The recent Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District focused attention on outcomes for students with disabilities. It is not just about participating; it is about the instruction and outcomes from those services. Co-teaching is a prevalent service delivery model for students with disabilities who access the general curriculum. Much has been written about co-teaching but not necessarily about the instruction that takes place in a co-taught classroom. In this case study, we present a preliminary investigation of a conceptual model for instruction in co-teaching. We report teacher and student behavior change as well as contextual variables that had an impact on implementation.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R.AiriasianW.CruikshankK. A.MayerR. E.PintrichP. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational outcomes. New York, NY: Longman.
2.
AndersonT.ShattuckJ. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?Educational Researcher, 41, 16-25.
3.
ArcherA.HughesC. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
4.
BottgeB. A.CohenA. S.ChoiH. (2018). Comparisons of mathematics intervention effects in resource and inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 84, 197-212.
5.
BoudahD. J.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms?Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 293-316.
6.
BrighamF.BrighamM. (2001). Mnemonic instruction: Go for it! (Current Practice Alert, Issue 5). Charlottesville, VA: Division for Learning Disabilities.
7.
ChoJ.TrentA. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6, 319-340.
8.
CollinsA.JosephD.BielaczycK. (2004). Design-based research: Clarifying terms. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13, 15-42.
9.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
EllisE.HowardP. (2007). Graphic organizers: Go for it! (Current Practice Alert, Issue 13). Charlottesville, VA: Division for Learning Disabilities.
11.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U. S. ____ (2017).
12.
FriendM. (2016). Welcome to co-teaching 2.0. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 16-22.
13.
FriendM.CookL. (2017). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
14.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105-111.
15.
HarbortG.GunterP. L.HullK.BrownQ.VennM. L.WileyL. P.WileyE. W. (2007). Behaviors of teachers in co-taught classes in a secondary school. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 13-23.
16.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
17.
KennedyM. J.RodgersW. J.RomigJ. E.LloydJ. W.BrownellM. T. (2017). The effects of a multi-media professional development package on inclusive science teachers’ vocabulary instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 213-230.
18.
KrawecJ.MontagueM. (2012). Cognitive strategy instruction: Go for it! (Current Practice Alert, Issue 19). Charlottesville, VA: Division for Learning Disabilities.
19.
KurzA. (2011). Access to what should be taught and will be tested: Students’ opportunity to learn the intended curriculum. In ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students (pp. 99-129). New York, NY: Springer.
20.
KurzA.ElliottS. N.LemonsC. J.ZigmondN.KlooA.KettlerR. J. (2014). Assessing opportunity-to-learn for students with disabilities in general and special education classes. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 24-39.
21.
KurzA.ElliottS. N.WehbyJ. H.SmithsonJ. L. (2010). Alignment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 131-145.
22.
MagieraK.ZigmondN. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 79-85.
23.
MurawskiW. W.SwansonH. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data?Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.McDuffieK. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392-416.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.MurrayC. S.RobertsG. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
29.
Virginia Department of Education. (2015). BDC123. Fairfax: Virginia Department of Education Training and Technical Assistance Center at George Mason.
30.
WeissM. P.BrighamF. (2000). Co-teaching and the model of shared responsibility: What does the research support? In ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavior disabilities (Vol. 13, pp. 217-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
31.
WeissM. P.GlaserH. (2017). Specially-designed instruction in co-teaching: The need for a clear framework. In BakkenJ. P. (Ed.), Classrooms: Assessment practices for teachers and student improvement strategies (pp. 57-72). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
32.
WeissM. P.RodgersW. (In press). Beyond the six approaches to co-teaching: A new conceptual framework for instruction in secondary co-taught classrooms.
33.
WexlerJ.KearnsD. M.LemonsC. J.MitchellM.ClancyE.DavidsonK. A.. . . WeiY. (2018). Reading comprehension and co-teaching practices in middle school English language arts classrooms. Exceptional Children, 84, 384-402.
