Co- Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research

Vl. 73, N. 4, pp. 392-416. 2007 Cunil fr Exeptinal Children. Exeptinal Children C- Teahing in Inlusive Classrms: A Metasynthesis f Qualitative Researh THOMAS E.S C R U G G S MARGO A. MASTROPIERI Gerge Masn University KIMBERLY A. MCDUFFIE Clemsn University ABSTRACT: T: Thirty-tw qualitative investigatins f -teahing in inlusive lassrms were inluded in a metasynthesis emplying qualitative researh integratin tehniques. It was nluded that -teahers generally supprted -teahing, althugh a number f imprtant needs were identified, inluding planning time, student skill level, and training; many f these needs were linked t administrative supprt. The dminant -teahing rle was fund t be "ne teah, ne assist," in lassrms haraterized by traditinal instrutin, even thugh this methd is nt highly remmended in the literature. The speial eduatin teaher was ften bserved t play a subrdinate rle. Tehniques ften remmended fr speial eduatin teahers, suh as peer mediatin, strategy instrutin, mnemnis, and training f study skills, self-advay skills, and self-mnitring, were infrequently bserved. and Friend (1995); and Friend (2002) disussed riteria needed fr an effetive -teahing rela- tinship. A number f -teahing variatins have been identified (see als Friend & Ck, 2003; Walther-Thmas, Krinek, MLaughlin, & wihiams, 2000). These inlude: I n respnse t reent trends and legislatin prmting inlusive instrutin and aess t the general eduatin urriulum, many shls have implemented "-teahing" (Ck & Friend, 1995) as a means fr prmting effetive instrutin in inelusive lassrms. Implemented t prvide supprt fr inreasing the inlusin f students with disabilities, -teahing usually nsists f ne general eduatin teaher paired with ne speial eduatin teaher in an inlusive lassrm f general eduatin and speial eduatin students (e.g., Mastrpieri & Sruggs, 2006, hapter 2). Bauwens, Hurade, and Friend (1989); Ck * One teah, ne assist (r, "drift"), where ne teaher (usually, the general eduatin teaher) assumes teahing respnsibilities, and the speial eduatiri teaher prvides iridividual supprt as rieeded (Walther- 392 Summer 2007

Thmas et al., 2000, did nt mentin this variatin). Statin teahing, where varius learning statins are reated, and the -teahers prvide individual supprt at the different statins. Parallel teahing, where teahers teah the same r similar ntent in different lassrm grupings. Alternative teahing, where ne teaher may take a smaller grup f stiidents t a different latin fr a limited perid f time fr speialized instrutin. Team teahing (r interative teahing), where bth -teahers share teahing respnsibilities equally and are equally invlved in leading instrutinal ativities. PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF CO-t EACH ING Previus reviews f -teahing have summarized aumulated literature and identified imprtarit variables. Friend and Reising (1993) prvided an verview f the histry f -teahing. These authrs nluded that researh was limited and mstly anedtal; hwever, available evidene suggested that teahers believed thai: -teahing had a psitive effet n student ahievement Welh, Brwnell, and Sheridan (1999) prvided a brader review f team teahing and shl-based prblem-slving teaihs. This review inluded 40 artiles n team teahing, f whih many were tehnial reprts, anedtal reprts, r psitin papers. They nluded that teahers reprt psitive attitudes tward varius frms f teahing; hwever, there was limited knwledge abut student utmes, and a lak f empirial evidene supprting -teahing. Weiss and Brigham (2000) reviewed 23 quantitative and qualitative studies f -teahing, published between 1987 and 1999, inluding investigatins f bth elementary and sendary settings. They reprted that nsiderable variability was apparent in -taught lasses. Hwever, the speial eduatin teaher typially was respnsible fr mdifying instrutin, behavir management, and mnitring student prgress; whereas the general eduatin teaher was respnsible fr the ntent f instrutin. Sme evidene was presented that the standard f individualized instrutin may nt be met fr students with disabilities. Imprtant mpnents f suessful -teahing experienes identified frm this researh inluded the general eduatin teaher's attitude, suffiient planning time, vluntary partiipatin, mutual respet, administrative supprt, and a shared philsphy f instrutin and behavir management. Weiss and Brigham als nluded that effiay researh was insuffiient. Murawsld and Swansn (2001) nduted a meta-analysis f quantitative effiay researh n -teahing. Their mprehensive searh predures yielded nly six researh reprts (three jurnal artiles and three ERIC duments), whih yielded an verall effet size (standardized mean differene) f.40, frm dependent measures inluding aademi ahievement:, sial utmes, attitudes, absenes, and referrals. They nluded that available researh yielded mderate effets, but that the verall data set was t small t draw firm nlusins. Dieker and Murawski (2003) disussed teahing at the sendary level. They emphasized the imprtane f teaher preparatin, suffiient planning time, mastery f ntent by speial eduatin teahers, and pinted t large lass sizes and high-stakes testing as partiular hallenges t -teahing suess. They remmended prative mmuniatin, varied instrutinal praties (e.g., lasswide peer tutring), teaher training, use f a variety f -teahing mdels, vluntary partiipatin, mmn planning perids, and fiexibility. Weiss (2004) reviewed and updated the nlusins f Weiss and Brigham (2000), and the researh nduted sine that time. She nluded that mst f the studies reviewed had urred in settings nsidered t be suessful, and that mst f these studies nluded that the persnalities r teahing styles f the teahers were partiularly imprtant. She als reprted that the rle f the speial eduatin teaher was nt always learly speified, and that utmes f teahing were typially reprted using vague r subjetive language. Anther imprtant issue raised by Weiss was the limited amunt f effiay researh. Exeptinal Children 393

A number f ther artiles made sme referene t the researh literature, but fused primarily n suggestins fr teahers implementing -teahing based n previus researh and the authrs' persnal experienes. Murawski and Dieker (2004) prvided suggestins and strategies fr -teahing at the sendary level. They emphasized the imprtane f administrative supprt, establishing -teaher rles, effetive planning, shared lassrm management, and apprpriate assessment. Keefe, Mre, and Duff (2004) remmended that sendary -teahers develp awareness f themselves, their -teaher, their students, as well as relevant ntent and strategies. They reprted that researh t date revealed that sendary teahers laked training and skills and have mre negative attitudes abut teahing. Gately and Gately (2001) fused n imprtant mpnents f the -teahing relatinship, inluding mmuniatin, ntent knwledge, planning, lassrm management, and assessment. Vaughn, Shumm, and Arguelles (1997) disussed mmn -teahing issues, based n nversatins with teahers. These issues inluded "wnership" f students, lassrm management, spae, mmuniatin, and planning time. Previus reviews and ther relevant literature have generally nluded that effiay researh is limited. Hwever, a number f variables f ptential signifiane have been identified, inluding -teaher mpatibility, administrative supprts, planning time, teaher training, and flexibility. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Based n these previus reviews, it an be nluded that available effiay data are generally psitive, but limited. In additin t imprtant questins f efliay, hwever, a number f ther relevant questins an be asked abut the pratie f -teahing. Based n nsideratins frm previus literature, these questins inlude the fllwing: Hw is -teahing being implemented? What are pereptins f teahers? What prblems are enuntered? What are the benefits pereived t be? What fatrs are needed t ensure suess f -teahing? Investigatins addressing these questins are typially qualitative in nature. Qualitative researh is generally apprpriate fr desribing and prviding insights abut attitudes, pereptins, interatins, lassrm struture, and behavirs, relevant t -teahing. Qualitative researh als has inreased enrmusly in speial eduatin researh ver reent deades (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugah, & Rihardsn, 2005; Pugah, 2001; Sruggs, Mastrpieri, & MDuffie, 2006). T date, a nsiderable amunt f qualitative researh has been nduted in the area f -teahing. Hwever, at present the researh base nsists mstly f individual investigatins with little previus attempt t summarize r synthesize findings. This investigatin, therefre, was intended t systematially summarize and integrate the findings f all available qualitative researh reprts int ne integrative review. As suh, it was intended t shed light n the pratie f -teahing frm the perspetives f relevant researh. In rder t d s, it was neessary t identify and implement apprpriate tehniques fr synthesis f qualitative researh. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS Researh synthesis is an attempt t integrate systematially a large bdy f related researh literature. The predure was first applied t quantitative grup-experimental researh data, and referred t as meta-analysis (Glass, MGaw, & Smith, 1979). Sine that time, literally thusands f meta-analyti investigatins have been mpleted, and many f these have been applied t speial eduatin (Frness, 2001). In additin t meta-analyses f grup-experimental researh, quantitative researh synthesis tehniques have been applied t single-subjet researh (Sruggs, Mastrpieri, & Cast, 1987; Swansn & Sahse- Lee, 2000) and survey researh (Sruggs & Mastrpieri, 1996). Qualitative researh synthesis has been previusly nduted, mstly in the health sienes (Campbell et al., 2003; Patersn, Thrne, Canam, & Jillings, 2001), and smetimes referred t as "meta-ethngraphy" (Nblit & Hare, 1988); "metasynthesis" (Sandelwski, Summer 2007

Dherty, & Emden, 1997); r "metastudy" (Patersn et al.). Althugh sme fused synthesis wrk has been nduted in the area f eduatinal leadership and desegregatin (Nblit & Hare, 1988), t date, n true integrative review f qualitative speial eduatin researh using researh synthesis tehniques has been identified. The apprpriateness and merits f qualitative metasynthesis have been previusly disussed in the literature (see Sandelwski et al., 1997; Sruggs et al., 2006). It has been argued that the nature f qualitative researh seems antithetial t synthesis, r "summing up" (Light & Pillemer, 1984), and that the riginal researh may be distrted r endangered by this press. It uld be argued, in fat, that it is exatly this idigraphi element that ntrasts s sharply with quantitative studies, whih ffer general nlusins abut the behavir r perfrmane f grups, and are less relevant t individual ases. Anther nern is that summarizatin f researh inluding the diversity f methdlgies emplyed under the umbrella f "qualitative" researh inluding ase studies, phenmenlgial studies, ethngraphies, semi-strutured interviews, and narratives uld trivialize differenes amng them and uld be prblemati in pratie (Sandelwski et al.). These nerns, hwever, shuld als be weighed against the nsequenes f nt summarizing qualitative researh. One prblem is that qualitative researhers ften have been islated frm eah ther, wrking in a "ttage industry," t prdue "ne sht researh" (Estabrks, Field, & Mrse, 1994, p. 510). This has limited pprtunity fr researhers t learn frm eah ther, and has redued findings int "little islands f knwledge" (Glaser & Strauss, 1971, p. 181). Withut develping the nnetedness latent within and arss qualitative researh studies, this imprtant bdy f researh may exert nly a limited impat n pliy and pratie. CONDUCTING METASYNTHESIS QUALITATIVE Unlike quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) f grup experimental researh reprts, qualitative metasynthesis is nt nerned with summarizing r reduing findings t a mmn, standardized metri, suh as a mean effet size. Rather, the purpse is t integrate themes and insights gained frm individual qualitative researh int a higherrder synthesis that prmtes brad understandings f the entire bdy f researh, while still respeting the integrity f the individual reprts. Several researhers have prpsed and emplyed methds fr systematially integrating qualitative researh (see Sruggs et al., 2006, fr a disussin). Fr instane, Nblit and Hare (1988) desribed several ways qualitative researh synthesis uld be amplished, inluding (a) "reipral translatin," invlving reursive reading and analysis, and mparisn f metaphrs used in different studies; (b) "refutatinal" meta-ethngraphy, investigating why researhers me t different nlusins, suh as Freeman's (1983) refutatin f Margaret Mead's (1928) Cming f Age in Sama; and () "line-f-argument" synthesis, where studies are translated int ne anther, the result being a mre parsimnius but enmpassing understanding f the phenmenn being studied. Nblit and Hate prvided an example f suh a synthesis using five studies n raial desegregatin. Shfield (1990) neived f qualitative metasynthesis as the reatin f rss-ase generalizatins based n generalizatins made frm, and abut, individual ases (see als Miles & Huberman, 1994; Ragin, 1987). Qualitative researh synthesis in the health sienes, generally using the mdels f Nblit and Hate (1988), have been reprted by Bek (2001), Campbell et al. (2003), and Jensen and Allen (1994). In the field f eduatin, Gersten and Baker (2000) nduted a "multi-val synthesis" f instrutinal tehniques fr English language learners. This synthesis inrprated many f the analyti priniples disussed by Nblit and Hare and inluded interventin studies with experimental designs, desriptive studies f instrutinal praties, and an unmmn third sure, input frm prfessinal wrk grups. In the present investigatin, we determined t tteat eah identified researh reprt as an individual "infrmant," and reate a metasynthesis arss all individual researh reprts, using predures familiar t qualitative researhers. In this way, eah authr(s) is/are allwed t present riginal data and nlusins based n these data. That infrmatin is then integrated with the find- Exeptinal Children 39S

ings f ther researhers, in muh the same way a qualitative researher might use data frm multiple infrmants t draw nlusins. Cnsidering the mplexity f synthesizing a large number f riginal researh reprts, eah ntaining its wn individual data sures, we emplyed NViv sftware fr entering text and ther infrmatin, ding and ategrizing qualitative data, and assisting with rganizatin f qualitative data int general themes. Als lnwn as QSR NUD*IST Viv (Fraser, 1999), NViv was develped by Qualitative Slutins and Researh Pririty f Australia fr use in qualitative researh predures. NViv was thught t be partiularly helpful in this investigatin, beause it allws a large amunt f textual data t be stred and ded, and beause it allws the researher t reflet ritially n the analysis as it unflds, while string individual insights that may be prgressively refmed as mre infrmatin is added (see als Patersn et al., 2001). In the present investigatin, we determined t treat eah identified researh reprt as an individual "infrmant," and reate a metasynthesis arss all individual researh reprts, using predures familiar t qualitative researhers. METHOD SELECTION CRITERIA This investigatin gains understanding abut the pratie and presses f -teahing by synthesizing available qualitative researh reprts. Studies that were inluded fr this synthesis emplyed qualitative researh methds as a primary methdlgy, althugh studies were inluded if they als emplyed quantitative methds. Quantitative surveys f -teahers in whih sme additinal verbal respnses were sliited (thrugh pen-ended r diret questins) were nt inluded; hwever, substantive qualitative interviews nduted subsequent t a quantitative survey, and analyzed using qualitative methds, were inluded. Studies that speifially fused n ne r mre students with disabilities in an inlusive lass, withut speifi referene t -teahing as a primary researh questin, were nt inluded (e.g., Zigmnd, 1995; Zigmnd & Baker, 1994). Reprts inluded in this investigatin had been reprted in jurnals, dissertatins, and master's researh reprts. Dissertatins and theses were inluded if they met quality standards emplyed in this synthesis, as disussed in a fllwing setin. SEARCH PROCEDURES Searh predures inluded the searh f eletrni databases, inluding PsyhlNFO, ERIC, Dissertatin Abstrats, and Digital Dissertatins. Desriptrs emplyed in the searhes inluded teahing, inlusin, mainstreaming, and perative teahing. We als emplyed wildard versins as well as multiple versins f these terms, fr example, inlude, inlusive, inluded, mainstream, -teah, teah. An anestry searh f eah referene list was als emplyed, in rder t identify relevant researh that had been ited by authrs f identified researh. A desendant searh f ited researh, using the Sial Sienes Citatin Index identified reprts that had ited relevant researh. Finally, a hand searh f relevant jurnals (any jurnals devted t speial eduatin pratie, fr example. Exeptinal Children, Jurnal f Speial Eduatin, Learning Disabilities Researh & Pratie, Remedial and Speial Eduatin) was nduted t identify artiles that may have been verlked frm the previus predures. We did nt set any deliberate time limits in the searh. Hwever, amng the earliest referenes was a paper by Bauwens et al. (1989), whih ited n previus researh (nging field test data were mentined). The first frmal qualitative studies f -teahing as it is presently knwn appeared arund the mid-1990s, arding t ur searh predures. (A small number f reprts did appear befre this time, but these did nt meet ur quality riteria.) DATA ANALYSIS One all relevant researh reprts were btained, they were ded fr a number f setting and demgraphi variables, inluding gegraphial regin; grade level; urban/rural/suburban setting; predminant -teahing mdel; number f 396 Summer 2007

partiipants (inluding administratrs, speial eduatin and general eduatin teahers, students, and ther partiipants); type f disabilities represented amng the partiipants; sienmi status f the shl; and subjet(s) being taught. In additin, we ded seletin riteria (e.g., representative, nnsystemati, knwn t investigatr, nsidered utstanding), and whether r nt teahers were vlunteers. At least tw ders agreed n all ding deisins. Next, all researh reprts were nverted digital frmat and saved as separate duments. This was amplished thrugh retrieval frm nline versins f jurnals, and PDF files btained thrugh Digital Dissertatins. When neessary, reprts were retyped and saved in eletrni frmat. Eah reprt was saved as a separate dument in NViv. All reprts were read at least ne befre we implemented ding predures; during this press we tk ntes and wrte mments, and highlighted signifiant text. We then implemented a press f pen ding (see, e.g., Creswell, 2006) t identify and de all seemingly relevant and nsequential nsideratins. This was an inlusive, reursive press, in whih we ntinuusly revisited previus ding deisins t determine whether ding was being implemented systematially and nsistently. Sme ding ategries that appeared initially t be signifiant were fund t be less well represented in the literature as a whle. Fr example, we had expeted "apprpriate urriulum" (i.e., aessible t all students, and apprpriate fr diverse learning needs) wuld be nsidered an imprtant mpnent f suessful -teahing, yet referene t this variable was made in nly three reprts. We were als surprised t nte nly a few blique referenes t differentiated instrutin, althugh the reasns fr this beame mre lear ver time. Likewise, we reated ding ategries fr the influene f prir experiene, influene f highstakes testing, lass size, and teaher turnver; nly ultimately t determine that these issues were raised nly rarely. Why these issues, and thers, were nly infrequently raised, hwever, was in itself an imprtant issue t be nsidered in the ntext f ther data. Grade level at first seemed t us t be a variable f signifiane; hwever, an verlapping and perhaps mre signifiant variable was seen t be ntent knwledge. Overall, free ding f all studies resulted in 69 ategries ("free ndes" in NViv), representing many different faets f the -teahing press. After this, a reursive press f ategry analysis, ntextual analysis, and identified relatinships amng ategries was implemented amng at least tw ders. After disussin, appliatin, and revisin, we reated fur superrdinate ategries, eah with at least 12 f ur riginal ategry des inluded: Expressed benefits f -teahing. Expressed needs fr suess in -teahing. Speial and general eduatin teaher rles in -teahing. Hw instrutin is delivered in -taught lasses. Althugh sme verlap was nted, the riginal des seemed t fit relatively easily within these ategries. Subsequent analysis fused n axial ding, where relatinships between and amng des (within and arss superrdinate ategries) were identified (Strauss & Crbin, 1998). Fr example, ne f the mst mmnly mentined ategries was planning and planning time fr teahing; hwever, this ategry was very frequently mentined (althugh nt exlusively) in the ntext f administrative supprt. Althugh mst investigatins reprted n prfessinal benefits t -teahers, this issue was mediated nsiderably by the issue f persnal mpatibility. Data analysis predures emplyed in this investigatin were largely indutive. The press f analyti indutin "invlves sanning the data fr ategries f phenmena and fr relatinships amng suh ategries, develping wrking typlgies and hyptheses upn an examinatin f initial ases, then mdifying and refining them n the basis f subsequent ases" (LeCmpte & Preissle, 1993, p. 254). Obtained data frm the riginal researh reprts were assimilated and evaluated in a reursive fashin, in rder t develp hyptheses abut the praties and perspetives assiated with -teahing. Similar t qualitative data analysis f riginal data, disrepant ases and negative ases were used t further understanding and refine hypthetial Exeptinal Children

nstruts. Observatins and themes frm riginal researh were subjeted t the nstant mparative methd, in whih inidents, ategries, and nstruts were subjeted t verlapping and reursive mparisns (LeCmpte & Preissle). Fr example, the pauity f data attesting t differentiated instrutin, peer mediatin, r strategy instrutin in -taught lassrms uld at first appear puzzling, but was supprted by ther data attesting t the general eduatin teaher's typially dminant rle in the -taught lassrm, upled with the general eduatin teaher's typial affinity fr whle lass, hmgeneus instrutin. As disussed in later setins, suh praties plaed signifiant limitatins n -teahing pratie. In this investigatin, we avided an atuarial apprah t data analysis. That is, rather than unting instanes f reprted r bserved phenmena and prviding speifi ttals, means, r perentages, we evaluated phenmena with respet t reurrene, rrbratin, and presene t absene f disnfirming instanes in same r ther researh reptts (and hw disnfirming instanes, when bserved, were explained). By these means, we hped t arrive at nlusins based n predures that were faithful t the data analyses emplyed in the riginal investigatins. STUDY QUALITY One imprtant nsideratin in researh synthesis is the quality f the investigatins being inluded. In making these determinatins n the study level, we emplyed quality nsideratins referred t as "redibility r trustwtthiness" by Brantlinger et al. (2005). We were areful t endrse the autin f Btantlinger et al. against "using redibility measures as a heklist in a rigid r unrefietive way" (pp. 200-201); rather, we nsidered all these measures simultaneusly alng with eah study, emplying suh nsideratins as triangulatin, disnfirming evidene, prlnged field engagement, detailed desriptin, member heks and peer debriefing. We als nsidered "quality indiatrs" as represented by Brantlinger et al. (Figure 3, p. 202) regarding systemati and apprpriate lletin and representatin f data. We inluded all reprts that met a minimum standard f quality, althugh sme variability was nted. It shuld further be nsidered that all studies inluded had als been fund t be aeptable by sme frm f peer review, whether an editrial batd, dissertatin t thesis mmittee. In additin, we nsidered the redibility f speifi data within individuai researh reprts. Tw different frms f data were nsidered. One nsisted f riginal data (e.g., bservatins, interview transripts, t dumentary evidene) lleted frm partiipants. The send frm f data nsisted f speifi and general nlusins drawn by the researhers regarding -teahing, based n the riginal data lleted. Fr the primary data reprted by the authts f the researh reprts, we nsidered arefully the quality indiatrs represented by Brantlinger et al. (2005). That is, fr any partiipant mments reprdued in this synthesis, we ensured that, fr example, the partiipant was apprpriate, the questin was reasnable, and the mments were transribed apprpriately. Ft any researher nlusin reprted in this synthesis, we determined that the nlusin refleted apprpriate redibility measures (see Brantlinget et al.); that is, that data were systematially lleted and rerded, multiple infrmants and/r data sures were btained, disnfirming evidene was nsidered, and the nlusin was reasnable and apprpriate based n the data lleted. RESU UTS OVERALL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA SET Using the searh predures and seletin riteria standards previusly desribed, 32 riginal reprts f qualitative researh n -teahing were identified (see Table 1). These reprts invlved as partiipants 454 -teahers, 42 administratrs, 142 students, 26 patents, and 5 supprt persnnel. These -teahers were wrking in gegraphially diverse shls, representing states in the Nrtheast, Mid-Atlanti, Sutheast, Midwest, Suthwest, and West ast f the United States; in Canada; and in Austtalia. As well as gegraphial representatin, identified studies represented a range f grade levels: 398 Summer 2007

- ^ ati a E0 1 C ahi.e - list u tin a 0 list u list u list JS uu.5 -a 1 I 8 - d d d d d d d u d d d, bs a sq ' sq ' ini s, int sq ', bs, bs sq ', bi a sq ' in, bs t, bs in t, bs t, bs t, bs 3 "S I f 3 sub; E E It Gan PA rt -t J3 -D 3 x> 3 2 I "I -Q 3 -!^ u «-^ 4i 3 "3 O :S g-? 3 CN u C (/] m 2SE); p; 2 adm (3GE :; 3 inte thrs fgt pairs lse GE,, 5SE) u rs (6 G 1 thi adm; 12 dditinal O i3 at pair ( 2 par* fgt pair ( 7SE;; GE, SJ GE,3 st(3 fgt pairs 1 SE thr pairs pair ( CO v^ supprt CN 9SE; GE, 20 st; S" Ci thrs 0 pan 0 pail -T3 a a B -a S u a. 00 ' J U ON ON ON O O CN ON ON ON O O QJ ^3 V) S 3 "S Q pa U S^ 2 U 5 Q O 3 O S 2 X X 3 O O (N I ^ Exeptinal Children 399

1 b spred (^assis 5 E n 4-1 nl u «-< -., ^ 8 ^ -T3 -a - is i.j is '^.S.E.S - 3 " -a 1 Z -fi 3 (u 1 3 S ^ -a 1 '! 3 C E' E U U t C XI 8 2 2 I I -s s S3 " 6 b., "a I -s -3 S " 00 rv.^ I^ D-. Q- D-, PJ w " fn w U a a. -a H y W - E -a a. ^ -a 1^ b X s u J m 4 h (N OUI u N Rie CN CN Rsa, CN CN 13 -d Salen CN CN CN *-* Tarra CN CN O CO (N O CN s (N N 400 Summer 2007

15 invlved primary, preshl, r elementary shl lassrms; 14 studied junir high, middle shl, r high shl lassrms; whereas 3 investigated bth elementary and sendary lassrms. These shls and lassrms als represented a range f latins, inluding 8 urban, 9 subiirban, 4 rural shls, and 5 representing a mbinatin f latins (6 were nt reprted). Ten f the reprts speifially targeted "utstanding" examples f -teahing fr investigatin; thers were desribed as mre typial f the teahing experiene. Results are presented with respet t the fur superrdinate ding ategries previusly disussed. BENEFITS OE CO-TEACHING Benefits t Teahers. Teahers generally reprted that they had benefited prfessinally frm -teahing experienes. Fr example, Austin (2001), in his semistrutured interviews f 12 New Jersey -teahers in K-12, agreed with many ther researhers in his fmding that general eduatin teahers generally nsidered -teahing t have ntributed psitively t their prfessinal develpment: Speiai eduatin -teahers ited an inrease in ntent knwledge, and general eduatin -teahers nted the benefits t their skill in lassrni management and urriulum adaptatin, (p. 250) In her qualitative investigatin f three -teahers in an integrated Grade 2/3 lassrm, Bessette (1999) interviewed the general eduatin teaher, wh reprted "Having Mary as the speial eduatin teaher shw me what she knws, uld nly make me a better teaher. And, I feel that's ging t be the sarrie with Kelly, t she has lts f new ideas, and I've dne nthing but learn, and hange, and grw." (p. 110) Many ther investigatins speifially reprted similar prfessinal benefits t -teahers (e.g., Bukley, 2005; Carlsn, 1996; Curtin, 1998; Lukner, 1999; Rie & Zigmnd, 2000; Salend et al., 1997; Tarrant, 1999; Thmpsn, 2001; Trent, 1998). Fr instane, ne f the elementary grade general eduatin -teahers frm the Frisk (2004) investigatin reprted, " 'I learned s muh this year frm my partner. I learned hw t adapt lessns fr eah student; she really taught me s muh'" (p. 98). This pereived value, hwever, appeared t be prediated n the tw teahers being persnally mpatible. The need fr mpatibility, disussed in a fllwing setin, was mentined very ften, frequently within the same reprt, and several instanes were prvided where lak f mpatibility undermined the effetiveness f the -taught lassrm (e.g.. Frisk; Nrris, 1997). Benefits t Students Withut Disabilities. Teahers smetimes nted inreased peratin amng their students in -taught, inlusive lasses. Salend et al. (1997) quted a general eduatin kindergarten teaher wh reprted, "Nrma fell ffher hair tday and Rbert immediately asked. Are yu OK?' in a nerned, aring way. Lee then gt up t help her pik up her rayns it was wnderful." (p. 8) Teahers smetimes nted inreased peratin amng their students in -taught, inlusive lasses. Many ther investigatins supprted these nlusins, and prvided evidene fr aademi benefits, partiularly thrugh extra teaher attentin (e.g., Lukner, 1999; Pugah & Wessn, 1995; Rie & Zigmnd, 2000; Yder 2000). Fr example, an elementary-level general eduatin student in the Drietz (2003) investigatin reprted, "'Yu an ask them [speial eduatin teahers] a questin, and they are there t help yu"' (p. 30). Als in that investigatin, hwever, a speial eduatin student reprted, " 'Smetimes ther peple are asking fr help when yu need help mre'" (p. 30). C-teahers in a number f investigatins reprted n the psitive effets f -teaher llabratin as a sial mdel fr students (e.g., Carlsn, 1996; Frisk, 2004; Hardy, 2001; Haziett, 2D01; Trent, 1998). Arss all investigatins, sial benefits t students withut disabilities were disussed mre frequently than aademi benefits. Benefits t Students With Disabilities. Reprts f benefits t students with disabilities were m- Exeptinal Children

mn in these investigatins. Teahers in the Walther-Thmas (1997) investigatin f 25 elementary and middle shls reprted that nly a few students failed t sueed in -taught lasses: One speial eduatin teaher desribed a student wh "'was truly amazed t Fmd that he uld d OK in here... When he realized all f this, he was willing t wrk harder than he ever had in the self-ntained lasses'" (p. 399). Teahers in several investigatins nted the benefit f expsure t peer mdels fr apprpriate behavir (e.g., Carlsn, 1996; Vesay, 2004; Ward, 2003; Yder, 2000). One mmnly expressed benefit f teahing was said t be the additinal attentin reeived by students with disabilities. Fr example, Nrris (1997) interviewed a general eduatin middle shl teaher, wh respnded "The best thing abut -teahing is having anther persn in the lassrm... knwing that there are targeted students In the lassrm wh need extta help and having eithet the -teahei' r myself address thse while the ther teaher is ding smething else." (pp. 84-5) Five f six interviewed sixth-grade speial and general eduatin students in the Drietz (2003) investigatin mentined the psitive benefits f extra attentin. One student reprted, "'I like that there are tw peple t help ut, and yu dn't have t wait s lng t get yur questin answered'" (p. 28). The sixth student, hwever, felt that the extra lassrm nise generated was distrating. A student with hearing impairments in a mbined first/send-grade lass reprted, '"It's a gd lass fr me beause I learn mre stuff"' (Lukner, 1999, p. 27). Pugah and Wessn (1995) interviewed 9 fifth-grade students in taught lasses and nluded, "The students we interviewed felt as if their aademi and sial needs-were being met better than had they been in lasses instruted by a single teaher" (p. 291). Dieker (2001) interviewed 54 sendary level students with and withut disabilities and reprted that all students reprted benefiting frm the taught lass, exept fr ne student labeled emtinally disturbed wh reprted, "'Yu an't get away with anything'" (p. 19). Student Skill Level. In spite f the substantial number f reprts f student benefits, a number f partiipants stated strngly their nern that students inluded in -tatight lasses have a minimum aademi and behaviral skill level. This was a very mmn qualifiatin, appearing in mre than 20 f the 32 studies reviewed; disnfirmatins, in the frm f uiiqualified aeptane f all students in -taught lasses, were nt nted. Fr example, Thmpsn (2001) studied 11 elementary-level -teahers and reprted, "The partiipants repeatedly autined abiit administratrs fring teahers t -teah and felt equally adamant abut inluding students with disabilities whse needs uld rit he met in the general eduatin setting" (p. 129). Six sendary-level speial eduatin -teahers in the Weiss and Llyd (2002) investigatin thught that sme students with speial needs "did nt belng in -taught lasses but were there beause shl pliy required them t partiipate in mainstream lasses" (p. 65). Sme f the teahers in the Walther-Thmas (1997) investigatin "reprted... 'hrrr stries' abut prly planned lassrms... sme lassrms ended up heavily Weighted with students wh had learning and/r behavir prblems. Unfrtunately, these ill-fated lassrms set teahers and students up fr failure and frustratin" (p. 403). Bessette (1999) desribed the ase f a student in a mbined send/third-grade lass wh disturbed the harmny f the lass. Similarly, a send-grade teaher in the Hazlett (2001) investigatin reprted "Nathan had many teahers. He was here (in the lassrm) all day lng... but he was s frustrated and angry. He had tantrums heause he wanted t d what the ther kids were ding. He assaulted anther hild in the lassrm and after that he assaulted the TSS staff, wh was just a behavir persn just fr him.... He had tw peple fr just ne hild!" (p. 107) This teaher "emphatially denied that all hildten benefit frm being in an inlusive lassrm" (p. 107). Diffiult students wh threatened -teahing effrts were reprted by many ther researhers, (e.g., Carlsn, 1996; Feldman, 1998; Frisk, 2004; Pugah & Wessn, 1995; Ward, 2003). Hwever, apprahes fr dealing with 4O2 Summer 2007

these students varied. That is, in the Carlsn investigatin, ne elementary -teahing pair was able t pe with prblem students, but ther pairs were nt. Feldman bserved a sendary student wh exhibited mre than 75% ff-task behavir. The speial eduatin teaher "alternates between mnitring this student lsely and ignring him altgether. [The general eduatin teaher] is essentially uninvlved with this student, appearing t view him primarily as [the speial eduatin teaher's] nern" (p. 80). Cnsidering suh ases, the general reprt f the benefits t students with disabilities in -taught lasses must be tempered with teahers' nern that students meet minimum skill expetatins. EXPRESSED NEEDS OF CO-TEACHERS Administrative Supprt. In additin t reprted benefits, teahers als expressed a number f needs that in their view must be met fr teahing t be suessful. Primary amng these needs was administrative supprt. Fr example, ne teaher in Thmpsn's (2001) investigatin f 11 elementary-level -teahers spke fr the grup in reprting, "'Administrative supprt that wuld be number ne. Number tw piking the right teaher'" (p. 129). Salend et al. (1997) studied -teahers in a kindergarten lassrm and reprted, "the supprt f the prinipal als was instrumental in the suess f the teahers' llabratin" (p. 8). Similarly, Chris and Kelly, fifi:h/sixth-grade -teahers studied in the Carlsn (1996) investigatin, "made it lear that the supprt f the prinipal was ruial" (p. 64). In Frisk's (2004) study f five elementary-level teahing dyads, wh were in strng agreement n this issue, ne third-grade teaher reprted, "'the dyad must be mmitted but... lal and distrit shl administratin must als be mmitted t supprting ur inlusin mdel'" (p. 96). Other researhers supprted this finding (e.g., Curtin, 1998; Mr & Aguilar, 2002; Nrris, 1997; Thmpsn; Vesay, 2004; Yder, 2000). N disnfirming evidene that administrative supprt was nt neessary was identified. Administrative supprt was seen t be linked t a number f additinal issues, disussed in the fllwing setins. Vlunteerism. Many teahers maintained that it was neessary that -teahers vlunteer t teah tgether. Thmpsn (2001) reprted that all f the partiipating elementary teahers "strngly advated fr vluntary partiipatin" (p. 129). Carlsn (1996) reprted that the elementary-level behavir resure teaher, Amanda, "stated that it was ritial 'that the impetus fr the team mes frm the tw individuals invlved, that it's nt impsed by administratin'" (p. 154). The prinipal agreed that "'-teahing annt be fred. Rather, it is a way f ding things that the tw teahers must hse, thugh it an be suggested. In ther wrds, teahers have t pik their -teahing partners'" (p. 45). In Trent's (1998) study f fur high shl -teahers, he reprted, Christine [the general eduatin sial studies teaher] believed that the transfer f Katherine [the speial eduatin teaher] was a prime example f hw teahers' pinins were disregarded when planning -teahing arrangements. Neither teaher had had a say in this hange and, unfrtunately, Katherine's -teahing experiene with the U.S. Gvernment teaher was nt suessful, (p. 510) Desribing an unsuessful preshl -teahing pair, Rsa (1996) mmented, "the arrangement seemed dmed fr a number f reasns. First, and pssibly mst imprtant, the prinipal had me t Elaine and pratially fred her t take Franes beause nbdy else wanted her" (pp. 137-138). Vesay (2004) studied three pairs f early hildhd eduatin -teahers, and nluded, "the effet n their llabratin is: psitive when bth teahers make a vluntary mmitment t initiating the partnership" (p. 152). Teahers' aunts f the neessity f vluntary -teahing were frequently reprted (see als Bukley, 2005; Curtin, 1998; Frisk, 2004; Hazlett, 2001; Nrris, 1997). Hwever, Ward (2003) fund a different pinin expressed in fus grups f middle shl teahers. One teaher reprted, "There are peple in my building this really bthers me that have the 'Free frm Speial Ed' pass. I didn't knw they [admin- Exeptinal Children 4O3

istratrs] give thse ut, but sme peple in my building have ne and dn't have any speial ed students beause they exhibit qualities in the lassrm that are nt beming t llabratin, s the speial eduatr des NOT want t plae students in thse rms." (p. 110) Anther teaher in this same investigatin reniarked, "Yu have t say it is mandatry beause I dn't think yu ever want a pliy that ertain teams r teahers an't have ertain kids. Everyne shuld be ding smething in their wn small way shwing that they are mving alng that ntinuum." (p. Ill) Hwevet, the teahets in this investigatin wh felt that -teahing shuld be mandated als felt it shuld be phased in ver a petid f yeats and ampanied by suffiient training and supprt. Planning Time. A frequently nted issue was the imprtane f planning time, nted in nearly all f the investigatins. Yder (2000) reprted that "Ann [a junir high speial eduatin teaher] nted in her jurnal, as well as repeatedly during the interview press that jint preparatin times are neessary, partiularly during the first year f a -taught lass" (p. 104). In a study f a sendary -taught bilgy lassrm, Curtin (1998) reprted, "the speial eduatin teaher felt the barrier t -teahing was a lak f planning time fr llabratin with the regular eduatin teaher" (p. 101). Dieker (2001) studied sendary-level -teahing teams and nluded, "the teams talked regularly abut the struggle t find adequate time t plan" (p. 20). These teahers reprted having an average f 45.5 min per week (ften interrupted by ther fatrs), but felt they needed nearly three times that amunt. In the Hazlett (2001) investigatin, all -teahing partners reeived 40-min sheduled planning time per week. Hwever, even this level f planning time seemed insuffiient, fr teahers als felt the need t meet n an nging basis, at lunhtime, in the mrning, at reess, r at the end f the day. Vesay (2004) reprted in her study f three preshl -teahing teams, "In respnse t a questin f what makes their llabrative team suessful Cnnie stated, 'Fr us it's sared planning time whih we haven't had fr tw year[s]'"(p. 112). Teahets frequently framed planning time in the ntext f administrative supprt; fr example, Austin (2001) interviewed -teahers wh reprted that they were satisfied with their present -teahing assignment "but nt with the level f supprt reeived frm the shl, nting that they needed mre planning time" (p. 251). Several ther researhers disussed the imprtane f administrative respnsibility in failitating planning, inluding Bukley (2005), Curtin (1998), Nrris (1997), Ward (2003), and Yder (2000). Training. A very mmn theme arss many investigatins was the need fr teaher training fr -teahing. In Vesay's (2004) study, ne preshl -teaher, Cnnie, felt unprepared fr llabrative teahing. She admitted, "'Oh, abslutely! I was frightened, I had n bakgrund. A trah[estmy] sared me. A feeding tube frightened me, I was afraid I'd hurt smebdy. I was!'" (p. 112). In ther instanes, teahers expressed a need fr training t prmte learning f mre flexible thinking (Bukley, 2005); strategies, and pratial skill develpment (Curtin, 1998); different teahing mdels (Feidman, 1998); use f tehnlgy (Lukner, 1999); harateristis f disabilities (Nrris, 1997); llabrative nsultatin skills (Rie & Zigmnd, 2000); grup interpersnal skills (Rsa, 1996); and mmuniating mre effetively (Walther-Thmas, 1997). Mst f these investigatins prvided several examples f training needs. There were few disnfitmatins f these examples; hwever, althugh ther teahers disagreed, ne teaher frm ne f the five -teahing pairs in the Frisk (2004) investigatin reprted, "I think if smene is really interested in llabratin the nly way t really figure ut hw t wrk with smene and hw t interat is t d it. I never attended a wrkshp in hw t d inlusin r hw t llabrate." (p. 100) A teaher in the Hazlett (2001) investigatin fund that a distrit inservie '"wasn't very infrmative sine it didn't tell us hw"' (p. 83). In spite 4O4 Summer 2007

f suh instanes, hwever, mst teahers, when asked, emphasized the imprtane f training. Cmpatibility. Teahers were generally very emphati abut the need fr -teahers t be mpatible. Rie and Zigmnd (2000) studied 17 sendary -teahers in Pennsylvania and Australia and nluded, "Several f the teahers... rated persnal mpatibility between partners as the mst ritial variable fr -teahing suess" (p. 194). Similarly, an elementary-level general eduatin teaher interviewed by Thmpsn (2001) mmented when asked abut -teahing, "I'd say, 'Yu shuld d it [-teahing]. It's awesme,' yu knw. But make sure that it's with smebdy that yu get alng with and that yu have the same, yu knw, ideas ahut teahing and are equally mtivated." (p. 128) Similar autins were bserved in a number f reprts, inluding thse by Bukley (2005), Lukner (1999), Nrris (1997), Rie and Zigmnd (2000), Thmpsn (2001), and Westberg (2001). A negative pinin, reprted by the general eduatin middle shl teaher in the Nrris (1997) investigatin, underlined the imprtane f mpatibility: "If I had knwn that I wuld have t defend the way I have always helieved in teahing, I wuld nt have agreed t -teah.... I have nt been teahing fr 30 years fr smene else t tell me hw t teah.... I am furius." (p. 107) Frisk (2004) interviewed a general eduatin firstgrade teaher in an unsuessful relatinship wh attributed the disslutin f the partnership t the speial eduatin teaher's "inflexibility and persnal issues." She thinks the dwnfall in their llabratin urred beause "Julie spent a lt f time n the mputer ding persnal things. When yu have a lt f kids in the rm with different needs yu an't be ding it all by yurself." (p. 86) Similar issues, frequently mentined, inluded mutual trust and respet (e.g., Curtin, 1998; Feldman, 1998; Frisk, 2004; Nrris, 1997), and apprpriate attitudes (e.g., Bukley, 2005; Carlsn, 1996; Dieker, 2001; Rie & Zigmnd, 2000; Ward, 2003; Yder, 2000). Marriage. Many investigatins inluded sme referene t -teahing as a marriage, that is, requiring effrt, flexibility, and mprmise fr suess. Fr example, Lukner (1999) reprted, "In many ways, a -teahing partnership an be nsidered a prfessinal marriage...it entails dealing with a series f mplex issues and emtins" (p. 30). One f the Crade 5/6 -teahers studied by Carlsn (1996) reprted [Maureen] mpared the -teahing press t marriage, saying, "If yu're nt willing t hend then I dn't think it wuld wrk." Kate [agreed], "It's like a marriage beause yu mprmise and yu're getting different utlks. Yu dn't want t be a lne f ne anther." (p. 137) Rie and Zigmnd (2000) reprted, "The teahers... desribed -teahing as an unusually lse partnership r, what ne termed, 'a prfessinal marriage,' whih, 'like [a nrmal] marriage, yu have t wrk at"' (p. 194). In disussing the failures f a -teahing relatinship, Mastrpieri et al. (2005) nluded, "It was diffiult t determine preisely what aused the ersin f the llabrative relatinship, but as the vie-prinipal reprted, 'Fred marriages ften fail'" (p. 265). Other referenes t -teahing as a marriage were reprted by Bessette (1999), Bukley (2005), Curtin (1998), Frisk (2004), Mr and Aguilar (2002), Nrris (1997), and Rsa (1996). The nsisteny f this metaphr prvides evidene fr nfrmity f thught arss studies (f Nblit & Hare, 1988). TEACHER ROLES Mdels f C-Teahing. By a nsiderable margin, the mst prminent mdel f -teahing reprted in these investigatins was sme versin f "ne teah, ne assist." Fr example, Westberg (2001) studied nine elementary teahing pairs and reprted, by far, the mst prevalent teahing nfiguratin bserved was ne teahing, ne assisting. The general eduatin teaher was mst frequently the lead teaher, while the speial eduatin teaher usually mved abut the Exeptinal Children 4OS

lassrm and interated as neessary with individual students, althugh nt neessarily lassified students, (p. 70) In sme ases, the lead teahing duties alternated between speial and general eduatin teaher (e.g., the high shl -teahing pair in the Curtin, 1998, investigatin, r the furth-grade -teahers in the Mastrpieri et al., 2005, investigatin), but these ases were a deided minrity. Fr instane, althugh Mr and Aguilar (2002) bserved team teahing in an eighth-grade math lass, Magiera, Smith, Zigmnd, and Gebauer (2005) bserved -taught math lasses in eight high shls and nluded. The mst mmn rle... was mnitring f independent pratie.... The ther rle mst mmn t the speial eduatin teaher was assisting students as the mathematis teaher maintained the rle f primary instrutr. Ck and Friend (1996) desribed this as an apprpriate rle in the beginning stages f -teahing.... Teahers partiipating in ur study, hwever, had taught fr 3 t 5 years but had nt gne beynd this initial stage f -teahing, (pp. 20-21) Antia (1999) bserved five -teahers in elementary lasses ntaining students with hearing impairments, and nluded Althugh [the speial eduatrs] were respnsible fr sme diret teahing, they were als respnsible fr assisting lassrm teahers t make urriular adaptatins and fr planning peratively with them. Thus, their majr rle appeared t be prviding servies t lassrm teahers rather than t the hildren, (p. 213) In an bservatinal study f 14 high shls, Zigmnd and Matta (2004) nluded, "Our data set indiates that the SET [speial eduatin teaher] seldm tk (r was permitted t take) the lead in instrutin" (p. 63). Rie and Zigmnd (2000) nurred frm their study f 17 sendary teahers: In all f ur interviews and lassrm bservatins we did nt find a mdel f -teahing that fully met the riteria we set: a shared teahing spae with a diverse student grup, shared respnsibility fr planning and fr instrutin, and substantive teahing by bth -teahing partners, (p. 196) One teah, ne assist was the mst mmn mdel f -teahing amng the 16 -teahers in fur elementary shls studied by Haziett (2001). Haziett desribed the mments f a speial eduatin -teaher in a develpmental kindergarten: "Bertha and I use ne teahing, ne assisting. I g arund the whle rm fr rretness. I think it's easier fr her t be n the flr all the time (beause) she likes t be in ntrl. Smetimes when I teah, she will interjet. I never interjet when she's teahing beause I'm nt mfrtable with her. (Besides) she hits all the basis when she teahes." (p. 101) Other mdels f -teahing were nted in these investigatins, althugh t a muh lesser extent. Vesay (2004) nted the use f parallel teahing in a preshl setting, althugh Haziett (2001) interviewed ne teaher wh reprted, "'We tried the parallel (teahing), and it just did nt wrk ut beause tw f the teahers have real strng vies and eah grup was being very distrated'" (p. 104). Antber teaher reprted, " 'The kids with the mst supprt have trubles in math and language... s in thse situatins, the way we have it set up is parallel teahing even thugh we may nt be in the same rm'" (p. 91). Other mdels reprted by teahers r bserved by researhers inlude team teahing (Curtin, 1998; Feldman, 1998; Mastrpieri et al., 2005; Weiss & Llyd, 2002); alternate teahing (Curtin); and statin teahing (Tarrant, 1999). It is interesting t nte that sme -teahing mdels invlved speial eduatin teahers and general eduatin teahers teahing in different lassrm settings. Fr instane, Curtin (1998) reprted the fllwing bservatin f high shl -teahers: These teahers were emplying the -teahing strategy alled alternate teahing in whih instrutin is prvided t students using different apprahes t a smaller grup f students. I was surprised that these tw teahers deided t separate the lass, (p. 72) Mastrpieri et al. (2005) desribed a situatin in whih tw -teahers were in nflit: "In effet, the teahers determined that ne way t renile 406 Summer 2007

serius prblems in a -teahing situatin was t divide the lass in tw" (p. 265). Weiss and Llyd (2002) reprted bserving -teahers teahing in separate lassrms: Ft example, netning his middle shl sial studies lass, Jim said, "There were t many disruptive hehavits ging n, and nne f the students [was] benefiting frm it. And the easiest fix I uld me up with was t split them, and we did. S he has 12 students and I have 12 students." (pp. 64-65) Subrdinate Rles and Cntent Knwledge. In mahy instanes the speial eduatin teaher assumed, r was seen t assume, a subrdinate rle (e.g., Antia, 1999; Bukley, 2005; Hazlett, 2001; Magiera et al., 2005; Mastfpieri et al., 2005; Nrris, 1997; Pugah & Wessn, 1995; Rie & Zigmnd, 2000; Zigmnd & Matta, 2004). Fr instane, Nrris wrte f a middle shl speial eduatin teaher, "identifying with the rle in the regular lassrm as ne f an assistant with less than equal status and an inability t suessfully meet the needs f students, beame frustrated in the -teahing press " (p. 72). In disussing three teams f high shl wrld histry -teahers, Mastrpieri et al. nluded, "It was rare t bserve speial eduatrs delivering instrutin t the entire lass" (p. 265). Ntes frm bservatins f ne f these teams revealed "This team f teahers interated as a bss and an assistant when wrking with the students. The general eduatin teaher assumed nttl f all aspets f the lassrm at all times.... Thrughut this time petid, the speial eduatr sat in the tm and asinally went atund t individual students t see if they needed any assistane." (bservatin ntes; p. 266) A speial eduatin teaher in the Antia investigatin reprted, "Tm an aide smetimes, I'm an interpreter smetimes, and smetimes I'm a teaher'" (p. 211). A preshl speial eduatin teaher reptted t Rsa (1996) "'She [the general eduatin teaher] ettaihly allwed me t develp all the behavir management prgrams that were ging n and things like that. I dn't think she felt that I was taking ver there, either'" (p. 84), using language indiative f a subrdinate rle. In many ases, the subrdinate rle f the speial eduatin teaher appeared t reflet the relatively greater ntent knwledge f the general eduatin teahet (e.g., Feldman, 1998; Mastrpieri et al., 2005; Mr & Aguilar, 2002; Pugah & Wessn, 1995; Rie & Zigmnd, 2000; Rsa, 1996). Ft instane, Weiss and Llyd (2002) reprted, teahets said that the ntent atea f the lass fted them t take ertain tles. Ft example, Greta said, "I dn't feel nfident in sme lasses t be a team"... and Esther said, "D yu think I wuld have the audaity t g in the gemetry lass and say I was a llahtative teahet?" (p. 65) In reptting n a high shl English teaher and a speial eduatin -teahet. Rie and Zigmnd (2000) mmented. The tw teahets desribed theit pratie as "an enmeshing f ut abilities"... but they wete leatly nt equal pattnets in the instrutin. In mst ases, this disparity in tles was explained as neessaty beause the speial eduatin teahet laked ntent knwledge, (p. 195) Hwever, expertise in ntent knwledge n the part f the speial eduatin teahet uld be assiated with a higher degree f shared respnsibility (e.g., Pugah & Wessn, 1995; Rie & Zigmnd, 2000). Yder (2000) bsetved a high shl Ametian literature lass in whih bth teahers shared mst teahing respnsibilities equitably. The general eduatin teaher reprted, "'I think Carmine [the speial eduatin teaher] and I mesh well beause we mplement eah ther, and she als has the English bakgrund. I think that's a very string ntributing part f it'" (p. 187). Speial eduatin teahers in mte subrdinate rles were nt nfined t sendary gi-ade levels. Instanes f speial eduatin teahers assuming subrdinate rles in elementaty-level lasstms wete teprted by, fr example, Antia (1999), Hazlett (2001), Rsa (1996), and Salend et al. (1997), suggesting that sendary ntent knwledge is nt the nly determinant f teaher rles. Hwever, the lwer status f speial edua- Exeptinal Children 4O7

tin -teahers, mmn at all grade levels, seemed hire nsistent in sendary levels, partiularly in thse lasses with rhre speialized ntent knwledge. Subrdinate Rle and "7Mr^" Teahers als identified turf issues that may have ntributed t the relatively subrdinate rle f the speial eduatin teaher. As stated by a suessful middle shl speial eduatih -teaher in the Mr and Agiiilar (2002) investigatin, '"We're entering their envirnment and we have t be the nes t g ne step abve and beynd'" (p. 332). A high shl speial eduatin teaher reprted, '"Anytime yu walk int anther teaher's lassrm there's ging t be sme type f negtiatin that needs t ur fr bth f yu in terms f jiist territry and what's asked f yu. And that's a tugh thing t negtiate.'" (Ydet, 2000, p. 150) An administratr in the Nrris (1997) investigatin stated, " 'We as an industry are very territrial. It is really diffiult fr teahers t wrk tgether, hange, and aept new ideas"'(p. l45). Wd (1998) reprted in her study f six elementary -teahers When speial eduatin teahers attempted t transplant their speial eduatin tehniques r materials that were nsidered atypial in the general eduatin envirnment... the general eduatin teahers admitted that they wuld smetimes reat territrially, snubbing their suggestins, (pp. 190-191) One fifth-grade teaher in that investigatin stated, "[The speial eduatin teaher] tried t tell me hw she wanted the disipline t run. And she brught in a hart and said, 'Nw wheh [Jeanie] des this, yu put a star here. When [Tim] des this, yu put a irle here.' And I said, 'Well, OK.' But, I never did it beause that's nt the way the disipline in the lass runs." (p. 191) Bukley (2005) prvided a middle shl speial eduatin teaher's desriptin f the diffiulties f fitting int the general eduatin teaher's lassrm: "I mean, if yu're talking, I try t let yu fmish whatever yu're ding. And then I'll ntribute. I try nt t bump in. Well, she tld me I was barging in n her. S it was like, 'Yu will please nt talk in my lassrm.' And I was like, well, maybe I've gt t be able t say smething. It gt t the pint that I was raising rhy hand t talk. I thught, if this isn't stupid. But yeah. She really had truble with smebdy else in there." (p. 174) Bukley nluded, "The regular eduatin teahers saw theniselves as the leader f their lassrms" (p. 179). Althugh mst teahers valued the speial eduatin teaher, "all f them als said that they wanted things dne their way and wanted t maintain ntrl" (p. 179). Desribing hvv she established her -teahing relatinship with a speial eduatin teaher, ne general eduatin teaher said, "Okay, well first I wuld be in harge. [Laughs] And I wuld let her first bserve me. And then I wuld invite her t perhaps try a uple f lessns and see hw she des. And then perhaps nw we're establishing a better rapprt with eah thet and nw I am beginning t trust her, t trust her t teah in the way I am expeting the hildren t be taught, allw her t gradually take ver sme lessns." (p. 179) Althugh wnership r turf issues vvere mnin, they were nt fund in every lassrm. Fr example. Frisk (2004) reprted n the mments f a general eduatih -teaher f a third/ furth-grade lass nerning -teahing: Faith thinks that it's suessful beause there's n mpetitin f egs in the rm. "We have n prblem if Eria takes ne f my lessns and mdifies it t whatever... I dn't feel that I must have ttal ntrl f the rm, and I dn't think she des, either... we mplement ne anther." (p. G<S) Nte even in this example, hwever. Faith's use f the pssessive in referring t "ne f my lessns" (emphasis added). Summer 2007

INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY IN CO-TAUGHT CLASSES General Eduatin Teaher. There was very nsiderable agreement that general eduatin teahers favred strategies that uld be applied t the lass as a whle. Antia (1999) studied primary-grade -teahers and reprted, "teahers were mst ready t make adaptatins that they pereived as benefiting the entire lass, fr exarnple, visual strategies" (p. 213). Bukley (2005) nluded frm her study f middle shl sial studies -teahers, "Regular eduatin teahers tend t plan glbally rather than fusing n individuals. Therefre, a strategy suggested by a speial eduatin teaher may pssibly be prvided fr the whle lass" (p. 176). Hardy (2001) studied a high shl bilgy -teahing pair and reprted that sme adaptatins emplyed by the general eduatin teaher inluded advane rganizers, individual teahing, paing, and lassrm supprts suh as weekly shedules and seating assignments. Hwever, Hardy bserved: a disrepany was nted in the teahers' awareness f the neessity fr speialized instrutin.... The teahers used whle-lass ativities 100% f the time... students with disabilities in the -taught lassrms fllwed the same sequene f ativities and used the same materials as peers, (p. 185) Similarly, Feidman (1998) reprted f his sendary -teahers, "C-teahers are nt likely t prepare individual lessn plans t ammdate students with LD... mst f the ammdatins appear t be designed at the whle lass level" (p. 89). Mastrpieri et al. (2005) bserved "little differentiatin f instrutin t address individual needs" (p. 266) in -taught high shl wrld histry lassrms. Magiera et al. (2005) reprted that teahers typially emplyed a whle-lass leture and independent seat wrk apprah in 10 -taught high shl mathematis lasses. On sme asins, the general eduatin teaher's reliane n traditinal methds was a sure f frustratin t the speial eduatin teaher. The middle shl speial eduatin teaher in the Nrris (1997) investigatin reprted, "I'm nt happy with^ instrutinal methds that dn't address the needs f students. Why teah frm a textbk that sme students an't read?" (p. 69). On the ther hand, general eduatin teahers frequently did nt see a distintin in the way they shuld address individual students. A general eduatin fifth-grade teaher in the Pugah and Wessn (1995) investigatin remarked, "'Persnally, I haven't seen any magi mirale n hw t reah these [students]. It's the same thing in regular ed. And thete is nthing different that we dn't d if we had the time'" (p. 291). In sme instanes, general eduatin teahers reprted that they needed t help students with disabilities prepare fr "the real wrld" (Bukley, 2005, p. 182), and this t sme extent may explain their bserved relutane t individualize. Speial Eduatin Teaher. One speial eduatin teaher in an eighth-grade math lass "assumed a full range f instrutinal rles made the transitin, intrdued and explained the ativity, prvided instrutin, and gave students feedbak n answers prvided by the grups" (Mr & Aguiiar, 2002, p. 336). Hwever, suh ases were rare. Mre typially, speial eduatin teahers generally prvided the rle f supprting the traditinal rle f the general eduatin teaher. Curriular adaptatins f a high shl speial eduatin -teaher (Trent, 1998, p. 506) inluded "develping utline sheets r rndified study guides fr the textbk hapters (e.g., fiu-in-the-blank wrksheets indiating page numbers where answers uld be fund)." Althugh these ativities were generally seen t be helpful, they seemed quite different frm the instrutinal praties usually attributed t speial eduatin teahers (e.g., Mastrpieri & Sruggs, 2006). Feidman (1998) reprted, "The primary strategy t ammdate LD students in this [sendary] lassrm takes the frm f [the speial eduatin teaher] prviding temprary assistane via answering a questin, redireting ff task behavir, r prmpting attentin" (p. 97). Curtin (1998) bserved a sendary siene lass and reprted, "The speial eduatin teaher std at the mailbx and made sure eah student plaed their flder in the ptper slt" (p. 79). Hardy (2001) bserved a speial eduatin teaher in a high shl bilgy lass and reprted, "asinally, during the leture Janet wuld interjet a mment t the lass. At ne time she said. Exeptinal Children 4O9

'Remember when we talked abut what enzymes did?'" (p. 166). In a first-grade lass, the general eduatin teaher led the lass in a sng, while the speial eduatin teaher "mved abut the rm rganizing the hairs and piking up materials that were ut f plae frm the previus ativity" (Rsa, 1996, p. 84). The tasks f the speial eduatin teaher seemed t reflet limitatins impsed n the whle-lass instrutin that was mmnly emplyed in general eduatin lassrms. Magiera et al. (2005) nluded, "Beause whle-lass instrutin ntinued t be the nrm, speial eduatin teahers had few pprtunities t ffer individual instrutin" (p. 22). Sme speial eduatin teahers served as mdels. " 'The first year I was a mdel fr the students. Often, if [the subjet teaher] is leturing, I wuld d the ntes n the verhead [prjetr] t mdel nte-taking'" (Rie & Zigmnd, 2000, p. 195). Zigmnd and Matta (2004) bserved 41 sendary -teahing pairs and nluded. The send teaher was a nie additin, an asinal relief fr the GET [general eduatin teaher], and mre attentin t students when lass is rganized fr small grup (team) r independent seatwrk. But nne f what we saw wuld make it mre likely.that the students with disabilities in the lass wuld master the material. We did nt hear the SETs [speial eduatin teahers] hime in with arefully wrded elabrative explanatins.... We virtually never saw the SET prvide expliit strategi instrutin t failitate learning r memry f the ntent material, (p. 73) Speial Eduatin Teaher and Behavir Management. Frequently, it was assumed that the speial eduatin teaher wuld assume respnsibility fr any prblem behavirs that urred in the lassrm. Bessette (1999) reprted n a jurnal entry f a general eduatin send/ third-grade lassrm teaher: "Mihael presents many hallenges the fear f the ther students is real, and I will pledge t keep them safe. Mary will restrain and remve him while I ntinue with the rest f the lass. It has taken its tll n all f us." (p. 141) Rsa (1996) reprted that a first-grade speial eduatin -teaher "handled the prblems that ame up whih might disrupt the ativity" (p. 84). Feldman (1998) bserved f a sendary teahing pair: "[The general eduatin teaher] atually presents the lessn infrmatin while [the speial eduatin teaher] stands ff t ne side and fuses mst f her attentin n mnitring the behavir f three f the seven LD students" (p. 80). The speial eduatin teaher as behavir manager was desribed in a number f ther investigatins (e.g., Bukley, 2005; Rie & Zigmnd, 2000; Trent, 1998; Yder, 2000). Peer Mediatin. In sme individual ases, peer mediatin in the frm f perative learning r peer tutring was emplyed very prdutively in -taught lassrms (e.g., Carlsn, 1996; Mastrpieri et al., 2005; Pugah & Wessn, 1995). Fr example, Tarrant (1999) reprted n the use f partner reading and partner spelling ativities in a mixed-grade elementary lassrm. Overall, hwever, peer mediatin was bserved far less than might be expeted in these investigatins. Feldman (1998, p. 96) bserved that GE/SE 1 are the nly -teahing pair in the present study t nsistently utilize peer mediated instrutinal strategies... This is urius in light f the relative ppularity f perative learning (Slavin, 1990) and empirial supprt fr varius frms f peer mediated instrutin (Utley, Mrtweet, & Greenwd, 1997). Referring t peer tutring, a high shl bilgy teaher reprted t Hardy (2001), "'I am ging t tell yu hwever that right nw there is nt that muh f that ging n.' Janet [the speial eduatin teaher] adamantly disagreed and expressed, 'Yes, there is.' Arding t field ntes, peer tutring was never bserved" (p. 181). Nrris (1997) bserved a middle shl taught lass and nluded, "Students rarely interated with eah ther ne instrutin began withut permissin and were reprimanded fr ding s" (p. 132). Other tehniques that might have been expeted were nly rarely bserved, suh as priniples f effetive instrutin (Mastrpieri et al., 2005; Tarrant, 1999; Westberg, 2001); differentiated instrutin (Tarrant; Yder, 2000); apprpri- 41O Summer 2007

ate urriulum (Dieker, 2001; Mastrpieri et al.); mnemni instrutin (Mastrpieri et al.; Walther-Thmas, 1997; Yder); effetive student gruping (Pugah &C Wessn, 1995; Tarrant); r strategy instrutin (Mastrpieri et al.; Tarrant; Walther-Thmas). Beynd these exeptins, peer mediatin and ther ptentially helpful inlusin tehniques appeared t be greatly underemplyed. DISCUSSION We emplyed metasynthesis methdlgy in this review in rder t enable us t examine issues and fmdings within and arss studies with mre preisin and t summarize the researh n the level f individual data rather than n the level f the researh reprt. Althugh many f the present results may have been btained frm a mre traditinal study-by-study review, we believe ur methdlgy allwed us t lk arss demgraphi variables (e.g., latin, grade level) within and arss studies, t aggregate data at the level f the individual ase rather than individual study, and t fus n within- as well as arssstudy variatin. Use f NViv sftware allwed us t mpare a large number f issues witbin and arss studies and t examine mre arefully disnfirmatins (r their lak) and interatins with ther issues. We believe that sme f ur findings fr example, grade level and ntent knwledge, planning time and administrative supprt, r benefits tempered by nerns abut student skill levels were mre easily unvered thrugh this methdlgy. Several general nlusins an be drawn frm the results f this investigatin. First, administratrs, teahers, and students pereive the mdel f -teahing t be generally benefiial, t general eduatin and t (at least sme) speial eduatin students in bth sial and aademi dmains, and t the prfessinal develpment f teahers. Send, teahers have identified a number f nditins needed fr -teahing t sueed, inluding suffiient planning time, mpatibility f -teahers, training, and apprpriate student skill level. Many f these nerns were linked t the mre general issue f administrative supprt. Third, the predminant -teahing mdel reprted in these investigatins is "ne teah, ne assist," with the speial eduatin teaher ften playing a subrdinate rle determined, in part, by ntent knwledge, teaher "turf," and the greater numbers f general eduatin students in the -taught lassrm. Furth, general eduatin teahers typially emply whle lass, teaher-led instrutin with little individualizatin, whereas speial eduatin teahers funtin largely as assistants in supprt f speial eduatin students and ther students in need, within the existing lassrm ntext. Althugh several exeptins were nted fr eah f these general findings, verall the nsisteny f nlusins drawn arss studies ranging widely in grade level, subjet matter, gegraphial latin, speifi setting, and student harateristis was remarkable. In shrt, it appears that the nerns abut -teahing raised years ag by Budah, Shumaher, and Deshler (1997) were presient. [TJeahers have identified a number f nditins neededfi)r -teahing t sueed, inluding suffiient planning time, mpatibility f -teahers, training, and apprpriate student skill level On a psitive nte, it an be nluded that teahers and administratrs were satisfied verall, r in sme ases very enthusiasti, with -teahing as presently pratied, and that mst bjetins raised in these investigatins refleted speifi -teahing irumstanes (e.g., mpatibility f -teahers, administrative supprt) rather than the pratie f -teahing itself. These nlusins, hwever, must be tempered by the fat that partiipants in nearly ne third f the investigatins were seleted as being utstanding examples f -teahing, and that mst f the remaining teahers had vlunteered fr (r at least nt bjeted t) these assignments. And, as Baker and Zigmnd (1995) nted, it is diffiult t implement a pliy based n vlunteerism. Examined ritially, hwever, the pratie f -teahing as desribed in these investigatins an hardly be said t resemble the truly llabrative mdels desribed by, fr example. Ck and Friend (1995) r Walther-Thmas et al. (2000). Exeptinal Children

If the qualitative researh t date represents general pratie, it an be stated that the ideal f true llabratin between tw equal partners fused n urriulum needs, innvative pratie, and apprpriate individualizatin has largely nt been met. Classrm instrutinal praties have nt hanged substantially in respnse t teahing. Classrm instrutin has generally ntinued as whle lass and leture driven, and speial eduatin -teahers have generally attempted t fit within this mdel t deliver assistane t students in need. Praties knwn t be effetive and frequently remmended suh as peer mediatin, strategy instrutin, mnemnis, study skills training, rganizatinal skills training, hands-n urriulum materials, test-taking skills training, mprehensin training, self-advay skills training, self-mnitring, r even general priniples f effetive instrutin (e.g., Mastrpieri & Sruggs, 2006) ^were nly rarely bserved. As a nsequene, the -teahing mdel f instrutin is apparently being emplyed far less effetively than is pssible. As nted earlier by Zigmnd and Baker (1994) f inlusin lasses, students with speial needs are reeiving gd general eduatin instrutin, with assistane but are they reeiving a speial eduatin? Results f the present synthesis suggest they are nt. If the qualitative researh t date represents general pratie, it an be stated that the ideal f true llabratin between tw equal partners -fused n urriulum needs, innvative pratie, and apprpriate individualizatin has largely nt been met. The present results an be linked t mre general haraterizatins f teaher llabratin. Hargreaves (1994; see als Hargreaves, 2003) suggested that teaher llabratin an lead t inreased nfidene, whih an lead in turn t mre experimentatin and risk-taking, and ultimately ntinuus imprvement. Hwever, genuine llabratin must be spntaneus, vluntary, unpreditable, and riented tward develpment. In ntrast, -teahing as desribed in the present qualitative studies ntains many features f what Hargreaves (1994) referred t as "ntrived llabratin." Althugh many f the pairings desribed in these investigatins were vluntary (and sme were experimental and innvative), verall they were regulated by administratrs (ften imperfetly), fixed in time and spae, and preditable. Suh a llabratin "diverts teaher's effrts and energies int simulated mpliane with administrative demands that are inflexible and inapprpriate t the settings in whih they wrk" (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 208). There is a further issue. Fr suh llabratin t be effetive, the individuals in eah pair shuld be n an equal fting (unless it is mutually understd that ne f the pair is learly advaned in, fr example, experiene, expertise, r prfessinal judgment, as in mentring pairings). In -teahing, hwever, the general eduatin teaher beause f her wnership f the lassrm, the urriulum, the ntent, and mst f the students is very ften in the dminant rle, regardless f experiene, expertise, r judgment. Therefre, the verall tilt f the lassrm is typially in the diretin f the general eduatin teaher, where whle-lass, teaher-led instrutin is the rule, and the speial eduatin teaher applies assistane nly within the ntext f the existing lassrm struture. That this rle is smetimes mediated by a high level f ntent knwledge n the part f the speial eduatin teaher suggests that the speial eduatin teaher may be mre aepted nly t the extent t whih she resembles the general eduatin teaher. In these irumstanes, a truly llabrative relatinship in the wrds f Rie and Zigmnd (2000), "a shared teahing spae with a diverse student grup, shared respnsibility fr planning and fr instrutin, and substantive teahing by bth teahing partners" (p. 196) is very unlikely t develp. The partiipants f the investigatins represented in this metasynthesis annt be haraterized as a randm sample, and t that extent, the relatinship between the present bservatins and the ppulatin as a whle is unknwn. In sme ases (e.g., Hazlett, 2001), -teahers delined t partiipate, iting prblems in the -teahing relatinship they did nt wish t disuss. Further, 10 f the 32 investigatins had been identified as 412 Summer 2007

utstanding examples f suessful -teahing (and nne speifially seleted as a negative example). It seems likely, then, that the studies inluded represent a mte favrable piture f -teahing than exists in general. Neither, hwever, shuld the generalizability fthe present findings be disunted entirely. The reptts inluded in this metasynthesis teptesented a substantial number f teahers and administratrs, in a wide variety f settings and situatins. Nevertheless, we were struk by the remarkable nsisteny fthe findings. Fr example, in 21 f the investigatins, general eduatin teahers maintained that a minimal student skill level was an imprtant riterin fr suessful inlusin; nne f the ther investigatins speifially ntradited this nlusin. Very similar psitins were vied n the impttane (and ften, the hallenges) f planning time in 30 f the investigatins; there were n disnfitming reprts. Twenty-five f the investigatins haraterized the speial eduatin teaher's rle as an assistant r in sme way subrdinate (althugh a smaller number f investigatins desribed different tles). The large size and diversity f the sample and the nsisteny f many f the results argue strngly that the present nlusins ate very suggestive f ntemprary pratie. Future researh uld address tbe means by whih individual shls are able t develp ttuly llabrative r genuine partnerships, and the speifi gains that an be realized by suh praties. Additinally, further effrts in tbe area f qualitative researh synthesis uld help bring the vies f individual students, teahers, and administratrs int the dmain f publi disurse and help t strengthen the impat f qualitative tesearh. It is hped that the present effrt represents ne useful step in tbat diretin. REFERENCES Referenes marked with an asterisk indiate studies inluded in the metasynthesis. *Antia, S. D. (1999). The tles f speial eduatrs and lassttn teahets in an inlusive shl. Jurnal f Deaf Studies and Deaf Eduatin, 4, 203-214. *Austin, V. L. (2001). Teahets' beliefs abut -teahing. Remedial and Speial Eduatin, 22, 245-255. Baket, J. M., & Zigmnd, N. (1995) The meaning and ptatie f inlusin ft students with leatning disabilities: Themes and impliatins ft the five ases, jurnal fspeial Eduatin, 29, 163-180. Bauwens, J., Hutade, J. J., & Ftiend, M. (1989). Cpetative teahing: A mdel ft genetal and speial eduatin integratin. Remedial and Speial Eduatin, 10(2), 17-22. Bek, C. T (2001). Cating within nursing eduatin: A metasynthesis. Jurnal f Nursing Eduatin, 40, 101-109. *Bessette, H. J. (1999). A ase study f genetal and speial eduatts' petspetives n llabtatin and teahing within a language based integtated elementary lasstm. Dissertatin Abstrats Intematinal, 60 (09), 3317A. (UMI N. AAI9946579) Budah, D. J., Shumahet, J. B., & Deshlet, D. D. (1997). CUabtative insttutin: Is it an effetive ptin ft inlusin in sendaty lasstms? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 293-316. Btantlinget, E., Jimenez, R., Klingnet, J., Pugah, M., & Rihatdsn, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in speial eduatin. Exeptinal Children, 71, 195-207. *Bukley, C. (2005). Establishing and maintaining llabtative telatinships between tegulat and speial eduatin teahets in middle shl sial studies inlusive lasstms. In T E. Stuggs & M. A. Masttpieti (Eds.), Cgnitin and learning in diverse settings: Vl 18. Advanes in learning and behaviral disabilities (pp. 153-198). Oxftd, UK: Elseviet. Campbell, R., Pund, P., Ppe, C, Btitten, N., Pill, R., Mrgan, M., & Dnvan, J. (2003). Evaluating metaethngtaphy: A synthesis f qualitative teseath n lay expetienes f diabetes and diabetes ate. Sial Siene and Mediine, 56, 671-684. *Catlsn, L. D. (1996). C-teahing ft integtatin: An expltatty study. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 57(08), 3389A. (UMI N. AAGNN11685) Ck, L., & Etiend, M. (1995). C-teahing: Guidelines ft reating effetive praties. Eus n Exeptinal Children, 25(3), 1-16. Ck, L., & Etiend, M. (1996). C-teahing: Guidelines ft reating effetive praties. In E. L. Meyet, G. A. Vetgasn, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Strategies fr teahing exeptinal hildren in inlusive settings (pp. 309-330). Denvet, CO: Lve. Cteswell, J. W. (2006). Eduatinal researh: Planning, nduting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative researh. Uppet Saddle Rivet, NJ: Ptentie-Hall. Exeptinal Children 413

*Curtin, J. P. (1998). A ase study f -teahing in an inlusive sendary lassrm. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 60 (01), 31A. (UMI N. AAG9917397) *Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the harateristis f "effetive" middle and high shl -taught teams fr students with disabilities? Preventnig Shl Failure, 46, 14-23. Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). C-teahing at the sendary level: Unique trends, urrent trend, and suggestins fr suess. The High Shl Jurnal, 86{A), 1-13. *Drietz, A. G. (2003). Hw students n individual eduatin plans pereive team teahing. Masters Abstrats Internatinal, 41 (06), 1580. (UMI N. AAI1414185) Estabrks, C. A., Field, P. A., & Mrse, J. M. (1994). Aggregating qualitative findings: An apprah t thery develpment. Qualitative Health Researh, 4, 503-511. *Feldman, R. K. (1998). A study f instrutinal planning f sendary speial and general eduatin -teahers t ammdate learning disabled students in the general eduatin lassrm. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 58 (07), 4731 A. (UMI N. AAG9900508) Frness, S. R. (2001). Speial eduatin and related servies: What have we learned frm meta-analysls? Exeptinality, 9, 185-197. Keefe, E. B., Mre, V., & Duff, E (2004). The fur "knws" f llabrative teahing. TEACHING Exeptinal Children, 3(^(5), 36-42. Fraser, D. (1999). Q_SR NUD*IST Viv Referene guide. Melburne, Australia: Qualitative Slutins and Researh. Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Sama. Gambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Friend, M. (2002). An interview with Dr. Marilyn Friend. Interventin in Shl and Clini, 37, m-lli. Friend, M., & Gk, L. (2003). Interatins: Cllabratin skills fr shl prfessinals (4th ed.). New Yrk: teahing lassrms. Amerian Annals f the Deaf, 144, *Lukner, J. L. (1999). An examinatin f tw - Lngman. 24-34. Friend, M., & Reising, M. (1993). G-teahing: An *Magira, K., Smith, G., Zigmnd, N., & Gebauer, K. verview f the past, a glimpse at the present, and nsideratins fr the future. Preventing Shl Failure, 37, matis lasses. TEACHING Exeptinal Children, (2005). Benefits f -teahing in sendary mathe- 6-10. 37{3), 20-24. *Frisk, G. A. (2004). Teaher llabratin: Learning Mastrpieri, M. A., & Sruggs, T. E. (2006). The inlusive lassrm: Strategies fr effetive instrutin (3rd ed.). frm inlusin dyad dialgues. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 65 (6), 2158A. (UMI N. AAI3135903) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentie-Hall. Gately, S. E., & Gately, F J. (2001). Understanding teahing mpnents. TEACHING Exeptinal Children, 33(4), 40-47. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we knw abut effetive instrutinal praties fr English-language learners: A multi-val researh synthesis. Exeptinal Children, 66, 454-470. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1971). Status passage: A frmal thery. Ghiag: Aldine. Glass, G. V., MGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis in sial researh. Thusand Oaks, GA: Sage. *Hardy, S. D. (2001). A qualitative study f the instrutinal behavirs and praties f a dyad f eduatrs in self-ntained and inlusive -taught sendary bilgy lassrms during a nine week siene instrutin grading perid. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 61 (12), 4731A. (UMI N. AAI3000278) Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teahers, hanging times: Teahers' wrk and ulture in the pstmdern age. New Yrk: Teahers Gllege Press. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teahing in the knwledge siety: Eduatin in the age f inseurity. New Yrk: Teahers Gllege Press. *Hazlett, A. (2001). The -teahing experiene jint planning and delivery in the inlusive lassrm. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 62 (12), 4064A. (UMI N. AAI3037002) Jensen, L. A., & Allen, M. N. (1994). A synthesis f qualitative researh n wellness-illness. Qualitative Health Researh, 4, 349-369. LeGmpte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethngraphy and qualitative design in eduatinal researh. New Yrk: Aademi Press. Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The siene f reviewing researh. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. *Mastrpieri, M. A., Sruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Nrland, J., Gardizi, W, & MDuffie, K. (2005). Gase studies in -teahing in the ntent areas: Suesses, failures and hallenges. Interventin in Shl and Clini, 40, 260-270. Mead, M. (1928). Cming f age in Sama. New Yrk: William Mrrw. 414 Summer 2007

Miles, M. B., & Hubetman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Shfield, J. W. (1990). Inreasing the genetalizability data analysis: An expanded surebk (2nd ed.). Thu-sand Oaks, CA: Sage. i^as.), Qualitative inquiry in eduatin: The ntinuing qualitative teseath. In E. W. Eisnet & A. Peshkin debate (pp. 201-232). New Ytk: Teahets Cllege Ptess. *Mt, C. C, & Aguilat, C. M. (2002). Cteahing ft ntent undetstanding: A shlwide mdel. Jurnal f Eduatinal and Psyhlgial Cnsultatin, 13, 315-347. Mutawski, W. W., & Dieket, L. A. (2004). Tips and sttategies ft -teahing at the sendaty level. TEACHING Exeptinal Children, 36(5), 52-58. Mutawski, W. M., & Swansn, H. L. (2001). A metaanalysis f the -teahitig teseath: Whete ate the data? Remedial and Speial Eduatin, 22, 258-267. Nblit, G. W., & Hate, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethngraphy: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Thusand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Nttis, D. M. (1997). Teahets' peteptins f teahing in an inlusive lasstm in a middle shl: A lk at genetal eduatin and speial eduatin teahets wtldng tgethet with students with leatning disabilities. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 58 (06), 2162A. (UMI N. AAG9735088) Patetsn, B. L., Thtne, S. E., Canam, C, & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study f qualitative health researh. Thusand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pugah, M. (2001). The stties we hse t tell: Fulfilling the ptmise f qualitative teseath ft speial eduatin. Exeptinal Children, 67, 439 453. *Pugah, M., & Wessn, C. (1995). Teahets' and students' views f team teahing f genetal eduatin and leatning-disabled students in t\y fifth-gtade lasses. The Elementary Shl Jurnal, 95, 279-295. *Tattant, K. L. (1999). The Uabtative implementatin f an eatly litetay uttiulum in a full-inlusin ptimaty gtade lasstm: C-teahets and students wtking tgethet t amplish litetay gals. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 60 (10), 3599A. (UMI N. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The mparative methd: Mving AA19948189) beynd qualitative and quantitative Strategies. Betkeley: *Thmpsn, M. G. (2001). Captuting the phenmenn f sustained -teahing: Peteptins f ele- Univetsity f Califtnia Ptess. *Rie, D., & Zigmnd, N. (2000). C-teahing in sendaty shls: Teahet teptts f develpment in Aus- Internatinal, 63 (02), 560A. (UMI N. AAI3041129) mentaty shl teahets. Dissertatin Abstrats ttalian and Ametian lasstms. Learning Disabilities Researh and Pratie, 15, 190-197. *Rsa, B. A. (1996). Cperative teahing in the inlusive lasstm: A ase study f teahets' petspetives. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 57(7), 2968. (UMI Stuggs, T. E., & Masttpieti, M. A. (1996). Teahet peteptins f mainstteaming/indusin, 1958-1995: A teseath synthesis. Exeptinal Children, 63, 59-74. Stuggs, T. E., Masttpieti, M. A., & Cast, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis f single subjet teseath: Methdlgy and validatin. Remedial and Speial Eduatin, 8(2), 24-33. Stuggs, T. E., Masttpieti, M. A., & MDuffie, K. A. (2006). Summatizing qualitative teseath in speial eduatin: Putpses and ptedutes. In T. E. Stuggs & M. A. Masttpieti (Eds.)'rAdvanes in learning and behaviral disabilities: Vl. 19. Appliatins f researh methdlgy (pp. 325-346). Oxftd, UK: Elseviet. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cperative learning: Thery, researh, and pratie. Uppet Saddle Rivet, NJ: Ptentie- Hall. Sttauss, A., & Cthin, J. (1998). Basis f qualitative researh. Tehniques and predures fr develping grunded thery (2nd ed.). Newbuty Patk, CA: Sage. Swansn, H. L., & Sahse-Lee, C. (2000). A metaanalysis f single-subjet-design intetventin teseath ft students with LD. Jurnal f Learning Disabilities, 33, 114-136. *Ttent, S. C. (1998). False statts and thet dilemmas f a sendaty genetal eduatin Uabtative teahet: A ase study. Jurnal f Learning Disabilities, 31, 303-513. Udey, C, Mttweet, S., & Gteenwd, C. (1997). NO.AAG9638771) Peet mediated insttutin and interventins. Fus n *Salend, S. J., Jhansen, M., Mumpet, J., Chase, A. S., Exeptinal Children, 29(5), 1-23. Pike, K. M., & Dtney, J. A. (1997). Cpetative Vaughn, S., Shumm, J. S., & Atguelles, M. E. (1997). teahing: The vies f tw teahets. Remedial and Speial Eduatin, 18, 3 11. Children, 30(2), 4-10. The ABCDE's f -teahing. TEACHING Exeptinal Sandelwski, M., Dhetty, S., & Emden, C. (1997). *Vesay, J. P. (2004). Linking petspetives and ptatie: Qualitative meta-synthesis: Issues and tehniques. Researh in Nursing and Health, 20, 365-371. ial eduatts' petspetives f wtking Influene f eatly hildhd and eatly hildhd spe- llabtatively Exeptinal Children 415

in the integrated preshl lassrm. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 65 (03), 826A. (UMI N. AAI3126498) Waither-Thmas, C, Krinek, L., MLaughlin, V. L., & Williams, B. T. (2000). Cllabratin fr inlusive ed-108-117uatin: Develping suessful prgrams. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Ban. *Walther-Thmas, C. S. (1997). C-teahing experienes: The benefits and prblems that teahers and prinipals reprt ver time. Jurnal f Learning Disabilities, 30, 395-408. *Ward, R. (2003). General eduatrs' pereptins f effetive llabratin with speial eduatrs: A fus grup study. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 64 (03), 861A. (UMI N. AAI3083896) Weiss, M. P. (2004). C-teahing as siene in the shlhuse: Mre questins than answers. Jurnal f Learning Disabilities, 37, 218-223. Weiss, M. P., & Brigham, F. J. (2000). C-teahing and the mdel f shared respnsibility: What des the researh supprt? In T. E. Sruggs & M. A. Mastrpieri (Eds.), Advanes in learning and behaviral disabilities: Vl. 14. Eduatinal interventins (pp. 217-245). Oxfrd, UK: Elsevier. *Weiss, M. P., & Llyd, J. L. (2002). Cngruene between rles and atins f sendary speial eduatrs in -taught and speial eduatin settings. Jurnal f Speial Eduatin, 36, 58-69. Welh, M., Brwnell, K., & Sheridan, S. M. (1999). What's the sre and game plan n teaming in shls? A review f the literature n team teahing and shlbased prblem-slving teams. Remedial and Speial Eduatin, 20, 36-49. *Westberg, S. L. (2001). Implementing -teahing as a mdel f inlusin f students with mild learning disabilities in general eduatin lassrms. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 62 (3), 977A. (UMI N. AAI3009383) *Wd, M. (1998). Whse jb is it anyway? Eduatinal rles in inlusin. Exeptinal Children, 64, 181-195. *Yder, D. I. (2000). Teahers' pereptins f elements and mpetenies/harateristis that affet llabrative teahing at the sendary level. Dissertatin Abstrats Internatinal, 61 (12), 4735A. (UMI N. AAI9996182) Zigmnd, N. (1995). Inlusin in Pennsylvania: Eduatinal experienes f students with learning disabilities in ne elementary shl. Jurnal f Speial Eduatin, 29, 124-132. Zigmnd, N., & Baker, J. M. (1994). Is the mainstream a mre apprpriate eduatinal setting fr Randy? A ase study f ne student with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Researh dt' Pratie, 9, *Zigmnd, N., & Matta, D. (2004). Value added f the speial eduatin teaher n sendary shl taught lasses. In T. E. Sruggs & M. A. Mastrpieri (Eds.), Advanes in learning and behaviral disabilities: Vl 17. Researh in sendary shls (pp. 55 76). Oxfrd, UK: Elsevier. ABOUT THE AUTHORS THOMAS E. SCRUGGS (CEC VA Federatin), Prfessr f Speial Eduatin and Diretr, Ph.D. in Eduatin Prgram; arid MARGO A. MASTROPIERI (CEC VA Federatin), Prfessr, Cllege f Eduatin and Human Develpment, Cerge Masn University, Fairfax, Virginia. KiMBERLY A. MCDUFFIE (CEC SC Federatin), Assistant Prfessr f Speial Eduatin, Eugene T. Mre Shl f Eduatin, Clemsn University, Suth Carlina. Address rrespndene t Thmas E. Sruggs, Cllege f Eduatin and Human Develpment, MSN 1D5, Cerge Masn University, Fairfax, VA 22030 (e-mail: tsruggs@gmu.edu). Manusript reeived May 30, 2006; aepted Nvember 7, 2006. INDEX OF ADVERTISERS Charles C Thmas, ver 2 Chiag Publi Shls, 474 Cunil fr Exeptinal Children, 390, 434, 487, 509 Hughtn Mififlin Eduatin, ver 3 MindPlay, Cver 3 The Speial Eduatin Servie Ageny (SESA), 510 416 Summer 2007