Effects of Collaboration on Preservice Teachers in Special Education and General Education Programs

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. Collaboration Research Context

5. SPED Cohort Elementary & Secondary (N = 33) GTEP Secondary Cohort (N = 23) Collaboration Research Context 2004-05 GTEP/SPED Collaboration Research

6. 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 Participating Graduate Students

7. Timeline of Collaborative Activities Fall 2004 GTEP students submit lesson plans and reflections Pre-surveys collected(before 1st meeting) 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) Post-meeting reflections collected Post-meeting reflections collected

8. Timeline of Collaborative Activities Winter 2005 Work samples reviewed for indications of differentiation Post-surveys collected 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-meeting reflections collected

9. Timeline of Collaborative Activities Spring 2005 Research data analyzed and reported GTEP + SPED cohorts will meet during full-time student teaching for collaborative discussions Randomly selected students from each cohort will be interviewed Post-meeting reflections collected

10. 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)

11. 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

12. Ages of General Education and Special Education Graduates Students (N=39) 20-30 years Over 50 years 31-40 years 41-50 years

13. 1 2 3 4 5 Not my responsibility My responsibility Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators 84.2% 73.9%

14. Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators 1 2 3 4 5 Possible Impossible 83.3% 84.6%

15. Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators 1 2 3 4 5 Unnecessary Necessary 83.3% 82%

16. Beliefs about Collaboration among General & Special Educators 1 2 3 4 5 Something I want to do Not interested 84.6% 87.5%

17. Beliefs about Inclusion 1 2 3 4 5 My job Not my job 77% 82.6%

18. Beliefs about Inclusion 1 2 3 4 5 Beneficial Detrimental 74.4% 69.5%

19. Beliefs about Inclusion 1 2 3 4 5 Enhances learning of all Detracts from learning of all 71.8% 73.9%

20. Beliefs about Inclusion 1 2 3 4 5 Realistic Unrealistic 56.4% 56.5%

21. Beliefs about Inclusion 1 2 3 4 5 Necessary Unnecessary 68.4% 65.2%

22. Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 Capable Not capable 64.1% 68.2%

23. Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 Knowledgeable Uninformed 58.9% 72.7%

24. Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 Unprepared Prepared 60.9% 38.5%

25. Beliefs about Ability to Teach Students with Disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 Uncomfortable Comfortable 52.2% 64.1%

26. Findings from Reflective Writings THREE questions asked at end of each collaborative session: • Benefit/opportunities • Concerns/obstacles • Key learning / insights

27. Themes related to Benefits/Opportunities

28. 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”

29. Themes related to Concerns/Obstacles to Collaboration

30. 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!”

31. Themes related to Key Learning / Insights

32. Key Learning/ InsightsFall 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.”

33. 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!”

34. 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.”

35. Slight change in February 9th responses 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.”

36. 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.”

37. 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 • …………….