Handbook of Special Education 2017
DOI: 10.4324/9781315517698-20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Co-Teaching for Students with Disabilities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
1
4

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
13
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, most of the time included the content-area teacher leading whole-class instruction while the special education teacher served in a subordinate role (e.g., passing out papers). This observation research confirms the fact that, while co-teaching may be a well-intentioned model that in theory has promise, without improvements to the way co-teachers are enacting co-teaching, it is unlikely to positively impact student outcomes (B. G. Cook et al, 2017).…”
Section: Co-teaching: the Red Flagssupporting
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Finally, most of the time included the content-area teacher leading whole-class instruction while the special education teacher served in a subordinate role (e.g., passing out papers). This observation research confirms the fact that, while co-teaching may be a well-intentioned model that in theory has promise, without improvements to the way co-teachers are enacting co-teaching, it is unlikely to positively impact student outcomes (B. G. Cook et al, 2017).…”
Section: Co-teaching: the Red Flagssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…We posited that the idea of co-teaching may not be flawed, but rather the ingredient that is currently missing to improve teacher and student outcomes in co-taught classes is targeted PD to help co-teachers integrate evidence-based content-area literacy instruction and other best practices for co-teaching. In fact, B. G. Cook et al (2017) reminded us that effective co-teaching “requires teachers to step out of traditional teaching roles and reconsider their responsibilities, and may therefore require significant preparation, training, and support” (p. 243).…”
Section: Project Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our findings caution against an overreliance on service delivery models in school organization for inclusion. There are certainly examples of positive outcomes and more meaningful learning opportunities for SWDs from co-teaching and consultation models (e.g., Cook, McDuffie-Landrum, Oshita, & Cook, 2011; Eisenman, Pleet, Wandry, & McGinley, 2011), and Willow and Elm fell short of ideal implementation for these models. Our cases illustrate how easy it may be for schools to lapse into poor implementation of service delivery models given organizational constraints, particularly those that are common at the high school level such as lack of time for common planning, the need for collaborating across grade levels and departments, and pressure to cover large amounts of content to prepare students for testing (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Schumaker & Deshler, 1988).…”
Section: Discussion and Contributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They understand, too, that “inclusive” practices, like co-teaching, have benefited few SWDs (cf. Cook, McDuffie-Landrum, Oshita, & Cook, 2011). Recognition that poorly achieving students with and without disabilities require a more appropriate education is implicit in many schools’ support of a response-to-intervention (RTI) approach, specifically, its multiple tiers of instruction that (in principle) offer the structure and opportunity to apply programs of greater intensity when those of lesser intensity prove ineffective.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%