Collaboration of General and Special Education Teachers: Perspectives and Strategies

Abstract

Schools today focus on inclusive models of education for students with disabilities that include higher expectations and increased teacher accountability. Within this inclusion framework, both general and special education teachers have responsibilities for the education of diverse learners. Collaboration skills take time to develop, with many potential barriers that can limit successful teamwork. Therefore, teacher preparation programs have a responsibility for preparing general and special education teachers for collaboration with a focus on strategies to minimize potential barriers and support outcomes for students with disabilities. In order to be more responsive to teacher candidates’ development, a first step is to understand their perspectives about collaboration. This article outlines the hopes and fears of both general and special education preservice candidates regarding collaboration and how their perspectives align with documented views of practicing teachers. Strategies to minimize fears and potential barriers for successful collaboration in school settings are presented.

Keywords

collaboration general education teachers preservice training special education teachers

With increased expectations for inclusive models of K–12 education for students with disabilities, there has been an emphasis on effective collaboration among general and special education teachers (Lingo, Barton-Arwood, & Jolivette, 2011). Collaboration has been defined as a professional partnership between two or more coequal educators, who share responsibility, accountability, and resources (Friend & Cook, 1990). Effective collaboration occurs when professionals voluntarily participate and have mutual goals (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014) “to provide a coherent educational program to support student’s academic achievement” (Ketterlin-Geller, Baumer, & Lichon, 2015, p. 52). Specifically, when working with students with disabilities, collaboration is more than just working together (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014; Robinson & Buly, 2007) and “takes effort, diligence, and training” (Robinson & Buly, 2007, p. 84). As such, preparing general and special education teachers for collaboration should begin within the context of teacher preparation programs (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriquez, 2009).

There has been limited information on how preservice candidates view collaboration between general and special education teachers (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014) and how these perspectives align with practicing teachers. As a result, this article provides perspectives regarding collaboration as offered by general and special education preservice teacher candidates and how these align to in-service teachers. A group of 26 preservice teacher candidates (i.e., six future general educators and 20 future special educators) were brought together from two universities in the same southeastern U.S. town to discuss their perspectives about collaboration. Using a structured activity protocol from National School Reform Faculty (McClean & Mattoon, 2014), two faculty members guided the general and special education preservice teacher candidates in identifying and discussing their hopes and fears about general and special educator collaboration. Three major themes emerged from this discussion and included (a) time management, (b) content knowledge, and (c) communication. The candidates’ perspectives are outlined under each theme. Additionally, how the perspectives align with documented views of practicing teachers are discussed, and strategies to support successful collaboration are highlighted under each theme.

Having Time Set Apart to Collaborate

The first theme that emerged from the discussion was focused on time. “Having time set apart to collaborate” was a quote from one of the candidates that reflected a hope about collaboration and mirrored other hopes presented by candidates. Candidates also expressed the importance of “having time for productive conversations.” The preservice general and special education candidates additionally expressed fears related to lack of time to collaborate. Specifically, one candidate stated, “Lack of time and passion to collaborate,” suggesting that not finding time for collaboration may be related to not having passion to collaborate.

The challenges in finding time to collaborate have frequently been cited as one of the top barriers in collaboration (Lawrence-Brown & Muschaweck, 2004). Time is a shared resource that is commonly mentioned as a scarcity (Berry, Daughtrey, & Wieder, 2009; Friend & Cook, 1990), and certainly, even before they begin their teaching careers, these preservice teacher candidates were thinking about the paucity of time. Within educational literature, educators have indicated that there is limited time for collaboration due to increased paperwork, responsibilities, and activities (Leonard & Leonard, 2003). In attempts to create time for collaboration, teachers and principals have agreed upon the importance of aligning schedules with predetermined time blocks in order to jointly prepare lessons, to have more in-depth conversations about what has and has not worked in the classroom, and to examine current data while determining the need for additional data (Berry et al., 2009).

Time Management Strategies

To address the issue of time for collaboration, it is frequently recommended that school administrators support general and special education teamwork by incorporating planning time into schedules (Berry et al., 2009). However, as the issue of time continues to be cited as a challenge, educators need strategies to support finding time for collaboration that they have the power to access and control (Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004). The use of established-processes meetings is a potential strategy educators can use to be more efficient in their collaboration time.

When teachers do find time to collaborate, frequently the conversations are not in-depth or goal directed (Lawrence-Brown & Muschaweck, 2004). Murawski (2012) identified several strategies that can support more efficient and effective meetings when there is limited time. First, teachers should not use their precious planning time for rapport building and should instead use the time to stay focused on their work with students. Building rapport and getting to know colleagues are important elements of collaboration; however, planning and meeting time should be goal directed with a specific agenda to guide anticipated outcomes of the meeting. Many times, collaborative meetings involve planning for the academic success of students with disabilities in the general education classroom, and as such, teachers can use a standard process for planning that can be routinely become part of the meetings. One planning process is the What, How, Who approach (Murawski, 2012) in which teachers address three key questions. What refers to the content that needs to be taught and includes the standards, big ideas, essential questions, objectives, and time frames. The teacher with the strongest content knowledge can take the lead on the what discussion. Next, both teachers can equally talk about how the content will be taught, with a focus on which co-teaching approach could be used to support access to the content for all students. Each teacher’s comfort level with the content will guide which co-teaching model is selected (e.g., parallel teaching, one teach-one assist). Finally, the who centers on which students may need additional behavioral or academic supports and what type of supports are needed (e.g., differentiation, accommodations, modifications). Many times, this part of the discussion can be led by the special education teacher or specialist (Murawski, 2012).

Gaps in Content Knowledge

The second theme that arose in the discussion between general and special education teacher candidates was the “gaps in content knowledge.” Although preservice candidates expressed hope through a “willing[ness] to learn from each others” and appeared open to learning and implementing new practices, preservice special education teachers talked about feeling unprepared on content-specific knowledge. One candidate feared that she did not have the knowledge of general education class and content. Another candidate feared that she “will not be able to help the gen educator enough in terms of preparing them to teach my students.” Other candidates expressed fears around feeling unprepared to teach all students and not knowing enough about individualized educational programs (IEPs). Concerns about adequate content knowledge from preservice candidates make sense as they begin to consider their and their future colleagues’ preparation. Although both general and special education teachers’ knowledge and skills may overlap in various areas (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriquez, 2009), these professionals will also receive content-specific training to their area of expertise (Mock & Kauffman, 2002).

One key consideration of these challenges is that preservice special education teacher candidates tend to be certified to teach Grades K–12 (Geiger, Crutchfield, & Mainzer, 2003). Due to the broad range in grade levels, these preparation programs are broader in the specific pedagogies of instruction (Brownell et al., 2009) as they tend to focus more on specialized content related to student characteristics, accommodation, and modifications (Mock & Kaufman, 2002) to ensure IEP and differentiation of instruction occurs (Bateman & Linden, 2012). The broad aspect of these special education teacher preparation programs is needed to ensure all professional standards (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) are being met. On the other hand, training of general education teachers often has a heavy emphasis on subject matter pedagogy (Brownell et al., 2009) and on subject- and grade-level-specific content, especially at the secondary level with the increased complexity in specific content areas (Dieker & Murwaski, 2003). These differences provide both strengths and challenges—the strengths being that opportunities are provided to both general and special education teachers to merge specific knowledge and skills required for success in their future careers, and opportunities for collaboration are opened between educational fields. On the other hand, these differences also provide challenges as both general and special education teachers may not feel prepared for their unique roles and responsibilities.

Content Knowledge Strategies

Due to potential gaps in the content knowledge, a possible strategy is to create information sheets (i.e., a fact sheet, academic content sheet, student fact sheet, or IEP fact sheet) designed to minimize knowledge gaps (Sayeski, 2009). For example, special education teachers can create a fact sheet for general education teachers. Fact sheets could serve to define, outline, and describe student characteristics based on disability category that can also include ways to accommodate the student’s strengths and areas of needs (e.g., academic, social). See Figure 1 for an example of a disability fact sheet.

Figure 1.

Example of a disability fact sheet.

Similarly, general education teachers can create academic content sheets for special education teachers. In these content sheets, specific content knowledge and instructional sequence are outlined. This will provide special education teachers with a better understanding of the instructional plans being developed in order to identify and outline the accommodations and modifications needed for a specific student. In supporting the use of content sheets, special education teachers can also consider this difference in content knowledge as an advantage, as they can learn valuable subject matter that can be used in their teaching (Mastropieri et al., 2005). Figure 2 is an example of a scope-and-sequence content sheet. Special education teachers can also create student fact sheets for the general education teachers. In these student fact sheets, the goal is to outline specific characteristics of the students, including strengths and areas of needs, so that the general education teachers have a better understanding of the students’ abilities. See Figure 3 for an example of a student fact sheet. Last, special education teachers can also create IEP fact sheets to help ensure that the students’ IEPs are being accurately implemented in the general education classroom or in other services. The key in these IEP fact sheets is to highlight the necessary components of the IEP, accommodation, modifications, or adaptations needed. Figure 4 provides an example of an IEP fact sheet.

Figure 2.

Example of a scope-and-sequence content sheet.

Figure 3.

Example of a student fact sheet.

Figure 4.

Example of an individualized educational program fact sheet.

A Partner in Communication

The third and most discussed theme from the hopes and fears of preservice teacher candidates was centered on communication. As the teacher candidate responses were categorized, issues regarding relationships and conflict management also seemed part of the communication theme. Preservice candidates indicated that they wanted communication between general and special education teachers, and there was hope that lines of communication would stay open. The phrase partner in communication was even used, suggesting that the preservice candidates were thinking about long-term working relationships and collaboration. There were also comments on the importance of understanding each other, being open to others’ perspectives, and having colleagues who bring different experiences to the table. One candidate focused on “teachers hav[ing] mutual respect and always keep[ing] children in mind.” Additionally, a preservice candidate commented that she “hope[ed] I always play nice,” suggesting a possible avoidance of conflict, which was an issue that was frequently articulated in the fears (e.g., how do we get along, respect, value).

The preservice candidates’ comments aligned with educational literature. Communication has been identified as an integral part of collaboration (Paulsen, 2008), with educators indicating the importance of communication in forming positive relationships (Keefe et al., 2004). In one survey, a teacher suggested that in a co-taught classroom, getting along is more important than knowing what to teach (Keefe et al., 2004). Even though content knowledge has been identified as an important element in collaborative relationships (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriquez, 2009), this teacher’s comment reflected the critical importance of collaboration. Perspectives about how others may not value inclusion have also been identified in the literature in terms of identifying educator perceptions and views. Although studies have indicated that teachers may philosophically support inclusion, there is evidence that teachers are more receptive to the inclusion of students with milder disabilities as compared to students with more complex needs (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).

Communication Strategies

Effective communication is essential for successful general and special education collaboration and frequently centers on critical issues related to assessment outcomes, curricular needs, and behavioral concerns (Dieker & Murawski, 2013). There are multiple strategies that can support collaborative communication. To begin, general and special education teachers should take time to get to know each other and develop positive relationships, and this can begin in teacher preparation programs. Positive experiences of preservice candidates with their future collaborators during their field-based experiences should be considered and planned. Although the opportunities to role-play and practice communication skills are important, the preservice candidates described in this article were brought together to enjoy refreshments and engage in low-stakes social interactions and discussions as part of relationship building (Katsiyannis, Ellenburg, & Action, 2000). “By stressing the importance of developing positive peer relationships during teacher training, pre-service teachers can establish these skills early and make the students’ needs the top priority once they begin teachers” (Katsiyannis et al., 2000, p. 119). Additionally, once they begin working in schools, general and special education teachers should be proactive in taking time to get to know each other.

There are multiple forms offered to support communication and relationship building. For example, Murawski and Dieker (2004) offered a tool that collaborative educators can use to reflect on perspectives and preferences. This tool, called SHARE, supports educators in “Sharing Hopes, Attitudes, Responsibilities, and Expectations” (Murawski & Dieker, 2004, p. 55). Another tool, called the Collaborative Teaching Introductory Worksheet, guides educators to indicate their preferences in addressing common classroom situations, such as assessment, student behavior, homework, and grading (Keefe et al., 2004, p. 39). Although these tools can be useful, teachers need to also remember the importance of spending time getting to know their school partners in an informal ways (e.g., favorite hobbies or foods; Keefe et al., 2004).

Next, teachers should also consider that there might be a language barrier between general and special education. For example, in discussing how quickly and accurately a student may read (i.e., the number of words read correctly in 1 min), a special education teacher may use the word fluency. However, for some general education teachers, fluency is related to expression as well as accuracy and rate, and their term for fast and accurate reading is automaticity (Robinson & Buly, 2007). General and special education teachers need to be aware that using different terms for the same concept may have the potential for confusion and conflict in communication. Other common terms that have been misunderstood between the fields of general and special education are differentiated instruction, inclusion, remediation, and collaboration (Robinson & Buly, 2007). Once clarified, these terms can help ensure that the teachers are the same page when communicating.

As suggested earlier, teachers may not consider the importance of communication skills until there are differing perspectives or conflict. When those situations occur, teachers must be prepared with a tool kit of strategies. The basic process to manage conflict and disagreement should include identifying the issue(s) and alternative actions (Sileo, 2011). When teachers are sorting out the issues, it is important to be effective in listening to what each other has to say. Listening is an essential skill in effective communication for collaboration and building relationships (Friend & Cook, 2010). As teachers work to improve their listening skills, they should be aware of several factors that limit effective listening. Friend and Cook (2010) identified that listening may be hampered when people (a) respond to first impressions or assumptions; (b) have insufficient time and make a hurried response, not completely understanding the speaker’s point; (c) do not clear their minds and daydream; (d) craft a response before the speaker is finished; and (e) attend to only part of the speaker’s message. Steps that teachers can take to support enhanced listening include (a) tuning into the speaker and not allowing distractions, (b) mentally reviewing and categorizing information provided by the speaker into themes, and (c) writing down information when the speaker shares a lot of information. In general, collaboration has the potential to be more successful when educators listen to learn and understand the other person (Cramer & Stivers, 2007).

Conflict is inevitable in collaborative relationships. An important first step is to understand that conflict is not necessarily negative. “An important aspect of conflict management is the recognition that divergent opinions are necessary for the group to find a high quality solution” as educators have noted that “it’s good to see opposing opinions” (Lawrence-Brown & Muschaweck, 2004, p. 155). As teachers work to resolve conflict and to determine alternative actions, Brown, Howerter, and Morgan (2013) offered an outline for a conflict resolution plan that first includes identifying issues that lead to the conflict. After issues are identified, the plan leads teachers to then determine the (a) multiple alternative course of action for consideration, (b) pros and cons of each course of action, (c) selected course of action, (d) evaluation of selected course of action, and (e) follow-up. Conflict is natural as individuals work together. When teachers are open to understanding that situations will arise, having a plan in place ahead of time has the potential to facilitate more efficient resolution. As a result, successful conflict resolution has the potential to build a stronger collaboration experience.

Final Thoughts

This column examined the perspectives of general and special education preservice teacher candidates. The themes of time, content knowledge, and communication emerged as important to this group of future teachers. Although this was a small group of teacher candidates, their hopes and fears aligned with some of the previous literature on practicing teacher perspectives on collaboration. Based on these themes, strategies to support hopes and effective collaboration and dissuade fears were outlined, including (a) time management (e.g., Murawski, 2012), (b) content knowledge (e.g., Sayeski, 2009), and (c) communication and conflict resolution (e.g., Murawski & Dieker, 2004).

The landscape of today’s classrooms is changing. All PreK–12 educators are expected to be able to support and teach a wide range of learners, including students with disabilities. With educational reform focused on improving teacher instruction and student learning, a major focus has been on teacher collaboration (Lingo et al., 2011). With the potential of such expansive job responsibilities, the prevailing view is that “educators perform better when they work together” (Leonard & Leonard, 2003, p. 1). It is critical to remember that collaboration is more than just having a conversation with a colleague. Collaboration should take into account that all team members should demonstrate strong communication skills, the ability to share knowledge, and willingness to find the time to support teamwork where all members are responsible and accountable. Because collaboration skills may not come naturally to many educators, it is important for preservice teacher training programs to consider how to embed collaborative skills to ensure future teachers have the necessary abilities to support their students and collaborative efforts. Since there is some indication that preservice and practicing teachers share similar perspectives on general and special education collaboration, issues surrounding and strategies to support professional collaboration can be targeted during field and clinical placements. The best way to learn about skills is to witness and participate in successful collaboration experiences (Gut, Oswald, Leal, Frederiksen, & Gustafson, 2003), as both general and special education teachers could use ongoing professional development on the various collaboration and team models to effectively support students with special needs (Wiggins & Damore, 2006).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Brittany “Paige” Bennett for her technical assistance and support on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Avramidis

Norwich

(2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.

Bateman

B. D.

Linden

M. A.

(2012). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs (5th ed.). Verona, WI: Attainment Company.

Berry

Daughtrey

Wieder

(2009). Collaboration: Closing the effective teaching gap. Retrieved from Centre for Teaching Quality website: http://www.teachingquality.org/content/collaboration-closing-effective-teaching-gap

Brown

N. B.

Howerter

C. S.

Morgan

J. J.

(2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching work. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(2), 84–91.

Brownell

M. T.

Bishop

A. G.

Gersten

Klinger

J. K.

Penfield

R. D.

Dimino

Sindelar

P. T.

(2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 391–411.

Conderman

Johnston-Rodriquez

(2009). Beginning teachers’ views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 235–244.

Cramer

Stivers

(2007). Don’t give up! Practical strategies for challenging collaborations. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(6), 6–11.

Dieker

L. A.

Murawski

W. W.

(2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1–14.

Friend

Cook

(1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 1, 69–86.

10.

Friend

Cook

(2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

11.

Geiger

W. L.

Crutchfield

M. D.

Mainzer

(2003). The status of licensure of special education teaches in the 21st century (COPSSE Document No. RS-7E). Gainesville: University of Florida Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

12.

Gut

D. M.

Oswald

Leal

D. J.

Frederiksen

Gustafson

J. M.

(2003). Building the foundations of inclusive education through collaborative teacher preparation: A university–school partnership. College Student Journal, 37, 111–127.

13.

Hamilton-Jones

B. M.

Vail

C. O.

(2014). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 29, 76–86.

14.

Katsiyannis

Ellenburg

J. S.

Acton

O. M.

(2000). Address individual needs: The role of general educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(2), 116–121.

15.

Keefe

E. B.

Moore

Duff

(2004). The four “knows” of collaborative teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(5), 36–42.

16.

Ketterlin-Geller

L. R.

Baumer

Lichon

(2015). Administrators as advocates for teacher collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(1), 51–57.

17.

Lawrence-Brown

Muschaweck

K. S.

(2004). Getting started with collaborative teamwork for inclusion. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 8(2), 146–161.

18.

Leonard

(2003). The continuing problem with collaboration: Teachers talk. Current Issues in Education, 6(15), 1–10.

19.

Lingo

A. S.

Barton-Arwood

Jolivette

(2011). Teachers working together. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(3), 6–13.

20.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

Graetz

Norland

Gardizi

Mcduffie

(2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260–270.

21.

Mock

D. R.

Kauffman

J. M.

(2002). Preparing teachers for full inclusion: Is it possible? Teacher Educator, 37(3), 202–215.

22.

Murawski

W. W.

(2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8–15.

23.

Murawski

W. W.

Dieker

L. A.

(2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52–58.

24.

McClean

L. E.

Mattoon

(2014). Hopes and fears activity. Retrieved from National School Reform website: http://www.nsrfharmony.org/free-resources/protocols/a-z

25.

Paulsen

K. J.

(2008). School-based collaboration: An introduction to the collaboration column. Intervention in School Clinic, 43(5), 313–315. doi:10.1177/1053451208314494

26.

Robinson

Buly

M. R.

(2007). Breaking the language barrier: Promoting collaboration between general and special educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 83–94.

27.

Sayeski

K. L.

(2009). Defining special educators” tools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(1), 38–44. doi:10.1177/1053451209338398

28.

Sileo

J. M.

(2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(5), 32–38.

29.

Wiggins

K. C.

Damore

S. J.

(2006). “Survivors” or “friends”? A framework for assessing effective collaboration. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(5), 49–56.