One-teach/one-assist and one-teach/one-observe are the two most widely used co-teaching models. Special educators often take on the support role when these models are used. At times, co-teachers in the support role may be unclear about how to implement active instructional practices that engage students and improve student outcomes. In this article, opportunities to respond and contingent support are described as two research-based practices that can be implemented by co-teachers in the support role.
Brusca-VegaR.BrownK.YasutakeD. (2011). Science achievement of students in co-taught, inquiry-based classrooms. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17, 23–31.
2.
CookL.FriendM. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28, 1–16.
3.
FontanaK. C. (2005). The effects of co-teaching on the achievement of eighth grade students with learning disabilities. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 11, 17–23.
4.
FriendM.CookL.Hurley-ChamberlainD.ShambergerC. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9–27. doi:10.1080/10474410903535380
5.
Gonzalez-CaleroJ. A.ArnauD.PuigL.Arevalillo-HerraezM. (2015). Intensive scaffolding in an intelligent tutoring system for learning of algebraic word problem solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 1189–1200.
6.
HangQ.RabrenK. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 259–268.
7.
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.
8.
HaydonT.ConroyM. A.ScottT. M.SindelarP. T.BarberB. R.OrlandoA. (2010). A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 27–40.
9.
HedinL. R.GaffneyJ. S. (2013). Tutoring sixth graders who struggle with reading: Illustrations of Wood’s contingent interventions. Reading Psychology, 34, 207–256.
10.
HottB. L.BrighamF. (2018). Effects of response options on the mathematics performance of secondary students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Exceptionality. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09362835.2018.1480950
11.
King-SearsM. E.JenkinsM. C.BrawandA. (2018). Co-teaching perspectives from middle school Algebra co-teachers and their students with and without disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13603116.2018.1465134
12.
MacSuga-GageA. S.GageN. A. (2015). Student-level effects of increased teacher-directed opportunities to respond. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 273–288.
13.
MacSuga-GageA. S.SimonsenB. (2015). Examining the effects of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 38, 211–240.
14.
McKennaJ. W.MuethingC.FlowerA.BryantD. P.BryantB. (2015). Use and relationship among effective practices in co-taught inclusive high school classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19, 53–70. doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.906665
15.
MoinL. J.MagieraK.ZigmondN. (2009). Instructional activities and group work in the US inclusive high school co-taught science class. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 7, 677–697. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9133-z
16.
MurawskiW. W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How can we improve?Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 227–247.
17.
MurawskiW. W.SwansonH. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data?Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258–267. doi:10.1177/074193250102200501
18.
RandolphJ. (2007). Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, participation, and off-task behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 113–128.
19.
RodgersE.D’AgostinoJ. V.HarmeyS. J.KellyR. H.BrownfieldK. (2016). Examining the nature of scaffolding in an early literacy intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 345–360. doi:10.1002/rrq.142
20.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.McDuffieK. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
21.
SolisM.VaughnS.SwansonE.McCulleyL. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 498–510. doi:10.1002/pits.21606
22.
StrogilosV.StefanidisA.TragouliaE. (2016). Co-teachers’ attitudes towards planning and instructional activities for students with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31, 344–359. doi:10.1080/08856257.2016.1141512
23.
SweigartC. A.LandrumT. J. (2015). The impact of number of adults on instruction: Implications for co-teaching. Preventing School Failure, 59, 22–29.
24.
van de PolJ.VolmanM.OortF.BeishuizenJ. (2014). Teacher scaffolding in small-group work: An intervention study. Journal of Learning Sciences, 23, 600–650.
25.
van de PolJ.VolmanM.OortF.BeishuizenJ. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: Support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort, and appreciation of support. Instructional Science, 43, 615–641. doi:10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z
26.
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. doi:10.1177/0014402918771543
27.
WoodD. (2002). The Why? What? When? and How? of tutoring: The development of helping and tutoring skills in children. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 7, 1–30.
28.
ZhangH.WhitebreadD. (2017). Linking parental scaffolding with self-regulated learning in kindergarten children. Learning and Instruction, 49, 121–130.
