Using students’ drawings to elicit general and special educators’ perceptions of co-teaching

Bessette, Harriet

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.007

Cited by 43 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our examination of the curricular materials teacher teams produced also yielded more attention paid to teaching science as inquiry than to teaching students with disabilities. On the surface, these findings resonate with previous studies of co-teaching between general and special education teachers: Harriet Bessette (2008) found that general education teachers tended to take the lead when co-teaching with special education colleagues. However, the layering of additional findings provided by our other two analyses allowed a more nuanced understanding of science and special education teachers' contributions to the co-planning process to emerge.…”

Section: Affordances Of Using Multiple Conceptual Lensessupporting

confidence: 84%

“…One aspect of co-planning in need of additional research is the examination of teachers' collective work over time. Similar to research that points to the unequal sharing of instructional responsibilities when general and special education teachers co-teach lessons (Bessette 2008), our findings indicate differences in reasons for and contributions to the co-planning process. Yet, the participating teachers in our study never discussed with each other or with their professional development facilitators why science teachers would share more instructional resources, who should take the lead in organizing their teams' tasks, and/or if it made sense to take more time to examine science content than special education issues.…”

Section: When Multiple Analyses Are Not Feasiblesupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co-planning among science and special education teachers: How do different conceptual lenses help to make sense of the process?

Swanson

Bianchini

2014

Cult Stud of Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Affordances Of Using Multiple Conceptual Lensessupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: When Multiple Analyses Are Not Feasiblesupporting

confidence: 81%

Co-planning among science and special education teachers: How do different conceptual lenses help to make sense of the process?

Swanson

Bianchini

2014

Cult Stud of Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other common measures are other qualitative tools such as interviews or focus groups, often in combination with observations or surveys (e.g., Boudah, Schumacher, & Deshler, 1997;BruscaVega et al, 2011;Casale-Giannola, 2012;Dieker, 2001;Embury & Dinnesen, 2012;Embury & Kroeger, 2012;Gerber & Popp, 1999;Keefe & Moore, 2004;Kellems, 2014;King-Sears et al, 2014;Moin et al, 2009;Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). 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).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We know, for instance, SETs tend to take on an assistant role, working with students individually or performing clerical duties, such as making copies (Ashton, 2014;Bessette, 2008;BruscaVega, Brown, & Yasutake, 2011;Fenty & McDuffie-Landrum, 2011;Harbort et al, 2007;KingSears, Brawand, Jenkins, & Preston-Smith, 2014;Mageira, Smith, Zigmond, & Gebauer, 2005;Moin et al, 2009;Ploessl & Rock, 2014;Rice & Zigmond, 2000). We also know they spend most of their time monitoring and responding to individual students within a whole-group environment, and a substantial amount of time on non-instructional tasks (Bettini, Kimerling, Park, & Murphy, 2015;Harbort et al, 2007;Moin et al, 2009;Murawski, 2006;Vannest, Hagan-Burke, Parker, & Soares, 2011).…”

Section: Current Research and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We know also the predominant co-teaching model used by teams is the one-teach-oneassist model, with the GET in the lead teaching role and the SET serving as an assistant, helping students stay on task or even performing clerical or housekeeping duties in the classroom (Ashton, 2014;Bessette, 2008;Brusca-Vega et al, 2011;Fenty & McDuffie-Landrum, 2011;Gürgür & Uzuner, 2010;Harbort et al, 2007;King-Sears et al, 2014;Moin et al, 2009;Ploessl & Rock, 2014;Rice & Zigmond, 2000). There is some indication this might be more true of secondary classrooms than elementary, probably due to the special educator's lack of comfort with content (Bessette, 2008;Rice & Zigmond, 2000;Scruggs et al, 2007;Weiss & Lloyd, 2002).…”

Section: Teacher Roles and Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Specialized Instruction in Co-Taught High School Classes

Rodgers¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-teaching, in which a general and special educator collaboratively teach a class comprised of students with and without disabilities, is a common service delivery model school districts employ to increase inclusion of students with disabilities (SWD) in general education.Co-teaching is intended to provide access to the general curriculum for SWD and to provide the specialized instruction they need. However, despite the widespread use of co-teaching in schools and the high cost of placing two teachers in one classroom, there is still no clear, agreed-upon definition in the literature for what co-teaching should look like in practice (what "specialized instruction" means, for example), nor is there evidence of its effectiveness in improving students' academic outcomes.Using joint outcome production theory as a foundation for the conceptual framework, this study adds to the research base on co-teaching by closely examining specialized instruction in co-taught high school classrooms. According to this theory, as SWD are included in general education classrooms, the demand on teachers' resources increases. Adding a second teacher to the classroom should address that increase and result in a gain in resources that should benefit all students in the class. The question becomes how to best deploy those additional resourceswhether the two teachers should be filling different roles in the classroom or doubling up on existing roles. This study employed a concurrent mixed methods design to answer the following research questions: a) What does instruction look like in co-taught high school classrooms? b)What school-level structural factors are in place surrounding co-teaching? and c) What teacher-, classroom-, and school-level factors are related to observed patterns of instruction? To answer these questions, I conducted observations in two rural schools across 10 co-taught classrooms and in corresponding solo-taught classrooms to identify specific examples of specialization. In addition, participating teachers and three administrators were interviewed to determine their approaches to co-teaching and their experiences with the ways in which it is implemented in their schools. Teachers also completed a survey about their experiences with co-teaching and the details of their daily schedules.I conducted two or three observations of each individual class using an observational tool called the Classroom Teaching Scan across all 10 teams for a total of 60 observations and 64 hours. Statistics were calculated regarding time use in each classroom, rates of questions and feedback, and amount of time spent in specific instructional practices. Data were also collected and analyzed on the implementation of key instructional practices, in order to compare the methods used to those recommended by the research with regard to effective instruction for SWD. I compared these data across settings and teams to create detailed descriptions of the instruction provided in co-taught classes and its adherence to evidence-based practices. I...

show abstract

Benefits for coteachers of students with disabilities: Do contextual factors matter?

Stefanidis

King‐Sears

Brawand

2018

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on Bandura's social learning and social cognitive theory, we empirically investigate contextual factors that may influence perceived benefits of coteaching for teachers. Special and general education coteachers have reported that necessary contextual factors for them to be effective include: sufficient coplanning time, relationship quality, and parity. In this study, 147 special and general education coteachers from suburban and rural schools across the United States responded to the Co-teacher Questionnaire to determine what contributes to their perceived benefits of coteaching students with disabilities. Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that coplanning (β = 0.22; p ≤ 0.01) and relationship quality (β = 0.30; p ≤ 0.01) positively influenced the coteachers' perceived benefits of coteaching (Cohen's f 2 = 0.47), whereas parity was not corroborated to have a significant impact. These not previously empirically studied relationships inform the field by clarifying the importance of the contextual factors for coteachers. Implications for the practitioners and researchers are offered.

show abstract

Using students’ drawings to elicit general and special educators’ perceptions of co-teaching

Cited by 43 publications

References 7 publications

Co-planning among science and special education teachers: How do different conceptual lenses help to make sense of the process?

Co-planning among science and special education teachers: How do different conceptual lenses help to make sense of the process?

Specialized Instruction in Co-Taught High School Classes

Benefits for coteachers of students with disabilities: Do contextual factors matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About