Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
To cite this article: Marilyn Friend PhD , Lynne Cook PhD , DeAnna Hurley-Chamberlain &
Cynthia Shamberger MEd (2010) Co-Teaching: An Illustration of the Complexity of Collaboration
in Special Education, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20:1, 9-27, DOI:
10.1080/10474410903535380
Co-Teaching:
An Illustration of the Complexity of
Collaboration in Special Education
MARILYN FRIEND
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
LYNNE COOK
California State University, Dominquez Hills
9
10 M. Friend et al.
UNDERSTANDING CO-TEACHING
Co-Teaching in Practice
Although it is beyond the scope of this article to describe co-teaching in
detail (e.g., see Friend, 2008; Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008), the essence
of what occurs in co-taught classes is captured in Figure 1. That is, co-
teaching includes the professionals planning and delivering instruction using
six approaches and variations of them, with selection based on student needs
and instructional intent (Friend & Cook, 2010):
12 M. Friend et al.
1. One teach, one observe, in which one teacher leads large-group instruction
while the other gathers academic, behavioral, or social data on specific
students or the class group;
2. Station teaching, in which instruction is divided into three nonsequential
parts and students, likewise divided into three groups, rotate from station
to station, being taught by the teachers at two stations and working
independently at the third;
3. Parallel teaching, in which the two teachers, each with half the class
group, present the same material for the primary purpose of fostering
instructional differentiation and increasing student participation;
4. Alternative teaching, in which one teacher works with most students
while the other works with a small group for remediation, enrichment,
assessment, preteaching, or another purpose;
5. Teaming, in which both teachers lead large-group instruction by both
lecturing, representing opposing views in a debate, illustrating two ways
to solve a problem, and so on; and
6. One teach, one assist, in which one teacher leads instruction while the
other circulates among the students offering individual assistance.
Co-Teaching: Collaboration in Special Education 13
ness; (b) issues related to program logistics, including common planning for
co-teachers and scheduling students into co-taught classes; and (c) the impact
of co-teaching on student learning, behavior, and perceptions, including
academic achievement, attendance, and discipline reports.
instead of compromise. These authors found that special educators often as-
sumed the role of being a classroom assistant rather than a teaching partner.
Does co-teaching at the elementary level have the same parameters for
implementation as co-teaching in middle and high schools?
Is there a minimum amount of time that should be spent in the co-taught
classroom for this instructional option to be effective?
How should decisions be made concerning the students for whom co-
teaching might be the most effective mechanism for the delivery of special
education services?
How should co-teaching be distinguished from the various types of sup-
ports that other adults might provide in the general education classroom,
including those provided by paraprofessionals or parent volunteers and
those delivered by specialists through consultation?
At the same time that clear understandings are addressed, more consideration
should be given to the way that co-teachers implement their practice (Kloo &
Zigmond, 2008). That is, are certain co-teaching approaches more effective
for certain grade levels, certain subjects, or certain types of instruction? Rather
than attempting to judge the merits of co-teaching by treating it, in essence, as
a monolithic single intervention, this more careful delineation of co-teaching
applications would enable professionals to better accomplish the goal of co-
teaching, that is, increasing the extent to which instruction is tailored to meet
individual student needs.
2007)? Additional attention to this topic is provided in the article in this special
issue authored by Waldron and McLeskey (this issue).
do not establish an evidence base. What are needed are outcome data,
including academic achievement on high-stakes tests as well as curriculum-
based measures, discipline referrals and other behavioral indicators, sus-
pensions, retention and dropout information, attendance information, and
other outcome data. A few studies have suggested that well-implemented co-
teaching does benefit students (e.g., Rice & Zigmond, 2000; Walther-Thomas,
1997), but these glimmers of positive outcomes must be fortified in order
to assert without equivocation whether or not co-teaching positively affects
student outcomes. The sustainability of this instructional model is dependent
on better quality and more research.
Researchers studying co-teaching are likely to grapple with these chal-
lenges for some time to come. They may be assisted in their efforts by the
current requirements for school professionals to base their instruction on
assessment data. By turning to such local data being gathered in most schools
and districts, across school levels and subject areas, and for all students, the
impact of co-teaching may gradually be documented. Although these data
may lack some of the measures of rigor that would be preferred, they should
not be underestimated in the contribution they could make to the knowledge
base on this complex topic.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Improving student academic achieve-
ment using a co-teaching model of student teaching. Retrieved April 10, 2008,
from http://www.teachercenter.mnscu.edu/staff/featured/JTEpiece.pdf
24 M. Friend et al.
Bahamonde, C., & Friend, M. (1999). Teaching English language learners: A proposal
for effective service delivery through collaboration and co-teaching. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 10, 1–24.
Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model
for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education,
10(2), 17–22.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16.
Duke, T. (2004). Problematizing collaboration: A critical review of the empirical
literature on teaching teams. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27,
307–317.
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable?
Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22.
Evans, S. (1991). A realistic look at the research base for collaboration in special
education. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 10–13.
Friend, M. (2007). The co-teaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 58–
62.
Friend, M. (2008). Co-teach! A manual for creating and sustaining classroom part-
nerships in inclusive schools. Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend, Inc.
Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school profession-
als (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Garvar, A. G., & Papania, A. (1982). Team teaching: It works for the student.
Academic Therapy, 18, 191–196.
Hanslovsky, G., Moyer, S., & Wagner, H. (1969). Teaching teams. Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill.
Hudson, P., & Glomb, N. (1997). If it takes two to tango, then why not teach
both partners to dance? Collaboration instruction for all educators. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30, 442–448.
Hughes, C. E., & Murawski, W. A. (2001). Lessons from another field: Applying
co-teaching strategies to gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 195–
204.
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education:
A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2),
77–94.
Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching
experience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education,
30, 155–166.
Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching inclusive classrooms
at the high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Edu-
cation, 32(3), 77–88.
Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Co-teaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint.
Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 12–20.
Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2008). Collaboration and system coordination for students
with special needs: From early childhood to the postsecondary years. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front
of the kids. Education, 127, 260–264.
Co-Teaching: Collaboration in Special Education 25
Kratochwill, T. R., Volpiansky, P., Clements, M., & Ball, C. (2007). Professional
development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models: Im-
plications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 618–631.
Leafstedt, J. M., Itkonen, T., Arner-Costello, F., Hardy, A., Kroenstein, B., Medina,
M., et al. (2007). ‘‘Was it worth it? You bet’’: The impact of PL 94-142 on lives
and careers. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 19–31.
Lerner, J. W. (1971). Children with learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and
teaching strategies. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Lombardo, V. S. (1980). Paraprofessionals in special education. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., & Gebaner, K. (2005). Benefits of co-teaching
in secondary mathematics classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 20–
24.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie,
K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures,
and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260–270.
McLaughlin, M. J., & Rhim, L. M. (2007). Accountability frameworks and children
with disabilities: A test of assumptions about improving public education for all
students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54,
25–49.
Morocco, C. C., & Aguilar, C. M. (2002). Co-teaching for content understanding: A
schoolwide model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13,
315–347.
Mowbray, C., Holter, M., Teague, G., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Develop-
ment, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 316–
341.
Murawski, W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How
can we improve? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 227–247.
Murawski, W., & Swanson, H. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where
are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258–267.
Murray, C. (2004). Clarifying collaborative roles in urban high schools. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 36(5), 44–51.
Nelson, T., Slavit, D., Perkins, M., & Hathorn, T. (2008). A culture of collaborative
inquiry: Learning to develop and support professional learning communities.
Teachers College Record, 110(6), 1269.
Pardini, P. (2006). In one voice: Mainstream and ELL teachers work side-by-side in
the classroom, teaching language through content. Journal of Staff Development,
27(4), 20–25.
Rea, P., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. S. (2002). Outcomes for students
with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 68, 203–222.
Reynolds, T., Murrill, L. D., & Whitt, G. L. (2006). Learning from organizations:
Mobilizing and sustaining teacher change. The Educational Forum, 70, 123–
133.
Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports
of developments in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities:
Research & Practice, 15, 190–197.
26 M. Friend et al.
Robinson, H. B., & Robinson, N. M. (1965). The mentally retarded child: A psycho-
logical approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosen, E. (2007). The culture of collaboration: Maximizing time, talent, and tools
to create value in the global economy. San Francisco: Red Ape.
Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York:
Basic Books.
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.
Shaplin, J. T. (1964). Description and definition of team teaching. In J. T. Shaplin &
H. F. Olds (Eds.), Team teaching (pp. 1–23). New York: Harper & Row.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical
tips for facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture
through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psycholog-
ical Consultation, 20, 58–74.
Wallace, T., Anderson, A. R., & Bartholomay, T. (2002). Collaboration: An element
associated with the success of four inclusive high schools. Journal of Educa-
tional and Psychological Consultation, 13, 349–381.
Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems
that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30, 395–407.
Warger, C. L., & Aldinger, L. E. (Eds.). (1986). Preparing special educators for
teacher consultation. Toledo, OH: College of Education and Allied Professions,
University of Toledo.
Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. (2003). Conditions for co-teaching: Lessons from a case
study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 27–41.
Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility.
Exceptional Children, 52, 411–415.
Wilson, G. L., & Michaels, C. A. (2006). General and special education students’
perceptions of co-teaching: Implications for secondary-level literacy instruction.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 205–225.
Marilyn Friend, PhD, is professor and chair of the Department of Specialized Education
Services at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She earned her doctoral degree
from Indiana University and has held faculty positions at the University of Oklahoma, Northern
Illinois University, and Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI). Her
scholarship focuses on collaboration and co-teaching, inclusive practices, and school change.
Lynne Cook, PhD, is professor and former dean of the College of Education at California
State University, Dominguez Hills. She earned her doctoral degree from University of Michigan
and has held faculty positions at University of California, Los Angeles and California State
University, Northridge. She writes and conducts research in the areas of teacher retention and
career paths, professional collaboration, co-teaching, and inclusive practices.
Pfeiffer University where she teaches undergraduate special education courses and supervises
student teachers. She earned her master’s degree from East Carolina University. She has
research interests in the areas of collaboration and co-teaching.
Note: The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliated
institutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias
the opinions, decisions, or work presented in this manuscript.