WTS 1 and 2

page 1 of 27

Co-Teaching and Academic Progress in Elementary Students with Disabilities

Landri Vogelsang
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 1 and 2
EDUW 691 Professional Skills Development
Caroline Hickethier, Instructor
August 1, 2015

WTS 1 and 2

page 2 of 27

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching.
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
disciplines she or he teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
subject matter meaningful for pupils.
Knowledge. The teacher realizes that subject matter knowledge is not a fixed body of
facts but is complex and ever-evolving. S/he seeks to keep abreast of new ideas and
understandings in the field.
Dispositions. The teacher is committed to continuous learning and engages in
professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and children's learning of the discipline.
Performances. The teacher can evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for
their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and usefulness in representing particular ideas and concepts.
Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 2: Teachers know how children grow.
The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and provides
instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal development.
Knowledge. The teacher is aware of expected developmental progressions and ranges of
individual variation within each domain (physical, social, emotional, moral, and cognitive), can
identify levels of readiness in learning, and understands how development in any one domain
may affect performance in others.
Dispositions. The teacher appreciates individual variation within each area of
development, shows respect for the diverse talents of all learners, and is committed to help them
develop self-confidence and competence.
Performances. The teacher assesses individual and group performance in order to design
instruction that meets learners current needs in each domain (cognitive, social, emotional, moral,
and physical) and that leads to the next level of development.
Danielson Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

WTS 1 and 2
Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Component 1f: Assessing Student Learning
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
Component 2a: Creating and Environment of Respect and Rapport
Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching
Component 4c: Communicating with families

page 3 of 27

WTS 1 and 2

page 4 of 27

Pre-assessments
Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
I am a special education teacher in my second year of teaching and throughout my first
year I was exposed to an inclusive classroom model that integrated co-teaching as well. Our
fourth grade classroom included two general education teachers, one special education teacher,
three paraprofessionals, and approximately 45 students. The student population was a mixture of
typically developing students, eight special education students, and 10 English Language
Learners/speech students. This classroom makeup was often times challenging for many
different reasons. I narrowed those difficulties down to, what I perceived as most important,
how our co-teaching strategies influenced the learning of students in the classroom. My selfassessment related to the Wisconsin Teaching Standards (WTS) will focus on standards 1 and 2
with each standard including a knowledge, disposition, and performance descriptor.
For WTS 1, under the knowledge descriptor, I chose to focus on, The teacher realizes
that subject matter knowledge is not a fixed body of facts but is a complex and ever-evolving.
S/he seeks to keep abreast of new ideas and understandings in the field. Throughout the school
year, we were constantly trying new approaches to co-teaching. Even though we attempted to
stay well-informed of different co-teaching models and strategies, we often times found
ourselves scrambling to find an effective way to implement curriculum to all students. We
understood that subject matter is always changing, however we had difficulties synchronizing the
changing of subject matter with co-teaching strategies. I noticed that numerous students were
confused or unsure of which teacher to ask for clarification regarding directions or academic
knowledge. This included all students, not just the special education students.
For the disposition descriptor under WTS 1, I chose to focus on how, The teacher is
committed to continuous learning and engages in professional discourse about subject matter

WTS 1 and 2

page 5 of 27

knowledge and childrens learning of the discipline. As we progressed through the school year,
we were aware of the deficiencies of our co-teaching strategies and how that was affecting
student learning of the curriculum. We chose to participate in some district training on effective
co-teaching strategies, however this is also a new concept to the district so trainings were very
limited in strategies, implementation ideas, and how to improve student learning.
Lastly, for the performance descriptor I chose to focus on, The teacher can evaluate
teaching resources and curriculum materials for their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and
usefulness in representing particular ideas and concepts. It was essential that we were
constantly assessing our co-teaching strategies while teaching different subject matters. We had
many resources available to us, however not all of those resources and/or curriculum materials
were conducive to our classroom design or our student population. It was critical that we were
changing our resources and curriculum materials to fit the needs of our students and classroom.
As we changed certain aspects of resources and materials, we noticed that we were in need of a
better system to help identify strengths and weaknesses after implementing them.
Wisconsin Teaching Standard 2 states, Teachers know how children grow. This is a
vital component for teachers to understand. Our students are changing every day and in order for
teachers to provide an optimal learning environment, we must implement effective strategies.
Under the knowledge descriptor I chose, The teacher is aware of expected developmental
progressions and ranges of individual variation within each domain (physical, social, emotional,
moral, and cognitive), can identify levels of readiness in learning, and understands how
development in any one domain may affect performance in others. Our classroom included
forty five students, therefore all of the domains listed above affected one another. Some students
benefited from this environment, other students had several difficulties, and the rest of the
students experienced a mixture of benefits and difficulties. Student learning was affected in the

WTS 1 and 2

page 6 of 27

majority of students. This was seen by work production, test scores, homework, and on-task
behavior. We, as teachers, attempted to provide the best possible learning environment for all
students to grow at the expected developmental rate, however there were many different
circumstances that affected that goal. We were aware of the lack of developmental growth and
tried several different strategies, however we were not able to find the right combination by the
end of the school year.
Within the disposition descriptor I chose, The teacher appreciates individual variation
within each area of development, shows respect for the diverse talents of all learners, and is
committed to help them develop self-confidence and competence. Throughout the school year,
we strived to accomplish this disposition for all of our students. I believe it is a critical aspect of
teaching and it reaps an unlimited amount of benefits for the students. We were able to
accomplish this with the majority of our students, however we need to find a way to reach those
students who we felt did not obtain the self-confidence and competence we had hoped for.
Under the performance descriptor for WTS 2 I chose, The teacher assesses individual
and group performance in order to design instruction that meets learners current needs in each
domain (cognitive, social, emotional, moral, and physical) and that leads to the next level of
development. As a teaching team, we were aware of the individual and group performances,
however I believe we lacked the follow through after we identified the performances. We could
easily identify what individual and/or group needed extra support, however we struggled with
designing the next step in instruction to address those concerns. If we did design the next step, it
was difficult to implement those steps. This could have been due to lack of communication,
planning, and/or implementation by all teachers.
I believe all of the above standards and descriptors are an important aspect of teaching.
Due to this course taking place over the summer, implementation will be limited. For example, I
have been referring to the classroom I taught in over the 2014-2015 school year and will be

WTS 1 and 2

page 7 of 27

basing my research on that particular classroom as I will be in a similar classroom for the
upcoming school year. There were many factors that limited our success in the classroom and I
believe they were a combination of lack of planning, instructing, and assessing. We most
certainly practiced all three of those areas on a daily basis; however we were not as effective as
we all had hoped. We did not see the overall growth in students that we hoped and this was
observed through student work production, test scores, homework, and social/emotional
behaviors. Based upon my self-reflection and based upon the descriptors I chose for WTS 1 and
2, I wanted to focus on implementing effective co-teaching instruction to help improve the
learning of students with disabilities.
Assessment of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
Each student is at a different level regarding reading and mathematics performance. The
learning objective is to increase each students reading ability by one whole reading level at the
end of the first semester and for each student to have an average a mean of 75% on all
mathematics assessments including homework, quizzes, and tests. The baseline data will be
gathered from each students IEP. Students with disabilities in our classroom struggled to meet
academic gains while in the current co-teaching environment. Our planning lacked lesson plan
development, modifications and accommodations, and effective assessment. This caused
confusion, frustration, and less than optimal learning progress among students with disabilities.
Assessment of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
Our classroom environment was a co-teaching classroom with two general education
teachers, one special education teacher, and approximately 45 students with and without
disabilities. Our current strategy was to parallel teach and use station teaching. With three
teachers trying to implement parallel and station teaching, the students were not receiving
consistent academic instruction. When we were implementing station teaching, we usually had
reading groups or writing groups. These groups were based upon a students IEP, intervention

WTS 1 and 2

page 8 of 27

plans, and overall test scores. This environment, to me, was very chaotic, confusing, and very
ineffective. Planning time was very limited and sometimes non-existent which added more
stress and confusion. Our classroom environment definitely is in need of some better planning,
instructing, and assessing.
Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research
The self-assessment, assessment of student performance, and learning environment
assessment show that our co-teaching classroom needs a better approach to foster optimal
learning environments for all students, especially students with disabilities. Therefore, my
research question states, How does co-teaching affect the learning of students with disabilities
in an elementary setting?
Research Summary
The overall goal of teachers should be to improve all student learning. This is a simple,
yet very powerful statement that requires an immense amount of dedication by teachers of all
subject areas. In the past several years school systems have been incorporating inclusive
classrooms in an attempt to approach special education student service delivery. With an
increase in inclusive classrooms, school districts are searching for the best possible practice to
provide optimal collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers.
One of the most common approaches is identified as co-teaching. Cook and Friend (1995),
defined co-teaching as two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse,
or blended group of students in a single physical space. The two professionals consist of a
general education teacher and a special education teacher. Both professionals must collaborate in
order to provide optimal learning for all students. Co-teaching is a broad term that involves
several different models, methods of instruction, and assessment. With a variety of ways to
implement co-teaching, it is sometimes difficult to assess its effectiveness on student learning
and growth. The following research summary will explore the affect co-teaching has on student

WTS 1 and 2

page 9 of 27

growth in an elementary setting by more specifically defining co-teaching, present concrete

examples of co-teaching classrooms, and then presenting what the research has concluded.
Co-teaching requires a specific skill set that normally does not exist when teaching
independently. In order for co-teaching to be an effective approach to teaching, the general
education and special education teachers must work closely together to achieve the common goal
of providing an optimal learning environment for all students. In a co-taught classroom the two
teachers work together to develop goals, instruction, assessment, and classroom management.
There are several co-teaching models that exist and they include: (a) one teach, one assist, (b)
station teaching, (c) parallel teaching, (d) alternative teaching, and (e) team teaching (McDuffie,
Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009). For the purpose of this research paper, the focus will be on
implementing the team teaching and one teach, one assist models of co-teaching. When teachers
implement the team teaching approach, teachers take an equal amount of time teaching the
content areas (McDuffie et al., 2009). This approach involves the greatest amount of shared
responsibility and can create a learning environment that is extremely effective. Badiali and
Titus (2010), stated our view of synchronous team teaching is that it encourages teachers to try
innovative techniques that one teacher could not do alone (p. 78). This model offers teachers
the opportunities to try and perfect new approaches to learning which in turn will help their
students if implemented correctly. This means that both the general education teacher and
special education teacher take an active role in working with and teaching the entire class. They
are seen as a cohesive unit and work together to implement lesson plans. In a study conducted by
Gerber and Popp (1999) on parent and student perspectives on co-teaching, one parent with a
student without disabilities stated My son is doing much better this year than last. Hes like a
whole different kid. Hes got better grades and a better attitude toward himself (p. 293).

WTS 1 and 2

page 10 of 27

In addition to team teaching, the one teach, one assist approach is also a beneficial model
of co-teaching. According to Badiali and Titus (2010), the primary responsibility for delivering
instruction falls to one teacher while the other teacher circulates around the classroom to provide
individual help to students (p. 76). This model serves as a great way to build upon student
confidence and academic learning while providing positive feedback and/or correct student
errors (Badiali & Titus, 2010). In order for this model to be effective, teachers must know the
learning objective and co-plan the lesson. This will help build fluency and consistency between
the two teachers. In addition, the assisting teacher could gather information on specific students
including behaviors, individual, and whole group learning progress.
Lastly, the station teaching model also presents great benefits while implementing a coteaching approach. Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) define station teaching as the
following, where various learning stations are created, and the co-teachers provide individual
support at the different stations (p. 393). This model could be used during all subject areas. It
can be a very effective way to assess students learning, provide more challenging activities to
students who have mastered the concept, and to intervene with those students who are in need of
extra supports. All of the above named models, team teaching, one teach, one assist, and station
teaching provide a variety of benefits to the classroom environment. The benefits that these
models provide for students depend on implementation and the way in which instruction is
presented by both teachers.
The implementation of all three of the above listed models plays a vital role in student
academic success. If these models are not properly implemented, the effects of co-teaching
could decrease student learning rather than increase student learning. Teachers must keep in
mind the elements needed to achieve an effective team teaching environment include planning,
communicating, and assessing teaching strategies. According to Conderman and Hedin (2012),

WTS 1 and 2

page 11 of 27

there are three critical areas for implementing a co-teaching classroom; co-planning, coinstruction, and co-assessment. Co-planning occurs in the early stages of co-teaching. During
this phase teachers must meet to discuss their action plan in order for co-teaching to be effective.
Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, and Blanks (2010) concluded, The greatest obstacle to successful coteaching is often the lack of preparedness of the educators involved. (p. 158). Co-teaching
partners should plan on approximately 45 minutes per week of uninterrupted planning time
(Ploessl, et al., 2010). This is often times difficult for teachers to accomplish due to schedules,
student behaviors, and other meetings. It is important that teachers focus on the following
techniques to help increase meeting time productivity: develop an agenda and a protocol, use
timelines, and design lesson plans together (Ploessl, et al., 2010). When teachers follow these
three techniques, it will allow for more successful implementation of the curriculum and in turn
will lead to more student academic progress.
After teachers have met to co-plan for their classroom, the next area of focus is on coinstruction. Ploessel et al., (2010), states, Teacher effectiveness is one of the most important
factors affecting school achievement (p. 164). School districts are focusing on academic
achievement, teachers are held even more responsible for student academic progress, and
students are expected to achieve more academically regardless of age, race, or disability. Each
teacher should take responsibility to actively teach and actively progress monitor all students.
Successful co-teaching classrooms incorporate several different strategies when implementing
curriculum instruction. The three most important strategies would be: (a) teacher together and
monitor student progress, (b) let data guide decision making, and (c) reflect on co-taught lessons
(Ploessel, et al., 2010). When teachers incorporate all three of these strategies on a daily basis
ideal learning environments are created in the classroom.

WTS 1 and 2

page 12 of 27

Last, but certainly not least, is co-assessment. This plays an enormous role in achieving
academic success in students. Each co-teaching model allows for differentiating instruction and
assessments, therefore providing optimal learning opportunities for all students. According to
Conderman and Hedin (2012), planning for purposeful co-assessment occurs at four points in
time: (a) as co-teaching teams form, (b) before lessons or units of study begin, (c) during
instruction, and (d) after instruction. The general education teacher and special education teacher
must collaborate and decide how the assessment roles will be shared. Some of these roles
include grading, developing rubrics, communicating progress to parents, testing
accommodations, and response to intervention data (Conderman and Hedin, 2010).
Before instruction occurs both teachers should collaborate and consider what student data
they have available to them. For instance, teachers will typically have standardized test results
and some district assessment results to help guide the strengths and areas of concerns for each
student. When looking at standardized test results, one teacher developed a spread sheet with
each students most recent test scores. Conderman and Hedin (2010) state that the teacher color
coded scores indicating student performance levels in the following categories: at or above
grade level (green), approaching grade level (yellow), or achieving below grade level (red) (p.
24). Based on the scores both teachers decided on a co-teaching model and implemented
appropriate instruction and progress monitoring. Another set of data teachers typically have
access to are the curriculum based assessments. This data is identified by the district and can
include a variety of assessments. It is important to use a variety of assessments because no one
assessment can give a teacher the whole picture of a students academic ability. Some other
ways to assess student knowledge before instruction include class discussions, warm-ups, admit
slips, quick writes, pre-tests, etc. These are quick assessments that should last no longer than
five to ten minutes.

WTS 1 and 2

page 13 of 27

During instruction the teachers must also be aware of student progress to ensure
academic gains. In a co-taught classroom both teachers should take an active role in assessing
student learning. Some examples include asking questions, code cards (students have a certain
color card that represents their level of understanding), unison responses, dry erase boards,
true/false questions, etc. During this phase it is beneficial to keep students engaged and active in
the learning process. This fosters self-confidence and participation which in turn increases
student learning.
After instruction has concluded, it is very important for both teachers to assess the
lessons effectiveness and student learning. The teachers could choose from formative or
summative assessments depending on the learning target and lesson plan. Some examples of
formative assessments include exit slips, teacher created prompts, responding to the admit slip,
and self-regulated goal setting (Conderman and Hedin, 2010). When teachers use summative
assessments it is important to choose and create the summative assessment before the instruction
occurs. For example some teachers will develop a rubric, a checklist, a quiz, a test, a rating
scale, etc. to evaluate academic progress. When working in a co-teaching environment, the two
teachers have more opportunities to develop and assess students from both formative and
summative assessments.
Co-teaching involves careful collaboration by the general education and special education
teachers. In order for co-teaching to be effective, teachers must incorporate co-planning, coinstruction, and co-assessment. When all three areas are implemented with strategic
consideration for student learning, the benefits are unlimited. For the purpose of this research
paper, I will next address the research findings related to how co-teaching affects students with
disabilities academic progress in the elementary setting. Murawski and Swanson (2001) and
Scruggs, Masteropieri, and McDuffie (2007) agreed that co-teaching demonstrated a positive

WTS 1 and 2

page 14 of 27

effect on student achievement and that teachers, administrators, students, and parents perceive
co-teaching to be academically beneficial for both regular education students and special
education students (as cited in Walsh, 2012). Walsh (2012), pursued research that complimented
the results of the previous mentioned research studies. In his study, Walsh (2012) compared the
academic performance of students with disabilities in a co-taught classroom to students with
disabilities not in a co-taught classroom. These students were in grades 3 through 8 and the
study was conducted between the years of 2003 and 2009. The results indicated that the students
in the co-taught classroom increased proficiency in reading at twice the rate (22%) as did the
students not in the co-taught classroom (Walsh, 2012). In addition, students with disabilities in
the co-taught classroom closed the gap on standardized state tests from 31% to 9% in reading
proficiency and 34% to 12% in math proficiency (Walsh, 2012). These findings support the
benefits of co-teaching as the students made significant gains in both reading and math.
In a similar study completed by Strogilos and Stefanidis (2014), results complimented the
findings of the research listed above. This study focused on the learning progress of students
with disabilities in a co-taught classroom. Based upon the mean values, results indicated that coteaching had a positive influence on student academic progress. The mean value for academic
progress was 4.09 whereas the mean values were 4.03 and 3.97 for social participation and
behavior improvement, respectfully (Strogilos & Stefanidis, 2014). Within this study, Strogilos
and Stefanidis (2014) also presented a correlation matrix of the independent and dependent
variables. They found a positive correlation between student academic progress and student
participation and active involvement (Strogilos & Stefanidis, 2014). This suggests that it is very
important for teachers to engage students when teaching a lesson in order to increase academic
progress.

WTS 1 and 2

page 15 of 27

In accordance with the research findings above, another study completed by Scruggs,
Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) unveiled similar results. For example they found that coteaching was beneficial to students with and without disabilities as seen by student standardized
test scores and curriculum based assessments (Scruggs et al., 2007, p. 402). One common
attribute to the success of co-teaching was the additional attention that students received from
both teachers (Scruggs et al., 2007). This particular study added an extra component by
gathering student surveys to further investigate the effects of a co-teaching classroom. One
interview can be summarized in the following way, The students we interviewed felt as if their
academic and social needs were being met better than they had been in classes instructed by a
single teacher (Scruggs et al., 2007). Again, this study supports the academic benefits to coteaching.
From the research studies above, one could conclude that co-teaching has some great
benefits, however there are a few negative implications to co-teaching as well. For instance,
Scruggs et al., (2007) also reported that co-teaching classrooms were not able to effectively
deliver instruction on a consistent basis. The true form of collaboration, for the most part, had
not been met. Co-teachers should be focusing on curriculum needs, innovative practice, and
individualization of instruction (Scruggs et al., 2007). The general classroom instructional
practices (whole class lecture) have not changed to accommodate for a co-teaching model.
Teachers are still reverting back to the whole class structure even though there is another teacher
present in the classroom. Evidence shows that in a co-teaching classroom instructional
techniques such as small group interventions, hands-on activities, collecting data for assessment,
etc. are extremely beneficial and will increase academic performance (Scruggs et al., 2007). Coteaching classrooms have not made the necessary changes for the delivery of instruction to reach
its fullest potential.

WTS 1 and 2

page 16 of 27

Co-teaching is becoming a very common practice in the everyday classroom across the
nation. This model offers several different options for implementation including one teach, one
assist, team teaching, and station teaching. If all three options are included within the coteaching classroom, optimal learning opportunities are created for all students. Teachers that are
part of a co-teaching classroom also have other barriers to consider. They must collaborate
together to participate in the co-planning, co-instruction, and co-assessment process to help
ensure academic success in all students. Several different studies provided similar results about
co-teaching and the effect on student learning. Research has shown that students with disabilities
and students without disabilities make academic gains while in a co-teaching environment. This
is shown by standardized tests and curriculum based assessments. In addition, students with
disabilities perceive co-teaching to be valuable to them mostly due to the extra attention they
receive from having two teachers in the classroom. Along with all the benefits to co-teaching,
there are some negative implications as well. These include the implementation of instruction
within the co-teaching classroom. Several classrooms have not yet implemented effective
strategies to help promote academic progress. Both teachers must be involved in every aspect of
the learning process in order for optimal academic success among students with disabilities.
Overall, research has concluded that co-teaching has a positive effect on students with
disabilities and their academic growth. As this model continues to develop the academic success
among all students will continue to increase and all students will benefit from being part of a coteaching classroom.
Research Implications
My research question states, How does co-teaching affect academic growth in
elementary students with disabilities? After conducting and analyzing my research, there are
several new implications that can be addressed when providing instruction in a co-teaching

WTS 1 and 2

page 17 of 27

classroom. The research findings suggest that teachers need to be proficient in three areas: (a)
co-planning, (b) co-instruction, and (c) co-assessment in order to promote academic growth in
students with and without disabilities. In my previous co-teaching classroom, we were not able
to fully implement those three areas effectively. I want to make changes to our current process to
include all three areas and to include the suggestions made from research to make those areas
effective.
Research-based Action Plan
Action Plan Summary Outline
1. First, I will start with co-planning. The planning time will be 45 minutes, five days
per week of uninterrupted time with myself and my co-teacher. We will have an agenda,
timeline, and design lesson plans together. During this time we will also decide which model we
will use during which lessons (team teaching, station teaching, and/or one teach, one assist).
2. Next, we will implement the lesson plans and focus on co-instructing. Our goal will
be to follow the lesson plans as closely as possible. After the lesson is complete, we will take
time to assess ourselves and make necessary changes.
3. Finally, we will address co-assessment. This part is crucial in answering my research
question as it will be evidence of academic growth. The steps we need to consider during this
phase are assessing before the lesson, during the lesson, and after the lesson. It will be important
to determine which type of assessment we will use at each of the three points of assessment.
Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
1. Standardized goal: Each student will achieve their Individualized Education Program
(IEP) semester benchmark goals related to reading and mathematics by the end of the first
semester. Each students goals are derived from the State of Wisconsin Common Core
Standards and/or the Wisconsin Common Core Essential Elements.
2. Targeted learning objective: Each student will increase their reading level by one
whole level at the end of the first semester as measured by Fountas and Pinnell reading

WTS 1 and 2

page 18 of 27

assessment. Each student will earn an average of 80% on math assessments from quizzes and
unit tests.
Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Task: Students will participate in the general education curriculum during
math and reading. Each student will complete all reading and mathematics
activities to the best of their ability. According to their IEP, accommodations
and modifications will be provided throughout instruction.
2. Criteria that Prove Proficiency in Meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)
a. I will progress monitor students on a daily basis. Students must achieve
an 80% or better on all reading rubrics and all math assessments for that day to achieve
proficiency. Students who achieve between a 60% and 80% on rubrics and math
assessments will be somewhat proficient. Students who score below a 60% will be not
proficient.
b. According to their daily progress monitoring scores, students will be
placed into appropriate station groups. The students will participate in daily reading
groups to help achieve the specified goal; the student will participate in daily mathematics
groups to help achieve the specified goal. Attendance, participation, and completion data
will be taken to help guide further instruction.
c. Each student will participate in weekly running records and a monthly
reading assessment to ensure adequate progress. Adequate progress will be determined by
an increase in fluency, comprehension, and accuracy as scored by the Fountas and Pinelle
assessment rubric. Students will need to improve their scores by 25% each quarter in
order to be on track to increasing their reading skills by one level. In addition each

WTS 1 and 2

page 19 of 27

student will be participating in mathematics assessments according to the curriculum and

will include daily warm-ups/reviews, homework, quizzes, and tests. Students will need to
achieve an 80% or more to maintain and meet the end of the year goal. If students do not
earn an 80%, they will receive specialized instruction to ensure the learning target is met.
Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Pre-assessment: Students will participate in the whole class pre-assessments
before instruction begins. This could include admit tickets, whole class survey,
questions, KWL charts, etc. Each pre-assessment will have accommodations
and/or modifications according to each students IEP.
2. During instruction, students will be given the opportunity to practice the
particular reading and mathematics skill while working with partners, in whole
group, and independently. Assessment will be ongoing during this time.
3. After instruction, students will be given an independent assessment to identify
successful learning of the learning target.

Post-assessments
Instructional Insights Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
In my previous co-teaching classroom we were not able to effectively incorporate all
three areas of co-teaching to accelerate student learning. In fact, we lacked in many of the
suggestions that I found during my research. Due to this course taking place over the summer, I
will envision how the instruction would look when implemented according to my plan. Since we
will have a more structured approach, be more organized, and have a plan on how to assess
learning, I believe that our students will show an increase in achieving the learning targets. Our

WTS 1 and 2

page 20 of 27

instructional techniques will include a combination of team teaching, station teaching, and one
teach, one assist to ensure an environment where every student will learn. By incorporating all
three techniques and by following the suggestions of previous research studies, our students will
be able to meet their goals more effectively and efficiently. This will help our instruction
become more engaging, purposeful, and effective.
Comparison of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
I envision that our students will be exposed to a more cohesive and effective form of
instruction, therefore the students performance will increase on the targeted objectives. The
instruction is well thought out, there are more opportunities for engagement, students are able to
practice the learning objective in a variety of ways, and the students will have an opportunity to
receive more attention from both teachers throughout the learning session.
Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
The learning environment will be more student friendly and hopefully this will increase
student learning. I envision a more structured and purposeful learning environment where
confusion is minimal. It will be our job as teachers to effectively communicate together how our
new learning environment will work. I foresee my co-teacher and myself working in synch with
each other, creating smooth transitions from large group, to small group, to independent work
time. There will be more opportunities for student engagement and participation to help increase
student learning. I envision the classroom environment to be positive, purposeful, and effective.
Reflection of Entire Learning Process
How does co-teaching affect the learning of students with disabilities in an elementary
setting? This research question is a practical way to help improve my classroom environment
and academic success. Our district is moving towards a co-teaching environment where a
general education teacher and a special education teacher work collaboratively in one classroom
with a mixture of students with and without disabilities. My learning objectives is to reach every

WTS 1 and 2

page 21 of 27

students IEP benchmark goals by the end of the first semester in reading and math. Last year,
our co-teaching classroom was not very effective. We were missing several key components for
our classroom and instruction to be effective. After my research, I have realized that in order for
a co-teaching classroom to be effective there needs to be co-planning, co-instruction, and coassessing. These three areas need to be well thought-out and practiced on a daily basis. I have
gained a tremendous amount of insight on what a co-teaching classroom should look like. I now
realize that it requires a shared amount of responsibility from both teachers during all three areas.
This is crucial in developing and implementing a successful co-teaching classroom. To ensure
for future success, we need to be constantly assessing our co-planning, co-instructing, and coassessing strategies. If we are continually assessing our strategies, we will be able to provide the
best possible learning environment for our students.
What Worked and Why
1. I envision that our co-planning will work due to the agenda, timeline, and
uninterrupted planning time. This will ensure effective instruction.
2. I believe by planning our assessments ahead of time, we will set ourselves up for
improved academic learning. Our assessments will help guide instruction and therefore produce
greater goal achievement.
What Did Not Work and Why
1. I could see that our co-instruction will take some time to build an effective
implementation of instruction. We are used to the general education teacher providing
instruction and then the special education teacher taking a more supportive role. It will take a lot
of work to develop an effective co-instructional lesson.
2. I can foresee the uninterrupted planning time becoming interrupted after a couple of
weeks into the school year. We start off with being adamant on uninterrupted planning time,
however as the school year progresses this tends to deplete.
My Next Steps
1. Meet with my co-teacher and share all of this information with her.

WTS 1 and 2

page 22 of 27

2. We can look over the artifacts and goals to see where we can improve to make it more
useful for both of us.
3. Develop a plan for following the best strategies for co-teaching throughout the year.

References
Badiali, B., & Titus, N. E. (2010). Co-Teaching: Enhancing Student Learning through MentorIntern Partnerships. School-University Partnerships, 4(2), 74-80.
Conderman, G., & Hedin, L. (2012). Purposeful Assessment Practices for Co-Teachers.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(4), 18-27.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-15.
Gerber, P. J., & Popp, P. A. (1999). Consumer perspectives on the collaborative teaching model:
views of students with and without LD and their parents. Remedial & Special Education,
20(5), 288-296. doi:10.1177/074193259902000505
McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer
tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and studentteacher interactions. Exceptional children, 75(4), 493-510.
Ploessl, D. M., Rock, M. L., Schoenfeld, N., & Blanks, B. (2010). On the Same Page: Practical
Techniques to Enhance Co-Teaching Interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic,
45(3), 158-168.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-Teaching in Inclusive
Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research.Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392416.
Strogilos, V., & Stefanidis, A. (2015). Contextual antecedents of co-teaching efficacy: Their
influence on students with disabilities' learning progress, social participation and

WTS 1 and 2

page 23 of 27

behaviour improvement. Teaching & Teacher Education, 47218-229.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.008
Walsh, J. j. (2012). Co-Teaching as a School System Strategy for Continuous Improvement.
Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-36. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.555792

WTS 1 and 2

page 24 of 27

Artifact A
This artifact shows an example of a co-teaching lesson plan. This addresses key components for
successful implementation including: (a) identifying the co-teaching model, (b) general and
special education roles, (c) assessment, (d) student engagement, and (e) accommodations and
modifications.
Lesson Plan Format
Learning Target: I can identify the characters of a story.
Task to be completed

Co-teaching model

Pre-Assessment

One teach, one assist

General Education Teachers

Role

Read a story aloud to the

students

Special Education Teachers

Role
Ask student questions:
How many of you know
what a character is? (Use
thumbs up or thumbs down)
How many of you can name
a character? How about
another one? (use thumbs
up or down)

Mini Lesson

Team Teaching

Make a character chart

Make a character chart

using differentiation to
show two ways of
identifying characters

Guided Practice

Station Teaching

Work with Group one and

two

Work with group three and

four

Progress
Monitor/Conference with
students

Progress
Monitor/Conference with
students

Hand out exit ticket and

identify answers when
students are done with exit
ticket
General Education Teachers

Hand out exit ticket and

identify answers when
students are done with exit
ticket
Special Education Teachers

Role

Role

Engage students by
choosing a book they will
enjoy, ask questions, use
different voices while

Engage students by
modeling thinking while
reading, asking questions,
making connections

Independent work time

Post-Assessment

Team Teaching

Student Engagement

Co-teaching model

Instructional Strategies

Team Teaching

WTS 1 and 2

page 25 of 27

reading

Accommodations and
Modifications

Student A: needs graphic

organizer and preferred
seating
Student B: needs iPad,
headphones, and graphic
organizer
Student C: needs
Chromebook for typing
answers

Implement
accommodations to
students

Create and implement

accommodations and
modifications

Artifact B
Progress Monitoring Data Sheet
This artifact will be used on a daily basis to track student progress data. Each student
will have their own progress monitoring data sheet. This will be accessible for all teachers in the
classroom and will be used by the general and special education teacher. The progress
monitoring data sheet will ensure students are making adequate progress towards the
achievement of their goals.
Student Name:
Pre-assessment
(Y or N for completion)
Mini Lesson
(Y or N for completion)

Guided Practice
(Y or N for completion)

Independent Practice
(% of correct answers)

Post-Assessment
1= little to no
understanding (below
60%)
2= somewhat of an
understanding (between

Math

Reading

WTS 1 and 2

page 26 of 27

60% and 80%)

3= concept mastered
(80% or more)

Artifact C
Co-Teaching Checklist
The last artifact is a co-teaching checklist that I created to help ensure all proven
strategies are being addressed in each lesson. This will be used on a daily basis when planning
for instruction. The general education and special education teacher will complete this together
and reflect upon lesson plans after they have been implemented.
Area to Consider
Co-Planning: Before instruction begins we
Planned shared responsibilities?
Determined co-teaching model?
Discussed assessment procedures?
Identified IEP accommodations and modifications?
Co-Instructing: Before instruction we have..
Planned student engagement and participation activities?
Assessed any data to help guide instruction?
Reviewed lesson plans to ensure fluency?
Differentiated instruction?
Co-Assessing: After instruction we have..
Given appropriate assessments?

Yes/No

WTS 1 and 2
Differentiated assessments?
Assessed the data to guide further instruction?
Followed student IEP accommodations and modifications

page 27 of 27