Evaluation and Supervision of Co-Teaching

Abstract

With the continuing increase of inclusive education in our public school classrooms today, there is a great deal of interest in co-teaching teams. Research indicates that administrative support is a critical factor in co-teaching effectiveness. In this study, we explored administrator knowledge and practices related to the supervision and evaluation of co-teachers in inclusive classroom settings. Clear themes that emerged were related to professional preparation and training; expectations and perspectives of co-teaching and inclusive practice; and supporting, supervising, and evaluating co-teachers. The data indicated that there is considerable inconsistency in administrator knowledge and practices and that professional development for administrators is warranted. Implications for practice as well as questions and issues for further research are discussed.

Specialized Instruction in Co-Taught High School Classes

“…Research has not experimentally established the importance of these factors, but qualitative studies indicate they can greatly influence at least the perception of co-teaching's success or failure in a school. Qualitative data support the idea that administrators' knowledge, support, and beliefs play an important role in the success of coteaching (Kamens, Susko, & Elliott, 2013;Moin et al, 2009;Rice & Zigmond, 2000;Scruggs et al, 2007;Walther-Thomas, 1997). This section presents research and theory on the most commonly discussed factors: common planning, pairing, collaboration, training, and evaluation.…”

“…One researcher combined teacher interviews with student drawings of their co-teachers (Bessette, 2008). Some researchers have created their own observation instruments or surveys (Austin, 2001;Conderman & Johnson-Rodriguez, 2009;Hang & Rabren, 2009;Harbort et al, 2007;Kamens et al, 2013;King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2011;Mageira & Zigmond, 2005;Nichols et al, 2010;Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013;Wilson & Michaels, 2006;Wischnowski et al, 2004). Others included document reviews of materials such as classroom activities or teacher lesson plans (Bryant Davis et al, 2012;Walther-Thomas, 1997;Wischnowski et al, 2004).…”

“…In studies of co-teachers, the majority of them report that they did not volunteer to work in inclusive classrooms; they were assigned to it by administration (Austin, 2001;Moin et al, 2009). Assignments most often were made on the basis of schedules and credentials, with consideration of how well the two people might work together as a secondary concern (Kamens et al, 2013;Kellems, 2014). This is contrary to teacher opinion, which holds that co-teaching should be voluntary and that teachers should have a say in who their partner is (Rice & Zigmond, 2000;Scruggs et al, 2007).…”

“…The focus for years in co-teaching implementation was on ensuring SETs were respected equally with GETs, and this has led to the notion that "good" co-teaching is when both teachers lead whole-group instruction about the same amount of time (Friend, 2015). This often means GETs and SETs are doing essentially the same job, and in fact, many administrators believe that in an ideal co-taught classroom, they should not be able to tell from observing which teacher is the SET and which is the GET (Beninghof, 2016;Kamens et al, 2013). Experts in the field are pushing back on that idea, arguing that a co-taught classroom "needs to be a place where new professional identities are conceptualized" (Ashton, 2014, p. 59) and in which "co-teachers are redefining the professional relationship" (Friend, 2015, p. 21).…”

Case study examining the activities and experiences of co-teachers at Apple Valley Elementary

“…However, research has revealed that there are several determining factors that have been associated with making the implementation of co-teaching successful: 1) it is essential that all teachers and administrators, who will be involved in co-teaching, have professional development on best co-teaching practices (Embury & Dinnesen, 2013;Fennick & Liddy, 2001;Kamens, Susko, & Elliot, 2013;Keefe & Moore, 2004;Murawski, 2006;Panscofar & Petroff, 2016;Pratt, 2014;Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015;Walsh, 2012), 2) co-teaching partnerships must have adequate time to co-plan with one another (Embury & Dinnesen, 2013;Fennick & Liddy, 2001;Kamens, Susko, & Elliot, 2013;Keefe & Moore, 2004;Murawski, 2006;Pratt, Imbody, Wolf, & Patterson, 2016;Pratt, 2014), 3) co-teaching partnerships must have the support of their administrative team (Isherwood & Barger-Anderson, 2008;Pratt, 2014;Walsh, 2012), 4) teacher compatibility, or their ability to get along with one another, is also an important factor to consider because it can also impact the success of co-teaching (Isherwood & Barger-Anderson, 2008; Kamens et al, 2013;Keefe & Moore, 2004;Mastropieri et al, 2005;Pratt, 2014;Rice & Zigmond, 2000), and 5) how co-teachers perceive their role in a co-teaching relationship can also impact the success of the co-teaching relationship (Gurgur & Uzuner, 2010;Keefe & Moore, 2004).…”