I: v“
Vt-ul. .I. v
: _
‘. \ an? s.
.w. :‘HMW: 1.1mm:

irﬁmﬁwnu
, an

433. .3... I. 7
Ida» «Riel, hﬁﬁﬂk
3t .11...

 

VI. .31....
‘11:: I!

«.551»:

sh.

iii? .92-

.sl\!....l\§ Inuit}.
no.) a

I... 6.1"... i
1...!-

ﬁestatsoil‘
2Q.§3$1..Ziltl.
.24! ‘lvif
“a. ... A

. H ,, . : .. A . 4......"m,:.l.uuzin..ﬁ
.r Kink: . , ‘ H . y . .
(mi :. . . . . {a

 

'li'cﬁk)

 

Z. L'eeARY
]‘ 0 Michigan State
‘ ‘ University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

CO-TEACHER LEARNING IN THE CONTEXT OF PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING COMMUNITY

presented by

Garth Cooper

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Educational Administration

 

 

04 92%, W?

'Major Professor's Signature
(1/ W] m o i
' 1

Date ,

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProlecc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

CO—TEACHER LEARNING IN THE CONTEXT OF PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING COMMUNITY

By
Garth Cooper

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Educational Administration

2009

ABSTRACT
CO-TEACHER LEARNING IN THE CONTEXT OF PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING COMMUNITY
By
Garth Cooper

This dissertation describes a mixed-methodological study undertaken in the
spring of 2009, focused on teachers learning about co-teaching in the context of
professional learning community. A Professional Learning Community, or PLC, is
formed by a small group of educators dedicated to seeking solutions to school
problems, or creating positive changes in school environment through collaboration.
The members of this particular PLC are responsible for the education of children who
qualify for both general education and special education services in Brandnew JH/HS
High School and who were, are, or will be in the future assigned to co-taught
classrooms.

Prompted by the new Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC), and charged by the
Federal “N 0 Child Left Behin ” legislation, the study focuses on how PLC
participation can help teachers better understand what elements comprise coeteaching
pedagogy and their role in a co-taught classroom.

The study creates opportunities to witness the PLC’s ongoing interactions as
well as to trace individual teacher’s experiences. As PLC members work through a
series of activities organized around co-teaching themes, I collected and analyzed data

from the following sources: individual interviews with a sub-group of PLC members

before and after the project, recordings and transcripts of meeting discussions, written
artifacts produced by the group’s members, and ﬁeld notes ﬁ'om the PLC metings.

As a qualitative study of teacher learning, the research followed the rigors of
ethnographic inquiry including the ﬂaming and testing of working hypotheses or
inferences about local meaning. Additionally, in an iterative process called grounded
theory development, I preceded both inductively and deductively as I collected data,
analyzed it, and returned to the ﬁeld with my questions and inferences further reﬁned
and focused. The research also was guided by Vygotsky’s mediation and social
learning theories and the role these inﬂuences played on teacher learning in the group.

' The quantitative evaluation tool was designed to give a formative look at the

current understanding and experiences the teachers have with PLC. I generated a
series of questions, asked in a sample survey format, using an online program for data
collection. The general and special education teachers who constituted the
membership of the PLC were the respondents to the surveys. The survey was
completed prior to the ﬁrst PLC meeting, after the ﬁfth PLC meeting which was the
mid-point of the project, and at the conclusion of the PLC meetings.

The study provided an opportunity to learn about participating teachers’
knowledge, comfort, and skill related to co-teaching and how these are expressed and

potentially transformed by means of a PLC’s professional development activities.

Cepyright by
Garth Cooper
2009

One of my special education colleagues is notorious for doing the minimum required.
He takes the support teacher role in every co-teaching assignment and doesn’t even
wanttothinkaboutassumingagreaterrole. WhenIsawhiminthe PLC I kindof
laugmd to myself. I didn’t expect much participation ﬁ'om him and I certainly didn’t
expect him to invest much of himself in the project At the beginning that is exactly
what happened. But after about the third meeting he was excited about the upcoming
meetings and was very involved in the discussions. He and one of his collaborating
teachers even developed a lesson using parallel teaching and used it in their class.
Without the PLC meetings I don’t think we would have seen this kind of collaboration

from him.
[Post interview, Stallion, April 2009]

This work is dedicated with great love and admiration to
my children; Doug, Zack and Becca, as well as Dr. Rui
Niu, and all the others who cared about my success and

inspired me to complete my studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to many people who Inve supported me
throughout my doctoral studies and particularly through the completion of this
dissertation. I have been blessed to have so many caring and supportive individuals
ﬁ'om both inside the university and out. First I would like to thank my dissertation
committee for all of their guidance and encouragement: Dr. Chris Dunbar, who ﬁrst
introduced me to the practice of ethnographic study and qualitative research, and who
agreed to chair my dissertation committee. His work has been a model for my own
writing. Dr. Susan Melnick, whom I’ve known since my teacher certiﬁcation days,
long before my doctoral studies, and even before my Masters’ degree work, was
especially inﬂuential in helping me complete my studies. Dr. Melnick truly kept this
dream alive for me helping me make critical decisions that brought me to this juncture.
Dr. Troy Mariage whose enthusiasm for teaching inspires me every time we speak and
whose insight into the co-teaching topic was invaluable. Dr. Susan Printy who holds a
strong foundational understanding of professional learning communities and who
provided me with a wealth of articles to draw upon for this dissertation. Any future
success I have in the ﬁeld of education will be linked to these respected scholars and
the support and guidance they l'mve given me.

Dr. Dawn Pysarchik taught me by example that no detail was too small and
that an educational professional should always set high standards for themselves. Dr.
Doug Campbell was also very supportive of my work. His suggestions for completing
my IRB application and dissertation proposal were much appreciated. Dr. Rui Niu was

a source of inspiration, a positive inﬂuence, an incredible resource, a driving force

vii

behind my work, and a dear colleague. I greatly appreciate Dr. Niu and Dr. Susan
Florio-Ruane for allowing me to be a part of their literacy learning community project
so that I would be better informed and prepared for my research. To all of these
educational professionals I say “Thank You.”

I med to give particular thanks to Mr. Denis McBride, the Special Education
Director for Brandnew Community Schools. Mr. McBride was instrumental in making
this project happen, ﬁ'om helping to enlist teacher participants, to arranging meeting
rooms, and for helping at times to facilitate PLC meetings ﬁ‘eeing me to be more of a
participant in the process. Two others from Brandnew Community Schools played key
roles in this accomplishment: Mr. Don Buggia was a positive inﬂuence and ardent
supporter. His kind words and thoughtﬁil inquiry regarding my work motivated me to
see the project through to the end. Mrs. Sheila Larson provided energy and enthusiasm
to get this project started and supported it through its conclusion. I also need to
acknowledge the teachers of Brandnew JH/HS High who participated in this project.
This truly took a commitment ﬁ'om every member of the community to make the
project a success. A special thanks to those teachers who gave additional time to
complete the pre- and post interviews. I would like to thank Mr. John Schantz who
was my supervisor and superintendent during the year of my research for allowing me
time to be released from my daily responsibilities in order to complete this project.

Finally, I would like to thank my family members who encouraged and
supported me throughout my studies. My three children, Garth Douglas, Zachary
Thomas and Rebecca Kathleen motivated me to continue my study even when time

was short and it kept me ﬁ-om witnessing some of their events. They always believed

that this was a worthy pursuit and wouldn’t let me consider not ﬁnishing when things
got tough. I hope they see this project as a family achievement and strive to
accomplish as much or more in their own educational pursuits. I need to thank my
sisters Mrs. Deanna DeVowe and her husband Mr. Charles DeVowe, Ms. Ruth Cooper
and family friend Ms. MaryAnn Riters, Mrs. Cindy Morehouse and her husband Mr.
Jerry Morehouse, and Mrs. Christine Cooper and her husband Mr. Curtis Cady.

There were many others, too many to name, in the Brandnew Community
Schools district that supported me throughout my studies, and I appreciate all of their
efforts. Lastly, thanks to my friends who believed in me and whose continued interest

in my progress kept me moving towards my goal.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................. xii
LIST OF CHART ............................................................................... xiii
LIST OF DIAGRAMS ........................................................................ xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: WHAT ARE CO-TEACHING AND PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING COMMUNITY; WHY SHOULD WE CARE ............................... 1
Research Questions ............................................................................ 2
' Co-Teaching .................................................................................... 3
Preparing Teachers for a Collaborative Classroom. .......................................... 6
PLC Providing Learning Contexts for Co-teachers ........................................ 7
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION FOR PLC AS EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT TOOL FOR CO-TEACHING INSTRUCTION ..................... 10
Features of PLC That Foster Teacher Learning ........................................... 10
PLC Deﬁnition and Teacher Learning ..................................................... 10
General Characteristics of PLC ............................................................. 11
Viewing PLC Literature through Martin-Kniep’s Eyes .................................. 14
Co-Teaching: Promoting Students’ Learning in the General Education
Classroom ...................................................................................... 21
The Characteristics of Good Co-Teaching .................................................... 22
PLC Are the Optimum Professional Development Environment for
Co-Teaching Relationship ...................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH IN PLC: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ....................... 3O
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................... 31
Design of the PLC .............................................................................. 31
Research Site .................................................................................. 37
Accessing the Research Site ................................................................ 4O
Selection of Participants ..................................................................... 41
Data Collection Tools - Survey ............................................................. 42
Consistency of Data Collection ............................................................. 48
CHAPTER 4
MEETING THE STANDARDS OF A PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
COMMUNITY .................................................................................. 49
PLC Create a Learning Environment not Naturally Occurring in Schools .......... 52
PLC Foster Positive Teacher Collaborative Relationships ............................. 55

PLC Address Teachers’ Long-Term and Immediate Needs

through Effective Ways to Exchanging Ideas and feedback ........................... 59
PLC Assist Participating Teachers to Knowing Their Colleagues’ Expertise ....... 63
PLC Promote Rigorous Work ............................................................. 64
PLC Members Grow from Dependence to Interdependence ......................... 68
Conclusion ................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER 5
MODIFICATIONS IN KNOWLEDGE, BELIEFS AND SKILLS ..................... 71
Modiﬁcations ................................................................................. 71
Results ......................................................................................... 74
Improved Teachers’ Understanding of Co-Teaching and Its Basic Models. . . . ......74
From Experiential Understanding to Systematical Deep Understanding ............ 76
Teachers Gained Flexibility in Co-Teaching Model ................................... 77
Increased Teacher Comfort Level in Co-Teaching Settings ........................... 78
From Being against Co-Teaching to Welcoming Co-Teaching ........................ 79
More Comfortable Now to Sit Together ................................................... 82
Modiﬁcations in Their Co-Teaching Practice ............................................. 83
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 86
CHAPTER 6
OVERVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPE AND IMPLICATIONS OF
THE STUDY .................................................................................... 89
Mediations and Social Development Theory .............................................. 89
Constructing a PLC ........................................................................... 90
Limitations and Future Research ............................................................. 97
APPENDIX A .................................................................................. 101
APPENDIX B .................................................................................. 103
APPENDIX C .................................................................................. 104
APPENDD( D .................................................................................. 107
APPENDIX E .................................................................................. 108
APPENDIX F .................................................................................. 109
APPENDIX G .................................................................................. 1 10
REFERENCE ................................................................................... 114

xi

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

TABLE 5

TABLE 6

TABLE 7

LIST OF TABLES

MATCHING FEATURES OF PLC AND FEATURES OF CO-
TEACHING .................................................................. 29

TEACHERS WILLING TO BE ASSIGNED TO MORE CO-
TEACHING SESSIONS .................................................. 58

TEACHERS’ WILLINGNESS TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONAL
RISKS AND OFFER A WIDER VARIETY OF LEARNING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR STUDENTS ......................... 6O

TEACHERS’ BELIEFS IN CO-TEACHIGN HAS THE POTENTIAL
FOR MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL
STUDENTS .................................................................. 66

IMPROVED TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF CO-
TEACHIGN AND ITS BASIC MODELS THROUGH PLC
ACTIVITIES ................................................................ 75

INCREASED TEACHER COMFORT LEVEL IN CO-TEACHING
SETTINGS ................................................................... 79

MODIFICATIONS IN THE TEACHERS’ REPORTS ABOUT
THEIR CO-TEACHING PRACTICES .................................. 85

xii

LIST OF CHARTS

CHART .......................................................................................... 5 1

xiii

LIST OF DIAGRAMS

DIAGRAM 2 ................................................................................... 93

xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction
What are Co-teaching and Professional Learning Community
Why Should We Care

Teachers worry about making radical changes in their instructional practice and feel
coerced by State and Federal legislation. Often these teachers feel ill-prepared or
insufﬁciently supported to modify their pedagogy in order to help their students succeed.
This feeling is intensiﬁed when teachers work with students who have special educational
needs to meet the requirements of the standard curriculum at their grade level. In the No
Child Left Behind models of classroom and instruction, students who need special
educational accommodations, both those with learning and emotional disabilities
(sometimes co-occurring) characteristics are expected to meet the same curricular standards
as general education students. These children, however, are commonly recognized by their
teachers as apt to be “left behind.” With the push ﬁ’om the NCLB legislation, more and
more such children are put in the general education classrooms in search of an inclusive
education. In this study I intend to explore the inﬂuence of participating in a professional
learning community on teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and skills related to co-teaching.

Inclusive education refers to the practice of placing special education students in the
same classroom, with the same teacher, and learning the same content knowledge as general
education students. Sage (1997) put it this way, “Inclusion implies the existence of only one
uniﬁed system ﬁ'om the beginning, encompassing all members equitably, without regard for
variations in their status” (p. 4). In order to meet this challenge of inclusion, school districts
began to pair teachers to form a model that what will be referred to in this study as
“co-teaching”.

Recently, there have been several educational policies coming to the fore which

have pushed many schools to adopt collaborative teaching methods for instruction,
including co-teaching: l) The “Highly Qualiﬁed” requirements of the NCLB (2002)
legislation that mandates teachers in self-contained special education classes hold
certiﬁcation in the subject matter being taught. 2) The reauthorization of IDEA (2004), the
legislation which governs special education in the US, that requires ALL students have
access to the general education curriculum. 3) The importance and necessity of all students
being prepared to be successful on “high-stakes tests”, which for Michigan is the Michigan
Merit Exam (MME).

With all of these adding up to more special services needed in general education
settings, primarily for students with disabilities, co-teaching has become one of the most
ﬁ'equently used special education models for inclusive classrooms (the National Center on
Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995). The main reason is that although research
on the outcomes of co-teaching is still at its beginning stage (Weiss & Brigham, 2000;
Zigmond, 2003), co-teaching has been viewed as an effective way to ensure that all students
would beneﬁt from content instruction taught by a general and a special education teacher
in general classroom settings (Klingner, et al., 1998; Kloo & Zigmond, 2008; Rea, et al.,
2002; Vaughn, et al., 1998).

Co-teaching refers to the collaborative teaching teams, which are composed of one
general classroom teacher and one special education teacher (Kloo & Zigmond, 2008). The
two collaborative teachers share responsibilities for planning, teaching, and assessment in
the same general class (F ennick and Liddy, 2001 ).

Research Question
In order to teach all children, both regular and special education teachers need to

learn how to create a culture of collaboration and an environment where both the academic

and social needs of each child are meet in the classroom. Meanwhile, the teachers also need
to learn how to integrate the information about their stndents’ learning strengths and
weaknesses into their classroom instruction. Therefore, how to assist these teachers to
understand and feel comfortable in a co-teaching relationship at Brandnew JH/HS Schools
became the goal so that it could be taken as a window to view how professional
development projects such as this can help other districts achieve the same results. In this

study, the grand research question became the following: Do teachers improve their

kngwledge, beliefs, and skill related to co-teaching through participatign in a professional

 

WEE focus had three sub-questions:
1) Whether and how do teachers participating in PLC gain instructional practice
knowledge?;
2) Do the teachers’ beliefs regarding co-teaching change through participation in
the PLC?;
3) What modiﬁcations do the teachers apply in their own teaching strategies due

to their participation in the PLC?

Co- Teaching

In the 19805 and 19905, there was an increase in the amount of research and the
number of articles written related to co-teaching. The catch phrase for the movement to
inclusive classrooms was cooperative or collaborative teaching. Co-teaching, as one of the
models of collaborative teaching, is viewed as a positive approach in supporting teachers in
teaching all children (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989; Pugach & Johnson, 1995; Rice
& Zigmond, 1999; White and White, 1992).

Co-teaching studies cover a big range, including research on the effectiveness of a

general education teacher collaborating with a special education teacher in integrating
subject area knowledge with special education teaching (Chisholm, 1991; Fennick & Liddy,
2001; Walsh, 1991; West & Sarkees-Wircenski, 1995). Other studies speak on the division
of work between a general education teacher and a special education teacher in the same
room (Chisholm, 1991; Stainback & Stainback, 1992; White & White, 1992). Some
researchers focused on the ﬁinctions between the two teachers in the same room (Kovic,
1996; Rice & Zigmond, 1999; Trump & Hange, 1996). Finally, there are also studies on
how to make the team teaching effective (Friend, Raising, & Cook, 1993; Laycock, Gable
& Korinek, 1991; Pugach & Johnson, 1995; Warger & Pugach, 1998).

As stated previously, research on the outcomes of co-teaching is still at its beginning
stage (Weiss & Brigham, 2000; Zigmond, 2003), but studies show that certain students’
school performances increased when they were co-taught. Klingner and colleagues (1998)
found that with co-teachers, the reading achievement scores of students who had special
educational accommodations, such as students with disabilities or students at risk, increased
signiﬁcantly after a fall-to-spring semester of co-teaching. Rea, et al. (2002) found that
students with disabilities in two 8th grade co-taught classrooms obtained higher course
grades in language arts, social studies, math, and science than did those who attended
pulled-out programs. Vaughn, et a1 (1998) also found that co-teaching increased students’
social capacities and friendships with other students. These studies demonstrate the
significance of student participation in co-taught classrooms and the potential increased
effectiveness of instruction in co-teaching.

Theoretically, co-teaching draws on the strengths of both the special education
teacher and the general education teacher regarding teaching content, managing classes, and

pacing the curriculum as well as engage everyone, including language diverse children,

children with disabilities, and children attending individual educational programs (IEPs) in
the learning activities (Kloo & Zigmond, 2008).

Co-teaching can be structured in several different ways, from grade level teams, to
content/subject matter teams, to variations of general education teachers partnered with
special education teachers — i.e. a grade level general education team all working with one
special education teacher. However, the most common conﬁguration of the co-teaching
team is when a general education teacher partners with a special education teacher to
“combine complementary sets of professional knowledge and skills simultaneously in
general education classrooms (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995, p. xiii).These “complementary
skills” reﬂect the general education teacher being viewed as the content expert and the
special education teacher being viewed as the instructional strategies expert. This is the
team conﬁguration that was utilized and researched in my dissertation and thus will be the
default conﬁguration for discussions in this paper.

Within co-teaching there are ﬁve generally accepted models for co-teaching. These
are: Station/Center Teaching, Assisted/Support Teaching, Team Teaching, Complimentary
teaching, and Parallel Teaching (Burggraf& Sotomayor, 2005; Cook & Friend, 1995).
Assisted/ Support Teaching is the most traditional model of co-teaching wherein one
teacher, typically the general education teacher, assumes responsibility for the majority of
the instruction. The second teacher, usually the special education teacher, assumes a
supportive role and waits to be called into the instruction by the primary teacher. The
Station/Center Teaching model consists of dividing the instructional content into two parts
and then has the students move from one station to another with the teacher staying in place
and only covering one part of the instruction. Parallel Teaching is a similar model in that the

students are divided into equal sized groups, either heterogeneously or by student

competency. The same content is then covered by both the general education and special
education teacher within the parallel group they are leading. The Complimentary Teaching
model of co-teaching is almost a hybrid between Supportive Teaching wherein one teacher
assumes primary responsibility for delivering content, and Team Teaching where both
teachers interact simultaneously throughout the lesson. In Complimentary Teaching one
teacher instructs while the other teacher models different desired behaviors such as note
taking, creating a diagram or organizing materials. Finally, there is the Team Teaching
model in which both teachers deliver the instruction in collaboration to all of the students at
the same time, and where responsrhilities for planning, grading, instructing, and managing
the classroom are shared equally. This ﬁts with the prevailing approach to inclusive
instruction which states that “all educators are responsible for the education of all children”
(Bauwens & Hourcade, p. 48).
Preparing Teachers for a Collaborative Classroom

If we follow the prevailing research that suggests there is beneﬁt for students’
learning within a co-taught classroom, how then do we prepare teachers for this assignment?
There are few, if any, courses taught in teacher preparation schools related to teachers
working with another teacher in a collaborative classroom. In addition, even in those
situations where inclusivity is a main topic in teacher education classes, many veteran
teachers that have not taken college courses in many years are suddenly being asked to
work in this new environment.

To bring teachers up to speed on co-teaching districts utilize professional
development opportunities. Currently, many districts rely on sending their teachers to
one-day workshops on co-teaching. This methodology may work for informing teachers

about the components of co-teaching, however, I argue that the most vital element for

creating effective co-teaching teams is in the relationship building and spirit of
collaboration between the general and special education teachers. To that end, I propose the
most effective model for professional development related to co-teaching would be the use
of professional learning communities (PLC).

PLC Providing Learning Contexts for Co-Teachers

In the past 30 years, while the number of articles on issues related to professional
learning communities has increased, and researchers have found PLC to be one of the best
ways to improve teacher learning (Little, 2002), thereby, increasing students’ learning
outcomes (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Sullivan & Glanz, 2006), the number of articles
written related to empirical studies is still limited. The majority of the literature related to
PLC is theoretical in nature, but the volume of work, and consistency in the ﬁndings offers
hope that the use of PLC for teacher learning holds promise (Archinstein, 2002; Beattie,
2002; Ben-Peretz & Silberstein, 2002; Crespo, 2002; F lorio-Ruane with deTar, 2001;
Grossman et al., 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Niu, 2008; Westheimer, 1998).

PLC are commonly deﬁned in the research as places where teachers are able to work
together on common themes, or goals, share experiences and stories together, solve
problems or work on difﬁcult issues, obey common rules, learn ﬁ'om each other, and are
able to continue their professional development collectively through sustained interaction
(Archinstein, 2002; Beattie, 2002; Ben-Peretz & Silberstein, 2002; Crespo, 2002; Grossman
et al., 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Westheirner, 1999). Niu (2008) studied 9
teachers who worked on the topic of how to engage all children in their classroom learning.
Her PLC focused on two Chinese children, and how their language and cultural background
inﬂuenced their learning. In this study, Niu found that after eight PLC sessions her

participating teachers gained awareness of cultural differences, obtained skills and

knowledge in involving children ﬁ'om diverse backgrounds in the class activities, as well as,
taking what they learned into lesson planning consideration. Crespo (2002) studied a group
of teachers who worked in PLC on mathematical content knowledge. The teachers
demonstrated signiﬁcant learning outcomes either through working on mathematical
problems or investigating students’ mathematical thinking by examining their mathematical
work. Other researchers also found PLC to be an effective way to improve teacher learning,
thereby, increasing students’ learning outcomes (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006).

This research raised two questions, “What features of Professional Learning
Communities foster teacher learning in general?” And “Why would a PLC be the optimum
professional development environment for developing a co-teaching relationship between
general and special education teachers?”

In answering these questions, I found that Martin-Kniep’s (2004) framework best
captured the overall general patterns among all the articles related to both PLC and
co-teaching. Focusing on the notion of “teachers teaching teachers” and on the experiences
the teachers at the Center for the Study of Expertise in Teaching and Learning (CSETL)
had, Martin-Kniep (2004) shows the “power of learning communities in stimulating
individual learning and organizational change” (pp. 1-2).

CSETL started with 15 teachers in NYC and met 7 fun days during the ﬁrst year and
for one week each summer. Most of the teachers had signiﬁcant expertise in
standards-based design, portfolio assessment, or action research. These teachers sought
ways that challenged them as adult learners and that helped them grow as teachers. After the
study of these teachers’ learning experiences, Martin-Kniep argues that teacher professional
communities are a means by which teachers break their work isolation and by which

teachers foster a collaborative and reﬂective culture. She describes PLC as “the single most

important factor” in school improvement and enhancement (p. l; cited in Eastwood &
Lewis, 1992, p. 215).

In her writing, Martin-Kniep (2004) argues 1) that PLC provide participating teachers
a learning environment that schoolteachers cannot normally experience in their school
setting; 2) that PLC foster teacher collaborations and create positive working relationships; 3)
that PLC address participating teachers’ immediate and long-term needs through effective
ways of exchanging ideas and feedback to improve professional practices both for themselves
and for their PLC peers; 4) that PLC support participating teachers to know about their
colleagues’ expertise; 5) that PLC promote participating teachers’ rigorous work through
teachers’ constantly ﬁ’aming and reframing their agendas; and 6) that PLC support teachers
and schools ﬁ‘om dependence to independence in terms of continued improvement.

As with the Professional Learning Community (PLC) literature, in this review, I
examined both theoretical and empirical pieces on Co-teaching, including its deﬁnitions,

models, and characteristics, to support my answers to the research question.

Chapter 2: Theoretical Foundation for PLC as Effective Professional
Development Tool for Co-Teaching Instruction
Features at PLC That F aster Teacher Learning
To understand how PLC foster teacher learning, I ﬁrst explore the deﬁnitions of

PLC to provide a general overview of PLC and their common characteristics. After, I
provide a comparative lens for viewing co-teaching and its generally accepted
characteristics and how they match with PLC features. This should offer a strong
argument for why PLC participation can promote co-teacher learning.

PLC Deﬁnition and Teacher Learning

As early as 1887, F. Tonnies deﬁned communities in his book to be either

 

Gemeinschaft (community) or Gesellschaft (society). He argued that Gemeinschaft exists in
one of these three forms: Gemeinschaft by kinship, by place, and of mind (1957). The most
commonly used deﬁnitions of community today are rooted ﬁ'om the third form of his
deﬁnition — Gemeinschaft of mind. According to Tonnies, “Gemeinschaft of mind expresses
the community of mental life (p. 42).” This kind of community was formed through people
sharing a common goal and a common set of values, rather than common bloodline or
common habitat. Other researchers and scholars often acknowledged the sharing of common
goals and values when deﬁning communities. Later, Thomas Sergiovanni elaborated on
Tonnies’ deﬁnition. Sergiovanni (1993) argued that communities are collections formed by
individuals who do activities together by natural will and who are bonded together by their
shared ideals and ideas. Sergiovanni (1994) put it this way,

Community is the tie that binds teachers together in special ways, to

something more signiﬁcant than themselves: shared values and ideals. It

lifts teachers to a higher level of self-understanding, commitment, and

performance. . .Community can help teachers be transformed ﬁom a

collection of “1’s” to a collective “we,” thus providing them with a
unique and enduring sense of identity, belonging, and place. (pp. xiii)

10

These deﬁnitions emphasize that community members are tied together and have
“shared values and commitment.” The “togetherness” and “sharedness” creates the
condition for members to view themselves as a collective “we,” rather than a collection of
“1’s.” Group members’ shared practices form, explicitly, the “groupness” to its members —
the sense of the group as a whole (Grossman, et al., 2001). But what generates this
“togetherness” or “sharedness” or “groupness?”

Miriam Ben-Peretz and Moshe Silberstein (2002) modiﬁed and extended
Sergiovanni’s community concept. They deﬁned a teacher learning community as a place
where teachers are able to work together, share experiences and stories together, learn ﬁom
each other, and are able to continue their professional development through sustained
interaction. Ben-Peretz and Silberstein’s deﬁnition is similar to other scholars and
researchers who study teacher communities (Beattie, 2002; Crespo, 2002; Grossman et al.,
2001; Westheimer, 1999). The common theme across these scholars is that teachers come
together based on a similar or common goal. With these goals, teachers share their
experiences, obey common rules, and ideally learn ﬁom one another.
Wracteristics QfPLC

Community scholars have been working on the characteristics of PLC and the
general tendency shows that when PLC members focus on different topics, it’s more likely
that PLC convey different characteristics. The point being that if the teachers took an active
lead in determining the focus of the PLC they were more invested and exhibited stronger
characteristics of PLC. For instance, Crespo worked with a group of elementary math
teachers ﬁom the same school, met regularly every two or three weeks throughout the year.
Crespo’s community was designed based on the professional development ideas and

materials of Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) (F ennema et al., 1996) and on Shifter, et

11

aL’s Developing, Mathematical and Ideas (DMI) (Shifter, Bastable, & Russell, 1999a;
1999b). Her teacher learning community had two main foci: focusing on students’
mathematical work to improve teaching and to encourage more efficient student problem
solving; and focusing on exploring mathematical problems unrelated to student work to
challenge and extend the teachers’ own understanding. The teachers were able to choose the
topic to focus on for discussion and during the meetings, this group engaged in activities
including mathematical problem solving and analyzing students’ work being concordant
with the community goal.

That fact that when focused on topics in which they are less invested due to the
absence of a common goal or shared beliefs, limiting participant interaction within the
community, teacher leaming is limited or non-existent (Kazemi & Franke, 2003). The goal
of the Kazemi & F ranke’s (KF) community was to promote teachers’ collective inquiry
through discussing students’ work, but the community activities did not promote
collaboration. The KF community used a modiﬁed CGI (Cognitively Guided Instruction)
(Carpenter, Fennema, F ranke, Levi, & Empson, 1999) model of professional development.
The teachers of the KF Community taught at the same school and met after school once a
month for one year. During the-year, the research team (the authors and two university
colleagues) chose topics ahead of time for the group. For example, if the topic was triangles,
then teachers would bring students’ work related to triangles to that meeting of the group.
At the beginning of each meeting, participating teachers brieﬂy reﬂected in writing about
the student work they had selected. The facilitator then invited teachers to share their
opinions and would record teachers’ comments for later revisits. It was hoped that in this
way, through conversation, teacher learning would occur. However, because the community

activities were limited to the interests of a few, member participation, interaction, and

12

dialogue were limited which hindered teacher learning.

Generally speaking, community scholars summarize that while some of
characteristics may be more apparent in one PLC than another, there are certain
characteristics which run across all PLC. I selected the following readings to provide a
general demonstration of PLC’s characteristics. In describing professional learning
communities it is important to look at the work of Hord (1997), and Astuto, Clark, Read,
McGree, and Fernandez (1993), this group having deﬁned a professional community of
learners as, “a group in which teachers in a school and its administrators seek and share
learning and then act on what they learn” (p.l). Hord drew her theories from the work of
several researchers, (Klein-Kracht, 1993; Leithwood, Leonard & Sharratt, 1997; Louis,
Kruse & Bryk, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1994; and Synder, 1996), ofPLC in which she deﬁnes
ﬁve key elements: 1) Shared and supportive leadership 2) Shared values and vision 3)
Collective learning and application 4) Supportive conditions 5) Shared personal practice.

These arguments are identical with Westheimer’s report as well. Based on

negotiated rules, Westheimer argues that the PLC participating teachers share their

experiences in order to grow together (Cole, 2004, Wenger, 2003). To support his argument, -

Westheimer further argues that community is composed of ﬁve aspects, 1) the shared
beliefs; 2) the interaction and participation; 3) members’ interdependence; 4) members’

concerns for individual and minority views; and 5) members’ meaningful relationships.

The common themes across Astuto, et al.’s and Westheimer’s characteristics of PLC

are the sharedness and dependency, the supportiveness and meaningful relationships among
members, as well as the concerns for the minority views for members. It is because of these
basic factors that PLC are viewed as effective contexts for teacher learning and ﬁrrther for

students’ learning (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Sullivan & Glanz, 2006). However,

13

considering these basic factors, what do PLC contribute to teacher learning? What do PLC
contribute to the ﬁeld of education? Why do researchers argue that PLC are effective ways
in improving teaching practice? In the following section, I take Martin-Kniep’s framework
as an analytical lens to unpack the contributions that PLC hold for teacher professional

development.

Viewing PLC Literature through Martin-Knieg’s Eves

 

Martin-Kniep’s summary about the PLC went far beyond the basic features of PLC as
mentioned above. Her points of view recognized the essential functions of PLC to teacher
learning and to the development of the ﬁeld of education. In the following, I take
Martin-Kniep’s perspectives to illustrate why the features of PLC could foster co-teacher
learning in the same context.

PLC Crea_t§ A Learning EnvironMMt Schools Cannot.

Researchers have argued that teachers are isolated by their “egg-crate” styled
classrooms (Lortie, 1975). Based on community scholars (Crespo, 2002; Farmer, etal.,
2003; Grossman, et al., 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Westheimer, 1998, 1999), PLC
provides teachers opportunities to participate collectively and interact with one another,
which reduced the alienation and isolation of teachers in the schools. With the
characteristics of sharing and common purpose, and interdependence but concern for
individual opinions, communities provide connectedness for teachers, which is beyond the
isolated classroom structures in schools. The sense of “connectedness” among participating
teachers themselves is also meaningful in teachers’ growth and modiﬁes teachers’ beliefs
about their place in the community.

Peterson, McCarthey and Elmore (1996) studied three cases related to school

14

communities, a) team meetings were used for teachers to discuss school routines and
procedures; b) teachers used the team time to interact with one another and discussed ways
to implement curriculum and to talk about individual students; c) teachers met to discuss
students’ learning and to give ideas to other staff members about how to help the students.
Leiberman, in an interview with Sparks(1999), placed PLC in an educational context when
he described professional learning communities as “places in which teachers pursue clear,
shared purposes for student learning, engage in collaborative activities to achieve their
purposes, and take collective responsibility for students’ learning” (p. 53). To this extent,
Martin-Kniep (2004) directly argues that PLC provide participating teachers an environment
where they are able to ponder issues and questions about both teaching and learning, which is
opposite to the typical classroom environment where the teachers have to make immediate
decisions and take immediate actions. In most general school settings, classroom teachers
often are not provided an environment for professional development that helps teachers
increase their knowledge and learning while breaking down the feeling of isolation and
encouraging collaboration with their peers.
PLC Foster Positive Teacher Collaborative Relationships

Based on Westheimer (1998), professional learning community is deﬁned as a group
of teachers who are socially interdependent, have common goals, participate in discussions
in order to learn, and share certain practices. In such communities, members explicitly
recognize the “groupness” — the sense of the group as a whole (Grossman, et al., 2001). The
achievement of “groupness” is through group members’ shared practice. Thus, the
collaborative relationships keep community members together, fostering mutual learning
and satisfying mutual need, which are cited as essential components of community (Scherer,

1972; Selznick, 1992).

15

Among researchers who are interested in the conceptualization of community,
Grossman and colleagues (2001) built a strong case on community bonds based in their
empirical research. Grossman and colleagues located their project in a large urban high
school where members ﬁom history and English departments came together to explore and
understand humanities for the purpose of working on an interdisciplinary humanities
curriculum. Based on their ﬁrst l8-month teacher learning data, Grossman and colleagues
studied how teachers within a learning community forge the bonds of community, worked
through the conﬂicts of social relationships, and formed the structures needed to sustain
relationships. As a result, they mapped a trajectory of evolution of a PLC, including three
stages, the Beginning, the Evolving, and the Mature. Grossman and colleagues argued that a
mature community is enriched by multiple perspectives: teachers’ active participation,
having strong interrelationships, and collaboratively working on the community growth.

Similarly, in studying the relationship between the evolution of professional learning
communities and their inﬂuence on student learning, Louis, et a1. (1995) studied ﬁve
different schools. They identiﬁed variability in the development of professional learning
community. Their results demonstrated that these communities were distinguished by
mature, developing, ﬁ'agmented, and static. Because of these different characteristics or
differences in these communities, different teacher learning outcomes took place. For
instance, mature communities took collective responsibility for improving teacher learning
and moved forward, while immature ones suffered with only partial participation and high
levels of competition among subgroups.

In another study, Westheimer (1998) contrasted two community cases: one
community emphasized teachers’ individual autonomy and rights; the other deﬁned by a

more collective or communal mission and values, and identiﬁed vastly different ideologies

l6

and practices in the two communities. Westheimer found that rooted in the different
ideologies, teachers participation varied in accordance with their community relationships,
which affected the teachers’ learning outcomes.

These studies demonstrated a common tendency of mature communities whereby
teachers’ showed active participations, and strong collaborative relationships. This is
identical with the argument by Martin-Kniep (2004), who states that PLC foster teacher

collaborations, create positive working relationships, and help teacher retentions.

PLC Address T egchers ’ Long-term and Immediate Needs thmugh

Elective Ways to Exchanging [Ideas and Feedback

PLC are viewed as one of the strategies that address the participating teachers’
long-term and immediate needs. For long-term needs, Peterson, McCarthey, and Elmore
(1996) argue that PLC help teachers form both internal and external communications.
Within PLC their communications with those who share the same mind-set, discussion
problems and issues they care about helps promote both thinking and knowledge acquisition.
There are also studies about community focused on university researchers/facilitator helping
teachers with subject content knowledge (e.g., Crespo, 2002). For immediate needs,
McLaughlin (1994, p. 31) argues that

not as a special project or scheduled event but as a locally constructed

product of an active professional community that is responsive to teachers’

immediate professional concerns as well as their professional identity.
Such a community is formed both within and beyond the school (Elmore, 1994). And this
formation is not always smooth or without disturbances but meets both short and long term
needs of PLC members.

Teachers’ communications have to be effective to achieve the above goals. To this

point, Achinstein (2002) emphasized conﬂicts as one of the effective ways for teachers to

17

exchange their ideas and give feedback, beside the dialogical ways of conversations, on
which most of the community studies were based (e.g., Crespo, 2002; Grossman, et al.,
2001). Achinstein draws ﬁom her own experience in promoting school reform with teachers
and parents across Chicago, where she advocated for the necessity of teacher communities
within schools and the importance of greater collaboration and collegiality among teachers
in order to foster reform. After completing a community literature review, Achinstein
argued that, “conﬂict reﬂects a more hopeﬁrl and healthy ﬁrture for communities and
schools” (p. 2). This is because conﬂict “offers a context for inquiry, organizational
learning, and change” (p. 3). Achinstein viewed conﬂict as being constructive for
communities and schools because conﬂicts represent the differences in beliefs and practice
of teachers. In order to illustrate her argument, Achinstein explored how teacher
communities differ in the ways community members dealt with their own conﬂict, how they
collaborate, and how they think about the purposes of schooling in relation to issues of
conﬂict. Through analyzing the clashes over ideology, race, culture, and practices that
brought conﬂicts to teachers with one another in two different teacher professional
development communities, Achinstein drew a complex map of the multi- dimensionality of
community. She argued that conﬂicts are powerful learning opportunities for teachers,
therefore, the opportunities for teachers to grow and the moment for communities to I
improve. As PLC researchers make clear almost unanimously, PLC is a place where
teachers can feel safe to engage in these constructive conﬂicts for the good of community
learning.

For example, in Crespo’s (2002) study which focused on students’ math work,
teachers’ conﬂicts and collaborations within the community helped the teachers to better

understand both their own math content knowledge and their students’ mathematical

18

reasoning with the goal that it be reﬂected in their teaching. Martin-Kniep (2004) argued
that participating teachers take advantage of PLC to exchange ideas and use feedback to
improve professional practices both for themselves and for their PLC peers.

PLC Assist Participating Teachers to Know Their Colleagues ’ Expertise

Community scholars agree that teacher professional communities must be built on a
foundation of shared beliefs. When Tonnies (1957) deﬁned community, he argued that
community was fermed through people sharing a common goal and a common set of
values. Later, Scherer (1972) also argued that “a ‘core of commonness’ or communality that
includes a collective perspective, agreed-upon deﬁnitions, and some agreement about
values” (pp. 122-23) is one of the essential factors required in any community. In 1993,
Sergiovanni argued that communities were collections formed by individuals who do
activities together by natural will and who are bonded together by their shared ideals and
ideas. Across these deﬁnitions, “shared beliefs” became emphasized. These scholars agreed
that teacher learning community was built on shared beliefs. However, it is important to
notice that many researchers also emphasized that having only shared beliefs was not
enough to form effective communities for teacher learning (Grossman, et al., 2001;
Noddings, 1996).

What is more important is that based on the shared beliefs, PLC’ members get
opportunities to know about their colleagues’ expertise. Martin-Kniep (2004) argues that
since the routines of teachers are in such an isolated and closed environment that teachers
frequently lack information about what their colleagues know and do. PLC provides
opportunities for the participants to know who knows what and who is doing what in their
instructional practice. In the CSETL project, the teachers used an expertise database to get

to know which teachers are experts in which areas. The impact of this is that members can

19

extract information and knowledge from the expertise of others. As Printy (2008) pointed
out, “In addition to reﬁnement of any individual teacher’s skills, the learning process
enables teachers to draw on and beneﬁt ﬁom the collective resources of the community”
(Knight, 2002; cited in Printy, 2008, p.190). This is because when PLC members are tied by
the norm of sharing, they represent differences: differences of experiences, teaching beliefs,
levels, and subjects, personalities, and teaching styles, and member identities (Wenger,
2003), which convey the members’ expertise.
PL P te Ri rous Work

Martin-Kniep (2004) reﬂected that during the CSETL process its members got to
know each other, while they constantly timed and reﬁ'amed their agendas for rigorous work,
they also produced materials for classrooms aligned with standards and excellent pedagogy.
School reform efforts have typically been unsuccessﬁrl in providing the leadership,
professional development, inspiration, and motivation necessary to enable teachers to create
a collective effort and shared values for alignment of curriculum instruction, and assessment
(Fullan, 1995; Lindle, 1995/1996). It is encouraging to note, that there is research that
suggests PLC might be the organizational strategy capable of driving school reform to a
more successful conclusion (Dufour & Baker, 1998; Louis, et al., 1995). The reasons PLC
promote rigorous work is also because PLC provide opportunities for participating teachers
to do self-reﬂections. Martin-Kniep (2004) argued that the CSETL also provided
opportunities for the participating teachers to share, present, and reﬂect on their own and
others’ ideas and work. The participating teachers used their presentations as opportunities
to test their own thinking and to seek feedback ﬁom their colleagues outside the PLC. The
teachers’ self-reﬂections promote teacher learning and further the change of their practice

(Niu, 2008).

20

From Dependence to Interdependence

Martin-Kniep (2004) believed PLC are essential in supporting teacher’ and schools’
continued improvement. School leaders continue to face the daunting challenge of
developing individual staff members’ capacity to engage in meaningﬁrl reform to beneﬁt
student achievement. With this in mind, Dufour and Baker (1998) stated, “The most
promising strategy for sustained, substantive school improvement is developing the ability
of school personnel to function as professional learning communities” (p. xi). The phrase
professional learning communities (PLC) emerged ﬁom organizational theory and has been
linked to Senge’s (1990) description of a learning organization in which “people continually
expand their capacity to create desired results, where new and expansive patterns of

thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free...” (p. 3).
Dufour and Baker (1998, p. 25) stated,

What separates a learning community ﬁ'om an ordinary school is the
collective commitment to guiding principles that articulate what the people
in the school believe and what they seek to create. Furthermore, these
guiding principles are not just articulated by those in positions of
leadership, even more important, they are embedded in the hearts and
minds of pe0p1e throughout the school.

Further as argued by Martin-Kniep (2004) that without PLC, schools have to
exclusively rely on external experts and resources, which is on the one hand, expensive, and

on the other, not as effective in terms of teacher professional development.

All of the elements discussed above answer the question of why using PLC for
professional development of co-teaching is an effective method. In the next section I will
review the literature on co-teaching so that the common threads between effective

co-teaching and PLC begin to emerge.

 

C Q-T caching; Pmmoting Students ’ Learning in the General Education Classroom

21

In chapter one I outlined the framework of what constitutes co-teaching. For
example, the various models of co-teaching that are generally accepted practices in the ﬁeld.
In order to ﬁrlly answer the second question raised in the ﬁrst part of the paper — why a PLC
is the optimum professional development environment for developing a co-teaching
relationship between general and special education teachers, based on the literature, I
provide a basic understanding of what are the characteristics of a co-teaching relationship.
This goes beyond how it may be conﬁgured and how it manifests itself in current school
structures. My goal in this section is to give a summary review of the literature related to the
characteristics of co-teaching and then ﬁnish with what the literature suggests about the use
of PLC to foster co-teacher relationships.

The C hqmcteristics of Good Co-teaching

The deﬁnition of what constitutes the characteristics of co-teaching is a blending of
writing from researchers involved with inclusive classrooms (Villas & Thousand, 2004),
and the literature related to cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, Burggraf&
Sotomayor, 2005, Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995, 2002). Co-teaching reﬂects: 1) Teachers’
efforts to agree upon common goals and collectively taking responsibility for achieving
those goals, such as alignment of curriculum and redesign of instructional practices. 2)
Teachers sharing the belief that each teacher brings unique and necessary skills to the team
and that all children can learn. 3) Co-teachers also have to be willing to shift their role
within the team between teacher and student, expert and novice, and distributor and receiver
of knowledge for the sake of collaboration. 4) Co-teachers must be willing to be ﬂexible,
accommodating, tolerant, willing to engage in substantive dialogue, and even to subjugate

their egos when necessary in order to exchange ideas and receive constructive feedback 5)

22

They must be willing to “be active in seeking out or developing, implementing, and
evaluating new and more effective procedures (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995, p. 8), in
essence, striving for improvement. 6) Finally, the co-teachers’ willingness to overcome
institutional barriers such as “non-supportive administration, legal aspects of special
education, paperwork, time, scheduling and workload” (Burggraf& Sotomayor, 2005, p. l).
PLC Are the @tiium ProfessMaQeveIopment Environment for Co- Teaching
Relationship (See T ableﬂ

I found that the summarized characteristics of co-teaching are very close to the
general characteristics of PLC, although they situate themselves in different social contexts.
Most of the PLC are held out of the general classroom setting where co-teaching occurs.
However, because of the similarities between the features of co-teaching and those of the
PLC, the PLC contexts are able to incubate the development of co-teaching relationships.
Meanwhile, because of the differences between the features of the co-teaching and those of
the PLC, the PLC settings become a supportive environment for fostering the development
of co-teaching relationships. In the following, anchored on Martin-Kniep’s six perspectives
(although not in the same order as in the previous section), I provide evidence for the above
argument.
a) PLC F aster Positive Teacher Collaborative Relationships: Vital for Co-teaching

As stated in the literature, relationships among the PLC members are very important
to successful teacher learning in community. This is true in the development of good
co-teaching teams as well. Co-teachers agree upon common goals and collectively take
responsibility for achieving these goals. The nature of their relationship shows the need for
working and being together, but it is not automatic that the relationship will evolve into one

of collaboration (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995; Burggraf & Sotomayor, 2005; Cook &

23

Friend, 1995). PLC foster positive teacher collaborative relationships, which reinforce PLC
members’ responsibilities for pursuing the members’ mutual learning and satisfying the
members’ mutual needs (Scherer, 1972; Selznick, 1992). Because of this mutually
connected relationship, PLC members explicitly recognize the “groupness,” “wholeness,”
“togetherness,” or “sharedness.” In this paper, the co-teachers are team teaching members.
They share their teaching workload and responsibilities at the same time. Co-teachers need
such “sharedness” or “togethemess” to work effectively. In this model, simply taking
collective responsrbility does not guarantee the collaborative relationship which is needed,
but which can be fostered in PLC.
b) PLC Address Teachers’ Long-term or Immediate Needs through Exchanging Ideas and
Feedback to Improve Professional Practice: Needed to Improve Co-Teaching Practice
Co-teachers have the need of exchanging ideas and receiving constructive feedback
from one another to address their immediate or long-term needs. For the purpose of such
exchange of ideas and feedback, co-teachers have to be open, ﬂexible, and accommodating
to their partners’ words and actions (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, Burggraf & Sotomayor,
2005, Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995, 2002). However, there are uncertainties that might
affect the co-teachers ability to do so, such as, did the co-teaching setting provide an open,
ﬂexible, and accommodating atmosphere? Whether the co-teachers created the norm of
exchanging ideas or feedback? If the co-teachers formed the kind of personal bond
necessary to look after each other’s teaching responsibilities collaboratively? If the answers
to these questions are NO, the co-teachers’ ideas and feedback channels are blocked.
However, as argued previously, the PLC are able to address the participating
teachers’ long-term and immediate needs through various ways of communication,

including giving PLC members opportunities to receive others’ ideas and feedback through

24

conversations (e.g., Grossman, etal., 2001), argument (e.g., Crespo, 2002), or conﬂicts (e.g.,
Achinstein, 2001). This is because the PLC fosters a positive and constructive environment
for its participants’ learning. The PLC teachers come to view themselves as non-subjugated
to their egos and allow themselves to receive others’ ideas or feedback The PLC members
see themselves as equal in the relationship and interdependent within the community which
could promote the co-teachers’ collaborative relationship and can help co-teachers to be
open in exchanging ideas and feedback.
c) PLC Support Teachers Knowing About Their Colleagues ’ Expertise: Foundational for
Co- Teachers

Co-teachers believe that they each bring unique and necessary skills and lmowledge
to the team. But this is a very broad expression, believed more by faith than proof. How can
the co-teachers really know about their partners’ expertise in a general classroom setting?
When do traditional school structures provide general education and special education
teachers the opportunity to learn about each others’ expertise? The PLC can help to solve
this problem. As cited before, Martin-Kniep (2004) had her CSETL teachers use an
expertise database to show who knows what and in which area.

Based on the PLC studies, PLC provide the participating teachers the opportunity to
express and negotiate learning through working with one another’s different expertise.
Grossman and his colleagues (2001) argue that offering different views based on a members’
expertise contributes to the growth of PLC. It is important to “remember that
communication and reﬂection are the keys to successﬁrl co-teaching relationships (Dicker,
2006, p. 1). It seems that knowing about one another’s expertise is critical in collaborative
work, yet, without participation in the PLC setting, when might the teachers have an

opportunity to experience each others expertise?

25

d) PLC Promote Rigorous Work: Co-Teachers Need to Do Rigorous Work as Well

Co-teachers need to seek out or develop, implement, and evaluate new and more
effective procedures in their own teaching contexts. Even with co-teachers’ working with
another teacher in one classroom, because of traditional school structures the co-teachers
still work in an isolated envirorunent where usually teachers feel hardened for changes
(Lortie, 1975). However, research suggests that PLC might be the organizational strategy
which is best able to drive school reform to a more successﬁrl conclusion (Dufour & Baker,
1998; Louis & Kruse, 1995).

In terms of doing rigorous work, as mentioned by the studies, PLC can support
teachers in doing so because PLC are able to provide opportunities for participating teachers
to do self-reﬂections (N in, 2008). Self-reﬂections help PLC members see teaching
situations more clearly and help teachers see their own practice more clearly, which leads to
a higher standard of work.

Co-teachers need institutional support for working towards rigorous ends (Bauwens
& Hourcade, 1995). However, most educational institutions are incapable of supporting this
ambition. Modifying existing curricula and traditional pedagogy whereby creating an
environment where two co-teachers have an opportunity to engage in rigorous work is
difﬁcult within restructuring many of the current school structures. This restructuring of
schools, while at the same time providing educational programs, has been compared to
trying to repair the wing of a 747 while it is in full ﬂight (Donaldson, 1993).

e) PLC help Teachers Grow ﬁom Dependence to Interdependence

Co-teachers need to learn to improve their teaching practice. In the learning process,

co-teachers also need to shift their role within their team, in the classroom, and in other

settings for the sake of the collaboration. Often, the general education teacher comes into

26

the partnership as the subject matter expert while the special education teacher is seen as
having instructional delivery expertise. The teachers need to move ﬁ'om relying on the other
to provide only their area of expertise and move towards bridging their skills together. The
role changes do not mean that the co-teachers become independent team members in terms
of professional development and aiming for continued improvement of their individual
skills. Instead, PLC support teachers’ and schools’ continued improvement (Martin-Kniep,
2004) as a community. PLC are also responsible for members continually developing their
capacity to create their own desired results (Senge, 1990). This continued co-improvement
and the capacity expansion of the team developed in a PLC are what co-teachers need to
promote student outcomes.
0 PLC Create a Learning Environment That Schools Cannot: Co- Teaching Needs This
Environment for Success

As argued earlier, co-teachers have constraints within their teaching world in terms
of collaboration, idea and feedback exchange, knowing their partner’s expertise, doing
rigorous work, and self-growth. The reason for all the constraints is that co-teachers do not
have a learning environment in their traditional school settings the same as the one created
by PLC. This is also because inside the “egg-crate” style classrooms (Lortie, 1975 ),
co-teachers are not able to form the same interdependent relationship as they would
participating in a PLC setting. Within this environment, the co-teachers’ sharing becomes
narrowed within the two-person world, which is cut off ﬁ'om the resources outside the
“egg-crate.” However, in the setting of PLC, when teachers share and discuss about any
topics, more ideas and perspectives were brought together. Therefore, PLC are viewed as
places where participating teachers are able to obtain clear, shared purposes for both

teaching and student learning outcomes (Sparks, 1999). Martin-Kniep (2004) also argued

27

that in general school settings, classroom teachers cannot get PLC type of environment
where their knowledge and thinking can expand. Dewey (l 93 8, 1997) argued that real
learning comes ﬁom experience (Also see Rosaen & Florio-Ruane, 2007). PLC provide
such learning through experiential moments for the participating teachers. This is the
enviromnent that co-teachers cannot get from other professional development models. Lord
(1994) argues that teachers need a place to learn together, ask questions to one another, try
different things together, in other words, a space like a PLC. Co-teachers are teachers who
need whatever the other teachers need, but at the same time, because of the collaborative
nature of their work, co-teachers need a more supportive environment than any other
teachers.

It is fair to say that traditional professional development programs provide some
allure for teachers and school districts because they come with lower expectations for
teacher learning, require less physical and emotional investment from all of the participants,
and depend upon less ﬁnancial support ﬁ‘om school districts. However, while PLC
participation makes greater demands in all of these areas, it also offers the beneﬁt of
fostering a feeling of community within a school that might be used in the ﬁrture to the
school’s advantage for other activities. It is vital that “training must continue on an ongoing
basis if the implemented change is to continue successfully” (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995,

p.191)

28

Table 1: Matching Features of PLC and Features of Co-Teaching

 

Characteristics of PLC

Characteristics of Co-Teaching

 

PLC foster positive teacher collaborative

relationships;

Co-teachers agree upon common goals and
collectively take responsibilityfor

achieving those goals;

 

PLC addresses teachers’ long-term and
immediate needs through exchanging ideas
and feedback to improve professional

practice;

Co-teachers must be willing to be ﬂexible,
accommodating, tolerant, willing to engage
in substantive dialogue, and even to
subjugate their egos when necessary in
order to exchange ideas and receive

constructive feedback;

 

PLC support teachers knowing about their
colleagues’ expertise;

Sharing the belief that each teacher brings
unique and necessary skills to the team and

that all children can learn;

 

PLC promotes rigorous work;

Co-teachers seek out or develop,
implement, and evaluate new and more

effective procedures;

 

PLC help teachers grow from dependence

to interdependence;

Co-teachers need to be willing to shift their
role within the team between teacher and
student, expert and novice, distributor and
receiver of knowledge for the sake of

collaboration;

 

 

PLC create a learning environment that

schools cannot.

 

Co-teachers are willing to overcome .

institutional barriers.

 

 

Given the literature on PLC reviewed in this paper, as well as the overview of
co-teaching literature, the successﬁrl marriage of these two concepts seems self-evident and

the worthiness of their pursuit unmistakable.

29

Chapter 3
Research in PLC: Data Collection and Analysis-

In this dissertation research, I used mixed methodology, including both qualitative
and quantitative data collection, analysis, and summary. In terms of a qualitative research
method, I used case study methodology because it allowed me to gain an in-depth
understanding of PLC members’ verbal and written reﬂections on their participation in the
meeting sessions. Through observations, note-taking and interviews I reﬂected on their
social interactions with other members that fostered an environment for improved
understanding of co-teaching, co-teaching models, their increased comfort level with
co-teaching, and their modiﬁed co-teaching strategies.

Teachers’ learning in this PLC was dynamic and meaning focused, so the research
was designed to gather anecdotal and discourse data using multiple qualitative techniques
including ﬁeld notes, audio-taped interviews (pre- and post, as well as a follow-up interview,
Appendix A), and both audio- and videotaped group meeting conversations as well as
written artifacts, such as emails, articles and activity sheets,both ﬁ'om the participating
teachers and from the PLC meetings.

In terms of quantitative methods, PLC teachers participated in a set of recurring
online surveys, focused on teacher experiences including what the teachers thought about
their PLC learning, the relationship between their PLC learning and their co-teaching team
relationship, and their co-teaching practice. Also, how he or she sees the problem of
delivering instruction using a co-teaching model, what s/he learned and valued about
co-teaching. The survey questions can be found in Appendix B. The teachers had to
complete the recurring online survey prior to our ﬁrst PLC meeting, after the ﬁfth session

which represented the mid-point of our time together, and at the conclusion of the scheduled

3O

PLC meetings. The purposes for the online survey were to monitor the change of the
participating teachers’ conﬁdence level with co-tsaching, and gauge changes in their
knowledge, skill, and practice. Thus, the quantitative data from the online survey set up a
foundation and background for the qualitative data that aimed to dig into what the
participating teachers learned.
Purpose of the Stydy

The PLC is. an environment in which opportunities were created for research on
teacher learning and conceptual change. The purpose of this research was to document the
PLC activities and the member teachers’ actions, reactions, and reﬂections on their learning
activities regarding how to improve their co-teaching capacities. From this perspective, this
dissertation study combines the ﬁelds of teacher learning in groups and studies of
co-teaching practice together. This combination provides information gathered in our
authentic PLC setting about how the participating teachers thought, internalized and acted
upon the designed activities. Meanwhile, it represented how the individual teachers
explored the issues they were interested in learning more about regarding co-teaching.
Therefore, the PLC became a site where I was able to study the processes unfolding in
ongoing participating teachers’ interactions related to co-teaching.
W

This teacher learning community provided opportunities for the participating
teachers to enhance their co-teaching practices, thereafter apply their knowledge and
experiences of the learning to their co-teaching relationships and co-teaching assignments.
When I was planning the PLC, I planned to set it up differently ﬁ'om traditional PLCs.
Traditionally, professional developers design their professional development activities,

plans or curriculum based on the developer’s view of what needed to be learned and/or what

31

the developer decided the teachers were interested to learn. For this PLC, I wanted the
participating teachers to have input regarding what to learn, what they were interested in
exploring. However, too much freedom might prove divergent from our ﬁnal goal so I
needed to strike a balance between member driven activities and facilitator driven ones.
Different perspectives may lead to different understandings about what we wanted to
achieve through the professional development opportunity. I realized that while I wanted to
minimize my inﬂuence, to a large degree, on the activities within the PLC, I still had a
responsibility to “establish a rationale for learning (Printy, 2008). As Printy stated,

The expectations communicated by school leaders are critical inﬂuences on

teachers’ participation in communities of practice, motivating them

generally and cuing them that learning is required to attain the vision for the
instructional program.
(Printy, 2008, p.216)

Based on the preliminary ﬁndings ﬁ‘om the pre-interviews, I noticed that the
teachers needed more knowledge and skills about co-teaching. Most of the teachers reported
having very little knowledge about the various co-teaching models. Some actually seemed
surprised to learn that there were co-teaching models beyond the supportive one found in
traditional co-taught classrooms. Using this information, I designed the activities in the ﬁrst
few sessions to focus on the introduction of the co-teaching models. Inﬁrsing the theme of
co-teaching in all of our early PLC activities provided a ﬁxed structure to our meetings. It
was important to guide them through this early process as the majority had not been
exposed to this information before and had little context for understanding the concepts or
how to apply them in the classroom.

I also arranged for a nationally known speaker on co-teaching to facilitate the

activity during one of our full day PLC meetings. The speaker, Dr. Rebecca Hines, typically

presents to audiences of 300-500, but on this day, March 29, 2009, she presented only for

32

the 24 members of our PLC. This gave our members a unique and invaluable opportunity to
learn about how co-teaching is being done in other communities and to ask questions of an
“expe ” in the ﬁeld.

However, I did not want to take the freedom away from the teachers or subjugate
their authority as PLC members. I understood that each teacher had his/her own interest in
learning about the topics. Some of the teachers seemed drawn to one particular model or
another, while other teachers saw a hierarchy in the models and started to envision ways to
move through the various models in a progression (Field notes, PLC meeting, February 23,
2009). Therefore, I careﬁilly designed the meetings so that there would be limited guided
activities which set the frame for the teachers to enjoy their freedom and explore deeper the
co-teaching issues that interested them imost. In this way, my design was both tightly
structured yet open-ended. This design provided the teachers with clear goals and a solid
framework where guided learning within our PLC occurred collectively. Enraptured by our
collective goal and within the PLC ﬁ'amework, the teachers took ownership of their interests
and decided either individually or with their colleagues what they wanted to explore more
as well as how to explore it further. This provided the teachers opportunities to learn ﬁom
experts and horn one another collectively about co-teaching, meanwhile, focusing on what
they individually wanted to learn.

Whole Group Activities

I began my focused activities on the topic of differentiated instruction and a review
of learning styles. After that the whole group immersed itself into the models of co-teaching.
These two topics were the ﬁ'amework for study in this PLC. Most of the discussions in
group centered on differentiated instruction and the co-teaching models. One activity that I

utilized on three separate occasions in our PLC was applying the models of co-teaching to

33

one common lesson. The members divided into ﬁve small groups, each being assigned a
different model of co-teaching. Then the groups were all given the same lesson, Once it was
a 7th grade social studies lesson, then an 8th grade math lesson, and the last time it was a 9th
grade American history lesson. Each group used their assigned model of co-teaching to
design a lesson, deﬁne the roles of the co-teachers, describe the instructional framework and
detail the way that differentiated instruction would be utilized in their lesson based on their
assigned model ofco-teaching.

When the small groups had ﬁnished designing a lesson based on the assigned model
of co-teaching, the lessons were reviewed as a whole group. The idea was to determine if
what was designed matched the whole group’s perceptions of the co-teaching models.
According to several conversations I had with PLC members after these sessions, this
activity was revelatory in that it clearly demonstrated how any model of co-teaching could
be applied to virtually any lesson (Field Notes, April 14 and May 8). The PLC members
also found this exercise to be purposeful in delineating the differences between the
co-teaching models. Beyond that, these discussions not only helped to solidify common
understanding of the models of co-teaching and how they worked in the classroom, they
also helped us foster the characteristics of a PLC.

Small Qmup and Individual Activia

As these two concepts, differentiated instruction and models of co-teaching, began
to take solid structure in the minds of the PLC members, we moved into more activities that
encouraged small group and individual investigation; Topics like planning, assessment,
classroom rules, grading policies, etc. The PLC members moved between the main topics
(differentiated instruction, co-teaching) and the ancillary topics (assessment, planning, etc.)

based on their interests and needs. For a more detailed activity design, please see Appendix

34

Because of this design, I noticed that our study group soon developed into a PLC as
deﬁned by the literature. I also found that the participating teachers’ learning expanded
through our PLC activities. Evidence for this can be found in the next two chapters. Chapter
4 provides data to support that our study group met the standards of a PLC and Chapter 5
documents what the teachers reported they learned giving credence to the theory that PLC is
an effective method for co-teacher learning. With both chapters, the data were drawn ﬁom
various sources to provide evidence for the answers to my research questions.

Qutline at PLQ Agtivities

The PLC started its activities in the Spring Semester of 2009 and its members met
bi—weekly. One session each month was scheduled for an entire school day while the other
was a half day session. In total there were 10 PLC meetings for a total of 45 hours
(Appendix C). The meetings were designed in series to address several themes. The ﬁrst
meeting was designed to establish the foundation for our PLC. We discussed our goals and
objectives and worked to establish norms for our group.

This was followed by an introduction to the current research related to co-teaching.
We examined the ﬁve commonly accepted models for co-teaching and worked within our
community to understand the characteristics of each model and how they manifest
themselves in the classroom. Our theme for this series was one of learning and knowledge
gathering. We ventured into what is a relatively unknown arena in educational pedagogy for
most of these PLC participants. Using the structures of co-teaching methodology
established in previous research as a ﬁ'amework for learning, the PLC members began to
direct their own learning and knowledge acquisition. This was reﬂected in my research

design model (Appendix D).

35

After creating a shared understanding of the co-teaching models, our next series of
meetings were designed so that the teachers could begin to consider how they might utilize
the models for better teaching. The teachers were given collaboration time, in order to
create a lesson or lessons, to work with a collaborating teacher using the various models of
co-teaching. Focusing on a theme of collective learning, the teachers tried out their new
knowledge within the PLC by demonstrating what a lesson could like in their co-taught
classroom. This activity gave the teachers a chance to demonstrate in a concrete way their
understanding of how the models would manifest in their lessons. It also presented the PLC
members with a chance to dialogue about what they saw demonstrated by other members of
the group. This helped push their thinking and understanding to a deeper level and enriched
the learning of the entire PLC.

In approaching me about facilitating the district’s professional development efforts
related to co-teaching, it was conveyed that what the Brandnew JH/HS teachers sought was
a sophisticated and inquiry-based learning process. The traditional physically isolated,
“one-shot” professional development design could not meet the learning needs of these
teachers. Through my doctoral studies in educational administration and my experience in
the school district as Section 504 coordinator and special education representative, I had
accumulated an expansive knowledge related to special education. I also had several
opportunities at the university level and within the school district, to gain knowledge and
experience with professional learning communities. Given my experience with PLC,
combined with the teachers’ desire for more in-depth learning, it was by the district’s
administration that a learning community would best ﬁt the needs of the group. As those
ﬁrst meeting activities were beginning to bear out, the PLC was indeed an effective

ﬁ'amework for learning.

36

The next theme we explored in our series of PLC meetings was amalgamation.
Amalgamation is the mixing or blending of different elements. After establishing a
collective understanding within the PLC of what constitutes co-teaching and then working
through together what that would look like in the classroom, it was time to ﬁnd out what the
theories related to co-teaching look like in other settings. It was at this time that I backed off
of the structured activities and allowed the teachers to pursue their interests within the
ﬁamework of our PLC and in the context of learning the co-teaching models.

Finally we addressed the theme of preparation. The PLC participants worked to
prepare themselves for implementation of what they had learned. They designed lessons for
sure, but even more importantly they created a mindset of collaboration for effective
teaching.

Focusing on these themes, I designed the PLC activities in a series of authentic
experiences of literature, theory, practice, and community as follows:

(1) studﬂ'ng the basic features and variations of co-teaching and the

ﬁmdamental differences between the various models;

(2) exploring how these models would look in Brandnew JH/HS classrmoms;

(3) merging our PLC understandings with “experts” ﬁom the ﬁeld; and

(4) preparing to implement what the PLC members learned.

As the participants engaged in these activities, I gathered data in several
forms—interviews, participant observations, and collection and analysis of documents and
taped recordings of meeting discourse.

Research Site
The Brandnew JH/HS School District is located in the western portion of what was

just ﬁve years ago the fastest growing county in Michigan, indeed, one of the fastest

37

growing counties in the United States. This one-time rural farming community had become
what most would call a “bedroom community;” that is a town in which people live but most
drive some distance to their work in one of the larger cities about 30-40 minutes away.
Unfortunately, much like many of the towns in Michigan, Brandnew JH/HS has begun to
feel the pain of the demise of the auto industry. Several long standing businesses such as the
Big Boy restaurant have recently shuttered their doors. Talk that the Honda car
manufacturer would establish a factory in the town has all but died, and two Japanese
owned manufacturing companies have not delivered the economic growth they originally
promised when they came to town ten years ago.

Every school building in the district stands on one central ground, nestled in a
cocoon of learning surrounded by a forest of living. In a budget cutting move last year, the
district consolidated ﬁve school buildings down to four. Like many school districts,
Brandnew JT-I/HS Community Schools no longer offers neighborhood schools but instead
has conﬁgured its buildings by grades. It now consists of a K-2 building, a third through
ﬁfth grade building, a sixth through eighth grade building, and the 9th-12th grade high
school. The school buildings surround the inner sanctum of the playgrounds, as well as the
football, soccer, baseball, and softball ﬁelds.

The school complex serves the village of Brandnew JH/HS, but the school district
also includes several other, smaller townships and covers 116 square miles with a combined
population of approximately 15,000. It remains mostly rural and sparsely populated, with
any population growth congregating in a few housing developments throughout the area.
The school district provides bussing for approximately 60% of the student population, and
travels over a cumulative 2,400 miles (School Report, 2008) on a typical school day.

Brcmdnew JH/HS Co- Teaching Policy

38

The school district provides the perfect backdrop for this research project, beyond its
demographics which makes it typical of so many districts in Michigan, as they have just
recently made a commitment to move almost exclusively to co-teaching as a means for
providing special education services. As stated before, the NCLB legislation along with the
state mandated curriculum were the major impetus for this change in services, and
Brandnew JH/HS has committed to this transformation sooner than many districts in the
state.

Central Ofﬁce administration, along with the building principals, has led the call for
the increase in co-teaching. Given this movement, it was the teachers who asked for
professional development to better understand co-teaching and how it most effectively
could be utilized in the classroom. It was the combined desire of administration and
teachers to establish an informed foundation for the co-teaching model that brought about
the creation of this PLC project.

Brandnew JH/HS Co- Teaching Characteristics

There are many unique challenges to effective co-teaching. The creation of
professional collaboration and collegiality has already been established in this paper as vital
to the success of the co-teaching team. Adding an extra dimension to this situation is that in
Brandnew JH/I-IS, there is no established policy or agreement for the creation of co-teaching
teams. There is no compatibility test to make sure that the collaborating teachers’
personalities or pedagogies match. Until the creation of this PLC, there had been no
concerted effort to educate either the general or special education teachers in the “art” of
co-teaching.

Beyond this, some special education teachers are assigned to only one general

education teacher and only one subject matter. In other cases, special education teachers

39

may co-teach with a different general education teacher each hour. Each of these teaching
assignments in the latter case would require the special education teacher to work with
multiple curricula as well.

Accessing the Research Site

Having spent eight years as an administrator in the Brandnew IH/HS school district
I was able to create a level of trust with the staff and an appreciation from the
administration for the knowledge I would bring to a project such as the co-teaching PLC. I
was approached at the end of the 2007/2008 school year by the high school administration
and the district’s special eduCation director to help design and facilitate this project. Given
that I no longer serve in any supervisory capacity in this district, the teachers had no
incentive to grant me any additional authority beyond that afforded through professional
courtesy. In this study I established with the group members ﬁ-om the start of the project
that my role was as facilitator of PLC activities, observer of member interactions and
discourses, and a researcher of possible teacher changes, but never as supervisor. I would
also occasionally serve as just another member of the PLC. For example, when I would join
in with a group during small group discussions or when we had a guest speaker, Dr. Hines’,
visit our PLC.

Every district in Livingston County, of which Brandnew JH/HS Community Schools
is a part, made a commitment to providing professional development to their teachers
related to co-teaching this year. Each school district approached the project differently, but
all of the other school districts in the county took a more traditional approach. For example,
they decided to focus on one-day seminars and disjointed efforts at information gathering,
such as, seeking out “experts” ﬁ'om outside their districts to impart eo-teaching knowledge

on their staff. The philosophy in Brandnew JH/HS was to enrich the learning with outside

40

resources but to focus knowledge creation within the context of the learning community.
Thus my role as PLC facilitator was born, and I was enlisted to lead the project.
Selection of Participants

The PLC members were confronted with the challenge that all other teachers face
from the implementation of NCLB. These teachers are increasingly being assigned into the
role of co-teaching, often forced into this situation, confused about how to work together
effectively, about what roles each of them should play in their co-teaching relationship, and
what each needs to do to teach all children successfully (Hassell, 2007; Protheroe, 2004;
Villa, 2008).

Originally I envisioned bringing in co-teaching pairs ﬁ-om the junior and senior high
schools. This wasn’t quite as tidy an endeavor because as previously mentioned many of the
special education teachers were assigned to more than one general education teacher in the
course of their work day.

In addition, I met with some resistance from the junior high school administrator
who was not as sold on the value of co-teaching as a method for special education
instruction and thus was not as encouraging with his staff to participate. Because one of the
main characteristics of a successful PLC is the participants sharing of common goals, values,
and norms, it wouldn’t beneﬁt the project if any member felt coerced into participation. The
teachers had to come voluntarily of their own desire to gain more knowledge and
competency in co-teaching methodology. This led to a situation where we had a couple of
special education teachers who wanted to participate, though their general education
collaborating teacher did not. So while I expected co-teacher pairs to participate together
several teachers whose partners did not want to participate chose not to attend our PLC,

although some did because they desired to learn. The teachers all volunteered because of

41

their interest in gaining knowledge and competency in co-teaching. In the end, the PLC was
comprised of 12 general education and 12 special education teachers, though not a perfect
one—to-one marriage of current or potential co-teaching teams. Among them, 18 (75%) were
females and 6 (25%) males. These teachers had one to more than 19 years of teaching
experience, including 1 teacher (4%) who taught between one and three years; 9 (36%) who
taught 4-8 years, 6 (24%) who taught 9-12 years and 9 (36%) with more than thirteen years
of teaching experience. This means our participants covered the range from novice teachers
to very experienced teachers. Of all the participants, 15 teachers reported that they had
co-teaching experience, while 9 teachers reported they did not. The unequal experience of
the teachers provided us various data sets as well as challenges. However, the differences in
the years of teaching and co-teaching reduced the bias possibly shown in our data. I believe
the breadth of the research data collection and analysis allowed me to answer my research

questions.

Data Collection Tools - Survey
The survey was given prior to the start of the PLC to gather baseline data, and then

the participants were asked to complete the survey aﬁer the ﬁfth PLC meeting which
marked the mid-point of our time together. Then they completed the survey a ﬁnal time
after our last PLC meeting. The hope was that the participants’ responses to the survey
questions would demonstrate changes in knowledge, skills, and beliefs related to
co-teaching as a result of participation in the PLC.

For most of the questions on the survey, respondents were given a range of
possible responses using a Likert scale. The Likert (1932) scale, also known as a summative
scale, is used so that responses can be summed up numerically and charted more readily to

show growth. The scale is designed with a range of answers, typically an odd number of

42

possible responses, usually set up from one extreme, “strongly agree” to the other “strongly
disagree.” While the scale makes it much easier to track collective responses, offers ease of
completion, and simplicity of data collection, there are some drawbacks to this instrument
as well. By allowing for a neutral response, many respondents will hesitate to choose one of
the extreme positions and skew all data to thecenter. Respondents can also fall into a
pattern of positive or negative responses once they have begun without giving the question
thorough thought. The fact that responses are usually easily understood and data so
conveniently collected far outweighs the potential negative “side effects.”
Interviews

Interviews took place in the conference room located within the student services
oﬁice at the high school. Originally I planned to choose six special education and six
general education teachers from the PLC membership to be interviewed. In the end, four
special education and four general education teachers (See Appendix F) volunteered to be
interviewed. The teachers were purposely chosen for the interviews based on their
demographics in the hopes of getting a good cross-section of teacher certiﬁcations, teacher
age, co-teaching experience, and gender. The interviews were one hour; however, in some
cases where the teacher did not have a one hour block, a second interview session was
scheduled and in other cases the interviews took longer. The teachers were asked speciﬁc,
predetermined questions about their knowledge, beliefs, and perceived skills related to
co-teaching. The teachers also were asked to commit to a follow up interview if I found
some relevant pieces of information missing or if I needed clariﬁcation on notes I had taken
in previous interviews. Several of these extra follow-up interviews occurred approximately
one week after the ﬁnal interviews.

The post-PLC interviews allowed me to follow up on the teachers’ interpretations of

43

completed activities/learning and to analyze their responses for changes in knowledge,
beliefs, and skills related to co-teaching. The questions sought to demonstrate different
dispositions and behaviors related to co-teaching after teacher participation in the PLC.
When changes were evident, the follow up interview provided an opportunity to question
the teachers about the changes. For example, “Are you more encouraged to be in a
co-teaching setting now?” or “Has your belief about the effectiveness of co-teaching
changed?”

In a qualitative research study it is important to use “member checking” because
much of the data analysis could be inﬂuenced by interpretation. A member check, which is
sometimes called informant feedback, is a strategy used to improve the accuracy, credibility
and validity of a study. The researcher manages the member check by giving all or part of
the study back to the members who check the authenticity of the work and validates the
interpretation proffered by the researcher. Allowing members to check the accuracy helps to
ward off the potential of the researcher putting forth a one-sided account. It also serves to
address concerns about whether the researcher has spent sufficient time engaged in the
research site. Member check blurs the line between interviewer and interviewee and creates
a relationship in the interview that might allow the researcher to gain knowledge beyond the
surface of the question asked (Tanggaard, 2008).

I found myself doing fiequent “member checks” in order to keep my data organized
and ensure that I was attributing statements to the correct member of the PLC. This was
particularly true for data collected in ﬁeld notes. Many times these were recorded with brief
notations as they occurred and then expounded upon immediately following the meeting.
When these interactions or quotations were referenced in this document, I felt it was

imperative that I clarify the accuracy of my account with the PLC member.

From the start of the project, despite my multiple roles, I always maintained the role
of a researcher who carefully considered what teachers might learn in PLC, how they might
learn it, and what PLC participation might teach our profession. My methodological
ﬁ'amework was based on the work of other ethnographers of teacher education study groups
(e.g. F lorio-Ruane with deTar, 2001; Florio-Ruane and Raphael, 2005; Raphael, et al.,
2001).

The analysis of data in this study is both inductive and deductive. Sometimes my
inquiry began with a broader question that narrowed its focus, while at other times I began
with a speciﬁc focus that expanded into a broader exploration. For example, I began with
researching teachers’ knowledge of co-teaching, but that narrowed into analyzing their
knowledge of more speciﬁc concepts such as, co-planning, collaborative instruction,
co-management of classroom discipline and collaborative communication. The analysis was
inﬂuenced by the data as I collected and reviewed it, my research question, and the
theoretical ﬁ'ameworks and prior research related to my study. Thus I had some initial
hunches and predictions but I remained open to change and willing to reject or reﬁne them
as I gained more experience through my role as participant observer and ethnographic
researcher. This approach is called the “discovery of grounded theorY’ by Glaser and
Strauss (1967). It means that the assertions or theoretical claims I make are grounded in my
work with people doing normal activities and making local meaning of them. For this
reason, grounded theory development is continuously open to revision, reﬁnement, and
change in response to ongoing analysis, subsequent data collection, and checking out ideas
with the participants. The research analysis applies the constant comparative method
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967), triangulation of evidence ﬁom diverse data sources, and the

interpretations of certain events through a personal narrative. (Erickson, 1986; Freebody,

45

2003).

Along with a broader “grounded theory” approach to the research, there are also
very distinct elements of “social theory” at play here which will be reﬂected in this study. In
response to these socially generated components, I am drawing from Lev Vygotsky (1978)
who argued that higher order of drinking originates in human social interactions, which are
conducted through artiﬁcial means-“the mediation.” The use of the mediation, such as
artifacts (activity sheets, email communications), tools (PLC activities), and symbol
systems, affects how humans communicate with one another as well as how humans think,
constitute and develop their intellectual capacities (Cole, 1996). Based on Vygotsky’s
theory, these “mediations” had an impact on the PLC member’s interactions and affected
the learning which occurred. These “mediations” most certame affected any possible
changes in teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching, as well as, their perception about their own
skill acquisition within the community.

According to Vygotsky’s “mediation” theory, the artifacts, tools, and symbol
systems, utilized inside learning communities, initiate teachers’ social interactions with
other members that involve higher order thinking in their community. The prompts
stimulate, inspire, mediate, trigger, and affect teachers’ willingness to collaborate, cooperate
and construct relationships, or could conversely hinder these actions. In this study the
interactions were affected by how teachers think, what beliefs they had about co-teaching
and learning, how they perceived their relationship with other PLC members, as well as,
what skills they worked to acquire. Further, teachers’ interactions aroused from these
“mediations” impacted how much they could contribute to a PLC and what they gained
ﬁ'om PLC participation.

A qualitative research study provides for collection and analysis of data fbr the

46

purpose of gaining insights to events that is not possible using other types of research (Gay,
1996). Just as important is that this type of study also affords the researcher the opportunity
to witness ﬁrst-hand how members make sense of their learning, experiences, and structures
of the world, and involves ﬁeldwork in which the researcher goes to the people, setting, or
institution to observe/record behavior in its natural setting (Merriam, 1998). This approach
provided me the opportunities to observe, record and report on the “med iations” that were
included in the PLC. This was critical given the synergy of a PLC and the emphasis on
dialogue and interaction between members. Built on the work that had been done for the
analysis of the research data set where I listened/ watched, transcribed, coded, and
categorized both tapes and the ﬁeld database, I followed the categories that were designed
for coding the data developed from the study’s theoretical stance, its questions, and analyses
of the pre-Ipost-interviews, pre-/midpoint/post-PLC online surveys, and preliminary ﬁeld
data - a) teachers’ reports on or their actions showed the key elements of building the study
group into a PLC, such as the PLC environment, teachers’ interdependent relationship, etc.
b) teachers’ knowledge and skill change (e.g. their understandings of co-teaching and its
models); c) teachers’ comfort levels with co-teaching (e.g., the change of their conﬁdence
levels); and d) teachers’ co-teaching practice change (e.g. teachers report what and how
they modiﬁed their co-teaching practices in their co-teaching settings with their current or
ﬁrture teaching partner/s). Writing the ﬁeld notes was also a part of the analysis process.

As I developed the detailed ﬁeld notes, I also recorded my ideas, hunches,
comments, and questions, then I returned to data analysis to check claims, ﬁnd supporting
evidence, or modify claims based on ﬁrrther checking of the data. It is during this process
tlmt triangulation of evidence was formed, as was clarifying my analytic categories so that

they reﬂected both my researcher perspectives and the perspectives of the participants. The

47

data used for the next two chapters were parts of the data analyzed based on the above
analytical stance. Since the data set is complicated and enormous, in each chapter, I further
speciﬁed the data source. But in both chapters, I used mainly the constant comparative
method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), triangulation of evidence from diverse data sources, and
my ﬁeld notes (Erickson, 1986; Freebody, 2003) for analysis.
Consistency of Daggllection

To help ensure the consistency of data collection, I held ten PLC sessions at the pace
of twice a month with an online survey, including the teachers’ reﬂections, three times
throughout the process. This provided the participating teachers time and opportunity to
internalize what they learned and then bring new issues or concerns back to our meetings.
Meanwhile, in an effort to reduce the effects of research bias, I involved multiple data
sources, such as interviews, ﬁeld notes, online survey, etc. Totally, I had ﬁve 6-hour ﬁrll
day sessions and ﬁve 3-hour half day sessions, together 45 hours of work; ﬁeld notes ﬁ'om
the 45-hour work; audio and video transcriptions for this 45-hour work; 65 online
self-reﬂection surveys; and pre-lpost-interview data. At the end, 19 teachers (79.1%, more
than two thirds of the participants) participated through the entire length of our project
helping to maintain the consistency of the data. The data set presents multiple and varied
sources, which ensured trustworthiness of the data as well (Al-Jammal & Parkany, 2003;

Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003).

48

Chapter 4: Meeting the Standards of a Professional Learning Community

How to help teachers build their study groups or school improvement teams into a
PLC has become the big topic in PLC research (Archinstein, 2002; Beattie, 2002;
Ben-Peretz & Silberstein, 2002; Crespo, 2002; Florio-Ruane with deTar, 2001; Grossman et
al., 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Niu, 2008; Westheimer, 1998). In order to
determine if our group’s efforts would indicate the development of a professional learning
community I paid particular attention to, and collected data around, the commonly accepted
characteristics of a PLC. In the review of literature I presented the summaries of the
proposed PLC characteristics cited by different PLC researchers. In my research, I found
that Martin-Kniep’s work not only covered the common themes of the PLC, but also went
far beyond the basic features of PLC that most researchers had settled for in their studies
(See Literature Review Chapter #2 for details). In the following, I will take Martin-Kniep’s
vieWpoint as an analytical lens anchored on the data I collected, to explain why our teacher
study group was indeed a professional learning community.

As mentioned in the Literature Review Chapter, Martin-Kniep’s summary of the
characteristics of a PLC is constructed from six different aspects: 1) PLCs create a learning
environment that schools cannot; 2) PLCs Foster Positive Teacher Collaborative
Relationships; 3) PLCs Address Teachers’ Long-term and Immediate Needs through
Effective Ways to Exchanging Ideas and Feedback; 4) PLCs Assist Participating Teachers
to Knowing Their Colleagues’ Expertise; 5) PLCs Promote Rigorous Work; and 6) PLCs
support teachers to move from being dependent to independent.

Further, the reason that I chose Martin-Kniep’s aspects as an analytical stance is
because if we look careﬁrlly and closely at Martin-Kniep’s ﬁamework, we will ﬁnd that the

six aspects are interconnected and affect one another. I will explain this way: the unique

49

PLC environment provides opportunities for the participating teachers to work with one
another in this regime. This construct further paves the path for the teachers to know each
other better. They learn about their peers’ expertise and knowledge specialization for further
collaboration. At the same time, knowing each other better often improves the relationships
among the participating teachers, which builds a sound foundation for further collaboration.
Meanwhile, within this arena, individual teachers get more opportunities to further their
professional development mostly by sharing their individual viewpoints and exchanging
feedback, suggestions, and comments. Their colleagues’ responses and their exchanges of
information within the group ﬁrrther strengthen their own knowledge base of co-teaching
and assist the teachers to be more independent in their decision-making. When all the
elements combine within this supporting environment, the participating teachers are more
likely to move towards more rigorous work. I illustrate ﬁrrther about my point in the

following chart:

50

Chart 1: Interconnected Elements within a PLC

 

PLC Environment

 

r

     

Individual Needs

           
   

Relationship Met
+ +
Knowing Expertise lndenendent

 
    

 

 

if

Teachers’ Rigorous Work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on the illustrations of the interconnected elements of a PLC, pulling the research data
together, in the following, I will explain why our teacher study group developed into a PLC
around the co-teaching topic.

Data
Data selected for this section are those that demonstrate 1) teachers’ feeling changes

towards the environment they worked in; 2) the changes related to teacher relationships
within the community; 3) increases in teachers’ knowledge about their colleagues’ expertise;
4) how their individual needs were met; 5) teachers demonstrating more interdependence; as
well as 6) teachers engaged in rigorous work. Consequently, the selected data came from
our 1) PLC meetings; 2) ﬁeld notes; 3) teacher ongoing online reports; 4) teachers’ pre-/
post-interview data; and a focused exit interview about how the participating teachers
regard the study group.

As mentioned before in the Methodology chapter, all the data were coded based on

the research question and sub-questions. To support this chapter, the data. selected were

51

coded based on the same six categories from Martin Kniep’s framework that are mentioned
above. Then the coded data were analyzed for the purposes of demonstrating if our study
group met the criteria of a PLC. Meanwhile, I tried to ﬁnd the interrelationships among the
PLC aspects to search for connecting factors that may weave through the various aspects
and bind them even tighter. Afterwards, a synthesizing discussion section explains how the
data support the interconnectedness among the aspects within our PLC.

PLCs Creﬁate a Learning Enviromt not Namlly Occurring in Schools.

In the data analysis process, I ﬁrst paid attention to how the learning environment
evolved in the group. Quickly it became apparent the participating teachers appreciated the
opportunities they were being given to work, talk and share together. Based on the
pre-interview data, none of the eight focus teachers (respondents) ever mentioned
collaboration with other teachers. Even when they were asked about their co-teaching
experience, the answers I got were all about their own teaching practices.

They focused on how the experience had impacted them or described what their
experiences were, but none of them mentioned anything about the interaction with a
collaborating teacher. It seems that the teachers have been so isolated by their “egg—crate”
style teaching environment as Lortie (1975) described it that even with another teacher in
the room they focused on their own circumstance.

When asked in the pre-interviews about whether other teachers had shared their
co-teaching experiences with them, six of the respondents said things like, “no” “not really”
or “never.” Cane said, “I think most teachers are afraid to talk about co-teaching for fear
their conversation might indicate interest in being assigned to a co-taught classroom”
(Pre-interview, Cane, February, 2009). For the respondents who lmd indicated that they had

previous co-teaching experience, they were asked if they had shared their experiences with

52

others. Again their responses mostly fell in the “no” category. Stallion responded, “There
wasn’t much to talk about because I mostly sat at the back of the room” (Pre-interview,
Stallion, February, 2009).

In the two cases where conversations had taken place with other teachers who had
co—teaching experience, the respondents indicated that the conversations were typically
superﬁcial. One said that her conversation contained just “bits and pieces” (Pre-interview,
Cheli, February 2009) about the experience but nothing along the lines of a formal
discussion with useful information or tips. For another respondent, the experience of
hearing from other teachers about their co-teaching experience was much more negative.
The Dutchman stated regarding these conversations:

Mostly they were about the negative experiences and the things that aren’t
working. It would be nice to hear ﬁ'om more people who have been

co-teaching successfully and how they make it work.

[Pre-Interview, Dutchman, February, 2009]

Interestingly, when I was analyzing the post-interview data, I noticed that ahnost
every one of these same focus co-teachers (7 of 8) reported that they appreciated the
collaborating environment in which our PLC operated, that they learned from collaborating
with their peers, and that they brought what they learned ﬁom our PLC to their classroom
co-teaching practices. In the post-interview, Dutchman commented on the opportunities he
had at our PLC,

We had plenty of opportunities to share as large and small groups what we

are all “experts” in. Other PD I have experienced allowed for short

amounts of time to share ...so it was almost pointless to share in the small

groups because the large groups couldn’t hear. In this opportunity we all

had the opportunity to share.

[Post-Interview, Dutchman, April, 2009]

As Dutchman indicated, our PLC provided the participating teachers the opportunities to

53

interact with one another and collectively work on their learning. This is an environment
where this sort of interaction does not naturally occur. The normal school setting does not
provide this type of repetitive meeting time for sharing ideas and collaborating with other
teachers. These characteristics demonstrate that our PLC is also aligned with the standards
of a learning community as researched and reported by community scholars and researchers
other than Martin-Kniep as well (See Crespo, 2002; Farmer, et al., 2003; Grossman, et al.,
2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Westheimer, 1998, 1999).

The development of a learning environment that is separate from the normal
construct of the school day and its impact on the participating teachers are highlighted by
Maxie’s post-interview report. Maxie commented that our PLC provided an opportunity that
promoted relationship building through which the teachers worked together, and which their
normal school setting was not able to provide to them.

We spent time talking with each other during our conversations and were

able to hear how different teachers, who teach different subjects and even at

different schools, approach and implement co-teaching, which we cannot get

at our school.

[Post-Interview, Maxie, April, 2009]
The focus group’s reports are similar in terms of how our PLC environment helped them to
share their opinions with others in the group, how our PLC strengthened the connectedness
among the teachers, and how the PLC broke down the isolated classroom walls to make
their learning meaningﬁrl. It was in this collaborative environment of our PLC that the
teachers had the opportunity to work together beyond what the school settings can generally
provide to teachers.

It seems that our PLC environment played an important role in the teachers’ learning.

In the following, based on the data, I illustrate how the teachers reported that our PLC

fostered their collaborative relationships within the PLC.

54

PLQ F oster Positive Teacher Collaborative Relgtionshigs

Professional Learning Community researchers argue that one of the key
characteristics of teacher learning communities is that the participants form an.
interdependently collaborative relationship among its members (see Westheimer, 1999). As
Grossman and colleagues (2001) argue, in the learning communities, teachers have a clear
sense of the group as a whole. They further argue that the achievement of “groupness” is
through group members’ shared practice (Scherer, 1972; Selznick, 1992). In my follow-up
individual interviews, all the focus group teachers reported that they shared and learned
from one another inside our PLC. Meanwhile, they developed their interdependent
relationship with one another as well.

Dutchman commented on our PLC thusly:

Teachers share personal experiences with one another and that may trigger

similar issues in their own teaching lives. An example is during our current

PLC, a CT (co-teacher) group has shared how they go about note taking with

a low group of students academically and motivationally. It encouraged me

to try the same with my very similar group of middle school students. We

share with and learn from each other often.

[Follow-up PLC Interview, Dutchman, May, 2009]

Dutchman learned ﬁ'om the sharing of the teachers in the group. His learning was
inﬂuenced by his experience working within a small group setting during a PLC meeting.
Dutchman also reported that he shares with and learns ﬁ'om the others in the PLC group
often. Reﬂecting back to Dutchman’s responses in the previous section where he was
disappointed with the conversations he had with other teachers who had co-taught, it seems
clear that he was encouraged by the interdependent relationships within the PLC.

Dutchman was not alone in his comments regarding the member relationships within
the group. Sera’s comments illuminate how our PLC reinforced the sense of sharing and

being interdependent between her co-teacher and herself — within the co-teach ing pair.

55

The meetings have fostered positive teacher collaboration between my

co-teacher. . ., and me. and it has helped us become more aware of the

roles we have played in working together. Through this, we have been able

to analyze our activity and redirect our actions in ways that will bring about

better results for our students and a more pro-active use of our time when

working and planning together.

[Follow-Up PLC Interview, Sera, May, 2009]
Sera’s comments were advanced in illustrating the collaborative relationship among the
PLC members and how the group discussions impacted the relationship of her co-teaching
team. Her co-teacher and Sera became more interdependent in sharing their time, work and
teaching roles. They not only formed a collaboration work relationship within our PLC, but
also applied their relationship in their general classroom teaching practice. Sera had
commented in her pre-interview that her co-teacher took mostly a supportive role
(Pre-interview, Sera, February 2009). Her comments suggest that she and her co-teaching
partner had formed a tighter relationship or bond between them which is signiﬁcant in the
development of a PLC (Grossman, et al., 2001). In our post-interview data, all the focus
group teachers reported a greater sense of sharing and interdependence as well.
Nivka’s comments on our PLC are typical among the post-interview reports. He

said,

I felt like this PLC experience was a terriﬁc forum for having important

conversations with peers. I lave never been at a workshop or PD where we

had such extensive time for conversing and learning together.

[Post-Interview, Nivka, April, 2009]
Nivka’s comments about having conversations together and learning together indicated the
“groupness” or the interdependent relationship among the members.
The positive teacher collaborative relationship that had developed with the PLC

meetings was also revealed by the changes in their responses to the online survey. I

compared the three survey answers, the Pre-PLC, the Mid-PLC, and the Exit PLC survey

56

and found that as our PLC sessions progressed, more participating teachers reported that
they felt more comfortable working with their co-teacher. This change indicated that the
participants were more willingly to face the challenge of their collaborative work
relationships. Meanwhile, they were more willing to build interdependent relationships with
other teachers as they stated a greater willingness for more co-teaching assignments in the

future. For this, Cheli’s words could be taken as an example. She said,

. . .I would say I feel more positive. I do think that I would like to try a
greater variety of co-teaching models next year and also encourage other
teachers to do the same.

[Post-Interview, Cheli, April, 2009]

The following table indicates this change in their willingness to be co-teachers in the

ﬁrture.

57

Table 2: Teachers Willing to Be Assigned to More Co-Teaching Sessions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-PLC Mid-PLC Exit-PLC
Strongly Agree 4% 22% 33%
Mostly Agree 8% 33% 29%
Agree 8% 11% 14%
Neutral 42% 6% 19%
Disagree 33% 22% 5%
Mostly Disagree 4% 0% 0%
Strongly Disagree 0% 6% 0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the table, I found that at our Pre-PLC survey, 42% of the teachers held a
neutral attitude towards co-teaching, while another 37% of the teachers were adamant about
not wanting to co-teach. In fact, only 20% of the 24 teachers who took the survey were
willing to co-teach in the ﬁrture. However, the percentages had already begun to change
when we got to the mid-PLC survey. At the end of our PLC, the percentage had drastically
changed as 76% of those surveyed indicated that they would be in favor of future
co-teaching assigmnents. Only one respondent marked “Disagree” when asked if they
would be willing to co-teach in the future. I view this change as very signiﬁcant as a result
of the positive relationships the teachers created within our PLC.

The degree of being interdependent and the ways of sharing are important factors in
determining whether a study group is a PLC or not. The members of our group began
asking each other for teaching tips, instructional strategies, suggestions for lesson planning,
etc. Within small group activities every member made contributions and appeared engaged

in the work being done. From these interactions with one another, our PLC demonstrated an

58

enriched experience through multiple perspectives: teachers’ active participation, having
strong interrelationships, and collaboratively working on the community growth, which
indicated that our PLC was a mature PLC (See Grossman, et al., 2001). Our community
took collective responsibility for improving teacher learning and moved forward.

Based on the PLC data that I collected, I observed that our PLC members shared
their ideas, issues, questions, and comments. More importantly, I found that the teachers’
sharing and being interdependent addressed the teachers’ long held reservations about
co-teaching. In the following, I categorized the data through the theme of how our PLC

members reported that their long-term and immediate needs were addressed.

PLQ Address T egchers ’ Long-term and Immediate Needs through
E ﬂective Ways to Exchanging Ideas and F eeanck

Literature argues that PLC encourages teachers who share the same goals to come

 

together to discuss, learn, and problem-solve together. This addresses both the long-term
goals and the immediate needs of the participants (Peterson, McCarthey, & Elmore, 1996).
For our long-term goal, every one of our PLC members understood that we had targeted
improvement of co-teaching practices in the classroom settings. While some raised concerns
that their co-teaching partner was not part of the PLC group, most discussed the fact at our
fn'st meetings that they were glad to get more scholarly information regarding the concept
of co-teaching (Field notes, PLC meeting February 23, 2009). One teacher said during a
small group discussion, “I worried that the district believed if they put two teachers in a
room they could just automatically co-teach (audio-taped notes, PLC meeting, March 8,
2009).

Whether we addressed individual teachers’ long-term and immediate needs,

responses to the survey questions provided some evidence. The answer to the question, “In

59

my opinion, co-teaching will allow me to take more instructional risks and offer a wider
variety of learning opportunities for the students,” would indicate whether the teachers felt
our PLC activities helped meet their teaching goals. In this case, the teacher was
demonstrating a willingness to try different teaching activities and different student

groupings during work time. After I compared the Pre-PLC, the Mid-PLC and the Exit-PLC
survey data, I found that more teachers agreed that co-teaching will allow them to take

instructional risks. In the following, I provide a table to compare the data and illustrate what

I meant by “an increased number of the teachers.

Table 3: Teachers Willingness to Take Instructional Risks and Offer A Wider Variety of

Learning Opportunities for Their Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-PLC Mid-PLC Exit-PLC
Strongly Agree 8% 42% 33%
Mostly Agree 8% 21% 52%
Agree 17% 32% 10%
Neutral 42% 0% 5%
Disagree 25% 0% 0%
Mostly Disagree 0% 5% 0%
Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0%

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 denotes that only 33% of the teachers who responded to the Pre-survey were at
some level of agreement with the idea that co-teaching would allow them to take
instructional risks and offer a wider variety of learning for students. Another 42% were

neutral, most likely because they didn’t know enough about co-teaching to draw that

60

 

conclusion. However, when the teachers did their Mid-PLC and their Exit-PLC, the
percentage in agreement increased dramatically. In both surveys, 95% of the teachers
“Agree,” “Mostly Agree,” or “Strongly Agree.” Although both the Mid-PLC and the
Exit-PLC showed high percentage of teachers (95%) in these three categories, there is still a
difference shown between the Mid- and Exit surveys. At the Mid- survey, only 63% of the
teachers Mostly or Strongly Agreed, but by the time of the Exit- survey, the number
increased to 85%.Our Follow-up data also demonstrated that our PLC addressed the
teachers’ long-term goal of learning from one another. Stallion commented about his
experiences as,

Our discussions in the PLC were great. We spent some time talking about

topics not only on task, but we also spent a lot of time sharing ideas and

learning from each other. I know that I feel better prepared as a teacher

after exchanging ideas.

[Follow-Up Interview, Stallion, May, 2009]

Sera’s comments on our PLC echoed Stallion, but provided a thicker description of the
function of our PLC.

During small group working times, members were also able to consider

options available for implementing new methodologies, discuss possible

outcomes, beneﬁts, drawbacks, etc. of each method. Then small groups

shared their ﬁndings with the larger group which allowed further

discussion and feedback for utilizing in professional practice.

[Follow-Up Interview, Sera, May 2009]

The above quoted data suggests that our PLC addressed both the long-term goals and the
immediate needs of the teachers when the teachers worked together on the issues they cared
about and on the improvement of their co-teaching skills. The following selected data
provided further proof for how our PLC addressed individual participants’ needs.

Tivo was one of the more proactive participants. His comments on what he and his

partner did illustrated how they got their immediate needs taken care of within our PLC.

We are now developing a co-teacher planning guide to assist in the efforts

6]

of teaching. It (participation in the PLC) fostered a proposal idea for an
individualized Program of Instruction for students easily distracted in the

' classroom (ADI-ID, etc.). Unfortunately, funds are not available to
implement the program. (I am researching Grant Opportunities to fund the

proposal.)
[Follow-Up Interview, Tivo, May, 2009]
To Tivo and his partner, the current need is to develop the planning guide to help the
students who are easily distracted in the class. His words suggest that our PLC helped spur
this idea and pushed them toward this effort.

Many of the participating teachers had indicated that they felt unsure and unﬁrlﬁlled
in their current co-teaching situation (Field notes, PLC meeting, February 23, 2009). They
needed a solution to their short term dilemma. Our PLC pulled the teachers together to
discuss problems and issues that most immediately affected them to help promote
knowledge acquisition together. Our PLC also addressed the immediate needs of the
participating teachers by assisting them with their current situations, i.e. classroom
instruction, projects, lesson plans, or ﬁnding proposals. As McLaughlin (1994) argued, any
active professional community was responsive to teachers’ immediate professional concerns
and our PLC was just that.

As for meeting the needs of the teachers’ long-term goals, Sera summed it up best
when she said,

I enjoyed attending the PLC sessions with a teacher I will be working with

next year. We were able to have numerous discussions and have several

plans for how we want to do things next year.

[Post-interview, Sera, April 2009]

One of the beneﬁts of sharing concerns and addressing issues together was that our
PLC participants also reported that they knew their colleagues’ expertise better. In the
following, I will reinforce the idea that our study group was a PLC by providing ﬁndings

related to how our PLC assisted its members to learn about the others’ expertise.

62

PLQ Assist Participating Teachers to Knowing Their Colleagyes ’ Expertise

As I presented in the literature review chapter, since the routines of teachers are in
such an isolated and closed environment, teachers ﬁ'equently lack information about what
their colleagues know and do, but PLC participation provides opportunities for the
participants to know their colleagues’ expertise (Martin-Kniep, 2004). This is one of the
critical factors of any PLC. In our PLC, the teachers presented their different experiences,
teaching beliefs, levels, and subjects, personalities, and teaching styles, which are important
factors of a community as Wenger (2003) argued. These factors of a community convey the
members’ expertise.

During the study, I noticed that through participation in our PLC activities,
discussions, and sharing, the teachers reported that they knew their partners better and knew
their peers better. Cheli’s words about working with the teachers from other buildings and
other grades provided us a general view of how our study group helped the teachers to know
about their peers.

It was also helpful that there were teachers who were already co-teaching

in the PLC because they had a different perspective. I have never been

involved with a teacher training that gave us as much opportunity to

interact with our peers. I think we learned a lot together, including

knowing about our peers.

‘ [Post-Interview, Cheli, April, 2009]

Cheli’s words demonstrated that our study group provided the opportunities for its
participants to know their peers expertise and get a glimpse into their peers’ perspectives on
educational issues.

Besides the Post-Interview data, in our F ollow-Up Interview, the participating
teachers also commented on how our study group assisted them to know more about their

peers. Dutchman’s words are both evident and reﬂective. He said,

Being with different levels of teachers and numbers of years of teaching

63

was great. Each teacher brought in a unique vision of the CT experience. I

have been CT for 7 years so I feel that I have more of an expertise than

others. I see that I was not right in that view. I have been teaching with the

same teacher for about 5 of those years so we have a great routine,

however, I found that I may also be “stuck in a rut” and with my partner, I

could have tried many new techniques. Hearing from others is refreshing.

[Follow-Up Interview, Dutchman, May, 2009]

It is clear that Dutchman not only knew his peers better, but also knew about his
co-teacher better. More importantly, his words conveyed that if he did not have the
experience with our study group, he may not have been able to realize the capacities that his
co-teachers had. Also, he gained greater perspective on his own teaching practice. Thus, our
study group provided opportunities to know their partners and their peers’ expertise better.

Nivka simply said that “I gained insight into my team teacher’s knowledge of
strategies that can be used to aid struggling studen ” [Follow-Up Interview, Nivka, May,
2009]. Although Nivka only said one sentence, he clearly conveyed the meaning of
knowing his team teacher’s strategies and expertise better.

These data selections provided evidence for the fact that our study group reached
another standard of being a PLC. Therefore, although emphasizing collective work,
community members’ individual concerns and views are also important to the development
of community and the growth of community members (Grossman, et al., 2001; McLaughlin
& Talbert, 2003; Westheimer, 1998). Researchers agreed that individual expertise is both
inevitable and beneﬁcial to the growth of a community (F unnan, 1998; Selznick, 1992). In
the following, I will discuss how this study group is a PLC ﬁom its efforts of promoting
rigorous work of its members.

PLC Promote Rigorost Work

Research documents that PLCs promote rigorous work because they provide

opportunities for participating teachers to do self-reﬂections (Martin-Kniep, 2004). The

teachers’ self-reﬂections promote teacher learning and ﬁrrther the change of their practice
(N in, 2008). This self reﬂection can be seen in my previous quotation ﬁ'om Dutchman.
From the data, I found several places where the teachers reported their belief
changes and their practice changes based on their self-reﬂections, discussions, sharing, and
commenting inside our study group. These illustrated that our study group had developed
into a PLC. First, the teachers’ rigorous work was shown through analyzing the recurring
online survey. The teachers’ beliefs and conﬁdences about whether co-teaching has the
potential for meeting the needs of all students changed over our PLC sessions. In the

following, I used another Table to demonstrate the changes over the time.

65

Table 4: Teachers’ Beliefs in Co-Teaching Has the Potential for Meeting the Needs of All

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students.
Pre-PLC Mid-PLC Exit-PLC
Strongly Agree 8% 26% 24%
Mostly Agree 8% 53% 52%
Agree 12% 16% 24%
Neutral 38% 0% 0%
Disagree 12% 5% 0%
Mostly Disagree 21% 0% 0%
Strongly Disagree 0% 0% 0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pre-PLC survey data demonstrated that the participating teachers’ beliefs varied greatly,
yet still indicated a lack of conﬁdence is this idea as 71% either “Disagreed” or “Neutral”
with the majority of this group responding “neutral.” However, at the Mid-PLC survey, 95%
of the teachers already believed that using what they learned about co-teaching could help

all students learn and by the end of the PLC 100% of the teachers surveyed agreed to some
level. Based on the data analyses, it was apparent that teachers had more conﬁdence

because they experienced new learning within our PLC which prompted to try new teaching
methods in their classroom. The challenges that I designed for our PLC teacher learning and
the active learning methods our teachers used in their classrooms were designed to help the
teachers achieve more rigorous standards in their teaching. Most of the teachers indicated in
the Pre—interviews that they were only familiar with the supportive model of co-teaching.

After the second meeting they were introduced to ﬁve models of co-teaching and by the end

66

of the PLC they were clearly conﬁdent that the use of all the models would improve
learning for all students. The teachers were consistently challenged at each meeting to
identify the various models of co-teaching and how they could be implemented in the

classroom. This rigorous approach paid dividends as evidenced in the following.

For instance, Sera at her Follow-Up Interview described the rigor of one activity

within the PLC,

Our small group was certainly challenged on the day we worked with

implementing multiple learning style presentation and station learning. In

our small group activity we were asked to create a social studies lesson

using learning stations which utilized various learning styles. We were

challenged to become creative in our activities, while considering stated

lesson objectives, multiple styles of learning, and the presence of multiple

levels of learners.

[Follow-Up Interview, Sera, May, 2009]

Sera’s words described how the participating teachers worked hard towards learning about
co-teaching within our PLC. The purpose of challenging the teachers within our PLC was to
foster a rigorous working environment that would foster teacher learning, and increase the
depth of their understanding, in a format that should ensure long term beneﬁt from
participation in the PLC. As a result, our PLC teachers brought what they learned and
practiced inside our PLC to their teaching. Dutchman’s words in his Follow-Up Interview

suggested be perceived this increased rigor. Dutchman said,

The students have more hands-on activities and are required to become
more involved in the lesson instead of “just” taking notes. They may be
asked to participate orally with the note taking. Also, teachers are asked to
plan more. Maybe that’s where the “rigorous” comes in. Teachers need to
plan together and collaborate more. It takes time.

[Follow-Up Interview, Dutchman, May, 2009]

The conversations with Dutchman showed there were changes happening in his co-teaching

classroom after he participated in our PLC. The students were no longer “just” taking notes.

67

They changed to active learning, which was more rigorous than their passive note-taking
learning styles before. The teachers planned together and collaborated more with more time,

which showed more rigorous work as well.

The knowledge that teachers learned and brought to their classrooms empowered the
teachers to have more expertise in their own co-teaching classrooms. In their co-teaching
practices, teachers were willing to try various strategies they acquired, which provided the
teachers the opportunities to be more independent in both decision-making and in teaching
practice. Next, the data illustrates our study group met the standard for a PLC due to the

members reporting that they became more independent after they participated in our PLC.

PLC Members Grow From Dependence to Interdependence

Dufour and Eakes (1998) argue that the existence of a PLC requires the collective
commitment to what the participants believe and what they seek to create. Furthermore,
these guiding principles, they say, are embedded in the hearts and minds of the participants.
Taking a group of individuals and helping them create an atmosphere of collaboration
wherein they have this collective commitment, requires they go through stages of
dependence and interdependence. Based on the data, I found that the members of our study
group grew ﬁom dependence to more interdependence over the time of our project, which

further indicated that our study group met the standard for a PLC.

When the focused teachers were asked about becoming more interdependent, they
shared their thoughts with illustrations of why they felt they were more interdependent in

their thinking and effort now. Stallion, in his Follow-Up Interview described his feeling as

Usually we listen to some “expert” tell us how to do our jobs better. In this
PLC, we were decision-makers. We helped each other understand how to
do our jobs better within our own setting . .. After listening to Maxie talk
about how she and her co-teacher structure their lessons so that both are

68

involved right from the beginning, I decided to talk with my co-teacher
about our classes. She had the same thought.

[Follow-Up Interview, Stallion, May, 2009]

Stallion’s words were signiﬁcant at two different layers. First, most of the time, he, along
with others, waited for someone who was believed to know better to tell them what to do
and how to do their jobs. Second, after their participation in our PLC, he felt that he had the
capacity to make decisions himself and help others in the group. This was a huge jump from
being dependent on some “expert” to being interdependent in sharing one’s own

knowledge.

Along this line, Sera’s words reinforced the theme of our PLC members becoming

more interdependent than before. Sera said,

. .. and through this PLC we are gaining a better understanding of what we
need to change in our thinking and planning in order to best help reach
those students without relying on a special education teacher’s “hand-held
assistance.” In gaining a better understanding of differentiated instruction,
we can become more pro-active in our planning ﬁom the very start.

[Follow-Up Interview, Sera, May, 2009]

When Sera mentioned that she better understood what she and her co-teacher needed
to change, she indicated that she and her partner had already become more interdependent
in thought about planning and teaching. Especially, when she suggested that she and her
co-teacher would be more proactive together, it ﬁlrther indicated that the team had become

more interdependent.

The Post-Interview data also demonstrated the change in the teachers ﬁ'om being
dependent to interdependent. Some focus teachers’ interview answers went beyond just

being interdependent as they were pursuing a leadership role after participating in our PLC.

Martin-Kniep (2004) argued that without PLC, schools have to exclusively rely on

69

external experts and resources, which is on the one hand, expensive, and on the other, not as
effective in terms of teacher professional development. Here based on the data from our PLC,
the teachers started to rely on themselves on decision-making, problem-solving and

knowledge acquiring.

Conclusion

The research data suggested that our teacher study group was a PLC because it set
up a supportive, fostering, and non-threatening learning environment that the normal school
setting could not provide. Within this learning environment, the participating teachers
shared their concerns and worked on the issues and problems they faced both in the
long-term, as well as, their immediate needs. The interactive process within the PLC among
the teachers assisted the participants to build an interdependent relationship. This process of
sharing and working together illuminated each member’s expertise and provided
opportunities for the other participants to learn about their colleagues. Some of the teachers
even reported that building on their interrelationship and the acquisition of the skills,
strategies and knowledge they would take a leadership role later in their school settings. As
a result of this process, within this learning environment, the teachers aimed at more

rigorous work.

70

Chapter 5 : Modiﬁcations in Knowledge, Beliefs and Skills

While Little (2002) argues that since PLC discourses or materials are
de-contextualized portraits of what happened in the classrooms, participating teachers’
classroom practice remains unclear through these discourses, but studies on the effects of
teacher learning within the context of PLC showed both teacher knowledge growth and
teaching practice improvement.

Modiﬁcaﬁons

Starting with our ﬁrst PLC meeting I designed the activities to activate this element
of social interaction theory. We began with an exercise wherein each participant was asked
to make a short list (3-5 ), of meeting norms that they would like the group to embrace for
our PLC. Some of the suggestions were: 1) Start all meetings on time. 2) Have an agenda
and follow it. 3) Encourage everyone’s participation, but monitor each speaker’s “airtime”
so that no one dominated the conversation. 4) Keep the meeting activities focused and
purposeﬁrl.

Once everyone had completed their lists members volunteered their answers and we
considered them as a group. We narrowed the list of meeting norms down to 8 general
expectations that we held for our PLC meetings and for the interactions of the members.
This list of 8 meeting norms was written onto a poster sized paper which was then
laminated and posted at each meeting.

The next activity involved having the members creating a short list (3 -5), of goals
that the teacher had for themselves, their students or the school in general for the year.

Again, volunteers ﬁ'om the group shared their goals and we put this on the board in ﬁ‘ont of

the group. After everyone had ﬁnished sharing, we went through the list one at a time and

71

after each goal I asked the members to indicate if they had put the same goal on their list.
The ﬁrst goal that had been offered was for their students to be academically successﬁrl.
When I asked the group to raise their hand if they had the same goal on their list, every
teacher in the room raised their hand. As the PLC members looked about the room you
could tell this was a very poignant moment. The power of seeing that individually they all
had the same goal for student success raised their awareness that we were in this together.
The discussion that followed reinforced this idea of holding common goals and objectives.

These two activities may seem somewhat trivial on the surface, but the impact they
made on establishing the group as a professional learning community was powerful. At this
point of that ﬁrst meeting, the atmosphere in the room and attitude of the teachers could be
best described as reserved and cautious (Field notes, February 8, 2009). Then I made this
comment to the group, “what your responses tell me is that student success is not a general
education goal or a special education goal, it is a communal goal” (Audio-tape, PLC
meeting, February 8, 2009). There were smiles and excited “chatter” amongst all of the PLC
members. Next I made this statement, “Knowing we all share this ‘common goal’ is so
signiﬁcant because co-teaching is not a general education strategy, or a special education
strategy, it is a communal education strategy” (Audiotape, PLC meeting, February 8, 2009).
I let that idea hang in the air for a moment as the group became very quiet and reﬂective.
After approximately 60 seconds of silence I suggested we take a break and one could easily
sense the “buzz” of excitement as the connection had been made between our common
goals and co-teaching (Field notes, February 8, 2009).

The present study, through examining the participating co-teachers’ actions, reports,
and reﬂections on their social interactions within the context of the PLC, answers the

following research question: Can teachers improve their knowledge, conﬁdence, and

72

practice of co-teaching through professional development participation in a teacher
professional learning community? I intend to answer these questions through the following
three sub-questions:

1) Does teachers’ understanding of co-teaching and its basic models change
through participation in the PLC?

2) Do the teachers gain increased comfort level towards co-teaching when they
talked about co-teaching or engaged their co-teachers through PLC
participation?

3) What modiﬁcations do the teachers report in their own co-teaching practices
through PLC participation?

I used data where I found instances of discourse, documents or activities related to
the following: (1) teacher’s knowledge and skill acquisitions; (2), the data showing the
changes in the teachers’ comfort levels with co-teaching; and (3) teachers’ reports and
self-reﬂections on the modiﬁcations in their co-teaching practices. These instances occurred
in (l) the meeting sessions of our PLC; (2) the PLC meeting reﬂections, (3) my analytic
summaries of the Pre-IPost Interview data, and the Pre-/Post-PLC as well as a recurring
online survey Data; (4) the ﬁeld notes; and (5) teacher reﬂections. The selection of the data
reﬂects my role as a participant observer who documented what happened in this learning
community, what the teachers learned, and what they reported they learned through various
activities. This permitted me to put teachers’ words and actions regarding their
understanding and their reports on the improvement of co-teaching into a wider context. For
example, every respondent to the Post Interview questions mentioned the beneﬁts they
received ﬁom having time for discourse with colleagues.

I collected artifacts both within our PLC and outside our PLC, documented in my

73

ﬁeld notes, which helped me gain in-depth insight into the thoughts of the PLC members. I
also gathered data from PLC member’s pre-and post interviews focused on how he or she
thought about co-teaching, co-teaching models, and about teaching students in the context
of co-teachin g. Self-reﬂections on changes, which allow teachers to share privately with
researchers, rather than put their ideas in public, were checked against data ﬁ'om the
meeting discussions as well as ﬁ'om ﬁeld notes of PLC. These self-reﬂections were
completed by the teachers in semi-structured interview questions providing them with ideal
sharing opportunities that may not be offered during individual interviews (Al-Jammal &
Parkany, 2003; Fontana & Frey, 1994).

Reads.

The syntheses of data analyses show that the participating teachers obtained a
clearer understanding of co-teaching, an increased knowledge of co-teaching, and gradual
modiﬁcations of their co-teaching practices through their participations in our teacher PLC.
In the following, I illustrate my ﬁndings based on the three sub-research questions.
Mved Teachers ’ Understqnding ofCo—teachingand Its Basic Models

Differences among the Pre-, Mid-Po int, and the Post-PLC survey revealed that our
PLC sessions advanced the participating teachers’ understanding of Co-Teaching and its
basic models (See Table 1). To set up a foundation for our study, we surveyed the
participating teachers on how well they understood co-teaching and its models. When we
analyzed our pre-survey data, we found that out of 24 teachers, 10 teachers (42%) disagreed
that they grasped the concept and the models and 8 mostly (33%) disagreed, while only 2
teachers (8%) mostly agreed. No teacher indicated either “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” and
4 teachers (17%) stood neutral. However, at our early April survey, which marked the

mid-point of the PLC sessions, we found the situation changed. Three teachers had dropped

74

out of the project by of the 21 teachers who completed the survey, 12 teachers (63%)
reported that they mostly agreed that they had a good grasp of the concept of co-teaching
and the co-teaching models. Four teachers (21%) agreed while 2 teachers (11%) strongly
agreed, and only 1 teacher (5%) held the stance of neutral. The numbers for “Strongly
Disagree,” “Mostly Disagree,” and “Disagree” were all zero. At our post-PLC survey, the
numbers changed again. Nineteen of the twenty one teachers completed the survey
questions and all their answers fell into the categories of “Strongly Agree,” “Mostly Agree,”
and “Agree.” The other categories showed no responses from the teachers. Most of the
answers, this time, clustered around “Mostly Agree,” 12 teachers (57%), which was more
than half of the respondents. The next highest total was 6 teachers who chose “Agree,”

which is 29%. Three teachers answered “Strongly Agree,” which is 14% (See Table 5).

Table 5: Improved Teachers’ Understanding of Co-Teaching and Its Basic Models through

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLC Activities

Pre-PLC Survey (24) Mid-Point Survey (21) Post-PLC Survey (19)

No. % No. % No. %
Strongly Agree 0 0 2 ll 3 14
Mostly Agree 2 8 12 63 12 57
Agree 0 0 4 21 6 29
Neutral 4 17 1 5 0 0
Disagree 10 42 0 0 0 0
Mostly Disagree 8 33 0 0 0 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 O 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

 

Within the domain of their improved understanding of the concept and the models of
co-teaching, the teachers also showed the improvement through their interview questions. In
the following, we used qualitative data to explain our ﬁndings.

From Egperiential Understanding to SystemaLtiLal Deep Understa_ncﬂng

At the pre-interview, participating teachers reported their understanding of the
concept and models based on their own teaching experiences. However, in their
post-interview, they reported their systematic deep understanding of the knowledge. For
instance, Maxie, who had attended a couple of workshops, stated the following:

I have co-taught for 11 years. I know it is two teachers working together to

assist students to achieve the learning goals of the class.

[Pre-Interview, 2009, Maxie]
However, in her Post-interview, she reported differently:

Co-teaching can be different for each teacher you work with depending on

the content knowledge of the teachers, the comfort level the teacher feels

sharing their class, and the needs of the students. I am able to not only

describe these 5 models but choose and implement the model that will
work best depending on curriculum, needs of students and co-teacher.
[Post-Interview, 2009, Maxie]
The differences between Maxie’s responses not only demonstrate her deep
understanding of co-teaching, but also represent her sophisticated understanding of
the concept and the dynamics revealed ﬁom utilizing the concept. This is a critical
change ﬁ'om her understanding prior to participation in the PLC. Along this same
line, Maxie indicated at the ﬁrst PLC meeting (Meeting Notes, February 8, 2009)
that she was only familiar with the supportive model of co-teaching wherein the
special education teacher simple acts as a classroom helper. At a later PLC (Field

Notes, May 14, 2009), she indicated that she was excited to try the other models of

co-teaching as well. She believed that the station teaching model would be

76

especially interesting to use in her social studies class.
Teachers Gained Flexibility in Co- Teaching Mﬂel

Participating teachers also reported an increase in their ﬂexibilities regarding
working with others under the structure of co-teaching. Post-interview data ﬁ'om Belle, who
was frustrated by a one-day conference related to co-teaching, demonstrated the increase of
her understanding of co-teaching and her increased ﬂexibilities both with co-teaching and
with co-teachers after participating in this PLC. In the interview, Belle said,

Before this experience (PLC experience), I would have told you that

co-teaching was simply two teachers co-existing in a classroom. I

imagined power struggles and resentment, because that is what I have

witnessed. What I have now been exposed to is a systematic approach

that helps alleviate some of those problems. By deﬁning the roles of the

teachers (lead and support, parallel, station or team), both teachers can ﬁnd

a place where each is comfortable. If both staff feel conﬁdent in subject

matter, then the parallel is useful, if a teacher is not as sure, the lead and

support would be better. The piece of advice that made the most sense to

me was that your dynamic can change daily or weekly depending on the

subject being introduced.

[Post Interview, May 2009, Belle]

Belle’s response represents several other teachers’ sentiment that they gained the
knowledge of using the co-teaching models ﬂexrhly, which reduced power struggles and
resentment. For example, the Dutchman stated prior to the PLC (Pre-Interview, Dutchman),
“I am the content area teacher. Generally speaking I have taken a lead role while the special
education teacher has taken a supportive role.” Then he followed that with this statement
from a ﬁrture session, (ﬁeld notes, March 27, 2009) “I enjoyed attending the PLC with the
teacher I will be working with next year. We had many discussions about the models of

co-teaching and are starting to make plans for how we might work this into the lessons for

next year.”

77

From our data analyses, I believe that these changes resulted in and also resulted
from the co-teaching knowledge the participating teachers acquired through the PLC
sessions particularly those pieces related to professional relationship building.

Increaised Teacher Comfort Level in Co- Teaching Settings

Comparing the pre-interview data, the on-line survey answers, and the
post-interview data, we also found that the teachers gained better understanding of their
roles in the co-teaching model, which led to an increase in the teachers’ comfort level in
co-teaching settings. To understand the participating teachers’ dispositions regarding their
roles in planning, organizing, and delivering instruction in a co-taught classroom, we
surveyed the teachers about their feeling of being an equal partner in their co-teaching team.
When we analyzed our pre-interview data, we found that the answers spread out and
covered ﬁve different categories. Out of 24 teachers, 7 teachers (29%) chose “Mostly Agree”
and 5 teachers (21%) strongly agreed while 3 (12%) agreed, while 3 teachers (12%)
disagreed and 6 (25 %) selected “Neutral.” There was no teacher that selected either “mostly
disagree” or “strongly disagree”. At our mid-point survey, we found the situation changed.
This time, out of 21 teachers who did the survey, 7 teachers (37%) reported that they mostly
agreed that they played an equal role in their co-teaching teams. Six teachers (32%) strongly
agreed with this and ﬁve teachers (26%) agreed, while 1 teacher (5%) held the stand of
neutral. The numbers for “Strongly Disagree,” “Mostly Disagree,” and “Disagree” were
marked as zero. Our ﬁnal survey showed the same tendency. Nineteen teachers completed
the survey questions. Most of their answers clustered around “Mostly Agree” and “Agree.”
The mostly agree category absorbed 8 teachers (3 8%) responses and 6 teachers agreed
(29%). Four teachers strongly agreed (19%). The total percentage falling into an agreeable

category was 86%. There were 3 teachers (14%) holding a neutral position. But none of the

78

teachers disagreed on any level (See Table 6). After the mid—point of our PLC sessions, the
teachers no longer felt that they were playing an unequal role in their co-teaching

partnership.

Table 6: Increased Teacher Comfort Level in Co-Teaching Settings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-PLC Survey (24) Mid-Point Survey (21) Post-PLC Survey (19)

No. % No. % No. %
Strongly Agree 5 21 6 32 4 19
Mostly Agree 7 29 7 37 8 38
Agree 3 12 5 26 6 29
Neutral 6 25 l 5 3 14
Disagree 3 12 0 0 0 0
Mostly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within the domain of their understanding of the role they played in their partnership, the
teachers demonstrated their comfort level with co-teaching change through their interview
questions and their session conversations as well. Some teachers indicated their role
changed indirectly.
From Being against Co- Teaching to Welcoming Co- Teaching

Teachers’ answers to the pre-PLC and Post-PLC interviews showed their beliefs
changed towards Co-Teaching. After the PLC sessions, the teachers are more willing to
accept the concept of co-teaching. For instance, at the Pre-PLC interview, Nivka, one of the

general education teachers, when asked the question of what did he know about co-teaching,

79

answered “It involves multiple teachers teaching together” (Pre-Interview, Nivka). Yet, as
an example of his discomfort with the concept, be indicated that in his co-teaching
situations he was the lead teacher and the special education teacher was in the room simply
for support. His beliefs about collaborating with another teacher softened over the course of
our PLC meetings. At the Post-Interview, when asked the same question, he provided a
thick description of his willingness to work with his co-teacher.

I believe I have an excellent understanding of the various models of

co-teaching. I ﬁnd this to be very exciting. At the start of this project I was

not very enthusiastic about co-teaching . . .I am excited to work with my

co-teacher and am conﬁdent that if I get assigned a different co-teacher for

next year I will be able to explain the various models to them.

[Post-Interview, 2009, Nivka]

Nivka indicated an attitude shift between the pre-interview and the post-interview - ﬁ'om
“not very enthusiastic about co-teaching” to “I am excited to work with my co-teacher.”
Based on his reﬂections, this shift was created by his understanding of the concept of
co-teaching and its basic models. He had also stated during the ﬁrst PLC session (Field
Notes, February 8, 2009) that he would have a very difﬁcult time “giving up control” of his
classroom to another teacher. That he felt protective and selﬁsh about sharing his students.
His co-teaching partner, Coach, even shared a conversation that the two of them had at the
beginning of the year where Nivka said that he (N ivka) would take responsibility for
teaching the class and told Coach that he would only be expected to help the special
education students and little else.

Nivka’s need for control slowly began to show signs of fading in the PLC. He and

Coach were soon having discussions about ways for implementing the co-teaching models

in their classroom (Field Notes, Febmary 23, 2009). Nivka even publicly expressed that he

80

was starting to understand that giving the co-teacher a chance to take the instructional lead
did not equate to giving up control of the classroom (Audio tape, March 8, 2009). He
suggested that co-teaching meant both teachers being involved so even if the special
education teacher took the lead, the general education teacher was still involved and still
had some control. By the ﬁnal PLC meeting (Meeting Notes, May 14, 2009) Nivka was
expressing a desire to implement some of the various models of co-teaching putting more
students in ﬁ'ont of the special education teacher and was comfortable that this did not mean
he was giving up cont-cl of the class. This willingness by Nivka to share the lead in the
classroom may have been the catalyst for Coach to seek more of an active role in the
co-teaching process and not simply be satisﬁed serving in a supportive role as his
colleagues had noted (Post Interview, Stallion).

Some other teachers also showed the changes in their beliefs of and comfort with
co-teaching. For instance, in the pre-interview, when asked to explain her role in their
co-teaching team, Cane, a special education teacher said,

Varied--support person in some cases, lead teacher at times, sometimes I

removed my caseload students and/or others who needed additional help,

often I was the one to do accommodations/modiﬁcations for students.

[Pre-Interview, Cane]
Cane described her role as primarily a supportive teacher in their co-teaching setting.
But this situation changed. When she was asked the same questions during the
post-interview, Cane’s answer indicated the change in her understanding about her
roles in co-teaching,

I’ve been co-teaching for 4 years now, but it [PLC learning] has given me

more conﬁdence as a special education teacher to step in and be more of

the content expert...”
[Post-Interview, Cane]

81

From less conﬁdence to more conﬁdence as a special education teacher, Cane reported
indirectly that her understanding of the role changed after her participation in our PLC.
Some other teachers also advanced their understanding of the role they played in
their co-teaching pair from superﬁcial to a deeper understanding. For instance, when Cheli,
who did not have any opportunities to learn about co-teaching in the past, was asked about
whether she understood the role she played in her co-teaching team, she simply answered
“Yes” (Pre-Interview, Cheli). However, in the post-interview, she showed her reﬂection on
her different understanding of the role she could now play,
I have co-taught in the past so I think I was prepared prior to the PLC. But
I will say that my co-teaching experience was very limited and looked
mostly like the supportive co-teaching which was the most superﬁcial.
[Post-Interview, Cheli]
Cheli’s understanding of her comfort level with co-teaching changed ﬁom “She thought she
knew it,” therefore, “no need to work on it” to “her self-realization that her ‘co-teaching
experience was very limited’ and ‘superﬁcial’.” This demonstrated a turning point in her
understanding of co-teaching and her role in the model.
More Comfortable Now to Sit Together
One interesting dynamic that was documented in ﬁeld notes was the alignment of
the teachers at the ﬁrst meeting. The teachers did not necessarily sit next to their
co-teaching partner nor did they seem to align themselves by grade or teaching assignment.
Particularly, the junior high teachers took peculiar positions within the community. Not
only did all of the special education teachers sit at one table with the general education

teachers sitting at another, but the two tables were on opposite sides of the room. This was

82

very curious indeed and somewhat indicative of a lack of camaraderie or professional
relationship. At the second meeting these teachers had moved to the same side of the room
and by the third session the junior high teachers, without prompting ﬁ'om the facilitator,
were choosing to sit next to their co-teaching partner. I believe this is attributable to the
activities that we engaged in during our ﬁrst meeting related to establishing a PLC (see p.
95 -96) and the activities during the second meeting that were designed to create
collaboration between the co-teaching teams (see Appendix C). By creating these activities
early in the process, it sent a clear message to the group that I intended to draw on this
collaboration regularly. Another key was the time allotted during these early meetings for
the teachers to talk casually about the topic as well. As DuFour, DuFour, Baker, & Many
. (2006) point out, “. . . it is insincere and disingenuous for any school district or any school
principal to stress the importance of collaboration, and then fail to provide time for collaboration”
(p. 95). Seeing that they were going to have this commodity available to them in the PLC might
have spurred the junior high teachers to sit closer together to take advantage of the opportunity to
interact.
Modiﬁcations in Their Co- Teaching Practices

Differences among the Pre-PLC survey, Mid-Point PLC Survey, and the Post-PLC
survey as well as the Pre-Interview data and Post-Interview data revealed that our PLC
sessions assisted the participating teachers to acquire practical knowledge that could be
applied in their co-teaching classrooms (See Table 3). To better understand the PLC
teachers co-teaching practices, I asked whether they had been using multiple models of
co-teaching strategies in their own co-teaching instructions. The Pre-Survey data
demonstrated that most of the teachers did not use multiple co-teaching strategies at all. In

analyzing the data, I found that out of 24 teachers, 8 teachers (33%) mostly disagreed that

83

they used multiple strategies in co-taught instructions and 8 teachers (33 %) disagree, while

6 teachers (25 %) selected Neutral. There was no teacher who “agreed” or “strongly agreed,”
and only 2 teachers (8%) “mostly agreed.” The numbers showed that more than half of the
participating teachers did not use multiple strategies at all. This was alarmingly high.
However, the numbers changed. At the mid-point survey, I found that out of the twenty-one
teachers who completed questions, the total number of “Strongly Disagree,” “Mostly
Disagree,” and “Disagree” reduced to 3 teachers (15%). The total of teachers who

responded “Strongly Agree,” “Mostly Agree,” and “Agree” was 15 teachers (72%) with the
majority of 8 teachers (3 8%) who mostly agreed. Although three teachers (14%) still
indicated they were neutral on this topic, this indicated a huge change in the teachers’
co-teaching strategy application in their instructions. In the Post-Survey, the data analyses
showed that more participating teachers used multiple strategies in their co-teaching settings.
In detail, out of 19 teachers, only one teacher (5%) disagreed with using multiple strategies,
one teacher (5%) held a neutral standing, while 17 teachers (90%) agreed that they used
various co-teaching strategies, which spread out as 42% agreed, 32% mostly agreed and 16%
strongly agreed. This change demonstrated that our PLC activities helped the teachers

implement different co-teaching strategies in their classroom settings (See Table 7).

84

Table 7: Modiﬁcations in the Teachers’ Reports about Their Co-Teaching Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PrePLC Survey (24) Mid-Point Survey (21) Post-PLC Survey (19)

No. % No. % No. %
Strongly Agree 0 0 2 10 3 16
Mostly Agree 2 8 8 38 6 32
Agree 0 0 5 24 8 42
Neutral 6 25 3 14 l 5
Disagree 8 33 0 O l 5
Mostly Disagree 8 33 I 5 0 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 10 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The change of using multiple co-teaching strategies by the participating teachers
was also shown in the teachers’ Pre- and Post-Interview data. In the Pre-Interview data,
when the teachers were asked the ways they accommodated their special needs students in
their co-teaching, most of the time, the teachers were given very direct and straight forward
teacher-centered examples, rather than well-thought student-centered strategies. For
instance, one teacher mentioned that “testing” was his way of accommodating his special
needs students in the co-teaching setting, while “slower pace/one on one coaching” was the
particular strategies he used (Pre-Interview, Tivo). Another teacher did the same, except she
listed more straight forward teacher- centered strategies - “mod iﬁed/read test, presented
curriculum and created materials to accommodate learning styles of students” and her
particular strategies were “repetition, slower pace, reduced work load, small group or one
on one support, [and] re-teaching” (Pre-Interview, Maxie). However, in the Post-Interview,
the participating teachers showed a broadened view of how to accommodate all students,

including their special need students. In the Post-Interview, Maxie whose answer was

85

quoted above ﬁ'om her Pre-Interview said,

I feel this will help in the classroom. Rather than just accommodating

special ed I feel that using review techniques, like the 10 minutes when class

starts, as one teacher deals with paper work, the other reviews material the

students are expected to learn...all students beneﬁt.

[Post-Interview, Maxie]

Compared with her Pre—Interview data, Maxie showed a switch from her teacher- centered
strategies to her strategy of taking all students’ needs into consideration. Based on the
analyses of our data, Maxie is not alone.

Participating teachers also showed their understanding of how to accommodate
students who have special needs through their understanding of co-teaching models. For
instance, Nivka demonstrated this point in the following quote,

I think the thing that will most help my students is that I have a greater
understanding of how to use co-teaching models for implementing
differentiated instruction. I understood the principles of differentiated
instruction but could never really ﬁgure out how to make it happen in my
lessons. Now after this PLC I know how to approach the curriculum with
modiﬁcations to help all students.
[Post-Interview, Nivka]
Nivka nicely interweaved his understanding of differentiated instruction with co-teaching
strategies. This demonstrated that he reached this level of knowledge application after
participating and learning in our PLC.
Conclusion
The social theorists believe that learning occurs through people’s social interactions
(V ygotsky, 1978; 1981). Teacher professional learning community researchers argue that

the learning community setting provides participating teachers the enviromnent for learning

to happen (Archinstein, 2002; Hord, 2009; Niu, 2008; Weisthirner, 1999; Well, 2008). It

86

was evident that our study reﬂected both of these perspectives. Within the PLC contexts, the
participating teachers shared, discussed, and learned from one another and from the
facilitators the knowledge, models and strategies on/around co-teaching. Their learning was
demonstrated through the change of their physical settings, their session discussions and
conversations, their answers to the survey questions, as well as their answers to the
interview questions. What the teachers learned in our PLC is all very important in their
future co-teaching collaborations. For instance, their improved understanding of the concept
and models of co-teaching are able to foster positive relationships with their partner
teachers in their ﬁrture assignments. This is because theoretically, co-teaching draws on the
strengths of both the special education teacher and the general education teacher regarding

_ teaching content, managing classes, and pacing the curriculum as well as engaging everyone,
including language diverse children, children with disabilities, and children covered by IEPs
in the learning activities (Kloo & Zigmond, 2008). This study also demonstrated that
co-teaching, if applied as a model of collaborative teaching, can be viewed as a positive
approach in supporting teachers in teaching all children.

Teachers reported that after participating in our PLC, they had ﬂre ﬂexibility to
choose different co-teaching models in different situations accordingly. This is a signiﬁcant
learning outcome for co-teachers because co-teaching researchers have been working on the
issue of division of work between a general education teacher and a special education
teacher in the same room (Stainback & Stainback, 1992; Villa, 2008). Other researchers
focused on the functions between the two teachers in the same room (Kovic, 1996;
Zigmond, 2006; Volonino & Zigmond, 2007). They found that only when the two teachers
utilized their expertise at the right occasions can their teaching be the most effective

(Friend, Reising, & Cook, 1993; Friend & Cook, 2003; Protheroe, 2004; Pugach & Johnson,

87

1995). From our study, and based on teacher responses to post-interview questions, the
teachers came to understand this dynamic as well.

Using both quantitative and qualitative methods made what our participating
teachers learned visible and provided evidence for their learning. Based on their knowledge
and skills, the teachers shared their experiences and understanding of the dynamic of
co-teaching and how to work effectively with their co-teachers. The quantitative data
provided information regarding teacher perceptions and experiences with co-teaching as
part of this PLC. The qualitative data showed evidence for explaining what the teachers
learned and what changes the teachers had in their thinking, their knowledge base, and their
practices. The integration of the two sets of data matched my thoughts that PLC was an
effective way in helping teachers understand co-teaching and in improving teachers learning
as well as teaching practice in co-teaching settings. Additionally, using the ways of
collaborative learning within the context of PLC helped the teachers gain insights into the
signiﬁcance of social interactions inherent in group work, such as their co-teaching
teamwork, which can help the teachers structure their collaborative team more effectively

(Creswell, 2003).

88

Chapter 6: Overview of the Landscape and Implications of the Study
M_ediations and Socia_l Developmenj Theory

Based on the data analyses, the participating teachers reported that they learned
about co-teaching from various aspects (See Chapter 5 for details). These learning results
indicated that PLC is an effective format for teacher learning. Referring to Vygotsky’s
“social development theory,” our PLC provided the teachers focused mediations with which
to construct knowledge. Within the structured format, however, several events occurred
which relate directly to Vygotsky’s ideas of social theory and demonstrate its inﬂuence on
our PLC members’ learning. The ﬁrst mediation occurred in our third PLC meeting. One of
the participating teachers brought a copy of an article for everyone in the PLC that she had
just read for a special education class she was taking at a local university. The topic was
co-teaching and she felt that there were some interesting ideas in the article that paralleled
discussions we had within our group. This bringing in of artifacts is a prime example of a
Vygotsky mediation and social theory of learning. As Printy (2008) stated regarding social
learning theory, “Social learning is a reciprocal process. The learning that results ﬁ'om
participation feeds back into the community and impacts subsequent participation” (p. 189).
This teacher synthesized what she learned in another context with the information she was
gathering in our PLC and then returned that learning to the group changing the dynamics of
ﬁrture participation within the PLC.

This spurred another member of the community to invest in our community goal and
continue this pattern of reciprocal learning. After Sera brought the article from her
university course to share with the PLC, Tivo began thinking about how he could help
others understand co-teaching better. He and his co-teaching partner had decided to try to

work out a lesson using one of the co-teaching models. They tried using the template that

89

we distributed during our PLC meeting (Appendix E) but felt that it didn’t ﬁrlly capture the
essence of what they were trying to accomplish. After our ﬁfth PLC meeting Tivo sent out
an email to everyone in the PLC group. Generated from discussions he had with his
collaborating teacher, both in the PLC meetings and outside the group time, they had
devised a worksheet for designing co-taught lessons that they believed made the process
more efficient (Appendix E). They shared this form with all members of the PLC and also
included some discussion in the group about how they worked through the process
(Audio-tape, PLC meeting, March 28, 2009). Again, this type of shared artifact strengthens
the learning and reinforces the social learning theory of Vygotsky.

These teacher “med iations” had an impact on the PLC member’s interactions and
affected the learning which occurred. They were also responsible for changes in teachers’
beliefs about co-teaching, as well as their perception about their own skill acquisition within
the community. From the ﬁrst PLC meeting when conversations were very guarded, based
primarily on the teachers’ lack of knowledge related to co-teaching, to the conﬁdence
exhibited by these two teachers who were willing, in fact eager, to share information they
had and ideas for improved teaching, I saw tremendous growth in the group. The teachers’
learning was mediated by both the arranged activities and their own individual interests. As
a result, their meditated actions led to their reported intellectual capacity development and
the development of their higher order thinking.

C nstructin PL

As I tried to understand what I had witnessed in order to tell the story of this PLC
and its members, I reﬂected on a comment made by one of the teachers at our ﬁrst meeting.
I was explaining my role in this process, particularly that of facilitator, and he said, “So you

are basically the ringmaster for this circus” (Field notes, PLC meeting, February 8, 2009).

90

We all had a good laugh at the time but now that the meetings are over, a different analogy
sprang to my mind. When I thought about how I had designed the structure of the PLC,
created and organized the information we discussed at the meetings, but also realized that
how far the activities were extended was driven by the teachers’ interests, I realized that
what occurred most closely resembles creating a new structure. In the following, I will
describe what the experience looks like by deﬁning the steps in the process that should be
undertaken when designing a PLC. By illuminating the steps in the process, my grounded
theory can be explained in greater detail and clarity. By understanding this process, I
believe that others will be able to follow this model for their own professional development
efforts.

It is imperative that one understand the basic concepts of PLC. There is a great deal
of literature related to professional learning communities and the facilitator must understand
what it takes to form a PLC, what is necessary to facilitate PLC meetings, and what criteria
to use in determining the effectiveness of the PLC. The PLC creates the homework in
which the issues, problems, discussions and activities reside. To be successﬁrl the facilitator
must be clear on what constitutes the essential structure of the PLC, which in our case was
co-teaching.

The ﬁrst thing that happens is that one must create the basic structure of the entity. If
you picture the outside boundary of a structure, a wall, or a fence for example, then imagine
that this “outer shell” is comprised of the topic to be investigated in the PLC. In our
structure, I imagined the walls were composed of co-teaching, with the very idea of

co-teaching wrapping all around the structure in order to contain the activities inside

(Diagram 1).

91

Uuter Wall of Err-Teaching PLC

Ctr-Teaching Err-Teaching Ctr-Teaching
[Io-Teaching [In-Teaching Err-Teaching
Err-Teaching Err-Teaching [lo-Teaching
Ctr-Teaching [lo-Teaching Ctr-Teaching
Err-Teaching Ctr-Teaching Err-Teaching
Eo-Teachiﬂ [lo-Teaching [Io-Teaching

 

 

 

 

Diagram 1

It is critical to keep in mind that a lot of important events can take place outside of
the PLC and that members often take from the PLC experience and bring in to the PLC new
information. However, the facilitator must be very conscientious about maintaining the
integrity of the structure. In order to maintain the integrity of the structure, the facilitator
must be prepared to deal with these outside elements coming into the structure. Ifthe
outside information is beyond the scope of the PLC, the facilitator should move quickly and
decisively to maintain the focus on the critical issue. There can be a ﬁne line between
allowing the members to expand their thinking and still maintain their focus on the essential
structure of the PLC. When designing this “outer shell” then, it is important to be mindful to
include places for members to enter and leave the community without losing their focus.

If the PLC itself sets the boundaries of our structure, then the layout of the interior
represents the main topics which are covered in the PLC meetings. For example, in the PLC
ﬁom this study, the focus was on co-teaching. Within the conﬁnes of our Co-teaching PLC
structure, I created places of signiﬁcance that we would all visit together. These places were
concepts like differentiated instruction and the ﬁve models of co-teaching. For these big

concepts we all moved through the activities together under my direction-as the PLC

92

facilitator. In the structure of the PLC these activities were located at the center but there
were other issues, problems, discussions and activities that were included inside the main
structure as well (Diagram 2). Issues such as: means of collaborating with peers, classroom
management, lesson structure, grading policy, parent communication, etc. These issues
were introduced during our discussions related to differentiated instruction and the models
of co-teaching, but they were not investigated as a whole group. Instead, meeting time was
given for discussions and interactions between group members to explore these topics
individually or in small groups. This way they could spend more time with the topics that

interested them most and less on the ones that they deemed to be not as signiﬁcant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diagram 2
IEP Accommodations Curriculum Standards
. Support Parallel Station Teaching .

Planning Teaching Teaching Record Keeprng
Assessment Time M t

Complimentary Team Differentiated anagemen

Teaching Teaching Instruction

' Parent Communication Grading Policy
Diagram 2

As a PLC facilitator, it is imperative to take the structure and layout into careﬁrl
consideration. When I was building the structure I understood that simply setting my walls
around some activities, readings or discussions would not be enough. I needed to create a
logical progression through the main topics, allowing time for discussions to build bridges
ﬁ'om one topic to another. Then I also had to consider the most advantageous placement of
these elements within the structure. Considering that, the following questions echoed in my

mind:

93

Where should each activity be located within the construct of the PLC? Should we
ﬁrst discuss differentiated instruction and then the models of co-teaching, or do we
investigate the models ﬁrst? How does one activity ﬁt with another? Should we discuss the
models individually and then allow time for the teachers to explore them one at a time or do
we cover the big picture at once? What is the most logical ﬂow of activities once we leave
the more structured portion of our meeting? How accessible should the information be to
the participants? When does the facilitator encourage participants to take a break and when
should refreshments be offered to the group?

A well-thought out, logical, efficient design to the PLC will go a long way in
determining the success of the PLC. As the PLC facilitator, I have to give careﬁrl
consideration to which information and which activities will be included. Which will be
featured? Which will be placed on the fringes, available for the participants to explore on
their own? If the structure is not solid foundationally, and the activities are not arranged
systematically before the meetings begin, it might be easy for PLC members to get lost or
lose interest. For our PLC, the structure was clearly deﬁned prior to the start of our
meetings with the focus on co-teaching and all of the activities housed inside ﬁtting that
theme. A

With this theory in mind, what happened in our PLC becomes a little easier to
analyze. Within the structure of our PLC, all the participating teachers understood that we
were together to study a speciﬁc topic (co-teaching models and elements), which reduced
the ambiguity and set all of us in motion towards the same goal. Fortunately, nobody
wanted or tried to alter our study goal, never trying to introduce different topics, though
occasionally bringing in new information about the issues we were already discussing.

As I explained in the methodology chapter, I pre-selected some topics and issues for

94

the teachers to learn. These became the foci of our learning activities during our ﬁrst
meetings. The order and the type of the activities then could be said to have contributed to
the ﬁxed structure of the learning within our PLC. Then I placed topics at the hinges of our
discussions that would be important and relevant to the main topic, but not as critical for
implementation of co-teaching. These would include issues like division of instruction, time
management, classroom/homework assignment procedure, responsibility for parent
communication. All are necessary to our goal but made more sense, given the time
constraints and the goals for this PLC, to be viewed and studied individually or in small
groups.

Feeling the need to give everyone a general overview regarding the most important
elements of co-teaching, I took a methodical approach at the start to peak the PLC members’
interest and curiosity. I wanted to emphasize that each model of co-teaching was slightly
unique from the others but all shared some important elements as well such as; lesson
design, teacher responsibility division, implementation, research, etc. These were left to the
discovery process and were revealed through the discourse and social interactions in the
PLC. These elements were not covered in the whole group instruction intentionally so that
the teachers would have to discover them on their own and work through them as a group
learning process.

As stated at the outset, I did not want to take all the ﬁeedom away from the teachers
in our PLC meetings. Knowing that each individual differs item the others, and that they
may have had different research interests in co-teach ing, time was set aside for the teachers
to explore. They could go it alone, with a partner or in small groups. At the end of the
exploration time, the teachers were organized to report back on what they had discovered. It

was very interesting to witness some teachers work their way all around the co-teaching

95

concepts while others preferred to get a deeper more intimate understanding of one or two
models of co-teaching. Neither type of exploration was discouraged. Based on the data
analyses, actually, both contributed greatly to the learning and understanding of the
expertise of each participant in the PLC.

Once the teachers began taking these explorations in our PLC meetings, several
asked about more in depth knowledge related to different concepts. This fostered the idea of
bringing in educational specialists to offer more information. I invited an outside expert to
give the whole group a more intensiﬁed lesson about the characteristics of speciﬁc
co-teaching elements. The PLC members were most curious about the implementation of
co-teaching models and wanted to hear about the struggles and successes other teachers
may have encountered. The focus of this “experts” presentation was on planning, time
management and implementation. Bringing in this “expert” to our PLC was given very
positive reviews by all members of the group as they recognized and appreciated what a
great opportunity this was for our PLC members. For example, Cane said, “The guest
speaker was excellent. I would love for everyone to have the experience of hearing
her”.(Post-interview, Cane, May, 2009). This sentiment was echoed by Dorothy, “I
certainly would love to hear more ﬂour Dr. Hines. She did a great job and was very
enthusiastic” (Post-interview, Dorothy, May, 2009).

The research data showed that from the teachers’ perspective, the most effective part
of this activity, bringing in an educational specialist, was the opportunity it created for
teacher leaming in the PLC. This learning was represented by the fact that after getting the
information ﬁ'om the “expert” the teachers were able to go back to certain elements of the
co-teaching process and see for themselves if the information held true (Audio tape, PLC

Meeting, April 14).

96

These actions were connected by the teachers’ common interests of learning about
the co-teaching concepts and issues, which were the mediation of our PLC. These
mediations not only anchored the teachers’ learning, but anchored our PLC to be a “family”
where all members relied on, supported, and learned ﬁom one another. Also because of
these anchored relationships, the participating teachers had opportunities to learn from an
“expert” and from one another collectively about co-teaching, meanwhile, focusing on their
own individual interests. Because of these mediated actions, from a very early stage, I
noticed that our study group developed and owned the characteristics of a PLC as deﬁned
by the literature and the teacher learning ﬁt the deﬁnition of Vygotsky’s social learning
theory.

Limitations and F u_tyre Research

While these ﬁndings highlight signiﬁcant changes the participating teachers reported
through their involvement in our PLC, they are embedded in the case study of one group of
teachers. Meanwhile, as my background conclusions were drawn from the quantitative data,
I must acknowledge that the data were restricted by the comparatively small number of
participating teachers. Further, the in-depth qualitative data were drawn ﬁom a partial
segment of the group members. Also, this PLC was not a complete success for all
participants as we had three of our original members drop out during the process. One
member left for personal reasons due to complications with her pregnancy that forced her to
remove herself ﬁ'om her classroom teaching as well. The other two teachers left of their
own accord. One said that he simple felt too busy to add this activity to his workload (Field
Notes, Personal Conversation, March 14, 2009) The other mentioned to me that he simply
was not interested in becoming a better co-teacher and didn’t want to be assigned to ﬁrture

co-taught classrooms (Field Notes, Personal Conversation, March 15, 2009). He believed

97

that if he stayed in our PLC it would give the school administration good cause for
assigning him to more co-taught classrooms and that was a situation he wanted to avoid.

Another limitation was that the PLC setting was outside of their co-teaching
classrooms and that the learning was isolated from practical application which partially
compromised the authentic context of co-teaching (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). This
study showed what the teachers learned in our PLC settings, what they reported as
modiﬁcations through surveys and changes they planned to make in instructional practice. It
_ did not show us what modiﬁcations the teachers actually adopted in their co-teaching
classrooms and whether the modiﬁcations were truly a direct result of participation in the
PLC.

Multiple cases offer a deeper understanding of the learning process and the
learning results (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Building on this argument, further research.
related to teacher learning within the context of PLC should have more research sites,
including more co-teaching teams. Another thought for the ﬁrture research might be a
long-term study, such as two-year or three-year project with a following up of observations
in the co-teaching classrooms. In this way, the co-teacher can demonstrate their
modiﬁcations of practice through their real actions.

The data in this study conﬁrms what others have discovered; that PLC is an
effective method of professional development. Given that there was no “control group” in
this research, it is difﬁcult to claim that the gains made in teacher knowledge, comfort, and
skills related to co-teaching were all the result of the PLC participation. It was undeniable
that the group came together and assumed the characteristics of a PLC that they developed
positive collaborative relationships, and that through the presence of med iations, enhanced

the learning of all involved with the PLC. So while the evidence here is not profound

98

enough to suggest causation, there is enough to demonstrate correlation. Perhaps future
studies can build on what was achieved in Brandnew JH/HS High Schools and draw a
stronger link between teachers’ learning about co-teaching in the context of PLC.

In addition, my hope is that future researchers will reﬂect on the manner in which
this PLC was constructed and use what was learned to design and implement their own PLC
research. Bear in mind that the structure is the PLC, the outer wall is the main topic, and the
spaces inside the structure encompass the activities, issues and conversations. If constructed
this way, a PLC can reﬂect any study topic that a researcher may endeavor.

In reviewing the post-PLC interview data, one theme surfaced in the teacher
responses time and again; The participants felt that this format for professional development
was far more productive than the traditional one—day workshop format. Cane stated, “I
thought this was more helpﬁrl than a master’s class I took on co-teaching and collaboration”
(Post-interview, Cane, May, 2009). Dorothy’s response added quite a twist to this same
belief. She said,

I actually attended a workshop put on by Dr. Villa who wrote the book we

used, “A Guide to Co-teaching.” I have to admit that the workshop was not

very stimulating. I liked the ideas that Dr. Villa was presenting but not the

method. I thought the activities that we participated in during the PLC

brought his ideas to life and made them more understandable and

accessible. I think that is kind of funny that the workshop put on by the

text author was not as informative to me as the work we did in the PLC!

[Post-interview, Dorothy, May, 2009)]

Administrators are often trying to bring their staffs together to work on common
issues and goals. Building harmony among the faculty can sometimes be a difﬁcult
proposition. However, creating a PLC akin to what we developed in this study should help

the administrator establish a more cohesive unit with the staff and serve the administrator

well for future professional development or school improvement efforts. Several PLC

99

members in this study commented that they felt closer to their colleagues after this
experience and believed that more opportunities of this kind should be utilized in the ﬁrture.
Toward that point Nivka declared,

This model of professional development needs to be utilized much more

for teacher learning. I’m a big believer in Socratic learning. I felt like this

PLC experience was a terriﬁc forum for having important conversations

with peers. I have never been at a workshop or PD where we had such

extensive time for conversing and learning together. This was a great

model for PD.

[Post-interview, Nivka, May, 2009]

While there were some teachers who did not agree with responses from colleagues, the

majority found the activities in the PLC useful in changing their perceptions regarding

co-teaching, particularly with efforts to best meet academic needs of all students.

100

APPENDIX A

Interview Questions
1. What do you know about co-teaching?
a. Have you had any past learning opportunities related to co-teaching?
b. Have you had a previous co-teaching assignment?
i. Where?
ii. What grades?
iii. Describe your role in that setting.
iv. Were you asked to share information about your experience with
others?

c. Are you familiar with others who have co—tauglrt?

d. Have any others shared their experiences with you?

c. What do you know about the models of co-teaching? Speciﬁcally, could you
brieﬂy introduce the models that you know, their names, their characteristic,
and to use the model?

f. What do you think are the functions of co-teaching in addressing the needs
of all students?

2. Do you believe that co-teaching is an effective method for teaching special
education students?

g. What about its impact on general education students?

h. Do you believe that teachers are capable of effectively planning, organizing,
and instructing in a co-taught setting?

i. Do you believe that you will have the time and resources to be a part of an

101

effective co-teaching team?

j. Some teachers think that co-teaching allows us to better adapt and modify
lessons to meet individual student learning needs. What do you think? Do
you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you feel that you have the skill to utilize the various co-teaching models in your
classroom instruction?

k. Are you conﬁdent that your collaboration skills are a good match for a
co-teaching assignment?

I. What are the problems that you faced or imagine you would face in
co-teaching? Why? (The answer may reﬂect on their beliefs or skills related
to co-teaching though it is asked in this section.)

m. Do you feel you have the skill to work in a co-taught classroom?

i. Do you need more training?
ii. Would you understand your role?

n. Do you feel conﬁdent in your communication skills in working
collaboratively with other staff members?

i. Would this be evident in a co-teaching assignment?

102

APPENDD( B
Survey Questions:

I) What is your gender?

2) What is your current teaching assignment?

3) How many years do you have of teaching service?

4) I am aware of the multiple models of co-teaching?

5 I have been assigned to a co-teaching classroom in the past?

6) I have a good grasp of the names and purposes of the ﬁve models
of co-teaching?

7 I believe that co-teaching has the potential for meeting the needs of all students?
8 I would like to be assigned to more co-teaching sections?

9) Co-teaching allows us to better adapt and modify lessons to meet individual student
learning needs?

10) Co-teaching allows the partner teachers to better plan and organize instruction?

1]) I feel my collaboration skills are sufﬁcient to be an equal partner in planning,
organizing, and delivering instruction in a co-taught classroom?

12) I believe that my participation in a teacher learning community professional
development will help me improve my instructional practice?

13) I am conﬁdent that my partnership in a co-teaching classroom will help me improve my
instructional practice?

14) In my opinion, co-teaching will allow me to take more instructional risks and offer a
wider variety of learning opportunities for the students?

15) I believe that I have strong classroom management skills?

103

APPENDD( C
Meeting 1 — Setting the norms and expectations for the PLC. Have teachers write three
“expectations that they would have for meetings. Begin to talk about how sharing these
expectations will help us gain comfort with one another and move forward together.
Explore any initial concerns the teachers may have related to co-teaching or professional
learning community. Have the teachers write down three goals that they hold for the coming
school year. Look for common answers and build oﬂ‘ of this commonality to demonstrate

the potential for working on common goals and objectives. (Half Day)

Meeting 2 — Review “norms” and “goals” discussion from ﬁrst PLC meeting. Begin
discussion of Differentiated Instruction. Complete learning styles survey and review
multiple intelligence literature. Ask teachers to work in small groups to think of ways they

might try to differentiate the instruction in a lesson for their current classroom situation.

(Full Day)

Meeting 3 — Begin by asking for volunteers from the PLC group to share if they attempted
any differentiated instruction strategies in their classroom since our last meeting. Look for

common patterns in their attempts at differentiation. (Half Day)

Meeting 4 — Spend entire morning session leading the PLC group through a discussion of
co-teaching models and methodology. Center discussion on the text we are using to frame
our work, “A Guide to Co-teaching” by Villas and Thousand. Describe Support, Parallel,
Station, Complementary and Team Teaching models. Give examples and review video

demonstrations connected to the text. Afternoon sessions will be devoted to creating a

104

sample lesson in small groups using each model of co-teaching for comparison and

perspective. (Full Day)

Meeting 5 — Review models of co-teaching and their distinctive elements. Review
Differentiated Instruction. Begin discussion on how to integrate differentiation into
co-teaching methodology. Allow time for teachers to explore lesson creation inﬁrsing

co-teaching instruction with differentiated instruction. (Half Day)

Meeting 6 - We will be visited by a co-teaching “expert” from the Bureau of Educational
Research. The presenters name is Dr. Rebecca Hines who is acclaimed for her work on
co-teaching. Dr. Hines will help give some insight into the special education student for our
teachers to ponder as well as to enlighten us about best practice in co-teaching. Dr. Hines
will demonstrate through discussion and video presentation how co-teaching has been

implemented in other classrooms. We will also do a Q & A at the end. (Full Day)

Meeting 7 - Review what we heard and possibly learned from the presenter at the previous
PLC meeting. What made an impression? What questionslwere answered? What questions
would we still like more information regarding. Co-teaching teams will use this time to

work collaboratively on planning and preparation for classroom instruction. (Half Day)

Meeting 8 - The morning session will be devoted to reviewing the models of co-teaching.
Again the teachers will work in small groups. Each group will be assigned a different model
of co-teaching and all groups will be given the same lesson. The group members will then

create the lesson plan for the day based on their assigned model of co-teaching. The groups

105

will then present what their lesson will look like, what will the responsibilities of each
co-teacher look like, how will the class period be structured, based on their model of
co-teaching. We will then debrief as a whole group and hopeﬁrlly begin to see a clear
picture of how each model looks, how the models are similar to each other and how they are

different. (Full Day)

Meeting 9 — The PLC members will review more of the materials related to our guiding
text. The focus will be on the ancillary pieces of instruction such as classroom management,
parent communication, student records management, etc. After our whole group review the
teachers will have an opportunity to work individually or in small groups reviewing the
literature or having discussions on the topic. (Half Day)

Meeting 9 — We will begin with a general overview of the materials covered in the PLC to
date. We will also cover the last two chapters of the text, “A Guide to Co-teaching.” The
PLC members will report back on any new instructional practices they may have tried in
their classrooms related to differentiated instruction and co-teaching. Co-teaching teams
will use the remainder of the time to work collaboratively on planning and preparation for

classroom instruction. (Full Day)

Meeting 10 - This meeting will focus on reviewing what we thought we knew about
co-teaching when we started, and what we think we know about co-teaching know. We will
discuss the members’ perception of co-teaching and their willingness to implement the
co-teaching strategies and differentiated instruction into their lessons. With remaining time
we will discuss other possible areas the teachers believe they need more clariﬁcation

regarding. (Half Day)

106

APPENDIX D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

 

.320 new 5:5: am
new .955 I

.mn5>
o>E3£ E5 955%

 

A V 5:355
A V 83:5 3232‘. C 8:332
A v 55555Eoo A v $5.265.

   

   

6855?. an m 5E5;

“3.3.0020 Eocoxmk

 

8.0.862
mocmucﬁm E250

 

 

2255 :w EoEo>2 E.

 

 

$68 as; as;

 

untamed
mieBwEbcmEascm
56on

ea; Em; ﬁts

 

m Nen.

EoEmmemm<
e>=mEEsw omen.

 

v Nan.

 

mac

 

Nan

 

some“ Ema...
aﬁceEQmEoo
co=Sw=m=EwQ

1mg

 

some“ Ewe...

 

decoEemEoo

 

co=Ew=w=Ema

 

 

U m 2339a EeEmmomm<

 

gem—Eon? 2m
85855.".

 

"60522 9:593.

 

wo>zoobo xmmﬁcomwou

 

 

9592 2: FEB 5:05.700
2: co 85.92. 8m

 

.oo cos—32cm E550

co: romeo xmwtcowwou

 

mate 8 o>_tomm:m
0.0". 20¢
masts 5:05... guozwuccEEoo

 

 

23o message may.

 

 

uszmm-FEZS

 

 

muzz<4n zOmwmA Gz_IO<m._..OO

"mb‘o

 

 

 

H Egmmm<

108

Participant Dempgraphics

APPENDIX F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Teaching Years of Service Gender
Certiﬁcation

*Participant #1 Math/Language Arts 6 Female
Participant #2 Social Studies 6 Female
Participant #3 Science 7 Female
‘Participant #4 Social Studies 9 Male

Participant #5 Language Arts 10 Female
Participant #6 Language Arts 11 Female
*Participant #7 Science/Language 11 Male

Participant #8 Sigh/Science 13 F ernale
*Participant #9 Science/Math 14 Male

Participant #10 Math 15 Female
Participant #11 Science 24 Female
Participant #12 Social Studies 30 Female
Participant #13 Special Education 3 Male

*Participant #14 Special Education 4 Female
*Participant #15 Special Education 5 Male

Participant #16 Special Education 7 Female
Participant #17 Special Education 8 Male

Participant #18 Special Education 8 Female
Participant #19 Special Education 8 F ernale
Participant #20 Special Education 9 Female
*Participant #21 Special Education 12 Female
Participant #22 Special Education 14 Female
*Participant #23 Special Education 23 Female
Participant #24 Special Education 23 Female

 

 

 

 

*Denotes that the teacher participated in Pre and Post Interviews

109

 

APPENDIX G
Excerpt from Field Notes, February 8, 2009
Began with discussion regarding our goal'for creating a PLC. We worked on two activities.
The ﬁrst was designed to illicit responses related to each person’s goals. Every one wrote

three personal goals and then we made a chart.

I noticed that almost everyone wrote down the goal for student success. I took this
opportunity to say that student success is a goal not just for SPED but also GE. As we
moved into a break a lot of teachers were talking very excitedly about this idea of common
goals. One said something about how we forget that we are all in this together. This
conversation was carried on but several teachers through the break. CM and MB in .
particular were talking about this goal for student success and how they have it every year.
CM is SPED but MB is GE. They were laughing about how the had this same goal but

never talked about it before.

We also did an exercise for creating norms of behavior within our group. I was trying to
establish the environment of a PLC. I notice that the JI-I SPED teachers are not sitting on the

same side of the room as the JH GE teachers. That is very interesting.
We talked about trust, and ownership and responsibility for each other.

Excerpt from Field Notes, February 23, 2009

As we discussed the various models of co-teaching several teachers commented that they
saw a hierarchy between the models. I don’t remember presenting it this way. I remember
saying they could start with the model they feel most comfortable with and then move to

another model and then add another. They may have seen this as a progression.

110

Several teachers did comment that it would take the longest to get comfortable with Team

Teaching where both share authority equally.

Some teachers expressed experience with co-teaching but what they described is the basic

supportive model.

(I felt I talked too much during the morning session. I need to work on eliciting response

and encouraging the teachers to lead dialogue. The afternoon went better in this regard.)

Small group discussions were very useful. This seemed to draw the teachers out and they
began to invest themselves in what we were potentially learning. They all seemed to fall
into conversation easily. NL mentions his concern about giving up power or control of his

classroom. This sparked a good conversation about roles and authority.

Excerpt from Field Notes March 8, 2009
Great discussion about the models of co-teaching. Also a lot of great discussion about
professional development. It seems the teachers are seeing some connection between what

we are doing in PLC and becoming co-teachers.

JV H gave some very good insight into the struggle he had in the past with developing a
relationship with is co-teacher. He mentioned that there personal teaching styles didn’t
match. He talked about wishing he had known more about the importance of building a

relationship.

I can’t remember who said it but one of the teachers said, “I worried that the district
believed if they put two teachers in a room they could just automatically co-teach.” (I need

to check the tape to see if I can identify who said this. It was a comment made on break

111

about 10 am.)

Excerpt from Field Notes April 14, 2009

Belle spoke to me after the session. She was concerned about having the work we were
doing conveyed to administration. She said the PLC was extremely helpﬁrl to her in
understanding CT and that she was excited to try the new models next year but isn’t sure the
administration is committed to CT. Apparently there has been some discussion about

reducing the number of CT sections for next year. I need to check.

Belle told me that the activity today was “cool”. It showed her that the models were not that
different. She talked about the idea of the models being a hierarchy (this came out in earlier
meeting, I need to ﬁnd when). After the activity today where we took one lesson and had
groups use a different model and create a lesson plan showed her that no model was really

“harder or easier”.

Excerpt from Field Notes, May 14, 2009

We spent today debrieﬁng what we had done in the PLC. Many teachers spoke with
excitement about the co-teaching models. Teachers like Nivka and Coach who were so
reluctant about the project at the beginning are now enthusiastic about giving co-teaching a

good try next year.

Everyone was very relaxed today. It was great to see them having many side conversations
with others in the group that they were not really interacting with at the beginning. MG and

MK even changed tables at the break so they could talk with other teachers.

CM was talking in her small group about using other models of CT. NL said he wanted to

try them all next year. CM said she would be happy just trying one new model. She said that

112

she was tired of the supportive model that she has used for years (she is sped teacher). I
heard her say something about the station model. It sounded like this was her favorite of all

the models.

113

REFERENCE

Achinstein, B. (2002). Community Diversity and conﬂict Among Schoolteachers: The ties
that blind. New York and London: Teachers College Press.

Al-Jammal, R., & Parkany, E. (2003 ). Integration of qualitative and quantitative
methodologies ﬁarnework and quick examples. Transportation Research Record,
1854, 171-79.

Arbaugh, F. (2003). Study groups as a form of professional development for secondary
mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 139-163.

Astuto, T.A., Clark, D.L., Read, A., McGree, K., & Fernandez, L. (1993). Challenges to
dominant assumptions controlling educational reform. Andover, MA: Regional
Laboratory for the Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.

Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding
and analysis. NY: New York University Press.

Baumann, J. F., & Duffy-Hester, A. M. (2000). Making sense of classroom worlds:
Methodology in Teacher Research. In M. L. Kamil; P. B. Mosenthal; P. D. Pearson;
& R. Barr (eds.). Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. III. Mahwah, New Jersey,
and London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Bauwens, J. & Hourcade, J ., (1995 ). Cooperative Teaching: Rebuilding the Schoolhouse for
All Students. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.

Beattie, M. (2002). Finding New Worlds for Old Songs: Creating Relationships and
Community in Teacher Education. In H. Christiansen & S. Rarnadevi (Eds),
Reeducating the Educator: Global Perspectives on Community Building (pp. 3-38).
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ben-Peretz, M., & Silberstein, M. (2002). 11 Creating a Community of Teacher Educators.
In H. Christiansen & S. Rarnadevi (Eds.), Reeducating the Educator: Global
Perspectives on Community Building (pp. 185-206). Albany: State University of
New York Press.

Brandnew Community Schools Annual Report, (2008). p.19. Retrieved on May 3, 2009 at
http://www.fvl.k12.mi.us

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-41.

Burggraf, K. & Sotomayor, A. (2005). Fundamentals of Co-teaching. Day One Publishing

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, J ., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children's
Mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: He inemann.

Carroll, D. M. (2001, April 12). A School-Based Mentor Teacher Study Group as A Context

114

for Professional Learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, Seattle, Washington.

Chalfant, J .C., Pysh, M. V., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for
within-building problem solving. Learning Disability Quprterly. 2. 85-96.

Chisholm, M. (I 991) Co-Teaching: Regular education/Special Education reference guide.
Mt. Clemons, MI: L’Anse Creyse Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 335851

Cochran-Smitlr, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Review
of Research in Education (pp. 249-304). Washington, DC: The American
Educational Research Association.

Cochran-Smitlr, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1992). Communities for teacher research: Fringe or
foreﬁ'ont? American Journal of Education, I 00(3), 298-3 24.

Cole, T. (2004) Non-zero-sum collaboration, reciprocity, and the preference for similarity:
Developing an adaptive model of close relational functioning. Personal
Relationships 11(2), 135-160 .

Colombo, M. (2004). Literacy for all students: Professional development for cultural
continuity. The NERA Journal, 40(2), pp. 50-54.

Crespo, S. (2002). Teacher learning in mathematics teacher study groups. In D. S.
Mewbom, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Bryant & K. Nooney (Eds), Proceedings of
the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of mathematics Education, 3, pp.
1439-1450). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, mathematics, and

Environmental Education.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewey, J. (1938, 1997). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Dicker, L. (2006). The Co-teaching Lesson Plan Book. Whiteﬁsh Bay, WI: Knowledge by
Design.

Donaldson, G. (1993) Working samarter together. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 12-16.

DuFour, L., & Baker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work

DuFour, DuFour, Baker, & Many (2006). Learning by Doing: A Hancﬁook for Professional
Learning Communities at Work. Solution Tree, 2006, pp. 95—97

Eastwood, K. & Lewis, K. (1992). Restructuring that lasts: Managing the performance
dip. Journal of School Leadership, 2(2), 213-224.

115

Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Erickson, F. D. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.)
Handbook of research on teaching (3”1 edition). NY: MacMillan, 1 19-161.

Elmore, (1994). Strategic sites for teachers' professional development. In P. R. Grirnmet &
J. Neufeld (Eds), Teacher development and the struggle for authority (pp. 7-21).
New York: Teachers College Press

Farmer, J. D., Gerretson, H., & Lassak, M. (2003). What Teachers Take from Professional
Development: Cases and Implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
6, 331-360.

Fattig, M. L., & Taylor, M. T. (2008). Co-teaching in the differentiated classroom:
successﬁil collaboration, lesson design, and classroom management (Grades 5-12).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, J., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B.
(1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics
instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.

Fennick, E., & Liddy, D. (2001). Responsibilities and preparation for collaborative
teaching: Co-teachers' perspectives. Teacher Education and Special Education,
42(3), 229.

Florio-Ruane, S. & Raphael, TE. (2005). Reconsidering our research: Collaboration,
complexity, design, and the problem of “scaling up what works. Yearbook of the
National Reading Conference. Chicago: NRC.

Florio-Ruane, S. with deTar, J. (2001). Teacher education and the cultural imagination:
Autobiography, conversation, and narrative. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincohr (Eds), Hancﬂrook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freebod y, P. (2003). Qualitative Research in Education: Interaction and Practice. London:
Sage.

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 69-86.

Friend, M., Reising, M., & Cook, L. (1993). Co-Teaching: An overview of the past, a
glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing school failure,
3 7(4), 6-9.

Fullarr, M. (1995). The school as a learning organization: Distant dreams. Theory into
Practice, 34(4), 230-235.

Furman, G. (1998). Postmodernism and Community in Schools: Unraveling the Paradox.

116

Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 298-328.

Gallucci, C. (2007). Using sociocultural theory to link individual and organizational
learning processes: The case of High-line School District ’s instructional
improvement reform. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.

Gavelek, J., & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and
students. Language Arts, 73, 24-34.

Gay, L. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies fer Analysis and Application (511:
edition). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago, Aldirre Publishing Company

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher
community. Teachers College Record, I 03(6), 942-1012.

Harré, R. (1984). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Hassall, M. D. (2007). Co-teaching partnership in inclusion classrooms: Comparative case
studies from a suburban comprehensive high school. Unpublished Ed. D
Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they
important? Issues About Change, 6(1), 1-8.

Hufﬁnan, J .B., (2003). The role of shared values and vision in creating professional learning
communities. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. 87
(63 7), 21-34.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2003, March). Teacher Learning in Mathematics: Using
Student Work to Promote Collective Inquiry. Paper presented at the the Comparative
International Education Studies, Louisiana.

Kleine-Kracht, RA. (1993). The principal in a community of learning. Journal of School
Leadership, 3(4), 391 -399.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading
durirrgsocial studies in heterogeneous fourtlr-grade classrooms. The Elementary
School Journal, 99(1), 3-22.

Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Coteaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing
School Failure, _5_2_(2), 12.

117

Kovic (1996) Peer coaching to facilitate inclusion: A job-embedded staff development
model. Journal of staﬂ' development, 1 7(1), 28-31.

Leithwood, K., Leonard, L. & Sharratt, L. (1997, Jan.). Conditions fostering organizational
learning in schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement, Memphis, TN.

Liberrnan, A. (1999). Community means more than teamwork. Journal of Staﬁ"
Development, 20(2), 46-48.

Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, Archives of Psychology,
140

Little (2002) Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems
of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18,
917-946.

Lindle, J .C. (1995/1996). Lessons from Kentucky about school-based decision making.
Educational Leadership, 53(4), 20-23.

Lord, B. (1994). Teachers' professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role of
professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The Future of Education:Perspectives
on National Standards in America (V 01. With an introduction by Robert Orrill, pp.
175-204). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Louis, J. W., Kruse, S. D., & Bryk, A. (1995). Professionalism and Community: What is it
and why is it important in urban schools. In K. S. Louis & S. D. Kruse (Eds),
Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine
conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in
co-taught and solo-tauglrt classes? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
20(2), 79-85.

Martin-Kniep, G. O. (2004). Developing learning communities through teacher expertise.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, a Sage Publications Company.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers' workplace context? In J. W.
Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds), T eachers' Work: Individuals, Colleagues, and
Contexts (pp. 79-103). New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Introduction: New Visions of Teaching. In K.

Cohen, M. M. McLaughlin & J. E. Talbert (Eds), Teaching for Understanding:
Challenges for Policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

118

McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Strategic sites for teachers' professional development. In P. R.
Grirnmet & J. Neufeld (Eds), Teacher Development and the Struggle for Authority
(pp. 7-21). New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-Based teacher learning
communities. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J: E. (2001). Professional Communities and the Work of
High School Teaching. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. 1995. National Study of
Inclusive Education (2nd ed.), New York: National Center on Educational
Restructuring and Inclusion Niu, R. (2008). Learning to leave no one behind:
Peer-initiated professional development and the teaching of English language
learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University.

Niu, R. (2008). Learning to leave no one behind: Peer-initiated professional development
and the teaching of English language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Michigan State University.

Noddings, N. (1996). On Community. Educational Theory, 46(3), 245-267.

Peterson, P. L., McCarthey, S. J., & Elmore, R. F. (1996). Learning from school
restructuring. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 119-153.

Printy, S. (2008). Leadership for Teacher Learning: A Community of Practice Perspective
Educational Administration Quarterly Vol. 44, No. 2 (April 2008) 187-226

Protheroe, N. (2004). Developing eﬂective general education- special education
co-teaching relationships. Arlington, VA: Educational research service.

Pugach, M. & Johnson, L. (1995) Unlocking Expertise among Classroom Teachers
through Structured Dialogue: Extending Research on Peer Collaboration.

Exceptional Children, 62.

Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with
learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68,
203-224.

Rice & Zigmond (1999). Co-teaching in secondary school: Teachers reports of
developments in Australian and American classrooms. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 432 558).

Regenspan, B. (2002). Parallel Practices: Social Justice-Focused Teacher Education and

the Elementary School Classroom (Vol. Studies in the Postrnorder Theory of
Education). New York, Washington, D. C./ Baltimore, Bern, Frankfurt am Main,

119

Berlin, Brussels, Vienna, Oxford: Peter Lang.
Report. (2003 ). No Child Left Behind: A Toolkit for Teachers. US. Department of Education.

Rice & Zigmond (1999). Co-teaching in secondary school: Teachers reports of
developments in Australian and American classrooms. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 432 558).

Rosaen, C. & F lorio-Ruane, S. (2007). The metaphors by which we teach. In
Cochran-Smith, M. & McIntyre, J. (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher
education (3 rd edition).

Sage, D. (1997). Inclusion in Secondary Schools. Port Chester, NY: National Professional
Resources, Inc.

Scherer, J. (1972). Contemporary Community: Sociological Illusion or Reality? London:
Tavistock.

Selznick, P. (1992). The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of
Community. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Senge, P. (1990). The F iﬁh Discipline: The Arts & Practices of the Learning Organization.
NY: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1993). Building Community in Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shaul, M. S., & Ganson, H. C. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The Federal
Government's Role in Strengthening Accountability for Student Performance.
Review of Research in Education, 29 (Special Issue on The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act at 40: Reviews of research, policy implementation, critical
perspectives, and reﬂections), 151-165.

Shifter, D., Bastable, V., & Russell, S. J. (1999a). Developing Mathematical Ideas: Making
Meaning for operations. New Jersey: Dale Seymour Publications.

Shifter, D., Bastable, V., & Russell, S. J. (1999b). Developing Mathematical Ideas:
Building a System of T ens. NJ: Dale Seymour Publications.

Snyder, W.M. (1997). Communities of Practice: Combining Organizational Learning and
Strategy Insights to Create a Bridge to the 21st Century, Academy of Management
Conference, Boston, MA.

Squires, J. M. (2006). A case study about co-teaching. Ogden, Utah: Weber State
University.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992) Controversial issues conﬁ'onting special education:
divergent perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1987). Educating all students in regular education. TASH

120

 

Newsletter, 13(4), 1, 7.

Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2006). Building effective learning communities: Strategies for
leadership, learning, and collaboration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin PressTalbert, J.
E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in Local School
Contexts. American Journal of Education, 102, 123-153.

Tanggaard, L. (2008). Objections in Research Interviewing. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 7 (3).

Tonnies, F. (1957). Gemeinschaﬁ and Gesellschaﬁ (Community and Society) (C. P.
Loomis, Trans). In C. P. Loomis (Ed.), Gemeinschaﬁ and Gesellschaﬁ. New
York: Harper Collins.

Trump & Hange (1996) Teacher perceptions of and strategies for inclusion: A regional
summary of focus group interview ﬁndings. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 397 574).

Vaughn, S., Elbaun, B. E., Schumm, J. S., & Hughes, M. T. (1998). Social outcomes for
students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 3], 428-436.

Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2004) A Guide to Co-teaching. Corwin Press.

Volonino, V., & Zigmond, N. (2007). Promoting research-based practices through inclusion?
Theory into Practice, 46(4), 291 -300.

Vygotsky, L. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The
concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walter-Thomas, Bryant & Land, N. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching. The key to
successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255-265 .

Warger & Pugach, (1998) Curriculum considerations in an inclusive environment. In E.
Meyen, G. Vergason, & R. Whelan (Eds.). Educating students with mild disabilities:
Strategies and methods (2"d ed.). Denver: Love.

Weiss & Brigham (2000) Co-teaching and the model of shared responsibility: What does
the research support? In Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Scruggs,
T.E. Vol. 14. Educational interventions. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. p. 217-245

Wells, C. (2008). A conceptual design for understanding professional learning community
implementation. Catalyst for Change, 35(2), 25-3 7.

Wenger, E. (2003). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (ﬁrst printed
l998/Printed 2000 (twice), 2001 (twice), 2002 (twice), 2003 ed.): Cambridge

121

University Press.

Westheimer, J. (1999). Communities and consequences: An inquiry into ideology and
practice in teachers' professional work. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35(1), 71-105.

Westheimer, J. (1998). Among School Teachers: Community Autonomy and Ideology in
T eachers' Work. New York: Teachers College Press.

White, A., and White, L. (1992). A collaborative model for students with mild disabilities in
middle schools. Focus on exceptional children, 24(9), 1-10.

Zigmond (2003) Where should students with disabilities receive special education services?
Is one place better than another? Journal of Special Education , 37; 193-199.

122

   

IllIIINHIIUllllHllHlllllHllHllIIIIIHHIIIHIIlllllllllll