EQUIP

The ABCDEsof Co-Teaching
Sharon Vaughn, Jeanne Shay Schumm, and Maria Elena ArguellesThe Council for Exceptional ChildrenTeaching Exceptional ChildrenVol. 30, No. 2 - Nov/Dec 1997reprinted with permission

Tiffany Royal is a fifth-grade teacher at Flamingo Elementary School in Miami. For the past 3 years she has co-taught language arts and social studies for part of the school day with Joyce Duryea, a special education teacher. For both teachers, the idea of working collaboratively with another teacher was not part of their original plan for teaching.

Joyce said:
When I was preparing to be a special education teacher it never occurred to me that I would need to know how to co-teach in a general education classroom. I always thought I would have my group of students with special needs and that is the way it would be.
Tiffany felt the training she received to become an elementary teacher did little to prepare her for her present position. She commented:

I was taught about curriculum and classroom management, but not co-teaching. I suppose these changes took everyone by surprise.

Tiffany and Joyce are part of a growing number of teachers whose "solo" teaching roles have changed in the past few years. For both Joyce and Tiffany, the changes are for the better.

Tiffany said:
We learn so much from each other. Really, Joyce has taught me how to implement strategies that are good for other students in the class, not just the students with special needs. It is wonderful to have a partner to bounce ideas off who really understands the kids.

Joyce put it this way:
I think I'm a better teacher now, and I definitely have a much better understanding of what goes on in the general education classroom and what kinds of expectations I need to have for my students.

Both teachers agree that their co-teaching has had real benefits for the students. They are convinced that the benefits are not just for students with special needs but for all students. As

Joyce, the special education teacher, said:
I am able to provide some support for all of the students in the class. Mind you, I never lose sight of why I'm in here, to assist the students with identified special needs, but there are benefits for other students, as well.

Both Joyce and Tiffany feel lucky to work with each other, but are also aware that co-teaching is not always so mutually satisfying. They know of other teachers who are working in co-teaching situations where the partnerships are not nearly as successful. Co-teaching is a bit like a marriage. Both partners have to feel that they are giving 100 % and have to want things to work out. This is particularly true when their philosophies about teaching and discipline are different (see box below "Common CoTeaching Issues").

Common Co-Teaching Issues
Based on extended observations and interviews with more than 70 general education/special education teacher teams, we have identified several issues that co- teachers must address if they are to be successful.

Whose students are these?
Address this issue before co- teaching begins: Who is responsible for the students in the classroom? The general education teacher is responsible for all of the students in the class, but how do these responsibilities change when the special education teacher is in the room? Who is responsible for the students with special needs? Under what conditions do these responsibilities change?

Who gives grades? How do we grade?
Perhaps the issue that warrants the most discussion prior to co - teaching is grading. Special education teachers are accustomed to grading based on the effort, motivation, and abilities of the students. General education teachers are accustomed to grading based on a uniform set of expectations that is only slightly adjusted to reflect issues of effort, motivation, and student abilities. Making joint decisions about how grades will be handled for in- class assignments, tests, and homework will reduce the frictions frequently associated with grading special education students in general education classrooms. Working together, teachers can develop guidelines for grading to use with both students and parents.

Whose classroom management rules do we use?
Most general and special education teachers know the types of academic and social behaviors they find acceptable and unacceptable. Over the years, they have established consequences for inappropriate behaviors. Rarely is there disagreement between teachers about the more extreme behaviors. The subtle classroom management difficulties that are part of the ongoing routines of running a classroom, however, can cause concerns for teaches. Often, the special education teacher is unsure about when he or she should step in and assist with classroom management. Teachers should discuss their classroom management styles and the roles they expect of each other in maintaining a smoothly running classroom.

What space do I get?
When special education teachers spend part of their day instructing in general education classrooms, it is extremely useful to have a designated area for them to keep their materials. A desk and chair that are used only by special education teachers provide them with a "base" from which to work and contribute to their position of authority.

What do we tell the students?
An issue repeatedly brought up by teachers is how much information should be given to students. Should students be informed that they will have two teachers? Should students know that one of the teachers is a special education teacher and that she will be assisting some children more than others? The students should be informed that they have two teachers and that both teachers have the same authority. We think it is a good idea to introduce the special education teacher as a "learning abilities" specialist who will be working with all of the students from time to time. It is our experience that students willingly accept the idea of having two teachers and like it very much. In interviews we have conducted, many students who have participated in co- teaching classrooms tell us that having two teachers is better because everyone gets more help.

What do we tell the parents?
Teachers are often unsure of how much they should tell parents about their new teaching arrangement. One of the concerns that teachers have is how parents might react to having a special education teacher in the classroom for part of the day. It is our experience that these programs are most successful when parents are brought in early and are part of the planning process. Thus, parents are part of the process from the beginning and are able to influence the development of the program. Parents of average to high-achieving children may express concerns that their chudren's education may be hampered because students with special needs are placed in the classroom. Teachers report that these students fare as well or better, academically and socially, when students with special needs are in the general education classroom; and all students benefit from the support provided by the special education teacher (Arguelles, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1996).

How can we get time to co-plan?
The most pervasive concern of both general and special education teachers in co-teaching situations is obtaining sufficient time during the school day to plan and discuss instruction and student progress. This is of particular concern for special education teachers who are working with more than one general education teacher. Teachers report that planning often comes on their own time. Even when a designated period is established for co- planning, teachers report that this time gets taken away to be used for meetings and other school management activities. Teachers need a minimum of 45 minutes of uninterrupted planning time each week if they are likely to have a successful co- teaching experience. One suggestion made by several of the teacher teams with whom we have worked is to designate a day or a half- day every 6- 8 weeks when teachers can meet extensively to plan and discuss the progress of students, as well as changes in their mstructional practices.

Modifying Models for Co-Teaching Roles
Tiffany and Joyce are not unusual in that they had little preparation for co- teaching. As experienced teachers, both had good ideas about how they would establish their classrooms and instruct their students. They were just not clear about how they would do it together.
What roles do teaches often implement when co- teaching? Having observed in more than 70 co- teaching classrooms, we have identified several typical practices that teachers implement. We feel that when these practices are refined, they provide more effective and efficient uses of teachers' time and skills. Two practices that need modification are grazing and tagteamteaching.

Grazing
In grazing, one teacher stands in front of the room providing an explanation or instruction, and the other teacher moves from student to student checking to see if they are paying attention or following along. Often, in co- teaching situations, teachers are involved in grazing; and yet they report to us that they are not sure it is a good use of their time. Unfortunately, they are uncertain about what else they could be doing during this time that would be more effective.
We suggest that teachers replace grazing with "teaching on purpose" - giving 60 second, 2- minute, or 5- minute lessons to individual students, pairs of students, or even a small group of students. Teaching on purpose often involves a follow- up to a previous lesson or a check and extension of what is presently being taught. Teachers who implement "teaching on purpose" keep a written log of information for each special education student who needs follow- up. Sometimes this follow- up work is related to key ideas, concepts, or vocabulary from the lesson or unit. Teachers may realize that selected students are still unsure of critical information; during "teaching on purpose" lessons, they approach the student, check for understanding, and then follow up with a mini- lesson.

You may wonder how students can pay attention to the presentation at hand if the co- teacher is moving from student to student and "teaching on purpose." Students quickly adjust to the role of the second teacher and, in fact, often want the teacher to check in with them.

Tag-Team-Teaching
In this familiar scenario, one teacher stands in the front of the room providing a lesson or presentation, and the other teacher either stands in the back of the room or sits at a desk involved in another activity. When the first teacher has completed the lesson, he or she moves to the back of the room or sits at a desk, and the second teacher takes over. Teachers often use tag- team- teaching because they are unsure of how else they can deliver instruction to the class as a whole. Further, they have been provided few alternative models for how two teachers might effectively teach together.

We have identified several alternative models - Plans A through D - to grazing and tag- team- teaching. We suggest that you try all the models- not just select the one that makes most sense to your teaching team (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989) .

A: One Group - One Lead Teacher, One Teacher "Teaching on Purpose"
As we previously suggested, "teaching on purpose" is an effective alternative to usual models of co- teaching. Also called "Supportive Learning Activities" (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995), Plan A provides effective roles for both teachers.
In this structure, the general education teacher does not always assume the lead role, nor does the special education teacher solely serve in the role of teaching on purpose. Teachers can use the Planning Pyramid Unit or Daily Lesson Form (see Schumm, Vaughn, & Harris, 1997; Schumm, Vaughn, & Leavell, 1994) to record the key ideas they want every student to know and then monitor the progress of students with special needs through teaching on purpose. Teachers can also use the CoTeaching Daily Lesson Plan Form (Figure 1 shows sample items from this form with teachers' plans added) provided in Figure 2.

Figure 1
Co-Teaching Daily Lesson Plans
General Educator:
Special Educator:
Date
What are you going to teach?
Which co-teaching technique will you use?
What are the specific tasks of both teachers?
What materials are needed?
How will you evaluate learning?
Information about students who need follow-up work
10/5/97

Roots and stems
Plan D:Assign students to different groups.
Ms. D: Work with one groupMs. R: Monitor the other group
Celery stalks, carrots, colored water, lab notebook, short video
-Completion of lab report.-Following procedures
Raul: Have Raul paraphrase steps before beginning procedures.
10/6/97

Photosynthesis
Plan B: Two heterogeneous groups; wrap-up last 10 minutes.
Each teacher works with one group of students.
Various types of plants, library books on plants, colored transparencies.
-Weekly quiz-Learning logs
John and Julie: Review vocabulary words one-on-one with partner. Sally W.: Reread library book to improve fluency.
10/7/97
Leaves: transpiration and water regulation
Plan A: One lead, one teaching on purpose. Plan C: One re-teaches, one teaches alternative information (last 30 minutes).
Ms. D: LeadMs. R: Teach on purpose
Ms. D: Re-teachMs. R: Alternative information
TextbookBroad-leaf plants, Vaseline, lab notebook, colors.
-KWL Sheet-Diagram of observation.-Lab report
Pablo T. and Joan: Retype lab report on computer using spellcheck to assist with handwriting and spelling.

















Figure 2
Co-Teaching Daily Lesson Plans
General Educator:
Special Educator:
Date
What are you going to teach?
Which co-teaching technique will you use?
What are the specific tasks of both teachers?
What materials are needed?
How will you evaluate learning?
Information about students who need follow-up work








































B: Two Groups: Two Teachers Teach Same Content
In Plan B, the students in the class form two heterogeneous groups, and each teacher works with one of the groups. The purpose of using two smaller groups is to provide additional opportunities for the students in each group to interact, provide answers, and to have their responses and knowledge monitored by the teacher. This co- teaching arrangement is often used as a follow- up to the whole- group structure in Plan A. Because small- group discussions and teacher instruction always result in somewhat different material being addressed in each group, teachers may want to pull the groups together to do a wrap- up. The purpose of a wrap- up is to summarize the key points that were addressed in each group, therefore familiarizing the whole class with the same material. A wrap- up also assists students in learning to critically summarize key inforrnation.
Some teachers wonder whether students must always be heterogeneously grouped or if it ever makes sense to group students based on their knowledge and expertise about the designated topic. We feel that it does; the next co- teaching model addresses that issue.
C: Two Groups: One Teacher Re-teaches, One Teacher Teaches Alternative Information
In Plan C, teachers assign students to one of two groups, based on their levels of knowledge and skills for the designated topic. Although students with special needs are often in the group that requires re- teaching, this is not always true. The criterion for group assignment is not ability but skill level on the designated topic. Though ability and skill level for the designated topic are often related, they are not the same. This is often referred to as flexible grouping because the group to which students are assigned is temporary and relates solely to their knowledge and skills for the designated topic. As the topic and skills that are addressed change, so does group composition.
In a co- teaching situation, it is tempting to have the special education teacher always provide instruction for students in the re- teaching group and to have the general education teacher provide instruction for students who are ready for alternative information. In our experience, the special and general education teachers find it most effective to alternate between groups. This allows both teachers an opportunity to work with the full range of students and curriculum content.
D: Multiple Groups: Two Teachers Monitor/Teach; Content May Vary
Plan D is much like using learning centers or cooperative learning groups. Activities related to the topic or lesson are arranged in designated areas throughout the classroom. (One area may have computers, another may have audio equipment, etc.) Groups of students either alternate working in each of the designated areas, or are assigned to work in a particular area that responds to their specific needs. Teachers can perform one of several roles:
Monitoring student progress.
Providing mini- lessons to individual students or small groups of students.
Working with one group of students during the entire period while the other teacher monitors the remaining students and activities.
This multiple- group format allows all or most students to work in heterogeneous groups, with selected students pulled for specific instruction Plan D can be particularly effective in language arts when students with specific reading disabilities require specific and intensive small- group instruction.
E: One Group: Two Teachers Teach Same Content
Plan E is perhaps the most difficult to implement and certainly extremely challengung for teachers who are first learning to co- teach. In Plan E, two teachers are directing a whole class of students, and both teachers are working cooperatively and teaching the same lesson at the same time. For example, in one classroom where this was implemented, a general education science teacher was presenting a lesson on anatomy; and the special education teacher interjected with examples and extensions of the key ideas. The special education teacher also provided strategies to assist the students in better remembering and organizing the information that was presented.

A Co-Teaching Plan of Action
As mentioned earlier, these five approaches to co- teaching are part of a coordinated effort to implement multiple types of co- teaching and grouping procedures that can and should be implemented.
Let's visit Tiffany and Joyce again to see how they are planning for effective co- teaching.
Tiffany and Joyce co- plan to determine the critical information they want to cover for selected units. Using a pyramid plan, they consider information they think all students should know, most students should know, and some students should know. They organize this information in writing (see Schumm et al., 1997). Tiffany and Joyce then consider the activities that they will implement to ensure learning on the part of all students. While considering classroom activities, they think about the materials they need and the co- teaching structures they intend to use. Because both teachers are highly familiar with the five co- teaching alternatives described in this article, they refer to them by their letter names (A, B. C, D, or E) and then decide which teacher will play which role. Decisions about the co- teaching structure Tiffany and Joyce will implement are closely related to learning goals and activities. The following is a typical plan for a unit of study:
1. Plan A is commonly implemented during the first and second day of a new unit. In this way, one teacher can provide critical information to the class as a whole, and the second teacher can provide mini- lessons.
2. On the third day of the unit, Tiffany and Joyce have decided to use Plan B. which allows most students to interact with the new material. The teachers can also ascertain which students understand the new material and at what level of understanding they are operating. Plan B provides key opportunities for the teachers to expand, clarify, and extend learning.
3. On Days 4 and 5, the teachers decide to implement a whole- class project in which students are asked to work in heterogeneous groups (Plan D). One teacher takes the lead to explain the project, while the second teacher assists the students with special needs to ensure they are following the directions. When students form small groups, both teachers work actively with each group. At the end of Day 5, the teachers provide a brief quiz covering the material presented during the week. The information from this quiz is then used to determine their co- teaching activities for the following week.
4. Because six students performed poorly on the quiz, the teachers use Plan C on Day 6. While one teacher re- teaches the students who performed poorly, the other teacher provides an alternative lesson to the rest of the class.
5. During Day 7, they return to the whole- group structure of Plan A.
6. For Days 8 and 9, the teachers use learning centers and small groups (Plan D) .
Thus, designing the co- teaching structures they intend to implement each day is an integral part of planning and instruction for Tiffany and Joyce. When planning for the unit as a whole, both teachers consider how they will teach the critical information and the roles each teacher will play. Like most teachers, Tiffany and Joyce often have to make changes as they teach, but they always feel they have a common roadmap or understanding of where and how they want students to learn and the roles they can play to facilitate that learning.
Tips for Co-Teaching
GradingDieker and Barnett (1996) suggest having both teachers check, discuss, and then assign grades for student work. This process allows teachers to become familiar with each other's standards and is especially helpful when student's work is borderling.
Space
To avoid issues related to territory, both teachers should move into a different classroom rather than one teacher moving into the other's space (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995; Kluwin, Gonsher, Silver &, Samuels, 1996)
Planning
Asking community volunteers or university students who are majoring in education to direct certain classroom activities or accompany students to schools assemblies may allow for some extra planning time (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995).
More Teaching Strategies

References
Arguelles, M., Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1996) . Executive summaries for ESE/FEFP Pilot Program. Tallahassee, FL: Report submitted to Florida Department of Education.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1995). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding the schoolhouse for all students. Austin, TX: ProEd.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Educntion, 10(2), 17- 22.

Dieker, L. A., & Barnett, C. A. (1996). Effective coteaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 29(1), 57.

Kluwin, T. N., Gonsher, W., Silver, K., & Samuels, J. (1996). The E. T. class: Education together. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 29(1), 11- 15.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Harris, J. (1997). Pyramid power for collaborative planning for content area instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 29(6), 62- 66.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Leavell, A. (1994). Planning pyramid: A framework for planning for diverse student needs during content area instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47(8), 608- 615.
Sharon Vaughn (CEC Chapter #121), Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Texas at Austin. Jeanne Shay Schumm (CEC Chapter #121), Professor; and Maria Elena Arguelles, Graduate Assistant, University of Miami Office of SchoolBased Research, Florida
Address correspondence to Sharon Vaughn, Department of Special Education, UniversuyofTexas at Austin, School of Educanon SZB 306, Austin TX 787121290 (email: SRVAUGHNUM@aol.com).
Copyright 1997 CEC

http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/teaching_techniques/tec_coteaching.html

posted by AcrosticGuy @ 2:46 AM