This article reports the results of a descriptive analysis of team teaching in two classrooms. The study employed a relatively new approach to field-based research, referred to as formative experiments, to conduct formative and summative evaluation procedures. Results of quantitative and qualitative analyses to assess student outcomes, teaching procedures, and teacher impressions are presented. Descriptive information regarding planning time, type of instructional format of team teaching, student groupings, and follow-up evaluation time was obtained through weekly teacher logs. Focus groups and written teacher comments provided information regarding teacher satisfaction of the team-teaching experience. Performance of typical students and students with learning disabilities on curriculum-based assessment measures given pre- and post team teaching suggest academic gains in reading and spelling for all students. The results of this study are discussed, and recommendations for further research are given.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J.J. (1995). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding the schoolhouse for all students. Austin, TX : PRO-ED.
2.
Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.W. (1989). Research in education (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of LearningSciences, 2, 141-178.
4.
Campbell, K.U. (1998). Great leaps reading program. Micanopy, FL: Diarmuid.
5.
Chalfant, J.C., Van Dusen Pysh, M.V., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 85-95.
6.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1996). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. In E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Strategies for teaching exceptional children in inclusive settings (pp. 155-182). Denver: Love.
7.
Deno, S. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 5-10.
Drew, C.J., & Hardman, M.L. (1985). Designing and conducting behavioral research. New York: Pergamon.
11.
Dyck, N., Sundbye, N., & Pemberton, J. (1997). A recipe for efficient co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2), 42-45.
12.
Fawcett, S.B. (1991). Social validity: A note of methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 235-239.
13.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Design experiments, formative experiments and developmental studies: The changing face of instructional research in special education (Tech. Rep. No. 98-1). Eugene, OR: Eugene Research Institute.
14.
Gersten, R., Lloyd, J.W., & Baker, S. (1998). Designing high quality research in special education: Group experimental design. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420957)
15.
Hallahan, D.P., & Kaufman, J.M. (2000). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon .
16.
Harris, K.C. (1998) Collaborative elementary teaching: A casebook for elementary and special educators. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
17.
Harris, K.C., & Smith, M.J. (1998). Collaborative secondary teaching: A casebook for secondary special and general educators. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
18.
Hart, A.W. (1998). Collaboration. In M. Welch (Producer), Professionals ready for educational partnerships (video telecourse and CDs) . Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
19.
Idol, L. (1989). The resource/consulting teacher: An integrated model of service delivery. Remedial and Special Education , 10(6), 38-48.
20.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1979). Behavioral research: A conceptual approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston .
21.
Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Nowacek, E.J. (1992). Professionals talk about teaching together: Interviews with five collaborating teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27, 262-276.
23.
Reinking, D., & Pickle, J.M. (1993). Using a formative experiment to study how computers affect reading and writing in classrooms. In C. Z. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 263-270). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
24.
Richardson, V., & Anders, P.L. (1998). A view from across the Grand Canyon. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 85-97.
25.
Self, H., Benning, A., Marston D., & Magnusson, D. (1991). Cooperative teaching project: A model for students at risk. Exceptional Children, 58, 26-34.
26.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., & Arguelles, M.R. (1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching . Teaching Exceptional Children30(2), 4-10.
27.
Walther-Thomas, C. (1998). Team teaching. In M. Welch (Producer), Professionals ready for educational partnerships (video telecourse and CDs) . Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
28.
Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255-265.
29.
Welch, M. (2000). Collaboration as a tool for inclusion. In S. E. Wade (Ed.), Inclusive education: A casebook and readings for prospective and practicing teachers (pp. 71-96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S.M. (1999). What's the score and game plan on teaming in school: A review of the literature on team teaching and school-based problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education , 20, 36-49.
31.
Welch, M., & Sheridan, S.M. (1995). Educational partnerships: Serving students at risk. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
32.
Welch, M., & Sheridan, S.M. (1996). Tele-educational consortium: Strategies for school-based and school-home partnerships (training videos and support materials). Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Department of Special Education .
33.
Welch, M., & Sheridan, S.M. (2000). The tele-educational consortium project: Video-mediated staff development for establishing educational partnerships . Teacher Education and Special Education.
