1. Collaboration and Co-Teaching: General and Special Education Faculty
Author(s): Barbara Duchardt, Leslie Marlow, Duane Inman, Paula Christensen and Mary Reeves
Source: The Clearing House, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Jan. - Feb., 1999), pp. 186-190
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30189441 .
Accessed: 18/06/2013 12:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Clearing
House.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:35:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2. Collaborationand Co-Teachi
General and Special Education
Faculty
BARBARADUCHARDT,LESLIEMARLOW,DUANEINMAN,
PAULACHRISTENSEN,and MARYREEVES
he old saying "Two heads are better than one"
describes one of the positive effects of working
together. Businesses have promoted the effectiveness of
teamworkfor years, andtoday manybooks aboutworking
togetherto solve problemsor complete tasksarebest sell-
ers (Bondyet al. 1995;PugachandJohnson1995;Thomas,
Correa,andMorsink1995; KatzenbachandSmith 1994).
Teachereducatorsareincreasinglyrealizingthe benefits
of teamwork.Co-planning and co-teaching practices are
beingestablishedbetweenandamongfacultyof severaldis-
ciplines (Hafernick, Messerschmitt,and Vandrick1997).
With school restructuring, systemic reform, and least
restrictive environmentpractice taking center stage, co-
planning and co-teaching may provide powerful ways to
addressthe needsof diversepopulationsof studentsin both
highereducationandgeneraleducation(K-12).
Opportunitiesfor co-planning and co-teaching are not
inherentwithin the structureof highereducation.Like the
organizationalstructurein public schools (Skrtic, Sailor,
and Gee 1996), the highereducationstructureleaves little
time for creative and innovative interdisciplinaryprofes-
sional teamplanning,curriculumdevelopment,andcollab-
orative teaching. Therefore, while collaborativeteaching
efforts have been documented(Hafernick,Messerschmitt,
and Vandrick 1997), the creation of a higher education
modelthattakesinto accountthe uniqueaspectsof college
teachingis only now being exploredin depth.
Barbara Duchardtis an associate professor of special
educationat NorthwesternState University,Natchitoches,
Louisiana.Leslie Marlowis an assistantprofessorelemen-
taryeducation,and Duane Inmanis an assistantprofessor
of curriculumand instruction,both at the Universityof
Memphis. Paula Christensenis an assistant professor of
counselor education at Northwestern State University,
Natchitoches. Mary Reeves is an assistant professor of
mathematicseducationat the State Universityof New York
at Oswego.
Implementation
In 1993, the special educationfaculty at Northwestern
StateUniversityof Louisianainitiatedcollaborativeoppor-
tunitieswith the generaleducationfaculty for co-planning
andco-teaching.Thiseffortwas fundedby a grantreceived
from Part B, discretionaryfunds of the Individualswith
Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA). The primarygoals of
thiscollaborativeeffortwereforspecialeducationandgen-
eraleducationfacultyto (a) collaborateandmodelco-plan-
ningandco-teachingfor studentsas partof thegeneralele-
mentaryeducationmethodsblock, ContentandTechniques
of Teaching in the ElementarySchool, (b) improve the
knowledgebase of undergraduategeneralelementaryedu-
cation majorsaboutstudentswith diverse needs, (c) share
the results of these efforts with colleagues interested in
teachercollaboration,and(d)developaco-planningandco-
teachingmodelfor implementationwithinthe state.
In fall 1993, the special andelementaryeducationfacul-
ty (i.e., languagearts,mathematics,science, social studies)
met once a week over lunch to discuss course contentand
servicedeliveryin thefourclasses of theundergraduateele-
mentaryeducationmethods block. The special education
facultyobservedin the methodsclasses in orderto become
moreawareof the goals, objectives,andclass requirements
of each general education faculty member.After those
observations, the group met again to discuss teaming
arrangements.Finally,individualteammembersmetto co-
plana lesson.
Key Questions
Duringeach formalandinformalcollaborativemeeting,
the faculty members involved generated and discussed
multiplequestions.Those questionswereboiled down into
five categories: concerns, teaming, pre- and inservice
teacher needs, planning time, and evaluation. As each
semester progressed, answers to the questions evolved,
resultingin thefollowing list of questionsandanswersand
the development of the Co-Planning and Co-Teaching
Model (figure 1):
186
This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:35:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

3. Vol.72, No. 3 Collaboration and Co-Teaching 187
FIGURE1
Co-Planning and Co-Teaching Model
STAGES
* Choose a teacheryoutrust
* Findpocketsof timeto plan
* Brainstorm
* Preparethe lesson
* Co-teachthe lesson
* Supportyourpartner
* Evaluatethe lesson
RESULTS
* Collaboratingand developingtrust
* Learningto be flexibleand collegial
* Findingpocketsof timeto co-plan
* Learningthroughtrialand error
* Formingteachingand learningpartnerships
* Challengingourselves and developing
professionally
* Solvingproblemsas a team
* Meetingthe needs of diverselearners
* Meetingthe needs of teachers as problemsolvers
Question1: As thisprojectbegins,whatareyour concerns
about co-planning and co-teaching with faculty from
anotherarea (special educationor elementaryeducation)?
Specialeducationfacultygenerallyfelt thatwith certain
modifications the inclusion curriculumwould fit nicely
withtheelementaryeducationcurriculumin all areas.Hav-
ing had previous experience in public school elementary
and middle school educationand special education, they
hadalreadyseen thatthe two types of educationwere not
so very different in theory and that preservice teachers
needed to learnhow to apply the theory to accommodate
all students.
The special education faculty did, however, have two
concerns. The first was expressed by the faculty in
gifted/talentededucation,who fearedthatthe emphasison
inclusion would resultin the eliminationof ability group-
ing and challenging activities for that group of students.
The second was expressedby those faculty memberswho
taughtcourses on mild/moderateand severe/profounddis-
abilities;they were concernedthatthe elementarycurricu-
lum was predeterminedto such an extentthattherewould
be a lack of flexibility on the partof the generaleducation
faculty and the purposes of the project would not be
addressed.
Elementaryeducationfaculty membershad more con-
cernsthanthe specialeducationfaculty.In the initialplan-
ningmeetings,theyappearedto be morenegativeaboutthe
collaborativeeffort.Theirprimaryconcernsincludedfind-
ing thetime for planningandfor meetings,havingto share
spacewithanotherteacher,tryingto addmorecontentto an
already over-full curriculum, lack of knowledge about
inclusionandspecialeducation,loss of autonomy,andloss
of instructionaltime. These concerns are similarto those
reportedby manyteacherswhenfacedwithmorecontentto
be taughtin a finiteamountof time andwith the perceived
invasion of their classroom by another professional
(Phillips,Sapona,andLubic 1995).
As a resultof the concernsfelt by all faculty members,
the elementary-specialeducationteams were tentativeat
first in theircommunicationswith one another,as if they
were "cooking in someone else's kitchen" (Phillips,
Sapona,andLubic 1995,268). However,as the teamscon-
tinued to work together, the blending of each person's
expertise strengthenedthe content of the lessons and the
way they were presented.All participantsin the project
reportedthatthey learnedto be moreflexible, to focus on
individualstrengths,andto prioritizeconceptsandaddress
only those thatwere perceivedto be most important.Ulti-
mately, the preservice special and elementaryeducators
agreed thatthey sharedthe primarygoal of providingan
effective instructionalmodelfor theirstudents.
Question2: How will we decide which special education
faculty and elementary education faculty will team
together?
Collaborationin teaching is generallydescribedas the
sharingof expertisein deliveringa "seamless"lesson, solv-
ing a problem,workingon a project,or any similaractivi-
ty. Because most teachereducationprogramsdo not train
teachersto developa multidisciplinary,collaborativemind-
set, difficulties seem to arise when teachereducatorsare
expected to model teamworkand collaborationthey have
not experienced themselves (Pugach and Johnson 1995;
Thomas,Correa,andMorsink1995).
Thus, in the collaborationwe are describinghere, the
matterof who should team together was tricky at first.
However,becauseall of theindividualshadworkedtogeth-
er on diversecommitteesat varioustimes,theywere aware
of one another'ssimilarities and differences in teaching
styles, techniques,and managementskills. It then became
simplya matterof opencommunication,witheachindivid-
ual identifying those co-planner/teachercharacteristics
with which he or she would be most comfortable. It was
also agreedthatthe compositionof the teamswas notnec-
essarily permanent.If at any point,for any reason,a team
memberwantedto workwith a differentperson,he or she
could do so with no questions asked. This agreement
appearedto provideeachpersonwithreassuranceaboutthe
flexibility and workabilityof the plan. Once the ground
ruleswere established,with everyonetakingan activepart
in the discussion,teampairsformedsmoothly.
Question 3: What are the needs of the preservice and
inserviceteacherswhoare (or will be) involvedin inclusive
education?
To determinewhatspecific contentshouldbe integrated
into the existing elementarymethodscurriculum,the team
members decided to obtain feedback from focus groups
(Krueger1997;Morgan1997).Thegroups,whichincluded
the teamteachers,classroomteachers,administrators,uni-
This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:35:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4. 188 The ClearingHouse January/February1999
versityfaculty,school districtsupervisors,parentsof chil-
drenwithdisabilities,andpreserviceteachers,meton three
occasions. At each meeting, individuals were asked for
responsesto predeterminedsentencestems,suchas thefol-
lowing:
* A quality, full-inclusion preservice methods class
addressesthe following content....
* Higher educationfaculty can teach preserviceteachers
how to....
* Advice I would give to preserviceteachersaboutteach-
ing studentswith diverseneeds wouldbe....
* Schools can foster respectfor all childrenregardlessof
race, socioeconomic status, gender, culture, disability,
etc., by....
* When makingchanges in the classroom,one mustcon-
sider....
* Parents,teachers,and administratorscan work together
by ....
* Componentsor ways of restructuringfor full inclusion
are ....
Upon completionof the focus groupmeetings, the pre-
service special andelementaryeducationteamsdiscussed,
as a large groupand in team-pairs,implementationof the
concepts that had been discussed in the group meetings.
The conceptsfell into threemajorareas:students(motiva-
tion, management, attitudes), instruction (modifying
instruction,curriculum,and physical environment),and
professionaldevelopment(managingstress, sharingideas,
acquiring/usingproblemsolving, decision making,respon-
sibility taking,andcollaborationskills).
Question4: Whenand how do wefind the timeto sit down
andplan our team-teachinglessons?
The facultymembersdecidedthateveryeffortshouldbe
made to ensure a pleasurableexperience. Therefore,for
the firstmeeting,individualteamssimply madea commit-
mentto a time andplace in which to meet, which in most
cases included breakfast,lunch, or an afternoondessert
with coffee.
After the initial meeting (of thirtyminutes to an hour,
dependingon the individualsinvolved),projectparticipants
foundthata few minuteson thephone,or a coupleof min-
utes when passingin the hall, was all the contactthatwas
neededto getorganizedas a team.Thateaseof contactprob-
ablyoccurredbecauseeach teammemberhada foundation
and experience in education. No discrepanciesin back-
ground,such as inexperiencein highereducationor lack of
publicschoolteaching,werefactorsaffectingplanning.
Duringpre-teachingpreparation,teamsdiscussedcontent
andconcernsforstudentswithdiverseneeds.Graphicorga-
nizers and/orlesson plans were constructedby team pairs
for each team teaching experience and included content
specifiedby thefocus groupsas well as establishedcontent
withinthe specific courses.An exampleof a graphicorga-
nizerfor social studiesteamteachingis foundin figure2.
Throughoutthe planningphase,each team memberdis-
cussed various accommodations,modifications,manage-
mentplans,instructionalstrategies,and differentiatedcur-
ricula that could be used with the particularcontent.
Generally,this informationwas providedto preservicestu-
dents in class througha series of questionssuch as, "How
couldthisactivitybe adaptedforuse withachildwho lacks
fine motor coordination?""Is there an instance where a
cooperativegroupshouldincludeall of the giftedstudents?
Why or why not?""Isit moreimportantto implementhet-
erogeneous or homogeneous grouping? Provide some
examplesof each."
Question5: Afterreviewingthe videotapedlessons, student
comments,and discussion with all team members, how
wouldyou describe and evaluate the co-planningand co-
teachingexperience?
All team memberscited the experienceof co-planning
and co-teaching as a positive learningexperience.As the
project unfolded, the concerns that had originally been
expressed were addressed and resolved. The preservice
special andelementaryeducationfacultyrealizedthatthey
sharedtwo majorconcerns:how to meetindividualstudent
differences and how to addressmultiple learning-modes.
The team members agreed that they learned from one
another-not only content information and information
aboutstudentswith diverseneeds butalso a wide rangeof
examples,techniques,andstrategiesthattheycould all use
in training preservice teachers. Although some loss of
instructionaltime did occur,manyof the issues addressed
in the differentcontentareaswere expandeduponbecause
of thedifferentviewpointsexpressedby each teamteacher.
Thatexpansionof ideas,alongwiththevarietyof examples
and strategies,resultedin the perceptionof enhancedpro-
fessional developmentby those involved.
Everyoneinvolvedin thisprojectstatedthattheco-plan-
ning and co-teaching experience had been an enjoyable
one. However, when asked if they would want to be
involvedin a similarprojectagain,perhapsin anotherloca-
tion or with anotherset of faculty,an unequivocalyes was
not forthcoming.To succeed, such a cooperative effort
requirespeople who are sensitive to one another'sneeds
and who arewilling to trulycooperate.In this project,all
teammembersweresensitiveto theclassroomneedsof the
others and to the climate of the class. Participantsdevel-
oped mutualtrustthroughexplorationof similarinterests,
establishmentof professionalandpersonalrapport,anduse
of similarpedagogy styles. Everyoneinvolved workedto
enhance classroom climate, not to radically change it.
Therefore,any cooperativeeffortwould firstand foremost
requireteammemberswho interactin thismanner.
Finally,participantsconcludedthatteachersshould not
look at educationonly from the perspectiveof a general
education teacher,a special education teacher,or a lan-
guage arts,mathematics,science, or social studiesteacher.
Integrationof content ideas and expertise in pedagogy
This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:35:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

5. Vol.72, No. 3 Collaborationand Co-Teaching 189
FIGURE2
GraphicOrganizerfor Social Studies TeamTeaching
Topic:Charts,Graphs,Tables
Objectives(each 1. Definedecodingand
studentwillbe able to): encodinginrelationto
the topic.
2. Identifygivengraphs,
tables, and charts.
3. Encodeinformationinto
appropriategraph,table,
orchart.
4. Identifyuses of math
and languageartsskillsin
social studies activities.
5. Identifyarrangements
forcollaborativegrouping.
6. Createa listof ways to
adaptpopulationstudies
fordiverselearners.
Introduction: 1. Use of specialized
access skills
2. Reasons forstudent
difficultieswithgraphs,
charts,tables
3. Defining;examples;
nonexamples
4. Scope and sequence
Content/Activities: 1. Encodingdata a. Gatheringinformation
b. Presentingin
understandableform
c. Contentenhancement
procedures(types)
d. Practice(tofu/rice)
2. Decodingdata a. Whatmustbe known
b. Problems
c. Samples
3. Populationstudy a. Attribute
b. Rawdata
c. Rawdatatable
d. Statistics
e. Bargraph
f. Summary
Review/Questions:Reciprocalteachingtechnique
through co-planning and co-teaching teams produces
teachersmorecapableof workingwitha diversepopulation
of students.Thatresultsin a moreglobalteachingperspec-
tive, one thatfocuses on broader,collective goals and on
the needs andabilitiesof all students.
Application
It has been said that it takes a whole village to raise a
child.Today,it can also be saidthatit takesa whole school
to educatea child. No longercan a teacherin a classroom
of diverse learnersmeet all the educational, social, and
emotionalneeds of his or her students.It takes collabora-
tion amongall professionalsin a school system to educate
all students.Therefore,preserviceteachereducationmust
model, demonstrate,and promotethe collaborativeeffort
that is required in today's schools-among classroom
teachers,counselors,speechtherapists,physicaltherapists,
occupational therapists, and other school professionals.
Althoughtherearemanyways to collaborate,the Co-Plan-
ningandCo-TeachingModeldevelopedas anoutgrowthof
this projectis presentedto assist othereducatorswho are
beginningto collaborate.
This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:35:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

6. 190 The Clearing House January/February1999
Stage 1: Choose a teacher you trust. Any obstacles that
could result from misunderstandings or ineffective
communicationmustbe prevented.As soon as the lines of
communicationare open, begin to discuss the goals and
objectivesof your endeavor.The more you talk aboutthe
lesson, the more you will begin to understandeach other.
From these discussions, trust can be established and a
greaterinterpersonalrapportcreated.
Stage 2: Findpockets of time to plan. Planningcan occur
quite effectively in short periods of time, usually several
ten-minutesessions.Afterreadingthe basic topic material,
meet with otherteam membersin small blocks of time to
discusscoursecontent.As you worktogethereachtime,the
amount of time needed to plan will become less.
Eventually,planningcan occuras you walkfromone place
to anotheror by phoneor e-mail.
Stage3: Brainstorm.Afterreadingthe material,each team
member,throughbrainstorming,shouldlist severaloptions
for the co-teaching lesson, basing decisions on individual
areas of expertise. Brainstorming helps identify the
strengthsof each partnerand allows planningto proceed
smoothlyandquickly.
Stage 4: Preparethe lesson. Discuss, prepare,anddevelop
a written guide for the co-teaching lesson. Outline form
workswell andprovidesthebasicinformationforeveryone
involved in the process. Initially, indicate which team
member will do which aspect of the lesson. Make
preparationsforvideotapingthelessons inorderto evaluate
andreviseyourplanfor co-teachingthe nexttime.
Stage 5: Co-teachthe lesson. The firsttime you co-teach,
you are testing new instructionalarrangements.However,
thepreparationtimewill paydividendsby makingyou well
prepared.Untilyou implementthelesson, youhaveno idea
if thefirstfourstagesareworkingorif you needto develop
additionalstrategiesfor workingtogether.
Stage 6: Supportyourpartner One of the skills thatmost
teachers possess is the ability to be flexible and add or
highlight importantpoints throughoutthe lesson. This is
done duringteamteachingto help one anotherembellisha
point. Now is not the time to be possessive about"your"
classroom. The two partners must establish an easy,
confident working relationship, so that both feel
comfortablecontributinginformationsimultaneously.
Stage 7: Evaluatethe lesson. When viewing the videotape
after the first lesson, you will probablyrealize that with
some polishing you can fine tune your presentation.
Having others view your teaching will also provide
valuableinsights.
Conclusion
Co-planningandco-teachingarrangementscan resultin
nine positive outcomes: (1) collaboratingand developing
trust,(2) learningto be flexible and collegial, (3) finding
pockets of time to co-plan, (4) learningthroughtrial and
error,(5) forming teachingand learningpartnerships,(6)
challenging oneself and developing professionally, (7)
solving problems as a team, (8) meeting the needs of
diverselearners,and (9) meeting the needs of teachersas
problemsolvers. All teachersin higher education,public
schools, andprivateschools can learnto develop a collab-
orativeteachingenvironmentthat will benefit themselves
andtheirstudents.
REFERENCES
Bondy,E., D. D. Ross, P.T.Sindelar,andC. Griffin.1995.Elementaryand
special educatorslearningto worktogether:Teambuildingprocesses.
TeacherEducationand Special Education 18(3): 91-102.
Hafernick,J.J.,D. S. Messerschmitt,andS. Vandrick.1997.Collaborative
research:Whyandhow?EducationalResearcher26 (9): 31-35.
Katzenbach,J. R., and D. K. Smith. 1994. The wisdomof teams. New
York:HarperBusiness.
Krueger,R. 1997. Developing questionsfor focus groups. Focus Group
Kit, 3. Minnesota:Universityof Minnesota.
Morgan,D. 1997. Thefocus groupguidebook.Focus GroupKit, 1. Port-
land,Ore.:PortlandStateUniversity.
Phillips,L., R. H. Sapona,andB. L. Lubic. 1995.Developingpartnerships
in inclusiveeducation:One school's approach.Interventionin School
and Clinic 12 (5): 262-72.
Pugach,M., and L. Johnson. 1995. Collaborativepractitioners,collabo-
rativeschools. Denver,Colo: Love Publishing.
Skrtic,T.M.,W.Sailor,andK.Gee. 1996.Voice,collaboration,andinclu-
sion: Democraticthemes in educationaland social reforminitiatives.
Remedialand Special Education17 (3): 142-57.
Thomas, C., V. Correa,and C. Morsink. 1995. Interactiveteaming. 2nd
ed. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.:Merrill.
This content downloaded from 134.84.217.38 on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:35:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions