Development of co-teaching during one year in Finland

Author(s):

Marjatta Takala(presenting / submitting)Lotta Uusitalo-Malmivaara

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 08 A, Collaborative Teaching I

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-20

09:00-10:30

Room:

FFL - Aula 16

Chair:

Jonathan Rix

Contribution

Aims

In this study, we followed the development of co-teaching during one year in four schools in Helsinki. Co-teaching was made attractive by rewarding those teachers who used it. Through three measurements, we studied: 1) the frames of co-teaching, such as what teacher groups use it most and in which lessons; 2) the benefits and barriers of co-teaching, and 3) the functional models of co-teaching. Our hypothesis is that because of the monetary incentive offered during 2010-2011, there will be an increase in the frequency of co-teaching since the previous study (Saloviita & Takala, 2010) that was done in the same area.

Background

Co-teaching has been compared to a dating relationship that needs to be nurtured in order to succeed (e.g., Murawski, 2010, 21-31). It requires three components: co-planning, co-instructing and co-assessing. Therefore, common planning time should be assured and co-teaching partners could be excused from other responsibilities in order to make time for their co-teaching responsibilities (Murawski, 2008). A lack of planning time may lead to an unequal sharing of responsibilities (Sileo, 2011; Murawski and Lochner, 2011, 175). When both teachers are involved in co-planning, they can have a proactive input to the content of the lesson. During the instruction, the shared professionalism of the two teachers benefits the academic, social and behavioural outcomes of the students and as well adds to the competences of the teachers themselves (Friend & Cook, 2007; Hang & Rabren, 2009; Walther-Thomas, 1997).

Method

Methods The participating teachers came from two comprehensive schools (grades 1-9), one junior high school (grades 7-9) and one special school (grades 1-9). All these schools participated in the bonus project aimed at increasing co-teaching. Teachers willing to participate replied to the electronic questionnaire in spring 2010 (Questionnaire 1, 54 teachers), winter 2011 (Questionnaire 2, 51 teachers) and spring 2011 (Questionnaire 3, 26 teachers). The questionnaires included 11 background variables about teacher education, teaching experience, teaching field, age and gender. Both qualitative (grounded theory, content analysis) as well as quantitative methods (using PASW 18 software, ANOVA, t-test) are used

Expected Outcomes

Outcomes Co-teaching seemed to suit all subjects; special teachers and class teachers had the most experience of it. Class teachers chose often another class teacher as a partner, while special teachers co-taught mostly with class teachers. The majority of the respondents co-taught 2-5 lessons per week and that did not change during the follow-up study. The most common reason for not co-teaching or for not co-teaching more was the lack of planning time (see also, Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie, 2007). Nevertheless, 15 minutes of planning time was considered enough per lesson. Teachers had received no training for co-teaching during the research period. Teachers told that the most positive issue in co-teaching was sharing many issues with your colleague, oth problems and joys. The second issue that was valued highly, was professional development. For students o-teaching offered more time from the teachers and better teaching quality. Although seen positively, it was suggested that co-teaching should be voluntary. Also the possibility to choose the partner was stressed. During the follow-up study, new and creative solutions using co-teaching were designed. The profile of co-teaching became more varied, from being first in connection only to a subject, but later on it was seen as an integrative tool for various subjects and for reaching other than academic goals.

References

References Friend, M. & Cook, L. 2007. Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (5th ed.). NY: Longman. Hang, Q. & Rabren, K. An Examination of Co-Teaching. Perspectives and Efficacy Indicators. Remedial and Special education, 30(5), 259-268. Murawski, W. W. 2008. Five Keys to Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms. School Administrator, 65(8), 29-29. Murawski, W. W. 2010. Collaborative Teaching in Elementary Schools. Making the Co-teaching Marriage Work! California: SAGE. Murawski, W. W. & Lochner, W. W. 2011. Observing Co-teaching: What to ask for, look for and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic 46(3), 174-183. Saloviita, T. and Takala, M. 2010. Frequency of co-teaching in different teacher categories. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25 (4), 389-396. Sileo, J. M. 2011. Co-Teaching: Getting to Know Your Partner. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43 (5), 32-38. Scruggs, T. E.; Mastropieri, M. A. & McDuffie, K. A. 2007. Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392-416. Walther-Thomas, C. S.1997. Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395-407.

Author Information

Marjatta Takala (presenting / submitting)

University of Helsinki

Teacher Education

University of Helsinki

Lotta Uusitalo-Malmivaara

University of Helsinki, Finland

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.