co-teaching models case study - graduate portfolio

Module 6 1 EDU 724 - Julia Torres

Co-Teaching Models Case Study:

Research, Lesson Planning & Implementation Analysis

Julia Torres

EDU 724 – Practicum in Inclusion Settings

University of New England

April 15, 2012


Introduction

The initial sections of this case study address the various needs, abilities, and interests of a

representative selection of students on my inclusion roster as well as the details of the numerous

environments where they learn. While I support students in all core academic classes, only reading and

math are explored herein. An examination of four distinct models of co-teaching follow, including a review

of available research and detailed lesson plans implemented during the course of this school year. A

reflective evaluation of each teaching practice, which considers professional collaboration,

responsiveness, and student learning/success, is also presented. Finally, an analysis of the campus co-

teaching program is included with suggestions for refining and expanding on its effectiveness.

Instructional Arrangement

The campus where I work organizes fifth-grade instruction by “clusters” so that students travel

together for instruction in the core content areas and electives. Students are assigned to a homeroom

class but are then reorganized homogenously within the cluster. This year, students are “Mainstreamed

with Inclusion Support” with two general education teachers: (a) Mrs. Gaytan for English Language

Arts/Reading (ELAR) and Social Studies and (b) Mr. Cooper for Science and Mathematics, as well as

myself, a co-teaching special educator in all four areas. I carry a roster of grades and attendance for

those students with modified curriculum and alternate state assessment. The inclusion support class

contains 18 students, one of which is a part-time student who is also homebound due to ongoing recovery

from brain surgery. There are eight female students and ten male students; 15 total students receive

special education services or are on a 504 plan. All but two students struggle in reading, math, or both

subjects due to specific learning disabilities, dyslexia or attention deficits. For the purposes of this study I

have chosen to highlight the needs of three students on my roster: “Silverio”, “Nicole”, and “Eric”.

Students

Silverio is an 11-year-old Hispanic boy living with his biological parents as well as both an older and

younger sister. He has attended the district for the duration of his educational career, including half-day

services in PPCD (Preschool Programs for Children with Disabilities) and has never been retained.

Silverio is not limited English proficient and does not speak Spanish, though it is spoken in the home by

his parents. He is considered economically disadvantaged, receiving reduced lunch, and was serviced in


the inclusion setting in elementary school with twice-weekly speech therapy services. He continues to

work on goals related to speech, reading, science, and math. This student qualifies as a student with a

specific learning disability (SLD) in the areas of basic reading, reading comprehension, and speech

impairment. His Winter 2011 full individual evaluation indicates his overall IQ as 85 but also indicates a

weak profile of academic strengths and weaknesses. His subtests reveal a wide range of scores and

adaptive behavior scales are consistent with students classified with severe cognitive disabilities. He

receives speech services in the areas of receptive and expressive language.

Currently he struggles with vocabulary, comparing and contrasting, and drawing conclusions. Based

on a nationally normed assessment, Silverio’s reading level is equivalent to a first grader in the third

month of school. He is the weakest reader in the class. His oral reading skills are also deficient and he

applies previous whole language instruction in attempting to guess at unfamiliar words based on context.

He is working on mastering sight words and understanding ideas related to the “5Ws”. Despite his

shortcomings, Silverio is respectful and well behaved. He is eager to please and works hard until he

reaches a point of frustration that causes him to shut down for the remainder of an activity or class period.

He completes homework on time and receives assistance from his older sister or mother with his reading

and math skills. His visual-spatial thinking and auditory processing are strengths. While he does not

perform on grade level in math, he is relatively stronger with his calculations and understands the

processes for basic arithmetic operations. He currently utilizes a few supplemental aides for decimal

place values, basic multiplication facts, and customary capacity. His norm-referenced math screener

placed him at a grade equivalency of 3.4. He was successful on the modified state assessments in math

and reading in fourth grade with oral administration of the tests in their entirety but did not meet

expectations in writing. Outside the classroom he is like most pre-teen boys, enjoying video games and

riding his bike.

Nicole is a 10-year-old of Caucasian ethnicity who lives with her biological parents, twin sister, and an

older brother. She too is considered economically disadvantaged and receives reduced lunch. Her

attendance record is good and she was admitted to special education approximately one year ago after

failing to respond to mathematics intervention services. She received pullout inclusion support in the

second half of fourth grade and is identified as a student with SLD in the areas of math calculation and


math problem solving. Her overall IQ is 82. She has significant processing delays and requires extended

time on most assignments.

Based on a nationally-normed assessment, Nicole’s independent reading level is equivalent to a fifth

grader in the fifth month of school yet her math abilities are consistent with a third grader in the third

month of school. Nicole’s only behavior concern is her extremely shy nature with peers and adults. She is

currently working on addition and subtraction of decimals with regrouping, two-digit by two-digit

multiplication and long division. She receives intervention math classes in lieu of fine arts twice weekly for

43 minutes per session. Nicole currently utilizes assistive technology in the form of a multiplication chart

and place value chart. She was successful on the her 4th grade state assessments in all subject areas,

meeting expectations on the standard form of the reading and writing tests and the modified version of

the math test. Nicole is a creative child who writes imaginative stories and enjoys puzzles, drawing, and

her pet cats. She is respectful and is becoming more open to participating in classroom discussions and

working out problems at the board.

Finally, Eric is an 11-year-old pacific islander that has been battling a brain tumor since third grade.

He lives with his father and two younger brothers but receives his instruction at his grandmother’s home

nearby the school campus. He receives four hours of instruction per week as part of his homebound

services and attends school part-time for 7.5 hours split between two days. I provide his homebound

work direction and am involved in the delivery of his lessons on campus. As a result of his chemotherapy,

Eric has a number of physical limitations and medical concerns including apraxic movement/tremors,

dysgraphia and moderately reduced stamina. Prior to his cancer diagnosis, surgical removal and resultant

chemotherapy treatment, Eric was a general education student of average intelligence. His post-surgical

IQ was measured in February 2011 and found to be 86. According to the Centre for Neuro Skills (2011)

website, “the cerebellum is involved in the coordination of voluntary motor movement, balance and

equilibrium, and muscle tone”. Slurred speech is another result of trauma to this region at the base of the

brain, which explains his diminished ability to verbally communicate. Eric still requires extensive physical

and occupational therapy each week as well as the use of a wheelchair for mobility. He is able to transfer

out of his wheelchair with support but his atrophied leg muscles and impaired balance prevent him from

walking at this time.


Eric was administered the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Second Edition late in his

fourth grade year and found to have mid-third grade math abilities and early sixth-grade reading abilities.

The combination of his frequent tremors and poor motor control for handwriting necessitate a scribe for

any paper and pencil work beyond circling an answer from a multiple-choice array. I have modified his

worksheets by increasing the font and workspace so that he has room to mark his responses in this

manner. He also uses a calculator to perform calculations due to his difficulty with written forms.

Currently, he uses a Dana word processor with word-prediction software to complete short written

assignments. Eric is interested in science and loves animals, including his two pet cats, and hopes to be

a veterinarian one day. He has indicated a strong desire to regain his independence and longs for

freedom from the negative side effects of his tumor.

Environments

The majority of English Language Arts/Reading instruction occurs in Room 203, the general

education classroom. This is a cheery space, decorated in an apple theme, with three groupings of eight

individual desks for cooperative learning. A number of bookshelves line the walls with a variety of books

for students to borrow. There are also crates with floor pillows for students to use during “drop everything

and read” time. The walls are decorated with posters for writing, reading, social studies and the Boys

Town Social Skills, but the lone window is covered by closed blinds and a curtain as it opens only to the

side of a portable classroom building. Students store their materials in baskets in the rear corner of the

room so that the inside of all desks are empty and free of distractions and disorganized papers.

Instruction is shared between Mrs. Gaytan and myself for 89 minutes each day in the subject area of

English Language Arts/Reading (plus an additional 43 minutes for Social Studies). We cover vocabulary,

writing, literature and reading comprehension skills on a weekly basis. Students visit the library for 40

minutes on Mondays. Students are able to use the three computers in the classroom for research and to

take Accelerated Reader quizzes, as well as interact with the SMARTBoard. We also have a document

camera versus the traditional overhead projector for transparencies. Our campus motto is “High

Expectations lead to High Achievement” and we expect our pupils to push themselves harder than they

ever have. All students participated in the creation of our classroom mission statement:

We choose to have a great year! We will learn as much as we can by: staying focused during class, participating in every activity, asking for help when we don’t “get it”, and


completing our homework everyday. Our classroom will be a safe and happy place because everyone will be respected, cared for, and valued. We will be ready for 6

th

grade!

Likewise, most Mathematics instruction occurs in Room 202, the general education classroom. This

is a slightly larger space with six long rectangular tables with four seats each to facilitate cooperative

learning and a circular table for staging of lesson materials and manipulatives. Storage cubbies and a

counter line one sidewall of the classroom while student computers cross the back. The two spaces meet

at small workspace for me in the back left corner. The other walls feature whiteboards and the general

education teacher sits at the front left corner. A variety of books related to the current math and science

unit are scattered across the counters and unused desks for students to explore if they finish their work.

The walls are decorated with posters for math, science, and the Boys Town Social Skills. The single

window is covered by open blinds and opens to a small grassy area between building corridors that has

no pedestrian traffic. Students store their materials under their chairs. Instruction is shared between Mr.

Cooper and myself for 89 minutes each day in the subject area of Mathematics (plus an additional 43

minutes for Science). We cover vocabulary, writing, literature and reading comprehension skills on a

weekly basis. Students visit the computer lab for 40 minutes every other Thursday for exposure to

internet-based math programs and games. This classroom also features a SMARTBoard and document

camera.

At times, my special education students receive pullout instruction for the re-teaching of concepts

and oral administration of assessments. This occurs in Room 303, the shared 5th and 6

th grade Inclusion

pullout classroom, also known as the Rainforest Room. The walls of this u-shaped classroom are

decorated with monkeys on vines and clusters of yellow bananas. The window has a drawing of a

monkey with window chalk that welcomes the students along with my name and that of my 6th grade

counterpart. My desk is covered with outdoor fabric that is black with bright green dots. We also have

lined both entry halls with 12 feet of decorative wallpaper in a rainforest/jungle theme. This wall is not

merely decoration however; as students meet their goals, be it from an IEP or an individual goal for a unit

skill, they are able to write their name on a banana and staple it wherever they like amongst the leaves

and trees. Students can earn the opportunity to lounge in beanbag chairs this semester and will be given

the choice to complete their work there in the spring semester. Inside the room are fourteen student


desks, eight facing the SMARTBoard side of the room and six facing the whiteboard side. We also have a

student computer station with three PCs and a kidney shaped table that is used for small groups and

games. There are a number of math manipulatives and reference materials available as well as a set of

high-interest/low-level readers. Unfortunately, the room is located in the sixth grade wing where students

change classes based on a bell schedule every 43 minutes so noise can be an issue at times. It is also

directly across from the restrooms and I often have to speak over the hand dryers.

Co-Teaching as a Service Delivery Model

“Co-teaching was first implemented for students with disabilities as part of the movement toward inclusion, a trend that was (and still is) based on a deeply held belief that students with disabilities should be considered children who are members of their learning communities—who also happen to need extraordinary support and services to be educated there” - Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010, p. 22

No longer is the question whether or not students with disabilities should be included in the general

education classroom, but instead the more elusive question is how to effectively provide instruction for

these students (Hourcade & Bauwens, 2001). The addition of a second, specialist educator – a co-

teacher – to the educational setting has quickly become the answer to meeting the needs of the diverse

learners. Contemporary inclusion practices have adopted a number of typical forms, or models of co-

teaching, when cooperating teachers are servicing students with and without disabilities in the same

classroom. “In theory, co-teaching is designed to broaden the choices students have in regard to

instruction, increase participation, and enhance skill/knowledge development for students with

exceptionalities” (Harpell & Andrews, 2010, p. 195). The most common approaches to co-teaching

include: station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching.

Co-Teaching Model #1 – Station Teaching

According to available research (Cook & Friend, 1995; Tobin, 2005), station teaching is a method of

dividing instructional content into chunks and presenting the smaller segment in various locations within

the classroom to mixed ability groups of students. Sometimes the material is explored independently or

with classmates in another station in the rotation. This model further reduces the already lower student-to-

teacher ratio in an inclusive setting and allows special education students to receive small group

instruction at the same time as exposure to the standard curriculum and typical peers. It does create a


slight increase to the noise and activity levels of the classroom and further requires the educators to

provide instruction in similarly timed lessons.

Stations are very similar to the elementary concept of learning centers, which “can be designed to

individualize practice for the varied groups of learners” (King-Sears, 2007, p. 138) as well as the

differentiated instruction strategy of flexible grouping (Tomlinson, 2001). King-Sears presents a number of

advantages to this approach including providing students with diverse learning needs the opportunities

for: additional practice or review, more active engagement due to increased student-teacher interaction in

small groups, and application of skills to new contexts. She also mentions advantages to the co-teachers:

dialoguing with students about process and content-related aspects of tasks, controlling assignment

difficulty, and managing limited availability of instructional time.

The Vaughn Gross Center for Reading & Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin and

Texas Education Agency’s [TEA] Division of Special Education collaboratively produced an excellent

resource for co-teaching reading classes, titled Coordinating for Reading Instruction: General Education

and Special Education Working Together. The booklet (2000) features descriptions and diagrams for a

number of student and teacher arrangements including a “multiple groups” (p. 20) model that is much like

station teaching. The grouping suggestions include that the teachers “work with individual groups for the

entire period” and that some groups may be mixed-ability while others are homogenous. Students “may

move between workstations or may be assigned to work in a designated area” as they approach a variety

of literacy activities or work to improve specific reading skills. Cook and Friend (1995) highlight that while

this approach requires shared planning among the co-teachers, each has distinct responsibilities for

developing and delivering their portion of the instruction. Furthermore, they emphasize that the material

covered must not require a specific sequence. Therefore the educators must be highly organized and

proficient at designing tiered activities as well as correctly assessing the time it will take the learner

groups to accomplish the tasks.

Station Teaching Lesson Plan

5th Grade Inclusion (Gaytan/Torres) – ELAR/SS Class – Week of February 13, 2012

ELAR TEKS: 5.1 (Fluency) 5.2b-c (Vocabulary Development); 5.3 (Theme & Genre); 5.4 (Poetry);

5.6 (Fiction); 5.8 (Sensory Language); 5.9 (Independent Reading); 5.10 (Culture & History); 5.11 (Expository Texts); 5.29 (Listening/Speaking – Teamwork)


ELAR Objectives: � Making connections – between & across texts of various genres � STAAR practice using ExPLORER Strategy � Skills Reviews – Logic & Reasoning, Drawing Conclusions, Inferences, Vocabulary � Independent Reading of Chapter Book/Responding to Literature � A.R. Testing � Ongoing Discussion of Depth and Rigor

SS TEKS: 5.2a-c (History – American Independence); 5.6a (Geography – Maps/Tools);

5.13a (Economics – Earning a Living); 5.14a (Government); 5.22ab (Culture); 5.24b-d (SS Skills)

SS Objective This Week: American Revolution MONDAY ELAR: Library, Depth & Rigor Discussion, Coached Example & Reading on Lesson 21: Draw Conclusions Modified – Library + Ladders To Success (L2S) Workbooks – Pre-Test on Drawing Conclusions (pullout) SS: Bookwalk Ch. 13 in History Alive, KWL Chart, Key Terms

LEARNING CENTERS/STATIONS:

TUESDAY WEDNESDAY

A

B

STAAR Passage Practice (Solo) – Double Time

Modified (Torres) – Drawing Conclusions Mini-Lesson

STAAR Passage Practice Continued (Solo) – Double Time

Modified – Drawing Conclusions Graphic Organizers

C Skill 1 – Logic & Reasoning Skill Cards (Trios)

Modifications – Review Sight Words per IEP (Solo)

Skill 1 – Logic & Reasoning Skill Cards (Trios)

Modified – Review Sight Words per IEP (Solo)

D Computers – Drawing Conclusions Online (Solo)

Accelerated Reader Quizzes Online (Solo)

Oral Reading (Torres)

Leveled Readers & Comprehension/Vocab Activity Pages

E Skill 2 – Inference Skill Cards (Solo)

Modified – Red Skill Cards – Book Level 2.0-2.9

Skill 2 – Word Usage Skill Cards (Trios)

Modified – Red Skill Cards – Book Level 2.0-2.9

F Social Studies (Gaytan)

American Revolution Guided Notes

Social Studies (Gaytan)

Guided Notes continued from yesterday

Homogenous Groups: 1 – Silverio, Haley, Johnny (modified – 1st grade) – AB, C, D, E, F

2 – Tracy, Isabella, Sara (modified – 2nd

grade) – AB, D, E, F, C 3 – Kassie, Yzabella, Luciano (3

rd grade) – C, D, E, F, AB

4 – Kyla, Mateo, Holland (3rd

grade) – D, E, F, C, AB 5 – James, Daniel (4

th grade) – E, F, AB, C, D

6 – Nicole, Jack, Mason (plus Eric if present) (5th grade) – F, C, AB, D, E

Groups spend 20 mins/stop except STAAR Passage & then rotate to next station on their lettered schedule THURSDAY

ELAR: Independent Reading of Chapter Book/Responding to Literature + SS: Matching Game Review on SMARTBoard from http://www.quia.com/jg/470320.html + Discussion of Military Enrichment Essay from http://info.teachtci.com/resources/ha/haap/topic06.aspx + Read the Compare/Contrast info on volunteer American fighters & professional British Soldiers at on PBS: Liberty! site: http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/perspectives_military.html


FRIDAY

ELAR: STAAR Paired Selection Practice – Poem + Historical Fiction

Modifications – L2S – Drawing Conclusions Guided Practice 2 + Corrections + Sight Words (Pullout) SS: Liberty’s Kids Video – Episode 106: The Shot Heard Round the World Tuesday’s Station Plans:

Materials: Ladders to Success Level D Workbook (1 per student & teacher copy)

Location: Rear corner of classroom near my desk

Who: Small Group of 6 modified students (groups 1 & 2)

Note: Students read “Winter Sports Fun” the day prior for the pretest & we discussed using evidence from

the text to support our conclusions when reviewing/grading the assignment. Today that is reinforced with

a mini-lesson.

Review: A conclusion is an idea you figure out from details you read in the story. It is something the writer

wants you to understand but doesn’t tell you. When you draw a conclusion you are NOT drawing a picture

of what happened in the story…it’s kind of like in science when you make a hypothesis – it’s a guess

based on what you already know. If we were in math we would write it like this: details from the story +

stuff you already know about the subject = a conclusion the author wants me to understand.

Have students read the bulleted items on page 80. Students & Teacher chorally read the “Here’s How”

section (at a whisper) and discuss the “Think About It” tips. Add that students must underline what they

used from the story for full credit on the passage/questions on the next two pages. Provide the following

pre-reading summary to spark interest: Today’s story, “Dr. Hart Ships Out”, is set in Miami, Florida and is

about a woman that works as a doctor on a cruise ship. Can you imagine getting sick while on vacation?

Read the story to find out how she helps the passengers and answer the five questions that follow.

Provide reading assistance to the students, assisting them only with the first example question. Question

stems and answer choices are to be administered orally. Review answers with students as they finish &

have them record their results on the progress-tracking chart on the back cover. Students may read the

“News Flash” on page 83 and attempt the graphic organizer as a preview of tomorrow’s station. Remind

students of their next letter station – 1 goes to C & 2 will go to D.

Wednesday’s Station Plans: Materials: Assorted “10 Minutes to Better Reading” Kits (leveled readers, listening CD, activity sheets) &

timer or watch with second hand + ORF clipboard with tracking sheets

Location: Rear corner of classroom near my desk


Who: Small Groups of 3 students each

Note: Students’ level for the readers is noted by the group roster. RL 1-2 – I Wonder or Hot Sports, RL 2-

3 – Humor Kit A, RL 3-4 – Humor Kit B or Mini Mysteries

Pre-teach any vocabulary and proper nouns in the selection as noted on the front inside cover of the

reader using echo reading. Have students read a single page aloud and pass the book until the 8-page

story is complete. Next, have each individual student read the entire book aloud – noting errors on the

clipboard. Then orally ask the comprehension questions on the inside back cover of the reader,

alternating amongst the students. Finally, give the students the half-sheet activity page associated with

the story – either cloze, vocabulary, or additional comprehension questions to complete individually.

When students turn in the worksheet review the miscues from the fluency check and have students use

the key to grade his/her own activity page.

Reflection

The 5th grade ELAR team reviewed student performance data related to the district-wide common

assessments in late January and devised a plan to incorporate more mini-lessons and opportunities for

students to return to topics covered in earlier units through “centers”. Mrs. Gaytan and I adapted the

departmental model to our students’ needs and the availability of multiple professional educators while

also taking into account the additional requirement to cover social studies instruction during our class

time. Looking back upon this particular week’s lesson plans, recorded grades and tracking sheets, and

recalling some of the student interactions have led me to conclude that the stations were successful.

Stations were established in late-January and by this time the students were able to transition and initiate

the next station’s task with minimal guidance. Mrs. Gaytan and I had become more adept at pacing the

20-minute small group sessions and were able to provide a greater range of differentiation by this point.

We benefit from daily shared planning time and also committed to staying after school and working on the

centers for an hour each Tuesday so the materials would be color-coded and organized in zipper

baggies. The class grades for the activity pages from the Oral Reading Station averaged 98% and

students enjoyed the short, humorous stories. It was also beneficial to hear the non-disabled students’

oral reading and get a better understanding of their abilities related to word attack skills and basic

comprehension. I also liked the opportunity to provide constructive feedback to the students in a more

personal manner. One improvement that could be made to the stations would be related to the skills

cards. Despite a modified reading level, the lower two groups struggled with the inference and word


usage activities and none received passing marks on their first attempts. These were not new concepts

but these versions of the skills cards had not been implemented in prior classes. The word usage card

was particularly difficult, as it did not offer a word bank or multiple-choice format that these students

generally receive as part of their accommodations. We continued to use this approach through the final

common assessment in early March. The students enjoyed the break from longer lessons and Mrs.

Gaytan’s preference for oral presentations from individuals or partners. The approach also allowed me to

collect valuable data for student’s IEP goals related to basic reading and fluency without removing them

from a general education environment. This will certainly make providing specific figures to parents on the

progress reports an easier task as I can simply refer back to the clipboard tracking sheets that were filed

for each child. I was able to subsequently assess students’ sight word abilities during specials the

following week and the in-class practice is likely the cause of the improvements noted. Generally students

are to practice their high frequency word lists at home and I feel that little effort or commitment is

exhibited for most of the group. As a result of the stations, I have implemented a twice-weekly time for the

students to work on reviewing their flashcards during classroom transitions such as bathroom breaks and

returning graded papers. Having previously taught in self-contained, secondary classrooms with more

severely disabled students I had never utilized learning centers, nor had my prior inclusion classrooms

employed this model for co-teaching. I find it to be an excellent way to approach the varied reading skills

in our classroom and think it would also work nicely in the mathematics class in the afternoons. It will be

important for us to rearrange the groupings so that students do not attach any stigma with the

combinations of students and perhaps consider interests versus ability if we return to stations after the

state assessments. The outcomes from this co-teaching style do make the additional time for preparation

and planning worthwhile. As a final point, the students enjoyed the chance to move about the classroom,

model their strengths for their peers, and experience more interaction with their teachers.

Co-Teaching Model #2 – Parallel Teaching

In parallel teaching each teacher presents similar instructional content to half the class, as divided

into two equal mixed-ability groups, within the same classroom (Cook & Friend, 1995; Harpell & Andrews,

2010; Ploessi, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010; Vaughn, Schumm, & Arguelles, 1997). The lessons are

collaboratively planned but personal styles are free to be exercised during the simultaneous instruction.


This type of instruction is entirely impossible in a single teacher classroom and prevents students from

fading into the background, ensuring that the opportunity to respond during instruction is increased, and

enables teachers to minimize behavior concerns by designating the group in which students will receive

instruction (Friend, 2008).

Villa, Thousand, and Nevin (2009) also discuss grouping students based upon their learning

preferences or Multiple Intelligences strength. The parallel teaching approach further reduces the already

lower student-to-teacher ratio in an inclusive co-teaching setting and allows special education students to

receive small group instruction at the same time as exposure to the standard curriculum and typical

peers. Teachers are able to more closely interact with students and clarify and extend their learning

based upon monitoring the level of their understanding (Vaughn, et al, 1997). Sileo and van Garderen

(2010) approached parallel teaching from a mathematics instruction perspective and found “the strength

of the format is that it enables teachers to work with smaller numbers of students and to provide all

students, but especially those with disabilities, an opportunity for individualized and hands-on learning” (p.

16). Friend et al. (2010) establish the primary purpose of this model as “fostering instructional

differentiation and increasing student participation” (p. 12) in an effort to be more responsive to diverse

learners included in co-taught classrooms.

Like station teaching, parallel co-teaching increases the noise levels of the classroom and requires

the educators to provide instruction at an equal pace (Friend, 2008). Educators deciding to implement this

model will each need to possess ample content knowledge (Friend; Ploessi, et al, 2010) to ensure

adequate coverage of the subject-area standards. Furthermore, because the discussions in the different

break-out groups will vary, Vaughn, et al. (1997) recommend pulling the groups back together for a post-

learning “wrap-up” to “summarize the key points” of the varying dialogues (p. 5).

Parallel Teaching Lesson Plan

5th Grade Inclusion (Cooper/Torres) – Math – March 30, 2012

Math TEKS: 5.14A & D (Underlying Processes & Tools), 5.3 (Operations & Quantitative Reasoning) 6.3B (Percents), 6.2B & 7.2B (Operations with Decimals), 6.2C (Rates)

Math Objectives: Understand the applications of math in everyday life

� Calculate Subtotals of Food Costs � Calculate Sales Tax of 8% � Calculate Total Bills � Calculate Change


� Evenly Divide a Receipt FRIDAY

Time: Single 80-minute block

Engage with BrainPOP - Percents clip & review quiz to monitor understanding of concept on SmartBoard

Extend with BrainPOP experiment on calculating a tip if quiz scores are 80% or better

Explain (Parallel Instruction) – divide class in ½ to provide direct instruction with calculators (new skill)

Further divide groups into 3 teams to allow for active participation by typically quiet students and

monitor students for frustration with multiple-step problems

Evaluate – independent practice/mini-assessment using unique receipts

Parallel Instruction:

Cooper - Tables 1, 6, & Round Torres – Tables 2, 3, & 5 (4 if needed)

Review objectives: including finding sales tax, getting the correct change, & splitting a bill

Distribute & review student reference sheets with steps for calculators for each objective

Divide up groups into teams (see below)

Pass out 1 menu per team & allow time for students to preview items & prices

Use Blue Guided Practice Worksheet to discuss word problems

OR

Use Green Guided Practice Worksheet to model the multiple steps in completing “receipts”

Pass out 2-3 calculators per team & unique receipts to each student (differentiated by ability)

Mixed-Ability Groups: C1 – Luciano, Haley, Johnny (table 1)

C2 – Tracy, Isabella, Daniel (table 6)

C3 – Kassie, James, Yzabella (round table)

T1 – Nicole, Mason, Holland (table 2)

T2 – Sara, Eric, Jack (table 5)

T3 – Kyla, Silverio, Mateo* (table 3) *solo at table 4 if needed

Menu Math – Old Fashioned Ice Cream Parlor:

Resource: Real Life Math Series - Menu Math: Old Fashioned Ice Cream Parlor Book 2/Menus (Remedia)

Student Materials: Math spirals, special educator created reference sheets, Menus (1 per team) & dry

erase markers, special educator created “individualized receipts”, & calculators

Who: Small Groups of 3 students – mixed math abilities, no more than 1 modified student per team

Note: various pages of the resource book were duplicated, cut into individual receipts & sorted into

difficulty levels to create the “unique receipts” as a mini-assessment for the lesson: each student receives


a page with 2 receipts each requiring the calculation of food costs, subtotaling, calculating tax & the total,

the top receipt also requires calculating change & the bottom requires splitting the bill by a given number

Guiding Questions: What is the process to find the subtotal? How do you find the sales tax in the

calculator? Which operation is used to find the total? When finding the proper change, which number is

first in the equation – the total or the amount paid? If you are splitting the bill, you need to __(divide)___.

If there are numbers beyond the hundredths place what should you do?

Vocabulary of Instruction: item cost/unit rate, subtotal, percent, tax, total, change, rounding

Differentiation of Receipts: Students on “modified” standards will figure the costs for 2 items per receipt

and partial credit will be given if the process is correct even if the calculations are incorrect. Students in

RtI for math will figure the costs for 2 or 3 items per receipt and receive partial credit for process skills

over calculation accuracy and must include a dollar sign for the total and change/partial payment for full

credit. All other students will be given 3 items per receipt and must demonstrate accuracy in both

processes and calculations, including rounding of sales tax and partial payments to split the bill, and must

include a dollar sign on all line items.

Reflection

Parallel teaching was a new experience for both my partner and me. The district’s 5th grade Math

curriculum pacing calendar suggests extending operational skills beyond grade level standards after the

state assessment. We discussed introducing calculators to the students for the purposes of multiplying

decimals and understanding percents. I felt introducing practice opportunities for the authentic tasks of

determining sales tax, calculating change, and splitting a bill using “menu math” would prove beneficial for

our mix of students who often fail to see the application of mathematics in everyday life and struggle with

multiple-step problems. Dividing the class into smaller groups for closer monitoring of the hands-on use of

the mathematical tool and application of the concepts via parallel teaching seemed to be a nice fit and I

set about planning the explanation and evaluation components while Mr. Cooper researched an

engaging, whole-class anticipatory set for the lesson.

Considering the level of difficulty and introduction of new concepts, this lesson was a success. We

were able to maintain a similar pace between the two groups and incorporate our own styles. I tend to

work with students at their eye/ear level and will jot down their responses for them in the interest of time

while Mr. Cooper acts more as a facilitator to the learning process and lets students grapple with

uncertainty for a longer time than I am comfortable. We both integrated role-playing in our instruction and


acted as managers and waitresses as we covered the material. Students in both groups scored 90%, on

average, on the mini-assessment. Due to student absences, each group of nine was reduced by one; yet

two students in my group – Silverio and Nicole – did not complete the task in the allotted time. A major

contributing factor to the success of this lesson was the paraprofessional support provided by the

inclusion aide as well as the behavior support aide. It is likely that additional students would not have

completed the tasks without their assistance via reminders to stay on task, cues to review the steps

provided on the reference sheets, and prompts to employ the correct mathematical operation. One thing

that could have been done differently to improve the lesson is reducing the number of “unique receipts”

so that a matching receipt was provided to a student in each teacher’s group. This would reduce the

teachers’ grading time for the assignment and open up the possibility for peers to find their match and

check each other’s work – allowing for dialogue and communication using the lesson terminology and

further solidification of the concepts. While this change would slightly decrease the individualized portion

of the assessment, there are similar enough students throughout the class whereby pairing by ability and

pre-requisite skills could be accomplished. It is likely this would have extended the timing of the lesson

into a second block but would have been an opportunity to review the concepts and transition into an

extension activity where students calculate gratuity for a receipt.

At the end of the day, we reflected on what went well and what did not. We both agreed that the level of

noise in the classroom and competing voices were problematic for our students – many of whom have

attention deficits in addition to specific learning disabilities. We thought the parallel style might be better

suited for a review activity in the future versus the introduction of a new skill requiring manipulatives or

technology. We realized that we tend to split the class for monitoring of cooperative group and lab group

work without regard to IEP modifications and this approach maintained the stigma-free culture of our

classroom. It is likely that we will use parallel teaching again but only on occasion given the size of the

space we share, the inconsistent paraeducator support during this class, and the challenges with the

noise level.

Co-Teaching Model #3 – Alternative Teaching

One approach that takes into consideration the multiple entry points (Tomlinson, 1999) to a specific

skill within a diverse group of learners and responds through increased direct instruction via a small group


is alternative teaching (Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend, 2008; Friend, et al., 2010; Vaughn, et al., 1997).

Alternate information is covered with the small group as a means to preteach, reteach, remediate,

assess, or enrich the targeted topic, which means the composition of the small group should be fluid,

flexible, and applicable to the purpose. Friend (2008) also discusses the use of this instructional

arrangement for behavior management purposes so that disruptive students are separated and learn the

same content alongside positive role models so as not to interfere with the progress of the whole class.

Alternative teaching enables teachers to provide focused instruction, within the context of the larger

classroom, to those students that have already demonstrated mastery for a given concept equally as well

as to those for whom the basic level of competency is still a work in progress. When data drives the

establishment of this teaching configuration, students receive increased attention and opportunities to

work on their IEP goals (Friend, 2008; Education Service Center, Region 20 [ESC 20] & TEA, 2010).

Educators should be careful to avoid the proclivity for the special education teacher to always provide

instruction for those students in a remediation group. It is more effective, and less stigmatizing for

students with disabilities or at-risk learners, to alternate between the groups as well as vary the purposes

of the groups (Friend; Sims, 2008; Vaughn, et al, 1997; Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language

Arts, 2000). The educator’s role in the small group is not to help students get through the lesson or

complete homework but instead to emphasize and actively teach fundamentals in ways that will increase

their understanding, participation in the larger group, and provide individualized corrective feedback for

the skill or concept (Kloo & Zigmond, 2008).

Alternative Teaching Lesson Plan

5th Grade Inclusion (Gaytan/Torres) – ELA/Reading – March 5, 2012

ELAR TEKS: 5.11E (Reading Comprehension) - STAAR Readiness Standard & 5.Fig.19F (Reading Comprehension) - STAAR Supporting Standard

ELAR Objectives: Making Connections - between & across texts of various genres

� Review Compare/Contrast Skills � Utilize a Venn Diagram (labeled version for modified students)

Providing Textual Evidence

� Identify Clue/Signal Words (modified students only) � Review ExPLORER Strategy

MONDAY



Engage with Teacher Skit – teachers pretend to criticize the professionalism of each other’s clothing & appearance (Gaytan in blouse & dress slacks, makeup, straightened hair, Torres in Wilder shirt & jeans, no makeup, hair up in ponytail or clip) and students will compare/contrast the teachers’ outfits & ideas

Explain (Alternative Teaching) – divide class into two groups with Mrs. Torres working with modified students: Silverio, Isabella, Tracy, Haley, Enrique & Johnny and Mrs. Gaytan working with all other students (including Nicole & Eric)

Evaluate – independent practice using passages from STAAR workbook or Ladders to Success workbook (modified students only)

If/When finished – students will: Explore – Independently read chapter book/responding to literature– focus on T/S, T/T, & T/W quick jots Alternative Instruction (Torres):

Resource/Student Materials: Ladders to Success Level D Workbook (1 per student & teacher copy) & Reading Response Journals (RRJ)

Location: Rear corner of classroom near my desk Who: Small Group of 6 modified students Note: Last week, students previously completed the “Show What You Know” passage and diagnostic quiz

to determine how much each knew about the comparing and contrasting skill as well as guided pullout

instruction before completing “Practice the Skill 1”

Review: When you compare things, you tell how they are the same. When you contrast things, you tell

how they are different. Writers often compare and contrast different subjects and use clue words to help

readers understand. Look for clue words that tell how things are alike such as: both, too, also, same, and

like. Words such as: on the other hand, different, unlike, but, and however signal you that there are

differences. We can use a graphic organizer called a Venn diagram to help us keep the facts organized.

Where the circles overlap is where you write down the things that are the same – make sure you don’t

write it on both sides! You can also use the strategy of boxing in clue words to help you compare and

contrast - this helps us prove our answers when doing the last steps in ExPLORER.

Ask students to volunteer to read the 3 bulleted items on page 14. Teacher reads directions for practice 1

passage (complete diagram) and reminds students to access their prior knowledge about the subjects of

July and September. Add that students must box in clue words. Provide reading assistance if needed and

require students to check-in when they have completed the first passage/diagram. Require 2 contrasts on

each side and 1 comparison for this first passage. Acknowledge all correct responses & note any

mistakes at check-in, then introduce practice 2 passage about Ted and Ramon. Set the expectation for 3

items in each section of the Venn diagram. Provide reading assistance if needed and require students to

check-in when they have completed the second passage/diagram. Acknowledge all correct responses &

note any mistakes at check-in, then introduce practice passage 3 about Crows and Ravens. Let students


know about the blank graphic organizer on page 153 since this passage does not include one. Read the

question stems to the student & remind each to answer in complete sentences. Provide reading

assistance if requested and organize the response lines with an “A” for alike and a “D” for different if

students ask for more support. When students complete the final passage on page 16 remind them to do

two quick jots in their RRJ after reading 3 pages. A grade is assigned based upon correct responses (first

attempt) out of 20 possible responses.

Guiding Questions:

� One similarity between both is ___. � Which detail shows they felt the same way about ___? � Why was the ___ mentioned in both paragraphs? � What do ___and ___ have in common? � What is a major difference between ___and ___? � The section on ___ talks about ___ but the section on ___ doesn’t, why do you think that is?

Vocabulary of Instruction: connection, compare, contrast, Venn diagram, graphic organizer

Quick Jots:

T/T: Text to Text--when something in this book reminds you of another book

T/S: Text to Self--when something in the book relates to you or your personal life

T/W: Text to World--when something in the book relates to something going on in our area or the world

Reflection

Alternative teaching is used quite a bit in our reading class because several students’ deficiencies in

basic reading are so severe. At the beginning of the school year I attempted to modify grade level

passages with simpler vocabulary and interspersed questioning but the modified students were still lost

and frustrated since many are more than three grade levels behind in their decoding, fluency, and

comprehension skills. The “change in TEKS” modification that a number of students’ IEPs include for the

ELAR classroom specifically addresses the complex skill of synthesizing details and ideas between

genres. Instead the less complex skills of connecting, comparing, and contrasting ideas, themes, and

issue within a text are explored in our alternate materials: Ladders to Success, Reading Level D (Triumph

Learning, 2007).

For the skills of comparing and contrasting within a single passage, students initially averaged 65%

on the early 2nd

grade level passage about a cat and dog from the diagnostic quiz and the mid 2nd

grade

level passage about mountain ranges completed as part of their guided pullout instruction. A scaffolded

lesson using visual supports and increasing passage complexity was provided via alternative teaching

with the addition of instructional conferencing (Learned, Dowd, & Jenkins, 2009). “Instructional


conferencing is more than a casual check-in” (Learned, et al., p. 46) rather it is a chance for me to: (1)

break down assignments into chunks to assist students with organizing independent work, (2) provide

verbal praise as a positive reinforcer, (3) assess understanding earlier and reteach content, and (4)

provide motivation and encouragement to complete the task. Grades earned for this lesson averaged

80% and all but one student passed the 4th grade level post-test on the skill. Silverio was able to increase

his initial score of 50 to an 88 on the final assessment. Alternative teaching provided a way for my

students to address their IEP goals related to metacognitive reading skills and prevented them from

developing a negative perception of themselves as learners had they been required to complete a

frustratingly difficult “paired selection” of grade level stories. The small group instruction reinforced the

concept and expanded the strategies available to demonstrate mastery.

I do feel that this approach walks a very fine line with respect to the “goal of co-teaching…to reduce

or eliminate…stigma” (Friend, 2008, p. 49). It is likely that students in our classroom recognize the small

group instruction “as the equivalent of a pullout special education classroom in the corner of the room”

(Friend, p. 49). This realization presents an excellent opportunity for improvement that is addressed in the

literature with the specific suggestions to vary the alternative teacher or vary the instructional purpose of

the small group as well as track which students have been pulled to prevent over utilization of the practice

(Friend; Sims, 2008; Vaughn, et al., 1997). Since we are now past the high stakes state assessment, I

hope to find ways to mix up the students and create small groups that allow me to access students that

are not on my modified caseload while opening up opportunities for the students on an alternate

curriculum to access cooperative learning with their peers and my general education partner. The final

unit of the year in the ELAR classroom deals with research and I think the alternative teaching approach

would lend itself to allow me to lead the whole group in mini-lessons with visual supports on choosing

sources and integrating technology. Meanwhile Mrs. Gaytan could work with smaller groups to guide

them with their research questions and works cited. The alteration of our traditional roles would help to

reduce the assumptions made about students working with me, or in small groups, as well as provide

Mrs. Gaytan an avenue to directly communicate with each student about her high expectations for the

project via the custom rubric she has created in prior years.


Co-Teaching Model #4 – Team Teaching

In Team Teaching, two educators are working together to plan a lesson and cooperatively teach the

whole class the same lesson at the same time. Often one educator will support the other’s direct

instruction with interjections to elaborate the point or by modeling effective note-taking or use of

supplemental aides, at other times the two instructors simply take turns in presenting a portion of the

lesson. Team teaching is generally a side-by-side configuration (Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend, 2008;

Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Sileo & vanGarderen, 2010; Vaughn, et al., 1997; Villa, et al., 2009; Wilson,

2008). This version of co-teaching is often considered the most difficult to implement as it requires not

only parity and trust between the general education teacher and the special education teacher but also a

synchronization of thinking and delivery (Cook & Friend; Vaughn, et al.). The give-and-take during a

single lesson often results in finishing each other’s sentences and can be very engaging and entertaining

to observe as well as energizing for the teachers themselves (Cook & Friend; Friend). According to

Hourcade and Bauwens (2001), the underlying philosophy of cooperative teaching is that “all educators

are responsible for all students” (p. 243).

Teaming arrangements require a good bit of pre-planning and a meshing of styles and philosophies.

Team-taught lessons often are creative and can incorporate instructional conversations, skits, and

debates. Each educator has the freedom to speak freely during the whole group instruction and pre-

planned scenarios are performed in front of the class or specific questions are asked to prod the lesson

from one level of complexity to the next. This model is frequently referred to as “one brain in two bodies”

(Cook, 2004, p. 15; Friend, 2008, p. 75). Since both teachers are in front of the class, there is no benefit

of small groups or frequent monitoring of struggling students as can be seen in the one teach, one assist

approach. Therefore it is important for educators to make it a point to move about and among the

students during the lesson. Team teaching is not easily implemented at the start of a co-teaching

relationship in most cases, because the interjection ”may feel uncomfortable or even invasive” (ESC20 &

TEA, 2010, p. 41). It may never be an option for those educators who are not flexible in their teaching

style or adequately knowledgeable in the course content (Cook). Another disadvantage is that if both

teachers are talkative and a solid lesson plan is not in place, the teachers could play off of each other to


the detriment of the pacing of instruction (Friend) – leaving students highly engaged but unsure of how to

apply the skills when assigned homework.

Team Teaching Lesson Plan

5th Grade Inclusion (Cooper/Torres) – Math – April 5, 2012

Math TEKS: 5.2D (Decimals), 5.3C (Division), 5.4 (Rounding), 5.14D, 15A, & 16A (Math Tools-Tech), 6.1B (Equivalent Rational Numbers) & 7.1B (Convert Fractions & Decimals)

Math Objectives: Convert Fractions to Decimals & Round Decimals

� A Fraction is a Division Problem � Calculate the Decimal form of a Fraction (using calculator) � Round the Decimal to the Hundredths Place

Understand Repeating Decimals

� A Fraction is a Division Problem � Calculate the Decimal form of a Fraction (using calculator) � Find the repeating digit(s) & draw a bar above it (them)

THURSDAY


Engage – Calculator Tricks – use Document Camera to model steps & reveal answers

� 0.7734 – flip for hELL.0, 376006 – flip for g00gLE, 707 for LOL & 5075 for SL0B

� 1/9 = .1111, 2/9 = .2222, 7*11*13=1001, 11*11=121, 111*111=12321

Explain (Team Instruction) – Fractions are Division Problems – Mrs. Jensen Goof & “Poop” Story

Review Rounding Rules & Decimal Place Value

Evaluate – Middle School Math with Pizzazz! C-73 “Dot Plot” & C-72 “Maze Phrase”

Team Instruction: Cooper & Torres

Calculator Tricks – Cooper does top bullet, Torres does bottom bullet

Fractions are Division Problems – Cooper (with Mrs. Jensen goof)

“Poop” story to decide which number is being divided – Torres

Back to Calculators – Top to Bottom - Cooper

Rounding Rules Review - Torres

Decimal Place Value – Cooper & Torres

Dot Plot Directions & Guided Practice – Torres

Maze Phrase Directions & Guided Practice - Cooper

Resource: Middle School Math with Pizzazz! Book C

Student Materials: calculator, ruler (for drawing straight lines) & two-sided worksheet referenced above


Who: Whole Group Explanation & Individual Evaluation – paraeducator support

Guiding Questions: Which operation does a fraction represent? What is the process to round to the

hundredths place? Toward which direction is the next consecutive decimal? How do you indicate a

repeating decimal?

Vocabulary of Instruction: numerator, denominator, divisor, dividend, quotient, rounding, hundredths

place, consecutive, repeating decimals

Mrs. Jensen goof: There’s a math teacher in the sixth grade, Mrs. Jensen, some of you may have her

next year…she has over twenty posters hanging in her room that say “A fraction is a division problem” but

the funny thing is that for an entire year the word division was misspelled! Anytime we would have a

teacher’s meeting in her room we would point it out to her but she told us that because of the mistake the

kids notice it too. The signs help remind those sixth graders that a fraction is just another way of writing a

division problem and hopefully you’ll remember it too.

“Poop” story: Sometimes students have a hard time deciding which part of the fraction division problem is

the dividend and which is the divisor. There are lots of cute stories to help you remember; maybe you

already know one from fourth grade. (Allow students to recall past strategies, perhaps the cowboy or

diver versions.) I have a method that my students in the past have never forgotten once they think

about…are you interested? Okay, but I’ll have to make sure the door is closed…and that all of you

promise not to say the word from the story, deal? (Students giggle & agree while I shut the classroom

door.) I don’t think anyone will ever forget the day Mrs. Torres taught them…the POOP method! (Allow

time for shocked faces and giggling.) Now it’s simple because most of you have dogs right? (Students

raise hands to indicate they have a pet dog.) In fact, it’s probably your job to take them for a walk so they

can do their business. So I have just two questions for you…does your dog go inside or outside the

house? (Students yell outside.) Right outside the house (I draw a division house on board next to a

fraction.) And if he were to go inside the house there would be BIG trouble!!! Last question…does your

dog “poop” from his head (pointing to numerator) or his bottom (pointing to denominator)? (Everyone

assures me it’s always the bottom.) Yep, it’s the bottom. Soooo…if you need to remember which number

to put outside the division house when setting up a fraction division problem, just remember to take the

dog for a walk so he can poop outside! (Write the denominator outside the long division symbol and write

the numerator under the division symbol.)

Rounding Rules (supplemental aide – visual on whiteboard): Say: underline the hundredths place & circle

the number “right next door” in the thousandths place & Write: Round ↑ if circled digit is 9, 8, 7, 6, or 5

ex: •375 = •38


Decimal Place Value (supplemental aide – visual on whiteboard): Say: here is a reminder of the decimal

place values – look here if you need help & Write: • _tenths_ _hundredths_ _thousandths_

Reflection

It was decided to split up the various portions of the lesson on converting fractions to decimals with

rounding and present it in a back-and-forth type delivery. The use of calculators would alleviate many of

the delays the students with calculations-based learning disabilities experience on a regular basis. For

this lesson, we were pleasantly surprised that my concerns with the students completing the “Dot Plot”

side of the worksheet did not result in the frustration I had predicted. During our co-planning I shared that

I was unsure whether the students would understand that the questions must be answered in consecutive

order and that the ending point from the earlier problem would be the starting point for the next. I also

wondered if students with writing difficulties and occupational therapy support would be able to

manipulate the ruler to trace a straight line between the points without several mistakes. I feared that the

mix of cognitive and physical tasks would overwhelm the students with special needs so we agreed to

prominently feature supplemental aides on the whiteboard after reviewing the mathematical process

skills. Ploessi et al. (2010) discuss designing lesson plans together and using student data to drive

decision making as ways to enhance collaborative teaching and improve student outcomes. In this

instance, the vast majority of students were able to complete the dot-to-dot style task with minimal

paraprofessional assistance and all students performed at mastery levels, earning a 90 or better on the

assignment. Students regularly accessed the visual supports for rounding rules and place value locations

without evoking a negative self-perception and used the calculators with increasing ease.

From the engage activity with calculator tricks to the silly stories we told, students remained attentive

and engaged throughout the lesson. There was more choreography required than usual for this lesson,

with our continuous switching of roles from lead to support and back again, but it too enhanced the

entertainment factor discussed in the literature (Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend, 2008). One improvement

that could be made to the joint instruction would be for increased monitoring of student progress.

Generally one of us drifts around the classroom to assist any students that seem to be falling behind or

engaging in off-task behavior during the guided practice portion of the lesson. While behavior was not an

issue on this occasion, it would have been beneficial for each of us to spend less time in front of the class


and more time at the sides of our students. In the future I would like to explore more regarding the

effective supervision and utilization of paraprofessionals in the co-taught and inclusion classroom. Our

assistant tends to work with students on an individual basis while we circulate amongst the remaining

learners. However when the teaming model is being used it is important to find a way to communicate to

her that she needs to “graze” more and “pair up” less (Wilson, 2008), a particular challenge since she

arrives halfway into the lesson from her other duties. When facilitating learning more closely aligned with

students’ IEP goals, it would be critical for me to increase my monitoring activities and leave more of the

“lead” role to the general educator.

As I approach the end of my first year co-teaching in the fifth grade, I am proud to say that I have

employed the team teaching approach on a number of occasions with both of my partners. Mr. Cooper

and I have fallen into a routine where we stay after school on Thursday afternoons to discuss the coming

week’s instruction. Based upon our discussion, he then loads his lesson plans into system for me to adapt

and modify based upon student needs. We agree that students tend to learn better in cooperative groups

where they explore math concepts and are not likely to put forth much effort on homework. Visual aides

and extensive guided practice are consistently provided to the students so they have the opportunity to

attempt new skills with support and build confidence. The combination of our shared philosophies, his

willingness to try new ways to reach students, and my familiarity with middle school mathematics and

strategies to address student difficulties allow us to have the foundation necessary for this co-teaching

approach to work. This model is an excellent option for us to each substantially contribute to the class

and reinforce the parity and camaraderie we share and it will certainly be used again in the future.

Conclusion: Co-teaching Next Steps

Friend (2008) discusses five stages of development as a model for creating an initial co-teaching

program including: (1) establish the program and its goals, (2) plan for implementation, (3) prepare for

implementation, (4) implement the co-teaching program, and (5) maintain the co-teaching program. As

the campus looks to discontinue co-teaching as a service delivery model and instead transition to a

consultative approach, it is important to examine these steps to reveal opportunities for improvement so

that student needs remain the central focus of program decisions. The initial intent of co-teaching appears

to have been a reduction in the number of students in self-contained resource settings in response to


local interpretations of the least restrictive environment. As a result, no resource classes are offered at

the campus and intervention classes are lead by general education specialists for most students.

At the intermediate campus in question, co-teaching has been implemented with three different

special educators over the past five years. Two additional special education teachers provide inclusion

support on an as-needed basis through the content mastery lab and the behavior/social skills classroom

but do not participate in co-teaching. Historically, one teacher has serviced a single grade level in co-

taught subjects as determined by the end of year test, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills

(TAKS) – math, science and language arts/reading in the fifth grade and math and language arts/reading

in the sixth. However the support was extended to all core subjects during the 2011-2012 school year.

Students receiving special education services with behavioral needs only were housed in one cluster of

teachers under a consultant teacher while those with academic needs (and sometimes behavioral as

well) were housed in a different cluster under the “inclusion teacher”. Students receiving modified

instruction were on the roster of the special education co-teacher while special education students

receiving grade-level instruction were on the general educator’s roster with non-disabled peers. Typically,

the special educator follows the students throughout their day in core classes and will “loop” with the

students to the next grade or back down to a lower grade to service a new cadre of incoming learners.

This practice combined with a consistent district curriculum and limited introduction of new concepts in the

subject areas across fifth and sixth grades results in adequate course knowledge on the part of the

special educator and extensive familiarity with student needs and strategies to address them.

While the intent was clear, measurable goals were not developed and best practices were not

created for inclusive co-teaching. Therefore, the scope of the implementation was not given adequate

thought. Co-teaching was established in subjects and grades where high stakes testing would be

impacted by the incorporation of students with disabilities instead of based upon student needs in any

given grade level. Implementers were chosen yet the expectation that any teacher might someday find

special education students and a co-teacher in his or her room was not conveyed. As the program grew,

general education volunteers approached burn out as class composition frequently exceeded 50% of

students receiving special education services and special educators and paraprofessionals were

“borrowed” for emergencies and special projects. Professional development related to what co-teaching


“should” look like was not expanded as turnover occurred and no evaluation of the effectiveness of the

co-teaching program was designed. Without a plan for sustainability, co-teaching was left vulnerable to

broad and subjective criticisms by vocal opponents and changing leadership, instead of being held

accountable to established criteria and ongoing data collection for program refinements.

Using Friend’s model (2008) of development and evaluation as well as the state’s co-teaching

guidelines (ESC20 & TEA, 2010), a number of recommendations can be made to address the re-creation

of an effective inclusion support program at my campus. The first proposal is to utilize a continuum of

service delivery models to provide inclusion services. Staff should conduct a thorough review of student

records to determine which level of support is most appropriate based upon qualifying conditions, severity

of learning disabilities and behavioral disorders, and performance in the general education classroom as

well as on district and state assessments. Scheduling is made easier by organizing this data into the “co-

teach class planner” tool found within the state guidebook (p. 33) and copied below for reference. This

analysis will need to be conducted each spring in preparation for the following year’s enrollment. The

second recommendation is to re-establish partners for co-teaching, including a multi-year commitment

from each, and provide new professional development for those selected. These educators should then

be instrumental in creating the goals for the program, as well as the evaluation criteria by which their

collaborative practice and the overall program will be judged, alongside administration. Using available

research and literature on co-teaching, best practices should be assembled to guide the ongoing

classroom implementation. Additionally, a PDSA cycle (Jim Shipley & Associates, 2010) for data

collection and analysis should be initiated to identify which academic performance data will be monitored

and with what frequency as well as set an acceptable rate of growth. Finally, class composition should be


carefully monitored, including overall class size, the percentage of students needing support services for

that subject, and the placement of at-risk students in the RtI process within the co-taught classroom.

Building the master schedule, including special educator assignments/caseloads, should be based upon

student needs with existing collaborative planning periods maintained. By addressing those areas that

have not received sufficient attention and resolving gaps in the planning and implementation of co-

teaching at the campus, teachers and students will realize greater satisfaction and outcomes through

their involvement with co-taught courses.


References

Centre for Neuro Skills. (2011). Cerebellum. Retrieved October 11, 2011 from

http://www.neuroskills.com/brain-injury/cerebellum.php

Cook, L. (2004, April). Co-teaching: Principles, practices, and pragmatics. Workshop presented at the

quarterly special education meeting of the New Mexico Public Education Department, Albuquerque,

NM. Retrieved April 14, 2012 from www.ped.state.nm.us/seo/library/qrtrly.0404.coteaching.lcook.pdf

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective Practices. [Electronic

Version] Focus On Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.

Education Service Center, Region 20 & Texas Education Agency. (2010) Texas co-teaching guidelines.

Retrieved December 1, 2011, from ESC 20 Web site: http://portal.esc20.net/portal/page/portal/

esc20public/SpecialEducation/AGCHome/AGCStatewideLeadership

Friend, M. (2008). Co-teach! A handbook for creating and sustaining effective classroom partnerships

in inclusive schools. Greensboro, NC: Author.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of

the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological

Consultation, 20, 9-27. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Harpell, J. V., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2010). Administrative leadership in the age of inclusion: Promoting

best practices and teacher empowerment. The Journal of Educational Thought, 44(2), 189-209.

Retrieved March 29, 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Hourcade, J. J. & Bauwens, J. (2001). Cooperative teaching: The renewal of teachers. Clearing House,

74(5), 242-247. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from ERIC-EBSCO database.

Jim Shipley & Associates. (2010). Continuous classroom improvement (2nd

ed.). N. Redington Beach, FL:

Author.

King-Sears, M. E. (2007). Designing and Delivering Learning Center Instruction. [Electronic Version]

Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 137-147.

Kloo, A. & Zigmond, N. (2008, Winter). Coteaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing School

Failure, 52(2), 12-20. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from ERIC-EBSCO database.

Learned, J. E., Dowd, M. V., & Jenkins, J. R. (2009). Instructional conferencing: Helping students


succeed on independent assignments in inclusive settings. TEACHing Exceptional Children, 41(5),

46-51. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from ERIC-EBSCO database.

Ploessi, D. M., Rock, M. L., Schoenfeld, N., & Blanks, B. (2010, January). On the same page: Practical

techniques to enhance co-teaching interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 158-168.


Sileo, J. M., & van Garderen, D. (2010). Creating optimal opportunities to learn mathematics: Blending

co-teaching structures with research-based practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(3), 14-21.


Sims, E. (2008, May). Sharing command of the co-teaching ship: How to play nicely with others. English

Journal, 97(5), 58-63. Retrieved April 6, 2012, from ERIC-EBSCO database.

Tobin, R. (2005). Co-Teaching in Language Arts: Supporting Students with Learning Disabilities.

[Electronic Version] Canadian Journal of Education, 28(4), 784-801.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms - 2nd Edition.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Triumph Learning. (2007). Ladders to success on the TAKS, reading level D. New York: Author.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Arguelles, M. E. (1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching. TEACHING

Exceptional Children, 30(2), 4-10. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from ProQuest Central database.

Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts. (2000). Coordinating for reading instruction:

General Education and Special Education working together. [Electronic Version}. Austin, TX:

Author. Retrieved August 27, 2011 from http://www.meadowscenter.org/vgc/materials/special_ed.asp

Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2009). Co-teaching at a glance. Port Chester, NY: National

Professional Resources.

Wilson, G. L. (2008, March). Be an active co-teacher. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(4), 240-243.


co-teaching models case study - graduate portfolio

Documents