480028

research-article2013

ISCXXX10.1177/1053451213480028Intervention in School and ClinicDieker and Rodriguez

Collaboration Forum
Kimberly Paulsen, Associate Editor
Intervention in School and Clinic 49(1) 4653
Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053451213480028
isc.sagepub.com

Enhancing Secondary Cotaught Science and

Mathematics Classrooms Through Collaboration
Lisa A. Dieker, PhD1 and Jacqueline A. Rodriguez, MA1

Abstract
Coteaching at all levels can be difficult, but coteaching at the secondary level in science and mathematics can create unique
challenges. This article provides examples of issues related to coteaching at the secondary level in theses critical content
areas. Various types of coteaching are presented, and how each type might be integrated into science and mathematics
classrooms is discussed. The article concludes with practical ideas and considerations for teachers, administrators, and
teacher educators related to coteaching in the areas of science and mathematics.
Keywords
collaboration, coteaching, general and special education, science, mathematics
The field of special education has had a long-standing tradition of including students with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment. Currently, students with mild to
moderate disabilities typically receive at least 80% of their
instruction in general education classrooms (American
Youth Policy Forum and Center on Education Policy, 2002;
U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Coteaching is one
way many schools ensure students with disabilities are
receiving their legally mandated services in the least restrictive environment while being given access to the same
highly qualified content teachers as their nondisabled peers.

There are five types of coteaching models typically

observed in secondary classrooms: (a) one leadone support, which involves one teacher leading while the other
teacher supports the lead teacher using various strategies
and evidence-based practices, (b) station teaching, which
1

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:
Lisa A. Dieker, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd.,
Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
Email: lisa.dieker@ucf.edu

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on September 30, 2016

47

Dieker and Rodriguez

involves dividing the content and providing instruction in
station settings with each teacher leading a station, (c) alternative teaching, which involves dividing the class into one
small group and one large group using the small group for
reteaching, preteaching, or reinforcement, (d) parallel
teaching, which involves teaching the same content but in
two smaller groups, with each teacher facilitating the entire
lesson component to his or her group, and (e) team teaching, which requires both teachers share instruction having
equal voice, presence, and roles within the entire lesson
(Cook & Friend, 1995).
Coteaching can be an effective support for students with
hearing impairments (Luckner, 1999), learning disabilities
(Rice & Zigmond, 1999; Weichel, 2001; Welch, 2000), gifts
and talents (Hughes & Murawski, 2001), and English language learners (Bahamonde & Friend, 1999). Also, the success of students with disabilities in coteaching environments
has been documented in the content areas of language
(Miller, Valasky, & Molloy, 1998), social studies (Dieker,
1998), and English (Murawski, 2006).
Furthermore, when students with disabilities are included
in advanced courses, they typically struggle and have little
success. For example, they demonstrate a prominence in
language-based processing deficits (Burgstahler, Crawford,
& Acosta, 2001; Maccini & Hughes, 2000). Since science
classes have a great deal of content specific language, secondary students with disabilities can be at a disadvantage
(Parmar, Deluca, & Janczak, 1994).
Maccini and Hughes (2000) discussed the challenges
students with disabilities face in mathematics, including
experiencing considerable difficulty with the prerequisite
skills, having lower enrollment in advanced mathematics
classes, and experiencing a lack of opportunities beyond
high school. Research also suggests that teachers may have
difficulty isolating the challenges faced by students with
disabilities in mathematics, specifically algebra.
In a metasynthesis of coteaching conducted by Scruggs,
Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007), four major themes were
identified:
1. Administrators, teachers, and students perceive
coteaching as being beneficial for all students.
2. Conditions necessary for successful coteaching,
including sufficient planning time and compatibility
of coteachers.
3. The one leadone support model of coteaching is
most often implemented, with the special educator
often in a subordinate role.
4. There is a predominate use of teacher-led instruction, leading to a lack of student individualization,
causing the special educator to act as an assistant.
Zigmond and Matta (2004) as well as Weiss and
Lloyd (2002) also found that coteachers, specifically in mathematics, typically took the role of an
instructional aide in secondary classrooms.

Coteaching can provide teachers and students with

numerous benefits, as documented in the literature
(Morocco & Aguilar, 2002; Weiss & Brigham, 2000; Weiss
& Lloyd, 2002). These benefits include helping teachers
learn from one another and respect their different frames of
reference, sharing ideas for planning, instructing, and
assessing, and giving students the opportunity to have two
adults support their engagement and learning in the classroom (Friend & Cook, 2007). However, the amount of
research about benefits specifically at the secondary level
is limited. From a practical perspective, coteaching allows
teachers to engage in ongoing, lifelong learning by sharing
knowledge across expertise in content and pedagogy. Many
secondary general education teachers provide content
skills to special education teachers who may or may not
have content backgrounds, specifically in science or mathematics. Likewise, special education teachers often provide the general education teacher with pedagogical
information on differentiation within the content areas as
well as behavior management, strategy instruction, and
student engagement techniques.
In strong cotaught classrooms, special education teachers support students by ensuring vocabulary is grounded in
ways that students are successful, texts are provided in
alternative formats, exams are modified, and inquiry-based
instruction is balanced with explicit instruction of major
concepts. In addition, the special education teacher does not
try to restate or reiterate what is already being provided by
the general education teacher but instead is the one who
enhances the content by providing differentiation to instruction or classroom management to meet students academic
or social and emotional needs for success. In addition,
coteaching allows both teachers to work with a smaller student-to-teacher ratio within the general education setting,
which affords students the advantage of hearing two perspectives and provides students with two teachers to assist
them in moving the lesson forward.
What special educators often lack is the content expertise required to provide effective supports for students with
disabilities who typically struggle with understanding content specific vocabulary and engaging in higher order analysis, both of which are necessary elements of advanced
science and mathematics courses. Although rates of
inclusion for students with disabilities have risen (U.S.
Department of Education, 2006), students with disabilities
are still being excluded from higher-level science and mathematics courses (Lamb, Hodges, Brown, & Foy, 2004).
Furthermore, when students with disabilities are included in
advanced courses, they typically struggle and are not successful. Maccini and Hughes (2000) discussed the challenges students with disabilities face in mathematics,
including experiencing considerable difficulty with the prerequisite skills, having lower enrollment in advanced mathematics classes, and experiencing a lack of opportunities
beyond high school.

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on September 30, 2016

48

Intervention in School and Clinic 49(1)

The product of this lack of success in science and mathematics content areas is reflected in the limited success of students with disabilities in careers requiring higher-level science
and mathematics (Office of Disability Employment Policy,
2001). However, encouraging special education teachers to
work collaboratively with general education teachers at the
secondary level could increase the chances for improved outcomes for students with disabilities in these areas.
This article provides a summary of reports gathered from
visits to more than 80 schools to identify the role of the
special education teacher in secondary science and mathematics classrooms (Dieker, 2011). Four themes emerged in
relation to the role of the secondary special education
teacher working in the content areas of science and mathematics: coteaching, facilitative support, student engagement, and planning. The following sections provide
practical implementation suggestions, centered on these
four themes, for special education and general education
teachers associated with secondary coteaching in science
and mathematics classrooms.

Practical Ideas
Coteaching models are dependent on two main factors: the
content area and the collaborative nature of the teachers. In
science and mathematics classrooms, how teachers worked
together varied, but typically the five models of coteaching
were present. Specific examples of how these models can
be implemented in secondary science and mathematics
courses are described in Figure 1.

One TeachOne Support

The one teachone support model is most often implemented with the special educator working one-on-one with
students to reteach or reinforce a concept while the general
education teacher is reviewing a concept or while students
are engaged in more independent practice. In the support
role, the special education teacher often provides either
individualized behavioral charts for students or at times
takes on the role of monitoring the behavior of the entire
class to ensure fewer interruptions and allow more time for
content instruction. Most often the special education teacher
in the support role is instructing students more in soft skill
types of tasks such as missing homework, writing in planners, dealing with peer conflicts, or missing materials. This
instruction often occurs via comments as lesson instruction
is occurring or in individual conferences with students
when needed. Special education teachers take on this support role for three reasons: (a) limited content knowledge to
contribute, (b) the teams are new and have limited time to
plan for a different role, or (c) the needs of the students with
disabilities are so severe that the special education teacher
needs more flexibility to deal with the extreme behaviors
presented. Something to consider in practice is what are the

specific strategies and techniques that students with disabilities would be provided in a self-contained or resource
setting and if those same strategies are being used in the
science or mathematics classroom. For example, often students in science need vocabulary and reading instruction to
master the content of textbooks and higher level concepts,
whereas in mathematics they might need more foundational
skills. The special educator should consider how he or she
is offering value added to the general education setting in
these critical content areas. No matter the model, the special
educator should not be in the role of observing but actually
adding to the classroom environment.

Station Teaching
In the station teaching model, one group of students is
engaged in learning the content via direct instruction from
one teacher while the other group is engaged in a practice or
reteaching activity related to the content learned the day
before with the second teacher. A third station includes students working independently on a task that is monitored by
one of the two teachers. By placing students in smaller
groups, when time allows, teachers can more effectively
individualize the feedback given to students. Other examples of stations led by the special education teacher who
may lack content expertise are to provide vocabulary lessons grounded in real-world applications, adding visual and
kinesthetic models (acting words out) for key terms, and
using graphic organizers to capture the previous lesson or
the lesson taught that day.
Special education teachers working in these content areas
might also consider using the station model to implement
tools and strategies they might provide in a more restrictive
setting in the content areas (e.g., graphic organizers, teaching vocabulary, reading text aloud, using assistive technology) or consider how this model might be used to address
various learning styles. This model of coteaching can be a
great way for the general and special education teachers to
capitalize on their strongest teaching assets in a station to
enhance the learning of all students, hence providing a way
to address any content area limitations in science or mathematics. For example, one teacher might work with solving
word problems while the other teacher examines the numeracy behind mathematics, or one teacher might work with the
language and understanding of concepts while the other
teacher manages the students in the lab. The more coteachers
apply their strengths in discreet learning settings, the better
the opportunity to maximize student learning and the use of
both professionals in these content areas.

Parallel Teaching
Parallel teaching is implemented infrequently in science and
mathematics classrooms because of the lack of planning time
and content knowledge to implement parallel teaching

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on September 30, 2016

49

Dieker and Rodriguez

Co-Teaching Models

Unique consideration for secondary level Science and Mathematics

One Lead, One Support

The One Lead, One Support model is often used at the secondary level in science
or mathematics since teachers content skills often differ. This model allows the
special education teacher to provide strategy support and content enrichment
as well as to work on individual academic and behavioral concerns within the
classroom.

Station Teaching

When using Station Teaching in science or mathematics classrooms, use three

stations. The first two are set up like you see in parallel teaching, but the
difference is that both teachers are either doing different parts of the lesson or
different types of activities. This type you need less planning as the individual
styles and content levels of the teachers can be used to lead his or her station.
It is recommended the teachers face each other and students have their backs
to each group. Notice in the diagram there is a 3rd, independent station where
students are working independent of teacher direction. However, the third station
is positioned in the middle so both teachers can see this station. If there is a
student with severe behavior challenges, teachers should talk to one another
before hand to decide if that student should move to the independent station or
possibly be a leader during a second rotation at a station with a teacher present.

Parallel Teaching

The Parallel Teaching model is powerful and very effective when both teachers are
equally comfortable in teaching science or mathematics concepts. Teachers using
this model must also believe in the same type of instructional methods or routines.
As seen in this figure, the best option for parallel teaching is in using 2 separate
rooms, but due to space limitations that is often not an option. If using one room,
then make sure both teachers face each other and have students turn their back
to each group to decrease distractions.

Alternative Teaching

In the Alternative Teaching model Teacher A is working on whole group instruction

and Teacher B often is working with a group doing homework remediation or
the warm-up activity. Teacher B might use this model to pre-teach science or
mathematics related concepts. In this model students who are struggling are not
trying to catch up at the end of each day but are given advanced knowledge to
move forward in the process.

Team Teaching

The Team Teaching model is a united lesson with equality in content knowledge,
presentation, and differentiation. This type of co-teaching can be harder to
achieve at the secondary level and even more difficult in science or mathematics
areas with higher-level content. The team teaching model typically emerges in
teachers 2nd or 3rd year together, although it can emerge sooner when the
special education teacher has equal content knowledge and the general education
teacher has a strong background in special education.

Figure 1. Coteaching models for secondary science and mathematics teachers.

This figure illustrates the various coteaching models and considerations for their use in secondary science and mathematics classrooms.

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on September 30, 2016

50

Intervention in School and Clinic 49(1)

effectively. However, when coteachers are well planned and

equally confident in the content, creative uses of this model
support individualized teaching to homogeneous groups. For
example, parallel teaching can be used to teach to different
types of learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory). Furthermore,
this is an ideal model to use when the success of the lesson or
the students requires increased participation, as with a smaller
group of students there are increased opportunities to respond
and to engage in higher order thinking. Consider that the
need exists to potentially divide and conquer either content or
behavior by placing students in smaller groups. Also keep in
mind that student participation typically increases with
smaller groups, so if it is a complex or controversial topic in
science (e.g., evolution) or in mathematics (e.g., long division), putting students in smaller, inherently less threatening
environments may increase learning gains.
Station teaching and parallel teaching are effective in lab
environments or when manipulatives are utilized to allow
for more hands-on learning. Parallel teaching is successful
when both teachers are strong in the content area. In contrast, when using the station teaching model, each teacher
could have a different aspect of the content. For example,
one teacher could discuss Newtons first law, the other
teacher then discusses Newtons second law, and students at
the independent station can be working on Newtons third
law. From these observations, coteachers at the secondary
level should discuss their individual strengths when considering the various models of coteaching to respect potential
differences in content background.
Teams use alternative teaching for students who are
advanced in their knowledge and need enrichment or, alternatively, students who are failing and need more remediation to
be successful in the classroom. In math, the special education
teacher provides minilessons in the small group to enhance
their knowledge of a concept before instruction, while the
general education teacher provides a review or works with
students in more of an independent learning activity. As in all
coteaching models, this type of alternative model requires
both teachers to have a clear role while accounting for differences in content background. For example, teachers could
select to do more remediation or enrichment depending on
their content expertise. In addition, the needs of the students in
these content areas might also drive the model. What is important to remember is that teachers provide remediation for
foundational skills in mathematics more often than in science.
For example, vocabulary concepts and higher-level background knowledge are less often reviewed and assessed in science as in mathematics. Keep this model in mind if there is a
need to enrich or fill in gaps in either content area.

Team Teaching
The model least implemented, especially in teams in the
first 2 years of working together, is team teaching. When

this model is implemented, both teachers are equal coaches

to students in cooperative groups or lab activities, asking
higher-level questions and providing equal insight into
mastering the key concept for the day. As students move to
practice activities, both teachers work with all students to
ask and answer questions equal amounts of the time. This
type of coteaching is not necessarily better than other
models, but when implemented effectively, teacher talk
should decrease and student engagement increase. In this
type of model, both teachers should be asking higher-level
questions of students in cooperative groups and using their
specific expertise to facilitate student learning in the content. This model should be used to create reasoning and
sense making of students at the secondary level. There
may be circumstances when students with mild disabilities
may not need two teachers in a class together. Rather, the
more effective environment may be indirect service delivery models.

Facilitative Support
Facilitative support is a model that moves away from
coteaching but is often observed in secondary schools. This
model has nuances of the consultation model but is more
structured and ongoing to provide general education teachers with support in coplanning, coinstructing, or coassessing. In this role, the special education teacher rotates time
among many classes in an effort to provide direct support to
the teacher as needed in targeted areas. This model provides
indirect support to students via the general education teacher
and is typically used for classes of students with milder
disabilities.
In the facilitative support role (Dieker, Macinni,
Strickland, & Hunt, 2011), the special education teachers
target academic areas of concern in science or mathematics,
including foundational skills, vocabulary, and higher-level
thinking, which might be addressed during coplanning,
coinstructing, or coassessing with their general education
counterpart. Implementing facilitative support via coplanning includes incorporating strategies like the use of Quizlet
cards (quizlet.com) related to key vocabulary in the content
area, providing premade graphic organizers, locating
Teacher Tube or Kahn Academy videos, and ensuring any
assistive technology that could be used is ready for access by
students with disabilities. Through coinstructing, the special
education teacher may spend short amounts of time in the
classroom leading some aspects of the instruction such as
note taking or completing graphic organizers. Through
coassessing, special education teachers may modify tests or
materials and look for common error patterns for students
with disabilities. As noted, this model is not intended for the
teachers to be equal facilitators; rather, the special education
teacher is in a role similar to that of an academic and behavioral specialist, leaving the general education teacher with

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on September 30, 2016

51

Dieker and Rodriguez

ideas to be addressed when the special education teacher is
not present. Much like the consultation model, the facilitative support model is a more structured approach to equal
and ongoing ownership of students success in the general
education setting by providing the general educator with
strategies that support students with disabilities.
Special education teachers may complete the following
activities in the facilitative model.
1. Planningreviewing lesson objectives and breaking down specific skills students needed for mastery
of a concept (e.g., each stage of the cell process),
finding multimodal materials that support lesson
objectives for upcoming weeks, and finding materials to support the lesson (e.g., graphic organizers,
mnemonic devices).
2. Instructingpreteaching a difficult concept or a
missing prerequisite skill to a student, monitoring
behavior while the teacher provides content instruction, providing content instruction so the general
education teacher can observe interactions and
behaviors, and adding visual aids and other supports
to the lesson.
3. Assessingrewriting the assessment, modifying
questions and responses, providing examples and
tools of other ways to assess, locating assistive technology, analyzing missing questions on past exams,
and creating study guides for students.
This list is not comprehensive; rather, it highlights an array
of ideas as to what support the special education teacher can
provide to the general education teacher in a facilitative
support model.
This model requires less planning time and more of a
direct response to the needs of the teacher each time facilitative support occurs. In contrast, when there is actual coteaching, planning together is critical to the success of the
relationship.

Planning
Appropriate and purposeful implementation of all models
of collaboration is necessary for student achievement. The
lack of dedicated time for collaboration presents a challenge especially for coteachers. Effective coplanners collaborate on the big ideas related to lesson objectives and
discuss how to ground those ideas in the various models of
coteaching.
A creative way of planning may include providing time
once a month (e.g., a half day of substitute time or pay) to
create a long-range plan for working together. Other teams
may find time or may be provided blocked planning time.
The use of technology can also assist with planning. For
example, some teams share themes of the lesson through

text messaging or use Googles online collaboration tools to

share lesson plans.
Teams strong in planning can focus on what students
need to learn and which model will best support students
needs. Teams should focus their time addressing the lessons
and not other items that can distract them. A universal theme
of teams strong in planning is reflection on the part of both
teachers of their strengths and weaknesses in content area,
management of behaviors, and strategy instruction. Once
each teachers strengths are identified, teams can more
effectively choose the model of instruction and the method
of instruction ensuring that housekeeping items such as
grading, parent calls home, bathroom passes, and other
details do not get in the way of their planning time.
A practical tip for successful coteaching at the secondary
level is to check your ego at the door. Remember that in
the primary grades it may be easier to be equal in the content as the content may be less rigorous. However, in the
advanced content areas of science and mathematics, specifically at the secondary level, the content becomes more
focused and specific, and general educators are experts in
one content area. The point of putting a second teacher in
the classroom is not for equality of content expertise but
rather for differentiation. The use of any coteaching model
should not increase the amount of teacher talk but instead
allow for greater opportunity to support student talk, especially through the teachers own work products. The outcome should be bell-to-bell engagement of students
resulting from two teachers being able to address academic
and behavioral concerns that typically trigger disengagement of students.

Engaging Both Teachers in Cotaught

Classrooms
Regardless of the model implemented, strong cotaught
classrooms engage students with their peers through cooperative learning activities, labs, and higher levels of engagement through activities such as the use of interactive
whiteboards, dry erase boards, peer tutoring, calculators,
computer programs, literature circles, and a variety of active
learning techniques. This type of hands-on classroom coupled with the increased levels of engagement may be easier
to create with two teachers being available to facilitate the
learning of content and continued engagement. In addition,
special education teachers often have a stronger presence in
these more active classrooms. Creating a classroom that
allows for high rates of student responses can provide a
venue to better utilize the skills of both teachers. Coteaching
in these highly interactive environments allows special education and general education teachers to provide noninvasive support for students who require additional assistance.
Technology also increases student engagement. Students
of this generation have a high level of competency to use

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on September 30, 2016

52

Intervention in School and Clinic 49(1)

numerous technologies to provide support in the general

education setting (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010), while
at the same time students with disabilities can leverage
these tools to help level the playing field with their nondisabled peers. Commonly used tools in the classrooms
include text-to-speech books and ebooks via the National
Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard, which
requires all textbooks (including science and mathematics
books) to come in electronic format, online simulations
and experiments, and unique tools to share students ideas
(e.g., Webspiration, Blabberize, YouTube videos, and Flip
cameras). A common misunderstanding in many classrooms is the focus on teacher control of the tools (e.g., the
use of a whiteboard or computer), but when students with
and without disabilities are driving the use of the tools,
they are also at the center of learning. Furthermore, in
classrooms with students directing the use of technology
for themselves, both the general and special education
teachers have strong equality in their roles. Using models
such as station teaching allows for all students to use technology perhaps in one station if technology is limited.
Coteachers should consider how websites could be used to
preteach concepts. For example, employing the teamteaching model with the use of technology allows one person to facilitate the technology while the other facilitates
the standard content, or in one leadone support model the
lead teacher provides the instruction and the support
teacher provides supplements via various technologies.
Too often teachers view teaching with technology as a
means of using online videos or photos from various sources
to enrich a concept. Instead, coteaching teams must think of
ways one teacher can provide students with hands-on use of
the technology that enhances the instruction provided by
the second teacher. For example, coteachers might use a station model in which the general education teacher provides
rich discussion with students on the science concepts (e.g.,
small groups of five students for 15 minutes each) while the
special educator monitors three additional stations where
students are watching a DVD supplement of the science
book with headphones, another using iPads to look up
images on the web related to key vocabulary, and the last
group using a digital camera to make a 2-minute clip of a
miniplay of the content they had read to that point as a team.
The level of engagement in this scenario is an example
where both the teachers and the students are 100% engaged
in a rich learning experience. The goals in using technology
within a coteaching model are to enrich content, to provide
remediation by individualizing and differentiating the
instruction, and to compensate for deficient areas that are
related to access or understanding of concepts. Higher levels of student engagement through the use of appropriate
technology can make it possible and in some cases simpler
when using coteaching models that encourage two teachers
to be present.

Just like any type of instruction, challenges may occur

when coteaching in science or mathematics. However,
understanding the roles of both teachers while ensuring
greater student learning outcomes is the true measure of
effective coteaching. When teachers understand their
strengths, focus on planning effective lessons based on high
academic and behavioral standards, utilize various types of
coteaching to meeting students needs, and empower the
expertise of both teachers, the outcome is positive for both
teachers and students in science and mathematics.

Conclusion
For teachers, whether general or special education, students
having access to science and mathematics with a focus on
reasoning and sense making is a recommendation of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM,
2009) and the National Science Teachers Association and is
critical for advanced careers. As part of reasoning, sense
making, and higher-level thinking in science and mathematics, language components must be addressed. In addition,
teachers talk needs to be reduced so they can hear students
explanations and understanding or lack of understanding of
science and mathematics concepts. This level of talk and
synergy can be created in advanced science and mathematics classrooms when behaviors are addressed, students are
working in a collaborative environment, and they have
access to adequate supports.
For special education teachers, expertise in science and
mathematics content is imperative if students with disabilities
are going to have access to advanced careers. Special education teachers at the secondary level may need to become content specialists to ensure they are ready to work with teachers
in these content areas. And teachers may need more preparation in how to differentiate and prepare engaging activities for
students with disabilities in inclusive science and mathematics settings. The coteaching model can harness the power of
using reasoning and sense making (NCTM, 2009) and should
be at the core of instruction for all students.
Coteaching in secondary science and mathematics
classrooms supports students with disabilities through
multiple perspectives and diverse routines and can double
the interaction of teachers with students in the classroom.
Coteaching can take many shapes. When deciding what
model of coteaching to implement, general and special education teachers should consider the content knowledge of
each teacher, the space and arrangement of the classroom,
and the diverse needs of the students in the classroom. Some
models of coteaching may not dictate an even distribution of
the instructional time; however, these models may be more
appropriate than an equally distributed instructional time
model when considering the student population and the level
of support required for the students to be successful in the
classroom.

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on September 30, 2016

53

Dieker and Rodriguez

Coteaching in secondary science and mathematics classrooms can no longer be a catchphrase or a sound bite heard
during faculty meetings, during district professional development, or in federal legislation. For students with disabilities to gain equal access to 21st-century skills and advanced
content knowledge, special education supports including
technology must be integrated. Cotaught classroom should
be designed such that students with disabilities are not distracted by the type of tool or model of support provided but
instead understand how to capitalize on the existence of two
teachers prepared to support their learning. Students with
disabilities can be successful in science and mathematics
content areas as long as general and special educators continue to provide appropriate teaching supports that empower
students to ensure their own success.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
American Youth Policy Forum and Center on Education Policy.
(2002). Twenty-five years of educating children with disabilities: The good news and the work ahead. Washington, DC:
Author.
Bahamonde, C., & Friend, M. (1999). Teaching English language
learners: A proposal for effective service delivery through
collaboration and co-teaching. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 10(1), 124.
Burgstahler, S., Crawford, L., & Acosta, J. (2001). Transition
from two-year to four-year institutions for students with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21(1), 2538.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. P. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for
creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children,
28(3), 116.
Dieker, L. A. (1998). Rationale for coteaching. Social Studies
Review, 37(2), 6265.
Dieker, L. A. (2011). Summaries of visits to secondary inclusive
classrooms. Unpublished manuscript.
Dieker, L. A., Macinni, P., Strickland, T., & Hunt, J. (2011).
Minimizing the weaknesses and maximizing the strengths
of students with disabilities through reasoning and sensemaking. In M. Strutchen & H. Kepner (Eds.), Focus on
high school students: Making mathematical reasoning and
sense making a reality for all (pp. 3558). Washington, DC:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills
for school professionals (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hughes, C. E., & Murawski, W. W. (2001). Lessons from another
field: Applying coteaching strategies to gifted education.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 195204.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010). Media in the lives of 8 to 18

year olds. Menlo Park, CA: Author.
Lamb, P., Hodges, B., Brown, M., & Foy, D. (2004). Motivating
youth with disabilities to learn in the science classroom: A
guide for educators. Research to Practice Brief, 3(3), 14.
Luckner, J. (1999). An examination of the two co-teaching classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 144(1), 2434.
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving
strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 15(1), 1021.
Miller, A., Valasky, W., & Molloy, P. (1998). Learning together:
The evolution of an inclusive class. Active Learner, 3(2), 1416.
Morocco, C. C., & Aguilar, C. M. (2002). Coteaching for content
understanding: A school-wide model. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), 315347.
Murawski, W. W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How can we improve? Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 22(3), 227247.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Focus in
high school mathematics: Mathematics reasoning and sense
making. Reston, VA: Author.
Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2001, November).
Improving the availability of community-based services for
people with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
Parmar, R. S., Deluca, C. B., & Janczak, T. M. (1994). Investigations
into the relationship between science and language abilities of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 15(2), 117126.
Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (1999). Co-teaching in secondary schools:
Teacher reports of developments in Australia and American
classrooms. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED432558)
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching
in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative
research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392416.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-seventh annual
report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from http://www.
ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2006/index.html
Weichel, W. A. (2001). An analysis of student outcomes on co-taught
settings in comparison to other special education service delivery options for students with learning disabilities. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 62(07), 2386. (UMI No. 3021407)
Weiss, M. P., & Brigham, F. J. (2000). Co-teaching and the model
of shared responsibility: What does the research support? In
T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Educational interventions
(pp. 217246). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. W. (2002). Congruence between roles
and actions of secondary special educators in co-taught and
special education settings. Journal of Special Education,
36(2), 5868.
Welch, M. (2000). Descriptive analysis of team teaching in two
elementary classrooms: A formative experimental approach.
Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 366376.
Zigmond, N., & Matta, D. (2004). Value added of the special education teacher in secondary school co-taught classes. In T. E.
Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning
and behavioral disabilities (pp. 5576). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV on September 30, 2016