Through the use of a four-part experimental design, this study examined the effects of a collaborative instructional model in inclusive secondary classes in which students with mild disabilities and low-achieving students were enrolled. Measures included the instructional actions of teachers, teacher satisfaction with the instructional model, student engagement, student use of four strategic skills, and student performance on content tests. After receiving training in the model, teachers' mediation of student learning and their involvement in instructional roles increased over baseline levels. Teachers were satisfied with the model as well. Mixed results on the student measures suggest that prevailing assumptions about the effectiveness of collaborative instruction in inclusive secondary classes need to be reexamined. Study findings have implications for educational policy, teacher training, and classroom practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsL.CessnaK.FriendM. (1992, October). Co-teaching: Honoring uniqueness and creating unify. Paper presented at the Fourteenth International Conference of the Council for Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
2.
BaerD.M.WolfM.M.RisleyT.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.
3.
BauwensJ.HourcadeJ.J.FriendM. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 17–22.
4.
BerlinerD.C. (1988). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In MeyenE.L.VergasonG.A.WhelanR.J. (Eds.), Effective instructional strategies for exceptional children (pp. 7–31). Denver: Love Publishing.
5.
BoudahD.J. (1991). Collaboration between regular education and Chapter 1 programs. Preventing School Failure, 36, 8–12.
BoudahD.J.SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D.LenzB.K.CookB.(in press). Student-centered or content-centered? A case study of a middle school teacher's lesson planning and instruction in inclusive classes. Teacher Education and Special Education.
8.
BulgrenJ.A.SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11 (1), 3–17.
9.
CampbellD.T.StanleyJ.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
CubanL. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1880–1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
DemingW.T. (1992). The new economics for industry, education, government. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
12.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple matter. The Elementary School Journal, 94 (2), 153–167.
13.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.LenzB.K. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part I. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17 (2), 108–117.
14.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.LenzB.K.EllisE. (1984). Academic and cognitive interventions for LD adolescents: Part II. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17 (3), 170–179.
15.
DettmerP.ThurstonL.P.DyckN. (1993). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
16.
EllisE.S.LenzB.K. (1990). Techniques for mediating content-area learning: Issues and research. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22 (9), 1–14.
17.
FriendM.CookL. (1992a). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. New York: Longman.
18.
FriendM.CookL. (1992b). The new mainstreaming. Instructor, 101 (7), 30–36.
19.
FuchsD.FuchsL.S. (1992). Limitations of a feel-good approach to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3 (2), 93–97.
20.
FuchsD.FuchsL.S.DulanJ.RobertsH.FernstromP. (1992). Where is the research on consultation effectiveness?Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3, 151–174.
21.
Givens-OlgeL.ChristB.A.ColmanM.King-StreitS.WilsonL. (1989). Data-based consultation case study: Adaptations of researched best practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 46–51.
22.
Givens-OlgeL.ChristB.A.IdolL. (1991). Collaborative consultation: The San Juan Unified School District project. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2 (3), 267–284.
23.
GreenwoodC.R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57 (6), 521–535.
24.
HalesR.M.CarlsonL.B. (1992). Issues and trends in special education. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Federal Resource Center for Special Education.
25.
HarrisA.M.CancelliA.A. (1993). Academic engagement of students with learning disabilities in mainstream classrooms: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 4 (4), 385–389.
26.
HudsonF. (1990). Research reports for Kansas City, Kansas public schools, division of special education on CTM-collaborative teaching model at Stony Point South Elementary School, 1989–90. Kansas City: University of Kansas Medical Center, Department of Special Education.
JohnsonL.J.PugachM.C.HammitteeD.J. (1988). Barriers to effective special education consultation. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 41–47.
29.
KnackendoffelE.A.RobinsonS.M.DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1992). Collaborative problem solving: Team teaching series. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.
30.
LenzB.K.DeshlerD.D. (1990). Principles of strategies instruction as the basis of effective preservice teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13 (2), 82–95.
31.
LenzB.K.SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1991, April). Planning in the face of academic diversity: Whose questions should we be answering? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
32.
LenzK.BulgrenJ.BoudahD. (1992, October). Research on how regular secondary teachers plan for inclusion and individualization. Paper presented at the Council for Learning Disabilities Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
33.
NevinA.ThousandJ.Paolucci-WhitcombP.VillaR. (1990). Collaborative consultation: Empowering public school personnel to provide heterogeneous schooling for all— or, Who rang that bell?Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1, 41–67.
34.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track—How schools create inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
PeckC.A.KillenC.C.BaumgartD. (1989). Increasing implementation of special education instruction in mainstream preschools: Direct and generalized effects of nondirective consultation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2 (2), 197–210.
36.
PhillipsV.McCulloughL. (1990). Consultation-based programming: Instituting the collaborative ethic in schools. Exceptional Children, 56, 291–304.
37.
ReeveP.T.HallahanD.P. (1994). Practical questions about collaboration between general and special educators. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26 (7), 1–12.
38.
SalkindN.J. (1991). Exploring research. New York: Macmillan.
39.
ScanlonD.J.SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in an inclusive classroom?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11 (1), 41–57.
40.
SchulteA.C.OsborneS.S.McKinneyJ.D. (1990). Academic outcomes for students with learning disabilities in consultation and resource programs. Exceptional Children, 57 (2), 162–171.
41.
SchumakerJ.B.ClarkF.L. (1990). Achieving implementation of strategy instruction through effective in-service education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13 (2), 105–116.
42.
SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1988). Implementing the regular education initiative in secondary schools: A different ball game. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 36–42.
43.
SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for students with LD: Results of a programmatic research effort. In WongB.Y.L. (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 22–46). New York: Springer-Verlag.
44.
SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D.McKnightP.C. (1991). Teaching routines for content areas at the secondary level. In StoverG.ShinnM.R.WalkerH.M. (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 473–494). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
45.
SelfH.BenningA.MarstonD.MagnussonD. (1991). Cooperative teaming project: A model for students at risk. Exceptional Children, 58, 26–34.
46.
SengeP.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
47.
ThurowL. (1992, April 26). A new kind of world war. Kansas City Star, pp. 1, 8.
48.
TindalG.ShinnM.R.WalzL.GermannG. (1987). Mainstream consultation in secondary settings: The Pine County model. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 94–106.
49.
TofflerA. (1990). Powershift. New York: Bantam Publishing.
50.
TorgesenJ.K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 45–52.
51.
U. S. Department of Education. (1992). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Fourteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs.
52.
U. S. Department of Education. (1993). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Fifteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs.
53.
U. S. Department of Education. (1994). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Sixteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs.
54.
VaccaJ.L.PadakN.D. (1990). Reading consultants as classroom collaborators. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1, 99–107.
55.
WangM.C.BirchJ.W. (1984). Comparison of a full-time mainstreaming program and a resource room approach. Exceptional Children, 51, 33–40.
56.
WestJ.F.IdolL. (1990). Collaborative consultation in the education of mildly handicapped and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education, 11 (1), 22–31.
57.
WittrockM.C. (1986). Students' thought processes. In WittrockM.C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 297–314). New York: Macmillan Publishers.
58.
ZigmondN.BakerJ. (1990). Mainstream experiences for learning disabled students (Project MELD): Preliminary report. Exceptional Children, 57 (2), 176–185.
59.
ZigmondN.FulmerD.VoloninoV.WooleryR.BeanR. (1993). Students with LD in elementary mainstream social studies: What are they doing? What are they learning? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
60.
ZigmondN.SansoneJ.MillerS.E.DonahoeK.A.KohnkeR. (1986). Teaching learning disabled students at the secondary level: What the research says to teachers. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1 (2), 108–115.
