Consumer Perspectives on the Collaborative Teaching Model

Gerber, Paul; Popp, Patricia A.

doi:10.1177/074193259902000505

Cited by 26 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Focus groups, such as those used by Copeland et al (2004) or Gerber and Popp (1999), present another alternative for understanding individuals' perceptions of social validity. Focus groups can be particularly useful when studying social validity because they (a) document individuals' shared experiences, (b) capture multiple perspectives, and (c) may make students more comfortable than individual interviews (Brotherson & Goldstein, 1992;Eder & Fingerson, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The extant literature includes some examples of researchers who used qualitative designs to conduct in-depth investigations of social validity. For example, in one study, researchers ascertained consumers' (i.e., students and parents) perspectives on the co-teaching service delivery model to support students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Gerber & Popp, 1999). The researchers conducted focus groups with 123 students and their parents across elementary, middle, and high schools in Virginia.…”

Section: A Framework For Social Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Value of Qualitative Methods in Social Validity Research

Leko

2014

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of social validity emerged in the 1970s with seminal articles by Wolf (1978), Kazdin (1977), andVan Houten (1979). They urged scholars in the field of behavioral sciences to ensure interventions were important to clients' lives and could be sustained in community settings. Since the 1970s, the importance of social validity has been accepted widely and is now considered an imperative aspect of intervention research in special education (Horner et al., 2005). This is in part because experts posit a relationship between social validity and intervention fidelity (Heckaman, Conroy, Fox, & Chait, 2000;McDuffie & Scruggs, 2008). When the social validity of an intervention is low, teachers are less likely to implement it as it was intended, if at all. The importance of social validity has also entered conversations about the longstanding research-to-practice gap. When teachers do not consider interventions to be feasible, acceptable, or relevant to their work, they may be less likely to adopt and sustain them over time (Greenwood & Abbott, 2001). The Use of Qualitative Methods in Social Validity ResearchTypically, social validity is examined using questionnaires, rating scales, or direct observations by trained raters (Finn 524002R SEXXX10.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Framework For Social Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value of Qualitative Methods in Social Validity Research

Leko

2014

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A final issue related to social validity was that only surveys and questionnaires typically involving Likert-type scales were used and, consequently, may limit the amount and type of information they offer (Leko, 2014). Several researchers have expanded on the social validity construct by using qualitative approaches in intervention research such as interviews (e.g., Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco, 2005;Copeland et al, 2004;Gerber & Popp, 1999;Leko, 2014;Lyst, Gabriel, O'Shaughnessy, Meyers, & Meyers, 2005). In the present meta-analysis 16 studies had both researchers and teachers jointly developed and conducted the FBA and subsequent interventions.…”

Section: Social Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness and Social Validity of FBAs for Youth At-Risk or With High Incidence Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

Maag¹

2019

JEDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness and social validity of 44 functional behavioral assessment (FBA) studies using single case research designs (SCRDs) conducted with youth displaying challenging behaviors or had high incidence disabilities. Three effect sizes were calculated: standard mean difference (SMD), Tau-U, and improvement rate difference (IRD). Fisher’s conservative dual criterion (CDC), which is a statistical aid to visual analysis, was also applied. Social validity was assessed by using indicators described by Kazdin (2010). Effect sizes were in ranges indicating moderate to large effects. Approximately 71% of AB contrasts reflected CDC systematic change. However, only 44% of studies assessed social validity. There were no significant differences in effectiveness of interventions whether or not a functional analysis was conducted nor whether the controlling function was escape or attention. Results are discussed in terms of FBA implementation issues related to social validity and the necessity for conducting a functional analysis for these youth.

show abstract

“…Other common measures are other qualitative tools such as interviews or focus groups, often in combination with observations or surveys (e.g., Boudah, Schumacher, & Deshler, 1997;BruscaVega et al, 2011;Casale-Giannola, 2012;Dieker, 2001;Embury & Dinnesen, 2012;Embury & Kroeger, 2012;Gerber & Popp, 1999;Keefe & Moore, 2004;Kellems, 2014;King-Sears et al, 2014;Moin et al, 2009;Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). One researcher combined teacher interviews with student drawings of their co-teachers (Bessette, 2008).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They said it helped them be more organized, improved their grades, and allowed them to get help more quickly. The only negatives reported were that it could be confusing when teachers disagreed with each other and that they could not get away with things because someone was always watching (Gerber & Popp, 1999;King-Sears et al, 2014;Moin et al, 2009;Scruggs et al, 2007;Wilson & Michaels, 2006). One study found contradictory information from SWDs, who said they did not receive individualized instruction in co-taught classrooms and valued at least having some access to small group or one-on-one instruction (Leadfstedt, Richards, LaMonte, & Cassidy, 2007).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specialized Instruction in Co-Taught High School Classes

Rodgers¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-teaching, in which a general and special educator collaboratively teach a class comprised of students with and without disabilities, is a common service delivery model school districts employ to increase inclusion of students with disabilities (SWD) in general education.Co-teaching is intended to provide access to the general curriculum for SWD and to provide the specialized instruction they need. However, despite the widespread use of co-teaching in schools and the high cost of placing two teachers in one classroom, there is still no clear, agreed-upon definition in the literature for what co-teaching should look like in practice (what "specialized instruction" means, for example), nor is there evidence of its effectiveness in improving students' academic outcomes.Using joint outcome production theory as a foundation for the conceptual framework, this study adds to the research base on co-teaching by closely examining specialized instruction in co-taught high school classrooms. According to this theory, as SWD are included in general education classrooms, the demand on teachers' resources increases. Adding a second teacher to the classroom should address that increase and result in a gain in resources that should benefit all students in the class. The question becomes how to best deploy those additional resourceswhether the two teachers should be filling different roles in the classroom or doubling up on existing roles. This study employed a concurrent mixed methods design to answer the following research questions: a) What does instruction look like in co-taught high school classrooms? b)What school-level structural factors are in place surrounding co-teaching? and c) What teacher-, classroom-, and school-level factors are related to observed patterns of instruction? To answer these questions, I conducted observations in two rural schools across 10 co-taught classrooms and in corresponding solo-taught classrooms to identify specific examples of specialization. In addition, participating teachers and three administrators were interviewed to determine their approaches to co-teaching and their experiences with the ways in which it is implemented in their schools. Teachers also completed a survey about their experiences with co-teaching and the details of their daily schedules.I conducted two or three observations of each individual class using an observational tool called the Classroom Teaching Scan across all 10 teams for a total of 60 observations and 64 hours. Statistics were calculated regarding time use in each classroom, rates of questions and feedback, and amount of time spent in specific instructional practices. Data were also collected and analyzed on the implementation of key instructional practices, in order to compare the methods used to those recommended by the research with regard to effective instruction for SWD. I compared these data across settings and teams to create detailed descriptions of the instruction provided in co-taught classes and its adherence to evidence-based practices. I...

show abstract

Consumer Perspectives on the Collaborative Teaching Model

Cited by 26 publications

References 11 publications

The Value of Qualitative Methods in Social Validity Research

The Value of Qualitative Methods in Social Validity Research

Effectiveness and Social Validity of FBAs for Youth At-Risk or With High Incidence Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

Specialized Instruction in Co-Taught High School Classes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About