University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations May 2013 Exploration of a Special Educator's Contributions to Co-Teaching in Relation to Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Bharti Tandon University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/etd Part of the Special Education and Teaching Commons Recommended Citation Tandon, Bharti, "Exploration of a Special Educator's Contributions to Co-Teaching in Relation to Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 390. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/390 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXPLORATION OF A SPECIAL EDUCATOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO CO-TEACHING IN RELATION TO CONTENT AND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE by Bharti Tandon A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Education at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee May 2013 Abstract EXPLORATION OF A SPECIAL EDUCATOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO CO-TEACHING IN RELATION TO CONTENT AND PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE By Bharti Tandon The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2013 Under the Supervision of Professor Judith Winn This was an exploratory case-study of a high performing co-teaching team at the high school level. The team consisted of a special educator and a general educator in their third year of co-teaching biology. The focus of the study was on the contributions of the special education teacher; these contributions were considered in relationship to his content and pedagogical content knowledge. The study contributes to the dialogue about the extent of content knowledge needed by the special educator and about the roles that special education teachers play in co-teaching in content areas. The study took place over four months. Data sources were interviews with the teachers both individually and together; observations followed by debriefing interviews; artifacts such as pacing guide, curriculum materials, school magazine, and field notes. Ball’s model of pedagogical content knowledge (2008) was used to examine the special education teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge. The characteristics of this high performing team, and the way their relationship evolved, confirmed many of factors that have been identified as contributing to successful co-teaching. The special education teacher contributed both in both planning and in teaching biology; in addition to a supportive role, he also took a lead role in teaching; this role grew as his content knowledge increased. Over the years, the special education teacher used several strategies for gaining content knowledge, i strategies which were useful to him in supporting the students who were struggling. It was possible to get an overview of the special education teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge using Ball’s model; however, more was learned about his knowledge of content and pedagogy than of students. ii © Copyright by Bharti Tandon, 2013 All Rights Reserved iii DEDICATION To my parents, Uma Rani and Shyam Tandon, and my sister, Arti Tandon, whose love, unwavering support, and words of encouragement throughout the process inspired me to keep moving forward to complete this research and write my dissertation. iv TABLE OF CONTENT List of Tables and Figures ………………………………………………….vii Acknowledgement …………………………………………………………...viii 1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION …………………………………….......1 Co-teaching and Content Knowledge…………………………………………3 Pedagogical Content Knowledge ………………………………………….......6 Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………....7 Significance of the Study…………………………………………………….....8 Operational Definitions………………………………………………………...10 2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………14 Collaboration………………………………………………………………..…14 Co-teaching ……………………………………………………………………18 Characteristics of Co-teaching………………………………………...…19 Approaches to Co-teaching………………………………………………20 Benefits of Co-teaching for Students…………………………………….24 Benefits of Co-teaching for Teachers…………………………………….29 Essentials of Co-teaching ………………………………………………..31 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) ……………………………………..54 Different Models of PCK………………………………………………...56 Summary………………………………………………………………………63 3. CHAPTER: METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………..64 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….64 Characteristics of Qualitative Research…………………………………..64 Case Study Methodology………………………………………………………67 Interpretative Framework………………………………………………....69 v Site and Participant Selection…………………………………….....................70 Selection Criteria………………………………………………………...71 Selection Process………………………………………………………...72 Description of the Site and the Participants…………………………………74 Data Sources…………………………………………………………….…...83 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….. 90 Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………….....97 Role of the Researcher…………………………………………………..….100 4. CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND RESULTS ……………………..…103 Co-teaching Partnership…………………………………………………..…103 Evolution of their Co-teaching Partnership…………………………….…...106 Contributions of the special Education Teacher…………………………….113 Ball’s Conceptions of PCK…………………………………………………128 Summary………………………………………………………………........140 5. CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ………………………..………………142 What Did We Learn From Dan …………………………………………....142 Implications and Recommendations……………………………………….155 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………....158 Summary……………………………………………………………………159 6. REFERENCES …………………………………………………………......160 7. APPENDICES ………………………………………………………….…..169 APPENDIX A: Tool for Measuring PCK …………………………...……169 APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol ………………………………………..174 APPENDIX C: Consent Letters ………………………………..…………184 8. CURRICULUM VITA ……………………………………………………. 192 vi LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Page Table1. Overview of observation timeline. 85 Table.2 Dan’s contributions in co-teaching biology. 113 Figure 1.1 Coding category layers 94 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT As it is said that “it takes a village to raise a child” likewise the completion of this dissertation was not only the hard work of the writer, but also the dedication of many other individuals. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my dissertation committee, Dr. Judith Winn for your guidance and mentorship, along with Dr. Amy Otis Wilborn, Dr. Elizabeth Drame, Dr. Marleen Pugach, and Dr. Craig Berg for your continuous support and patience. This would not have been possible without the help of each of you as well as your trust in me. My thanks go also to the principal, the co-teachers, and the students of the high school who allowed me to access to the school and the curricular materials; I needed to complete the study. I am grateful to many colleagues who shared their experiences and insights, thus; giving me courage to challenge my own potential and rediscover myself in this process. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge my officemates for their friendship and for providing me perspective to look at my tough days in this wonderful learning experience. viii 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Co-teaching occurs between two or more professionals who are actively involved in providing substantive instruction in a shared physical space to a diverse student population in inclusive settings. It is often compared to “professional marriage” (Friend & Cook, 2003) where two professionals—general and special education teachers— collaborate, trust, respect, and share responsibilities as in any other relationship. It embraces the philosophy that children with disabilities have a right to learn with their non-disabled peers regardless of their grade level achievement. Research has established various benefits of co-teaching for children with and without disabilities, both socially and academically (Keefe & Moore, 2004; Trent, 1998; Walther-Thomas, 1997). In addition, co-teaching provides opportunities for general and special educators to collaborate and learn from each other’s expertise (Austin, 2001; Walther-Thomas, 1997; Thousand, Villa, and Nevin, 2006). Proponents of co-teaching believe and advocate that general and special education teachers must contribute mutually to make it effective. Even though co-teaching might blur the boundaries of traditional roles, it is evident in research that the roles constitute what general and special education teachers contribute to this instructional partnership; sometimes the roles are not clear enough to know what the special education teachers are expected to do. For example, in Keefe and Moore’s study (2004) of high school co- teachers, one of the general education teachers commented, “I do not even know why she [special education teacher] is here, quite frankly. She’s a nice person, the kids like her, 2 but I do not understand the point of having her in my classroom.” A special education teacher pointed out that, “I [special education teacher] focus a lot on my kids, but no one in the classroom knows who I am…every once in a while I might teach a lesson, but for the most part I just help the teacher with whatever is going on…” (p. 83). Often, children in the general education classroom view the special education teacher as an education assistant and/or glorified paraprofessional who is there only to support general education teachers. Literature indicates that most special education teachers in inclusive settings adopt a supportive role in co-teaching rather than one of equal