Coteaching: Uniting the Expertise of Regular and Special Education for Language Arts Instruction and Remediation

A Meta-Analysis of Co-Teaching Research

“…They defined co-teaching as &dquo;two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students in a single physical space&dquo; (p. 2). Since Bauwens, Houracade, and Friend's seminal article in 1989, the current educational literature has been replete with anecdotal experiences as well as suggestions for implementation and guidelines for setting up co-teaching situations (Cook & Friend, 1995;Reinhiller, 1996;Sevakis & Harris, 1992). Although there are a variety of co-teaching options (e.g., one teaching, one assisting; station teaching; parallel teaching; alternative teaching; team teaching; see Note 1; Cook & Friend, 1995), the impact of such procedures on student outcomes is unclear.…”

Communication and Mainstreaming: Translating the Behavioral Consultation Research Into Effective Practices

“…Bauwens et al (1989) identified three options for this procedure-team teaching, complementary instruction, and supportive learning-all of which are based on regular and special educators' achieving consensus (presumably through effective and ongoing communication) on what should be taught, how it should be taught, and how it should be evaluated. Issues delineated by Sevakis and Harris (1992) in describing a co-teaching effort in language arts instruction include early negotiation and delineation of roles and responsibilities for each teacher. Although the program was presented as essentially co-equal, the special educator, "the acknowledged expert," retained responsibility for setting goals and evaluating the progress of the students with disabilities.…”