81 MD6 WK10 DIS

Unique1961

wk10rescource.pdf

Home >Education homework help >81 MD6 WK10 DIS

Walden University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Stephanie Sullivan

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by

the review committee have been made.

Review Committee

Dr. Dawn DiMarzo, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty

Dr. Marcia Griffiths-Prince, Committee Member, Education Faculty

Dr. James Valadez, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

Walden University

2014

Abstract

Collaborative Practices Between General and Special Educators

in Inclusive Classrooms

Stephanie Sullivan

EDS, Walden University, 2011

MS, Alcorn State University, 1998

BS, Alcorn State University, 1996

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University

January 2014

Abstract

Some high school inclusion teachers who co-teach in English classes do not have

adequate time to plan lessons for students with disabilities, which may prevent teachers

from collaborating effectively. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to

investigate and describe how general and special educators collaborate on planning

weekly lessons that address how special education students can meet state-mandated

benchmarks for achievement. The framework was based on inclusive practices for

teacher collaboration for students with disabilities, federal legislation related to students

with disabilities, analysis of coteaching, coteaching approaches, and inclusion in order to

promote student achievement. The research questions concerned general and special

education teachers’ perceptions of the need for collaborative practices for effectively

meeting the needs of students with disabilities in inclusive classroom settings on a

secondary level. Qualitative data was collected from 5 teachers, 2 special educators, 2

general educators, and 1 administrator using 1-on-1 interviews and surveys. This study

uses analyzed data from the MSATP English 2 assessment. Data were triangulated from

teacher interviews, surveys, and codes to identify themes. The participants stressed the

importance of teacher collaboration in inclusion classrooms. A project called Teacher

Collaboration Program was developed by the researcher to assist teachers in

incorporating inclusion practices to meet the needs of special education students. This

study has the potential to promote positive social change through promoting collaborative

rapport among general and special educators and providing students with disabilities

opportunities to maximize their educational potential.

Collaborative Practices Between General and Special Educators

in Inclusive Classrooms

Stephanie Sullivan

EDS, Walden University, 2011

MS, Alcorn State University, 1998

BS, Alcorn State University, 1996

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Teacher Leadership

Walden University

January 2014

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3630993

Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3630993

Dedication

I am elated to say that all praise, honor, and all glory go to God who gave me the

courage, strength, and integrity to stay focused on my goals. Without His help, this

accomplishment could not have been possible, but with Him I know all things are made

possible. This paper is dedicated to my husband, Pastor Otis B. Sullivan, and my two

girls: Summer and Skyelar Sullivan. They are my precious jewels and my motivators for

all of my endeavors. As a result of this great accomplishment, they both want to become

doctors: a pediatrician and a veterinarian respectfully. Honor goes to my parents who

pushed me into higher grounds in education by motivating me to be the very best that I

can be. High praise goes to my 10 siblings who have influenced me to keep moving

forward without losing focus of my dreams. Such an outstanding accomplishment could

not be made possible without your love, support, sacrifices, and understanding that you

have shown during my time of dedication to the field of education. I also would like to

give honor to my first chairperson, Dr. Patricia Brock, who gave me a great start in the

doctoral program in 2011. Thanks for all of your input and support. Special thanks to the

Board of Education for giving me permission to conduct this research in the district at the

high school. I want to give a shout out to an administrator in my school district by the

name of Dr. Derek Morgan who was a local mentor as well. Again, I want to give the

highest praise, glory, and honor to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for His Power and

His Might that has caused me to rise above the challenges of my past looking for a

brighter future. Last, but not least, I want to shout out to all of the faculty and staff of my

Walden family for all of your educational, financial, technical, and distance support that

you have provided the past 2 years while I have attended Walden pursuing my doctoral

degree. This could not have been done without your hearts, minds, and souls. May God

bless each of you as you keep promoting social change around the globe: locally,

nationally, and internationally.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Patricia Brock for getting me off to a great start in the

doctoral program. I would also like to acknowledge my new chairperson, Dr. Dawn

DiMarzo, for her words of encouragement through my journey of higher education, and

my project study methodologist, Dr. Marcia Griffiths-Prince, for providing positive

feedback and support. My gratitude also goes out to the URR, Dr. James Valadez, for

motivating me to take my proposal to the next level.

Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi

Section 1: The Problem ........................................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

Definition of the Problem ..............................................................................................1

Rationale ........................................................................................................................6

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level ........................................................... 6

Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature ..................................... 9

Definitions......................................................................................................................9

Significance..................................................................................................................11

Guiding/Research Question .........................................................................................11

Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................12

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................13

Literature Review of Problem ......................................................................................14

Analysis of Coteaching ................................................................................................19

Six Coteaching Approaches .................................................................................. 20

Collaboration......................................................................................................... 20

Analysis of Inclusion ...................................................................................................21

Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................22

Implications..................................................................................................................24

Summary ......................................................................................................................24

Section 2: The Methodology ..............................................................................................25

Introduction ..................................................................................................................25

Research Design and Approach ...................................................................................26

Setting and Sample/Participants ..................................................................................29

Setting ................................................................................................................... 29

Participants ............................................................................................................ 29

Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................31

Data Collection ............................................................................................................32

Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................33

Interpretation of Results ...............................................................................................34

Survey Findings Interpretation ....................................................................................35

Summary of the Findings .............................................................................................43

Implications for Social Change ....................................................................................44

Recommendations ........................................................................................................46

Research Findings ........................................................................................................47

Summary ......................................................................................................................48

Section 3: The Project ........................................................................................................50

Introduction ..................................................................................................................50

Literature Review.........................................................................................................50

Description ...................................................................................................................53

Goals ..........................................................................................................................55

Rationale ......................................................................................................................56

Access ..........................................................................................................................58

iii

Analyze ........................................................................................................................58

Prioritize .......................................................................................................................60

Plan ..........................................................................................................................62

Implementation ............................................................................................................63

Monitor ........................................................................................................................64

Potential Resources and Existing Supporters ..............................................................65

Funding ................................................................................................................. 65

Time ................................................................................................................... 66

People and Location .............................................................................................. 66

Potential Barriers .........................................................................................................67

Time Restraints ..................................................................................................... 67

Scheduling Conflicts ............................................................................................. 68

Secondary Student Attendance ............................................................................. 68

Proposal for Implementation and Barriers ...................................................................69

Approaches 1 and 2 ............................................................................................... 75

Approaches 3 and 4 ............................................................................................... 76

Approaches 5 and 6 ............................................................................................... 77

Roles and Responsibilities of Students’ and Others ....................................................78

Project Evaluation ........................................................................................................79

Formative Evaluation ...................................................................................................79

Rationale for Project Evaluation ..................................................................................81

Implications Including Social Change .........................................................................81

Local Community ........................................................................................................82

Far Reaching ................................................................................................................83

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................85

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions .............................................................................86

Introduction ..................................................................................................................86

Project Strengths ..........................................................................................................87

Recommendations for Remediation of Limitations .....................................................88

Scholarship ...................................................................................................................90

Project Development and Evaluation ...........................................................................90

Leadership and Change ................................................................................................91

Analysis of Self as Scholar ..........................................................................................92

Analysis of Self as Practitioner ....................................................................................92

Analysis of Self as Project Developer .........................................................................94

Discussion ....................................................................................................................95

The Project’s Potential Impact on Social Change........................................................95

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research .................................96

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................97

References ..........................................................................................................................98

Appendix A: The Project .................................................................................................109

Appendix B: Interview Questions for Special Education Teachers .................................126

Appendix C: Interview Questions for General Education Teachers ................................128

Appendix D: Interview Questions for Administrator ......................................................130

Appendix E: Consent Form .............................................................................................132

Appendix F: Research Certificate ....................................................................................135

Appendix G: Research Certificate ...................................................................................138

Appendix H: Teacher’s Attitude Toward Inclusion Scale ...............................................139

Appendix I: Test Data From Mississippi Assessment .....................................................144

Appendix J: The Five Identifying Themes for Coteaching .............................................150

List of Tables

Table 1. Six Approaches to Coteaching Implementation Timetable: Approaches 1 and 2

................................................................................................................................... 72

Table 2. Six Approaches to Coteaching Implementation Timetable: Approaches 3 and 4

................................................................................................................................... 73

Table 3. Six Approaches to Coteaching Implementation Timetable: Approaches 4 and 5

................................................................................................................................... 74

Section 1: The Problem

Introduction

Like many other schools in the United States, the community research partner,

XYZ high school, has experienced difficulty with teacher collaboration between general

education teachers and special education teachers in inclusive classrooms. Inclusion

classes comprised of students with disabilities must meet state mandates, regardless of

ability level. There is little time for teachers to plan due to scheduling conflicts and large

amounts of paperwork. General and special educators of students with disabilities do not

have adequate time and training to collaborate to determine how to best teach students

with disabilities in an inclusion classroom.

The communicative aspect of collaborative coteaching allows teachers to comply

with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001) act, a federal mandate that promotes

inclusive education. Under the NCLB act, U.S. schools struggle to create inclusive

educational experiences for students, despite prior federal mandates such as the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990, 2004). These federal mandated, along

with NCLB, promote the inclusion of students with disabilities as full participants in the

general education curriculum and will require more rigorous standards and uniform

assessment (Blair et al., 2010).

Definition of the Problem

At a local high school in a rural small town in Mississippi, many teachers are not

able to properly collaborate. NCLB (2002) mandates collaborative planning and

scheduling. The general and the special education teachers at XYZ high school have

experienced problems in adapting this mandate. The school district has had difficulty

getting students to score high on the state assessment, which is the Mississippi Subject

AreaTesting-2 (MSAT-2). The purpose of this study was to determine how teachers

collaborate effectively in order to promote student achievement.

At the local high school, administrators measure student achievement in a number

of ways. One of the ways that administrators determine student achievement is through

the Mississippi Subject Area Testing Program-II (SATP2), which consists of tests in

Algebra I, Biology I, English II, and U.S. History. The state requires that all students take

these courses for the first time are required to take the subject area tests. The state bases

graduation requirements on entrance into the ninth grade; all students with or without

disabilities must meet state-mandated achievements. According to the Mississippi

Department of Education (2009), achievement may vary from year to year due to

students’ performance from the previous year. Some teachers argue that students fail to

academically succeed due to the mandates for achievement (D. Dawson, personal

communication, December 7, 2011).

In addition to complex requirements, students retake the exam and must pass the

exam in order to receive a high school diploma. If the students fail, they are allowed to

retake the exam until they pass. The districts in Mississippi use the student roster and

summary of test results from the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years to

compare academic achievement. Approximately 132 students took the English II exam at

the XYZ high school (Mississippi Department of Education, 2011). Of those students, 53

general education students passed the exam. Only 10 special education students out of the

62 students who took the exam passed (Mississippi Department of Education, 2011). The

large number of students who fail the English II exam may be an indication that effective

collaboration may not be taking place within the classrooms at the school of interest.

If teachers coteach and collaborate effectively, the number of student failures may

decrease and student achievement may increase. A lack of collaboration between general

educators and special educators may have affected student failures. Collaboration has

characterized special education. This collaboration includes the creation of a close

working relationship with the parents over time (Friend & Cook, 2010). The collaborative

process involves two teachers who are certified in a subject area and the area of special

education. They both receive training to educate and meet the academic needs of all

students, especially students with special needs. Coteaching also involves making

accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities, such as adjusting the

test to fewer items and changing the test from essay to a multiple choice test. Testing

with a familiar teacher and sitting in front of the class would be considered making

modifications. These modifications and accommodations are just a few ways that

coteachers work together to effectively meet the needs of students with disabilities.

Friend (2010) indicated that interest in coteaching has grown. The NCLB (2002)

act contributed to this interest because it requires that all students, including those with

disabilities, have access to the general education curriculum, be taught by highly-

qualified teachers, and be included in professional accountability in terms of achievement

outcomes. Another factor is the increased emphasis on educating students in the least

restrictive environment, which is consistent with the reauthorization of IDEA (2004;

Friend, 2010).

Teachers must collaborate with one another to effectively meet the academic

needs of students with disabilities. Communication between general and special

educators is a mandate for the teachers at XYZ School so that they will understand how

to assist students in meeting all of their educational requirements. Both parties must plan,

implement, and communicate to the students what they must accomplish in order to

succeed in the inclusion classrooms. These two professionals must comply with the state-

mandated curriculum and with the students’ individualized education plans (IEPs) to

ensure that students are meeting requirements.

The challenge of coteaching lies in its design, implementations, and evaluation.

Coteachers impact on a variety of factors, such as professionals’ perceptions as well as

student achievement and other outcomes (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, &

Shamberger, 2010). From a conceptualization of what coteaching is to the logistical and

other challenges identified in coteaching programs, these classrooms partnerships

illustrate the potential and complexity of collaboration (Friend et al., 2010).

Some teachers do not have adequate time to effectively coteach. At the local

school, educators are told that proper planning prevents poor performance, but educators

are allotted a limited amount of time to plan (D. Morgan, personal communication,

August 7, 2011). This limited allotment is a problem for general education teachers as

well as special education teachers. The time that it takes to sit, listen, provide feedback,

and devise a plan for success is more than educators have available to them. Hence, at the

study site, teacher planning is done in bits and pieces, in passing, on bus duty, during

time of sign-in and sign-out, and after school hours (B. Eiland, personal communication,

August 10, 2012).

Often, teacher educators have not prepared teacher candidates for the personal and

professional challenges of secondary inclusion instructions (Deiker, 2007). Teachers in

the district of study have stressed their concern about how collaborative planning is

difficult to implement, due to other required responsibilities in the classroom (D. Jones,

personal communication, September 10, 2012). Many teachers believe that general

education and special education teachers desire to make planning a priority in order to

make instructional practices more feasible. Some teachers at the local school are aware

that planning is mandatory, but do not have time available to plan due to their workload

(C.Huff, personal communication, September 17, 2012).

In this qualitative study, I examined the collaborative practices of general and

special education teachers in Grades 9-12 inclusive classrooms at a local high school in

Mississippi. By interviewing special and general education teachers on a secondary level,

I used their input to gather information about how collaborative planning can be

implemented to meet the academic needs of students. The improved collaboration of

teachers may result in more teachers meeting the academic needs of students with

disabilities.

Rationale

The U.S. Department of Education (2006) noted that approximately 80% of

students with disabilities receive special education support in the mainstream classroom.

Due to this increase in test results, general education teachers are often required to

differentiate their instruction for students with documented disabilities and to share their

classroom with special education staff. These changes have generated varying attitudes

and beliefs among general and special education teachers regarding the implementation

of inclusion (Haider, 2008; Kalyva, Gojkovc, &Tsakinis, 2007; Murawski, 2005). A

general educator and a special educator in the school of study noted that they have

students in the inclusion program who have to be served, but do not have enough time to

plan to serve the students. Teacher collaboration cannot be effective due to scheduling

conflicts and a lack of time (D. Jones & A. Dawson, personal communication, December

2011). Gaining insight from these teachers and their experiences can be valuable to this

study.

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level

Administrators identified the school district of study as in need of improvement as

a result of low test scores during the school year 2008-2009 school years. If a school does

not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 2 consecutive years in the same areas

(reading, language arts, mathematics, or graduation/attendance rate), it is identified as in

need of improvement. The Mississippi Assessment Accountability Reporting System

(MAARS) contains the scores and other pertinent records from the state.

According to the reports, 132 students tested for the English II exam for the 2008-

2009 school years. Only 64 general education students passed the exam, and 10 special

education students passed. Seventy three general education English II students

participated in testing for the 2009-2010 school year, and 49 students did succeed on the

exam. No special education students tested this particular year. Lastly, 79 English II

students tested for the 2010-2011 school year with 50 general education students passing

and seven special education students passing (Mississippi Office of Research and

Statistics, 2011). The test scores may indicate that collaboration among general and

special educators has been a problem in the inclusive classrooms.

Not all students with a disability are able to meet all of the requirements of a

standard high school diploma. Some students may not be able to work on grade-level or

pass the required courses for graduation. Generally, these students will be working

toward a special diploma (i.e., the Mississippi Occupational Diploma or a Certificate of

Completion; Mississippi Department of Education, 2012).

The school district of interest is seeking solutions that will promote student

achievement. Several professional development trainings conducted in the district to

provide an opportunity to address some of the concerns of the administrators and

teachers. School administrators require special and general education teachers to attend a

professional development session on the topic of collaborative teaching. Teachers’ main

concerns were related to finding the time for instructional planning. Teachers need to

create multiple means of engagement to enhance learning in the inclusion classroom

(Gore, 2010).

The local school of interest constructed a school improvement plan that was

approved by the Mississippi Department of Education. This plan consisted of a state

practice test as a pretest for students to determine strengths and weaknesses of individual

students in the area of vocabulary. Tutor provided instruction to students in areas of

weakness. The local school district implemented the school improvement plan through

the state practice tests, 9-week exams, and semester exams. Students used subject area

testing workbooks in English II classes as supplementary practice material and students

selected novels for reading during a school wide “Drop Everything and Read” time

allocation. Teachers provided students with computer lab assistance through

Odyssey/Compass Learning to help reinforce vocabulary skills taught in class by the

tutors. Teachers in English II used common planning to collaborate in lesson planning

and 9-weeks assessments. Also, teachers analyzed the results of assessments given to

students to determine strengths and weaknesses to drive further instruction. Professional

coaches worked with teachers in reading/language arts to assist teachers with best

practices in teaching strategies. These professionals gave teachers and principal high-

quality training to get the proper tools to bring the school back to a level of success.

Administrators sent out letters to parents and guardians to inform them that the

school of study was in need of improvement-Year 2. In this letter, the principal

encouraged parents to help create the school’s parent involvement policy, the school’s

roadmap to increasing parental involvement and building capacity among parents to help

their children achieve at high standards. The principal invited the parents to help write the

school’s school improvement plan with the goal of raising student achievement.

In this case study, I examined the collaborative practices between general and

special educators in inclusive classrooms by analyzing test scores from the 2008-2009

school years that resulted as in need of improvement. Furthermore, I made a comparison

between the 2008-2009 scores to the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years to

investigate if there were problems among these educators.

Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature

Pugach and Winn (2011) and Leatherman (2009) indicated that teams include

novice special educators whose members have different teaching styles of planning,

which can lead to a lack of success working together. In a study of mathematics and

collaboration, Van Gardenen, Scheuermann, Jackson, and Hampton (2009) and Pugach

and Winn noted that differing philosophical beliefs about instruction have to be

integrated productively if coteaching is to meet the needs of students. A barrier to

coteaching is a lack of adequate planning time. A lack of time to engage in

comprehensive planning affects the quality of collaboration, not only in terms of how

teachers apportion their instructional time during their instructional time during

coteachings (Leatherman, 2009), but also how they address behavior management issues

that may arise (Hang & Rabren, 2009). Not having enough time to plan together can

negatively affect the inclusion process. Coteachers need to know what students and skills

needs to be accommodated, and they need to know who needs extra time on certain tasks.

Definitions

Collaboration: Collaboration means working together toward a common goal

(Hammeken, 2007).

Coteaching: Coteaching is an approach that helps educators meet both IDEA and

NCLB mandates, and is defined as two or more people sharing responsibility for teaching

some or all of the students assigned to a classroom (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008).

Coteaching is two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or

blended group of students in a single physical space (Cook & Friend, 2009).

General education: The purpose of general education is to provide students with a

breadth of knowledge and skills that will enable them to contribute to a democratic

society (Johnson, 2010).

High-stakes testing: As mandated by NCLB (2002), high-stakes testing has two

fundamental characteristics. First, high-stakes testing applies to standardized exams and

not teacher-made exams. Second, high-stake tests include those tests created with the

goal of holdings teachers and/or students accountable (Nichols, 2008).

Inclusion: Inclusion is the practice of placing students with disabilities in the

general education classes (Friend & Shamberger, 2008).

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001): NCLB requires that all states annually

endorse a series of escalating consequences to be applied in the face of chronic test

underperformance (Nichols, 2008).

Special education: Special education is a term used to describe instruction that

meets the unique needs of a child who has a disability (Understanding Special Education,

2012). These services are provided by the public school system and are free of charge

(Understanding Special Education, 2012). Services can include instruction in the

classroom, at home, in hospitals, and institutions (Understanding Special Education,

2012).

Subject Area Testing Program (SATP-2): SATP-2 consists of tests in Algebra I,

Biology I, English II, and U. S. History. All students enrolled in these courses for the first

time are required to take the subject area tests. A student’s graduation requirements are

based on the year he or she enters the ninth grade.

Team teaching: Two or more teachers working together to develop, plan, and

teach a lesson (Hammeken, 2007).

Significance

This case study on the collaborative practices between general and special

education teachers in inclusive classrooms in Mississippi might benefit the local

community and influence the national educational system as well. In this study, I

revealed positive effects that resulted when general and special education teachers

collaborate in inclusive classrooms. Educators and administrators are often seeking

solutions to promote best practices. This study makes positive contributions by providing

information on best practices for inclusive classrooms in order for students with

disabilities to achieve academically. I used the findings of this study to enhance

collaborative practices for teachers who share the responsibility in inclusive classrooms.

Guiding/Research Question

These research questions were developed based on the purpose of the study.

1. What is done on a weekly basis to prepare for daily lessons that should

meet state benchmarks to promote student achievement?

2. What strategies teachers have adopted to meet the needs of the students

who have IEPs?

3. What skills are appropriate for teachers to use to help students with IEPs

meet requirements?

I addressed these questions by using a qualitative case study design. The data

were collected using observations, interviews, and record analysis (Hancock &

Algozzing, 2006). The research design will be discussed in more detail in the

methodology section.

Review of the Literature

The literature review in this study includes three main categories: the conceptual

framework related to the study, the local problem and the broader problem related to the

study, and the review of other elements that are related to collaborative practices in

inclusive classrooms. I accessed the Walden online library and University of Phoenix

online library to find sources for this literature review. I used databases such as ProQuest,

Sage, EBSCO host, Academic Search Premier, ERIC, and Google Scholar. In addition, I

included online website and books as sources for this study. The search terms used for the

included inclusion, general education, special education, collaborative planning, No

Child Left Behind Act, coteaching, and Subject Area Testing Program. I found 75 sources

that were relevant to this study. Most sources were peer-reviewed journal articles, topic-

related dissertations, and books.

Conceptual Framework

I built this research on the theoretical and conceptual ideas of collaboration and

inclusion theories. I examined whether inclusion would provide students with additional

individualized instruction that will meet the needs of students with disabilities. Because

inclusion should increase understanding and promote student achievement, the practice

should promote positive social change. Before investigating whether collaborative

practices increased student achievement, I will define the practices of collaboration and

inclusion.

Dewey (1997) advocated for collaboration through research on partner

collaboration. Dewey emphasized that children and teachers have no way of knowing

what the world will be like, so the child must be “given command of himself” ( p.78) and

the “individual who is to be educated is a social individual and society is an organic

union of individuals” (p. 79). Furthermore, Dewey argued that “that the school must

represent life, life as real and vital to the child as that which he carries on in the home, in

the neighborhood, or on the playground” (p. 79). Collaboration is an ongoing, continuous

process which “below the surface, [finds] the connections of any event or object” to seek

information about it (Dewey, 1997, p. 1).

Dewey (1964, 1973) indicated that education is not an isolated enterprise, but one

connected with, affected by, and achieved with and for social change. Education is

shaped and determined by social needs, consciousness, and circumstances, and in turn

plays a role in social formation. Dewey (1964) indicated the close relationship between

school and society, and declared that “education is the fundamental method of social

progress” (p. 437).

In the literature, there is no clear framework of collaborative teaching. Most

researchers have focused on compliance with IDEA (2004), coupled with theories. In this

study, I will review the approach of collaborative planning in inclusive classrooms

through the lens of Dewey’s (1964, 1973) approach to social progress in school and

society.

Literature Review of Problem

According to Cramer, Liston, Nevin, and Thousand (2010), U.S. legislative

changes, such as those like IDEA (2004) and NCLB (2002), require that students with

diverse learning characteristics have access to and achieve high academic performance in

the general education curriculum. The changing demographics of the United States have

also played a role in diverse learning characteristics of U.S. learners in classrooms. In the

educational system that serves approximately 76,355,000 students, 30,982,000 or 40.58%

are of an ethnically diverse background and 5% of school-aged children have a disability

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The IDEA and NCLB mandates require immediate attention

that will involve parents, teachers, administrators, and student. Students with disabilities

have individual needs that must be met in order achieve academically.

When teachers fail to collaborate and plan for students with disabilities, students

may not receive the support and accommodations that they need to succeed in the

classroom (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Carter, Prater, Jackson, & Marchant, 2009; Fox &

Ysseldyke, 1997; Stockall & Gartin, 2002). Without appropriate support and

individualized instruction, students with disabilities have difficulty accessing general

education curriculum (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Fox &Ysseldyke, 1997).

Coteaching and teaming are recognized forms of teacher collaboration in schools,

but they are not typically thought of in relationship to the induction of new teachers. As

collaborative models for teaching, both coteaching and teaming have the potential to

influence how new teachers experience their initial work in schools (Pugach & Winn,

2011, p. 36). As educational leaders continue to struggle with the highly-qualified teacher

mandate of NCLB (2002), many educators are turning to coteaching models to

incorporate regular and special education teachers into the same classroom to deliver

instruction. Coteaching educators can address the inclusion of students with disabilities

into the regular classroom while simultaneously eliminating the NCLB mandate that all

teachers must be highly-qualified in the subjects that they instruct. However, some

educators have expressed concerns that coteaching implementations may lead to

problems with proper staff development; Nichols, Dowdy, and Nichols (2008) stated that

administrators must be mindful of coteaching not becoming a “quick-fix” for educational

leaders struggling to meet NCLB’s mandates (p.647).

If implemented correctly, there are many benefits to coteaching. The two

professionals in cotaught classes bring unique areas of emphasis to the partnership

(Dieker, 2001). The classroom teacher focuses on content and the curriculum. The special

educator or specialist focuses on the learning process, helping students acquire,

remember, and demonstrate knowledge and skills.

Coteaching relationships depend on commitment, negotiation, and flexibility. To

be successful, the coteachers must be two committed educators who care about reaching

their students and who work to achieve their goals. These coteachers resolve conflict

which generates new strategies, resolutions for differences of opinion, and alternative

solutions in order to meet with success. Coteachers have a commitment to nurture their

professional relationship. Each educator works to bring out the best in the other person,

and the result is improved outcomes for students and strong teaching partnerships

(Friend, 2008, p.13). Scruggs et al. (2007) reviewed 23 coteaching case studies. Scruggs

et al. revealed that, in most of the case studies, the special education teacher was typically

“responsible for modifying instruction, behavior management, and monitoring student

progress; whereas the general education teacher was responsible for the content of the

instruction” (p. 393). Scruggs et al. also noted that a successful coteaching relationship

would be dependent upon “the general education teacher’s attitude, sufficient planning

time, voluntary participation, mutual respect, administrative support, and a shared

philosophy of instruction and behavior management” (p. 393).

Despite the rising awareness of disability in the United States, questions remain

about how to integrate persons with disabilities into society educationally,

occupationally, and socially. Kamens (2007) indicated that teachers must encourage

professional interaction, collaboration, and knowledge about inclusion in preparation

programs in order to adequately prepare preservice teachers to implement inclusive

classrooms. Potential barriers to integration may be the attitudes that some people have

toward students with disabilities and their efforts to increase visibility within society.

Educators must develop a better understanding of those factors that contribute to the

formulation of negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities as they relate to public

schooling. Identification of students as having disabilities is based on legal definitions

that have been developed and refined periodically. These definitions are reflective of the

trends of the eligibility criteria and societal norms (Brandes & Crowson, 2009).

Successfully implementing the practice of inclusion by differentiating instruction

depends on both the skills and attitudes of general education teachers. New general

education teachers who are entering the field are vulnerable to the demands and stress of

the profession, and teacher education programs must prepare preservice teachers to meet

the needs of all students by teaching the skills needed to make appropriate lesson

adaptations, accommodations, and modifications (Dee, 2011). For example, using the IEP

as a guide, teachers must plan for incremental objectives for identified students rather

than focusing on the state curricular goals for the grade level. Providing accommodations

and curricular modifications through such strategies as multilevel curriculum and

curriculum overlapping allows students with different abilities to gain access to new

knowledge in the same classroom as their peers (Giangreco, 2007).

Some teachers lack education and preparation in the area of inclusion.

Instructional accommodations for teachers in general education programs remain

deficient. This deficit remains even though researchers have confirmed that intensive

preparation in teacher education programs has an effect on teacher’s perception of being

well-prepared to teach (Boe, Shin, & Cook). Additionally, Jung (2007) found that

preparation had an impact on preservice teacher attitudes and confidence in working in

inclusive settings. Friend (2008) claimed that differentiation began as a strategy for gifted

students and now has a place in both special education and general education.

Horne and Timmons (2009) conducted a qualitative study to investigate teachers’

perceptions of the impact of inclusion of children with special needs in their classes. In

this study, Horne and Timmons randomly selected participants from the 25 teachers who

had volunteered for the study. These teacher participants completed a survey that was

composed of 62 items dealing with attitudes and perceptions, incentives for encouraging

inclusion, and concerns from a classroom perspective. Horne and Timmons revealed that

some of the teachers’ primary concerns were planning time, meeting the needs of all

students, and ongoing professional development to respond effectively to the diverse

needs of students in the classroom. The education of all diverse students must take place

in an adequately-supported, regular classroom (Jordan, 2007).

A better understanding of teacher attitudes towards inclusion can assist in

improving the learning environment (Ross-Hill, 2009). Educators with apprehensive

attitudes towards inclusion may use practices that promote exclusion rather than inclusion

in their classrooms (Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008). On the other hand, educators

who hold positive attitudes towards inclusion tend to use teaching strategies that allow

them to accommodate individual differences (Forlin, Earle, Loreman, & Sharma, 2011).

Symeonidou and Phtiaka (2009) contended that while educators’ attitudes are potential

predictors of success or failure of inclusion, equally important are their concerns about

inclusion. Agbenyega (2007) investigated attitudes and concerns of 100 teachers about

teaching in inclusive classrooms in Ghana. Agbenyega found that teacher concerns

related to their lack of skills to effectively teach students with disabilities and a lack of

resources to accommodate individuals implementing inclusion were likely to be affected

by their attitudes and concerns.

Changpinit, Greaves, and Frydenberg (2007) examined attitudes and concerns of

702 in-service educators who taught in inclusive classrooms and found that inclusive

educators were likely to have a lower degree of concern about inclusion. Forlin and

Chambers (2011) examined how confidence in teaching students with disabilities and

knowledge about local policies impacted preservice teacher’s attitudes and concerns.

Forlin and Chambers reported that level of confidence in knowledge of legislation were

positively and significantly correlated with attitudes towards including students with

disabilities and conversely negatively correlated with concerns about inclusion. Forlin

and Chambers also found that increasing knowledge about legislation and policy related

to inclusion and improving confidence did not likewise address the participants’ concerns

or perceived stress associated with having students with disabilities in their classrooms.

Analysis of Coteaching

Coteaching requires a reconceptualization and revision of traditional teacher

preparation (Cramer et al., 2010). According to Stang and Lyons (2007), preplanning and

planning, along with collaboration and communication, are collaborative skills needed to

properly prepare the classroom for effective inclusion. Friend and Cook (2007) stated that

defining how shared planning time occurs and is used becomes one of the challenges

unique to coteaching. Administrative support for coplanning time is vital to the success of

coteaching partnerships (Fennick, 2001; Gerber & Popp, 2000; Voltz et al., 1995).

Six Coteaching Approaches

Coteaching can be accomplished by arranging teachers and students using six

approaches (Friend & Cook, 2007). Each approach has advantages and drawbacks, and

no single approach is considered the best one. These six approaches are representative of

variations coteachers have invented in meeting students needs. Friend and Cook (2007)

identified six coteaching approaches: one teach and one observe, station teaching, parallel

teaching, alternative teaching, teaming, and one teaching and one assisting. The six

coteaching approaches provide a framework for thinking about what a cotaught class

should look like. However, coteachers may find that they use certain approaches more

often, even though they may have questions about implementing the methodology

(Friend & Cook, 2007).

Collaboration

Friend and Cook (2007) stated that, in collaborative schools, supportive

administrators must clarify that coteaching is the standard in their school and that any

teacher may be assigned to coteach. General education teachers are often initially

skeptical about sharing their classroom space; however, they may come to enjoy having a

second adult who can provide not only assistance to students but an opportunity to

collaborate on effective teaching practices. The special education teacher generally feels

liberated from the confines of the special education resource room and self-contained

classroom and feels good about reaching more students (Kloo & Zigmond, 2008).

Honoring the instructional expertise of the coteaching partner is insufficient to

achieving coteaching success (Detter, 2009). In addition to assessing an individual’s

instructional, management and assessment skills, coteachers should also discuss their

preferred communication style. Some choose to speak frequently in word pictures, others

focus on details; some are quiet by nature and typically avoid conflict, while others prefer

a direct communication style. Having an understanding and respect for each other’s

preferred mode and method of communication fosters mutual respect, decreases the

likelihood of being misunderstood, and maximizes collaboration. Furthermore, as

teachers address their own preferences, they become more capable and willing to relate,

understand, and build on the work of their colleague (Dettmer et al., 2009).

Analysis of Inclusion

Inclusion is the practice of bringing services and support to children with special

needs into the general education classroom as opposed to removing special needs

students from learning experiences with their same peers (Kilanowski-Press, Foote, &

Rinaldo, 2010). Inclusion as an educational placement offers a variety of service delivery

formats designed to educate students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

This type of education for special needs students has become common in schools

throughout the United States because of the reauthorization of the IDEA (2004). IDEA

mandates the provision of the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with

disabilities. This means that students with exceptional learning should be educated in a

setting that is most like that of their nondisabled peers, as long as their academic goals

can be met in the inclusion setting (Kilanowski-Press, 2010). Friend (2008) indicated that

inclusion is not a service delivery option. Friend stated that

Inclusion is a belief system or philosophy that guides all the practices in any

specific school. In fact, the smallest meaningful unit for inclusiveness is the

school. There is no such thing as an inclusion class, an inclusion teacher, or –

sadly—inclusion students. (p. 12)

General education placement is a part of inclusive schooling, but is just one

dimension of it. In an inclusive school, all staff members believe that it is their job to

provide the best education for all students, respecting their pupils’ diversity and

maximizing their potential. Staff members also believe that full participation with peers is

the preference and they make decisions that move away from general education

placement; the goal is membership in the same learning community. Highly-inclusive

schools have some individualized instruction services available to students for whom it is

necessary, but those individual instructions are guided by data-based decisions and are

revisited often and continued only for as long as necessary. Conversely, in schools where

professions proclaim, “We’re an inclusive school-we never pull any students out,” it is

unlikely that inclusive practices exist. In these schools, only a single means of addressing

students’ needs is being used, and that is unlikely to be adequate (Friend, 2008, p. 12).

Limitations of the Study

The following limitations were considered in this study:

1. I was a special education teacher at the school where the research was

conducted. Therefore, my position may have influenced the teachers to

behave in a manner that is different from the way they would behave for

an outside researcher.

2. My knowledge of the study may have affected the behavior of the

teachers. My presence during the interviews may or may not have

influenced their personal interactions between the special and the general

education teachers.

3. Their preconceived ideas about coteaching may have caused the

participants to behave differently than usual.

4. There is only one trainer at this present time.

5. There is not enough planning time to meet or to get trained.

6. Not enough funding.

I was privileged to work at the site where the study was conducted. My

experiences may or may not have influenced the way the teachers behaved. Having

knowledge about how the coteaching process should be implemented may or may not

have influenced the teachers’ thinking. Also, the participants’ preconceived ideas about

coteaching may or may not have caused the participants to behave differently than

normal. I self-reflected on my project in terms of limitations. I foresaw some limitations,

others were not foreseen. I foresaw that I might feel uneasy during the time of interviews.

I did feel slightly uneasy, but I was confident that I was going to get the input from the

teachers that I desired. Time was crucial for coteachers. All four teachers discussed their

concern about how they did not have the necessary time to plan lessons for students with

disabilities. The only unforeseen concern was making sure that I had enough time to do

individual interviews with each participant. It did work out, but I had to reschedule two

people.

Implications

Villa et al. (2008) noted that coteaching means that teachers agree on a goal, share

a common belief system, demonstrate parity, share leadership roles while completing

tasks, and practice a cooperative process. These principles provide the foundations for

creating a collaborative professional relationship and delivering effective instruction. If

educators miss the focus, maintaining collaborative professional relationships for the

benefit of delivering instruction, student achievement will result in failure.

Summary

In this section, I discussed the local problem and the broader problem that

prompted the study. The rational, the research problem, and the significance were

explained. In addition, terms related to this study were defined. I reviewed content

related to the literature review of the local problem, the conceptual framework, and the

six models of coteaching. I also examined the collaborative practices of general and

special education teachers in Grades 9-12 in inclusive classrooms. In Section 2, I will

describe the research design with detailed explanations of the case study, along with the

sampling method, participants, data collection, and analysis methods. In Section 3, I will

present the project. In Section 4, I will reflect on myself as a scholar.

Section 2: The Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of the qualitative study was to examine how special education and

general education teachers collaborate in inclusive classrooms to meet the needs of

secondary, special education English students. The participants for this study were two

general education teachers, two special education teachers, and one administrator in a

high school located in Mississippi. The intent of this study was to explore how general

and special educators plan collaboratively in inclusion classrooms for the benefit of

students with disabilities.

In my analysis of the literature, I found few researchers who examined inclusive

practices for high school students with disabilities. In addition, I identified few studies in

small rural areas in Mississippi that directly related to collaborative practices between

general and special educators in inclusive classrooms for educating students with

disabilities. In an effort to promote student achievement of students with disabilities, I

examined teacher perceptions of collaborative practices for students with disabilities in

inclusion classrooms at the high school setting. Because of the required data, I used the

qualitative research design. I analyzed data using one-on-one interviews and surveys with

participants in order to determine larger themes and validate findings, and provide more

insight of the relations between teachers’ perceptions of collaborative practices in

inclusive classrooms.

Research Design and Approach

The intent of the study was to gather information from special education and

general education teachers in inclusive classrooms about collaborative practices in the

small rural school system at XYZ high school in order to develop a program to help

students with disabilities. The purpose of this research project was to investigate

teachers’ perceptions that may contribute to the development of a teacher collaboration

program between general and special educators. A case study was the most appropriate

approach because of the setting, the nature, and the research questions that guided the

study. Because I wanted to analyze collaboration between general and special educators, I

needed to collect personal accounts of their interactions which are done best with a case

study.

Creswell (2008) suggested that it is useful to consider the types of cases that

qualitative researchers often study. For instance, the case may be a single individual,

several individuals separately or in a group, a program, events, or activities (e.g., a

teacher, several teachers, or the implementation of a new math program). Therefore, a

case study was the most appropriate method because the focus was a group of teachers

and one administrator who provided instructions for students with disabilities. I attempted

to find out if there was effective collaboration between general and special educators that

might help with student achievement in inclusive classrooms.

Choosing another design would not match my problem. Therefore, it would have

been inappropriate to choose another design because I could then lose focus of the study.

For example, choosing the ethnography design would not have been appropriate for this

study because its qualitative procedures are for describing, analyzing, and interpreting a

cultural group’s shared patterns of behavior, beliefs, and language that develop over time

(Creswell, 2008).

I collected and analyzed data from the open-ended questions by using open-

coding in order to answer the pertinent research questions. I also collected and analyzed

qualitative data from the one-on-one interviews by identifying relevant themes.

The three research questions required a qualitative approach to the collection of

data:

1. What specific things do you do together on a weekly basis to prepare for

daily lessons that should meet state benchmarks to promote student

achievement?

2. Can you tell me specifically how you meet the needs of the students who

have IEPs?

3. What teaching strategies do you use to help students with IEPs meet

requirements?

I used one-on-one interviews to answer the three research questions. Via the

qualitative method, I collected data in the one-on-one interviews based upon intrinsic

theories case studies using an open coding method, influenced by Merriam (1998). I used

a four-step procedure. In the first step, I transcribed all oral interviews to transcribe input

into textual arrangement. A transcript of the questions and responses was created after I

conducted interviews. I asked to review printed copies of these transcriptions for

precision and proper intent before coding began. I gathered interviewer notes and

prepared. In the second step, I examined the textual version of the qualitative data in

order to create a plan for the actual analysis. I used the open coding method to identify

themes through repeated examination of the textual data related to the three research

questions.

Step 3 was the implementation of the plan that I created for the actual textual data.

I examined and color-coded printed copies of the interview responses to indicate common

themes and concepts. I determined themes and reliable ideas through the identification of

reoccurring words or phrases consistent perceptions within the responses. I also used

color-coding to indicate responses or pieces of responses containing the same theme or

idea. I obtained key concepts indicating themes and their color code throughout the early

stages of analysis. I analyzed the data to determine if any themes existed among all

participants. Then, I classified the data according to type of instruction (general and

special education). Finally, in Step 4, I concluded the introductory analysis of the data. I

inspected the themes to clarify their meanings and boundaries and decide if any themes

conflicted or coincided.

Merriam et al. (2009) suggested that intrinsic case studies are undertaken when

the researcher is interested in the particular case itself: it is intrinsically interesting.

Algozzine and Hancock (2006) indicated that researchers engage in intrinsic case study

research when they want “to know more about a particular individual, group, event or

organization. Using an intrinsic case study, researchers are not necessarily interested in

examining or creating general theories or in generalizing their findings to broader

populations” (p. 32). I wished to gain an understanding of the perceptions, experiences,

and attitudes of teacher collaborative approaches in the inclusive classrooms regarding

the needs of students.

Setting and Sample/Participants

Setting

The school district of interest was a small district in size located in the

southwestern part of the state of Mississippi. The school community of this study was

located outside the city limits, which was less than 5 miles away from town. It served

approximately 1,590 students; five schools were in this district. There were two

elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one technical school. I

chose the high school as the research site where there were 327 students enrolled. This

district was located in a high-poverty, Title I area, and all students in the district received

lunch through the Federal Food Program. This school district was predominantly Black.

The high school enrollment, according to subgroups, consisted of 53% Black males and

43% Black females, with a total of 327 Black students (Mississippi Department of

Education, 2012).

Participants

I purposively sampled participants in this study using case sampling from one

local high school (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). Five participants were special

education teachers, two were general education teachers, and one was a principal. The

participants included two general educator teachers (English), two special education

teachers, and one administrator. Lichtman (2010) indicated that in order to gain an

understanding of individuals’ views, qualitative research involves a small number of

individuals. The participants in this study had experience in the area that I studied. The

individuals consisted of special education and general education teachers and one

administrator with experience up to 10 or more years.

In order to conduct research and interviews, I had to seek approval. I met with the

district’s director of accountability and research and obtained permission to conduct a

research study in the XYZ School District. I submitted a copy of the proposal to the

superintendent and the board of education for approval after the university research

reviewer (URR) and institutional review board (IRB) approved the proposal. I then

provided them with a short overview of the study, which included the methods and

purpose of the study, along with a letter requesting written consent to conduct the

research. I assured participants of confidentiality if they consented to take part in the

study.

No matter how qualitative researchers view their roles, they develop relationships

with research participants (Glesne, 2011). To meet codes of conduct, researchers must

consider and protect the participants’ rights to privacy, reflect on and mitigate deceptive

aspects of research, and consider issues of reciprocity (Glesne, 2011). I explained to the

participants that they had the right to expect that when they granted permission to observe

and interview, I protected their confidentiality and kept their anonymity.

I interviewed participants individually and told the participants that all recordings,

test data, and transcribed interviews will be stored in a locked file cabinet. I informed the

participants that all feedback will be shredded at the conclusion of study. I explained to

the participants that names will not be used for analyzing the data.

Ethical Considerations

In this study, I was concerned about ethical issues relating to the protection of the

participants. I took steps to protect the participants and to ensure the confidentiality of the

participants (Lodico et al., 2010). Initially, the study had to be approved by the IRB and

the URR, the local school board of education, and the superintendent in order for the data

collection process to begin. I obtained informed consent before participants participated

in the study. In addition, I was aware of my role in the study. I worked in this district for

8 years as a teacher and have collaborated with the principals, teachers, parent, and the

local school board. As an experienced inclusion teacher, coteacher, and self-contained

special education teacher, there were no teachers who hesitated to respond to the research

questions. I took steps to ensure ethical research such as member-checking, peer-

debriefing, and rich, detailed descriptions to provide the accuracy and dependability of

the data.

I identified only the content area that was taught, the teachers’ gender, and the

teachers’ years of experience in the field of education to protect the identity of the

teachers who felt that their opinions might compromise their employment or reputation.

My intent was to examine how general and special educators collaborated in inclusive

classrooms and identify themes and patterns to assist future teachers in implementing

instructional practices for students with disabilities. I asked the teachers and the

administrator to sign an informed consent form. The Walden IRB ensured that the rights

and safety of the participants being interviewed were protected. I submitted an

application for review to the university’s IRB in April of 2012. IRB approval was May of

2012 with approval number 05-03-13-0178241 and it expires on May 2, 2014. I also

obtained approval to conduct the study from the school district in which the rural school

was located in April 2013.

Data Collection

Because this was an intrinsic qualitative case study design, I identified themes or

behavior through the natural context using information from multiple sources (Hancock

& Algozzine, 2006; Lodico et al., 2010; Yin, 2009). I collected data through participant

interviews and surveys; I triangulated data with a review of relevant documents such as

test data for the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years. I used

semistructured interviews to clarify information.

The participants in this study were teachers with experience in inclusion or

coteaching. Mainly, the teachers were general education and special education teachers. I

held the interviews during the school day in the special education conference room where

IEP meetings for students with disabilities were conducted. I worked around the

availability of the participants’ schedules. The interviewee sessions lasted up to 1 hour

per teacher. The list of the interview questions is included in the appendix section of the

project study. Atkins (2008) developed these questionnaires in a similar study to examine

the collaboration between general education and special education teachers in inclusive

classrooms. In addition, I obtained test data from the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-

2011 school years. I used the test data to provide an accurate account of student growth

from the school years 2008-2011. As a result of collaboration, in the test scores, I found

that collaboration makes a difference. I recorded and transcribed all interviews for

analysis.

In the school district of interest, inclusion teachers must turn in a schedule at the

beginning of each school day so that administrators will know where each teacher is

located. Therefore, I requested a copy of the inclusion teachers’ schedules, along with the

general education teachers’ schedules, so that I would know where the teachers were

located. In this respect, I was able to locate the teachers according to the participants’

schedules. My familiarity with the setting eliminated navigation issues.

Data Analysis

I will display data by creating a chart/table to help me understand and present the

findings through inquiry (Glesne, 2011). In addition, the richly detailed descriptions of

the setting, context, background, and data collection and analysis processes ensured the

dependability of the study (Lodico et al., 2010). Glesne stated that “data displays help

you to see the overall patterns in your research without getting lost in the details” (p.

199). I made an effort to maintain the validity of the study through peer-debriefing and

member-checking to ensure the accuracy of my interpretation of the data (Creswell,

2009; Lodico et al., 2010).

In this study, I compared test data with interview responses and instructional

strategies to find relationships between the collected data and the established themes. I

used thematic analysis to code the data collected through interviews and instructional

planning. I took the three established themes from the research questions. The themes

were as follows: (a) student achievement, (b) teaching strategies, and (c) student IEPs.

Thematic analysis involves creating and applying codes to collected data. I used coding

to categorize the data collected to show relationships. A researcher used open coding to

find relationships between the collected data and established themes. I collected data,

transcribed the data, and coded the data. I analyzed the data collected through a

triangulation method and I generated a cross-case matrix.

Interpretation of Results

The purpose of this study was to investigate and describe how general and special

educators collaborated when planning weekly lessons that addressed how special

education students can meet state-mandated benchmarks for achievement. The themes

that I identified after interviewing and transcribing input from the participants were (a)

high-stakes testing, (b) no time for planning lessons, (c) scheduling conflicts, (d) a lack of

coteaching time, and (e) too much paperwork. The administrator agreed that these were

common themes. In this section, I will explain the qualitative results.

The first theme of high stakes-testing was related to the first research question:

What specific things do you do together on a weekly basis to prepare for daily lessons

that should meet state benchmarks to promote student achievement? General Educator A

and Special Educator A stated that “High stakes testing has made it difficult for students

to achieve academically because they have to meet certain requirements in order to be

promoted.” Special Educator A stated that “Most students now are inclusion and have so

much work to do now in order to achieve academically.”

The next theme of focus was less time on planning lessons, and this theme was

related to Research Question 1 as well. All four teachers and the administrator agreed that

because of time constraints, they are unable to collaborate effectively when it is time to

plan lessons.

The third theme of focus was scheduling conflicts, which was related to the

second research question: Can you tell us specifically how you meet the needs of the

students who have IEPs? All participants agreed that scheduling constraints inhibited

effective collaboration.

The fourth theme was less time for coteaching, and this theme was related to

Research Question 2: How you meet the needs of the student who have IEPs? Special

Educator B stated that “Due to the time constraints and lack of time to coteach, it is rather

hard to meet the needs of all students, and that may be the reason why some students do

not succeed on the state tests.”

I identified the final theme of paperwork overload after interviewing the

participants. This theme was related to Research Question 3: What teaching strategies do

you use to help students with IEPs? Four out of five participants stated that “if they did

not have so much paperwork, students could get more service and teacher collaboration

would be more effective.”

Survey Findings Interpretation

I used a survey to gather teachers’ opinions and attitudes about the inclusion of

students with special needs in the general education classroom. I recorded the teachers’

and the administrator’s responses to find out how they felt about inclusion. I report the

narratives below accordingly for each item given. Some participants had the same

opinions about each item, and others had different opinions about each item.

For Items 1-3 on the survey, all participants strongly agreed that students with

special needs should be given every opportunity to function in the classroom when

possible, the inclusion of students with special needs can be beneficial for students

without special needs, and inclusion promotes independence among students with special

needs. The first three items on the scale were related to Research Question 2.

In Item 4, all participants agreed that the nature of the study in general classrooms

will promote the academic growth of the students with special needs. Through these

results, the participants claimed that children with special needs made gains in academic

growth. After looking at Item 4 and the responses of the participants, I understood that

the participants felt that the students will succeed and grow academically as a result of an

inclusion program being implemented. In Item 5, all participants disagreed that study

skills with special needs are inadequate for success in the general education classroom. In

looking at the responses from Item 5, I understood that all participants felt that study

skills are an important part of the students’ success. In Item 6, all of the participants

agreed that inclusion promotes understanding and acceptance of individual differences

between students without disabilities and students with special needs.

For Items 7 through 9, Administrator A disagreed with the following points:

Students without disabilities will likely avoid interacting with students with special needs

in the inclusive classroom, inclusion promotes self-esteem among children with special

needs, and students with special needs lost the stigma with special needs lose the stigma

of being “different” or “failures” when placed in the general education classrooms.

Special Educator A and B and General Educator A and B disagreed with Item 7 that

students without disabilities will likely avoid interacting with students with special needs

in the inclusive classroom. The participants indicated that most students in the inclusion

setting interact well without conflict. Special Educator A and B agreed with Item 8 and

General Educator A and B were neutral in their opinions with that inclusion promotes

self-esteem among children with special needs.

For Item 9, Special Educator A and B agreed that students with special needs lost

the stigma of being “different” or “failures” when placed in the general education

classrooms. General Educator A and B disagreed with Item 9. Special Educators A and

B, General Educator A and B, and Administrator A disagreed with Item 10 that isolation

in a special classroom had a beneficial effect on the social and emotional development of

the students with special needs. The participants claimed that isolation in a special

education setting has beneficial outcomes on social and emotional development.

Item 11 had varying opinions from each participant because General Education B

and Special Educator A agreed and General Educator A and Special Educator B

disagreed that general classroom teachers have sufficient training to teach students with

special needs. The administrator was neutral in his response that general education

teachers have sufficient training to teach students with disabilities. For Item 12, all

teachers and the administrator disagreed that students with disabilities are likely to create

confusion in the general education classroom. The participant stated, “that they do not

feel students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the general education

classroom.”

For Item 13, General Educator B, Special Educators A and B, and Administrator

A disagreed that the special educator rather than the general education classroom teacher

do better teaching students with special disabilities. General Educator A agreed with Item

13. In Item 14, General Educator A and Administrator A agreed that the behavior of

students with special needs would set a bad example for other students in the classroom.

General Educator B and Special Educators A and B disagreed with this item. Two out of

five participants believed that students with disabilities could affect other students with

negative behavior. In Item 15, Special Educator A and B disagreed that student with

disabilities will not waste the general classroom teacher’s time. Administrator A and

General Educator A and B agreed to this item. Four out of five participants felt that

students with disabilities would not waste the general classroom teacher’s time.

For Items 16, all participants disagreed except General Educator A was neutral

with the idea that students with disabilities will exhibit behavior problems in a general

education classroom, and increased freedom in the general classroom setting creates too

much confusion for the students with students with disabilities. General Educator B,

Special A and B, and Administrator A felt that students with special needs will not

exhibit behavior problems in a general education classroom.

With Item 17, General Educator B was the only one who disagreed that increased

freedom in the general classroom setting creates too much confusion for the students with

disabilities. The other four participants believed that increased freedom in the general

classroom setting does not create too much confusion for the students with disabilities.

For Item 18, General Educator A and B as well as Special Educator A and B strongly

agreed that students with special needs will make an attempt to complete their

assignments in general education classrooms, but Administrator A disagreed. Teachers

felt this way because they know their students and can meet their unique individualized

needs according to their levels of learning.

For Item 19, General B and Special Educator B strongly agreed that extra

attention to students with disabilities would be to the detriment of the other students in

the classroom. However, General Educator A, Special Educator A, and Administrator A

were neutral in their opinion. Another teacher disagreed in regards to this item.

Participants had mixed feelings in how they felt about the extra attention that students

with special needs require being the detriment of the other students in the classroom. For

Item 20, General Educator A and Special Educator A and B agreed that general

classroom teachers have the primary responsibility to teach students with disabilities in

their classroom. Administrator A and General Educator B disagreed with this item.

General education teachers felt that they were responsible to teach students with

disabilities in their classroom.

In Item 21, all participants disagreed that inclusion would likely have a negative

effect on the emotional development of students with special needs. The participants all

had the same feelings about how inclusion does have a negative effect on the emotional

development of students with special needs. For Item 22, General Educator A was the

only participant who disagreed about how general education teachers have the

appropriate capability to work with students with special needs. Administrator A, along

with the other three participants, agreed with that this item. More participants felt that

general classroom teachers had the appropriate capability to work with students with

special needs.

For Item 23, Administrator A, General Educator B, and Special Educator A and B

strongly disagreed that inclusion students with special needs will necessitate extensive

retraining of general classroom teachers. General A strongly agreed with this item. More

participants strongly disagreed that inclusion students with special needs would

necessitate extensive retraining of general classroom teachers. In Item 24, Special

Educators A and B agreed that students with special needs could be best served in general

education classrooms. General Educators A and B were neutral in their opinion with this

item: Administrator A disagreed. These participants had different opinions regarding

students with disabilities being served in general education classrooms.

For Item 25, all participants disagreed that it is difficult to maintain order in

classrooms that contain a mix of students with and without disabilities. It is not so

difficult to maintain order in classrooms that contain a mix of students and without

disabilities. For Item 26, General Educator A agreed that inclusion of students with

special needs will require significant changes in general education classroom procedures.

Administrator A, General Educator B, and Special Educator A and B disagreed with this

item. Fewer participants felt that students with special needs will require significant

changes in general education classroom procedures.

Item 27 read that the behavior of the students with special needs does not require

more attention from the teacher than the behavior of students without special needs.

Special Educators A and B agreed and both General Educators A and B were neutral in

their opinion; the administrator disagreed with this item. Item 28 read that the special

needs students will probably develop academic skills more rapidly in a general education

classroom than in a special education classroom. The Administrator A disagreed, both

Special Educators A and B agreed, and General Educators A and B were neutral in their

opinion.

For Item 29, Administrator A, General Educators A and B, and Special Educator

B agreed that most students with learning disabilities in inclusion classrooms can be

educated in general education settings. Special Educator A disagreed with this item. More

participants agreed that most students with learning disabilities in the special needs

classrooms could be educated in the general education settings. Only one special educator

felt otherwise. Item 30 states that most students with emotional and behavioral disorders

can be educated in the general education classrooms. Each participant had varying

opinions about this item. Special Educator A disagreed with this statement, but Special

Educator B, General Educators A and B, and Administrator A agreed with this statement.

Item 31 stated that most students can be educated in the inclusion classrooms with

the disability of hearing impairments; all four participants disagreed, except

Administrator A who agreed that special needs students with hearing impairments can be

educated in the general education classroom. More participants disagreed than agreed

with this statement. Item 32 stated that most students can be educated in inclusion

classroom with the disability of visual impairment. All four participants disagreed, but

Administrator A agreed with this statement. More participants disagreed that students

with visual impairment can be educated in the general education classroom.

Administrator A was the only participant who had a different opinion. Item 33 stated that

most students with disabilities can be educated in the inclusion classroom with the

disability of mental retardation. All participants disagreed except Special Educator B who

was neutral in opinion. More participants disagreed that students with mental retardation

can be educated in the general classroom.

In this qualitative study, the pool of educators participated in one-on-one

interviews at the local high school and a survey. I was able to collect a substantial amount

of data with this size of population. Because WCHS only had one high school, I used

purposeful sampling due to the small number of educators who were included in the

overall study.

I analyzed these data using a spreadsheet to show how many participants

responded to each item from 1-33. The response choices were strongly agree, agree,

neutral, strongly disagree, and disagree. I hand-delivered the surveys to each participant

so that they could respond at their leisure. I conducted the interviews on a one-on basis

for 1 hour. I used both tools to gain insight about how teachers felt about collaboration in

inclusive classrooms. I will show the five themes from the interviews in a table. These

themes are too much testing, no planning time, scheduling conflicts, less time to coteach,

and too much paperwork. I included a spreadsheet for the survey and a table for the

interviews in the appendix.

Because I designed this study to use special educators and general educators along

with one administrator, the results of this study may contribute to the body of

literature/knowledge. The goal of this study was to examine how general educators and

special educators collaborate in inclusive classrooms for the benefit of student with

disabilities. Gathering and analyzing this data could provide insight as to how to develop

proper collaborative practices in inclusive classrooms settings to ensure more effective

collaboration

Summary of the Findings

The purpose of this case study was to investigate how general educators and

special educators collaborated in inclusive classrooms for student achievement. I

explored the following themes: high-stakes testing, less time to plan for lessons, conflict

of scheduling, not enough time to coteach, and too much paperwork. The goal was to

gain an understanding about how coteachers collaborate in the general education setting

to promote student achievement.

I interviewed four teachers and one administrator via a survey during the month

of May. Among these participants were two general educators, two special educators, and

one administrator. All participants were coteachers of students enrolled in the English II

classes, except the administrator. I reported the data in a manner that allowed the teachers

and the administrator to voice their ideas and opinions about the research question,

interviews, survey.

After analyses of the interviews and surveys, I discovered seven themes to answer

the three research questions:

1. Because of time constraints, teachers are unable to collaborate effectively

when it is time to plan lessons

2. Scheduling constraints inhibits effective collaboration

3. Too much paperwork

4. Inclusion of students with special needs can be beneficial

5. Students with special needs should be given every opportunity to function

in the classroom where possible

6. Inclusion promotes independence among students with special needs

7. General classrooms will promote the academic growth of the students with

special needs

I also found that high-stakes testing made it difficult for students to be

academically successful because they have to meet certain requirements in order to be

promoted. This finding corresponds to Research Question 1. I heard the key concept,

high-stakes testing, more than twice within the generated responses from semistructured

Interview Questions 1, 10, and 18.

Implications for Social Change

According to the findings from this study, teachers at the secondary level should

collaborate in order to promote student achievement in the inclusive classroom setting.

The participants discussed their experiences and concerns in five areas: high-stakes

testing, scheduling conflicts, less time for coteaching, excessive paper work, and less

time for planning. Most of the participants that I interviewed had experience in the

coteaching process. Some had taught more than 5 years and others had more than 10

years of teaching experience. Most of the teachers were open-minded and willing to learn

new ways of instructing students with disabilities in order to promote student

achievement within their classrooms. Study participants, such as the general educators,

who showed less tolerance for students with disabilities relied upon assistance from the

special education teacher. They needed extra input from the special educator so that they

would know the academic specifics of what each inclusion student needed. Only one

general educator had less than 10 years of experience. Furthermore, the principal stepped

in to help establish and maintain order within their classrooms.

Continuous professional development will lead to further understanding of

coteaching as it applies to the curriculum. Further professional development activities

will allow the teachers to foster their knowledge of the coteaching process as it relates to

the curriculum itself. It is imperative for teachers to have ongoing and regular

opportunities to learn from each other. Continuous professional development activities

keep teachers up to date on current research and practices on how children learn best,

new technology tools, curriculum resources, and new teaching strategies. Professional

development offers teachers the opportunity to develop the knowledge and skills they

need to address students’ learning challenges, and educators are an integral part of

student’s success.

Students with disabilities demand more attention from the special education

teachers, especially when they are equipped to meet their unique needs in subjects such

as English. Special educators must continue to meet the need of students with disabilities.

When students’ academic needs are met, they are prone to move forward with academic

success. Social change can be accomplished as teachers continue to seek to meet the

needs of students with disabilities.

Recommendations

Teachers must conduct collaborative practices in primary classrooms. All teachers

of students with learning disabilities not only have to manage the general education

students in the same setting, but also must consider the diverse needs of the learners in

the learners in the classroom.

One limitation of the project was that there is only one trainer for this school. It

might be easy for general and special educators to train one another and provide

coteaching or inclusion resources versus just one trainer being assigned one grade level at

a time. However, this approach would require time and substitutes. Having substitutes

come in initially so special educators can train the general educators would help in

alleviating the issue of only having one trainer. Also, the coteachers could make a video

that they use as another resource. This educational video would contribute to their

knowledge and enhance the teachers’ practical skills in inclusion classrooms. These

teachers could also develop a training manual during planning days. This manual would

consist of the inclusive practices and the necessary tools that coteachers would need to

meet the needs of students with disabilities. Also, teachers could find additional training

through local workshops in the future or in other close by towns if they feel the need to

enhance their knowledge about the inclusion process. Due to time constraints and

funding, the training would provide a short, concise overview of the collaboration process

and not a deep and thorough understanding. However, to learn more about coteaching,

teachers could attend professional training in the district.

Research Findings

I conducted a semistructured interview with five participants. I interviewed

general educators and special educators who cotaught in English on the secondary level

using 17-19 interview questions recorded by an audio device. I then transcribed the

audio-recorded interviews. Initially, I interviewed the principal prior to the teachers being

interviewed and transcribed because of the other responsibilities that the principal had at

the high school. I reviewed the teachers’ data in the same manner. I reviewed the

transcripts line-by-line for each participant. Once I identified a possible theme in a line, I

developed a code word, which was assigned a color. I assigned other themes with various

colors for ease of identification.

Originally, five themes emerged from both the general educators’ and the special

educators’ teacher data analysis: (a) too much emphasis on state testing for students

SATP-2; (b) a lack of adequate planning; (c) scheduling conflicts; (d) a lack of

coteaching time; and (e) work: paperwork, IEPs, meetings. After continuing the color-

code process, I continued to combine ideas from the principal as well as the general and

special educators’ concerns and needs. I finally combined these themes. The first two

themes relate to the first research question: What specific things do you do together on a

weekly basis to prepare for daily lessons that should meet state benchmarks to promote

student achievement? The third and fourth themes relate to the second research question.

All participants agreed that scheduling constraints inhibited effective collaboration. The

fifth theme relates to the third research question: What teaching strategies do you use to

help students with IEPs? The first four themes relate to Research Questions 1 and 2, and

the last theme relates to Research Question 3.

Summary

In this section, I provided an overview of the qualitative approach and findings of

this doctoral study. The research approach stemmed from the problem of the study and

the goal of the project. I established procedures for data collection and analysis, as well

as methods for establishing validity and reliability. I also described participants. I

analyzed one-on-one interviews, surveys, and test data. I used research journal entries as

data sources that were interpreted qualitatively. In Section I, I indicated that like many

other schools in the United States, the community research partner, XYZ high school, had

experienced difficulty with teacher collaboration between general education teachers and

special education teachers in inclusive classrooms. Under the NCLB (2002) Act, U.S.

schools struggle to create inclusive educational experiences for students, despite prior

federal mandates such as IDEA (2004). These federal mandates, along with NCLB,

promote the inclusion of students with disabilities as full participants in the general

education curriculum and will require more rigorous standards and uniform assessment

(Blair et al., 2010).

While reviewing the findings in regards to the three research questions, I found

consistencies in many areas related to research that ties into the overall concept of

coteaching such as, sufficient planning time, administrative support, testing, student

achievement, and communication. With regards to the first research questions, I found

support for planning and scheduling in order to promote academic growth. In regards to

the second research question, I found support for communication as it relates to the

students’ IEPs to ensure that their needs are met based on accommodations. In regards to

the third research question, the participants claimed that time to plan and implement

instructional strategies was needed promote student achievement. In Section 3, I present

the project of the study.

Section 3: The Project

Introduction

In order to bring about the desired social change in collaborative practices

between general and special educators in inclusive classrooms, all parties involved must

understand what is required locally and federally so that research approaches may be

implemented and observed. For this qualitative study, I developed a Teacher

Collaboration Program, using the six coteaching approaches developed by Friend and

Cook (2008) to help the school system with the collaborative practices between general

and special educators in the inclusive setting for student achievement. In this project, I

pinpointed the strengths and weaknesses of the collaborative process in the school’s

inclusion program. I used input from the interviews to develop a teacher collaboration

program designed for this setting.

I developed this professional development training collaboration program based

on the interview responses. The teachers and the administrator stressed the importance of

students receiving individual help in order to achieve academically. This individualized

support served as an organized approach which could be implemented to improve the

inclusion program. The Teacher Collaboration Program (TCP) is based on the idea that

student achievement will stem from direct and appropriate collaboration among teachers

and administrators. In this section, I describe the doctoral study project.

Literature Review

The National Center for Education Statistics (2009) indicated that the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; 1965) has evolved over nearly 5 decades,

emphasizing education reform priorities that mirror the changing national education

policy conversation. The most recent iteration of ESEA was NCLB (2002), which

emphasized improving outcomes for all students, regardless of their race, native

language, or disability. NCLB also mandated academic accountability for schools and

districts.

Gentry (2012) stressed that collaboration skills are essential for all teachers and

personnel who instruct students with disabilities. Through collaboration, families and

professionals are able to combine their strengths and wisdom to make education as

appropriate as possible for the student. Sharing on each other’s knowledge and expertise

not only helps the student, it also makes for stronger families and more competent

professionals. However, not all teacher education candidates participate in training and

experience in collaborative teamwork. Yet, it is possible for teachers to effectively teach

collaboration, listening, and cooperative skills with minimal training (Cortez et al., 2009;

Taylor et al., 1988).

Effective collaboration does not come without effort. In effective collaboration,

two or more individuals work together as equal partners to make decisions that will lead

to positive changes. In an educational setting, the goal of collaboration is to improve

services for students through the efforts of families and schools working together as equal

partners who share resources, decisions, and responsibilities. School-family collaboration

is a component of providing appropriate educational services to students with disabilities

(Smith et al., 2012).

Historically, there are several reasons why increased collaboration between

special and general educators has been recommended (Winn & Blanton, 2005). First, the

collaboration between general and special educators, in theory, is grounded in their

knowledge bases (Volonino & Zigmond, 2007). Special educators typically have skills

related to individualizing curriculum and instruction based on children’s needs (Dettmer,

Thurston, Knackendoffel, & Dyck, 2005; Volonino & Zigmond, 2007). General

educators tend to have knowledge of the curriculum, standards, and desired outcomes for

the group. Accordingly, when general educators plan lessons, they tend to plan for the

group; special educators plan for individuals (Dettmer et al., 2005).

In addition to the importance of meeting the needs of students with disabilities,

there is increased pressure for all teachers to meet the needs of all students (Conderman,

& Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009; Sharpe & Hawes, 2003). Hodgson et al. (2011) found that

general educators struggle when trying to differentiate instruction for students with

disabilities, and will likely need assistance differentiating instruction for students. Winn

and Blankton (2005) stated, “As the number of students who are struggling in schools

grow, the need for general and special education to come together to create a vision and

capacity to educate all learners becomes more and more pronounced” (p. 1.).

Teacher collaboration is a component to student success. Garet, Porter, Desimone,

Birman, and Yoon (2001) stated, “First, teachers who work together are more likely to

have the opportunity to discuss concepts, skills and problems that arise during their

professional development experiences” (p. 918). Garet et al. also indicated that “teachers

who share the same students can discuss students’ needs across classes and grade level”

(p. 918). Balschweid, Thompson, and Cole (2000) studied the integration of science and

agricultural education and the collaboration between teachers in the two disciplines.

Balschweid et al. acknowledged, “Agricultural education teacher preparation graduates

should be encouraged to participate in activities in their building sites which would foster

relationships with members of the science department and general faculty to increase the

opportunities for collaborative endeavors” (p. 43). This same philosophy could also be

applied to other career and technical education teacher preparation programs.

Teacher collaboration can strengthen faculty camaraderie and teamwork. Myers

and Thompson (2009) documented the value of teacher collaboration: “Collaboration

with other academic teachers through cross-curricular projects will help students better

understand academic as well as technical concepts and principles” (p. 84). Myers and

Thompson stated, “These collaborative efforts will help agriculture teachers understand

the importance and become stronger team members within the total educational

community in developing the whole student” (p. 84).

This literature, along with findings of the interviews described in Section 2,

guided the design of the TCP to promote knowledge-based trends for teachers and

instructional leaders about effective collaboration in inclusive classrooms.

Description

This project originated from the needs and responses within the local community

educational setting at XYZ High School. A well-developed teacher collaboration plan for

teachers in the inclusion and coteaching process is essential in order for students with

disabilities to achieve academically. I conducted a qualitative study and used the one-on-

one interviews and survey responses to identify issues with teacher collaboration between

general and special educators in inclusive classrooms. I based the framework for the

project on the National High School Center’s (2011) six steps of high school

improvement. The six steps of high school improvement process provide high schools

and districts with a structure to customize their approach to best support high school

improvement efforts. These six elements are assess, analyze, prioritize, plan, implement,

and monitor.

The National High School Center (2011) indicated that high school improvement

planning and implementation is complex, and there are a variety of strategies that can be

used as levers for change. A key factor in high school improvement is an articulated

vision and a focused approach for achieving the intended goals and outcomes. The

National High School Center recommended that before embarking on a high school

improvement process, a school and/or improvement team should complete the following

actions:

1. Define the desired outcomes for high school improvement and student

achievement.

2. Gather data and evidence of need in order to move toward the goals,

assemble the right team to accurately represent the high school

stakeholders, and take action toward achieving the improvement goals.

For consistency, the Center referred to this team as the "leadership team."

3. The high school improvement process is demanding; thus, educators will

need to revisit decisions about desired outcomes, needs, and team

membership as they gather evidence about the specific needs of the

school.

Addressing these steps outlined above, I have developed The Professional

Development Training, which focuses on easing the inclusion process for teachers and

administrators. The program reflects the six key elements to effective collaboration

programs outlined for high school improvements that target the themes that merged from

one-on-one interviews in the research setting.

The TCP and CTA consist of the six approaches of the coteaching model for the

ways two teachers work together in a classroom. These approaches are one teach one

observe, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, station teaching, team teaching, and one

teach one assist. These six approaches will facilitate teacher and students communication

while each teacher performs his or her roles as a professional. I developed the activities in

the TCP based upon the themes identified in the interviews and the responses from the

surveys. The foundation of the TCP and CTA was from the teachers’ and administrators’

perceptions and feelings about collaboration in the inclusion setting.

Goals

The main goal of this project was to develop a teacher collaboration program

through professional development training to provide a foundation of success for teachers

who collaborate for the educational progress of students with disabilities in inclusion

classrooms. I designed the TCP to provide opportunities for teachers to gain a body of

knowledge in the area of inclusion and coteaching for student success. Another goal of

this program is to promote educational opportunities for students with disabilities at the

secondary level in an academically-conducive environment as they participate in the

general education curriculum. This will instill in them the confidence that they need to

succeed in school without fear of failing. This program should bring about social change

and impact the entire district as a whole.

Rationale

I created this project based on a local problem at XYZ School in the southwest

part of Mississippi. Because this district was located in a high-poverty area, all students

in the district received lunch through the Federal Food Program, and all schools were

labeled Title I schools. The project was developed in response to data collected and

analyzed during one-on-one interviews and survey responses described in Section 2. I

developed a detailed approach to developing the plan for collaborative approaches in

inclusion classroom for students with disabilities.

I created this project from the interview responses that teachers and the

administrator provided. The general and special educators, as well as the administrator,

felt that student achievement could be accomplished only if the timing and scheduling for

collaboration was allowable. One teacher participant stated, “Due to the time restraints

and lack of time to coteach, it is rather hard to meet the needs of all students and that may

be the reason why some students do not succeed on the state testing.” Another participant

stated that “scheduling restraints inhibits effective collaboration.”

Many researchers have examined teacher collaboration on a secondary level;

however, in this study, I incorporated an analysis of research and theory to explain the

development of the TCP for teachers to gain knowledge and make it applicable for

student achievement in the local high school setting.

The U. S. Department of Education supported The National High School Center

(2011) by a grant that ended March 31, 2013. The website and its free resources will

remain available, but content and external links will no longer be updated after March 31,

2013. While The National High School Center’s improvement process does not require

schools and districts to use specific tools or frameworks, it was designed to build on the

following resources:

 Six elements of high school improvement: A mapping framework

 A self-assessment tool: A coherent approach to high school improvement

 High school improvement: Indicators of effectiveness and school-level

benchmarks

The National High School Association is an inclusive organization committed to

facilitating improvements in student learning and educational practices. Its purpose is to

provide opportunities for professional growth and dialogue among high school educators

and other advocates of quality education.

According to The National High School Center (2011), millions of high school

students (particularly those with disabilities, limited proficiency in English, or low-

income backgrounds) need additional instruction that promotes the use of research-

supported approaches that help all students learn and become adequately prepared for

college, work, and life. The National High School Center identified research-supported

improvement programs and tools, offers user-friendly products, and provides technical

assistance services to improve secondary education.

Access

Educators need access to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their high

school reform efforts and align current and planned reform initiatives to develop a

comprehensive high school improvement plan that will result in high-quality teaching

and learning for all students (National High School Center, 2011). The local school of

interest constructed a school improvement plan that was approved by the Mississippi

Department of Education (MDE), and assessment was one of the steps that had to be

implemented. The administrators used the state practice test to determine strengths and

weaknesses of individual students in the area of vocabulary, and teachers tutored students

with weaknesses identified through the state practice tests, 9-week exams, and semester

exams. Teachers displayed word walls in the classroom and provided subject area testing

workbooks for each student in English II classes to use as supplementary practice

material. Students selected novels for reading during a school wide Drop Everything and

Read time allocation and were provided with computer lab assistance through

Odyssey/Compass Learning to help reinforce vocabulary skills taught in class.

Analyze

Because there were school improvement plans in place at the local high school

setting, teachers will provide the assessment results to students to determine strengths and

weaknesses to drive further instruction. Teachers will give these scores to teachers,

students, parents, and administrators, so they will form a vision of what skills need to be

targeted. This project will serve to meet the needs of students with disabilities based on

what is required by the state and the local setting.

After a high school and/or district leadership team has completed the self-

assessment, the team will analyze the data to ensure a common understanding of the

results. While analyzing the data, the team should consider who needs to be a part of the

conversation to create a holistic understanding of what is occurring at the high school.

Additionally, the leadership team should consider how to share the results of the self-

assessment with other stakeholders (National High School Center, 2011).

The National Center for Education Statistics (2009) outlined the opportunities and

challenges presented by response to intervention (RTI) at the high school level. RTI is a

diagnostic tool and tiered approach consisting of customized student instruction, which

has been primarily on the elementary school level. Teachers have demonstrated an

increased interest in the approach as a result of the regulations outlined in IDEA (2004),

but much is still unknown about its performance at the high school level. The National

Center for Education Statistics provided an in-depth look at the implementation and

structural issues, as well as the needed support, required to successfully institute RTI on

the secondary school level. Effective tiered intervention strategies depend on accurate

diagnostic information and data in regards to what is or what is not working for students

and any new adjustments that need to be made in the learning environment. RTI involves

the close monitoring of students and, therefore, can serve as an effective tool in

identifying learning disabilities.

Prioritize

Though the National High School Center (2011) supported comprehensive

improvement design strategies, it does not endorse addressing all components of high

school improvement simultaneously because such a process can be overwhelming and

could disrupt improvement efforts. Depending on high school context, leadership team

members might use additional data (e.g., from the classroom, school, district, and/or

state) to prioritize areas of need. Regardless of which elements and/or indicators of

effectiveness high schools select as leverage points, schools should address sustainability

(National High School Center, 2011).

Teachers can use curricula and instructional strategies in the inclusion classroom

to modify how they teach to better reach students with disabilities. Hallahan, Kauffman,

and Pullen (2012) defined four different curricula and instructional strategies to use in the

classroom:

1. Cooperative learning: when “students work together in heterogeneous

small groups to solve problems or practice responses” (Hallahan et al.,

2012, p. 37).

2. Peer-mediated instruction includes either peer tutoring or peer confederates,

”in managing behavior problems, or any other arrangement in which teachers

deliberately recruit and train peers to help teach an academic or social skill to

a classmate “ (Hallahan et al., 2012, p. 37-38).

3. Class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT): ”All students in the general education

classroom routinely engage in peer tutoring for particular subject matter,

such as reading or math” (Hallahan et al., 2012, p. 38).

4. Partial participation: “Students with disabilities participate, on a reduced

basis, in virtually all activities experienced by all students in the general

education classroom “(Hallahan et al., 2012, p. 38).

According to the Council for Exceptional Children (2011), there are nine steps

that teachers in inclusion classrooms should consider when adapting their curriculum and

instruction to meet the needs of the diverse learners:

1. Create a plan for adapting materials

2. Identify and evaluate the demands that students are not meeting

3. Develop goals for teaching strategies and making adaptations

4. Determine whether content or format adaptations are needed

5. Identify the features of the materials that need to be adapted

6. Determine the type of adaptation that will enable the student to meet the

demand

7. Inform students and parents about the adaptation

8. Implement, evaluate, and adjust the adaptation

9. Fade the adaptation when possible

All participants in the study had some concerns about time for instruction;

however, the paperwork is what prevented them from spending quality time with their

inclusion students.

Plan

The study site school had a school improvement plan in place that benefited

students with disabilities and students without disabilities. This plan involved teachers in

the areas of math, English, science, and social studies, as well as administrators and

guidance counselors to promote academic success. Because administrators identified this

school as a school in need of improvement, a plan has been in effect since 2008. By

providing a common plan for teachers in English II and special educators to collaborate

in lesson planning weekly, teachers designed weekly and 9-week assessments. In the

plans, professional coaches work with teachers in reading/language arts to provide the

best practices in teaching strategies. In addition, professionals provide teachers and

principals with high-quality training to get the proper tools to return the school to a level

of success.

The National High School Center (2011) indicated that once a high school has

identified its needs and priorities, the team must embark on a comprehensive planning

process to select strategies and initiatives for improvement. To help high schools

understand the indicators of effectiveness, the National High School Center identified

intermediate steps known as school-level benchmarks, taking into account local contexts

and needs. These benchmarks can provide high schools with ways in which they can

approach school improvement from the leverage points that will be most effective in the

given setting. These benchmarks are provided only as guideposts, and should not be used

as a sole pathway to improvement.

As part of this planning process, high schools should examine the research to

determine which strategies and initiatives have a demonstrated link to or show promise of

effectiveness. While research and evidence-based strategies are preferred, there may be

cases in which high schools select strategies that do not have a research base (e.g.,

innovative approaches) or have not been proven effective in particular contexts. If a high

school opts to use these approaches, school must plan for the collection of evidence that

will demonstrate the efficacy of each approach (National High School Center, 2011).

In the local high school setting, a in the collaboration process, teachers assess

students to determine their current levels. This step included students with and without

disabilities.

Implementation

The majority of the school-level benchmarks provide details for implementation

that expand upon the planning process referenced in the previous section. However, there

are additional aspects of implementation that are important to consider, regardless of the

elements and indicators of effectiveness on which a high school chooses to focus. First,

educators frequently refer to all students when discussing interventions and outcomes.

This does not mean that a single strategy or initiative must be selected to serve all

students; rather, teachers should consider each student during implementation. Teachers

should personalize a single strategy to meet diverse student needs and/or educators

should use multiple strategies to ensure that each student is empowered to succeed.

Though the planning process is essential, it is only the start of the improvement

process. Teachers and staff members must implement and plan with fidelity to ensure

positive outcomes. This requires a plan to monitor implementation, offer feedback, and

provide support to the whole school, small groups, and/or individual teachers who are

struggling with implementation. Once staff buy-in has been established, high schools

must provide the professional development and supports to ensure that teachers and staff

have the resources necessary to implement the outlined plans (National High School

Center, 2011). Instructional leaders must develop proper planning for the potential

success of a teacher collaboration program. Gathering resources is a component when

planning a project, but underlying barriers may exist as well.

Monitor

The National High School Center (2011) indicated that, though the school-level

benchmarks do not directly address monitoring for each indicator of effectiveness, the

National High School Center believed in the maxim “that which is monitored is that

which gets done” (p. 4). To minimize the length of the school-level benchmarks, I only

included benchmarks about monitoring in selected indicators of effectiveness.

Nevertheless, it is essential to monitor any strategy or initiative to ensure fidelity of

implementation, collect evidence of efficacy, and modify any strategies that are found to

be ineffective. Similar to implementation, administrators must collect evidence for each

student, teacher, and classroom. Teachers should analyze data to ensure that each student

and staff member is receiving the support that he or she needs because of the new

improvement strategies and initiatives, rather than relying on the aggregate all students or

all teachers that examines only the overall impact on the high school population.

Progress monitoring is a step in moving the school forward. Administrators,

teachers, and students use pre/post assessment data to see how well they have grown after

tutoring, teaching and reteaching, testing and retesting, and pre/post assessments.

Potential Resources and Existing Supporters

There are many available resources for students in the inclusion programs that are

essential for student success. However, these resources may be beneficial to some

students, but may not be as beneficial to others. Resources for the project are available in

the XYZ School District. For the purposes of the project, I divided these resources and

support into three categories: funding, time, and people/location. These three resources

are mandates in order to make this project a continued success. Available resources are

factors that must be considered for the purpose of school instructional support.

Funding

Funding is an essential consideration overall for the project. The main source of

funding is in close connection with the teachers who are required to facilitate the many

areas of the collaboration program. Even though teachers are paid for a regular school

day that begins from 7:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., they will be the central focus of the program

that will be developed. These funds will come from federal funding under IDEA (2004)

in the state of Mississippi. These funds are used to pay special educators for any duties

that they perform for students with disabilities. This money will also be used to mentor

and/or tutor student with disabilities in a program called After School Tutoring. The

teachers will be able to work because they have prior experience with the students who

already have an IEP. These teachers will be involved in the TCP and will be paid from

4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on days they work with the inclusion students. If these funds

happen to run out as they have before, the administrators can make the decision to use

funds from money they collect from events such as basketball and football games and the

vending machines. School fundraising is also used when funds from the Title I or other

federal funding is not available. There were no plans for changing the high school, so the

Title I Coordinator can request for grant money for the TCP from the Board of Education.

Time

There are times when special educators must meet on a weekly basis with

administrators. Administrators also conduct observations during instructional time during

the school day. These meetings must occur when the inclusion teachers are on their team

planning time. This requires general educators to cover their classes while the meetings

occur. These meeting are required during the summer because academic standards are

ever changing.

People and Location

In order to ensure that the TCP is a success, teachers need to have a viable

location that is readily available. English coteachers at the XYZ High School are needed

for this program. Because teachers are not mandated to participate in the TCP, they may

choose not to participate. The person heading this project will be the project facilitator

(PF). At the XYZ High School, I will serve as the facilitator and will perform relevant

duties. There was a leadership team at the high school. The team consisted of the

principal, assistant principal, guidance counselor, and department chairs. These

stakeholders will be actively engaged in this project and will serve as staff for the project.

This project will take place at the high school, due to the coteaching process on the

secondary level. Additional participants will consist of the special education director, the

special education case manager, and parents of students with disabilities.

Potential Barriers

Planning for potential barriers is part of developing a successful project.

Challenges are to be expected, but there are solutions to these challenges. The PF can

analyze potential barriers by seeking advice from other personnel, such as the principal,

assistant principal, lead teacher, and counselors. This team discussed the possible

challenges that may cause problems with the overall progress of the project: time

restraints, scheduling conflicts, and high school attendance.

Time Restraints

Participants expressed concern about time constraints. This barrier might affect

the overall result of the study. Because there are teachers participating in the after school

tutoring program, planning for the one-on-one support coteaching approach will be

essential for this group of students. In order to resolve this issue, I will apply the first

approach to the coteaching process during the latter part of the school year. While special

education teachers plan to meet the needs of students with disabilities, the general

educators will continue to work with students to meet their individualized educational

needs in the inclusion setting. In this regard, the program facilitator will manage time for

all parties involved by using a timer to ensure that the structured process is carried out

effectively. The program facilitator will remain cognizant about the time each group

needs before each session begins.

Scheduling Conflicts

Scheduling conflicts based on extenuating circumstances, such as family/teacher

emergencies and family/teacher illnesses, can alter the scheduling process. Planned

events such as assemblies, testing, or departmental/district meetings take place

throughout the calendar year and may also cause conflict. Because the district is small,

flexibility will work in favor of the scheduling and planning. Though conflicts may arise,

teachers who are familiar with the coteaching process will have to keep in mind that

some situations cannot be changed and meetings can be rescheduled. In this regard, the

program facilitator and the leadership team will reschedule for the benefit of the project

and team. Direct communication with one another can foster positive outcomes.

Secondary Student Attendance

This project will involve general educators, special educators, and students in the

collaboration process. Because this project is taking place at the high school, all parties

will engage in the program. Because students are a part of the project, upper class persons

with an IEP can serve as coaches to the new students in the inclusion program. In

addition, these students can receive community service hours as incentives.

Planning for the unknown and the unexpected is a part of the planning process in

any area of education. Teachers should have flexibility for barriers that will influence the

implementation process. Teachers should use resources in the implementation of the

project, as well as developing strategies for eliminating future problems. Through

assessing the needs, problems, and solutions of the project, the TCP can continue as

planned for the expected timeframe planned. Administrators can model this project in

other school systems to foster teacher collaborative practices.

Proposal for Implementation and Barriers

I developed the TCP using the six stages of the coteaching process that will occur

over a 3-year consecutive period called CTA. The program was lengthier because change

for an extensive collaboration program cannot occur quickly. In a 3-year program,

teachers and instructional leaders have the opportunity to make adjustments before the

end of the second year to ensure success of the program.

I designed the time frame for the CTA teacher collaboration program to give

teachers and instructional leaders the necessary time needed to become acquainted with

the program. Because this was the only high school located in the district, this particular

school collaborated with the middle school due to the transitioning process. This project

will ensure success as a result of how the instructional leaders. Students will be prepared

to go to the high school over the course of the 3-year timeframe.

In Approach 1 and 2, I focus on the one teach and one support, planning,

teaching, and observation, as well as the organization of the overall program. The

participants in the program will meet monthly to discuss the progress of the first approach

in the district special education conference room. I will use Approach 1 will as the “ice

breaker” for the special and general educators to become acquainted with the

collaboration program so that students receive individual help in a timely manner. Also,

teachers can keep students on task due to the proximity of the teacher. This meeting will

allow special and general educators the opportunity to view standards, as well as discuss

various differences between the general education students and the special education

students. During the spring semester, eighth graders who will be transitioning to the ninth

grade and their parents will meet with the guidance counselor about the SATP-2,

graduation requirements, and other education concerns. Both general and special

educators will have the opportunity to swap roles interchangeably: one will teach and the

other will observe and vice versa. The program facilitator will note the differences

between the roles of both disciplines. These differences and similarities will continue to

be a part of the discussion during the monthly meetings. The teachers will be the contact

persons in regards to academic issues and collaboration questions. At this point, the PF

will explain to teachers and school personnel the vision for the project, the organization

of the project, participant expectations, district timeline, and plans for assessment and

review.

I will use Approaches 3 and 4 during the second year of the project to provide an

in-depth process to collaboration. Monthly meetings will continue as teachers meet with

the inclusion students weekly during the month of May. These meetings will be

comprised of teachers who will mentor small groups of inclusion students about the pros

and cons of the inclusion process during the teacher collaboration process. Additional

meetings will be held with the transitioning eighth grade inclusion students so that they

will be knowledgeable of the project expectations. A briefing with school administrators,

counselors, and coteachers of the inclusion process will take place in the high school

gym. Students will be allowed to ask questions about the secondary process for

implementing the program. There will be activities and refreshments provided. There will

be sports-related activities that high school students may participate in the gymnasium. A

fair will occur during the school day to ensure that all students are able to attend. On the

last day of school, each eighth grader will to pair up with an upper classperson who will

serve as a coach.

I will use Approaches 5 and 6 as a final part of the overall project. This phase will

occur during the final week of school and the starting time will be from 3:15 p.m. to

5:15p.m. The eighth graders will be transported from the middle school to the high school

to meet with their assigned teacher/coach. This will give the teachers the opportunity to

introduce the TCP. Teacher/coaches will design a plan of action for high school students

in the inclusion program. The TCP will continue throughout the school year on a month-

to-month basis. There will be a 30-minute period added to the school schedule for

students to meet with their student coaches and teacher/mentors to discuss how the month

is going and/or express any other concerns that they may have. This establishes a line of

communication between the student and teacher/mentor.

A more detailed explanation of each approach to the coteaching process for the

TCP follows this timeline for implementation. See Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Table 1

Six Approaches to Coteaching Implementation Timetable: Approaches 1 and 2

Approaches 1 & 2 One-Teach, One Observe/Station

Teaching

 The participants in the program will meet monthly to introduce the 1

st two

co-teaching approaches: 1 and 2.

 This meeting will allow special educators and general educators the

opportunity to view the co-teaching

approaches.

 Participants will discuss various differences between special education

and general education students

 8 th

graders who will be promoted to the

9 th

grade will be bused to the high

school for a transition meeting with the

counselor about graduation

requirements and other educational

concerns. Parents will be in attendance

as well.

 General and special educators will have the opportunity to swap roles

interchangeably. One will teach and the

other will observe and vice versa.

 The PF will explain to teachers and school instructional leaders the vision

for the project, the organization of the

project, participant expectations,

timeline for the first approach, and

plans for assessment and review.

Table 2

Six Approaches to Coteaching Implementation Timetable: Approaches 3 and 4

Approaches 3 & 4 Alternative Teaching/ Parallel Teaching

 Monthly meetings will continue as teachers meet weekly with inclusion

students during the month of May.

 Teachers will continue to observe each other and make note differences and

similarities in students and their

academic performance along with any

related concerns about the parallel or

alternative approaches to teaching.

 Teachers will talk with small groups of inclusion students about the pros and

cons of the Teacher Collaboration

Program.

 Additional meetings will be held with the transitioning 8th grade inclusion

students to inform them of the

expectations for the project.

 They will report to the high school gymnasium for a briefing the

administrators, counselors, and co-

teachers of the inclusion process.

 Students will be allowed to ask questions about the secondary process

for implementing the program. Also,

there will be activities and

refreshments included.

 There will be other sport-related activities that high school students will

participate in the gymnasium. There

will be a fair which will occur during

the school day to ensure that all

students will be able to attend.

 On the last day of school, each 8th grader will be able to pair up with an

upper classman who will serve as a

coach.

Table 3

Six Approaches to Coteaching Implementation Timetable: Approaches 4 and 5

Approaches 5 & 6 Team Teaching/One Teach, One Assist

 Team teaching and one teach/one assists are the last two approaches for

co-teaching.

 During the last two weeks of school, transitional 8

th graders will be

transported to the high school during

the last week from 3:15 p.m. to 5:15

p.m. for an introduction of the Teacher

Collaboration Program.

 This distinct opportunity will establish an educational and social repertoire.

 This will give the teachers the opportunity to introduce the Teacher

Collaboration Program called the Co-

teaching Approaches (CTA)

 A monthly 30 minute session will be built into the school calendar for

incoming freshman.

Approaches 1 and 2

In the first two approaches of this project, there will be two introductory meetings

held at the high school: one with the special educators, and the other one with general

educators. The purpose of these meetings will be to discuss the goals of this project. The

project will be presented to faculty members assigned to be a part of the program to make

them aware of the collaboration process as the fiscal school calendar is developed and for

the sole of purpose of educating the stakeholders about the collaboration process.

After meeting with the staff members, the general and special educators will hold

their meetings to begin a plan of action. During these meeting, teachers will be divided

into groups to focus on one core area: English for 30 minute intervals. Teachers will

share their concerns related to the subject area. There will be 30-minute group sessions

on the differences and similarities of the general and special educator approaches to

coteaching. The program facilitator will initiate all scheduled meetings through an

organized agenda. Each agenda will include time for reflection and collaborative

momentums. The final 30 minutes of the meetings will include an open forum and

feedback from the previous meetings. This will allow for innovative ideas to be shared,

and the program facilitator will prepare the next agenda accordingly. In addition, the

program facilitator will explain the purpose of the project, as well as the organization,

expectations of participants, timeline for the Approaches 1 and 2, the plans for

assessment, and review. During the spring semester, students and parents will meet with

the school counselor to apprise them of the graduation requirements, eligibility for

participating in sports, and yearly credit requirements.

By mid April, transitional eighth graders will be transported to the high school for

a campus tour. The students will be introduced to their teacher/mentors. Teachers will be

assigned to each child from the beginning of the tour until graduation. Unless teachers

leave the district, these students will remain with the assigned teacher for the duration of

the program. All future students transferring from the middle school will be assigned a

teacher/mentor. Students coming in from another district will also be assigned to a

teacher/mentor or student/coach upper class person to guide the incoming first-year

students around the campus. This will give the first-year student the opportunity to get

familiar with the campus before they are enrolled.

At the conclusion of Approaches 1 and 2, teacher participants will be involved in

a grouped-focus interview. The PF will ask open-ended questions as to how Approaches1

and 2 were orchestrated and carried out, the successes and failures of the approaches, and

the overall perception of the process. This type of feedback will allow the PF, school

setting, and instructional leaders to make the necessary adjustments needed in

Approaches 3 and 4.

Approaches 3 and 4

During the second year of the project, teachers will be consistent with monthly

meetings to ensure that alternative and station teaching is applied as defined. The same

platform will be applied in these meetings as in Approaches 1 and 2, and participants will

be able to cooperate on professional levels. Teachers will be able to observe and note

differences and the similarities in the Approaches 1 and 2 as well as the setting. Middle

school English teachers will observe high school English teachers, and middle school

special educators will observe another special educator. Teachers will observe, take

notes, and report those differences in their next meeting. This information can be

discussed in collaboration meetings and be used to build connections with others at the

middle school, which is the other secondary setting in the district.

Approaches 3 and 4 will also serve as additional time for teacher/mentors to get

acquainted with their students. Teachers/mentors will meet with their small groups during

the month of May. Teachers will discuss their pros and cons of the collaboration

program. They will discuss the many facets about what makes the high school setting

outstanding and their expectations of the current and transitioning students. During this

time, the teachers will discuss the procedures and rules for the setting. Parents will be

provided with a written invitation requesting their attendance so that they are informed of

the expectations of the setting as well. Teachers will be provided an additional tour so

that they may learn the campus procedures, rules, and guidelines. They will report to the

high school gymnasium for a briefing with the administrators, counselors, and coteachers

of the inclusion process. Students will be allowed to ask questions about the secondary

process for implementing the program. Also, there will be activities and refreshments

included.

Approaches 5 and 6

During the last 2 weeks of school, transitional eighth graders will be transported

to the high school during the last week and the starting time will be from 3:15 p.m. to

5:15 p.m. for an introduction of the TCP. Teachers will use this opportunity to establish

an educational and social repertoire. These two approaches (team teaching and one teach

and one assists) are the final two approaches in the coteaching process. This will give the

teachers the opportunity to introduce the TCP and CTA. This session will be built into the

school calendar, which will be in the form of a monthly 30-minute session for incoming

first-year students. This time will include discussion and support will be provided. At this

point, students can talk about their struggles and upper class persons can coach them

through their challenges.

An additional interview will occur at the end of Approaches 5 and 6; these

interviews will be divided between the high school and the middle school English

teachers and the special education teachers, respectively. The PF can address questions,

but the focus will be on the strengths and weaknesses of the teacher collaboration

process. This information will be beneficial when sharing the overall outcome of the

project with the participants and the instructional leaders to determine whether the school

should adopt or reject this collaboration program.

Roles and Responsibilities of Students’ and Others

During this process, I will serve as the researcher and developer of the TCP. I will

be in the position of the teacher leader. As a doctoral student, I focused on designing and

developing the project. This included drafting a 3-year plan that may be beneficial for the

implementation of the six coteaching approaches to the inclusion program. In accordance

with the National High School Center’s (2011) six key steps of high school improvement,

I developed a TCP, using emergent themes and one-on-one interviews from XYZ High

School. I organized a teacher collaborating program, which included preparing and

developing relevant activities for the collaboration process. I based my work on current

and scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles about inclusion students with disabilities in

teacher collaborative settings.

As the implementation process begins in the local setting, I will volunteer to be

the PF in the XYZ High School. My responsibilities will include budgeting, planning and

implementing, and organizing each approach to the teacher collaboration program, along

with providing transportation for registering eighth graders who will attend the high

school next year. I will continue my position as a teacher at the neighboring elementary

school, but I will serve as a PF in part in lieu of my certification status and coteacher in

the district. I will work in close proximity with teachers and instructional leaders at the

high school and the middle school to expand the program. At the closing of the project, I

will collect and analyze data, report findings, and verify results with all participants from

school to school.

Project Evaluation

Researchers must make plans for review and assessments of a project. In this

regard, a researcher can determine what will and will not work in order to make

modifications for future or similar related projects. I will include plans and project

assessments as part of the coteaching approaches for a TTCP. Plans for evaluation

include collecting formative data.

Formative Evaluation

Formal and informal focus groups will be the source of formative data for this

project through the use of sessions with English teachers at the high school and middle

school, as well as middle school teachers and the high school teacher/mentor. The

program facilitator will interview the participants in focus groups during each approach

of the program. Students who have participated in the collaboration process will also be

interviewed in informal focus group sessions during each approach for the program.

These discussions between the facilitator and participant allow the facilitator to

make the necessary adjustments during the project. The PF may use notes taken from the

training for the collaboration program to determine the direction of the project. The PF

and the instructional leaders can use this information to determine which types of

collaborative activities are helpful and which ones are not. Researchers may use this

doctoral study for future research to create plans for assessment. Administrators may use

the negative and positive feedback to construct a plan for the XYZ High School. District

administrators can use participants’ feedback to determine the application of this project

in other schools within the district or a setting that may use teacher collaboration at the

secondary level.

Proposed Evaluation Plan

I may use the proposed Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model to enhance the inclusion

program where I conducted the study. In this proposed evaluation model, I would

elaborate on some of the problems at the high school of interest. One of the problems is

that general and special teachers at the high school had little time to plan lessons and

coteach due to their heavy workload. Next, I will expand on the four levels of the

Kirkpatrick evaluation model that should address the issues of scheduling conflicts, a

lack of planning, too much emphasis on state testing, and less time to coteach in the

inclusion classes. Each level has its own function. Level 1 will involve reactions as to

how well the learners or participants perceives the learning process. In this level, I will

ask a set of questions about the presentation: Did they like it? Was the material relevant

to their work? In Level 2, I will assess the learning that occurred due to a training

program; Level 2 evaluations often use tests before training (pretest) and after training

(posttest). In Level 3, I will measure the transfer that has occurred in learner’s behavior

due to the coteacher’s training program. I will ask the following questions: Are the newly

acquired skills of general and special educators, knowledge of general and special

educators about coteaching, or coteachers’ attitude toward inclusion show progress in the

everyday environment of the learner? My explanation of this proposed plan should reflect

the evaluation model that is located in the appendix section.

Rationale for Project Evaluation

I used the project evaluation to provide information in which the PF and program

participants can work to make decisions about how well the program will benefit

teachers, as well as students in the inclusive classes. In these groups, participants will

express their ideas in collaborative ways. Participants can share feedback to make the

TCP a stronger project.

Implications Including Social Change

When teachers and all school stakeholders improve their educational

environment, social change has been accomplished. I based this collaboration project on

teacher beliefs and perceptions of what is beneficial for students with disabilities to be

successful in high school. This program involved scheduled time for teachers to meet to

discuss curriculum and instruction, planning and implementing, as well as differences

and similarities between the special and general educators and their approaches for

teaching students with disabilities.

I will work to ensure that the project proves to be effective using the six elements

from the National High School Center (2011) that focus on school improvement in the

high school setting. The National High School Center focused on providing information

for students with disabilities and collaborative activities from the program, including

ideas from teacher participants who elaborated on their concerns during the interviews

and concepts identified in the literature review. Implications for the TAP include positive

social change that is far-reaching and locally implemented.

Local Community

The local community may apply the National High School Center’s (2011) six

key steps for school improvement in the TCP in a local setting with the goal of improving

the collaboration program for students with disabilities at XYZ High School. I applied all

actions in the TCP. Teachers and students will experience the collaboration between one

another and the other secondary school in the district by engaging in the project. The goal

of this project is to ensure that a large percentage of eighth graders are on a diploma

track, stay in high school, meet all graduation requirements, and obtain a diploma. In

show, true gains will take at least 2 to 5 years; this timeframe will allow for adjustments

and changes as needed.

Addressing the National High School Center’s (2011) six steps outlined above, I

developed the TCP to focus on easing the inclusion process for teachers and

administrators. The program reflects the six key elements to effective collaboration

programs outlined for high school improvements that target the themes that merged from

one-on-one interviews in the research setting. In this program, I will work to provide

opportunities for teachers to meet monthly to ensure that the coteaching approaches are

addressed and collaboration in inclusive settings are achieved. This program can also

benefit parents, students, and teachers as they communicate about the collaborative

practices. This program will aid struggling students who can make use of school

personnel for the next 5 years. TCPs also provide opportunities for students, teachers, and

families to discuss their educational concerns for current and future purposes. These

concerns may include curriculum, athletics, facilities, rules, guidelines, and regulations

related to the high school setting.

Far Reaching

In this project, teachers, students, and families can collaborate to ensure that

students with disabilities will have the appropriate educational tools. Collaborative

teaching and learning are effective approaches for children’s learning, but teachers rarely

fully implement collaboration for the learners in their classes (Bauwens & Hourcade,

1991; Horn, 2008; Reed & Groth, 2009). Teachers view their occupation as an individual

and private occupation with each classroom operating as a private world (Horn, 2008;

Little, 1990, 2003; Timperley & Robnson, 1997). Collaborative structures work best

when they are supported by the school and when likeminded colleagues work together

(Thomson & Brown, 2000). This was the case for the teachers involved in this study.

Educational leaders are challenged by the growing demands for increased levels

of academic achievement of all students. Education has become a high-stakes

environment in which all students, regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, need for

exceptional education services, native language, or other limitations, must meet AYP

indicators as specified by federal mandates. There is scrutiny in public education

regarding how to meet such demands. By 2014, all students, with an increased focus on

those categorized by the six NCLB (2002) subgroups (White, Black, Hispanic, limited

English proficient, students with disabilities, and socioeconomically disadvantaged) are

expected to meet pass proficiency rates (VA Department of Education, 2010). In

addition, school divisions and schools must test at least 95% of their student populations,

including 95% of students in each of the AYP subgroups as mandated by NCLB

legislation (VA Department of Education, 2010).

A key piece of legislation coinciding with NCLB (2002) is IDEIA (2004), which

mandates that students with special needs access the general education curriculum and

programs in the LRE with age-appropriate peers. In some instances, this results in a

coteaching classroom where a general and an exceptional education teacher work

together to meet the needs of students by providing appropriate accommodations and

modifications in the general education classroom (Friend et al., 2010). Both NCLB and

IDEIA made collaboration between general and exceptional education teachers more

important than ever (Arthaud, Aram, Breck, Doelling, & Bushrow, 2007; Conderman &

Johnston-Rodriguez 2009; Friend et al., 2010; Harvey, Yssel, Bauserman, & Merbler,

2010).

The TCP can be significant to its participants when it is implemented.

Considering the various activities planned that are geared toward meeting the students

with disabilities, students who participate in this program should benefit as well. The

teachers involved in the program should benefit from the ways they collaborate between

themselves and students. Globally speaking, the TCP could be adjusted to be used

district-wide or nation-wide for the benefit of students with disabilities.

Conclusion

In this section, I described the project portion of this doctoral study. I framed this

study by the National High School Center’s (2011) six steps for school improvement in

which their mission is to provide research-based strategies and resources to help ensure

that all high school students perform to their fullest potential. This TCP will provide

opportunities that will promote student achievement in the area of teacher collaboration.

In this process, teachers will be able to apply the knowledge gained as a result of

developing this project. I designed this program with the intent of obtaining long-lasting

and far-reaching effects on teachers who want to advance in the area of collaboration. As

teachers work together to strive for excellence in education, the school setting will be

able to make adjustments in the curriculum for students with disabilities. In the next

section, I will discuss reflections and conclusions combined with literature to support the

areas of this doctoral study.

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions

Introduction

The Nation’s Report Card (2009) informs the public about the academic

achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States. The Nation’s

Report Card communicates the findings of the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP), a nationally representative measure of achievement in various subjects

overtime (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Following the adoption of IDEA (2004),

teachers concentrated on the development of programs to meet the needs of students with

disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). These new programming options must

comply with federal statutes regarding educating students in their LRE with nondisabled

peers. NCLB (2002) legislation also placed a new focus on exceptional education

programming and the need for more effective collaboration and coteaching models.

Teacher training institutions are responsible for ensuring that preservice teachers are well

prepared to meet the challenges of more inclusive classrooms (Harvey et al., 2010).

The focus of this study was on collaboration with general and special educators in

inclusive classrooms with an emphasis in English classrooms at the high school. The

intent for this study was to gather opinions to determine the most suitable plan that would

help make this teacher collaboration program a success. I investigated teachers’

perceptions of collaborative practices for students with disabilities in relation to a

collaboration program at a high school in a rural, small town in Southwest Mississippi.

There is research in the area of teacher collaboration on the secondary level.

Researchers have indicated trends in regards to students with disabilities. These

perceptions align with challenges of collaborative settings for students with disabilities

found in other studies discussed in the literature review. In this qualitative study, I

inquired about teachers’ views of collaborative practices in inclusive classrooms for

students with disabilities. I created the TCP to address the issues of the collaboration

process with general and special educators in inclusive classrooms. This project is

included in Appendix A.

In this section, I explain the project’s strengths and limitations; reflections and

scholarship analysis; leadership practices; project development; and implications,

applications, and directions for future research.

Project Strengths

This project possessed several strengths that included teacher input and a user-

friendly system that is research-based. This program requires minimum funding, and the

workload for the teachers will be minimally impacted. These strengths were based on the

data analysis. I tailored this project for coteachers who addressed areas of needs that

emerged from the qualitative study at XYZ High School.

I designed the TCP based on data collected from teachers. I adjusted this project

to meet the needs of the system and leadership. This research is not a quick fix, but it was

an introduction of content-related, research-based information on collaboration for the

purpose of effective inclusion settings in high schools.

During this process, time was a factor. I planned the collaborating sessions to last

the same amount of time that teachers plan. Teachers were minimally impacted when

they were away from their students because of the block scheduling. The after school

schedule of the program has a limit of a 2 weeks timeframe, funding is allocated for

teachers to make up the time after school. The project will last up to 3 years. This will

allow the administration and school personnel to make adjustments as needed for the

benefit of the school setting.

Because of limited funding, this program can be replicated and does not require

funding. Therefore, the program facilitator duties could be replicated by other staff

members. The XYZ High Schools permits special educators and general educators

alternative times off to make up the time they use to contribute for funding, if funds

becomes a problem. This program has the potential form implementation or adoption as a

feasible part of the school improvement plan.

Recommendations for Remediation of Limitations

Possible limitations include participants that are reluctant to participate due

to various reasons such as time, lack of understanding of what the project involves and

overall concern of the ability to fully dedicate themselves to the study. In order for this

project to benefit all members of the learning community, it is important that all members

have a thorough understanding of what the project involved. Since this school has never

fully utilized co-teaching, another potential limitation is the fear of change. The last

potential limitation would be to have all teachers involved in the training sessions. The

concern arises from circumstances that keep teachers concerned that they will shy away

from the classroom to attend the trainings as well as anticipating that an event may occur

such as an illness, personal leave or other meetings which would not allow them to attend

the meetings. The need to schedule supplementary trainings can help alleviate some of

their concerns. Another potential limitation can be lack of funding from the district. Will

the district be able to fully fund this study? If not, this can hamper the efforts of the study.

Administrators can address these limitations by using different approaches to the project.

For the purpose of broader gains, teachers can remediate the limitations of this study. If

this study was done in a larger school system, using maybe four high schools in the study,

10 special educators per school, 10 general educators per school, and five administrators,

this study could be replicated.

The potential for researcher bias was as concern. My position as a teacher in the

same district may or may not have influenced the teachers who participated in the study. I

addressed any reservations by those who knew me as a professional in the district by

using open-ended questions. With the survey used, I reduced the risks because the

participants were anonymous.

The project design and study is limited The collaboration program and the data

collected were based on a small, rural high school in Mississippi, and is geared toward

collaborative programs for students with disabilities. This project may be difficult for

larger school districts because of the general factors that may cause limitations. There are

many factors that may limit the findings to other settings. The first limitation identified

during this study was the sample size, which was a sample of five participants. All

participants worked at the same high school. This sample was sufficient enough to

provide answers to the interview questions, research questions, and survey responses.

Another challenge was that only four teachers and one administrator from one high

school participated in the study.

Scholarship

In this study, I had the opportunity to cultivate a relationship with my colleagues

during interviews. I developed a program tailored toward teacher collaboration for

educating students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms at the high school level for

students and parents. In this qualitative study, I designed a program that was

educationally appropriate for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms by

creating meaningful activities for collaboration.

Project Development and Evaluation

In this study, I had the opportunity to learn about the privilege of developing a

project and evaluating it. As a result of addressing the local problem, this study resulted

in a program designed for teacher collaborations. In this study, I organized a program for

social change and the methods needed to evaluate the program.

As a result of the local problem, I implemented a research-based program for the

XYZ High School. I addressed the problem as it is related to students with disabilities

and teachers in collaborative settings. Even though this problem was in the local setting,

it was related to a larger problem that is found nation-wide in elementary and secondary

settings. I collected data by conducting one-on-one interviews and survey responses that I

analyzed in narrative form. I began the project after analyzing the teachers’ perceptions.

Initially, I started the project evaluation with the implementation process that required

sharing the outcomes for a 3-year project with the local professional learning community.

Leadership and Change

According to Gardner (1984), leadership is the process of persuasion or example

by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to implement objectives held

by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers. This project has influenced

my thinking as it applies to my role as an educator. Educators have the power to

influence and motivate others to foster change, such as pursuing a high school diploma

despite the disabilities they encounter. In this project, I believed that the system will lead

changes that will benefit students and the entire district. I communicated with the

superintendent and administrators regularly. I was mentored and coached during this

process, and the mentors and coaches were an active part of my study. The project was a

model for change in my district and I acknowledged that minor weaknesses can become

strengths, as a result of collaboration with local stakeholders.

Vaill (1984) indicated that empowerment derives from being linked to purposing:

Everyone is free to do what makes sense as long as people’s decisions embody the values

shared by the school community. When empowerment is understood in this light, the

emphasis shifts away from the discretion needed to function and toward responsibility to

the community. This opportunity has allowed me to grow professionally and foster my

rapport with educators in the same field. This has strengthened trust and added rigor to

the implementation of this project.

Trustworthy leaders are at the heart of successful schools. Trustworthy leadership

gets everyone on the same team, pulling in the same direction (Tschannen, 2003). I have

love for the students who have been entrusted into my care and this district. After

completing this research, I have confidence as a researcher and an educator.

Analysis of Self as Scholar

As a scholar, I have developed knowledge that will allow me to grow as a

professional. I have identified my weaknesses and have made changes as a result of those

weaknesses, which have allowed me to move forward in my career and work setting. By

learning to conduct research and developing an innovative program, I now understand

how significant these studies can be. The knowledge I gained over the course of this

study as it relates to students with disabilities, along with the teacher collaboration

process, was enhanced. I will continue to look for ways to improve student achievement

in my local learning community.

As a doctoral student, I learned that I have the inner strength and maturity in this

area of research. I have made strides in this area of my career and my education. I will

continue my work as an educator by implementing this project in my local learning

community, as well as by helping other local school systems develop and implement a

TCP that is geared toward meeting the needs of students with disabilities. This process

has given me insight as an educator and a life-long learner.

Analysis of Self as Practitioner

As an elementary school inclusion teacher and a former high school special

education teacher, I developed knowledge as a result of this doctoral study. I am

confident that my potential as an educator for students with disabilities has improved. I

have gained knowledge about collaboration as a result of working with teachers in this

study. Through the literature review on teacher collaboration, I have developed concepts

that will be beneficial as I grow into the role of teacher collaboration organizer. I have

gained knowledge of concepts that illustrate not only teachers’ need for an organized

plan, but for students who need structured settings as well. As an advocate for students

with disabilities and a former high school teacher, these experiences have strengthened

my confidence in research-based decision-making and my ability to help students in

inclusive setting with best practices that promotes student achievement.

My doctoral studies have resulted in positive outcomes because of a training that I

developed for teachers of inclusive classrooms. By educating general and special

educators about the six steps to the coteaching approaches, I am able to better meet the

needs of students in inclusive settings by providing research-based solutions in the

collaboration process. I am now better prepared to help high school teachers improve

classroom approaches for best practices for helping struggling learners. I feel that both

parents and students will benefit from my knowledge of collaboration.

As a growing practitioner, I grew as a lead teacher and a life-long learner. I am

involved in the decision-making process at the high school as well. I learned about the

scheduling process for students by working with the teachers. I also served as the

collaboration coordinator for students at the high school to help students make the

necessary choices for the secondary setting by providing the resources to support them

once they graduate.

I have had the opportunities to learn about procedural policies in the school. I also

work with administrators in coordinating resources that would be beneficial for students

with disabilities. On a monthly basis, I also consult with general educators in regards to

student achievement, student modifications, and parental involvement. Through my roles

as a teacher-practitioner, I have gained an understanding of the role of administrators,

counselors, and parents through this doctoral study.

Analysis of Self as Project Developer

To analyze myself as a project developer, I must be a role model in all of my

educational endeavors. I must apply myself as a researcher, teacher, leader, organizer,

planner, practitioner, scholar, reader, and writer. As a teacher leader I became a project

developer of a TCP called CTA based on findings from the qualitative study. I based this

project on data gathered from one administrator and four teachers after analyzing their

interview and survey responses. In this process, I worked to review and compile relevant

and peer-reviewed literature to enhance the study and project. These qualities enhanced

my role as a scholar and practitioner.

As the study moved forward and the project grew, I enhanced my skills in the

areas of planning, organizing, and leading. I developed a 3-year plan for implementation

with district-wide approaches including teacher collaboration, scheduled meetings,

student and parent collaboration, and a period to resolve conflict. The 3-year timeline

provided a plan for meeting the six steps for school improvement from The National

High School Center (2011).

Organizing the collaboration activities and the timeline required planning,

research, and one-on-one interviews and surveys where data were analyzed. As a project

developer, I continued to maintain and develop my leadership skills and promote teacher

leadership and social change through teacher collaboration at XYZ High School.

Discussion

I have completed doctoral work that will benefit not only the local settings in this

district, but all schools in the United States for students with disabilities. By reviewing

literature related to the teacher collaboration for students with disabilities, I have learned

the meaning of collaborative planning, federal mandates and theoretical perspectives

behind the idea of teacher collaboration. I have also learned that self-motivation and

determination are essential to helping students with disabilities in inclusive classroom

settings. By conducting one-on-one interviews, I gained insight about teacher

collaboration from a teacher’s perspective at XYZ High School. I created a program that

will address the defined problem at the local setting. As a result, I am a leader, scholar,

and practitioner. I believe that my project will serve as an asset to the system where I am

employed, and I hope to be a positive facilitator through the implementation of the TCP

locally and nationally.

The Project’s Potential Impact on Social Change

This project has the potential to impact the local setting to bring about social

change for the benefit of teachers who work with students with disabilities in the United

States. Understanding the federal mandates and the research for collaborative planning

helps school systems across the state develop programs that will benefit all students.

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research

I was encouraged by the outcome of the project as it increased my understanding

of the collaborative process. In order to expand this project in my own district I

recommend using this study as a guide for schools in the progress and success of students

who are at the secondary level, as well as students who are transitioning from the middle

school. Further expansion of the project could also include application involving the

implementation of the TCP in the local setting. The scope of this project may be

transferable to teachers and administrators in other districts, states and content areas, and

grade levels that want to use the co-teaching model. Furthermore, I recommend further

study of co-teaching by either replicating or adapting this study to other educational

settings.

Future researchers could conduct a mixed-methods or quantitative approach

investigation as a similar project, which includes additional technology as a part of the

data collection and analysis to explore other solutions to the teacher collaboration

problem at the local high school. A scholar could apply a mixed methods approach in the

form of numerical data that could be used to support the ideas and themes identified. A

quantitative study could include statistical methods to analyze and assess needs

pertaining to teacher collaboration for students with disabilities in the local high school

setting.

Conclusion

In the outcome of this study, I demonstrated positive outcomes for a qualitative

case study and a project study for teachers working in inclusion classrooms for the

benefit of students with disabilities on a secondary level. I conducted a qualitative study

to investigate how teachers collaborated in inclusion settings using one-on-one interviews

and a survey at XYZ High School, which was the only high school in the district. As a

result, I designed TCP that can be applied to the local learning community studied. The

final product, a TCP called the CTA, is a distinct opportunity to find a solution to the

problem that triggered the study.

Through research questions, participant interviews, and survey responses, I

framed this study from themes within data and the literary review. In the literature review

in Section I, I focused on the federal laws and mandates, defined the problem related to

students with disabilities, and concluded with appropriate ways to coteach in

collaborative settings in inclusive classrooms. In Section 3, I described the six steps for

high school improvement and the six coteaching approaches that can be implemented in a

TCP. I used findings about scholarship and leadership in the literature review to address

the guiding questions. This study has the potential to bring about the desired social

change through improved teacher collaborative practices in inclusive classrooms on a

secondary level.

References

Agbenyega, J. (2007). Examining teachers’ concern and attitudes to inclusive education

in Ghana. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(1), 41-56.

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. doi:10.1177/088840640703000101

Atkins, T. (2008). A case study examining the collaboration between general education

and special education teachers in inclusive classrooms (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304530212

Balschweid, M. A., Thompson, G.W., & Cole, R. L. (2000). Agriculture and science

integration: A pre-service prescription for contextual learning. Journal of

Agricultural Education, 41(2), 36-45. doi:10.5032/jae.2002.02001

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1991). Making co-teaching a mainstreaming strategy.

Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 19-24. doi:10.1080/1045988X.1991.9944254

Bender, W. (2008). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities:

Best teaching practices for general and special educators. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Boe, E.E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning

teachers in either special or general education? The Journal of Special Education,

41(3), 158-170. doi:10.1177/00224669070410030201

Blair, M., Donovan, B., & Sheehan, K. (2010). Practicing what we teach: Making the

coteaching model come alive in the college classroom. Preventing School Failure,

7(2), 31-42.

Brandes, J. A., & Crowson, H. (2009). Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of

students with disabilities: The role of conservative ideology and discomfort with

disability. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 271-289. doi:10.1007/s11218-008-

9077-8

Carter, N., Prater, M. A., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M. (2009). Educators’ perceptions of

collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School

Failure, 54(1), 60-70. doi:10.3200/PSFL.54.1.60-70

Changpinit, S., Greaves, D., & Fryenberg, E. (2007). Attitudes, knowledge, concerns, and

coping strategies regarding inclusive education in community of Thai educators:

The 1 st International conference on Educational Reform. Mahasarakhan

University, Thailand: Author.

Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009). Beginning teachers’ views of their

collaboration roles. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 53(4), 235-244.

doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.4.235-244

Cortez, C., (2009). Learning to collaborate by collaborating: A face-to-face collaborative

activity for measuring and learning basics about teamwork. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 25(2), 126-142.

100

Council for Exceptional Children. (2011). Instructional strategies. Retrieved from

www.cec.sped.org

Cramer, E., Liston, A., Nevin, A., & Thousand, J. (2010). Coteaching 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), 59-75.

Dee, A. L. (2011). Pre-service teacher application of differentiated instruction. The

Teacher Educator, 47(1), 53-70.

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L., Knackendoffel, A., & Dyck, N. (2009). Collaboration,

consultation, and teamwork (6 th

ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School of Journal, 54(3), 77-80. Retrieved

from http://www.infed.org/archive

Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey on education: Selected writings (R. D. Archambault, Ed.).

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1973). Lectures in China, 1919-1920. (W. Clopton & T. C. Ou, Eds., Trans.).

Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

El-Ashry, F. R. (2009).General education pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward

inclusion in Egypt (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from

purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0024244

Forlin, C. (2008). Education reform for inclusion in Asia: What about teacher education?

In C. Forlin & M. G. J. Lian (Eds.), Reform, inclusion & teacher education:

Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 61-73).

Abingdon, VA: Routledge.

101

Forlin, C. (2010). Re-framing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher

education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 3-

10). Abingdon, VA: Routledge.

Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education:

Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education, 39(1), 17-32. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850

Friend, M. (2008). Coteach! A manual for creating and sustaining classroom

partnerships in inclusive schools. Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend, Inc.

Friend, M. (2007). The coteaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64(5) 48-52.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals

(5 th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals

(6 th

ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Coteaching:

An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of

Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9-27.

doi:10.1080/10474410903535380

Friend, M., & Shamberger, C. T. (2008). Inclusion., Good, T. L, 21 st century education: A

reference handbook (pp. 125-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

102

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What

makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of

teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

doi:10.3102/00028312038004915

Gardner, J. W. (1984). Excellence (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

Gentry, R. (2012). Collaboration skills pre-service teachers acquire in a responsive

preparation program. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies,8, 1-9.

Giangreco, M. F. (2007). Extending inclusive opportunities. Educational Leadership,

64(5), 34-37.

Giannola, D. C. (2012). Comparing inclusion in the secondary vocational and academic

classrooms: Strengths, needs, and recommendations. American Secondary

Education Journal, 40(2), 26-42.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyer.

Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4 th

ed.). London,

England: Pearson.

Gore, M. C. (2010). Inclusion strategies for secondary classrooms: Keys for struggling

learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J.M., & Pullen, P.C. (2012). Exceptional learners: An

introduction to special education (12 ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research: A practical guide

for beginning researchers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

103

Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of coteaching: Perspectives and efficacy

indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 45-63.

doi:10.1177/0741932508321018

Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010). Pre-service

teacher preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education teacher-

training institutions. Remediation and Special Education, 31(1), 24-33.

Horne, I. S. (2008). The inherent interdependence of teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(10),

750-754.

Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study: A practical guide for

beginning researchers. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

Jenkins, A., & Ornelles, C. (2009). Determining professional development needs of

general educators in teaching students with disabilities in Hawaii. Professional

Development in Education, 35(4), 635-654.

Johnson, P. A. (2010). General education. Hunt, T. C., Carper, J. C., Lasley, T. J. II,

Raisch, C. D., Encyclopedia of Educational Reform and Dissent (pp.401-403).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jordan, A. (2007). Introduction to inclusive education. Mississauga, ON: Wiley & Sons.

Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about coteaching: A collaborative student teaching

experience for pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education,

30, 155-16.

Lichtman, M. (2010). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

104

Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’

professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.

Jung, W. S. (2007).Pre-service teacher training for successful inclusion. Education,

128(1), 106-113.

Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Coteaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint.

Preventing School Failure: Alternative for Children and Youth, 52(2), 12-20.

doi:10.3200/PSFL.52.2.12-20

Leatherman, J. (2009). Teachers’voices concerning collaborative teams within an

inclusive elementary school. Teaching Education, 20, 189-202.

doi:10.1080/10476210902718104

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D.T., & Voegtle, K.H. (2010). Methods in educational

research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Martin, R., & Williams, J. (2012). “I feel I’m important”: Successful collaborative

teaching and learning in a New Zealand intermediate school. Research in Middle

Education, 36(2), 1-13.

Merriam, S. (2010).Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mississippi Department of Education. (2012). Office of instructional enhancement and

internal operations/Office of Special Education/State Board of Education Special

Education Annual Report. Retrieved from

www.mde.k12.ms.us/officeofinstrictionalenhancementandinternaloperations

105

Myers, B.E., Thompson, G.W. (2009). Integrating academics into agriculture programs:

A Delphi study to determine perceptions of the National Agriscience Teacher

Ambassador Academy participants. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(92),

75-86. doi:10.5032/jae.2009.02075

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card: Mathematics

2009 (NCES 2010-451). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education,

Institute of Education Sciences.

National High School Center. (2011). Retrieved from www.betterhighschools.org

National Education Association. (2008). Special education and the Individuals With

Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425

(2002).

Nichols, S. L. (2008). NCLB: Effects on achievement. Good, T.L., 21 st Century

Education: A Reference Handbook (pp. 374-382). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nichols, J., Dowdy, A., & Nichols, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An educational promise for

children with disabilities or a quick fix to meet the mandates of No Child Left

Behind. Education, 130(4), 647-651.

Pugach, M. C., & Winn, J. A. (2011). Research on co-teaching and teaming: An untapped

resource for induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(1), 34-46.

Reed, D. K., & Groth, C. (2009). Academic teams promote cross-curricular applications

that improve learning outcomes. Middle School Journal, 40(3), 12-19.

106

Riggins, P. S. (2011). The impact of team teaching on inclusion in secondary education

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from www.proquest.com.ezpwaldeunlibrary.org

Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs

students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188-198.

Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H.E. (1982). Evaluation-A system approach. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, K. A. (2007). Coteaching in inclusive classrooms: A

metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392-416.

Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-teachers’

attitudes concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with

disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773-785.

doi:10.1080/09687590802469271

Smith, T.E.C. (2012). Including adolescents with disabilities in general education

classrooms. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Stang, K.K., & Lyons, B. M. (2008). Effects of modeling collaborative teaching for pre-

service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(3), 182-194.

doi:10.1177/0888406408330632

Symeonidou, S., & Phtiaka, H. (2009).Using teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes and

beliefs to developing-service teacher education courses for inclusion. Teaching

&Teacher Education, 25(4), 543-550. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.001

Taylor, L.K., (1988). Better interviews: The effects of supervisor training on listening

and collaborative skills. Journal of Educational Leadership 82(2), 89-95.

107

Thomson, C., & Brown, D. (2000). Co-operative learning: What it has to offer New

Zealand teachers. SET Research Information for Teachers, 4(3), 38-42.

Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative

planning and teaching. Journal of Theory into Practice, 45(3), 239-248.

doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4503_6

Thousand, J., Villa, R., & Nevin, A. (2007). Differentiated instruction: Collaborative

planning and teaching for universally designed learning. Thousand Oaks CA:

Corwin Press.

Timperley, H., & Robinson, V. (1997). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and

implications for problem solving. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association Chicago.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). Fostering organizational citizenship: Transformational

leadership and trust. In W.K. Hoy & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leading and

organizing school (pp.157-179). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

U. S. Census Bureau. (2008). School enrollment, social and economic characteristics of

students. Washington, D C: Davis, J.W. & Bauman, K.

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest

of education statistics. Washington, D C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vaill, P. (1984). The purposing of high-performance systems. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J.E.

Corgally (Eds.) Leadership and organizational culture (pp. 85-101). Chicago, IL:

Urbana University of Illinois Press.

108

VA Board of Education. (2010). Regulations establishing standards for accrediting public

schools in Virginia. Virginia Standards of Accreditation. Retrieved from

www.doe.virginia.gov/bod/accreditation/index

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2008). A guide to coteaching: Practical tips

for facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Volonino, V., & Zigmond, N. (2007). Promoting research-based practices through

inclusion? Theory into practice, 46(6), 291-300.

doi:10.1080/00405840701593873

Voltz, D. L., & Collins, L. (2010). Leaders licensure consortium contexts: Beyond the

Council for Exceptional Children and the interstate school. Teacher Education

and Special Education, 33(1), 70-82. doi:10.1177/0888406409356676

Winn, J., & Blankton, L. (2005). The call for collaboration in teacher education. Focus

on Exceptional Children, 38(2), 1-10.

109

Appendix A: The Project

3 Day Module

Teacher Collaboration Program Professional Development Training

This program helps coteachers at the high school with students in the special education

program reach their fullest level of success while in the inclusion setting according to

teachers’ perspectives.

Goals of the Program

The main goal of this project, as it relates to the problem of the study, is to gather

as much information from teachers to determine the most appropriate plan of action in

order to develop a teacher collaboration program to provide a solid foundation of success

for students with disabilities who have obtained the right to gain access to the general

education curriculum in the high school. The teacher collaboration project provides

opportunities for students to gain insight that will aid them in inclusion settings so that

their potentials are maximized and not minimized. Another goal of the program is to

provide opportunities for teachers in the high school and middle school to participate in

collaborative sessions for academic progress of students with disabilities by making the

six-coteaching approaches applicable. In this process, ideas are shared and concerns are

addressed to find solutions as they communicate with one another. Finally, this teacher

collaboration program will serve to support students with disabilities and students

without disabilities at the high school by helping with their interests and concerns

throughout their learning stages. By implementing the six steps for high school

improvement developed by The National High School Center, they should build the

confidence and the skills necessary to achieve. Therefore, this program should positively

influence the entire district as a whole.

Purpose of the Program

The purpose of the Teacher Collaboration Program is to bring about the desired

social change in the collaboration process and to improve students with disabilities

progress at the high school. This program is designed to improve the overall coteaching

110

process through teacher collaboration process at the high school level. Also,

improvements in communication between teachers, parents, and students, will use

engaging activities that will help students understand authentic standards and rigor of the

secondary level.

Overview of the Program

The framework for the project is based on the National High School Center (2011) six

steps of High School Improvement. The Center believes that the six steps of high school

improvement process will provide high schools and districts with a structure to customize

their approach to best support high school improvement efforts. These six elements are:

1. Assess

2. Analyze

3. Prioritize

4. Plan

5. Implement

6. Monitor

The mission of the National High School Center is to provide research-based strategies

and resources to help ensure that all high school students perform to their fullest

potential. Funded by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and the

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U. S. Department of Education, a

specific focus of their work is to provide information for students with disabilities and

English language Learners (ELL) on how to succeed in high school. The goals of this

collaboration are framed by the NHSC six elements for high school improvement which

is supported by teachers’ perspectives about collaboration in inclusive classroom settings.

This will be Day 1 Training schedule and activities.

111

Helping Co-teachers Collaborate at the High School

Stephanie Sullivan

112

Thank you for coming to this workshop!

113

Goal of the Program  The main goal of this project, as it relates to the

problem of the study, is to gather as much information from teachers to determine the most appropriate plan of action in order to develop a teacher collaboration program to provide a solid foundation of success for students with disabilities who have obtained the right to gain access to the general education curriculum in the high school.

114

Purpose of the Program  The purpose of the Teacher Collaboration Program is

to bring about the desired social change in the collaboration process and to improve students with disabilities progress at the high school. This program is designed to improve the overall co-teaching process through teacher collaboration process at the high school level. Also, improvements in communication between teachers, parents, and students, will use engaging activities that will help students understand authentic standards and rigor of the secondary level.

115

Mission of the Program  The mission of the National High School Center is to

provide research-based strategies and resources to help ensure that all high school students perform to their fullest potential. Funded by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U. S. Department of Education, a specific focus of their work is to provide information for students with disabilities and English language Learners (ELL) on how to succeed in high school.

116

Closure  Questions

 Observation

 Comments

Again thanks for making this training a success!!!!!!

117

Slide 1: Agenda for Day 1

9:00-10:00 Breakfast

10:00-10:30 Introduction

10:30-11:30 Ice-breaker

11:30-1:00 PowerPoint explaining day 1 agenda

1:00-2:00 Lunch break

2:00-300 Share negative experiences and ways those experiences were rectified

3:00-3:30 Question and answer

3:30-3:45 Wrap-up

118

Overview of Organization Approaches

This program’s organization is based on engaging activities to be completed over a three

year period for initially being implemented for the success of this program. The program

can be organized for time framed as long as 3 three months (spring semester) leading to

the end of the school year.

Six Approaches to Coteaching Implementation Timetable

Approaches 1 & 2

1. One-Teach, One Observe

2. Station Teaching

 The participants in the program will meet monthly to introduce the 1

st two coteaching approaches: 1 and 2.

 This meeting will allow special educators and general educators the opportunity to view the coteaching approaches.

 Participants will discuss various differences between special education and general education students

 8 th

graders who will be promoted to the 9 th

grade will be bused to the high school for a transition meeting with the counselor about graduation requirements and other educational concerns. Parents will be in attendance as well.

 General and special educators will have the opportunity to swap roles interchangeably. One will teach and the other will observe and vice versa.

 The PF will explain to teachers and school instructional leaders the vision for the project, the organization of the project, participant expectations, timeline for the first approach, and plans for assessment and review.

Approaches 3 & 4

Alternative Teaching

Parallel Teaching

 Monthly meetings will continue as teachers meet weekly

with inclusion students during the month of May.

 Teachers will continue to observe each other and make

note differences and similarities in students and their

academic performance along with any related concerns

about the parallel or alternative approaches to teaching.

 Teachers will talk with small groups of inclusion students

119

Approaches 5 & 6

Team Teaching

One Teach, One Assist

about the pros and cons of the Teacher Collaboration

Program.

 Additional meetings will be held with the transitioning

8th grade inclusion students to inform them of the

expectations for the project.

 They will report to the high school gymnasium for a

briefing the administrators, counselors, and coteachers

of the inclusion process.

 Students will be allowed to ask questions about the

secondary process for implementing the program. Also,

there will be activities and refreshments included.

 There will be other sport-related activities that high

school students will participate in the gymnasium. There

will be a fair which will occur during the school day to

ensure that all students will be able to attend.

 On the last day of school, each 8th grader will be able

pair up with an upper classman who will serve as a coach.

 Team teaching and one teach/one assists are the last two approaches for coteaching.

 During the last two weeks of school, transitional 8 th

graders will be transported to the high school during the last week from 3:15 p.m.to 5:15 p.m. for an introduction of the Teacher Collaboration Program.

 This distinct opportunity will establish an educational and social repertoire.

 This will give the teachers the opportunity to introduce the Teacher Collaboration Program called the Coteaching Approaches (CTA)

 A monthly 30 minute session will be built into the school

calendar for incoming freshman.

120

Day 2

Slide 2: Agenda for Day 2

9:00-10:00 Breakfast

10:00-10:30 Introduction

10:30-11:30 Ice-breaker

11:30-1:00 PowerPoint explaining day 2 agenda

1:00-2:00 Lunch break

2:00-300 Share negative experiences and ways those experiences were rectified

3:00-3:30 Question and answer

3:30-3:45 Wrap-up

121

Day 2

Anticipated Progress of the Program

Approach 1 & 2: The first step in the project will be to conduct an introductory meeting;

there will be a meeting with the high school and middle school special education

teachers. The second meeting will be in the afternoon to speak with the general

educators, who coteach with the special educators. At these meetings, the PF will follow

the outline to discuss the goals and the parameters of the project. This presentation will

be presented to both teams of educators in order to inform them about the collaboration

program as school calendars are developed and for purpose of educating the public about

the collaborating program.

After these meetings, the special and general educators will meet to begin their

interest in meeting the needs of the students with disabilities based on their individual and

unique needs. During these meetings, the special education teachers will meet to spend

thirty minutes sharing and discussing possible solutions for student success based on

what is required by the state for the subject of English. The next thirty minutes will be

spent with the general educators during the afternoon to discuss the various solutions for

student achievement. Another thirty minutes will be spent with in a whole group session

for discussions on improving the collaboration process for the benefit of student with

disabilities. The PF will spearhead these meeting guided by an agenda prepared ahead of

time. All meetings held will be based upon time for collaboration and reflection. The

final thirty minutes will call for discussion, suggestion, and feedback from each teacher

who attended other meetings. This will allow an opportunity for input and ideas that will

allow the PF to prepare for the next meeting. The PF will be involved in the project by

explaining to the teacher and instructional leader participants the thought process behind

the project, the organization of the project, expectation of the participants, time

approaches, and plans for assessment and review.

By spring, transitioning 8 th

graders and their parents will meet with the high

school guidance counselor for a brief presentation in the form of a PPT to learn about the

graduation requirements, the different tests required for graduation, high school

schedules, electives, and extracurricular activities.

By mid May, 8 th

graders will be transported to the high school for a campus tour

so that they can learn the campus before the next school year. Students will be

introduced to their teachers and student mentors. Each student will be assigned to

another student and teacher for tours around the campus and as a line of contact until

graduation.

Also, the PF will be responsible for explaining to teachers and school leaders the

thoughts behind the project, the organization of the project, the expectations of the

participants, the timeline of approaches one and two, and future plans for assessment and

review.

In closing of the first two approaches, teacher participating will be involved in a

focus group interview. At this point, open-ended questions will be addressed as it relates

122

to how the first section was carried out. The strengths and weaknesses of a step in the

approaches, and the participants views about the process. This feedback will allow the

facilitator and schools involved to make the necessary changes for approaches three and

four of the project.

Approaches 3 & 4: The second year of the project, teachers will meet on a

monthly basis to discuss how they will implement the alternative and parallel teaching

approaches in the teacher collaboration process. Keeping in mind these meetings can be

conducted in the same form as the first two approaches, this will allow participants the

opportunity to collaborate on a professional level. Teachers will utilize this time to focus

on how these two approaches will benefit the students they are assigned to. These

teachers will share with each other in pairs and discuss their differences in relation to

how each approach will address the specific needs of the students. These teachers will be

given the opportunity to strategize and plan together for co-taught classes. The

information collected and shared among these teachers will serve to build a successful

collaboration program between

Approach 3 & 4 give participants additional time for teacher/student mentors and

the students assigned to them. These mentors will be assigned to ten students during the

month of May. Teachers will discuss the pros and cons of the collaboration program.

They will discuss the many facts about the high school process. Rules and regulations

will be discussed at this point of the process as well. Parent will be invited and involved

in the process so that they aware of the expectations of the high school. Teachers will

again take students and parents on a tour around the campus to get them familiar with the

campus.

During the last week of school, there will be other sport-related activities that high

school students may participate in at the gymnasium. The fair will occur during the

school day to make sure that all students will attend. The eighth graders will be

transported for the different types of sports. Students will talk with coaches about their

interest in certain sports and each student will sign a roster.

On the last day of school, each 8th grader will be able to pair up with an upper

classman who will serve as a coach. The upperclassman students will be assigned to the

8th grader, who will be coming to the high school. They will be allowed to exchange

contact information during the summer to follow-up and to remind the students of the

upcoming new school year.

Approaches 5 & 6: During last two weeks of school, transitioning 8 th

graders will

be transported to the high school for the program closure. The starting time will be from

3:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. for an introduction of the Teacher Collaboration Program. These

students will be coached by students and teachers to discuss their social and academic

well-being. The participants will develop the 4-year plan that will help students who are

new to the school, transitioning 8 th

graders, as well as students currently enrolled. This

distinct opportunity will establish an educational and social repertoire.

At this final stage, this session will be built into the school calendar which will

establish monthly 30 minute sessions for incoming freshman. This time will be set aside

for discussions and educational support. Students will then have free time to discuss

123

what they are struggling with in the high school setting and upper class students will be

able to come in at times to mentor with students as well.

Day 3

Slide 3: Agenda for Day 3

9:00-10:00 Breakfast

10:00-10:30 Introduction

10:30-11:30 Ice-breaker

11:30-1:00 PowerPoint explaining day 3 agenda

1:00-2:00 Lunch break

2:00-300 Share negative experiences and ways those experiences were rectified

3:00-3:30 Question and answer

3:30-3:45 Wrap-up

124

Day 3

At the end of approaches 5 & 6 another interview will be conducted between

general educators and special educators, which will be in form of focus groups. By this

time, questions will be open-ended but will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of The

Teacher Collaboration Program period. This information will be beneficial when sharing

the overall outcome of the project with the instructional leaders and the staff members.

Obtaining information or feedback from the public will allow the PF the courtesy of

knowing is the program is effective or acceptable for this system and others systems in

the region.

125

Program Evaluation

Impact

One-on-one Interviews

Interview

(Each can be modified)

1. What part of this program gives you more insight than prior knowledge?

2. What is most important about this program?

3. What changes would you like to make about implementing the 6 coteaching approaches?

4. How would you improve the curriculum to meet the needs of students with disabilities?

5. What is lease important to about this program?

6. How would this program benefit students with disabilities?

126

Appendix B: Interview Questions for Special Education Teachers

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER

Name: School: Date:

Ethnicity: Gender:

Years in Teaching: Years in Particular Grade:

Degree: Certification:

Concentration:

1. (a) What is it like to be a special education teacher today? (b) When you selected teaching special education as a career goal, did you intend to become a high school special education teacher?

2. How many special education students are assigned to you?

3. What are the various disabilities that your students have?

4. What is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for your special education students?

5. How many of the special education students on your roster will participate in the state mandated Subject Area Testing Program (SATP-II)?

6. Describe how you provide inclusive services for your students.

7. How many classrooms do you provide inclusive services to on a daily basis?

8. Describe your professional relationship with the general education teacher(s).

(a) Do you assist on the special education students? ( b) Do you coteach subjects to all students?

9.Do you collaborate in developing lesson plans? 10. How are curriculum objectives modified for the special education student(s)? 11. Does the general education teacher participate in the development of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the special education student? Describe

12. Describe the collaboration that takes place between you and the general education teacher.

(a) Is it voluntary? (b) Do you collaborate at a scheduled time, or as needed?

127

13. When you are collaborating with general education teachers, how do you ensure that each person has equal power in making decisions?

14. During collaboration, how do you determine if the goal that is being discussed is a common goal? 15. When tasks are determined for each teacher, how do you determine if the work load is divided equally? 16. How are resources shared between teachers? (Resources are time, availability, knowledge of a teaching technique or skill.)

17. Do you share the responsibility for the academic success (positive or negative) for the special education students?

18. Discuss any barriers that you feel may inhibit effective collaboration.

19. Do you think that inclusion is effective at your school?

128

Appendix C: Interview Questions for General Education Teachers

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHER

Name: School: Date:

Ethnicity: Gender:

Years in Teaching: Years in Particular Grade:

Degree: Certification:

Concentration:

1. (a)What is it like to be a high school general education teacher today? (b)When you selected teaching as a career goal, did you intend to become a high

school teacher?

2. How many students are in your classroom?

(a) How many general education students? (b) How many special education students?

3. What percentage of the school day are the special education students in your classroom?

4. How many of the special education students on your roster will participate in the state

mandated Subject Area Testing Program (SATP-II)?

5. How often does the special education teacher come into your classroom?

6. Describe your professional relationship with the special education teacher. (a) Does the special education teacher assist only the special education students? (b) Does the special education teacher coteach subjects to all students?

7. Does the special education teacher collaborate in developing lesson plans?

8. How are curriculum objectives modified for the special education student(s)?

9. Do you participate in the development of the Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) for the special education students? Describe.

129

10. Describe the collaboration that takes place between you and the special education teacher? (a) Is it a voluntary process?

(b) (b) Do you collaborate at a scheduled time, or as needed?

11. When you are collaborating with the special education teacher, how do you ensure that each person has equal power in making decision?

12. During collaboration, how do you determine if the goal that is being discussed is a common goal?

13. When tasks are determined for each teacher, how do you determine if the work load is

divided equally?

14. How are resources shared between teachers? (Resources are time, availability, knowledge of a teaching technique or skill.)

15. Do you share the responsibility for the academic success (positive or negative) of the special education students?

16. Discuss any barriers that you feel may inhibit effective collaboration

Do you think that inclusion is effective at your school?

130

Appendix D: Interview Questions for Administrator

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: AMINISTRATOR

Name: School: Date:

Ethnicity: Gender:

Years in Teaching: Years in Particular Grade:

Degree: Certification:

Concentration:

1. (a) What is it like to be a high school administrator today? (c) When you selected education as a career goal, did you intend to become a high

school administrator?

2. How many students are in your school?

(a) How many general education students? (b) How many special education students?

3. How many of the special education students in your school will participate in the subject

area testing program (SATP-II)?

4. As the school leader, how do you provide a vision for successful inclusion of special

education students in general education classrooms?

5. As the school leader, how do you encourage effective collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers?

6. During the school day, do the teachers collaborate voluntarily? Discuss

7. Do you provide professional development for teachers to increase knowledge of inclusion? Describe.

8. Do you provide professional development for teachers to increase knowledge of collaboration? Describe.

131

9. When general education teachers and special education teachers are collaborating, does each person have equal power in making decisions? Discuss

10. When tasks are determined for each teacher, how do they determine if the work load is divided equally?

11. How are resources shared between teachers? (Resources are time, availability, knowledge of a teaching technique or skill.)

12. Do the general education teacher and the special education teacher share responsibility for the academic success (positive or negative) of the special education students?

13. Discuss any barriers that you feel may inhibit effective collaboration at your school?

Do you think that inclusion is effective at your school? Discuss.

132

Appendix E: Consent Form

Interview Consent Form

ONE-ON-ONE CONSENT FORM

You are invited to participate in a research study examining Collaborative Practices

Between General Educators and Special Educators in Inclusive Classrooms. You were

selected as a possible participant because you currently coteach in the area of English.

Please read this form and ask any questions you may have before acting on this invitation

to be in the study.

This study is being conducted by: Stephanie Sullivan, a doctoral candidate at Walden

University-Minnesota.

Study Title: A Case Study Examining Collaborative Practices Between General

Educators and Special Educators in Inclusive Classrooms

Background Information:

The primary purpose of this qualitative case study will be to explore how general

educators and special educators collaborate in inclusive classrooms in order to promote

student achievement in English.

Procedures:

If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to do the following things:

Participate in a one-time interview session for 40-45 minutes scheduled at your

convenience.

Respond to a survey used in a similar study lasting for 20 minutes one week after

interviews.

One week, follow-up for member checking, after the interview lasting for as long as 30

minutes.

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or

not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with the researcher

nor Wilkinson County High School administration. If you initially decide to

participate, you are still free to withdraw at anytime later without affecting those

relationships. There will be no financial awards to participate in this study.

Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:

There is no impending risk in participating in this study.

133

The benefits of participation are the likelihood of discovering how your personal

views and beliefs are shaped and enhancing collaborative practices in inclusive

classrooms among general and special educators.

In the event you experience stress or anxiety during your participation in the study,

you may terminate your participation at any time. You may refuse to answer any

questions you consider invasive or stressful.

Compensation:

There is no compensation included in this study. Your participation is strictly voluntary.

Confidentiality:

The records of this study will be kept private. In any report of this study that might be

published, the researcher will not include any information that will make it possible to

identify a participant. Research records will be kept in a locked file; only the researcher

will have access to the records. All files, recordings and other data collected will be

destroyed after 5 years of the study.

Participants have the right to inspect, upon request, any materials related to the proposal

within two weeks after the request is received.

Privacy:

No personally identifiable information, such as the name of individuals, name of school,

nor the country of interest will be included in the final report.

Contacts and Questions:

The researcher conducting this study is Stephanie Sullivan. The researcher’s chairperson

is Dr. Dawn Burgess. The Walden University approval number for this study 05-03-13-

0178241 and it expires on May 2, 2014. You may ask any questions you have at this

time. If you have questions later, you may contact them at:

Stephanie Sullivan

Address: P. O. Box 1396 Woodville, MS 39669

Telephone: (H) 601-888-3214 (C) 601-597-1757

E-mail address: [email protected] or [email protected]

Dr. Dawn Burgess (Chairperson)

Email: [email protected] or @ Telephone: 619-988-6386.

Walden Representative (Research Participant Advocate)

[email protected] or 612-312-1210

Please sign and return this consent form in the envelope provided. You may make a copy

of this consent form for your records.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and received answers. I

consent to participate in the study.

mailto:[email protected]

134

Printed Name of Participant: ________________________________

Date of consent: _________________________________

Participant’s Signature _________________________________

Researcher’s Signature _________________________________

135

Appendix F: Research Certificate

Interview Consent Form

ONE-ON-ONE CONSENT FORM

You are invited to participate in a research study examining Collaborative

Practices Between General Educators and Special Educators in Inclusive

Classrooms. You were selected as a possible participant because you

currently coteach in the area of English. Please read this form and ask any

questions you may have before acting on this invitation to be in the study.

This study is being conducted by: Stephanie Sullivan, a doctoral candidate

at Walden University-Minnesota.

Study Title: A Case Study Examining Collaborative Practices Between

General Educators and Special Educators in Inclusive Classrooms

Background Information:

The primary purpose of this qualitative case study will be to explore how

general educators and special educators collaborate in inclusive

classrooms in order to promote student achievement in English.

Procedures:

If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to do the following

things:

Participate in a one-time interview session for 40-45 minutes scheduled at

your convenience.

Respond to a survey used in a similar study lasting for 20 minutes one

week after interviews.

One week, follow-up for member checking, after the interview lasting for

as long as 30 minutes.

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your

decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or

future relations with the researcher nor Wilkinson County High

School administration. If you initially decide to participate, you are

still free to withdraw at anytime later without affecting those

relationships. There will be no financial awards to participate in this

study.

Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:

136

There is no impending risk in participating in this study.

The benefits of participation are the likelihood of discovering how

your personal views and beliefs are shaped and enhancing

collaborative practices in inclusive classrooms among general and

special educators.

In the event you experience stress or anxiety during your

participation in the study, you may terminate your participation at

any time. You may refuse to answer any questions you consider

invasive or stressful.

Compensation:

There is no compensation included in this study. Your participation is

strictly voluntary.

Confidentiality:

The records of this study will be kept private. In any report of this study

that might be published, the researcher will not include any information

that will make it possible to identify a participant. Research records will

be kept in a locked file; only the researcher will have access to the

records. All files, recordings and other data collected will be destroyed

after 5 years of the study.

Participants have the right to inspect, upon request, any materials related

to the proposal within two weeks after the request is received.

Privacy:

No personally identifiable information, such as the name of individuals,

name of school, nor the country of interest will be included in the final

report.

Contacts and Questions:

The researcher conducting this study is Stephanie Sullivan. The

researcher’s chairperson is Dr. Dawn Burgess. The Walden University

approval number for this study 05-03-13-0178241 and it expires on May

2, 2014. You may ask any questions you have at this time. If you have

questions later, you may contact them at:

Stephanie Sullivan

Address: P. O. Box 1396 Woodville, MS 39669

Telephone: (H) 601-888-3214 (C) 601-597-1757

E-mail address: [email protected] or [email protected]

Dr. Dawn Burgess (Chairperson)

Email: [email protected] or @ Telephone: 619-988-6386.

Walden Representative (Research Participant Advocate)

137

[email protected] or 612-312-1210

Please sign and return this consent form in the envelope provided. You

may make a copy of this consent form for your records.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and received

answers. I consent to participate in the study.

Printed Name of Participant: ________________________________

Date of consent: _________________________________

Participant’s Signature _________________________________

Researcher’s Signature _________________________________

mailto:[email protected]

138

Appendix G: Research Certificate

Certificate of Completion

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research

certifies that Stephanie Sullivan successfully completed the NIH

Web-based training course “Protecting Human Research Participants”.

Date of completion: 09/01/2011

Certification Number: 712785

139

Appendix H: Teacher’s Attitude Toward Inclusion Scale

Item Strongly Agree/Agree/Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree

1. Students with disabilities should be given every

opportunity to function in the

classroom where possible.

3. The inclusion of students with disabilities can be beneficial

for students without special

needs.

4. Inclusion promotes social independence

among students with

disabilities.

5.The study skills of students with

disabilities are inadequate for success

in the general education classroom.

6.Inclusion promotes understanding and acceptance of individual differences

between students without disabilities

and students with disabilities.

7.Students without disabilities

will likely avoid interacting

with students with disabilities. in the

inclusive classrooms.

140

8.Inclusion promotes self-esteem

among children students with

disabilities.

9.Students with disabilities lose the

stigma of being“different” or

“failures” when placed in the general

education classrooms.

10. Isolation in a special education

classroom has beneficial effects on the

social and emotional development of

the students with disabilities.

11.General classroom teachers have

sufficient training to teach students

with disabilities.

12.Students with disabilities are likely

to create confusion in the general

education classroom.

13.Teaching students with disabilities

is better done by special educators

rather than general classroom teacher.

14. The behavior of students with

disabilities will set a bad example for

other students in the classroom.

15.Students with disabilities will not

waste the general-classroom teacher’s

time.

141

16.It is likely that the students with

disabilities will exhibit behavior

problems ina general education

classroom

17.Increased freedom in the general

classroom setting creates too much

confusion for students with disabilities

18. Students with disabilities will

make an adequate attempt to complete

their assignments in general education

classrooms.

19. The extra attention students with

disabilities require will be to the

detriment of the other students in the

classroom.

20. General education classroom

teachers have the primary

responsibility to teach students with

disabilities in their classrooms.

21.Inclusion will likely have a

negative effects on the emotional

development of students with

disabilities.

22. General education classroom

teachers have the appropriate

capability to work with students with

disabilities.

142

23.Inclusion of students with

disabilities will necessitate extensive

retaining of general education

classroom teachers.

24.Students with disabilities can be

best served in general education

classrooms.

25.It is difficult to maintain order in

classrooms that contain a mix of

students with and without disabilities.

26. Inclusion of students with

disabilities will require significant

changes in general education

classroom procedures.

27. The behavior of the students

with disabilities does not

require more attention from

the teacher than the behavior

of students without special

needs.

28. The student with disabilities

will likely develop academic

skills more rapidly in a general

education classroom than in a

special education classroom.

In my view, most students with the

following disabilities can be educated

in general education classrooms:

29. Learning disabilities

143

30. Emotional and behavioral

Disorders

31. Hearing impairments

32. Visual impairments

33. Mental retardation

144

Appendix I: Test Data From Mississippi Assessment

tuBv88TIcdgnyl8C /w EWxQECoe/v6

Subject Area Testing Program

Subject Number Tested Mean Scale Score % Passing

ALGEBRA 102 643.0 29.4

BIOLOGY 101 323.0 78.2

ENGLISH 132 643.3 40.2

U.S. HISTORY 58 358.5 96.6

Notes: Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. Passing=Scale Score of 300 or Above.

English II Writing Assessment

No Results to Report

Notes: Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students.

Passing Score=Writing Score of 2 or Above.

ALG1-Algebra I BIOL- Biology

ENGL-Engl II MC

HIST-U.S. History

INF-Informative

NAR-Narrative

Percentage Passing

Test All

Students

Non

Disabled

Only Male Female Black White Asian Hispanic

Native

American ELL/LEP ED NED Migrant

ALG1 29.4 38.5 4.0 26.7 31.6 29.4

26.9 40.9

BIOL 78.2 85.9 37.5 81.4 75.9 78.2

74.4 91.3

ENGL 40.2 48.1 7.7 42.4 38.4 40.2

35.1 55.9

HIST 96.0 96.0

96.0 94.7 96.0

95.5 96.0

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%.

Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED- Economically Disadvantaged.

NED- Not Economically Disadvantaged.

145

Enrollment MCT2 MST2 MWAP2 SATP2 ACT Accountability QDI Children's First

Percentage Scoring Basic or Above

Test All

Students

Non

Disabled

Only Male Female Black White Asian Hispanic

Native

American ELL/LEP ED NED Migrant

ALG1 53 64 17 51 54 53

50 68

BIOL 66 74 25 74 60 66

63 78

ENGL 59 72 8 58 60 59

54 76

HIST 91 94

90 92 91

89 96

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%.

Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED- Economically Disadvantaged. NED- Not Economically Disadvantaged.

Percentage Scoring Proficient or Above

Test All

Students

Non

Disabled

Only Male Female Black White Asian Hispanic

Native

American ELL/LEP ED NED Migrant

ALG1 16 21 4 11 19 16

15 18

BIOL 38 42 13 42 34 38

36 43

ENGL 22 27 4 22 22 22

17 38

HIST 60 64

60 61 60

55 79

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%. Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED- Economically Disadvantaged.

NED- Not Economically Disadvantaged.

146

Mississippi Assessment and Accountability Reporting System

DISTRICT: (0000) - Mississippi

SCHOOL: (000) - State Level Data

YEAR: 2009/2010

Percentage Passing

Test

All

Studen

Non

Disable

d Only

Mal

Femal

Blac

Whit

Asia

Hispan

Native

Americ

ELL/LE

P ED

Migra

ALG

1 78.9 81.2

79.1 78.7 78.9

86.

8 64.7

BIO

L 66.0 69.8

63.2 70.3 66.0

61.

3 77.4

ENG

L 65.8 67.6

59.5 74.2 65.8

58.

7 80.8

HIST 80.7 84.3 50.0 80.0 81.3 80.7

78.

9 83.8

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%.

Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED- Economically Disadvantaged.

NED- Not Economically Disadvantaged.

Percentage Scoring Basic or Above

Test

All

Studen

Non

Disable

d Only

Mal

Femal

Blac

Whit

Asia

Hispan

Native

Americ

ELL/LE

Migra

ALG

1 88 89

86 89 88

91 82

BIO

L 51 54

46 59 51

45 65

ENG

L 67 69

60 77 67

61 81

HIST 68 74 25 72 66 68

65 76

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%.

Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED- Economically Disadvantaged.

NED- Not Economically Disadvantaged.

147

Percentage Scoring Proficient or Above

Test

All

Studen

Non

Disable

d Only

Mal

Femal

Blac

Whit

Asia

Hispan

Native

Americ

ELL/LE

Migra

ALG

1 67 68

65 68 67

75 53

BIO

L 30 31

32 27 30

24 42

ENG

L 43 44

38 48 43

39 50

HIST 27 30 4 32 24 27

25 32

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%.

Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED- Economically Disadvantaged.

NED- Not Economically Disadvantaged.

148

Mississippi Assessment and Accountability Reporting System

DISTRICT: (0000) - Mississippi

SCHOOL: (000) - State Level Data

YEAR: 2010/2011

Subject Area Testing Program

Subject Number

Tested

Mean

Scale Score

Passing

Algebra I 34503 656.5 85.4

U.S History 29780 363.9 93.0

Biology I 33404 647.1 73.0

English II MC 33128 650.2 71.8

Notes: Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students.

Passing Score = Scale Score of 300 or Above.

English II Writing Assessment

Prompt Number

Tested

Mean

Writing Score

Passing

Notes: Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students.

Passing Score = Writing Score of 2 or Above.

Percentage Passing

Test

All

Student

Non

Disable

Only

Mal

Femal

Blac

Whit

Asia

Hispani

Native

America

ELL

LEP

ED NE

I MR

Migra

Studen

U.S.

Histor

93 94 72.9 93.6 92.3 88.6 96 96 93.7 96 80.8 89.

5 96

91.

7 96

Biolog

y 73 76.3 32.5 72.1 73.9 59.4 87.2 91.1 78 80.8 62.2

63.

1 86.6

74.

6 64.9

Algebr

a I

(M07)

85.4 88.8 47.2 82.6 88.1 78.6 92.4 96 91.6 90.7 87.1 80.

5 92.7 81 85.7

Engl II

(L06)

71.8 76.3 21.1 66.8 76.5 60.8 83.8 86.5 74.8 77.8 48.3 62.

4 84.6

76.

1 56

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%.

Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED - Economically Disadvantaged.

NED - Not Economically Disadvantaged.

PI - Pacific Island.

MR - Multi Racial.

Percentage Scoring Basic or Above

Test All Non Disable Mal Femal Blac Whit Asia Hispani Native ELL E NE P M Migran

149

Student

Disable

Only

e e k e n c America

LEP

D D I R t

Studen

U.S.

Histor

87 88 61 89 86 80 95 96 89 92 74 81 94 92 89

Biolog

y 86 89 49 85 87 78 95 95 89 85 77 80 94 81 73

Algebr

a I

(M07)

93 95 62 91 95 89 96 96 96 96 96 90 96 89 95

Engl II

(L06)

79 83 29 74 83 69 89 91 80 82 59 71 89 82 60

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%.

Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED - Economically Disadvantaged.

NED - Not Economically Disadvantaged.

PI - Pacific Island.

MR - Multi Racial.

Percentage Scoring Proficient or Above

Test

All

Student

Non

Disable

Only

Mal

Femal

Blac

Whit

Asia

Hispani

Native

America

ELL

LEP

Migran

Studen

U.S.

Histor

61 63 31 66 57 45 78 86 67 64 46 49 76 77 65

Biolog

y 55 58 19 55 55 37 74 80 62 62 43 42 73 58 51

Algebr

a I

(M07)

77 81 36 74 80 68 86 96 84 85 78 70 87 67 81

Engl II

(L06)

57 61 11 51 62 43 71 78 58 65 31 45 73 65 46

Notes: Percentages 0-4% are reported as 4% and percentages 96-100% are reported as 96%.

Minimum N-count for reporting is 10 students. ED - Economically Disadvantaged.

NED - Not Economically Disadvantaged.

PI - Pacific Island.

MR - Multi Racial.

150

Appendix J: The Five Identifying Themes for Coteaching

#s1-5 Five

Themes

Interviewed

Participants

General

Educators

Special

Educators

Administrator

Too Much

Emphasis

on State

Testing for

students

SATP-2

5 2 2 1

2. Lack of

adequate

planning

5 2 2 1

3. Scheduling

conflicts

5 2 2 1

4. Lack of co-

teaching

time

5 2 2 1

Workload:

paperwork,

meetings,

IEP’s

5 2 2 1

151

-Data Analysis from Teachers’ Responses on Inclusion Scale

Item

Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

1. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in

the classroom when possible.

2. The inclusion of students with disabilities needs can be beneficial for

students without special needs.

3. Inclusion promotes social independence among students with

disabilities.

4. The nature of study in general classrooms will promote the academic

growth of the students with disabilities.

5. The study skills of students with disabilities are inadequate for success

in the general education classroom.

6. Inclusion promotes understanding and acceptance of individual differences

between students without disabilities

and student with disabilities.

7. Students without disabilities will likely avoid interacting with students with

disabilities in the inclusive classrooms.

1 4

8. Inclusion promotes self-esteem among children with disabilities.

1 2 2

9. Students with disabilities lost the stigma with special needs lost the

stigma of being “different” or

“failures” when placed in the general

education classroom.

1 2 2

10. Isolation in a special classroom had beneficial effect on the social and

emotional development of the students

with disabilities.

11. General classroom teachers have sufficient training to teach students

with disabilities.

2 1 2

12. Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the general

education classroom.

13. Teaching students with disabilities are better done by special educators rather

than general educators.

1 4

14. The behavior of students with disabilities will set a bad example for

other students in the classroom.

2 3

15. Students with disabilities will not waste the general-classroom teacher’s time.

3 2

16. It is likely that the students with disabilities will exhibit behavior

problems in a general education

classroom.

1 4

152

17. Increased freedom in the general classroom setting created too much

confusion for the student with

disabilities.

4 1

18. Students with disabilities will make an adequate attempt to complete their

assignments in general education

classrooms.

4 1

19. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be to the

detriment of the other students in the

classroom.

2 3

20. General-classroom teachers have the primary responsibility to teach

students with disabilities in their

classroom.

3 2

21. Inclusion will likely have a negative effect on the emotional development of

students with disabilities.

22. General classroom teachers have the appropriate experience to work with

students with disabilities.

4 1

23. Inclusion of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive retaining of

general classroom teachers.

1 4

24. Students with disabilities can be best served in general education

classrooms.

2 2 1

25. It is difficult to maintain order in classrooms that contain a mix of

students with and with disabilities.

26. Inclusion of students with disabilities requires significant changes in general

education classroom procedures.

1 4

27. The behavior of the students with disabilities does not require more

attention from the teacher than the

behavior of student without

disabilities.

2 2 1

28. The student with special needs will probably develop academic skills more

rapidly in a general education

classroom than in a special education

classroom.

2 2 1

29. In my view, most students with the following disability can be educated in

general education classrooms.

Learning disabilities 4 1

30. Emotional and behavioral disorders 4 1

31. Hearing Impairment 1 4

32. Visual Impairment 1 4

33. Mental Retardation 1 4

153

Appendix L: The Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation

The Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation

Level 1 Evaluation—Reaction

Level 2 Evaluation—Learning

Level 3 Evaluation—Behavior

Level 4 Evaluation—Results

Level 1-Reaction-Evaluation Questions 1. In your view, what were the three weaknesses of the program?

2. In your view, what were the three strengths of the program?

Level 2- Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree or with other rating scales SAMPLE WORKSHOP EVALUATION QUESTIONAIRE

Workshop Name: ____________________________

Training Location: ___________________________

Participant Name: (optional): __________________

Date: ________________________

Job Title: ____________________

Years in Present Position: ________________

INSTRUCTIONS

Please circle your response to the items. Rate aspects of the workshop on a 1-5 scale:

1= “Strongly agree,” or the lowest, most negative impression

3= “Neither agree nor disagree,” or an adequate impression

5= “Strongly, agree,” or the highest, most positive impression

Choose N/A if the item is not appropriate or not applicable to this workshop. Your feedback is sincerely

appreciated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WORKSHOP CONTENT (Circle your response to the items.)

1.=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither agree nor disagree 4= Agree 5=Strongly agree N/A=Not

applicable

1. I was well informed about the objectives of this workshop. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

2. This workshop lived up to my expectations. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

3. The content is relevant to my job. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

WORKSHOP DESIGN (Circle your response to the items.)

4.The workshop objectives were clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

5.The workshop activities stimulated my learning. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

6. The activities in this workshop gave me sufficient practice feedback.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

7. The difficulty level of this workshop was appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

8. The pace of this workshop was appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR (FACILITATOR), (Circle your response to the items.)

9. The instructor was well prepared. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

10. The instructor was helpful. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

WORKSHOP RESULTS (Circle your response to the items.)

11. I accomplished the objectives of the workshop 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

12. I will be able to use what I learned in this workshop 1 2 3 4 5 N/A.

SELF-PACED DELIVERY(Circle your response to the items.)

154

13. The workshop was a good way for me to learn from this content.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

14. How would you improve this workshop? (Check all that apply.)

___ Provide better information before the workshop

.___Clarify the workshop objectives.

___ Reduce the content covered in the workshop.___Shorten the time for the workshop.

___ Increase the content covered in the workshop.

___ Update the content covered in the workshop.

___ Improve the instructional methods.

___Make workshop activities more stimulating.

___Improve workshop organization.

___ Make the workshop less difficult.

___ Make the workshop more difficult.

___ Slow down the pace of the workshop.

___ Speed up the pace of the workshop.

___Allot more time for the workshop

LEVEL 3-Program Evaluation Survey Questionnaire

I would like to have your opinion of this program so that I may evaluate and strengthen this program for

the future. Please complete the questions below and return the survey to the program coordinator.

(Please put a check in the box for each response.)

Item Excellent

Good Poor

Terrible

Not

Relevant

1. How would you rate this program?

2. How did you enjoy participating in this

session?

3. How would you rate the instructor?

4. How would you rate the technology used during

the session?

155

5. How would you rate the materials presented?

6. How did your knowledge increase?

7. How would you describe your relationship with the

presenter?

8. How clearly defined were the presenter’s

responsibilities?

9. Was the objectives of this program well defined?

10. How would you describe the quality of your

experience as a participant

in the program?

11. Please state what you liked most about the program…..

12. Please state what you liked least about the program…..

13. Do you have any suggestions to improve the program?

14. List something (if anything) that you learned from the presenter…..

Here are some examples of different kinds of LEVEL 4 OUTCOMES:

 Improved quality of work.

 Higher productivity.

 Reduction in turnover.

 Improved quality of work life.

 Improved human relations (e.g., improved vertical and horizontal communication)

 Increased sales.

 Fewer grievances.

156

 Lower absenteeism.

 Higher worker morale.

 Fewer accidents.

Blank Page