Stefanidis, A., & Strogilos, V. ( 2015). Union gives strength: mainstream and special education teachers’ responsibilities in inclusive co-taught classrooms,

1

Stefanidis, A., & Strogilos, V. (2015). Union gives strength: Mainstream and Special

Education Teachers’ Responsibilities in Inclusive Co-taught Classrooms, Educational

Studies, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2015.1018872

Abstract

Co-teaching has gained considerable interest as a means of promoting the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream education. Nowadays, there is a consensus among researchers that co-teaching should provide effective education to all students in a mainstream class. This study aims to explore co-teachers’ attitudes towards co-teaching responsibilities in Greek mainstream classrooms. In particular, it examines co-teachers’ attitudes with regard to their non-class-time (planning and

evaluation) and class-time (instruction and behaviour management) responsibilities for students with and without disabilities. Four hundred co-teachers participated in this survey study. Overall, our findings demonstrate that mainstream education teachers and special education teachers disagree about their respective class-time and non-class-time responsibilities, and that their role influences their attitudes towards these responsibilities. The study concludes that the different attitudes of co-teachers towards their responsibilities could hinder the development of a shared approach in teaching students with and without disabilities in inclusive classrooms.

Union gives strength Aesop

(ca. 620-564 BC)

Introduction The movement to inclusion is a pedagogical trend based on a deeply held belief that

students with disabilities should be members of their learning communities. As a result,

students with disabilities are increasingly being educated in mainstream classes. This

movement, however, requires teachers to create inclusive learning environments, which

would encourage the use of practices that would benefit all students. One such practice is

collaboration. In school settings, Hughes and Murawski (2001, 196) define collaboration

as “a style of interaction, which includes dialogue, planning, shared and creative decision

making and follow-up between at least two coequal professionals with diverse expertise,

in which the goal of the interaction is to provide appropriate services for students…” . To

develop inclusive classrooms, great consideration has recently been given to the

emerging relationships between mainstream education teachers (METs) and special

education teachers (SETs) in a co-teaching relationship.

Murawski (2003, 105) looks on co-teaching as an occasion “when two or more

educators co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess a group of students with diverse needs in the

same general education classroom”. Co-teaching can be implemented under different

classroom management arrangements, such as Supportive teaching, Station teaching,

Parallel teaching or Team teaching (Friend and Cook 2007). Co-teaching requires METs

and SETs to share responsibilities and adopt new roles in order to meet the diverse needs

of their students (Thousand, Villa and Nevin, 2006; Weiss and Lloyd 2002). Even though

co-teaching is considered a promising and growing practice with positive implications for

all students (Murawski 2010; Thousand, Nevin and Villa 2007), several challenges are

associated with its implementation (Cook et al. 2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie

2007). These challenges are closely related to the responsibilities of the co-teachers, such

2

as planning and evaluation, instructional and behaviour management. These features are

considered essential for the successful implementation of co-teaching and thus were

deemed important in the development of this study, which aims at exploring the attitudes

of co-teachers towards co-teaching responsibilities.

Roles and Responsibilities in Co-taught Classrooms Although there appears to be a consensus among researchers in establishing equal roles

and responsibilities between co-teachers, previous research has identified several

inconsistencies in the implementation of co-teachers’ roles (Cook et al. 2011; Scruggs et

al 2007). These inconsistencies are associated with co-teachers’ non-class-time (planning

and evaluation) and class-time (instruction and behaviour management) responsibilities.

In particular, most descriptive research studies in this area conclude that shared

planning time is not adequate and co-teachers constantly ask for more of it (Dieker 2001;

Keefe and Moore 2004; Kohler-Evans 2006). Takala and Uusitalo-Malmivaara (2012)

noted that the lack of planning time was the most common reason for teachers to avoid

co-teaching, even though they identified benefits from its implementation. Bryant Davis

and her colleagues (2012) in their evaluation of 755 lesson plans in co-taught classrooms,

noted that 220 (29%) of them appeared to be indicative of co-teachers’ not planning

together. Hang and Rubren (2009) found that teachers value a common weekly planning

time and believe that comprehensive planning, which includes content, evaluations and

behaviour management issues, is important for the successful implementation of co-

teaching. As Dieker (2001, 10) indicates, “teachers should be given time to identify their

roles, share curriculum expectations, and discuss individual students’ needs and their

philosophies related to meeting the needs of all students”. In Austin’s study (2001), co-

teachers agreed that they should meet daily to plan lessons. However, due to the lack of

shared planning time, METs assume responsibility for planning the class curriculum,

while SETs consider themselves responsible for planning/ modifying the curriculum for

the students with disabilities (Fennick and Liddy 2001). As Cook et al. (2011) and

Murawski and Dieker (2004) have indicated, allocating sole responsibility for any issue

to one teacher does not lead to shared accommodations for all students, thus creating

inconsistencies in classroom practice.

Other researchers have investigated the instructional roles and responsibilities of

co-teachers with regard to the relationships between co-teachers and the time each one

spends with the students with disabilities and/ or their typically developing peers.

According to Austin (2001) most co-teachers believed that METs are doing more than

their special education partners and even though they valued sharing the class, they did

not do so in practice. In their metasynthesis of qualitative research, Scruggs and his

colleagues (2007) argued that the role of the SET was mainly centered on students with

disabilities, akin to the role of a classroom assistant, rather than that of a teaching partner.

Strogilos and Tragoulia (2013) also identified that in Greek co-taught classrooms METs

and SETs had rather separate roles with little actual co-teaching practice.

Research studies using narrative or structured observations have also identified

unequal roles and responsibilities, or even confusion, between co-teachers. In particular,

Magiera and Zigmond (2005) found that METs spent significantly less time with students

with disabilities when a SET was present in the class, and students with disabilities

received significantly more individual teaching by the SET. Similarly, having observed

3

eight pairs of co-teachers in social studies classrooms, Zigmond (2006) identified little

reading and writing by either students or teachers, a finding that raised serious doubts

regarding the effective implementation of co-teaching roles. She particularly criticized

the role of the special education social studies co-teachers, indicating that: “Instead of

providing strategy instruction and scaffolding students’ work with text, special education

social studies co-teachers spent a lot of classroom time standing around, not interacting

with students, and only occasionally providing a substantive contribution to the ongoing

lecture or discussion” (p. 266).

Moin, Magiera and Zigmond (2009) also argued that the behaviour of ten pairs of

science and SETs was not markedly different from the instruction in the solo-taught class.

In their observations they found that only for a small portion of the time were the SETs

observed in an instructional role, while most of the time he was drifting around the room,

redirecting students or merely observing the lesson. Thus, the authors argued for changes

in the role of the SET in science co-taught classrooms. Similarly, in their observations,

McDuffie, Mastropieri and Scruggs (2009) reported that students in co-taught classrooms

experienced the same types of instruction as those in solo-taught classrooms, since the

instructional methods in use did not differ between the two settings. Traditional teaching

roles using undifferentiated materials and poorly modified instructional practices were

also observed by Strogilos, Tragoulia and Kaila (2015) in their qualitative investigation

in seven co-taught classrooms containing students with intellectual disabilities (ID).

Although teachers generally agree that co-teaching contributes positively to

students’ behaviour (Hang and Rubren 2009; Walther-Thomas 1997), several

inconsistencies have been reported in managing students’ behaviour. In their survey

research, Fennick and Liddy (2001) found that co-teachers disagree about who is

responsible for instruction and behaviour issues, with each group feeling more

responsible for these tasks than the other. Hang and Rubren (2009) also identified that

there is a lack of understanding between co-teachers on the fulfillment of behaviour

management issues which, according to them, could be attributed to the lack of mutual

planning time. In addition, other studies have identified the SET as primarily responsible

for behaviour management issues for all students (Buckley 2005; Rice and Zigmond

2000). According to Weiss and LIoyd (2002), allocating sole responsibility for behaviour

management issues to SETs resembles the role of a support assistant, and thus it is

inappropriate for highly qualified teachers.

Co-teaching in Greek mainstream schools As in other international contexts (e.g.Takala and Uusitalo-Malmivaara 2012), in Greece

there is an increasing adoption of co-teaching practices, which thus provides a well-suited

research setting for the investigation of co-teachers' attitudes towards their

responsibilities. At the beginning of the last decade, Greek legislation established the “co-

teaching programme”, in which SETs can work with METs to educate students with

disabilities in the same classes as their mainstream peers (Law 2817/2000). SETs are

currently the only professionals who work alongside the METs, since neither health

professionals nor learning support assistants (LSA) currently work in mainstream

classrooms. SETs should work in collaboration with class teachers in planning and

delivering the curriculum to make learning accessible to students with disabilities (Law

3699/2008); this policy has been claimed by the Ministry of Education to promote

4

inclusion. It is worth mentioning that the Ministry of Education has designed the co-

teaching programme on the basis of allocating one SET to each student with disabilities.

By this action, the Ministry has promoted the development of Supportive teaching. It is

the Ministry, and not the schools, that is responsible for hiring SETs. Thus, the SETs are

appointed to work with one student only and to be responsible for her/ him on a full-time

basis in all subject areas1.

All children with disabilities who attend co-taught classrooms should have an

official diagnosis of special educational needs (SENs). SENs, according to Law

3699/2008 include the categories of specific learning difficulties, autism, sensory and

physical disabilities, ID, speech and language difficulties, health and mental disorders

and challenging behaviour. However, the children who learn in co-taught classrooms are

usually those who present mild learning difficulties, such as children with high- to

medium-functioning autism, mild intellectual and physical or sensory disabilities.

Simultaneously, although there are students with specific learning difficulties in the co-

taught classrooms, SETs are not assigned to these students, since these students are

partially educated in resource rooms.

Initially, all SETs hired to work in co-taught classrooms held an undergraduate or

postgraduate degree in SENs. However, the Ministry has recently begun to cover some

co-teaching posts with METs who have had 400 h of training in SENs. Consequently, a

number of qualified METs who have received this training can work in co-taught

classrooms. Moreover, when these teachers are not available, the Ministry employs

qualified METs with no qualifications in SENs. It is worth mentioning that, even though

the Ministry of Education provided special education to co-teachers with some training,

this training was not exclusively focused on co-teaching.

The current study Many researchers (Fennick and Liddy 2001; Hang and Rabren 2009; Kloo and Zigmond

2008) indicate that there is little research that provides information on co-teachers’

reciprocal responsibilities and they argue for more consideration of the way that co-

teachers implement their practices. In Greece, in particular, even though co-teaching has

been used for the last fifteen years, the literature is very limited. According to Friend et

al. (2010), the misunderstandings of co-teaching which often lead to concerns about

teachers’ perceptions of their relationships seem to determine its efficacy. In this regard,

Dieker (2001) argues that the identification and understanding of co-teachers’

responsibilities is essential to the co-teaching process.

However, in order for responsibilities to be specifically established, and as Hang

and Rabren (2009) support, co-teachers need to resolve issues regarding planning,

instruction, evaluation and behaviour management. Since most research studies criticise

the establishment of separate roles, where the SETs are mainly responsible for students

with disabilities and the METs for the rest of the class (Magiera and Zigmond 2005;

Scruggs, et al 2007; Zigmond and Matta 2004), more research is needed in order to

understand the preferences of co-teachers with regard to their responsibilities for all

1 The allocation of one SET to a student with disabilities is similar to the work of LSA in other educational

contexts. This policy is currently under consideration since not all students with disabilities have an SET in

their class. New policy initiatives by the Ministry of Education seem to promote the allocation of an SET to

schools and not to students. However, this policy has not officially come into force yet.

5

students. Thus, the aim of this study is to address this research gap by exploring co-

teachers’ attitudes towards co-teaching responsibilities in Greek mainstream classrooms,

regarding planning, instruction, evaluation and behaviour management for students with

and without disabilities. In particular, we investigated the attitudes of all co-teachers

towards the responsibilities of SETs for all students and, respectively, their attitudes

towards the responsibilities of METs for students with disabilities. We consider that this

design could potentially provide important information about the attitudes of co-teachers,

since research has extensively identified SETs as responsible only for students with

disabilities and METs for the rest of the class (Magiera and Zigmond 2005; Scruggs, et al

2007; Zigmond and Matta 2004). Thus, the proposed research questions are as follows:

1. Do METs and SETs have different attitudes towards (a) SETs’ co-teaching

responsibilities for all students and (b) METs’ co-teaching responsibilities for

students with disabilities?

2. Are co-teachers' attitudes towards co-teaching responsibilities correlated with

their education, their teaching and co-teaching work experience, and their

educational role (mainstream or special) in co-taught classrooms?

Methods

Survey research in the form of a self-administered questionnaire was used to explore co-

teachers’ attitudes towards their responsibilities. The survey instrument was part of a

larger investigation about co-teaching (Strogilos and Stefanidis 2015). In the present

research we measured all co-teachers’ attitudestowards (a) METs’ responsibilities for

students with disabilities, (b) SETs’ responsibilities for all students.

Participants

To identify the schools where co-teaching is used, all 58 Local Educational Authorities

(LEAs) in Greece were invited to participate in the study. Twenty-five LEAs agreed and

provided conduct information on the target schools. These LEAs were located within 15

prefectures geographically dispersed all over the country, eight of which were urban,

three suburban and four rural. Each of the 25 LEAs included in the study employed from

20 to 120 co-teaching classrooms. All the mainstream schools, from kindergarten to high

secondary that employed co-teaching in these 25 LEAs were asked to participate in the

study.

In particular, an invitation email was sent to the head teachers requesting the

schools’ agreement to the survey. All the head teachers were asked to provide either the

co-teachers’ email addresses or to indicate the co-teachers’ preference for a postal

questionnaire to the school. In both cases anonymity and confidentiality were assured.

We decided to use both an online and a postal version of the survey, given that some

teachers were uncomfortable with filling out online questionnaires. In total, 317 online

and 483 postal questionnaires were sent out to 300 METs and 500 SETs during a three-

month research period. The online questionnaire was uploaded on a web-based platform,

and a unique link was sent out to the co-teachers’ email addresses where relevant.

Packages containing the survey, a cover letter and a pre-paid return envelope with no

personally identifying information were used for the postal survey. To increase response

6

rates, the researchers made follow-up phone calls or sent a reminder email to all potential

respondents, three weeks after the survey was released.

A total of 181 online and 219 postal (Ν=400) usable responses were collected. In

particular, a total of 155 METs and 245 SETs completed the surveys, which resulted in a

51.6% and 49% response rate, respectively, and an overall response rate of 50%. The

responses were diversified in terms of the participants’ gender, education, teaching

experience, school grade level, and the type of disability among the students in the co-

taught classroom (see Table I). Most of the respondents were females (n=348 females,

87%; n=52 males, 13%). Most of them taught at primary schools (73%), while 23% and

4% indicated that they were working at kindergarten and secondary schools, respectively.

The mean age for METs was 42.14 (SD=7.23) years and for SETs 27.29 (SD= 5.67)

years. Years of teaching experience for the METs ranged from 1 to 34, with a mean of

15.99 (SD= 8.32) years, while years of teaching experience for the SETs ranged from 2

months to 8 years, with a mean of 2.77 (SD= 3.43) years. In addition, years of co-

teaching experience ranged from two months to eight years (m=1.39, SD= 1.22) and one

month to eleven years (m=1.37, SD=1.64) for METs and SETs, respectively.

Respondents indicated that they taught students diagnosed with autism (n=248, 62%),

intellectual disability (n=85, 21%), physical disabilities (27, 7%), hearing (n=27, 7%) and

visual (n=13, 3%) impairment.

It is worth mentioning that we consider the demographic characteristics of the

participants’ representative of the national demographics, due to the design of the co-

teaching programme in Greek schools. As explained above, the Ministry of Education

employed the following groups to work as SETs: SETs with bachelors’ or masters’

degrees in SENs, METs with a 400-hour training in SENs and teachers with a first

degree in mainstream education.

Table I. Co-teachers’ education level

MET a SET

b Total

Co-teachers’ education level n % n % N %

Bachelor in General Education 140 35 151 37.75 291 72.75

Bachelor in Special Education 3 .75 67 16.75 70 17.5

Master's in General Education 7 1.75 4 1 11 2.75

Master's in Special Education 4 1 23 5.75 27 6.75

PhD in Special Education 1 .25 - - 1 .25

Total: 155 38.75 245 61.25 400 100

400-hour Seminar in Special Education 5 1.25 54 13.50 59 14.75

Note. a Mainstream education teacher. b Special education teacher

Instrument

A survey questionnaire was developed to measure how METs and SETs differ in their

attitudes towards co-teaching responsibilities. In particular, co-teachers were asked to rate

two lists of co-teaching responsibilities, indicating the extent to which they accepted

them on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =strongly agree). In the first list,

the co-teachers were asked to state their agreement to whether METs should have an

active role in 17 different responsibilities that refer to co-teaching students with

7

disabilities. Items were developed to provide information specific to co-teachers’

responsibilities regarding planning, instruction, evaluation and behaviour management.

In the second list, the co-teachers were asked to state their agreement to whether the

SETs should have an active role in 17 different responsibilities related to co-teaching all

students. Similarly, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed

with statements referring to SETs’ role in relation to the above-mentioned four

responsibilities (i.e. planning, instruction, evaluation and behaviour management), but,

this time, with regard to teaching all students in the co-taught classroom.

As noted above, the researchers’ decision to measure the attitudes of co-teachers

towards METs’ active role for students with disabilities and SETs’ involvement with all

students was taken on the basis of a thorough review of the existing literature, which has

mainly identified that SETs centre their duties on students with disabilities, whereas

METs centre theirs on the rest of the class (Magiera and Zigmond 2005; Scruggs, et al

2007; Zigmond and Matta 2004). With the aim of addressing such an inconsistency

within inclusive teaching environments, we deemed it useful to measure co-teachers’

attitudes towards student populations which have received little attention in the previous

literature.

All of the survey items were developed according to information found in the

previous co-teaching literature regarding roles and responsibilities (Cook et al. 2011;

Friend et al. 2010; Mastropieri et al. 2005; Scruggs, et al 2007; Villa, Thousand and

Nevin 2008; Weiss and LIoyd 2002), but most items were adapted from Fennick and

Liddy’s (2001) 51-item questionnaire. In particular, 14 items in each list were adapted

from Fennick and Liddy, while three items were developed by the researchers on the

basis of previous qualitative findings from co-taught classrooms (Strogilos and Tragoulia,

2013).

In addition, we retained Fennick and Liddy’s “four subscales” structure: planning,

instruction, evaluation, and behaviour management, since these scales achieved high or

acceptable reliability Cronbach ‘s a scores (i.e. planning = .91, instruction = .91,

behaviour management = .69, evaluation = .68). For both lists (i.e. the active role of

METs and SETs) planning responsibilities were measured using six items; instruction

responsibilities using five items; while we used three items to measure evaluation, and

three more for behaviour management. In Table II, we describe the number of items in

each subscale and give examples of items. The questionnaire was originally developed in

English. Several drafts of the questionnaire were submitted for review to two experts with

experience in survey research in education. Then it was translated in Greek with the

assistance of three bilingual reviewers. Standard back-translation procedures were

followed. The reviewers provided recommendations for improvements. Following these

recommendations, we changed the order of the scales within the questionnaire and

improved the wording of three items.

Finally, a pilot-test was conducted with 24 co-teachers. The co-teachers provided

valuable information with regard to the clarity of the items used in the questionnaire. In

line with their comments, we rephrased three items. For example, we wrote in a more

descriptive way the item “Demonstrate hands-on techniques to all students” which was

initially confusing for 10 out of the 24 co-teachers. The results of the pilot stage were

used to further confirm the validity, clarity and relevance of the items.

8

Table II. Number of items and sample items per subscale MET a active role Number of items Examples of items Planning 6 Plan the teaching curriculum

for students with disabilities. Evaluation 3 Monitor progress of students

with disabilities. Instruction 5 Work with the group of

students with disabilities. Behaviour management 3 Cope with behaviour problems

of students with disabilities. SET b active role Examples of items

Planning 6 Set goals and objectives for all

students. Evaluation 3 Establish procedures to

evaluate all students’ learning. Instruction 5 Teach study strategies to all

students. Behaviour management 3 Set behaviour rules for all

students.

Note. a Mainstream education teacher. b Special education teacher

Analysis

To test the structure of the “attitudes towards METs’ responsibilities” construct, we

conducted an exploratory factor analysis. On the basis of the existing literature and after

the purification of the items, we retained 12 statements (Johnson and Wichern 2007). The

factor analysis for the METs' responsibilities rendered two distinct factors (see Table III),

which accounted for 67.15% of the total variance. The first factor, which derived from

the “planning” and “evaluation” subscales for the METs’ responsibilities, named “Non-

class Time Co-teaching Responsibilities”, explained 35.35% of the variance, while the

second factor, which derived from the ‘instruction’ and “behaviour management”

subscales for the METs’ responsibilities, named “Class Time Co-teaching

Responsibilities”, explained 31.80% of the variance. The Cronbach's alpha reliability

coefficients were .92 and .87 for the “Non-class Time Co-teaching Responsibilities” and

the “Class Time Co-teaching Responsibilities” subscales, respectively.

9

Table III. Factor analysis matrix of the mainstream education teachers' responsibilities for

students with disabilities Components

Non-class Time

Co-teaching Responsibilities

Class Time

Co-teaching Responsibilities

Select teaching methods for students with disabilities .88

Establish procedures to evaluate students’ with disabilities learning .88

Select instructional tools for students with disabilities .84

Plan the teaching curriculum for students with disabilities .75

Evaluate students with disabilities .69

Set goals and objectives for students with disabilities’ IEP .66

Monitor behaviour of students with disabilities .83

Monitor progress of students with disabilities .76

Cope with behaviour problems of students with disabilities .73

Assign work to students with disabilities .70

Work with the group of students with disabilities .69

Arrange physical environment for students with disabilities .68

Eigenvalue 6.64 1.42

Percent of variance 35.35 31.80

Cronbach’s alpha .92 .87 Note. Extraction: principal component analysis. Rotation: varimax with Kaiser

normalization

A separate exploratory factor analysis for the “attitudes towards SETs’ responsibilities”

construct provided two factors (see Table IV). The two-factor solution explained 77.17%

of the total variance. The “Non-class Time Co-teaching Responsibilities” factor, which

referred to the “planning” and “evaluation” activities for the SETs’ responsibilities,

explained 40.52% of the variance, while the “Class Time Co-teaching Responsibilities”

factor, which referred to the “instruction” and “behaviour management” activities for the

SETs’ responsibilities, explained 36.65% of the variance. The Cronbach’s a coefficients

were .95 and .94 for the first and the second factor, respectively.

Table IV. Factor analysis matrix of the special education teachers' responsibilities for all

students Components

Non-class Time

Co-teaching Responsibilities

Class Time

Co-teaching Responsibilities

Establish procedures to evaluate all students’ learning .88

Select teaching materials for all students .86

Select teaching methods for all students .83

Plan the teaching curriculum for the class .82

Evaluate all students .82

Select instructional tools for all students .81

Set goals and objectives for all students .67

Demonstrate hands-on techniques to all students .84

Monitor behaviour of all students .83

Arrange physical environment for all students .81

Cope with any students’ behaviour problems .76

Teach study strategies to all students .74

Set behaviour rules for all students .73

Work with all students .70

Eigenvalue 9.43 1.37

Percent of variance 40.52 36.65

Cronbach’s alpha .95 .94 Note. Extraction: principal component analysis. Rotation: varimax with Kaiser normalization.

10

In addition, we conducted four paired sample t-test analyses in order to test the equality

of METs and SETs mean scores in assessing their responsibilities. We also correlated

participants’ personal attributes (level of education, co-teaching experience and co-

teaching role) with their mean attitudes scores. Pearson correlations were employed. The

point bi-serial correlation was used for the correlations analyses that included the binary

variable “co-teaching role”. Finally, we performed four separate regression analyses to

test the impact of the educators’ personal attributes on their attitudes towards co-teaching

responsibilities (class time co-teaching responsibilities and non-class time co-teaching

responsibilities). Education and co-teaching experience were measured in years, while

co-teaching role was a binary variable, where 0 represented METs and 1 represented

SETs.

Results

Based on the mean values, METs are not favourable towards SETs’ involvement in non-

class time (M= 2.37, SD= .91) and class-time (M= 2.98, SD= .97) responsibilities for all

students, whereas SETs are more favourable towards METs’ involvement in non-class

time ( M= 3.13, SD= .92) and class time (M= 3.81, SD= .68) responsibilities for students

with disabilities (see Table V).

Co- teachers’ attitudes towards co-teaching responsibilities

In order to test the equality of mainstream and special education teachers’ mean attitude

scores in judging their responsibilities, we conducted four paired samples t-tests (see

Table V). The METs and SETs were found to have significantly different attitudes

towards METs’ non-class time (t=-2.78, p=.01, Cohen's d =-.29) and class time (t=-3.05,

p=.00, Cohen's d =-.31) responsibilities in co-teaching students with disabilities.

Similarly, we observed that they have significantly different attitudes towards SETs’ non-

class-time (t= -4.10, p=.00, Cohen's d =-.42) and class-time (t= -6.09, p=.00, Cohen's d =-

.61) responsibilities in co-teaching all students.

Table V. T tests for equality of mainstream and special education teachers' mean attitude

scores MET

a SET

b

M SD M SD Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference t

1 Attitudes towards mainstream education

teachers' non-class time responsibilities 3.13 .92 3.38 .81 -.24 .09 -2.78**

2 Attitudes towards mainstream education

teachers' class-time responsibilities 3.81 .68 4.00 .56 -.19 .06 -3.05***

3 Attitudes towards special education

teachers' non-class time responsibilities 2.37 .91 2.75 .89 -.38 .09 -4.10***

4 Attitudes towards special education

teachers' class-time responsibilities 2.98 .97 3.53 .83 -.55 .09 -6.09***

Note: N = 400 ** p≤.01 *** p≤.001 a Mainstream education teacher. b Special education teacher

Educators’ attributes and co-teaching responsibilities

On the basis of the descriptive statistics and correlation analyses between teachers’

attitudes and their personal attributes (see Table VI), we observed that co-teaching

11

experience is positively correlated with SETs’ non-class-time responsibilities (r=.15,

p=.01). Teaching experience is negatively correlated with SETs’ non-class-time co-

teaching responsibilities (r=-.16, p=.01) and with SETs’ class-time co-teaching

responsibilities (r=-.25, p=.01). In addition, the co-teachers' role (mainstream or special)

in the co-taught classroom is positively correlated with all four factors concerning co-

teaching responsibilities. The correlation coefficients for the METs’ non-class-time

(r=.14, p=01) and class-time (r=.15, p= .01) responsibilities, and the SETs’ non-class-

time (r=.20, p=.01) and class-time (r=.20, p=.01) responsibilities were all positive.

TableVI. Descriptive statistics and correlations matrix between educators' attitudes,

education, teaching experience, co-teaching experience and co-teaching role (MET or

SET)

We also conducted multiple regression analyses (see Table VII) in order to assess

the explanatory power of the statistically significant correlations that were observed. The

four separate regression analyses tested the impact of educators’ personal attributes on

their attitudes towards co-teaching responsibilities (research question 3). We carefully

examined the correlation coefficients between the independent variables of our models

(Hair et al. 1998). We used tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) diagnostics to

assess potential risks of multicollinearity. The observed VIF values were low (VIF<2.37)

for high levels of tolerance (tolerance>0. 42). Hence, we concluded that no independent

variable explained the variance of any of the remaining independent variables.

The regression analysis results about METs' non-class-time co-teaching

responsibilities provided a statistically significant model (F=2.11, p≤.10). The variable

“co-teaching role” explained 1% of the total variance of the “METs’ non-class time co-

teaching responsibilities”. The coefficient of the “co-teaching role” was positive (β=.184,

p≤.05). This means that SETs have more positive attitudes towards METs' involvement

in non-class time co-teaching responsibilities for students with disabilities.

Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Mainstream education teachers' non-class

time co-teaching responsibilities 3.28 .86 1.00

2. Mainstream education teachers' class

time co-teaching responsibilities 3.93 .62 .67** 1.00

3. Special education teachers' non-class

time co-teaching responsibilities 2.60 .92 .40** .25** 1.00

4. Special education teachers' class time co-

teaching responsibilities 3.31 .93 .32** .40** .76** 1.00

5. Education 16.48 1.43 .02 .07 .04 .08 1.00

6. Teaching experience 7.90 8.69 -08 -.06 -.16** -.25** -.08 1.00

7. Co-teaching experience 1.38 1.49 -.03 -.04 .15** .06 .15** .17** 1.00

8. Co-teaching role a .61 .49 .14** .15** .20** .29** .15** -.74** -.01 1.00

Note: N = 400

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). a 0 = mainstream education teacher,

1 = special education teacher

12

With regard to METs’ class-time responsibilities, the regression analysis provided

a statistically significant model (F=3.79, p≤.01). The “teaching experience” and “co-

teaching role” variables explained 3% of the total variance of the “METs’ class time co-

teaching responsibilities”. The coefficients of the “teaching experience” (β=.15, p≤.05)

and the “co-teaching role” (β=.26, p≤.001) were both positive, which indicates that (a)

the more experienced teachers and (b) the SETs have more favourable attitudes towards

METs’ involvement in class time co-teaching responsibilities for students with

disabilities.

The regression analysis results for the SETs’ non-class-time responsibilities

indicated a statistically significant model (F=6.92, p≤.001). The “co-teaching experience”

and “co-teaching role” variables explained 6% of the total variance of the “SETs’ non-

class-time co-teaching responsibilities” factor. The coefficients of the “co-teaching

experience” variable (β=.16, p≤.001) and the “co-teaching role” (β=.15, p≤.01) were both

positive. These findings suggest that (a) the more experienced co-teachers and (b) the

SETs are more favourable towards SETs’ active role in non-class-time responsibilities for

all students.

Last, the deriving model for the SETs’ class-time responsibilities also indicated a

statistically significant model (F=10.26, p≤.001). The “co-teaching role” variable

explained 9% of the total variance of the “SETs’ class time responsibilities”. The

coefficient of the “co-teaching experience” variable was positive (β=.21, p≤.01). This

finding suggests that the SETs displayed more positive attitudes towards their active

involvement in class time co-teaching responsibilities for all students.

Table VII. Regression analyses on mainstream and special education teachers' attitudes

towards co-teaching responsibilities. Mainstream education

teachers' non-class-time co-

teaching responsibilities

Mainstream education

teachers' class-time co-

teaching responsibilities

Special education teachers'

non-class-time co-teaching

responsibilities

Special education teachers'

class-time co-teaching

responsibilities

Variable β t β t β t β t

Education .01 .13 .05 1.03 -.01 -.15 .03 .51

Teaching experience .05 .69 .15 1.99* -.07 -.98 -.10 -1.37

Co-teaching experience -.04 -.68 -.08 -1.47 .16 3.23*** .08 1.56

Co-teaching role a .18 2.31* .26 3.38*** .15 2.01** .21 2.92**

R2 .02Ψ .04** .07*** .09***

Adj. R2 .01Ψ .03** .06*** .09***

F statistic 2.11Ψ 3.79** 6.92*** 10.26***

Notes: n=400; standardized regression coefficients are shown. Ψ

p≤.10 * p≤.05 ** p≤.01 *** p≤.001 a 0 = mainstream education teacher,

1 = special education teacher

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify co-teachers’ attitudes towards their

responsibilities in mainstream education classrooms which included students with

disabilities. The preferences of co-teachers inform the field with regard to the

understanding of co-teaching as a shared activity within a “union gives strength”

approach (Aesop, ca. 620-564 BC), which could predict quality in its implementation.

13

Even though co-teaching holds great promise with regard to the creation of a blended

system of education for all students, this study showed that this option is still far-reaching

since, following Aesop’s fable, strength is limited if partners have different views on the

way to handle difficult tasks.

In general, this study provides further evidence with regard to the complexity that

still hinders the understanding of co-teaching practice among the teachers themselves. It

is obvious that the different attitudes of co-teachers towards their responsibilities could

hinder the development of a shared approach in teaching students with and without

disabilities in inclusive classrooms. It seems that the assumptions of co-teachers about the

responsibilities of their colleagues are not fully in line with current arguments about

collaboration, which requires the traditional lines of professional demarcation to be

challenged and redrawn (Devecchi and Rouse 2010). Overall, our findings demonstrated

that METs and SETs disagree about their respective class-time (instruction and behaviour

management) and non-class-time responsibilities (planning and evaluation). In addition,

the teacher’s co-teaching experience and co-teaching roles (mainstream or special)

explain their different attitudes towards class-time and non-class-time responsibilities.

In particular, SETs have more positive attitudes towards METs' involvement in

non-class-time and class-time co-teaching responsibilities for students with disabilities.

In addition, compared with METs, SETs were found to be more positive about their own

involvement in non-class and class-time responsibilities for all students. Last, more

experienced co-teachers were more favourable towards the SETs’ active role in non-class

time responsibilities for all students, while the more experienced teachers were more

positive about the METs’ involvement in the class time co-teaching responsibilities for

students with disabilities.

The fact that METs and SETs differ in their attitudes to their respective co-

teaching responsibilities shows that there is a need to work towards a shared view

between them and to unify their understandings with regard to their responsibilities.

Similar differences in the attitudes of co-teachers were observed by Hang and Rabren

(2009), who indicated, for example, that both METs and SETs identified themselves as

having more responsibility for behavioural management than their colleagues. They

argued for more shared planning time as a prerequisite to the development of common

understanding between co-teachers. The fact that the SETs in our study agreed towards

the development of shared responsibilities between co-teachers is in disagreement with

Fennick and Liddy’s (2001) investigation, in which even though co-teachers agreed about

who takes responsibility for planning and evaluation, each group considered itself more

responsible than the other for instruction and behaviour management. Similarly, Weiss

and LIoyd (2002) also noted that there is a clear lack of understanding of the SETs’ roles

which, according to these researchers, is due to personal definitions of co-teaching and

perceived pressures from the classroom, the administration and the professional

community.

The different approaches that co-teachers bring into the co-taught classroom in

the present study could perhaps be attributed to three interrelated issues. These are the

lack of specialized training in co-teaching, METs’ unwillingness to share classroom

control (ownership issues), and the autonomous teaching roles imposed by the Ministry

of Education.

14

Although the co-teaching programme has run in the Greek mainstream schools for

the last fifteen years, the Ministry of Education has not yet provided any formal and

substantial training for its implementation. As a result, there is a lack of common

understanding between co-teachers which, according to Friend et al. (2010), could

provide the necessary support for all students in the co-taught class. The differences in

the preferences of co-teachers over their responsibilities could be also attributed to

METs’ reluctance to share their class with their special education co-teachers. There are

several examples in the co-teaching literature with regard to METs’ unwillingness, or

even fear, to fully accept a SET in their own environment (for a review, see Scruggs et al.

2007). It seems that due to the emphasis given by the Ministry of Education to the

development of Supportive teaching, co-teachers understand that the METs are

responsible for teaching the class, while the SETs should focus on teaching students with

disabilities. Such understandings seem to influence METs’ willingness to keep their

“territory” untouched, thus explaining the differences in their attitudes from those of their

special education co-teachers. Further, we reflect that the structuring of the co-teaching

programme by the Ministry of Education may influence co-teachers’ attitudes towards

their responsibilities. The understanding of the perceived responsibilities is impacted by

the policy guidelines provided by the Ministry. The existing literature has demonstrated

that employee attitudes are co-shaped by the mandated practices and the perceived

organizational culture of the various institutions (Ostroff, Kinicki and Tamkins 2003).

A significant finding in this study concerns the experienced teachers and the

SETs’ attitudes towards the responsibilities of their mainstream colleagues. The fact that

the SETs and the experienced teachers have more positive attitudes towards the

involvement of METs in the education of students with disabilities indicates that these

teachers’ thinking adapts the basic principles of inclusive education. The SETs in the

present study seem to have realized that the education of students with disabilities in the

co-taught class is a shared activity between co-teachers. Several studies on co-teachers’

responsibilities, have described the MET in the class as the one who takes the lead, while

the main responsibilities of the SETs are focused on students with disabilities (Strogilos

and Tragoulia 2013; Magiera and Zigmond 2005). It is evident in our study that the SETs

disagree with their current role in the co-taught class, a role which research has

extensively described as subordinated in both US (Scruggs et al 2007) and Greek settings

(Strogilos and Tragoulia 2013). It seems that the SETs in our sample rejected the METs’

common assumption that they should not be expected to work by themselves with

students with disabilities (Friend et al. 2010). Such a preference also indicates that these

SETs were not content with the arrangements made by the Ministry of Education with

regard to the emphasis on Supportive teaching in the Greek co-taught classrooms.

In addition to a more active involvement of the METs in teaching students with

disabilities, the SETs in this study agreed that their role should be more active vis-à-vis

all students. Thus, they agreed that they should plan, instruct, evaluate and be responsible

for the behaviour of all students and not only of those with disabilities. Idol (2006), in her

study, found that METs rejected the exclusive responsibilities of SETs with students with

disabilities, stating that SETs could work with any student needing assistance. To achieve

this, co-teachers should enhance their practice to accommodate the development of

various models of co-teaching such as alternating or team teaching. It is evident in the

co-teaching literature that most co-teaching pairs prefer to work under the Supportive

15

teaching model, though other models are also used (Zigmond and Matta 2004; Weiss and

Lloyd 2002). By indicating their active involvement in the education of all students, the

SETs in this study seem to prefer the implementation of various co-teaching models, even

though this is not currently encouraged by the established educational policy. This

finding is in line with Murawski’s (2010) suggestion that teachers should be encouraged

to select the use of these models according to students’ characteristics and instructional

goals in particular content areas.

Preference for the active involvement of SETs in non-class-time responsibilities

was also indicated by the most experienced co-teachers. It is important that the more co-

teachers work together, the better they recognize the enhancement of the SETs’ role in

the education of all students. It seems that experience in co-teaching made co-teachers

realize that sharing responsibilities may lead to effective education for students both with

and without disabilities. It also shows that these teachers do prefer a more advanced role

for the SET in planning and evaluating the work for all students in the co-taught class.

Similar results were reported by Walter-Thomas (1997), who found that, over time, co-

teachers develop individual planning routines which help them work together more

efficiently. However, the enhancement of the role of the SET in the co-taught class

cannot be achieved unaided, since some research evidence suggests that without training

co-teachers tend to remain in the early stages of co-teaching. For example, in their study,

Magiera, Smith, Zigmond and Gebauer (2005) found that co-teachers had remained in the

initial stages of co-teaching even after three to five years of collaboration. Strogilos and

Tragoulia (2013) also found that the roles and responsibilities of co-teachers in Greek co-

taught classrooms remained the same after an entire school year.

Recommendations for practice

Great consideration is needed in interpreting the different approaches that co-teachers

bring into the co-taught classroom. Clearly both political and practical changes are

necessary in creating an inclusive environment in co-taught classrooms. The promotion

of the Supportive teaching model in Greek co-taught classrooms seems to have hindered

teachers’ understanding of the development of shared roles and responsibilities for all

students. By allocating one SET to one student with disabilities, the Ministry seems to

have adopted the basic principles of integration, with a specialist moving into the class to

“fix” a child, whereas the rest of the class life is left untouched. It seems that the

development of differences in co-teachers’ attitudes towards their responsibilities could

be readily attributed to this political decision. By allocating SETs for co-teaching to

schools and by providing guidelines with regard to the development of various co-

teaching models (e.g. parallel or team teaching), the opportunities for different

understandings of the development of inclusive classrooms are increased. Thus, new

descriptions of co-teachers’ roles are necessary with a view to including both teachers in

the education of all students in the co-taught class.

However, new policies cannot succeed unaided. Co-teachers need time to

understand their responsibilities within inclusive classrooms. Therefore, schools should

allocate time for shared co-planning in order for co-teachers to “negotiate” and develop a

shared understanding in implementing their responsibilities. It is necessary that Greek co-

teachers be provided with a specific framework for weekly scheduled co-planning

meetings. In addition, training in the implementation of different models of co-teaching

16

is essential. Training of this kind should provide co-teachers with the necessary

knowledge and skills to co-plan, employ shared teaching practices, eliminate ownership

issues and distance co-teachers from personal definitions of co-teaching.

Limitations and future research

There are certain noteworthy limitations in this study. First, due to the structure of the co-

teaching programme in Greece, not all of the SETs who participated in the study had

specialized training in SENs, a fact that implies that SETs’ attitudes could change if they

had received such training. Future studies should investigate whether training on co-

teaching contributes to the shaping of their attitudes. Second, many of the students in the

Greek co-taught classrooms present mild learning difficulties and thus the results of this

study may not necessarily be applicable to populations of students who present more

severe disabilities. Future research should investigate the attitudes of co-teachers to

students with more severe disabilities and identify possible discrepancies. Further, in the

current research we did not observe co-teachers' practices but rather asked the

participating teachers to state their opinions about co-teaching responsibilities. In the

future, this line of research could be extended by employing observational techniques.

Similarly, future studies could focus on the impact of co-teaching on students' academic

performance. Currently, the outcomes of co-teaching to students with and without

disabilities have not been extensively measured and thus research needs to evaluate its

contribution as an inclusion strategy. In addition, we acknowledge that the tested

independent variables explain the variation of the dependent variables to only a limited

extent. Given that our research is one of the few attempts to investigate the factors that

influence co-teachers’ attitudes towards co-teaching responsibilities, we recommend that

future researchers also test other independent variables that could explain co-teachers’

attitudes more effectively.

Finally, the classification of the co-teachers’ responsibilities into class-time and

non-class-time activities seems to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the

activities that METs and SETs expect to perform. Hence, this distinction can serve in

future research attempts as a better basis for the examination of co-teachers’ attitudes in

diverse educational settings. Since the reported results specifically derived from the

Greek educational system, the replication of this investigation in other educational

contexts could strengthen the power of our findings. The employment of the suggested

scales by future studies would benefit the validation of the observed factor structures.

Last, the contribution of the current study could potentially extend beyond the narrow

scope of the co-teaching of students with disabilities by providing insights about the

study of all kinds of collaborative teaching in diverse teaching settings.

References

Austin, V. L. 2001. Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special

Education, 22(4), 245-255.

Buckley, C. 2005. Establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships between

regular and special education teachers in middle school social studies inclusive

classrooms. In Cognition and learning in diverse settings: Advances in learning and

17

behavioral disabilities, ed. T.E. Scruggs, and M.A. Mastropieri, 18: 153-198. Oxford:

Elsevier.

Bryant Davis, K .E., Dieker,L., Pearl,C., and R. M. Kirkpatrick. 2012. Planning in the

middle: Co-Planning between general and special education, Journal of Educational

and Psychological Consultation, 22(3): 208-226.

Cook, L., McDuffie-Landrum, K. A., L. Oshita., and S. Cothren-Cook. 2011. Co-

teaching for students with disabilities: A critical analysis of the empirical literature. In

Handbook of Special Education. ed. J.M. Kauffman, and D.P. Hallahan. London:

Routledge.

Devecchi, C., and M. Rouse. 2010. “An exploration of the features of effective

collaboration between teachers and teaching assistants in secondary schools”. Support

for Learning 25(2): 91-99.

Dieker, L. A. 2001. “What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school

co-taught teams for students with disabilities?” Preventing School Failure 46:14–24.

Fennick, E., and D. Liddy. 2001. “Responsibilities and preparation for collaborative

teaching: Co-teachers' perspectives”. Teacher Education and Special Education

24(3): 229-240.

Friend, M., and L. Cook. 2007. Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals

(5th ed). New York: Longman.

Friend, M., L., Cook, D. Hurley-Chamberlain., and C. Shamberger. 2010. “Co-Teaching:

An Illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education”. Journal of

Educational and Psychological Consultation 20: 9–27.

Hang, Q., and K. Rabren. 2009. “An examination of co-teaching perspectives and

efficacy indicators”. Remedial and Special Education 30( 5): 259-268.

Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L., Tatham, and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data

Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hughes, C.E., and W.W. Murawski. 2001. “Lessons from another field: Applying co-

teaching strategies to gifted education”. Gifted Child Quarterly 45(3): 195-204.

Idol, L. (2006). “Towards inclusion of special education students in general education. A

program evaluation of eight schools”. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.

Johnson, R.A., and D.W. Wichern. 2007. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis.

Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Keefe, E. B., and V. Moore. 2004. “The challenge of co-teaching inclusive classrooms at

the high school level: What teachers told us”. American Secondary Education 32, (3):

77-88.

Kloo, A., and N. Zigmond. 2008. “Co-teaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint”.

Preventing School Failure 52(2): 12-20.

Kohler-Evans, P. A. 2006. “Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the

kids”. Education 127: 260-264.

Law 2817/2000. 2000. The education of persons with special educational needs and other

regulations. FEK 14th May 2000, v. A’, n. 78.

Law 3699/2008. 2008. Special education and education of people with disability or

special educational needs. FEK 2nd October 2008, v. A’, n. 199.

Magiera, K., and N. Zigmond. 2005. “Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under

routine conditions: Does the instructional experiences differ for students with

18

disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes?” Learning Disabilities Research and

Practice 20( 2): 79-85.

Magiera, K., C. Smith, N., Zigmond., and K. Gebauer. 2005. “Benefits of co-teaching in

mathematics classes”. Teaching Exceptional Children 37( 3): 20-24.

Mastropieri, M.A., T.E. Scruggs, J., Graetz, J., Norland, W., Gardizi., and K. McDuffie.

2005. “Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, Failures and

Challenges”. Intervention in Schools and Clinic 40(5): 260-270.

McDuffie, K.A., Mastropieri, M.A., and T.E. Scruggs. 2009. “Differential effects of peer

tutoring in co-taught and non co-taught classes: Results for content learning and

student-teacher interactions”. Exceptional Children 75(4): 493-510.

Moin, L.J., K. Magiera., and N. Zigmond. 2009. “Instructional activities and group work

in the US inclusive high school co-taught science class”. International Journal of

Science and Mathematics Education 7: 677-697.

Murawski, W.W. 2003. “School collaboration research: Successes and difficulties”.

Academic Exchange Quarterly 7(3): 104-108.

Murawski, W. W. 2010. Collaborative teaching in elementary schools. Making the co-

teaching marriage work! California: Corwin.

Murawski, W. W., and L. A. Dieker. 2004. “Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the

secondary level”. Teaching Exceptional Children 36(5): 52-58.

Ostroff, C., A. J. Kinicki., and M. M. Tamkins. 2003. Organizational culture and climate.

In Handbook of Psychology, 12: 565-593. W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, and R.J.

Klimoski, (Eds.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Scruggs, T. E., M. Mastropieri., and K. A. McDuffie. 2007. “Co-teaching in inclusive

classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research”. Exceptional Children 73(4):

392-416.

Strogilos, V., & Stefanidis, A. (2015). Contextual Antecedents of Co-teaching

Efficacy: Their Influence on Students with Disabilities’ Learning Progress, Social

Participation and Behaviour Improvement, Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 218-229. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.008

Strogilos, V., & Tragoulia, E., Kaila, M. (2015). Curriculum issues and benefits in

supportive co-taught classes for students with intellectual disabilities,

International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 61(1), 32-40. doi:

10.1179/2047387713Y.0000000031

Takala, M., and L. Uusitalo-Malmivaara. 2012. "A one-year study of the development of

co-teaching in four Finnish schools". European Journal of Special Needs Education

27(3): 373-390.

Thousand, J. S., A. I., Nevin., and R. A. Villa. 2007. Collaborative teaching: a critique of

the scientific evidence. In The Sage Handbook of Special Education ed. Florian, L.

London: Sage.

Thousand, J. S., R. A., Villa., and A. I. Nevin. 2006. “The many faces of collaborative

planning and teaching”. Theory into Practice 45(3): 239-248.

Walther-Thomas, C. S. 1997. “Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that

teachers and principals report over time”. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30(4): 395-

407.

19

Walther-Thomas, C., M. Bryant, and S. Land. 1996. “Planning for effective co-teaching:

The key to successful inclusion”. Remedial and Special Education 17(4): 255-264.

Weiss, P. M., and J.W. Lloyd. 2002. “Congruence between roles and actions of

secondary special educators in co-taught and special education settings”. The Journal

of Special Education 36(2): 58-68.

Zigmond, N. 2006. “Reading and writing in co-taught secondary school social studies

classrooms: A reality check”. Reading and Writing Quarterly 22: 249-268.

Zigmond, N., and D. Matta. 2004. Value added of the special education teacher in

secondary school co-taught classes In Secondary interventions: Advances and

behavioral disabilities, ed. T.E. Scruggs and M.A. Mastropieri, 17: 57-78. Oxford:

Elsevier Science.