Abstract:The recent Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District focused attention on outcomes for students with disabilities. It is not just about participating; it is about the instruction and outcomes from those services. Co-teaching is a prevalent service delivery model for students with disabilities who access the general curriculum. Much has been written about co-teaching but not necessarily about the instruction that takes place in a co-taught classroom. In this case study, we present a … Show more
“…In the State of Indiana alone, more than 32% of special education teachers are engaged in co-teaching instruction (Indiana State Department of Education, 2021). However, the extant literature does not present conclusive results regarding SWD's learning in those classroom settings (Cook et al, 2017;Van Garderen et al, 2012;Weiss & Glaser, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Where students with disabilities are educated and how well they perform academically is an international issue (Fuchs et al, 2015;Lehane & Senior, 2020;Lemons et al, 2018;Pulkkinen et al, 2020;Weiss & Glaser, 2021). Data supporting that academic achievement for co-taught SWD is higher than that of SWD in special education settings only scratches the surface of information needed to substantiate that SWD are receiving appropriate educational services in the least restrictive environment, whatever that setting may be.…”
Section: Limitations Future Research and Conclusionmentioning
Co-teaching consists of general and special education teachers who team to instruct students with and without disabilities in the same classroom. Additionally, some students with disabilities (SWD) receive instruction in special education settings. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare academic achievement of SWD in co-taught classes to achievement of SWD in special education settings. A comprehensive search of published and gray literature yielded 26 eligible studies with a total of 3,714 SWD. Results indicate a moderate effect size (g = 0.47) for students in co-taught settings compared to students in special education settings. Although the findings support SWD's academic achievement in co-taught classes, more information is needed to identify what distinguishes characteristics of the SWD in co-taught versus special education settings, as well as instruction in each setting. Factors related to results are described, including the lack of information about instructional practices and equivalency of students assigned to cotaught or special education settings. Implications for future researchers are provided, along with cautions about widespread placement of SWD in either setting without monitoring that effective instructional practices are in place, and that students receive specially designed instruction as stipulated on their Individualized Education Programs.
“…In the State of Indiana alone, more than 32% of special education teachers are engaged in co-teaching instruction (Indiana State Department of Education, 2021). However, the extant literature does not present conclusive results regarding SWD's learning in those classroom settings (Cook et al, 2017;Van Garderen et al, 2012;Weiss & Glaser, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Where students with disabilities are educated and how well they perform academically is an international issue (Fuchs et al, 2015;Lehane & Senior, 2020;Lemons et al, 2018;Pulkkinen et al, 2020;Weiss & Glaser, 2021). Data supporting that academic achievement for co-taught SWD is higher than that of SWD in special education settings only scratches the surface of information needed to substantiate that SWD are receiving appropriate educational services in the least restrictive environment, whatever that setting may be.…”
Section: Limitations Future Research and Conclusionmentioning
Co-teaching consists of general and special education teachers who team to instruct students with and without disabilities in the same classroom. Additionally, some students with disabilities (SWD) receive instruction in special education settings. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare academic achievement of SWD in co-taught classes to achievement of SWD in special education settings. A comprehensive search of published and gray literature yielded 26 eligible studies with a total of 3,714 SWD. Results indicate a moderate effect size (g = 0.47) for students in co-taught settings compared to students in special education settings. Although the findings support SWD's academic achievement in co-taught classes, more information is needed to identify what distinguishes characteristics of the SWD in co-taught versus special education settings, as well as instruction in each setting. Factors related to results are described, including the lack of information about instructional practices and equivalency of students assigned to cotaught or special education settings. Implications for future researchers are provided, along with cautions about widespread placement of SWD in either setting without monitoring that effective instructional practices are in place, and that students receive specially designed instruction as stipulated on their Individualized Education Programs.
“…The teachers coming from urology and nephrology in the class may be of help not only in focusing on the essential and vital subject contents but also in making up for the de cient knowledge of the other discipline. The co-teaching emphasized that both tutors integrated into one teaching process, and as substitute of the other in terms of discipline knowledge gained and retained by the students (11). There was a signi cant increase in post-test knowledge scores of students as compared to pre-test knowledge scores irrespective of the teaching methodology used.…”
Background Currently, the integrated curriculum of urology is still on the road of complete integration. Co-teaching, an existing concept in education, however, may be used to promote the integration of urology. Therefore, the present study was designed to explore the effect of co-teaching method compare with the traditional teaching method.Methods Co-teaching and traditional teaching in the topics hematuria and acute kidney injure (AKI) were prepared and validated. 98 undergraduate medical students of Tongji University were randomly assigned to groups A and B. Group A was taught hematuria by Co-teaching (CT) and AKI by traditional teaching (TT) and Group B was taught hematuria by TT and AKI by CT. A knowledge assessment tool of 20 multiple choice items was administered to assess the pre, post and retention knowledge scores. Change between knowledge scores was analyzed using inferential statistics. One students’ questionnaire and one tutors’ questionnaire were designed and used to investigate the perception on teaching-learning experience.Results Both traditional teaching and co-teaching were significantly effective in increasing the knowledge scores with no significant difference in learning outcomes between these two methods. However, co-teaching showed better knowledge retention compared to conventional teaching. At the same time, the feedback from students’ questionnaire showed co-teaching method better than traditional teaching; otherwise, the feedback from tutors’ questionnaire showed it needs more time and cooperation for the co-teaching. ConclusionsCo-teaching can promote the curriculum to be deeply integrated, achieve comparatively better retention of knowledge and improve the teaching effect as revealed by the findings.
“…Therefore, it would be difficult to implement the three‐element model without significant professional development and ongoing coaching. A coteaching team who implemented the three‐element model with support and coaching in a pilot study (Weiss & Glaser, 2019) stated, it is essential that these EBPs are clearly understood and accessible to all students, especially those students with IEPs. Beyond that, students with unique needs or goals must be instructed in a way that is specific to them.…”
Coteaching is a widely used service delivery model for students with disabilities who access the general curriculum.Instruction in cotaught classrooms is meant to be qualitatively different from instruction in solo-taught classrooms; however, this is not always the case. In this article, we describe a framework for thinking about and planning instruction in cotaught classrooms that includes evidencebased practices from special education and specially designed instruction. Examples are included and discussed. K E Y W O R D S coteaching, psychology, schools, teachers
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
