Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STEPHANIE VANHOVER
University ofVirginia
ABSTRACT: r: In special education, professional collaboration is viewed as a powerful tool for helping
teachers serve students with disabilities. An underlying assumption is that general educators will
improve practice if they have opportunities to participate in collaborative professional devetopfnent
aimed at improving instruction for studerits with disabilities. Although sustainability studies sug-
gest that teachers benefitfi^om such collaboration, evidence also demonstrates that they profit differ-
ently. This study examined how teachers who readily adapt and adopt strategies acquired in
collaboration differed from those who do not. Findings revealed differences in knowledge of cicr-
riculum, pedagogy, student management, and student-centered instruction, as well as differences in
ability to reflect on and adapt instruction. Implications for improving professional collaboration in
schools are provided.
T
eachers learning and working to- the collective capacity for initiating and sustain-
gether to achieve common goals ing ongoing improvement in their professional
is considered by many scholars to practice so each student they serve can receive the
be a central element of major highest quality of education possible" (Pugach &
school reform efforts, including Johnson, 2002, p. 6). Inherent in this call for col-
those aimed at improving the inclusion of stu- laboration is that the act of planning and working
dents with disabilities in general education set- together, by itself, is a powerful professional de-
tings (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; velopment tool.
Johhson & Bauer, 1992; Pugach & Johnson, One only has to turn to descriptions of dif-
2002). The assumption is that when teachers ferent collaborative arrangements in the literature
woi'k together to achieve a common vision, they and their assumed power for creating change to
will be able to change their instructional practices understand that collaboration is viewed as essen-
in important ways. "In collaborative working en- tial to promoting teacher learning (Rogers &
vironments, teachers have the potential to create Babinski, 2002; Thousand & Villa, 1992). Pro-
ence with new knowledge. This study was part of a larger, federally funded,
Without understanding how individual 3-year study designed to investigate the use of
teacher qualities infiuence a teacher's ability to Teacher Learning Cohorts (TLC) for promoting
profit from collaborative learning opportunities, teacher learning about instructing students strug-
we have no way of understanding how to gauge gling to learn as well as students with disabilities.
the potential success of such efforts or determine We designed the TLC to be a professional devel-
what type of collaborative structures general edu- opment process driven by collaborative problem-
cation teachers need to learn effective strategies solving, focusing on what teachers felt they
for students with disabilities and other high-risk needed to change in their teaching practice. In
populations. Professional collaboration is an im- doing so, we incorporated processes and strategies
portant medium for teacher learning, but re- from the research-to-practice and staff develop-
Winter 2006
schools in the city where the study was located. sis on inclusion. We focused on accommodating
Hidden View Elementary, a regular education ini- individual students in the general education class-
tiative school, had a student population of 570 room by identifying their needs and adjusting
students, of which 43.2% were minority and curriculum, methods, behavior management tech-
54.9% received free or reduced-price lunch. All niques, and/or instructional and behavioral expec-
children with mild disabilities were fully included tations. We also believed that the first step to
in general education classrooms. The TLC part- solving many instructional and behavioral prob-
nership with Hidden View Elementary existed for lems was highly effective instruction that actively
4.5 years. involved students. Moreover, we believed that
Of the 382 students who attended Hilton teachers could learn to better address the needs of
Elementary, 73% were minority and 84% re- struggling learners and students with disabilities
ceived free or reduced-price lunch. Hilton Ele- through well-designed collaboration that helped
mentary was a cluster school, serving nearly 50 teachers learn powerful strategies. We felt that if
children with physical and cognitive impairments, teachers changed their practices as a result of TLC
most in self-contained settings. Only a few stu- participation and subsequently noted student
dents were included in general education full time progress, they would become more committed to
or part of the day. Hilton Elementary was in- working collaboratively in the TLC.
volved in the TLC project for 3 years. The nature of the TLC required that we in-
We narrowed our focus on 8 of the 20 TLC teract with teachers frequently. We were helping
teacher participants, purposively selected because to facilitate collaboration as well as helping teach-
they varied in their ability to adopt practices from ers gain access to research-based practices. In ad-
the TLC. Each teacher, however, demonstrated dition, observing teachers, providing feedback,
commitment to the TLC through active and sus- and attending meetings helped us become insiders
tained participation. The teachers were assigned in the school community. Teachers often confided
pseudonyms: Sarah, Brenda, Diane, Cindy, in us about frustrations with colleagues and
Marty, Lois, Carl, and Martha. The teachers in- shared personal issues. We became participant ob-
cluded 1 African American and 7 Caucasian servers.
teachers. Teaching experience ranged from 2 to 22
DATA COLLECTED
years. Participants included 1 second-grade
teacher, 1 teacher who taught both second and Data collection involved formal and informal
third grade, 2 third-grade teachers, 2 fourth-grade classroom observations, teacher and principal in-
teachers, and 2 fifth-grade teachers. Seven of 8 terviews, field notes of meetings, debriefing notes
teachers graduated from elementary education from project staff discussions, and documentation
programs at either the undergraduate or graduate of informal conversations with participants. The
level; one teacher majored in a content area and following provides a detailed description of the
minored in elementary education. All teachers data sources.
were certified or endorsed according to the licen- Formal Classroom Observations. These data
sure standards in their state. Three teachers were were collected using the Pathwise diagnostic and
also certified in early childhood education and instructional observation system, a version of
English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). PRAXIS III (Educational Testing Services [ETS],
See Table 1 for details about each teacher. 1995). Data from the Pathwise observation sys-
tem were used only to triangulate findings se-
PARTICIPATING RESEARCHERS
cured first through analyses of other qualitative
As researchers, we began this project with more data (see the following). We chose Pathwise be-
than 60 years of combined experience in special cause it is a well-recognized evaluation system
education, general education, and school psychol- that yields both narrative descriptions of teaching
ogy. Because of our backgrounds, we brought practices as well as quantitative ratings for data
well-defined views of education to the project analysis. We assessed teachers by directly observ-
that included both behavioral and cognitive ori- ing classroom instruction, reviewing teacher-
entations to teacher learning and a strong empha- prepared written documentation, and conducting
^,
? ^ :l -2
t
Ul
a •I -s ^ .;. ^
< 2 rt _C
U Q 0 S
Winter 2006
semi-structured interviews with each teacher be- gling students' academic and behavioral needs
fore and after observations. On the basis of this and how to address them, (c) the nature of TLC
record of evidence, teachers were rated on 19 cri- collaboration, and (d) barriers and supports for
teria organized into four domains: (a) Domain A: collaboration. We altered interview protocols in
organizing content knowledge for student learn- Year 2 to gather more information about issues
ing, (b) Domain B: creating an environment for emerging from the data, specifically those related
student learning with an emphasis on classroom to teacher leadership and learning.
management, (c) Domain C: teaching for student Meeting Minutes and Researcher Reflections.
learning, and (d) Domain D: teacher profession- Meetings occurred once or twice a month and
alism with an emphasis on reflection. Domain generally lasted 1 to 1.5 hr. During the meetings,
scores range from 1.0 to 3.5, with 1.0 being the we took notes documenting the agendas, discus-
lowest and 3.5 being the highest score possible. sions, and interactions of the group. Following
Across domains there was a focus on a teacher's meetings and school visits, we documented infor-
ability to consider the needs of individual stu- mal conversations and general information gath-
dents and adjust instruction or management tech- ered during the visit, as well as our initial
niques accordingly. Scoring and summaries of reactions.
Pathwise observations took approximately 2 hr
per teacher. Project staff observed each TLC DATA ANALYSIS
teacher twice using Pathwise.
During data collection and analysis, we used three
Prior to Pathwise observations, teachers strategies to establish trustworthiness: (a) triangu-
prepared written documentation including a de- lation of multiple sources of evidence, (b) peer
tailed lesson plan, description of their classroom, debriefing during data coding and therne devel-
and demographic information for themselves and opment, and (c) member checks ihvolving TLC
their students. During lessons, we took anecdotal teachers. As a first level of analysis, we recorded
notes documenting positive and negative evidence informal reflections for each meeting, classroom
for Domains B and C (ETS, 1995). Semistruc- observation, and school visit, making notes about
tured interviews occurred before and after obser- issues and concepts that were emerging in the re-
vations and probed for information about search.
conceptualization of instruction (Domain A) and
We then generated a list of codes, coded all
reflection on implementation of the lesson plan
sources of evidence independently, and then met
(Domain D).
to compare and contrast data analysis. For exam-
Informal Observations. These data were col- ple, we compared data coded as effective instruc-
lected at least four times a year for 1 to 2 hr per tional practices from interviews and meetings to
observation over the 3 years of the study. We took
codes from observations (e.g., making content
field notes during each classroom visit, construct-
understandable) to develop the theme "Under-
ing a running narrative of classroom events. For
stands how to structure instruction for struggling
approximately 80% of observations, we con-
students." Once themes were identified, we met
ducted informal postobservation conferences to
and discussed whether they appropriately cap-
obtain teachers' perceptions of the lesson and how
tured individual examples from the data. Also, we
well students having academic or behavioral diffi-
wrote yearly reports based on analyzed data. TLC
culties responded. We also provided feedback on
participants read these reports and provided feed-
academic and behavioral concerns.
back.
Semistructured Interviews. We conducted
two semistructured, individual interviews per year
with TLC teachers and their school principals. In-
F i N DIN GS
terviews lasted approximately 1 hr. Interview
questions varied and were selected to gather data Although we expected teachers to differ in their
related to project goals and research questions. ability to use strategies acquired in the TLC, we
Topics included (a) teachers' beliefs about instruc- did not realize the degree to which they would
tion and management, (b) descriptions of strug- vary. Some acquired strategies readily, whereas
TLC LEARNER OUTCOMES: The two other high adopters were also
THE CONTINUUM FROM HIGH quick to implement suggestions. For example,
TO Low ADOPTERS after Diane missed a meeting, we gave her the
reading materials we distributed, which described
Some teachers quickly implemented new strate-
Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT). At the next
gies, whereas others, despite their willingness to
meeting, she was the only teacher to have imple-
mented the CWPT procedures. With one excep-
tion, remaining teachers needed direct assistance
Although we expected teachers to differ ih from one of us to implement what they had
learned.
their ability to use strategies acquired in
Moderate adopters used certain classroom
the TLC, we did not realize the degree to practices and ignored others. Over the course of
which they would vary. the project, one of the three implemented CWPT,
began teaching students multiple strategies for
comprehending text, and even developed her own
strategies for teaching students vocabulary, incor-
learn and discuss ideas, implemented innovations
porating some of the concepts learned from
poorly, or not at all. We classified teachers as
CWPT. More than the other two teachers, she
high, moderate, and low adopters based on our
perceptions of how frequently and willingly they voiced a need to do things differendy to meet stu-
adopted strategies learned in the TLC. In the fol- dents' needs. The other two moderate adopters
lowing narrative, we use examples from observa- changed less. They were willing to use some
tions and meetings to describe teachers' varying strategies but ignored many others. For instance,
levels of adoption. although one was quick to incorporate CWPT for
High adopters were teachers who quickly reading, she resisted using more explicit cognitive
incorporated new practices into their classroom. strategy instruction. She told us she had used a
These teachers were always working on at least summarization strategy "only a few times," even
one strategy they had acquired in the group, both though we spent months discussing it and pro-
behavioral and academic. They were Jilso willing vided specific, concrete ways to use it. She found
to try strategies that were teacher directed and teaching the strategy unexciting and limiting, and
student directed. Moderate adopters used many she enjoyed being more spontaneous. Although
practices but were inconsistent in their willingness her TLC colleagues presented many interesting
to adopt certain practices. Low adopters were the and engaging ideas for explicitly teaching summa-
least willing to adopt new practices and often had rization, she seemed unwilling, and perhaps un-
difficulty using the new strategy. able, to capitalize on those ideas.
The three high adopters were always inter- There were two low adopters. With consid-
ested in using something new. For instance, one erable assistance, one implemented CWPT, used
high adopter attended a meeting ^yhere one of us more positive classroom riianagement techniques,
briefly suggested she score correct letter sequences and implemented a strategic program for teaching
on spelling tests rather than whole words as cor- basic math operations. The other tried strategies
Exceptional Children
had captured their attention. She followed with belief was evident in how they spoke about their
more examples and an interactive lesson involving classrooms. For instance, one remarked that she
all students acting out causes and effects. During was willing to invest a good deal of money in in-
follow-up independent work, very few students teresting books, materials, and games for the stu-
had difficulty distinguishing cause and effect. dents. From her perspective, "spending the money
The moderate and low adopters were less was worth it because it made life easier in the
knowledgeable about pedagogy but also were classroom." She and other high adopters knew
strikingly different from one another. One mod- that when children were interested and busy, they
erate adopter had well-developed knowledge were less likely to be disruptive. As a consequence,
about science and social studies curriculum and these teachers took to instructional techniques
some knowledge of pedagogy. She was willing to such as CWPT that engaged children.
use innovations, but often took longer to deter- High adopters also realized that actively
mine how to incorporate them or needed more teaching discipline in positive ways was an impor-
pirornpting and support to do so. She could artic- tant goal of education. They knew how to set up
tilatE the need to incorporate cooperative leai^ning a classroom; they emphasized positive discipline
strategies into instruction but did'riot seem to and helped children reflect on and change their
Kiibw how to do so consistently. Many times in behavior. As a result, they were most capable of
her classroom, we observed that students were helping children with behavior problems. Diane,
reading from textbooks and writing answers inde- for example, talked frequently about the impor-
pendently with little teacher intera(;tion. Al- tance of teaching children to become better citi-
though her instruction was .never the most zens in the classroom and comrhunity. In one
interesting, it often was focused bfl important TLC meeting, she started by providing a rationale
concepts and organized to involve all students. for character edtication. She spoke with passion
During the 3-year study she began to incorporate about the problems occurring in schools because
more cooperative activities and better questioning students do not know how to interact in respect-
techniques. ful and responsible ways with one another. As she
One low adopter appeared least knowledge- modeled her approach to character education, it
able about both content and pedagogy. When we became apparent how she explicitly teaches re-
first observed in her classroom, we found students sponsibility and cooperation. She described how
completing one independent seatwork assignment she highlights qualities by using literature and
dfter another. This teacher seemed unable to artic- praises children when they exhibit these qualities
ulate why she was teaching certain skills. For in- in class. She also explained how she encourages
stance, when she first learned CWPT, she raved students to notice other children when they
about the program's ability to "cut down on be- demonstrate these behaviors.
havior problems and get theni ready for learning." Brenda also realized the importance of
However, she never commented about how the teaching children appropriate behaviors. When
program had helped her students to become asked what she learned from the challenges in her
stronger in math. first year of teaching, she responded, "I realized
Knowledge and Beliefi Ahout Managing Stu- there is a whole lot more to school than aca-
dent Behavior. Teachers varied considerably in demics. [My first year] made me realize that while
their beliefs about what constituted appropriate teaching academics, I had to teach social skills
classroom behavior and a teacher's role in helping and manners." Because she believed teaching be-
children learn to;behave. High adopters held two havior was important, Brenda recognized the im-
beliefs about mstnaging student behavior. First, portance of praising children for appropriate
they acknowledged that well-designed instruction behavior both as a class and individually. She also
can go a long way toward eliminating behavior knew it was important to provide individual sup-
problems. Second, they judged teaching behavior ports for children having the most difficulty be-
to be as important as teaching academics. High having. For instance, when asked what good
adopters believed interesting iiistruction was teachers do to manage the behavior of high-risk
foundational to classroom management, and this students, Brenda said, "Good teachers use behav-