Co-Teaching in a Digital World: It's Not Teaching by Title,It's Teaching by Talent

Abstract

While virtual and online schools for students in grades K-12 gained in popularity before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and served a wide variety of student populations, including students with disabilities during the pandemic virtual teaching became the reluctant norm. As online school sites have begun to welcome students with disabilities, inclusive classroom practices such as co-teaching as a model for instruction became an interesting step. The purpose of this year-long, before COVID-19, case study was to better understand the implementation of the co-teaching model at an online K-8 school. Data analysis revealed salient themes which informed the following findings: A need for preplanning before implementation and sustained professional development during implementation, universal benefits for all students with accessibility within the least restrictive environment, and redefining the roles of general education teachers for successful collaboration. Implications and scholarly significance are shared.

Keywords

co-teaching virtual education online education online elementary schools special education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anastasiades

P. S.

Filippousis

Karvunis

Siakas

Tomazinakis

Giza

Mastoraki

(2010). Interactive videoconferencing for collaborative learning at a distance in the school of 21^st century: A case study in elementary schools in Greece. Computers & Education, 54(1), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.016

Aud

Hussar

Johnson

Kena

Roth

Manning

Wang

Zhang

(2012). The condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved September, 2012 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Barbour

M. K.

Reeves

T. C.

(2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402–416.

Capdeferro

Romero

(2010). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 26–44. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1127. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1127

Cavanaugh

C. S.

Barbour

M. K.

Clark

(2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i1.607

Cook

S. C.

McDuffie-Landrum

(2020). Integrating effective practices into co-teaching: Increasing outcomes for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(4), 221–229. https://doi-org.hmlproxy.lib.csufresno.edu/10.1177/1053451219855739

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

Eriksson

Jaskari

M. M.

Kinnunen

(2020). Co-teaching is great!-but only if there is time: Teacher perspectives on online co-teaching. Nordic Journal of Business, 69(1), 47–69. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2020120899879

Esterberg

K. G.

(2002). Qualitative methods in social research.

10.

Fernandez

M. L.

(2007). Communication and instruction in an online graduate education course. Teaching Education, 18(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210701325176

11.

Finlay

Desmet

Evans

(2004). Is it the technology or the teacher? A comparison of online and traditional English composition classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.2190/URJJ-HXHA-JA08-5LVL

12.

Flyvbjerg

(2011). Case study. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 301–316). Sage.

13.

Geertz

(2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The cultural geography reader (pp. 41–51). Routledge.

14.

Gemin

Pape

Vanshaw

Watson

(2015). Keeping pace with K-12 online & blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group.

15.

Hathaway

Norton

(2012). An exploratory study comparing two modes of preparation for online teaching. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2012.10784695

16.

Hodges

C. B.

Cowan

S. F.

(2012). Preservice teachers’ views of instructor presence in online courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2012.10784694

17.

Hwang

Yang

(2008). A synchronous distance discussion procedure with reinforcement mechanism: Designed for elementary school students to achieve the attending and responding stages of the affective domain teaching goals within a class period. Computers & Education, 51(1), 1538–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.004

18.

King-Sears

M. E.

Stefanidis

Berkeley

Strogilos

(2021). Does co-teaching improve academic achievement for students with disabilities? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 34(1), 100405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100405

19.

Kirby

Barbour

M. K.

Sharpe

D. B.

(2012). Student perceptions and preferences for tertiary online courses: Does prior high school distance learning make a difference? The American Journal of Distance Education, 26(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2012.646089

20.

Marchand

G. C.

Gutierrez

A. P.

(2012). The role of emotion in the learning process: Comparisons between online and face-to-face learning settings. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.001

21.

Marino

M. T.

(2009). Understanding how adolescents with Reading difficulties utilize technology-based tools. Exceptionality, 17(2), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830902805848

22.

Marsh

J. P.

Lammers

J. C.

Alvermann

D. E.

(2012). Quality assurance in online content literacy methods courses. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2011.568670

23.

Martin

Bacak

Polly

Dymes

(2023). A systematic review of research on K12 online teaching and learning: Comparison of research from two decades 2000 to 2019. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(2), 190–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1940396

24.

McKlin

Harmon

S. W.

Evans

Jones

M. G.

(2002). Cognitive presence in web-based learning: A content analysis of students’ online discussions. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/ED470101

25.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative Research: a guide to design and interpretation. Jossey-Bass.

26.

Murawski

W. W.

Bernhardt

(2015). An administrator's guide to co-teaching. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 30–34.

27.

Murphy

Rodriguez-Manzanares

M. A.

Barbour

(2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01112.x

28.

National Center for Education Statistics (2021). Percentage distribution of school-aged students served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Part B, by educational environment and type of disability: Selected years, fall 1989 through fall 2020). Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_204.60.asp.

29.

Raes

Schellens

De Wever

Vanderhover

(2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010

30.

Riser-Kositsky

(2019, December 17). Special Education: Definition, Statistics, and Trends. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/special-education-definition-statistics-and-trends/2019/12.

31.

Robinson

Sebba

(2010). Personalizing learning through the use of technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.021

32.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

McDuffie

K. A.

(2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401

33.

Scribner-MacLean

Miller

(2011). Strategies for success for online co-teaching.

34.

Smith

S. J.

Basham

J. D.

(2014). Designing online learning opportunities for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(5), 127–137.

35.

Smith

S. J.

Rao

Lowrey

K. A.

Gardner

J. E.

Moore

Coy

Marino

Wojcik

(2019). Recommendations for a national research agenda in UDL: Outcomes from the UDL-IRN preconference on research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(3), 174–185.

36.

Stake

R. E.

(2008). The art of case study research. Sage.

37.

Stefanidis

King-Sears

M. E.

Brawand

(2019). Benefits for coteachers of students with disabilities: Do contextual factors matter? Psychology in the Schools, 56(4), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22207

38.

Thompson

L. A.

Ferdig

Black

(2012). Online schools and children with special health and educational needs: Comparison with performance in traditional schools. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1947

39.

U.S. Department of Education (2017). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/.

40.

Vasquez

Serianni

B. A.

(2012). Research and practice in distance education for K-12 students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(4), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051203100406

41.

Vasquez III

Straub

(2012). Online instruction for K-12 special education: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(3), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341202700303

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB