Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Running head: ARTICLE REVIEW

Co-teaching Perspectives Article Review



Co-teaching Perspectives Article Review

In a well-structured and highly researched paper, an educator Margaret King-Sear and her
colleagues takes us through the various perception of both students and teachers of a high school
co-teaching team. The study that was meant to ascertain the level of activeness and parity of coteachers during science instruction sought to triangulate data obtained from multiple point
baseline surveys with a primary goal of establishing how student-teacher perceptions differed
across the board. To facilitate this research, an Earth Science co-teaching team was invited from
South Atlantic region of America to participate in the study. Students with disabilities in their
supposed science class were also asked to participate the study with other selected school-based
teachers acting as observers.
Various methods such as live video recordings, direct observations and structured surveys
were used to gather data for analysis. The observational analyses were intentionally confined to
the two co-teachers interactions and their roles while presenting new content. The co-teachers
were also involved actively in the process of data collection by being allowed to control the
recording devices and hence, what was being collected for analysis. Further, for both student and
teacher responses to survey questions, reliability and content validity testing was conducted
before the outcomes, mostly on a 4-point Likert scale were used to draw conclusions.
The result of this investigation indicated that science educator spent more time as the
primary leading interaction-and-content deliverer than the special educator. While the data
collected suggested that both teachers were consistently visible near the front of the classroom,
the science educator was the one mostly presenting content, responding to questions and
performing non-interactional instructional duties. Finally, most students were of the opinion that
the science educator was more in charge, but that both teachers could be equally called upon for


assistance when one is stuck. They also enjoyed classes taught by co-teacher as compared to
The results of this study are consistent with the vast literature on co-teaching perspective
whereby, there is a considerable deviation in the students and teachers observations (Austin,
2001). While most students see the regular educators like the ones more responsible for planning,
content delivery and grading, the two co-teachers held different views. Regular teachers believe
that both co-teachers share equal responsibilities whereas individual educators see their
counterparts as superiors. This disparity in perception calls for administrative vigilance and
support in ensuring roles are shared equality and that instructions are diversified. The special
educators are also encouraged to assert that their positions are also of equal value, and the
science teachers urged to accept that they do not always have to take the leading role (Austin,
Co-teaching is very essential, especially for students with milder disabilities as a
transitional strategy to mainstream classes. Two or more teachers delivering instructions to a
group of students at the same time and in the same physical space are more likely than one to
address various independent students needs (Austin, 2001). For this method to be useful, though,
there has to be a perfect understanding and role sharing between the two co-teachers to avoid any
of them assuming a secondary role. The study by King-Sear and colleagues clearly illustrates this
and its recommendation can easily be simulated in a similar set-up to improve the quality of coteaching.


King-Sears, M. E., Brawand, A. E., Jenkins, M. C., & Preston-Smith, S. (2014). Co-teaching
perspectives from high school science co-teachers and their students with disabilities.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(6), 651-680.
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and special education, 22(4),