IMPROVING ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS PROFICIENCY FOR SPECIAL

NEEDS STUDENTS THROUGH CO-TEACHING PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT: AN ACTION RESEARCH MONOGRAPH

by

Whitney E. Hawk

BRUCE CARL BRYDGES, EdD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

EDNA WALLER, PhD, Program Committee Member

AMY BENTON, PhD, School Committee Member

J. Heather Welzant, PhD, Dean,

School of Public Service & Education

A Doctoral Capstone Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Capella University

September 2021
© Whitney Hawk, 2021
 Abstract

The capstone project took place at a public school in a mid-western state of the United

States of America. The purpose of the study was to address the insufficient training

provided to regular education classroom teachers regarding supporting students identified

in special education in English Language Arts (ELA) through the implementation of

hands-on training, professional development, and the creation of a collaborative

framework. It was anticipated that as a result of the study, the achievement gap would

lessen for special education students in fourth and fifth grades in the area ELA. The

capstone project aimed to bridge the understanding of collaborative planning and co-

teaching between the special education and regular education teams to support students

with special needs adequately inside the regular education classroom setting. Findings

support the growing body of research that collaborative planning efforts may influence

student growth towards grade-level standards. Data analysis trends support that the

greatest benefit of the special education co-teaching professional development program

was a consistent time to collaborate and work together to support all students in the

general education setting. It is uncertain as to whether the student growth findings

resulted as an outcome of the implementation of the special education co-teaching

professional development program. Participants agreed that they felt empowered to hold

students in special education more accountable because of their new understanding of

how to implement accommodations and modifications inside the classroom setting. A

new framework for co-teaching and collaborative practices was developed and adopted

by the capstone site because of the intervention. The findings of this study empowered
classroom teachers with new strategies through a co-teaching professional development

program and created a more holistic understanding of how to support students with

special needs inside the regular education classroom setting. A need for further action

was identified through the implementation; additional school-wide training would benefit

the capstone site regarding the accommodations and modifications training. A unique co-

teaching framework was recommended to the capstone site rather than traditional co-

teaching to support the needs of students with special needs inside the regular education

classroom.

Keywords: collaborative planning, co-teaching, special education, achievement

gap
 Dedication

This work is dedicated to my best friend, my fiancée, Jarrick. I would not have taken the

first step towards this journey without your never-ending push for me to continue to better

myself in a way that would impact those beyond with whom I work with day-to-day. Your

constant love and presence allowed me the space and time to study and write countless hours for

over two years in a way that felt safe and balanced. I love you; thank you for seeing me and for

believing in me, especially when I would lose faith in myself or grow weary on this journey. To

my precious daughter Elizabeth, I hope you know that everything I do, I do for you. I love you.

To my family and especially my mom, Tammy Hawk, thank you for your guidance and faith in

me. You’ve always been my biggest fan, and through times of great difficulty, you’ve always

reminded me that strength comes from within; thank you for blanketing me in love and prayers.

To my sister, Mariah Schoolcraft, thank you for allowing me opportunities for joy outside of

schoolwork which allowed me to remain grounded and feel like myself on even the toughest

days.

I could not have completed this work without the support and guidance of Kate Place.

Thank you for being my thought partner and for pushing me in ways that I could not have pushed

myself. You’ve shown me what a woman in leadership can look like, and I try to model so much

of myself after you; thank you! Finally, to the people who show up for me every day, Melanie

Tremaroli, Jessica Higgins, and Samantha Moore—you’ve supported, loved on me, built me up,

and allowed me to grow authentically as a teacher and leader. To Susan Robichaud and Debbie-

Dawn Mcmahon, you came into my life at just the right time. Your unwavering support has

allowed me to be courageous and to never feel alone. I value all of you so much; thank you!

iii
 Acknowledgments

I would like to express my deepest thanks to my mentor, Dr. Bruce Brydges. His

patience, encouragement, and support were the foundation of my progress and success

throughout the capstone journey. I have so much gratitude for his continuous support and

immense knowledge that he offered freely and frequently. He always helped me to regain focus

and strength to continue moving forward through each milestone.

iv
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

INTRODUCTION 1

SECTION 1: PLANNING 3

Statement of the Problem 3

Organizational Context 5

Intervention 7

Purpose Statement 8

Review of the Literature 8

Action Research Methods 17

Limitations 26

Ethical Considerations 28

SECTION 2. IMPLEMENTATION 31

Process Analysis 31

Data Analysis 36

SECTION 3. EVALUATION 41

Findings 42

Reflections and Critique 52

Implications for Professional Practice 54

Recommendations 55

v
 Conclusion 56

REFERENCES 58

APPENDICES 62

PUBLISHING AGREEMENT 65

vi
 List of Tables

Table 1. Intervention Timeline [23]

Table 2. Data Sources and Collection Plan [24]

Table 3. Data Analysis Plan [26]

Table 4. Narrative Observation Notes [36]

Table 5. Interview Coding [39]

Table 6. Themes and Interview Reponses [48]

vii
List of Figures

Figure 1. aReading Assessment Risk Levels [45]

Figure 2. aReading Test Scores [46]

Figure 3. National Percentile Scores [47]

viii
 INTRODUCTION

The capstone site is a public school in a mid-western state of the United States of

America. The capstone site was opened in the 2018-2019 school year and has provided education

to students in grades K-5, with a total of 31 female staff members and one male staff member at

the time of this capstone project. The total number of students served was 326, and 239 students

identify as white, 30 Hispanic, 16 African American, and 3 Asian American (K. Place, personal

communication, March 1, 2020). Twenty-eight students qualify for the special education

program, and less than 40% of students (n=130) qualify for free and reduced lunch (K. Place,

personal communication, March 1, 2020). An academic achievement gap existed for students in

the special education subgroup at the capstone site. The capstone project addressed the

insufficient training provided to regular education teachers. The special education co-teaching

professional development program supported teaching students with special needs in the regular

education classroom. This project aimed to address the achievement gap for students in grades 4-

5 in the area of English-Language Arts (ELA), who were identified to receive special education

services.

The action researcher, who was also the special education teacher at the capstone site,

provided professional development training on implementing accommodations and modifications

inside the regular education classroom. The presentation was given as a foundation for the

implementation of the hands-on training intervention. The action researcher observed all four

teacher participants during either a reading or writing lesson. Over the course of 10 weeks the

action researcher provided in-class training, observation notes and modeling. The action

researcher modeled how to implement accommodations effectively for students with special

needs in the regular education classroom. An electronic collaborative framework tool was

1
developed by the action researcher, which allowed all participants to be involved in the

identification of skill gaps and leveraging accommodations and modifications to bridge the gap

between the gap and understanding. At the conclusion of the study, it was understood that a non-

traditional co-teaching framework could be implemented at the capstone site by regular

education and special education teachers to support the learning of students with special needs in

the regular education setting.

2
 SECTION 1: PLANNING

Statement of the Problem

The problem at the capstone site was that the grade four and five students identified with

special needs were not achieving expected grade-level goals for proficiency on English

Language Arts (ELA) outcomes. The aReading assessment was given to all students in fourth

and fifth grade to assess ELA growth in the fall, winter, and spring. The aReading assessment

was a broad assessment of reading skills and was a test that adapted its questions to get the best

estimate of an individual student’s reading skills. The school’s multi-tiered system of support

(MTSS) team flagged students who scored at or below the 25th percentile on the aReading

assessment. Students who fit into this score range, who were not already identified with

eligibility for special education services were provided additional intervention supports by the

classroom teacher. Sixty-seven percent of 4th-grade students in Spring 2021 performed between

the 30th percentile and the 80th percentile, indicating achievement or mastery toward the end-of-

year grade-level outcomes. Students in the special education subgroup who received services in

either reading or writing skills all performed at or below the 25th percentile. Sixty-nine percent

of 5th-grade students in the Spring of 2021 performed between the 30th to the 80th percentile, and

students in the special education subgroup all performed in the 20th percentile or below. To

identify and define the problem at the capstone site, the action researcher collaborated with the

building principal and the teaching and learning coach. If the problem were not addressed, it was

anticipated that students in the special education subgroup would continue towards a trajectory

of not meeting grade-level standards at the same rate and level as their same-aged peers.

The 2018-2019 Missouri MAP scores were reviewed and support the achievement gap

problem; the grade four MAP Index (overall achievement) in the area of ELA was 400.0 and 5th

3
grade 393.3 when compared against the special education subgroup, this number was 223.1, a

significant data disparity. This overall achievement index was compared to two other

elementary schools in the district. School A overall map achievement score for grade four:

404.4, grade five: 413.8, and special education: 225. School B overall map achievement score

for grade 4: 438, grade 5: 369, and special education: 242.9. All three schools had relatively

similar scores for grades four, five and the special education subgroup.

There was a performance gap in understanding how to effectively collaborate across

content levels (regular education and special education teams) to support underserved subgroups

of students. Shared decision-making about how to best serve subgroups of students, the groups of

students who were present in the academic achievement gap, should have included more staff

who work inside the classrooms. Special education teams and regular education teams required

more agency and decision-making abilities about how and when to collaborate; this indicated

that more time for collaborating and resources for materials were needed. Possible root causes of

the achievement gap among subgroups included a higher identification for special education in

the area of ELA than the area of math due to fewer tools to monitor, measure, and increase ELA

skills gaps in the regular classroom. Additionally, students in special education were not working

on grade-level ELA concepts, falling further and further behind, and as a result, achieved lower

scores on state and district reading and writing assessments. A lack of shared planning time and

inconsistent collaboration efforts were believed to be a root cause related to the

underachievement of students with special needs. This lack of resources was evidenced by

regular education teachers and the special education teachers having separate planning times, and

different curriculum and trainings. Also contributing to this lack of shared resources was not

4
including the special education teacher in any building level planning meetings or data review

with regular education teams.

The root cause of the academic achievement gap was believed to be insufficient training

and support given to the regular education teams regarding supporting students with special

needs in the regular classroom setting. Prior to the implementation of the intervention, fourth and

fifth-grade teachers were asked pre-study interview questions. Their responses supported the

belief that to close the achievement gap, the school should consider a co-teaching model between

the reading and special education team. The general education staff would benefit from training

and coaching to best support students with special education services in the regular education

classroom setting. A two-year district plan was implemented to make changes at the school level,

which required collaborative and highly participative action from all within the organization.

Organizational Context

The capstone site was a public school in a mid-western state of the United States of

America. This site was opened in the 2018-2019 school year and provided education to students

grades K-5, with a total of 31 female staff members and one male staff member. The total

number of students served was 326, and 239 students identified as white, 30 Hispanic, 16

African American, and 3 Asian American (K. Place, personal communication, March 1, 2020).

Twenty-eight students were qualified for the special education program, and less than 40%

(n=130) of students qualified for free and reduced lunch (K. Place, personal communication,

March 1, 2020). The action researcher served as the capstone site's sole special education teacher

for grades K-5. The action researcher was involved in collaborative discussions with other

teachers as the leader of professional development to address how to accommodate and modify

grade-level tasks for students with disabilities in the regular education classroom. The action

5
researcher was also involved in weekly collaboration meetings with the teacher participants over

the course of 10 weeks.

In a public elementary school, there are several dynamics which layer systems of shared

beliefs and core policies. These pieces are valuable in understanding both the political dynamics

of an organization and from where the power originates (Balogun et al., 2016). The capstone site

is a public elementary school, and it is populated with students who lived in the area, comprised

of both affluent and low socioeconomic neighborhoods. The members of the organizations were

believed to have shared beliefs about the core policies implemented by the organization. The

most valuable shared belief was that excellent education should be available to all students. The

organization had the support of a traditional school board. The organization most closely aligned

with an over bounded system because the system did display a lot of control, and there were

many rules (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The organization’s main sources of conflict were present in

how planning for all students occurs, was executed and is monitored. An achievement gap was

present within this educational organization, and it was always an issue that goals were created to

solve. However, the distribution of resources, mainly time and training given to all staff to

attempt to close the achievement gap, was not always efficient, evidenced by the achievement

gap that existed between subgroups and typical students.

The social dynamic of an institution is grounded in how the organization brings meaning

to the daily experience of work through the leadership lens (Balogun et al., 2016). The

organization deeply valued the district's mission and vision to be champions for all students and

to help students navigate an ever-changing world. The organization at the school level valued

consistency in routines and rituals. Staff and students were charged with creating and engaging

in “I can” statements, which set the tone for higher expectations and goals at a personal level and

6
learning/classroom level. The capstone site invested a lot of visual culture in words surrounding

being explorers and navigating the world. The culture around challenges and perseverance was

met with language such as “we/I can/will rise up”; as if to say we address the challenge, but we

will move forward and conquer it. School culture related to connecting with students was at the

heart of the site; staff greeted students by name and with a smile each morning as they came into

the school space. Equity and inclusion practices were applied and supported at a district-wide

level and were constantly being re-evaluated to uphold that the district was moving in the right

direction to serve all students.

Intervention

The special education co-teaching professional development program initiated a series of

hands-on training and professional development to address insufficient training in supporting

students with special needs inside the general education classroom; teachers were encouraged to

implement a special education co-teaching model into the regular education classroom. Hands-on

training included trying a variety of co-teaching structures, such as one teacher, one observation,

alternative teaching, and modeling of the implementation of accommodations and modifications

in the regular education classroom setting. Evidenced-based supported co-teaching models and

pedagogy were implemented with fidelity to support students with special needs inside the

regular education classroom. The regular education classroom teachers and the special education

teacher engaged in shared planning, implementing of lessons, classroom management, and the

implementation of modifications and accommodations. For the purpose of the action research,

the special education co-teaching model was implemented in grades four and five in the content

area of English-Language Arts.

7
 A professional development intervention accompanied by observations and opportunities

for feedback was selected due to evidence that supports that professional development is

effective when paired with active learning and participation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).

Teacher participants informally shared that professional development on how to support students

with special needs in the classroom was sparse at the capstone site and at the district level.

Observations, practice, and feedback paired with a basis of knowledge from the professional

development program supports the fidelity of the training in the regular education classroom

setting (Harris et al., 2012). Professional development was selected to provide teacher

participants with skill development opportunities that could be implemented quickly and

monitored and measured for effectiveness through teacher and student outcomes.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of the study was to address the problem of the academic achievement gap

which existed among students in the special education subgroup and facilitate an improvement

through the implementation of the special education co-teaching professional development

program.

Review of the Literature

In education, performance gaps exist in understanding how to effectively collaborate as a

team to support students with special needs. Shared decision making, autonomy and resources to

collaborate may lead to larger academic achievement gaps for student populations, such as the

special education subgroup. The nature of a need is simply the difference between the

organization’s current achievement and the desired accomplishments (Watkins et al., 2012).

When students with special needs are underperforming compared to their typical peers, the

8
current achievement is not an appropriate rate. There is value in understanding how collaborative

planning, shared decision making and co-teaching may influence student success.

The purpose of this literature review is to examine the achievement gap problem in

relation to inequity in education. Strategies to close the achievement gap through the lens of

current practices and educational theories were reviewed. Current collaboration practices in

education compared to effective collaboration practices were analyzed. A review of school

leadership and inclusion frameworks provided clarity towards behaviors and attitudes that may

contribute to closing the achievement gap. The literature review seeks to identify co-teaching as

an effective practice for collaboration and an effective tool to close the gap.

Strategies to Close the Achievement Gap

Teachers require more knowledge, dispositions, and pedagogical skills necessary to teach

children from diverse background; cultivating culturally responsive teaching efforts into

classrooms to close achievement gaps (Farinde-Wu et al., 2017). Culturally responsive teaching

is a framework that supports classroom instruction based on students’ cultural backgrounds and

experiences (Farinde-Wu et al., 2017). The culturally responsive framework relates to the idea of

implementing a new education paradigm into classrooms to see greater change in the

achievement gap. A student-centered, content-driven curriculum driven by content relevant to

students allows for deeper connections and engagement; a big framework shift from how most

districts plan and teach the curriculum.

The theory and practice of culturally relevant education is propelled by the belief that

constructivist methods bridge students’ cultural references to academic skills and concepts.

Culturally relevant educators frequently reflect on their own cultural competence (Aronson &

Laughter, 2016). To make any changes towards the academic achievement gap, first educators

9
must be equipped with the necessary tools to promote student success (Aronson & Laughter,

2016). If educators changed their mindsets around positive language, and re-teaching content

where some fell behind, all students would benefit and for students of color it could be life-

changing (Saphier, 2017). Many theories are present on the best way to close the achievement

gap for students in sub-groups. Themes for change include giving educators more voice in the

direction of curriculum and planning, culturally responsive teaching pedagogy and supporting

students in individualized ways.

To support evidenced-based practices inside the classroom, the coaching framework

could be implemented. The coaching framework empowers the classroom teacher to use new

strategies to support and focus on academic and social and emotional support for students with

special needs. Coaching may include activities such as a needs assessment, modeling, and check-

ins to promote and ensure fidelity (Johnson et al., 2018). Research supports a positive teacher

perception of working with the coaching framework. The coaching framework allows for greater

opportunities for collaboration and support (Johnson et al., 2018). The coaching framework is

important to support teachers in providing an appropriate social space for learners with special

needs in the inclusive classroom setting (Farmer et al., 2019). Classrooms should be viewed as a

society to support the social and academic needs of all students (Farmer et al., 2019). A

classroom culture must be cultivated by the classroom teacher. The classroom teacher supports

the peer culture and the day-to- day social experiences of all who are part of the classroom

(Farmer et al., 2019).

Beyond the co-teaching model, implementing practices of proactive planning and

instructional design is vital in supporting all students in the regular education classroom (Stein,

2017). A variety of co-teaching models exist, such as team teaching, one teach/one observe,

10
station teaching, alternative teaching, and parallel teaching (Stein, 2017). When choosing a co-

teaching model, the teaching team must consider the most appropriate way to engage both

students with and without special needs. Whole class instruction and small group instruction are

both beneficial and could be used flexibly within the regular education classroom. Whole class

teaching provides students with opportunities to build a learning community; strengthening

acceptance and feelings of inclusion, while small groupings allow for more direct and

individualized instruction (Stein, 2017).

Current Collaboration Practices in Education

To commit to equal opportunities and education for all students every student succeeds

act (ESSA) was passed in 2015; ESSA maintains that students with disabilities are granted

access to equal opportunities through authorization to federal spending budgets for K-12 schools

(Darrow & Adamek, 2017). To support students with special needs, all educators should be

aware of and utilize initiatives such as a positive behavior support (PBS) system, response to

intervention (RTI), and implementation of the universal designs of learning (UDL) (Darrow &

Adamek, 2017). Multiple school professionals are involved in the RTI process. To ensure

effective collaboration, a purposeful plan needs to be in place using communication tools like

online data organizers can help to align communication between school professionals (Weiss &

Friesen, 2014).

Current practices in special education include push-in and pull-out special education

service minutes. If the goal is to create an inclusive classroom, then current teaching practices

must be re-evaluated to create positive and meaningful experiences for students with special

needs. Push-in special education support at the capstone site and across the district is not

common practice. A variety of factors, such as classroom arrangements and classroom setting

11
conditions predict higher levels of access for students with disabilities (Soukup et al., 2007). The

one teach, one assist model of co-planning and co-teaching is one of the most common models;

both teachers should be active participants in co-planning, and co-assessing student needs to

maintain fidelity with strategies and implementation in the classroom (Hunter et al., 2016).

Students in special education are largely failing in the mainstream environment. To

change how students with special needs thrive in education, teachers must develop the right

conditions for learning in the regular education setting (Thomas, 2013). To foster favorable

learning conditions for all students and provide appropriate access to education for all students,

teaching approaches and pedagogy must become more focused (Rose, 2002). It’s essential that

principals and teacher leaders create schedules which support collaboration between classroom

teachers and special education teachers to increase school effectiveness (Rea et al., 2002).

Establishing Compatible Teaching Partners and Practices

Collaboration practices among special education and regular education teachers is a

relationship of more recent interest in education. Collaborative planning is successful when

teaching partners share similar philosophies about how disabilities affect a student’s ability to

interact and engage in the classroom and with the curriculum (Carter et al., 2009). Teaching

teams who could not agree or did not share compatible philosophies about disabilities were not

able to define or agree on the learning gaps and did not report successful collaborative

partnerships (Carter et al., 2009).

To collaborate effectively educators must attempt to understand one another’s beliefs and

perspectives about education and disabilities. Research by Robinson and Buly (2007) supports

the idea that a misunderstanding and misalignment in educational paradigms leaves teams unable

to work collaboratively. Teachers working together towards a common vision allows a team

12
approach to lend to collaborative practices. Collaborative practices are not all created equal, but

it is essential to create positive change for students with special needs. Teachers must receive

training and preparation to develop the skills needed to have a collaborative partnership.

Collaborative partnerships should include communication skills, instructional strategies and an

understanding of responsibilities (Nierengarten, 2013). A consistent time and place should be

established for collaboration to occur. Additionally, collaboration requires an agreed upon

agenda and a determination of regular roles and responsibilities for both teachers (Murawski,

2012). Collaborative planning relationships are built on five elements: face-to-face interaction,

positive interdependence, interpersonal skills, monitoring and individual accountability

(Thousand et al., 2006). For collaborative planning to be successful, teaching teams must

understand what the five elements look like when face-to-face planning occurs (Thousand et al.,

2006). The most common reason why collaborative planning fails is a result of failed

communication between team members and a lack of creating time to plan (Thousand et al.,

2006).

Approaches to Collaborative Planning

Classrooms and instruction driven by collaboration can capitalize on the strengths of both

the regular classroom and special education teachers (Schmidt et al., 2002). Special education

teachers and regular education teachers typically receive and possess different training and skill

sets. A special education teacher may be limited in their understanding of grade-level content

and planning in relation to a regular education teacher (Jitendra et al., 2002). Collaboration

between the regular education and special education teachers will support and enhance the

experience for students with special needs inside the regular education classroom. It is important

for students with special needs to feel supported academically, but also socially, emotionally, and

13
behaviorally. Specialized instruction plans created by special education teachers coupled with

planning and instruction driven by content standards could lead to a richer and a more well-

rounded delivery of services for students with special needs (Jitendra et al., 2002). The act of

collaboration requires immense effort and training; despite almost all mission or vision

statements including collaboration most schools do not have effective collaboration models in

place (Robinson & Buly, 2007).

Collaborative planning is essential to dive into instructional planning and curriculum

content. Collaborative planning should include meeting to review the unit and assessment

schedules and exploring student accommodations and modifications (Jitendra et al., 2002).

Identifying the “big ideas” or major content takeaways from the unit or lesson is an important

part of collaborative planning (Jitendra et al., 2002). Co-planning provides an opportunity for

educators with various background and expertise to share their respective skills to create and

implement appropriate content for all types of learners (Jitendra et al., 2002). Time for planning

and evaluation or observation must be in place for collaboration to be effective (Reeve &

Hallahan, 1994). The key features of collaborative planning include data-based decision making,

academic and behavior supports across three tiers, culturally responsive practices, and

administrative leadership (Stollar et al., 2006).

Effective collaboration occurs when the planning teams are student-focused, and results

driven. Collaboration is the force which drives student success and ultimately closing

achievement gaps in schools (Swenson & Williams, 2015). To provide the most successful

educational experience for all students, it’s important that educators learn from one another and

share their strengths. Students with special needs benefit from educators working together to

create a conducive learning environment (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). The higher levels of

14
communication and teamwork which exists between teachers leads to better outcomes for

students with special needs (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012).

Co-teaching models can be built on the foundation of the planning pyramid for

proactively planning and designing instruction (Stein, 2017). A variety of co-teaching models

exist, such as team teaching, one teach/one observe, station teaching, alternative teaching, and

parallel teaching (Stein, 2017). When choosing a co-teaching model, the teaching team must

consider the most appropriate way to engage both students with and without special needs.

Whole class instruction and small group instruction are both beneficial and could be used

flexibly within the regular education classroom. Whole class teaching provides students with

opportunities to build a learning community while small groupings allow more direct and

individualized instruction (Stein, 2017).

The following theories informed the development and implementation of this action

research project: action research theory, change theory and systems theory.

Action Research Theory

The theory of action research outlines the process in terms of four factors: contextual

factors, quality of relationships, quality of action research process and the outcomes (Shani &

Pasmore, 2010). Action research focuses on implementing a research study to improve a social

or organizational issue (Coghlan, 2014). Action research builds on a knowledge while

implementing a study through a process of planning, taking action, and evaluation the plan

(Coghlan, 2014). Action research by nature requires collaboration and participation; how people

participate is an integral part of action research (Coghlan, 2014). The implementation of the

study at the capstone site was created as an action research study to improve the organizational

issue of a lack of sufficient training provided to regular education classroom teachers regarding

15
their understanding of supporting students with special needs inside the regular classroom setting

by providing professional development and training with the hope of a positive outcome. The

action researcher developed trusting relationships with each of the teacher participants and

created a space for learning and building on the experiences of classroom teachers. The action

researcher created a new framework to benefit the capstone site, teachers, and students in special

education.

Change Theory

Change theory was a particular foundational element central to the action research

intervention. William Glasser’s choice theory was used as the framework as the foundation of

the study (Glasser, as cited by Garofalo, 2019). The Garofalo (2019) study findings supported

that choice in co-teaching plays an important role in teachers’ feelings of autonomy, power and

belonging. Garofalo’s (2019) study also uncovered that 10 out of 12 teacher participants had a

limited understanding or experience of the practices of co-teaching. Allowing co-teaching to be a

choice for teachers to opt into was met with a positive attitude; the ability to choose a teaching

partner greatly impacted the co-teaching relationship (Garofalo, 2019). Allowing educators, the

opportunity for choice whenever possible, may positively influence attitudes and perception

when implementing a new model or framework. Implementing a co-teaching model is not

enough, according to Stein (2017), co-teachers must plan specific activities linked to students’

strengths and needs, incorporating the special education students’ accommodations and

modifications into the regular education classroom. Differentiating the group size and

arrangements is the first step, next the teachers must work together to approach differentiation

and accessibility to grade-level content.

16
Systems Theory

Senge (2006) wrote “you can only understand the system of a rainstorm by contemplating

the whole, not any individual part of the pattern” (p.6). Systems thinking is a conceptual

framework; a study of system structure and behavior (Senge, et al., 2012). Systems thinking is

crucial to change in organizations and motivates people to change and acts as a catalyst to

collaboration because of the empowerment and value of understanding the system as a whole

(Stroh, 2015). The action research study was based on a holistic understanding of the teaching

and collaboration system at the capstone site to support a positive change. Systems theory

allowed the action researcher and participants the opportunity to frame the identified problem in

a new and different way. The action researcher and participants developed a shared

understanding that there was not one perfect solution rather a plethora of opportunities to share

ideologies to support students with special needs. Shared vision is only possible when people

believe they impact change within the organization (Senge, 2006). A shared vision was created at

the beginning of the study by all study participants and the action researcher. The goal of the

shared vision was to develop collaborative practices between grade-level teachers and the special

education teacher. Systems theory includes concepts which apply to all systems and help to

describe the method of systems thinking. It is understood that a system is a structure organized of

both similar and or different components (Irby et al., 2013).

Action Research Methods

The research method used was action research. The first step of the action research

method was to identify the problem at the capstone site. The special education co-teaching

professional development program initiated a series of hands-on trainings and a professional

development presentation to address the lack of training given to the general education

classroom teachers. After a review of the literature the action researcher developed a special

17
education co-teaching model to integrate into the regular education classrooms. Prior to in-class

training, a professional development presentation on accommodations and modifications in the

classroom was presented to stakeholders; this presentation was created and facilitated by the

action researcher.

Next, the plan was implemented which included a series of trainings to implement

accommodations and modifications with fidelity for students with special needs in the regular

classroom. A weekly schedule of implementation was used to document the intervention (Table

1). The implementation of the special education co-teaching professional development program

required ongoing collaboration with the participants and with the stakeholders’ group.

Stakeholders were kept informed of progress during the implementation of the special education

co-teaching professional development program via a weekly check-in sent out each Friday to the

stakeholder and participant group email. A weekly communication chain served the purpose of

documentation of communication and captured notes used for reflection at the conclusion of the

study.

Evidenced-based supported co-teaching models and pedagogy were implemented with

fidelity to support students with special needs within the regular classroom setting in addition to

the special education setting. The regular education classroom teachers and the special education

teacher engaged in shared planning and the implementation of lessons. Additionally, classroom

management and the implementation of modifications and accommodations of grade-level work

for students with special needs in the regular education classroom were implemented. For the

purpose of the study, the co-teaching model was implemented in grades four and five in the

content area of English-Language Arts.

To provide a meaningful educational experience for students with disabilities in the

general education setting, several areas were considered. These areas included identifying the

18
types of supports needed to support all types of disabilities and developing a clearer

understanding of what curriculum content and standards would be important for all students to

learn (Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007). Action research allowed for research to support

students with special needs in the least restrictive environment to determine if inclusion and co-

teaching/learning were beneficial to closing achievement gaps. Scholar practitioner’s work to

make changes in their own organizations through collaborative work and a true generation of

ideas and learning (Coghlan, 2014).

Participants and Stakeholders

Participants

The participants in the study included four regular education teachers, and the special

education teacher. The participants were involved in or impacted by the project and the

improvement the project provided. The roles of the participants were to be involved in an active

role in the study. Participants attended professional development and helped to shape the

understanding of co-teaching and collaboration at the capstone site. Participants were asked to be

observed by the action researcher, receive, and implement feedback regarding accommodations

and modifications in the classroom and attend weekly check-ins to create a collaborative

framework tool. At the capstone site there were only two fourth- grade teachers and two fifth-

grade teachers at the time of the study and the study were focused on the fourth and fifth- grade

population in the area of ELA. Sample selection of participants was based on the relevance of the

participants to the topic of the study. A purposive sample was selected, more specifically a

representative sampling of participants was selected as the participants were selected as the

group at the capstone site with a range of characteristics who most closely aligned with the

problem statement (Maxwell, 2013).

19
Stakeholders

The stakeholder group included the capstone site building principal, a reading specialist,

a teaching and learning coach, fourth-fifth grade teachers (four teachers total) and the special

education team. The stakeholders met with the action researcher multiple times; the stakeholder

group had the opportunity to hear the problem statement, the components of the logical model

and were asked for feedback to bring clarity to the action study. The capstone site principal was

especially helpful in streamlining ideas to define the site problem and provided access to

resources and data more clearly.

Intervention Implementation Plan

The special education co-teaching professional development program initiated a series of

hands-on trainings and a professional development presentation to address the previously

inadequate training given to the general education classroom teachers. The goal of the

implementation of the study was to work towards a special education co-teaching and co-

planning model which was integrated into the regular education classrooms. A professional

development presentation on accommodations and modifications in the classroom was presented

to stakeholders. This presentation was created and facilitated by the action researcher. The

professional development training was created and led by the action researcher. The presentation

was given after contract hours and within 1 session and lasted approximately two hours. The goal

of the professional development presentation was to create a foundation for classroom teachers

on how to implement accommodations and modifications with fidelity for students with special

needs in the regular classroom. The accommodations and modifications professional

development training defined the difference between accommodations and modifications. During

the presentation, participants engaged in a group read of an article addressing the adaptation of

20
curriculum and instruction. At the conclusion of the group read, the participants engaged in a

series of reflection with the action researcher related to new information learned, biggest take-

aways and ideas to implement into their own teaching practices on a day-to-day basis. The action

researcher identified how to identify appropriate accommodations for students based on target

skills and access skills. The benefits of accommodations and modifications were discussed as a)

they can uncover academic blockers for students with special needs, b) they can promote content

knowledge and c) accommodations and modifications can help to build self-confidence of

students with special needs in the regular education classroom. Accommodations and

modifications were broken down into the areas of reading and writing and participants were

given ideas of how to appropriately implement them in the classroom.

A series of hands-on in-class trainings were facilitated by the action researcher and

occurred weekly in each of the four participants classrooms. The in-class trainings consisted of

the action researcher establishing and modeling specific accommodations and modifications

being used and implemented correctly during classroom sessions. The action researcher

debriefed each classroom teacher on the individualized education plan (IEP) in regard to the

accommodations and modifications to be implemented with fidelity in the regular classroom for

students with special needs. A tracker for each student was used to organize the accommodations

and modifications in the area of ELA inside the regular classroom. The action researcher

provided in the moment feedback to classroom teachers to clarify which accommodations and

modifications should be used and if they were being implemented correctly. These trainings

created a foundation for discussion and observation during collaboration sessions. A weekly

schedule of implementation was used to document the intervention (Table 5). The

implementation of the intervention required ongoing collaboration with the participants and with

21
the stakeholder’s group. During the implementation, stakeholders were kept informed of

progress via a weekly check-in sent out each Friday to the stakeholder and participant group

email. The weekly communication chain served the purpose of documentation of communication

and as a document that captured notes for reflection at the study's conclusion. A review of data

was conducted with the stakeholders’ group in week 9 of the study to gain a better understanding

of special education student progress towards grade-level standards compared to typical peers in

the grade-level.

Evidenced-based supported co-teaching models and pedagogy were implemented with

fidelity to support students in special education within the regular classroom setting. The regular

education classroom teachers and the special education teacher engaged in shared planning,

implementing of lessons and implementation of modifications and accommodations of grade-

level work for students in the special education program. Collaboration occurred formally twice

a week and teachers would share information and updates informally and daily. For the purpose

of the study, the special education co-teaching model was implemented in grades four and five in

the content area of English-Language Arts (ELA). To provide a meaningful and equitable

educational experience for students with special needs in the general education setting, several

areas were considered. The types of supports needed to support all types of disabilities and a

clear understanding of what curriculum content and standards were important for all students to

learn were considered (Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007). Action research allowed for

research in action to support students with disabilities in the least restrictive setting to identify

the benefits of inclusion and a coteaching framework.

Table 1

22
Intervention Timeline

Week 1 Observe in classrooms/baseline notes

Week 2 Present accommodations and modifications professional development to

stakeholders/participants at the capstone site
Week 3 The action researcher will observe in all four (4th and 5th grade) classrooms in
order to identify accommodations and modifications being implemented with
fidelity or a misunderstanding in how or when to implement the
accommodation/modifications
Week 4 Hands on in-class training to support students with special needs

Week 5 Co-teaching framework implemented

Week 6 Hands on in-class training

Week 7 Hands on in-class training

Week 8 Co-teaching model and check-in with stakeholders’ group

Week 9 Review of data with stakeholders’ group

Hands on in-class training

Week 10 Feedback/reflection from stakeholders’ group

Expected Outcomes

As a result of the special education co-teaching professional development program, it was

expected that a framework for collaboration and development of a co-teaching model would be

adopted at the capstone site. It was the intent of the special education co-teaching professional

development intervention to allow the capstone site to identify areas of weakness in supporting

students with special needs inside the regular classroom and to creating a framework that

supported progress towards closing the achievement gap for students with special needs. It was

expected that regular education teachers would report a positive relationship in their

understanding of the co-teaching professional development program. At the end of the

intervention, they had a greater depth of knowledge of how to support students with a variety of

23
learning needs. As a result of the special education co-teaching professional development

program, it was expected that achievement data for students with special needs would indicate

positive trends towards making progress in English Language Arts.

Action Research Questions

The following action research questions informed the development and implementation of

this action study capstone project.

1. How did the implementation of the special education co-teaching professional

development program address the problem of academic achievement at the capstone site?

2. What were the challenges that the implementation of the special education co-teaching

professional development program faced and is the intervention sustainable beyond the

action research study?

3. How did the implementation of the special education co-teaching professional

development program impact the learning culture of the capstone site?

Data Sources and Collection Procedures

Table 2

Data Sources and Collection Plan

Action Research Questions Data to be Collected** Data Source+ When P or

Collected++ O or
both +
++
1. How did the Student achievement ELA outcomes After the Both
implementation of the data data intervention
special education co- Quantitative MAP
teaching professional achievement
development program data
address the problem of Fastbridge data
academic achievement at
the capstone site?

24
 2.What were the Interviews Faculty During and O
challenges that the Narrative-type after the
implementation of the observations intervention
special educational- Qualitative
teaching professional
development program
intervention sustainable
beyond the action research
study?
3. How did the Interview Faculty After the P
implementation of the Narrative-type intervention
special education co- observations
teaching professional Qualitative
development program
intervention impact the
learning culture of the
capstone site?

Notes.
* Research Question: State research question(s), one per row
** Data Collection: What data will be collected to answer the research question? (e.g., survey,
interview, tracking data, etc.) Is it qualitative or quantitative?
+ Data Source: Who will provide the data or where will you find it? (e.g., students,
faculty, counseling records, records database, etc.)
++ When Collected: When will the data be collected? (e.g., prior to implementation of the
intervention, during the intervention, week “x” of the intervention, after
the intervention, etc.)
+++ P or O or PO Indicate whether the data will be process or outcomes data, or both (in the
event the data will help tell the story and assess/evaluate outcomes). An
example might when participants are interviewed several times during the
implementation and their perceptions help tell the story of how the
intervention is implemented (“how it’s going” or process data) and
provide data for a research question such as, “How did [participants]
perceive the intervention?” (outcomes data). Responses will help tell the
story of participant perceptions during the implementation and answer the
question at the end of the study.

Table 3

Data Analysis Plan

25
 Data Source/Type Data Analysis Procedures
Records data Records data was reported and analyzed by the FastBridge company. All
FastBridge assessments were standardized. Student data was assigned a
category (high risk, some risk, advanced) and coded based on the score's
numerical value or percentile range. Student scores fall into percentile ranges
as compared to same grade peers both locally and nationally.
Teacher Interviews Teacher interview data was coded using the thematic data analysis approach.
The interviews were recorded, and notes were transcribed by the action
researcher. Interview responses were coded by the action researcher as
responses related to the research questions. The action researcher created
categories to organize the data trends and then themes were developed as a
result.
Narrative Type Narrative type observation findings were organized by common themes
Observations extrapolated from the anecdotal notes recorded during observations by the
action researcher. The action researcher highlighted and coded prominent
ideas and any recurring words or messages in the anecdotal observation notes.
Codes were placed into categories to reflect the themes supported by the
findings of the study.

Limitations

The study participants were asked to be able to agree on a shared philosophy of how

disabilities affected a student’s ability to access grade level standards and participate in the

regular education classroom in a meaningful way. A review of the literature supports this idea;

collaborative planning can be successful when teaching partners share a similar teaching

philosophy. Naturally, the partnership is more likely to fail when common ground is not

established (Prater et al., 2009). An inability for all participants to agree on a shared philosophy

of supporting the needs of students with special needs inside the regular education classroom

would limit the study. Prior to the start of the study, participants worked to arrive at a shared

understanding.

COVID-19 and social distancing guidelines and procedures, potential school closures and

virtual teaching all posed limitations to the study. The action research study was designed to

implement hands-on training within the regular classroom, due to COVID-19 restrictions at both

26
the capstone site and Capella University’s procedural safeguards in place for the study, the study

did require unique circumstances to continue, which included meeting on a virtual platform

(Microsoft teams) rather than face-to-face, even though the capstone site remained at full

capacity and in-person learning for the duration of the study.

Credibility

To ensure credibility and validity of the study, the interview protocol was implemented

and tested using a pilot interview (Stringer, 2013). Additionally, frequent debriefing occurred

with participants. The implementation of the action research intervention ensured credibility

through the collection of a variety of collaboration frameworks to support the study using

theoretical triangulation. Member-checking was used to establish credibility by sharing data,

action researcher interpretations and conclusions with study participants (Maxwell, 2013).

Dependability

Dependability ensures that the findings could be duplicated within the same group of

participants (Coghlan, 2014). A detailed record of the data collection process was created to

support dependability and a detailed outline of the study protocol and measuring coding accuracy

(Stringer, 2013).

Transferability

Transferability was important to generalize the study in other settings. To ensure

transferability by developing a thorough description of context and assumptions of the research

(Stringer, 2013). The action researcher provided information about the implementation of

framework and results; the coaching frameworks could be applied at any other grade-level

outside of primary grades.

Ethical Considerations

27
Human Participants

Possible ethical or regulatory considerations for the study included maintaining

anonymity and confidentiality of student data and conflicts of interests when working with

school teams (the action researcher was on the special education team). Though this was an

action research project, to some degree there would be an intrusion to some extent to the lives of

the study participants (Maxwell, 2013). Collecting data and interviews required extra work and

support from the study participants on top of their current roles; even though the extra work

would greatly benefit students' success, extra work is not always welcomed.

To minimize the risks of human participants student information only included

demographic information and information retrieved from student data points, as allowed by the

capstone site. All human participants were informed of the nature of the study, including

expectations during the study; this particular action study did not require anything of the

students. Study participants were required to give informed consent prior to the study and were

informed that they could refuse to participate and could withdraw after the beginning of the

research at any time. Anonymity and confidentiality of participants was protected by removing

any identifying or person-specific details; pseudonyms were used, even in observation notes.

Site Permission

Site permission was provided by the capstone site building principal who provided verbal

permission for the identified issue to serve as the focus of the capstone project and agreed with

the problem definition. Additional approval was secured prior to beginning the study on behalf

of the district. The director of data and accountability provided an application for research and a

panel at the district home office granted permission to conduct the action study. The district

application required approval from the IRB board, which was secured. The action researcher

28
received University IRB approval for the study. All research was shared with the district, per the

district application for research.

Teacher participants were informally approached about the study and were asked to

provide informed consent prior to the study intervention being implemented; all participants

invited agreed to participate. The capstone site remained anonymous and de-identification was

performed.

Conflict of Interest

The main conflict of interest was a potential conflict of commitment or conflict of

obligation due to the action researcher’s contractual obligations as a teacher at the capstone site.

The action researcher was given verbal permission by the capstone site principal, with an

understanding that the contractual obligations must always be fulfilled. As a result, there were

instances when research competed with the time expected to be spent teaching. Policies

regarding amount of time allowed for outside activity or research were reviewed prior to the

study start date.

Bias

Ethical risks at the capstone site were related to action researcher bias due to the role of

the action researcher. Action researcher bias may have caused a belief that the greatest

contributor to the achievement gap was the lack of or un-willingness to collaborate. Interviews

and additional research allowed for a deeper understanding that intrinsic motivation, parent

involvement and culturally responsive teaching played a role in student achievement.

Intellectual Property

29
 The framework and theories which informed the development of the action research

were referenced according to APA guidelines to avoid plagiarism and protect the original authors

intellectual property. The action researcher is the sole action researcher of the action research

study. Censorship was used in an effort to protect participants while sharing experiences and

events that occurred during action research. Open communication regarding research findings

with participants and stakeholders was upheld to ensure collaboration.

30
 SECTION 2: IMPLEMENTATION

Process Analysis

The study was a 10-week action research intervention that was developed and

implemented during the second half of a school year. Week one of the study began with pre-

study interview conducted with four classroom teachers (two fourth and two fifth- grade

classroom teachers). The interviews were held virtually using the district approved Microsoft

team’s application. The purpose of the interviews was to gain a foundational understanding of

the regular education’s teams’ values on collaboration. Additionally, the interview questions

would seek to gain an understanding of participant views on the current state of collaboration

between the regular education and special education team. The responses to interview questions

allowed the action researcher to create a plan for anticipated collaboration barriers. The action

researcher developed an understanding of the needs of the regular education team to feel

prepared to support students with special needs. The action researcher recorded typed narrative

notes during the interview as the classroom teachers responded to ten pre-study interview

questions. Data were extrapolated and reviewed for themes by the action researcher.

Baseline data were collected during weeks one and two of the study which included

classroom observations by the action researcher. Anecdotal notes were recorded on a password

protected MacBook, observation data were collected in two fourth-grade classrooms and two

fifth grade-classrooms during English-Language Arts (ELA) lessons. These data were gathered

to obtain an understanding of how classroom teachers planned for and considered

accommodations and modifications of students with special needs in the ELA lessons; including

groupings of students, graphic organizers/note pages created or shared with students,

individualized check-ins, and modified work at the students’ access points.

31
 During week two of the of study, the accommodations and modifications professional

development presentation was given virtually to the participants. The presentation was created

by the action researcher and by a peer. The purpose of the presentation was to support and

inform participants in their understanding and development of using appropriate

accommodations and modifications within the regular education classroom for students with

special needs.

During week three of the study, the action researcher created a draft of a collaboration

tool that would be used for collaboration notes when meeting with classroom teachers. The

collaboration tool was shared with the building principal and with the building teaching and

learning coach; feedback and suggestions were given by the team and changes were made to

reflect the feedback. The collaboration tool was created as a Google Document that could be

accessed and edited by all participants in the study.

The action researcher met with participants as grade-level teams during week four and

week five of the study to introduce and use the collaboration tool as a team. The collaboration

tool asked the team to first identify the “I can” statement for the day/week. The “I can” statement

was created as a bi product of the state standard to identify what the student would accomplish or

learn as a result of the lesson. Next, the team identified the big idea(s), which deepened the

understanding of the “I can” statement even further. The collaboration document included

common misconceptions, a space to identify the gaps for students in special education,

accommodations and modifications that would be put in place to support the student and named

the strategy for how the special education teacher would support closing the identified gap in the

special education setting. At the close of the collaborative session the team set action steps for all

members. The team reflected on the collaboration effort, action steps and the special education

32
students progress toward the “I can” statement at the following collaboration meeting. Weeks

five through seven were utilized as an opportunity to meet weekly as a collaborative team, using

the collaboration tool as the vehicle for understanding how to plan for and support students with

special needs in the regular education classroom setting.

As the implementation unfolded over the course of the study the participants and the

action researcher developed an understanding of a co-teaching framework that could be

implemented at the capstone site with fidelity that didn’t align with what was expected. An

understanding of what a co-teaching framework looked like at the capstone site was developed in

week eight of the study. The participants and action researcher identified that a traditional co-

teaching framework was not necessarily one that would be the most beneficial at the capstone

site. A traditional co-teaching framework among the special education team and regular

education team involved the special education teacher co-teaching or team teaching in the same

classroom as the regular classroom teacher. The participants and action researcher identified that

co-teaching at the capstone site could include collaborative planning sessions.

A series of hands-on in-class trainings were facilitated by the action researcher and

occurred weekly in each of the four participants classrooms. The action researcher would push-in

to ELA courses for the entirety of the class. Hands on training sessions created a time and space

for the special education teacher and the regular education teacher to brainstorm and collaborate

on how to best support students with special needs in the classroom. The regular education

teachers had opportunities to ask questions related to accommodations and modifications of ELA

content in the moment and could adapt coursework and content to meet the need of learners with

special needs. The in-class trainings consisted of the action researcher establishing and modeling

specific accommodations and modifications being used and implemented correctly during

33
classroom sessions. The action researcher provided in the moment feedback to classroom

teachers to provide clarity on which accommodations and modifications should be used and if

they were being implemented correctly. These trainings created a foundation for discussion and

observation during collaboration sessions.

The intervention took longer to implement than the planned intervention timeline. The

action researcher acknowledged that not having a set collaboration time to meet and plan with

regular classroom teachers definitely impeded the progress of the intervention. Based on

conversations with participants, assumptions made about the implementation and the outcomes

included a belief that the special education professional development program would quickly

bring about change in planning for and supporting students with special needs at the capstone

site. Actual events, such as an insufficient shared collaboration time was an identified gap at the

capstone site which was believed to contribute to the achievement gap of the special education

subgroup population. Study participants were willing to meet during their plan times, and before

and after school hours. Participants were willing to learn and were eager to implement new

practices in the regular classroom.

In relation to the implementation of the intervention conversations surrounding growth

mindset and a shift towards a more equitable and student-centered approach occurred between

the participants and the action researcher. The collaboration framework tool allowed the

participants to focus first on the skill being assessed and the student gaps in learning, such as

common misconceptions and gap areas that lead to a failure to access the grade-level curriculum.

The participants agreed that to propel students with special needs forward in the regular

classroom higher levels of collaboration between the regular education and special education

team was needed. The participants demonstrated a high level of understanding regarding the skill

34
area gaps that the students with special needs in their classroom presented with. Authentic and

honest conversations grounded in feeling unprepared and unsupported to support students who

were several grade levels behind, while feeling pressured to prepare all students to meet grade-

level standards and take grade-level assessments resounded unanimously from all participants.

It was important to the action researcher to create a space for collaboration built on

respect; the study participants were all co-workers of the action researcher; a high level of

respect, communication and trust was necessary for the success of this study. Participants were

given space to share concerns throughout the study; a norm created by the action researcher

during the pre-study interviews. The collaboration and true efforts of participants was necessary

for this study, therefore a great emphasis on participant voice was given extensively. The ideas

of participants were documented and never dismissed by the action researcher to uphold genuine

framework for respect. Participants and members of the organization were provided weekly

updates via email about the progress of the study. The collaborative tool was created using

google docs to allow for all participants to have editing rights and access to avoid a hierarchy of

the action researcher controlling and owning the collaborative framework process.

Informal opportunities for member checking occurred over the course of observation and

conversation throughout the study. Participants had opportunities to correct any in-the-moment

interpretations of information through collaborative conversations. To support a holistic view of

validity the action researcher would focus on participant experiences, emotions and thoughts

related to the study questions and more broadly the participants worldview. An understanding

that all participants contributed a variety of length of teaching, content areas and life experiences

was a vital part of the member checking in this study. The action researcher reported the pre-

study interview responses as extracted themes to gain validity and a collective understanding.

35
The action researcher would use language such as “what I hear you saying is…” and “am I

interpreting this correctly when you say…” to focus on the accuracy of participant responses.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data and qualitative data were collected at the conclusion of the intervention;

this data included interview data and Fastbridge academic assessment data. MAP achievement

data were planned to be collected after the intervention but was not reviewed or collected for the

intervention. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic 2019-2020 MAP (state assessments) were not

taken while students learned remotely. Students did take the 2020-2021 Spring MAP assessment

at the capstone site, but results were not available until the Fall of 2021.

Qualitative data which included interviews and narrative-type observations were collected during

and after the intervention. Narrative type observations documented by the action researcher

through the entirety of the study were organized by observation date and by participant and

stored on a locked google document; observations by the action researcher were analyzed based

on common themes and trends (table 4).

Table 4

Narrative Observation Notes

Observation Notes Reflections

Common accommodations and modifications
used by all classroom teachers included: having
students draw pictures instead of writing during
brainstorming sessions and an access to a variety
of level of texts. Visuals and charts were
implemented. Students were able to use iPads as a
tool to take notes and take pictures of teacher
notes. Teachers modeled their thinking out loud
while reading.
Students with special needs were all 2-3 reading
levels behind same-grade peers in the regular
classroom setting making accessing teacher notes
difficult.
One 4th grade teacher would air drop articles and
examples related to the reading assignment to
student iPads; this was individualized and
discreet. This is a quick way to provide extra
support.
More charts for students with special needs are
needed. Ideas may include: a pronouns chart,
sentence starters, visuals paired with vocabulary,
a visual checklist to use during independent
writing time.

36
 During independent writing time, students with
special needs were frequently off-task and when
asked by the action researcher what the writing
task was, they struggled to identify the task.
ELA lessons are set up as instruction then practice
or worktime following a workshop model.
Students have ELA notebooks
Writing exemplars and small groups are necessary
for students to understand the task.
The co-teaching framework at the capstone site
may need to be different than a tradition co-
teaching relationship.
ELA notebooks should travel back and forth
between special education and the grade-level
classrooms to have transparency between both.

Classroom teachers used many accommodations/modifications. Some examples observed

included allowing the students to draw a picture instead of write during brainstorming and

providing a variety of access to text levels (also, giving 2-3 choices instead of 5-10 choices),

visuals/charts. Students were able to use the iPad as a tool to house notes and take pictures of

teachers notes on the board. Teachers modeled their thinking while reading and writing. As a

result of the observations, the action researcher identified the need for an implementation of

several accommodations and modifications. Charts for students with special needs in ELA may

be beneficial, for example: a chart with pronouns on it, sentence starters, visuals paired with

vocab, visual checklists during writing modified with vocabulary for students to access more

easily, a checklist of exactly what to accomplish by the end of the class period or by the end of

the week and outlines/templates and writing exemplars. Copies of readings as paper-copies

versus on the iPad should be offered as the iPad can be distracting or difficult to use to search for

articles or reading passages.

Insights gained from observations included an understanding that if the special education

team knows the “I can” statements beforehand, then the special education teacher wouldn’t need

to be present for the lesson. The special education teacher could step in during but could be

during classroom work time when students with special needs need the most support in the

regular education classroom setting. Co-teaching at the capstone site was proposed to be a

37
framework that would function differently than traditional co-teaching between the regular

education and special education. The special education teacher at the capstone site was not able

to traditionally co-teach due to scheduling. Collaboration with the regular education teacher

would allow for the special education teacher to pre-teach and connect lessons to regular

education in the special education classroom. It would be sustainable for the special education

teacher to support the work happening in the regular education setting through collaboration if

the common misconceptions, action steps and the big idea was for the ELA lesson. ELA

notebooks that would travel back and forth between special education and grade-level

classrooms would allow students to capture the work in both settings and maintain transparency.

Classroom observations revealed a common misunderstanding on how special education can

support learning in regular education in the special education setting. The special education

priority is the focus on individualized instruction and special education goals.

The virtual interview on Microsoft Teams took between 45-70 minutes to complete. The

virtual interviews were held on Microsoft Teams, responses were recorded and transcribed for

coding and analysis. The intent of collecting interview data was to accumulate fundamental data

and experiences from educators in the intervention and learning process. Participants were

informed that involvement in the project was strictly voluntary, and they were able to withdraw

at any time without any repercussions or penalty by informing the action researcher. Participant

interviews were captured by the action researcher’s narrative notes during the interviews. The

narrative notes were secured on a password-protected MacBook device. Pre- and post-study

interview raw data was coded for values and trends utilizing thematic analysis procedures. The

thematic data analysis approach was selected due to its flexible nature as a research tool;

thematic analysis allowed for documented and detailed accounts of narrative data from

38
participants. The data were coded according to potentially meaningful information which

connected to the research questions (table 5). Next, categories were created by the action

research to condense and organize the data trends. Themes were developed and interpreted to

connect the raw data with the research literature. Finally, the themes which emerged from the

raw data were analyzed and described.

Table 5

Interview Coding

Code Code Description Interview Excerpts

Achievement gap impact
Collaborative practices
Barriers
Participants acknowledged the
impacts of the achievement gap
at the capstone site.
Views on collaborative practices
at the capstone site were
identified.
Barriers to supporting students
with special needs in the regular
classroom setting.
“There are times where I feel
frustrated, we don’t have
support as a whole, we kind of
push the kids through, no
expectations to move on and
advance.”
“As a staff and school, we have
not done much to implement
any practices that truly focus on
creating a consistent system that
is working towards closing the
achievement gap.”
“I don’t feel like we fight to
close the achievement gap,
probably because we don’t
know what to do.”
“General education and special
education teachers never have a
chance to collaborate other than
briefly in passing.”
“Classroom teachers and special
education teachers do not plan
lessons together.”
“We need to implement shared
data so that we use the same
measures to determine growth of
special education students in the
regular classroom setting.”
“When students are pulled from
the general education classroom,
they are missing learning related
to grade level standard.”
“As a practice, students in
special education are in the

39
 classroom for the lesson but not
for the work time, so they often
miss out on practicing skills
when they leave the classroom.”

40
 SECTION 3: EVALUATION

The findings of the action research study allowed the action researcher to gain a more

holistic view and understanding of the capstone site achievement gap. The development of the

special education co-teaching framework may benefit students with special needs at the capstone

site over time. From the beginning of the study to the end, data trends from participant responses

indicate that a co-teaching professional development framework improved the study participants

understanding and development of teachings strategies. This section focuses on a discussion of

the findings in terms of the data, which were organized and guided by the research questions that

guided this study. The research questions were:

1. How did the implementation of the special education co-teaching professional

development program address the problem of academic achievement at the capstone site?

2. What were the challenges that the implementation of the special education co-teaching

professional development program faced and is the intervention sustainable beyond the

action research study?

3. How did the implementation of the special education co-teaching professional

development program impact the learning culture of the capstone site?

The study findings, reflections and critiques, implications for professional practice and

recommendations will be reviewed in this section as a conclusion to this action research

monograph.

Findings

41
Major Findings as they Relate to Action Research Question 1

How did the implementation of the special education co-teaching professional

development program address the problem of academic achievement at the capstone site?

Interview questions 6, 7 and 10 and post-interview questions 1, 2, and 4 address research

question 1 (appendix A). The special education co-teaching professional development program

afforded participants weekly opportunities to collaborate and use the same data measures to

begin understanding student learning progress towards grade-level standards. Of data related to

the pre- and post-interview questions two trends became clear to the action researcher, (a) the

achievement gap was acknowledged at the capstone site but a gap in resources and time provided

to address the gap created frustration and confusion for teachers, (b) a belief that collaboration

practices between regular education and special education was needed to build a foundation of

greater understanding on how to support students with special needs inside the regular education

classroom. Participant B shared “I think we need time to plan together and to focus on the

curriculum and pacing guides for all students. We should have students complete similar work in

special education, but I need help to apply the correct accommodations and modifications for

students with special needs to access the content” (T. Cherrito, personal communication,

February 2021). To increase academic achievement for students with special needs, participant D

explained, “I think by having a consistent plan in place for collaboration so that we can push all

students to higher standards while addressing their individual needs in needed” (J. Dahlberg,

personal communication, February 2021).

During the pre-interview, participant A asked “what curriculum does the special

education department even use? I wouldn’t know because we don’t have time to plan together”

(L. Ours, personal communication, February 2021). Participant B shared “the special education

teacher and the regular education teachers need to be on the same page in order to address the

42
achievement gap” (T. Cherrito, personal communication, February 2021). The special education

co-teaching professional development program addressed the need for collaboration through

weekly collaboration sessions between the teams (special education and regular education). The

action researcher implemented a collaborative framework google document (appendix B). The

collaborative framework document allowed participants to identify several areas needed to

support and plan for students with special needs inside the regular education classroom setting.

The collaboration framework document included the following: the daily or weekly “I can”

statement; this aligned to the state standard, the big idea or learning target, common

misconceptions, a space to identify the skill gaps, accommodations, and modifications to be put

in place, action steps for participants and a reflection category to be filled out the following

week.

Participants were asked to reflect on the benefits of the special education co-teaching

professional development program in the post-interview. Participant A shared, “I feel that co-

teaching allowed us to reach more students at their individual levels” (L. Ours, personal

communication, May 2021). The special education co-teaching professional development

program provided access to understanding how to plan for students with special needs. “This

allowed to us to plan together and to give feedback on strategies that are or are not working for

our students with special needs” (A. Lane, personal communication, May 2021).

The FastBridge aReading assessment was used as quantitative data to view student

growth towards an English Language Arts (ELA) nationally normed state measure from the

beginning of the study to the end. The aReading assessment is a broad assessment of reading

skills and is a test that adapts its questions to get the best estimate of a student’s reading skills.

This assessment was given to all students at the capstone site three times a year; this measure

was most used by regular education classroom teacher and the multi-tiered system of support

43
team to identify students in the same or high-risk categories who may need additional supports

and interventions in the area of reading to make progress towards grade-level ELA standards.

The capstone site used the national 25th percentile as an evaluative measure; if students

performed at or above the 25th percentile then their risk category was determined low, students

who performed below the 25th percentile were identified as the students who needed additional

interventions and students performing below the 10th percentile were identified as high risk; often

students who performed below the national 10th percentile were identified for a referral for

special education evaluation in the area of reading.

Fastbridge aReading data was extracted from the Fastbridge website; the Fastbridge

program did not specifically code for students in special education. An aReading data report was

downloaded and extracted to Microsoft Excel for the entire fourth and fifth-grades. The action

researcher then categorized and organized the data reports of students with special needs from

the larger body of data. The Fastbridge aReading report provided fall, winter and spring national

percentile data and identified student risk levels. Additionally, the growth percentile scores from

fall to spring were reported by Fastbridge; this measure provided information related to the

typical growth expected for each student.

The capstone site was comprised of two fourth- grade classes with three students

identified with special needs. Additionally, the capstone site included two fifth- grade classes,

which included six students identified with special needs. Fastbridge benchmarks are set based

on national data and categorized as high risk (15th percentile and below), some risk (16th to 40th

percentiles), low risk (41st to 85th percentiles) and college pathway (86th percentile and above)

(Fastbridge Facilitator, 2018). Students identified with special needs in the fourth grade scored in

the low and high risk and college pathway categories in the fall and scored in some- risk and

high-risk categories in the spring reporting period (Figure 1). Students identified with special

44
needs in fifth grade fell into the some- risk and college pathway in the fall and in the high-risk

and some-risk categories in the spring as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1

aReading Assessment Risk Levels of Students with Special Needs in 4th and 5th Grades

aReading 4th and 5th Grade Special Needs Students

Risk Levels
6

5
5
4
4 4 4
3
3 3 3
2

1
1
0
fall 0 winter 0 spring0 0

High Risk Some Risk Low Risk College Pathway

Note. Student scores were color coded according to high risk, some risk, low risk and college

pathway.

The FastBridge aReading assessment indicated that both fourth and fifth- grade students

identified with special needs displayed typical growth from the fall to the spring reporting period

when compared to their same-grade peers and as determined by individual student growth

(Figure 2). The raw data was extrapolated from the aReading assessment report and rounded to

the nearest whole number by the action researcher. Growth of students identified with special

needs was determined by the aReading scaled scores as displayed in figure 2. Students who

started with the lowest scores in the fall made the biggest gains from fall to winter.

Comparatively, the students who started out with higher scores, made gains that were not as

45
large. The aReading assessment scores could be used to make changes to instruction to benefit

all student growth in ELA.

Figure 2

aReading Test Scores of 4th and 5th Grade Students with Special Needs

aReading assessment scaled data scores

520

500

480

460

440

420

400
Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F Student G Student H Student I

Fall Winter Spring

Note. Fastbridge aReading assessment scores range from 350 to 750.

National percentiles ranged from one to 99 and were used by the capstone site to support

decisions about instruction needed to support growth of all students. Students performing at or

below the 25th percentile were considered for reading interventions to supplement their growth in

ELA. Generally, students with special needs in reading fell into lower percentiles. In the fall six

of the nine students with special needs performed below the 25th percentile (Figure 3). From the

fall to the spring, six of the nine students did achieve scores to place them in higher percentiles:

ranging in growth from one to seven percent. Students who were initially at or above the 25th

percentile in the fall did display a drop from growth by the spring reporting period.

Figure 3

46
National Percentile scores of 4th and 5th grade students with Special Needs on the Fastbridge
aReading Assessment

aReading National Percentiles of Students with Special

Needs in 4th and 5th Grades
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Student Student Student C Student Student E Student F Student Student Student I
A B D G H

Fall aReading Percentile Winter aReading Percentile Spring aReading Percentile

Note. Figure 3 displays the student data of 4th and 5th grade students with special needs at the
capstone site. The data displayed is the Fastbridge aReading assessment percentiles when
compared to same-grade peers nationally.

It is uncertain whether the findings contribute to the implementation of the special

education co-teaching professional development program without the growth comparison of an

additional measure; the capstone site would benefit from continuing to measure the growth of

students with special needs for an additional school year to best understand how the co-teaching

professional development program affects student growth.

Major Findings as they Related to Action Research Question 2.

What were the challenges that the implementation of the special education co-teaching

professional development program faced and is the intervention sustainable beyond the action

47
research study? Pre-interview question 7 and post-interview question 3 addressed research

question 2. Data analysis themes and interview responses as displayed in table 5 indicated one of

the greatest barriers to be time; prior to the study, the special education teacher and regular

education teachers never engaged in shared planning, co-teaching or had built-in collaboration

time during contractual hours. “We do not have enough time to plan and collaborate and as a

school community we don’t have a clear plan for supporting students with special needs in the

regular classroom” (L. Ours, personal communication, February 2021). The greatest challenge

faced by the study and action researcher was the opportunity to find shared time for all

participants to meet and collaborate. All participants shared that the intervention felt sustainable

beyond the action research study pending scheduled weekly or bi-weekly shared planning for

collaboration was afforded to the special education teacher and regular education teachers (Table

6).

Table 6

Themes and Interview Responses

Themes Interview Responses

Finding time to collaborate and engage in
shared planning was one of the greatest
barriers to the special education co-teaching
professional development program.
“We do not have any shared planning time
and I really don’t get to talk to the special
education teacher during the day at all.”
“The lack of consistent collaboration about
student challenges and growth is a big
problem.”

“I know that all teachers are willing to

collaborate, but time is a huge problem.”

Time to collaborate was believed to be one of “As a school community we don’t have a
the greatest contributions to the achievement clear system and plan of how we want to
gap of students with special needs at the close the achievement gap.”
capstone site.

48

Built in collaboration time would allow the
intervention to feel sustainable long-term and
be beneficial for the capstone site.
“I believe a consistent planning time between
special education and the regular classroom
teachers could close the achievement gap for
students in special education.”
“I feel like it is sustainable. Just like with
anything new, it takes more time up front, but
I do feel like it is important.”

“Building knowledge of curriculum and

communication will bring many successes for
both teachers and students.”

“I really think we need time to collaborate in

person. I would love to look at and analyze
work together about classroom goals and IEP
goals.”

Major Findings as they Relate to Action Research Question 3.

How did the implementation of the special education co-teaching professional

development program impact the learning culture of the capstone site? Pre-interview questions 2,

3, and 4 and post-interview question 4 support action research question 3. The special education

co-teaching professional development program allowed for the capstone site to develop a

framework for collaboration. A collaborative framework did exist for regular education teachers

to meet monthly within the context of grade-level data and planning but a framework for the

special education teacher and regular education teachers did not exist prior to the study at the

capstone site. Data analysis trends (Table 5) support that the greatest benefit of the special

education co-teaching professional development program was a consistent time to collaborate

and work together to support all students in the general education setting. Additionally,

participants agreed that they felt empowered to hold students in special education more

accountable because of their understanding of how to implement accommodations and

49
modifications inside the classroom setting to help students with special needs to access grade-

level work appropriately.

Participant C shared “that in order to understand the student progression towards

standards and domains, the whole team must understand where the student is starting or the

baseline, have an understanding of the goal for the student and have a plan for the whole team to

work together to help the student achieve the goal” (A. Lane, personal communication, May

2021). Several participants agreed that a true understanding of accommodations and

modifications and how to implement them with fidelity in the regular education classroom is

challenging and not clear. Another finding identified the need for using the same data measures

to identify and measure growth in students with special needs. At the time of the study the

capstone site used a variety of benchmark measures in the regular education setting to measure

growth. The special education teacher used progress monitoring tools related to individualized

education plan (IEP) goals to measure student growth. Understanding which tools to use to most

effectively measure special education student growth in the regular education classroom was

unclear across all participants.

It was expected that the special education co-teaching professional development program

would allow the action researcher to develop a collaboration framework adopted at the capstone

site. Administration was made aware of the collaboration framework document created

(appendix B) and agreed that this document could be the basis for planning conversations in the

new school year. Regular education teachers reported a positive experience due to the co-

teaching professional development program. All participants shared that the collaboration

framework felt sustainable and should continue beyond the study.

50
 The study's findings regarding the nature of co-teaching supported the findings of

Garofalo’s (2019) study, which uncovered that 10 out of 12 teacher participants had a limited

understanding or experience with the practices of co-teaching. None of the four participants at

the capstone site had previously been involved in co-teaching, and the understanding of a co-

teaching relationship was developed and outlined as part of the study. Co-teaching alone is not

enough to see vast changes in students with unique learning needs (Stein,2017). Understanding

accommodations and modifications inside the regular education classroom is a vital proponent of

success. The study findings indicate that at the conclusion of the study an understanding of

accommodations and modifications and who should implement them remained unclear for some

of the participants. Creating a coaching framework and culture of learning among co-teachers is

important in supporting classroom teachers understanding of how to support students with

various needs in the classroom (Johnson et al., 2018) (Farmer et al., 2019). The findings of this

study related closely to empowering classroom teachers with new strategies through a special

education co-teaching professional development program with the hopes of expanding teacher

views on how to provide appropriate levels of access to students with special needs within the

regular education classroom.

Hands-on-training with the regular education classroom teachers through an action study

addressed the root cause(s) of resources, support, collaboration, and needs identification.

Students in special education benefitted from the special education co-teaching professional

development program as everyone on their academic team had streamlined communication and

provided the highest levels of support, while offering access to grade-level content. Both regular

classroom teachers and the special education teacher met weekly to plan together and establish

collaboration practices. Implementing a co-teaching framework at the capstone site allowed

51
students in the special education subgroup to access grade-level content in an appropriate and

equitable way.

The special education co-teaching professional development program was believed to be

the best way to address the support needed to close the achievement gap. There was a lack of

shared curriculum’s used by the special education teacher and the regular education teams in the

area of English Language Arts. The regular education classroom teachers had access to a

curriculum with conferring, flexibility and whole group learning at its foundation. The special

education team was asked to use a curriculum which was created for direct instruction. Both

curriculums add value, but special education students irrevocably miss out on flexible learning

and access to grade-level content when leaving the classroom for pull-out special education

services. The organization was supportive of best practices in equity for all students.

Reflections and Critique

As a result of the study, conversations surrounding planning and collaboration for the

new school year at the capstone site occurred. The building principal and teaching and learning

coach at the capstone site recommended that grade-level teams would share unit projections with

the special education teacher. Unit projections outline the primary and secondary goals of the

unit. Unit projections also include anticipated issues to consider while planning. The unit

projections would provide a foundation for the teams to have conversations about

accommodations and modifications for students with special needs. Unit projections are created

at the district level; thus, teachers aren’t involved in additional work expectations to plan for all

students. The study created a platform for dialogue about how to involve the special education

teacher in planning and data conversations. A limitation to this work was an understanding that

the special education teacher served grade levels K-5 and it would be impossible to meet weekly

52
with each grade-level for planning. This left the action researcher with the question, “how would

planning and collaboration occur for multiple grade-levels in a sustainable and meaningful

way?” Through conversations, this study provided a deeper understanding that having a lack of

shared resources and curriculum may have created a barrier for helping students with special

needs meet grade-level standards. A misunderstanding of the role of the special education

teacher and the focus on individualized instruction in the special education setting remained by

the end of the study. Not all participants shared a philosophy that classroom teachers were

responsible for implementing the accommodations and modifications. Some participants

believed the special education teacher should have ownership over accommodating and

modifying grade-level work for students with special needs; this area requires further explanation

and study at the capstone site.

The action research study made a difference in the capstone site through creating a

platform for change in how collaboration efforts occur between teams on a small scale. The

study exposed a lack of sufficient time and efforts allotted towards planning for students with

special needs inside the regular education classroom. Simply, at the start of the study there was

no scheduled or consistent time which would afford the special education and regular classroom

teacher collaboration or co-teaching efforts. The achievement gap of students with special needs

was frequently grounded in discussions from district-level administration as an area for

improvement, but measurable and attainable action steps were not proposed. As a result of the

intervention, the special education teacher would be asked to present the accommodations and

modifications training to all teachers at the capstone site and a conversation surrounding

collaboration and co-teaching between the teams was initiated with administration.

Implications for Professional Practice

53
 The findings from this study show a possible relationship between collaborative planning

among teachers and student success. The findings in this study raise questions about the

importance of co-teaching between the special education teacher and regular education teachers

to support teacher development in the area of planning and implementation when working with

students with special needs. Future research should expand on co-teaching across several subject

areas and a longer amount of data collection time (beyond the length of the current study) to

build on the foundation of impacts of collaborative planning observed in this study.

Other factors to be considered in future studies may include an observation and record of

student responses and engagement in class and student formative and summative scores across a

variety of student benchmarks. More information is needed on how a difference in teaching

philosophies and understanding of student disabilities affects the collaborative planning and co-

teaching process. Differences in philosophies about co-teaching and collaboration were present

in this study as reported by the action researcher. However, no data was available which

supported that this negatively affected the relationship between differing philosophies and

student growth or success.

A review of the literature strongly supports that administration should be invested in

collaborative efforts for co-teaching and collaborative practices to be successful (Mamlin, 1999)

(Cameron, 2016). Thus, a closer examination of how the administration team is involved in

teacher coaching and the implementation of accommodations and modifications should be

explored to gain a deeper understanding of how co-teaching is valued and disseminated in

schools.

Recommendations

54
 To address increased communication and fluidity between special education and regular

education classrooms the action researcher proposed notebooks which travel back and forth

between resource and grade-level classrooms; this way both teachers could see what the other

was working on in class. Shared student notebooks (readers and writers workshop notebooks)

would provide more material for regular education to assign additional or modified grades into

the gradebook.

A need for further action was identified through the implementation; additional school-

wide training would benefit the capstone site regarding the accommodations and modifications

training. At the conclusion of the study, some participants were still confused on how to

appropriately implement accommodations and modifications into the regular education

classroom. A common misconception that classroom accommodations and modifications should

come from the special education teacher was present at the capstone site. To support students

with special needs inside the regular education setting, classroom teachers must implement

accommodations and modifications from the students’ IEP with fidelity.

As a result of hands-on training in the regular education classroom, it is recommended

that classroom teachers implement additional visuals and charts for students with special needs

in the area of ELA, for example: a chart with pronouns on it, sentence starters, visuals paired

with vocab, visual checklists during writing, modified with vocab for students to access more

easily, a checklist of exactly what to accomplish by the end of the class period or by the end of

the week, more outlines/templates and writing exemplars, copies of reading passages as well as

paper-copies versus reading passages on the iPad (the iPad can be distracting to some students

with special needs).

55
 Co-teaching at the capstone site was recommended to be a framework unique to the

capstone site rather than traditional co-teaching between regular education and special education.

It was not feasible or sustainable for the sole special education teacher to enter into a traditional

co-teaching role, however, framework for collaboration and planning would allow the special

education teacher to “co-teach” with an understanding of the pieces of the collaboration

framework (Appendix B). Co-teaching at the capstone site could allow the special education

teacher to mirror regular education concepts at the students’ level in the special education setting

and would allow for pre-teaching. If the special education team was made aware of the “I can”

statements beforehand, then the special education teacher could push-in to support in the regular

education classroom and not need to spend time catching up on the plan, rather support the

students with special needs in the regular classroom setting during work time.

Based on the study’s findings, a series of change is needed to align how special education

can support the learning in regular education setting. One of the greatest barriers to this

understanding is that the role of the special education setting is to focus on individualized

instruction and special education goals. Participants were unclear as to why classroom projects

and regular education classroom work couldn’t also be taught or extended into the special

education setting. The next cycle of action research may be to bring greater clarity and

understanding in this area.

Conclusions

Collaborative planning and the introduction of the special education co-teaching

professional development program may be a way increase the understanding of how to support

learners with special needs in the regular education classroom. Participants all agreed that the

collaborative framework felt sustainable beyond the study. Findings raise the possibility that an

56
increase in cross-collaboration and planning is needed to allow equal access to grade level

curriculum and state-based standards/measures. Greater access to grade-level standards may

contribute to the closure of the achievement gap.

The findings help to raise awareness to the need for further research in collaborative

planning across special and general education teams. Data analysis trends indicate an uncertainty

of how to implement accommodations and modifications into the regular education classroom

setting. Overall, these findings support but do not confirm a correlation between collaborative

planning through the special education co-teaching professional development program and

success for students with special needs in the general education classroom.

REFERENCES

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A
synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163-

57
 206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066

Balogun, J., Hailey, V. H., & Gustafsson, S. (2016). Exploring strategic change. Harlow,
United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Cameron, D. L. (2016). Too much or not enough? An examination of special education provision
and school district leaders’ perceptions of current needs and common approaches. British
Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12121

Carter, N., Prater, M. A., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M. (2009). Educators' perceptions of
collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School
Failure, 54(1), 60-70.

Coghlan, D. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization. [Capella]. Retrieved
from https://capella.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781473904095/

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development
in the United States and Abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Darrow, A., & Adamek, M. S. (2017). Recent and continuing initiatives and practices in special
education. Music Educators Journal, 104(2), 32.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432117733029

Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2007). Inclusive education: What makes it a good
education for students with moderate to severe disabilities? Research & Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 16-30.

Farinde-Wu, A., Glover, C. P., & Williams, N. N. (2017). It’s not hard work; it’s heart work:
Strategies of effective, award-winning culturally responsive teachers. Urban Review:
Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 49(2), 279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-
0401-5

Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Dawes, M., Barko-Alva, K., & Cross, J. R. (2019). Promoting
inclusive communities in diverse classrooms: Teacher attunement and social dynamics
management. Educational Psychologist: Promoting Inclusive School Climate: Multiple
Approaches to Uniting Students Across Groups, 54(4), 286-305.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1635020

Fastbridge Facilitator. (2018, May 15). Screening reports [PowerPoint slides]. Fastbridge
Learning. https://p11cdn4static.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_54840/File/
LearningServices/Pasek/CCSS/Screening%20Reports.pdf

58
Garofalo, M. A. (2019). Understanding the co-teaching experience of teachers: Negotiating
choice and efficacy (Order No. 22584708). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (2311073034). Retrieved from http://library.capella.edu/login?qurl=https
%3A%2F%2Fsearch.proquest.com%2Fdocview%2F2311073034%3Faccountid
%3D2796

Harris, K. R., Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., &
Schatschneider, C. (2012). Practice-based professional development for self-regulated
strategies development in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher
Education, 63(2), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111429005

Hunter, W. C., Dieker, L. A., & Whitney, T. (2016). Consultants and coteachers affecting
student outcomes with numbered heads together: Keeping all engaged. Journal of
Educational & Psychological Consultation, 26(2), 186-199.

Irby, B. J., Brown, G., Lara-Alecio, R., & Jackson, S. (2013). The handbook of educational
theories. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=469950&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Choutka, C. M., & Treadway, P. S. (2002). A collaborative
approach to planning in the content areas for students with learning disabilities:
Accessing the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(4),
252-267. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.t01-1-00023

Johnson, S. R., Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Ialongo, N. S. (2018). Promoting teachers’
implementation of classroom-based prevention programming through coaching: The
mediating role of the Coach–Teacher relationship. Administration and Policy in Mental
Health and Mental Health Services Research, 45(3), 404-416.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-017-0832-z

Leader-Janssen, E., Swain, K. D., Delkamiller, J., & Ritzman, M. J. (2012). Collaborative
relationships for general education teachers working with students with disabilities.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(2), 112-118.

Mamlin, N. (1999). Despite best intentions: When inclusion fails. Journal of Special Education,
33(1), 36.

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Murawski, W. W. (2012). Ten tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8-15.

Nierengarten, G. (2013). Supporting co-teaching teams in high schools: Twenty research-based

practices. American Secondary Education, 42(1), 73.

59
Prater, M. A., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M. (2009). Educators’ perceptions of collaborative
planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 54(1), 60-70.

Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with
learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203.

Reeve, P. T., & Hallahan, D. P. (1994). Practical questions about collaboration between general
and special educators. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(7), 1.

Robinson, L., & Buly, M. R. (2007). Breaking the language barrier: Promoting collaboration
between general and special educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 83-94.

Rose, R. (2002). Including pupils with special educational needs: Beyond rhetoric and towards
an understanding of effective classroom practice. Westminster Studies in Education,
25(1), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720220121200

Saphier, J. (2017). Getting students to believe in themselves: Surrounding students with

messages that they have the ability to learn is at the core of closing the achievement
gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(5), 48.

Schmidt, R. J., Rozendal, M. S., & Greenman, G. G. (2002). Reading instruction in the inclusion
classroom. Remedial & Special Education, 23(3), 130.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, New York: Currency.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Kleiner, A., Smith, B., & Dutton, J. (2012).
Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents and everyone who
cares about education. New York, New York: Crown Publishing Group.

Shani, A. B., & Pasmore, W. A. (2010). ‘Organization inquiry: Towards a new model of the
action research process’, in D. Coghlan and A.B. Shani (eds), Fundamentals of
Organization Development, Vol. 1. London: SAGE, pp. 249–260.

Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. A. (2007). Classroom variables
and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children,
74(1), 101-120.

Stein, E. (2017). Two teachers in the room: Strategies for co-teaching success. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.library.capella.edu

Stollar, S. A., Poth, R. L., Curtis, M. J., & Cohen, R. M. (2006). Collaborative strategic planning
as illustration of the principles of systems change. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 181-
197.

60
Stringer, E. (2013). Action research. (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Stroh, D. P. (2015). Systems thinking for social change. [Capella]. Retrieved from
https://capella.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781603585811/

Swenson, N. C., & Williams, V. (2015). How to collaborate: Five steps for success. Perspectives
on School-Based Issues, 16(4), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi16.4.122

Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with
suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal,
39(3), 473-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.652070

Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning
and teaching. Theory into Practice, 45(3), 239-248.

Watkins, R., West Meiers, M., & Visser, Y. (2012). A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools
for collecting information, making decisions, and achieving development results.
Herndon, VA: World Bank Publications.

Weiss, S. L., & Friesen, A. (2014). Capitalizing on curriculum-based measurement for reading:
Collaboration within a response to instruction framework. Journal of Educational &
Psychological Consultation, 24(2), 96-109.

APPENDIX A

Interview Protocol and Questions

 Facilitator’s welcome, introduction, and instructions to participants/stakeholders

61
 Welcome and thank you for participating in today’s interview. My name is Whitney Hawk, I

am a doctorate student at Capella University, completing an action research project.

By completing and participating in the virtual interview, you indicate that you wish to

participate in the project and grant permission to the action researcher to aggregate and use your

responses to demonstrate the effectiveness of the improvement project. The virtual interview on

Microsoft Teams will take 45-70 minutes to complete.

Everything that is shared is strictly confidential and will not be associated with any particular

person being interviewed. The virtual interview on Microsoft Teams will be recorded and

transcribed for coding and analysis. Data will be stored for the action research project for up to

two years as needed to complete the action research project. The intent of collecting interview

data is to accumulate fundamental data and experiences from educators in the intervention and

learning process. Involvement in this project is strictly voluntary and you may withdraw at any

time without any repercussions or penalty by informing the action researcher. Thank you for

your participation.

Introduction:
 This interview is designed to capture the stakeholder’s/participants insights and feedback on
the prevalent achievement gap which exists between student who receive special education
services and those who do not, primarily in the area of ELA.

Interview Norms:
 You will have space to speak your truth and the interviewer will refrain from
interrupting.
 There are no right or wrong answers

Interview Questions:
1. What impact do you see the achievement gap having on staff and on our school as a
community?
2. What data do you find the most valuable in understanding the academic progress
students are making towards grade-level standards?

62
 3. What data do you find the most valuable in understanding the academic gaps that
students have?
4. How does data inform your educational practices in planning for all learners?
5. How do you define academic achievement?
6. What do you believe could lead to an increase in academic achievement for students
in the special education subgroup?
7. What barriers do you believe exist which might create an academic achievement gap
for the special education subgroup?
8. How could data tools be changed to be more helpful in planning?
9. What do you know to be true about collaborative practices in our school between the
regular education classroom teachers and the special education teacher?
10. What do you believe could lead to closing the achievement gap for students in the
special education sub-group?
11. Post-Study: What were the greatest benefits of the special education co-teaching
professional development program?
12. Post-Study: What questions do you still have regarding supporting students with
special needs in the regular classroom setting?
13. Post-Study: Does the collaborative framework feel sustainable beyond this study?

Conclusion:
 Thank you for participating
 Your thoughts and opinions are valuable to the action research project.
 If you have any follow-up questions, please contact me.

APPENDIX B
Special Education Collaboration Document

Week of: Subject Area: ELA

Collaborative Team Members:

63
“I can” Statement

Big Idea(s)

Common Misconceptions

Identify the skill gap(s) for students in

special education

Accommodations/Modifications we will
put in place to support the content

Name Strategies (How will resource

support? How will reg. Ed support?)

Action Steps

Reflect

64
 PUBLISHING AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the author (Author) and Capella University. Under this Agreement,

in consideration for the opportunity to have his/her capstone project published on a Capella website,

Author grants Capella certain rights to preserve, archive and publish the Author’s doctoral

capstone (the Work), abstract, and index terms.

License for Inclusion in Capella Websites and Publications

Grant of Rights. Author hereby grants to Capella the non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable

worldwide right to reproduce, distribute, display and transmit the Work (in whole or in part)

in such tangible and electronic formats as may be in existence now or developed in the

future. Such forms include, but are not limited to, Capella University websites, where the

Work may be made available for free download. Author further grants to Capella the right to

include the abstract, bibliography and other metadata in Capella University’s doctoral

capstone repository and any successor or related index and/or finding products or services.

The rights granted by Author automatically include (1) the right to allow for distribution of

the Work, in whole or in part, by agents and distributors, and (2) the right to make the

Abstract, bibliographic data and any meta data associated with the Work available to search

engines.

Removal of Work from the Program. Capella may elect not to distribute the Work if it

believes that all necessary rights of third parties have not been secured. In addition, if

Author's degree is rescinded or found to be in violation of Capella University’s Research

Misconduct Policy or other University policies, Capella may expunge the Work from

65
 publication. Capella may also elect not to distribute the work in a manner supported by other

Capella University policies.

Rights Verification. Author represents and warrants that Author is the copyright holder of

the Work and has obtained all necessary rights to permit Capella to reproduce and distribute

third party materials contained in any part of the Work, including all necessary licenses for

any non-public, third party software necessary to access, display, and run or print the Work.

Author is solely responsible and will indemnify and defend Capella for any third party claims

related to the Work as submitted for publication, including but not limited to claims alleging

the Work violates a third party’s intellectual property rights.

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK

Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) holds learners accountable for the

integrity of work they submit, which includes but is not limited to discussion postings,

assignments, comprehensive exams, and the dissertation or capstone project.

Established in the Policy are the expectations for original work, rationale for the policy,

definition of terms that pertain to academic honesty and original work, and disciplinary

consequences of academic dishonesty. Also stated in the Policy is the expectation that learners

will follow APA rules for citing another person’s ideas or works.

The following standards for original work and definition of plagiarism are discussed in the

Policy:

Learners are expected to be the sole authors of their work and to acknowledge the

authorship of others’ work through proper citation and reference. Use of another person’s

66
 ideas, including another learner’s, without proper reference or citation constitutes

plagiarism and academic dishonesty and is prohibited conduct. (p. 1)

Plagiarism is one example of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is presenting someone

else’s ideas or work as your own. Plagiarism also includes copying verbatim or

rephrasing ideas without properly acknowledging the source by author, date, and

publication medium. (p. 2)

Capella University’s Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06) holds learners accountable for research

integrity. What constitutes research misconduct is discussed in the Policy:

Research misconduct includes but is not limited to falsification, fabrication, plagiarism,

misappropriation, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly

accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reviewing

research, or in reporting research results. (p. 1)

Learners failing to abide by these policies are subject to consequences, including but not limited to

dismissal or revocation of the degree.

Acknowledgments:

I have read, understand and agree to this Capella Publishing Agreement, including all rights and

restrictions included within the publishing option chosen by me as indicated above.

I have read, understood, and abided by Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01)

and Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06), including Policy Statements, Rationale, and

Definitions.

67
I attest that this dissertation or capstone project is my own work. Where I have used the ideas or

words of others, I have paraphrased, summarized, or used direct quotes following the guidelines

set forth in the APA Publication Manual.

(Print Name) Whitney E. Hawk

REQUIRED Author's signature _____ Whitney E. Hawk

Date 6/1/2021

68