CO-TEACHING AND STUDENTS WITH EBD
Co-Teaching and Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Kimberly A. McDuffie, Clemson University
Timothy J. Landrum, University of Virginia
Jennifer A. Gelman, Marymount University
I
n the past decade, increased
emphasis on academic instruction
for students with emotional and
behavioral disorders (EBD) has
replaced the misguided notion that
teachers must focus exclusively or
primarily on behavior problems
before they can effectively teach
students with EBD. Numerous
scholars have noted that academic
instruction should be the first line of
defense in dealing with the
prevention, amelioration, and
treatment of EBD (Kauffman, 2003;
Lane, Barton-Arwood, Rogers, &
Robertson, 2007). At minimum, we
would argue that effective instruction
must go hand in hand with sound
principles of classroom and behavior
management if students with EBD are
to experience success in school. In the
absence of sound academic
instruction, the most effective
behavior management systems in the
world will do little to prepare
students for school or later-life
success.
Although the shift to an academic
focus represents a positive step, it is
important to examine the contexts in
which students with EBD receive
instruction. Historically, students
with EBD have been educated in
more restrictive settings than
students with other disabilities
(Kauffman & Landrum, 2006). Even
as the inclusion movement set the
stage for more students with
disabilities to spend more time in
regular education environments with
their peers without disabilities,
students with EBD continued to lag
behind in terms of inclusion in
general education classrooms
(Kauffman, 2005). Currently, students
with EBD are more likely than ever to
spend time in general education
classrooms. This includes greater
participation in academic classes as
students are increasingly afforded
access to the general curriculum.
A number of strategies have been
proposed to enhance the participation
and success of students with
disabilities in regular classes. These
range from specific academic
interventions (e.g., mnemonic
strategies, graphic organizers,
comprehension monitoring
strategies) to broader instructional or
teaching arrangements (e.g.,
cooperative learning, peer tutoring,
direct instruction). With a push
toward inclusion and access to the
general curriculum, driven in part by
No Child Left Behind requirements
and concerns about schools making
adequate yearly progress across all
subgroups of children, one strategy
that is increasingly implemented in
schools is co-teaching (Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).
Co-teaching generally refers to
any arrangement in which a special
education teacher and general
education teacher work together in
the same physical environment to
provide instruction to a group that
includes students with and without
disabilities. A number of different
models of co-teaching have been
proposed (e.g., one lead, one support;
station teaching; team teaching).
Researchers are beginning to explore
the impact of co-teaching
arrangements on a broad array of
student outcomes (e.g., Murawski,
2006; Scruggs et al., 2007). Although
this represents a relatively new area
of research, preliminary evidence
suggests that co-teaching may have
positive effects in a number of ways
(Austin, 2001; Dieker, 2001; D. Rice &
Zigmond, 2000; Walther-Thomas, 1997).
Within the small but growing
body of research on co-teaching, scant
attention has been paid to students
with EBD, making it difficult to draw
meaningful conclusions about the
potential impact of this type of
teaching arrangement on outcomes
for this population. Indeed, research
on specific interventions with
students formally identified as
having EBD is not readily available
across all potential interventions and
teaching practices from which
educators must choose. In light of
this, Landrum, Tankersley, and
Kauffman (2006) suggested that a
useful approach may be to delineate
specific targets for intervention based
on some generalizations about the
behavior and learning needs of
students with EBD and then to
evaluate interventions relative to
their potential to produce positive
change in these targets. Based on this
model, we will evaluate the potential
impact of co-teaching on outcomes
for students with EBD.
Because co-teaching is
increasingly used in schools as one
mechanism for including students
with disabilities in regular academic
classes, and because students with
EBD are among those students more
and more likely to be included in
these classes, it is important to
consider what the existing research
base offers as guidance to teachers. It
is also essential to encourage more
targeted research on the effects of this
teaching arrangement on the
performance and outcomes for
students with EBD. In this article, we
(a) provide a brief overview of the
learning and behavioral
characteristics of students with EBD
with an emphasis on specific targets
for intervention, (b) define co-
W INTER 2 0 0 8 11

teaching and highlight the perceived
benefits of co-teaching arrangements
for students with disabilities, and (c)
discuss the practical implications of
co-teaching arrangements for
students with EBD given their unique
learning and behavioral needs.
Characteristics of Students
With EBD
Landrum et al. (2006) described
the social and academic difficulties
that typically characterize students
with EBD as falling into three
categories: inappropriate behavior,
academic learning problems, and
unsatisfactory interpersonal
relationships. Inappropriate behavior
usually involves both behavioral
excesses (e.g., aggression or
disruptive behavior) and behavioral
deficits (e.g., social withdrawal or
noncompliance). Teachers must be
able to manage students’ negative
behavior and deal with disruptions in
the classroom as well as teach and
reinforce prosocial behavior.
Academic learning problems that are
typical of this population include
achievement deficits, attentional
problems, and difficulty with
academic engagement. Students with
EBD therefore not only tend to lag
behind peers without disabilities in
academic achievement (Kauffman,
2005) but also often lack the
academic-related skills that are
probably necessary to help them
catch up. These include attending to
task, responding appropriately in
academic settings, retaining
information, and applying what they
have learned in appropriate contexts.
As with other behavioral deficits,
these academic-related skills must be
directly taught.
Finally, difficulty establishing
and maintaining appropriate
interpersonal relationships with peers
and adults is a defining characteristic
of EBD (Kauffman, 2005). Students
with EBD are notorious for their
inability to get along with both peers
and teachers. Thus, social skills
instruction is a necessary component
12 B E Y O N D B E H A V I O R
CO-TEACHING AND STUDENTS WITH EBD
of intervention for virtually all
students with EBD. Although reviews
of social skills instruction often paint
a bleak picture of the effectiveness of
social skills training (e.g., Forness,
Kavale, Blum & Lloyd, 1997; Lloyd,
Forness & Kavale, 1998), there is
some evidence that less than positive
results may be due to the generic
nature of interventions that are
broadly applied to groups of students
with little regard to individually
identified strengths and needs. A
number of researchers have
suggested that an individually
designed and targeted social skills
intervention that teaches specific
social skills in a direct way (i.e.,
through direct instruction), provides
response opportunities for students
to practice skills, and uses
contingencies to support these
behaviors can be effective in
promoting positive behavior change
(e.g., Gresham, 2002; Walker,
Schwarz, Nippold, Irvin, & Noell,
1994).
Given the classic behavioral and
academic characteristics that
students with EBD tend to display,
it is clear that their school success
depends in large part on the extent
to which teachers can deliver
effective academic instruction while
simultaneously teaching the social
and academic-related skills they
lack. At minimum, teachers must be
able to provide supports that allow
students with EBD to benefit from
the academic instruction they
receive in regular education
environments as they access the
general curriculum. In the next
sections, we consider the various
models of co-teaching that are
increasingly used to support
students with disabilities in general
education classes, review the
research that has identified
potential benefits of co-teaching,
and then discuss the implications of
these teaching arrangements and
their potential benefits relative to
meeting the needs of students with
EBD in general education
environments.
Co-teaching
Co-teaching is defined as two
professionals, typically a special
education teacher and a general
education teacher, delivering
substantive instruction to a diverse
group of students in a single physical
space (Friend & Cook, 2003). A
number of co-teaching models have
been identified (e.g., Friend & Cook,
2003; Friend, Reising, & Cook, 1993;
Walther-Thomas, Korinek,
McLaughlin, & Williams, 2000) that
include (a) one teach, one assist; (b)
station teaching; (c) parallel teaching;
(d) alternative teaching; and (e) team
teaching. Using the one teach, one
assist model, one teacher (typically
the general education teacher) takes
the instructional lead and teaches the
content while the other teacher
(typically the special education
teacher) simultaneously monitors,
observes, or individually assists
students. Scruggs et al. (2007) found
this to be the most widely used model
of co-teaching. In the station teaching
model, teachers create three
independent work stations in the
classroom: two that involve teacher-
directed instruction and one that
involves independent seatwork. The
students are separated into three
groups and rotate through the three
stations during the class period. This
model allows teachers to provide
more individualized instruction to a
small group of students and
promotes independent work (Friend
et al., 1993). Using the parallel
teaching model, the class is divided
into two equal heterogeneous groups;
each is taught the same content at the
same time by one of the two co-
teachers. This model requires
teachers to jointly plan a lesson to
ensure that they pace instruction so
both groups of students start and
finish at the same time with the same
level of mastery. This option allows
teachers to design lessons in ways
that are consistent with their unique
teaching styles while also aligning the
method of teaching toward the
individual needs of the students

(Friend et al., 1993). In the alternative
teaching model, the class is
purposefully divided into two groups
to meet the individual needs of all
students. Commonly, the larger
group will participate in a review
session, and the smaller group will be
have concepts retaught, particular
skills reemphasized, or even a lesson
previewed (Friend et al., 1993). In the
team-taught model, both the general
and special education teacher are
actively engaged in instruction for the
whole class and feed off one another
by finishing each other’s sentences,
clarifying each other’s comments, or
answering student questions (Friend
et al., 1993). Regardless of which
model is being implemented, the
general and special education
teachers should be co-creating goals,
co-instructing, collaborating on
student assessment and classroom
management, and jointly making
decisions pertaining to their class
(Friend et al., 1993).
Weiss and Brigham (2000)
summarized the empirical literature
on co-teaching across several
domains, including (a) program
evaluations, (b) teacher perceptions of
their roles, (c) teacher perceptions of
the process and impact of co-
teaching, (d) where co-teaching fits
within the realm of special education,
and (e) teacher’s instructional actions
in co-taught classes. After sorting
through more than 700 articles
related to co-teaching, Weiss and
Brigham identified at least 300
articles describing or providing
guidelines for collaborative and co-
teaching practices but only 23 that
provided some element of evaluative
or interpretive data. Subsequently,
Murawski and Swanson (2001)
conducted a meta-analysis of co-
teaching and found only six articles
with sufficient quantitative
information to calculate an effect size.
A total of 22 effect sizes were
calculated from these six studies on
dependent measures such as grades,
achievement, attendance, and social
and attitudinal outcomes. This
yielded a total mean effect size of .40,
CO-TEACHING AND STUDENTS WITH EBD
suggesting that co-teaching is a low to
moderately effective practice for
influencing student outcomes.
Findings from both reviews were
very similar and, taken together,
suggest that further research needs to
be conducted before co-teaching can
be deemed an evidence-based service
delivery model. Furthermore,
Zigmond and Magiera (2001)
suggested that co-teaching should be
used with caution because of the
limited amount of efficacy data. As
Weiss (2004) noted, co-teaching may
be a prime example of how advocacy,
rather than research, has encouraged
the implementation of a particular
practice.
Potential Benefits of Co-teaching for
Students With Disabilities
Despite limited quantitative
evaluations, qualitative research has
identified several perceived benefits
for students with disabilities that
may be associated with co-teaching
(e.g., Austin, 2001; Dieker, 2001; N.
Rice, Drame, Owens, & Frattura,
2007; Walther-Thomas, 1997). First,
co-teaching is believed to allow
general and special education
teachers to bring together their
expertise to meet the needs of all
students. The general education
teacher is the known expert in
content knowledge, whereas the
special education teacher is the
known expert in how to effectively
teach students with disabilities
through the use of research-based
practices (Magieria, Smith, Zigmond,
& Gebauer, 2005). In a co-taught
classroom, a student with
disabilities not only is exposed to
the general education curriculum
but also has an advocate in the
classroom to ensure that the
necessary accommodations and
modifications are made for him or
her to succeed in that class (N. Rice
et al., 2007). As N. Rice et al. stated,
‘‘Through relevant and challenging
content, students can progress
toward their IEP [individualized
education plan] goals and gain
content area knowledge that is often
not available to them in special
education classes’’ (p. 18).
Second, co-teaching purportedly
increases access for a wider range
of instructional options and reduces
the student-teacher ratio, thus
creating an environment for
increased student-teacher
interactions and individualized
instruction for all students (Magiera
& Zigmond, 2005). Third, Walther-
Thomas (1997) reported that
students with disabilities in co-
taught classrooms had positive
feelings about themselves as
capable learners, felt that their
academic performance and social
skills were enhanced, and believed
they had stronger relationships with
students without disabilities. Fourth,
Dieker (2001) reported that co-
teaching created a positive climate
for learning, set high expectations
for both behavior and academic
performance, and allowed active
learning to take place. In addition,
the majority of students reported
positive perceptions toward co-
teaching; ironically, one student
with EBD reported that he did not
enjoy the co-teaching model because
‘‘you can’t get away with anything’’
(Dieker, 2001, p. 19), suggesting that
classroom management may be
enhanced as well. Finally, Basso
and McCoy (2007) reported that the
perceived benefits of co-teaching
might include (a) more student
enthusiasm and involvement, (b)
increased individualized instruction,
(c) increased opportunity for
teachers to meet the needs of all
students, (d) students held more
accountable, (e) reduced stigma, (f)
academic and social success for
students at risk, (g) the ability to
use a variety of teaching styles, (h)
strategy instruction, (i) reduced
discipline problems, (j) more
grouping options, (k) reduced false
referrals and increased true
referrals, (l) positive role model of
cooperation, and (m) provided
enrichment and reteaching
opportunities.
W INTER 2 0 0 8 13

Practical Implications for Students
With EBD
Although the body of research on
co-teaching is limited and should be
considered even more tentative given
the dearth of research on students
with EBD in particular, it is probably
instructive to evaluate what is known
about co-teaching to date relative to
the learning and behavioral needs of
students with EBD. This is important
because co-teaching is increasing in
use and students with EBD are
increasingly included in regular
education classes. We consider the
implications of co-teaching across
each of the areas of need that are
typical of students with EBD: (a)
inappropriate behavior, (b) academic
learning problems, and (c)
interpersonal relationships.
Inappropriate Behavior
If inappropriate behavior consists
of both disruptive excesses that must
be managed and behavioral deficits
that reflect skills that must be taught
and reinforced, it is only logical that
most co-teaching arrangements
should afford teachers more and
better opportunities to meet these
needs. The mere presence of two
trained professionals, including one
who is presumably trained
specifically in the management of
difficult behavior, should offer some
benefit. Dieker (2001) suggested that
co-teaching results in higher
behavioral standards for all students.
In her study, she cited a student with
EBD as saying he did not ‘‘get away
with anything.’’ This comment lends
support to the idea that the presence
of two teachers may enhance general
behavior management. The reduced
student-teacher ratio alone (Magiera
& Zigmond, 2005) may offer several
benefits. In a one teach, one assist
model, for example, the special
education teacher is typically free to
monitor, observe, and individually
assist students. This would seem to
be especially useful when one or
more disruptive students need more
careful monitoring or implementation
14 B E Y O N D B E H A V I O R
CO-TEACHING AND STUDENTS WITH EBD
of individually designed behavioral
interventions. At a minimum,
students should be able to receive
more positive reinforcement from
teachers for appropriate behavior
merely because there are two adults
in the room. We would reiterate that
the mere presence of two adults is not
sufficient; the two adults must,
between them, be well trained and
well versed in the implementation of
sound instructional and management
routines. Moreover, when teachers
need to conduct functional behavior
analyses, as are often necessary under
the requirements of the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act for
students with EBD (or indeed any
disability), the presence of a second
professional who can observe and
collect data would be invaluable.
Academic Learning Problems
Perhaps the most compelling
benefit of co-teaching arrangements
for students with EBD is that they are
afforded access to the general
education curriculum and a highly
qualified content specialist. In the
more traditional model that has
historically been used, students with
disabilities might be placed in a
general education classroom for some
content learning, with resource help
provided at other times of the day to
support them. In co-teaching models,
students have access to the general
curriculum and a highly qualified
teacher, which they might not
otherwise have, as well as the benefits
of a reduced student-teacher ratio
and more individualized instruction.
In addition, within the various
models of co-teaching, differentiated
instruction can more easily take place
to meet the unique needs of all
students, including those with EBD.
Although some special education
teachers are undoubtedly highly
qualified in one or more content
areas, the more likely scenario is that
the general education teacher is the
highly qualified content area
specialist, whereas the special
education teacher brings expertise in
dealing with learning and behavioral
problems through the use of research-
based practices.
In terms of instruction, co-
teaching arrangements would seem
to offer the same benefits relative to
academic concerns that they offer to
teachers dealing with behavior
problems. Most important, the
reduced student-teacher ratio means
that more individualized instruction
is possible. In both the station
teaching and alternative teaching
models, for example, smaller, more
homogenous instructional groups are
formed. This should allow students
with EBD to benefit from more
review of previously learned material
and for more opportunities to apply
what they have learned. The smaller,
more focused nature of the groups
and enhanced proximity to the
teacher would presumably assist in
maintaining the attention and
engagement of students, provided
instruction is appropriately targeted.
Interpersonal Relationships
Problems with interpersonal
relationships are invariably based on
deficits in specific social skills. As we
have noted, generic social skills
training applied to groups of students
with no reference to individually
identified skill deficits may offer little
benefit. In contrast, there is evidence
that a targeted social skill
intervention based on careful
assessment of individual students can
be effective. Nonetheless, it seems
unlikely that targeted social skill
training will be conducted on any
significant scale in co-taught general
education classes, where the focus is
more likely to be on meeting state
standards for content area learning.
However, general education settings,
and particularly classes that are co-
taught, may provide ideal natural
environments for students with EBD
to generalize social skills they are
taught in other settings (e.g., in
resource settings at other times of the
day). For example, the special
education teacher in a co-taught
classroom should be skilled in
planning contexts in which social

skills may be prompted, practiced,
and reinforced. When needed, a
teacher can pull aside an individual
or small groups of students and
provide more intense instruction
(e.g., in an alternative teaching
model). Compared with a general
education classroom with a single
general education teacher, co-taught
classrooms would seem to set the
stage for significantly enhanced
support for the development and
reinforcement of social skills.
Summary
Co-teaching is an increasingly
used model for enhancing the
inclusion of students with disabilities,
including those with EBD, in regular
education academic classes. A major
impetus for this growing trend is the
increased emphasis on access to the
general education curriculum and
highly qualified content area
specialists. Co-teaching appears to
offer a number of potential benefits to
students with disabilities. Logical
analysis supports some of these
purported benefits, such as the
increased individualization of
instruction and enhanced behavior
management capability that having
two trained teachers in a classroom
would seem to bring. A growing
body of qualitative research also
supports these and other potential
benefits. Nonetheless, the research
base on the specific impact of co-
teaching arrangements on student
outcomes is quite limited at present,
and more research is clearly needed
before co-teaching can be touted as an
evidence-based practice for students
with disabilities.
Given their unique learning and
behavioral characteristics and needs,
students with EBD may benefit
particularly from certain aspects of
co-teaching arrangements. In this
article, we have drawn parallels
between the components of co-
teaching models, as well as the
tentative findings from qualitative
studies about the perceived benefits
of these teaching arrangements, and
CO-TEACHING AND STUDENTS WITH EBD
the academic and behavioral needs of
students with EBD. Provided that
teachers in co-taught classrooms are
trained in delivering effective
instruction and managing classroom
behavior, co-teaching would seem to
set the stage at least for enhanced
educational opportunities for
students with EBD. In other words,
we do not view co-teaching as an
intervention itself that can be judged
to be effective or ineffective for
students with EBD. Instead, we see it
as a set of potential teaching
arrangements through which
evidence-based instructional and
behavior management practices
might be effectively delivered. At
minimum, co-teaching arrangements
seem to offer the potential for
students with EBD to gain increased
access to the general education
curriculum, delivered by highly
qualified content area specialists, but
with (a) more opportunities for small-
group and individual instruction and
(b) greater capacity for appropriate
behavioral intervention than is
possible in typical general education
classrooms. Although we see
potential and promise for this
approach to deliver effective
instruction to students with
disabilities, we strongly encourage
our research colleagues to continue to
examine the specific ways in which
various models of co-teaching might
affect social and academic outcomes
for students with EBD.
REFERENCES
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs
about co-teaching. Remedial and
Special Education, 22, 245–255.
Basso, D., & McCoy, N. (2007). The co-
teaching manual. Columbia, SC: Twins
Publications.
Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the
characteristics of ‘‘effective’’ middle
and high school co-taught teams for
students with disabilities? Preventing
School Failure, 46, 14–23.
Forness, S. R., Kavale, K., Blum, S., &
Lloyd, J. W. (1997). Mega-analysis of
meta-analyses: What works in special
education and related services.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 29, 4–9.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions:
Collaboration skills for school
professionals (4th ed.). New York:
Longman.
Friend, M., Reising, M., & Cook, L. (1993).
Co-teaching: An overview of the past,
glimpse at the present, and
considerations for the future.
Preventing School Failure, 37, 6–10.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Teaching social
skills to high-risk children and youth:
Preventive and remedial strategies.
In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G.
Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for
academic and behavior problems II:
Preventive and remedial approaches
(pp. 403–432). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School
Psychologists.
Kauffman, J. M. (2003). Reflections on the
field. Behavioral Disorders, 28,
205–208.
Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of
emotional and behavioral disorders of
children and youth (8th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice
Hall.
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2006).
Children and youth with emotional and
behavioral disorders: A history of their
education. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Landrum, T. J., Tankersley, M., &
Kauffman, J. M. (2006). What is
special about special education for
students with emotional or
behavioral disorders? In B. G. Cook &
B. R. Schirmer (Eds.), What is special
about special education? (pp. 12–25).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lane, K. L., Barton-Arwood, S. M.,
Rogers, L. A., & Robertson, E. J.
(2007). Literacy interventions for
students with and at-risk for
emotional or behavioral disorders:
1997 to present. In J. B. Crockett,
M. M. Gerber, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.),
Achieving the radical reform of special
education (pp. 213–241).
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lloyd, J. W., Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K.
(1998). Some methods are more
effective than others. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 33, 195–200.
W INTER 2 0 0 8 15

Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., &
Gebauer, K. (2005). Benefits of co-
teaching in secondary mathematics
classes. Teaching Exceptional Children,
37(3), 20–24.
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-
teaching in middle school classrooms
under routine conditions: Does the
instructional experiences differ for
students with disabilities in co-taught
and solo-taught classes? Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 20,
79–85.
Murawski, W. (2006). Student outcomes
in co-taught secondary English
classes: How can we improve?
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22,
227–247.
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. (2001).
A meta-analysis of co-teaching
research. Remedial and Special
Education, 22, 258–267.
Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-
teaching in secondary schools:
Teacher reports of development in
16 B E Y O N D B E H A V I O R
CO-TEACHING AND STUDENTS WITH EBD
Australian and American classrooms.
Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 15, 190–197.
Rice, N., Drame, E., Owens, L., & Frattura,
E. M. (2007). Co-instructing at the
secondary level: Strategies for
success. Teaching Exceptional Children,
39(6), 12–18.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., &
McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching
in inclusive classrooms: A meta-
synthesis of qualitative research.
Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
Walker, H. M., Schwarz, I. E., Nippold,
M., Irvin, L. K., & Noell, J. (1994).
Social skills in school-aged children
and youth: Issues and best practices
in assessment and intervention.
Topics in Language Disorders:
Pragmatics and Social Skills in School
Age Children and Adolescents, 14(3),
70–82.
Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching
experiences: The benefits and
problems that teachers and principals
report over time. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 30, 395–408.
Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L.,
McLaughlin, V. L., & Williams, B. T.
(2000). Collaboration for inclusive
education: Developing successful
programs. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Weiss, M. P. (2004). Co-teaching as
science in the schoolhouse: More
questions than answers. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37, 218–223.
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.),
Educational interventions: Advances in
learning and behavioral disabilities
(Vol. 14, pp. 217–246). Stanford, CT:
JAI Press.
Zigmond, N., & Magiera, K. (2001).
Current practice alerts: A focus on co-
teaching. Use with caution. DLD
Alerts, 6, 1–4.