Secondary Teachers' Perceptions of Co-Teaching on Students with Disabilities

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walter Smith
Penn Westt University

July 24 2024

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

Penn Westt University
School of Graduate Studies and Research

Department

of Education

We hereby approve the capstone of

Walter Smith

Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education

a
Dr. Todd E. Keruskin
PennWest University
Doctoral Capstone Faculty Committee Chair

4 V4 [4

NUL
Dr. Karen Nell
Superintendent

Elizabethtown Area Schoo! District
Doctoral Capstone Faculty Committee Chair

li

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

ill

Acknowledgements
I would

like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Todd Kerskin, for

his guidance, support, and encouragement throughout my doctoral studies. Your wisdom
and insights have been instrumental in shaping this capstone.
I extend my sincere appreciation to my committee member and superintendent,

Dr.

Karen Nell, for her valuable feedback, insights, and support throughout this process.

To my family and friends, especially my wife Eileen, thank you for your endless
patience and encouragement. Your belief in me has been a constant source of motivation.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

iV

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements

bs

List of Tables

Vu

Abstract

Vu 1

Chapter I. Introduction

1

Introduction

l

Focus

1

Research Questions

2

Fiscal Implications

3

Summary

4

Chapter II. Literature Review

5

Literature Review

5

Civil Rights Movement and Special Education Litigation

6

Evolution of Inclusionary Practices

10

Theoretical Framework and Models of Co-Teaching

17

Research-Based Benefits of Co-Teaching in Special Education

23

Research-Based Challenges and Limitations of Co-teaching in Special
Education

26

Research-Based Factors That Influence the Implementation of

Co-Teaching

30

Summary

35

Chapter ITI. Methodology

37

Methodology

37

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

v

Purpose

39

Research Questions

40

Setting and Participants

41

Research Plan

44

Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection

47

Ethical Considerations

52

Validity

52

Internal Review Board Process

54

Summary

55

Chapter IV. Data Analysis and Results

57

Data Analysis and Results

57

Demographics of Participants

59

Data Analysis

60

Results

62

Research Question #1

63

Research Question #2
Research Questions #3

65

Discussion

69

Summary

71

Chapter

V. Conclusions and Recommendations

73

Conclusions and Recommendations

73

Conclusions

74

Research Question #1

74

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

vi

Research Question #2

75

Research Question #3

78

Limitations

85

Recommendations

87

Summary

89

References

93

APPENDIX A. IRB Approval Letter,

104

APPENDIX B. Email to Co-Teachers

105

APPENDIX C. Informed Consent

106

APPENDIX D. Teachers' Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey

108

vii

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
List of Tables
Table

Collection Timelines

45

Table 2. Special Education Salaries and Benefits

45

Table 3. Professional Roles of Participants

59

Table 4. Years of Teaching Experience Amongst Participants

60

Table 5. Mean Scores of Likert Questions

62

1. Data

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
Abstract
Districts across the nation are grappling with rising costs and staff shortages, leading
many to adopt co-teaching models as their primary strategy to meet the needs of students

with disabilities. This shift is driven by legal mandates that fully advocate for the
education of students in the "least restrictive environment" possible. The purpose of this
study is to investigate the perceptions of secondary teachers who utilize co-teaching

practices, examining the benefits, challenges, and limitations of this instructional model.

Employing a concurrent mixed-methods research design, both quantitative and qualitative
data were collected from secondary teachers currently or previously involved in co-taught

classes within the last school year via an anonymous online survey. Results indicate that

while overall perceptions of co-teaching are positive, several concerns and critical factors
influencing its success were identified, including the need for adequate planning time,
consistent professional development, and strong administrative support. The conclusions
suggest that addressing these areas is essential for enhancing the efficacy of the co-

teaching model, ultimately fostering more inclusive and supportive learning
environments. Further research recommendations are also discussed.

Vili

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Co-teaching is a teaching model in which two or more educators share the
responsibility for teaching a single group of students. Some research has shown this
model to be an effective way to meet the needs of students with disabilities, but there is

limited and conflicting research on how this practice is perceived by the teachers who
implement it. This study examines the perceptions of secondary teachers who utilize co-

teaching practices to determine what they perceive to be the benefits, challenges, and

limitations of this instructional model.

To better understand the full impact of co-teaching, the researcher surveyed
secondary teachers who currently are or previously were in co-taught classes within the

last school year, to get their perspectives of this instructional model. The researcher also
wanted to gain a deeper understanding of what they perceive to be the benefits and

challenges of co-teaching. Being able to get an in-depth look at how teachers who
implement this model perceive it will help determine the impact that co-teaching has on
our students with disabilities. This study will focus on the perceptions of teachers within
a single school district, so that the results can more easily be applied and generalized to

the needs

of that specific district.

Focus
The Elizabethtown Area School District, like many districts across the nation, has
used the co-teaching model to support inclusionary practices for well over a decade. To

implement this model, it requires the utilization of two staff members. Recent staff
shortages felt across the nation are making it increasingly more challenging to

1

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
consistently fill these positions. Exploring the impact of this model will help this district
determine

if it continues to be a viable model to implement, or if the district needs to

consider alternative models to support students with disabilities within an inclusive
environment. Gaining a deeper understanding of teachers' perspectives will be able to
help guide administrators into making impactful and data informed decisions regarding
the allocation

of resources

and teachers across the schedules.

Research Questions
The chosen research questions explore the perceptions of secondary teachers
regarding the instructional practice of co-teaching. The three main questions being
explored are:
1)

What are teachers' perceptions of the benefits of co-teaching for students with

disabilities?

2) What are teachers' perceptions of the challenges of co-teaching for students
with disabilities?

3) What are teachers' perceptions of the factors that contribute to the success or
failure of co-teaching for students with disabilities?

This study uses a concurrent mixed-methods research design which means that
both quantitative and qualitative data from the subjects are collected through an

anonymous online survey. This type of design allows the researcher to gain a deeper
understanding of the overall data and therefore can more accurately draw conclusions

regarding the perceptions of the staff.

A mixed-methods design helps increase the validity of the findings because the
qualitative data corroborates the findings within the quantitative data. Additionally, using

2

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
a mixed-methods design addresses some

of the limitations of using a single method. The

quantitative methods provide a larger amount of data, but may lack in-depth
understanding of the social context. Subsequently, the qualitative data provides rich

descriptions that cannot be collected through quantitative methods. Combining both
methods develops a much more robust and meaningful interpretation of the findings.

Measures of central tendency were used to analyze the quantitative data that were

collected from Likert scales within the survey. This method allows for the collected data
to be compared and summarized to establish patterns. The qualitative data collected was

categorized using coding schemes to identify relationships and themes within the data.

Both the results of the quantitative data and the qualitative data were compared and
combined to interpret any conclusions found within the data sets.

Fiscal Implications
It is impossible to explore instructional models without considering the fiscal

implications of models. By the very nature of this instructional model, it requires two

staff members to be in the same classroom simultaneously. This requires a considerable
allocation of resources during those academic time periods. Co-taught classes require

twice the salary of a traditional classroom model.
In addition to fiscal compensation there are many indirect costs and resources that
are associated with implementing co-teaching. One important indirect, and finite,

resource is time.

If special education teachers are no longer co-teaching, they will be able

to spend time doing other professional obligations like progress monitoring, providing

interventions, and offering student support in other. Many of these obligations cannot
happen while a teacher is engaged in co-teaching. To co-teach effectively, the teachers

3

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

4

must have common planning time together. This costs both planning time and the time
spent coordinating schedules to provide for a common time to meet and plan co-teaching

practices.

To help support effective co-teaching practices, the district also sets aside time to
provide professional development for co-teaching pairs. Professional development is a

highly sought after commodity and all districts have many important topics that are vying
for that part of the school schedule.

If districts did not need to commit those training

hours toward co-teaching, the district could look to include training on a variety

of other

needs.

Summary
Districts across the nation are both struggling with rising costs and staff shortages.
It is a necessity for districts to be able to utilize their resources as effectively and

efficiently as possible. Fiscal resources and professional staff are limited resources for
many districts. In addition the number of students with disabilities is also on the rise
across the nation. The specific variables and situation
determine

of each schoo! district should

if the implementation of co-teaching is the best model to use. Districts owe it

to both their community stakeholders, and students, to be continually reviewing

if co-

teaching is continuing to have the desired and intended impact. By researching teachers'
perceptions of co-teaching on students with disabilities at the secondary level, districts

will have additional data that will be an important part of this puzzle. The districts can
then make informed programmatic decisions with the data collected, to ensure that their
students with disabilities are receiving the support they need, while also being

responsible with the limited resources available.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

CHAPTER I
Literature Review
From the impetus of special education legislation, across the nation, and

specifically Pennsylvania, local education agencies

(LEA) have wrestled with how to

ensure that students with disabilities are educated with students who are nondisabled to
the maximum extent that is appropriate. This is referred to as the least restrictive

environment

(LRE). Following the LRE mandate is far from a suggestion or lofty goal

for districts as Pennsylvania School Code states, "Students with disabilities shall be
educated in the least restrictive environment" (Least Restrictive Environment

Requirements, 2008, para. 1).

To meet this mandate, there has been increasing and consistent interest in the
development and implementation of inclusive practices. Inclusivity and the practices that
support inclusivity can be best viewed as issues

of educational placement which are

configured and determined through the child's Individual Education Plan (IEP). Within
the parameters

of the IEP, the team determines the specialized supports, services,

modifications, and accommodations that are needed for a student to make progress, as

well as access the regular education environment to the maximum extent that is
appropriate.

One of the more ubiquitous approaches that

LEAs utilize to support inclusive

practices is co-teaching. As the name implies this model requires two professional staff
members in a classroom. Scheduling two professional staff to one room for a class period
is a considerable usage of resources. Staff salaries are always increasing, and many

districts are facing a staffing shortage which further complicates implementing the co-

5

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
teaching model with fidelity. Districts need to be aware of staff perceptions regarding the
practice of co-teaching, as well as what research says about this practice to ensure that
this is the best model to implement or continue implementing.

Civil Rights Movement and Special Education Litigation
What we commonly consider to be best practices for supporting students with
disabilities did not emerge spontaneously, but instead, the practices evolved from
different sources and influences over the past decades. In the United States, the

responsibility of public education has traditionally been the responsibility of both the
state and local governments. In fact, the United States Constitution does not even

mention education, That changed in the 1960s with the arrival of the civil rights
movement. The federal government began to offer guidelines and supports to states to

help educate school-aged children who were believed to be educationally disadvantaged.

In the late 1960s Swedish psychiatrist and educator Bengt Nirje developed and

published the normalization principle. This principle underscored the importance of
treating individuals with disabilities with dignity and respect, while striving to create

inclusive environments where they can lead fulfilling lives. This principle emphasized the
normalization of everyday experiences, community integration, and individualized
support, aiming to ensure that individuals with disabilities have the same rights,

opportunities and quality of life as their non-disabled peers. It also advocated for

attitudinal changes challenging societal prejudices, as well as promoting acceptance and
understanding of people with disabilities (Nirje, 1996).

Out of the normalization movement came the deinstitutionalization movement in
the later 1970s. Adults with severe disabilities were often involuntarily committed to

6

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

7

hospitals; after multiple lawsuits due to mistreatment, these facilities began to lose favor
and started shutting down. These facilities were found to be in violation

of the Mental

Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, which required all states to adopt and
implement a least restrictive environment approach for the care provided to these

citizens. In Pennhurst v. Halderman (1984) the court agreed and opined that if a state
assumed responsibility for the habitation

of a person with intellectual disabilities, it must

provide care in the least restrictive environment that aligns with the individual's needs.

This is the exact same sentiment that rippled through public education at around the same
time.

Earlier in the seventies, two other milestone statutes were passed regarding the
educational rights of children with disabilities: The Education of the Handicapped Act

(EHA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. EHA expanded previously
existing grant monies to go toward students with disabilities and provided less direct
support to students with disabilities in the form

of providing funds for additional training

to higher education teacher training programs (Education

of the Handicapped Act [EHA],

1970).

Section 504 is a nondiscrimination provision included in the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. It was originally targeting employment discrimination, but its scope quickly

expanded to include other areas, including public education. Section 504 states that

individuals with disabilities cannot be excluded from participating in programs that
receive federal financial assistance (Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 1973).
In 1972, two landmark federal courts cases, Pennsylvania Association for

Retarded Children (PARC)

v.

Pennsylvania and Mills

v.

District of Columbia Board of

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

8

Education, were influential in establishing that all students with a disability had a right to
an education.

PARC was a class action lawsuit that specifically addressed the educational

exclusion of students with what would now be classified as an intellectual disability.

Mills expanded upon the PARC ruling by extending the PARC protections to other
disability categories, and extended procedural rights to the parents of these students.
These two cases were instrumental in the development of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA).

EAHCA built upon the previous EHA by

including a requirement to have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) developed for
students with disabilities, expanded upon the parental rights of the Mills ruling and

further elaborated on: the rights
appropriate public education

environment

of students with disabilities, the concepts of a free

(FAPE), and the right to be educated in the least restrictive

(LRE) (Education for All Handicapped Children Act,

1975). The impact

that this legislation had at the time cannot be minimized or ignored, as it set the stage for

special education as it is known today. As Smith (1990) states,

"...EAHCA was intended

to provide administrators with proof of compliance, teachers with formalized plans,
parents with a voice, and students with an appropriate education" (p. 6).

The

EAHCA described FAPE as being a setting that, "to the maximum extent

appropriate" allowed education with children who do not have disabilities. Under

EAHCA, all eligible students were to be located, identified, and evaluated for special
education services.

All children now had the right to be educated in the most appropriate

educational setting for their needs. Since

EAHCA, the concept of FAPE has been

expanded through additional revisions and regulations; it is one of the most important

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
entitlements provided ta students with disabilities.

9

FAPE is a right that LEAs must

provide for all eligible students.

A few years after the implementation of EAHCA, the United States Supreme
Court decided the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley case, which had a

significant impact on clarifying the scope of FAPE. The Rowley case is important
because it provided the Supreme Court with its first opportunity to interpret the mandate

of "appropriate education" that was included in EAHCA. This case revolved around a
female student with a hearing-impairment. She did not suffer from any intellectual or

cognitive impairments and had done well in school with menial additional supports. Her
parents requested that the school also provide her with an interpreter to maximize her

potential. The school denied their request on the grounds that she had been functioning at

or above grade level and was benefiting from the educational services they were currently

providing.

The court ruled in favor of the

LEA because they felt that the student had access

to a meaningful education program. They felt that the spirit

of the EAHCA was to ensure

access and benefit. Inasmuch, that courts should look beyond that standard. Districts were
to provide the basic "floor" opportunity to students resulting in some benefit, but they did

not need to provide that maximum benefit possible. The term "appropriate" now had a

working definition and districts knew that students needed to benefit from services, even
though they were not entitled to the best educational programming possible (Board of

Education

v.

Rowley, 1982).

Thirty-five years later, in 2017, the Rowley standard was revisited by the United
States Supreme Court in the Endrew v. Douglas County School District ruling. In this

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

10

ruling the courts revised the prior stance that students needed to receive "educational
benefit" and now they needed to make "progress". The courts also included that
students were not capable

if

of acquiring the outcomes of the general education curriculum

at their chronological level that progress must be "appropriate in light

of the child's

circumstances" (Endrew v Douglas County School District, 2017).

While FAPE is a core tenant of special education, as mentioned earlier, EAHCA
also introduced the initial regulations of the IEP, which is arguably the most essential and
most litigated element of that Act. The IEP is a written agreement reached through a team

consisting of parents, general education teachers, special education teachers,
on some occasions, the students.

LEAs and

All aspects of a student's FAPE including

programming, instructional methodologies, and placement, are outlined within his or her

IEPs. As with most aspects of special education law, the tenets and provisions of the IEP
continue to grow and evolve.

Hayes and Higgins (1978) state that not only is the IEP the "comerstone" of the

law, but that it is the tool designed to make, "teachers responsible and accountable for
assuring that each handicapped child receives the required special education and related

services set forth in the IEP" (p. 267).

Evolution Of Inclusive Practices
Over the years, the term "least restrictive" kept showing up in various cases and
regulations. Both the

PARC and Mills cases identified the courts preference for those

with disabilities to be included alongside those without disabilities to the greatest extent
possible. The term

LRE is commonly applied to the special education placement or

environment of a student with disabilities. Huefner (2006) states that,

"LRE captures the

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
balance between statutory mandate to provide

11

FAPE and the statutory preference for

education of students with disabilities alongside general education students to the

maximum extent appropriate" (p. 285).

For some students,
an out

LRE may require a self-contained classroom or enrollment in

of district school. However, for most students, it should mean a general education

classroom with supplementary aides and services that allow them meaningful access to
the general education curriculum (Huefner, 2006).

As with most aspects of special

education the concept of LRE has been heavily litigated and the courts have typically

relied on the results of three cases in developing the standards they apply to cases

involving LRE. There three cases are the Roncker Standard, the Daniel R.R. standard,
and the Rachel H. Standard.

The Roncker Standard, frequently referred to as the "Roncker Feasibility Test",
determine several requirements: whether inclusionary practices that would benefit the

child outweigh the benefits of a separate special education setting,

if the cost shift would

negatively impact takeaway too much funding from other programs, and if the student
would a disruption to the other students. According to this standard,

if the answer was yes

to any

of those criteria, then the placement would not be feasible. This standard came out

of the

1983 case, Roncker v. Walter in which the parents

of a student with a severe

disability wanted him in a regular school instead of the special education school that the
district had recommended. The court had to explore

if the regular education environment

could meet the educational, physical, or emotional needs of the student (Roncker v.

Walter, 1983).

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

12

The Daniel R. R. Standard established a two-prong test to establish regular
education placement. In the case of Daniel

v.

State Board of Education, the parents of a

student with Down syndrome advocated for him to be educated in the regular education

environment. Data showed that the placement was causing more harm than benefit to the
student despite the modifications and accommodations that were being provided. The

first question within the Daniel R. R. Standard looks to answer

if the district attempted to

accommodate the needs of the student through the implementation of supplementary aids,

services, and programmatic modifications within the regular education setting.
answer to this question is no, then F APE has not been provided.

If the

If the answer is yes, then

the courts examine whether the student is benefiting from his or her current placement.

The second of the two questions for this standard is

if the needs of the student

cannot be fully accommodated in the regular education environment, is the student being

included in the regular education environment to the maximum extent appropriate. This
question explores the appropriateness of social and physical inclusion. In this specific
case, the court concluded that the student's inclusion in both lunch and recess met the
standard (Daniel v. State Board of Education, 1989).

In developing the Rachel H. Standard, the courts applied a four-factor test. The

four areas the court explored were: the educational benefits of the student being in the

regular education classroom full-time, what are the nonacademic benefits of being in the

regular education classroom full time, what effects does the student with disabilities have
on the classroom teachers and students, and finally, what are the financial costs

including the student in the regular education classroom.

of

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
Rachel v. Sacramento City Unified School District (1994), in which this standard
was developed, involved the placement of a student with an intellectual disability and

significant speech and language difficulties. In this case, the court ruled that the student's

EP goals could be implemented with fidelity within the regular education classroom with
the modification and accommodations.

While there are some subtle nuanced differences between these three cases and
their standards, there are many overlapping elements that are still used when evaluating
the appropriateness

of the educational placement of a student with disabilities. All these

standards consider the potential disruptive effects that inclusion may have on the regular

education environment, as well as explore the fiscal burdens, and implement a multifactored analysis of the benefits and progress of the student within the setting. Most

importantly, none of the standards assume that all student with disabilities should be in
the regular education environment or that students need to be placed there and allowed to

fail prior to moving to a more appropriate placement.
In 1993, the New Jersey courts settled Oberti v. Board of Education and provided

additional clarity to defining the rights of students with disabilities and outlining the

responsibilities of school districts. In this case, the parents of a student with Down
syndrome wanted their student placed in a regular education placement, as opposed to the
segregated special education that the district presented to them. The federal court ruled in

favor of the parents and emphasized that the inclusion of a student with disabilities is a
right, and not a privilege.

This court, like past courts, outlined considerations that may negate inclusion
such as where the student would receive the most benefit, the disruption to other students,

13

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

14

and fiscal implications. This court firmly concluded that the inclusion

of students with

disabilities was a requirement unless the district could show undue burdens. Even though
it listed fiscal implications of inclusion, the court also clarified that the lack of funding

itself should not be enough to prevent the inclusion of a student with disabilities into the
regular education environment (Oberti v. Board of Education, 1993).

The court's ruling in Gaskins

v.

Pennsylvania (2005) made a significant impact

on special education procedures and inclusionary practices across the commonwealth that
are still felt today. The settlement required a five-year agreement that included forming

an

LRE advisory panel, tiered support for districts who needed support with their

inclusionary practices, developing materials to show all students are welcome, and
included a section to the IEPs that ensured the IEP teams were intentionally reviewing the
supplementary aids and services that could support a student with disabilities in the

regular education environment.

The late 1990s and early 2000s ushered in important federal regulations regarding
special education. In 2002, the No Child Left Behind

(NCLB) act was signed. It included

revised academic proficiency standards and the increased qualifications needed for
teachers. This included a requirement that teachers needed to be 'highly qualified,' which

was then revised in the reauthorization of this act called The Every Student Succeeds Act
in 2015.
1997 saw the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA). This act included new requirements for the discipline of students with
disabilities, modified eligibility and evaluation procedures for students, and provided
additional ways for parents to participate. In 2004, it was revised to align with

NCLB

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
assessment requirements, revised discipline procedures, and placed a high emphasis on
student outcomes.

The language within the IDEA related to the "least restrictive environment" has
remained relatively unchanged for decades, while other parts of this extensive federal

civil rights law have undergone revisions and adjustments. This language, although
straightforward in wording, carries a degree of ambiguity. As discussed earlier, it
mandates that each state must ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children

with disabilities should be educated alongside their non-disabled peers. Special classes,
separate schooling, or any other form

of removing children with disabilities from the

regular educational environment should only occur when the nature or severity of the

child's disability is such that they cannot receive a satisfactory education in regular
classes, even with the use of supplementary aids and services.

This statement, however, raises more questions than it provides answers. What
qualifies as "appropriate," and when is the "maximum extent" of appropriateness
reached? Whose judgment determines whether a child can be satisfactorily educated in
the regular classroom? Perhaps the most challenging question, which holds the key to

addressing the others, concerns the term "supplementary aids and services." What exactly
are these "supplementary aids and services" that public schools are required to employ

within "regular classes" to determine

if a child with a disability can receive a satisfactory

education there? Frustratingly, many

of these questions are not answered within the

confines of the regulations themselves.

The "least restrictive environment" mandate, as described earlier, and as it has
been a fundamental part

of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from

15

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

16
"

its inception, primarily deals with one aspect of "restrictiveness. It focuses exclusively
on the physical dimension

of the issue, requiring

that public schools educate children

with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers in what is referred to as "the regular
educational environment" or "regular classes." However, it doesn't address what children

with disabilities are expected to learn, or how they are expected to perform in these
environments and classes.
In 1997, Congress revised the

IDEA that introduced language mandating that

children with disabilities should receive "special education and related services and
supplementary aids and services." These services, among other things, should enable the

child "to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum" and

allow them to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities. This
updated version of the "least restrictive environment" concept goes beyond physical

presence and requires that children with disabilities not only share the same physical

space as their non-disabled peers but also strive to learn the same skills and content and

participate in the same extracurricular and nonacademic activities to the greatest extent
possible.

As

a result, there is now a dual consideration in ensuring access to education for

children with disabilities. This involves providing access to the general curriculum and
extracurricular experiences, as well as and ensuring that this access occurs within the
regular educational environment alongside their non-disabled peers.

A

common

modification that districts across the nation implement to meet these mandates is coteaching.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

17

Theoretical Framework and Models of Co-Teaching
One

of the more commonly accepted definitions of co-teaching comes from

Friend and Cook (2007). They state that, "Co-teaching occurs when two or more
professionals jointly deliver substantive instruction to a diverse, blended group of
students in a single physical space" (p. 113). In other words, this educational approach

allows students with disabilities to access the regular curriculum while also receiving
tailored instruction to address their unique requirements. Typically, in this service model,
the general education teacher specializes in delivering content-based instruction, while
the special education teacher specializes in customizing the curriculum and delivering

specific instruction to cater to the functional, behavioral, and academic needs of students

with disabilities (Cook & McDuffie-Landrum, 2020). Ideally, the co-teaching service
model should be able to create access to high-learning standards for students through the

collaboration between general and special educators.

Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) conducted a research synthesis on the perceptions

of teachers on mainstreaming and inclusion from the years of 1958-1995 and they found
that neither the location

of the study, nor the time of publication impacted their findings.

In their overall findings they discovered that approximately two-thirds
education teachers were in favor

of the general

of the idea of inclusion. A slightly smaller majority

expressed their willingness to have students with disabilities in their classes, but their
responses depended upon knowing more about the specific disability and the additional

obligations that disability might put on the teacher. Additionally, around half of the
teachers recognized that inclusion could offer some advantages, only one-third felt they

had the time, skills, training or resources needed for inclusion to really be successful.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

18

These findings support that while teachers were open to the idea of inclusionary
practices, they saw the need for training and a framework for their students to be
successful.

While districts started implementing co-teaching in response to philosophical
trends, litigation, and evolving regulations, it has become the most popular method to
support students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Cook et al., 2017). Over the years
the models have evolved and there are six main models

of co-teaching that have been

commonly been accepted over the past few decades. They are: team teaching, parallel

teaching, station teaching, one teach and one observe, one teach and one assist, and
alternative teaching (Friend & Bursuck, 2006).

According to Cook and McDuffie-Landrum (2020), in team teaching, both
educators share equal responsibility for presenting the content and actively participating

in whole-group instruction. They go on to explain that the team-teaching approach is one

of the co-teaching models that can be utilized to benefit all students and works best when
both teachers are confident in the subject material. This model allows both teachers to

participate in whole class instruction. There are some limitations of this model in that it
requires a significant amount of collaboration and planning between the two teachers

(Jackson et al., 2017), Additional limitations outlined by Sinclair et al. (2019) include
that, "...it does not necessarily provide opportunities for differentiation across student

ability levels and requires both teachers to have a high level of content area knowledge
for the unit being taught" (p. 306).

Parallel teaching can be described as dividing the class into two groups and

having the same content being taught concurrently to each group by a different teacher.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
(Cook & McDuffie-Landrum, 2020). This style of co-teaching is commonly used

19

if the

teaching team determines that the content is better taught using small-group instruction
because it effectively reduces the class size and allows students to have more

opportunities to respond and participate during instruction (Cook et al., 2017). One of the

benefits of this model is that the small-group format allows teachers to provide more

individualized attention and feedback to the students. Because it allows for more
individualization and feedback it should be used more frequently than some of the other
co-teaching methods (Friend, 2014). Another characteristic that differentiates this style
from others is that the groups do not shift or rotate. Furthermore, the students only

receive instruction from one teacher during this time.

As with each model, there are challenges and limitations within parallel teaching.

If the content knowledge of one teacher was not as strong as the other, the students in that
group could be at a disadvantage. Most often, the special education teacher may not also
be certified in that content area, so he or she may find it difficult to present the content at
the same level that the content expert can deliver it. Based upon that limitation, this

model may be more appropriate from reviewing content, instead of using it to introduce

new content. Other challenges are that teachers need to closely communicate to ensure
that they are pacing their instruction at similar rates. In addition, instructors need to be
aware of noise level within the class, because two lessons happening simultaneously

could create distractions for some of the learners in the classroom (Friend, 2014).
Station teaching is similar to parallel teaching, in that it involves splitting the class
into smaller groups. However, in this model each group, or station, is focused on a

different topic or activity and the students rotate through the two stations. Each teacher

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

20

facilitates a different station, and the lessons or activities are independent from each
other.

Because of its versatility, this model is recommended for frequent usage (Friend,

2014). Within this model, the students can be grouped in a variety of ways and the
teachers can run stations aligned with their strengths and even offer a station for

independent work

if appropriate. For example, the general education teacher might

introduce a new topic at the station they lead while the special education teacher might

introduce an instruction strategy, graphic organizer, or mnemonic device aligned with the
same topic.

By breaking the whole class into smaller groups, the teachers can more easily

mitigate behavior challenges and provide targeted support to students who may need
additional instructional support. This model requires advanced planning; however, it also
creates opportunities for differentiation across the smaller groups

of students (Sinclair,

2019).
There are some logistical challenges within the station model. The stations need
to function independently from each other and cannot be hieratical. The stations need to
be able to function so that the students can complete them in any order or rotation. This

model also requires significant collaboration and planning between the teachers. In

addition,

if either teacher is weak in behavior management or lacks instructional control,

the noise level and engagement

of the students may fluctuate.

In the one-teach, one assist model, one teacher takes the instructional lead, while
the other supports or enhances the instruction. This model is utilized when instruction is

occurring to the whole group, and

if one of the instructors is less confident in the material

than the other. Typically, in this model, the content area teacher would assume the

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

21

primary teaching responsibilities, while the special education teacher would provide
additional supports as needed. Scruggs et al. (2017) found that this typically to be the
dominant model of co-teaching utilized, even though it is not highly recommended within
the literature. This model is not highly recommended because the special education

teacher often ended up playing a subordinate role to the general education teacher.

A

study by Keeley (2015) found this model to be ineffective in multiple areas, including

classroom management and learning. His study concluded that "...as long as the one
teach/one assist model is consistently implemented in the co-taught classroom, students
are not experiencing any

of the student perceived benefits as indicated

are present when

other co-teaching models are incorporated" (p. 14).

A benefit to this model of co-teaching is that the lesson can be taught more
efficiently, with one teacher being dedicated to answering questions or prompting
students to get back on-task. Regardless

of implementation, this type of classroom would

still only have one teacher providing instruction, which drastically minimizes the
potential impact of having two teachers in the room, which is a significant limitation.

This model has the greatest potential to be over-utilized, especially when teachers lack
sufficient planning time.

The one-teach, one-observe model is not mentioned as prolifically in literature as
the other models, but it serves an important function and should be considered as a viable

option. In this model, one teacher leads the instruction, while the other teacher quietly
observes. The observing teacher can be used to collect a variety of data including

collecting behavior data on students like time on task or calling out. For collecting data
on the teacher such as counting opportunities to respond,

if the teacher included al!

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

22

students in a discussion or other instructional data that the teacher can use to reflect on

his or her practices. To further clarify, the role

of the observer is not passive, and he or

she is actively engaged in data collection for a specific purpose and not just casually

watching while instruction is occurring (Sinclair, 2018).

While this model should only be used periodically, it can be used at any time
during the year and requires advance planning to ensure that both parties understand their
role in that lesson, so that the correct data can be collected. This allows teachers to focus
on student learning, student behavior, and their own instructional practices in a way that

they never could independently. This type of co-teaching involves a deeper level of trust
than the others, because the role

of the observer is not to be an evaluator but to

be an

objective observer.

The final co-teaching model is alternative teaching. In alternative teaching one
teacher provides instruction to a smaller group of students, while the other instructs the
rest

of the class. This model is typically utilized to provide specialized instruction for a

particular group of students. Most typically, the small group instruction would be

provided by the special education teacher and involve additional practice, repetition or

specific differentiation to meet the needs of the students in that small group. For example,
the teachers could use the results

of a recent formative assessment to identify which

students may benefit from having the lesson retaught to them, while the other group

engages in other curricular activities.

A strength of this model is that it allows for the students with disabilities to
receive targeted intervention to meet their diverse needs, while also allowing an
opportunity for students to receive instruction related to their grade-level content with

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

23

their non-disabled peers. As with most of these models, collaboration between the two
teachers is essential for this model. The teachers will need to determine which students

would benefit from the small group instruction, in addition to making sure it is facilitated
in a way that those students do not miss out on any essential content during the small
group time.

One of the challenges with this model is that the teachers need to ensure that the

small group does not become the equivalent of a pullout special education group that
happens to occur within the general education environment. This model can be used to

provide enrichment, pre-teaching, or to provide more individualized instruction for
students with behavioral needs who would benefit from additional attention, but it should
not be used regularly and should be used with intentionality, so that the spirit of inclusive

practices is being honored.

Research-Based Benefits of Co-Teaching in Special] Education
Research has found that co-teaching can benefit students with disabilities,
students without disabilities, and the teachers. Scruggs et al. (2007) found that co-

teaching provided not only academic benefits to students with disabilities but also could
improve their social and behavioral skills. Co-teaching allows students with disabilities to
learn along-side their same aged peers, as well as meaningfully participate in specially

designed instruction to meet their specialized needs. The findings of a study by Klingner
and Vaughn (1999) indicated that students with high incidence disabilities desired equal

participation in activities, access to the same books and homework assignments as their
classmates. Their peers without disabilities also shared these perspectives; they viewed it
as the most fair and equitable approach. Both groups

of students also acknowledged that

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

24

not all students learn at the same pace or in the same way. Interestingly, both groups also

appreciated having teachers who adjusted the pace of instruction, provided clear

explanations of concepts, utilized effective teaching strategies, and ensured that all
students in the class had an opportunity to learn.

The benefits to all students were not just limited to academic gains. Across
multiple studies the benefits of exposure to peer models for appropriate behavior was
noted (Scruggs et al., 2007). Another study found that teachers reported that students

with disabilities were able to receive additional attention through the implementation of
co-teaching practices. (Norris, 1997).

A study of 54 secondary

students with and without

disabilities found that all but one student who was interviewed reported both academic
and behavioral benefits from being in a co-taught class (Dieker, 2001).

Salend et al. (1997) found that teachers occasionally observed increased

collaboration among their students, both with and without disabilities, in their classes that
were co-taught. In fact, multiple studies have found evidence to support that the

additional teacher attention that can be provided through the co-teaching model has
resulted in academic benefits for all learners (Luckner, 1999; Rice

& Zigmond, 2000).

Across all studies reviewed, the perceived social benefits that were provided to students
without disabilities was more frequently discussed than the academic benefits.

A meta-

analysis by Scruggs et al. (2007) found that, ""Co-teachers in a number of investigations
reported on the positive effects

of co-teacher collaboration as a social model for students"

(p. 401).
In looking at the benefits to the teachers involved with co-teaching, that same

meta-analysis by Scruggs et al. (2007) found that, in general, teachers commonly

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

25

reported that they had experienced professional advantages because

of co-teaching. The

study found many teachers felt that there was almost a symbiotic relationship between the

co-teaching pairs where the special education teacher gained content knowledge from the
general education teacher and the general education teacher gained understanding of how
to adapt curriculum and improve their classroom management skills. Additionally,

perceptual data collected by Chitiyo (2017) found that 82%

of general and special

educators felt co-teaching was beneficial; 69% believed co-teaching met the needs of

their students. Interestingly, that same study reported that 62% of those teachers believed
that they lacked the skills needed to successfully implement co-teaching.

A 2015 study by Sweigart and Landrum had two notable findings related to how
the co-teaching model can benefit teachers. First, they found that co-teachers had

increased rates of using effective instruction

practices with their classes including

providing positive feedback and opportunities to respond when compared to their
colleagues who did not utilize the co-teaching model. Secondly, they found higher levels

of student engagement, plus decreased rates of disruptive behaviors in classes who
implemented the co-teaching model.

One theory about these benefits is that they come from the higher teacher to
student ratio that can be afforded by the co-teaching model. According to

Villa et al.

(2008), "...the higher teacher-to-student ratio, that results allows for more immediate and
accurate diagnoses of student needs and more active student participation in a variety

of

learning situations" (p. 16). It is not just the ratio of course, but the practices implemented
by the teachers. As Scruggs and Mastropieri (2017) noted, "It is what the two teachers do

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

26

and how they do it that can make co-teaching effective for a student with disabilities" (p.

285).

Research-Based Challenges and Limitations of Co-Teaching in Special Education
Ongoing research regarding the impact of the co-teaching model has also
identified challenges and limitations of the practice, which impact its effectiveness. One

of the most obvious limitations to the co-teaching model is in most districts, the number
of general education teachers significantly outnumbers the number of special educators,
so not all staff, or students, can participate in the service delivery model. The dependance

on collaboration, rather than the physical presence and direct assistance

of special

educators in any given classroom, is emphasized by the ratio between special and general

education teachers (Fuchs et al., 2015). Some of the other challenges and limitations

identified include student skill level, behavioral barriers, and detrimental impacts to
students with disabilities.

A study by Weiss and Lloyd (2002), found six secondary teachers who felt that
some

of the students with disabilities did not belong in their co-taught classes but were

there because, "a school policy required them to participate in mainstream classes" (p.

65). This comment and the perspectives shared by these teachers illustrates the divergent

thinking that exists between educational practice and education law. Schools are
mandated to provide the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities,

however, not all staff may be willing to adjust to that mandate.

The meta-analysis completed by Scruggs et al. (2007) found instances throughout
multiple studies where teachers reported that student behaviors had a negative impact on

co-teaching, which left them feeling angry and frustrated. Some of the barriers reported

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
in this study were that occasionally classes had an imbalance of students with disabilities

which resulted in behaviors ranging from defiance to both verbal and physical
aggression.

Zigmond and Matta (2004) found that instead of helping to provide specialized
instruction, accommodations, and modifications to students with disabilities, the primary
role of the special education teacher was often just in helping and assisting students
throughout the classroom. While co-teaching may enhance achievement outcomes for

certain students with disabilities, it often falls short for the level of intensity needed to

improve outcomes for students facing the most severe and persistent deficits (Sinclair,

2019). Special education provides a continuum of services to students with disabilities
and cannot offer a 'one size fits all' model. Most important to note, students with learning

disabilities differ in the severity of their disabilities. Students facing more severe learning
challenges necessitate an instructional intensity that may surpass the scope of the
supports and benefits offered through the co-teaching model (Fuchs et al., 2018).

Additionally, due to the frequent implementation of the one-teach, one-assist
model as reported in Scruggs et al. (2007), students with disabilities may not be getting
targeted instruction at their level and overusing that model may unintentionally result in
an "overreliance on one-to-one assistance or stigmatization that students with disabilities

always need individual attention to complete assignments" (p. 135).
Boudah et al. (1997) studied the impact of co-teaching on high school students.

The study found that the academic performance of the students with disabilities who
received the experimental co-teaching treatment declined during the course of the study.
In addition, even though there were two teachers in the classroom the students were only

27

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

28

minimally engaged in instructional tasks as compared to students with disabilities who
were not in a co-taught class. Another more recent study found that when the special

education teacher was present, general education teachers spent significantly less time

working with the students with disabilities (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005).

This concerning trend in the research limits the identified and perceived benefits
that the co-teaching model has to offer. To offer students with disabilities increased

opportunities for instructional experiences that promote their progress, both co-teaching
partners must actively participate as instructors and be engaged in delivering the content.

Johnson et al. (2022) noted that:

When co-taught classes are led by general educators, the active involvement of
the special educators may be determined more by the willingness

of the general

educator to include special educators in instruction than the beliefs and

capabilities of the special educators. (p. 103)

Just the practice of having two adults in the classroom does not seem to result in
improved academic outcomes. The adults need to actively engage students in learning.

For example, Bottge et al. (2018) conducted a reanalysis on the instruction computing
fractions in special education resources rooms, and in inclusive environments. Their
results demonstrated that students with disabilities who were taught in co-taught classes
performed better in classes where the teachers shared the instructional responsibilities
(team teaching), as opposed to when the special educator played little-to-no role in

providing direct instruction (one teach, one assist). Interestingly, their findings also
supported that student with disabilities, "...who are taught in small groups with a

specialized curriculum that targets their learning deficits can make larger academic gains

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

29

than students with disabilities who are taught with the general school curriculum in the

inclusive math settings" (p. 209).
One study reflected potential challenges of co-teachers overutilizing the one
teach, one assist model. Wexler et al. (2018) studied middle school English language arts

classes and found that students, both with and without disabilities, were engaged in

whole-class or independent work for 86.5% of the class time. Meaning, students with
disabilities were, at most, receiving specially designed instruction to meet their needs
only 13% of the time. Studies like this underscore the need for districts to continually
evaluate the effectiveness of special education service models in their schools.

If a district

is making the decision to allocate two professional staff to one learning environment, one

of those professionals should not spend most of their time supporting whole-class
instruction led by the other professional, as that is both ineffective for students and an
irresponsible use of district resources.
Hattie (2009) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis on the influences of
student achievement by reviewing over 800 research studies. He reviewed the effect sizes

of various influences;

he categorized these the factors based on their effect size and

determined that influences that have an effect size of 0.4 or higher are considered to have
a Significant impact on learning. His research determined that the practice

of co-teaching

had an effect size of 0.19 reflecting that it does not have a significant impact on learning.

In fact, the study found that influences that rank that low lead to significantly less than a

year's academic growth for students. Typically, the students identified for being in cotaught classes are students with identified learning disabilities and often need to make
more than a year's growth to close their academic gaps. Despite the widespread

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
popularity and potential advantages of co-teaching, effectively implementing this model
can be challenging due to a range

of commonly encountered challenges and the

considerable variation in how it is implemented.

Research-Based Factors that Influence the Implementation of Co-Teaching
Due to the dynamic aspect of co-teaching, researchers have identified multiple
factors that can have either a positive or negative impact on the quality and success of co-

teaching within a school district. Some of the factors that can have the most meaningful

influence on implementing co-teaching include support from administration, how teams
are formed, planning time, and professional development.

Administrative support can come in many forms. Administrators oversee
developing the schedule and developing class rosters, so they can help determine which
grade levels and classes will implement the co-teaching instructional model. To assist

with this task, Murawski and Dieker (2008) recommend that principals should strive to
schedule classes utilizing the natural proportions of individuals with disabilities.

Meaning, since the average natural percentage of people with disabilities in society
ranges near 20%, co-taught classes should not be comprised of more than 20% with
students that have disabilities. They theorize that

if the percentage of students with a

disability rises too high, then the anticipated or perceived benefits of co-teaching will be
jeopardized,

The support of administrators is so important that in all 32 of the qualitative
studies of co-teaching in inclusive settings that we included in a meta-analysis by

Scruggs et al. (2007) found no evidence to support the notion that administrative support
was not necessary. In fact, many of the teachers interviewed across most of the studies

30

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

31

listed administrative support as one of the primary factors needed for co-teaching to be

successful. Although there is evidence highlighting the importance of administrative
support for retaining special education teachers and providing quality instruction in co-

taught classrooms, there has been limited guidance provided to administrators on their
role in supporting co-teaching practices (Sinclair, 2019),
One area where administrative support is essential is creating co-teaching

pairings. Scruggs et al. (2007) found that many of the teachers in the reviewed studies
stated the importance

of co-teachers needing to volunteer to teach together,

as opposed to

being randomly selected or having it forced on them. Their study also supported that
administrators shared the same point

of view,

and believed that letting teachers pick their

partners was important. This view was shared in other articles as well. Murawski and

Dieker (2008) noted that:
Too often, administrators throw co-teachers into an arranged co-teaching
relationship; and the co-teachers focus on their resentment that no one asked them

for their opinion, that they were not trained, or that they do not know the content
or the special needs

of the students the way that the other educator does. (p. 47)

Rice and Zigmond (2000) in a study of 17 teachers in America and Australia
found that many of the teachers interviewed felt that one

of the most critical variables in

successful co-teaching was the compatibility between the co-teaching partners, Scruggs
et al. (2007) also found evidence to support the importance

of compatibility. In their

meta-analysis, they found multiple instances where a lack of mutual trust and respect had

negative effects and, in some circumstances, led to some of the partnerships dissolving.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

32

Sileo (2011) identified communication as a key element that could make or break
co-teaching pairs. "Co-teachers' inability to discuss nitty-gritty details regarding shared
classroom space, instructional noise levels, discipline, and daily chores often leads to

unresolved issues that interfere with efforts to collaborate on behalf of students" (p. 34).

Co-teaching partners need to maintain ongoing communication throughout their
partnership to ensure that their focus remains on the paramount goals of co-teaching: the

academic and social growth and development of their students.

Kramer and Murawski (2017), also encourage administrators to build consistently
within the co-teaching partners and stop the practice of frequent switching. They opine
that the effectiveness

of co-teaching may improve the longer co-teachers are paired

together, because they continue to build upon their shared expertise. Conversely, when

pairs are mixed often, teachers may not have the time required to develop the content

knowledge or instructional strategies from one another. Even maintaining teacher pairs
for years and allowing them to pick their own pairs may be ineffective in the long term

if

the teachers do not have common planning time or ongoing opportunities for

collaboration.
In a 2001 study on co-teaching at the secondary level, Deiker found that the

teachers shared common struggles about finding adequate planning time. These same
teachers reported having, on average, 45.5 minutes per week for planning however they

felt they needed at least three times that amount. Due to potential time constraints for coteachers in their collaborative planning, it is crucial for them to make the most

of the time

they have available. Technology can play a vital role in enhancing the efficiency of their

co-planning efforts. For instance, shared web-based documents can offer a convenient

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
platform for teachers to make notes, offer suggestions, and communicate with each other
regarding critical or time-sensitive thoughts within a single document at various points
throughout the day (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017).

As teachers continue to consistently engage in this planning process, they will
become more comfortable and efficient in planning lessons within the framework of this

instructional model (Cook & McDuffie-Landrum, 2020). Co-planning and collaboration

may not be easy or natural, especially to newer teaching pairs. In a 2022 study on

collective efficacy and co-teaching, Pizana concluded that, "Shared responsibilities,
communication, and co-planning are related to a cohesive co-teaching partnership" (p.
1823). To ensure the effectiveness of collaboration, it is crucial that the teachers in each

pair have an equal standing. Typically, in co-teaching, the general education teacher often
holds the dominant role due to having ownership of the room and knowledge of the
content. This dominance persists irrespective

of their experience or expertise.

Consequently, the overall orientation of the classroom tends to favor the general
education teacher and whole-class, and teacher led instruction prevails.

While it is important that teachers have dedicated time for planning together, they
may also need guidance and training on how to effectively plan and design accessible
lessons and assessments. In a 2017 study by Brendle et al., the authors found that the.

interviewees felt co-teaching was beneficial for both students and teachers; however, they

believed they lacked the skills to effectively co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess. This fact
was acknowledged again in a study by Chitiyo and Brinda (2018), who found that most
teachers in their study

of 77 teachers reported feeling knowledge about the practice, but

were unprepared to implement co-teaching in their district. This underscores the idea that

33

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
that districts

34

will need to be intentional with how they plan to provide this needed

professional development to their co-teachers.

While some studies found that some teachers prefer to dive in and explore the
practice

of co-teaching, many

other studies revealed most teachers, when interviewed,

emphasized the importance of receiving training. Some of the most common areas of

training requested were in co-teaching styles, effective communication, using technology
in co-taught classes and understanding the characteristics of disabilities (Scruggs et al.,

2007).

Relying on a "one and done" approach for professional development is often
ineffective. Instead, an essential key to the successful implementation of instructional
strategies can be found in utilizing instructional coaches who can model strategies and

provide valuable feedback to the co-teaching teams (Leko & Brownell, 2009). Productive
professional development grants teachers the necessary time to apply new educational
methods in their classrooms, along with ongoing feedback as the year goes on to support
teachers redesign and adapt to the changing needs

of their students and content areas

(Kretlow et al.,). After acquiring the initial knowledge about new instructional practices,
such as co-teaching, the teachers should participate in follow-up application activities that
are reflective

of best practices. As summarized in an article by Cook

et al. (2021),

"Teachers need specific direction and guidance to apply new instructional strategies into
their classrooms, co-teachers also need additional support to maximize their expertise and

instructional capacity of each teacher" (p. 136).

While researching co-teaching and collaborative teaching methods in Italy,
researchers Ghedin and Aquario (2020) found what they describe as the 'co-teaching

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

35

paradox. According to them the 'co-teaching paradox' is, "the contradiction that often

exists between what a teacher believes is important and how to achieve it at an ideal

level, and what is currently deemed to be important..." (p. 25). The example Ghedin and
Aquario used within their study was that most of the teachers they interviewed shared
that communication between teachers was important and that both teachers treat each
other as equals. However, their findings reflected that while teachers were aware

of these

perceived benefits, they remained purely aspirational in that the teachers were found to
have minimal communication between each other and that the duties were not evenly
shared. While the authors acknowledge there is still more to study in this area before this

concept can be generalized it might explain some of the limitations that were described
above.

Summary
The purpose of this Capstone Project is to help examine the perceptions that
secondary teachers have regarding the practice of co-teaching. As civil rights for citizens
across the county expanded over the past few decades, so have the civil rights of our most

vulnerable students. As is often the case, schools have worked tirelessly to keep up with
the changing pace

of laws and litigation. Seemingly

the school systems can never be

"caught-up". There is always new litigation occurring as families, schools, and courts
determine what the rights of the students are, versus the obligations of the local education
agent. As the rights

of our students continue to expand, so have the instructional models

and methodologies that we implement. To meet this growing need, many districts

implement various forms of the co-teaching model.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

36

Co-teaching has been around for over 30 years as an instructional mode! to help
meet both federal and philosophical changes in who best educates students with

disabilities. This service delivery model has become widely embraced at the secondary

level as a means of guaranteeing that students with disabilities are exposed to the same
curriculum and rigorous academic standards as their non-disabled peers. As the research

reviewed above reflects, there are many potential benefits that can be realized through coteaching; however, it should never be viewed as a panacea for meeting the diverse needs

of students with disabilities. This model does have its limitations.
The practice and theory of having both a content area teacher and special
education teacher collaborating to better meet the needs of all learners is a promising
prospect. Conceptually, co-teaching enables all students to gain access to the regular
standards and general curriculum, while also meeting the varied needs

of students who

require special designed instruction. The research also supports that for co-teaching to be
at its most successful, teachers need support from their administration and professional

development.

Teachers undoubtedly require clear guidance on how to share teaching
responsibilities effectively, to ensure the adequate fulfillment of the needs of students

with disabilities. It remains crucial that administrators provide professional development
to assist teachers in acquiring guidance and direction. Unfortunately, research also

indicates that, despite the prevalence of co-teaching in secondary schools, there is
uncertainty among both researchers and educators regarding the actual benefits that
students are gaining from the instructional model.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

37

CHAPTER il I
Methodology
In recognizing the imperative for school districts nationwide to navigate the

challenges of rising costs and staffing shortages, this Capstone Project seeks to explore
secondary teachers' perceptions of co-teaching. Compounding the fiscal and staffing
concerns of districts, is the fact that the number of students with disabilities is increasing,
further forcing and compelling districts to optimize their existing resources in the most

effective and efficient ways.

Many school districts nationwide have transitioned to co-teaching models as their
primary or predominant approach to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities.

This shift is largely driven by the imperative to adhere to legal mandates advocating for
the education

of students in the "least restrictive environment"

to the maximum extent

possible. Despite that, during periods of fiscal constraint, the decision to assign special
education staff as co-teachers in general education classrooms for a significant portion of
the school day often occurs at the expense

of ensuring a comprehensive range of

placement options within the regular school environment.

The concept of a "full continuum" of placements is integral to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act's

IDEA,

1997) mandate for the least restrictive

environment, alongside the requirement for access to general education settings. This
continuum serves as the mechanism through which the tension between the IDEA's
emphasis on inclusion and its commitment to individualized instruction is reconciled.

Without a diverse array of program and placement options, students requiring intensive,

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
specialized instruction beyond the scope of the general curriculum may find themselves
inadequately accommodated within the regular classroom setting.

While the benefits of integrating more students with disabilities into regular
classrooms are evident, this approach must not come at the expense of a robust
continuum of instructional alternatives within special education programs. Sacrificing

this continuum for the sake of increased inclusion may yield short-term savings, but
could ultimately prove detrimental. Properly implementing the IDEA's least restrictive
environment mandate necessitates investment; it cannot be achieved through cost-cutting
measures alone. The

IDEA mandates a comprehensive range of options capable of

addressing the diverse needs of every learner in environments as 'typical' as possible.

The decision to implement co-teaching as an instructional model should be based
on the unique variables and circumstances within each school district. Gutting one end of
the continuum in favor

of another can lead to errors, which is why it is crucial for districts

to continually assess and evaluate whether co-teaching is the most appropriate

instructional model for their specific circumstances. Districts owe it to all stakeholders to

regularly review

if co-teaching is achieving its desired and intended impact.

Understanding teacher's' perceptions of co-teaching at the secondary level can provide

valuable data that can be used to inform programmatic decisions.

Reviewing the literature makes it clear that there can be benefits to co-teaching,
but the model does not always provide the results that districts intended. Districts need to

combine the established knowledge and research on co-teaching practices with the
perceptual data

of their specific districts, to help them make informed instructional

decisions. These programmatic decisions will ensure that students with disabilities

38

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

39

receive the necessary support they need, while also responsibly managing the finite
resources within a district. By integrating teachers' insights, districts can adapt and refine

their approaches to co-teaching, aligning them with the evolving needs of their student

population and the broader educational landscape.

Purpose
In this Capstone Project, the researcher seeks to extend the understanding of the
perceptions that secondary teachers have regarding the instructional practice of co-

teaching. The perceptions of both regular education teachers and special education
teachers who have used this type

of instructional model were included in this project to

get a more complete understanding of how teachers perceive the benefits and limitations

of this practice. To analyze these perceptions, the researcher utilized a mixed-method
approach by both looking at the quantitative data of the measures of central tendencies

found within the demographic data of the subjects, and comparing and contrasting that

with the qualitative data collected by the participants through a survey.
In reviewing the current literature on co-teaching practices, it is clear that there is
a practical-knowledge gap between research and practice.

A practical-knowledge gap,

also known as an action-knowledge gap, is formed when these are discrepancies between
the professional behaviors and actions

of teachers and the theoretic best practices that are

described within educational research (Miles, 2017). This capstone hopes to closely

analyze the practices and options of a specific school district to help better guide their
future co-teaching practices, and ensure the alignment

of research to their practices.

This study will examine what teachers perceive are the benefits and limitations of
co-teaching, in addition to what factors both contribute or inhibit its success. Without

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

40

focusing on the perceptual data of their staff regarding the practice of co-teaching,
schools risk functioning on the individual metrics and beliefs of their teaching staff as
opposed to focusing on the evidence-based practices described in the most current
research. Ultimately this researcher hopes to validate how the district can maximize the

limited resources available due to staffing concerns, and meet the diverse needs of their
learners, while also protecting the civil rights

of those same leamers

as outlined by state

and federal laws.

Research Questions
Research question #1:

What are teachers' perceptions of the benefits of co-teaching for students with

disabilities?
Research question #2:

What are teachers' perceptions of the challenges of co-teaching for students with

disabilities?
Research questions #3:

What are teachers' perceptions of the factors that contribute to the success or failure of
co-teaching for students with disabilities?
These questions demonstrate the congruence between the research study's

objectives and the sought-after data. As evidenced by these questions,

if schools are

trying to maximize their resources while still providing the required support and services
to their students with disabilities, they

will need to have a comprehensive understanding

of how teachers perceive the instructional models that they are implementing to meet
these needs.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

41

Setting and Participants
The Elizabethtown Area School District is nestled in Lancaster County, just 20
miles from the Pennsylvania state capital, and conveniently accessible through major
roadways and the railroad system. The district has an enrollment of 3,664 students and
comprises two primary buildings, an intermediate school, a middle school, and a high
school. This study is being conducted with teachers within the middle and high schools

which include grades six through twelve.

Of those 3,664

students, 17.5% have been identified as receiving special

education services. Also of note, within the student demographics
that 32% receive free and reduced lunches, 15% are

of the district include

of minority backgrounds, and 1%

are

designated as being homeless.

The district has 271 professional staff members, 161 support staff, and 22
administrators. 95% of the 22 administrators possess a graduate degree or higher and

have had at least ten years of education experience. Out of the 271 professional staff,

69% have been in the field for at least ten years or more.
The operating budget of the district amounted to $73,040,069 for the 2022-2023
school year. During that same school year, the district spent approximately $19,934 per
student. The attendance rates across the district during that schoolyear ranged from 94%

96%; the average

-

SAT scores for the high school students exceeded both the state and

national average. Additionally, 99% of the students successfully progress to their
subsequent grade levels and the district has a graduation rate

of 96%. 62% of those

graduates continue their academic pursuits at 4-year, 2-year, or alternative post-secondary

institutions.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

42

The district has implemented a model known as the "Life Ready Model" for the
foundation of their academic programming. Within the Life Ready Model, the district

focuses on supporting all students toward one of three graduation pathways. Those three

pathways are to obtain a career that pays a livable wage, attend a post-secondary
institution, or to seek an opportunity with our nation's armed forces.

The research chose to focus on the perceptions of secondary teachers, because in
this district co-teaching is more often utilized in these grades. Even within the secondary
grades

of this district, there are variances between the middle school and high school. The

middle school includes grades 6 through 8, each grade utilizes a "teaming" structure.

There is a learning support teacher assigned to each grade level, so the special education
case managers only need to work with one grade-level's worth

of curriculum and one

grade level of regular education teachers.

The middle school schedule has the team-specific special education teacher coteach two English classes and two math classes, each with the same English and math

regular education teacher. The high school co-teaching schedule has more variance.

While it does include co-taught algebra and English courses the special education
teachers meet with administration to determine which classes should be co-taught each
semester. Traditionally, the academic courses with the highest percentage

of students

with disabilities were the ones selected to utilize the co-teaching model.

Approval for the study was granted on August 8", 2023 (Appendix A). The
researcher then worked with the building administrators

of both the middle school

and

high school to identify all special education teachers and regular education teachers who
had either participated in co-teaching during the 2002-2023 school year, or who were

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

43

participating in the co-teaching model during the 2003-2024 school year. An email in
November 2023 was distributed to all the potential participants who had been identified

by their administrators (Appendix B). to provide them with information about the study
and on how to access the survey

if they were interested in participating. This action

research was conducted between November

1

1, 2023, and December 21,

2023, via online

survey. Utilizing online surveys for actions research offers a secure and cost-effective
means for collecting participant responses. For this study, Google Forms was used to

create the survey.

An online survey was utilized because it could easily maintain the

anonymity of the respondents, and their responses were automatically saved in a data
spreadsheet for easy collection and maintenance.

Following the informed consent page, the survey consisted of thirteen questions
(Appendix C). Participants had to give consent to the survey before the questions would
progress past the informed consent, ensuring that all participants were fully informed on
the purpose and methods of the study. The survey questions (Appendix

D) were derived

from prior dissertations who studied similar themes (Harper, 2009; Sims, 2021) and from
the need to answer the three research questions. The survey begins with three questions to

help determine the demographics

of the participants to help determine if any themes

would emerge from any of the subgroups who were surveyed.

A series of questions on a

Likert scale followed the demographic section. These questions rated the participants'
opinions on various elements of the co-teaching model and philosophy regarding the
benefits and limitations of this instructional model. The final section focused on openended questions that directly related to the research questions.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

44

Research Plan
This research plan emerged from the extensive insights and practical experiences
gamered by the researcher, who has over two decades

of immersive experience in special

education, as both an educator and administrator. Over this tenure, this researcher has

keenly observed the dynamic implementation of the co-teaching model within diverse
districts nationwide. The researcher's experiential foundations are complemented by a

meticulous examination of the scholarly literature pertaining to co-teaching, alongside a
comprehensive review of the legal landscape shaping the evolution of special education,

inclusionary practices, and the reinforcement of least restrictive mandates.

Special education legislation clearly gives guidance beyond any doubt that the

school's obligation is to provide as many opportunities in the regular education
environment as is possible. Through those mandates, the practice of co-teaching as an

instructional model emerged. Research has attempted to identify and define some
qualities and characters that are necessary for successful implementation of this practice.

However, regardless of its widespread adoption in secondary schools, research
reveals a pervasive uncertainty among scholars and practitioners regarding the tangible
benefits realized by students through this instructional model. This realization
underscores the imperative for districts to collect internal feedback to determine the

suitability of co-teaching in advancing inclusive educational practices. Central to this
internal process is the collection and analysis

of teachers' perspectives on co-teaching,

constituting a pivotal step in the internal deliberation.

As shown in Table

1, the data

collection timeline was structured to align with the

school year calendar. It allowed for staff, who were co-teaching for the current year to

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

45

have time to get settled and familiar with the routines and structures of the co-teaching
model.

Table

1

Data Collection Timelines
Data Collection Tasks

Timeline
September 2022 through
October 2022

Secure necessary permissions from district and participants.

November 2022 through
December 2022

Administer surveys to collect data on teacher perceptions of
co-teaching's benefits, challenges, and effectiveness

From a fiscal lens, the practice of co-teaching does not have a direct impact on the
finances of a school district; however, because it is an instructional model, it does utilize

limited resources that need to be used as effectively and efficiently as possible. To further
explore the fiscal implications of this model, the researcher reviewed the salaries and
benefits of those secondary learning support teachers. Table 2 shows these salaries.

Table 2
Special Education Salaries and Benefits
Budget

Description

High School Special Education Teacher Salaries

$367,908.20

High School Special Education Teacher Benefits Cost to Employer

$64,078.46

Middle School Special Education Teacher Salaries

$321,101.00

-

Middle School Special Education Teacher Benefits Cost to Employer $91,347.52
Total
$844,435.18
-

Note. This study did not review the salaries and benefits

of the regular educators

involved, as these resources would still need to be allocated regardless of whether the
district implemented co-teaching.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
Even

46

if a district does not implement co-teaching, it still must invest in special

education teachers to meet the compliance regulations associated with state and federal
mandates. This number, for this district, is still a relevant financial representation

of the

fiscal commitment being made by the district to implement this instructional model.
In addition to salaries and benefits, implementing co-teaching entails various

indirect costs and resource allocations. One significant indirect cost is the allocation of
time.

If special education teachers were no longer engaged in co-teaching, they would

have the opportunity to dedicate their time to other professional duties, such as progress

monitoring, implementing interventions, and providing additional student support, which
are currently constrained by the demands

of co-teaching throughout the day. Effective co-

teaching necessitates collaborative planning time for teachers, which incurs both planning
time itself, and the coordination efforts required to synchronize schedules

for

joint

planning sessions.
Furthermore, to bolster effective co-teaching practices, the district earmarks time for

professional development sessions tailored for co-teaching pairs. Professional development
opportunities are highly valued and in high demand, with numerous crucial topics competing

for allocation of this time. Redirecting these training hours from co-teaching to other areas of
need would enable the district to address a broader spectrum of training priorities.

By investigating teachers' perceptions of co-teaching's impact on secondary students
with disabilities, valuable data can be gleaned to facilitate informed decision-making by the
district. This research endeavor aims to provide essential insights for the district to make
programmatic decisions that prioritize the support and well-being of students, while

judiciously managing the finite resources available.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

47

Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection

For this study the researcher selected to use a mixed-methods approach.

"A mixed-

methods research design is a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and 'mixing' both

quantitative and qualitative data in a single study to understand a research problem"

(Creswell, 2005, p. 510). Utilizing a mixed-method research (MMR) approach is
advantageous when aiming to leverage the respective merits of both quantitative and

qualitative data which allows for the exploration of research questions that would be

challenging to address using either approach in isolation, Additionally, MMR enables
exploration not only of the effectiveness of a practice, but also of the underlying processes
and issues shaping its effects. Some

of these issues include feasibility, support, barriers of

implementation, contextual factors influencing implementation, and stakeholder perspectives.

By investigating these aspects, MMR can broaden the scope and potential impact of studies
conducted in other methodologies (Klinger & Boardman, 2011).

As stated by Houchins et al. (2022), "Mixed methods research aims to integrate
objectivity, subjectivity, co-construction, and multiple interpretations of reality" (p. 187).

This study is considered MMR because the quantitative data from the demographics sections
and the Likert scales are analyzed alongside the qualitative results collected from the openended questions.

MMR was a natural choice for a study such as this because it merges the

advantages of quantitative and qualitative research to assist practitioners in comprehending
and adapting to the viewpoints

of students, families,

and teachers. This design approach aids

in gaining deeper insights into complex teaching and learning processes such as co-teaching
and inclusionary practices (Love

& Cook, 2022).

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

48

MMR should not be confused with multiple-methods research. Multiple-methods
research integrates two

of more data sources using the same approach. On the other hand,

multi-mixed methods or meta-method research combines multiple methods using different
methodologies. Typically, a multiple-methods study would involve collecting and analyzing
both qualitative and quantitative data separately, without ever integrating the two (Lenk et

al., 2023).

The purpose of MMR is to enrich our comprehension of a phenomenon by
corroborating findings within a study, or across multiple related studies. The process

facilitates the enhancement, elaboration, or clarification of the researcher's findings

(Houchins et al., 2022). MMR involves seeking a deeper comprehension of phenomena
through the integration and equal appreciation of quantitative and qualitative methods,
regardless of whether they yield converging or triangulated findings.

The utilization of both quantitative and qualitative research methods to fulfill the
research objectives sets

MMR apart from multiple-methods research. This integration

enables researchers to harness the distinct advantages offered by

MMR (Fetters &

Freshwater, 2015). Qualitative designs within MMR have capacity to highlight the personal
experiences and alternative perspectives of participants, a dimension overlooked when

relying solely on statistics. However, the incorporation of both qualitative and quantitative
data in

MMR offers potential for critical and emancipatory research, empowering broader

audiences, including those who may be motivated to by either words, numerical data, or both

words and numerical data (Leko et al., 2023),

MMR proves especially valuable in shaping both the practice and policy of special
education within real-world settings, including classrooms that support the needs of students

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

49

with disabilities (Klinger & Boardman, 2011), Knowing this made MMR a natural design
choice to use to explore these research questions, especially because this structure can be
instrumental in pinpointing the timing and reasons behind the effectiveness or ineffectiveness

of practices, which can be influenced by contextual factors, implementing requirements, or
other situational practices (Howie et al., 2017).

MMR will allow the researcher to identify

what factors teachers perceive contribute to the success or failure of co-teaching in ways that

would be impossible through a single-method design.
In contrast to single-method designs, such as purely quantitative or qualitative

designs, MMR is still developing and evolving. According to Leko et al. (2023) MMR has
not yet gained solid footing in leading special education research publications. Leko et al. go

on to state that, "Despite the increased attention toward the use of MMR writ large, its uptake

within the field of special education has yet to be well established in premier special
education research outlets" (p. 432). In a recent study by Corr et al. (2021), it was

discovered that merely 0.63% of studies published between 2007 and 2019 across 15
prestigious special education journals utilized MMR. Further, the authors observed that

MR was predominantly employed to enhance the interpretation of findings rather than
exploring divergent results or intersecting phenomena, indicating a limited scope of research
purposes for its application. The dearth of MMR studies in the field of special education

increases the significance of MMR, such as this study.

Using MMR to explore the field of special education can be especially effective in
many ways. This design can enhance the existing research base by identifying effective
practices tailored to the diverse needs of students with learning disabilities. These studies can
also support a deeper understanding of contexts and circumstances, which is crucial for

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

50

implementing evidence-based practices to meet the needs of students with disabilities. MMR
can help illuminate the complex processes, critical features, and contextual characteristics
that influence the effectiveness

of various practices. By exploring these factors researchers

can gain insights into how and why certain practices, such as co-teaching, fail or succeed

which can inform programmatic decision making and improve the academic outcomes for
students with disabilities (Love

& Cook, 2022).

Even within the scope of MMR research, there are many variations; the specific

MMR model chosen for this study was chosen with intentionality

and with much

consideration towards the research questions. Houchins et al. (2022) identified some
widespread challenges across

MMR designs that could negatively impact the legitimation or

quality of the research findings. Some of these challenges include weighting, timing, and
integration.

Weighting refers to the priority or emphasis that the researcher places on the types of
data (Creswell, 2005). In this study, both the qualitative and quantitative data share

equivalent status, Neither set of data are more dominant than the other when analyzing the
results. Timing pertains to the scheduling

of the qualitative

and quantitative data collection.

Common timing schedules in MMR are sequential and concurrent (Houchins et al., 2022).
Concurrent timing was used for the data collection in this study. Having both the qualitative
and quantitative data collected simultaneously allowed for the researcher to analyze the

findings more readily than

if the data was collected sequentially. A sequential schedule

would have also made it more difficult for the researcher to maintain the anonymous nature

of the surveys, which was an important element of this study since it helped to encourage
open and honest responses.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
Integration in

31

MMR refers to the process of combining and synthesizing both the

quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study as opposed to separating the

findings. Creswell et al. (2001) state, "The basic concept is that integration of quantitative
and qualitative data maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of each type

of

data" (p. 6). The integration of this data will occur after all the data has been collected which

is common in convergent MMR studies. Integration, occurring during the final stages of
interpretation or reporting, is often observed in convergent

MMR designs, because they often

have distinct, yet interconnected, questions guiding the quantitative and qualitative data

collection and analysis. (Leko et al., 2022).

A concurrent design method was chosen for this research. A concurrent design
entails that the researcher carries out the distinct quantitative and qualitative phasesautonomously, analyzing each set of data separately, and subsequently integrating the

findings to gain a comprehensive understanding (Houchins et al., 2022). In basic concurrent
mixed designs, three key principles are observed: (a) quantitative and qualitative data are
gathered independently, but concurrently, (b) the analysis

of quantitative data and qualitative

data proceeds independently, without one influencing the analysis

of the other, and (c)

integration of the findings does not occur until after both data sets have been independently

collected and analyzed. Following this, an inference is formulated, which synthesizes the
conclusions drawn from the individual quantitative and qualitative analyses and findings

(Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006).

The concurrent Mixed Methods Research (MMR) design is a sophisticated approach
that offers a rich, comprehensive understanding

of research phenomena by seamlessly

integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. The richness and depth provided by

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

52

qualitative data add significant context and meaning to the statistical evidence gathered from
quantitative research, offering a more nuanced view of the study subject (Mertler, 2022).

MMR is specifically appropriate for this study because, as stated by Leko et al. (2023),
**..

MMR can answer questions about what practices work, for whom, and under what

conditions" (p. 443). In sum, MMR was chosen for this study because, through the
integration of quantitative and qualitative research, it can provide valuable insights that
inform special education practices in real-world settings (Love & Cook, 2022).

Ethical Considerations
Like any research endeavor, there is a possibility that participants may experience
some level

of stress. However, during the IRB approval phase, participants were thoroughly

informed about the nature of the study and any associated risks, which were deemed

minimal. While there is no risk of physical harm, participants may understandably feel stress
about the survey content, reflecting on their perceptions, or the research outcomes. To

address this concem, the Informed Consent clearly stated that the study was non-evaluative
and assured anonymity

of data. Paper surveys were collected without names attached, only

using identification numbers. The use of Google Forms allowed for all participants to
maintain their anonymity. Participants were also provided with an estimate of the time
required for their participation to ensure full awareness.

Validity
Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) theorize that validity within MMR should be
termed legitimation and that there are nine main types
to validate

of legitimation that researchers can use

MMR. One of the legitimations used within this research would be categorized

as

'weakness minimization'. By their definition, weakness minimization legitimation is, "The

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

53

extent to which the weakness from one approach is compensated by the strengths for another
approah h" (p. 57). In this study, the data collected from the open-ended questions provide

richer context to complement the quantitative data; the measures of central tendency from the

Likert scales provide more data points about the participants than could have been collected
through qualitative methodology.

Using Likert scales can possibly create some challenges that need to be mitigated to
preserve the validity of the study. One primary challenge is the limited range of response

options typically offered by Likert scales, which may not fully capture the complexity of
respondents' opinions or feelings. Additionally, respondents may feel pressured to choose

from the provided options, leading to response bias or inaccuracies.

Another challenge arises from the misuse of the neutral option, where some
respondents may default to this choice regardless

of their actual viewpoint. This can blur the

distinction between genuine neutrality and indifference (Mertler, 2022). For this study the
researcher chose not to include a neutral response option, so that participants would need to

either state degrees of agreement or disagreement, within the question prompts.

Moreover, social desirability bias may lead respondents to provide socially acceptable
responses, rather than expressing their true opinions or behaviors. Allowing participants to

answer anonymously helps to mitigate the impact of social desirability bias because the
results can never be attributed to a specific participant. Likert scales may also struggle to
measure the intensity or strength of respondents' attitudes effectively, focusing primarily on
the direction

of agreement or disagreement. To mitigate these challenges, the researcher used

questions that were either pulled from prior research studies, or directly correlated to the
research questions being explored in this study,

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

54

MMR and research that utilizes a convergent design has naturally occurring elements
of triangulation incorporated into it because the data collected is compared for similarities
and themes. Convergent designs involve the triangulation

of multiple data sources to delve

into a broad research topic, offering rich and comprehensive insights. This method proves

beneficial for practitioners seeing multifaceted understanding of a practice or topic of interest

(Love & Cook, 2022). In this specific study, secondary teachers' perceptions of co-teaching
on students with disabilities

will

be triangulated by comparing the qualitative data from the

open-ended questions to the quantitative data collected by the Likert scales.

Internal Review Board Process
In the initial stages of planning for this Capstone Project, several steps were taken to
secure approval from the Institutional Review Board

researcher completed certification through the

(IRB). Before initiating the project, the

CITI program, focusing on three main areas:

Applying for Approval, a Basics course, and Conflicts of Interest. Following these
certifications, the researcher embarked on the next stage of the process, which was drafting a
detailed research proposal. This document elaborated on the study, highlighting the problem
statement, the significance

of the topic, research questions, chosen methodology, plans for

data collection, and strategies for data analysis. With this proposal, the candidate sought and

received endorsement from the Elizabethtown Area Schoo] District, ensuring support for the
forthcoming research. This was marked by receiving a formal approval letter from the
superintendent. The

IRB granted its approval on August 8%, 2023, with the official

documentation of the approval available in Appendix A.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

55

Summary
This Capstone Project addresses the pressing need for school districts to navigate
challenges such as rising costs and staffing shortages, particularly in the context of increasing
numbers

of students with disabilities. The project focuses on exploring secondary teachers'

perceptions of co-teaching, a prevalent instructional model used to accommodate students

with disabilities in regular classrooms.
Many school districts have transitioned to co-teaching models as their primary
approach to inclusivity, driven by legal mandates promoting education in the "least restrictive

environment." However, concerns arise regarding the potential trade-off between inclusion
and the availability

of € comprehensive continuum of placement options within the regular
a

school environment, as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IDEA).

The project aims to understand secondary teachers' perceptions of co-teaching
regarding its benefits, challenges, and factors contributing to success or failure. Three
research questions guide the study:
1,

What are teachers' perceptions of the benefits of co-teaching for students with

disabilities?
2.

What are teachers' perceptions of the challenges of co-teaching for students with

disabilities?
3.

What are teachers' perceptions of the factors that contribute to the success or failure

of co-teaching for students with disabilities?

A mixed-methods approach is employed, combining quantitative Likert scale
questions and qualitative open-ended questions in an online survey administered to teachers

involved in co-teaching during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years. The concurrent

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

56

mixed-methods design allows for independent data collection and analysis before integration,

minimizing weaknesses inherent in each method.

The Capstone Project contributes to the ongoing dialogue surrounding co-teaching
practices in secondary education. By understanding teachers' perceptions, school districts can
refine their approaches to co-teaching, balancing the goals of inclusivity and effective
resource management. In the upcoming chapter, the researcher will conduct a thorough

analysis of the collected data. This analysis will leverage various data points outlined in the
methodology chapter to address the three research questions posed in this study. By drawing

conclusions from this analysis, both the researcher and the school will gain valuable insights
aimed at enhancing outcomes for students in special education.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

57

Chapter IV
Data Analysis and Results
The objective of this chapter is to present the findings and outcomes derived from the
study investigating secondary teachers' perspectives on co-teaching. The gathered data aims
to depict teachers' views on the benefits and challenges

of co-teaching, along with the factors

influencing its effectiveness. This data was collected to address the following research
questions.
1.

What are teachers' perceptions of the benefits of co-teaching for students with

disabilities?
2. What are teachers' perceptions

of the challenges of co-teaching for students with

disabilities?
3.

What are teachers' perceptions of the factors that contribute to the success or failure

of co-teaching for students with disabilities?
This study focused on not only asking these questions, but to also attempted to gain a
deeper understanding

of the teachers' perspectives by exploring important elements of co-

teaching; common planning time, understanding the goals of this instructional model,

if

teachers have seen evidence that co-teaching improves academic outcomes, and their

satisfaction level with co-teaching.

A mixed-methods strategy was utilized, blending quantitative Likert scale questions
and qualitative open-ended inquiries. These questions were presented in an online survey

distributed to teachers engaged in co-teaching throughout the academic years of 2022-2023
and 2023-2024. This concurrent mixed-methods framework permitted separate data gathering

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

38

and examination prior to merging, thereby mitigating the inherent weaknesses

of using just a

quantitative or qualitative approach.

Additional demographic information on the participants was collected through the

Likert scale survey, which included what grades they taught,

if they were a regular education

or a special education teacher, and asking how many years the instructor had been teaching.

This demographic information helped the researcher determine if there were any trends of
commonalities aligned within the response of participants who shared common
characteristics or traits.

As explored in

the literature review, numerous school districts across the country

have adopted co-teaching models as their predominant method to meet the needs

of students

with disabilities in the least restrictive educational environment. A blend of educational law
compliance and shifting philosophical approaches have been the catalyst for this change.
Nonetheless, in times of financial limitations, the choice to designate special education
personnel as co-teachers in general education classrooms for a substantial portion

of the

school day often comes at the cost of ensuring a diverse array of placement alternatives

within the standard school setting.

This study was limited to one school district within central Pennsylvania, to allow the
researcher to get an in-depth understanding of the specific successes, concerns, and

perceptions of these secondary teachers. Over the course of five weeks, eligible participants
were asked to complete an anonymous survey via Google Forms to share their perceptions.

Selected participants were secondary teachers in the district who had participated in co-

teaching, either the previous year or who were currently implementing the co-teaching model

within their classes.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

59

Demographics of Participants

After reviewing the eligibility criteria for this study, 38 teachers in the district were
found to be eligible candidates to receive the survey. Out of those 38 staff who were invited
to participate, 15 completed the study. Table 3 reflects the breakdown between how many

identified themselves as regular education or special education teachers, and as middle
school or high school teachers. No middle school special education teachers chose to
participate in the survey which is why that role is not reflected in this table.

Table 3
Professions Roles

of Participants

Professional Role

Number of Staff

Regular Education in Middle School

5

Regular Education in High School

6 Teachers

Special Education in High School

4 teachers

Teachers

In addition to inquiring about participants' professional roles, the survey also included
a question about the number of years they have been teaching, aiming to investigate whether

years of service influenced teachers' perceptions of co-teaching. Table 4 provides a

breakdown of survey participants according to their years of service.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

60

Table 4
Years

of Teaching Experience Among Participants
Years of Teaching Experience

Less than
1

1

Number of Participants

year

-

to 4 years

-

years

6

More than 7 years

9

5 to 7

Note. No participants reported having either less than

1

year or I to 4 years of teaching

experience.

Data Analysis
Four questions of the survey were Likert style questions, asking staff to rate their
thoughts and beliefs about co-teaching, and its impact on students with disabilities. The

following questions were asked of the participants using the Likert scale:
1.

I understand the goals and purpose

of co-teaching.

2. Co-teaching is beneficial for students with disabilities.
3.

Ihave seen evidence of improved academic outcomes for students with disabilities
who are taught in inclusive classrooms.

4.

Overall,

I

am satisfied with the co-teaching experience.

Participants were asked to rank their thoughts on those questions, using a four-point scale

ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, or Strongly Agree. The survey used a fourpoint scale, with one representing 'strongly disagree' and four representing 'strongly agree'
so that higher scores correlate with stronger agreement. These questions were intentionally

designed to not have a neutral or middle choice, so participants had to commit to either

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

61

agreeing or disagreeing with the prompts. Those responses were then recorded and analyzed

using measures of central tendency.

After the Likert questions, participants were asked a series of opened-ended questions
that addressed the research questions and better understand the perceptions

participants. The open-ended questions asked

of the

of the participants were the following:

1.

How much planning time do you get with your co-teaching partner(s)?

2.

What do you believe are the benefits to co-teaching?

3.

When co-teaching is successful, what factors have contributed to that success?

4.

What do you believe are the challenges to co-teaching?

5.

When co-teaching is not successful, what factors have contributed to that result?

6.

Please feel free to contribute any additional thoughts or comments about co-teaching.

As established in the literature review, the amount of planning time that co-teachers
have together is an indicator of how successful co-teaching is perceived to be, which is why
the research included an open-ended question regarding planning time. The first five open-

ended questions directly link to the research questions

of the study, while the final question

gave participants an opportunity to provide any additional thoughts or comments that they
may have on this topic. Only 10 of the 15 participants chose to provide additional
information.

The responses of the open-ended questions were analyzed to determine the answers to
the research questions and to establish

if there were any common themes that could be

identified within the responses of the participants.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

62

Results
Table

5 presents the mean scores

derived from the disaggregated data obtained from

the four Likert scale prompts. Each subcategory's mean, as well as the overall mean scores

from all participants combined, are included for reference.

Table 5
Mean Scores of Likert Scale Questions
I understand the

It is

It improved

Overall

purpose

beneficial

outcomes

Satisfaction

3.64

3.72

3.2

3.09

3.75

3.5

3.25

2.75

4

4

4

3.4

High School Teachers

3.5

3.5

2.9

2.8

Teaching for 5-7 Years

3.5

3.5

3.5

3

Teaching for more than

3.78

3.78

3

3

3.67

3.67

3.21

3

Subgroups

Regular Education
Teachers

Special Education
Teachers

Middle School
Teachers

7 years

All Participants

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

63

Research Question #1
The initial research question aimed to explore teachers' perceptions of the
advantages of co-teaching for students with disabilities. Analysis of their responses to
questions regarding the benefits of co-teaching revealed several recurring themes.

First, the results emphasize a perceived positive impact on student performance and
growth. Participants expressed that with two teachers in the classroom, students received
more personalized attention, allowing for direct feedback and assistance tailored to individual
needs. This also facilitated smaller group work, fostering a more conducive learning

environment.

Teachers also highlight the advantages of having an additional adult in the room for
other various purposes. These purposes included improved classroom management, the

ability to break into smaller groups, and gaining different perspectives on students' needs.
Teachers stated that co-teaching enabled targeted support for students, whether through

scaffolding instruction, providing one-on-one assistance, or offering extra help during flex
time or after school.
Furthermore, teachers noted the collaborative aspect of co-teaching, which they felt

led to improved teaching practices, and lesson delivery. They appreciated the opportunity to

work together in creating materials and modifying lessons to enhance accessibility and
engagement for all students. It was also stated that co-teaching facilitated quicker and more

comprehensive feedback on assignments, contributing to students' overall learning
experience.

Overall, teachers perceived co-teaching as a valuable model for promoting student
engagement, meeting diverse learning needs, and fostering collaboration among educators.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

64

They shared that by practicing effective co-teaching, both students and teachers had
benefited from increased differentiation, specialized instruction, and closer supervision,

ultimately leading to improved academic outcomes.

Research Question #2
The second research question looked to identify what the participants perceived to be
the challenges

of co-teaching. They provided various insights into the challenges of co-

teaching, revealing several common themes. One recurrent issue identified was the lack of

aligned planning times, particularly between departments, which hinders effective
collaboration. This can lead to difficulties in providing support to students across different

classes, and results in a disjointed co-teaching experience.

Moreover, they stated that co-taught classes often faced the challenge of becoming a
"dumping ground" for struggling students, leading to diverse behaviors that disrupt the
classroom dynamic. This creates the need for extensive time and effort from teachers to
establish routines and expectations, detracting from instructional time.

Another significant challenge identified was the lack of subject matter knowledge
among co-teachers, which limited their effectiveness in providing instructional support.

Additionally, some stated that conflicts arose between co-teachers regarding class
management and attendance practices, which further complicated the co-teaching dynamic.

Furthermore, participants stated that insufficient time for debriefing after classes, a

lack of common planning periods, and disparities in curriculum knowledge posed significant
obstacles to effective co-teaching. Additionally, participants opined that when co-teachers are
not equally invested in planning and instruction, the burden often falls disproportionately on
one teacher, leading to frustration, and inefficiencies, in classroom management.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

65

Ultimately, the challenges of co-teaching underscored the need for better alignment of
planning times, improved communication, and equitable workload distribution among coteachers. Participants stated that addressing these issues is essential for maximizing the

effectiveness of co-teaching and enhancing the learning experience for all students involved.

Research Question #3
This question was broken down into two parts within the survey. One question
focused on teachers' perceptions of what factors contributed to co-teaching when it was
successful.

A separate question asked them what factors they felt contributed to the

challenges of co-teaching.

Teachers identified several key factors that they felt contributed to successful coteaching. One repeated theme was the importance of fluid teaching, which allowed for

dynamic problem-solving and flexible support structures, such as stations for students who
need enrichment or additional assistance. Participants stated that this adaptability ensured
that diverse student needs were met more effectively.

Another identified factor was the importance of common planning. Teachers
emphasized the necessity of having aligned schedules to plan together to foster a cohesive
approach to teaching. This planning was more effective when co-teachers shared common

goals for their students and enforced discipline consistently, ensuring that both teachers could

provide content support and address student needs with fidelity.

Another thought that was repeatedly shared was that the personal and professional
rapport between co-teachers significantly impacted the success of co-teaching. Consistent
partnerships over time build trust and familiarity with the curriculum, allowing co-teachers ta

contribute meaningfully to lessons and take on more active roles in the classroom.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

66

Consistency and shared responsibilities were also identified as import aspects of coteaching. Teachers highlighted the benefits of having a consistent co-teacher, who
understood the strengths and weaknesses of their students, which enhanced the support

provided. Additionally, having similar work habits, aligned expectations, and a unified
understanding that the classroom is a shared space further contributed to a harmonious co-

teaching relationship.

Finally, dedicated time for regular collaboration and planning was mentioned

as

indispensable. Scheduling blocks specifically for co-taught classes and ensuring that both
teachers have time to meet and plan together were mentioned by almost every participant.

Some of the benefits of co-teaching that were mentioned were that it allows for reflection,
adjustment of teaching strategies, and continuous improvement of the co-teaching approach.

As stated above, to fully answer the third research question, participants were also
asked to share their thoughts on what factors have resulted in unsuccessful co-teaching.

Teachers identified several factors that contribute to unsuccessful co-teaching, revealing
common themes that undermine the effectiveness of this model.

A significant issue was the

lack of alignment in teaching styles, and behavior management strategies between coteachers. When one teacher focuses on delivering content, while the other manages behavior,

it creates a divide that can lead to student confusion and resentment toward the disciplinarian
teacher,

Another prevalent theme was the lack of subject matter expertise among special
education teachers. Teachers expressed that when they are placed in classrooms where they
are not familiar with the content, their ability to support students effectively is compromised.

This challenge is also exacerbated by the scheduling of IEP meetings during co-teaching

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

67

periods, which reduced the presence and engagement of special education teachers in the
classroom.
Interpersonal conflicts between co-teachers also posed a challenge for some

participants. Some stated that differing ideas of co-teaching roles led to tension and

ineffective collaboration. It was shared that this was particularly problematic when there was
no shared planning time, and when teachers and co-teachers were frequently swapped or

changed from year to year, disrupting the consistency needed for effective co-teaching.

Time management issues, such as special education teachers working on IEPs during
class time or showing up late, also disrupt the co-teaching dynamic and was also identified as
an ongoing challenge. These concerns were compounded when there were no shared

expectations, or when one teacher assumed a dominant role over the other, leading to an

imbalance in responsibility and authority.

Due to the significant emphasis placed on planning time in the literature review, a
survey question specifically inquired about the extent of common planning time available to
participants and their co-teaching partners. Analysis revealed variations in experiences
between middle school teachers and their counterparts in high school settings.

The middle school teachers shared that some participants had up to 60 minutes for
planning and shared a common planning period, which facilitated their collaboration. One
teacher noted that while there was no dedicated time in the previous year, they now had
about 40 minutes per week for co-planning. Another pair

of teachers mentioned they both

had the same planning/prep period for an hour and are available for 40 minutes after school.

However, not all teams needed to plan extensively; in some cases, participants stated that

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

68

their familiarity with the material allows them to interject and assist during lessons, as well as

provide advice on accommodations and modifications.

In contrast, the high school teachers reported varying levels of planning time with
their co-teaching partners, with many indicating significant challenges. Several teachers
mentioned having no specific co-planning time, while others noted that they typically find

time after school or prior to students arriving,

if needed.

One teacher mentioned having

approximately 40 minutes a week for planning. There are also instances mentioned where

planning times did not align, resulting in virtually no co-planning or only finding a few
minutes at the end of the day, often interrupted by other meetings and responsibilities. Only
one teacher mentioned having the same planning time as both

of their co-teachers, for the

first time this year.

Finally, all participants were afforded the opportunity to provide any additional
thoughts or comments that they wanted to contribute regarding their experiences with co-

teaching. The participants shared a range of perspectives on the factors that contribute to the
success or challenges of co-teaching. Many teachers emphasized that effective co-teaching
required both teachers to have a strong understanding of the subject matter. Special education
teachers stated that they often face difficulties when placed in courses they are not familiar

with, leading to a "teach and assist" model, rather than true co-teaching.
Several teachers highlighted the importance of co-planning and shared goals. They
stated that when co-teachers are on the same page regarding teaching styles, behavior

management, and academic expectations, co-teaching is more effective. Additionally, it was

identified that co-teaching should not merely be one teacher managing discipline while the
other teaches, but should involve both teachers actively engaging in instructional roles.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

69

Furthermore, teachers pointed out that the structure of co-taught classes can impact

their effectiveness. Overloading these classes with too many students with disabilities or

behavioral issues created a challenging classroom dynamic and reduced the effectiveness of

co-teaching. Teachers suggested that distributing students with disabilities more evenly
across classes and ensuring manageable class sizes would improve the learning environment

for all students.

In general, educators acknowledge the considerable potential benefits of co-teaching,
yet they also underscore the importance of several key factors for its effective
implementation. These include the necessity for adequate planning time, a shared and

consistent mastery of the subject matter, fostering positive interpersonal dynamics between
co-teachers, and ensuring manageable class sizes. Addressing these elements is crucial for

unlocking the full potential of co-teaching strategies in the educational setting.

Discussion
The data analysis process used to address the three research questions and draw
conclusions for the next chapter required the researcher to integrate various data points, as
outlined in the methods chapter of this Doctoral Capstone Research Project and presented in
their raw form in this chapter. Specifically, much of the data from the Likert Scales helped to

show

if the participants identified co-teaching as beneficial and if they found it to be

beneficial or not. The answers provided in the Likert scale were directly related to their
responses

of the open-ended questions.

In taking all the data into account, the researcher analyzed the quantitative data that

were derived from the Likert scales first. From that data set, the first data reviewed was the
demographic data, which included

if the teachers were regular or special education teachers,

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

70

grade level or levels they taught, and how many years they have been teaching. This data was
then used to place participants into similar sub-groups, to determine

if there were any trends

that correlated within individual subgroups that would not have been obvious when looking
at the data in its entirety.

To determine whether any relationships existed between the responses of different
subgroups, the mean scores of their responses to the Likert scales were recorded. Analyzing
these mean scores allowed the researcher to assess whether participants agreed or disagreed

with the prompts regarding co-teaching more easily.

After reviewing the scores of the quantitative data that was collected from the Likert
scales the researcher began to explore the qualitative data collected from the open-ended
questions. To accomplish this the researcher collected all the responses and read through
them to gain an overall understanding of the content.

After reading the responses, the next step in the research was to identify key themes,
patterns, or topics that emerged across the responses for each specific open-ended question.

This information was then condensed and reduced to reflect the strongest and most prevalent
themes, which were summarized and organized according to the research questions they
addressed. Notably, many

of the themes identified from participants' responses mirrored

those found in the literature review.

Despite the alignment with prior research, there was interesting and surprising

variance among the responses of different subgroups. The amount of planning time and the
grade levels taught appeared to impact participants' responses to the open-ended questions,

highlighting noteworthy differences.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

71

Summary
This Doctoral Research Capstone Project was designed to analyze secondary
teachers' perceptions of the instructional practice of co-teaching. Additionally, the project
aimed to explore the factors that teachers believe contribute to the success or failure of the

co-teaching model. Data was collected using Likert scales, demographic information, and
open-ended questions, providing comprehensive insights into teachers' perspectives.

There was both variance and correlation within the participants' responses based on
demographics such as years of experience, teaching leve] (middle school or high school), and
whether they were special education or regular education teachers. As the data was reviewed,

additional patterns emerged regarding teachers' perceptions of the success of co-teaching.

These patterns were particularly evident among teachers who had common planning time,
consistent co-teaching partners, and a solid understanding of the co-teaching model.

In reviewing the open-ended responses, overarching themes became more apparent.

Many of the participants' thoughts closely aligned with the perceptions discussed in the
literature review. Despite this alignment, there were also notable differences. Although all

participants worked for the same school district, they had a variety of experiences and

differing opinions regarding the practices of co-teaching. These varied perspectives
highlighted both commonalities and disparities in how co-teaching was implemented and
perceived across the district, revealing the complexity and diversity of experiences among
the teachers.

In the next chapter, the researcher will draw conclusions and identify the themes that

emerged from the collected data points. The conclusions derived from this analysis will

inform the extent to which the practice of co-teaching can be effectively utilized in secondary

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

72

classes. Areas for further study will also be identified, providing a foundation for future
research. Additionally, any limitations that may have impacted the implementation or results

of this research will be thoroughly discussed, offering a comprehensive understanding of the
study's scope and potential constraints. This chapter will include valuable insights and
practical recommendations for enhancing co-teaching practices in secondary education.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

73

Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter synthesizes the data to provide conclusions and recommendations related
to the three research questions outlined in this Doctoral Research Capstone Project. This

mixed-methods research aims to illuminate secondary teachers' perceptions of co-teaching

practices as an instructional model. The conclusions are based on multiple data sources,
encompassing both qualitative and quantitative elements, including Likert scale survey
results, and open-ended questions. Additionally, this chapter explores potential implications

for future practices within the Elizabethtown School District, including any associated fiscal
considerations. Acknowledging the inherent limitations in the design and implementation of

this project, the limitations will also be discussed to transparently present the conclusions and
recommendations. This discussion will lead to considerations for future research topics

focused on effectively meeting the diverse needs of students with disabilities while adhering
to inclusion mandates and educating students in the general education setting to the

maximum extent possible.

The literature review in this research project illustrates the evolution of legal
mandates and civil rights that have led to inclusionary practices, explaining why many

districts have adopted co-teaching to meet these requirements. It also examines the benefits

of co-teaching, its challenges and limitations, and the factors that affect its effectiveness. This
chapter integrates these concepts with the research findings to provide a comprehensive view

of how secondary teachers in the Elizabethtown Area School District perceive co-teaching,
and the potential future implications

of these perceptions for the district.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

74

Conclusions

This project aimed to answer three research questions. These questions will be
presented in order, followed by conclusions drawn from the data for each. The researcher

will summarize the overall results from all participants for each question and then analyze
any identified themes within the sub-categories.

Research Question #1
The first question aimed to explore teachers' perceptions of the benefits of coteaching for students with disabilities. As described in the previous chapter, participants

highlighted several benefits of co-teaching for student performance and classroom dynamics.

They noted that having two teachers in the classroom allowed for more direct feedback,
frequent answers to student questions, and the opportunity for smaller group work. They felt

this setup enhanced individualized support and better addressed student needs. Many also
shared that co-teaching also improved classroom management, offered varied instructional

approaches, and enabled teachers to cover for each other during absences, maintaining

continuity in instruction.

The benefits they described were not just academically focused. Participants
mentioned that co-teaching facilitates behavior management, scaffolding, and targeted
support, making it easier to meet students' specific needs. The collaboration between teachers
fostered improved lesson planning, differentiation, and creative assignments, ultimately

benefiting both students and teachers by providing more immediate feedback and increasing
student engagement.

In looking at the survey results, question one was explored by participants responding
to what degree they felt co-teaching is beneficial for students

with disabilities ranging from

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

75

strongly disagree, a 1, to strongly agree, a 4. The mean score of all the participants for that
question was 3.67, which supports their open-ended responses that they feel the practice is

beneficial for students. Regular education teachers and special education teachers responded
to this question similarly, with the mean score from the regular education teachers being

3.72, and the mean score for the special education teachers being 3.5. It is difficult to draw
too many conclusions between these two sub-groups, because no special education teachers

from the middle school opted to participate.

Similarly, there was also little variance when the data was disaggregated to look at if
years of teaching impacted the results. Teachers who had 5-7 years of experience reported a
mean score

of 3.5, and teachers with more than

7 years

of teaching experience had a mean

score of 3.78, which is slightly higher than the other group. No teachers reported having less
than five years of experience.

The largest variance between subgroups was identified at the building level. The
mean score reported from all the high school participants was 3.5, while the mean score from

all the middle school participants was a 4.0; meaning, that all of the middle school
participants strongly agreed that co-teaching is beneficial for students with disabilities.

Research Question #2
Research question number two focused on what teachers perceive to be the challenges

of co-teaching with students with disabilities. As discussed in the previous chapter,
participants shared numerous insights on the challenges associated with co-teaching.

Participants identified several challenges associated with co-teaching, that also reflected
many of the challenges discussed in the literature review. Key issues included the need for

significant planning and coordination between teachers, which can be time-consuming and

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

76

difficult to manage. Some participants noted inconsistencies in teaching styles and
approaches, which they felt could lead to confusion and ineffective instruction. Additionally,
some stated concerns about inequalities in distribution

of workload and the potential for one

teacher to dominate the classroom. Other challenges mentioned include limited professional

development opportunities for effective co-teaching, lack of administrative support, and

insufficient resources to implement co-teaching successfully.
Furthermore, in reviewing the survey results, participants addressed question two by

indicating the extent to which they have observed improved academic outcomes for students

with disabilities taught in inclusive settings. They also rated their overall satisfaction with coteaching, using the same four-point Likert scale previously discussed. The mean score for
participants' perceptions of improved academic outcomes was 3.21, while the mean

satisfaction rating for co-teaching was 3. These scores indicate a general level of agreement
among teachers. However, there was less consensus on the effectiveness of co-teaching in

improving academic outcomes, and even less agreement regarding overall satisfaction with
the practice.

When specifically examining whether participants have observed improved outcomes
for students with disabilities in inclusive settings, the mean scores were as follows: regular
education teachers rated this at 3.2, while special education teachers rated it slightly higher at

3.25, There was also a difference when exploring years of service. The mean score for
teachers with 5-7 years
than 7 years

of experience was 3.5, while the mean score for teachers with more

of experience came in lower, at a 3. In the open-ended question section,

one

participant, a high schoo1 regular education teacher with more than 7 years of experience,
asked to contribute more thoughts regarding his or her ratings on this question. The

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

77

participant shared that, "I think leveling classes based on skill level is much more effective. I
have not found differentiating between 5+ grade levels to effectively meet the needs of all
students." He or she went on to explain further that, "It's silly to assume that even great

differentiation won't leave some students in over their heads or bored. That being said, we've

worked to be more intentional regarding the students who are placed in co-taught classes, and
I think that really helps".

The most variance between subgroups came when the responses of the high school
teachers were compared with the responses of the middle school teachers. The mean scores

for the high school teachers were a 2.9, while the mean score for the middle school teachers

was again a unanimous 4.0 reflecting all participants strongly agreed with this prompt.
Interestingly, the mean scores for years of service were the same. Teachers who had
5-7 years of experience had a mean score of three, as did the mean score for teachers who
have been teaching for more than 7 years.
In looking at overall satisfaction with the co-teaching experience, regular education
responded with a mean score of 3.09, with the special education teachers rating their overall

experience lower as a 2.75. The difference in these scores also aligns with the findings
discussed in the literature review. The literature, and even comments from participants in this

study, reflect that occasionally the special education teacher can be related to a lesser status
and must focus more on behavior management than instruction. This can be especially true
on the secondary levels,

taught.

if the special education teacher lacks confidence in the content being

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

78

Research Question #3
The third and final research question examined teachers' perceptions of the factors
that contribute to the success or failure of co-teaching for students with disabilities. Five

survey questions were utilized to explore this topic. Participants rated their understanding of
the goals and purpose

of co-teaching through Likert scale questions. Additionally, open-

ended questions were used to gather insights on the amount of planning time they received,
the factors they believed influenced the success or failure

of co-teaching, and any other

thoughts or comments they wanted to share regarding the practice.

The mean score for all participants when asked if they understood the goals and
purpose

of co-teaching was a 3.67, reflecting

the objectives and aims

an overwhelming

belief that they understood

of this instructional model. There was little change between the sub-

groups. Regular education teachers rated themselves a 3.63, while special education teachers
rated themselves slightly higher with a 3.75. Teachers with 5-7 years

of experience rated

themselves at a 3.5, and teachers with more than 7 years of teaching experience had a mean
score of 3.78. Finally, all middle school teachers rated themselves as strongly agreeing with

this statement resulting in a mean score

of 4.0, and high school teachers had a lower mean

score of 3.5.

The literature stressed the importance of common planning time for co-teaching to be
beneficial and successful, so the question exploring how much planning time participants
have to utilize was particularly important. The data on planning time for co-teaching showed
a range

of experiences among participants. Some stated they have no dedicated planning

time, while others report having up to 60 minutes a week or common planning periods. Many
participants mentioned difficulties in aligning planning schedules, leading to minimal, or no

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

79

formal planning time. Some teachers shared that they make time before or after school to

plan, although this is often disrupted by other responsibilities, such as

EP meetings. Despite

these challenges, some co-teachers manage to collaborate effectively, with one teacher

familiar enough with the material to assist with accommodations and modifications on the

fly.
In analyzing the results by subgroups, no significant differences were found between

regular education teachers, special education teachers, or based on years of experience. The

only notable variations were among building-specific subgroups. High school teachers
generally reported either having no planning time or having to arrange their own, whereas
middle school teachers reported having planning times ranging from 40 to 60 minutes per
week. Middle school teachers also reported the most positive overall experience with co-

teaching, underscoring the importance of having common planning time, as highlighted
earlier in the literature review.

To better understand teachers' perceptions of co-teaching, participants were asked to
share their opinions on what factors have contributed to co-teaching being successful in their

experience. Teachers identified several key factors contributing to successful co-teaching.

They stated that effective collaboration is crucial, and emphasized the importance of fluid
teaching dynamics and the ability to draw from different perspectives to solve problems. As
discussed briefly above, consistent co-planning time was mentioned as they felt it allowed
them to align their goals, enforce discipline uniformly, and ensure students recognize both
teachers as sources of help and information.

Another perceived benefit that was mentioned by participants was the development of
interpersonal relationships between teachers and their students. Teachers also highlighted the

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

80

importance of consistent placement with the same co-teachers over time, as this fosters

familiarity with the curriculum and trust. The quality, personality, and subject matter
expertise

of the special education teacher were also identified as significant factors by

the

regular education teachers. Participants stated that their experiences were more successful
and positive, when they were paired with co-teachers who were described as cooperative,

proactive, resourceful, and motivated, capable of providing additional examples, framing
concepts differently, and pulling small groups for focused instruction.

Consistency and reliability in the co-teaching relationship were also identified as
important factors by participants. Special education teachers' knowledge of their students'
strengths and weaknesses, as well as establishing positive relationships with students,

contribute to building trust and rapport. Lastly, similar work habits, aligned expectations, and

dedicated time for regular planning and collaboration, were also identified as key factors to

co-teaching being a successful experience.

Conversely, teachers were also asked to share their thoughts regarding what factors
they felt led to co-teaching experiences not being successful. Key issues they identified

included a lack of alignment in teaching styles and behavior management approaches, which
they stated led to confusion among students and resentment towards the teacher who

primarily handles discipline. Another significant concern was the inconsistency in teacher
presence and engagement, with some special education teachers frequently absent or

preoccupied with tasks like IEP meetings during co-teaching blocks.

A high number of IEP students in the classroom and insufficient subject matter
knowledge among special education teachers were also mentioned as challenging factors.
Some stated that when special education teachers are placed in subjects outside their

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

81

expertise, the effectiveness of co-teaching diminishes. Furthermore, time management issues
arose when special education teachers were compelled to work on IEPs during class time,

instead

of co-teaching.
According to some participants, interpersonal conflicts stemming from differing

understandings of co-teaching roles, lack of shared expectations, and insufficient common

planning time also undermined the co-teaching dynamic. Other factors mentioned were
inconsistent co-teaching pairings year after year, overloaded teachers, and rotating special
education teachers across multiple classes, which further disrupted the continuity needed for

effective collaboration. Finally, the two other frequently mentioned factors that negatively
impacted the implementation of the co-teaching model, preventing it from reaching its full

potential, were overloaded classrooms with too many students and not enough collaborative

planning time.

The final open-ended question allowed the teachers to contribute any additional
thoughts or comments about their co-teaching experiences. Many stated that they believed

co-teaching could be highly effective when executed well, particularly when co-teachers are

familiar with the content and have consistent assignments within the same department.

However, challenges arose when special education teachers were not highly qualified in the
subjects they co-taught, making it difficult to establish a robust co-teaching model. This often
resulted in a "teach and assist" approach rather than using more effective models

of co-

teaching.
Some participants emphasized that co-teachers are not just for discipline, but are there
to provide academic support. Time management and understaffing in special education were

cited as significant obstacles, limiting the feasibility of co-teaching beyond a supportive role,

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

82

without additional hiring. The importance of a positive, collaborative relationship between
co-teachers was highlighted as essential for success, with consistent co-teaching partnerships

over time being particularly beneficial.

The perceived value of co-teaching extended beyond academic outcomes. Participants
noted that while quantitative data might not show significant improvements in academic

scores, the qualitative benefits, such as improved classroom climate and individualized
student support, were substantial. Effective co-teaching fostered a sense

of support and

mutual respect amongst the participants. There was a concern that removing co-teaching

could overburden general education teachers, and negatively impact the inclusive classroom
environment.

Some teachers advocated for leveling classes based on skill levels, to better meet
student needs, arguing that significant skill disparities made effective differentiation

challenging. Participants also called for shared responsibilities between special and general
education teachers to enhance the co-teaching model. Overall, teachers expressed a strong

belief in the value of co-teaching, and a desire for continued improvement and support for
this instructional approach.

Overall, the conclusions drawn from the collected data largely align with the insights
from the literature review. Most teachers involved in co-teaching consider it a beneficial

instructional practice. However, they also acknowledge its limitations and challenges. This

project also highlighted the perceived importance of administrative support for co-teaching,

by providing common planning time for co-teaching partners. Teachers with dedicated
planning time reported higher levels of satisfaction and observed more benefits compared to
those without common planning time.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

83

Based on these findings, the most efficient way to improve the practice of co-teaching
at the Elizabethtown Area School District is to encourage administration and teachers to be

intentional with the practice to maximize the potential benefits of this instructional model.

One of the most critical aspects of successful co-teaching is the provision of common

planning time. Administrators play a pivotal role in scheduling and ensuring that co-teaching
partners have dedicated time to collaboratively plan lessons, discuss student progress, and

develop cohesive strategies. When teachers have this common planning time, they can create
more unified and effective lesson plans, address student needs more comprehensively, and

align their teaching methods. The data collected from this project indicates that teachers who
have regular planning time report higher levels of satisfaction and perceive greater benefits
from co-teaching compared to those who do not have this opportunity.

Maintaining consistent co-teaching partnerships is another key factor in the success of
this instructional model. When teachers work together over an extended period, they develop
a stronger rapport and a deeper understanding

of each other's teaching styles and strengths.

This consistency fosters a more seamless and integrated classroom environment where both
teachers can effectively support student learning. Administrators should strive to minimize

changes in co-teaching pairings year after year, to maintain this stability.

Additionally, providing ongoing professional development is essential to expand the
types of co-teaching beyond the common 'one teach

-

one assist' model. Professional

development can introduce teachers to a variety of co-teaching strategies, such as parallel

teaching, station teaching, and team teaching, allowing them to diversify their approach and
better meet the diverse needs

of their students.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

84

It is equally important to recognize when co-teaching is not effective or beneficial.

Administrators and teachers must be vigilant in assessing the impact of co-teaching on
student outcomes and teacher satisfaction.

If a co-teaching partnership is not yielding

positive results, it may be necessary to reevaluate, and potentially, discontinue the practice.
Factors such as mismatched teaching styles, insufficient content knowledge, or a lack of
genuine collaboration can undermine the effectiveness of co-teaching. In such cases,
administrators should work with teachers to find alternative solutions, whether that involves

additional training, reassigning co-teachers, or exploring different instructional models.

These results and recommendations will be presented to building administrators and
used to develop district guidelines for co-teaching. The goal of these guidelines is to ensure
that co-teaching is implemented efficiently, with fidelity, and in contexts that are most likely
to maximize its potential outcomes. These guidelines

will establish non-negotiable elements,

such as common planning time, and provide recommendations on when to use specific co-

teaching models to reduce the over-reliance on the 'one teach one assist' model.
-

Co-teaching has significant fiscal implications that schools and districts must
carefully consider. One of the primary costs associated with co-teaching is the need for
additional staffing. Co-teaching requires having two certified teachers in the same classroom,

which can double the personnel costs for a single class. This increase in staffing necessitates
a larger budget for salaries and benefits. In districts already facing tight budgets, allocating

funds for additional teachers can be challenging and may require reallocation of resources

from other programs.

Beyond staffing costs, co-teaching also requires investments in professional
development. Effective co-teaching hinges on teachers receiving comprehensive training in

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

85

collaborative teaching strategies, differentiated instruction, and classroom management
techniques. Although professional development sessions, workshops, and ongoing training

programs incur additional costs, these programs are crucial for ensuring that co-teachers are

well-prepared to deliver high-quality instruction and maximize the benefits of co-teaching.
Furthermore, providing common planning time for co-teachers might necessitate schedule
adjustments, and could lead to potential costs associated with rearranging school schedules,
or hiring substitute teachers to cover planning periods.

That said, co-teaching is only cost-efficient when implemented correctly, with
adequate resources allocated for professional development, common planning time, and

appropriate staffing.

If school districts cannot commit to these necessary investments, they

may be better off exploring other inclusive practices that are more cost-effective. Without
proper execution, co-teaching can become an inefficient use of resources, failing to deliver
the intended educational benefits for students with disabilities. Therefore, it is crucial for

districts to evaluate their capacity to support co-teaching effectively before adopting it as a
primary instructional strategy.

Limitations
The two main limitations of this study were that only
teachers chose to participate, and that none

15 out

of the 38 eligible

of the special education teachers from the middle

school chose to participate. The small sample size may not adequately represent the larger
population, thereby limiting the generalizability of these findings. Because there were only
15 respondents, the data collected might

reflect a narrower range of perspectives and

experiences, causing potential bias to the results.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

86

With so few participants, the sample size was quite small, which limited the
researcher's ability to generalize the findings to a broader population. Due to the size, and the

fact that this sample was ultimately a non-representative sample, as well as the lack of

participation from specific subgroups, the data collected might not have captured the

diversity of experiences and perspectives within the larger group, leading to conclusions that
may not apply universally.

Any time you have eligible participants that choose not to participate you risk nonresponse bias (Fraenkel

& Wallen, 2009). Non-participation can lead to biased results,

because the responses may not accurately reflect the views of the entire population. For

instance, those who did respond might have had stronger opinions or more extreme

experiences with co-teaching, whereas those who did not respond might be more neutral or

have different concerns that remain unaddressed. Specially, for this study, it would have been

beneficial to have had participation from special education teachers in the middle school and
a larger response rate from all the other eligible participants. Due to this survey being

anonymous, it was also impossible to see

if there were other trends in who did or did not

respond.

A low response rate can also be an indicator of other limitations,

such as the

relevance of the study topic to potential participants, the clarity of the survey, or the

effectiveness of the outreach strategy, Were the participants overwhelmed with other tasks
and did not feel like they had time to take a survey? Maybe email was not the most efficient

way to communicate with the participants? Perhaps many of the eligible participants were
ambivalent to this topic and do not see it a priority in their personal lives.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

87

The low response rate could also impact the confidence of these findings and the
conclusions generated from the data collected. Conclusions drawn from a limited number of
responses could be more prone to questioning and skepticism. Due to these factors, it would
be difficult to generalize these findings across other settings

Recommendations
Several avenues for future research have emerged as a result of this Capstone Project.
One potential area of exploration is the long-term impact of co-teaching on student outcomes,

particularly focusing on academic achievement, social skills development, and postsecondary transition. Understanding how sustained co-teaching relationships affect students

over multiple years could provide deeper insights into the efficacy of this instructional
model.

From that idea, exploring the academic achievement of students in co-taught classes

would be an important topic for future research. Investigating how co-teaching influences
standardized test scores, grade point averages, and other academic performance indicators

could provide evidence of its effectiveness, or conversely, its ineffectiveness. Such research
could compare the academic outcomes of students in co-taught classes, with those in
traditional single-teacher classrooms, examining variables such as subject matter, grade level,
and the presence

of students with disabilities. This would not only validate the co-teaching

model, but also identify specific conditions under which it is most beneficial. Understanding
the direct impact of co-teaching on student achievement is essential for justifying the

allocation of resources, and for improving instructional strategies to maximize student
Success.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

88

Additionally, future research could investigate the professional development needs of
co-teachers. This includes exploring the types of training and support that are most effective
in preparing teachers for co-teaching roles, as well as examining the impact of ongoing

professional development and instructional coaching on teacher efficacy and student
outcomes. This would help identify specific competencies and skills that enhance the success

of co-teaching partnerships.
Another important area for future research is the role of administrative support in the
success of co-teaching. Studies could examine how different levels of support from school

administrators, such as providing common planning time, affect the implementation and

effectiveness of co-teaching. Investigating how school culture, building schedules, and
leadership practices influence co-teaching dynamics, would offer valuable insights for

improving the practice.
Researchers could also explore the perspectives of students on co-teaching.
Understanding how students perceive the benefits and challenges of being taught by coteachers, and how these perceptions vary across different demographic groups, could provide
a more comprehensive view

of the impact of co-teaching on the student experience.

Finally, comparative studies could be conducted to explore the differences in coteaching practices and outcomes across various educational settings, such as urban vs, rural
schools, or among different subject areas. Such research could highlight contextual factors
that influence the success

of co-teaching and help identify strategies to specific

environments. By pursuing these and other research avenues, the field can continue to build
on the foundational knowledge of co-teaching, ultimately leading to more effective

instructional practices, and improved outcomes for both teachers and students.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

89

Summary
Chapter V has synthesized the data to address the three research questions,

elucidating secondary teachers' perceptions of the co-teaching instructional model. The
conclusions were derived from various data sources, including both qualitative and
quantitative elements, such as Likert scale survey results and open-ended questions. While
the overall perceptions were generally positive, several concerns and specific factors that

influence the success of co-teaching were identified and thoroughly examined.

The literature review for this research project illustrated the evolution of legal
mandates and civil rights that have led to inclusionary practices and explained why many

districts have adopted co-teaching to meet those requirements. It also examined the benefits

of co-teaching, its challenges and limitations, and the factors that affect its effectiveness. This
chapter integrated those concepts with the research findings to provide a comprehensive view

of how secondary teachers in the Elizabethtown Area School District perceive co-teaching,
and the potential future implications

of these perceptions for the district.

The first research question aimed to explore teachers' perceptions of the benefits of
co-teaching for students with disabilities. As described in the previous chapter, participants

highlighted several benefits of co-teaching for student performance and classroom dynamics.

They noted that having two teachers in the classroom allowed for more direct feedback and
the opportunity for smaller group work. They felt this instructional model enhanced

individualized support and better addressed student needs. Many also shared that co-teaching
improved classroom management, offered varied instructional approaches, and enabled
teachers to cover for each other during absences, maintaining continuity in instruction.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

90

The benefits they described were not just academically focused. Participants also
mentioned that co-teaching facilitated behavior management and targeted support, making it

easier to meet students' specific needs. The collaboration between teachers fostered improved

lesson planning, differentiation, and creative assignments, ultimately benefiting both students
and teachers by providing more immediate feedback and increasing student engagement.

The second research question focused on what teachers perceive to be the challenges

of co-teaching with students with disabilities. Participants identified several challenges that
were reflected in the literature review. Key concerns included the need for significant

planning and coordination between teachers, which they stated can be time-consuming and

difficult to manage. Some participants noted inconsistencies in teaching styles and
approaches, which they felt led to confusion and ineffective instruction. Additionally, some
expressed concems about unequal distribution

of workload, and the potential for one teacher

to dominate the classroom. Other challenges mentioned included limited professional

development opportunities for effective co-teaching, lack of administrative support, and

insufficient resources to implement co-teaching successfully.

The third research question examined teachers' perceptions of the factors that
contribute to the success or failure of co-teaching for students with disabilities. Participants
rated their understanding of the goals and purpose

of co-teaching through Likert scale

questions and provided insights on planning time, factors influencing success or failure, and

additional comments on co-teaching. Effective collaboration, consistent co-planning time,
and the development

of interpersonal relationships between teachers and students were

repeatedly identified. Teachers emphasized the importance of consistent placement with the
same co-teachers over time, fostering familiarity with the curriculum, and trust among

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

91

colleagues. The quality, personality, and subject matter expertise of the special education
teacher were significant factors for regular education teachers, with successful experiences
reported when paired with cooperative, proactive, resourceful, and motivated co-teachers.

The final open-ended question allowed teachers to share additional thoughts on their
co-teaching experiences. Many believed co-teaching could be highly effective when executed

well, particularly with content-familiar co-teachers and consistent department assignments.
Challenges arose when special education teachers lacked qualifications in subjects, resulting
in a "teach and assist" approach, rather than more effective co-teaching models. Some
participants emphasized that co-teachers are not just for discipline, but also provide academic
support. Time management and understaffing in special education were mentioned as

obstacles, limiting co-teaching feasibility beyond a supportive role without additional hiring.

Positive, collaborative relationships and consistent co-teaching partnerships over time were
highlighted as essential for success.
Participants noted that while quantitative data might not show significant academic
improvements, qualitative benefits, such as improved classroom climate and individualized
student support, were substantial. Effective co-teaching fostered a sense

of support and

mutual respect. There was concern that removing co-teaching could overburden general

education teachers, and negatively impact the inclusive classroom environment. Some

advocated for leveling classes based on skill levels, arguing that significant skill disparities
made effective differentiation challenging.

This Capstone Project has provided valuable insights into secondary teachers'
perceptions of the co-teaching instructional model. These findings indicate that while co-

teaching is generally viewed favorably, its success is contingent upon several critical factors,

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

92

including adequate planning time, consistent professional development, and strong
administrative support. The identified challenges, such as mismatched teaching styles and

insufficient resources, underscore the need for a thoughtful and strategic approach to coteaching implementation. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics,

particularly the long-term academic impacts on students, to refine co-teaching practices and
ensure they effectively meet the diverse needs

of all learners. Additionally, it is important to

recognize that co-teaching may not be the best model in all circumstances. By addressing
these areas, educational stakeholders can better support the co-teaching model where

appropriate, ultimately enhancing its efficacy and fostering more inclusive and supportive

learning environments.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

93

References
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District Westchester City v.

Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). httos://www.ovez.org/cases/1981/80-1002
Bottge, B. A., Cohen, A. S., & Choi, H. J. (2018). Comparisons of mathematics
intervention effects in resource and inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children,

84(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917736854
Boudah, D., Schumacher,

J., & Deshler, D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an

effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 20, 293-316.
Brendle, J., Lock, R., & Piazza, K. (2017).

A study of co-teaching identifying effective

implementation strategies. International Journal

ofSpecial Education, 32, 538-

550.

Chitiyo, J. (2017). Challenges to the use of co-teaching by teachers. /nternational Journal

of Whole Schooling,

13, 55-66.

Cook, S. C., & McDuffie-Landrum, K. (2020). Integrating effective practices into coteaching: Increasing outcomes for students with disabilities. Intervention in

School and Clinic, 55(4), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345 1219855739

Cook, 9. C,, McDuffie-Landrum, K. A., Oshita, L., & Cook, B. G. (2017). Co-teaching
for students with disabilities:
literature. In

A critical and updated analysis of the empirical

J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), The handbook

ofspecial education (2nd ed., pp. 233-248). Routledge.
Corr, C., Snodgrass, M. R., Love, H.. Scott, I. M., Kim, J., & Andrews, L. (2021).

Exploring the landscape of published mixed methods research in special

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
education:

94

A systematic review. Remedial and Special Education, 42(5), 317-

328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520924030

Creswell, J. C. (2005) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2™ ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

Creswell J. W., Klassen A. C., Plano Clark V. L., & Smith K. C. (2011). Best practices for
mixed methods research in the health sciences. National Institutes of Health.
https://obssr.od.nih.gov/sites/obssr/files/Best_Practices_ for Mixed Methods_

Research.pdf
Daniel v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (1989).
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/874/874.F2d.1036.88-1279.html

Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the characteristics of "effective" middle and high school
co-taught teams for students with disabilities? Preventing School Failure, 46,
23

Education for All Handicapped Children's Act, PL 94-142 (1975).

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STA TUTE-89/pdf/STATU TE-89-

Pg773.pdf
Education of the Handicapped Act, PL 91-230 (1970).

https://www.govinto.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STA TUTE-84-

Pgl21 pdf
Endrew v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S.

(2017).

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-827

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177

1-

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
Fetters, M. D.,

& Freshwater, D. (2015). The 1+1=3 integration challenge. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 9,1 151-.7 https://doi.org
/10.1177/1558689815581222

Fraenkel,

J., & Wallen, N. (2009) How to design and evaluate research in education (7™

ed.). McGraw Hill.

Friend, M. (2014). Co-teach!: Building and sustaining effective classroom partnerships
in inclusive schools (2"4 ed.). Marilyn Friend, Inc.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2006). Including students with special needs: A practical
guide for classroom teachers (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007) Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals
(Sth ed.). Pearson Education.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., &
Jordan, N. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized Intervention for very-lowperforming students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge?

Exceptional Children, 81(2), 134-157. https://doi.org
/10.1177/0014402914551743

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. §., McMaster, K. L., & Lemons, C. J. (2018). Students with
disabilities' abysmal school performance: An introduction to the special issue.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 127-130. https://doi.org
/10.1111/ldrp.12180

Gaskins v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 389 F. Supp. 2d 628 (2005).
https://casetext.com/case/gaskin-v-pennsylvania-1

95

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

96

Ghedin, E., & Aquario, D. (2020). Collaborative teaching in mainstream schools:
Research with general education and support teachers. Jnternational Journal of
Whole Schooling, 16(2), 1-34.

Harper, C L. (2009). Perceptions of the co-teaching experience: Examining the views

of

teaching staff and students [Master's thesis, Marietta College]. OhioLINK

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu

/etdc/view?accnum=mariettal 241468954
Hattie, J. (2018). Hattie Ranking: 252 influences and effect sizes related to student
achievement. Visible Learning. https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-

influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/
Hayes, J.. & Higgins, S. T. (1978). Issues regarding the IEP: Teachers on the front line.

Exceptional Children, 44(4), 267-273.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297804400407

Houchins, D.. Marsh, R., & Tanner, E. K. (2022). An introduction to mixed methods
research. In T. W. Farmer, E. Talbot,

K. McMaster. D. Lee, & T. C. Aceves

(Eds.). Handbook ofspecial education research (Vol.

1, pp

187-203). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156857-16

Howie, E. K., Campbell, A. C., Abbott, R. A., & Straker, L. M. (2017). Understanding
why an active video game intervention did not improve motor skill and physical

activity in children with developmental coordination disorder:

A quantity or

quality issue? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 60, 1-12.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.10.013

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
Huefner, D. S (2006). Getting comfortable with special education law: A framework for

working with children with disabilities (2nd ed.). Christopher-Gordon.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1997).
https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ17/PLA W-10Spubl17.pdf

Jackson, K. M., Willis, K., Giles, L., Lastrapes, R. E., & Mooney, P. (2017). How to
meaningfully incorporate co-teaching into programs for middle school students
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Beyond Behavior, 26(1), 11-18.
httos://doi.org/10.1177/107429561 7694408

Johnson, T. M., King-Sears, M. E., & Miller, A. D. (2022). High school co-teaching
partners' self-efficacy, personal compatibility, and active involvement in

instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(2), 96-107.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720919811

Keeley, R. G., (2015) Measurements of student and teacher perceptions of co-teaching
models. The Journal ofSpecial Education Apprenticeship, 4(1), Article
4. https://doi.org/10.58729/2167-3454.1042

Klingner, J. K., & Boardman, A. G. (2011). Addressing the "research gap" in special
education through mixed methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 208218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711417559

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Students' perceptions of instruction in inclusion
classrooms: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional

Children, 66(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299906600102

97

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

98

Kretlow, A. G., Cooke, N. L., & Wood, C. L. (2012). Using in-service and coaching to
increase teachers' accurate use of research-based strategies. Remedial and Special

Education, 33(6), 348-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932 10395397
Least Restrictive Environment Requirements, Pa Code. 22 § 14.145 (2008).

https://www.pacodeandbulletin. Dispvlav/nacode?file=/secure/ ac ode/data/022
/chapter!4/s14.1 html&d=reduce#:~:text=Students%20with'o20disabilities%20

shall%20be%20educated™20in%20the%20least%20restrictive%o20environment

Leko, M. M., & Brownell, M. T. (2009). Crafting quality professional development for
special educators: What school leaders should know. TEACHING Exceptional

Children, 42(1), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990904200106

Leko, M. M., Hitchcock, J. H., Love. H. R.. Houchins, D. E., & Conroy, M. A. (2023).
Quality indicators for mixed-methods research in special education. Exceptional

Children, 894), 432-448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221141031

Love, H. R., Cook, B. G.. & Cook, L. (2022), Mixed-methods approaches in special
education research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37(4), 314-323.
https://doi.org/10.11 l/ldrp.12295
1

Luckner, J. L. (1999). An examination of two coteaching classrooms. American Annals of the

Deaf , 144, 24-34. hitps://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0180
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under
routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with

disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research

& Practice, 20(2), 79-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/4.1540-5826.2005.00123.x
Mertler, C. A. (2022). Introduction to educational research. Sage.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

99

Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. (2008). 50 ways to keep your co-teacher: Strategies for
before, during, and after co-teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(4),

40-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990804000405

Murawski, W. W., & Scott, K. L. (2017). What really works with exceptional learners.
Corwin.

Miles, D. A. (2017). A taxonomy of research gaps: Identifying and defining the seven
research gaps. Journal

of Research Methods and Strategies, 1(1), 1-14.

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972).
https://casetext.com/case/mills-v-district-of-columbia-3

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.

§ 6319

(2002).

httos://www.govinfo.zov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hrienr/pdf/BILLS107hrlenr.pdf
Norris, D. M. (1997). Teachers' perceptions of coteaching in an inclusive classroom in a
middle school: A look at general education and special education teachers

working together with students with learning disabilities (Publication No.
9735088) [Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.

Nirje, B. (1996). The normalization principle and its human management implications.

SRV-VRS: The international social role valorization journal 1(2), 19-23.
Oberti v. Board of Education of Clementon School District, 995 F.2d. 1009 3rd Cir.

(1993) https://casetext.com/case/oberti-by-oberti-v-board-of-educ-of-borough-ofclementon-school-dist

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

100

Onwuegbuzie, A. J.. & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research
in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
Pennhurst State School

& Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984).

https://www.ovyez.org/cases/1982/81-2101

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp.
279. (1972). https://casetext.com/case/pa-assn-retd-child-v-commonwealth-of- a

Pizana, R. F. (2022). Collective efficacy and co-teaching relationships in inclusive
classrooms. /nternational Journal

of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and

Education Research. 3(9), 1812 -1825. https://dot.org/10.11594/ijmaber.03.09.22
Rachel H. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, 14 F.3d 1398 9th Cir. (1994).
https://casetext.com/case/sacramento-city-school-dist-v-rachel-h

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, P.L. 93-112.

(1973). https://www.eeoc.gov/rehabilitation-act-1973-original-text

Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of
development in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 15, 190-197.

Roncker on Behalf of Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 6th Cir. (1983).
https://casetext.com/case/roncker-on-behalf-of-roncker-v-walter
Salend, S.

J., Johansen, M., Mumper, J., Chase, A. S., Pike, K. M., & Dorney, J. A.

(1997). Cooperative teaching: The voices of two teachers. Remedial and Special
Education, 18, 3-11.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

10 1

Scruggs. T. E.. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995:

A research synthesis. Exceptional Children,

63(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606300106
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2017). Making inclusion work with co-teaching.

TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(4), 284-293.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599 16685065

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms:

A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children,

73(4),

392-416. https://doi,org/10.1177/001440290707300401

Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 43(5), 32-38. httos://doi.org/10.1177/004005991 104300503

Sims, A. (2021). Teacher perceptions of co-teaching effectiveness in inclusive elementary
classrooms (Publication No. 4869) [Master's thesis, Eastern Illinois University].
Eastern Illinois University Repository. https://thekeep.ciu.edu/theses/4869

Sinclair, A. C., Bray, L. E., Wei, Y., Clancy, E. E.. Wexler, J., Kearns, D. M., & Lemons,
C. J. (2019). Coteaching in content area classrooms: Lessons and guiding
questions for administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 102(4), 303-322.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636518812701

Smith, S. W. (1990). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special educationfrom intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children, 57(1), 6-14.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299005700102

Sweigart, C., & Landrum, T. (2015) The impact of number of adults on instruction:
implications for co-teaching, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

102

for Children and Youth, 591), 22-29.
https://doi.org 10.1080/1045988X.2014.919139

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2004). A guide to co-teaching: Practical
tips for facilitating student learning. Corwin Press.

Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. L. (2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary
special educators in co-taught and special education settings. Journal

ofSpecial

Education, 36, 58-69.

Wexler, J., Kearns, D. M., Lemons, C. J., Mitchell, M., Clancy, E., Davidson, K. A.,
Sinclair, A. C., & Wei, Y. (2018). Reading comprehension and co-teaching
practices in middle school English language arts classrooms. Exceptional

Children, 84(4), 384-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918771543

Zigmond, N., & Matta, D. (2004). Value added of the special education teacher on
secondary school cotaught classes. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.),

Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol.
schools (pp. 55-76). Elsevier.

i

17.

Research in secondary

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

APPENDICES

103

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

104

Appendix A.

IRB Approval Letter
Institutional Review Board

250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Dear Walt Smith,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled "Secondary
Teachers' Perceptions of Co-teaching on Student with Disabilities" (Proposal #PW23-011)
has been approved by the Pennsylvania Western University Institutional Review Board as
submitted.

The effective date of approval is 08/08/2023 and the expiration date is 08/07/2024. These
dates must appear on the consent form.

Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly regarding any of
the following:

(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study (additions or

changes must be approved by the IRB before they are implemented)

(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated by any events
reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 08/07/2024, you must
file additional information to be considered for continuing review. Please contact
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.

Regards,

Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

105

Appendix B.

Email to Co-Teachers

Colleagues,

You are getting this email because according to my records you have participated
co-teaching this school year, last school year, or both.

in

As part of a graduate program am conducting some research on our co-teaching
|

model and

|

am asking for your help by completing an anonymous survey.

Attached is a copy of the informed consent. The same information can also be found
on the first question on the survey if you wish to participate. Participation is both
voluntary and anonymous.

CO-TEACHING SURVEY
am asking that interested participants complete the survey by 12/22/23. Please let
me know if you have any questions and thanks in advance for your consideration.
|

Walt Smith

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

106

Appendix C.
Informed Consent

Teachers' Perceptions of Co-Teaching

You are being asked by Walt Smith and Dr. Todd Keruskin from PennWest University to
participate in a research study. Participation in the study is voluntary, and you may stop
anytime.

The purpose of the study is to examine the perceptions of secondary teachers who utilize coteaching practices to determine what they perceive to be the benefits, challenges, and
limitations of this instructional model.
In this study, you will be asked to complete an anonymous survey on your experiences as a
teacher who has, or is, participating in the co-teaching model.

It will take about 5- 10 minutes to complete the study.

The potential risks during the study are nothing greater than daily living. Remember, you
may stop taking the survey at any time.
There are no direct benefits to participants from the research. It will help the researchers
better understand your perceptions of the benefits and challenges of the co-teaching model.

SECURITY OF DATA
The online study is completely anonymous: you will not be asked to give any information
that could identify you (e.g., name). The survey is NOT linked to IP addresses or your email.
Individual responses will not be presented, just the aggregated data.
Remember, taking part in this study is voluntary. If, while taking the survey. you feel
uncomfortable or no longer want to participate, you may stop at any time. To stop taking the
survey, you may either:
to the last page of the survey and press "Submit," or (2)
close
survey,
your browser completely.

(1) proceed

There are no consequences

if you wish to exit the

if you decide to stop participating in this study.

There is no identifiable information collected from you during this study; all other
information from this study will be confidential within local, state, and federal laws. The
PennWest University Institutional Review Board (IRB) may review the research records. The
study results may be shared in aggregate form at a meeting or in a journal, but there is no

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

107

identifiable information to be revealed. The records from this study will be maintained for a
minimum of three (3) years after the study is complete.

Your information collected in this research will not be used or distributed for future research,
even

if all your identifiers are removed.

If you have questions about the research or a research-related injury, you can contact Dr.
Todd Keruskin at keruskin@pennwest.edu. If you have a question about your rights as a
research participant that you need to discuss with someone, you can contact the Penn West
University Institutional Review Board at InstReviewBoard@pennwest.edu.
If you would like a copy of this informed consent, please print this screen or contact Walt
Smith at walter_smith@etownschools.edu.

By clicking on the "I agree" box and continuing with the survey, you have acknowledged
that you have read the informed consent and are at least 18 years old. Also, you acknowledge
that you agree to participate in the study and have the right not to answer any or all the
questions in the survey. Finally, you understand your participation is entirely voluntary, and
you may quit the study at any time without penalty.
Informed Consent
I have read the above and agree.
I do

NOT wish to participate

at this time.

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING

108

Appendix D.
Teachers' Perception of Co-Teaching Survey
1.

What grades do you work with in your co-teaching classroom(s)? Please check all
that apply from this school year or last school year.
a,

6%

e.

10%

b.

a

f.

11

g.

12

d.

2.

3.

gt

Are you a regular education teacher or a special education teacher.
a.

Regular Education Teacher

b.

Special Education Teacher

How many years have you been teaching?
a.

Less than

b.

1

|

year

to 4 years

to7 years

c.

5

d.

More than 7 years

4. How much planning time do you get with your co-teaching partner(s)?
5.

I

understand the goals and purpose
1

2

of co-teaching.
3

Strongly
Disagree

6.

4

Strongly Agree

Co-teaching is beneficial for students with disabilities.
1

Strongly
Disagree

2

3

4

Strongly Agree

TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF CO-TEACHING
7.

2

Ihave seen evidence of improved academic outcomes for students with
disabilities who are taught in inclusive classrooms.

l
Strongly
Disagree

8.

2

3

4

Strongly Agree

Overall, I am satisfied with the co-teaching experience.
1

2

3

Strongly
Disagree

4

Strongly Agree

s

9.

What do you believe are the benefits to co-teaching?

10. When co-teaching is successful, what factors have contributed to that success?
11. What do you believe are the challenges to co-teaching?
12. When co-teaching is not successful, what factors have contributed to that result?
13. Please feel free to contribute any additional thoughts or comments about co-

teaching.