0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
52 просмотров6 страниц
This article discusses co-teaching in K-12 classrooms and provides recommendations to make co-teaching effective. It finds that co-teaching can positively impact student achievement when teachers have common planning time, see each other as equals, and enjoy collaborating. However, co-teaching often fails due to a lack of training, planning time, and administrative support. The article recommends starting small with volunteers, prioritizing planning time, treating co-teachers as equals, and making co-teaching an enjoyable experience.
This article discusses co-teaching in K-12 classrooms and provides recommendations to make co-teaching effective. It finds that co-teaching can positively impact student achievement when teachers have common planning time, see each other as equals, and enjoy collaborating. However, co-teaching often fails due to a lack of training, planning time, and administrative support. The article recommends starting small with volunteers, prioritizing planning time, treating co-teachers as equals, and making co-teaching an enjoyable experience.
This article discusses co-teaching in K-12 classrooms and provides recommendations to make co-teaching effective. It finds that co-teaching can positively impact student achievement when teachers have common planning time, see each other as equals, and enjoy collaborating. However, co-teaching often fails due to a lack of training, planning time, and administrative support. The article recommends starting small with volunteers, prioritizing planning time, treating co-teachers as equals, and making co-teaching an enjoyable experience.
PATTY A. KOHLER-EVANS University of Central Arkansas
The demands placed on school districts teaching technique to be used in conjunc-
have galvanized the development of a rel- tion with other inclusive strategies for the atively new educational kid on the block purpose of meeting the needs of all stu- - co-teaching. As a result of No Child Left dents in an inclusive school community. Behind (NCLB) and the even more recent Co-teaching teams have been forced into mandates of the newly revised Individu- the general education classroom where vet- als with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) eran teachers feel insulted to have a special of 2004, which defmes "highly qualified" education teacher placed in the room with in new ways, it has become increasingly the expectation that they both teach con- important for schools to utilize their tent area critical concepts. Special resources using more effective and cre- education teachers are frustrated because ative means. Time has taught us that they have been left homeless, having their students pulled from general education room taken from them, and have been classes and taught in a resource setting do thrust into a classroom that has been not benefit from the instruction of content resided in by a veteran language arts, math, area teachers. We also know that all gen- history, or science teacher who knows what eral education teachers do not possess the to teach and how to teach it. The outcome expertise to meet the leaming differences of this dubious union is often a marriage posed by students with disabilities. Co- that crumbles in front of the kids because teaching has become one of many the time and care needed to nurture and collaborative strategies that schools are sustain it has not been provided. looking at in an effort to meet the needs of all students within this educational frame- Research Findings work that we call school (Villa, Thousand, Research findings have yielded mixed & Niven, 2004; Snell & Janney, 2005). results on the effects of co-teaching. Some As a result of these mandates, there has studies have indicated that students with been a mad scramble to place two teach- disabilities showed larger gains in math ers in the same room at the same time and and equal gains in reading when compared call it co-teaching. Despite the fact that to students receiving pull out services (Bear specific models exist and that there are a & Proctor, 1990), and that consultation multitude of how-to books and articles on plus co-teaching was as effective as other the subject, co-teaching is regarded as a service delivery models (Schulte, Osbome, way to address the letter of the law rather & McKinney, 1990; Marston, 1996). than as a really fun, exciting, and valuable Boudah and colleagues (1997) found that
260 Co-Teaching .../261
performance of students with high-inci- the most important feature in a co-teach-
dence disabilities worsened during ing relationship?" The number one co-teaching. Other studies have indicated response was common planning time fol- that for high-risk students (Dieker, 1998) lowed by having a positive working and students with leaming disabilities (Rice relationship with one's co-teaching partner. & Zigmond, 1999; Welch, 2000), co-teach- The third most important feature in a co- ing is an effective practice. Even with these teaching relationship involved shared mixed results, 77% of middle schools are responsibility and philosophy between co- using some form of co-teaching. teachers. Mutual respect, shared resources, similar style and equal commitment were also rated high. Teacher Survey Ninety-seven percent of the teachers The author conducted a study of the said they would participate in a co-teach- attitudes and concerns of secondary teach- ing relationship if given another ers from 15 urban and suburban districts opportunity. General education and spe- in and around Seattle, Washington. Using cial education teachers said that a structured interview format, general and co-teaching reaches more students, that it special education teachers were asked to provides for better student care, that it is reply to a series of open and closed ended fun, and that the support of a second adult questions. Participation was anonymous is invaluable. Those who would not repeat and interviews were conducted on a 1 to 1 the experience cited need for training and basis. Teachers were asked to share their resources as a primary factor. Also, these opinions as well as factual information teachers indicated that co-teaching does about the effects of co-teaching. Anonymi- not necessarily meet the needs of all stu- ty protected the views of supporters as well dents, especially those with significant as complainers. needs. The majority of the teachers surveyed did not participate voluntarily and most Co-Teaching Lessons for Leaming had no prior planning before engaging in There are no recipes for the develop- the co-teaching process. Co-teaching pro- ment and implementation of a co-teaching ponents would argue that both of these model. However, there are lessons that can features are necessary for a successful be leamed from this study that will help experience. Seventy-seven percent of the optimize success in building and sustain- teachers surveyed said that co-teaching ing relationships among co-teaching teams. influenced student achievement. One-hun- The following recommendations are dred percent of the 77% stated that the designed for administrators and teachers impact was positive and that students made thinking about beginning the practice of academic gains. Only 10% of teachers sur- co-teaching. Most important is for the veyed said that there was no influence on administrators and teachers to fully support student achievement. one another from the beginning to the end Teachers were also asked, "What was of the co-teaching relationship. 262 / Education VoL 127 No. 2
teachers practice their craft simul-
Start small and ask for volunteers. taneously in front of a class full of Many teachers are self conscious students without having time to and reluctant to allow a peer to watch plan? If the co-teaching team fails to them teach, especially when the plan together, co-teaching should other teacher is an expert in his/her not be used. Schools should make field. One of the benefits of the co- mutual planning a high priority. It teaching relationship is the is that important! opportunity for professional growth that comes from giving and getting Practice parity. The general edu- feedback from a well-respected peer. cation and special education teachers What better opportunity for feed- should treat one another as equal back than from teaching with partners. Parents should have equal another in the context of the class- access to both during open house room? meetings and parent-teacher con- ferences. Both teachers should be Place value on co-teaching as one represented on report cards, on the of many inclusive practices. Dis- name plate that idenfifies the class- cuss inclusion and its benefits. When room and in conversations about the all students are valued, students classroom. Both teachers are respon- without disabilities have the oppor- sible for all the students in the tunity to develop into more classroom, therefore both teachers compassionate and caring individu- should be fully represented when it als; students with disabilities feel a comes to all aspects of classroom part of the entire school learning identification. This includes the own- environment. Inclusive schools hold ership of materials, supplies, books, the belief that all students are full and arrangement of the physical members of the educational com- environment. munity. From school clubs to ball games to school programs and class Have fun. Co-teaching offers many make-up, diversity should be valued wonderful opportunities for collab- and celebrated. oration and exploration of the practice of teaching. All teachers Find time for mutual planning experience those wonderfully funny, time. There is an old adage, "You rich, teachable moments where one's get what you pay for." This adage is fondest desire is to have someone most applicable to the practice of else see it too. Here is the chance to co-teaching. The relationship is no share some of the best teaching bigger than the investment of time it moments with someone else, some- reflects. A minimum of 45 minutes one who understands the context and a week is a must. How can two the participants. Co-Teaching .../263
Don't Overlook the Small Stuff. evidenced by the overwhelming
As a result of training hundreds of number of teachers reporting that teachers, one message continues to the practice was beneficial to stu- ring loud and clear: the small stuff dents. Additional outcome data with becomes big stuff and can poten- emphasis on both formative and tially jeopardize a relationship if not summative measures must be gath- attended to. Teachers come to work ered in order to truly determine the with different beliefs, values, and effectiveness of this widely used thoughts about students and how practice. lessons should be taught. Perspec- tives vary on everything from One size does not fit all. Although discipline to bringing necessary co-teaching seems to be a promising materials. When two adults interact practice, this does not mean that in the context of students, issues that every student can have his/her edu- were not previously thought of will cational needs met this way. The invariably surface. Take these as they Seattle teachers indicated that stu- come up and come to mutual agree- dents whose disabilities were severe ment on how to resolve them. Do sometimes did not profit from being not allow a small issue to fester into in a co-taught classroom. Careful an open, mortal wound! attention to each student's needs must still be the standard on which Communicate, communicate, and all decisions are made. communicate. It is imperative that two teachers working in the same classroom have ongoing dialog Final Thoughts about what bugs them, their pet The practice of co-teaching has the peeves, the good parts, the tough potential to be a wonderful strategy for parts, the stmggles and the victories. meeting the needs of all students. Working Communication needs to be open, in partnership with another teacher, bounc- honest, confidential, and continu- ing ideas off of one another, planning and ous. There is no substitute for daily, orchestrating the perfect lesson, having sometimes gut-wrenching and two pair of eyes and four hands, creating cathartic, yet cleansing and growth- something that is better than that which causing communication. each partner brings ...what better way is there to teach? Measure student progress over The results of this study are encourag- time. Little data exists that supports ing. Even considering that most of the the practice of co-teaching and its participants were told rather than asked to effects on student leaming. The Seat- co-teach, the overwhelming majority said tle study suggests that students they would do it again, and that it had a pos- profited from the practice. This is itive effect on student achievement. Further 264 / Education Vol. 127 No. 2
study is needed to determine the exact
effects on student achievement in a vari- ety of subjects and classrooms, and to examine the effects on students with sig- nificant needs.
References
Bear, G., & Proctor, W. (1990). Impact of a full
time integrated program on the achievement on non-handicapped and mildly disabled chil- dren. Exceptionality 1, 227-238. Boudah, D., Schumacher, J., and Deshler, D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an effec- tive option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disabilities Quarterly 20,293-316. Dieker, L. (1998). Rationale for co-teaching. Social Studies Review 37(2), 62-65. Kohler, P. A. (2006). Am I an aide, or what? The Arkansas Special Educator Spring, 2006, 44. Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined service mod- els for students with mild disabilities. Joumal of Special Education 30, 121-132. Rice, D. & Zigmond, N. (1999). December. Co- teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of developments in Australia and American classrooms. Resources in Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED432558. Schulte, A., Osbome, S., and McKinney, J. 1990. Academic outcomes for students with learn- ing disabilities in consultation and resource programs. Exceptional Children 57, 162-172. Snell, M. E., and Janney, R. ed. 2005. Collabora- tive teaming. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., and Nevin, A. I. 2004. A guide to co-teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Welch, M. 2000. Descriptive analysis of team teaching in two elementary classrooms: A for- mative experimental approach. Remedial and Special Education 21(6), 316-376.
Classroom-Ready Resources for Student-Centered Learning: Basic Teaching Strategies for Fostering Student Ownership, Agency, and Engagement in K–6 Classrooms