Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although co-teaching is increasingly recognized as a valuable approach in inclusive education, comprehensive studies that examine the impact of targeted professional development on enhancing teachers’ capabilities in this area are lacking. The limited research on this topic fails to provide clear evidence of the effectiveness of such training programs and their potential benefits for special education and general education teachers. Addressing this issue, this study investigates the effectiveness of a proposed professional development training program designed to elevate co-teaching and collaboration skills among in-service teachers. A one-group quasi-experimental design was used, and a convenience sampling of 32 female teachers, comprising 16 special education and 16 general education teachers, participated in the program consisting of 14 intensive sessions. Pre- and post-intervention assessments, comprising a co-teaching test and a collaboration skills scale, were administered. Results demonstrate significant benefits of the training program, with participants showcasing improved performance in the co-teaching post-test and collaboration scale. Special education teachers notably outperformed their general education counterparts in co-teaching skills. However, the analysis did not reveal any statistically significant differences between teachers of students with learning disabilities and teachers of general education regarding their performance on the collaboration skills scale. The study concludes with recommendations and future research directions, offering insights to further advance co-teaching practices and collaboration skills among educators.

Keywords

professional development program co-teaching collaboration teachers special education general education

Introduction

Many challenges face K-12 teachers in general and special education teachers in particular due to the special needs of students with learning disabilities. One solution to such changes is to train pre- and in-service teachers to overcome such challenges and help integrate an inclusive education environment to advance the special education teachers’ capabilities with their general education peers in general education schools (Drelick et al., 2024; Norwich & Nash, 2011). Such a step needs special education teachers to collaborate with their general education counterparts in many pedagogical activities like co-teaching, co-assessment, co-planning, and co-instruction (Guise et al., 2023; McGlothin, 2023). Therefore, teachers need to be trained in how to deal with different types of learners and in how to ensure that students with learning disabilities are well-integrated in an inclusive classroom and that learning outcomes are achieved. This environment challenges teachers to meet students’ needs and to be aware of the effective teaching strategies to help students overcome their disabilities through adopting new pedagogical strategies, adjusting the syllabus and creating activities that help meet the needs of students with disabilities (Albahusain, 2022). Co-teaching is believed to help teachers integrate students with learning disabilities with their peers in general education in an inclusive classroom (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; McDuffie et al., 2009). Co-teaching also helps to cater to individual learning needs and supports students who need special education by effectively providing learning; general education teachers deal with the content of the courses, while special education teachers focus on teaching strategies of the content (Dikkers et al., 2015). Co-teaching is believed to help learners identify 21st-century skills that prepare them to meet the future labor market’s needs, in which learners acquire three competencies: (1) learning skills encompassing creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, communication and collaboration; (2) literacy skills including information literacy, media literacy and ICT literacy; and (3) life skills comprising flexibility, adaptability, initiative, self-direction, social and intercultural skills, productivity, accountability, leadership and responsibility (González-Pérez & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022). Unfortunately, many teachers are not fully aware of the concept of co-teaching nor trained in how to implement it in an inclusive classroom due to the lack of good professional teacher education programs, insufficient time to plan and do collaborative assessments and poor collaboration of teachers in general education and special education (Reinke et al., 2011; Shippen et al., 2011; Stormont et al., 2012). Another important issue is the lack of practising collaboration among teachers due to the absence of implementing co-teaching in an inclusive education environment. Co-teaching enhances cooperation between special education teachers and general education teachers in many pedagogical and administrative activities where groups or pairs of teachers sit together and collaborate in planning, assessing, managing the classroom and implementing instruction (Bundock et al., 2023; Sundqvist et al., 2023). Drawing on the importance of teacher education programs and the assertion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) to train teachers of students with disabilities to get a teaching license, this study attempts to provide insights to teachers of special education to implement co-teaching and collaboration in an inclusive environment by designing and implementing a training program to find possible gains in the improvement of co-teaching and collaboration. Overall, the theoretical gap revolves around the lack of awareness and training regarding co-teaching and collaboration, while the practical gap relates to the limited implementation of co-teaching in inclusive education settings. Bridging these gaps necessitates the development of comprehensive teacher training programs and the facilitation of fruitful collaboration between general education and special education teachers. Addressing these gaps, this paper contributes by implementing comprehensive teacher training programs to help foster collaboration between general education and special education teachers, ultimately aiming to enhance co-teaching practices in inclusive education settings. This study differs from past research by focusing on the development and implementation of comprehensive teacher training programs specifically tailored to enhance co-teaching and collaboration between general education and special education teachers in inclusive education settings. It aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice by addressing the lack of awareness and training in co-teaching and by providing practical strategies and support for educators to effectively collaborate and meet the diverse learning needs of students. Therefore, the current study aims to address the following questions:

What is the effect of a proposed professional program on developing the conceptualization of co-teaching for special education and general education teachers? If so, to what extent does it affect both types of teachers?

What is the effect of a proposed professional program on improving the collaborative skills of special education and general education teachers? If so, to what extent does it affect both types of teachers?

Literature Review

This section will shed light on three main subsections: (a) co-teaching, (b), collaboration skills, and (c) teachers’ training.

Co-Teaching

Co-teaching, defined as “a model that involves paired regular and special education teachers working together to plan, instruct, and monitor progress for a heterogeneous group of students, with and without disabilities, in the same classroom” (Faraclas, 2018, p. 2), is a promising approach that is derived from a collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers in an inclusive classroom (Rabin, 2020). Co-teaching is also seen as a way to provide a meaningful education to students with disabilities while ensuring that they can access general education curricula in less restrictive environments, and it is one way in which students obtain special education services in inclusive schools (McKenna et al., 2024). This approach is deemed feasible for advancing students with disabilities in terms of knowledge and skills with their peers without disabilities.

Co-teaching is a teaching strategy that is guided by Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory, which emphasizes the integration of teaching and learning practices in the classroom between different teachers. Students in this model can build their knowledge by being involved in many curricular activities such as discussion and collaboration (Turkich et al., 2014). This type of teaching allows for generating ideas and experiences and developing more effective and in-depth teaching procedures that benefit students achieve learning outcomes (Randall, 2011). Teachers’ involvement in designing the classroom environment that provides students with various opportunities for oral and written communication would make students gain meaningful learning (Dugan & Letterman, 2008).

Co-teaching—with its different patterns such as station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, teaming, one teach–one assist and one teach–one observe—not only benefits students with learning disabilities but all students in the class. All students benefit from the presence of two teachers and their use of modern teaching strategies. Co-teaching may also provide a stable basis for students with disabilities to attend all classes of the various subjects without having to move to a place other than the classroom. It often helps to eliminate the social stigma associated with differentiating students in the classroom (Friend & Cook, 2010). By contrast, many obstacles deter teachers from achieving co-teaching. Examples include time restrictions and poor planning, which result from not assigning sufficient time to design a lesson plan (Mulholland & O’Connor, 2016; Russomano, 2017). Another challenge is that the roles and responsibilities of special education and general education teachers are blurred when implementing co-teaching in inclusive classrooms (Beachum, 2016; Gürgür & Uzuner, 2010; Indelicato, 2014). Limited support from educational administration is another challenge in implementing co-teaching (Mulholland & O'Connor, 2016; Russomano, 2017; Strogilos et al., 2016), and some administrations adopt a resistance to collaboration among teachers (Bouck, 2007; Reyes, 2010). The dearth of implementing co-teaching in an inclusive classroom is one of the crucial challenges in inclusive classrooms. Smith’s (2017) findings revealed that if the participants are engaged in co-teaching for the first time, they will not be aware of the concept of co-teaching nor will they have any idea of how two teachers can interact in an inclusive classroom.

Collaboration

Collaborative work is undoubtedly better than individual efforts in terms of the expected learning gains. In the context of special education, students with disabilities require a good educational environment where many experts collaborate rather than a single teacher carrying everything out. Collaboration in special education has long dated to the beginning of the 1970s before the launching of federal special education legislation (Friend & Barron, 2016). Collaboration is defined by Friend and Cook (2017, p. 6) as “a style for direct interaction between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision-making as they work toward a common goal.” Collaboration between special education and general education teachers is an effective way to support students’ learning with disabilities in general education. To do so, teachers are advised to enhance learning strategies where they focus on the product of learning and help students adopt techniques to learn better (Hsia et al., 2021). Studies have found a positive correlation between collaboration and academic achievement and the advance of services provided to students with disabilities (Gotshall & Stefanou, 2011). The significance of collaboration is maintained in special education between teachers of students with learning disabilities and teachers of general education in implementing co-assessment, co-planning and co-instruction. In this regard, many findings have indicated that collaboration between teachers is effective in raising the level of special education services, improving teaching students with disabilities and increasing the academic achievement of students (Gebhardt et al., 2015; Gotshall & Stefanou, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Malone & Gallagher, 2010; Rabin, 2020). Other studies (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2016; Hoppey & Mickelson, 2017; Hurd & Weilbacher, 2018) have found that collaboration between teachers in the co-teaching model contributed to designing focused content, enhancing teachers’ cooperation, increasing teachers’ preparation, and augmenting students’ motivation.

Teachers’ Training

The increasing demand to accentuate the role of human resources in production quality has given training a distinguished place in the modern management of institutions in various fields, including teacher education programs. Training and professional programs for in-service are deemed critical because of the continuous changes and modifications that exist in education. These programs help advance teachers’ knowledge, skills and activities; motivate their abilities and improve their work efficiently, effectively and accurately (Brown et al., 2013). Well-certified teachers would impact their students’ learning outcomes in reading and language arts by providing a well-engaged environment to learners (Kennedy, 1999), adopting effective teaching strategies and managing classrooms (Berliner, 2002; Brown et al., 2013). Despite the tremendous programs implemented by the World Bank to improve teacher education in many countries, their gains in improving teachers’ pedagogical skills remain limited as teachers assessed their efficacy as either outdated, theoretically based or lacking good practice (Popova et al., 2018). Therefore, pedagogically and practically based training programs are welcome to address the teachers’ concerns, orient them theoretically and improve their capability in implementing teaching strategies. Teachers’ education programs need to be updated to develop the candidates in the current knowledge and practices required to cater to different types of learners who are placed in an inclusive classroom. The move from different classes to an inclusive class compels teachers to master co-teaching collaboration skills, which is essential for teachers today (Arthaud et al., 2007).

Training is beneficial for teachers in improving their teaching skills and enhancing collaboration with each other in inclusive classrooms (Abbye-Taylor, 2013; Albahusain, 2022; Faraclas, 2015, 2018; Russomano, 2017Abbye-) asserted that teachers of general education and teachers of special education benefited from professional training that would help them form positive attitudes toward teaching, build good relationships, break barriers among teachers, and help them co-plan lessons. The results of a recent systematic review suggested that the professional development model changed teachers’ positive attitudes toward inclusive education and students showed optimal knowledge development (Holmqvist & Lelinge, 2021). By contrast, few studies (Abbye-Taylor, 2013) found that teachers who were interviewed viewed that professional training programs might not be helpful and deemed ineffective in refining teachers’ capabilities in practising co-teaching.

Designing reliable and valid training programs that meet the teachers’ needs and interests is key to helping teachers engage in the training program content and help them achieve conceptual and practical skills. By contrast, a lack of designing a good program would lead to delays in conceptualizing the main core of co-teaching and result in poor collaborative work (Faraclas, 2018). Evidence from previous studies indicates that a good professional development program must include “sufficient duration, content focus, coherence, active learning, and collective participation” (Faraclas, 2018, p. 525). Additionally, good professional development could be operationalized as “ongoing, collaborative, data driven in design, interest driven in design, and interactive” (Elliott, 2017, p.11). Unfortunately, very few studies have attempted to explore the effect of a well-designed professional development program on co-teaching (Bond, 2011; Faraclas, 2018). The present study attempts to propose a well-designed professional development model to help teachers boost their conceptualization of co-teaching and improve their collaborative work in the inclusive classroom.

Relevant Studies

Numerous studies, summarized in Appendix 1, have been conducted to examine the co-teaching concept from various perspectives, although research specifically focused on inclusive education and teachers’ training in co-teaching and collaborative skills is lacking (Solis et al., 2012). The reviewed studies focused on investigating various aspects of co-teaching practices among teachers in inclusive education settings. Using mixed-method, ethnographic and experimental designs, the studies aimed to understand the perceptions, attitudes, skills, and effectiveness of co-teaching. Barnes (2017) employed a mixed-method design and found that co-teaching practices were positively perceived by teachers who were able to overcome barriers to their implementation. Smith (2017) utilized an ethnographic design and explored teachers’ perceptions of professional development programs and their impact on co-teaching practices, revealing improvements in collaborative skills. In a mixed-research design, Reitano and Sim (2010) examined the effect of professional development on teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities, indicating positive outcomes. Using a qualitative study, Rabin (2020) adopted a qualitative approach and investigated the implementation of co-teaching, highlighting the value of responsive reciprocal relationships. Albahusain (2022) employed a quasi-experimental design to explore the impact of a training program on pre-service teachers, mediated by their academic track and found improvements over time. Lastly, Faraclas (2015) utilized an experimental design and demonstrated that teachers who received co-teaching training outperformed those who did not.

Although these studies provide valuable insights, the research has a major gap as regards developing reliable training programs specifically designed from pedagogical perspectives to enhance teachers’ capabilities and improve their collaborative skills. This research gap was highlighted in a recent meta-analysis conducted by Strogilos et al. (2023), which identified a lack of information on teachers’ training in co-teaching skills in the majority of the included studies. This emphasizes the need for further research that specifically investigates teachers’ training as an independent variable to measure the effectiveness of co-teaching and the enhancement of collaborative skills among both general education and special education teachers. To bridge this gap, future studies should employ triangulated data collection tools and pedagogically oriented training programs to provide a more comprehensive understanding of effective co-teaching practices.

Methods

Design

The author adopts a quasi-experimental design to identify the effects of a professional training model, proposed by the author, on improving the conceptualization of co-teaching and developing collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers. One group of teachers was recruited to see the effectiveness of the independent variable (the training program) on two dependent variables: co-teaching knowledge gains and the improvement of collaboration skills. Two data collection instruments were administered to see the possible effects on dependent variables. A pre-post-test design was used to identify how teachers conceptualized the notion of co-teaching and improved their knowledge, while a collaboration skills scale was administered to identify how the teachers improved their collaboration skills after the treatment.

Participants

Convenience sampling was employed to choose female teachers to take part in the current study, comprising 16 female in-service teachers of special education majoring in the learning disability track and (16) female in-service teachers of general education who taught mathematics and Arabic to intermediate and secondary school students in Saudi Arabia. We chose convenience sampling because teachers cannot easily leave their jobs in schools and attend a 4-day training program. Therefore, only those who accepted our invitation and secured permission from their school administrators to attend the training sessions were involved in the study treatment. All the participants were in-service teachers who held BA degrees from different universities. They had at least 3 years of teaching experience at different educational levels in schools. Due to the cultural restriction of gender segregation in the context of the present study, only female teachers were invited to be trained. We choose middle and high school teachers because co-teaching is usually carried out at late levels of students in the present context and because of the dire need for students with learning disabilities to comprehend the course contents. The participants were voluntarily invited to take part in the study, and those who agreed were requested to sign a consent letter.

Professional Training Programme

The training program was built in light of previous studies related to the investigated issue, such as Barnes (2017) and Faraclas (2018). The training program consisted of 14 training sessions and lasted for 20 hr. The first and last sessions were assigned to do the pre- and post-tests (co-teaching knowledge tests and collaboration skills scale). The objective of this program is to enhance the trainees’ conceptualization of co-teaching and improve collaboration skills. The program aims to help teachers act as partners in the co-teaching strategy in general education classes in schools with learning disabilities programs. The content of the programs comprised the following: introduction to co-teaching, significance of co-teaching, why it should be implemented, components of co-teaching, co-teaching approaches, teachers’ roles in co-teaching and key factors for co-teaching sustainability. The professional program was validated by 19 experts in special education, psychology and curricula and instruction. Details of the program content and schedule are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Schedule of the Professional Program.

Session	Session title	Objectives	Time allotted in minutes
1	Orientation	1. To know about the participants2. To identify the rules of the program and the participants’ expectations about it.	40
2	Introduction to the program	1. To divide the participants to groups2. Presenting an introduction about the program	40
3	Introduction to co-teaching	1. To identify the co-teaching concept, reasons for proposing it, and how it was generated? (Presenting data and statistics)2. Significance of co-teaching3. Developmental phases of co-teaching	100
4	Components of co-teaching	To identify the following:1. components of co-teaching2. planning and managing co-teaching3. practicing co-teaching as per a timeframe	100
5	Sample of co-teaching for divided groups	To get familiar with three types of co-teaching for the divided groups:1. parallel teaching2, station teaching3. alternative teaching	100
6	Sample of co-teaching for total group	To get familiar with three types of co-teaching:1. team teaching2. one teach, one observe3. one teach, one assist	100
7	Co-teaching and learning disabilities	1. To explain modification and adaptations to teach students with disabilities2. To present examples about strategies used in co-teaching3. To practice co-planning lessons considering the needs of students with disability	80
8	Collaboration in in co-teaching	1. To identify collaboration skills in co-teaching2. To list the collaboration obstacles and offer solutions	100
9	Assessment co-teaching effectiveness	1. To assess effectiveness of co-teaching for teachers and students2. To practice using teacher’s self-assessment template	100
10	Getting ready for practicing micro teaching	To get ready to prepare a paired of teacher for small micro teaching	80
11	Practical application of Co-teaching	Practical application with comments and suggestions (microteaching)	140
12	Conclusion	1. Practical application with comments and suggestions (microteaching)2. providing feedback3. Concluding the program	140

Data Collection Tools

Two data collection instruments were carried out: a co-teaching knowledge test and a collaboration scale.

Co-Teaching Knowledge Test

Many steps were followed to construct the co-teaching knowledge test. First, the author determined the content to be trained, and then the content was analyzed into 12 topics and 15 subtopics. Second, a table of specifications was built based on the distribution of statements over the objectives of the content: knowledge, comprehension and application. A scoring weight was given based on number of statements and time spent on each topic. Twenty-five statements were finalized and then presented in the form of multiple-choice questions. The test was validated in terms of face validity by handing in the first draft to 17 peer reviewers. Many modifications were received and then were enhanced in the test based on the reviewers’ comments. The validity of the test was quantitatively calculated by administering the test to a pilot study (N = 40), and every statement was tested against the average mean scores of the test. The Pearson correlation coefficient indicates that all the statements were above the significance level (.05 or .01). The test was also checked for reliability and the Cronbach’s alpha was .081, which was deemed good (see the test in Appendix 2).

Collaboration Skills Scale

The scale was constructed based on a previous collaboration scale (Seabrooks-Blackmore & B Patterson, 2013). The scale consisted of a set of dimensions that measure collaboration skills including the following four dimensions: attitudes (14 statements), communication skills (8 statements), respect and relationships (7 statements) and goals and priorities (9 statements). The degree of response was determined according to a three-way Likert scale, whereby a weight was given to the alternatives (agree = 3, neutral = 2, disagree = 1). Face validity was examined by eliciting comments from a panel of reviewers (N = 17) who had reviewed the first draft of the scale. Modifications were made based on the reviewers’ views. Cronbach’s alpha was used to calculate the reliability of the scale and it was .89, which was deemed good.

Procedure

The study was first approved by the Standing Committee of the Ethical Board at our university (blinded for peer review purposes), then a letter was sent out from our university to the general administrator of education to permit us to apply the training program on a convincing sample of teachers from general education and special education schools. Prior to starting implementing the professional program, we administered the data collection tools on a pilot study (N = 40) to ensure the reliability and validity of the tools. Then, we invited the participants, comprising 32 teachers, to voluntarily take part in the study. Those who agreed to participate were requested to sign a consent letter. Then, the co-teaching test and collaboration scale were administered 1 day before the treatment. Next, the participants were involved in the treatment for 14 sessions where they were assigned as paired teachers; one teacher of special education sat next to her partner, who was a teacher of general education. They received a sudden and identical co-teaching post-test and a post-application of collaboration scale, with the order of statements and alternatives changed to reduce the chance of guessing. Finally, the participants were thanked warmly.

Data Analysis

We used a non-parametric test (paired-sample t test) to examine the possible effectiveness of the professional development program on the participants’ means scores in the co-teaching post-test and the post-application of the collaboration scale. Due to the small number of sub-groups (N = 16 for each group), we ran a paired-sample t test to examine the differences between the scores of special education and general education teachers to see whether there would be any development of the participants’ scores from the pre-test to the post-test and possible improvement of the collaboration skills from the pre-post application. Prior to conducting the analyses, coefficient tests were administered to ensure the homogeneity of the participants toward the co-teaching test and collaboration scale. The Results indicated that the participants were homogeneous, p > .05. All the statistical analyses were run using SPSS Statistics 26.

Results

Q1. What is the effect of a proposed professional program on improving the co-teaching skills for special education and general education teachers? If so, to what extent does it affect both types of teachers?

A paired-sample t test was run to calculate the main difference between the participants’ scores of the knowledge test before the treatment and after the treatment. The results reveal that the participants’ achievement in the post-test (M = 40.00, SD = 4.25) was significantly higher than their performance in the pre-test (M = 38.5, SD = 1.75), t (31,1) = 1.53, p < .05, d = 0.27, indicating that the training program was effective in improving the participants’ conceptualization of the co-teaching notion and helped improve their practice of co-teaching.

To see differences across type of teachers and due to the small sample size of the participants who took part in the study (N = 32), we ran a non-parametric test (Mann–Whitney test) to identify the performance of the two groups. The results are depicted in Table 2.

Table 2.

Mann–Whitney Test for Co-Teaching Knowledge.

Co-teaching skills	Special education teachers (N = 16)		General education teachers (N = 16)		Z	U	p
Co-teaching skills	Mean rank	Sum of ranks	Mean rank	Sum of ranks	Z	U	p
	56.21	345.00	10.07	151.00	3.54	0.37	.000

Table 3 shows that the performance of the special education teachers significantly outperformed the average scores of their peers in general education, Z(3.45), p < .05, U = 0.37. This suggests that the proposed training program was effective in aiding the participants’ conceptualization of the co-teaching and that the performance of the special education teachers was significantly better than their general education counterparts.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of the Participants’ Response to Collaboration Scale.

Scale section	Mean	SD
Attitudes	2.67	0.22
Communication skills	2.74	0.15
Enhancing relationship and respect	2.98	0.07
Identifying priorities and objectives	2.91	0.22
Total	2.80	0.13

Q2. What is the effect of a proposed professional program on improving the collaboration skills for special education and general education teachers? If so, to what extent does it affect both types of teachers?

To answer the research question, descriptive statistics were used to elicit the participants’ views about their collaboration skills via four different dimensions. Table 3 summarizes the results.

The results reveal that the mean scores of the participants’ views toward their collaboration skills after training were high, indicating their positive gains from the training program that could affect the four dimensions of the scale: attitudes, communication skills, enhancing relationship and respect, identifying priorities and objectives, and the total scores. To examine whether the participants improved significantly from the pre-treatment to the post-treatment, a paired-sample t test was administered. The results showed that their collaboration skills were significantly higher in their scores in the post-application of the collaboration scale than their performance in the pre-application scale, t(31) = 2.46, p ≤ .05, d = .49.

Another Mann–Whitney test was administered to elucidate the differences, if any, in the participants’ responses to the collaboration scale. Table 4 summarizes the results.

Table 4.

Mann–Whitney Test for Collaboration Scale.

Collaboration scale dimensions	Special education teachers (N = 16)		General education teachers (N = 16)		Z	p
Collaboration scale dimensions	Mean rank	Sum of ranks	Mean rank	Sum of ranks	Z	p
Attitudes	14.78	236.50	18.22	291.50	1.05	.29
Communication skills	16.25	270.00	16.75	268.00	0.71	.86
Enhancing relationship and respect	15.59	149.00	17.41	278.50	0.0952	.34
Identifying priorities and objectives	17.57	284.00	15.25	244.00	1.1	.34

The results in Table 4 reveal that no statistically significant differences were recorded between the two sets of teachers at p > .05. The participants scored high average means in all the scale dimensions but demonstrated that none of the two groups significantly outscored each other.

Discussion

The present study attempts to examine whether and how a 20-hr proposed training program might improve teachers’ conceptualization of co-teaching and improve their awareness and practices of collaborative skills. We are also interested in understanding how awareness and practices of co-teaching and collaboration differ between teachers of special education to general education counterparts. The study reaches interesting results that could be interpreted in terms of a theoretical framework and the previous study findings.

Co-Teaching Knowledge

Our results revealed that the professional training program was effective in enhancing the co-teaching knowledge scale as indicated by the participants’ performance in the co-teaching post-test. The results corroborate those findings obtained by Faraclas (2018), who found that teachers receiving a professional training program outperformed their peers who were not treated by a professional program in the co-teaching post-test. Our findings also go in line with previous studies (Barnes, 2017; Bond, 2011; Chapple, 2009; Lock et al., 2016; Russomano, 2017) which emphasized that professional development has a positive impact on co-teaching practices. Moreover, the results of the present study agree with those of Smith (2017), who asserted the improvement of teachers’ knowledge of the practice of co-teaching and its various models due to the professional development experienced by teachers. Likewise, our results depict Reitano and Sims’s (2010) findings which demonstrated the effectiveness of professional development for teachers in increasing their efficiency in practising co-teaching, including curriculum objectives and modifications. The results of the study of Cramer et al. (2010) also confirmed a low effect for co-teaching teaching without training in choosing, planning and implementing different types of co-teaching. By contrast, our results contradict those obtained by Abbye-Taylor (2013), who found less effect of a training program on co-teaching improvement. A plausible reason for contradictory findings with Abbye-Taylor (2013) might be attributed to their small sample size Taylor (N = 16) and the subjectivity of the data collection instrument (i.e., semi-structured interview) which biased the study findings. Moreover, the design of Abbye-Taylor (2013) is different from our design, where teachers were never treated with professional training but asked about their perceptions of the possible effects of professional development to enhance teachers’ practices of co-teaching.

Our findings revealed that teachers of special education significantly outscored their counterparts of general education teachers in the co-teaching post-test. A plausible explanation for such results is that special education teachers received much training in their pre-service education program, are aware of the notion of co-teaching and might have received considerable training during in-service teaching. General education teachers tend to be less induced to implement co-teaching (Barnes, 2017) because they lack professional competence due to the poor content of co-teaching (Jeannite, 2018; Yates, 2018), while special education teachers received more training on co-teaching than general education teachers (Brendle et al., 2017; Miller & Oh, 2013). By contrast, the research findings of the present study contradict many previous studies (such as Faraclas, 2015; Smith, 2017). Inconclusive findings could be ascribed to different types of assessment tools administered to collect data, type of professional training and background knowledge of teachers and experience in teaching.

Collaboration Skills

In the present study, we aim to explore collaboration skills between general education teachers and special education teachers during the implementation of co-teaching practices. We operationalize collaboration skills as high scores obtained from the scale in four different dimensions: attitudes, communication skill, enhancing relationship and respect and identifying priorities and objectives. Our results partially align with previous studies in the literature (Chapple, 2009; Hoppey & Mickelson, 2017; Hurd & Weilbacher, 2018; Shina, 2019) showing that teachers enhance their communication skills and are more inclusive in the classroom, had more respect and are more cooperative. The results of the present study are in line with Kamens et al. (2013) and Lock et al. (2016) in forming positive attitudes for teachers because they perceived that trust, self-respect and cooperation were keys to successful and sustainable co-teaching. These results also agree with Albahussain’s (2022) findings that a professional training program enhances teachers’ positive attitudes toward co-teaching, resulting in enhancing their collaboration and augmenting their co-teaching implementation.

We found no difference between special education and general education teachers in collaborative skills as measured by a collaboration scale. This is explained by treating both types of teachers to an intensive training program supported by rich instructional content that encourages practising collaboration and enhancing teachers; attitudes toward co-teaching and becoming trained in how to implement co-teaching in an inclusive classroom. Therefore, they are believed to become aware of many collaboration skills such as communication skills, strengthening rapports and setting goals and priorities. All the female teachers in this study have awareness of and respect for the values and concepts of collaboration in implementing co-teaching. Additionally, the division of groups in our training program to include a pair of one teacher from general education and another from special education may strengthen familiarity between them, leading to building positive attitudes and helping them to collaborate in pairs and reducing social barriers. Our findings corroborate with those of Radovanoviae et al. (2013) and Shina et al. (2016), demonstrating that involving general education teachers with their peers from special education in co-teaching practices provided opportunities to work collaboratively in teams. Conversely, our findings contradict those of Damore and Murray (2009) who found that special education teachers had more positive attitudes than general education teachers. Likewise, Barnes (2017) indicated that teachers of special education were less cooperative than their counterparts in general education. Differences in data collection instruments and variations in number of participants for such studies could be the reason for such inconclusive findings.

Conclusion

The present study contributes to the literature on the significance of co-teaching and the mastery of collaboration skills to enhance practising co-teaching and improve the achievement of students with learning disabilities. The positive findings obtained from the current study align with constructivism theory that maintains the significance of building knowledge through teamwork and collaboration. Building reliable professional programs is key to improving teachers’ capabilities in co-planning, co-instruction, co-assessment, and co-management of the classroom. Enhancing teachers’ competence in terms of pedagogy, knowledge and practice is crucial in pre-service and in-service teaching programs to help teachers meet challenges, especially with students with learning disabilities. Constructing collaboration between special education teachers and general education teachers is very important to help manage students’ activities and refine teachers’ abilities to implement successful teaching. Our results indicated that teachers benefited from professional teaching programs and their collaboration skills have been enhanced, and they were oriented to new concepts that should cooperate with their peers from special education teachers to help achieve the objectives of the course content and increase the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities.

Implications

Several pedagogical implications can be recommended. Firstly, teachers must receive training on the concept of co-teaching in inclusive classroom settings, because such training offers numerous instructional practices that can be implemented effectively. To enhance their capabilities and professional skills, novice teachers should actively engage in co-teaching practices alongside experienced teachers. Teachers, particularly those in special education, must also stay updated on the latest trending issues in teaching methodologies. This will enable them to identify the best strategies for integrating students with disabilities into general education settings. Furthermore, teachers should prioritize creating a supportive and inclusive learning environment that fosters collaboration and cooperation among students with diverse abilities. This can be achieved by implementing cooperative learning strategies and promoting peer interaction.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study has some limitations that could be addressed by future studies. First, the small number of the current sample introduces difficulties in generalizing the study findings, especially the differences as regards the type of teachers. Another limitation is that the test was constructed using multiple-choice questions, where answers might be guessed. Future researchers are advised to add objective questions to examine participants’ creativity. Other data collection tools could be applied by future studies such as conducting interviews to see participants’ attitudes toward co-teaching. Future projects may involve male and female teachers to deeply and thoroughly understand whether gender variables may affect the participants’ engagement in professional development programs because the present study’s participants were limited to female teachers due to cultural constraints of the study setting. Another limitation is the adoption of middle and secondary school teachers. Future studies can also experiment with how teachers of elementary schools could benefit from training programs that improve their co-teaching competencies and collaborative skills. The absence of a control group could be a major issue that could bias the findings. Future studies could address this issue to obtain robust findings. Finally, the present study employed convenience sampling due to the condition of the study experiment. Therefore, future research projects can address this issue by using random sampling that could yield generalizable robust findings.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

A Summary of Past Studies on Integrating a Training Programme to Enhance Co-Teaching and/or Collaborative Skills.

Appendix 2 Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

The paper was approved by the general committee of ethical approval of 19453 University to which the authors are affiliated. The ethical approval required voluntary participation and informed consent. Therefore, the aim and procedures were explained to the participants.

Informed Consent

Participation was voluntary and did not place any strain of power on the participants. All participants provided consent, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the participation. Participants were informed they could withdraw from the study at any time, regardless of at which phase they were, without any penalty. They were also informed about the procedure before the interviews. They were aware of what would happen and how the interview would be recorded.

ORCID iD

Nouf Abdullah Alsudairy

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared for ethical/privacy reasons.

References

Abbye-Taylor

(2013). Characteristics of successful co-teaching experiences in classrooms with general and special education students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North central, Arizona (Order No. 3578568)]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (1501712081).

Albahusain

(2022). A Co-teaching training program’s impact on female student teachers: Department of Special Education, King Saud University. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221079883.

Arthaud

T. J.

Aram

R. J.

Breck

S. E.

Doelling

J. E.

Bushrow

K. M.

(2007). Developing collaboration skills in pre-service teachers: A partnership between general and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 1–12.

Beachum

(2016). Co-teaching as an effective instructional delivery model in secondary schools [PhD dissertation, Wingate University].

Berliner

D. C.

(2002). Comment: Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.

Bond

S. P. G.

(2011). Effects of a co-teaching teaming program on the instructional practices of high school general and special education teachers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland].

Bouck

E. C.

(2007). Co-teaching … not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 51(2), 46–51.

Brendle

Lock

Piazza

(2017). A study of co-teaching identifying effective implementation strategies. International Journal of Special Education, 32(3), 538–550.

Brown

N. B.

Howerter

C. S.

Morgan

J. J.

(2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching work. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(2), 84–91.

10.

Bundock

Rolf

Hornberger

Halliday

(2023). Improving access to general education via co-teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms: An evaluation of Utah’s professional development initiative. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 42(2), 78–93.

11.

Chapple

J. W.

(2009). Co-teaching: From obstacles to opportunities. Ashland University.

12.

Cramer

Liston

Nevin

Thousand

(2010). Co-Teaching in urban secondary school districts to meet the needs of all teachers and learners: Implications for teacher education reform. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(2), 59–76.

13.

Damore

S. J.

Murray

(2009). Urban elementary school teachers' perspectives regarding collaborative teaching practices. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508321007

14.

Dikkers

Lewis

Whiteside

(2015). Blended learning for students with disabilities: The North Carolina Virtual Public School’s co-teaching model. In Rice

M. F.

(Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online-Advances in research on teaching (pp. 67–93). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

15.

Drelick

A. M.

Damiani

M. L.

Elder

B. C.

(2024). One teach-one tech: An emerging Co-teaching strategy. Journal of Special Education Technology, 39(2), 298–305.

16.

Dugan

Letterman

(2008). Student appraisals of collaborative teaching. College Teaching, 56(1), 11–15.

17.

Elliott

J. C.

(2017). The evolution from traditional to online professional development: A review. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(3), 114–125.

18.

Faraclas

(2015). The effect of professional development training on the instructional behaviors of middle and high school co-teachers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Columbia].

19.

Faraclas

(2018). A professional development training model for improving co-teaching performance. International Journal of Special Education, 33(3), 524–540.

20.

Friend

Barron

(2016). Co-teaching as a special education service: Is classroom collaboration a sustainable practice? Educational Practice and Reform, 2(1), 1–12.

21.

Friend

Cook

(Eds.). (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (6th ed.). Merrill.

22.

Friend

Cook

(Eds.). (2017). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (8th ed.). Pearson.

23.

Gallo-Fox

Scantlebury

(2016). Coteaching as professional development for cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 191–202.

24.

Gebhardt

Schwab

Krammer

Gegenfurtner

(2015). General and special education teachers’ perceptions of teamwork in inclusive classrooms at elementary and secondary schools. Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 129–146.

25.

González-Pérez

L. I.

Ramírez-Montoya

M. S.

(2022). Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493.

26.

Gotshall

Stefanou

(2011). The effects of on-going consultation for accommodating students with disabilities on teacher self-efficacy and learned helplessness. Education,132(2), 321–331.

27.

Guise

Ambroso

Paulding

Moore

Hegg

(2023). Preservice teacher reflection on coteaching implementation: Are we meeting the benchmarks? Journal of Teacher Education, 74(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221105807

28.

Gürgür

Uzuner

(2010). A phenomenological analysis of the views on co-teaching applications in the inclusion classroom. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 10(1), 311–331. https://search-proquest-com.sdl.idm.oclc.org/docview/236989516?accountid=142908

29.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

(2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(6), 654–678.

30.

Holmqvist

Lelinge

(2021). Teachers’ collaborative professional development for inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(5), 819–833.

31.

Hoppey

Mickelson

A. M.

(2017). Partnership and coteaching: Preparing preservice teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Action in Teacher Education, 39(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2016.1273149

32.

Hsia

L. H.

Lin

Y. N.

Hwang

G. J.

(2021). A creative problem solving-based flipped learning strategy for promoting students’ performing creativity, skills and tendencies of creative thinking and collaboration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1771–1787.

33.

Hurd

Weilbacher

(2018). Developing and using a co-teaching model within a middle level education program. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 23(1), 1–27.

34.

Indelicato

(2014). How to build an effective co-teaching relationship between teachers [Unpublished master thesis, Dominican University of California].

35.

Jeannite

M. M.

(2018). Effects of co-teaching on academic performance among disabled and non-disabled students at the secondary level. St. Thomas University.

36.

Kamens

M. W.

Susko

J. P.

Elliott

J. S.

(2013). Evaluation and supervision of co-teaching: A study of administrator practices in New Jersey. NASSP Bulletin, 97(2), 166–190.

37.

Kennedy

M. M.

(1999). Approximations to indicators of student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(4), 345–363.

38.

Lock

Clancy

Lisella

Rosenau

Ferreira

Rainsbury

(2016). The lived experiences of instructors co-teaching in higher education. Brock Education Journal, 26(1).

39.

Magiera

Zigmond

(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 and Practice, 20(2), 79–85.

40.

Malone

D. M.

Gallagher

P. A.

(2010). Special education teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of teamwork. Remedial and Special Education, 31(5), 330–342.

41.

McDuffie

K. A.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2009). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 493–510.

42.

McGlothin

(2023). General Education Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Collaboration and Co-Teaching in Inclusion Classrooms [Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University].

43.

McKenna

J. W.

Brigham

Mitchell

Parenti

(2024). Special education experiences of parents/guardians of children with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Child Care in Practice, 1–26.

44.

Miller

(2013). The effects of professional development on co-teaching for special and general education teachers and students. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 2(1), n1.

45.

Mulholland

O'Connor

. (2016). Collaborative classroom practice for inclusion: Perspectives of classroom teachers and learning support/resource teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), 1070–1083.

46.

Norwich

Nash

(2011). Preparing teachers to teach children with special educational needs and disabilities: The significance of a national PGCE development and evaluation project for inclusive teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(1), 2–11.

47.

Popova

Evans

D. K.

Breeding

M. E.

Arancibia

(2018). Teacher professional development around the world. World Bank Paper Series, 65.

48.

Rabin

(2020). Co-teaching: Collaborative and caring teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 135–147.

49.

Randall

(2011). Being together with advancing literacy and supporting content area instruction through co-teaching in social studies [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].

50.

Reinke

W. M.

Stormont

Herman

K. C.

Puri

Goel

(2011). Supporting children's mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs roles and barriers. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 1–13.

51.

Reitano

Sim

(2010). The value of video in professional development to promote teacher reflective practices. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(3), 214–224.

52.

Reyes

(2010). A descriptive study of collaboration in general & special education in tow school districts: Perceptions of the principals & teachers toward sustainability [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Edgewood College (UMI No. 3472936)].

53.

Russomano

(2017). The effectiveness of professional development for general education and special education teachers in a co-teaching setting [Unpublished Master dissertation, University of Caldwell (Order No. 10267553)].

54.

Seabrooks-Blackmore

B Patterson

. (2013). Preservice teachers in special education: Using Edublogs for Transition Collaboration. Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 7–14.

55.

Shina

(2019). Understanding of knowledge sharing: Academics’ perspective. Asian Journal of Research in Education and Social Sciences, 1(2), 53–61.

56.

Shippen

Flores

Crites

Patterson Ramsey

Houchins

Jolivette

(2011). Classroom structure and teacher efficacy in serving students with disabilities: Differences in elementary and secondary teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 36–44.

57.

Smith

(2017). A qualitative inquiry of elementary co-teachers’ perceptions of professional development for co-teaching [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Capella].

58.

Solis

Vaughn

Swanson

Mcculley

(2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 498–510.

59.

Stormont

Thomas

C. N.

van Garderen

(2012). Introduction to the special issue: Building capacity to improve student outcomes through collaboration: Current issues and innovative approaches. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 399–401.

60.

Strogilos

King-Sears

M. E.

Tragoulia

Voulagka

Stefanidis

(2023). A meta-synthesis of co-teaching students with and without disabilities. Educational Research Review, 38, 100–504.

61.

Strogilos

Stefanidis

Tragoulia

(2016). Co-teachers’ attitudes towards planning and instructional activities for students with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(3), 344–359.

62.

Sundqvist

Björk-Åman

Ström

(2023). Co-teaching during teacher training periods: Experiences of Finnish special education and general education teacher candidates. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(1), 20–34.

63.

Turkich

Greive

Cozens

P. M.

(2014). Transferring educational theories and knowledge using a co-teaching mentor model: A discipline-appropriate approach. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 11(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.11.3.6

64.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

65.

Yates

C. A.

(2018). Co-teaching: Loss of Professional Space from the Perspectives of Special Education and General Education Teachers [Doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific].

Effects of a Training Program to Improve Co-Teaching and Collaboration Skills for In-Service Teachers of Special and General Education

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Co-Teaching

Collaboration

Teachers’ Training

Relevant Studies

Methods

Design

Participants

Professional Training Programme

Data Collection Tools

Co-Teaching Knowledge Test

Collaboration Skills Scale

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Co-Teaching Knowledge

Collaboration Skills

Conclusion

Implications

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

Informed Consent

ORCID iD

Data Availability

References