PLACE II RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from you: ncord. TO AVOID FINES return on or baton dds duo. DATE DUE . DATE DUE DATE DUE WNW." ‘ IFWWB’ 1001 ‘—u ‘_—fi L__ A. i ll |l MSU I: An Affirmuivo Action/Equal Opportunity gunman EFFECTS OF ELEMENTARY GENERAL EDUCATION/SPECIAL EDUCATION TEAM TEACHING ON STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC GAINS, SOCIAL COMPETENCE, AND SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT BY Cynthia Sonderegger Smith A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1992 ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF ELEMENTARY GENERAL EDUCATION/SPECIAL EDUCATION TEAM TEACHING ON STUDENTS' ACADEMIC GAINS, SOCIAL COMPETENCE, AND SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT BY Cynthia Sonderegger Smith Michigan’s current system of delivery of education to disabled students is being called into question by many who are concerned with education. Sun particular, considerable interest and professional controversy has centered around the practice of labeling and providing special education services to students with mild disabilities (learning disabled, educable mentally impaired, and emotional impaired). The Regular Education Initiative (REI) is a growing movement to merge general and special education into a unified system of instruction. The essence of the RBI is the shared responsibility for students with learning problems by special education and general education personnel. Teaching teams of general educators and special educators has been suggested in the literature as a method of integrating students with mild handicaps into general education classrooms. There is a paucity of data, however, about the academic and social effects on general and special education students when such teaching teams are employed as an instructional delivery model. A quasi-experimental research design was used to gather data on the effects of the use of general education/special education teaching teams. The sample included 136 students in grade 3-5 in two elementary schools in western Michigan. Both the experimental group and the control group included 34 general education students and 34 special education students. A pretest and posttest were used to measure reading achievement, math achievement, teacher—preferred social behavior, peer-preferred. social behavior, and school adjustment behavior. Results indicated teamed.students, both.general education and special education, made significantly' more gains in teacher-preferred social behavior and school adjustment than did.nonteamed students. The two groups were not significantly different in math, reading, or peer-preferred social behavior. To my nephew, Kyle William Moore, in the hope that options will always exist for him and to Frank, my husband and best friend iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Sam Moore, my advisor and chairman of my committee. He was always there to answer my questions, to advise me when problems arose, and to encourage me when I felt discouraged» I hope he knows how much I respect him. I want to acknowledge and thank Dr. Susan Peters for her suggestions, and. for her strong convictions about least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. Thanks for support and help to: Dr. Fred Ignatovich, Dr. Louis Romano, Dr. Gerald Miller, Judy Hancock, Dr. Dan Bird, and Kyle Farbach in the Office of Research Consultation. A special thanks to Pete Lynch, who was a good friend to Frank on all those Saturdays when I was busy with this study. I am especially grateful to the students who served as subjects in this study and to their teachers who took time from their busy schedules to complete rating instruments and questionnaires. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I - THE PROBLEM Introduction Problem Purpose of Study Research Questions Significance of Study Limitations and Delimitations of Study Definition of Terms Chapter II - LITERATURE REVIEW Team Teaching as a Durable Innovation Team Teaching as a Means to Integrate Mildly Disabled Students Summary Chapter III - METHODOLOGY Method Sample Population Instrumentation Data Collection Data Analysis Summary vi 12 14 15 18 21 24 24 32 44 47 47 48 6O 67 69 76 TABLE OF CONTENTS continued Chapter IV — RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Question 1: IS there an effect of student type or placement on the math achievement of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Question 2: Is there an effect of student type or placement on the reading achievement of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Question 3: Is there an effect of student type or placement on the teacher-preferred social behavior of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? . . 89 Question 4: IS there an effect of student type or placement on the peer-preferred social behavior Of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? . . . . . . . 95 Question 5: Is there an effect of student type or placement on the school adjustment of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Chapter v — DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Question 1: Is there an effect of student type or placement on the math achievement of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the vii APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS continued effect of placement depend on student type? Question 2: IS there an effect of student type or placement on the reading achievement of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on Student type? Question 3: Is there an effect of student type or placement on the teacher-preferred social behavior of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? Question 4: Is there an effect of student type or placement on the peer-preferred social behavior Of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? Question 5: Is there an effect Of student type or placement on the school adjustment Of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? Conclusions Recommendations The Basic Academic Skills Survey (BASS) Permission for Use Of the BASS The Walker-McConnell Scale Of Social Competence and School Adjustment viii 114 115 116 118 119 125 127 129 129 142 143 TABLE OF CONTENTS continued APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Questionnaire Completed by Team Teachers in the Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Human Subjects Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 ix Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10 11 12 13 14 LIST OF TABLES Historical Events Reflecting Ambivalence About Separate or Joint Schooling Of Handicapped and Non-Handicapped Students . . . . . Teachers’ Perceptions of Benefits of Cooperative Teaching Rationale, Potential Benefits, and Motivational Factors for Establishing Teaching Teams Characteristics Of Experimental and Control Groups Means Of Math Posttest by Groups Analysis of Variance of Means of Math Posttest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means of Reading Posttest by Groups Analysis of Variance of Means of Reading Posttest Means Of Teacher—Preferred Social Behavior Posttest by Groups . . . . . . . Analysis Of Variance of Means of Teacher- Preferred Social Behavior Posttest . . Means of Peer-Preferred Social Behavior Posttest by Groups Analysis of Variance Of Means Of Peer- Preferred Social Behavior Posttest Means of School Adjustment Posttest by Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Means of School Adjustment Posttest 33 39 43 50 81 82 87 88 93 94 98 99 104 105 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 10 11 12 13 14 LIST OF FIGURES Histogram of Math Posttest Scores . . . . . . Histogram of Math Posttest Errors . Plot of Math Posttest Scores by Expected Math Posttest Scores . . . . . . . . . Histogram of Reading Posttest Scores Histogram of Reading Posttest Errors Plot Of Reading Posttest Scores by Expected Reading Posttest Scores . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of Teacher-Preferred Social Behavior Posttest Scores Histogram Of Teacher-Preferred Social Behavior Posttest Errors . . . . . . . . . Plot Of Teacher-Preferred Social Behavior Posttest Scores by Expected Teacher-Preferred Posttest Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of Peer—Preferred Social Behavior Posttest Scores . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of Peer-Preferred Social Behavior Posttest Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . Plot of Peer-Preferred Social Behavior Posttest Scores by Expected Peer-Preferred Social Behavior Posttest Scores . . . . Histogram of School Adjustment Behavior Posttest Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of School Adjustment Behavior Posttest Errors . . . xi 80 83 84 85 88 89 91 94 95 97 100 101 103 106 Figure Figure Figure Figure 15 16 17 18 LIST OF FIGURES continued Plot Of School Adjustment Behavior Posttest Scores by Expected School Adjustment Behavior Posttest Scores . . . . . . . Adjusted Means for Teamed and Nonteamed Students Compared Adjusted Means for Teamed and Nonteamed Special Education Students Compared Adjusted Means for Teamed and Nonteamed General Education Students Compared xii 107 122 .123 .124 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The system by which the school age population with disabilities in Michigan is provided educational opportunity is the result Of a progression of steps toward normalization which has been occurring for decades. The impetus for this progression toward normalization for students with disabilities has come from a variety of sources including parents, educators, the courts, and federal and state officials. In Michigan, there has been progression from a time when most students with disabilities were totally excluded fromlthe educational process to the present, where an elaborate system Of regulation governs the delivery of educational services to these students. Michigan’s current system of delivery of education to disabled students is being called into question by many who are concerned with education. inn particular, considerable interest and professional controversy has centered around the practice of labeling and providing special education services to students with mild disabilities. One Of the bases for the controversy regarding service delivery has come from efficacy research, studies Of the effectiveness of different systems for delivering educational services to students with disabilities. The efficacy researchers have identified several problematic issues with regard to special education: (a) the over—identification of students as disabled due to flawed Classification systems; (b) the inefficiency of operating a dual system for general and special education which has lead to fragmentation and lack Of coordination; (C) the tendency to overlook general education Classrooms as a possible site for improvement efforts, and; (d) a lack of evidence that Special education programming produces greater academic and/or social gains for students than if they received no special programming (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Lilly, 1986; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Sapon-Shevin, 1987). Those who use these efficacy studies to question the current separate systems for special and regular education base the rationale on two major premises. The first is that the instructional needs of students do not warrant the Operation of a dual system. Stainback and Stainback (1987) contend that: ...there are not- as implied by a dual system— two distinctly different types of students, that is those who are special and those who are regular. Rather all students are unique individuals, each with his/her own set of physical, intellectual, and psychological Characteristics (p. 103). The second major premise on which the rationale for questioning the current separate systems for Special and 3 general education is based centers on the inefficiency of operating a dual system. The dual system has created the expensive and time consuming necessity of Classifying students. In‘addition, both.personnel and financial resources are necessarily divided in a dual system which makes collaboration cumbersome. An Initiative for Change Studies of the efficacy of Special education programming date back to the early 30's (Lloyd & Gambatese, 1991). Since the passage of IPubliC Law 94-142, the Education of .All Handicapped Children (EHA) (1975), which was retitled Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA) when it was reauthorized in 1990, many have raised questions about education of students with disabilities. One Of the most important events in the raising of such questions was a meeting held at Wingspread, a conference center near Racine, Wisconsin, in September of 1981. Conference participants were asked to address a number Of questions about the relationship between public policy and the education of students with disabilities: 1. What does the current system for allocating resources and serving handicapped Children look like and how does it work? 2. What do we know about the effectiveness Of current practice, and to what extent is best practice a part of current practice? 3. How can public policy contribute to the quality of teaching in programs for handicapped Children and youth? 4. How is the special education system actually or potentially integrated with other systems? 4 5. Is there a need for general restructuring of the special education area and of its relations with "regular" education? What lessons can be learned from the experience of implementing legislation for other special populations which are applicable to the Special education area (Lloyd & Gambatese, 1991, p. 7)? At the Wingspread conference, Reynolds and Wang (1983) identified.many of the aspects of special education that would become issues of concern as a part of the Regular Education Initiative: indefensible labeling of students, inappropriate funding systems, development of miniature bureaucracies serving each of various categories of students, adaption of regular education learning environments, and extension of services to Children with learning problems who are not officially identified as handicapped (Lloyd & Gambatese, 1991). At a later Wingspread conference in 1985, Madeline Will, the then Assistant Secretary of Education for the U.S. Department of Education, called for regular and. special educators to share the responsibility Of teaching students with learning problems. Subsequent to the 1985 Wingspread conference, a plethora of position statements, papers, and books have appeared which deal with the Regular Education Initiative (REI), the rubric under which the many proposals for Changes in the special education system have been advanced. The four most Significant papers expressing REI appear to be: a) Madeline Will's 1985 speech at the Wingspread conference which was later published in Exceptional Children in February, 1986; b) a position paper by Margaret C. Wang (formerly with the 5 University of Pittsburgh and now at Temple University), Maynard C. Reynolds (University Of Minnesota), and Herbert J. Walberg (University of Illinois at Chicago); C) a joint statement by the National Coalition of Advocates for Students and the National Association Of School Psychologists, and; d) an article by M. Stephen Lilly (Dean, College of Education, Washington State University) (Council for Exceptional Children- Teacher Education Division, 1986). The Regular Education Initiative Defined Madeline Will’s 1985 speech at the Wingspread conference came about as the result Of an Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) task force which.was formed.to assess the status of the nation's programs for helping students with. learning' problems. "...the ‘term. ’1earning problems’ is used broadly to address Children who are having learning difficulties, including those who are learning Slowly; those with behavioral problems; and perhaps, as we improve our knowledge, those with more severe disabilities" (Will, 1986b, p. v). Will's basic theme is that, in spite of the achievements Of special programs, problems have emerged which create Obstacles to effective education of students with learning problems. She discusses "...four Significant Obstacles to the most effective education possible for students with learning problems" (p. 5). The first Obstacle Will discusses is the 6 fragmented approach to many different, but related, learning problems. She is referring to the program structure based on preconceived definitions of eligibility rather than on individual student need. The undesirable result of this eligibility criteria system is that many Children who are not learning effectively, but do not qualify for special services given the eligibility criteria, are not receiving appropriate assistance. The second Obstacle Cited by Will is the dual system, where "...separate administrative arrangements Ian: special programs contribute to a lack of coordination, raise questions about leadership, and Obscure lines of accountability within schools" (p. 6”. This problem is further compounded when special education teachers work individualLy or with small groups of students in both physical and curricular isolation from the general education teacher and Classroom. The result is Often that special education instruction does not help the Child to master the curriculum taking place in the general education Classroom. The stigmatization of students is the third Obstacle to effective education of students with learning problems cited by Will. When students are labeled and separated from their non-handicapped peers, the resultant stigmatization and poor self esteem Often lead to low expectations for success, failure to persist on tasks, the belief that failures are 7 caused by personal inadequacies, and a continued failure to learn effectively. The last Obstacle Will discusses is the placement decision as a battleground between the school and the parents of the special needs child. "Parents naturally want the best for their children, a desire that leads some parents to interpret rigid rules as indications that school Officials are unwilling to help" (p.7). According to Will, the identified obstacles to educating students with learning problems can be alleviated by adapting the regular Classroom to make it possible for the student to learn in that environment. This solution recognizes the conceptual fallacy Of the pull-out approach to special education: "...that poor performance in learning can be understood solely in terms of deficiencies in the student rather than deficiencies in the learning environment" (p. 9). The OSERS task force also identified Obstacles in general education and some strategies which may be useful in overcoming these Obstacles. These strategies are: 1) increase instructional time so that students who learn more slowly are allowed to move through the curriculum at a different pace, and receive more structure and more supervision time; 2) provide support systems for teachers because students with learning problems demand.more of teachers in terms Of time and specialized assessment and teaching strategies; 3) empower principals to control all programs and resources at the 8 building level so that the principal has the ability to blend programs and services in the building to bring together what is required to help the student in the regular Classroom, and lastly; 4) bring new instructional approaches into the regular education Classroom, including successful instructional approaches developed and used by Special programs to help students with learning problems which emphasize productive learning experiences. In Will’s conclusion, she calls for experimentation in the delivery of education to pmoblem learners which stays within the boundaries of student and parent rights as set forth under PL 94-142. Wang, Reynolds, and walberg (1986) cite two barriers which block the full promise of P.L. 94-142. The first is the "...Continuing segregation of many students in disjointed programs..." (p. 26). THmapull-out approach.has neglected the larger problem of regular Classroom learning environments which have failed to accommodate the educational needs of many students. The consequences of the pull-out approach, according the authors, include discontinuity and interruption in instruction for teachers and students, loss of control by school district leadership over specialized programs, and the fostering Of narrow thinking about the instructional programming appropriate for students with disabilities. The second.barrier to the full promise Of P.L. 94-142, as identified by these authors, is the inconsistent system for 9 Classifying and placing these students. Inconsistent Classification practices and services to students has been linked to state differences in eligibility criteria and the influence) of factors other tfluni the Children’s needs on diagnostic enui placement teams. These factors include, "...space and professional staff availability; competing programs and services; and federal, state, and local guidelines and pressures" (p. 27). Wang, Reynolds, and Walberg propose a two—part initiative to attain the Objective of providing an effective education for all students. The first recommendation is to join best practice from both general and special education into a coordinated educational delivery system. The second part Of the initiative is a call for experimental trials of more integrated forms of education through.the collaboration of the federal government with state education agencies'and local school districts. The third seminal paper regarding REI, the joint statement by the National Coalition of Advocates for Students (NCAS) and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), recognized "...that serious problems have been encountered as school districts Strive to meet these mandates [P.L. 94—142] and that quality education is still an elusive goal" (p. 18). The problem issues identified by the authors deal with Classification and placement of students. With regard to the 10 Classification issue, the authors Cite "...inadequate measurement technologies which focus on labels for placement rather than providing information for program development" (p. 18). Other problems Cited as originating in the Classification system include the placement of students in special Classrooms based solely on the eligibility label which often prevents any' more meaningful understanding of the student’s educational needs; the high cost of current assessment practices, both in personnel and financial resources, both of which could be better used to provide effective programming for students, and; a: decreased willingness on the part of general educators to adapt to the special needs Of students when special needs students are removed from their responsibility. NCAS and NASP propose a national initiative to meet the educational needs of all Children. They propose experimentation with alternatives to the current Classification system and the piloting Of alternative service delivery models. They encourage alternative service delivery models which stay within the current funding system so that resources for Special education identified students are protected. A fourth seminal paper which gives REI expression was written by M. Stephen Lilly (1986) and calls for, like many others, a fundamental Change in the delivery of educational services to children who have difficulty learning and_behaving l ¢— ch in school, including the mildly handicapped. He bases the need for fundamental Change on problems in labeling, diagnosis, service delivery, instructional models, outcomes for students, and the mistaken notion that special education "...is a generally more responsive and effective system than general education" (p. 10). Lilly, too, calls for alternative service delivery models, but he differs from others in that he does not call for general education to become more like special education, but rather that special services be delivered in the general education Classroom. PM: writes, "...we need. supportive services for Children who have difficulty learning and behaving in school but, for virtually all such students, we need not and should not offer these services through special education" (p.10). A Synthesis Several basic themes are evident in the literature that support the goals Of the Regular Education Initiative and other literature critical Of the model by which we currently deliver instruction to students who are identified as eligible for special education services. These themes are: 1) students have a fundamental right to receive educational services appropriate to their needs; 2) the current delivery system for providing educational services to students with disabilities has not proven to be effective, and; 3) any alternative 12 service delivery models for students with disabilities should take place within the general education Classroom setting. Problem Proposals by proponents of the Regular Education Initiative call for reform Of special education practice by creating a more integrated system of general education that better serves mildly disabled students in the general education classroom. The fOur alternatives to traditional practice in special education service delivery most Often proposed by proponents of REI are: (1) pre-referral strategies (Evans, 1990; Fuchs, Bahr, Fernstrom, & Stecher, 1990; Pugach & Johnson, 1990; Will, 1986b), (2) restructuring the general education Classroom (Garter & Lipsky, 1990; Sapon-Shevin, 1990; Wang, Peverlyy & Randolf, 1984; Will, 1986b), (3) cooperative consultation (Harris, 1990; Huefner, 1988; Johnson & PugaCh, 1991; Phillips & McCullough, 1990; Schulte, Osborn, & McKinney, 1990; Tindal, Shinn, & Rodden-Nord, 1990) and, (4) team teaching (Adamson, Matthews, & Schuller, 1990; Jenkins & Heinan, 1989; Thousand & Villa, 1990). Each Of these four alternatives are in need of further investigation tx> assess their feasibility, efficacy, and likely impact, both positive and negative, on special and general education students. Team teaching is the alternative to the current special education delivery system which is most fundamentally different from current practice auui yet most 13 answers REI proponents’ areas of concern. This alternative is of particular interest because: (1) Special education personnel would continue to provide direct instruction to special education identified students, and in addition would allow special education personnel to work with general education students who are not achieving academically at a satisfactory level or rate but who do not qualify for special education services; (2) The partial reimbursement of the excess cost of educating special education students to the local education agency from the state would not Change, and; (3) The special education teacher would be available to the general education teacher on a full-time basis to assist in curriculun1adaption, alternative instructional techniques, and the management of student behavior; Thousand and Villa (1990) provide a description Of a teaching team: A teaching team is an organizational and instructional arrangement of two or more members of the school...who distribute among themselves planning, instructional, and evaluation responsibilities foreulextended period of time (p. 152-153). The overall purpose of assembling teaching teams is to increase the potential for individualizing instruction and enabling all students to be educated.with their same-age peers within general education settings. When a teaching team is used, a lower student/teacher ratio results which allows more individual attention to student needs and more Opportunities for student response in learning activities. Teaching teams also allow greater opportunity to make use of the unique, 14 diverse, and specialized knowledge, skills, and instructional approaches of the team members, (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989) and allows increased. grouping and scheduling flexibility. The problem of insufficient data to assess the feasibility, efficacy, and impact on both general and special education students of team teaching at the elementary level suggests a significant deficiency in the research literature. The reported research has dealt primarily with secondary students and/or general education students. Additional research is necessary to ascertain whether teaching teams of special and general education teachers have an effect on the academic achievement and social skills and school adjustment of students. Purpose of Study The researcher’s purpose in the study was to make comparisons between students in an elementary school where mildly disabled students are fully integrated into general education Classrooms taught by teaching teams of special and general educators and students in an elementary school where special education students were placed in special education classrooms for instruction. More specifically, the researcher sought to determine whether the teaming strategy had an effect on: (1) special and general education students' academic achievement in reading and math, and (2) special and 15 general education students’ social competence and school adjustment. This research is necessary in order to make the appropriate decision as to whether Special educator/ general educator teaching teams should be used. In order to investigate the effect of general/special educator teaching teams on student academic achievement and social skills, the following research questions were posed. Research Questions 1. Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team-taught or not team- taught) on the math achievement of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? [Xxxs the effect Of pdacement depend (Ml student type? 2. Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team—taught or not team- taught) on the reading achievement of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect CH? placement depend CH1 student type? 3. Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team—taught or not team- taught) on the teacher—preferred social behavior of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? 4. Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team—taught or not team— 16 taught) on the peer-preferred social behavior of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? 5. Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team-taught or not team- taught) on the school adjustment of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? Hypotheses Hol There will be no difference in math achievement between the special education students who receive instruction in the team-taught Classroom and those who receive instruction in a special education Classroom. H02 There will be no difference in math achievement between time general education students :uu the team-taught Classroom and those iJIaa general education Classroom where special education eligible students are pulled out for instruction. Ho3 The effect of treatment (team-taught or pull-out) on math achievement will not depend on the type Of student (general education or special education). H04 There will be no difference in reading achievement between the special education students who receive instruction in the team-taught Classroom.and.those who receive instruction in a special education Classroom. l7 H05 There will be no difference in reading achievement between time general education students ix: the team-taught Classroom and those in a general education Classroom where special education eligible students are pulled out for instruction. H06 The effect of treatment (team—taught or pull—out) on reading achievement will not depend on the type of student (general education or special education). H07 There will be no difference in teacher-preferred social behavior between the special education students who receive instruction in the team-taught Classroom.and those who receive instruction in a special education Classroom. H08 There will be no difference in teacher-preferred social behavior between the general education students in the team-taught Classroom and those in a general education Classroom where Special education eligible students are pulled out for instruction. H09 The effect of treatment (team—taught or pull-out) on teacher-preferred social behavior will not depend on the type Of student (general education or special education). H010 There will be no difference in peer-preferred social behavior between the special education students who receive instruction in the team-taught Classroom.and those who receive instruction in a special education Classroom. H011 There will be no difference in peer-preferred social behavior between the general education students in the 18 team-taught Classroom and those in a general education Classrcmmlwhere special education eligible students arejpulled out for instruction. H012 The effect of treatment (team-taught or pull-out) on peer-preferred social behavior will not depend on the type of student (general education or special education). H013 There will be no difference in school adjustment behavior between the special education students who receive instruction.in the team-taught Classroom and those who receive instruction in a special education Classroom. H014 There will be no difference in school adjustment behavior between the general education students in the team- taught Classroom and those in a general education Classroom where special education eligible students are pulled out for instruction. H015 The effect of treatment (team-taught or pull-out) on school adjustment behavior will not depend on the type of student (general education or special education). Significance of Study This study is important in several aspects. Proponents of the Regular Education Initiative have called for the exploration of alternative service delivery models for students who are mildly disabled. Those who question whether the needs of students with.mild.disabilities can be adequately met in any instructional arrangement other than special 19 education Classrooms have demanded that changes to the current system be based on research. This study may contribute valuable information regarding the feasibility, efficacy, and likely impact of the use of general education/special education teaching teams (n1 general and special education students. .More specifically, information may be gained on the effects of the use of teaching teams on the academic performance in reading and math for both special and general education students. In addition, information may be gained regarding whether special and general education students’ interpersonal social competence and. school adjustment is effected by their placement with a'teaching'teamd The results of this study may have an impact on where special education students receive their education--general education Classrooms or special education Classrooms. Limitations and Delimitations of Study Limitations Two possible limitations may influence the interpretation of the findings Of this study. They are: (l) the use of a quasi-experimental research design as opposed to a true research design, and (2) lack of triangulation. The purpose of quasi-experimental research is to approximate the conditions of the true experiment in a setting which does not allow the control and/or manipulation Of all relevant variables. Specifically, all possible confounding 20 variables cannot be identified and/or controlled for. The researcher used a nonrandomized control-group pretest-posttest design. The use of a control group helps to insure against mistaking effects of history, pretesting, maturation, and instrumentation (see Definition Of Terms), for the main- effects of X (team-teaching); but the possibility always exists that some critical difference, not reflected in the pretest, was Operating to contaminate the posttest data. An advantage to the use of the quasi-experimental design is that it is possible to deal with intact Classes and does not disrupt the school’s program (Isaac & Michael, 1989). Because it was necessary to disrupt the educational process of the subjects as little as possible, other modes Of data collection were not used. Delimitations Two delimitations in generalizability of results are noted” They are: (1) Although.the population of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students in the state of Michigan is 357,289 (Fourth Friday 1991 count per Michigan Department Of Education), data gathered represented only a small sample of the population, namely, n=68 for the control group and n=68 for the experimental. group :UI two schools, for ea total. Of 136. Generalizability to other students at these grade levels is limited. (2) Data represented only grades 3—5 students. Generalizability to other grade levels is limited. 21 Definition of Terms Cooperative consultation- A process to enable education professionals with differing areas of expertise to work together to plan and conduct educational programming for a diverse group of students who are learning together in educational settings. Disabled- Used interchangeably with handicapped in this study. When the Education for All Handicapped Children (EHA) (PL 94— 142) was reauthorized by Congress in 1990, the name of the act was Changed to Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA) (PL 101-476). The term ’handicapped’ is gradually being replaced with the term 'disabled’ in the literature and when special education is discussed. General education- ‘Used. interchangeably' with regular education. Both terms mean the typical education which goes on in grades K-12. Handicapped- Used interchangeably with disabled. See Disabled. History— With regard to research; Specific events occurring between the first and second measurement in addition to the experimental variable. Instrumentation- With regard to research; Changes in Obtained measurement due to Changes in instrument calibration or Changes in Observers or judges. Integration- Combining the resources Of special education and general educatirulby servicing Children.with.mild.disabilities in the general Classroom. 22 Maturation- With regard to research; Processes within the subjects operating as a function of the passage of time (i.e., growing older, hungrier, fatigued, or less attentive). Mildly disabled- Those special education students vdua are typically educated within local school districts, in general education facilities, in special education classrooms. For this study, the term includes learning disabled, educable mentally impaired, and emotionally impaired students. Pre-referral strategies- The modification of instruction or Classroom management before referral to special education to better accommodates a difficult to teach student without disabilities. Pull-out- Any specially funded program separate from general education in which.the student leaves the general Classroom to attend. For purposes of this study, pull-out applies to special education students only. Regular education- Used. interchangeably with general education. See General education. Regular Education Initiative (REI)- Describes the movement to merge general, remedial, and.speCial education into a coherent system of instructional support. Special education eligible- Indicating that a student has met the eligibility criteria as defined by the state of Michigan special education rules in at least one disability area, and has been declared eligible for special education services at an Individual Educational Planning (IEP) meeting. 23 Special services- Interchangeable with special education and includes all programs and services available to special education eligible students. Teaching team-zuiorganizationalanuiinstructional arrangement of two professionals who distribute between themselves planning, instructional and evaluation responsibilities to provide education to general and mildly disabled students in the general education Classroom. In this study, a teaching team consisted of one general education teacher and one special education teacher. 'Nma terms ’teaming’ and ’team teaching’ are used to label the activities of the teaching team. Organization of the Dissertation Chapter 2 will present a review of the literature on team teaching as a general education phenomenon and as a technique for integrating special education students into general education Classrooms. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology employed to answer the study’s research questions and will include descriptive information about the teaching teams in the experimental group of this study. Presentation and analysis of data will be included in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will provide a summary as well as discussion of the results, conclusions, and recommendations. CHAPTER II L I TERATURE REVI EW Team Teaching as a Durable Innovation The use of teaching teams is certainly not a recent development in the delivery of instruction to students. The term ’team teaching’ first appeared in a 1957 reference in Education Index (Dean, 1965, p. D&W-lA). Born in a time of acute teacher shortage and a national concern for improving scientific and technical education. . . team teaching has survived both a shift from teacher shortage to teacher surplus and a Change in the national consensus concerning the proper outcomes of education. Team teaching, in short, has proved to be an extraordinarily resilient innovation (Armstrong, 1977, p. 65). In addition, the basic conception of what constitutes team teaching has changed very little since its inception during the teacher shortage of the 1950’s. In 1966, Davis defined team teaching as: ...any form of teaching in which two or more teachers regularly and purposefully share responsibility for the planning, presentation, and evaluation of lessons for two or more Classes of students (p. 11). In 1990, Thousand and Villa defined a teaching team as: ...an.organizati0nal and instructional arrangement of two or more members of the school and greater community who distribute among themselves planning, instructional, and evaluation responsibilities for the same students on a regular basis for an extended period of time (pp. 152- 153). 25 Although the basic conception of what constitutes a teaching team has remained fairly consistent, many writers have attempted to provide a more rigid definition which specifies such requirements as the composition of the team, functions and tasks of the team, ability range of students served, the team’s place in the organizational hierarchy of the school, and the breadth of the curriculum the team is responsible for delivering. A description of the concept which more fully reflects the spirit which may be inherent in what is being defined is offered by Dean and Witherspoon: The heart of the concept of team teaching lies not in the details of structure and organization but more in the essential spirit of cooperative planning, constant collaboration, Close unity, unrestrained communication, and sincere sharing. It is reflected not in a group Of individuals articulating together, but rather in a group which is a single, unified team. Inherent in the plan is an increased degree of flexibility for teacher responsibility, grouping policies and practices, and size of groups, and an invigorating spirit of freedom and opportunity to revamp programs to meet the educational needs of Children. In a sense, it might be said that the proponents of the movement question restrictions of the past, and hold that school administration exists primarily as a service medium, not as a control function (1965, p.4). Why Team Teach? Although research.in.the area of team teaching is sketchy at best, many have written about the benefits to both teachers and students when this instructional arrangement is employed. Initial advocates Of team teaching (Bair & Woodward, 1964; Shaplin & Olds, 1964) note that diagnostic, planning and evaluative procedures developed by a team of teachers are 26 generally superior to those developed rnrea single teacher. Bair and Woodward based their comments on their evaluation of selected team teaching projects throughout the United States through the use of a survey. Goodlad concluded the following after heading an eight- year study focusing on the restructuring of American schools which included 1,350 teachers; 8,624 parents; and 17,136 students in 1,106 classrooms at all three levels of public education (i.e., elementary, middle school/junior high, and secondary): To the unrelenting advocates of departmentalization, on the one hand, and the self—contained classroom, on the other, my response has to be, "A plague on both your houses." Surely there are creative ways to secure some of the advantages of both departmentalization and self- contained classrooms without the weakness of either (1984, p. 308). Although.GOOdlad.did.not specifically call for the use of teaching teams, he found fault with.educational practices that could not adequately be corrected unless teachers were organized into teams. He based his case on both curricular matters and student welfare. Goodlad called for either smaller schools (n: "schools-within-schools" tx> effectively reduce the size of elementary schools with more than 300 students, more flexible approaches to meeting student needs, and more diversified teaching. In addition, he advocated for more flexible scheduling of instructional experiences, more multi-aged groupings of students, and more mastery learning. 27 Goodlad is not alone in calling for educational improvements that can occur only if teachers work in teams. Sizer (1984) found traditional organizational patterns too inflexible txa provide ea truly' appropriate education for students. Although Sizer’s conclusions are based on his Observations in secondary schools, his conclusions can be applied to the elementary school as well. Sizer advocates for more integration of subject matter, more cross-age grouping of students (as Opposed to tracking), and bigger blocks of time to increase flexibility. Erb (1989) has observed team organization in over two dozen schools and argues that: . . .team organization provides the means by which teachers can. gain. greater control. over' the 'teaching—learning environment. In this manner, teachers can more productively respond to diverse learner needs. Consequently, teaming has greater potential for improving the instruction of students than any of the "effective" teaching formulas being imposed on teachers by well- meaning but overzealous reformers" (p. 10). Erb discusses three factors which are associated with teacher effectiveness: autonomy, collegiality, and efficacy. Affording autonomy to teachers is inherent in the teaming arrangement in that the team becomes the decision making body for a group of students. The team makes ongoing decisions regarding periods for the day, week, marking period, etc.; and the most appropriate ways to :meet the needs of diverse learners. The second factor associated with teacher effectiveness which can be facilitated through the use Of team teaching is 28 collegiality. After an extensive review of the literature on teaming, Arhar, Johnston, and Markle (1988) claim that while teaming arrangements are not sufficient to cause collaboration among teachers, they are an essential prerequisite for such cooperation to occur. Tye and Tye (1984) propose that schools cannot be improved as long as teachers remain isolated from each other in their work settings. Their research demonstrated that collegial interdependence among teachers, which in turn lead to shared decision making, is necessary to the movement toward effective schools. Little (1982), in a study of collegiality in school settings in schools which.were identified as successful, found teachers who valued and participated in the norms of collegiality and continuous improvement. They engaged in a greater range of professional interactions such as structured observation, shared planning and talk about instruction. They did so with greater frequency, in more locations, and with a more concrete and precise shared language than did teachers in schools that were identified as less successful. Erb’s third factor associated with teacher effectiveness which can be facilitated through the use Of team teaching is efficacy. Doda, writing in Ashton and‘Webb (1986), found that teachers who were organized into teams showed higher levels of confidence in their own sense of teaching competence when compared to teachers who were not teamed. Ashton and Webb’s (1986) study demonstrated the empirical link between team 29 organization and improved student achievement, mediated through teacher’s sense of efficacy. Erb found four differences between the ways teamed and nonteamed teachers function. First, teamed teachers engage in more frequent and more in-depth professional discussions. run: only do these discussions occur more often with colleagues concerning students, instruction, curriculum, and staff development, but also they occur more often with counselors, special educators, administrators, and parents. Second, this increased communication leads to more teacher involvement in the decision.making processes of the school, which are more collegial than those found in schools in which teachers tend.to.be isolated from each other. Third, not only do teachers have more involvement in the process of decision making, but also they tend to have greater influence over those decisions that most directly effect their teaching. Finally, teachers find that working on teams makes teaching more rewarding (pp. 12-13). Characteristics Of Teaching Teams To further clarify the concept of the team approach, Golin and Ducanis (1981) identified a number of general characteristics common to teams. Nine characteristics, which are further divided into three main categories- composition, functions, and task- are identified. Cgmpositipp..A team consists of'two or more individuals. "The two member team has many of the same needs and dynamics found in larger configurations, but the interactions may be less complex than those of teams with seven or eight members" (p.6). Communication may be direct and face to face or indirect. Although most teams will meet regularly and engage in direct 30 and.immediate communication, the team concept does not exclude groups that meet only occasionally. There is an identifiable leader. The form that leadership might take is unspecified because the leadership of the team may shift due to the changing nature Of the task. Functions Teams function both within and between organizational settings. However, the most common type of team finds its support system for operation in a parent organization. The parent organization for the teaching team would be the school system itself. Roles of participants are defined. A group in which each person can and does fill all roles is not a team. In an integrated classroom with instruction provided through a team teaching cooperative arrangement, the general and special educators jointly plan auui teach academic subject content to all students. However, at various times one teacher might assume primary responsibility' for specific types of instruction or portions or the curriculum. For example, during a science lesson, the special educator might introduce new vocabulary to the entire class using direct instruction procedures. This might be followed by the general education teacher presenting the remainder of the day’s science lesson, while the special education teacher monitors student acquisition of tflua content (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989, p.19). Teams collaborate. Because the diverse skills and expertise of team members are combined to provide solutions to specific problems, the teaching team is a collaborative endeavor. There are specific protocols of operation. The protocol of operation is empirically identifiable as each team develops certain rules of Operation, certain ways of proceeding to accomplish its task. T_asi 31 The team is child centered. The focus of the team’s efforts and the reason for the team’s existence are the students the team serves. The team is task oriented. The main focus is on the task to be completed rather than on other aspects of team functioning. Golin and Ducanis suggest that these nine characteristics be used.as tentative criteria for consideration in identifying a team. Certainly other attributes are included by others. Giangreco (1991) lists eight characteristics of effective teams: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) have two or more members; develop a shared framework and purposefully pursue a unified set of goals; have members who possess various skills and may serve different functions; engage in problem solving and collaborative activities; Share and allocate resources to assist student attainment of goals; engage in participatory interactions that complement and enhance group effectiveness; serve a collective evaluation function for each other through feedback loops; and, judge success or failure by group performance relative to a unified set of goals. 32 Golin & Ducanis and Giangreco provide listings of characteristics which have many common elements, including composition, functions, and task. Team Teaching as a Means to Integrate Mildly Disabled Students Although team teaching is an instructional arrangement which became popular in the 1950’s (Bair & Woodward, 1964; Shaplin & Olds, 1964) and has been used at all levels from the primary grades through the university level, the use of team teaching as a means of integrating students who are disabled into general education Classrooms is a relatively new development. The pioneers of the teaming movement could hardly have considered the place of special education teachers and their students in this new educational arrangement because it was not until the 1950’s when some began to question the appropriateness of special classroom placement for children with handicaps. Lloyd and Gambatese (1991) provide a Chronologically' arranged. table listing’ "Historical jEvents Reflecting Ambivalence about Separate or Joint Schooling of Handicapped and Non-Handicapped Students." That part of the table listing historical events beginning in the 1950’s, when team teaching first received widespread interest, to the recent past is reproduced here: 33 Table 1 HISTORICAL EVENTS REFLECTING.AMBIVALENCE ABOUT SEPARATE OR JOINT SCHOOLING OF HANDICAPPED AND NON-HANDICAPPED STUDENTS 1950’s- 70’s Studies compared the self-esteem, social acceptance, and achievement of children with handicaps in the mainstream to those in special education Classrooms. 1962 G. O. Johnson’s review of literature concluded that separate classes were of little academic value to pupils with mild retardation. 1966 Bureau of Education for the Handicapped was established within the U.S. Office of Education to promote the development of better programs for pupils with handicaps. 1968 Lloyd Dunn’s article ("Special Education for the mildly retarded--Is much of it Justifiable?") accompanied widespread reevaluation of the establishment of special classes. 1972 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a class action suit brought on behalf of Children in state-operated institutions, was settled by a consent agreement. The agreement required that the state must provide access to free appropriate public education for retarded children of Pennsylvania. 1972 Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia led to a court order that required the public schools to provide for pupils with handicaps even if they did not fit the currently available array of services. 1975 U.S. Congress passed Public Law 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act which legally specified a preference for the least restrictive environment. 1977 National Education Association Teachers Rights Committee formed a panel to investigate the experiences of selected school systems in carrying out PL 94-142 and state special education laws. TLloyd & Ea atese, 1991, p. 10) 34 The most significant event, with regard to where special education students are educated, was the passage of Public Law 94-142 by the U.S. Congress in 1975. PL 94-142 was the first federal mandate which. defined. 'the least restrictive environment and specified it as the preferred placement for all school age children. Section 612(5) of EU; 94-142 requires the states to establish: ...procedures to ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not handicapped and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplemental aids cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Section 614(C)(iv) requires local education agencies to provide iiflj. educational opportunities tx> all handicapped children, including: ...to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with the provisions of section 612(5)(B), the provision of special services to enable such children to participate in regular educational programs. With the passage of PL 94—142, the debate regarding the extent to which atypical learners should be, and can be, accommodated within regular education classrooms began. There are those that would hail PL 94-142 as the legislation which guarantees the civil rights of students with.handicaps. There are others who would argue that PL 94-142 has fallen short in its promise of maximum access to regular education programs 35 for students with disabilities. Walker (1987), one of the drafters of PL 94—142, wryly noted: If the law has been massively successful in assigning responsibility for students and setting up mechanisms to assure that schools carry out these responsibilities, it has been less successful in removing barriers between general and special education. It did not anticipate that the artifice of delivery systems in schools might drive the maintenance Of separate services and keep students from the mainstream (p. 102). A report from a former Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services points out four unintended results of PL 94-142: (a) a fragmented approach ("Many students who require help and are not learning effectively fall through the cracks of a program structure based on preconceived ideas of eligibility..."); (b) a dual system ("The separate administrative arrangements for special program contribute to a lack of coordination, raise questions about leadership, Cloud areas of responsibility, and Obscure lines of accountability within schools."); (c) stigmatization of students (producing in students "low expectations Of success, failure to persist on tasks, the belief that failures are caused by personal inadequacies, and a continued failure to learn effectively."); and (d) placement decisions becoming a battleground between parents and schools ("...a potential partnership is turned into a series of adversarial, hit-and- run encounters.") (Will, 1986b, pp. 5-7). It has been suggested that the most effective way for the educational system to respond to these deficiencies is a philosophical as well as a pragmatic merger between general 36 and special education (Stainback & Stainback, 1984). Of the four most proposed models for facilitating this merger (pre- referral strategies, restructuring the general education classroom, cooperative consultation, and cooperative teaching), cooperative teaching holds great potential for enhanced educational integration of students of widely differing academic abilities, including those students eligible for special education services (Thousand & Villa, 1990). ...it may be that the sheer numbers of these high-need students, combined. with the levels of intensity of educational services they require, may demand that the multidisciplinary team be involved in direct program implementation as well as initial planning and development. It may be difficult or impossible for the general education teacher alone to assume primary responsibility for the totality of program implementation (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989, p. 17). The use of teaching teams of general and special education teachers would facilitate the use Of all four models for merging special and general education, as pre-referral strategies, restructuring the general education classroom, and cooperative consultation would be encouraged naturally through the cooperation of team members in the teaming situation. The reporting and _analysis Of research on general education/special education teaching teams is minimal. The advantages to teaming’ for special education and. general education provided in the literature are much the same as advantages noted for general education teaming with a few 37 additions specific to students with disabilities. Giangreco (1991) notes that: Team planning, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment of educational programs for students with handicapping conditions: (1) is congruent with the values imbedded in our laws (e.g. PL 101-476; Section 504; The American’s with Disabilities Act of 1990) and logic presented in the literature; (2) can draw upon varied skills and knowledge of team members from different disciplines; (3) can help solve complex challenges presented by students; (4) can help avoid errors in individual judgement; (5) can be designed to maximize the use of scarce resources (e.g. specialists, funds); and, (6) can provide opportunities for members to learn and grow (p. 1). Garver and Papania (1982), a general education/special education team of teachers in Lawrence, NY, report the advantage of team teaching to be shared planning, which helps relieve the burden. of preparing* necessary adaptions for special needs students, and the ability to carry out small and large group activities simultaneously. In addition, team teaching encourages versatility and creativity in teaching methods, the sharing of ideas concerning behavioral and emotional problems of students which allows greater possibility of solutions, and continuity of instruction for students who are no longer ’pulled—out’ to the special education Classrooms. Students are exposed to different teaching styles within one classroom and are afforded more Opportunity for individual instruction with two teachers. Wiedmeyer and Lehman (1991), in evaluating a general education/special education teaming program in West Bend, WI, focused on the problems which have been eliminated since teaming replaced the previously used ’pull-out’ special 38 education program. These problems were (a) the social stigma attached to students who were pulled out for special education, (b) students’ difficulty in generalizing skills learned 1J1 the special education classroom t1) the general education classroom, (c) regular education teachers who did not take ownership of students’ learning needs, (d) the lack of communication between general education teachers and special education teachers, (e) the lack of curriculum coordination between special education and general education programs, (f) special education students missing special activities and presentations occurring in the general education ClaserOMIwhile in the 'pull-out’ classroom, and (9) students’ inability to integrate successfully for classes such as science or social studies due to their disabilities in basic areas such as reading or mathematics. Bauwens, Hourcade, and Friend (1989) report preliminary data which "...suggest that working within an integrated educational setting, wherein knowledge can be more frequently used, may enhance job satisfaction and stability" (pp.19-20). Their preliminary research.is reported.in the following table: 39 TABLE 2 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF BENEFITS OF COOPERATIVE TEACHING General educators Special educators Potential benefits (N=24) (N=22) Increase job satisfaction 3.95 4.16 Reduce stress and burnout 3.45 3.72 Enhance stability 3.78 3.95 Increase teaching/ learning potential 4.37 4.22 Scores based on a 5-point Likert-type scale; 5= very likely, 1: not very likely. (Bauwens, Hourcade, &Friend, 1989, p. I9) Scott and Smith (1988) found that teachers perceive themselves as more effective in the delivery of instruction and report more enjoyment of work when employed in collaborative school environments. In addition, the special education teacher may avoid the effects of burnout and stress which may in part result from working in the unique psychological climate:of'segregated.special education settings (Crane & Iwanicki, 1986). A third.team.made up of aall special education students grades 1- 5, in the entire school district whose needs could not be met 49 in a resource room, in addition to its own special education students. Resource rooms only provide services to students who require 50% or less of the school day in special education. In other words, if a student from another elementary within the district needed more than 50% of their school day with a special education teacher, they were transferred to the elementary school included in this study. Additional information regarding the experimental and control groups is provided in graphic form for aid in comparison. 50 Table 4 CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS COMPARED Experimental (n=68) Control (n=68) # of students at G.E. S.E. G.E. S.E. each grade level 3rd 12 12 3rd 10 10 4th 12 11 4th 8 6 5th 10 11 5th 16 18 # of students in EI 3 El 8 each disability EMI 5 EMI 5 area LD 26 LD 21 Sex of students Male Female Male Female G.E. 15 19 G.E. 11 23 S.E. 20 14 S.E. 19 15 Total 35 33 Total 30 38 Mean years of G.E. = 8.5 G.E. = 12.5 teaching S.E. = 8.5 S.E. = 15 experience # of teachers at G.E MA = 1 G.E. MA = 0 each degree BA = 2 BA = 3 level S.E. MA = 1 S.E. MA = 2 BA = 2 BA = 2 Mother’s level G.E S.E. G.E. S.E. of education 12- 4 11 12— 5 15 12 18 18 12 19 13 12+ 12 5 12+ 10 6 Student lunch G. S.E. G.E. S.E. (based on family' Free 4 12 Free 15 26 size and income) Reduced 4 2 Reduced 0 1 Full Pay 26 20 Full Pay 19 7 4th, and 5th grade The experimental group included 3rd, special education students and randomly chosen general education students assigned.tx)'the team-taught classrooms. The general education students in the team-taught classrooms were assigned to the general education teachers in the same 51 manner that all other students in the building were assigned to general education teachers. The control group included all 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade special education students who were assigned to one of the four special education teachers who served special education students and students from one general education classroom per grade level. The 3rd grade class was Chosen at random from four 3rd grade Classes, the 4th grade class from three 4th grade classes, and the 5th grade class from three 5th grade classes in the building. These classes were chosen at random by choosing the general education teacher whose last name came first in alphabetical order. All possible 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade general education students in the team-taught classrooms in the experimental school and all 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade general education students in the randomly chosen control classes were not included in the sample. General education students were Chosen at random from these classes in numbers equal to the numbers of special education students at each grade level in each building. Subjects were lost during the course of the study due to a variety of reasons including subjects moving out of the building, subjects’ special education eligibility changing, and subjects who were not present for posttesting on the academic measures. Sixteen of the original one hundred fifty- two subjects were lost. 52 The Teaching Teams Because ’teaching team’ is used to label a variety of instructional arrangements, a summary of the inception of the teaming project as well as comprehensive descriptions of the teaching teams in this study are provided. The descriptions provided are a result of a written questionnaire (see Appendix B) completed by each of the six team teachers in the study and direct observation by the researcher of the team teachers in their Classrooms. The planning for team teaching at the experimental school began in the early spring of the 1989-90 school year. The four special education teachers, the teacher consultant and the district’s special education director met to discuss special education programming for the following school year. The teacher consultant described student successes over the two school years in which some students who had previously received resource room services were integrated into general education classrooms with support from the teacher consultant. The teachers agreed that it was desirable for pg special education students to spend more time in general education classrooms with support. The special education director described the concept of team teaching and suggested it as a possible method of integrating the special education students into general education classrooms. After several subsequent meetings, in which the building principal was involved, the teachers decided to pursue the possibility of teaming for the 53 1990-91 school year. The group decided that teacher consultant services would not be necessary if there was a general education/special education teaching team at each grade level, grades one through five. The five special education teachers agreed which teacher would be at each grade level, and each special education teacher was to seek a general education teacher at their grade level who was willing to team with them the following school year. Because of the high number of third grade special education students (sixteen), it was decided to have a three teacher team, two general education teachers and one special education teacher, at this grade level. Half of the special education students would be placed in each third grade classroom and the special education teacher would team one-half of each school day with each general education teacher. The group also agreed.that if there was not a voluntary teaching team for each grade level, then there would be no teaming at any grade level. General education teachers willing to team were found at each grade level, and the five teams spent considerable time in the late summer planning for the 1990-91 school year. In December of the first year of teaming, the team teachers received.sa two-day inservice CH1 collaboration skills. In March of the same year, the team teachers attended.two days of the Michigan Council for Exceptional Children state conference, where they attended several sessions on collaborative teaching. At the conclusion of the 1990-91 54 school year one of the special education teachers moved out of state, her general education partner moved to another part of Michigan, one special education teacher‘transferred.to(another special education position within the school district, and.one general education teacher opted not to team for the 1991-92 school year by transferring to a traditional general education classroom. The third grade team was made up of a special education teacher with seven years previous experience teaching elementary special education in another school district. She had. spent one) and. one-half years teaching' preschool and substitute teaching in general education. During the 1990-91 school year she taught for a semester as the special education teacher in the fourth grade team, replacing a teacher who took leave when she adopted a baby. The general education teacher in the third grade team was a second year teacher. She agreed to team teach subsequent to being hired.as a classroom teacher after student teaching at the experimental school during the 1989-90 school year. Although the third grade team was composed. of ‘three ‘teachers during’ the initial year (two general education and one special education), a two teacher team was in place for the 1991-92 school year. This change was made because the teachers involved indicated that a team of three posed management problems. It was difficult to arrange mutual planning time, there was no instructional space for all of the students in the team in one place at the same 55 time, and the special education teacher was frequently needed to assist in both classrooms at one time which, of course, was not possible. The general education teacher in the fourth grade team was in her nineteenth year of teaching, all at the elementary level. Sixteen of these years had.been within the district in which she was currently teaching. This was her second year in the teaming project. She was also at the fourth grade level the pmevious year. The special education teacher ii) the fourth grade team had three years of teaching experience in a learning disabilities classroom prior to teaming. She taught for one semester and took leave for one semester during the previous school year, her first year of teaming. The fifth grade team was made up of a general education teacher with ten years prior teaching experience. Prior to the 1991-92 school year, she taught for two years in an elementary in southern Michigan where all special education students were integrated in general education classrooms and special education staff provided support to time classroom teachers but did not team teach. The special education teacher in the fifth grade team had five years of teaching experience prior to the current year. All five years were in special education classrooms. Both of the fifth grade teaching positions were vacated at the end of the 1990-91 school year, and these two teachers were hired, in part, because of their interest in, and willingness to, team teach. 56 Each team had two classrooms to use. The classrooms were adjacent and are connected by a doorway. One classroom was used for large group instruction and the second was used when the class was divided for instruction such as reading groups, math groups, enrichment activities, and special projects. Each team had a full-time instructional aide. Each team planned and carried out planning and instruction a little differently from the others, but each class was divided into two groups of students for reading and for math. Each teacher planned for, and instructed, her group for these two subjects. In each case the special education teacher instructed the lower ability group, but the lower ability groups generally included some general education students and the higher ability groups contained some special education students. Two of the teams instructed the students as a whole group for science and social studies. In the third team, the Class was split into two groups for science and social studies. One teacher taught science twice and the other taught social studies twice. The purpose was not for ability grouping, but rather to reduce the number of students being instructed at one time so that all students could receive more individual attention. All other activities were done_as a whole group, including physical education, music, and library. The teachers frequently took turns planning and carrying out the instruction for a particular lesson. The second teacher then provided support to students during the 57 lesson by giving individual attention to students who required it and by assisting the teacher who was teaching the lesson. One-half day per month, substitute teachers were hired and the team teachers had extended planning time. This was the only planning time the teachers had that was in addition to the planning time built into the school week when students received library, physical education, and music instruction from specialized teachers. The team teachers typically used this half-day per month to do long range planning, including thematic units. All teams engaged in planning outside of their regular workday, sometimes at a location other than the school building. All of the team teachers stressed the important role that collaboration, compromise, and cooperation play in the planning and delivery of instruction. Each team contained the same number of general education students as were in the other general education classrooms at their grade level. Each team could have up to fifteen special education eligible students as Michigan state special education rules allowed a maximum of fifteen students on the caseload of aa categorical special education teacher. The third grade team had twenty general education students and fourteen special education students. The fourth grade team had. twenty-seven general education students and fourteen special education students, while the fifth grade team had twenty-two general education students and twelve special education students. 58 The six team teachers indicated both advantages and disadvantages to teaming for themselves as teachers. Advantages included; Ihaving another adult to consult with.who knew the students and situation well, special education teachers being able to work with general education students, general education teachers having a better understanding of the needs (Hf special education students, the sharing' of responsibility for a heterogeneous group of students, having another teacher to help maintain objectivity regarding discipline and other student problems, and the ability for one teacher to leave the room to deal with parents and individual Students when necessary. Disadvantages to teachers in the teaming situation included; the difficulties inherent in dealing with relatively large classes, i.e., preparing materials, correcting written assignments, and assuring that students were getting adequate opportunity for oral questions and responses during' whole group instruction; having to compromise when they did.not agree with.their teaming partner; and the need for more careful planning because of the more heterogeneous nature of the class. The team teachers also reported both advantages and disadvantages for students. Some advantages were: students learning to work cooperatively with those of both higher and lower ability than themselves; general education students no longer being aware of which students were special education eligible in many cases; students learning to acknowledge and 59 accept other students’ strengths and weaknesses; increased social opportunities for all students; more appropriate role models for special education students; increased self-esteem for students who peer tutor; and.more academic stimulation for special education students. Disadvantages to teaming for students had, for the most part, to do with the relatively large numbers of students in each team: the near impossibility' of individualizing lessons enough for some students; the restriction of movement and, at times, the noise level with so many students in the classroom at one time; and more students being distracted by any disruptive behavior of emotionally impaired students than when they were in self— contained special education classrooms. All team members shared responsibility for student discipline. All teams reported that discipline was not a major issue because inappropriate behavior was fairly rare and was typically of a minor nature. The building principal reported far fewer special education students referred to the Office for discipline problems then was the case previous to the start Of team teaching. All of the teachers but one had received training in Cooperative Learning, and all had. received Instructional Theory Into Practice (ITIP) training. Most had attended some type of inservice and/or received. training in enhancing student self-esteem, and in the Michigan Health Model. Many had attended inservices on Outcomes Based Education. Each of 60 the teaming teachers had attended other inservices, conferences, and workshops and reported doing so on a regular basis, both on school time and on their own time. Instrumentation Data regarding student academic achievement were obtained through administration of the Basic Academic Skills Samples (BASS) (Epsin, Deno, Maruyama, & Cohen, 1989). The BASS is a screening instrument designed to yield an index of student achievement in the basic academic skill areas of reading, math, written expression, and spelling. inns BASS emanates from research on curriculum based measurement procedures designed to monitor student growth in these four academic areas. Research on these procedures has supported their validity and reliability in measuring growth in academic skills (Deno, 1985; Deno & Fuchs, 1986). Because validity has been established for each of the subtests of the BASS separatelyy it is possible to use subtests independently. The math and reading subtests were used in this study. The math section consists of items divided among addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts. Students are allowed one minute on each of two pages of math facts to complete as many items as possible. The reading subtest consists of three maze selections written at the second grade level. For each passage, students are allowed 61 one minute to silently read and select from multiple choice alternatives. The BASS was administered to ninety-six fourth and fifth grade students, twenty-seven of whom are eligible for and receive special education services, so that the researcher would have experience in administering the instrument before data were collected for this study. The type and number of math problems completed by selected students, approximately a third of those who were administered the instrument, were examined by the students’ teacher(s) who verified that, for all but a few students, the quantity and quality of student answers were what would be expected given the students’ typical performance during math instruction in the classroom. Three of the four teachers indicated they used timed activities to test whether math facts had been committed to memory by students. One fifth-grade teacher indicated that those students who had not committed.most math facts to memory frequently hadsignificant differences were found for student type or the interaction of student type and placement. Research Question 4: Is there an effect of student type (general eduction or special eduction) or placement (team— taught or' not ‘team—taught) on. the ;peer-preferred social behavior of 3rd, 4th, and.5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? All three null hypotheses generated from the research question were accepted. 109 Research Question 5: Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team- taught or not team-taught) on the school adjustment behavior of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? A significant difference (p<.05) was found for placement favoring the team-taught students. bk>significant differences were found for student type or the interaction of student type and placement. Chapter 5 will present a discussion of results, conclusions, and recommendations. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will present the final culmination of the research study in three main sections: (1) discussion, (2) conclusions, and (3) recommendations. Discussion Ingggduction Discussion of the study’s results will be conducted by examining each of the five research questions. However, it is important to note certain limitations. Three limitations to the study will be discussed: (a) the use of a quasi- experimental research design; (b) the use of the individual student as the unit of analysis; and (c) the lack of correlation between posttests and the suspected confounding variables which led to the use of only one covariate per ANCOVA, the pretest. The first limitation relates to the use of a quasi- experimental research design as opposed to a true experimental research design. A quasi-experimental research design can only approximate the conditions of the true experiment in a setting which does not allow the control and/or manipulation of all relevant variables. Compromises exist in the internal and external validity of the quasi-experimental design. The 111 threats to internal validity of the present study were: (1) contemporary history--Sometimes the subjects experience an event, in or out of the experimental setting, other than the exposure to treatment, that may affect their dependent variable scores. UH maturation. processes--Biological and psychological processes within the subjects may change during the progress of the experiment which will affect their responses. (3) pretest procedures--The pretest may serve as a learning experience that will cause the subjects to alter their responses on the posttest, whether or not the treatment is applied (Isaac & Michael, 1989). The threats to external validity in the present study were: (1) interaction effects of selection biases and the treatment--The characteristics of the subjects who are selected to participate in an experiment determine how extensively the findings can be generalized. In the present study, subjects were not randomly selected, but rather were members of intact classrooms in intact schools. Because of the non-randomized nature of this study, the results can only be generalized to students outside the sample with caution. (2) reactive or interaction effect of pretesting—-Giving a pretest may limit the generalizability of the experimental findings because the pretest may increase or decrease the experimental subjects sensitiveness to the treatment (Isaac & Michael, 1989). 112 The second limitation concerns the decision to use the individual student as the unit of analysis, as opposed to the class or school. Three general types of considerations in selecting the unit of analysis are suggested by Haney (1974) in Burstein (1980): (l) the purpose of the evaluation design (nature of treatments, independence of units and treatment effects, appropriate size), UH statistical considerations (reliability of measures, degrees of freedom, analysis techniques), and (3) practical considerations (missing data, economy). The decision to use the individual student as the unit of analysis in the present study was based on all three of these considerations. The researcher’s purpose in the study was to assess the effect on individual student achievement in the areas Of reading, math, and social skills. The evaluation design assumes that the effect of teaming is an aggregation of effects on individuals, not on the class as a whole. Statistical considerations include degrees of freedom and analytical techniques. To have not used individual students as the unit of analysis and have the same degrees of freedom in the analysis the study would have required one- hundred and thirty-eight elementary schools, half of which practiced team teaching with general education and special education teachers. Aside from the practical considerations of how the researcher would carry out such a study, finding that number of elementary schools doing the type of team teaching that is the focus of this study would likely not be 113 possible. And finally, the use of the pretest as a covariate, which substantially decreased the variance due to error in the analysis, would not have been possible had the unit of analysis been the classroom or the school. In summary, two options as to unit of analysis confronted the researcher: (1) Identify the population for Michigan (all 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade classrooms and ascertain which have fully integrated mildly disabled students and are using team teaching) and randomly chose a sample population; or (2) use intact classes and attempt to control for confounding variables, i.e., using a pretest as a covariate. The choice of the second option was made with the knowledge that threats to both internal and external validity to the study were present. The third limitation, the lack of correlation between the posttests and the suspected confounding variables, can only be speculated upon. The possibility existed that the covariates mother’s education level and socio-economic status, both of Which frequently appear as covariates in reported education research, were not accurately measured. Mother’s education level was obtained for the study from students’ cumulative SChool records or from phone calls to parents when the student record was missing the information. Each of these is a form of self-reporting which may not have been accurate in all instances. Socio-economic status was judged by whether a Student qualified for a free or reduced lunch. In order to Cmalify for free or reduced lunch, a parent must make 114 application to the school district. The application process did not require any written proof of the income or family size reported. Some families which would qualify for free or reduced lunches may not have applied. The possibility exists, then, that using free, reduced, or full pay lunch was not an accurate measure of socio-economic status. At first consideration, the lack. of sufficient correlation between posttest and grade, and posttest and age, would be surprising. But in the present study, these variables are less meaningful than if groups of all general education students were being considered” The academic achievement level of individual special education students logically would.have a large variance in the population of all 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students. It is important to note that special education students are placed at a particular grade level due to age, not academic achievement. The use of the pretest as the sole covariate in an analysis of covariance is a frequently utilized practice (Glass and Hopkins, 1984; Isaac & Michael, 1989). The above limitations indicate that the results of this study are statistically limited to the population parameter of the 136 students in the sample. However, the results may be used as an indication of potential effects on elementary students where team teaching is utilized. Research Question 1: Is there an effect of student type (general or special education) or placement (team-taught or 115 not team-taught) on the math achievement of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? Although no significant difference between teamed and nonteamed students was found, an examination Of the adjusted mean.math.posttest scores revealed.that the difference between teamed and. nonteamed students, both general and special education, was less than 1%. The concern as to whether the full integration of special education students into general education Classrooms will negatively impact on the academic achievement of general education students is not supported in this case. That a significant difference was found for student type was not unanticipated. It.is a reasonable assumption that, on average, general education students would outperform special education students on a measure of math achievement. Research Question 2: Is there an effect of student type (general or special education) or placement (team-taught or not team-taught) on the reading achievement of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? An examination of the adjusted means for the reading posttest revealed an approximate 2% difference between teamed and nonteamed students. This was not significantly different but, as with the math posttest results, general education students in classrooms with fully integrated special education 116 students were not negatively impacted on reading achievement in 'this study. General education students, on average, outperformed Special education students on the reading achievement. Again, as with math achievement, this outcome seemed reasonable to expect. The significance of the F statistic (2.00) for placement was p=.160. This p indicates that the teamed special education students had. a higher adjusted. mean than the nonteamed. special education students, the teamed. general education students had. a higher adjusted. mean than the nonteamed general education students, and only a 16% chance existed that these adjusted means were in error. Research Question 3: Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team- taught or not team-taught) on the teacher-preferred social behavior of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? Teacher—preferred social behavior was defined as peer- related social behavior valued.or preferred by teachers. This construct was assessed through teacher rating of individual students (on a 1-5 Likert scale with l = never, 3 = sometimes, and 5 = frequently) on the following statements: 1. Shows sympathy for others. 2. Compromises with peers when the situation calls for it. 3. Responds to teasing or name calling by ignoring, changing the subject, or some other constructiveemeans. 117 4. Accepts constructive criticism from peers without becoming angry. 5. Is sensitive to the needs of others. 6. Expresses anger appropriately (e.g., reacts to situation without becoming violent or destructive). 7. Appropriately copes with aggression from others (e.g., tries to avoid a fight, walks away, seeks assistance, defends self). 8. Cooperatives with peers in group activities or situations. 9. Uses physical contact with peers appropriately. 10. Listens while others are speaking (e.g., as in circle or sharing time). 11. Controls temper. 12. Can accept not getting her/his own way. 13. Finds another way to play when requests to join others are refused. 14. Is considerate of the feelings of others. 15. Gains peers’ attention in an appropriate manner. 16. Accepts suggestions and assistance from peers. Teamed Students showed significantly greater gains between pretest and posttest, on average, for teacher preferred behavior than did nonteamed students. This was true for both general education students and special education students, as indicated by the interaction effect between placement and student type which was not significant. This 118 indicates teamed students displayed more peer-related social behavior valued or preferred by teachers than did nonteamed students. The difference between teamed. and. nonteamed. general education students (12.79 percentile ranks) was substantially larger than the difference between teamed and. nonteamed special education students (3.59 percentile ranks). Research Question 4: Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team- taught or not team—taught) on the peer-preferred. social behavior of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? Peer—preferred social behavior was defined. as ‘peer- related social behavior highly valued by peers. This construct was assessed through teacher rating of individual students (on a 1—5 Likert scale with 1 = never, 3 = sometimes, and 5 = frequently) on the following statements: 1. Other children seek child out to involve her/him in activities. 2. Changes activities with. peers to [permit continued interaction. 3. Shares laughter with peers. 4. Makes friends easily with other children. 5. Asks questions that request information about someone or something. 6. Spends recess and free time interacting with peers. 119 7. Plays or talks with.peers for extended.periods of time. 8. Voluntarily provides assistance to peers who require it. 9. Assumes leadership role in peer activities. 10. Initiates conversation(s) with peers in informal situations. 11. Interacts with a number of different peers. 12. Compliments others regarding personal attributes (e.g. , appearances, special skills, etc.). 13. Is socially perceptive (e.g., reads social situations accurately). 14. Plays games and activities at recess skillfully. 15. Keeps conversation with peers going. 16. Maintains eye contact when speaking or being spoken to. 17. Invites peers to play or share activities. Although adequate significance was not found to support an effect for teaming on peer—preferred social behavior, the adjusted mean posttest scores for teamed students was at the 52.27th percentile while the adjusted mean posttest score for nonteamed students was at the 46.63rd percentile, with a 16% chance that this difference was due to error (p=.160). There was virtually no difference (.03% of 1 percentile) between teamed and nonteamed special education students, but a substantial difference of 11.26 percentiles between teamed and nonteamed general education students. 120 Research Question 5: Is there an effect of student type (general education or special education) or placement (team— taught or not team-taught) on the school adjustment behavior of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students? Does the effect of placement depend on student type? School adjustment behavior was defined as adaptive social-behavioral competencies highly valued by teachers within classroom instructional settings. The construct was assessed through.the teacher rating of individual students (on a 1-5 Likert scale with 1 = never, 3 = sometimes, 5 = frequently) on the following statements: 1. Uses free time appropriately. 2. Has good work habits (e.g., is organized, makes efficient use Of class time, etc.). 3. Listens carefully' to teacher instructions and directions for assignments. 4. Answers or attempts to answer a question when called on by the teacher. 5. Displays independent study skills (e.g., can. work adequately with minimum teacher support). 6 . Responds to conventional behavior management techniques (e.g., praise, reprimands, timeout). 7. Responds to requests promptly. 8. Attends to assigned tasks. 9. Does seatwork assignments as directed. 121 10. Produces work. of acceptable quality given her/his skills level. A significant difference was found between teamed and nonteamed students on the measure of school adjustment behavior. Both teamed special education students (adjusted posttest mean - 46.92) and teamed general education students (adjusted. posttest mean - 54.16) had. a higher adjusted posttest mean.than.either nonteamed.special education students (adjusted posttest mean — 42.17) or nonteamed general education students (adjusted posttest mean - 44.57). The adjusted posttest mean for teamed students was at the 50.54th percentile rank, and the adjusted posttest mean for nonteamed students was at the 43.37th percentile rank. These percentiles indicated teamed students displayed adaptive social-behavioral competencies highly valued by teachers within classroom instructional settings more frequently than nonteamed students did. In summary, the teamed students had higher adjusted mean scores on four of the five measures. On two of these four measures on which higher adjusted scores were found, teacher- preferred social behavior and school adjustment behavior, the difference between the adjusted posttest means were found to be Significant at p<.05. The adjusted means for teamed and nonteamed general and special education students combined on each of the five measure are graphed in Figure 16. The adjusted means for teamed and nonteamed special education 122 Figure 18 shows the students are graphed in Figure 17. graphed adjusted means for teamed and nonteamed general education students. FIGURE 16 ADJUSTED POSTTEST MEANS FOR TEAMED AND NONTEAMED STUDENTS LEGEND R E F E R P. m E P TEACHERJNEFEH SCHOOLADUUST 123 FIGURE 17 SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS ADJUSTED POSTTEST MEANS FOR TEAMED AND NONTEAMED LEGEND amen W , ., 3...... .....,_..m......u.3an % PEER-PREFER/ ///////////////////////////////////////// TEACHER-PHEFER SCHOOL ADJUST ING MATH 124 FIGURE 18 ADJUSTED POSTTEST MEANS FOR TEAMED AND NONTEAMED GENERAL EDUCATION STUDENTS PEER-PREFER TEACHER-PHEFEH SCHOOL ADJUST 125 Conclusions Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. General education students’ math and reading achievement is not significantly different when mildly disabled students are fully integrated into general education classrooms than when the ndldly disabled students receive academic instructithin.special education classrooms, when the general education Classroom is team-taught by a general education/special education teaching team. The mean difference between teamed and nonteamed general (education students in math achievement was less than 2% on the math measure. The difference was less than 1%, when the posttest scores were adjusted for the pretest. The mean difference between teamed and nonteamed general education Students in reading achievement was less than 3% on the treading measure. After the posttest scores was adjusted for tile pretest scores, the difference was 1.5%. This conclusion Choes not support the concern of some regular education initiative opponents that the full integration of mildly llandicapped students into general education classrooms will have a negative effect, academically, on general education students. 2. Special education students’ math and reading achievement is not significantly different when they are fully integrated into general eduction classrooms than when they are 126 provided.academic instructituiin special education.classrooms. The mean difference between teamed and nonteamed general education students :ui reading" achievement was 3% CH1 the reading measure. When the posttest scores were adjusted for the pretest, the difference was just over 3%. In this study, teamed special education students outperformed nonteamed special education students on the reading measure, with a 16% chance that the difference was attributable to error. The :mean difference between teamed and nonteamed special education students in math achievement was less than 1% different, favoring nonteamed with a 30% Chance that the difference was attributable to error. This study supports critics of the "pull-out’ service delivery model for special education students. 3. Improvement is shown in the social skills behavior of knoth special education and general education students in a tieam—taught classroom to a greater degree than when special and general education students are not team-taught. The Ciifferences are :uu teacher-preferred. social Ibehavior and School adjustment with peer-preferred social behavior not Significantly different for teamed or nonteamed students. Proponents (n? the Regular' Education Initiative, and others who propose new service delivery models for mildly handicapped students, focus on the potential social benefits for the students who are handicapped. This study showed benefits in teacher—preferred social behavior not only for 127 special education students, but for general education students as well. The fears of some, that the educational process would be disrupted for general education students and that special education students would not have the necessary social skills to be successful in the integrated classroom, are not supported by this study. This study lends support to the Observations of the team teachers’ perception that teaming provides opportunities for students which lead to improved social skills including: students learning to work cooperatively with those of both higher and lower ability than themselves; special education students being less identifiable and, therefore, less ostracized by peers; students learning to acknowledge and éaccept other students’ strengths and weaknesses; more appropriate role models for special education students; and iIdcreased self-esteem for students who peer tutor. Recommendations Team teaching as a means of integrating students who are mildly handicapped is supported by this study, but the IPublished research on this type of team teaching is lacking.