A one-year study of the development of co-teaching in four Finnish schools

Abstract

In this follow-up study, development of co-teaching was studied in four different schools in Helsinki, Finland. Teachers, altogether 54, 51 and 26, respectively, responded to an electronic questionnaire three times during one year. The attitudes towards co-teaching were positive although the frequency of co-teaching remained low. Co-teaching was seen as a developing mode of teaching and it was said to be suitable for all school subjects. Special teachers and class teachers had the most experience with co-teaching. The majority of respondents cotaught 2-5 lessons per week and that did not change during the follow-up, although monetary incentive was available to those who increased their coteaching during the study period. For class-teachers, another class-teacher was most often the chosen co-teaching partner. Special teachers were frequent coteaching partners for all teachers. The most common reason for not co-teaching was the lack of planning time. However, 15 minutes were considered enough to plan one lesson. The respondents had no education about co-teaching. Receiving more attention was the most often mentioned benefit of co-teaching for the students. Sharing and well-being were regarded as the greatest benefits of coteaching for the teachers. The advantages and obstacles of co-teaching are discussed and some practical advice is given.

Teacher education for inclusive education: a framework for developing collaboration for the inclusion of students with support plans

“…Consistent with lack of dedicated time and limited resources previously reported as constraining collaboration (Austin 2001;Takala and Uusitalo-Malmivaara 2012;Wischnowski, Salmon, and Eaton 2004), insufficient time and lack of access to professional services beyond the school emerged as challenges to collaborating among the adults in this study. These challenges reflect the construct of values and ethics at a systemic level, highlighting a role for leadership at school and systems' levels (King 2014) for their redress.…”

“…Constraints to collaboration cited by teachers include inadequate professional preparation, mismatched personalities or pedagogical philosophies, a lack of dedicated time (Austin 2001;Meirink, Imants, Meijir, and Verloop 2010;Takala and Uusitalo-Malmivaara 2012;Welch 2000;Wischnowski, Salmon, and Eaton 2004), and the pressure of accountability and standardisation (Somech 2008;Westheimer 2008). An additional constraint with potential to impact on teacher learning from collaborative activity has been identified by Sjoer and Meirink (2016, 120) as 'safe talk', manifest by the teachers in their research who failed to ask the challenging questions of their colleagues that would have required 'taking a critical look at each other's work.'…”

Becoming a special educator – Finnish and Swedish students’ views on their future professions

“…Teachers in Sweden, mostly Swedish class teachers, were judged to be willing to co-operate with special educators more so than their Finnish colleagues. However, as seen elsewhere (Saloviita and Takala 2010;Takala and Uusitalo 2012), the lack of planning time was considered the greatest challenge to co-operation. The individual educational plan (IEP) was expected to be important in both countries, but more so in Finland, although the students assumed it was not used as effectively as it could have been.…”

Predicting and explaining teachers’ documentation practices for students’ reading and writing difficulties

“…The results suggest that education more resources should be on teacher education and professional development. Therefore policy makers and school leaders should be concerned with being equipped with the right kind of special needs competence in how to identify reading and writing difficulties (Takala & Uusitalo-Malmivaara, 2012).…”