Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: a Metasynthesis of Qualitative

Co- Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research

THOMAS E. S C R U G G S MARGO A. M A S T R O P I E R I George Mason University

KIMBERLY A. MCDUFFIE Clemson University

ABSTRACTT:: Thirty-two qualitative investigations of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms were included in a metasynthesis employing qualitative research integration techniques. It was concluded that co-teachers generally supported co-teaching, although a number of important needs were identified, including planning time, student skill level, and training; many of these needs were linked to administrative support. The dominant co-teaching role was found to be "one teach, one assist," in classrooms characterized by traditional instruction, even though this method is not highly recommended in the literature. The special education teacher was often observed to play a subordinate role. Techniques often recommended for special education teachers, such as peer mediation, strategy instruction, mnemonics, and training of study skills, self-advocacy skills, and self-monitoring, were infrequently observed.

n response to recent trends and legisla- Bauwens, Hourcade, and Friend (1989); Cook

I tion promoting inclusive instruction and and Friend (1995); and Friend (2002) discussed access to the general education curricu- criteria needed for an effective co-teaching rela- lum, many schools have implemented tionship. A number of co-teaching variations "co-teaching" (Cook & Friend, 1995) as have been identified (see also Friend & Cook, a means for promoting effective instruction in in- 2003; Walther-Thomas, Korinek, McLaughlin, & elusive classrooms. Implemented to provide sup- wiHiams, 2000). These include: port for increasing the inclusion of students with disabilities, co-teaching usually consists of one * One teach, one assist (or, "drift"), where one general education teacher paired with one special teacher (usually, the general education education teacher in an inclusive classroom of teacher) assumes teaching responsibilities,

39genera2 l education and special education students and the special educatiori teacheSummerr provide 2007s (e.g., Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2006, chapter 2). iridividual support as rieeded (Walther- Thomas et al., 2000, did not mention this was responsible for the content of instruction. variation). Some evidence was presented that the standard of • Station teaching, where various learning sta- individualized instruction may not be met for stu- tions are created, and the co-teachers provide dents with disabilities. Important components of individual support at the different stations. successful co-teaching experiences identified from this research included the general education • Parallel teaching, where teachers teach the teacher's attitude, sufficient planning time, volun- same or similar content in different class- tary participation, mutual respect, administrative room groupings. support, and a shared philosophy of instruction • Alternative teaching, where one teacher may and behavior management. Weiss and Brigham take a smaller group of stiidents to a different also concluded that efficacy research was insuffi- location for a limited period of time for spe- cient. cialized instruction. Murawsld and Swanson (2001) conducted a • Team teaching (or interactive teaching), meta-analysis of quantitative efficacy research on where both co-teachers share teaching re- co-teaching. Their comprehensive search proce- sponsibilities equally and are equally involved dures yielded only six research reports (three jour- in leading instructional activities. nal articles and three ERIC documents), which yielded an overall effect size (standardized mean difference) of .40, from dependent measures in-

PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF cluding academic achievement:, social outcomes, CO-t EACH ING attitudes, absences, and referrals. They concluded that available research yielded moderate effects, Previous reviews of co-teaching have summarized but that the overall data set was too small to draw accumulated literature and identified importarit firm conclusions. variables. Friend and Reising (1993) provided an Dieker and Murawski (2003) discussed co- overview of the history of co-teaching. These au- teaching at the secondary level. They emphasized thors concluded that research was limited and the importance of teacher preparation, sufficient mostly anecdotal; however, available evidence sug- planning time, mastery of content by special edu- gested that teachers believed thai: co-teaching had cation teachers, and pointed to large class sizes a positive effect on student achievement and high-stakes testing as particular challenges to Welch, Brownell, and Sheridan (1999) pro- co-teaching success. They recommended proac- vided a broader review of team teaching and tive communication, varied instructional practices school-based problem-solving teaihs. This review (e.g., classwide peer tutoring), teacher training, included 40 articles on team teaching, of which use of a variety of co-teaching models, voluntary many were technical reports, anecdotal reports, or participation, common planning periods, and position papers. They concluded that teachers re- fiexibility. port positive attitudes toward various forms of co- Weiss (2004) reviewed and updated the con- teaching; however, there was limited knowledge clusions of Weiss and Brigham (2000), and the about student outcomes, and a lack of empirical research conducted since that time. She con- evidence supporting co-teaching. cluded that most of the studies reviewed had oc- Weiss and Brigham (2000) reviewed 23 curred in settings considered to be successful, and quantitative and qualitative studies of co-teach- that most of these studies concluded that the per- ing, published between 1987 and 1999, includ- sonalities or teaching styles of the teachers were ing investigations of both elementary and particularly important. She also reported that the secondary settings. They reported that consider- role of the special education teacher was not al- able variability was apparent in co-taught classes. ways clearly specified, and that outcomes of co- However, the special education teacher typically teaching were typically reported using vague or was responsible for modifying instruction, behav- subjective language. Another important issue ior management, and monitoring student raised by Weiss was the limited amount of effi- progress; whereas the general education teacher cacy research.

Exceptional Children 393 A number of other articles made some refer- • What factors are needed to ensure success of ence to the research literature, but focused pri- co-teaching? marily on suggestions for teachers implementing Investigations addressing these questions are co-teaching based on previous research and the typically qualitative in nature. Qualitative re- authors' personal experiences. Murawski and search is generally appropriate for describing and Dieker (2004) provided suggestions and strategies providing insights about attitudes, perceptions, for co-teaching at the secondary level. They em- interactions, classroom structure, and behaviors, phasized the importance of administrative sup- relevant to co-teaching. Qualitative research also port, establishing co-teacher roles, effective has increased enormously in special education re- planning, shared classroom management, and ap- search over recent decades (Brantlinger, Jimenez, propriate assessment. Keefe, Moore, and Duff Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005; Pugach, (2004) recommended that secondary co-teachers 2001; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2006). develop awareness of themselves, their co-teacher, To date, a considerable amount of qualitative re- their students, as well as relevant content and search has been conducted in the area of co-teach- strategies. They reported that research to date re- ing. However, at present the research base consists vealed that secondary teachers lacked training and mostly of individual investigations with little pre- skills and have more negative attitudes about co- vious attempt to summarize or synthesize find- teaching. Gately and Gately (2001) focused on ings. This investigation, therefore, was intended important components of the co-teaching rela- to systematically summarize and integrate the tionship, including communication, content findings of all available qualitative research re- knowledge, planning, classroom management, ports into one integrative review. As such, it was and assessment. Vaughn, Schumm, and Arguelles intended to shed light on the practice of co-teach- (1997) discussed common co-teaching issues, ing from the perspectives of relevant research. In based on conversations with teachers. These issues order to do so, it was necessary to identify and included "ownership" of students, classroom man- implement appropriate techniques for synthesis of agement, space, communication, and planning qualitative research. time. Previous reviews and other relevant literature have generally concluded that efficacy research is RESEARCH SYNTHESIS limited. However, a number of variables of poten- tial significance have been identified, including Research synthesis is an attempt to integrate sys- co-teacher compatibility, administrative supports, tematically a large body of related research litera- planning time, teacher training, and flexibility. ture. The procedure was first applied to quantitative group-experimental research data, and referred to as meta-analysis (Glass, McGaw, QUALITATIVE RESEARCH & Smith, 1979). Since that time, literally thou- sands of meta-analytic investigations have been Based on these previous reviews, it can be con- completed, and many of these have been applied cluded that available efficacy data are generally to special education (Forness, 2001). In addition positive, but limited. In addition to important to meta-analyses of group-experimental research, questions of eflicacy, however, a number of other quantitative research synthesis techniques have relevant questions can be asked about the practice been applied to single-subject research (Scruggs, of co-teaching. Based on considerations from pre- Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987; Swanson & Sachse- vious literature, these questions include the fol- Lee, 2000) and survey research (Scruggs & Mas- lowing: tropieri, 1996). Qualitative research synthesis has • How is co-teaching being implemented? been previously conducted, mostly in the health sciences (Campbell et al., 2003; Paterson, • What are perceptions of teachers? Thorne, Canam, & Jillings, 2001), and some- • What problems are encountered? times referred to as "meta-ethnography" (Noblit • What are the benefits perceived to be? & Hare, 1988); "metasynthesis" (Sandelowski,

Summer 2007 Docherty, & Emden, 1997); or "metastudy" (Pa- metric, such as a mean effect size. Rather, the pur- terson et al.). Although some focused synthesis pose is to integrate themes and insights gained work has been conducted in the area of educa- from individual qualitative research into a higher- tional leadership and desegregation (Noblit & order synthesis that promotes broad understand- Hare, 1988), to date, no true integrative review of ings of the entire body of research, while still qualitative special education research using re- respecting the integrity of the individual reports. search synthesis techniques has been identified. Several researchers have proposed and em- The appropriateness and merits of qualitative ployed methods for systematically integrating metasynthesis have been previously discussed in qualitative research (see Scruggs et al., 2006, for a the literature (see Sandelowski et al., 1997; discussion). For instance, Noblit and Hare (1988) Scruggs et al., 2006). It has been argued that the described several ways qualitative research synthe- nature of qualitative research seems antithetical to sis could be accomplished, including (a) "recipro- synthesis, or "summing up" (Light & Pillemer, cal translation," involving recursive reading and 1984), and that the original research may be dis- analysis, and comparison of metaphors used in torted or endangered by this process. It could be different studies; (b) "refutational" meta-ethnog- argued, in fact, that it is exactly this idiographic raphy, investigating why researchers come to dif- element that contrasts so sharply with quantita- ferent conclusions, such as Freeman's (1983) tive studies, which offer general conclusions about refutation of Margaret Mead's (1928) Coming of the behavior or performance of groups, and are Age in Samoa; and (c) "line-of-argument" synthe- less relevant to individual cases. Another concern sis, where studies are translated into one another, is that summarization of research including the the result being a more parsimonious but encom- diversity of methodologies employed under the passing understanding of the phenomenon being umbrella of "qualitative" research—including case studied. Noblit and Hate provided an example of such a synthesis using five studies on racial deseg- studies, phenomenological studies, ethnographies, regation. Schofield (1990) conceived of qualita- semi-structured interviews, and narratives—could tive metasynthesis as the creation of cross-case trivialize differences among them and could be generalizations based on generalizations made problematic in practice (Sandelowski et al.). from, and about, individual cases (see also Miles These concerns, however, should also be & Huberman, 1994; Ragin, 1987). weighed against the consequences of not summarizing qualitative research. One problem is that Qualitative research synthesis in the health qualitative researchers often have been isolated sciences, generally using the models of Noblit and from each other, working in a "cottage industry," Hate (1988), have been reported by Beck (2001), to produce "one shot research" (Estabrooks, Field, Campbell et al. (2003), and Jensen and Allen (1994). In the field of education, Gersten and & Morse, 1994, p. 510). This has limited oppor- Baker (2000) conducted a "multi-vocal synthesis" tunity for researchers to learn from each other, of instructional techniques for English language and has reduced findings into "little islands of learners. This synthesis incorporated many of the knowledge" (Glaser & Strauss, 1971, p. 181). analytic principles discussed by Noblit and Hare Without developing the connectedness latent and included intervention studies with experi- within and across qualitative research studies, this mental designs, descriptive studies of instructional important body of research may exert only a lim- practices, and an uncommon third source, input ited impact on policy and practice. from professional work groups. In the present investigation, we determined to tteat each identified research report as an indi- CONDUCTING QUALITATIVE vidual "informant," and create a metasynthesis METASYNTHESIS across all individual research reports, using proce- Unlike quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of dures familiar to qualitative researchers. In this group experimental research reports, qualitative way, each author(s) is/are allowed to present origi- metasynthesis is not concerned with summarizing nal data and conclusions based on these data. or reducing findings to a common, standardized That information is then integrated with the find-

Exceptional Children 39S ings of other researchers, in much the same way a or more students with disabilities in an inclusive qualitative researcher might use data from multi- class, without specific reference to co-teaching as ple informants to draw conclusions. a primary research question, were not included Considering the complexity of synthesizing a (e.g., Zigmond, 1995; Zigmond & Baker, 1994). large number of original research reports, each Reports included in this investigation had been containing its own individual data sources, we reported in journals, dissertations, and master's employed NVivo software for entering text and research reports. Dissertations and theses were in- other information, coding and categorizing quali- cluded if they met quality standards employed in tative data, and assisting with organization of this synthesis, as discussed in a following section. qualitative data into general themes. Also lcnown as QSR NUD*IST Vivo (Fraser, 1999), NVivo SEARCH PROCEDURES was developed by Qualitative Solutions and Re- Search procedures included the search of elec- search Priority of Australia for use in qualitative tronic databases, including PsychlNFO, ERIC, research procedures. NVivo was thought to be Dissertation Abstracts, and Digital Dissertations. particularly helpful in this investigation, because Descriptors employed in the searches included co- it allows a large amount of textual data to be teaching, inclusion, mainstreaming, and coopera- stored and coded, and because it allows the re- tive teaching. We also employed wildcard versions searcher to reflect critically on the analysis as it as well as multiple versions of these terms, for ex- unfolds, while storing individual insights that ample, include, inclusive, included, mainstream, may be progressively refmed as more information co-teach, coteach. An ancestry search of each ref- is added (see also Paterson et al., 2001). erence list was also employed, in order to identify relevant research that had been cited by authors of identified research. A descendant search of cited In the present investigation, we determined research, using the Social Sciences Citation Index to treat each identified research report as an identified reports that had cited relevant research. Finally, a hand search of relevant journals (any individual "informant," and create a journals devoted to special education practice, for metasynthesis across all individual research example. Exceptional Children, Journal of Special reports, using procedures familiar to Education, Learning Disabilities Research & Prac- qualitative researchers. tice, Remedial and Special Education) was conducted to identify articles that may have been overlooked from the previous procedures.

METHOD We did not set any deliberate time limits in the search. However, among the earliest references SELECTION CRITERIA was a paper by Bauwens et al. (1989), which cited This investigation gains understanding about the no previous research (ongoing field test data were practice and processes of co-teaching by synthe- mentioned). The first formal qualitative studies of sizing available qualitative research reports. Stud- co-teaching as it is presently known appeared ies that were included for this synthesis employed around the mid-1990s, according to our search qualitative research methods as a primary procedures. (A small number of reports did ap- methodology, although studies were included if pear before this time, but these did not meet our they also employed quantitative methods. Quan- quality criteria.) titative surveys of co-teachers in which some additional verbal responses were solicited (through DATA ANALYSIS open-ended or direct questions) were not Once all relevant research reports were obtained, included; however, substantive qualitative inter- they were coded for a number of setting and views conducted subsequent to a quantitative sur- demographic variables, including geographical vey, and analyzed using qualitative methods, were region; grade level; urban/rural/suburban setting; included. Studies that specifically focused on one predominant co-teaching model; number of

396 Summer 2007 participants (including administrators, special ed- overlapping and perhaps more significant variable ucation and general education teachers, students, was seen to be content knowledge. and other participants); type of disabilities repre- Overall, free coding of all studies resulted in sented among the participants; socioeconomic 69 categories ("free nodes" in NVivo), represent- status of the school; and subject(s) being taught. ing many different facets of the co-teaching pro- In addition, we coded selection criteria (e.g., rep- cess. After this, a recursive process of category resentative, nonsystematic, known to investigator, analysis, contextual analysis, and identified rela- considered outstanding), and whether or not co- tionships among categories was implemented teachers were volunteers. At least two coders among at least two coders. After discussion, appli- agreed on all coding decisions. cation, and revision, we created four superordi- Next, all research reports were converted co nate categories, each with at least 12 of our digital format and saved as separate documents. original category codes included: This was accomplished through retrieval from on- • Expressed benefits of co-teaching. line versions of journals, and PDF files obtained • Expressed needs for success in co-teaching. through Digital Dissertations. When necessary, reports were retyped and saved in electronic for- • Special and general education teacher roles in mat. Each report was saved as a separate docu- co-teaching. ment in NVivo. • How instruction is delivered in co-taught All reports were read at least once before we classes. implemented coding procedures; during this pro- Although some overlap was noted, the original cess we took notes and wrote comments, and codes seemed to fit relatively easily within these highlighted significant text. We then imple- categories. Subsequent analysis focused on axial mented a process of open coding (see, e.g., coding, where relationships between and among Creswell, 2006) to identify and code all seemingly codes (within and across superordinate categories) relevant and consequential considerations. This were identified (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For ex- was an inclusive, recursive process, in which we ample, one of the most commonly mentioned continuously revisited previous coding decisions categories was planning and planning time for co- to determine whether coding was being imple- teaching; however, this category was very fre- mented systematically and consistently. Some quently mentioned (although not exclusively) in coding categories that appeared initially to be sig- the context of administrative support. Although nificant were found to be less well represented in most investigations reported on professional ben- the literature as a whole. For example, we had ex- efits to co-teachers, this issue was mediated con- pected "appropriate curriculum" (i.e., accessible to siderably by the issue of personal compatibility. all students, and appropriate for diverse learning Data analysis procedures employed in this in- needs) would be considered an important compo- vestigation were largely inductive. The process of nent of successful co-teaching, yet reference to analytic induction "involves scanning the data for this variable was made in only three reports. We categories of phenomena and for relationships were also surprised to note only a few oblique ref- among such categories, developing working ty- erences to differentiated instruction, although the pologies and hypotheses upon an examination of reasons for this became more clear over time. initial cases, then modifying and refining them on Likewise, we created coding categories for the in- the basis of subsequent cases" (LeCompte & fluence of prior experience, influence of high- Preissle, 1993, p. 254). Obtained data from the stakes testing, class size, and teacher turnover; original research reports were assimilated and only ultimately to determine that these issues evaluated in a recursive fashion, in order to de- were raised only rarely. Why these issues, and oth- velop hypotheses about the practices and perspec- ers, were only infrequently raised, however, was in tives associated with co-teaching. Similar to itself an important issue to be considered in the qualitative data analysis of original data, dis- context of other data. Grade level at first seemed crepant cases and negative cases were used to fur- to us to be a variable of significance; however, an ther understanding and refine hypothetical

Exceptional Children constructs. Observations and themes from origi- variability was noted. It should further be consid- nal research were subjected to the constant com- ered that all studies included had also been found parative method, in which incidents, categories, to be acceptable by some form of peer review, and constructs were subjected to overlapping and whether an editorial boatd, dissertation ot thesis recursive comparisons (LeCompte & Preissle). committee. For example, the paucity of data attesting to dif- In addition, we considered the credibility of ferentiated instruction, peer mediation, or strat- specific data within individuai research reports. egy instruction in co-taught classrooms could at Two different forms of data were considered. One first appear puzzling, but was supported by other consisted of original data (e.g., observations, in- data attesting to the general education teacher's terview transcripts, ot documentary evidence) col- typically dominant role in the co-taught class- lected from participants. The second form of data room, coupled with the general education consisted of specific and general conclusions teacher's typical affinity for whole class, homoge- drawn by the researchers regarding co-teaching, neous instruction. As discussed in later sections, based on the original data collected. For the pri- such practices placed significant limitations on mary data reported by the authots of the research co-teaching practice. reports, we considered carefully the quality indi- In this investigation, we avoided an actuarial cators represented by Brantlinger et al. (2005). approach to data analysis. That is, rather than That is, for any participant comments reproduced counting instances of reported or observed phe- in this synthesis, we ensured that, for example, the participant was appropriate, the question was nomena and providing specific totals, means, or reasonable, and the comments were transcribed percentages, we evaluated phenomena with re- appropriately. Fot any researcher conclusion respect to recurrence, corroboration, and presence ported in this synthesis, we determined that the ot absence of disconfirming instances in same or conclusion reflected appropriate credibility mea- other research repotts (and how disconfirming in- sures (see Brantlinget et al.); that is, that data stances, when observed, were explained). By these were systematically collected and recorded, multi- means, we hoped to arrive at conclusions based ple informants and/or data sources were obtained, on procedures that were faithful to the data analy- disconfirming evidence was considered, and the ses employed in the original investigations. conclusion was reasonable and appropriate based on the data collected. STUDY QUALITY One important consideration in research synthesis is the quality of the investigations being in- RESU UTS cluded. In making these determinations on the study level, we employed quality considerations referred to as "credibility or trustwotthiness" by OVERALL CHARACTERISTICS OF Brantlinger et al. (2005). We were careful to en- THE DATA SET dorse the caution of Btantlinger et al. against Using the search procedures and selection criteria "using credibility measures as a checklist in a rigid standards previously described, 32 original reports or unrefiective way" (pp. 200-201); rather, we of qualitative research on co-teaching were identi- considered all these measures simultaneously fied (see Table 1). These reports involved as par- along with each study, employing such considera- ticipants 454 co-teachers, 42 administrators, 142 tions as triangulation, disconfirming evidence, students, 26 patents, and 5 support personnel. prolonged field engagement, detailed description, These co-teachers were working in geographically member checks and peer debriefing. We also con- diverse schools, representing states in the North- sidered "quality indicators" as represented by east, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, South- Brantlinger et al. (Figure 3, p. 202) regarding sys- west, and West coast of the United States; in tematic and appropriate collection and represen- Canada; and in Austtalia. tation of data. We included all reports that met a As well as geographical representation, iden- minimum standard of quality, although some tified studies represented a range of grade levels:

398 Summer 2007 lis t lis t lis t lis t c 1 C tion ati o ach i a .E -c a JS .5 -a o u u uu u 0E 0 1 I 8 -

u do c do c do c do c do c do c do c do c do c ob do c, sq o ' sq o ' sq o ' sq o ' sq o ' t s s s s s s s s o ob ob ob ob ob ob ob , , , bi in s, c, t, t, t, t, c c c c c in in c a in i o a c c c c c

3 "S

I Ga n •3 "3 O o o

PA 2 I u •f rt -t J3 -D 3 sub ; x> 3 "I -Q It 3 3 :S g- ? 3 c E E -!^ « -^ 4i CN u C (/] m r 2 m ) ; tch ad E -T3 B adm ; 1 suppor t st 20 , 5SE 2SE) ; 2 p; dditiona l SJ 1 S • -^ CN -a

e u S" 6 G int i3 S u ( (3G E 3 9SE ; ofG T ofG T GE, 3

lS E o :; rs O ofG T 7SE; ; Ci i at o l * ( ( n ( GE ,

par •a tchr s GE , pair s pair s pai r GE , pai r pai r st( 3 tchr s pair s 1 tch 0 pa 0 pai 2 CO v^ — a o a. 00 —'

(N o o o o O O ON ON O O S ON O ON O S^ 2 o ON O ON o 2 J U CN O QJ ^3 V) S 3 "S 3 cQ pa U U 5 Q X X 3 I ^

Exceptional Children 399 1 4-1 nl u «-< 5 E b assi s § s (^ n Predo

o -o ^ 8 ^ o o -T3 -a -o o o .£, o o o o iS i.j iS '^ c c .S .E .S -§

3 "

-a 1 Z ^ -a

-fi 1 '! C 3 3 C XI E' E (u 13 So U U to

8 2 2

-a o PJ E -o -a -a •I w w U H y o I S3 " 6 b ., o a -s s "a I -s -3 S W rv.^ D-. Q- D-, a. a. ^ " 00 I^ " fN 1^ bo X

s o s o o (N (N (No oO CN CN

OU I o c CN o CN CN O CN CO o ou 13 CN u CN *-* o o o J N CN CN o m -d c o 4 Ric e Rosa , Sale n h Tarr a N

400 Summer 2007 15 involved primary, preschool, or elementary much this year from my partner. I learned how to school classrooms; 14 studied junior high, middle adapt lessons for each student; she really taught school, or high school classrooms; whereas 3 me so much'" (p. 98). This perceived value, how- investigated both elementary and secondary class- ever, appeared to be predicated on the two teach- rooms. These schools and classrooms also repre- ers being personally compatible. The need for sented a range of locations, including 8 urban, 9 compatibility, discussed in a following section, subiirban, 4 rural schools, and 5 representing a was mentioned very often, frequently within the combination of locations (6 were not reported). same report, and several instances were provided Ten of the reports specifically targeted "outstand- where lack of compatibility undermined the effec- ing" examples of co-teaching for investigation; tiveness of the co-taught classroom (e.g.. Frisk; others were described as more typical of the co- Norris, 1997). teaching experience. Results are presented with Benefits to Students Without Disabilities. respect to the four superordinate coding cate- Teachers sometimes noted increased cooperation gories previously discussed. among their students in co-taught, inclusive classes. Salend et al. (1997) quoted a general edu- BENEFITS OE CO-TEACHING cation kindergarten teacher who reported, Benefits to Teachers. Teachers generally re- "Norma fell ofFher chair today and Robert immediately asked. Are you OK?' in a con- ported that they had benefited professionally cerned, caring way. Lee then got up to help from co-teaching experiences. For example, her pick up her crayons—it was wonderful." Austin (2001), in his semistructured interviews of (p. 8) 12 New Jersey co-teachers in K-12, agreed with many other researchers in his fmding that general education teachers Teachers sometimes noted increased generally considered co-teaching to have cooperation among their students in contributed positively to their professional co-taught, inclusive classes. development: Speciai education co-teachers cited an increase in content knowledge, and general education co-teachers noted the ben- Many other investigations supported these efits to their skill in classrooni management conclusions, and provided evidence for academic and curriculum adaptation, (p. 250) benefits, particularly through extra teacher attention (e.g., Luckner, 1999; Pugach & Wesson, In her qualitative investigation of three co-teach- 1995; Rice & Zigmond, 2000; Yoder 2000). For ers in an integrated Grade 2/3 classroom, Bessette example, an elementary-level general education (1999) interviewed the general education teacher, student in the Drietz (2003) investigation re- who reported ported, "'You can ask them [special education "Having Mary as the special education teachers] a question, and they are there to help teacher show me what she knows, could only you"' (p. 30). Also in that investigation, however, make me a better teacher. And, I feel that's a special education student reported, " 'Sometimes going to be the sarrie with Kelly, too—she other people are asking for help when you need has lots of new ideas, and I've done nothing help more'" (p. 30). Co-teachers in a number of but learn, and change, and grow." (p. 110) investigations reported on the positive effects of Many other investigations specifically reported co-teacher collaboration as a social model for stu- similar professional benefits to co-teachers (e.g., dents (e.g., Carlson, 1996; Frisk, 2004; Hardy, Buckley, 2005; Carlson, 1996; Curtin, 1998; 2001; Haziett, 2D01; Trent, 1998). Across all in- Luckner, 1999; Rice & Zigmond, 2000; Salend vestigations, social benefits to students without et al., 1997; Tarrant, 1999; Thompson, 2001; disabilities were discussed more frequently than Trent, 1998). For instance, one of the elementary academic benefits. grade general education co-teachers from the Benefits to Students With Disabilities. Reports Frisk (2004) investigation reported, " 'I learned so of benefits to students with disabilities were com-

Exceptional Children mon in these investigations. Teachers in the Student Skill Level. In spite of the substantial Walther-Thomas (1997) investigation of 25 ele- number of reports of student benefits, a number mentary and middle schools reported that only a of participants stated strongly their concern that few students failed to succeed in co-taught classes: students included in co-tatight classes have a min- One special education teacher described a student imum academic and behavioral skill level. This who "'was truly amazed to Fmd that he could do was a very common qualification, appearing in OK in here . . . When he realized all of this, he more than 20 of the 32 studies reviewed; discon- was willing to work harder than he ever had in firmations, in the form of uiiqualified acceptance the self-contained classes'" (p. 399). Teachers in of all students in co-taught classes, were not several investigations noted the benefit of expo- noted. For example, Thompson (2001) studied sure to peer models for appropriate behavior (e.g., 11 elementary-level co-teachers and reported, Carlson, 1996; Vesay, 2004; Ward, 2003; Yoder, "The participants repeatedly cautioned aboiit ad- 2000). ministrators forcing teachers to co-teach and felt One commonly expressed benefit of co- equally adamant about including students with teaching was said to be the additional attention disabilities whose needs could riot he met in the received by students with disabilities. For exam- general education setting" (p. 129). Six sec- ple, Norris (1997) interviewed a general educa- ondary-level special education co-teachers in the tion middle school teacher, who responded Weiss and Lloyd (2002) investigation thought that some students with special needs "did not be- "The best thing about co-teaching is having long in co-taught classes but were there because another person in the classroom . . . knowing school policy required them to participate in that there are targeted students In the class- mainstream classes" (p. 65). Some of the teachers room who need extta help and having eithet in the Walther-Thomas (1997) investigation "re- the co-teachei' or myself address those while ported ... 'horror stories' about poorly planned the other teacher is doing something else." classrooms . . . some classrooms ended up heavily (pp. 84-5) Weighted with students who had learning and/or Five of six interviewed sixth-grade special and behavior problems. Unfortunately, these ill-fated general education students in the Drietz (2003) classrooms set teachers and students up for failure investigation mentioned the positive benefits of and frustration" (p. 403). Bessette (1999) de- extra attention. One student reported, "'I like scribed the case of a student in a combined sec- that there are two people to help out, and you ond/third-grade class who disturbed the harmony don't have to wait so long to get your question an- of the class. Similarly, a second-grade teacher in swered'" (p. 28). The sixth student, however, felt the Hazlett (2001) investigation reported that the extra classroom noise generated was dis- "Nathan had many teachers. He was here (in tracting. A student with hearing impairments in a the classroom) all day long . . . but he was so combined first/second-grade class reported, '"It's frustrated and angry. He had tantrums he- a good class for me because I learn more stuff"' cause he wanted to do what the other kids (Luckner, 1999, p. 27). Pugach and Wesson were doing. He assaulted another child in the (1995) interviewed 9 fifth-grade students in co- classroom and after that he assaulted the TSS taught classes and concluded, "The students we staff, who was just a behavior person just for interviewed felt as if their academic and social him. . . . He had two people for just one needs-were being met better than had they been child!" (p. 107) in classes instructed by a single teacher" (p. 291). This teacher "emphatically denied that all chil- Dieker (2001) interviewed 54 secondary level stu- dten benefit from being in an inclusive class- dents with and without disabilities and reported room" (p. 107). Difficult students who threatened that all students reported benefiting from the co- co-teaching efforts were reported by many other taught class, except for one student labeled emo- researchers, (e.g., Carlson, 1996; Feldman, 1998; tionally disturbed who reported, "'You can't get Frisk, 2004; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Ward, away with anything'" (p. 19). 2003). However, approaches for dealing with

4O2 Summer 2007 these students varied. That is, in the Carlson in- Volunteerism. Many teachers maintained that vestigation, one elementary co-teaching pair was it was necessary that co-teachers volunteer to able to cope with problem students, but other teach together. Thompson (2001) reported that pairs were not. Feldman observed a secondary all of the participating elementary teachers student who exhibited more than 75% off-task "strongly advocated for voluntary participation" behavior. The special education teacher "alternates (p. 129). Carlson (1996) reported that the ele- between monitoring this student closely and ig- mentary-level behavior resource teacher, Amanda, noring him altogether. [The general education "stated that it was critical 'that the impetus for the teacher] is essentially uninvolved with this stu- team comes from the two individuals involved, dent, appearing to view him primarily as [the spe- that it's not imposed by administration'" (p. 154). cial education teacher's] concern" (p. 80). The principal agreed that "'co-teaching cannot be Considering such cases, the general report of the forced. Rather, it is a way of doing things that the benefits to students with disabilities in co-taught two teachers must choose, though it can be sug- classes must be tempered with teachers' concern gested. In other words, teachers have to pick their that students meet minimum skill expectations. co-teaching partners'" (p. 45). In Trent's (1998) study of four high school co-teachers, he reported, EXPRESSED NEEDS OF CO-TEACHERS Christine [the general education social stud- Administrative Support. In addition to re- ies teacher] believed that the transfer of ported benefits, teachers also expressed a number Katherine [the special education teacher] was of needs that in their view must be met for co- a prime example of how teachers' opinions teaching to be successful. Primary among these were disregarded when planning co-teaching needs was administrative support. For example, arrangements. Neither teacher had had a say one teacher in Thompson's (2001) investigation in this change and, unfortunately, Kather- of 11 elementary-level co-teachers spoke for the ine's co-teaching experience with the U.S. group in reporting, "'Administrative support— Government teacher was not successful, that would be number one. Number two—pick- (p. 510) ing the right teacher'" (p. 129). Salend et al. Describing an unsuccessful preschool co-teaching (1997) studied co-teachers in a kindergarten class- pair, Rosa (1996) commented, "the arrangement room and reported, "the support of the principal seemed doomed for a number of reasons. First, also was instrumental in the success of the teach- and possibly most important, the principal had ers' collaboration" (p. 8). Similarly, Chris and come to Elaine and practically forced her to take Kelly, fifi:h/sixth-grade c o - t e a c h e r s studied in the Frances because nobody else wanted her" (pp. Carlson (1996) investigation, "made it clear that 137-138). Vesay (2004) studied three pairs of the support of the principal was crucial" (p. 64). early childhood education co-teachers, and con- In Frisk's (2004) study of five elementary-level co- cluded, "the effect on their collaboration is: posi- teaching dyads, who were in strong agreement on tive when both teachers make a voluntary this issue, one third-grade teacher reported, "'the commitment to initiating the partnership" (p. dyad must be committed but . . . local and dis- 152). trict school administration must also be commit- Teachers' accounts of the necessity of volun- ted to supporting our inclusion model'" (p. 96). tary co-teaching were frequently reported (see also Other researchers supported this finding (e.g., Buckley, 2005; Curtin, 1998; Frisk, 2004; Ha- Curtin, 1998; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Norris, zlett, 2001; Norris, 1997). However, Ward (2003) 1997; Thompson; Vesay, 2004; Yoder, 2000). No found a different opinion expressed in focus disconfirming evidence—that administrative sup- groups of middle school teachers. One teacher report was not necessary—was identified. Adminis- ported, trative support was seen to be linked to a number "There are people in my building—this re- of additional issues, discussed in the following ally bothers me—that have the 'Free from sections. Special Ed' pass. I didn't know they [admin-

Exceptional Children 4O3 istrators] give those out, but some people in planning time which we haven't had for two my building have one and don't have any year[s]'"(p. 112). special ed students because they exhibit qual- Teachets frequently framed planning time in ities in the classroom that are not becoming the context of administrative support; for exam- to collaboration, so the special educator does ple, Austin (2001) interviewed co-teachers who NOT want to place students in those reported that they were satisfied with their pre- rooms." (p. 110) sent co-teaching assignment "but not with the Another teacher in this same investigation re- level of support received from the school, noting niarked, that they needed more planning time" (p. 251). Several other researchers discussed the importance "You have to say it is mandatory because I of administrative responsibility in facilitating don't think you ever want a policy that cer- planning, including Buckley (2005), Curtin tain teams or teachers can't have certain kids. Everyone should be doing something in their (1998), Norris (1997), Ward (2003), and Yoder own small way showing that they are moving (2000). along that continuum." (p. Ill) Training. A very common theme across many investigations was the need for teacher training Howevet, the teachets in this investigation who for co-teaching. In Vesay's (2004) study, one felt that co-teaching should be mandated also felt preschool co-teacher, Connie, felt unprepared for it should be phased in over a petiod of yeats and collaborative teaching. She admitted, "'Oh, abso- accompanied by sufficient training and support. lutely! I was frightened, I had no background. A Planning Time. A frequently noted issue was trach[eostomy] scared me. A feeding tube fright- the importance of planning time, noted in nearly ened me, I was afraid I'd hurt somebody. I was!'" all of the investigations. Yoder (2000) reported (p. 112). that "Ann [a junior high special education In other instances, teachers expressed a need teacher] noted in her journal, as well as repeatedly for training to promote learning of more flexible during the interview process that joint prepara- thinking (Buckley, 2005); strategies, and practical tion times are necessary, particularly during the skill development (Curtin, 1998); different co- first year of a co-taught class" (p. 104). In a study teaching models (Feidman, 1998); use of technol- of a secondary co-taught biology classroom, ogy (Luckner, 1999); characteristics of disabilities Curtin (1998) reported, "the special education (Norris, 1997); collaborative consultation skills teacher felt the barrier to co-teaching was a lack (Rice & Zigmond, 2000); group interpersonal of planning time for collaboration with the regu- skills (Rosa, 1996); and communicating more ef- lar education teacher" (p. 101). Dieker (2001) fectively (Walther-Thomas, 1997). Most of these studied secondary-level co-teaching teams and investigations provided several examples of train- concluded, "the teams talked regularly about the ing needs. struggle to find adequate time to plan" (p. 20). There were few disconfitmations of these ex- These teachers reported having an average of 45.5 amples; however, although other teachers dis- min per week (often interrupted by other factors), agreed, one teacher from one of the five but felt they needed nearly three times that co-teaching pairs in the Frisk (2004) investigation amount. In the Hazlett (2001) investigation, all reported, co-teaching partners received 40-min scheduled "I think if someone is really interested in col- planning time per week. However, even this level laboration the only way to really figure out of planning time seemed insufficient, for teachers how to work with someone and how to in- also felt the need to meet on an ongoing basis, at teract is to do it. I never attended a work- lunchtime, in the morning, at recess, or at the end shop in how to do inclusion or how to of the day. Vesay (2004) reported in her study of collaborate." (p. 100) three preschool co-teaching teams, "In response A teacher in the Hazlett (2001) investigation to a question of what makes their collaborative found that a district inservice '"wasn't very infor- team successful Connie stated, 'For us it's sacred mative since it didn't tell us how"' (p. 83). In spite

4O4 Summer 2007 of such instances, however, most teachers, when appropriate attitudes (e.g., Buckley, 2005; Carl- asked, emphasized the importance of training. son, 1996; Dieker, 2001; R i ce & Zigmond, Compatibility. Teachers were generally very 2000; Ward, 2003; Yoder, 2000). emphatic about the need for co-teachers to be Marriage. Many investigations included some compatible. Rice and Zigmond (2000) studied 17 reference to co-teaching as a marriage, that is, re- secondary co-teachers in Pennsylvania and Aus- quiring effort, flexibility, and compromise for suc- tralia and concluded, "Several of the teachers . . . cess. For example, Luckner (1999) reported, "In rated personal compatibility between partners as many ways, a co-teaching partnership can be con- the most critical variable for co-teaching success" sidered a professional marriage...it entails dealing (p. 194). Similarly, an elementary-level general with a series of complex issues and emotions" (p. education teacher interviewed by Thompson 30). One of the Crade 5/6 co-teachers studied by (2001) commented when asked about co-teach- Carlson (1996) reported ing, [Maureen] compared the co-teaching process "I'd say, 'You should do it [co-teaching]. It's to marriage, saying, "If you're not willing to awesome,' you know. But make sure that it's hend then I don't think it would work." Kate with somebody that you get along with and [agreed], "It's like a marriage because you that you have the same, you know, ideas compromise and you're getting different out- ahout teaching and are equally motivated." looks. You don't want to be a clone of one another." (p. 137) (p. 128) Similar cautions were observed in a number Rice and Zigmond (2000) reported, "The teach- of reports, including those by Buckley (2005), ers . . . described co-teaching as an unusually close partnership or, what one termed, 'a profes- Luckner (1999), Norris (1997), Rice and Zig- sional marriage,' which, 'like [a normal] marriage, mond (2000), Thompson (2001), and Westberg you have to work at"' (p. 194). In discussing the (2001). failures of a co-teaching relationship, Mastropieri A negative opinion, reported by the general et al. (2005) concluded, "It was difficult to deter- education middle school teacher in the Norris mine precisely what caused the erosion of the col- (1997) investigation, underlined the importance laborative relationship, but as the vice-principal of compatibility: reported, 'Forced marriages often fail'" (p. 265). "If I had known that I would have to defend Other references to co-teaching as a marriage the way I have always helieved in teaching, were reported by Bessette (1999), Buckley I would not have agreed to co-teach. . . . (2005), Curtin (1998), Frisk (2004), Morocco I have not been teaching for 30 years for and Aguilar (2002), Norris (1997), and Rosa someone else to tell me how to teach. . . . (1996). The consistency of this metaphor pro- I am furious." (p. 107) vides evidence for conformity of thought across Frisk (2004) interviewed a general education first- studies (cf Noblit & Hare, 1988). grade teacher in an unsuccessful relationship who attributed the dissolution of the partnership to TEACHER ROLES the special education teacher's Models of Co-Teaching. By a considerable "inflexibility and personal issues." She thinks margin, the most prominent model of co-teach- the downfall in their collaboration occurred ing reported in these investigations was some ver- because "Julie spent a lot of time on the sion of "one teach, one assist." For example, computer doing personal things. When you Westberg (2001) studied nine elementary co- have a lot of kids in the room with different teaching pairs and reported, needs you can't be doing it all by yourself." (p. 86) by far, the most prevalent teaching configu- ration observed was one teaching, one assist- Similar issues, frequently mentioned, included ing. The general education teacher was most mutual trust and respect (e.g., Curtin, 1998; frequently the lead teacher, while the special Feldman, 1998; Frisk, 2004; Norris, 1997), and education teacher usually moved about the

Exceptional Children 4OS classroom and interacted as necessary with struction, and substantive teaching by both individual students, although not necessarily co-teaching partners, (p. 196) classified students, (p. 70) One teach, one assist was the most common In some cases, the lead teaching duties alternated model of co-teaching among the 16 co-teachers in between special and general education teacher four elementary schools studied by Haziett (e.g., the high school co-teaching pair in the (2001). Haziett described the comments of a spe- Curtin, 1998, investigation, or the fourth-grade cial education co-teacher in a developmental co-teachers in the Mastropieri et al., 2005, inves- kindergarten: tigation), but these cases were a decided minority. "Bertha and I use one teaching, one assisting. For instance, although Morocco and Aguilar I go around the whole room for correctness. (2002) observed team teaching in an eighth-grade I think it's easier for her to be on the floor a l l math class, Magiera, Smith, Zigmond, and the time (because) she likes to be in control. Gebauer (2005) observed co-taught math classes Sometimes when I teach, she will interject. I in eight high schools and concluded. never interject when she's teaching because I'm not comfortable with her. (Besides) she The most common role . . . was monitoring hits all the basics when she teaches." (p. 101) of independent practice. . . . The other role most common to the special education Other models of co-teaching were noted in teacher was assisting students as the mathe- these investigations, although to a much lesser ex- matics teacher maintained the role of pri- tent. Vesay (2004) noted the use of parallel teach- mary instructor. Cook and Friend (1996) ing in a preschool setting, although Haziett described this as an appropriate role in the (2001) interviewed one teacher who reported, beginning stages of co-teaching. . . . Teachers "'We tried the parallel (teaching), and it just did participating in our study, however, had co- taught for 3 to 5 years but had not gone be- not work out because two of the teachers have yond this initial stage of co-teaching, (pp. real strong voices and each group was being very 20-21) distracted'" (p. 104). Anotber teacher reported, " 'The kids with the most support have troubles in Antia (1999) observed five co-teachers in elemen- math and language ... so in those situations, the tary classes containing students with hearing im- way we have it set up is parallel teaching even pairments, and concluded though we may not be in the same room'" (p. Although [the special educators] were re- 91). Other models reported by teachers or ob- sponsible for some direct teaching, they were served by researchers include team teaching also responsible for assisting classroom teach- (Curtin, 1998; Feldman, 1998; Mastropieri et al., ers to make curricular adaptations and for 2005; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002); alternate teaching planning cooperatively with them. Thus, (Curtin); and station teaching (Tarrant, 1999). their major role appeared to be providing It is interesting to note that some co-teaching services to classroom teachers rather than to models involved special education teachers and the children, (p. 213) general education teachers teaching in different In an observational study of 14 high schools, Zig- classroom settings. For instance, Curtin (1998) mond and Matta (2004) concluded, "Our data reported the following observation of high school set indicates that the SET [special education co-teachers: teacher] seldom took (or was permitted to take) These teachers were employing the co-teach- the lead in instruction" (p. 63). Rice and Zig- ing strategy called alternate teaching in mond (2000) concurred from their study of 17 which instruction is provided to students secondary teachers: using different approaches to a smaller group of students. I was surprised that these two In all of our interviews and classroom obser- teachers decided to separate the class, (p. 72) vations we did not find a model of co-teaching that fully met the criteria we set: a shared Mastropieri et al. (2005) described a situation in teaching space with a diverse student group, which two co-teachers were in conflict: "In effect, shared responsibility for planning and for in- the teachers determined that one way to reconcile

406 Summer 2007 serious problems in a co-teaching situation was to (p. 84), using language indicative of a subordinate divide the class in two" (p. 265). Weiss and Lloyd role. (2002) reported observing co-teachers teaching in In many cases, the subordinate role of the separate classrooms: special education teacher appeared to reflect the relatively greater content knowledge of the gen- Fot example, concetning his middle school eral education teachet (e.g., Feldman, 1998; Mas- social studies class, Jim said, "There were too tropieri et al., 2005; Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; many disruptive hehaviots going on, and none of the students [was] benefiting from Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Rice & Zigmond, it. And the easiest fix I could come up with 2000; Rosa, 1996). Fot instance, Weiss and Lloyd was to split them, and we did. So he has 12 (2002) reported, students and I have 12 students." (pp. teachets said that the content atea of the class 64-65) fotced them to take certain toles. Fot example, Greta said, "I don't feel confident in Subordinate Roles and Content Knowledge. In some classes to be a team" . . . and Esther mahy instances the special education teacher as- said, "Do you think I would have the audac- sumed, or was seen to assume, a subordinate role ity to go in the geometry class and say I was (e.g., Antia, 1999; Buckley, 2005; Hazlett, 2001; a collahotative teachet?" (p. 65) Magiera et al., 2005; Mastfopieri et al., 2005; Norris, 1997; Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Rice & In repotting on a high school English teacher and Zigmond, 2000; Zigmond & Matta, 2004). For a special education co-teachet. Rice and Zigmond instance, Norris wrote of a middle school special (2000) commented. education teacher, "identifying with the role in The two teachets described theit practice as the regular classroom as one of an assistant with "an enmeshing of out abilities" . . . but they less than equal status and an inability to success- wete cleatly not equal pattnets in the instruc- fully meet the needs of students, became frus- tion. In most cases, this disparity in toles was trated in the co-teaching process " (p. 72). In explained as necessaty because the special ed- discussing three teams of high school world his- ucation teachet lacked content knowledge, tory co-teachers, Mastropieri et al. concluded, "It (p. 195) was rare to observe special educators delivering However, expertise in content knowledge on instruction to the entire class" (p. 265). Notes the part of the special education teachet could be from observations of one of these teams revealed associated with a higher degree of shared responsibility (e.g., Pugach & Wesson, 1995; Rice & Zig- "This team of teachers interacted as a boss mond, 2000). Yoder (2000) obsetved a high and an assistant when working with the stu- school Ametican literature class in which both co- dents. The general education teacher as- teachers shared most teaching responsibilities eq- sumed conttol of all aspects of the classroom uitably. The general education teacher reported, at all times. . . . Throughout this time pe- "'I think Carmine [the special education teacher] tiod, the special educator sat in the toom and occasionally went atound to individual stu- and I mesh well because we complement each dents to see if they needed any assistance." other, and she also has the English background. I (observation notes; p. 266) think that's a very string contributing part of it'" (p. 187). A special education teacher in the Antia investiga- Special education teachers in mote subordi- tion reported, "Tm an aide sometimes, I'm an in- nate roles were not confined to secondary gi-ade terpreter sometimes, and sometimes I'm a levels. Instances of special education teachers as- teacher'" (p. 211). A preschool special education suming subordinate roles in elementaty-level teacher repotted to Rosa (1996) "'She [the gen- classtooms wete teported by, for example, Antia eral education teacher] cettaihly allowed me to (1999), Hazlett (2001), Rosa (1996), and Salend develop all the behavior management programs et al. (1997), suggesting that secondary content that were going on and things like that. I don't knowledge is not the only determinant of teacher think she felt that I was taking over there, either'" roles. However, the lower status of special educa-

Exceptional Children 4O7 tion co-teachers, common at all grade levels, "I mean, if you're talking, I try to let you fm- seemed hiore consistent in secondary levels, par- ish whatever you're doing. And then I'll con- ticularly in those classes with rhore specialized tribute. I try not to bump in. Well, she told content knowledge. me I was barging in on her. So it was like, Subordinate Role and "7Mr^" Teachers also 'You will please not talk in my classroom.' identified turf issues that may have contributed to And I was like, well, maybe I've got to be the relatively subordinate role of the special edu- able to say something. It got to the point cation teacher. As stated by a successful middle that I was raising rhy hand to talk. I thought, school special educatioh co-teacher in the Mo- if this isn't stupid. But yeah. She really had rocco and Agiiilar (2002) investigation, '"We're trouble with somebody else in there." (p. entering their environment and we have to be the 174) ones to go one step above and beyond'" (p. 332). Buckley concluded, "The regular education teach- A high school special education teacher reported, ers saw theniselves as the leader of their class- '"Anytime you walk into another teacher's rooms" (p. 179). Although most teachers valued classroom there's going to be some type of the special education teacher, "all of them also negotiation that needs to occur for both of said that they wanted things done their way and you in terms of jiist territory and what's asked of you. And that's a tough thing to ne- wanted to maintain control" (p. 179). Describing gotiate.'" (Yodet, 2000, p. 150) hovv she established her co-teaching relationship with a special education teacher, one general edu- An administrator in the Norris (1997) inves- cation teacher said, tigation stated, " 'We as an industry are very terri- torial. It is really difficult for teachers to work "Okay, well first I would be in charge. together, change, and accept new ideas"'(p. l45). [Laughs] And I would let her first observe Wood (1998) reported in her study of six elemen- me. And then I would invite her to perhaps tary co-teachers try a couple of lessons and see how she does. And then perhaps now we're establishing a When special education teachers attempted better rapport with each othet and now I am to transplant their special education tech- beginning to trust her, to trust her to teach niques or materials that were considered in the way I am expecting the children to be atypical in the general education environment . . . the general education teachers ad- taught, allow her to gradually take over some mitted that they would sometimes react lessons." (p. 179) territorially, snubbing their suggestions, (pp. Although ownership or turf issues vvere com- 190-191) nion, they were not found in every classroom. For One fifth-grade teacher in that investigation example. Frisk (2004) reported on the comments stated, of a general educatioh co-teacher of a third/ "[The special education teacher] tried to tell fourth-grade class concerning co-teaching: me how she wanted the discipline to run. Faith thinks that it's successful because there's And she brought in a chart and said, 'Now no competition of egos in the room. "We wheh [Jeanie] does this, you put a star here. When [Tim] does this, you put a circle here.' have no problem if Erica takes one of my And I said, 'Well, OK.' But, I never did it lessons and modifies it ot whatever... I don't because that's not the way the discipline in feel that I must have total control of the the class runs." (p. 191) room, and I don't think she does, either . . . we complement one another." (p. G

Summer 2007 INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY IN teach from a textbook that some students can't CO-TAUGHT CLASSES read?" (p. 69). On the other hand, general education teachers frequently did not see a distinction General Education Teacher. There was very in the way they should address individual stu- considerable agreement that general education co- dents. A general education fifth-grade teacher in teachers favored strategies that could be applied to the Pugach and Wesson (1995) investigation re- the class as a whole. Antia (1999) studied pri- marked, "'Personally, I haven't seen any magic mary-grade co-teachers and reported, "teachers miracle on how to reach these [students]. It's the were most ready to make adaptations that they same thing in regular ed. And thete is nothing perceived as benefiting the entire class, for exarn- different that we don't do if we had the time'" (p. ple, visual strategies" (p. 213). Buckley (2005) 291). In some instances, general education teach- concluded from her study of middle school social ers reported that they needed to help students studies co-teachers, "Regular education teachers with disabilities prepare for "the real world" tend to plan globally rather than focusing on in- (Buckley, 2005, p. 182), and this to some extent dividuals. Therefore, a strategy suggested by a spe- may explain their observed reluctance to individ- cial education teacher may possibly be provided ualize. for the whole class" (p. 176). Hardy (2001) studied a high school biology co-teaching pair and re- Special Education Teacher. One special educa- ported that some adaptations employed by the tion teacher in an eighth-grade math class "as- general education teacher included advance orga- sumed a full range of instructional roles—made nizers, individual teaching, pacing, and classroom the transition, introduced and explained the ac- supports such as weekly schedules and seating as- tivity, provided instruction, and gave students signments. However, Hardy observed: feedback on answers provided by the groups" (Morocco & Aguiiar, 2002, p. 336). However, a discrepancy was noted in the teachers' such cases were rare. More typically, special edu- awareness of the necessity for specialized in- cation teachers generally provided the role of sup- struction. . . . The teachers used whole-class porting the traditional role of the general activities 100% of the time . . . students with education teacher. Curricular adaptations of a disabilities in the co-taught classrooms fol- high school special education co-teacher (Trent, lowed the same sequence of activities and 1998, p. 506) included "developing outline sheets used the same materials as peers, (p. 185) or rnodified study guides for the textbook chap- Similarly, Feidman (1998) reported of his sec- ters (e.g., fiU-in-the-blank worksheets indicating ondary co-teachers, "Co-teachers are not likely to page numbers where answers could be found)." prepare individual lesson plans to accommodate Although these activities were generally seen to be students with LD . . . most of the accommoda- helpful, they seemed quite different from the in- tions appear to be designed at the whole class structional practices usually attributed to special level" (p. 89). Mastropieri et al. (2005) observed education teachers (e.g., Mastropieri & Scruggs, "little differentiation of instruction to address in- 2006). Feidman (1998) reported, "The primary dividual needs" (p. 266) in co-taught high school strategy to accommodate LD students in this [sec- world history classrooms. Magiera et al. (2005) ondary] classroom takes the form of [the special reported that teachers typically employed a education teacher] providing temporary assistance whole-class lecture and independent seat work ap- via answering a question, redirecting off task be- proach in 10 co-taught high school mathematics havior, or prompting attention" (p. 97). Curtin classes. (1998) observed a secondary science class and re- On some occasions, the general education ported, "The special education teacher stood at teacher's reliance on traditional methods was a the mailbox and made sure each student placed source of frustration to the special education their folder in the ptoper slot" (p. 79). Hardy teacher. The middle school special education (2001) observed a special education teacher in a teacher in the Norris (1997) investigation re- high school biology class and reported, "occasion- ported, "I'm not happy with^ instructional meth- ally, during the lecture Janet would interject a ods that don't address the needs of students. Why comment to the class. At one time she said.

Exceptional Children 4O9 'Remember when we talked about what enzymes Rosa (1996) reported that a first-grade special ed- did?'" (p. 166). In a first-grade class, the general ucation co-teacher "handled the problems that education teacher led the class in a song, while came up which might disrupt the activity" (p. the special education teacher "moved about the 84). Feldman (1998) observed of a secondary co- room organizing the chairs and picking up mate- teaching pair: "[The general education teacher] rials that were out of place from the previous ac- actually presents the lesson information while [the tivity" (Rosa, 1996, p. 84). special education teacher] stands off to one side The tasks of the special education teacher and focuses most of her attention on monitoring seemed to reflect limitations imposed on the the behavior of three of the seven LD students" whole-class instruction that was commonly em- (p. 80). The special education teacher as behavior ployed in general education classrooms. Magiera manager was described in a number of other in- et al. (2005) concluded, "Because whole-class investigations (e.g., Buckley, 2005; Rice & Zig- struction continued to be the norm, special edu- mond, 2000; Trent, 1998; Yoder, 2000). cation teachers had few opportunities to offer Peer Mediation. In some individual cases, individual instruction" (p. 22). Some special edu- peer mediation in the form of cooperative learn- cation teachers served as models. " 'The first year I ing or peer tutoring was employed very produc- was a model for the students. Often, if [the sub- tively in co-taught classrooms (e.g., Carlson, ject teacher] is lecturing, I would do the notes on 1996; Mastropieri et al., 2005; Pugach & Wes- the overhead [projector] to model note-taking'" son, 1995). For example, Tarrant (1999) reported (Rice & Zigmond, 2000, p. 195). Zigmond and on the use of partner reading and partner spelling Matta (2004) observed 41 secondary co-teaching activities in a mixed-grade elementary classroom. pairs and concluded. Overall, however, peer mediation was observed far less than might be expected in these investiga- The second teacher was a nice addition, an tions. Feldman (1998, p. 96) observed that occasional relief for the GET [general education teacher], and more attention to students GE/SE 1 are the only co-teaching pair in the when class is organized for small group present study to consistently utilize peer me- (team) or independent seatwork. But none of diated instructional strategies .... This is what we saw would make it more likely .that curious in light of the relative popularity of the students with disabilities in the class cooperative learning (Slavin, 1990) and em- would master the material. We did not hear pirical support for various forms of peer me- the SETs [special education teachers] chime diated instruction (Utley, Mortweet, & in with carefully worded elaborative explana- Greenwood, 1997). tions. . . . We virtually never saw the SET provide explicit strategic instruction to facili- Referring to peer tutoring, a high school biology tate learning or memory of the content ma- teacher reported to Hardy (2001), "'I am going terial, (p. 73) to tell you however that right now there is not that much of that going on.' Janet [the special ed- Special Education Teacher and Behavior Man- ucation teacher] adamantly disagreed and ex- agement. Frequently, it was assumed that the spe- pressed, 'Yes, there is.' According to field notes, cial education teacher would assume peer tutoring was never observed" (p. 181). responsibility for any problem behaviors that oc- Norris (1997) observed a middle school co- curred in the classroom. Bessette (1999) reported taught class and concluded, "Students rarely in- on a journal entry of a general education second/ teracted with each other once instruction began third-grade classroom teacher: without permission and were reprimanded for "Michael presents many challenges—the fear doing so" (p. 132). of the other students is real, and I will pledge Other techniques that might have been ex- to keep them safe. Mary will restrain and re- pected were only rarely observed, such as princi- move him while I continue with the rest of ples of effective instruction (Mastropieri et al., the class. It has taken its toll on all of us." (p. 2005; Tarrant, 1999; Westberg, 2001); differenti- 141) ated instruction (Tarrant; Yoder, 2000); appropri-

41O Summer 2007 ate curriculum (Dieker, 2001; Mastropieri et al.); teach, one assist," with the special education mnemonic instruction (Mastropieri et al.; teacher often playing a subordinate role deter- Walther-Thomas, 1997; Yoder); effective student mined, in part, by content knowledge, teacher grouping (Pugach &C Wesson, 1995; Tarrant); or "turf," and the greater numbers of general educa- strategy instruction (Mastropieri et al.; Tarrant; tion students in the co-taught classroom. Fourth, Walther-Thomas). Beyond these exceptions, peer general education teachers typically employ whole mediation and other potentially helpful inclusion class, teacher-led instruction with little individu- techniques appeared to be greatly underemployed. alization, whereas special education teachers func- tion largely as assistants in support of special education students and other students in need, DISCUSSION within the existing classroom context. Although several exceptions were noted for each of these We employed metasynthesis methodology in this general findings, overall the consistency of con- review in order to enable us to examine issues and clusions—drawn across studies ranging widely in fmdings within and across studies with more pre- grade level, subject matter, geographical location, cision and to summarize the research on the level specific setting, and student characteristics—was of individual data rather than on the level of the remarkable. In short, it appears that the concerns research report. Although many of the present re- about co-teaching raised years ago by Boudah, sults may have been obtained from a more tradi- Schumacher, and Deshler (1997) were prescient. tional study-by-study review, we believe our methodology allowed us to look across demographic variables (e.g., location, grade level) [TJeachers have identified a number within and across studies, to aggregate data at the level of the individual case rather than individual of conditions neededfi)r co-teaching to study, and to focus on within- as well as across- succeed, including sufficient planning study variation. Use of NVivo software allowed us time, compatibility of co-teachers, training, to compare a large number of issues witbin and across studies and to examine more carefully dis- and appropriate student skill level confirmations (or their lack) and interactions with other issues. We believe that some of our On a positive note, it can be concluded that findings—for example, grade level and content teachers and administrators were satisfied overall, knowledge, planning time and administrative or in some cases very enthusiastic, with co-teach- support, or benefits tempered by concerns about ing as presently practiced, and that most objec- student skill levels—were more easily uncovered tions raised in these investigations reflected through this methodology. specific co-teaching circumstances (e.g., compati- Several general conclusions can be drawn bility of co-teachers, administrative support) from the results of this investigation. First, ad- rather than the practice of co-teaching itself. ministrators, teachers, and students perceive the These conclusions, however, must be tempered by model of co-teaching to be generally beneficial, to the fact that participants in nearly one third of general education and to (at least some) special the investigations were selected as being outstand- education students in both social and academic ing examples of co-teaching, and that most of the domains, and to the professional development of remaining teachers had volunteered for (or at least teachers. Second, teachers have identified a num- not objected to) these assignments. And, as Baker ber of conditions needed for co-teaching to suc- and Zigmond (1995) noted, it is difficult to im- ceed, including sufficient planning time, plement a policy based on volunteerism. compatibility of co-teachers, training, and appro- Examined critically, however, the practice of priate student skill level. Many of these concerns co-teaching as described in these investigations were linked to the more general issue of adminis- can hardly be said to resemble the truly collabora- trative support. Third, the predominant co-teach- tive models described by, for example. Cook and ing model reported in these investigations is "one Friend (1995) or Walther-Thomas et al. (2000).

Exceptional Children If the qualitative research to date represents gen- in the present qualitative studies contains many eral practice, it can be stated that the ideal of true features of what Hargreaves (1994) referred to as collaboration between two equal partners—fo- "contrived collaboration." Although many of the cused on curriculum needs, innovative practice, pairings described in these investigations were and appropriate individualization—has largely voluntary (and some were experimental and inno- not been met. Classroom instructional practices vative), overall they were regulated by administra- have not changed substantially in response to co- tors (often imperfectly), fixed in time and space, teaching. Classroom instruction has generally and predictable. Such a collaboration "diverts continued as whole class and lecture driven, and teacher's efforts and energies into simulated com- special education co-teachers have generally at- pliance with administrative demands that are in- tempted to fit within this model to deliver assis- flexible and inappropriate to the settings in which tance to students in need. Practices known to be they work" (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 208). effective and frequently recommended—such as There is a further issue. For such collabora- peer mediation, strategy instruction, mnemonics, tion to be effective, the individuals in each pair study skills training, organizational skills training, should be on an equal footing (unless it is mutu- hands-on curriculum materials, test-taking skills ally understood that one of the pair is clearly ad- training, comprehension training, self-advocacy vanced in, for example, experience, expertise, or skills training, self-monitoring, or even general professional judgment, as in mentoring pairings). principles of effective instruction (e.g., Mas- In co-teaching, however, the general education tropieri & Scruggs, 2006)—^were only rarely ob- teacher—because of her ownership of the class- served. As a consequence, the co-teaching model room, the curriculum, the content, and most of of instruction is apparently being employed far the students—is very often in the dominant role, less effectively than is possible. As noted earlier by regardless of experience, expertise, or judgment. Zigmond and Baker (1994) of inclusion classes, Therefore, the overall tilt of the classroom is typi- students with special needs are receiving good cally in the direction of the general education general education instruction, with assistance— teacher, where whole-class, teacher-led instruction but are they receiving a special education? Results is the rule, and the special education teacher ap- of the present synthesis suggest they are not. plies assistance only within the context of the existing classroom structure. That this role is sometimes mediated by a high level of content If the qualitative research to date represents knowledge on the part of the special education general practice, it can be stated that the teacher suggests that the special education teacher may be more accepted only to the extent to which ideal of true collaboration between two she resembles the general education teacher. In equal partners—-focused on curriculum these circumstances, a truly collaborative relation- needs, innovative practice, and appropriate ship—in the words of Rice and Zigmond (2000), individualization—has largely not been "a shared teaching space with a diverse student group, shared responsibility for planning and for met. instruction, and substantive teaching by both co- teaching partners" (p. 196)—is very unlikely to The present results can be linked to more develop. general characterizations of teacher collaboration. The participants of the investigations repre- Hargreaves (1994; see also Hargreaves, 2003) sug- sented in this metasynthesis cannot be character- gested that teacher collaboration can lead to in- ized as a random sample, and to that extent, the creased confidence, which can lead in turn to relationship between the present observations and more experimentation and risk-taking, and ulti- the population as a whole is unknown. In some mately continuous improvement. However, gen- cases (e.g., Hazlett, 2001), co-teachers declined to uine collaboration must be spontaneous, participate, citing problems in the co-teaching re- voluntary, unpredictable, and oriented toward de- lationship they did not wish to discuss. Further, velopment. In contrast, co-teaching as described 10 of the 32 investigations had been identified as

412 Summer 2007 outstanding examples of successful co-teaching Baket, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995) The meaning and (and none specifically selected as a negative exam- ptactice of inclusion fot students with leatning disabili- ple). It seems likely, then, that the studies in- ties: Themes and implications fot the five cases, journal cluded represent a mote favorable picture of ofSpecial Education, 29, 163-180. co-teaching than exists in general. Bauwens, J., Houtcade, J. J., & Ftiend, M. (1989). Co- Neither, however, should the generalizability opetative teaching: A model fot genetal and special ed- ofthe present findings be discounted entirely. The ucation integration. Remedial and Special Education, repotts included in this metasynthesis teptesented 10(2), 17-22. a substantial number of teachers and administra- Beck, C. T (2001). Cating within nursing education: A tors, in a wide variety of settings and situations. metasynthesis. Journal of Nursing Education, 40, Nevertheless, we were struck by the remarkable 101-109. consistency ofthe findings. For example, in 21 of *Bessette, H. J. (1999). A case study of genetal and spe- the investigations, general education teachers cial educatots' petspectives on collabotation and co- maintained that a minimal student skill level was teaching within a language based integtated elementary an important criterion for successful inclusion; classtoom. Dissertation Abstracts Intemational, 60 (09), none of the other investigations specifically con- 3317A. (UMI No. AAI9946579) tradicted this conclusion. Very similar positions Boudah, D. J., Schumachet, J. B., & Deshlet, D. D. were voiced on the impottance (and often, the (1997). CoUabotative insttuction: Is it an effective op- challenges) of planning time in 30 of the investi- tion fot inclusion in secondaty classtooms? Learning gations; there were no disconfitming reports. Disability Quarterly, 20, 293-316. Twenty-five of the investigations characterized the Btantlinget, E., Jimenez, R., Klingnet, J., Pugach, M., special education teacher's role as an assistant or & Richatdson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special in some way subordinate (although a smaller education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195-207. number of investigations described different *Buckley, C. (2005). Establishing and maintaining col- toles). The large size and diversity of the sample labotative telationships between tegulat and special ed- and the consistency of many of the results argue ucation teachets in middle school social studies strongly that the present conclusions ate very sug- inclusive classtooms. In T E. Sctuggs & M. A. Mas- gestive of contemporary practice. ttopieti (Eds.), Cognition and learning in diverse settings: Future research could address tbe means by Vol 18. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities which individual schools are able to develop ttuly (pp. 153-198). Oxfotd, UK: Elseviet. collaborative or genuine partnerships, and the Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C, Btitten, N., Pill, R., specific gains that can be realized by such prac- Morgan, M., & Donovan, J. (2003). Evaluating meta- tices. Additionally, further efforts in tbe area of ethnogtaphy: A synthesis of qualitative teseatch on lay qualitative research synthesis could help bring the expetiences of diabetes and diabetes cate. Social Science voices of individual students, teachers, and ad- and Medicine, 56, 671-684. ministrators into the domain of public discourse *Catlson, L. D. (1996). Co-teaching fot integtation: and help to strengthen the impact of qualitative An explotatoty study. Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tesearch. It is hoped that the present effort repre- tional, 57(08), 3389A. (UMI No. AAGNN11685) sents one useful step in tbat direction. Cook, L., & Etiend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guide- lines fot creating effective practices. Eocus on Excep- tional Children, 25(3), 1-16. REFERENCES Cook, L., & Etiend, M. (1996). Co-teaching: Guide- References marked with an asterisk indicate stud- lines fot creating effective practices. In E. L. Meyet, G. ies included in the metasynthesis. A. Vetgason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Strategies for teach- *Antia, S. D. (1999). The toles of special educators and ing exceptional children in inclusive settings (pp. classtootn teachets in an inclusive school. Journal of 309-330). Denvet, CO: Love. Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 203-214. Cteswell, J. W. (2006). Educational research: Planning, *Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachets' beliefs about co-teach- conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative ing. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 245-255. research. Uppet Saddle Rivet, NJ: Ptentice-Hall.

Exceptional Children 413 *Curtin, J. P. (1998). A case study of co-teaching in an Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1971). Status passage: A inclusive secondary classroom. Dissertation Abstracts In- formal theory. Ghicago: Aldine. ternational, 60 (01), 31A. (UMI No. AAG9917397) Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1979). *Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the characteristics of Meta-analysis in social research. Thousand Oaks, GA: "effective" middle and high school co-taught teams for Sage. students with disabilities? Preventnig School Failure, 46, *Hardy, S. D. (2001). A qualitative study of the in- 14-23. structional behaviors and practices of a dyad of educa- Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching tors in self-contained and inclusive co-taught secondary at the secondary level: Unique trends, current trend, biology classrooms during a nine week science instruc- and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, tion grading period. Dissertation Abstracts International, 86{A), 1-13. 61 (12), 4731A. (UMI No. AAI3000278) *Drietz, A. G. (2003). How students on individual ed- Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing ucation plans perceive team teaching. Masters Abstracts times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. International, 41 (06), 1580. (UMI No. AAI1414185) New York: Teachers Gollege Press. Estabrooks, C. A., Field, P. A., & Morse, J. M. (1994). Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Aggregating qualitative findings: An approach to theory Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers development. Qualitative Health Research, 4, 503-511. Gollege Press. *Feldman, R. K. (1998). A study of instructional plan- *Hazlett, A. (2001). The co-teaching experience joint ning of secondary special and general education planning and delivery in the inclusive classroom. Dis- co-teachers to accommodate learning disabled students sertation Abstracts International, 62 (12), 4064A. (UMI in the general education classroom. Dissertation No. AAI3037002) Abstracts International, 58 (07), 4731 A. (UMI No. Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1994). A synthesis of AAG9900508) qualitative research on wellness-illness. Qualitative Forness, S. R. (2001). Special education and related Health Research, 4, 349-369. services: What have we learned from meta-analysls? Ex- Keefe, E. B., Moore, V., & Duff, E (2004). The four ceptionality, 9, 185-197. "knows" of collaborative teaching. TEACHING Excep- Fraser, D. (1999). Q_SR NUD*IST Vivo Reference guide.tional Children, 3(^(5), 36-42. Melbourne, Australia: Qualitative Solutions and Re- LeGompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography search. and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa. Gam- Academic Press. bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: Friend, M. (2002). An interview with Dr. Marilyn The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Har- Friend. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, m-lli. vard University Press. Friend, M., & Gook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collabora- *Luckner, J. L. (1999). An examination of two co- tion skills for school professionals (4th ed.). New York: teaching classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 144, Longman. 24-34. Friend, M., & Reising, M. (1993). Go-teaching: An *Magicra, K., Smith, G., Zigmond, N., & Gebauer, K. overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and con- (2005). Benefits of co-teaching in secondary mathe- siderations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37, matics classes. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 6-10. 37{3), 20-24. *Frisk, G. A. (2004). Teacher collaboration: Learning Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2006). The inclu- from inclusion dyad dialogues. Dissertation Abstracts In- sive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction (3rd ed.). ternational, 65 (6), 2158A. (UMI No. AAI3135903) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gately, S. E., & Gately, F J. (2001). Understanding co- *Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Nor- teaching components. TEACHING Exceptional Chil- land, J., Gardizi, W, & McDuffie, K. (2005). Gase dren, 33(4), 40-47. studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about failures and challenges. Intervention in School and effective instructional practices for English-language Clinic, 40, 260-270. learners: A multi-vocal research synthesis. Exceptional Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa. New York: Children, 66, 454-470. William Morrow.

414 Summer 2007 Miles, M. B., & Hubetman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Schofield, J. W. (1990). Increasing the genetalizability data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thou-of qualitative teseatch. In E. W. Eisnet & A. Peshkin sand Oaks, CA: Sage. i^As.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing *Motocco, C. C, & Aguilat, C. M. (2002). Coteach- debate (pp. 201-232). New Yotk: Teachets College ing fot content undetstanding: A schoolwide model. Ptess. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Sctuggs, T. E., & Masttopieti, M. A. (1996). Teachet 13, 315-347. petceptions of mainstteaming/indusion, 1958-1995: A Mutawski, W. W., & Dieket, L. A. (2004). Tips and teseatch synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74. sttategies fot co-teaching at the secondaty level. Sctuggs, T. E., Masttopieti, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58. The quantitative synthesis of single subject teseatch: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Edu- Mutawski, W. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta- cation, 8(2), 24-33. analysis of the co-teachitig teseatch: Whete ate the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267. Sctuggs, T. E., Masttopieti, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2006). Summatizing qualitative teseatch in special ed- Noblit, G. W., & Hate, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnogra- ucation: Putposes and ptocedutes. In T. E. Sctuggs & phy: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Thousand Oaks, M. A. Masttopieti (Eds.)'rAdvances in learning and be- CA: Sage. havioral disabilities: Vol. 19. Applications of research *Nottis, D. M. (1997). Teachets' petceptions of co- methodology (pp. 325-346). Oxfotd, UK: Elseviet. teaching in an inclusive classtoom in a middle school: Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, re- A look at genetal education and special education search, and practice. Uppet Saddle Rivet, NJ: Ptentice- teachets wotldng togethet with students with leatning Hall. disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (06), 2162A. (UMI No. AAG9735088) Sttauss, A., & Cothin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded Patetson, B. L., Thotne, S. E., Canam, C, & Jillings, theory (2nd ed.). Newbuty Patk, CA: Sage. C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta- analysis of single-subject-design intetvention teseatch Pugach, M. (2001). The stoties we choose to tell: Ful- fot students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, filling the ptomise of qualitative teseatch fot special ed- 33, 114-136. ucation. Exceptional Children, 67, 439—453. *Tattant, K. L. (1999). The coUabotative implementa- *Pugach, M., & Wesson, C. (1995). Teachets' and stu- tion of an eatly litetacy cutticulum in a full-inclusion dents' views of team teaching of genetal education and ptimaty gtade classtoom: Co-teachets and students leatning-disabled students in t\yo fifth-gtade classes. wotking togethet to accomplish litetacy goals. Disserta- The Elementary School Journal, 95, 279-295. tion Abstracts International, 60 (10), 3599A. (UMI No. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving AA19948189) beyond qualitative and quantitative Strategies. Betkeley:*Thompson, M. G. (2001). Captuting the phe- Univetsity of Califotnia Ptess. nomenon of sustained co-teaching: Petceptions of ele- *Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in sec- mentaty school teachets. Dissertation Abstracts ondaty schools: Teachet tepotts of development in Aus- International, 63 (02), 560A. (UMI No. AAI3041129) ttalian and Ametican classtooms. Learning Disabilities *Ttent, S. C. (1998). False statts and othet dilemmas of Research and Practice, 15, 190-197. a secondaty genetal education coUabotative teachet: A *Rosa, B. A. (1996). Cooperative teaching in the inclu- case study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, sive classtoom: A case study of teachets' petspectives. 303-513. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(7), 2968. (UMIUdey, C, Mottweet, S., & Gteenwood, C. (1997). NO.AAG9638771) Peet mediated insttuction and interventions. Focus on *Salend, S. J., Johansen, M., Mumpet, J., Chase, A. S., Exceptional Children, 29(5), 1-23. Pike, K. M., & Dotney, J. A. (1997). Coopetative Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Atguelles, M. E. (1997). teaching: The voices of two teachets. Remedial and Spe- The ABCDE's of co-teaching. TEACHING Exceptional cial Education, 18, 3—11. Children, 30(2), 4-10. Sandelowski, M., Dochetty, S., & Emden, C. (1997). *Vesay, J. P. (2004). Linking petspectives and ptactice: Qualitative meta-synthesis: Issues and techniques. Re- Influence of eatly childhood and eatly childhood spe- search in Nursing and Health, 20, 365-371. cial educatots' petspectives of wotking collabotatively

Exceptional Children 415 in the integrated preschool classroom. Dissertation Ab- Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. M. (1994). Is the main- stracts International, 65 (03), 826A. (UMI No. stream a more appropriate educational setting for AAI3126498) Randy? A case study of one student with learning dis- Waither-Thomas, C, Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V. L., abilities. Learning Disabilities Research dt' Practice, 9, & Williams, B. T. (2000). Collaboration for inclusive ed-108-117. ucation: Developing successful programs. Needham *Zigmond, N., & Matta, D. (2004). Value added of Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. the special education teacher on secondary school co- *Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experi- taught classes. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri ences: The benefits and problems that teachers and (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabil- Vol 17. Research in secondary schools (pp. 55—76). Ox- ities, 30, 395-408. ford, UK: Elsevier. *Ward, R. (2003). General educators' perceptions of effective collaboration with special educators: A focus group study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 ABOUT THE AUTHORS (03), 861A. (UMI No. AAI3083896) THOMAS E. SCRUGGS (CEC VA Federation), Weiss, M. P. (2004). Co-teaching as science in the Professor of Special Education and Director, schoolhouse: More questions than answers. Journal of Ph.D. in Education Program; arid MARGO A. Learning Disabilities, 37, 218-223. MASTROPIERI (CEC VA Federation), Professor, Weiss, M. P., & Brigham, F. J. (2000). Co-teaching and College of Education and Human Development, the model of shared responsibility: What does the re- Ceorge Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. search support? In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri KiMBERLY A. MCDUFFIE (CEC SC Federa- (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: tion), Assistant Professor of Special Education, Vol. 14. Educational interventions (pp. 217-245). Ox- Eugene T. Moore School of Education, Clemson ford, UK: Elsevier. University, South Carolina. *Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. L. (2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary special educators in co-taught and special education settings. Journal of Special Education, 36, 58-69. Address correspondence to Thomas E. Scruggs, College of Education and Human Development, Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S. M. (1999). MSN 1D5, Ceorge Mason University, Fairfax, What's the score and game plan on teaming in schools? VA 22030 (e-mail: [email protected]). A review of the literature on team teaching and school- based problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Ed- ucation, 20, 36-49. Manuscript received May 30, 2006; accepted November 7, 2006. *Westberg, S. L. (2001). Implementing co-teaching as a model of inclusion of students with mild learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (3), 977A. (UMI No. INDEX OF AAI3009383) ADVERTISERS *Wood, M. (1998). Whose job is it anyway? Educa- tional roles in inclusion. Exceptional Children, 64, Charles C Thomas, cover 2 181-195. Chicago Public Schools, 474 *Yoder, D. I. (2000). Teachers' perceptions of elements Council for Exceptional Children, 390, 434, and competencies/characteristics that affect collabora- 487, 509 tive teaching at the secondary level. Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 61 (12), 4735A. (UMI No. Houghton Mififlin Education, cover 3 AAI9996182) MindPlay, Cover 3 Zigmond, N. (1995). Inclusion in Pennsylvania: Edu- The Special Education Service Agency (SESA), cational experiences of students with learning disabili- 510 ties in one elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 29, 124-132.

416 Summer 2007