prior to faculty being ready to meet their class.

Barriers to Co-Teaching in IHE

Several barriers can impede co-teaching and the co-teaching relationship. Some of

these barriers are discussed here. Personality and personality type is very important in co-

teaching. A co-teacher’s personality must be open, collaborative, and positive in order to

work with another co-teacher. It is sometimes good to have the same personality in co-

teachers; yet sometimes it can be equally helpful to have “different personalities combine to

fill in the weaker points” (Greene & Isaacs, 1999, p. 101). When in a co-teaching

relationship professors must be confident in their own teaching skills and open to reflection,

since they are being observed each day by another professor, their co-teacher (Wilson &

Martin, 1998). Though a co-teaching relationship is not intended to be evaluative, it is natural

to consider one’s own teaching when observing a colleague’s. Having a strong sense of self

as an instructor is critical. Additionally, professors must also be open to being interrupted for

clarification or to add a point (Greene & Isaacs, 1999). All of these examples are bound to

occur in a co-taught class and because of this, there is no place for ego in a co-taught IHE

class.

Similarly, co-teaching can, for some professors, lead to a loss of autonomy (Duchardt

et. al., 1999). For example, if one professor is slow to return papers, the other co-teacher is

not necessarily in control of the situation (Letterman & Dugan, 2004). Additionally, a loss of

flexibility can occur; for example, having to co-plan at work with a co-teacher at an approved

time and place versus at home in pajamas at two in the morning can be limiting (Letterman &

Dugan, 2004). Vogler and Long (2007) noted the need for compromises in the co-teaching

13
relationship, the need to have trust in the co-teacher, and the need for an ability to

communicate. They also note that co-teachers need to share in the commitment of the co-

teaching process with colleagues as well has have a “willingness to work for the good of the

team”; these are important as they help to support “buy-in” and can function as a supporting

basis for when issues or challenges do arise (Vogler & Long, 2003; Vogler & Long, 2007, p.

7).

“Co-teaching exposes one’s strengths as well as one’s weaknesses. This could be

quite threatening unless a great deal of trust exists between co-teachers” (Conderman &

McCarty, 2003, p. 4) Conderman and McCarty’s quote emphasizes why parity and power are

so important in the co-teaching relationship. At the university level, perhaps even more so

than at the K-12 level, parity often fights with the need for power. With professors expected

to be content “experts,” a strong ego may easily develop. In a co-teaching relationship

however, parity must overtake power (Ferguson & Wilson, 2011). With parity, co-teachers

must be equal in the relationship: in the planning, in how they appear to students, in the

assessments, and so on. Letterman and Dugan (2004) discuss the various ways to deal with

power and conflict in order to achieve parity. They state, “the most important suggestions

that we offer are to maintain regular communication and a keen awareness of your team

members’ concerns” (p.79). Kirwan and Willis (1976) demonstrated parity within the class

explicitly by switching which professor discussed each topic to make sure it was clear to

students that they could ask questions of either professor. Another set of researchers signaled

parity to their students by having only one syllabus with set goals, one textbook, and clear

objectives and requirements (Bakken, Clark, & Thompson, 1998).

14
 Challenges and issues will arise, as in any relationship, however it has also been

noted that co-teachers need to have “good ‘teaching chemistry’ together” (Vogler & Long

2007, p. 6). Letterman and Dugan (2004) suggest that new co-teachers first find a mentor

who has co-teaching experience and then read the co-teaching literature to gain tips and

techniques and avoid common missteps in co-teaching. Shapiro and Dempsey (2008)

caution that, though “no formulaic solutions can resolve conflict that invariably arises” (p.

161), “proactive attention may minimize negative consequences” (p. 162). As in any co-

teaching partnership or “marriage” (Murawski, 2009), issues arise and have to be settled. In

addition to the logistics and issues already noted, logistics regarding planning, instruction,

and assessment must also be considered. These issues will be discussed next and are

organized using Murawski’s (2009) definition of co-teaching that requires that co-teachers

“co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess” (p. 8).

Co-Planning in IHE

Elements of effective co-planning. “Opportunities for co-planning and co-teaching

are not inherent within the structure of higher education” (Duchardt, et al., 1999, p. 186).

Since faculty often design and organize their own courses, they can become used to being

“king of the castle” and may often be referred to by others as the “expert” (Murawski,

Friedman Narr, Ziolkowska, Knotts, & Sheldon, 2011). However, in co-teaching a class, the

faculty “expert” must collaborate with another “expert”; they must share and combine their

knowledge in order to co-plan. Murawski (2009) emphasizes that, prior to the

implementation of any co-teaching program, teachers must engage in co-planning or “true”

co-teaching cannot occur.

15
 Walther-Thomas, Bryant, and Land (1996) found five commonalities of co-teachers

who planned well together: (1) trust in their co-teaching partner, (2) active/ responsive/

interactive centered lessons, (3) a sense of shared community within the learning

environment, (4) a set and followed structures or routines in planning, and (5) an increased

skill level with accumulated experience. Murawski included these commonalities as she

created a co-taught lesson plan which incorporated the following: both teachers (general

education and special education); the applicable standards; objectives and essential questions;

key vocabulary; and assessments and materials (Murawski, 2012; Murawski & Spencer,

2011).

Benefits to co-planning. The benefits gained from co-planning enrich a co-taught

class. Higher education faculty, the “experts,” each come with their own strengths, set of

knowledge, and frame of reference. It is combining those strengths, that knowledge, and

referring to those frames of reference through co-planning that benefit faculty and students

and create better co-taught lessons. For those co-teachers new to co-teaching, Murawski

(2009) says utilizing strengths in delivering content may make the transition to co-teaching a

bit easier. She goes on to write that the ability to co-plan allows for co-teachers to make

decisions proactively; this allows for conversations and decisions regarding classroom

management, instructional styles, material/technology preferences, and so on to be

determined ahead of time and to become nonissues or lesser issues during the lessons.

Additional benefits such as utilizing multiple perspectives and varying instructional

approaches were discussed above and will be discussed further under the co-instruction

section.

16
 Barriers to co-planning. Many barriers can impede effective co-planning, however,

a specific barrier that is discussed quite frequently in the co-teaching research is the issue of

time. Having limited time is a common barrier for K-12 teachers as well as university

professors; however limited time as it relates to co-planning and the combining of two (or

more) schedules, not just one, becomes an even bigger issue. The issue of lack of time in co-

planning not only refers to the planning, preparing, and organizing of the actual co-taught

class but it also has to do with time related to getting to know, sharing with, and reflecting

with one’s co-teacher.

“If done well, I would argue that co-teaching with a colleague could even

count as two courses. Or at least a course and a half. That’s because to

really do it right, to do it well, means many more hours of preparation

beforehand: debating the very structure of the course, comparing

notes/takes on the material, and doing justice to two distinct perspectives

on the subject matter.” (Jackson, 2010, blog posting on February 4, 2010)

Jackson’s (2010) blog provides one perspective of the work requirement co-teaching

can entail. Dieker (2001) emphasized teachers’ need for co-planning time and noted “a

major issue of concern noted by teachers was the sanctity of team planning time” (p. 20).

Dieker’s research did find, however, that the longer teachers co-taught with one another, the

less time they needed to effectively co-plan.

Other studies that focus specifically on higher education co-teaching (e.g., Duchardt

et. al., 1999; Kirwan & Willis, 1976; Lester & Evans, 2009) also referred to lack of time for

co-planning as one of the biggest barriers. While the culture at a university may support

opportunities for faculty collaboration for research projects, the same such collaborative

17
culture often does not exist for teaching (Ferguson & Wilson, 2011). Lester and Evans

recognized the “extensive amount of time required to plan…each class session” (2009, p.

377). Kirwan and Willis (1976) also noted that co-planning in IHE takes time, a lot of time,

“often more than if the planning was done by one professor”; they believe, this is because

“two people must be satisfied with everything” (p. 651). The “key”, according to Vogler

and Long (2003) in co-planning a team taught course, is to utilize the strengths and previous

experiences of other co-teacher in creating the course. They noted that both co-teachers had

their own set of knowledge which, when combined, resulted in a higher-quality teaching

experience.

The co-teaching literature emphasizes that co-teachers must make effective use of co-

planning time and not be distracted (Vogler & Long, 2003; Murawski, 2010). Dieker and

Murawski (2003) agreed and suggested that co-teachers make time specifically dedicated for

co-planning. Some co-teachers set up weekly meetings every Tuesday after a Monday class

to reflect and plan for the next meeting, while others may meet for three hours right before a

Thursday class. Sometimes atypical planning must occur for co-teachers to get enough time

in for co-planning to occur; for example, Waters and Burcroff (2007) spent time planning

during the summer as to decrease the time commitment during the semester. Also between

meetings, they each completed a specific task that did on their own, also maximizing their

together-planning time.

In order to reduce some of the extra time needed for co-planning, some researchers

have come up with suggestions. Murawski (2009) recommended the divide and conquer

approach saying, “roles and responsibilities can be disseminated equally” (p. 148). She

suggests that this can lead to positive co-instructing. Vogler and Long (2003) say that as

18
distractions encroach “you will become fragmented and far less efficient” so they suggest

avoiding distractions and setting up in a mutually agreed upon space. Duchardt and

colleagues (1999) recommended trying not to fit in too much content but to focus on the

course and content at hand. With these suggestions and more, researchers have also found

that over time, the co-planning gets a bit easier. Lester and Evans note that they did not

necessarily decrease the amount of time spent on planning, but “became more efficient…”

(2009, p. 377). Similarly, Wilson and Martin (1998) said they became familiar with their co-

teaching partner and “as we become accustomed to working together, we find that we are

spending less time in planning” (p. 3). These findings coincide with Dieker’s (2001) research

which found that co-teachers who have taught together for a while need less time to plan than

novice co-teaching teams.

Co-Instructing in IHE

Importance of multiple approaches. “Teaching” at the college level is often

conducted in the form of a lecture or lab; however, lecture and labs are not the only

instructional approaches that can be used when co-teaching. Drs. Lynne Cook and Marilyn

Friend first outlined five approaches to co-teaching in the early 1990’s (Cook & Friend,

1993). From those first approaches (parallel, alternative, station, team, and one-teach one-

support), other researchers have extrapolated, renamed, and reinvented various approaches to

co-instruction (Murawski & Dieker, 2008; Hughes & Murawski, 2001; Thousand, Villa, &

Nevin, 2008; Conderman & McCarty, 2003). Despite these various interpretations, most co-

teaching literature appears to primarily cite those first five techniques. Murawski and

Spencer (2011) provide a graphic organizer of these approaches, which is included in Table 1,

19
with permission from the authors. The following sections provide a definition for each of

these original approaches as they may relate to co-teaching in IHE.

Table1: Co-Teaching Approaches, Class Set Up and Definitions

Co-Teaching Class Setup Quick Definition
Approach
One Teach, One Whole Class One of you is in front of the class leading instruction. The
Support (OT/OS) other is providing substantive support (e.g., collection or
B   dissemination of papers, setting up labs, classroom
A   management). Both are actively engaged.

Team Teaching Whole Class Both of you are in front of the class, working together to
provide instruction. This may take the form of debates,
A   B   modeling information or note-taking, compare/contrast, or
role-playing.

Parallel Teaching Regrouping Both of you take half of the class in order to reduce student–
A   teacher ratio. Instruction can occur in the same or a different
setting. Groups may be doing the same content in the same
way, same content in a different way, or different content
B   (Murawski, 2009).

Station Teaching Regrouping Students are divided into three or more small, heterogeneous
groups to go to stations or centers. Students rotate through
A   B   multiple centers, though teachers may rotate also. Teachers
can facilitate individual stations or circulate among all
stations.

Alternative Regrouping One teacher works with a large group of students, while the
Teaching A   B   other works with a smaller group providing re-teaching, pre-
teaching, or enrichment as needed. The large group is not
receiving new instruction during this time so that the small
group can rejoin when finished.

Copyright © 2011 by Corwin. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Collaborate, Communicate, and
Differentiate! How to Increase Student Learning in Today’s Diverse Schools, by Wendy W. Murawski and
Sally Spencer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, www.corwin.com.

One-teach One-support. The One-Teach One-Support (OT/OS) approach is when

one teacher instructs the whole class while the other works in a supporting role. This co-

teaching approach is the most like traditional teaching or lecture. The key to the One-Teach

One-Support strategy is not to over use it; otherwise the co-teaching can turn into one

20
instructor always taking the lead and the other becoming a glorified assistant. Murawksi,

(2009) recommends each co-teaching approach be utilized equally as compared to the other

five approaches, meaning, only about 15-20% of the class time. To ensure parity within the

OT/OS approach, co-teachers can switch off the teaching and supporting roles.

Parallel teaching. Parallel teaching, as defined by Thousand, Villa, and Nevin,

(2006), “is when two or more people work with different groups of students in different

sections of the classroom” (p. 243). In this strategy co-teachers split the class into two

groups and each teach their half of students simultaneously, often within the same classroom.

During parallel teaching, the co-teachers can be teaching the same content in the same way,

the same content in a different way, or completely different content (Murawski, 2009). The

benefit to parallel teaching is the reduced the student-teacher ratio (Dynack, Whitten, &

Dynack, 1997) in that “every student has twice as many opportunities to participate in a

discussion or respond to teacher questions” (Friend & Bursuck, 2012, p. 77). The key to

parallel teaching is strong planning and classroom management. It is beneficial to teachers to

have their non-verbal symbols and signals ready or a simply a plan what to do when noise

level or time become an issue, all of which should be figured out during the co-planning time.

Alternative teaching. Alternative Teaching is similar to parallel teaching in that the

class is split into groups, however, alterative teaching is “having one teacher work with most

of the class while the other teacher focuses attention on a small group” (Friend & Bursuck,

2012, p. 78). Friend and Bursuck reiterate the original definition of alternative teaching by

Cook and Friend, stating that co-teachers can use alternative teaching for “remediation…

preteaching… [and/or] enrichment” (p. 78). The key to alternative teaching is that one

teacher can “take responsibility” for the small group; however, both teachers “still need to

21
know what the other group is doing” (Murawski, 2009, p.192). In higher education,

university faculty may not need to address pre-teaching, reteaching, or enrichment as often as

at the K-12 level, however there are still multiple times when being able to work with a small

group can be helpful. This might include discussion groups, checking on assignments or

grades, subject-specific differentiation, preparing for exams, and the like. Any time faculty

are able to utilize the fact that there are two instructors for reducing the student-teacher ratio

is potentially beneficial.

Station teaching. Station Teaching is when students are split into three or more

groups and rotate through each of the stations. In station teaching, teachers can be stationary

teaching at one station or can circulate throughout the room. If the teachers are stationary

and not circulating, then the students who are at an independent station can work in a group

“alone or with a partner [to] complete [an]…activity or a project” (Friend & Bursuck, 2012,

p. 77). Dynack, Whitten, and Dynack (1997) describe station teaching as an opportunity for

co-teachers to divide and conquer the content, while creating a dynamic teaching and

learning environment that supports inquiry activities. Just like the other approaches, it is

critical in station teaching for the instructors to be prepared, and therefore, co-planning ahead

of time is the key.

Team teaching. Thousand, Villa, and Nevin (2006) report that “team teachers share

the leadership and responsibilities” (p. 244) of the classroom. Team teaching is described as

the approach in which teachers share the stage, by simultaneously delivering lessons while

students remain in a large group setting (Murawski, 2009; Thousand, et al., 2006). Murawski

(2009) best describes this co-teaching method by explaining how “teachers work as a team to

introduce new content instruction, work on building skills, clarifying information, and

22
facilitating learning and classroom management” (p. 203). Murawski goes on to specify that

team teaching takes significant planning since both teachers will be in front of the class and

instructing together, and it also “takes the most trust and respect between teachers” (2009, p.

203). Friend and Bursuck agree that planning for team teaching can be challenging but they

note, “co-teachers who use this approach find it the most energizing of all the co-teaching

options” (2012, p. 78). When done appropriately, teachers who team teach are in front of the

class at the same time, engaging in roleplaying, debating, modeling, discussing, agreeing or

disagreeing, or otherwise teaching students in a manner that can only be done by two

teachers in front of a class. Co-teaching in IHE allows for the utilization of all of these five

co-teaching approaches during co-instruction. Naturally, with their implementation come

both benefits and barriers.

Benefits to co-instruction. Benefits gained by co-instructing and utilizing the

different co-teaching approaches vary. The safety in the partnership of co-teaching can allow

teachers to try new instructional methods and strategies they would not necessarily try on

their own (Conderman & McCarty, 2003; Eick, Ware, & Williams, 2003). When working

with a co-teacher it can be easier to be creative since one is able to bounce ideas off of a

colleague. Together, co-teachers also have a combined set of ideas to use at their disposal

(Wilson & Martin, 1998). Some professors have chosen to utilize learning centers or station

teaching (e.g., Conderman & McCarty, 2003), which “provide[s] students and faculty a

dynamic means for intensive, interactive hands-on practice and exploration with critical

course content” (p. 6). Other co-teachers found that they could have more collaborative

lectures by including dialogue, disagreements, and debates (Gailey & Carroll, 1993) while

team teaching. This allows for more engaging college classes.

23
 With improved instruction comes improved student learning. Kirwan and Willis

(1976) wrote that the alternating of lecturers in their physics course allowed for a “change of

pace” between professors (p.651) as well as lengthened students’ attention spans. However,

Kirwan and Willis also warn that transitions between both professors and content needs to be

fluid. They noted, “lecture subtopics must be carefully thought out to allow a smooth

transition from one instructor to the other” (p. 652). Murawski has supported this in many of

her publications, warning co-teachers not to use a form of tag teaming, wherein teachers

merely go back and forth with information, doing what one instructor might have done alone

(2003; 2009; 2010).

Other researchers (Kirwan & Willis, 1976; Wilson & Martin, 1998) have also found

that while utilizing the One-teach, One-support approach, the professor in the support role is

better able to check for understanding, watch for decreased student engagement, and interject

when instruction requires clarification. The “off” professor is not really “off” but instead has

the opportunity to provide instant clarification that may be needed. These “interruptions” can

actually be a way to engage students through the One teach-One Support teaching approach.

This ensures that the support role is a viable and active one. Waters and Burcroff (2007)

found that if faculty members were open and able to “go off script” when need be, then a

greater chance for understanding and student “ah ha” moments could arise. At the college

level, the “off script” sections can look like inter-professor discussion, debate, role-play, and

so on. Faculty can easily transition from a One-Teach, One-Support approach to using a

more dynamic Team Teaching approach as the need arises. This engagement also helps to

“keep it fresh” and maintain the professors’ enthusiasm for the course. Wilson and Martin

(1998) reiterated what was previously identified by Kirwan and Willis in 1976; they warn

24
that the co-taught class cannot become scripted. These authors caution that co-teaching

teams must maintain a level of excitement and interest. Kirwan and Willis stated that “off”

professors can not “take a mental holiday” while the other is teaching, while Wilson and

Martin (1998) and Vogler and Long (2003) all emphasize that co-teachers must be fully

committed to co-teaching and the process.

Research has indicated another benefit to co-instruction. Observing successful co-

teaching increases students’ willingness to co-teach in the future. This is especially

meaningful in the educational profession where many teachers are being increasingly asked

to co-teach themselves in inclusive K-12 settings. Kirwan and Willis found that “students

who witness an obviously successful information transmission during an instructor dialogue

are psychologically ready to believe they can do the same.” (1976, p. 652). Conderman and

McCarty (2003) agreed, noting students learned from the professors’ modeling. To

maximize the afore-mentioned benefits, it is important that professors do not discount the

possible barriers to co-instruction. These too must be identified and addressed for co-

teaching to have its maximum effect.

Barriers to co-instruction. Just as parity was an issue during the planning stage of

co-teaching, so too does ego rear its head during co-instruction. A substantial barrier to co-

instruction at the IHE level is “relinquishing” power (Gailey & Carroll, 1993). It can be

challenging for higher education faculty to share their ideas, lessons, and materials with

another. As described earlier, faculty are used to being “king of the castle” and not on

relying on the expertise and judgment of a colleague (Gailey & Carroll, 1993). Wilson and

Martin (1998) note that faculty must be flexible and open to things that come up when co-

25
instructing. A question or comment can diverge from the lesson plan, but it may also be a

worthwhile and an important tangent for deeper understanding.

An additional barrier is co-teachers’ tendency to over-use the one-teach one-support

approach. This over reliance on lecture as a method of instruction is most likely due to a

‘this is what has been done before’ mentality. As discussed, co-teachers openness to

alternative delivery methods often relates to the safety they perceive within their co-teaching

relationship (Kirwan & Willis, 1976). Similarly, having time and space to teach when

actually using the co-teaching approaches can hinder some co-teachers willingness to move

desks, rearrange classrooms, and occasionally teach in hallways or back corners of

classrooms. The noise level associated with station teaching, for example, or parallel

teaching can hinder professors’ willingness to regroup their students. It often takes time for

co-teachers to become comfortable with hearing another voice as they teach. When lecturing,

professors’ voices tend to be the only one in the room. With co-teaching, another professor’s

voice would also be in the room causing issues with noise and concentration.

Often in co-taught classes at the IHE level, the classes are combined into one large

group. This raises the teacher-student ratio, and despite undergraduate classes having the

reputation for being large, teacher preparation classes usually are not. When combining

classes in order to co-teach, the large class size can negatively affect the dynamic of the class.

Again as discussed, it can be much more challenging to use the regrouping co-teaching

strategies when classrooms are small and already tightly packed with students. Co-teaching

requires co-planning, co-instructing and co-assessing. In the next section, the definition of

co-assessing is provided, along with its benefits and barriers.

26
Co-Assessing in IHE

Clarifying co-assessing. Co-assessing is when co-teachers collect data together on

and about their students. Such data may include test scores, behavior occurrences, grades on

papers, effort evaluations on projects, and so forth. When data can be collected by both

teachers, however, “it is imperative that co-teachers discuss early in the relationship how

they will assess students” (Murawski, 2009, p. 220). Because co-assessing requires planning

(Greene & Isaacs, 1999) professors’ standards and expectations need to be discussed ahead

of time (Cruz & Zaragoza, 1997). Without these prior discussions, co-teachers may find

themselves faced with substantive disagreements related to students’ progress and grades, as

well as instructional decision-making.

Conderman and Hedin (2012) wrote that “planning for purposeful co-assessment

occurs at four points in time: as co-teaching teams form, before lessons, during instruction,

and after instruction” (p. 20). They emphasize that there are various ways to assess and that

co-teachers should use a variety of methods before, during, and after teaching. As teams form,

Murawski and Dieker (2003) suggest they complete the S.H.A.R.E. worksheets to determine

their shared and opposing views on instruction, grouping, grading, and more. Before

teaching, Conderman and Hedin say the assessment data that can be collected includes

standardized test scores, curriculum-based assessments, KWL charts, anticipation guides, and

other quick warm ups. These pre-assessments can help teachers assess the previous

knowledge of their students. During instruction, there are assessments that can “promote

engagement” (Conderman & Hedin, 2012, p. 23), as well check for understanding. This can

be done during short breaks in instruction, or can be posed as questions that require a student

response. The most common assessments are those that occur after instruction. Conderman

27
and Hedin discuss some of these including summative assessments and student products

(e.g.: portfolios, projects, reports). They say that these post-assessments “provide valuable

formative data” and that with them, “co-teachers may have more opportunity to develop and

assess student responses…[and] provide specific feedback to students” (2012, p. 25).

However, co-assessing is not necessarily co-grading. The co-assessing, as discussed

by Conderman and Hedin, is the collection of data, while the grading is the evaluation and

scoring. When co-teaching, sometimes the grading part of co-assessing may require

compromise (Greene & Isaacs, 1999). For example, Cruz and Zaragoza (1997) described a

co-taught course in which the final project was “collectively read…discussed… and issued a

joint grade” (p. 139). Sometimes professors’ expectations must also be debated, shared and

adapted. For example, Bakken, Clark, and Thompson (1998) compromised on the number of

tests they administered to students. In this example, two of the professors based much of

their grading on tests, while the other professor preferred alternative methods, so a

compromise ensued and ultimately three tests were given instead of the typical six.

When co-teaching, differing assessment philosophies can cause trouble when it

comes to grading and assessing. One example of how co-teaching faculty at the IHE have

dealt with this is through the averaging of scores. Cruz and Zaragoza (1997) report that in

their co-taught class they had three professors who each graded individually and then the

scores were averaged to get student’s grade. Another group of professors (Kirwan & Willis,

1976) worked with peer grading. A variety of techniques on grading and assessment exist

(e.g., Wormeli, 2006); however, more research and data is needed to better explain and

expound on the successes and pitfalls of co-assessing at the college level.

28
Evaluation of Co-teaching in IHE

Evaluating co-teaching at any level is challenging, but evaluating co-teaching in IHE

involves multiple issues unique to the university or college setting, in addition to the typical

issues shared with K-12. Three examples of evaluation are included here based on a review

of the literature. The first of these is a faculty self-evaluation through reflection of their

experiences and effectiveness. Second, evaluation can be conducted by administrators who

observe co-teaching and co-teacher collaboration. Third, students have shared their

responses and reflections of the professors themselves, of the co-taught class, and of the

content and material being taught.

Self-reflection by co-teaching faculty. A theme found throughout the literature on

co-teaching in IHE is that of reflection, both self-reflection of one’s own teaching and also

reflection of the class, day, or activity with a co-teaching partner. Regular and timely

reflection and communication is an important aspect in effective co-teaching. Self-reflection

encourages the analysis of one’s own co-teaching experience (Vogler & Long, 2007) and

helps to promote and encourage parity within the co-teaching relationship.

While there is no set requirement in the literature for exactly when or how to debrief,

Dieker’s (2008) Co-Teaching Lesson Plan book encourages co-teachers to debrief frequently

and openly. Garson and McGowan (2010) agreed and stated that they, as the course

instructors, made sure to reflect for an hour after each class. They found that this time

allowed them to “share…individual perceptions of class activities, offer comments on

specific student issues, and examine the day’s class dynamics” (p. 21). From this reflection

Garson and McGowan found “new instructional insights based on each other’s views of a

classroom activity or conversation” (p. 21).

29
 In research conducted by Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2008), the authors reported

that the biggest benefit faculty found in co-teaching was that they themselves learned and

gained from the co-teaching process. Reflecting on their own teaching and interpersonal

communication skills allowed faculty to “improve their teaching by providing insights into

their own strengths, weaknesses, strategies, and styles” (2008, p. 13). Recently, Garson and

McGowan (2010) agreed that professors who co-taught classes learned alongside their

students and their co-teachers.

Conderman and McCarty (2003) also noted professional benefits related to the

reflection of co-teaching. They found that with time devoted to reflection, professors’

individual confidence increased, along with the development of a stronger sense of parity.

This was most likely due to the additional time spent together by faculty members. As

professors shared their views and feelings regarding the lessons and class dynamics, they

became more comfortable with each other and were able to speak more freely with their

colleagues. For example, Conderman and McCarty found that “verbalizing these statements

[of reflection] to each other became part of our daily debriefing that allowed us to then plan

for the next day” (Conderman & McCarty, 2003, p. 4). Clearly then, reflection as a form of

self-evaluation is also a tool for improving co-teaching and co-planning practices.

Administrator evaluation. Little research has been published on evaluating co-

teachers and even less on evaluating IHE faculty who co-teach. University faculty have a

tenure process that is significantly different from the K-12 evaluation process. Despite this

difference, until faculty have tenure, they are still observed by an administrator or peer and

those observations are considered a form of evaluation. Thus, colleagues in higher education

need to know what co-teaching is, what it should entail, and what elements should be looked

30
for in determining its effectiveness in higher education. What the existing research does

show is a need for consistency in how co-teaching is observed and an abundance of questions

that require answers, prior to beginning the evaluation process. Looking to the K-12

literature on evaluating co-teaching practices, university and college administrators and

faculty may find methods or elements that they can successfully adapt to the IHE.

Wilson (2005) initially questioned, “What criteria should be used to judge teacher

performance in a co-taught class or program?” (p. 272). In response to her own question,

Wilson offered criteria for observing and evaluating a co-taught class, thereby creating what

she termed a “co-teaching observation guide” (p. 272). In it, she proposed that observers ask

themselves a variety of questions that are to be “reflective in nature” (p. 273). These

questions were divided into three sections.

The first section, “The Basics: Meaningful Roles for Each Teacher,” focused on the

relationship between co-teachers, as well as the process with which they co-taught. Here

Wilson asked observers to think about questions such as: “Do the teachers vary their roles

during the course of the lesson?” “Are both teachers comfortable with process and content?”

and “Is each teacher well suited to the role(s) he or she is assuming?” (p. 273). These

questions help observers focus on identifying how co-teachers are implementing their lessons,

how they work together, and how the information they are trying to relay is being organized

and shared between the co-teachers.

The second section of Wilson’s 2005 article, “Strategies to Promote Success for ALL

Students,” focused on the instruction and differentiation associated with co-teaching. These

questions (i.e.: “What evidence is there that teachers engaged in co-planning the lesson?”;

“Are the teachers focusing on process as well as content?; Are they reinforcing important

31
skills?”(p. 273)) ask observers to note if co-teachers are focusing on the students, and if they

are teaching at the students’ level rather than by what content they need to get across. This,

according to Wilson, is demonstrated in the evidence that co-teachers have co-planned for

their co-taught lesson. The engagement of students is a growing concern in IHE; no longer

are professors allowed to merely lecture their content, oblivious to whether or not students

are engaged. Many universities have centers or programs devoted to the pedagogy of

instruction and to the instructional strategies of its faculty (Desrochers, 2008). Therefore, co-

teachers in higher education can also be held to the questions posed by Wilson’s evaluation

tool.

The third section, “Evidence of Success” encouraged observers to look at the efficacy

of the co-teachers. Some of the questions under this subsection included: “Are struggling

students answering/asking questions?” “How are teachers assessing the learning of each

student?” and “What evidence is there that all students have been appropriately challenged?”

(p. 273). The efficacy of how the co-teachers are co-teaching demonstrates how well the

students in the co-taught class are learning. IHE faculty also need to be concerned for

student retention of information. Student learning is at the heart of the university. Thus,

Wilson’s questions may well be pertinent to those in higher education who are acting as

observers and/or evaluators of co-teaching in IHE.

Wilson concluded by saying that the development of the co-teaching observation

guide “gives some uniformity and fairness to the observations of co-teachers” (p.274). In K-

12, another common issue is that many supervisors are unfamiliar with co-teaching and thus

only evaluate on lesson procedures and content, rather than looking at the gestalt of the co-

teaching process and products. She also notes, “the guide provides a springboard for ongoing

32
conversations concerning the evolution of co-teaching practices…[and] will assist in efforts

to determine how co-teaching effectively addresses the students’ needs” (p. 274). This guide

may also provide a similar conversation starter for those in higher education.

Similarly Simmons and Magiera (2007) wrote about how to determine if teachers

were ‘truly’ co-teaching. They utilized their “Magiera-Simmons Quality Indicator Model of

Co-Teaching” from 2005, which included 25 “measurable quality indicators,” as well as a

“follow-up teacher survey [which] helped teachers explain their planning” (p. 5). Simmons

and Magiera clarified that their tool was designed for use as a reflective tool as opposed to

one that is evaluative, and stated that “the purpose…is to help co-teachers improve their

practice…[as it] defines standards for examining co-teaching skills via 25 quality indicators

and a rating scale” (p. 6). While not all of the quality indicators may be appropriate for most

university classes, others would still be pertinent. For example, the following could be used

in higher education classes that are co-taught: “Quality Indicator #8 – Both Teachers Clearly

Are Responsible For Group Instruction”, Quality Indictor #14 – Both Teachers Provide

Substantial Instruction To All Students”, and “Quality Indicator #17 – The Process Of

Learning Is Emphasized Along With The Content Being Learned” (p. 7).

An additional form of reflection or evaluation was described by Murawski and

Lochner (2011). These authors use an “ask for, look for, listen for” approach in their

proposed evaluation of co-teaching. They clarified most administrators need specific items

to ask for, look for, and listen for when observing co-teachers as these may differ from what

solo-taught classes may offer. In their article, Murawski and Lochner use the “Ask For”

items to “ensure co-teaching accountability” (p. 176). These items (such as course syllabi,

class notes, and a description of how students are individually graded) “enable them to begin

33
appraisal of the three aspects that ensure effective co-teaching: co-planning, co-instruction,

and co-assessment” (p. 176). According to Murawski and Lochner, for example,

administrators can look for parity in the relationship by analyzing the syllabus given to

students. If both co-teachers’ names are on the syllabus, and both teachers are being

promoted as equally in charge of the class, parity is clearly evident.

The “Look For” items described by Murawski and Lochner that pertain to IHE

include the sharing of the physical classroom space, the need for both teachers to assist all

students, and that the “class moves smoothly with evidence of co-planning and

communication between teachers” (p. 181). Murawski and Lochner emphasize that

observers should look for a “successfully co-taught class [that] involves two instructors who

have clearly planned lessons collaboratively and who work as a team” (p. 180). Additionally

they say observers should be able to see co-teachers implementing those elements that are

uniquely beneficial to co-taught classes. This would include seeing co-teachers use small

group instruction so as to increase engagement, lower the student-teacher ratio, and improve

the use of various co-teaching approaches and hands-on activities (p. 180).

When in a classroom observing co-teachers, there are elements that can be listened

for as well. These auditory elements include what Murawski and Lochner call “we”

language in which teachers include one another automatically in their discussion with

students. In addition, the inclusion of all students is evident and “students’ conversations

evidence a sense of community” (p. 182). Successful co-teachers encourage conversations,

questions, and dialogue. The tone exhibited in the classroom is a positive one and the verbal

and nonverbal cues between professors exhibit parity, respect, and professionalism. Though

these three groups of authors (i.e., Murawski & Lochner; Simmons & Magiera; Wilson) have

34
similar and differing ways of evaluating and observing co-teachers from their K-12

experiences that can be linked or applied to higher education, no articles specifically related

to administrator observations of co-teaching at IHE were found. Further research is needed

to better clarify the strengths and weakness of evaluating co-teachers and co-teaching at the

college level.

Student evaluations and reflection on co-teaching. Students’ evaluation of co-

teaching is another way in which the efficacy of co-teaching in higher education can be

determined. In fact, student perception was a common theme found in the IHE literature on

co-teaching. Various articles reported students’ perspectives and perceptions, the good and

the bad, of being in a co-taught class.

Positive perceptions by students. Vogler and Long’s (2007) research found that “the

percentage of students who liked… team teaching was higher than the combined percentages

of students who were either undecided or who disliked [team teaching]…” (p.3). This

supports Waters and Burcroff (2007) who reported that the pre-service educators who entered

their co-taught class had a difficult time envisioning two teachers sharing planning,

instruction, and the physical space of the classroom. Once they saw co-teaching modeled for

themselves, however, their opinions about co-teaching changed drastically and for the

positive. Conderman and McCarty’s (2003) students also reported positive perceptions of

their co-taught university class experience.

One of the reasons to support these positive evaluations may be the “change of pace”

(p. 651) which occurs when the two professors alternate lectures, as reported by a student in

Kirwan and Willis’s class (1976). Kirwan and Willis extrapolated that this change of pace

also helped to lengthen the attention span of students. Kirwan and Willis also reported that

35
the students in their study said that, with more than one professor, the lectures were not

boring. Vogler and Long (2003) also quoted one of their students who said co-teaching

“‘breaks up the monotony of listening to one person speak for the entire two hours’” (p. 125).

In addition to engaging students, students reported liking it when co-teachers used

varied co-teaching approaches. Conderman and McCarty (2003) stated that when they used

instructional approaches other than straight lecture, they felt students were exposed to

various examples and ways of thinking and learning. Students have also reported

appreciating the multiple perspectives that can be shared when being in a co-taught class.

Bacharach and colleagues (2008) reported that, “students overwhelmingly identified having

two different knowledge bases, hearing two different perspectives on topics and a diversity of

experiences, as benefits of co-teaching” (p. 12). Possibly because of benefits such as these,

students have demonstrated a strong appreciation and openness for co-teaching (Garson &

McGowan, 2010). Students have benefited from observing and interacting within the co-

teaching experience so much so that “all students [in one study] reported that the act of

observing faculty was the most valuable learning tool” (Stang & Lyons, 2008, p. 191).

Negative perceptions by students. Bacharach et al. (2008) identified four primary

drawbacks for students in co-taught college classes. The first was a confusion about which

professor to go to when students had questions. However, their research also indicated that

this issue decreased over the course of the semester. Students learned over time who to go to

for different needs. This is also an issue that professors can address proactively by letting

students know at the beginning of the term how they will be addressing questions, answering

questions or emails, and working with students.

36
 The second related to the students’ grading or homework concerns. This was

primarily identified as an issue if students felt one instructor graded differently than the other.

The need for parity and communication in assessment is critical for co-teachers. It is

important that faculty discuss how they will be grading students so that there is a decreased

concern over whether or not a grade is “fair” based on who did the grading.

The third issue identified by Bacharach and colleagues was described as an

inequitable division of time. This appeared primarily related to when students had a

preference of one instructor’s presentation style over another. If faculty teach differently,

there is the possibility that students will want to hear from one professor more often than the

other. On the other hand, if one professor dominates a partnership, students may also

identify that as a similar issue related to the division of time in instruction.

Finally, the fourth concern cited by students in the Bacharach et al (2008) study was a

lack of organization between the two faculty. While this issue also decreased over the course

of the semester, it is still important to consider. University professors interested in pursuing

co-teaching a shared course or courses need to be aware of the need for careful organization

and thoughtful planning.

Though students themselves did not identify the next issue as a concern, faculty in the

Bacharach study also noted that not being able to connect with one teacher may be a negative

or drawback for students in a co-taught IHE class (Bacharach, et al., 2008). Interestingly,

this was the only possible concern that faculty thought students would have, demonstrating a

disconnect between the faculty responses and those of the students. In addition, for faculty

who are used to teaching large content courses on their own, that lack of rapport may not be a

37
drawback; on the contrary, having another instructor in the class may actually increase the

chances that an instructor is able to connect with more students.

Limited Research on Co-Teaching in IHE

Murawski (2003) wrote about difficulties conducting research within the real-world

setting of schools noting, “major issues that need to be considered when conducting research

in school settings are those of social validity, treatment integrity, change, and collaboration”

(p. 104). She emphasized the challenge of conducting research on collaborative actions.

Murawski noted often there is “a lack of collaboration between the researcher and school

personnel” (p. 105) where the teachers and administrators find the researchers intrusive or

unrealistic. Similarly Murawski leads that the teachers and administrators may not be as

open to the study as they believe and thus not include the researcher in what really occurs

versus what they may want to occur. However, Murawski said that not all theories are

appropriate to test in all schools and with all students. She noted that it is ultimately the

responsibility of the administrators to determine if the research study is beneficial and also

whether the collaboration between the researcher and the teachers will be met without any

resistance in order for research to ensue effectively. These difficulties and issues limit

opportunities for research and also explain the limited research currently published on the

topic.

Bacharach and colleagues (2008) agreed that research on collaborative concepts can

be tricky at best. In addition, they brought up the fact that despite “research indicat[ing] an

increasing use of co-teaching at the university level in preparing dually licensed general and

special education teachers” there is very little research on co-teaching outside of the area of

special education (p. 9). Research on co-teaching in a variety of university courses and

38
subject areas needs to occur. They continued to say, “by providing opportunities for teacher

candidates to participate in courses co-taught by either two university faculty

members…[they] have found a way to immerse teacher candidates in a more collaborative

environment” (Bacharach, et al., 2008). While that is commendable, it is only a first step.

Faculty and researchers also need to collect data on actual student outcomes to determine

whether these collaborative environments and modeling of co-teaching result in change.

Some, limited, research on this does exist, for example, Vogler and Long (2007)

noted that more students said they liked the co-taught class than students who said they were

unsure or did not like being in a co-taught class. More research is needed, specifically on

student outcomes regarding co-teaching in IHE that are both associated and not associated

with teacher training programs, that identifies what is working and what is not in institutions

of higher education. This study proposes to add to the literature on co-teaching in IHE by

examining a team of faculty from different departments in a teacher training program. Using

a case study approach to deeply examine their processes, experiences, and outcomes, the

author hopes to further illuminate components necessary for successful co-teaching and

validate elements of the current co-teaching literature as they apply to higher education.

39
 Chapter 3: Methods

Setting

University. This research study was conducted at California State University,

Northridge (CSUN), in Northridge, California, north of Los Angeles. CSUN has a

population of “nearly 36,000 students and more than 4,000 faculty and staff,” (aboutCSUN

webpage, http://www.csun.edu/aboutCSUN/). CSUN consists of nine colleges including the

prestigious Michael D. Eisner College of Education (MDECOE), identified as a top college

of education by the Carnegie Foundation in 2005. The MDECOE is comprised of six

departments – Deaf Studies, Educational Leadership & Policy Studies, Educational

Psychology & Counseling, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, and Special

Education. The student population in the MDECOE are working on post baccalaureate

degrees including teaching credentials, Masters, and Doctorates, with the exception of the

department of Deaf Studies, which also offers Bachelors degrees.

The Department of Special Education in the MDECOE supports students who want to

specialize in the areas of Mild/Moderate Disabilities, Moderate/Severe Disabilities, Deaf &

Hard of Hearing, Early Childhood Special Education, and Educational Therapy. The

Department of Special Education offers courses for the preliminary and clear Education

Specialist Credentials, as well as Masters degrees in Special Education and a Post-Masters

Certificate in Educational Therapy. Eighteen full-time professors and 30 part time

instructors make up the Department of Special Education’s faculty.

SPED 406. The course entitled SPED 406: K-12 Literacy Instruction for Diverse

Learners with Disabilities (SPED 406) is a three unit course (on the semester system)

required for students in the newly revised special education teaching credential program.

40
The course was developed in 2010. During that semester, one section of the course was

taught in traditional one-teacher one-classroom style, while the other section was co-taught.

Since then, the course has been co-taught by several different professors.

Prior to 2010, Special Education credential candidates took a Reading Instruction

course from the Elementary Education department in the MDECOE. However the Special

Education faculty “realized that our students were not getting a breadth of experience

particularly related to a) reading methods for kids in middle school or high school and b) a

beginning of understanding of methods for kids with all kinds of disabilities” (R. Friedman

Narr, Personal Communication, March 18, 2012). Thus, the decision was made to create a

Special Education course more appropriate to teaching reading to students with disabilities.

The prerequisites for the course include admission to a Special Education post baccalaureate

credential program and/or ITEP (Integrated Teacher Education Program, an accelerated

program guiding students through their Bachelors and teaching credential coursework in five

years). According to the CSUN course catalog, the description of the course states that

SPED 406

“is designed to prepare special education candidates to teach diverse

learners with disabilities reading and language arts at the elementary and

secondary levels. The course focuses on the design and delivery of

comprehensive literacy programs consistent with state standards, and the

competencies and strengths of students with disabilities. Content

specifically addresses word analysis, fluency, vocabulary, academic

language, and comprehension. An emphasis is placed on the development

and organization of differentiated instructional practices for students with

41
 disabilities, based on findings from individualized assessment procedures.”

(CSUN Schedule of Classes https://mynorthridge.csun.edu/)

Participants

Faculty Participants.

Just prior to the Spring 2010 semester, the Department of Special Education

recognized a need for an additional professor to teach the SPED 406 course and there were

no more qualified special education faculty available. The Special Education department

chair asked Professor F, who was already identified to teach a section of the class, for

suggestions of possible co-teachers. Professor F recommended Professor Z, a professor in

the neighboring Elementary Education Department who also taught reading instruction and

was a colleague whom she knew socially. Professor Z agreed to participate. This was the

first Special Education course Professor Z had ever been asked to teach.

Due to “the interdisciplinary/ interdepartmental aspect of co-teaching the SPED 406

class” (R. Friedman Narr, personal communication, September 13, 2011), Professors F and Z

agreed that they both wanted additional guidance and mentoring in co-teaching this course.

Professor F approached another professor (Dr. M) in the Department of Special Education at

California State University, Northridge, who is an author on co-teaching and a known expert

nationally in the field. Dr. M agreed to meet with the new co-teaching pair and guide them in

the co-teaching relationship. Initial meetings between the two co-teaching professors and Dr.

M established a mentor/mentee relationship, as well as the development of a sense of parity

between the co-teachers.

Professor F is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education. Her

professional interests include: “teacher preparation, outreach to families with deaf and hard

42
of hearing children, and research… (on) exploring family support for families with DHH

children, and explicit reading instruction with students who are DHH.” (Professor F’s CSUN

webpage http://www.csun.edu/~rf4497/) Professor F spent the majority of her professional

career (20 years) as a Speech and Language Pathologist working with teachers of deaf and

hard of hearing students in public schools. She has nine years of experience teaching at the

college level. She has experienced co-teaching as a K-12 Speech and Language Pathologist,

as a DHH teacher in a high school reading class, and at the college level in her present job.

Professor Z is an associate professor in the field of Elementary Education. Her areas

of professional interest “center around reading. She is also very interested in teacher

research and early intervention for struggling readers.” (Professor Z’s CSUN webpage

http://www.csun.edu/coe/eed/faculty/ziolkowska/ziolkowska.html) Before working as a

professor, Professor Z taught kindergarten and first grade. She also worked as a middle

school reading specialist. All of her K-12 experience was in Pennsylvania. She has over ten

years of experience teaching at the college level (both at CSUN in California and at

Neumann College in Pennsylvania); however, this was her first experience co-teaching.

Student Participants. Student participants in this study consisted of students

enrolled in the co-taught SPED 406 course during the Spring 2011 semester. Two sections of

the course were put together and co-taught by Professors F and Z. Typically enrollment for

SPED 406 is 25 students per section, however there were 43 students in this co-taught section.

SPED 406 students are typically credential candidates working toward a preliminary Special

Education credential. Some of these students have prior experience teaching, while others do

not. Demographic data on student participants in this particular course section is described

later.

43
Materials and Data Collection

Permanent Products. The researcher collected several types of permanent products

in the course of the study. These products included the course syllabus, course schedule,

PowerPoints/lesson plans, and communication emails between professors. In the initial

planning stages of the course, Professors F and Z met many times to modify the existing

course structure (which Professor F had co-taught the previous semester). Professors F and Z

had to address the fact that SPED 406 was now going to be co-taught by an Elementary

Education faculty member as well as a Special Education faculty member, instead of two

Special Education faculty members. Professors F and Z met to plan, prepare, assess, and

reflect on their co-taught class. In between scheduled meetings, the professors also

participated in multiple quick emails, phone calls, and drop by meetings as needed.

Syllabus and Schedule. The researcher was granted access to the SPED 406’s

Moodle site (an online web classroom support used by CSUN) by the Professors. There, the

researcher retrieved the course syllabus as well as the weekly schedule. Copies of the course

syllabus and course schedule are included in Appendix A. Additional course materials such

as assignments, additional readings, news posts, copies of class notes, links to online quizzes,

and discussion forums were also uploaded to Moodle by the professors and made available to

students but were not pertinent to this study and thus not included here.

PowerPoint Lesson Plans. Professors F and Z did not use traditional K-12 lesson

plans in creating their lessons. Instead, they modified or created PowerPoint presentations

used by Professor F and her co-teacher from the previous semester. These PowerPoint

presentations, in addition to containing the content the professors wanted to teach, sometimes

also contained the division of instruction, instructional notes, and occasional cues on timing.

44
The 13 PowerPoint Presentations were shared with the researcher for analysis. Sample

PowerPoint Presentations with notes are included in Appendix A.

Communication/Emails. Email communications between Professors F and Z

occurred over the course of the semester. A recorded 721 emails regarding the SPED 406

class were forwarded to the researcher for analysis. Despite also including emails regarding

Moodle, course logistics with the department chairs, and mentor/mentee emails with Dr. M,

the emails between Professors F and Z often contained issues regarding: scheduling planning

meeting, students grades, students assignments, and drafts of the PowerPoint presentations.

Surveys.

Description of survey. Pre- and post-surveys were assigned as a class assignment.

The surveys were electronic and hosted on Google Survey. SPED 406 students were asked

by the professors to fill out the pre-survey the first week of classes, and the post-survey the

last week of class before finals. Students filled out the surveys on their own time and using

their own computers. The surveys contained demographic questions, closed-ended questions

on a Likert scale, multiple choice and short answer questions. Survey questions were not

forced (i.e., requiring a response) and thus could be skipped. All questions appeared on the

same webpage. Students scrolled down the webpage to get to the next question. Copies of

the pre- and post-surveys are included in Appendix A. Further detail on the pre- and post-

surveys follows.

Demographics. The surveys asked basic demographic questions such as age range

and gender. They also asked students to specify their Special Education specialization –

Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Severe, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Early Childhood Education,

Educational Therapy, or other. The demographic questions surveyed students’ teaching

45
experience, including their grade and/or subject expertise and number of years teaching, as

well as their current teaching placement and school type or school setting. Responses to the

demographic questions are provided in Chapter Three: Results.

Likert Scale. In addition to the demographic data requested, the surveys asked

students to rate their knowledge of and views on co-teaching, using a one to five Likert scale

(with one being none and five being a lot). For example, students were asked to rate how

much they knew about co-teaching or if they had received any formal training in co-teaching.

Additionally, students were asked to rate if they thought co-teaching was a good idea in K-12

and/or college classes, if co-teaching could help with content delivery, and if they thought

co-teaching was a good teaching option. The same Likert scale questions and statements

were used on the pre- and post-surveys. The pre-survey used a numeric one to five scale

(with one being none, and five being a lot). The post-survey also used a one to five scale, but

for this survey, the professors had added the words “none, some, and a lot” representing

numbers one, three, and five respectively. When exported to Excel, the post-survey data

produced the words none, some, and a lot instead of the numbers one, three, and five. The

words were adjusted back to numbers by the researcher in order to analyze the results.

Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions. The multiple choice and short answer

pre-survey questions asked for students’ knowledge of, and experience with, co-teaching.

Similar questions, with the exception of three additional questions on the post-survey that are

discussed below, were asked on the pre- and post- surveys in an attempt to collect

comparable data. The pre- and post-surveys asked for students’ prior knowledge on co-

teaching, and if they had received any prior information on co-teaching. The surveys also

asked if students had ever been enrolled in a class that was co-taught prior to SPED 406. If

46
so, the surveys asked students for identifying information regarding the previously co-taught

class.

Additionally, the pre-surveys asked students to anticipate advantages and

disadvantages of having SPED 406 as a co-taught class. In comparison, the post-survey

asked what advantages and disadvantages students actually experienced by being in the co-

taught SPED 406. Both the pre- and post-surveys asked students, based on their current

understanding and comfort level with co-teaching, if they were interested in co-teaching in

their own classroom. The three additional questions that were on the post-survey only are

described later in this chapter in the section entitled “Student Reflections.”

Planning Documentation. In an effort to document the co-teaching and co-planning

process, various types of data were collected throughout the semester. This data included

notes and recordings that focused on the professors’ interactions during planning meetings.

This data was collected by the professors and shared with the researcher for analysis.

Drop-Bys. A “drop-by” was identified as a brief, unplanned visit by one professor to

the other professor to discuss an issue related to the co-taught SPED 406 course. A

frequency count kept by Professor F over the course of the semester recorded 19 unplanned

drop-bys where either Professor F or Professor Z visited one another’s office. These drop-

bys were typically quick chats or pertained to quick issues. The frequency count was used to

show how often little planning events and issues showed up throughout the semester. Since

Professor F and Professor Z’s offices are right next door to each other, drop-bys for this pair

of co-teachers was convenient and did not necessarily take a lot of time. The frequency

count data was shared with the researcher and may not be entirely accurate.

47
 Audio Tapes. In-person planning sessions between Professors F and Z were recorded

via microcassette recorder; however, due to the poor quality of the microcassette tapes,

transcription was impossible. The researcher took detailed notes of the verbal exchanges and

captured quotes whenever possible. Ten planning sessions ranging from January 2011

through the end of March 2011 were recorded onto six microcassette tapes for an estimated

total of approximately 25 hours. No planning sessions were recorded after Spring Break.

The microcassette tapes were given to the researcher for analysis.

Reflections.

Student Reflections. The post-survey completed by students during the last two

weeks of the course, and described earlier, contained an additional three questions that asked

students to reflect on the SPED 406 class co-taught by Professors F and Z. The first of these

additional questions asked students if they were glad that SPED 406 was co-taught. The

second question asked for feedback for Professors F and Z on ways to improve their course

or the instruction. The third additional question to the post-survey asked for one compliment

that students wanted to share with the course instructors Professors F and Z. The three

questions asked in the post-survey are included in the Appendix.

Faculty Reflections. Additional information for this case study was gathered via

personal communication between Professors F and Z and the researcher. The personal

communication consisted of written reflections, interviews, emails, and face-to-face

interactions. In the written reflections, Professors F and Z were asked to consider their

experience co-teaching with one another and share these reflections. The professors were

also asked to give a description of how they got together as a team and describe their process.

Additionally, Professors F and Z were asked to share their challenges and their successes

48
within the co-teaching relationship. The data from these reflections are shared in upcoming

chapters 4 and 5 of this thesis, the results and discussion sections, respectively.

Analysis Procedures

Permanent Products. The researcher analyzed a variety of permanent products

collected and associated with this study. They include the course syllabus and schedule, the

PowerPoint Presentations, and email communications. The following clarifies how each of

these products was analyzed for themes such as signs of parity or planning.

Syllabus and Schedule. The course syllabus and class schedule were reviewed. The

researcher looked for any indicators that could be identified as signs of parity between

teachers. In addition, the researcher looked for any visual representations of co-planning and

co-assessing, as these are considered required in the definition of co-teaching (Murawski,

2010). The researcher also looked for clear signs of how co-instruction between professors

would occur, as well as if a division of the responsibilities of the professors existed or was

communicated to students through these products.

PowerPoints. The PowerPoint lesson plans were collected and organized by date.

They were then printed out in notes format that showed any instructors’ notes written

underneath the one slide per page layout. In their planning, it was evident that the professors

would often identify who was taking the lead on a particular slide by typing the name or

initial of that individual under the slide. Therefore, the researcher recorded the name of the

instructor who was responsible for instruction during each slide or group of slides if many

were grouped together. The researcher coded each slide as being led by “Professor F”,

“Professor Z”, “Both”, or “Don’t Know”. For example, if Professor Z’s name was on slides

13-18, then it was noted she was responsible for 6 slides during that class’s instruction.

49
Additional notes were taken on time limits, references, and any additional information listed

in the notes section of the PowerPoint Presentations when applicable. Results of the analysis

are reported in Chapter 4: Results.

Communication/Emails. Communication between co-teachers has been identified in

the literature as a key component to success (e.g., Gately & Gately, 2001; Dieker, 2001). In

addition to the in-person planning sessions and “drop-bys” already noted, e-mail was

identified as another way in which professors communicated with one another regularly.

Many of these 721 emails were quick notes back and forth either copying the other professor

so they would know about an email communication with a student or colleague or a response

verifying that the email was received. The professors also used email as the mode of

communication with students. When this occurred, the professors often carbon copied their

co-teacher on the email also notifying them of their response to the student. It appeared,

from the body of the emails, that when responding to the students the professors first often

discussed the issue before responding. For example, if Professor Z responded to an email she

would say Professor F and I feel. This “we” language showed even via email the professors

dedication to the parity in their relationship and made a choice to demonstrate that to students.

Surveys. Of the 43 students enrolled in SPED 406, 32 of the students responded to

both the pre- and post-surveys and their data was included in the study. Some of the data

(four sets of responses from the pre-survey, and seven sets of responses of the post-survey)

could not be used because the students did not fill out both the pre- and post-surveys. These

were eliminated from all analyses.

Demographics. Of the 32 students, 62% (20 out of 32) identified themselves as being

between 20-30 years old; 19% (6 of the 32) were in the age range of 31-40; 6% (2 of the 32)

50
were between 41 and 50; and 13% (4 of the 32) were in the age range of 51-60. These results

are available in Table 2 and visually depicted in a pie chart on Figure 2.

Table 2. Age range of students

Age Range n %
20-30 20 62%
31-40 6 19%
41-50 2 6%
51-60 4 13%

Age  Range  of    Student  Participants  

13%  
6%   20-­‐30  
31-­‐40  
19%   41-­‐50  
62%  
51-­‐60  

Figure 2. Age range of participants

Sixty six percent of the student participants (21 of the 32) were female, while 34% (11 of the

32) were male. Table 2 and Figure 2 display the gender makeup of the SPED 406 class.

Table 2. Gender breakdown

Gender n %
female 21 66%
male 11 34%

Gender  of  Student  Participants  

34%   female  
66%   male  

Figure 2. Gender breakdown

Of the 32 participants, 31% (10 of the 32) said they were already teaching, while 69% (22 of

the 32) were not. Those students who were not yet teaching were typically completing their

51
teaching certificates in advance of getting jobs. However, it is also possible that they already

possessed their preliminary teaching certificate but, in the current difficult economic climate,

had not yet procured a full time teaching position. Table and Figure 3 display these results.

Table 3. Student participants currently teaching

Currently teaching n %
yes 10 31%
no 22 69%

Student  Participants  who  were  Currently  Teaching  

31%   yes  

69%   no  

Figure 3. Student participants currently teaching

Though 10 of the student participants were currently teaching, 13 had previous teaching

experience. One student participant had been teaching for less than 1 year; 5 student

participants had been teaching for just 1 year; 2 student participants had taught for 2 years; 3

student participants had taught for 3 years; and 2 student participants had taught for 6 years.

This data is presented in Table 4 & Figure 4.

Table 4. Student participants’ number of years teaching

Years Teaching n
None 19
Less than 1 year 1
1 year 5
2 years 2
3 years 3
4 years 0
5 years 0
6 years 2

52
 Number  of  Years  Teaching   none  
6  years;  6%   less  than  1  year  
3  years;  10%  
1  year  
2  years;  7%   2  years  
3  years  
1  year;  7%  
4  years  
none;  66%  
less  than  1  year;   5  years  
3%   6  years  or  more  

Figure 4. Student participants’ number of years teaching

All student participants enrolled in the SPED 406 class were students within the

Department of Special Education, however their specializations differed. As Table 5 and

Figure 5 display, 63% of student participants (20 of the 32) were in the mild/moderate

specialization, 25% (8 of the 32) of student participants were in the moderate/severe

specialization, and 13% (4 of the 32) of the student participants were in the deaf and hard of

hearing specialization. None were in Early Childhood Special Education or Educational

Therapy, the two other specialization areas within the Department of Special Education.

Table 5. Special Education specializations represented

Special Education Specialization n %
Mild/Moderate 20 63%
Moderate/Severe 8 25%
Deaf and Hard of Hearing 4 13%
Other 0 0%

SPED  Specialization  

13%   MM  
25%   MS  
62%  
DHH  

Figure 5. Special Education specializations represented

53
 Likert Scale. Data from the Likert Scale survey questions was imported into an Excel

spreadsheet, one for the pre-survey, one for the post-survey. Unusable data (students

participant responses that were not in both the pre- and post-surveys) was removed. Student

participants rated the questions and statements using a Likert scale. However, as previously

mentioned, the responses on the pre-survey were numbered “1-5”, while they were labeled

“none, 2, some, 4, a lot” on the post-survey. The researcher adjusted the word responses on

the post-survey to their corresponding numbers (i.e.: none to 1, some to 3, and a lot to 5) in

order to equalize the data. Using the COUNTIF formula in the Excel worksheet, the

occurrence of each number rating was counted. For example, the researcher had the Excel

formula count the number of 3s rated by the student participants for the statement “I think

anyone can co-teach”. The percentage of 3s out of the total number of responses (n = 32)

was also calculated. The number and the percentage of each response to each statement or

question asked in the Likert scale section of the survey is reported in the next chapter,

Chapter 4: Results.

Multiple Choice and Short Answer Questions. The multiple choice and short answer

questions were exported from Google Survey into Excel by the researcher. Unusable data

(students participant responses that were not in both the pre- and post-surveys) were again

removed. Questions were then grouped by type of question and analyzed by type of question

or question content. When applicable, a frequency count was used. For example, the

question “How have you received information on co-teaching?” contained set responses:

Articles, Books, College classes, Have done it, Just heard it from the district, Observed it,

Professional development, Talked about it with colleagues, and None of the Above. The

responses to this question, on both the pre- and post-surveys were printed out, coded through

54
highlighting using a variety of colors, and counted as to the frequency of the response.

Additional yes/no questions and short answer response questions such as “which co-taught

classes students have previously been enrolled in” were also analyzed via frequency count.

Some survey questions that were first analyzed by frequency count were also reviewed and

analyzed as open-ended reflection questions, especially as they related to SPED 406.

Additional pre- and post-survey questions, specifically those asking about anticipated

and actual advantages and disadvantages of being in a co-taught class were analyzed.

Responses were printed out on colored paper by question type. Pre- and post-survey

responses were separated. Each response was cut into its own strip. The strips were then

sorted into categories that arose from the data. Overall 7 categories arose from the

anticipated and actual advantages of being in a co-taught class, and 11 categories arose from

the anticipated and actual disadvantages of being in a co-taught class.

As many students gave multiple responses, a protocol was developed. For students

who responded with multiple answers, those students’ responses were copied and sorted into

appropriate categories. The copies of the responses were coded with numbers so they could

be matched up later if necessary. Unrelated portions of a response, not associated with the

category at hand, were crossed out in pencil as to avoid confusion. The responses were then

quantified, using a frequency count; it should be noted that due to the multiple responses by

some respondents, percentages can add up to more than the number of participants. This

analysis process was repeated with the question “Co-teaching requires teachers to use and

refine collaborative and interpersonal skills on a regular basis. If you were co-teaching, what

skills do you think you would need to improve the most in order to have a successful co-

teaching relationship with a colleague?”

55
 The responses for additional questions such as, “Based on your current understanding

and comfort level with co-teaching, do you think you would like to co-teach in your own

classroom? Why or why not?” were printed out, cut up, and sorted into yes, no, and

undecided piles. The frequency of the responses was counted. Responses were then re-

sorted within each subsection as to the students’ answers to why or why not. The researcher

utilized categories that developed from the data. As with the original protocol developed for

multiple-pronged responses, those responses that fit in more than one area were coded so

they could be matched back with their copy later if necessary. Data was then quantified;

again, due to the multiple responses by some respondents, percentages can add up to more

than the n of participants. The researcher then quantified the data. The reporting of all data

is in Chapter 4: Results.

Planning Documentation. Audio Tapes. The notes from the audio recordings were

printed out on colored paper, utilizing a different color for each planning date. They were

then cut into strips by the researcher according to content and sorted into categories as they

emerged. The categories that were created based on the audio tape notes were: course

content, distractions, instructional method, split of responsibilities, student assignments,

timeline, planning meeting agenda, materials and faculty reflections. The researcher then

quantified the data and reported it in Chapter 4: Results.

After initially sorting the planning tape conversations by content, the researcher then

analyzed them by two additional categories: (a) which professor led or brought up a topic,

and (b) which content topics were discussed in which planning meetings. Because parity is a

key element of co-teaching, it was deemed interesting to note if both professors engaged

during planning or if one dominated the sessions. In addition, because planning is identified

56
as critical to the success of co-teaching but is notably lacking in sufficient time for most co-

teachers (Murawski, 2012), the researcher felt it would be helpful to note what types of items

were covered in each planning session. For example, did professors reflect at each planning

session? Did they discuss student issues each time they met to plan? Did they have

disagreements? The answers to these questions are reported in Chapter 4: Results.

Reflections.

Student Reflections. The student reflections from the three additional questions on

the post-survey were analyzed in the same methodology as the other qualitative questions.

Responses were printed out, cut up, and sorted into categories specific to the question. The

researcher looked for commonalities. In question one, “Are you glad that SPED 406 was co-

taught?” the data was first sorted into yes and no piles and the frequency of each response

was counted. Then further analysis of the data on why or why not was coded using different

color highlighters to differentiate the commonalities and themes.

The second student reflection question asked students to give feedback to Professors

F and Z that could help to improve the course or their instruction. After reading over all the

responses, this data was sorted into groups: feedback to individual professors, feedback

regarding the course, and feedback regarding instruction. The feedback to the individual

professors was then coded using color highlighters as to differentiate between Professor F

and Professor Z.

The third student reflection question asked to students was “Please share one

compliment with your instructors regarding the course, the text, the content, or the

instruction”. The data gathered from this question was printed out and sorted by topic:

specific technique, content, and instruction. The feedback regarding instruction was coded

57
by topic using colored highlighters to distinguish between instruction alone and instruction

that was co-taught. Results of the three student response questions are reported in Chapter 4:

Results.

Faculty Reflections. The faculty reflections were shared with the researcher in person

through informal interviews, in written reflections, and in emails. Faculty responded

individually to the researcher, but also reported their feelings about the experience while the

other faculty member was present as well. The responses were reviewed for commonalities

and themes that arose in the writings and personal communications and then compared to the

findings reported in the literature and research on co-teaching in K-12 and higher education.

Results from the faculty reflections are reported in Chapter 4: Results.

58
 Chapter 4: Results

Permanent Products

Syllabus/Schedule. The SPED 406 syllabus is five pages long and contains a variety

of course related information organized by the headings: Instructors, Conceptual Framework,

Course Description, Course Texts, Course Objectives, Assignments, Grading Standards, and

Instructors’ Notes. According to Murawski and Lochner (2011), “ask for” items that should

be observed or reviewed when evaluating co-teachers efficacy (and are relevant to this study)

include syllabi, lesson plans, and descriptions of how students are individually graded.

Murawski and Lochner emphasize the importance of both teachers’ names on the syllabi in

order to “determine how teachers are demonstrating their parity to each other, [and] students”

(2011, p. 178). On the SPED 406 syllabus, both Professor F and Professor Z’s names, emails,

and office locations are present on the syllabus. The spacing, bolding, and emphasis of the

professors names appears equal. Professor F’s name is first when reading left to right, but

this is in alphabetical order.

The course syllabus, in addition to being the first sign of parity presented to the

students, also demonstrates additional signs of the co-teaching relationship. Grading

standards and rubrics, along with assignment descriptions, demonstrate a set of assessment

standards agreed upon by both professors. “We” language, another sign of parity (Murawski

& Dieker, in press), was observed 8 times on the SPED 406 course syllabus, all within the

Conceptual Framework section. The Conceptual Framework was written and agreed upon by

faculty of the Michael D. Eisner College of Education, however while using the term “we”

connects faculty in the MDECOE, it also serves to connect the professors of this course, both

of whom are a part of the MDECOE but belong to different departments. The Instructors’

59
Notes section of the syllabus was entitled Instructor’s Notes with the placement of the

possessive apostrophe identifying a singular instructor instead of Instructors’ with the

placement of the apostrophe after the letter s to identify multiple instructors. The researcher

hypothesized that the Instructor’s Notes section was the same notes used on additional course

syllabi and as such was merely an oversight on the part of the professors.

The course calendar or schedule, as posted on Moodle, listed all assignments,

readings, topics, activities, dates, and additional information associated with the course. The

actual webpage containing the “Weekly outline” does not name the professors, however, the

link on the previous page, which directs users to the SPED 406 webpage, does display both

names. The weekly outline is where students find any information they need about each

particular class. No identifying information about professors was posted. In reading the

material, the researcher assumed both professors are responsible, have access to, and are

involved in the design and upload of material to the webpage; it is likely the students in the

course would make the same assumption. The “NOTES for Class (01/24/11)”, a .pdf

document of the PowerPoint Presentation for the first day, when opened, does list both

professors names, Professor F and Professor Z. On this particular slide, the placement of the

names is Professor F’s name first, and on the line underneath is an ampersand symbol and

Professor Z’s name.

PowerPoint Presentations. The PowerPoint Presentations designed by Professors F

and Z were used as their lesson plans, in that they served as the outline for what and how the

content was presented. The PowerPoint presentations also helped to remind the professors

during instruction which professor was responsible for what material. Occasionally, cues as

to timing and content or reference notes were also included in the notes section of the

60
PowerPoint screen. For the 16 weeks of the semester, 13 PowerPoint Presentations were

created and shared with the researcher. No PowerPoint Presentations were created for the

other 3 weeks due to class cancellations, an in-class assignment preparing students for the

Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA), and for finals week. Spring Break

also occurred during the semester but was not included in the counting of the semester weeks.

The number of slides varied weekly depending on the content being presented.

Additionally, the number of slides for which each professor was responsible varied weekly as

well. The breakdown of these class responsibilities is provided in Table 6. For the first week

of class, the introductory class, the PowerPoint Presentation had 23 slides. Of these 23 slides

22% (5 of 23) were identified by the professors as Professor F’s slides, while 43% (10 of 23

slides) were identified as Professor Z’s slides. The Week One PowerPoint presentation

contained 8 of 23 slides, (35%) which the professors identified as being taught by both

Professors F and Z. It is important to note that even though the slides were identified as

Professor F’s slides or Professor Z’s slides both professors felt comfortable “jumping in” to

add to or clarify instruction as appropriate (R. Friedman Narr, personal communication,

March 22, 2012). In addition, some of the PowerPoint Presentation slides that were led by

both professors were activities or lessons in which the active co-teaching approaches such as

alternative teaching, parallel teaching, team teaching, or station teaching, were used. This is

true for all additional PowerPoint presentations discussed in this section.

Week Two’s PowerPoint presentation contained 27 slides. Of that, 93% of slides (25

of 27) were led by Professor F while 7% of slides (2 of 27) were led by Professor Z. In week

2, there were no PowerPoint slides that were identified as being led by both professors.

Week Three’s PowerPoint presentation contained 8 slides, 25% (2 of 8) of which were led by

61
Professor F, 63% (5 of 8) were led by Professor Z; 13% (1 of 8) of the slides were led by

both professors. During Week Four, 47% of the PowerPoint slides (17 of 36) were identified

as being led by Professor F, 33% (12 of 36 slides) were identified as being led by Professor Z,

and 19% (7 of 36) were identified as being led by both professors. The content of the slides

taught by both professors in Week Four had to do with the Informal Reading Inventory (IRI)

its importance to the class as a major part of one of the assignments, its description and

implementation, and its use with students in both general education and special education

classes. During this class, both professors also modeled the administration of the IRI through

the use of team teaching.

Week Five’s class was cancelled; therefore there was no PowerPoint presentation.

Week Six involved a PowerPoint presentation of 13 slides, with 38% (5 of 13 slides) being

led by Professor F, 23% (53of 13) being led by Professor Z, and 38% (5 of 23) being led by

both. This week’s PowerPoint presentation also contained an activity directed by both

professors but done by students in small groups or stations with the Professors circulating

and not necessarily leading one particular station. Professor Z led most of Week 7’s

PowerPoint presentation of 26 slides with 81% (21 of 26), while Professor F was responsible

for 19% of the slides, (5 of 26). There were no slides in Week 7 for which both professors

were responsible. Of the 46 slides in Week Eight’s PowerPoint presentation, 59% (27 of 46)

were led by Professor F and 41% (19 of 46) were led by Professor Z.

Week Nine included a PowerPoint presentation of 45 slides, with 40% (18 of 45

slides) led by Professor F, 60% (27 of 45) led by Professor Z, and 0% led by both. Week

Ten’s PowerPoint presentation was 75 slides long. Professor F led 49% (37 of 75) of the

slides in Week 10, while Professor Z led 51% (38 of 75). The PowerPoint presentations in

62
Weeks Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen contained many of the same slides because sections of

the same slides were continually moved to the next week due to time constraints. Week

Eleven had a PowerPoint presentation of 45 slides, with 16% (7 of 45 slides) led by Professor

F, 80% (36 of 45) led by Professor Z, and 4% (2 of 45) led by both. Week Twelve’s

PowerPoint presentation of 38 slides had Professor F instructing 18% (7 of 38) of the slides

while Professor Z led 76% (29 of 38), and 5% (2 of 38) of the slides were led by both

professors. The PowerPoint presentation for Week Thirteen contained 12 slides, with 0% led

by Professor F alone, 47% (7 of 13) led by Professor Z alone, and 58% (7 of 13) led by both

professors. In this week, the professors jointly led an activity in which students created an

anticipation guide, as well as engaged in a parallel teaching activity in which the professors

split the class into two groups and instructed on reading comprehension strategies. (This

activity was initially planned for Week 11 but was not actually completed until Week

Thirteen (per R. Friedman Narr, personal communication, March 20, 2012).

There was no PowerPoint presentation for Week Fourteen; instead there was an in-

class practice RICA activity that was facilitated by both instructors. In Week Fifteen’s

PowerPoint presentation there were 15 slides; 47% (7 of 15 slides) were led by Professor F,

47% (7 of 15) were led by Professor Z, and 7% (1 of 15) were led by both. The last week of

classes was finals week and there was no PowerPoint presentation on finals week. The table

below shows the breakdown of the division of instruction based on the weekly Powerpoint

lesson plans.

63
Table 6. PowerPoint lesson plans divided by which professor led
Division of Instruction in Prof. F led Prof. Z led Both Profs. Led
PowerPoint Lesson Plans n % n % n %
Week 1 5 22% 10 43% 8 35%
Week 2 25 93% 2 7% 0 0%
Week 3 2 25% 5 63% 1 13%
Week 4 17 47% 12 33% 7 19%
Week 5 – no class, cancelled
Week 6 5 38% 3 23% 5 38%
Week 7 5 19% 21 81% 0 0%
Week 8 27 59% 19 41% 0 0%
Week 9 18 40% 27 60% 0 0%
Week 10 37 49% 38 51% 0 0%
Week 11 7 16% 36 80% 2 4%
Week 12 7 18% 39 76% 2 5%
Week 13 0 0% 5 42% 7 58%
Week 14 – in-class partner RICA practice assignment
Week 15 7 47% 7 47% 1 7%
Week 16 – Finals Week, no in-class meeting
Mean 10 14 2

Surveys.

Likert Scale. The closed questions were administered via Google Survey using a

Likert Scale in which students rated statements and questions numerically from 1 (none) to 5

(a lot) on a pre and post survey. When asked – “How much do you know about co-teaching”

students responses shifted from the pre-survey to the post-survey, as shown in table 7 below.

In the pre-survey, 22% of students (7 out of 32) responded knowing nothing about co-

teaching (considered a 1 on the scale). In the post-survey, 0% of students (0 out of 32)

responded knowing nothing about co-teaching. Twenty two percent of students (7 of 32)

rated their knowledge of co-teaching a 2 (on a 1 to 5 scale) on the pre-survey while 13% of

students (4 out of 32) rated their knowledge of co-teaching a 2 on the post-survey. The

largest number of students 28% (9 out of 32) rated their knowledge of co-teaching a 3 on the

1 to 5 scale in the pre-survey, while 56% (18 of the 32) student participants rated their

64
knowledge of co-teaching a 3 on the post-survey. Twenty eight percent of student

participants (9 of the 32) rated their knowledge of co-teaching a 4 on the pre-survey, while

25% of student participants (8 of the 32) rated their knowledge of co-teaching a 4 on the

post-survey. No student participants rated their knowledge of co-teaching a 5 (a lot) on the

pre-survey, while 6% (2 of 32) student participants rated their knowledge of co-teaching a 5

(a lot) on the post-survey.

Table 7. Student participants level of knowledge of co-teaching

Student participants’ level of knowledge of Pre-Survey Post-Survey
co-teaching n % n %
1 (none) 7 22% 0 0%
2 7 22% 4 13%
3 9 28% 18 56%
4 9 28% 8 25%
5 (a lot) 0 0% 2 6%

Likert scale results to the statement “I have received formal training on co-teaching”

are displayed in table 8 below. Seventy five percent of student participants (24 of 32) rated

that they received no (1 – none) formal training in co-teaching on the pre-survey, while 50%

of student participants (16 of 32) said they had received no (1 – none) formal training on co-

teaching. Also on the pre-survey, 13% of student participants (4 of 32) rated that they

received formal training on co-teaching at a 2, while 22% of student participants (7 of 32)

rated it a 2 on the post-survey. Nine percent of student participants (3 of 32) rated the

statement regarding formal training on co-teaching a 3 on the pre-survey, while 22% of

student participants (7 of 32) rated the statement “I have received formal training on co-

teaching” a 3 on the post-survey. Three percent of student participants (1 of 32) rated that

they received formal training on co-teaching a 4 on the pre-survey, while 3% (1 of 32) rated

it a 4 on the post-survey. No student participants rated the statement a 5 (a lot) on the pre-

65
survey, while 3% of student participants (1 of 32) rated that they received a lot (5 on the 1-5

rating scale) of formal training on co-teaching.

Table 8. Student participants’ self-reported level of formal training on co-teaching

Student participants’ self-reported level of Pre-Survey Post-Survey
formal training on co-teaching n % n %
1 (none) 24 75% 16 50%
2 4 13% 7 22%
3 3 9% 7 22%
4 1 3% 1 3%
5 (a lot) 0 0% 1 3%

No student participants rated the statement “I believe co-teaching is a good teaching

option” a 1 (none) on the pre-survey and on the post-survey. No student participants rated

the statement “I believe co-teaching is a good teaching option” a 2 in the pre-survey, while

3% (1 of 32) student participants rated it a 2 on the post-survey. Thirty one percent of

student participants (10 of 32) rated the statement a 3 out of 5 on the pre-survey, while on the

post-survey 38% of student participants (12 of 32) rated the same statement a 3 out of 5. Fifty

six percent of student participants (18 of 32) rated the same statement a 4 out of 5 on the pre-

survey, but 38% (12 out of 32) student participants rated it a 4 on the post-survey; this

represented the largest shift between the pre- and post-surveys. Thirteen percent of student

participants (4 of 32) rated the statement “I believe co-teaching is a good teaching option” a 5

(a lot) on a 1 to 5 scale on the pre-survey, though 22% of student participants (7 of 32)

shifted their rating to 5 on the post-survey.

Table 9. Student participants’ views on whether co-teaching is a good teaching option

Student participants’ views on whether Pre-Survey Post-Survey
co-teaching is a good teaching option n % n %
1 (none) 0 0% 0 0%
2 0 0% 1 3%
3 10 31% 12 38%
4 18 56% 12 38%
5 (a lot) 4 13% 7 22%

66
 The student participants rated the statement “I think co-teaching can help with content

delivery” on a one to five rating scale with one being none and five being a lot. The results

are listed in table 10 below. No student participants rated the statement a one out of five on

both the pre- and post-surveys. Three percent of students (1 of 32) rated the statement a 2

out of 5 on the pre-survey, as well as on the post survey. Nineteen percent of student

participants (6 of 32) rated the statement “I think co-teaching can help with content delivery”

a 3 out of 5 on the pre-survey while 34% of student participants (11 of 32) rated the

statement a 3. Fifty percent of student participants (16 of 32) rated the statement “I think co-

teaching can help with content delivery” a 4 out of 5 on the pre-survey, while 28% (9 of 32)

rated the same statement a 4 on the post-survey. Twenty-eight percent of student participants

(9 of 32) rated the statement a 5 (a lot) out of 5 on the pre-survey, while 34% of student

participants (11 of 32) rated the same statement a 5 on the post-survey.

Table 10. Student participants’ views on if co-teaching can help with content delivery
Student participants’ views on if co-teaching Pre-Survey Post-Survey
can help with content delivery n % n %
1 (none) 0 0% 0 0%
2 1 3% 1 3%
3 6 19% 11 34%
4 16 50% 9 28%
5 (a lot) 9 28% 11 34%

The statement “I think anyone can co-teach” was also rated on a one to five scale by

student participants; the results from the pre- and post-surveys are displayed in table 11. Of

the 32 participants, 25% (8 of 32) rated the statement a 1 on the pre-survey and 22% (7 of 32)

rated it a 1 on the post-survey. Thirty eight percent of student participants (12 of 32) rated

the statement “I think anyone can co-teach” a 2 out of 5 on the pre-survey, while 44% of

student participants (14 of 32) rated it a 2 on the post-survey. When asked to rate the

67
statement “I think anyone can co-teach”, 22% of student participants (7 of 32) rated the

statement a 3 out of 5 on the pre-survey, while 28% of student participants (9 of 32) rated it a

3 on the post-survey. An additional 13% of student participants (4 of 32) rated the statement

a 4 out of 5 on the pre-survey, but no students rated it a 4 out of 5 on the post-survey. One

student (3%) rated the statement “I think anyone can co teach” a 5 (a lot) on the pre-survey,

and 6% of student participants (2 of 32) stated they did strongly think anyone could co-teach,

rating it a 5 out of 5 on the post-survey.

Table 11. Student participants’ views on if anyone can co-teach

Student participants’ views on if anyone can Pre-Survey Post-Survey
co-teach n % n %
1 (none) 8 25% 7 22%
2 12 38% 14 44%
3 7 22% 9 28%
4 4 13% 0 0%
5 (a lot) 1 3% 2 6%

Student participants were asked to rate the statement “I think co-teaching is a good

idea for college classes” on both a pre- and post-survey. The results of the rating scale are in

table 12 below. On the pre-survey, 3% of student participants (1 of 32) rated the statement a

1 out of 5 on the pre-survey, while 6% (2 of 32) rated it a 1 on the post-survey. Thirteen

percent of student participants (4 of 32) rated the statement a 2 out of 5 on the pre-survey, but

3% (1 of 32) rated the same statement a 2 on the post-survey. Twenty two percent of student

participants (7 of 32) rated the statement “I think co-teaching is a good idea for college

classes” a 3 on a 1 to 5 scale on the pre-survey, while 41% of student participants (13 of 32)

rated the same statement a 3 on the post-survey. Forty four percent of student participants

(14 of 32) rated the statement a 4 on a 1 to 5 scale on the pre-survey, while 34% of student

participants (11 of 32) rated it a 4 on the post-survey. Nineteen percent of the student

68
participants surveyed (6 of 32) rated the statement “I think co-teaching is a good idea for a

college class” a 5 out of 5 on the pre-survey, though 16% of student participants (5 of 32)

rated the same statement a 5 out of 5 on the post-survey.

Table 12. Student participants’ views on if co-teaching is a good idea for college classes
Student participants’ views on if co-teaching Pre-Survey Post-Survey
is a good idea for college classes n % n %
1 (none) 1 3% 2 6%
2 4 13% 1 3%
3 7 22% 13 41%
4 14 44% 11 34%
5 (a lot) 6 19% 5 16%

In comparison to the question regarding co-teaching at the college level, student

participants were asked to rate the statement “I think co-teaching is a good idea for K-12

classes” on a 1 to 5 rating scale; these results are displayed on table 13. No students on the

pre- or post-surveys rated the statement a 1 (none). Three percent (1 of 32) of the student

participants rated the statement a 2 out of 5 on the pre-survey, and 6% (2 of 32) rated the

statement a 2 on the post-survey. Twenty five percent of student participants (8 of 32) rated

the statement a 3 out of 5 on the pre-survey, and 44% (14 of 32) rated the statement a 3 on

the post-survey. Forty one percent of student participants (13 of 32) rated the statement “I

think co-teaching is a good idea for K-12 classes” a 4 out of 5 on the pre-survey, while 28%

of student participants (9 of 32) rated the same statement a 4 out of 5 on the post-survey.

Thirty one percent of student participants (10 of 32) rated the statement a 5 out of 5 on the

pre-survey, while 33% of student participants (7 of 32) rated the statement a 5 out of 5 on the

post-survey.

69
Table 13. Student participants’ views on if co-teaching is a good idea for K-12 classes
Student participants’ views on if co-teaching Pre-Survey Post-Survey
is a good idea for K-12 classes n % n %
1 (none) 0 0% 0 0%
2 1 3% 2 6%
3 8 25% 14 44%
4 13 41% 9 28%
5 (a lot) 10 31% 7 22%

Finally, when asked to rate the statement “I am interested in co-teaching myself”, 6%

of student participants (2 of 32) rated this statement a 1 out of 5 on the pre-survey, while 3%

(1 of 32) rated it a 1 out of 5 on the post-survey. Another 6% (2 of 32) rated that they were

interested in co-teaching themselves as a 2 out of 5 on the pre-survey, while 9% (3 of 32)

rated it a 2 out of 5 on the post-survey. Thirty eight percent (10 of 32) rated the statement a 3

out of 5 on the pre-survey, while the same amount, 38% (12 of 32) rated it a 3 out of 5 on the

post-survey. Thirty one percent (10 of 32) rated the statement a 4 out of 5 on the pre-survey,

while the same amount 31% (10 of 32) rated that they’d be interested in co-teaching

themselves as a 4 out of 5 on the post-survey. Nineteen percent (6 of 32) student participants

were strongly interested in co-teaching on the pre-survey, but 19% (6 of 32) were highly

interested in co-teaching themselves on the post-survey, as they rated the statement “I am

interested in co-teaching myself” a 5 out of 5.

Table 14. Student participants’ interest level in personally co-teaching

Student participants’ interest level in Pre-Survey Post-Survey
personally co-teaching n % n %
1 (none) 2 6% 1 3%
2 2 6% 3 9%
3 12 38% 12 38%
4 10 31% 10 31%
5 (a lot) 6 19% 6 19%

70
 Multiple choice and short answer questions. The first multiple choice question on

the Pre- and Post- Surveys asked the student participants “How have you received

information on co-teaching?” The survey gave the following options: articles, books,

Professional Development, observed it, have done it, talked about it with colleagues, just

heard it from the district, college classes, or none of the above and were asked to check all

that apply. Students were able to check as many boxes as appropriate. The results are as

follows: on the pre-survey 22% of student participants (7 of 32) responded that they received

information on co-teaching from articles, while on the post-survey 25% of student

participants (8 of 32) responded articles. Nine percent of student participants (3 of 32) on the

pre-survey responded they received information on co-teaching from books, while 19% of

student participants (6 of 32) on the post-survey responded that they received information on

co-teaching from books.

Forty seven percent of student participants (15 of 32) on the pre-survey responded

they received information on co-teaching from college classes, while 72% of student

participants (23 of 32) responded that they received information on co-teaching from college

classes on the post-survey. Thirteen percent of student participants (4 of 32) on the pre-

survey responded they received information on co-teaching from having done it themselves,

while 9% of student participants (3 of 32) on the post-survey responded that they received

information on co-teaching from having done it themselves. Three percent of student

participants (1 of 32) responded they received information on co-teaching from hearing about

it from their school district on the pre-survey, while 3% of student participants (1 of 32)

responded that they received information on co-teaching from hearing about it from their

school district on the post-survey. Forty four percent of student participants (14 of 32)

71
responded on the pre-survey they received information on co-teaching from personal

observation, while 75% of student participants (24 of 32) on the post-survey responded that

they received information on co-teaching from observing it. Thirteen percent of student

participants (4 of 32) on the pre-survey responded they received information on co-teaching

from professional development, while 19% of student participants (6 of 32) on the post-

survey responded that they received information on co-teaching from professional

development.

Nineteen percent of student participants 63 of 32) responded they received

information on co-teaching from talking about it with colleagues on the pre-survey, while

28% of student participants (9 of 32) responded that they received information on co-

teaching from talking about it with colleagues on the post-survey. Twenty eight percent of

student participants (9 of 32) responded they received no prior information on co-teaching on

the pre-survey, while 3% of student participants (1 of 32) responded that they received no

prior information on co-teaching on the post-survey. Nineteen percent of student participants

(6 of 32) identified the category “other” saying they received information on co-teaching

from another source not listed on the survey. Results described above are displayed in Table

15 below.
Table 15. Methods by which student participants have received information on co-teaching
Methods by which student participants have Pre-Survey Post-Survey
received information on co-teaching n % n %
Articles 7 22% 8 25%
Books 3 9% 6 19%
College classes 15 47% 23 72%
Have done it 4 13% 3 9%
Just heard it from the district 1 3% 1 3%
Observed it 14 44% 24 75%
Professional Development 4 13% 6 19%
Talked about it with colleagues 6 19% 9 28%
Other 0 0% 6 19%
None of the above 9 28% 1 3%

72
 Short answer questions. The next question on the pre- and post-surveys asked if

students if they had ever been a student in a co-taught class. However, the wording of the

question differed slightly from the pre- to post-survey. The pre-survey question asked the

students if they had they ever been enrolled in a class “before now” that was co-taught. To

this question, an equal number of students (16 of 32) responded that they had previously been

in a co-taught class as the students (16 of 32) who responded they had not previously been in

a co-taught class. The question on the post-survey asked students, “Have you ever been

enrolled in a class that was co-taught?” A 100% affirmative response was expected from all

students as they all were currently enrolled in a co-taught class (SPED 406), however 1

student (of 32) responded “no” and a 1 student responded “No. Not previously.” It is

hypothesized that the two students who responded no were thinking of the question on the

pre-survey and misunderstood the intent of the question on the post survey.

A follow up question asked the students to name the additional co-taught classes in

which they had been enrolled. The results of this question are provided in a visual format in

Table 16. Six percent of respondents (2 of 32) identified being in a K-12 co-taught class on

the pre-survey, while 19% (6 of 32) identified being in a K-12 co-taught class on the post-

survey. Twenty five percent of respondents (8 of 32) identified being in one of several Deaf

Studies (DEAF) co-taught classes including DEAF 300, 340, and 370 on the pre-survey,

while 6% (2 of 32) identified being in a DEAF co-taught class on the post-survey. Nine

percent of respondents (3 of 32) identified being in an Elementary Education (EED) methods

co-taught class on the pre-survey, while 0% identified being in an EED co-taught class on the

post-survey. Three percent of respondents (1 of 32) identified being in a Secondary

Education (SED) co-taught class including SED 525MA on the pre-survey, while 0%

73
identified being in a SED co-taught class on the post-survey. Three percent of respondents (1

of 32) identified being in a Special Education (SPED) co-taught class (including SPED 420

or 502 but excluding SPED 406, the course discussed in this study) on the pre-survey, while

6% (2 of 32) identified being in a SPED co-taught class (excluding SPED 406) on the post-

survey. No respondents identified being in this SPED 406 co-taught class on the pre-survey,

while 75% (24 of 32) identified being in this SPED 406 co-taught class on the post-survey;

since100% was expected, it is hypnotized by the researcher that there was some confusion as

the meaning of the this question in the study. Twenty eight percent of respondents (9 of 32)

identified being in a Liberal Studies (LRS) co-taught class including LRS 100, 150, 200 on

the pre-survey, while 15% (6 of 32) identified being in an LRS co-taught class on the post-

survey. Forty seven percent of respondents (15 of 32) identified never being in a co-taught

class before on the pre-survey, while 6% (2 of 32) identified as never being in a co-taught

class on the post-survey. Again, the researcher hypothesized that this question was confusing

for the two students who responded no but should have responded yes as they were currently

enrolled in SPED 406.

Table 16. Enrollment of student participants in a co-taught class

Enrollment of student participants in a co-taught Pre-Survey Post-Survey
class (prior to SPED 406, and after SPED 406) n % n %
Yes 16 50% 30 94%
No 16 50% 2 6%

74
Table 17. Courses identified by the student participants as co-taught courses they had
previously taken
Courses identified by the student participants as Pre-Survey Post-Survey
co-taught courses they had previously taken n % n %
K-12 2 6% 6 19%
DEAF (including, 300, 370, 400) 8 25% 2 6%
EED (methods courses) 3 9% 0 0%
SED (including 525MA) 1 3% 0 0%
SPED (including 420, 502, but excluding 406) 1 3% 2 6%
SPED 406 (current class) 0 0% 24 75%
LRS (including 100, 150, 250) 9 28% 5 15%
None 15 47% 2 6%

The pre- and post-surveys asked students to share the advantages they anticipated as

well as advantages they experienced by being a student in the SPED 406 co-taught class. On

the pre-survey, 63% of students (20 of 32) anticipated that the professors’ differing views or

different perspectives would be an advantage of being in a co-taught class. From these

responses, one student participant said “I am interested to see both the General Education

perspective as well as the Special Education perspective.” Another student participant

responded saying, “I like the fact that our teachers are from moderately different fields

because this ensures that we receive different points of views on what we are learning.” An

additional student anticipated the benefit of having two teachers’ perspectives helping with

instruction saying, “I think having two teachers will bring a new way of teaching. Since I

have never had a co-taught class, I’m looking forward to how the class will be taught. I

anticipate that the teachers will help each other during instruction and that each will bring

their own style of teaching. In a way, it would be like being in two different classes because

each teacher has their own way of conducting a class.”

On the post-survey, 63% of the student participants (20 of 32) responded to the same

question saying they experienced an advantage of seeing two different professors’ views or

75
perspectives in the co-taught class. One student was quoted as saying “I like the dialogue

between professor[s] that allowed us a[s] students to see thoughts from two perspectives.”

Another student noted that “Having two professors is an advantage itself, I believe it’s a great

opportunity because each professor shared their own experiences… with students.” Another

student participant’s response stated, “Each instructor brought a unique experience and

expertise to [the] approaches to reading instruction [and they were] targeted to a different

grade level students. Also [the professors]… were able to provide a varying first-hand

knowledge of lessons and resources.”

On the pre-survey, 19% of student respondents (6 of 32) anticipated gaining a better

understanding of concepts as an anticipated advantage of being in a co-taught class. The

same proportion of students, 19% students (6 of 32), identified this as an actual advantage on

the post-survey. Students’ comments ranged from “Being in a co-taught class will provide

me with a better understanding of the course” and “Each teacher is likely to teach the subject

content area in which his strength is great with a positive effect on the quality of educational

material made available to the students” on the pre-survey to students’ comments such as

“There has been more information provided and more ideas about accessing struggling

readers in this class than if there had only been one teacher” and the “quality of lecture

material and information [was] enriched by the combined strengths of the professors” on the

post-survey.

Another advantage anticipated by 25% of the students (8 of 32) was a greater

utilization of the various teaching techniques. The students stated that they anticipated the

“teachers having different teaching styles”, there being “multiple ways of understanding

content and materials presented”, and also “Some advantages that I anticipate to being a

76
student in this co-taught class is knowing more teaching strategies….” Fewer students listed

greater utilization and variety of teaching strategies and techniques as actual advantages on

the post-survey, but some of the 25% of students (8 of 32) who did, stated they “liked the fact

that the large class could be split up into two separate groups for parallel teaching” and that

there were “more opportunities for group work.” An additional student noted that while

“Seeing the different teaching styles was helpful. [That] I could observe the different

teaching styles firsthand” was even more helpful.

Six percent of student participants (2 of 32) on the pre-survey anticipated the

advantages of being in a co-taught class being the actual co-teaching or being able to observe

the co-teaching interaction; however, on the post-survey 22% of students (7 of 32) responded

that an actual advantage to being in a co-taught class was being co-taught and seeing and

experiencing the co-teaching interaction between the professors. On the pre-survey one

student said, “I think the material in this class lends itself more to a coteaching experience….

Receiving instruction from two instructors will hopefully provide a more balanced view….”

On the post-survey, students stated advantages of being in a co-taught class included having

the course material “presented [in] a unique style of teaching that complemented each other

quiet nicely [and] making the class very enjoyable” was an advantage of being in the co-

taught SPED 406 class. Another student noted that it was “definitely good to see [an]

example of [a] co-taught class not only for our own learning but to see [an] example of how

we could do it in our own classroom” was an advantage gained by being enrolled in SPED

406. This student continued saying they were “very happy I was given this opportunity.”

One student also noted the interaction between professors saying, “Both teachers worked

77
together as a team. When one person was speaking/teaching, the other filled in when they

felt it was necessary to add more input.”

This led to the next advantage identified both on the pre- and post-survey as an

anticipated and an actual advantage of being in a co-taught class. On the pre-survey, 19% of

students (6 of 32) responded that having greater access to the course instructors would be a

benefit. One student said “I can ask questions to the second teacher when my teacher leaves

for her other class.” Another student noted “Having two instructors instead of one when it

comes to availability” would be an anticipated advantage of being in a co-taught class. On

the post-survey, this number decreased to 6% (2 of 32) as students noted that an actual

advantage to being in a co-taught class was having greater access to the course instructors.

They said, “One of the greatest advantages is that you can speak to either one [of the

professors], and have the help from both of them.” On the pre-surveys 3% of students (1 of

32) replied n/a to the question regarding anticipated advantages to being in a co-taught class.

On the post-survey all students responded with at least one, if not more, advantages of being

in a co-taught class. Table 18 depicts the results of the question regarding co-teaching

advantages.

Table 18. Advantages being in a co-taught class

Student Participants’ anticipated and experienced pre-survey post-survey
advantages to being in a co-taught class n % n %
Different views or perspectives or areas of strength 20 63% 20 63%
Better understanding/access to course concepts 6 19% 6 19%
Utilize various teaching strategies/techniques 8 25% 8 25%
Co-teaching/co-teaching interaction 2 6% 7 22%
Greater access to course instructors 6 19% 2 6%
None or n/a 1 3% 0 0%

When asked about anticipated and actual disadvantages associated with this SPED

406 co-taught class, students responded with a variety of answers. Most students, 38% (12 of

78
32), on both the pre- and post-survey said there were no disadvantages to being in a co-taught

class. One student said, “I can honestly say that I did not experienced any disadvantages

from being a student in this co-taught class…I believe it’s of great advantage to anyone

seeking to learn real experiences from expertise to be later applied in one’s own classroom.”

Other students however did have a variety of disadvantages or negative anticipations of being

in a co-taught class. Among those was the sense that there was no parity between the

professors. According to Villa, Thousand, and Nevin, (2008) parity is essential to the co-

taught relationship. In this study, 9% of student participants (3 of 32) anticipated that a lack

of parity would be a disadvantage to being in a co-taught class. Their concerns included

“one teacher dominating the time more than the other” meaning that the students “will not be

getting equal amounts of information from the professors.” An additional concern stated, the

“teachers [may] have different views on what should be done or how it should be done.”

Actual disadvantages of being in a co-taught class, as reported on the post-survey, were noted

by 9% of student participants (3 of 32). Their reasoning, as on the pre-survey, focused on

one teacher “overpowering” or “dominating” the other. One student stated, “when one

teacher overpowers the other than [sic] it stops being co teaching and we don’t benefit from

both professors views.”

Another issue some student participants had was a sense of unequal requirements or

unclear guidelines. This was an anticipated issue with 16% of student participants (5 of 32)

who anticipated, “differences in teaching styles that make it difficult on the students to learn”

or having the “professors not agree on what material to cover”. This was not an actual

disagreement as stated by students in the post-survey. However, the amount of work or

amount of reading required was an anticipated and actual issue on both the pre- and post-

79
survey. On the pre-survey, 3% of student participants (1 of 32) responded that a possible

disadvantage to being in a co-taught class might be that “we might have extra ‘work’.” On

the post-survey, 9% of student participants (3 of 32) replied they experienced the amount of

work or reading required was a disadvantage to being in a co-taught class. One of these

responses said there was “an inherent ‘overload’ of materials”.

Another issue anticipated but not experienced in this co-taught SPED 406 class was

possible disagreements between the professors. Sixteen percent of student participants (5 of

32) replied to the pre-survey saying that they anticipated possible disagreements between the

professors. One student was concerned that the “Professors might not agree [on] what

material to cover” while another student said, “There might be [a] conflict of interest among

the co-teachers with a negative [impact]… on their teachings.” No one in the course,

however, identified disagreements as an experienced disadvantage on the post-survey.

Inconsistent grading was identified in 3% of student participant responses (1 of 32)

on the pre-survey and in 9% of the student participant responses (3 of 32) on the post-survey

as a disadvantage to being in a co-taught class. The one student who identified inconsistent

grading as a disadvantage on the pre-survey was concerned about “keeping consistency with

grading.” On the post-survey students said, “grading was inconsistent” and that “having my

work graded by different professors makes me feel uneasy….”

Time was an anticipated and experienced disadvantage identified on both the pre- and

post-surveys of being in a co-taught class. Sixteen percent of student participants (5 of 32)

noted time as an anticipated disadvantage of being in a co-taught class. These student

participants identified “running short on lecture time”, class “pacing”, and including both

professors’ “individual thoughts and every student’s thoughts” as time concerns on the pre-

80
survey, where as only 9% (3 of 32) of student participants named time as one of the

disadvantages of being in a co-taught class on the post-assessment. One student noted that

“class efficiency” was a problem; this student continued by saying, “I think it is easier to

manage class time when it is taught independently.” Another student noted, “sometimes…

the instructors ran out of time. They didn’t cover everything they wanted.”

Three disadvantages – not sure which professor to approach, too large a class, and

dislike of or disagreement with teaching style - were not anticipated disadvantages but were

experienced by some of the students in the SPED 406 co-taught class. Sixteen percent of

students (5 of 32) on the post-survey identified not being sure which professor to approach as

a disadvantage to being in a co-taught class. One student noted they were uncomfortable

“not knowing who to email for a question (both teachers? The teacher I’m registered with?

The teacher I’m most comfortable with?).” Another student noted they were not sure “who

to speak to” saying, “I didn’t know if I spoke to one professor about an issue whether I also

had to speak to the other or if they communicated about it.” Similarly, 6% of students (2 of

32), on the post-survey, were concerned about the size of the class. They felt that “perhaps

the class was larger and it was more impersonal than a smaller class,” according to one

student. The other student stated emphatically that there were “Too many students! It’s a bit

uncomfortable to speak up in a sea of students. When there are 30 students or less, I am

willing to participate more.” In addition to classes that were too large, 13% students on the

post-survey (4 of 32) disliked or disagreed with the teaching styles used in the co-taught

SPED 406 class. These students said they had trouble with “two different styles of lecturing”

and that it was “sometimes hard to transfer attention from one person to another.”

81
 Other students found that they were unhappy about the information presented for

specific special education specializations. Three percent of student participants (1 of 32) on

the pre-survey identified receiving relevant information for their particular specialization as

an anticipated disadvantage of being in the co-taught class. This student said “I hope I get

information that I can apply to the age group of students I am currently working with.”

Similarly, 6% of student participants (2 of 32) noted that they did not receive enough

information for their particular special education specialization on the post-survey. These

students said, “there was not enough focus on moderate to severe” disabilities and also “I felt

not all specialties could be covered during class.”

Three percent of student respondents (1 of 32) on the post-survey did not have a

conceptual understanding of co-teaching, as evidenced by this student’s question on grading

and who to talk to. This student said “It also makes no sense that if I am ‘assigned’ to

[Professor Z]... how come my papers were sometimes graded by [Professor F]…?” All

results for the question of anticipated and experienced disadvantages are displayed in Table

19.

Table 19. Disadvantages to being in a co-taught class

Student Participants’ anticipated and experienced pre-survey post-survey
disadvantages to being in a co-taught class n % n %
None 12 38% 12 38%
No parity between professors 3 9% 3 9%
Unequal requirements or unclear guidelines 5 16% 0 0%
Amount of Work/Reading required 1 3% 3 9%
Disagreements between professors 5 16% 0 0%
Inconsistent grading 1 3% 3 9%
Time 5 16% 3 9%
Not sure which professor to approach 0 0% 5 16%
Too large a class 0 0% 2 6%
Dislike of/disagreement with teaching style 0 0% 4 13%
Receiving relevant information for specialization 1 3% 0 0%
Not enough information for specific specialization 0 0% 2 6%
Not understanding co-teaching 0 0% 1 3%

82
 Students were asked in both the pre- and post- surveys to rate their comfort level and

interest in being a co-teacher, given their current understanding and knowledge of co-

teaching. The results of this question are provided in Table 20. More students said they

would be interested in co-teaching on the post-survey than on the pre-survey. On the pre-

survey, 66% of student participants (21 of 32) said given their current understanding and

comfort level with co-teaching they would like to co-teach in their own classroom. One of

the student participants who said yes, said, “yes because it gives me an opportunity to learn

and work with different educators.” Another student said, “I think having 2 teachers

increases the level of knowledge that can be taught,” while yet another said, “co-teaching is a

great way to enhance classroom instruction.” Of the 21 student participants on the pre-

survey who said yes they would like to co-teach, 57% (12 of 21) said they were interested in

co-teaching because they like to collaborate, while 24% (5 of 21) said they think co-teaching

would improve students’ ability to grasp the concepts. One such student said, “I believe that

I work well with others and I would be able to find a good balance with a co-teacher. As

long as the goal is furthering the growth and education of the students, I would not have a

problem working with another teacher and his or her methods of teaching.” Another student

participant who was thinking along the same lines said, “Yes, I would like to co-teach in my

classroom because it will benefit my students. Not one student is alike; each will have a

specific way of learning material and require different teaching styles. Two teachers can

come up with different ways and activities to help students learn the required subjects.

Working with another teacher will help me match more of the students’ needs.” While yet

another student participant noted, “I would like to try co-teaching. I think it would be a great

way to start teaching because there would be two people putting ideas together.” Those

83
student participants who believed co-teaching can better help students grasp the content said,

“Coteaching is a great way to enhance classroom instruction…” and “it provides students

with a better opportunity to learn and explore the subjects better.”

An additional 10% on the pre-survey (2 of 21) who said yes they were interested in

co-teaching said they would like to co-teach because it gave them, as the teachers, an

opportunity to learn and grow as an instructor, saying “I feel like I can learn something new

from the other teacher” “thus improving my teaching while I am teaching.” Other reasons

why student participants said they were interested in co-teaching on the pre-survey include

the 14% (3 of 21) who said co-teaching could assist with classroom management, 10% (2 of

21) who said co-teaching can help with instruction and can vary instruction to fit students’

needs, and 5% (1 of 21) who thought co-teaching would reduce the pressure put on one

person as the teacher. Table 21 depicts the response explanations for those participants who

stated they would like to co-teach in the future, while Table 22 shares the response

explanations for those who were undecided or stated they “may be” interested but were

unsure.

Of the 13% of student participants (4 of 32) who were undecided about co-teaching

themselves on the pre-survey, 25% (1 of 4) said they were undecided because it depended on

their comfort level with their future co-teacher saying, “I think co-teaching is something that

needs to be done with an individual with which there is already a level of comfort...” while

25% (1 of 4) said they were undecided because they needed more information or training on

co-teaching in order to make the decision. Additionally, 50% of student participants (2 of 4)

who were undecided about co-teaching gave no reason why they were unsure.

84
 Twenty two percent of student participants (7 of 32) on the pre-survey said they were

not interested in co-teaching based on their current understating and comfort level on the pre-

survey. Table 23 shows the different response explanations for those individuals who stated

they would not be interested in co-teaching in the future. Of this 22%, 9% (3 of 32) said they

would not like to co-teach because they prefer to have complete control of the classroom,

saying, “I like to do things my own way” and “co-teaching in MY classroom would not be

effective.” An additional 3% (1 of 32) of student participants on the pre-survey said they

would not like to co-teach at this time because they would need more experience first, saying,

“For the first few years of teaching I would like to do it on my own to acquire my own

experiences, expectations, and to grow and develop my own teaching style, and

characteristics.” Three percent (1 of 32) said they would need more information on co-

teaching noting that, “I am not very familiar with the co-teaching process. I had only a few

classes that were co-taught, and they did not seem very cohesive or well planned.” An

additional 3% of students (1 of 32) who were not interested in co-teaching said, “I feel like it

confuses students too much.”

On the post-survey, the student participants were asked the same question, “Based on

your current understanding and comfort level with co-teaching, do you think you would like

to co-teach in your own classroom? Why or why not?” The post-survey showed more

student participants indicating that they would be interested in co-teaching than on the pre-

survey. On the post-survey, 72% of student participants (23 of 32) said they were interested

in co-teaching in their own classrooms. Of this 72%, 78% (18 of 23) said they would like to

co-teach because they like to collaborate and work with others. Samples of what students

said include: “…I like to work with other people…” and “I would like to collaborate with a

85
colleague to plan better lessons for students.” Additionally one of the students said, “I like

the idea of a team based approach to teaching to increase the amount of ideas and creativity

that takes place.”

Four percent (1 of 23) of the 72% of student participants who said yes they would like

to co-teach on the post-survey said yes because they want the opportunity to learn, saying

“… you can learn new things and have support from your partner….” An additional four

percent (1 of 23) of student participants on the post-survey said yes they would be interested

in co-teaching because co-teaching could help with instruction. This student said “…I

strongly believe that sharing different experiences with children will be an exciting method

of learning for them.” Four percent of student participants (1 of 23) said on the post-survey

they would like to co-teach because it could help students grasp the concepts, while an 9% (2

of 23) said they thought having two teachers while co-teaching would help reduce the

pressure on one person, and an additional 4% (1 of 23) said they were interested in co-

teaching but gave no reason why.

Nineteen percent of students (6 of 32) responded that they were “maybe” interested in

co-teaching on the post-survey. Of the 19%, 50% (3 of 6) said they might co-teach

depending on their comfort level with their future co-teacher. Seventeen percent (1 of 6) of

the maybes said they needed more information or training on co-teaching, saying, “…I can

see some of the advantages …but it’s not something I feel very comfortable with. I still need

to learn how to work with other people….” An additional 17% (1 of 6) said maybe because

they would prefer to be in control of the whole class saying, “I would give it a try but…I tend

to want total control over the classroom.” The last 17% (1 of 6) of students who said maybe

on the post-survey said maybe but gave no specific reason. Of the 9% of student

86
participants who still said no they were not interested in co-teaching on the post-survey, 66%

(2 of 6) said no because they prefer to have complete control, while 33% (1 of 3) said they

were not interested in co-teaching because they felt it confuses students.

Table 20. Student participants’ interest in co-teaching

Student participants’ interest in co-teaching in pre-survey post-survey
their own classrooms n % n %
Yes 21 66% 23 72%
No 7 22% 3 9%
Undecided 4 13% 6 19%

Table 21 Interested in co-teaching

Explanation of Yes response pre-survey post-survey
n % n %
Likes to collaborate 12 57% 18 78%
Wants the opportunity to learn 2 10% 1 4%
Co-teaching is helpful with class management 3 14% 0 0%
Can vary or help with instruction 2 10% 1 4%
Helps to improve students’ grasp of concepts 5 24% 1 4%
Reduces pressure on the one person teaching 1 5% 2 9%
No explanation 0 0% 1 4%

Table 22. Maybe interested in co-teaching

Explanation of Maybe response pre-survey post-survey
n % n %
Depends on comfort level with future co-teacher 1 25% 3 50%
Needs more information/training on co-teaching 1 25% 1 17%
Prefers to be in control of whole class by self 0 0% 1 17%
No idea/Gave no reason 2 50% 1 17%

Table 23. Not currently interested in co-teaching.

Explanation of No response pre-survey post-survey
n % n %
Prefer to have complete control 3 43% 2 66%
Would need more information on co-teaching 1 17% 0 0%
Wants own experience first, maybe later 1 17% 0 0%
Feels co-teaching confuses students 1 17% 1 33%

Another question asked to student participants on the pre- and post-survey was “Co-

teaching requires teachers to use and refine collaborative and interpersonal skills on a regular

basis. If you were co-teaching, what skills do you think you would need to improve the most

87
in order to have a successful co-teaching relationship with a colleague?” Of the open-ended

student participants’ responses, the eight categories emerged as themes in the responses.

These eight categories included collaboration, interpersonal skills, organization, time

management, content/instruction practice, relinquishing or asserting control, patience, or

none. By far, the greatest skill that student participants’ identified as needing to improve,

both on the pre- and post-surveys, was collaboration. Table 24 shares these responses. On

the pre-survey, 69% of the student participants (22 of 32) said they needed to improve their

collaboration or ability to work with and share well with others. This percentage decreased

on the post-survey, where 53% of student participants identified collaboration as the skill

most needing of improvement before co-teaching. Within the 69% and 53% of student

participants on the pre- and post-surveys respectively, 32% on the pre-survey (8 of 22) and

29% on the post-survey (5 of 17) said the area within collaboration that they most need to

improve was their communication skills. Students on the pre-survey noted they needed to

improve “communication with colleagues” and “would have to improve on sharing my

thoughts and feelings,” as well as making sure to “make an extra effort to communicate

effectively and promptly, hearing all points and dealing with them as a team.” On the post-

survey, these similar points came up when students said they needed to “…concentrate on

communicating effectively” as well as “keep up with the communication (emails) and

respond in a timely fashion.”

Similarly to collaboration, student participants also said they needed to improve their

interpersonal skills. In the analysis of this data, collaboration was operationalized as skills

working with others while interpersonal skills were considered working on oneself. On the

pre-survey, 16% of student participants (4 of 32) noted they needed to improve their

88
interpersonal skills while no student participants on the post-survey identified interpersonal

skills as an area in which improvement was needed. The comments on the pre-survey

included, “being able to express my thoughts and ideas in a way for others to understand”

and “need to improve my assertiveness skills so that I would be able to stand up for myself

when needed…”

In addition to collaboration and interpersonal skills, student participants noted the

need for improved organization, time management, relinquishing or asserting control, or

patience as additional skills they needed to improve. Three percent (1 of 32) on the pre-

survey, and 6% (2 of 32) on the post-survey said they needed to improve their organization

skills. One student participant said “Planning, planning, planning. I’m not fantastic at

planning by myself, let alone with a colleague.” Another said co-teachers “must be very

detail oriented and organized.” Time management, a similar skill, was also identified by 3%

(1 of 32) on the pre-survey, and 6% (2 of 32) on the post-survey, as a skill needed

improvement. These responses identified that “Time management when it comes to teaching

a lesson” is an important skill that needed improvement as well as “making sure to be readily

available to discuss lessons.” In order to do so, additional student participants noted that they

needed to either relinquish or assert control in order to have parity in the co-teaching

relationship. Nine percent of student participants (3 of 32) in the pre-survey, and 16% (5 of

32) in the post-survey said, “I would need to improve on not trying to control a situation if I

were to co-teach.” While another said, they needed to “be willing to take a back seat

[sometimes] and relinquish some control of my classroom.” Others noted, that “I tend to be

the dominate [sic] one in group settings” and that “I tend to be the leader and I would need to

work on allowing opportunity for the other teacher to lead the class.” Some students

89
however, also noted they would need to assert more control saying, “If I work with a more

aggressive teacher, I would have to learn how to assert myself in a positive way” because

“Sometimes I’m really laid back and maybe I would not give my input. I can’t be shy when

the other teacher is speaking/teaching.” No students on the pre-survey directly identified

patience as a skill needing improvement, however, 3% of student participants (1 of 32)

identified patience on the post-survey as an important skill needing improvement, saying, “I

would have to improve on patience. I want things done a certain way and when its not I have

a hard time not saying something.”

Several student participants also noted that they needed more practice with content

and instruction saying they needed to “learn the general education curriculum more and

practice making modifications for students with special needs.”. Six percent of student

participants (2 of 32) actually noted that improved skill level and knowledge of content and

instruction were needed before co-teaching, according to the pre-survey, as compared to the

13% (4 of 32) who replied so on the post-survey. These additional student participants on

the post-survey said, “I think I would need to prepare things ahead of time and have lessons

made in advance…” as well as saying they need to improve their “modifying material that’s

based on general education standards.”

Nine percent (3 of 32) on the pre-survey, and 3% (1 of 32) on the post-survey said

either said they did not have any skills that needed improving or gave no skills they needed

to improve. On the pre-survey one of the 9% said, “I couldn’t tell you at this point. I think it

[is] one of those things that you learn through trial and error.” While on the post-survey, the

one response said “I think I’m pretty flexible, so I don’t think I would need to improve on

anything.”

90
Table 24. Skills that would need improving in order to have a successful co-teaching
relationship
Skills that would need improving in order to pre-survey post-survey
have a successful co-teaching relationship n % n %
Collaboration 22 69% 17 53%
(Communication within collaboration) 8 32% 5 29%
Interpersonal 4 16% 0 0%
Organization 1 3% 2 6%
Time Management 1 3% 2 6%
Relinquishing/Asserting Control 3 9% 5 16%
Patience 0 0% 1 3%
Content/Instruction practice 2 6% 4 13%
Don’t know/Nothing 3 9% 1 3%

Planning Documentation

The audio recorded planning meetings were sorted by content areas after listening to

the sessions and determining common themes. The content areas (or themes) that emerged

from the planning sessions included (a) course content, (b) instructional method, (c) split of

responsibilities, (d) agenda for planning meetings, (e) the course timeline, (f) student

assignments and grading, (g) distractions, (h) faculty reflections, (i) materials, and (j) other.

Over all, there were 349 chunks of content discussed by Professors F and Z from the ten

planning sessions. These chunks of data included notes on what content was discussed – the

themes, which person initiated the topic, and some notes on what comments were made back

and forth between the professors during the discussion of that topic (if there was a

discussion). The results of this planning analysis is available in Table 25.

One topic discussed in the planning meeting related to course content. “Course

content” was operationalized as any time professors discussed reading, literacy, the

administering reading level assessments, vocabulary instruction, the RICA exam,

comprehension strategies, dictionary skills, phonics, phonological awareness, phonemic

awareness, fluency. This was a discussion topic for 19% of the time (66 of the 349 planning

91
items). Distractions occurred 19% of the time (68 of 349) and consisted of external

distractions (e.g., phone calls, other faculty drop-bys) as well as the professors discussing

things not directly related to the planning session (e.g., families, technology, students, student

behavior). Thirteen percent of the time (46 of 349), the professors discussed the method of

instruction that would be used when teaching the material or content. Method of instruction

was defined as when professors discussed co-teaching, any of the co-teaching approaches -

one-teach one-support, parallel teaching, alternative, team teaching, or stations, modeling,

giving examples, or any way in which the professors would get the material across from them

to the students. Similarly, 13% of the planning meeting time (45 of 349) was spent on the

split of responsibilities. While “split of responsibilities” seems very similar to method of

instruction, it differed in that “split of responsibilities” was coded when professors discussed

which professor was to teach what content, how the grading would be divided and shared,

and who would be working on or creating quizzes, assignments, and other logistical issues

such as uploading information to Moodle.

The professors also spent 12% of their planning meeting time (42 of 349) discussing

the students’ assignments. This included the discussion of actual grading of the assignments,

definitions and linguistics of the actual assignments, and occasionally the students’ responses

to some of the actual assignments. Six percent of the professors planning meeting time (22 of

349) was spent on the course timeline. This included any discussion of the course schedule,

the placement of content within the grand scheme of the class, the daily class timeline, and

conversation regarding what material was to be instructed at what point in the three-hour

class. An additional 5% of the planning meeting time was spent on creating, checking, or

ensuring the follow up of the planning meeting agenda. The professors, at the beginning of

92
every planning meeting session, quickly set up an agenda of what they wanted to complete

by the end of the session. Throughout the planning meeting they often went back and

referred to the agenda to ensure that they stayed on-task. This is a practice recommended in

the literature (Murawski, 2012).

For 5% of the planning meeting time (16 of 349), the professors discussed what

materials they would need, who would bring them, and also who had them or where they

might find them. As the research on co-teaching notes, reflection is an important part in co-

teaching (Garson & McGowan, 2010; Vogler & Long, 2007). Professor F and Z also found

that reflecting upon the previous class was an important part of the planning meetings.

Professors F and Z took 7% of the planning meeting time (25 of 349) to share their

reflections with each other. The results of the breakdown and categorization of planning

meeting time are displayed in table 25 below.

Table 25. Material discussed during planning meetings.

Planning Meetings, material discussed n %
Course content 66 19%
Distractions 68 19%
Instructional method 46 13%
Split of responsibilities 45 13%
Student assignments 42 12%
Timeline 22 6%
Planning meeting agenda 19 5%
Materials 16 5%
Faculty reflections 25 7%

In an effort to analyze possible parity in planning, the data within the content areas

was sorted again as to which professor led the conversation or brought up the content topic.

Of the times during the planning meetings where course content was discussed, Professor F

led the discussion 70% of the time (46 out of 66) where as Professor Z initiated the

93
conversation 30% of the time (20 out of 66). It must be noted that Professor F had taught the

course in the past so her disproportionate initiation of content is not surprising.

The researcher coded conversations about which co-teaching approach would be used

as an “Instructional methods” discussion. Additionally, coding as “instructional methods”

could include discussion on samples, activities, models of techniques or tips, or even a

demonstration of how to collect or evaluate data and assessments. The instructional methods

discussed during the planning meetings by Professors F and Z were split, with Professor F

bringing up the topic of instructional methodology 59% of the time (27 of 46) and Professor

Z bringing up the topic of instructional methods 37% of the time (17 of 46). There were 2

times (out of 46, or 4% of the time) when instructional methods was brought, however it was

unclear from the planning meeting audiotape which professor brought it up.

As the professors planned, they also had to figure out how they would split up some

of the responsibilities. For example, they split up the content into sections to teach.

Sometimes this resulted in Professor F, the professor of Special Education, discussing more

of the topics related to special education and disabilities, with Professor Z, whose emphasis is

in Elementary Education, focusing her portion of instruction on more of the teaching of

reading techniques. Another way the split of responsibilities was broken up was through the

division of labor for grading student assignments. For example, through the planning

discussions, it was determined that Professor Z was more comfortable grading the

observations so she offered to grade all of them. Conversely, Professor F graded all of the

Assessment/Instruction Reports as she was more familiar with the Informal Reading

Inventory tool that students were asked to use. These discussions represent the conversations

regarding the split of responsibilities the co-teachers discussed during planning meetings.

94
Professor F brought up the topic of splitting responsibilities 67% of the time (30 out of 45),

while Professor Z brought up the topic of split of responsibilities 31% of the time (14 out of

45). Additionally 2% of the time (1 out of 45), the splitting of responsibilities was brought

up but due to the poor quality of the recordings, it could not be determined which professor

initiated the topic.

After the first planning meeting, the professors typically began each planning meeting

with a quick agenda of the things they wanted to get accomplished during that planning

meeting. As there were only ten planning meetings recorded, the number of topics or times

in which the professors discussed the agenda of the planning meetings included not only their

original reference to the agenda at the beginning of their planning session, but also any

references back to the agenda made during the session to determine if all tasks on the agenda

were completed. Sixty three percent of the times recorded (12 out of 19) Professor F brought

up the topic of the agenda, while 37% of the time (7 of 19) Professor Z brought up the topic

of the agenda for the planning meeting.

Typically after discussing the agenda for this session’s planning meeting, the

Professors reflected on the previous nights’ class or how they were feeling about the co-

teaching relationship. Professor F and Professor Z’s reflections of the course, co-teaching, or

the effectiveness of instruction was initiated by Professor F 35% of the time (12 of 34), while

Professor Z brought up reflections 38% of the time (13 of 34) during the planning meetings,

and it was unclear who brought up the reflection topic 26% of the time (9 out of 34).

Another discussion topic during planning related to the timeline of the class.

Anything discussion related to timing between Professors F and Z during the planning

meetings was coded as a separate entry and called “timeline”. Professor F brought up the

95
timeline or issues related to the timeline 45% of the time (10 of 22), where as Professor Z

brought up the timeline or issues related to the timeline of the course 41% of the time (9 of

22). The topic of the timeline was brought up an additional 14% (3 of 22) of the time but,

due to the poor audio quality, which professor brought up the topic is unknown.

As should be expected in any planning meetings between teachers or professors, the

topic of student assignments or student work was brought up. Thirty-three instances of

discussion regarding student work or assignments were coded. Of these, Professor F brought

up the topic 52% of the time (17 of 33), whereas Professor Z brought up student assignments

45% of the time (15 of 33). There was one time (1 out of 33, or 3%) when the topic of

student assignments was brought up but it is unknown which of the professors initiated that

part of the conversation.

Many types of distractions can deter attention from a planning meeting. During

Professor F and Z’s planning meetings, they also endured a variety of distractions. Of the 55

distractions recorded and noted, Professor F initiated 43% (29 of 68). These included

statements related to emails, students, student problems, technology/Moodle, travel, phone

calls, work frustrations, other people or faculty. Professor Z initiated 38% (26 of 68 by

bringing up technology, Moodle, literature books or children’s books that could be used as

samples, family, time commitments, and humor or jokes. In addition to these professor-

generated, non-content oriented distractions, 20% of distractions (13 of 68) were from

external sources. These included another professor walking in to check on their progress, the

ringing of a phone, an so on.

There are often many materials needed for classes or instruction. Some of these

materials - laptop computer, projector, handouts, and so on – are common materials used in

96
almost every class meeting. Other materials however, can also be used as models, samples,

and examples, and may not be common materials typically brought to class. Materials,

which ones and who was going to be responsible for bringing them, was another topic often

discussed by Professors F and Z during the planning meetings. Sixty nine percent of the time

(11 of 16) Professor F was the one to initiate the topic of materials, however 31% of the time

(5 of 16) Professor Z brought up the need for materials. The results discussed here are shown

in Table 26 below.

Table 26. Initiation of discussion and content by professors

Initiation of discussion Professor F Professor Z Unknown
by content & professor: n % n % n %
Course content 46 70% 20 30% 0 0%
Instructional method 27 59% 17 37% 2 4%
Split of responsibilities 30 67% 14 31% 1 2%
Planning meeting agenda 12 63% 7 37% 0 0%
Faculty reflections 12 35% 13 38% 9 26%
Timeline 10 45% 9 41% 3 14%
Student assignments 17 52% 15 45% 1 3%
Distractions 29 543% 26 38% 20 24%
Materials 11 69% 5 31% 0 0%
Total 194 55% 126 36% 29 8%

As illustrated in Table 26, overall Professor F initiated 55% (194 of 349) of topics discussed

during planning meetings. Meanwhile, Professor Z initiated 36% of the topics (126 of 349)

during planning meetings, and it was undeterminable who brought up 8% (29 of 349) of the

topics initiated during the planning meeting.

These content topics were additionally analyzed to determine if all content topics

were discussed during each of the ten planning meetings. Table 27 below lists the results.

During 60% (6 of 10) of the planning meetings, all content areas were discussed. All but one

of the content areas was discussed in 80% (8 of 10) of the planning meetings. More

specifically, in the second planning meeting, there was no discussion of student assignments,

97
and in the eighth planning meeting, there was no discussion of necessary materials. During

20% of the planning meetings (2 of 10), two content areas were not discussed but all other

content areas were. For the sixth planning session, there was no discussion of faculty

reflections or materials, and for the seventh planning session, there was no discussion of the

timeline or of necessary materials. Materials was the content area discussed the least (only

70% of the time). On the other hand, discussion related to course content, instructional

methods, division of responsibilities, and agenda for planning meeting, as well as the

occurrence of distractions were present in all ten planning meetings.

Table27 Content areas discussed per number of planning meetings

Number of Content Areas discussed per
number of planning meetings n %
All content areas discussed 6 60%
All but 1 content area discussed 2 20%
All but 2 content area discussed 2 20%

Table 28. If topics were discussed during planning meetings

Planning Meetings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Course content y y y y y y y y y y
Instructional method y y y y y y y y y y
Split of responsibilities y y y y y y y y y y
Agenda for planning meeting y y y y y y y y y y
Timeline y y y y y y no y y y
Student Assignments y no y y y y y y y y
Distractions y y y y y y y y y y
Faculty Reflections y y y y y no y y y y
Materials y y y y y no no no y y

Reflections

Student Reflections. The student reflections retrieved from additional open-ended

questions on the post-survey showed the student participants’ reflections on being in co-

taught classes (this SPED 406 or others), as well as represented the sharing of feedback and

compliments to the instructors regarding the professors, course, the content, the instruction,

and the text. Of the 32 student participants who were asked if students were glad that the

98
SPED 406 class was co-taught, 88% (28 out of 32) said they were glad that SPED 406 was

co-taught. Of the 88% who said yes, one of the reasons and explanations was, “I got to learn

from two different perspectives.” Another student said, “Absolutely. It gave the course a

depth and comprehensiveness that made it one of the best courses I’ve experienced in the

SPED program.” While yet another student agreed saying, “Yes I thought it was very

important to model a teaching practice that the university encourages in every class I’ve

taken.” “I was glad because I could see how well co-teaching can work.” Students also said,

“I never imagined material from GEN ED and SPED could be taught in the same classroom.”

The 9% of students (3 of 32) who responded that they were unsure if they were glad

that SPED 406 was co-taught gave various reasons. One stated, “I do not think it made a

significant difference in my classroom.” Another student said, “I’m in the middle… I’d

prefer one instructor in a regular size class than a lecture room with two instructors. It was

interesting to see how co-teaching works but I don’t know if it works in all settings.” An

additional 3% of students (1 of 32) said “no” that they were not glad that SPED 406 was co-

taught. This respondent did not provide additional explanations as to why he or she

responded in the negative. The results of this question are in Table 29 below.

Table 29. Student participants’ responses as to whether they were glad SPED 406 was co-
taught
Student participants’ responses to the question - Are you glad that SPED 406 was co-taught?
n %
Yes 28 88%
Maybe 3 9%
No 1 3%

The feedback to the professors, which would help improve the course or the

professors’ instruction, was also sorted into categories and is reported in Table 30 below.

Some students gave multiple answers. These were included in the multiple categories,

99
resulting in an n greater than the 32 students, and percentages that add up to more than 100%.

No students gave specific feedback to Professor F, yet 3% of students (1 of 32) gave specific

feedback to Professor Z saying, “During the first ½ of the class [Professor F]… talk[ed] more

and answered more questions and [Professor Z]… was soft spoken and talked less. During

the second ½ she started to speak more and teach more….” Also 9% of the student

participants (3 of 32) gave specific feedback to both professors. One such feedback noted a

greater need for parity, while another said, “I would suggest that the professors share the

instructional time more evenly.” The third student participant stated their preference for one

teacher with the normal student-teacher ratio, to two professors with more students in the co-

taught class.

The students also gave feedback related to the course content. Thirteen percent (4 of

32) said they believed there was too much extra reading besides the course text. Another 9%

of students (3 of 32) said they would have liked to have more of a variety and discussion of

the different specializations within the content of reading instruction. These students felt

some subgroups or specializations were not covered adequately enough (e.g. DHH and

Moderate/Severe). The other 19% of students (6 of 32) who gave feedback on the course

content said they wanted “to spend more time practicing scoring and administering the IRI”

and wanted more “Examples or discussions using issues related to IEPs or behavior…”

Another student wanted to “spend more time on [how] the RICA exam….”

Feedback having to do with the course structure and requirements included 13% of

students (4 of 32) who gave feedback on the materials. One student asked to “ make it so

that the notes can be typed in” while another wanted to “arrange for timely delivery of texts

with the bookstore….” One of the older students in the class noted “some of us old timers are

100
still getting used to Moodle so we need things a little more specific.” Three percent of

students (1 of 32) had feedback on the course structure saying they would like “perhaps a few

more small group activities to get to know more students in other parts of the room.”

One student (1 of 32 or 3%) gave feedback regarding the grading saying, “I would

appreciate a quicker turnaround on grades and assignments.” At the same time, 6% of

students (2 of 32) asked to “pick up the pace of the class” saying that “at times the class

would stall and the energy level would go down,” while another student warned the

professors to “just watch your time” signifying they may have gone over time or spent too

much time on one thing.

Additional feedback to the professors related to clarifying course requirements. Six

percent of students (2 of 32) said they wanted “more information at the beginning as to what

would be do [sic] through out the semester and when…” and another student asked that they

“…could have been better aware of the exact requirements for the course….” Six additional

percent of students (2 of 32) gave specific feedback regarding the quizzes, while 3% of

students (1 of 32) said the professors “did a very good job, and its important that they keep

asking students if the materials and activities they used are being helpful because that makes

the students feel that they are more involved in how they are being taught.” Six percent of

students (2 of 32) asked that the professor keep the noise level down in the class, while 16%

of students gave no feedback or said, “It was fine the way it was.” These results are depicted

in Table 30.

101
Table 30. Student participants’ feedback to the professors
Student participants’ feedback to the professors n %
Specific feedback to Professor F 0 0%
Specific feedback to Professor Z 1 3%
Feedback to both professors 3 9%
Course content – decreasing amount of reading 4 13%
Course content – focusing on specializations 3 9%
Course content – general 6 19%
Materials 4 13%
Course structure 1 3%
Grading 1 3%
Class pacing/time 2 6%
Course requirements – clarification 2 6%
Assignments – quizzes 2 6%
Getting feedback back to students 1 3%
Adjusting the noise level in class 2 6%
None 5 16%

Students were also asked to share one compliment about the course with the

professors. Twenty eight percent of the student participants (9 of 32) complimented the

professors on their ability to teach the material in a way that the students were able to learn.

One student said, “I came into the class with very little knowledge on the subject [and] I now

feel like I have a good start on teaching literacy.” Another student said, “Everything was

always related back to the classroom or ways to see what we were learning in practice. It

made the course more interesting and a joy to come to.” The assignments associated with the

course also helped students to acquire knowledge. Several students (9%, 3 of 32)

complimented the assignments saying, “My favorite assignment was the IRI because it taught

me how to evaluate a student’s reading level in more depth” while another student also noted

that “having to create different lesson plans really forced me to know my reading material, so

I am thankful that you had us do that.”

The in-class activities were a favorite of 31% of students (10 of 32). These students

complimented the activities saying, “Many of the activities were fun and in doing them, I

102
was able to really see how they were done and am now more likely to utilize them when I

teach.” Another compliment regarding the activities said, “I really liked the activities that we

did in class. Actually practicing them helped me visualize the steps I would need to take to

teach my own class.” Similarly, 31% of the students (10 of 32) found the text or additional

course readings to be very helpful. One student complimented the text saying “The text book

was easy to read and well organized.” While another student said “I really enjoyed [the]

Teaching to struggling reader book, it was really informative and I know I’ll use it as a

resource in the future!”

The last type of compliment given to the professors related to their co-teaching.

Thirty one percent of students (10 of 32) complimented the match up and pairing of the co-

teachers as well as how well they worked together. One student’s compliment said, “The

lectures were well organized and engaging. It was great modeling of co-teaching in action.”

Another student said, “It was a pleasure to be taught by both instructors… I knew right away

that co-teaching would be beneficial to me and other students.” The results discussed above

are also in Table 31 below.

Table 31. Compliments to the professor and the course

Compliments to the professors & course n %
Regarding learning of materials 9 28%
Regarding assignments 3 9%
Regarding activities 10 31%
Regarding text/readings 10 31%
Regarding co-teaching, specifically 10 31%

Faculty Reflections. Both Professor F and Z were asked to reflect on their views and

feelings on co-teaching this SPED 406 class. Both professors responded and shared their

views, thoughts, and opinions on the co-teaching experience. These reflections have been

organized by their initial reflections and hesitations, the impact on the content and curriculum,

103
their thoughts on the process of co-teaching (planning and communication), and their final

reviews of the benefits and struggles throughout their co-teaching process.

Initial reflections and hesitancies. When asked how their co-teaching relationship

was initiated, Professor F said, “I was eager to co-teach with [Professor Z] because… we

have been office neighbors for a long time, but we have not had quality interactions. I was

looking forward to this different (enhanced) level of interaction with her.” Professor Z said,

“Our relationship was based on trust… [it] was also very open and honest. We

communicated well with each other. We were always checking in with each other about

different things (to ensure that we were both happy with a certain decision). Even though

[we]… had known each other for 6½ years before co-teaching SPED 406, we’ve never

worked with each other. So, this was a new partnership for us. This can be scary, but luckily

for us, we worked well together. Each was open to the other’s ideas and both of us were

flexible.”

When asked about what issues were of concern when the professors first started

working together, Professor F reported that she “had a little bit of uncertainty” surrounding

their co-teaching. Her concerns mirrored the concern many co-teachers have. She said, “I

know my personality is more “overt” than hers and because this was a disability-framed class,

I would have more expertise and knowledge on that aspect. [Also] I have experience co-

teaching and she didn’t - so again, I was acutely aware that I didn’t want to be “THE” expert

or know-it-all in any particular way. I was afraid of dominating.” Professor Z also was

uncertain in the beginning, however Professor F helped Professor Z become more

comfortable. Professor Z writes, “What amazed me about [Professor F]… was how

frequently she used the word “we” even though at times she did something on her own. For

104
example, [Professor F]… posted a quiz on Moodle, but in class, she would say, “we” posted

the next quiz on Moodle; I thought that presented a united front and the students saw us as

working closely together. I appreciated the “we” statement that [Professor F]… used

throughout the semester.” This use of ‘we’ language is recommended in the literature as a

way in which faculty can demonstrate their parity to students.

Impact on course content and subject matter. Since Professor F was a professor in

the Department of Special Education and Professor Z was a professor in the Department of

Elementary Education, to some extent, Professor Z was at a disadvantage. This is

comparable to a special education teacher coming into a general education class with little to

no background in the general education course content. Professor Z shared that, “The special

education curriculum was new to me; I felt somewhat overwhelmed with all the new material.

[Professor F]… was very helpful in sharing her materials (for example, she allowed me to

borrow her [Special Education] textbook so that I could familiarize myself with some general

things regarding [Special Education]).” Professor F also felt a bit of the concern in the

beginning related to the discrepancy in content knowledge. In contrast to many general

educators, however, Professor F had experience co-teaching and knew what the issues were.

In fact, she shared, “Because I was more familiar with the flow of the course and the content,

from the beginning I reassured [Professor Z]… that once we began the “real” reading content

- her expertise was going to be VERY valuable and prevalent. The first three weeks were

more challenging because it was mostly “disability” orientation - so I was more heavily

instructing during the initial classes. While I knew that wouldn’t last, it was hard for

[Professor Z]… to see that. I think she believed me though.” Professor F continued saying,

“The interesting thing to me, and I said this to [Professor Z]… was that I felt EXACTLY the

105
same way she said she was feeling when I co-taught that class for the first time with [another

professor the previous semester]…. So, I think all co-teaching with a new person and new

content requires an initial adjustment period for both interpersonal interaction and content

acquaintance.”

Planning and communication. Planning is emphasized in the literature as critical for

effective co-teaching. In discussing planning, Professor F said, “Once we decided to co-

teach, we agreed to meet weekly or more frequently if and when necessary. Because our

offices are right next to each other, access was not a problem. We also swapped phone

numbers and agreed that we could contact each other any time questions came up. We both

know we are also highly responsive to emails, so from the beginning - I think our “how”

communications with each other were well-defined.” Professor Z agreed, saying, “I noticed

that in the beginning of the course, we met very frequently, which was probably necessary

since we had so much to discuss and so many decisions that needed to be made. Towards the

end of the semester, we met less frequently.” Professor F added, “In the end we did A LOT

of emailing about students and class content. We had around 25 “spontaneous” drop-bys in to

one or the other’s office about quickie topics related to class. That was about less than 2

times per week during the semester…there were more in the beginning and less at the end

though.”

In terms of communication, the professors also found ways to share their opinions

regularly. “During our weekly meetings we would turn on the tape recorder, reflect, and then

review the class content and assignments,” stated Professor F. She went on to share that “We

almost always began by making an agenda of things we wanted to discuss during that

meeting. We also stated how much time we felt we had, so that we were focused on our goals

106
for the meeting. Sometimes we would just discuss the focus of the content, and then agree

that one or the other of us would put together the slides and flow of the class and email it to

the other. It felt like we were pretty balanced in putting classes together. We worked well

together, brainstorming new ideas and sharing “old” ideas that had been tried in other courses.

Since we both taught similar content in different classes, pulling it into this class was easy.”

Communicating about content is important, but these professors also reflected on how

they communicated with one another about the process of co-teaching. For example,

Professor F said, “We also agreed from the beginning to be honest and direct with each

other- so we had permission to reflect and be constructive about course content and delivery.

As immediately as after our first session together, we provided time for reflection on how the

class went during our weekly meetings.” Professor Z agreed, saying, “One thing that I asked

[Professor F]… early on in the semester is if we could do a quick reflection each time we met

to plan and discuss what went well (our successes), what didn’t go well (our challenges), and

what changes we could make to improve the class. [Professor F]… liked this idea. For

example, we both thought the first few weeks did not go as smoothly as we had hoped. I

tended to sit back and [Professor F]… did more in the class sessions. Honestly, I felt a bit

useless, but there was a lot of information that the students need about [Special Education]…

that only [Professor F] could provide. We talked about this and how we could make our

class presentations more equal so that one person doesn’t dominate. We assigned a person to

each [PowerPoint]… slide that way we could keep track of how much each person was going

to be responsible for, therefore, keeping it more equal. That worked out well. The reflection

piece was crucial here.” Being open with one another and having parity in front of students

are two issues in co-teaching of which these two professors were clearly aware.

107
 Final reflections on benefits and struggles from a first time co-teacher. Professor Z,

who co-taught for the first time noted several benefits to co-teaching, saying, “I have to say

that even though I think the way I present material in my reading methods courses/classes is

creative, over the course of the semester, I believe [Professor F]… and I became even more

creative since we had the opportunity to work with each other and bounce wonderful ideas

off each other. (For example, our presentation on phonemic awareness was highly creative;

we developed stations where students were asked to move around). I want to use some of the

ideas we developed and materials that we created with my EED students next semester. It

was a great experience working with [Professor F]… we inspired each other to do even more

wonderful things then we would normally.”

Professor Z continued, “Another beneficial thing about co-teaching is that I learned

things from [Professor F]… that I want to implement in my reading methods classes next

semester. (For example, she did something called “Word Scales” where she had students

become part of the word scale and they had to put themselves in order; there was much

discussion among the students). I hope [Professor F] also got some ideas from me that she

might want to use in the future. One of the things that she liked was a DVD I have that

contained short clips of teachers teaching. We used this in class several times to demonstrate

how “guided reading” or a “word sort” can be done in a real classroom. We also used it to

critique the teaching we saw, as well as how we can modify it for the population of students

that the [Special Education]… students are or will be teaching. I think [Professor F]… liked

this DVD since she has asked to borrow because she wants to use it next semester. So, there

was a wonderful exchange of ideas, materials, resources, and so forth that can be shared

when co-teaching.”

108
 Professor Z noted yet another benefit of co-teaching, saying, “One thing I found

fascinating was observing someone else’s teaching style. This provides such a great

opportunity to learn. For example, I noticed [Professor F]… took her time when she was to

explain a PPT slide. At times, she seemed to “read” it to herself first, then paused, and then

discussed/explained the slide’s significance. I loved how she paused. It really showed me

how to be more reflective. I find that at times I have so much information to share with my

students, I speak too quickly and give too much information. [Professor F]… has helped me

to see the value of slowing down; the delivery of the information will be more effective.” In

her reflection on the benefits of co-teaching, Professor Z hit upon many of the possible

benefits identified in the literature. These include the increase of varied teaching activities

and the learning of different teaching approaches from one another.

As a first time co-teacher, Professor Z noted that, in addition to the benefits, there

were also difficulties in co-teaching. She shared a struggle that occurred with her first

experience co-teaching. She noted, “One of the things I struggled with this past semester is

learning all the students’ names. When you co-teach with someone, the class size is much

bigger, of course, and this was the first semester in my teaching career where I did not know

everyone’s name and that bothered me. I think there’s a way to solve this problem. In my

other classes, I typically ask students to respond to a questionnaire and to bring in a photo of

themselves. That way, I get to know their names by week 3. I think this would have been

very helpful with such a large group of students. I’m not exactly sure why we didn’t do it

with this class, but I would definitely do that in the future.” Not knowing the co-teaching

literature, Professor Z was unaware that experts recommend that co-teaching actually lower

the student-teacher ratio, not increase it (Dynack, Whitten, & Dynack, 1997; Murawsk

109
Lochner, 2011). The increased class size was potentially due to the fact that the co-teaching

occurred in higher education, where often, classes are joined in order to permit co-teaching to

occur (Kluth & Straut, 2003).

As a final reflection, Professor Z shared that, “I truly had a wonderful experience co-

teaching the SPED 406 course with [Professor F]... And now, I’m a firm believer in co-

teaching. It has the potential to help you improve your teaching. It can be a great learning

experience, if you are open to learning from others. I wish more teachers, professors, and

instructors would be open to the idea of co-teaching, but I think some or many see it as more

work. I hope to one day co-teach again.” Professor Z took these reflections to another level

by suggesting an additional use of co-teaching in the College of Education. She stated, “In

addition, I hope to work with [an expert in co-teaching] to figure out how we can integrate

the co-teaching model into the student teaching experience. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if

student teachers could first begin co-planning, co-teaching, and co-assessing with their

supervising teacher (just the first five lessons or so) and then the responsibility could be

slowly released to the student teacher. I think this has potential to improve the teaching of

student teachers. I am excited about participating in this project in the near future.” She

continued by saying, “Teaching, no matter at what level (whether elementary or college),

tends to be a very solitary event. For many teachers, this isolation from colleagues is one of

the main reasons many teachers leave the profession within five years of teaching. Co-

teaching has the power to change that since teachers would be in more constant

communication with each other, problem solving and learning from one another.”

110
 Chapter 5: Discussion

Implications of the Study

Deep reflection and analysis of the case study involving Professor F and Z resulted in

a variety of implications for those interested in co-teaching in higher education. Many of the

findings validated information identified in the literature as elements necessary for successful

co-teaching. There were additional findings that were relatively surprising or unexpected.

These implications have been organized by faculty and student perceptions, and the three

critical aspects of co-teaching: co-planning, co-instructing, and co-assessing.

Faculty perceptions. Overall, the two professors involved in this study, Professors F

and Z, found the co-teaching experience to be a positive one. In sharing their experiences,

Professor Z said, “I truly had a wonderful experience co-teaching the SPED 406 course with

[Professor F]... And now, I’m a firm believer in co-teaching.” Professor F said “it was nice

to work with a general education person who had diversity of experience across Elementary

and Middle School grades.” She also emphasized that, “It was good to have a sort of

‘barometer’ of what ‘should be’ as we started thinking more about students who were

struggling with reading or were identified with special needs.”

Despite the hesitancies and lack of parity in the beginning, both professors enjoyed,

learned, and grew from the experience. The  positive  feedback  received  from  these  

professors  mirrors  what  most  other  faculty  report,  in  both  K-­‐12  and  IHE  literature.    

Teachers  like  co-­‐teaching.      They  enjoy  the  interaction  and  they  feel  the  give  and  take  is  

beneficial  to  their  students.      Many  IHE  faculty,  however,  have  not  had  the  experience  of  

co-­‐teaching.      These  findings  imply  that  more  IHE  faculty  need  to  hear  from  their  

colleagues  who  have  co-­‐taught  so  that  they  will  be  more  amenable  to  co-­‐teaching  in  the  

111
future.    Additionally,  co-­‐teaching  with  professors  new  to  the  IHE  level  may  also  help  

transition  new  faculty.      The  “pressure”  can  be  eased  slightly  by  working  with  a  

colleague.      

Student perceptions. Overall, the student response to Professors F and Z co-

teaching SPED 406 was quite positive, with 88% of students saying they were glad the class

was co-taught. Students mentioned that they liked the co-teaching model as a method of

instruction. One student said they were glad SPED 406 was co-taught because “I could see

how well co-teaching can work.” While another noted that co-teaching “gave the course a

depth and comprehensiveness that made it one of the best courses I’ve experienced in the

SPED program.” Yet other students noted “emphatically yes” they were glad SPED 406 was

co-taught because “it is a good way for me to be exposed to how a co-taught class runs” that

“it actually was more efficient than other co-taught classes I’ve had” and “it allowed for

multiple perspectives on subject”.

The incorporation of multiple perspectives is a common theme through out the co-

teaching IHE literature (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008; Duchardt et. al., 1999; Gailey

& Carroll, 1993; Vogler & Long 2003) as well as in the student reflections in this study.

Sixty three percent of the 32 students in SPED 406 anticipated differing views or

perspectives to be one of the benefits gained from being in a co-taught class. One student,

for example, said, “I am interested to see both the General Education perspective as well as

the Special Education perspective. Also, being taught by someone who has experience with

the Deaf community is a big plus, because there will be that extra knowledge added to the

class.” Another student said, “I hope to get exposure to a wide array of information from the

various experiences of the Professors’ backgrounds.” These students identified that having

112
more than one teacher allowed them access to more information and allowed them to see the

same concept, problem, or issue from more than on perspective.

Similarly, on the post-survey, 63% of students identified being exposed to differing

views and perspectives as one of the actual advantages they experienced being in the co-

taught class. One student shared that they “like[d] the dialogue between the professors that

allowed us as student to see thoughts from two perspectives.” While another student shared

that “Each instructor brought a unique experience and expertise to approaches to reading

instruction targeted to different grade level students. Also, [the professors]… were able to

provide varying first-hand knowledge of lessons and resources…[while] they each presented

a unique style of teaching that complemented each other quite nicely making the class very

enjoyable.” This combination of views helps students to better grasp the content being

presented. Just as teachers use a variety of modalities (e.g.: visual, verbal, spatial,

kinesthetic) to teach students to ensure they learn, the incorporation of a variety of

perspectives at the college level allows students to agree or disagree with a topic and to

internalize it in their own way. Individuals come into an experience with their own frame of

reference or background knowledge, prior experiences, and way they view the world. By

being able to incorporate various views or perspectives on a topic, for example reading

instruction as in SPED 406, students are more inclined to learn the material when they are

exposed to it in more than one way. An important implication of this finding is that students

in these co-taught classes will recognize the importance of multiple perspectives in the

classroom. While appreciating it themselves, they may be more likely to solicit it from their

students, their colleagues, and the parents with whom they interact. They may be more

willing to seek out collaborators in order to get those different perspectives. In addition, one

113
of the implications of having multiple ways of presenting the material is that students are

more likely to internalize and process the content, which in turn would imply that they will

bring that learning with them as teachers in the K-12 classroom.

In addition to varying perspectives, students also reported liking the activity-based

aspect of the co-taught class. On the post-survey, 31% of students complemented the

teachers on the interactive nature of the class. Some students said, “I thought the activities

and examples given were very useful. The class was taught in a way that made it easy for me

to permanently store the information rather than memorize it for the moment.” “I loved the

group activities in class. It reinforced the instruction and kept class interesting.” “Actually

practicing them helped me visualize the steps I would need to take to teach my own class.”

Since student learning increases when material is taught in an interactive and engaging

manner, why are many professors at the college level still resorting to traditional, less

engaging lectures? While adults may have longer attention spans and may be more polite

when they lose focus, which does not automatically result in increased learning. Students, at

all levels, need to be engaged. Though adults can make some of their own modifications, it

should be teachers, especially professors in colleges of education that promote and teach best

practice, who model and teach in the best way for all their students to learn. The positive

comments from this case study indicate that Professors F and Z were able to actively engage

them.

Student feedback was not all positive, however, and the student concerns also need to

be considered when analyzing student perceptions. As recorded in the student reflection data

collected from the pre- and post-surveys, students were not totally convinced of the benefits

of co-teaching. Though students agree (100% on the pre-survey, and 99% on the post-

114
survey) that co-teaching is a good teaching option, their responses indicated an ambivalence

regarding if co-teaching (a) helps with content delivery, (b) is a good idea for college classes,

and (c) is a good idea for K-12 classes. Despite the 97% of students (31 of 32) on the pre-

and post-surveys who said they believed co-teaching does help with content delivery (by

rating it a 3 or above), 16% (5 students) shifted their ratings down from 4 to 3, moving to the

middle. These same students when asked if co-teaching is a good idea for college and K12

classes also shifted their scores towards the middle.

One possible rationale for this shift towards the middle could be that these students,

who are training to be teachers, are also anticipating being teachers themselves. As

neophytes in the field, they are not yet confidant in their teaching skills or their personal

expertise with content. It is hypothesized that these beginning teachers are overwhelmed

with the myriad content and techniques that they are working to acquire and that at this point

adding co-teaching may seem to be too much. As beginning teachers start out, they make

errors and have lessons that just do not go according to plan. It can be intimidating or

overwhelming for beginning teachers to think about making these errors while working with

another teacher. In fact, the student reflections in this study reported that only 72% of

students on the post-survey said they were actually interested in co-teaching in their own

classroom. Though this percentage did increase from 66% on the pre-survey, it should be

noted that those who remained undecided on the post-survey, were undecided because of

their current discomfort and unease working with others. Their caveats included: their low

comfort level with their co-teacher, a need for further training on co-teaching, their tendency

to “take total control of the classroom” and their hesitancy towards co-teaching at this early

point in their career. These results provided implications for professional development.

115
Administrators, teacher mentors, and teacher educators can look to these findings to identify

areas in which new teachers may need additional support. Teachers need training on

communication skills, co-teaching strategies, ways to increase parity and share the classroom,

and so forth.

A study out of St. Cloud University in Minnesota, (Barachah, Heck, & Dahlberg,

2010) which focused on student teachers who were asked to co-teach with their master

teachers indicated that when student teachers co-teach with their master teachers during their

student teaching experiences, they get more time teaching and are better able to utilize a

greater variety of teaching approaches than if they were student teaching in the traditional

sense. The Bacharach study results imply that, if teacher candidates had opportunities to

engage in co-teaching themselves, they may be less worried or concerned about the prospect

of co-teaching in their own classes. Unfortunately, in the study in question, only the faculty

were co-teaching. Students did not have the opportunity to do so themselves. By combining

the findings of the current study with the Bacharach findings, the implications would be that

teacher candidates should not only observe and participate in co-taught classes in their

teacher training programs, but they may also need to have opportunities to co-teach

themselves in their K-12 classes. This combination may result in teachers more eager to

report the benefits of co-teaching.

There were a few responses on the survey that appeared to be in direct opposition to

one another. For example, while 99% of the students reported that co-teaching is a good

teaching option and 88% reported that they were glad their course was co-taught, their

responses on whether or not co-teaching was a good idea for college or K-12 classes did not

mirror those first positive reflections. For example, when asked if co-teaching is a good idea

116
for college classes, the students’ responses shifted towards the middle. On the pre-survey,

63% of students rated co-teaching at the college level a 4 or a 5 on a 5 point scale, while on

the post-survey, only 50% of students gave the same question a 4 or 5 on the scale. On the

other hand, many of the students who had originally scored this question a 1 or 2 increased

their scores to a 3. While this shift towards the middle could be a result of students not liking

the co-taught aspect of the class, this contradicts the data in which 88% of students said they

were glad that SPED 406 was co-taught. It is possible that when answering this question,

students were thinking about other college classes and their views may be different for those

classes. Without follow-up interview questions of the students, which was not a part of the

research design, it is impossible to know why this disconnect occurred.

The same holds true for the data regarding students’ opinions of co-teaching at the K-

12 level. When asked if co-teaching was a good idea for K-12 classes, the responses of the

students in SPED 406 again shifted towards the middle. Originally 72% rated a 4 or 5 out of

5 on the pre-survey and 25% rated a 3 out of 5; on the post-survey however, 50% rated a 4 or

a 5 out of 5 and 44% rated co-teaching in K-12 as a 3 out of 5. It is possible that this

ambivalence is also due to the trepidation associated with being a new teacher as discussed

previously. Though these teacher candidates may believe that co-teaching is a beneficial

method of instruction theoretically, the prospect of actually engaging in it themselves may be

too daunting. These results lead to a research question for the future: If a large percentage of

students (88% in this study) say they are interested in co-teaching, then why is there such a

disconnect between their responses regarding whether or not co-teaching is a good idea for

college and K-12 classes? Do students not believe they will be effective co-teachers? If so,

why do they have this belief? If that is not the issue, what is? These questions and more

117
need to be posed to students who are exposed to co-teaching practices in higher education

courses. What would change their opinions to the positive? What questions do they need

answered or skills do they need modeled or practiced for them to feel more confident and

positive regarding co-teaching? More importantly, would increased positive responses

regarding co-teaching actually correlate to more co-teaching in schools and better outcomes

for students?

In addition, it remains possible that these students, despite discussing co-teaching,

observing it being modeled, and being in a co-taught class, do not fully understand co-

teaching. There are many aspects of co-teaching, that beginning co-teachers may have

trouble with. Several of the co-teaching approaches, alternative and team teaching, in

particular appear to be a challenging modality for co-teachers to incorporate into their

teaching. Additionally, the social complexities involved in the co-teaching relationship,

including: parity, power, and different personalities may also be issues that beginning co-

teachers must adjust to. With these complexities it is possible that further training may help

to clarify the role of the co-teachers. As with any new skill or technique, it takes time to

process, learn, and incorporate new material into what works for each individual. Perhaps

with further experience co-teaching, more students would fully understand the benefits to

two teachers in the classroom. It is also possible that the more students became familiar with

co-teaching and saw it in action, the more daunted they became. Co-teaching does require

planning, instructing, and assessing with another individual and for some that may be an

undesirable aspect of their new profession.

Co-planning implications. Co-planning, as discussed in the literature (Dieker, 2001;

Duchardt, et. al., 1999; Kirwan & Willis, 1976; Lester & Evans, 2009), can be time

118
consuming and is often noted as one of the biggest barriers to co-teaching. Despite the large

time commitment associated with co-planning, it is mandatory for true co-teaching to occur

(Murawski, 2009). The professors in this case study made co-planning a priority. They

carved out time and met specifically and solely to co-plan for SPED 406. The implication,

according to the students, was a better planned out, more active, interesting, and diverse

course. In their reflections, students complemented the professors on their ability to work

together smoothly. Additionally, the students said they really liked the active, hands-on

aspect of the class. Students felt that by practicing the skills they were able to better

understand, learn, and incorporate them into their own teaching. This success was in part due

to Professor F and Professor Z’s co-planning. Without that, the professors may not have had

such a smooth semester. Additionally, had the professors co-teaching not gone smoothly it is

hypothesized that the students would be less likely want to co-teach themselves in the future.

The literature on co-planning in higher education cites logistics as a major

complication (Gailey & Carroll, 1993; Kluth & Straut, 2003). However, Professors F and Z

demonstrated that the difficulty of the logistics of co-planning (e.g., finding a time to meet, a

space, having materials, and so on) can be eased. As the professors’ offices were right next

door to each other, they had increased access to each other in order to meet weekly, drop-by

quickly, and adequately prepare for their class. Simple issues, such as questions regarding

students, setting meeting times, and quick content questions were often resolved during drop-

bys or quick meetings that were easy and convenient for the office neighbors. This may not

transfer to other co-teaching partnerships and will most likely differ if professors’ offices are

on different sides of the building or even on different sides of campus. An evident

implication of this case study is that proximity of instructors can lessen the burden of co-

119
planning. Neighboring offices are not a requirement, though; Professors F and Z also used

technology to aid in their co-planning.

Professors F and Z sent 721 emails to one another throughout the semester, asking

and answering questions and communicating about course issues. For faculty who do not

share adjoining offices, it is plausible that the number of emails between them might increase

due to the many questions or concerns that arise when co-teaching. The distance co-teachers

have to travel to meet face to face may also play a role in their enthusiasm to meet to co-plan

or in the frequency with which they are willing to do so; this could be a hurdle with which

Professors F and Z did not necessarily have to contend, given their proximity to one another.

Faculty in difficult situations might also choose to use alternative forms of communication,

such as Skype, GoogleDocs, and Dropbox. Using these types of electronic communication

tools should also be communicated to students so that they can learn how faculty are

ensuring that co-planning does indeed occur.

It should also be recognized that Professors Z was given an extra unit of paid time,

beyond the three units received for teaching the class in order to co-plan. Being paid to co-

plan works as an incentive to professors and may ease some of the discomfort associated

with the time commitment. This is a positive incentive and possibly a reinforcement tool that

can be offered to potential co-teachers in the future when encouraging them to co-teach.

Using stipends or other incentives has been suggested in the literature previously (e.g.,

Murawski, 2008; Thousand, et al., 2008) and can be applied to higher education as well.

While this type of incentive is motivating for faculty at all levels and serves to validate their

efforts and time in planning, there remains a significant concern that faculty will not continue

their co-planning if the financial incentives are removed (Jackson, 2010). It is important that

120
IHEs who are interested in pursuing co-teaching as a viable instructional option for students

determine ways in which co-teaching and co-planning can be institutionalized; this will

involve either protecting particular pots of money to support these efforts on an on-going

basis or identifying methods of supporting faculty that are not contingent on financial

assistance.

Co-Instructing Implications. Co-instructing relates to what happens in front of the

students. It implies the actual instruction that two teachers share when engaging their class.

Much of the data already shared impacts the co-instruction that occurred in the co-taught

SPED 406 course. However, two primary topics stood out and warrant additional reflection.

The first of these is the use of the five co-instructional approaches that the literature

recommends co-teachers use, while the second focuses on the parity, or lack thereof, that is

often found between co-teachers. Each of these issues is addressed as it relates to this

particular case study.

The use of different co-instructional approaches. Cook and Friend (1995) first

identified five approaches to co-instruction that remain the cornerstone of co-teaching today.

The use of these co-teaching approaches are meant to encourage movement, interactive

learning, and lower student-teacher ratios. They are designed to ensure that both teachers are

active with students and that students are engaged. Specifically, three of the approaches are

considered regrouping approaches in which the students move away from whole group

instruction. These regrouping approaches (alternative, station, and parallel teaching) lend

themselves to activity-based learning. Thirty one percent of students in this study, in an

open-ended question on the post-survey, identified being co-taught as one of the best things

about SPED 406. It is likely that the lower student-teacher ratio that occurred when

121
Professor F and Z utilized these various co-teaching approaches allowed for increased

student familiarity with teachers and increased students’ likelihood of learning. In reviewing

the lesson plans and PowerPoints of the professors, it became evident that they used four of

the five approaches. Alternative teaching (large group and small group) was not used in their

course. It is possible that alternative teaching may not be as utilized at the college level, due

to the nature of the students’ needs, but it is equally possible that this is simply an approach

that these two professors did not see the need to use for this particular class. They did find it

useful to engage the other regrouping approaches - stations and parallel teaching. Faculty

may find these approaches helpful not only as a way to model the approach itself, but also as

a way to teach material or content through the incorporation of small groups, modeling,

samples, independent learning, and multiple ways of incorporating the same content and

information. As noted in the students’ reflections and the faculty material, Professors F and

Z utilized these regrouping co-teaching approaches, as well as in-class activities to motivate

and encourage students as well as to model co-teaching and best teaching practices, and the

result was that the approaches were well-received. At the college level, engaging and

motivating students may not be as high on the priority list as the delivery of high-level

content. Faculty are traditionally hired for their expertise in a content matter, rather than

their pedagogical skills. However, the findings of this study imply that the engagement of

students is important and should be something discussed by co-teachers and incorporated into

the lesson design. Using a variety of instructional approaches, such as those first proffered

by Cook and Friend, is one way in which to ensure lessons do not remain purely lecture-

based.

122
 How can the likelihood of co-teachers using various approaches be increased?

Experts report that teachers’ openness and willingness to utilize different co-teaching

approaches often increases through the co-teaching process. Research has found that

teachers are more likely to try new and diverse teaching approaches when co-teaching with a

colleague then when teaching by themselves (Kluth & Straut, 2003; Vogler & Long 2003). It

is believed that this willingness to “try something new” exists due to the comfortable and

safe climate created within a co-teaching relationship or “marriage” (Murawski, 2009). This

finding supports the argument that the more co-teaching partnerships occur in higher

education, the more likely it is that professors will engage in new instructional techniques

with their co-taught classes.

Naturally, there is no guarantee that the pairing of two individuals will result

automatically in engaging lessons. It is the co-teaching relationship between the professors

that determines whether an experience goes smoothly or continually hits bumps in the road.

It is the professors’ personalities and desire to help their students learn that ultimately

influences how they interact and how they work with students. In this study, Professors F

and Z appeared, from student reflections, to work well together and appeared, from faculty

reflections, to enjoy the experience of working together. It is believed that this cohesiveness

existed partially as a result of Professor F and Z’s prior social interactions, but also as a result

of their openness to co-teaching. Their success was clearly also due to their dedication and

commitment to the co-teaching relationship, and to the co-planning, co-instruction, and co-

assessment of the course through the combined efforts of both professors. Together, these

professors demonstrated a shared interest in engaging and instructing students. The next

123
section addresses whether or not this shared interest came across to students in the form of

parity.

Parity. In order to have a strong co-teaching relationship, a sense of parity must exist

between the two teachers. The research on co-teaching indicates that parity, or a sense of

equality, must be established and maintained for there to exist a successful and equitable co-

teaching relationship (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008). The professors in this case study,

reflected on the issue of parity during their initial co-planning meeting reflections, and also

during their post-reflections with the researcher. During the initial planning meetings,

Professor Z, the Elementary Education professor who had not taught in special education

before, reflected that she felt less included and was concerned that she was not initially

involved enough in the in-class instruction. Professor F said she understood and did, mildly,

feel this as well; however, she noted that she felt similarly the previous semester when she

was co-teaching with a different colleague. Professor F also emphasized that she believed

the feeling would dissipate as the semester went on. She reminded Professor Z that much of

the material in the first few classes was disability related and they both recognized that

Professor Z was not as confident with that content as Professor F was. Professor F went on

to hypothesize that as the content shifted towards reading instruction, Professor Z’s area of

specialty, that Professor Z would bring a lot more to the table. The concern felt by Professor

Z is one often identified in the literature when one teacher is not as familiar with the content

as another (Murawski & Dieker, 2003). Professor F, having co-taught before, was able to

acknowledge that disparity and minimize its impact by identifying areas in which Professor Z

would be able to use her areas of expertise. What if Professor F had not had this experience

before? There is an implication here that faculty need to be able to identify early on what

124
they are bringing to the course, that they are able to communicate openly with one another

about their concerns, and that they are able to use different instructional approaches as they

move in and out of areas of comfort. Professors F and Z used the SHARE worksheet

(Murawski, 2003) to begin this conversation with one another and found it helpful in eliciting

the type of communication needed at the beginning of a new shared course. Other faculty in

higher education may also want to avail themselves of the SHARE worksheet or a similar

type of format.

This lack of parity in the beginning of the course was not only felt between the

professors but was also identified by several of the students as well. A small 9%, (3 of the

32) of students responded on the post-survey indicating they also felt the lack of parity by

saying, “…Professor [F]…spoke most of the time, and although she was very informative, I

think Dr. [Z]…could have spoken more.” The second student said, “At the first ½ of the

class Dr. [F] taught more and answered more questions and Dr. [Z]…was soft spoken and

talked less. During the second ½ she started to speak more and teach more.” The third

student said, “Dr. [Z]…needs to speak out more, there were many classes in which she didn’t

even speak and Dr. [F]…needs to give up some of her speaking time. At time it appeared

that it was Dr. [F]’s class and that Dr. [Z] was only an occasional guest speaker.” However,

that small 9% was overshadowed by the larger 31% of students who, on the post-survey in an

open-ended question, chose to complement the professors on their co-teaching of the course,

saying, “great job for the first time co-teaching” and “it was wonderful to see professor[s]

work together without being intimidated by one another”. One student complemented the

professors by saying “they are a great example of what co-teaching should be in a classroom.”

While some students were complimentary of the teachers’ co-teaching, it is the first three

125
comments that need to be considered as students are often hesitant to share less than positive

statements with their professors, especially if they think the professors will read them or have

their feelings hurt. In this study, the professors were aware of the fact that Professor Z was

less involved during the beginning of the course than Professor F; they acknowledged the

fact to themselves and the researcher. Three points derive from this finding. First, new

teaching teams may want to share their own concerns or observations with their students.

Professors F and Z might have told their students that, due to the content of the lesson or the

newness of the relationship, Professor Z was going to take a more supportive role in the first

third of the semester. Second, knowing this was going to be an issue, Professors F and Z

may have wanted to approach the beginning of the semester differently. For example, since

Professor F was going to take more of the lead with disability-focused content, Professor Z

may have inserted one or two reading strategies within each class lesson, to demonstrate her

expertise and to ensure her “face time” with the students (Murawski, 2010). Third, it is

highly likely that now that Professor Z and F have co-taught the course once before, they will

be able to demonstrate parity from beginning to end of the course the next time they teach it

together. This supports the argument that teams need to stay together for more than one

course or semester; the longer teams are together, the better able they are to truly maximize

the co-teaching environment for students’ learning (Murawski & Dieker, in press).

It is as a result of similar situations regarding a lack of parity that experts (e.g., Villa,

Thousand, & Nevin, 2008) have emphasized the need for parity in the co-teaching

relationship. These authors write that not only must a sense of parity exist as a feeling; it

must also be transferred in the presentation of the relationship and the words and actions of

the teachers to the students. The theme of parity flowed through the quantitative data aspects

126
of this case study, as well. For example, the quantitative data collected indicating which

professors’ names were associated with the slides of the Lesson Plan PowerPoints did not

coincide with the qualitative reflections obtained from the students’ post-survey and faculty

reflections. In stark contrast to the students’ comments above saying that Professor F spoke

more during the class, the PowerPoint Lesson Plan data collected in this study indicated that

the majority of instruction was actually led by Professor Z at 54% of the time. Professor F

led instruction only 23% of the time. Additionally, they equally shared 23% of the time -

either through the utilization of the regrouping co-teaching strategies (parallel, stations, or

alternative) or by equal division of instructional time. Though this inconsistent data could,

indicate a lack of parity, it could, however, also indicate a flaw in data collection.

A different possible explanation that could explain the quantitative data is a flaw in

the design of the study or in the method of data collection. The number of slides used by

each professor during their part of the instruction does not necessarily represent an inequality

of presentation time. One professor may have used more slides to discuss less material,

while the other professor used fewer slides but spoke more. As teaching styles differ, so do

speaking styles. Some professors use fewer slides but speak more, while others utilize more

images and more slides when presenting their content.

In this case it is hypothesized, based on conversations with the professors, that

Professor Z used a greater number of slides to illustrate her content during the PowerPoint

presentations in the later weeks (such as weeks 10-13) than Professor F did during her parts

of the instruction. Additionally, it was noted that many of the slides during those later weeks

were not necessarily used due to a lack of time and were copied and moved down to the next

week, thus making it look like Professor Z was speaking more each time. This could inflate

127
the numbers collected and misrepresent the actual content presented during each class.

Additionally, just because the one professor’s name was on the PowerPoint slide meaning

that they took “responsibility” for the slide content, did not mean the other professor wasn’t

involved at all. Both professors “jumped in and added material” when appropriate (personal

communication, R. Friedman Narr March, 20, 2012). This certainly supports true co-teaching,

wherein both faculty are engaged in all aspects of the lesson, rather than a tag-teaming type

of lecture.

Interestingly, when looking at the planning meeting data, it was noted that when

course content was discussed, Professor F led the discussion 70% of the time whereas

Professor Z led the conversation 30% of the time. These results may indicate a lack of parity

during planning, however, theses numbers could have similarly have been inflated. In this

case, as Professor F was more comfortable with the content and had taught the course before

it would make sense that she led the content discussion, especially in the beginning of the

semester. On the flip side, though, if she spent a lot of time discussing what was done in the

previous semester that may have left little time for Professor Z to add or incorporate new

ideas and content. This is certainly a concern often identified in the literature. If one faculty

member dominates during planning, or establishes dominance by telling the other teacher

what has always been done without actively seeking input on new ways to instruct, the newer

faculty member may begin to feel superfluous. A sense of parity is very important in co-

planning. It is important that both professors add to the class and incorporate their own

content and knowledge and frames of reference. In this study, Professors F and Z sought out

the assistance of a co-teaching mentor, completed the SHARE worksheet, acknowledged

their potential issues up front, and communicated regularly throughout the process; what

128
issues might arise for faculty who are not as well prepared, experienced, or willing as these

two were? The analyses regarding issues of parity lend themselves to an emphatic need for

co-teachers to have training in how to co-teach, how to establish their parity to one another

and the students, and how to continually communicate openly with one another. In the next

sections, implications from the feedback and overall perceptions from Professors F and Z and

their students are provided.

Co-Assessing Implications. Though it can be assumed by the word “co-assessing”

that all of the assessment and grading in a co-taught class must be done together, the

literature says this is not so. Some say a “divide and conquer” approach is more practical

(Murawski, 2009) as long as set standards of grading are established. Professors F and Z

adhered to this principle when co-assessing SPED 406. They split up the grading

responsibilities for the course assignments (as noted in the recorded planning meetings) and

did not grade all assignments together. They did, however, make sure to discuss the qualities

of correct assignments with one another so that both professors knew what was expected.

Also, when questions arose, the professors discussed those questions or related issues that

came up. For example, in the beginning, Professor Z, who was new to the Special Education

curriculum, reviewed a few of the Lesson Plan assignments herself. She noted her comments

and concerns and then shared those with Professor F. They discussed her concerns and

feedback before they moved on to grade the students’ Lesson Plan assignments from this

semester. In this way, Professor Z ensured that she and Professor F would provide similar

feedback to students. This also helped Professor Z feel more confident regarding the special

education requirements with which she was less familiar. Other assignments, such as the

reading quizzes, were multiple choice and thus not subject to interpretive analysis by the

129
professors. However, the professors did take turns in the writing the quiz questions which

addressed issues of parity and helped confirm that both professors’ expertise and teaching

was included in the assessments

Utilizing a divide and conquer approach also allowed the professors the autonomy of

choosing where and when they graded assignments. The key to this approach is to have clear

and understood expectations and goals set prior to the assessment itself, for both students and

faculty. It is during the co-planning time or the “getting to know you time” where

discussions regarding assessment should occur. Murawski (2003) created the SHARE

worksheet to help elicit conversations on all teaching aspects, to include assessment

preferences; both professors in this study completed the SHARE worksheet and

communicated those preferences with one another prior to the beginning of the course. For

other faculty in higher education, time should be allocated prior to the semester to discuss

how assessments will occur. These need to include not just summative evaluations, but

formative assessments throughout the semester as well. They need to include how faculty

will reflect on their progress with one another, as well as the students, and how they will

communicate to one another if either co-teacher is having concerns or is frustrated with the

process. In addition, faculty need to share with students how they will be evaluated, ensuring

that students know who is grading, how grading is being conducted, who they should talk to

if concerned about issues of assessment, and how the faculty are making sure that grading is

fair and equitable.

Little actual data was collected within this study on the co-assessment that occurred.

On the pre-survey, 19% of students anticipated unequal or unclear guidelines and

requirements and identified inconsistent grading as a possible disadvantage of being in a co-

130
taught class. However, on the post-survey, only 9% of students continued to identify this as

a concern. Two of the three students noted that, “grading was inconsistent” and that “having

my work graded by different professors makes me feel uneasy about not working

consistently with one professor who knows my history and goals.” The third student’s

comments displayed a lack of understanding regarding what co-teaching was; though this

student identified grading and assignments as one area of disadvantage being in a co-taught

class, his comments indicated that he did not comprehend how co-teaching involved both

teachers sharing all planning, instruction, and assessment. These are all valid concerns that

need to be addressed by faculty. In fact, this leads to an implication that co-teachers may

want to do a check with their students throughout the semester, or perhaps at the half-way

mark, to see what concerns they continue to have. If these comments were made earlier, the

two professors could have worked on their own grading consistency or could have clarified

the role of co-assessment in their course. To avoid some of this confusion, it is also

suggested that professors standardize their grading through the use of a rubric or other tool

that can help ensure that students are aware of the expectations and where their work fits

within that scope. This will also help faculty discuss the elements of each assignment and

clarify their own expectations prior to giving or evaluating an assignment.

Limitations of the Study

During the collection, analysis, and reporting of data, the limitations of this study

were exposed. The case study design narrowed the generalizability of the study and elements

that might have illuminated aspects of the co-teaching experience were missing. In addition,

particular aspects of the measures used to collect data were found to be lacking. These

limitations are described in more detail here.

131
 A major limitation of this study is in its very nature. As with any case study, in-depth

analysis is focused on only the one experimental group, in this case, the co-teaching

relationship between Professors F and Z. As a result, data collected is pertinent, specifically,

to that co-teaching interaction. The relevance of the data and results may not be transferable

to other co-teaching faculty teams, at other universities, or in other settings. Though the data

collected may be valid and the conclusions relevant, the case study design may impede the

ability for the study to be replicated.

A specific flaw in the design of this study was the lack of in-class observations by the

researcher. The professors co-planned and co-taught, sharing the permanent products and

reflections from these experiences, however no observation or record of the actual teaching

or instruction occurred. With observations, records, videotapes, or at least anecdotal notes on

the class instruction, more specific data could have been attained, analyzed, and reported.

Such data might have included the duration each professor instructed individually, the

number of times each professor “jumped in” when in the supporting role, the content of the

“jump ins”, what the co-teaching approaches looked like when co-taught at the IHE level,

how students responded visually to being co-taught or by one or the other professor, and so

on. With such data further analysis of the co-teaching partnership, specifically in relation to

the effectiveness and culture or feel of the classroom, could have occurred.

The survey questions in this study also led to a possible lack of reliability of the data.

For example, for the question associated with Table 17, which asked students to identify the

courses they had taken that were co-taught, resulted in numbers in between the pre-and post-

surveys that were inconsistent and made no sense. There should have been 100%

consistency as the students were all currently enrolled in the co-taught course. It is believed

132
that was not an effective question. In the future the question should be clarified as to not

confuse students and to encourage a more accurate and appropriate response.

Additionally, the questions on the anticipated and experienced advantages and

disadvantages resulted in open and confusing responses. Future surveys may want to

consider giving several answer options so that students could have been able to match up the

advantages to the disadvantages. Additionally, a “choose all that apply” question with an

“other” may have been made it easier during the analyzing process. Interestingly, on the

advantages and disadvantages questions, 38% of student in both the pre-and post-surveys

said there were none/no anticipated and experienced disadvantages. This researcher finds

that hard to believe and would have liked to have a forced response follow up question

clarifying that statement. It also leads this researcher to question whether or not the students

were worried about telling the truth to their university faculty. On the other hand, they

certainly did not have trouble holding back when asked to give feedback in the open-ended

sections at the end of the course. This dichotomy of data makes it challenging to produce

clear outcomes and conclusions from the data.

The data collected from the PowerPoint Lesson Plans, though interesting and

important in discussing the parity and equitability of the professors’ relationship, does not

necessarily match up to what students said in their reflections. The names on the various

slides did not necessarily mean that is who spoke the most; it simply meant that was the

professor who was taking responsibility for conveying that information to the students. In

fact, in conversation with the professors, they admitted that they did not always conform to

what the notes on the slides stated. As discussed previously, there was no way to determine

133
who spoke more during the actual instruction. Without observations, it is only known what

was planned, not what was actually implemented.

The lack of follow up and clarification by the researcher on some of the student and

faculty survey questions left the researcher with questions and at times confusion as to what

was “meant” by those individuals. A stronger, more clarified, analysis of data could have

been reported had there been more follow up interviews. For future studies, follow up

including clarification of survey questions as well in depth interviews with some students as

to their specific views of being in the co-taught class are suggested. Surveys, interviews, or

quick-writes throughout the semester would also help ascertain how the co-teaching

environment was impacting students throughout the process and would serve to help

researchers tease out which elements are most influential on students’ success and motivation.

An additional limitation of this study is that there was no comparison to previous and

future courses. This lack of comparison leaves this study with no knowledge of what was

done well or poorly as compared to other co-teaching experiences or traditional teaching

experiences as related to SPED 406. Had data been collected from prior and subsequent

SPED 406 courses, further analysis and conclusions could have been determined. This

suggestion may be a possible addition to a similar future study.

The collection of the audio recorded planning meeting data could also have been

improved. To start, higher quality recordings would have made it easier to extrapolate data

from the planning meetings. The timing and actual transcriptions of the meetings could have

been ascertained. This would have helped to note the duration of the conversations and

conversational topics. A recommendation for the future would be to note the times

associated with the co-planning, instead of merely using the timer counter on the mini

134
cassette recorder. In addition, a digital recorder and a talk to text transcription program

would also improve the data collected from the co-planning meetings.

Finally, the audio recordings of the planning meetings only lasted up through the

week before Spring Break, which was the last week in March. Though the planning for the

following weeks was discussed, audio recordings of any additional planning after Spring

Break were not included in this study. Higher quality recordings and complete transcriptions

would have been helpful. Additionally, the method with which the notes were taken by the

researcher from the tapes was not consistent. It changed over time. Having a consistent

methodology for note-taking would have made it easier for the recordings to be analyzed,

would provide higher quality data, and would have helped with fidelity of the data collection.

As with any study, hindsight is 20-20. With the few suggestions discussed above, and by

removing some of the limitations identified, further research could delve much more deeply

into the co-teaching in IHE experience.

Future Research

With the confusion associated with some of the findings of this case study, further

research specifically on students’ views and perceptions is needed to clarify how students at

the IHE level feel about co-teaching. Further research, such as a longitudinal study done by

colleges of education on teacher candidates’ incorporation of co-teaching into their own K-12

classrooms, could explain whether being exposed to co-teaching in their teacher training

college classes impacts beginning teachers’ receptivity to and implementation of co-teaching.

It would be interesting to note how the students in this study have or have not utilized co-

teaching in their classrooms after being in a co-taught class. It would also be valuable to note

if the views of the student population (in this case study as special educators) resulted in

135
similar or different findings if a different population of students (e.g., general educators)

were incorporated into the course. Do students benefit more from co-taught classes when

they are all of a similar frame of reference or do they benefit more when there are multiple

populations of students (e.g., different specializations, different backgrounds) in the same

class? Does the student population matter more or does the teachers’ varying expertise

matter more? Is there a difference between having faculty from different subject areas co-

teaching versus those who share the same field?

Another possible future co-teaching study may involve a focus on teacher candidates

who are able to co-teach in their student teaching placements. Yet another might focus on

how being a student in a co-taught IHE class at night while co-teaching children during the

day may impact, hinder, or inspire teacher candidates’ teaching experiences. This research,

combined with other research being done in the field could potentially change the design of

teacher training and student teaching experiences in the future.

For IHE faculty, a study specifically focusing on co-planning and the translation from

planning to instruction to assessment is recommended to better help understand the efficacy

of co-teaching in IHE. Additionally, further data can lead to improved strategies and tips that

professors can use when co-teaching at the IHE level for the first time. It is also suggested

that those professors interested in co-teaching in the future have an outside support network.

These professors should, prior to co-teaching, read the co-teaching IHE literature as well as

find a co-teaching mentor or experts to help guide them through the co-teaching process.

Conclusion

With society’s trend toward inclusive education, teachers are being strongly

encouraged to work collaboratively with peers and colleagues from other areas of education.

136
Thus more and more teachers are co-teaching. At the IHE level, professors are using

multidisciplinary, trans-disciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and inter-disciplinary curriculums in

order to improve student learning. Colleges of Education are concurrently teaching about

collaboration and co-teaching and utilizing co-teaching as an instructional method within

their teacher training programs.

This push towards co-teaching allows for professors, like those in this study, to

incorporate multiple perspectives, model best teaching practices, and expose teacher

candidates to collaborative teaching with in a learning environment. Essentially, the

professors are beginning to “practice what they preach.” As an example, this case study,

after a review of the literature, discusses how two professors ((one from the department of

Special Education, one from the department of Elementary Education) co-taught a reading

instruction for students with disabilities course. The professors not only discussed best

practice and co-teaching approaches, they used and modeled them.

As a result, both students and faculty involved in this study noted they liked the co-

teaching model. Students, after being in a co-taught class were encouraged to co-teach in

their own classroom. Students also shared their They shared their views and reflections

regarding their experience in Professor F and Professor Z’s class. Overall, students reported

that they liked being in a co-taught class and learned from the differing perspectives.

Similarly, the professors found they also liked co-teaching. The professor who had

not co-taught before has now become a proponent for co-teaching and is excited to co-teach

again. The other Professor, Professor F, felt she benefited from working with Professor Z as

it gave the class a more well rounded feel and added to the existing content. Both professors

reported they would like to co-teach again. As both groups stated they enjoyed the co-

137
teaching process and benefitted from the interactions. It is curious as to why more professor

are not co-teaching. The results of this study will, hopefully, encourage others to try co-

teaching especially professors in institutes of higher education.

138
 Chapter 6: References

Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher education.

Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(3), 9-16. Retrieved from

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13562517.asp

Bakken, L., Clark, F., & Thompson, J. (1998). Collaborative teaching: Many joys, some

surprises, and a few worms. College Teaching, 46(4), 154-157. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/vcol20/46/4

Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., and Spagna, M. (2004) Moving toward

inclusive practices. Remedial and Special Education, 25(2). 104–116.

doi:10.1177/07419325040250020501

Conderman, G., & McCarty B., (2003). Shared insights from University co-teaching.

Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(4), 2461-2463z. Retrieved from

http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/choice2z.htm

Conderman, G. & Hedin, L., (2012). Purposeful assessment practices for co-teachers.

TEACHING Exceptional Children 44(4), 18-27. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/content/navigationmenu/publications2/teachingexceptionalc

hildren/

Cook, L. (2004). Co-teaching: principles, practices, and pragmatics. As presented at the

New Mexico Public Education Department Quarterly Special Education Meeting

Albuquerque, NM on April 29, 2004.

Cruz, B. C., & Zaragoza, N. (1997). The road to collaborative and integrated education:

success and struggle in a university classroom. The Teacher Educator, 32, 135-151.

doi: 10.1080/08878739709555141

139
Desroches, C. (Eds.). (2008-2009). Center Pieces: Profiles of the Faculty Teaching, Learning,

and Professional Development Centers of the California State University.

Dieker, L., & Murawski, W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues,

current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13.

Retrieved from www.joci.ecu.edu/index.php/JoCI/article/download/17/26  

Dieker, L. (2001). What are the characteristics of "effective" middle and high school co-

taught teams for students with disabilities?. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 14-23.

Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/vpsf20/46/1

Dieker, L. (2008). Co-teaching Lesson Plan book. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Duchardt, B., Marlow, L., Inman, D., Christensen, P., & Reeves, M. (1999). Collaboration

and co-teaching: General and special education faculty. Clearing House, 72(3), 186-

190. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/30189441

Eick, C., Ware, F., & Williams, P. (2003). Coteaching in a science methods course: A

situated learning model of becoming a teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1),

74. doi:  10.1177/0022487102238659  

Ferguson, J., & Wilson, J. (2011). The co-teaching professorship: Power and expertise in the

co-taught higher education classroom. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5(1), 52-68.

Retrieved from http://www.edint.com/

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals

(4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Friend, M., Cook, L., & Reising, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse

at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37 (4), 6-

10. doi:10.1080/1045988X.1993.9944611    

140
Gailey, J., & Carroll, V. (1993). Toward a collaborative model for interdisciplinary teaching:

Business and literature. Journal of Education for Business, 69(1), 36-39.

doi:10.1080/08832323.1993.10117653

Garson, D. S., & McGowan, E. (2010). Collaboration as a model: Co-teaching a graduate

course. Information Outlook, 14(1), 16-21. Retrieved from

http://www.sla.org/io/2010/01/800.cfm

Greene, M., & Isaacs, M. (1999). The responsibility of modeling collaboration in the

university education classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 20(1), 98-106.

doi:10.1080/01626620.1998.10462909

Hughes, C. E., & Murawski, W. W. (2001). Lessons from another field: Applying co-

teaching strategies to gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 195-204.

doi:10.1177/001698620104500304  

Jackson. J.L. (2010, February 4). Co-Teaching is more work, not less. The Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com  

Jung,  L.  A.  &  Guskey,  T.  R.  (2012).  Grading  Exceptional  and  Struggling  Learners.  

Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Corwin.  

Kirwan, D., & Willis, J. (1976). Co-teaching experiment at the University of Rhode Island.

American Journal of Physics, 651-654. Retrieved from http://ajp.aapt.org/  

Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2003). Do as we say and as we do: Teaching and modeling

collaborative practice in the university classroom. Journal of Teacher Education,

54(3), 228-240. doi:10.1177/0022487103054003005

141
Letterman, M. & Dugan, K. (2004). Team teaching a cross-disciplinary honors course:

preparation and development. College Teaching, 52(2), 76-79. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559183  

Murawski, W.W. (2003). School collaboration research: Successes and difficulties. Academic

Exchange Quarterly, 7(3), 104-108. Retrieved from

http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/

Murawski, W.W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How can

we improve? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22(3) 227-247. Retrieved from

http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/

Murawski, W. W. (2009). Collaborative teaching in the secondary schools: making the co-

teaching marriage work!. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Murawski, W.W. (2010). Collaborative teaching at the elementary level: Making the co-

teaching marriage work!. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Murawski, W. W. (2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. TEACHING

Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8-15. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/content/navigationmenu/publications2/teachingexceptionalc

hildren/

Murawski, W. W, & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the

secondary level. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications2/TEACHINGExcepti

ona lChildren/default.htm

Murawski, W.W., & Dieker, L.A. (2008). 50 ways to keep your co-teacher. TEACHING

Exceptional Children, 40(4), 40-48. Retrieved from

142
 http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications2/TEACHINGExcepti

ona lChildren/default.htm

Murawski, W. W., Friedman Narr, R., Ziolkowska, R., Knotts, G. & Sheldon, A. (2011,

Sept). Co-Teaching in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes & Next Steps. In G.

Knotts & W. Murawski (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Collaborative

Symposium. Symposium conducted at California State University, Northridge.

Murawski, W., & Lochner, W. (2011). Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for, and

listen for. Intervention in School & Clinic, 46(3), 174-183.

doi:10.1177/1053451210378165  

Murawski, W.W., & Spencer, S.A. (2011). Collaborate, Communicate, and Differentiate!

How to Increase Student Learning in Today’s Diverse Classrooms. Corwin Press:

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Nevin, A. I., Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (2009). Collaborative teaching for teacher

educators-what does the research say?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 569-574.

doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.009

Odyssey of the Mind Newsletter (1995, Fall). "Creativity in Action" Creative Education

Foundation, 1990 http://www.creativeeducationfoundation.org  or  as posted  by  Nick  

Vargo  on  April  18,  2009  http://nicksjobsearch.blogspot.com/2009/04/skills-­‐

desired-­‐by-­‐fortune-­‐500-­‐companies.html-­‐comment-­‐form      

Shapiro, E., & Dempsey, C. (2008). Conflict resolution in team teaching: A case study in

interdisciplinary teaching. College Teaching, 56(3), 157-162. Retrieved from

http://www.heldref.org  

143
Thousand, J., Villa, R., & Nevin, A. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning and

teaching. Theory into Practice, 45(3), 239-248. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4503_6

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: practical tips for

facilitating student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Vogler, K. E., & Long, E. (2003) Team teaching two sections of the same undergraduate

course. College Teaching, 51(4), 122-126. Retrieved from

www.jstor.org/stable/27559153

Vogler, K. E., & Long, E. (2007). Practicing what we preach: team teaching in a pre-service

methods course [Special Issue]. South Carolina Middle School Association Journal.

1-9. Retrieved from

http://www.scmsa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&

id=6&Itemid=13

Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M. & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The

key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 255-64,Cover.

doi:10.1177/074193259601700408  

Waters, F. H., & Burcroff, T. L. (2007). Collaborative teaching at the university level:

practicing what is preached. The Teacher Educator, 42(4), 304-315. Retrieved from

http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/Teachers/Resources/Teacher

Educator.aspx

Wilensky, J. (2003). Teaching partnerships promote interdisciplinary education. Human

Ecology, 31(1), 3. Retrieved from http://www.human.cornell.edu/outreach/human-

ecology-magazine.cfm

144
Wilson, G.L. (2005). This doesn't look familiar! a supervisor's guide for observing co-

teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5) p271-275. Retrieved from

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/proedcw/in  

Wilson, V. & Martin, K. (1998). Practicing what we preach: Team teaching at the college

level. [Special Issue] Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of

Teacher Educators (Dallas, TX, Febuary 13-17, 1998).

Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair Isn't Always Equal: Assessing & Grading in the Differentiated

Classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

145
 Appendix

Appendix Contains:

Permanent Products

Course Syllabus

Course Schedule

Sample PowerPoint Presentation with Notes

S.H.A.R.E. Worksheet

Surveys

Pre-Survey

Post-Survey

146
Permanent  Products  
Course Syllabus

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Department of Special Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION 406: K-12 LITERACY INSTRUCTION FOR DIVERSE

LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES
Spring 2011
Classroom: BH 316

Mondays 4:20-6:50
Instructors: Rachel Friedman Narr, Ph. D. and Renee Ziolkowska, Ed.D.
rachel.narr@csun.edu renee.ziolkowska@csun.edu
Dr. Narr’s office: ED 2210 Dr. Ziolkowska’s office: ED 2212

Conceptual Framework
The faculty of the Michael D. Eisner College of Education, regionally focused and nationally recognized,
is committed to Excellence through Innovation. We believe excellence includes the acquisition of
professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions and is demonstrated by the growth and renewal of ethical
and caring professionals - faculty, staff, candidates - and those they serve. Innovation occurs through
collaborative partnerships among communities of diverse learners who engage in creative and reflective
thinking. To this end we continually strive to achieve the following competencies and values that form
the foundation of the Conceptual Framework.
o We value academic excellence in the acquisition of professional knowledge and skills.
o We value the use of evidence for the purposes of monitoring candidate growth, determining the
impact of our programs, and informing ongoing program and unit renewal. To this end we foster a
culture of evidence.
o We value ethical practice and what it means to become ethical and caring professionals.
o We value collaborative partnerships within the College of Education as well as across disciplines
with other CSUN faculty, P-12 faculty, and other members of regional and national educational and
service communities.
o We value diversity in styles of practice and are united in a dedication to acknowledging, learning
about, and addressing the varied strengths, interests, and needs of communities of diverse learners.
o We value creative and reflective thinking and practice.

Course Description
This course is designed to prepare special education candidates to teach diverse learners with disabilities reading and
language arts at the elementary and secondary levels. The course focuses on the design and delivery of
comprehensive literacy programs consistent with state standards, and the competencies and strengths of students
with disabilities. Content specifically addresses word analysis, fluency, vocabulary, academic language, and
comprehension. An emphasis is placed on the development and organization of differentiated instructional practices
for students with disabilities, based on findings from individualized assessment procedures.

1/23/11

Spring 2011
1 of 5

147
  

Course Texts
Minskoff, E. (2005). Teaching reading to struggling learners. Baltimore, MD: Brooks
Publishing Co.
Johns, J. (2008). Basic reading inventory. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Recommended: Zarrillo, J.J. (2011). Ready for revised RICA: A test preparation guide for
California’s Reading Instruction Competence Assessment. Boston: Pearson.
Additional Readings are required and will be available on MOODLE or in class.

Course Objectives
After completing this course candidates will be able to:
1. demonstrate knowledge of comprehensive and inclusive K-12 literacy programs that are
standards-based and research-based.
2. demonstrate understanding of language as the foundation for literacy, and implications for
English learners with disabilities.
3. discuss pre-writing symbolic and written language systems, including the specific features
of alphabetic forms.
4. demonstrate knowledge of multiple literacies including the use of technologies and
assistive technologies both within and outside of the school environment.
5. demonstrate knowledge of factors contributing to independent reading and of strategies to
motivate reluctant readers diverse in ability, language, and culture.
6. develop competency in the design of effective literacy lessons including scaffolding,
guided and directed reading activities, and embedded teaching opportunities.
7. develop competency in the use of assessments to determine mastery of the curriculum,
reading levels, and accomplishment of Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals.
8. use evidence from assessments to inform K-12 literacy instruction of individual learners
with disabilities, including English learners.
9. conduct and interpret on-going curriculum-based assessment to measure progress within
response to intervention models of tiered intervention.
10. demonstrate understanding of early literacy concepts and the contribution of family literacy
to the development of beginning reading and writing.
11. discuss the role of phonological awareness in learning to read and the reciprocal
relationship between phonetic decoding and spelling development in struggling readers.
12. use the results of informal assessments to plan word analysis and word recognition
instruction that addresses the needs of students with disabilities, including English learners.
13. demonstrate knowledge of research-based practices to promote the reading rate, accuracy
and prosody of diverse learners with special needs.
14. discuss the role of vocabulary, academic language and background knowledge in
comprehension.
15. use the results of informal assessments to plan vocabulary and comprehension instruction
that is differentiated, incorporates principles of SDAIE, and supports all students’
understanding of narrative and expository texts.
16. demonstrate skills in planning and managing a systematic and differentiated inclusive
reading/language arts program.
1/23/11

Spring 2011
2 of 5

148
 Assignments
See Assignment Guidelines on Moodle for detailed information.

Observation/Participation
The purpose of this assignment is to observe a minimum of 2 (two) Reading and Language Arts
lessons in an elementary general education classroom AND a special education classroom (K-
12). Following each observations, you will compare reading materials and instruction across
settings.

Assessment/Instruction Report
The purpose of this assignment is to administer, score and interpret results from an Informal
Reading Inventory. Assessment materials are examined for accuracy in scoring and
interpretation. Findings and instructional recommendations are summarized in a written report.

Lesson/Activity Plans
The purpose of these assignments is to design lesson plans that promote the following
components of effective reading instruction: phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary
and comprehension. Emphasis is on strategic, explicit instruction.

Reading Activities
Keeping up with the weekly readings is critical to your understanding of the course content and
your ability to interact in class. You will be held accountable for completing the reading before
each assigned class through a variety of reading responses. The various response formats are
listed and described on Moodle. Please refer to the Course Schedule on Moodle.

Final Examination
The final examination will be an in-class assessment of major concepts in literacy instruction.
Questions answered incorrectly will require an explanation of the correct response individually
and/or in small groups.

Attendance and Participation

You are required to attend and participate in all class sessions. Please communicate with the instructor
regarding absences or lack of participation.

Grading Standards

Observations 12.5% 30 points

Assessment Report 21% 50 points
Lesson Plan Activities 21% 50 points
Reading Activities 10% 25 points
Final 27% 65 points
Participation and Attendance 8% 20 points
100% 240 points

1/23/11

Spring 2011
3 of 5

149
  

Grading Standards
93 – 100% A 78 - 79 C+
90 - 92 A- 73 - 77 C
88 - 89 B+ 70 - 72 C-
83 - 87 B 60 - 69 D
80 - 82 B- 00 - 59 F

Grading Rubric
A = Outstanding - Performance reflects a thorough understanding of the material, including
integration of information and application of theory and research to practice. Projects and exams
are comprehensive, thoughtful and provide new insights. All assignments are well-organized
and clearly written. Attendance and participation in class is consistent and engaging.

B = Very Good - Performance reflects complete and accurate understanding of the material.
There is generalization of the information that demonstrates the ability to integrate and apply
information. All assignments are thoughtful, well-organized, and clearly written. Attendance
and participation in class is consistent and engaging.

C = Satisfactory - Performance reflects minimal level of competency attainment, understanding,

and skill. Does not meet graduate and professional standards. Lacks demonstration of
generalization and application of the information. Assignments are incomplete, poorly prepared,
and/or possess notable misconceptions. Attendance and participation is sporadic and limited.

D = Barely Passing - Performance reflects severe misconceptions about the information. There is
little or no demonstration of generalization or application. Assignments are incomplete, poorly
prepared, and/or missing. Attendance and participation are poor.

F = Failing - Performance reflects lack of engagement with the information. No assignments are
completed. Attendance and participation are poor.

1/23/11

Spring 2011
4 of 5

150
  

INSTRUCTOR’S NOTES:

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES must be registered with the Center on Disabilities (COD) in
order to receive accommodations. Reasonable accommodations will be honored in accordance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The intent of the ADA is not to give a
particular student an advantage over another, but simply to allow students with disabilities equal
access to the course content, and to provide them an equal opportunity for success. Students may
receive information about registering with the COD at the following website:
http://www.csun.edu/cod/index.htm.

LATE ASSIGNMENTS will be penalized 5% of the total grade for each week (and portions
thereof) the assignment is late. Exceptions considered upon prior discussion with the
instructor(s).

WRITING REQUIREMENTS within the graduate program: This is a graduate course and
students are expected to turn in papers and assignments of graduate quality. All work should
represent your reflections upon and integration of information covered in class in an organized
way. Additionally, written assignments are to be clear in sentence construction and are to be
proof read before they are handed in. Please discuss individual concerns with your professor.
Points will be deducted for sloppy work, misspellings, grammatical errors, typos, or lack of
clarity/organization.

CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM ARE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY. Please see the
University Catalog and/or the Schedule of Classes for definitions and examples of, and penalties
for academic dishonesty. All take-home assignments and exams as well as on-line exams and
quizzes are to be completed individually. Collaborating on these assignments is considered
cheating, and will be treated as such.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ON CSUN COMMUNICATION: CSUN sends all official

communications by e-mail, including registration information. Please check your CSUN e-mail
at least once a week. Using any Web browser, go to www.csun.edu/webmail. Enter your CSUN
User ID and Password. To forward your CSUN e-mail to your Yahoo, Hotmail, or preferred
address, go to www.csun.edu/account, log in and select Mail forwarding. However, do be aware
that some transmissions are not successful. To remain informed, it is in your best interest to
continue to check your CSUN e-mail account throughout the semester. All communications from
your professors will come through that account!

PROFESSIONAL DISPOSITIONS: In addition to the knowledge and skills you learn and
reflect upon in your graduate program, it is expected that you will also reflect upon your own
Professional Dispositions. Dispositions identified as important within the Department of Special
Education include Personal Characteristics, Interpersonal Characteristics, Commitment to
Professional Growth, Commitment to Diversity, and Commitment to Ethical Practice.

1/23/11

Spring 2011
5 of 5

 
 

151
  
Course Schedule

Weekly outline
Special Education 406: K-12 Literacy Instruction for Diverse
Learners with Disabilities
Spring 2011
• SPED 406 SYLLABUS PDF document
• Course Assignments Resource
• News forum
• Book Recommendations Resource

January 24 - January 30
Week 1
TOPICS:
Introductions
Course overview
K-12 Reading Curricula

• NOTES for Class (01/24/11) PDF document

January 31 - February 6
Week 2
TOPICS: English Language Arts Standards
Reading Language Arts Standards

Explicit & Systematic reading instruction

Readers with disabilities

In class activity:
Guided exploration of the CA English-Language Arts Standards & and the Reading/ Language Arts
Framework. (Please bring your laptop if you have one. You do NOT need to print these out for class.)

However, please print the activity below and bring it to class. Thanks!

• Readings and Assignments DUE this week Resource

• Activity for Class 2 Word document
• Quiz- Minskoff, Chs. 1-2

February 7 - February 13
Week 3
TOPICS: Motivation for ALL students
Assessment- Johns Basic Reading Inventory (IRI)
PLEASE BRING YOUR Johns' INVENTORY BOOKS TO CLASS!! (Both books)
Also, please print out and bring the following pages (available here and on the disk that came with Johns
BRI book):
Pages 168, 181, 182, 185, 186
(This includes Form A word lists at the 3rd and 4th grade levels, and passages at the 2nd and 4th grade
levels.)

152
The Reading Attitude Surveys are for your information. We WILL be discussing them in class.
• NOTES for Class (02/07/11) PDF document
• Readings and Assignments DUE this week Resource
• Quiz- Minskoff, Ch. 12
• Reading Survey (open-ended questions) PDF document
• Reading Surveys (for different grades) PDF document
• Reading Interest-A-Lyzer PDF document
• Reading Behaviors to Observe file
• Reading Attitude Survey (Garfield) PDF document

February 14 - February 20
Week 4
TOPICS: Assessment (IRI), continued.
Miscue Analysis

Assessment for Secondary Students

Remember to bring back your Basic Reading Inventory books and all your materials to class again this week.

Also, please download the assignment guidelines for the Assessment/Instruction report and bring them to
class. They are found in the Assignment folder (scroll up to the top of the page).
• NOTES for Class (02/14/11) PDF document
• Readings and Assignments DUE this week Resource
• Comprehension Question Summary Sheet file

February 21 - February 27
Week 5
During this week you are supposed to be reading and developing a response to the two assigned chapters:
Ch. 1: Jonathan (from Learning Outside the Lines), and Chapter 2 from Literacy with an Attitude.
The readings AND the response formats that you can choose from are identified below under "Reading
Response".

Please bring your responses and be prepared to discuss them in class on Feb 28.

There will be NO in class meeting Monday, Feb. 21.

• Reading Response Resource

February 28 - March 6
Week 6
Topics:
Assessment for Secondary Students
Literate Lives for Students with Severe Disabilities
Reading Responses

Print and bring your Kliewer & Biklen (2001) article. We will be doing an activity with it in class.
ALSO, bring your reading responses!!

153
 • Readings and Assignments DUE this week Resource
• Notes for Class (02/28/11) PDF document

March 7 - March 13
Week 7
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics Instruction
"How do Profoundly Deaf Children Learn to Read"

Lesson Plan Activity In-Class

Observation Assignment Discussions should begin this week.
We added a "web page" so you can see which group you are in and who is in your group.

ADDED: There are TWO handouts in addition to the NOTES for this week to download and print. Please
bring these to class. See below.
• Readings DUE March 7 Resource
• Observation Assignment Discussions Forum
• Groups for Observation Discussion Resource
• Quiz- Minskoff, Chs. 3-4
• Stations Handout-Class 03/07 PDF document
• Anticipation Guide- Handout PDF document
• Notes for class (03/07/11) PDF document
• Stations Activities from Class PDF document

March 14 - March 20
Week 8
Phonics Instruction
Structural Analysis

Assessment Report Part 1- DUE

Submit ALL of your RAW (original) score sheets and the summary sheet.
MAKE COPIES OF EVERYTHING before you submit it.
• Readings DUE March 14 Resource
• Quiz- Minskoff, Chs. 5-6
• Through Your Child's Eyes: American Sign Language file
• Notes for class (03/14/11) PDF document

March 21 - March 27
Week 9
Advanced Phonics Instruction
Fluency
RICA Case Study

Handouts to be used in class:

Please download, print and bring these TWO handouts to class.
Reader's Theater :
Click Clack Moo
Frog and Toad

154
 • Readings DUE March 21 Resource
• Quiz- Minskoff, Ch. 7
• Notes for class (03/21/11) PDF document

March 28 - April 3
Week 10
Vocabulary

Phonics Instructional Plans DUE

Submit below (via moodle)

Please bring your printed guidelines for the IRI assignment.

Please download and print the Word Study Handouts for class.

• Readings DUE March 28 Resource

• SUBMIT: Phonics Instructional Plan Assignment
• Quiz- Minskoff, Ch.8 & 9
• Notes for class (03/21/28) PDF document
• Word Study Handouts PDF document
• 1001 Books in American Sign Language LINK file

April 4 - April 10
ENJOY your SpRinG bReaK!!

April 11 - April 17
Week 12
Vocabulary (continued)
Comprehension

• Readings Due April 11 Resource

• Notes for class (04/11/11) PDF document
• Comp. Strategies Handouts PRINT and Bring Resource
• Quiz- Minskoff, Ch.10

April 18 - April 24
Week 13
Comprehension
Assorted Graphic Organizers
You can download and print if you want. We will be discussing these in class.
• Readings Due April 18 Resource
• SUBMIT: Vocabulary OR Fluency Instructional Plan Assignment
• Notes for class (04/18/11) LARGE Version PDF document
• Notes for class (04/18/11) regular PDF document

155
 April 25 - May 1
Week 14
Comprehension (continued continued- and finalized)
RICA Case Studies
Anticipation Guides
Paired Reading
DOWNLOAD and PRINT: Please bring these to class
Anticipation Guides
Article: Can Animals Think?
• Readings Due April 25 Resource
• Notes for class (04/25/11) PDF document
• Notes for class (3/page) PDF document
• SUBMIT: Part 2 Informal Reading Inventory Assignment

May 2 - May 8
Week 15
Practice Exam for RICA taken in class
Download and PRINT and bring to class.
• SUBMIT: Comprehension Instructional Plan Assignment

May 9 - May 15
Week 16
RICA Exam Review
There will be no Final Exam. If you feel uncomfortable with this, please email your instructors to take the
final exam.
!
CASE STUDY Practice: please download and print
Stages of Spelling Development: please download and print
• Notes for class (05/09/11) PDF document
• Ways to Address Struggling Readers' Problems (RESOURCE)
!

156
 Sample  PowerPoint  presentation  with  notes  
 

1"

157
Rachel!

158
Rachel-!
5 minutes for writing. !

15 minutes for whole activity. !

159
Rachel-!
5 minutes for writing. !

15 minutes for whole activity. !

160
Renee&"In"the"same"groups"from"the"placemat"ac5vity.""
5"minutes.""

4"

161
Renee!
In the Reading Teacher Sourcebook- they
gave several examples. !

162
Renee"
ENDING"at"5:00"

6"

163
Rachel"&"Renee"

7"

164
Rachel"&"Renee"

8"

165
Rachel"

9"

166
Rachel"

10"

167
Rachel&"
ENDING"at"5:20"

11"

168
30"minute"ac5vity"
Show"5mer"on"the"screen.""

2groups"see"5ming.""

Bumper"S5cker&"From"Sp"11"
My"IQ">"my"reading"level""
Educa5on,"Self&determina5on,"predetermina5on"
Take"CLA$$"out"of"the"classroom"

12"

169
 13"

 
 
 
 
 

170
S.H.A.R.E.  Worksheet  

Copy Me
Pages

S.H.A.R.E.
S haring H opes, A ttitudes, R esponsibilities, and E xpectations
Directions: Take a few minutes to individually complete this worksheet. Be honest in your
responses. After completing it individually, share the responses with your co-teaching partner by
taking turns reading the responses. Do not use this time to comment on your partner’s responses –
merely read. After reading through the responses, take a moment or two to jot down any thoughts
you have regarding what your partner has said. Then, come back together and begin to share
reactions to the responses. Your goal is to either (a) Agree, (b) Compromise, or (c) Agree to
Disagree.

1. Right now, the main hope I have regarding this co-teaching situation is:

_____________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

2. My attitude/philosophy regarding teaching students with disabilities in a general education

classroom is:

_____________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

3. I would like to have the following responsibilities in a co-taught classroom:

_____________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

4. I would like my co-teacher to have the following responsibilities:

_____________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Also published in: Murawski, W.W., & Dieker, L.A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.

171
 5. I have the following expectations in a classroom:

(a) regarding discipline -

_____________________________________________________________________

(b) regarding classwork -

_____________________________________________________________________

(c) regarding materials -

_____________________________________________________________________

(d) regarding homework -

_____________________________________________________________________

(e) regarding planning -

_____________________________________________________________________

(f) regarding modifications for individual students -

_____________________________________________________________________

(g) regarding grading -

_____________________________________________________________________

(h) regarding noise level -

_____________________________________________________________________

(i) regarding cooperative learning -

_____________________________________________________________________

(j) regarding giving/receiving feedback -

_____________________________________________________________________

(k) other important expectations I have-

_____________________________________________________________________

Also published in: Murawski, W.W., & Dieker, L.A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.

172
  
Surveys    
Pre-­‐Survey  
SPED 406 Class Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFA1Tl...

SPED 406 Class Survey on

Co-Teaching
* Required

Part 1: Demographic Information

What is your name? *

What is your specialization? *

EED
SED
SPED - MM
SPED - MS
SPED - ET
SPED - DHH
SPED - ECSE

Other:

What is your gender? *

Male
Female

Do you currently teach? *

If yes, what grades/subjects?

How many years of teaching experience do you have? *

Write n/a if you are not currently teaching.

1 of 5 3/9/12 2:49 PM
 

173
SPED 406 Class Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFA1Tl...

What school district do you teach in? *

Write n/a if you are not currently teaching.

What is your school type? *

Ex: public, private, charter, non-public. Write n/a if you are not currently
teaching.

What is your school setting? *

Ex: rural, urban, suburban. Write n/a if you are not currently teaching.

Co-teaching is a style of teaching in which two

teachers co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess in the
same classroom. There is parity between educators
and each brings their own strengths into the
classroom.
Please answer the following questions about your experiences with co-teaching.

How much do you know about co-teaching? *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

I have received formal training on co-training. *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

I believe co-teaching is a good teaching option. *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

I think co-teaching can help with content delivery. *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

2 of 5 3/9/12 2:49 PM
 

174
SPED 406 Class Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFA1Tl...

I think co-teaching can help with class management. *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

I think anyone can co-teach. *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

I think co-teaching is a good idea for college classes. *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

I think co-teaching is a good idea for K-12 classes. *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

I am interested in co-teaching myself. *

1 2 3 4 5

None A lot

How have you received information on co-teaching? *

Check all that apply.
Articles
Books
Professional Development
Observed it
Have done it
Talked about it with colleagues
Just heard it from the district
College classes
None of the above

Before now, I have been enrolled in a class that was co-taught. *

Yes
No

3 of 5 3/9/12 2:49 PM
 

175
SPED 406 Class Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFA1Tl...

If yes, were you enrolled in college or K-12 co-taught classes? *

If yes, what classes? *

If yes, did you think it was effective? Why or why not? *

What are some advantages that you anticipate to being a student in THIS
co-taught class? *

What are some disadvantages that you anticipate to being a student in THIS
co-taught class? *

Based on your current understanding and comfort level with co-teaching, do

you think you would like to co-teach in your own classroom? Why or why not?
*

4 of 5 3/9/12 2:49 PM
 

176
 SPED 406 Class Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFA1Tl...

Co-teaching requires teachers to use and refine collaborative and

interpersonal skills on a regular basis. If you were co-teaching, what skills do
you think you would need to improve the most in order to have a successful
co-teaching relationship with a colleague? *

What is your age range? *

20-30

Thank you!

Submit

Powered by Google Docs

Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms

5 of 5 3/9/12 2:49 PM
 
 

177
 Post-­‐Survey  
SPED 406 Post-Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dExM...

SPED 406 Post-Survey on

Co-Teaching
* Required

Name: *

Specialization *
Ex: General education, special education, Math, English, etc.

Gender *

Age range *
20-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61- : )

1 of 6 3/9/12 2:48 PM
 

178
SPED 406 Post-Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dExM...

Do you already possess a teaching credential? *

If yes, what kind?

Do you currently teach? *

If yes, grades/subjects?

If yes, how many years of teaching experience do you have?

If yes, what school district do you currently teach in?

If yes, what is your school type?

(public, private, charter, non-public)

If yes, what is your school setting?

(rural, suburban, urban)

Co-teaching is a style of teaching in which two teachers co-plan,

co-instruct, and co-assess in the same classroom. There is parity
between educators and each bring their own strengths into the
classroom.
Please answer the following questions about your experiences with co-teaching.

2 of 6 3/9/12 2:48 PM
 

179
SPED 406 Post-Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dExM...

Untitled Question *

None 2 Some 4 A lot

How much do you
know about
co-teaching?
I have received formal
training on
co-teaching.
I believe co-teaching
is a good teaching
option.
I think co-teaching can
help with content
delivery.
I think anyone can
co-teach.
I think co-teaching is a
good idea for college
classes.
I think co-teaching is a
good idea for K-12
classes.
I am interested in
co-teaching myself.

How have you received information on co-teaching? *

Check all that apply.
Articles
Books
Professional Development
Observed it
Have done it
Talked about it with colleagues
Just heard about it from district
College classes
None of the above

Other:

Have you been enrolled in a class that was co-taught? *

If yes, was it a college or K-12 class?

3 of 6 3/9/12 2:48 PM
 

180
SPED 406 Post-Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dExM...

If yes, what classes?

Do you think it was effective? Why or why not?

What are some advantages that you have experienced from being a student in this co-taught
class (SPED 406 with Drs. Friedman Narr and Ziolkowska)? *

What are some disadvantages that you have experienced from being a student in this
co-taught class (SPED 406 with Drs. Friedman Narr and Ziolkowska)? *

Based on your current understanding and comfort level with co-teaching, do you think you
would like to co-teach in your own classroom? Why or why not? *

4 of 6 3/9/12 2:48 PM
 

181
SPED 406 Post-Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dExM...

Co-teaching requires teachers to use and refine collaborative and interpersonal skills on a
regular basis. If you were co-teaching, what skills do you think you would need to improve
the most in order to have a successful co-teaching relationship with a colleague? *

Are you glad that SPED 406 was co-taught? *

Why or why not?

What feedback would you like to give to Dr. Friedman Narr and Dr. Ziolkowska to improve this
course or their instruction? *

Please share one compliment withyour instructors regarding the course, the text, the content,
or the instruction. *

5 of 6 3/9/12 2:48 PM
 

182
 SPED 406 Post-Survey on Co-Teaching https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dExM...

We'd like to end on a positive note!

Thank you for your participation in this survey!

Submit

Powered by Google Docs

Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms

6 of 6 3/9/12 2:48 PM
 
 

183