Planning in the Middle: Co-Planning Between General and Special Education

Abstract

Professional development programs tailored to address co-teaching performance in Arkansas provided data for 3 cohorts of middle school co-taught teams. This study provides an analysis of middle school plans and provides recommendations as to how to more effectively meet the needs of co-taught teams. Using a content analysis approach, monthly lessons plans submitted by teams over a 3-year period were analyzed. The purpose of this analysis is to provide the field with considerations about what is and is not occurring in the written process related to co-teaching, specifically co-planning in middle schools. In total, 155 lesson plans were analyzed, which were further broken down into 755 days of plans. Findings indicate these teachers utilized a diversity of co-taught models, but 1 model (1 lead, 1 support) dominated their planning. Areas of concern focused on a lack of focus on behavior and utilization of technology for students with disabilities.

eCoaching: The Effects on Co-Teachers’ Planning and Instruction

“…Our review of the relevant literature produced four published studies-two of which were conducted at the state level (Bryant Davis, Dieker, Pearl, & Kirkpatrick, 2012;), one at the district level (Walsh, 2012), and one at the classroom level (Scheeler, Congdon, & Stansbery, 2010).…”

Specialized Instruction in Co-Taught High School Classes

“…This is significant because increased amounts of training have been associated with higher self-efficacy and positive attitudes toward co-teaching (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013). In addition, there is some evidence that even when co-planning time is provided, teachers may not have the knowledge to use it effectively, making the institution of this support without corresponding training potentially ineffective (Austin, 2001;Bryant Davis, Dieker, Pearl, & Kirkpatrick, 2012;Gürgür & Uzuner, 2011).…”

“…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).…”

“…There is some indication that even when teachers have the time to co-plan, they either do not use it or do not have the skills to do it effectively (Austin, 2001;Bryant Davis et al, 2012;Gürgür & Uzuner, 2011), making the value of providing co-planning time questionable unless related training is provided as well. Unfortunately, staff development is often not seen as an essential component of implementing a co-teaching initiative.…”

“…Most instruction in co-taught classes is delivered whole-group, with very little peer interaction, group work, or behavioral instruction (Bryant Davis et al, 2012;Cook et al, 2011;Fenty & McDuffie-Landrum, 2011). Murawski (2006) found no significant differences in instruction used across co-and solo-taught high school English classrooms.…”