An in-depth case study of one team of co-teachers' practice from multiple perspectives is described. A high school science co-teaching team and their students with disabilities completed surveys about their perceptions of co-teaching. Additionally, observations of the two co-teachers occurred to determine roles and types of interactions for each co-teacher during science instruction. Observational data revealed effective teaching behaviors demonstrated by each co-teacher. Detailed descriptions of the co-teachers' instruction are provided. The science educator was observed interacting with the large group twice as often as the special educator. The science educator also presented new content nearly three times as often as the special educator. The co-teacher surveys were consistent with the observational data. Both educators disagreed that the special educator was primarily the lead for instruction. Both educators strongly agreed they had an effective coteaching relationship, although the science educator indicated stronger agreement for parity in roles and responsibilities than the special educator noted. Forty-three percent of the students identified the science educator as in charge of lessons, while 43% identified both educators. Most students thought teaching was divided in half, and all students enjoyed having two teachers in science. Eighty-six percent of the students indicated team teaching was the most frequently used co-teaching model, and 14% indicated one teach, one drift. Implications for co-teachers' reflections on their collaboration, including the relevance of student perceptions (i.e., Who is the ''real'' teacher?), and the extent to which educators are prepared at preservice and inservice levels for co-teaching are discussed.

No abstract

In this exploratory study, students in four co-taught high school chemistry classes were randomly assigned to a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) treatment or a comparison condition. Each co-teaching team taught one comparison and treatment class. UDL principles were operationalized for treatment: (a) a self-management strategy (using a mnemonic, IDEAS) for the multi-step mole conversion process; (b) multi-media lessons with narration, visuals, and animations; (c) procedural facilitators with IDEAS for conversion support; and (d) student workbooks mirroring video content and containing scaffolded practice problems. All students completed a pre-test, post-test, and a 4-week delayed post-test. There were no significant differences between conditions; however, there was an interaction effect between students with and without disabilities for post-tests. Social validity indicated students found IDEAS helpful. Implications for future research include continued focus on disaggregated learning outcomes for students with and without disabilities for UDL interventions, and refinements for UDL interventions that benefit students with and without disabilities.

School and community counselors have important roles in developing and implementing mental health programs for youths and families. Counselors who are working with the more complex issues of at-risk youths can enhance implementation of prevention programs by altering their roles to function within a collaborative consultation model. This model represents a new paradigm in that counselors interdependently and collaboratively partner with people previously considered their "consultees." Such collaboration can result in more comprehensive and integrated programs, and it can prevent fragmentation and duplication of efforts. Collaborative consultation is described and contrasted with more traditional consultation models, and a 5-stage implementation process is presented. Personal and systemic factors that support the collaborative process are examined.

In this interview study, three middle school students with disabilities and seven without disabilities were interviewed about their experiences in a co‐taught classroom. Also, data from their co‐teachers who taught mathematics, social studies and science were gathered. Both students and teachers reported that co‐teaching provides extra help for all students and that co‐teachers’ positive interactions in the class benefit students’ learning and social participation. Although some results matched other researchers’ findings that special educators are less frequently the lead teacher, our results indicated that supportive co‐teaching can be effective under certain conditions. We call for a deeper examination of the supportive co‐teaching model because it can be effective when there is active support provided for all students. As reported by these co‐teachers and their students, aspects of parity were evidenced in the relationships between and among the co‐teachers and students, even when the general educator led most of the instruction.