The Benefits of Team-Teaching as a Support to Inclusive Pedagogy

learners deemed to have disability were common in the research literature, especially in qualitative studies. Similarly, Murawski and Goodwin (2014, p. 299) have suggested that the “message that appears to be coming through loud and clear” from teachers and students is that team-teaching can be beneficial for students. However, they concluded that this should only comprise a basis of “cautious optimism” (Murawski and Goodwin, 2014, p. 299). These positive dispositions to team-teaching notwithstanding, research into the benefits to students of participation in team-taught classes has produced varying, and sometimes contradictory, results (Fontana, 2005; McDuffie et al., 2009; Murawski, 2006; Murawski & Goodwin, 2014). Only a very tentative association has been reported between team-teaching and positive outcomes for learners, whether or not they were deemed to have disabilities (Hattie, 2009), which seems to have affected the uptake of team-teaching at the post-primary level (Van Garderen et al., 2012). Some of the claims that have been made for the benefits of team- teaching for learners deemed to have disability are outlined thematically in the sections that follow.

Academic Outcomes

Many studies have reported academic gains for learners, including students deemed to have disabilities. However, most of these have tended to be based on the perceptions of teachers and students (McDuffie et al., 2009; Wilson & Michaels, 2006) rather than empirical evidence (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012; Van Garderen et al., 2012). In fact, the lack of reliable empirical data on academic gains comprises a constant and recurrent theme within the extant literature on team-teaching, especially in meta-synthetic studies of team-teaching research ( Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Zigmond & Magiera, 2001: Van Garderen et al., 2012: Murawski & Goodwin, 2014). Where quantitative evidence has been generated, much of this has been inconclusive, partial or resulting in mixed findings

83

synthesis of a relatively limited number of studies during the ten years to that point, found that team-teaching exerted an overall effect size of 0.40, suggesting it was only “a

moderately effective procedure for influencing student outcomes” (Murawski & Swanson, 2001, p. 264). The highest effect size, 1.59, was found in the area of reading and the language arts, with 0.45 reported for Maths, and 0.32 for overall grade improvement. Even here however, Murawski & Swanson (2001) advised cautious interpretation of findings due to the small number of studies deemed suitable for analysis (six out of the 89 studies originally thought to be relevant) and the even smaller number (three) that included effect sizes relating to students deemed to have disabilities. Similarly, Hattie (2009), found an effect size of just 0.19, though it was acknowledged that this could have been much greater when correlated with other processes that were likely to have been facilitated by team- teaching, such as collaborative learning, project based learning and the like.

Findings of other studies were similarly tentative in relation to the academic benefits of team-teaching for students deemed to have disability. For example, Rea et al. (2002) provided evidence that students with disabilities in team-taught lessons increased their course grades in language arts and maths, science and social studies relative to their peers with disabilities in withdrawal programmes. Despite differential results in class grades, the two groups ultimately achieved comparable scores in state-wide achievement tests (Rea et al., 2002). The fact that increased class grades did not translate into improved results on more objective measures, left the authors to ponder whether improvements were real or a reflection of teachers’ perceptions and aspirations. Fontana (2005) found that students with learning disabilities in co-taught classes earned significantly higher scores on standardised tests of English and maths than their peers in non-team-taught classes. However, again Fontana (2005) also found that they did not improve their scores in formal tests of writing, despite the fact that “writing skills and strategies were stressed throughout the investigation” (Fontana, 2005, p. 20). This finding was replicated in a study by Wendy Murawski (2006), who looked at 110 ninth grade students (of whom 38 were deemed to have learning disabilities) and measured improvements in reading comprehension and spelling for the latter group, but none in writing. The usefulness of such findings is often compromised by the short duration of team-teaching studies (O’Murchú, 2011).

Hang and Rabren (2009) gleaned the perspectives of 45 teachers, 31 general and 14 special education teachers, and those of 58 students with disability about their experiences of co-taught English, maths, science and social studies lessons in seven schools, including one junior high school and one high school. All of the teacher participants were described as being in their first year of team-teaching (Hang & Rabren, 2009, p. 260). They found that

84

students with disabilities who had been team-taught in the previous year achieved

“significantly higher SAT NCEs in reading and maths” (Hang & Rabren, 2009, p. 267), than the year before team-teaching occurred. Moreover, their rate of academic attainment was found to be consistent with that of their peers, which suggested that the level of academic support received within co-taught lessons was at least “adequate” to their needs (Hang & Rabren, 2009, p. 267). Similarly, Villa et al. (2013, p. 16) found that in “school systems in which the authors have provided training and coaching … the learning rate of both peers with and without disabilities was higher in all subject areas in co-taught classrooms” than similar students who completed the same courses in single-teacher classrooms.

The importance of looking at team-teaching as only one of an array of responses that can be used effectively to improve the academic outcomes of students deemed to have disabilities, was emphasised by Packard, Hazelkorn, Harris, & McLeod (2011), who compared pre- and post-test data from End of Course Tests for a ninth grade literature course. They found that students with learning disabilities who had received their instruction in resource classrooms, achieved better results than those whose preparation occurred in co-taught mainstream settings, and on the basis of this advised schools not to “totally abandon” intensive instructional approaches available using the “special education resource room model” (Packard et al., 2011, p. 107). All of the above has led researchers to call consistently for increased production and exploration of quantitative and qualitative evidence related to the effects on academic performance of team-teaching on students with and without disabilities (Austin, 2001; Malian & McRae, 2010b; Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Cramer & Nevin, 2006).

Social and Emotional Outcomes

A number of studies have highlighted the social and emotional benefits to students, both with and without disabilities, of participating in team-taught instruction. These include more positive self-concept and self-esteem (Cramer, Liston, Nevin, & Thousand, 2010; Fontana, 2005; Hang & Rabren, 2009; Magiera et al., 2005; Rea et al., 2002; Schwab Learning, 2003; Scruggs et al., 2007; Trent, 1998; Wilson & Michaels, 2006), better quality relationships and increased social bonding with peers, teachers and others in the school community (Wallace, 2007) and greater development of social skills, as measured through behavioural referral records, referral to specialist services, attendance and attitudinal and other rating scales (Hang & Rabren, 2009; Schwab Learning, 2003; Vaughn, Elbaum, Schumm, & Hughes, 1998).

85

Data on social skills, development tended to emanate from qualitative studies (and syntheses of these) that reported the perceptions of teachers and students (Austin, 2001; Hang & Rabren, 2009; Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Scruggs et al., 2007; Vaughn et al., 1998; Walther-Thomas, 1997; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). For example, Wilson and Michaels (2006, p. 219) surveyed 346 secondary students, 127 of whom were deemed to have disabilities. Most students reported that they enjoyed co-teaching and “felt supported” (Wilson and Michaels, 2006, p. 219) within it, gaining in self-confidence and self-awareness. Students deemed to have disabilities also tended to personalise the support they received (Wilson & Michaels, 2006), with knock-on effects for their sense of support and belonging. As with other aspects of team-teaching research, results relating to the social and emotional outcomes were mixed. While a number of studies reported increased attendance and lower referrals for misbehaviour amongst students with disabilities (Rea et al., 2002), Hang and Rabren (2009, pp. 266-267) found in their study that these students “had more absences during their co-taught year” and received “more discipline referrals”, despite teachers’ perceptions to the contrary. They acknowledged that this may have been because two teachers in a room were more effective than one in monitoring and responding to behavioural issues (Hang & Rabren, 2009). The disproportionate surveillance of students deemed to have disability (Allan, 1996) is an issue that will revisited to in the last chapter of this work.

Similarly, while some studies showed that students with disabilities demonstrated increased self-concept (Fontana, 2005), and greater peer acceptance (Cawley, Hayden, Baker-Kroczynski, & Cade, 2002) in team-taught classes, as opposed to segregated settings, others found quite the opposite (Elbaum & Vaughn, 2003). On balance, a preponderance of studies seems to show positive benefits for students deemed to have disability in the social and emotional areas.

The Creation of Inclusive Environments

Perhaps more than anything else, studies have sought to associate team-teaching at post-primary level with the creation of more inclusive learning environments (Austin, 2001; Dieker, 2001; Keefe & Moore, 2004; Solis et al., 2012; Wilson & Michaels, 2006). A range of studies have suggested that it promoted less formal relationships (Ó Murchú, 2011), greater access to teacher attention (Scruggs et al. 2007; Wilson and Michaels, 2006), greater instructional adaptation (Scruggs et al., 2007; Wilson & Michaels, 2006), greater variety of teaching styles (Wilson & Michaels, 2006), more active learning (Dieker, 2001) and less

86

stigmatisation of students who struggle with learning, whether on the basis of disability or not (Cook & Friend, 2010; Keefe & Moore, 2004; D. Rice & Zigmond, 2000).

In particular, it was found to facilitate greater peer interaction through strategic grouping of students (Klinger, Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Elbaum, 1998; Manset &

Semmel, 1997; Scruggs et al., 2007). Klingner and Vaughn (1999) canvassed students, who reported that they greatly valued the opportunity for paired and small-group work, afforded to them by team-teaching. They preferred these activities to more formal whole-class

instructional models and reported that pair and group work allowed them greater access to peer support and interaction (Klingner & Vaughn, 1999). Scruggs et al. (2007), in their meta- synthesis of 32 qualitative studies on team-teaching, reported a widely-held perception that team-teaching afforded greater opportunities for peer tutoring and co-operative learning; which, in turn, led to improved student learning outcomes. Fontana (2005) also found that team-teachers reported increased use of instructional adaptations across a variety of co- teaching models. Ó Murchú (2011) argued that team-teaching situations could be used to reposition teachers and students within less formal relations of learning that capitalised on interpersonal relationships and the shared student experiences to engage all students more successfully in the learning process. This view seemed to be shared by students. For example, in a recent study of the experiences of post-primary students deemed to have special educational needs in Irish mainstream post-primary schools, it was found that in- class support was “valued by students when there is good communication between the teachers” and where teachers are friendly, fair and know students well (Squires, Kalambouka & Bragg, 2016, p. 7).

Contrary to perceptions that team-teaching leads to more individualised instructional accommodations, Scruggs et al. (2007) found that actual teacher practices showed little evidence of this, whether in increased use of hands-on materials, peer support, peer

mentoring or differentiated learning. Similarly, other studies found that team-teaching did not affect the instructional experiences of middle or secondary school students to a significant degree, whether they were deemed to have disabilities or not (Magiera et al., 2005; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; Zigmond, 2006; Zigmond & Matta, 2004). It did not, for example, lead to smaller instructional groups, more access to teachers, increased student participation or better quality engagement in lesson activities. Likewise, Zigmond and Matta (2004, p. 73) found that, while team-teaching seemed to offer additional social and emotional support to both students and teachers, it did not make it more likely that “students with disabilities in the class would master the material”. For example, they reported that they “did not hear the SET chime in with carefully worded elaborative explanations … rephrase something already said

87

… [or] provide explicit strategic instruction to facilitate learning or memory of the content material” (Zigmond & Matta, 2004, p. 73). They concluded that students with disabilities who mastered content better in team-taught classrooms did so, not because special education teachers were doing something special in terms of instructional accommodations, but because they were augmenting or replicating what generalist subject teachers were already doing. They observed that this sort of replication usually occurred where teachers had insufficient time to give adequate consideration to differentiated instruction targeted at individual students during planning.

Similarly, in their investigation of whether there were instructional advantages to students deemed to have disabilities of having a trained specialist educator present in a co- taught class, Magiera and Zigmond (2005) found that such students got less attention from the general educator, while the special educator “took up the slack” in the mainstream teaching role they vacated (Magiera and Zigmond, 2005 p. 84). They also found that whole class instruction remained the “most common instructional arrangement used”; being recorded in sixty percent of scheduled observations "when either one or two teachers were present” (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Zigmond (2006) also found that teachers in secondary co-taught social studies classes in which students with documented disabilities participated, tended to adjust their instructional demands downwards because of students’ literacy limitations. As a result, very little reading and writing activities occurred and “co-teachers spent a lot of time standing around, not interacting with students, and only occasionally providing a substantive contribution to the ongoing lecture or discussion” (Zigmond, 2006, p. 266).

A recurrent theme in the literature was the way in which the special educator tended to take on the role of instructional assistant rather than an instructional equal (Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009; Scruggs et al., 2007; Zigmond, 2006). Even where team-teachers

engaged in authentic team-teaching the predominant model used was one teaches-one assists (Mastropieri et al., 2005); a model described as more suited to the early stages of team-teaching but as less effective than others (Magiera et al., 2005). Interestingly, it was found that teachers often fail to move beyond this initial stage model of delivery, even after several years of co-teaching (Magiera et al., 2005). This did not make for more engaging and interactive learning environments. Finally, teacher reports of their experiences of team- teaching often referred to their failure to access adequate professional development in the area (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Manset & Semmel, 1997; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Scruggs et al., 2007). Research suggested that even where teachers received input on the use of various team-teaching models, most were still unlikely to establish learning

88

environments in which students with disabilities could make significant “achievement gains” Kloo and Zigmond (2008, p. 14).

4.6 Team-Teaching: Equivocal Evidence that can be Difficult to Interpret