Abstract
This column explores the value of eliciting perspectives from students with and without disabilities about their experiences in co-taught settings. Research focused on co-teaching and eliciting feedback from co-taught students is identified. Interviews, surveys, and exit slips are described as ways co-teachers can acquire feedback from students, which can also promote students’ reflective skills. Attention is given to the important link between co-teachers acquiring and using students’ feedback to enact meaningful changes in co-taught instruction.
Co-teaching is a common service delivery model intended to provide students with disabilities, such as learning disabilities (LD) and emotional or behavior disorders (EBD), access to high-quality content instruction and special education services in a general education setting, although that intent is not always achieved (Meadows & Caniglia, 2018; Murawski, 2006). Co-teaching is defined as one general education teacher and one special education teacher assigned to a single classroom for the purpose of jointly delivering general education curriculum instruction to students with disabilities and their typical peers in ways responsive to their diverse learning needs (Friend et al., 2010). There are six co-teaching models (Cook & Friend, 1995).
Team teaching, in which co-teachers share instruction;
Alternative, parallel, and station co-teaching, in which students are divided into groups of varying sizes for instruction.
One teach–one observe or one teach–one assist, in which one co-teacher leads instruction while the other co-teacher is in a support role.
By choosing different models, co-teachers select structures for how they provide instruction to and support for students. As the recipients of co-taught instruction, students are the primary stakeholders for co-teaching services, having the most to gain or lose based on the effectiveness with which co-teaching occurs.
Although students are the primary stakeholders for co-teaching, there is minimal research on students’ perspectives regarding the effectiveness of and their perspectives on instruction (King-Sears et al., 2014; Leafstedt et al., 2007; Wilson & Michaels, 2006) compared with the amount of information on co-teachers’ perspectives (Damore & Murray, 2009; Strogilos et al., 2016). This column explores student feedback as an untapped source to inform co-teachers so they can improve co-taught instruction by being responsive to students’ unique learning needs. Research on co-teaching is reviewed, including studies on student perspectives, and three methods co-teachers can use to acquire student feedback are described.
Research on Co-Teaching
Research on co-teaching has produced mixed results regarding its effectiveness (Hang & Rabren, 2009; Murawski, 2006). Dieker (2001) observed seven exemplar middle school and two exemplar high school co-teaching teams, finding evidence that co-teaching was effective based on six factors: (a) learning climate, (b) co-teacher perceptions, (c) active learning, (d) high expectations, (e) commitment to planning, and (f) evaluation of student progress. Co-teaching teams used peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and a continuum of service delivery options to create positive learning climates that supported student learning needs. Lessons delivered through traditional instruction (i.e., lecture-based or paper–pencil instruction) were minimal; in 33 out of 36 observed sessions, more than 50% of the lessons actively engaged students, increasing their participation in learning. Finally, expectations for learning were high for all students; seven of the nine teams presented daily academic goals for students to achieve. When students had difficulty meeting goals, the goal was not changed. Instead, students received support to meet their goal.
van Hover et al. (2012) observed one exemplar co-teaching pair and found that strategies for learning and retaining content were regularly utilized and explicitly taught to students. The special education co-teacher embedded reading comprehension and study skills instruction into daily lessons. The researchers reported that 100% of the students in the co-taught class passed the end-of-year high-stakes statewide test, providing evidence that co-teaching effectively supported all students’ learning needs. In addition, King-Sears et al. (2014) observed one middle school science co-teaching team and reported many elements of effective instruction, including use of visuals, analogies, and relevant examples as well as an emphasis on vocabulary.
Although some researchers observed effective co-teaching practices benefiting students’ learning, others found co-taught instruction did not meet the learning needs of students with LD or EBD (Harbort et al., 2007; Moin et al., 2009; Murawski, 2006; Scruggs et al., 2007; Zigmond, 2006). For example, Scruggs et al. (2007) conducted a meta-synthesis of 32 qualitative studies on co-teaching and found little evidence that instructional approaches effective for teaching students with LD or EBD were being employed in co-taught classes. General education co-teachers, who often led instruction, preferred whole-group instruction with little evidence of differentiated instruction.
Moin et al. (2009) interviewed and observed 19 high school science co-teaching teams to better understand how they delivered instruction. Despite heavy reliance on language-based instruction, the researchers stated that they did not observe any curricular adaptations to support the language-based learning needs of students with LD. Yet students with LD often experience challenges with expressive and receptive language, phonological processing, processing speed, and verbal working memory (Johnson et al., 2010). Co-teachers in Moin et al.’s (2009) study lowered expectations for students’ written work rather than differentiating instruction to meet language-based needs of students with LD. Zigmond (2006), Murawski (2006), and Harbort et al. (2007) also found instruction in co-taught classes was not different from what occurred in solo-taught general education classes, with a heavy reliance on lecture-based instruction, little evidence of differentiated instruction, and a lack of support for students’ individual learning needs.
Overall, research on co-teaching has found evidence of both effective and ineffective instruction. Exemplar co-teaching teams who identify students’ specific learning needs and differentiate instruction can effectively benefit students (Dieker, 2001; King-Sears et al., 2014; van Hover et al., 2012). On the contrary, co-teaching teams who do not identify and prioritize student needs often rely on whole-group instruction, which can fall short in providing students support they need (Harbort et al., 2007; Zigmond, 2006). For co-teachers seeking to understand students’ learning needs, an untapped source is the students themselves.
Student Perspectives on Co-Teaching
Despite co-taught students’ status as primary stakeholders in co-taught instruction, few studies have focused on students’ perspectives regarding the effectiveness of co-taught instruction in meeting their individual learning needs (Leafstedt et al., 2007; Strogilos & King-Sears, 2019; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). Haney et al. (2003) argued that students were the most astute observers of what goes on in classrooms, so teachers could seek out student perceptions to inform instructional change.
The importance of gathering student perceptions is further evidenced by findings from studies that show disconnects between students’ and teachers’ perceptions. Bessette (2008) gathered information from co-taught students about their co-taught instruction, then asked co-teachers to review their students’ feedback and reflect on how this information might inform and affect the co-teachers’ practice. Middle school general education co-teachers were surprised how often students noted confusion or being “cut off” from instruction, and special education co-teachers were concerned with how students identified their lesser participation in instruction. Armed with this new information on student learning needs, co-teachers could identify increased group work and access to authentic learning tasks as meaningful changes for instruction that would better support student learning. Co-teachers also saw the need to increase the role of the special education co-teacher in delivering instruction, a theme that co-taught students have communicated in other research (Embury & Kroeger, 2012). In fact, some students with LD communicated, via interviews, their lack of access to accommodations and individualized instruction in the co-taught class, noting they preferred instruction delivered in the solo-taught self-contained special education classroom (Leafstedt et al., 2007).
Even when student perceptions of co-teaching are positive, teachers’ perceptions may not align with students’ (King-Sears et al., 2014). Hang and Rabren (2009) surveyed 45 co-teachers and 58 students across seven schools, finding that all participants responded positively about support provided to students with LD and/or EBD. However, special education co-teachers, who delivered much of that support, reported significantly higher levels of agreement than students communicated that support was sufficient to meet their needs. King-Sears et al. (2014) also surveyed teachers and students in a co-taught science class, finding that although all participants agreed that both co-teachers worked together to provide instruction that appropriately met students’ learning needs, when asked which teacher plans most instruction, 85.7% of students indicated the general educator, 14.3% indicated both educators, and 0% indicated the special educator.
Research supports the notion that student perceptions are an important source for understanding what goes on in classrooms and what teachers can do to better support the individual needs of students (Demetriou & Wilson, 2010). Furthermore, research including both teachers’ and students’ perspectives on co-teaching provides evidence that co-teachers are not always aware of their students’ perspectives, and that what students are experiencing in the co-taught class might be quite different from what co-teachers expect (Bessette, 2008; Hang & Rabren, 2009). Eliciting input from students can be a valid and valuable way of informing co-teachers toward improved co-teaching practices.
Acquiring Feedback From Students
Interviews
When researchers conduct interviews with students, the format is either one-on-one (Embury & Kroeger, 2012; Strogilos & King-Sears, 2019) or focus group (Leafstedt et al., 2007). Focus groups, with small numbers of students, are more time efficient than one-on-one interviews. Focus group interviews can occur within the station teaching or alternative co-teaching models. Alternatively, Braund and DeLuca (2018) described “conferencing” with students in a one-on-one format to both assess students’ understanding of content and encourage metacognition. For example, teachers can ask students to reflect on scored work and describe next steps for learning. Lewis and Fisher (2018) defined “clinical interviews” similarly, as one-on-one assessment techniques to acquire diagnostic instructional information. Because one-on-one interviews take more time, co-teachers might target fewer students for these formats.
Regardless of format, co-teachers determine what kind of information they desire from students, which guides questions asked. Teachers might avoid yes/no questions, unless the intent is to acquire quick responses, or ask students to expand on yes/no responses (e.g., “Why . . . ?”), which yields more information. Students can be asked to prioritize responses: “Describe the top three things you like about your co-taught social studies class.” Open-ended questions can elicit various responses, such as “In what ways does having two teachers benefit you as a learner?” Strogilos and King-Sears (2019) asked students to comment on their learning progress, which can provide co-teachers insights about how students perceive they are doing and encourage students to reflect on their learning. Open-ended queries during interviews provide opportunities for co-teachers to acquire rich feedback from students. When time constraints preclude interviewing, co-teachers can shift to alternative formats, such as surveys or exit tickets.
Surveys
When developing a survey, teachers can include varied items such as personal, attitudinal, and behavioral questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). These researchers stated that surveys often use close-ended items; that is, students receive a question or prompt, then respond with preset options. For example, King-Sears et al. (2014) asked co-taught students to identify what co-teaching model their teachers used the most, with the six co-teaching models as response options as words as well as pictures and short explanations of each model. Items with rating scales are useful, where students indicate their response across a continuum (Johnson & Christensen, 2017). For instance, Hang and Rabren (2009) asked co-taught students to respond to items about their perceptions of co-teaching, such as “In a co-taught classroom, I receive more attention from teachers,” using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Ranking items can also be used. Students could rank each co-teacher’s participation in activities, indicating when they are most to least active: (a) teaching new skills, (b) re-teaching or reviewing skills, (c) managing behavior, or (d) supporting students.
According to Bell (2007), in order for students to provide useful responses to survey items, students must (a) understand the words used in the item and how they are arranged into a full statement (i.e., sentence), (b) connect the subject of the item (e.g., behavior, attitude, activity) with a past experience of their own, (c) understand that each item is asking them to make a judgment on their own past experience regarding the subject represented in the item, and (d) be provided with an effective method to communicate their judgment. One method for making response scales more understandable and communicative for younger students as well as students who have reading issues is to incorporate picture anchors, such as smiley faces. The use of pictures helps students express their own judgments on items better than if they communicated using only numbers and word-anchors (Hall et al., 2016). Hall et al. (2016) found that their “five degree of happiness” smiley-face response scale resulted in a high response rate as well as high levels of individual and group variance, suggesting that the smiley-face scale was an effective tool for students to more accurately communicate their responses.
Exit Slips
Formative assessments, or progress monitoring methods, as informal ways to discern individual students’ progress can be critical to drive instruction (Vaughn & Swanson, 2015). Having students complete exit slips, or exit tickets, at the end of a class session is a parsimonious way to acquire information on students’ performance from or perceptions of co-taught learning experiences. Marzano (2012) identified four types of prompts for exit slips. Each type of prompt guides how co-teachers can elicit performance or perception feedback from students:
Co-teachers want to elicit formative assessment data ● Students complete a problem or write a response
Co-teachers want to encourage student self-analysis ● Students reflect on their progress specific to learning outcomes
Co-teachers want to acquire feedback on instructional strategies ● Students rate the usefulness of newly used techniques
Co-teachers want to open paths for students communicating with them ● Students provide feedback on preferences for activities
When co-teachers examine students’ responses, they can (a) sort responses to determine which students need more practice or have mastered the content, (b) discern how students perceive their learning is progressing, (c) determine how well techniques were received, and (d) identify which activities to use in the future. Some co-teachers may consider using exit slips as a form of teacher inquiry (Furman, 2018) or action research (Bradbury-Huang, 2010), either of which situates itself well with placing co-teachers in roles as reflective practitioners (Larrivee, 2008). Moreover, Rodgers (2018) emphasized that when teachers seek feedback from students, this increases students’ agency and reflective capacity to characterize their own learning.
Conclusion
Depending on the queries asked and then the corresponding student responses, co-teachers can use that information to make decisions about (a) using varied co-teaching models, (b) implementing more active engagement activities, (c) determining grouping arrangements, and (d) ensuring each co-teacher is active during instruction. Co-teachers who do not intend to act on students’ feedback should not seek it, but then that should prompt co-teachers to ask themselves why they are reluctant to elicit information from students. Some co-teachers may be comfortable starting out with student queries that seem more straightforward, such as whether students are ready to move on, practice more, or desire re-teaching, which co-teachers can act on the next class session by using station teaching. Other co-teachers may be venturing into new activities or methods; they may not desire feedback immediately, but after they have implemented the new methods several times, they can seek students’ reactions.
Although the extent to which student feedback can inform and improve co-teaching practices is still an empirical question, it may be that co-teachers do not need to postpone acquiring and using information from their students to improve their practices. Eliciting feedback from students can provide meaningful data about how or whether students’ learning needs are being met through co-taught instruction, which informs co-teachers (Bessette, 2008; Leafstedt et al., 2007; Strogilos & King-Sears, 2019). However, acquiring the feedback from students is only the first step. Ultimately, co-teachers show students their feedback is important by making changes that improve co-teaching practices, instruction, and students’ learning experiences.
Footnotes
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.
