Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Prior Relationships and Co~Teaching
Transcript of Prior Relationships and Co~Teaching
Results & Analysis
Implications for Teaching
Reflections on this thesis:
Picking a topic was easy!
Finding information on co-teaching was easy.
Finding information on types of teacher relationships was not easy.
Had to learn google docs for the survey, will be very useful
My hypothesis was supported by the data
Administration can use the data to form co~teaching dyads.
Likert Survey Results
6 Models of Co-Teaching
One Teach, One Observe
One teacher is responsible for the planning and delivery of the lesson
The other teacher is responsible for observations and the collection of data
One Teach, One Assist
One teacher plans and delivers the instruction
The other monitors the classroom, assists students, repeats, clarifies and provides real world examples during instruction
Both teachers involved in the teaching
They each have their own responsibilities
Students move from station to station
Teachers divide the class in half
The same lesson is taught by both teachers
Teachers can customize their delivery
Class is separated into 2 groups based on need
Special education teacher will pre and re-teach skills learned to her students
The smaller group might go to a quieter room.
Both teachers are responsible for the delivery of the lesson
Co-planning occurs regularly
Prior & Co-Teaching Relationship Status
By Joanna Moschetti, Advised by: Dr. Tracy Reilly~Lawson
6 Co-teaching Models
If the special education teacher is the only one observing they might deem their role as being non-meaningful in the classroom
If this is the only model used in the classroom the special education teacher's role could be reduced to that of an assistant or tutor, not a collaborator
If the teachers are not co-planning well and the stations are built on one another the classroom will not be cohesive
Differentiation of instruction
When teachers do not share plans, the classroom is not
This model is very successful in the classroom since students receive a better instruction and teachers are respectful of each other
Special Education History
Brown Vs. Board of Education (1954)
Elementary & Secondary Education Act (1965)
Public Law 94-142: The Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA ~ 1975)
Individuals Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ~ 1990, 1997)
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB ~ 2001)
Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act (IDEIA ~ 2004)
High Lights of Special Education:
The purpose of this study was to examine whether the prior relationship, both professional and social, between teachers affected their new co-teaching roles. Prior relationship was defined as the type of work relationship (close friend/same educational philosophy, close friend/different educational philosophy, good colleagues, bad colleagues, or new colleagues) and the type of interpersonal relationships (positive, negative, or neutral) the teachers had. General and Special Education teachers from a New Jersey middle school were surveyed on their last three (3) co-teaching collaborations. The teachers collaborated in an academic area (English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, or Social Studies). This was an anonymous online survey sent to middle school teachers via e-mail. The survey contained Likert scale, multiple choice, and open ended questions. Several teachers were also interviewed for additional information. The (mathematical) means from all the answers provided by both General and Special Education teachers were calculated and tabulated. The results indicated that indeed a positive prior relationship does affect the current co-teaching relationship (11.1% increase). If teachers were relative strangers in many situations new friendships did blossom (32.1% of the relationships improved). When the teachers had a negative prior association their relationship did not improve during their collaboration (numbers stayed the same). These results also supported the conclusions of previous studies identifying prior personal relationships as important factors for the future success of new co-teaching relationships.
Open Ended & Interview Results
Some special education teachers felt like glorified aides in the classroom
Having a a positive relationship and a similar teaching philosophy was important
Most agreed that a positive relationship between teachers improved the overall function of the classroom
A survey was sent out via google docs to 69 middle school teachers in a typical suburban town in Northern New Jersey with co-teaching experience
General Education Teachers (45) who taught math, science, social studies and English
Special Education Teachers (22) who co-taught in the same subjects
Three data collection methods were utilized in this study:
Likert scale study
Multiple choice questions
Open ended questions on the teachers' experiences on co-teaching
Resources & References:
Good Colleagues (Work Associates)
Social relationship only in school
Positive relationship, lacks personal connections: norming stage
Close Friends/Same Educational Philosophy
Relationship in and out of school
Support, affection, honesty
Positive relationship: norming stage
Close Friends/Different Educational Philosophy
Social relationship out of school
Support, loyalty, affection & honesty
Differences on teaching style: norming or storming stage
Co-Teaching Relationship Status
When analyzing both charts (Figure 1 & 2) one can observe:
The positive relationships increased during/after the teachers' collaboration
The negative relationships remained the same
The neutral relationships decreased once the teachers co-taught
Deduction: Teachers gain friendships when paired with a positive or neutral relationship teachers
Likert survey results complemented the results of the charts
Teachers were happy with their co-teaching relationships (80.3%)
They felt their relationships were based on mutual respect, loyalty, and support (82.3%)
Communication was honest and open (87.2%)
Deduction: Most teachers were in a positive relationship
Get approval for survey from principal/BOE
Send questionnaire to staff via google docs
Interview general and special education staff who volunteered
Ensures validity and credibility of data
Can be accomplished by collecting and analyzing various types of data
Gaps are filled in by the various methods if only one method was used
All methods support the findings
In the classroom:
Positive prior relationships:
All students in the classroom thrive, especially students with disabilities
Negative prior relationships:
Students do not thrive as much as they should
Neutral prior relationships:
Many teachers make it work and the students thrive
“Co-Teaching is defined as:
A service delivery mechanism
Two or more professionals with equivalent licensure and employment status are the participants in co-teaching.
Shared instructional responsibility and accountability for a shared classroom"
Marilyn Friend, 2007
Austin, V. (2001). Teacher's beliefs about co-teaching.
Remedial and Special Education,
Cann, A. (2004). Rated importance of personal qualities across four relationships.
The Journal of Social Psychology
, 144(3), 322 - 334.
Cook, L., & Friend M. (1995). Co-teaching: guidelines for creating effective practices. F
ocus of Exceptional Children
, 28(3), 1-22.
Friend M., & Cook L. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Esteves, K. J., & Rao, S. (2008). The evolution of special education. National Association of Elementary Principals, (Nov-Dec).
Friend M., & Cook L. (2013). Interactions: Collaborations Skills for School Professionals. New York:Pearson Education, Inc.
Kohler-Evans, P. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids. Education, 127(2), 260-264.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260 - 270.
Murawski, W., & Dieker, L. (2008). 50 ways to keep your co-teacher (strategies for before, during, and after co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4), 40 - 48.
Ormond, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners. (6th ed., p. 162). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall
Pratt, S. (2014). Achieving symbiosis: Working through challenges found in co-teaching to achieve effective co-teaching relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41(July), 1 - 12. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.006
Sileo, J. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 32 - 38.
Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & Mcculley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 498 - 510.
Volovino, V., & Zigmond, N. (2007). Promoting research-based practices through inclusion. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 291 - 300.
Yell, M. (2012). The law and special education (3rd ed.). New York City: Pearson Education, Inc.
The interpersonal relationship of teachers entering a co-teaching assignment influences their success in the classroom.
When co-teachers base their relationship on mutual respect, honesty, good communication, and loyalty students benefit.
When they enter a co-teaching relationship as relative strangers, most will end up happy with the assignment.
Students with disabilities will especially be successful.
When co-teachers have issues and do not get along, students with disabilities will be less successful.
If teachers enter the co-teaching assignment with negative feelings, their relationship does not improve when they work together.
The findings of this action research are in agreement with previous studies.
Triangulation of Data:
The purpose of this study was to examine whether the prior relationship, both professional and social, between teachers affects their new Co-Teaching roles. Prior relationship is defined as positive (mutual respect, support), negative (difficult, not supportive), and neutral (new relationship).
Does a prior relationship between teachers affect their opinion on their subsequent co-teaching roles? The hypothesis was that teachers in a mutually respectful relationship support each other and have the most positive opinion on their new Co-Teaching roles.
Unwillingness to share plans and materials will cause problems between the two teachers
Types of Work Relationships
Social Relationship in school only; limited by choice
Due to former bad experience or personality traits
Little social interaction
Neither positive or negative; neutral
Relationship is in the forming stage
Types of Interpersonal Relationships
Relationship is based on respect, support, loyalty, affection, and honesty
Each teacher becomes a better educator and person
Communication problem and misunderstandings exist
Staff splitting may occur
Negative feelings towards each other are a result
Benefits of the classroom are limited
Either a relationship has not been established or one is a new hire
Much discussion needs to happen prior to their working relationship becoming successful
Consent form to ensure confidentiality
Prior Relationship Status
Co-Teaching Models Used
Co-Teaching Model Used
Results from the survey indicate that teachers utilize the OneTeach/One Assist model the most in the classroom
There is no common planning time in this model
Teachers longed to use the Team Teaching model according to the open ended responses and the interviews
Lack of planning time, subject matter knowledge and similar teaching styles prohibit use of the Team Teaching model
A positive relationship encourages it
Likert Survey Results