The Efficacy of the Collaborative Teaching Model for Serving
Academically-able Special Education Students
Collaborative teaching is the latest attempt to integrate students with disabilities into general education classrooms. It is a departure from past practices because direct service delivery was predicated on a "pull-out" rather than "keep-in" model. As a result of the collaborative model general and special educators are working together in new and innovative ways to meet the educational needs of special education students who are academically-able, those primarily in the high incidence category of learning disabilities. Collaborative teaching is part of the field’s move toward inclusion. It should not, however, be considered synonymous with the concept of full inclusion, which has different administrative and instructional goals, objectives, and accompanying program resources.
In a collaborative teaching arrangement the expertise of teachers are viewed as complementary—the general educator shares expertise in all aspects of curriculum, effective teaching, and large group instruction. The special educator contributes knowledge in such areas as learning styles and strategies, clinical teaching, and behavior management (Parrott, Driver & Eaves, 1992). Over time, expertise of the teachers becomes coincidental.
Collaborative teaching is very complex in nature because it is a system of instruction and interaction. There are many elements that can have a bearing on whether or not it is successful, both inside and outside the classroom. While much has been written about the collaborative teaching model to date, there has been relatively little research done to investigate its effects and efficacy. There has been conjecture as to what makes it successful but little systematic investigation. The available data so far have shown positive views from teachers, students and parents. It is reported that collaborative classes show academic viability, augmented self-esteem, less social stigma among collaborative students, and general satisfaction with the collaborative teaching model. Now that collaborative teaching is being used more and more in school districts across the country, it is important to research this area in depth and from multiple perspectives. This research effort does just that.
Methodology
Sample. Five school divisions from the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC), located in central Virginia, participated in the study. They provided an urban, suburban and rural mix. The schools that were studied were four elementary, four middle, and two high schools that had collaborative teaching programs for at least two years. (The average number of years the participating schools had their collaborative teaching programs was 3.89.) The ten schools provided specific research groups for the study. They were administrators, general and special education teachers who worked on collaborative teams, parents (general and special education), and students themselves. Administrators were interviewed via direct interview format. All other groups participated through focus group interviews and were interviewed separately. Those interviewed were: 14 administrators, 103 teachers, 69 parents, and 123 students. In total, 307 individuals participated in the interview sessions. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Average length of interviews were: administrators, 45 minutes; collaborative teachers, 90 minutes; parents, 30 minutes; and students, 25 minutes.
Different interview protocols were used for each set of informants. Instrumentation was devised by representatives from the MERC school divisions participating in the study. These representatives were administrators, special educators and general educators who worked in collaborative teaching programs at the elementary, middle and high school levels.
The schools in the study had a diversity of students with disabilities. The vast majority of the students were learning disabled with fewer students with emotional disturbance and metal retardation. A few schools served other students with disabilities such as orthopedically disabled (their term), traumatic brain injury, speech impaired, and other health impaired.
Data Analysis. Each set of data was analyzed separately in three stages (Krueger, 1994; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990; Miles & Huberman, 1984). Stage one consisted of data reduction, stage two focused on data display, and stage three led to drawing conclusions about the data and verifying those conclusions.
The data were confirmed through multiple sources. Transcripts were audited, field notes were reviewed, and a research assistant checked the study themes and conclusions for accuracy. In addition, a study group comprised of participating school division personnel, who were familiar with the collaborative teaching model, reviewed the findings and insured their veracity. As planned, they also generated general recommendations and training recommendations for the findings of the study.
Results/Discussion
The area of collaborative teaching is currently in need of substantive research to gauge its efficacy as a bona fide option for students with disabilities. It is understandable why, at this time, there is little empirical evidence to support the case for the collaborative teaching model. The concept is easier to implement than to study. It is easier to write about than to research. Because of the nature of collaborative teaching it takes on different forms. No two schools that utilize the collaborative teaching model are the same. No two collaborative teams have the same working relationship.
This study sought to research collaborative teaching in elementary, middle, and high schools in a variety of school divisions. Surprisingly, the findings per educational level were very similar to each other. There seemed to be more of a generic set of issues that transcended grade level and school division. These issues were articulated by different constituent groups during the process of data collection. The themes that emerged tended to validate each others’ perceptions of collaborative teaching.
From this study we know that students with disabilities are able to benefit from this model of service delivery. They have shown demonstrable progress academically and behaviorally. Concurrently, their self-concepts have improved and their self-esteem has risen. Administrators, teachers, and parents concur with this observation. Moreover, students with disabilities are attending to their lessons more effectively and overall functioning better in the classroom. This is not surprising given the extra attention and flexible approach that a collaborative team typically can give a class.
There are preventive benefits to collaborative teaching as well. Students who are not identified as disabled are able to receive the same help and consideration as their disabled peers. This enables all students in the collaborative classroom to have their individual needs met. No longer does the notion prevail that "one size fits all" in instruction. In a real sense, there is an acknowledgment that students have different learning styles, behavior patterns, and developmental needs.
This model has served teachers well too. General and special education teachers who collaborate with one another have learned to do something rather uncommon in the field of education. They have learned to work directly with each other in one classroom and to support each other as colleagues in that endeavor. This has fostered the opportunity of unrestricted professional growth. On a daily basis there are opportunities for teaching innovation and professional renewal. Complementary expertise and teaching philosophies are shared and then incorporated into action. There is constant critique and self-examination that allows for an upgrading of each teachers’ pedagogical repertoire. The ongoing effect is a joint effort that reaches more students, and with higher expectations! And that is the most noteworthy outcome. When a general and special educator meld their expertise there is more content delivered through effective and efficient process. There is more teaching and learning, more reinforcement of skills, more explanation, and more monitoring of progress and development. In sum, the educational process is taken qualitatively and quantitatively to a higher level.
Teachers cannot do it alone, however. In order for the collaborative teaching model to succeed and grow there must be a system in place to enable the program to work. Largely that system is framed by the principal of the school, but he or she does not have total control over the multitude of variables that have a bearing on the program. Nevertheless, there is much that occurs under his/her leadership.
So important is an effective and supportive principal to the collaborative teaching model that anything less portends failure and potential educational disaster. He or she can use all energies to make sure that there is logical scheduling, adequate planning time, reasonable classroom composition, teachers willing to participate, and ongoing training. When all these elements of the system are implemented successfully then the system can move forward and serve students appropriately. In addition, the principal has a higher calling. He or she is the guardian of the integrity of the system which is complex and dynamic, and has far-reaching impact on the culture of the school. It is not an easy role because the integrity of the system is fraught with difficult issues.
According to the subjects of the study the integrity of the system can be ensured only if the following issues can be tackled effectively. First, a key assumption of the system is that collaborative teaching should not be used as an "educational dumping ground". Mixed together in that assumption is the notion that there is only a reasonable number of students with disabilities that can be accommodated in one collaborative class. Numbers beyond reason put undue pressure on teachers, students, and the delivery system. Numbers alone do not tell the entire story, however. There needs to be careful planning to find the right mix of students to help make the class effective. There must be a suitable number of students who model good academic and social behavior. Moreover, there should be students who are bright enough to raise the level of curricular challenge, as well as be good peer tutors if needed. Most important, students who are not fitting to the collaborative teaching concept should not be included in a collaborative class.
Consistently, the data show that the collaborative class is not designed for the relatively few students whose behavior is too severe, whose academic needs are too demanding, or whose disability is too much of a burden to work with in that particular educational environment. It must be remembered that the collaborative classroom is not typically a "full inclusion" classroom, and the resources are not commensurate with those needed in full inclusion environments. Therefore, it is necessary to realize that all students do not fit in collaborative classrooms and some need more restrictive educational settings.
This, in turn, points to another important issue seen in the data. The second key issue is that collaborative teaching should not be an "all or nothing proposition". It should have its place in the continuum of services for students with disabilities, but it should not be the only option. When collaborative teaching is the only option of serving students with disabilities, it defies the principle of the "least restrictive environment" mandated by federal law. There should be self-contained classes if needed, resource room programs, as well as mainstreaming in general education classrooms. Without options there is little flexibility in programming and little hope of fully meeting the needs of students with disabilities in delivering "an appropriate program".
There are no short cuts to staffing as well. If students with disabilities are to be educated adequately then the requisite number of staff have to be in place to carry out the program. Collaborative programs cannot be panaceas to budget problems. Too often "teachers are spread too thin" in their roles as collaborative teachers. That statement was the most frequently cited statement heard during the data collection. There simply are not enough collaborative teachers hired to fill the need in most, if not all, schools. The result is less contact time for teachers "to team" in a given class. Less time to carry out the goals inherent to a collaborative situation. It is unfortunate when a second teacher is so infrequently in a classroom that the collaborative team wonders out loud if they are misrepresenting their situation by calling their class a collaborative one.
A third point seen consistently in the data is embedded in the question—what happens next? Next refers to placement in the next grade or placement at the next educational level. If collaborative teaching is the placement-of-choice designated by an individual educational plan how can that option be absent when considering the next placement? It is important for the collaborative teaching model to be available for the next placement and that another option such as resource room or mainstreaming not be the only choice. Moreover, if a collaborative classroom is the placement most fitting to the student and denoted in an individual educational plan (IEP) one must question if it is not the obligation of the school division to furnish that placement each year. It would seem that school divisions are legally at-risk without the collaborative teaching option for each grade and each educational level, once they have committed themselves to that service delivery model.
The belief about collaborative teaching is that it works, but it is not perfect. The element of time is important in the success of any school-based program. Time must be allowed for a new program to take shape at its inception and during every school year. But there are some recurring issues that never really get resolved (although they might get better) no matter how much time elapses. Planning is a crucial element for collaborative teaching. When it occurs its effects prove very fruitful. When it is absent there are many "missed opportunities" in the collaborative class. This is also true of training. It is unfortunate that some teachers often embark on an honest attempt to serve students without adequate training in the multifaceted aspects of collaborative teaching. If school divisions and their respective schools are to embrace fully the concept of collaborative teaching, there needs to be ongoing and systematic efforts to train collaborative teachers.
On the other hand, collaborative teaching seems nearly perfect to the parents of special education students. They have clearly made their positive thoughts known. Their resounding endorsement and enthusiasm for the model is quite noteworthy. It seems that collaborative teaching is a perfect fit in terms of their expectations and their children's needs. A lot of parents of general education students have voiced their happiness with the program as well. If there is a concern, it would have to be with the perception of curriculum depth and pace of instruction for particularly bright students. This is a very real concern of parents that needs to be thought through and acted upon.
The most curious finding of the study is how collaborative teaching is presented to parents. It is shocking to learn how little parents know about the program beyond the fact that there are typically two teachers in a classroom. In particular, the parents of general education students seem to have a definite lack of information and understanding about collaborative teaching altogether. In some cases the most they ever heard of the program was when they were queried in this research effort. This raises the question why?
Collaborative teaching is a concept that reflects a new era with far-reaching implications for administrators, teachers, students and parents. With the success and growth of the program it seems that collaborative teaching will take its rightful place as an efficacious service delivery option for students with disabilities—and not a moment too soon.
This research has shown that a "keep-in" rather than "pull-out" program can have a multitude of benefits for all those who are exposed to it. Its ultimate impact may not be known for quite some time, however. The idea is too new, and it is difficult to know what the effects would be if the "keep-in" program was fully adopted. In the interim there is reason to believe that in both philosophy and practice, collaborative teaching has come of age, and it has its best days ahead of it.
Paul J. Gerber, Ph.D.
The information found in this research brief has been synthesized from the following MERC publications. Copies can be purchased using the online order form on the publications page.
Gerber, P. J. (1995, February). The efficacy of the collaborative teaching model for serving academically-able special education students: Review of literature.
Gerber, P. J. (1996, January). The efficacy of the collaborative teaching model for serving academically-able special education students: Research report.