Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: a metasynthesis of qualitative research

Exceptional Children, Summer, 2007 by Thomas E. Scruggs, Margo A. Mastropieri, Kimberly A. McDuffie

In response to recent trends and legislation promoting inclusive instruction and access to the general education curriculum, many schools have implemented "co-teaching" (Cook & Friend, 1995) as a means for promoting effective instruction in inclusive classrooms. Implemented to provide support for increasing the inclusion of students with disabilities, co-teaching usually consists of one general education teacher paired with one special education teacher in an inclusive classroom of general education and special education students (e.g., Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2006, chapter 2). Bauwens, Hourcade, and Friend (1989); Cook and Friend (1995); and Friend (2002) discussed criteria needed for an effective co-teaching relationship. A number of co-teaching variations have been identified (see also Friend & Cook, 2003; Walther-Thomas, Korinek, McLaughlin, & Williams, 2000). These include:

* One teach, one assist (or, "drift"), where one teacher (usually, the general education teacher) assumes teaching responsibilities, and the special education teacher provides individual support as needed (Walther-Thomas et al., 2000, did not mention this variation).

* Station teaching, where various learning stations are created, and the co-teachers provide individual support at the different stations.

* Parallel teaching, where teachers teach the same or similar content in different classroom groupings.

* Alternative teaching, where one teacher may take a smaller group of students to a different location for a limited period of time for specialized instruction.

* Team teaching (or interactive teaching), where both co-teachers share teaching responsibilities equally and are equally involved in leading instructional activities.

PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF CO-TEACHING

Previous reviews of co-teaching have summarized accumulated literature and identified important variables. Friend and Reising (1993) provided an overview of the history of co-teaching. These authors concluded that research was limited and mostly anecdotal; however, available evidence suggested that teachers believed that co-teaching had a positive effect on student achievement

Welch, Brownell, and Sheridan (1999) provided a broader review of team teaching and school-based problem-solving teams. This review included 40 articles on team teaching, of which many were technical reports, anecdotal reports, or position papers. They concluded that teachers report positive attitudes toward various forms of co-teaching; however, there was limited knowledge about student outcomes, and a lack of empirical evidence supporting co-teaching.

Weiss and Brigham (2000) reviewed 23 quantitative and qualitative studies of co-teaching, published between 1987 and 1999, including investigations Of both elementary and secondary settings. They reported that considerable variability was apparent in co-taught classes. However, the special education teacher typically was responsible for modifying instruction, behavior management, and monitoring student progress; whereas the general education teacher was responsible for the content of instruction. Some evidence was presented that the standard of individualized instruction may not be met for students with disabilities. Important components of successful co-teaching experiences identified from this research included the general education teacher's attitude, sufficient planning time, voluntary participation, mutual respect, administrative support, and a shared philosophy of instruction and behavior management. Weiss and Brigham also concluded that efficacy research was insufficient.

Murawski and Swanson (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of quantitative efficacy research on co-teaching. Their comprehensive search procedures yielded only six research reports (three journal articles and three ERIC documents), which yielded an overall effect size (standardized mean difference) of .40, from dependent measures including academic achievement, social outcomes, attitudes, absences, and referrals. They concluded that available research yielded moderate effects, but that the overall data set was too small to draw firm conclusions.

Dieker and Murawski (2003) discussed co-teaching at the secondary level. They emphasized the importance of teacher preparation, sufficient planning time, mastery of content by special education teachers, and pointed to large class sizes and high-stakes testing as particular challenges to co-teaching success. They recommended proactive communication, varied instructional practices (e.g., classwide peer tutoring), teacher training, use of a variety of co-teaching models, voluntary participation, common planning periods, and flexibility.

Weiss (2004) reviewed and updated the conclusions of Weiss and Brigham (2000), and the research conducted since that time. She concluded that most of the studies reviewed had occurred in settings considered to be successful, and that most of these studies concluded that the personalities or teaching styles of the teachers were particularly important. She also reported that the role of the special education teacher was not always clearly specified, and that outcomes of co-teaching were typically reported using vague or subjective language. Another important issue raised by Weiss was the limited amount of efficacy research.