Abstract
Coteaching at all levels can be difficult, but coteaching at the secondary level in science and mathematics can create unique challenges. This article provides examples of issues related to coteaching at the secondary level in theses critical content areas. Various types of coteaching are presented, and how each type might be integrated into science and mathematics classrooms is discussed. The article concludes with practical ideas and considerations for teachers, administrators, and teacher educators related to coteaching in the areas of science and mathematics.
The field of special education has had a long-standing tradition of including students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Currently, students with mild to moderate disabilities typically receive at least 80% of their instruction in general education classrooms (American Youth Policy Forum and Center on Education Policy, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Coteaching is one way many schools ensure students with disabilities are receiving their legally mandated services in the least restrictive environment while being given access to the same highly qualified content teachers as their nondisabled peers.
There are five types of coteaching models typically observed in secondary classrooms: (a) one lead–one support, which involves one teacher leading while the other teacher supports the lead teacher using various strategies and evidence-based practices, (b) station teaching, which involves dividing the content and providing instruction in station settings with each teacher leading a station, (c) alternative teaching, which involves dividing the class into one small group and one large group using the small group for reteaching, preteaching, or reinforcement, (d) parallel teaching, which involves teaching the same content but in two smaller groups, with each teacher facilitating the entire lesson component to his or her group, and (e) team teaching, which requires both teachers share instruction having equal voice, presence, and roles within the entire lesson (Cook & Friend, 1995).
Coteaching can be an effective support for students with hearing impairments (Luckner, 1999), learning disabilities (Rice & Zigmond, 1999; Weichel, 2001; Welch, 2000), gifts and talents (Hughes & Murawski, 2001), and English language learners (Bahamonde & Friend, 1999). Also, the success of students with disabilities in coteaching environments has been documented in the content areas of language (Miller, Valasky, & Molloy, 1998), social studies (Dieker, 1998), and English (Murawski, 2006).
Furthermore, when students with disabilities are included in advanced courses, they typically struggle and have little success. For example, they demonstrate a prominence in language-based processing deficits (Burgstahler, Crawford, & Acosta, 2001; Maccini & Hughes, 2000). Since science classes have a great deal of content specific language, secondary students with disabilities can be at a disadvantage (Parmar, Deluca, & Janczak, 1994).
Maccini and Hughes (2000) discussed the challenges students with disabilities face in mathematics, including experiencing considerable difficulty with the prerequisite skills, having lower enrollment in advanced mathematics classes, and experiencing a lack of opportunities beyond high school. Research also suggests that teachers may have difficulty isolating the challenges faced by students with disabilities in mathematics, specifically algebra.
In a metasynthesis of coteaching conducted by Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007), four major themes were identified:
Administrators, teachers, and students perceive coteaching as being beneficial for all students.
Conditions necessary for successful coteaching, including sufficient planning time and compatibility of coteachers.
The one lead–one support model of coteaching is most often implemented, with the special educator often in a subordinate role.
There is a predominate use of teacher-led instruction, leading to a lack of student individualization, causing the special educator to act as an assistant. Zigmond and Matta (2004) as well as Weiss and Lloyd (2002) also found that coteachers, specifically in mathematics, typically took the role of an instructional aide in secondary classrooms.
Coteaching can provide teachers and students with numerous benefits, as documented in the literature (Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Weiss & Brigham, 2000; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). These benefits include helping teachers learn from one another and respect their different frames of reference, sharing ideas for planning, instructing, and assessing, and giving students the opportunity to have two adults support their engagement and learning in the classroom (Friend & Cook, 2007). However, the amount of research about benefits specifically at the secondary level is limited. From a practical perspective, coteaching allows teachers to engage in ongoing, lifelong learning by sharing knowledge across expertise in content and pedagogy. Many secondary general education teachers provide content skills to special education teachers who may or may not have content backgrounds, specifically in science or mathematics. Likewise, special education teachers often provide the general education teacher with pedagogical information on differentiation within the content areas as well as behavior management, strategy instruction, and student engagement techniques.
In strong cotaught classrooms, special education teachers support students by ensuring vocabulary is grounded in ways that students are successful, texts are provided in alternative formats, exams are modified, and inquiry-based instruction is balanced with explicit instruction of major concepts. In addition, the special education teacher does not try to restate or reiterate what is already being provided by the general education teacher but instead is the one who enhances the content by providing differentiation to instruction or classroom management to meet students’ academic or social and emotional needs for success. In addition, coteaching allows both teachers to work with a smaller student-to-teacher ratio within the general education setting, which affords students the advantage of hearing two perspectives and provides students with two teachers to assist them in moving the lesson forward.
What special educators often lack is the content expertise required to provide effective supports for students with disabilities who typically struggle with understanding content specific vocabulary and engaging in higher order analysis, both of which are necessary elements of advanced science and mathematics courses. Although rates of inclusion for students with disabilities have risen (U.S. Department of Education, 2006), students with disabilities are still being excluded from higher-level science and mathematics courses (Lamb, Hodges, Brown, & Foy, 2004). Furthermore, when students with disabilities are included in advanced courses, they typically struggle and are not successful. Maccini and Hughes (2000) discussed the challenges students with disabilities face in mathematics, including experiencing considerable difficulty with the prerequisite skills, having lower enrollment in advanced mathematics classes, and experiencing a lack of opportunities beyond high school.
The product of this lack of success in science and mathematics content areas is reflected in the limited success of students with disabilities in careers requiring higher-level science and mathematics (Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001). However, encouraging special education teachers to work collaboratively with general education teachers at the secondary level could increase the chances for improved outcomes for students with disabilities in these areas.
This article provides a summary of reports gathered from visits to more than 80 schools to identify the role of the special education teacher in secondary science and mathematics classrooms (Dieker, 2011). Four themes emerged in relation to the role of the secondary special education teacher working in the content areas of science and mathematics: coteaching, facilitative support, student engagement, and planning. The following sections provide practical implementation suggestions, centered on these four themes, for special education and general education teachers associated with secondary coteaching in science and mathematics classrooms.
Practical Ideas
Coteaching models are dependent on two main factors: the content area and the collaborative nature of the teachers. In science and mathematics classrooms, how teachers worked together varied, but typically the five models of coteaching were present. Specific examples of how these models can be implemented in secondary science and mathematics courses are described in Figure 1.
Coteaching models for secondary science and mathematics teachers.
One Teach–One Support
The one teach–one support model is most often implemented with the special educator working one-on-one with students to reteach or reinforce a concept while the general education teacher is reviewing a concept or while students are engaged in more independent practice. In the support role, the special education teacher often provides either individualized behavioral charts for students or at times takes on the role of monitoring the behavior of the entire class to ensure fewer interruptions and allow more time for content instruction. Most often the special education teacher in the support role is instructing students more in soft skill types of tasks such as missing homework, writing in planners, dealing with peer conflicts, or missing materials. This instruction often occurs via comments as lesson instruction is occurring or in individual conferences with students when needed. Special education teachers take on this support role for three reasons: (a) limited content knowledge to contribute, (b) the teams are new and have limited time to plan for a different role, or (c) the needs of the students with disabilities are so severe that the special education teacher needs more flexibility to deal with the extreme behaviors presented. Something to consider in practice is what are the specific strategies and techniques that students with disabilities would be provided in a self-contained or resource setting and if those same strategies are being used in the science or mathematics classroom. For example, often students in science need vocabulary and reading instruction to master the content of textbooks and higher level concepts, whereas in mathematics they might need more foundational skills. The special educator should consider how he or she is offering value added to the general education setting in these critical content areas. No matter the model, the special educator should not be in the role of observing but actually adding to the classroom environment.
Station Teaching
In the station teaching model, one group of students is engaged in learning the content via direct instruction from one teacher while the other group is engaged in a practice or reteaching activity related to the content learned the day before with the second teacher. A third station includes students working independently on a task that is monitored by one of the two teachers. By placing students in smaller groups, when time allows, teachers can more effectively individualize the feedback given to students. Other examples of stations led by the special education teacher who may lack content expertise are to provide vocabulary lessons grounded in real-world applications, adding visual and kinesthetic models (acting words out) for key terms, and using graphic organizers to capture the previous lesson or the lesson taught that day.
Special education teachers working in these content areas might also consider using the station model to implement tools and strategies they might provide in a more restrictive setting in the content areas (e.g., graphic organizers, teaching vocabulary, reading text aloud, using assistive technology) or consider how this model might be used to address various learning styles. This model of coteaching can be a great way for the general and special education teachers to capitalize on their strongest teaching assets in a station to enhance the learning of all students, hence providing a way to address any content area limitations in science or mathematics. For example, one teacher might work with solving word problems while the other teacher examines the numeracy behind mathematics, or one teacher might work with the language and understanding of concepts while the other teacher manages the students in the lab. The more coteachers apply their strengths in discreet learning settings, the better the opportunity to maximize student learning and the use of both professionals in these content areas.
Parallel Teaching
Parallel teaching is implemented infrequently in science and mathematics classrooms because of the lack of planning time and content knowledge to implement parallel teaching effectively. However, when coteachers are well planned and equally confident in the content, creative uses of this model support individualized teaching to homogeneous groups. For example, parallel teaching can be used to teach to different types of learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory). Furthermore, this is an ideal model to use when the success of the lesson or the students requires increased participation, as with a smaller group of students there are increased opportunities to respond and to engage in higher order thinking. Consider that the need exists to potentially divide and conquer either content or behavior by placing students in smaller groups. Also keep in mind that student participation typically increases with smaller groups, so if it is a complex or controversial topic in science (e.g., evolution) or in mathematics (e.g., long division), putting students in smaller, inherently less threatening environments may increase learning gains.
Station teaching and parallel teaching are effective in lab environments or when manipulatives are utilized to allow for more hands-on learning. Parallel teaching is successful when both teachers are strong in the content area. In contrast, when using the station teaching model, each teacher could have a different aspect of the content. For example, one teacher could discuss Newton’s first law, the other teacher then discusses Newton’s second law, and students at the independent station can be working on Newton’s third law. From these observations, coteachers at the secondary level should discuss their individual strengths when considering the various models of coteaching to respect potential differences in content background.
Teams use alternative teaching for students who are advanced in their knowledge and need enrichment or, alternatively, students who are failing and need more remediation to be successful in the classroom. In math, the special education teacher provides minilessons in the small group to enhance their knowledge of a concept before instruction, while the general education teacher provides a review or works with students in more of an independent learning activity. As in all coteaching models, this type of alternative model requires both teachers to have a clear role while accounting for differences in content background. For example, teachers could select to do more remediation or enrichment depending on their content expertise. In addition, the needs of the students in these content areas might also drive the model. What is important to remember is that teachers provide remediation for foundational skills in mathematics more often than in science. For example, vocabulary concepts and higher-level background knowledge are less often reviewed and assessed in science as in mathematics. Keep this model in mind if there is a need to enrich or fill in gaps in either content area.
Team Teaching
The model least implemented, especially in teams in the first 2 years of working together, is team teaching. When this model is implemented, both teachers are equal coaches to students in cooperative groups or lab activities, asking higher-level questions and providing equal insight into mastering the key concept for the day. As students move to practice activities, both teachers work with all students to ask and answer questions equal amounts of the time. This type of coteaching is not necessarily better than other models, but when implemented effectively, teacher talk should decrease and student engagement increase. In this type of model, both teachers should be asking higher-level questions of students in cooperative groups and using their specific expertise to facilitate student learning in the content. This model should be used to create reasoning and sense making of students at the secondary level. There may be circumstances when students with mild disabilities may not need two teachers in a class together. Rather, the more effective environment may be indirect service delivery models.
Facilitative Support
Facilitative support is a model that moves away from coteaching but is often observed in secondary schools. This model has nuances of the consultation model but is more structured and ongoing to provide general education teachers with support in coplanning, coinstructing, or coassessing. In this role, the special education teacher rotates time among many classes in an effort to provide direct support to the teacher as needed in targeted areas. This model provides indirect support to students via the general education teacher and is typically used for classes of students with milder disabilities.
In the facilitative support role (Dieker, Macinni, Strickland, & Hunt, 2011), the special education teachers target academic areas of concern in science or mathematics, including foundational skills, vocabulary, and higher-level thinking, which might be addressed during coplanning, coinstructing, or coassessing with their general education counterpart. Implementing facilitative support via coplanning includes incorporating strategies like the use of Quizlet cards (quizlet.com) related to key vocabulary in the content area, providing premade graphic organizers, locating Teacher Tube or Kahn Academy videos, and ensuring any assistive technology that could be used is ready for access by students with disabilities. Through coinstructing, the special education teacher may spend short amounts of time in the classroom leading some aspects of the instruction such as note taking or completing graphic organizers. Through coassessing, special education teachers may modify tests or materials and look for common error patterns for students with disabilities. As noted, this model is not intended for the teachers to be equal facilitators; rather, the special education teacher is in a role similar to that of an academic and behavioral specialist, leaving the general education teacher with ideas to be addressed when the special education teacher is not present. Much like the consultation model, the facilitative support model is a more structured approach to equal and ongoing ownership of students’ success in the general education setting by providing the general educator with strategies that support students with disabilities.
Special education teachers may complete the following activities in the facilitative model.
Planning—reviewing lesson objectives and breaking down specific skills students needed for mastery of a concept (e.g., each stage of the cell process), finding multimodal materials that support lesson objectives for upcoming weeks, and finding materials to support the lesson (e.g., graphic organizers, mnemonic devices).
Instructing—preteaching a difficult concept or a missing prerequisite skill to a student, monitoring behavior while the teacher provides content instruction, providing content instruction so the general education teacher can observe interactions and behaviors, and adding visual aids and other supports to the lesson.
Assessing—rewriting the assessment, modifying questions and responses, providing examples and tools of other ways to assess, locating assistive technology, analyzing missing questions on past exams, and creating study guides for students.
This list is not comprehensive; rather, it highlights an array of ideas as to what support the special education teacher can provide to the general education teacher in a facilitative support model.
This model requires less planning time and more of a direct response to the needs of the teacher each time facilitative support occurs. In contrast, when there is actual coteaching, planning together is critical to the success of the relationship.
Planning
Appropriate and purposeful implementation of all models of collaboration is necessary for student achievement. The lack of dedicated time for collaboration presents a challenge especially for coteachers. Effective coplanners collaborate on the big ideas related to lesson objectives and discuss how to ground those ideas in the various models of coteaching.
A creative way of planning may include providing time once a month (e.g., a half day of substitute time or pay) to create a long-range plan for working together. Other teams may find time or may be provided blocked planning time. The use of technology can also assist with planning. For example, some teams share themes of the lesson through text messaging or use Google’s online collaboration tools to share lesson plans.
Teams strong in planning can focus on what students need to learn and which model will best support students’ needs. Teams should focus their time addressing the lessons and not other items that can distract them. A universal theme of teams strong in planning is reflection on the part of both teachers of their strengths and weaknesses in content area, management of behaviors, and strategy instruction. Once each teacher’s strengths are identified, teams can more effectively choose the model of instruction and the method of instruction ensuring that housekeeping items such as grading, parent calls home, bathroom passes, and other details do not get in the way of their planning time.
A practical tip for successful coteaching at the secondary level is to “check your ego at the door.” Remember that in the primary grades it may be easier to be equal in the content as the content may be less rigorous. However, in the advanced content areas of science and mathematics, specifically at the secondary level, the content becomes more focused and specific, and general educators are experts in one content area. The point of putting a second teacher in the classroom is not for equality of content expertise but rather for differentiation. The use of any coteaching model should not increase the amount of teacher talk but instead allow for greater opportunity to support student talk, especially through the teacher’s own work products. The outcome should be bell-to-bell engagement of students resulting from two teachers being able to address academic and behavioral concerns that typically trigger disengagement of students.
Engaging Both Teachers in Cotaught Classrooms
Regardless of the model implemented, strong cotaught classrooms engage students with their peers through cooperative learning activities, labs, and higher levels of engagement through activities such as the use of interactive whiteboards, dry erase boards, peer tutoring, calculators, computer programs, literature circles, and a variety of active learning techniques. This type of hands-on classroom coupled with the increased levels of engagement may be easier to create with two teachers being available to facilitate the learning of content and continued engagement. In addition, special education teachers often have a stronger presence in these more active classrooms. Creating a classroom that allows for high rates of student responses can provide a venue to better utilize the skills of both teachers. Coteaching in these highly interactive environments allows special education and general education teachers to provide noninvasive support for students who require additional assistance.
Technology also increases student engagement. Students of this generation have a high level of competency to use numerous technologies to provide support in the general education setting (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010), while at the same time students with disabilities can leverage these tools to help level the playing field with their nondisabled peers. Commonly used tools in the classrooms include text-to-speech books and ebooks via the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard, which requires all textbooks (including science and mathematics books) to come in electronic format, online simulations and experiments, and unique tools to share students’ ideas (e.g., Webspiration, Blabberize, YouTube videos, and Flip cameras). A common misunderstanding in many classrooms is the focus on teacher control of the tools (e.g., the use of a whiteboard or computer), but when students with and without disabilities are driving the use of the tools, they are also at the center of learning. Furthermore, in classrooms with students directing the use of technology for themselves, both the general and special education teachers have strong equality in their roles. Using models such as station teaching allows for all students to use technology perhaps in one station if technology is limited. Coteachers should consider how websites could be used to preteach concepts. For example, employing the team-teaching model with the use of technology allows one person to facilitate the technology while the other facilitates the standard content, or in one lead–one support model the lead teacher provides the instruction and the support teacher provides supplements via various technologies.
Too often teachers view teaching with technology as a means of using online videos or photos from various sources to enrich a concept. Instead, coteaching teams must think of ways one teacher can provide students with hands-on use of the technology that enhances the instruction provided by the second teacher. For example, coteachers might use a station model in which the general education teacher provides rich discussion with students on the science concepts (e.g., small groups of five students for 15 minutes each) while the special educator monitors three additional stations where students are watching a DVD supplement of the science book with headphones, another using iPads to look up images on the web related to key vocabulary, and the last group using a digital camera to make a 2-minute clip of a miniplay of the content they had read to that point as a team. The level of engagement in this scenario is an example where both the teachers and the students are 100% engaged in a rich learning experience. The goals in using technology within a coteaching model are to enrich content, to provide remediation by individualizing and differentiating the instruction, and to compensate for deficient areas that are related to access or understanding of concepts. Higher levels of student engagement through the use of appropriate technology can make it possible and in some cases simpler when using coteaching models that encourage two teachers to be present.
Just like any type of instruction, challenges may occur when coteaching in science or mathematics. However, understanding the roles of both teachers while ensuring greater student learning outcomes is the true measure of effective coteaching. When teachers understand their strengths, focus on planning effective lessons based on high academic and behavioral standards, utilize various types of coteaching to meeting students’ needs, and empower the expertise of both teachers, the outcome is positive for both teachers and students in science and mathematics.
Conclusion
For teachers, whether general or special education, students having access to science and mathematics with a focus on reasoning and sense making is a recommendation of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2009) and the National Science Teachers Association and is critical for advanced careers. As part of reasoning, sense making, and higher-level thinking in science and mathematics, language components must be addressed. In addition, teachers’ talk needs to be reduced so they can hear students’ explanations and understanding or lack of understanding of science and mathematics concepts. This level of talk and synergy can be created in advanced science and mathematics classrooms when behaviors are addressed, students are working in a collaborative environment, and they have access to adequate supports.
For special education teachers, expertise in science and mathematics content is imperative if students with disabilities are going to have access to advanced careers. Special education teachers at the secondary level may need to become content specialists to ensure they are ready to work with teachers in these content areas. And teachers may need more preparation in how to differentiate and prepare engaging activities for students with disabilities in inclusive science and mathematics settings. The coteaching model can harness the power of using reasoning and sense making (NCTM, 2009) and should be at the core of instruction for all students.
Coteaching in secondary science and mathematics classrooms supports students with disabilities through multiple perspectives and diverse routines and can double the interaction of teachers with students in the classroom. Coteaching can take many shapes. When deciding what model of coteaching to implement, general and special education teachers should consider the content knowledge of each teacher, the space and arrangement of the classroom, and the diverse needs of the students in the classroom. Some models of coteaching may not dictate an even distribution of the instructional time; however, these models may be more appropriate than an equally distributed instructional time model when considering the student population and the level of support required for the students to be successful in the classroom.
Coteaching in secondary science and mathematics classrooms can no longer be a catchphrase or a sound bite heard during faculty meetings, during district professional development, or in federal legislation. For students with disabilities to gain equal access to 21st-century skills and advanced content knowledge, special education supports including technology must be integrated. Cotaught classroom should be designed such that students with disabilities are not distracted by the type of tool or model of support provided but instead understand how to capitalize on the existence of two teachers prepared to support their learning. Students with disabilities can be successful in science and mathematics content areas as long as general and special educators continue to provide appropriate teaching supports that empower students to ensure their own success.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.