Effects of Collaboration on Preservice Teachers in Special Education and
General Education Programs
Susan Bert, Stephanie McBride,
Barb Ruben
Portland State University
ORATE Conference
February 2005
Rationale for Research
With the move towards more inclusive classrooms general educators and special educators will need to work together. By starting at the preservice level we wondered if we could help future teachers be more comfortable with both inclusive practices and professional collaboration.
Research questions
• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward professional collaboration?
• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and inclusive education practices?
• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy related to teaching students with disabilities?
• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ ability to design instruction to meet the needs of diverse students?
• What is the effect of collaboration on preservice teachers’ ability to identify and contact professional resources to support the teaching of their students?
Collaboration Research Context
Educational Policy,Foundations &
Administrative Studies(EPFA)
Graduate TeacherEducation Program
(GTEP)
Special EducatorProgram(SPED)
Counselor EducationProgram
Graduate School of EducationPortland State University
Collaboration Research Context
Educational Policy,Foundations &
Administrative Studies(EPFA)
Graduate TeacherEducation Program
(GTEP)
Special EducatorProgram(SPED)
Counselor EducationProgram
Graduate School of EducationPortland State University
GTEP Secondary Cohort (N = 23)
SPED CohortElementary & Secondary
(N = 33)
2004-05 GTEP/SPED Collaboration Research
Participating Graduate Students
GTEP (N=23)
• 1+ year program started in summer 2004
• Secondary content areas include language arts/literacy, social studies, music, art, foreign languages
• 9-hour school-based practicum in fall, half-time student teaching in Winter, full-time student teaching in spring
• enrolled in introductory SPED course in fall
SPED (N=33)
• 1+ year program started in summer 2004
• Mix of students with elementary & secondary program emphasis
• 9-hour school-based practicum in fall & winter, full-time student teaching in spring
• No required coursework with GTEP faculty
• Attended scheduled SPED/GTEP collaboration activities each term
Timeline of Collaborative Activities Fall 2004
GTEP + SPED cohorts meet to co-plan a lesson
(Oct. 27, 2004)
SPED students visit GTEP
practicum sites (Nov. 5, 2004)
GTEP students revise and teach
the co-planned
lesson
GTEP + SPED cohorts meet to debrief about co-planned
lesson (Nov. 17, 2004)
Pre-surveys collected(before 1st meeting)
Post-meeting reflections collected Post-meeting
reflections collected
GTEP students submit lesson
plans and reflections
Timeline of Collaborative Activities Winter 2005
GTEP + SPED cohorts meet to problem-solve classroom
management scenarios using Critical Friends Group protocol
(adapted from McEntree, Appleby, Down, et. al. (2003).(February 9, 2005)
GTEP students complete a work
sample with differentiated lesson plans
Post-surveys collected
Post-meeting reflections collected
Work samples reviewed for indications of
differentiation
Timeline of Collaborative Activities Spring 2005
GTEP + SPED cohorts will meet during full-time student
teaching for collaborative discussions
Randomly selected
students from each cohort will be interviewedPost-meeting
reflections collected
Research data analyzed and
reported
Collaboration Measures
• Pre/post attitude survey (Likert scale ratings & open-ended responses)
• Written reflections following each GTEP-SPED meeting
• Co-planned lesson plans and reflections(fall term)
• Work samples reviewed for differentiation (winter & spring terms)
Pre/post Attitude Survey• Areas of concentration
– Beliefs about collaboration among general and special education teachers
– Beliefs about inclusion– Beliefs about ones’ own ability to teach students with disabilities
• Respondents – pre-survey (N=39) – post-survey (N=24)
• Activities between surveys– 3 GTEP/SPED meetings at PSU– SPED students spend half a day at GTEP school site– Development and implementation of co-planned lesson
• Survey offered online in September 2004 and February 2005
24 20-30 years12 31-40 years
2 41-50 years1 over 50
Age (check one)
61.5 %
30.8 %
5.1 %
2.6 %
Ages of General Education and Special Education Graduates Students (N=39)
20-30 years
31-40 years
41-50 years
Over 50 years
0
5.310.5
47.4
36.8
05101520253035404550
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Not my responsibility My responsibility
Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators
0
13 13
34.839.1
0510152025303540
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey84.2% 73.9%
51.3
33.3
12.8
2.600
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Possible Impossible
Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators
58.3
25
12.5
4.200
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey84.6%
83.3%
2.6 2.6
12.8
25.6
56.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Unnecessary Necessary
Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators
04.2
12.5
37.5
45.8
05101520253035404550
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey82% 83.3%
53.8
30.8
15.4
0 00
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Something I want to do Not interested
Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators
62.5
25
12.5
0 00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey84.6% 87.5%
38.5 38.5
15.4
0 00510152025303540
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
My job Not my job
Beliefs about Inclusion
30.4
52.2
17.4
0 00
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey77% 82.6%
43.6
30.825.6
0 0051015202530354045
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Beneficial Detrimental
Beliefs about Inclusion
21.7
47.8
30.4
0 005101520253035404550
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey74.4% 69.5%
38.5
33.3
28.2
0 00510152025303540
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Enhances learning of all Detracts from learning of all
Beliefs about Inclusion
30.4
43.5
26.1
0 0051015202530354045
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey71.8% 73.9%
7.7
48.7
35.9
7.7
005101520253035404550
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Realistic Unrealistic
Beliefs about Inclusion
17.4
39.1
30.4
8.7
4.3
0510152025303540
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey56.4% 56.5%
28.9
39.5
28.9
2.600
510152025303540
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Necessary Unnecessary
Beliefs about Inclusion
17.4
47.8
26.1
8.7
005101520253035404550
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey68.4% 65.2%
33.330.8
28.2
7.7
00
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Capable Not capable
Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities
40.9
27.322.7
8.7
0051015202530354045
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey64.1% 68.2%
17.9
41
20.517.9
2.6051015202530354045
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Knowledgeable Uninformed
Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities
13.6
59.1
13.6 13.6
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey58.9% 72.7%
7.7
23.1
30.828.2
10.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Unprepared Prepared
Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities
0
26.1
13
52.2
8.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey38.5%60.9%
2.6
12.8
20.5
35.9
28.2
0510152025303540
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Pre-survey
1 2 3 4 5
Uncomfortable Comfortable
Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities
0
17.4
30.4
34.8
17.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
%
1 2 3 4 5Ratings
Post-survey64.1%52.2%
Findings from Reflective Writings
THREE questions asked at end of each collaborative session:
– Benefit/opportunities– Concerns/obstacles– Key learning / insights
Themes related to Benefits/Opportunities
THEMES Fall WinterGTEP/SPED
N = 23/32
GTEP/SPED
N = 16/28
Structured process for communication
0/1 20/30
Fresh perspectives 3/5 2/5Feedback 6/0 5/0Exposure to experiences of others
1/7 1/1
Equity/parity (everyone heard) 0/0 0/12Outcome can be productive 8/0 2/1
What students wrote about Benefits:
After meeting on November 17, 2004…GTEP: “Having support and extra ideas as I wrestled with planning and
trying to uncover new ways to engage my students.”SPED: “These students are going to be in our class and we need to
work together to best help all students be successful.”
After meeting on February 9, 2005…GTEP: “Sharing without interruptions- all voices heard, no one
dominates- forced listening”SPED: “This meeting was awesome. I really felt like our group worked
well together and came out with some great solutions”
Themes related to Concerns/Obstacles to Collaboration
THEMES Fall WinterGTEP/SPED
N = 23/32
GTEP/SPED
N = 16/28
Equity/parity of investment 8/0 1/2
Unclear expectations/purpose 4/8 0/1
Lack of receptivity 0/5 0/0
Lack of familiarity/comfort 1/2 5/2
Diverse groupings 2/2 0/0
Time issues 1/2 5/2
Lack of/too much structure 0/1 7/12
What students wrote about Obstacles:
After meeting on November 17, 2004…
GTEP: “Logistics of finding time in busy schedules to allow proper collaborations” (6 x’s)
SPED: “Not having enough experience to give specific feedback”
After meeting on February 9, 2005…
GTEP: “Did not know each other well - made it a little awkward”
SPED: “I’m still not sure we are benefiting from the process, not that
collaboration is a bad thing…just tricky!”
Themes related to Key Learning / Insights
THEMES Fall WinterGTEP/
SPEDN =
23/32
GTEP/SPED
N = 16/28
Different perspectives add value/ collaboration is mutually beneficial
9/15 16/39
Offers more solutions/ideas 8/0 13/4
Appreciation of skills of others 6/2 7/1
Varying capacities to collaborate 2/4 0/0
Attitudes about students with special needs vary
2/1 1/5
Key Learning/ Insights Fall meeting: November 17, 2004
GTEP: “It isn’t that hard to differentiate for your SPED kids. It’s much harder
to NOT differentiate…at least in the long run.” “Key learning point was just how helpful collaboration can be, and
how it relieves the burden from the general ed teacher.”
SPED: “I learned the importance of how general ed and sped teachers need
to work together, without an understanding of how each approaches their job, the process is easily broken down.”
Key Learning/ InsightsWinter meeting: February 9, 2004
GTEP: “Different points of view- more people in group = more insights”
(6 different students)
SPED: “Realized how dependent general ed teacher are on us.” “There are a lot of good insights when people collaborate.” “I think the collaboration process gives understanding of each group’s
[special education and general education] jobs. It will pay off in the future!”
September Responses to Open-ended Survey Question:
“What is the role of the general ed teacher?”
GTEP students wrote about their responsibility to access, differentiate, accommodate. Although there is one mention of collaboration with parents and students there is no mention of working with special education resources in the school or district.
SPED students also wrote about the classroom teachers role in differentiation and accommodation but they also mention that, “The role of the classroom teacher is to provide the same educational
opportunities she would for any of her students. This includes collaborating with other professionals to maximize interventions.”
GTEP students still saw their role as accommodating and differentiating but this time they mention… “Finding out about the IEPs” “Seeking help from specialists” “Applying for the aid from SPED efforts”
Now in thick of their first quarter of student teaching, one GTEP student wrote… “I know it is my job to do this but it seems overwhelming for a new
teacher.”
Slight change in February 9th responses
SPED students saw the role of the general ed teacher was to… “Be open to including sped students. Acknowledge they need assistance from
sped teachers. They must work with the IEP and understand that they can look other places for support.”
Expanding on the collaborative nature of the work, one SPED student wrote… “To work with others and determine the needs of the students- then provide
services/accommodations for those needs.”
Another SPED student wrote… “Each teacher should strive to provide as much support as possible with the
help of the SPED teachers and with the support of the administration.” The was a possible softening of the SPED perspective towards
classroom teachers at least by one SPED student who wrote… “The educational "plan" should be balanced between the needs of the
individual and the needs of the overall class.”
Slight change in February 9th responses
Implications so far….
• Collaboration requires trust and a lot of time• Collaboration requires a structure to insure
emotionally safe, efficient productive use of time
• All parties need to feel ownership for the process
• Everyone’s perspective needs to stay focused on the outcome - best practices for ALL students
• …………….