See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305803239

Co-planning in Co-teaching: A Practical Solution

Article  in  Intervention in School and Clinic · August 2016

DOI: 10.1177/1053451216659474

CITATIONS READS

4 951

4 authors, including:

Lindsay Wolf
Ball State University
2 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ganiah View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lindsay Wolf on 02 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

659474
research-article2016
ISCXXX10.1177/1053451216659474Intervention in School and ClinicPratt et al.

Collaboration Forum
Kimberley Paulsen, Associate Editor
Intervention in School and Clinic 1­–7
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2016
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053451216659474
isc.sagepub.com

Co-planning in Co-teaching: A Practical Solution

Sharon M. Pratt, EdD1, Sarah M. Imbody, MA2, Lindsay D. Wolf, MSEd2, and
Amanda L. Patterson, MAEd2

Abstract
Co-planning is considered an integral part of a successful co-teaching relationship in which both teachers have parity and
use their individual expertise to benefit all students. However, the literature has not discussed adequately how co-planning
is achieved within the parameters of the already full schedules of two teachers. This column shares how co-teaching
partnerships can work to use individual expertise in curriculum development, teaching, and ensuring student learning to
create plans that meet all students’ needs. A co-planning framework used by practicing co-teachers is discussed in detail,
including how to use synchronous and asynchronous tools to plan course goals, biweekly units, and daily lessons.

Keywords
co-teaching, co-planning

Historically, special education has addressed the needs of
students with disabilities independent of students enrolled
in general education (Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Robinson &
Buly, 2007; Winzer, 1993). Separate classes promoted divi-
sion of instruction that often created disconnects between
students’ special education and general education classes
(Tannock, 2009). As schools moved to meet the student pro-
ficiency standards of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002)
and the least restrictive environment requirements of the
2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities
Act, collaboration between special education and general
education increased (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2013; Johnson
& Pugach, 1996; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley,
2012; Winzer, 2009). In particular, the model of co-teaching
has become an accepted approach (Friend, Cook, Hurley-
Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010).
Co-teaching is commonly defined as a partnership
between a general education teacher and a special education
teacher that includes shared planning, instruction, and
assessment of students with and without disabilities (Friend
& Cook, 2010). This instructional model allows schools to
address standards for student achievement, provide least
restrictive environments, and ensure all students have
highly qualified teachers (Arthaud, Aram, Breck, Doelling,
& Bushrow, 2007; Carpenter & Dyal, 2006; Friend & Cook,
2010; Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2013; Hardman & Dawson,
2008; Sayeski, 2009). The research has shown both aca-
demic and social benefits for students (Estell, Jones, Pearl,
& Van Acker, 2009; Hang & Rabren, 2009; McDuffie,
Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009; Wilson & Michaels, 2006),
as well as benefits for teachers serving as peer mentors to
one another in refining instructional practices (McDuffie
et al., 2009; Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Scheeler, Congdon,
& Stansbery, 2010).
In achieving a successful co-teaching relationship, parity
is an important component of co-teaching (Leatherman,
2009; Pratt, 2014; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007;
Tannock, 2009). This is often discussed in light of both
teachers taking an active role in the classroom, instead of
one teacher consistently instructing with the other teacher
consistently assisting. Yet in accomplishing parity co-teach-
ers need to be able to do more than merely hold dual instruc-
tional roles in the classroom. Rather, a successful
1
Indiana University Northwest, Gary, IN, USA
2
Homestead High School, Fort Wayne, IN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sharon M. Pratt, Indiana University Northwest, 3400 Broadway, Gary,
IN 46408, USA.
Email: prattsh@iun.edu

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com by guest on August 3, 2016

2 Intervention in School and Clinic 
co-teaching relationship starts well before teachers first see
their class of students. Co-teachers must be on the same
page in (a) what will occur in the lesson for the day, (b) who
will teach which components, (c) the instructional models
that will be used, and (d) any accommodations or modifica-
tions that will be given to particular students. This occurs
through collaborative planning in which both teachers share
their expertise and come to shared agreements about how
the instruction will occur (Idol, 2006; Rice, Drame, Owens,
& Frattura, 2007; Sileo, 2011; Tannock, 2009).
Whereas research has shown the importance of co-planning,
findings in this area also indicate one of the greatest hindrances
to its effectiveness is establishing co-planning routines (Carter,
Prater, Jackson, & Marchant, 2009; McDuffie et al., 2009;
Paulsen, 2008; Santoli, Sachs, Romey, & McClurg, 2008; Van
Garderen & Whittaker, 2007). Under normal conditions for co-
teaching, teachers report they lack sufficient common planning
times in their schedules (Bouck, 2007; Magiera & Zigmond,
2005). Other practical challenges include different planning
styles, distractions that can occur from colleagues, or sidebar
conversations about particular students during planning ses-
sions (Brown, Howerter, & Morgan, 2013; Murawski, 2012;
Rice et al., 2007; Sileo, 2011).
Foundational challenges to co-planning can include dif-
fering philosophies, instructional approaches, or priorities
held for a co-teaching relationship. These differences
between general education and special education teachers
often originate from the very beginning of their teacher
preparation journey. Van Garderen and Whittaker (2007)
stated the learning theories from each instructional field dif-
fer in emphasis in instructional practice, which may pro-
hibit collaboration between general education and special
education teachers. This difference in preparation can result
in co-teachers bringing with them different philosophies
about learning and teaching.
Yet it is possible to use these differing beliefs about
learning and teaching to prepare for effective instruction
in the classroom where both teachers share their expertise
and experience (Pratt, 2014). Prior to the implementation
of a co-taught class, deliberate thought must be given to
the instructors tasked with teaching the course. Successful
co-teaching partnerships require professionals whose edu-
cational philosophies, styles, and strengths complement
one another. When co-teachers begin a partnership, the
initial period of working together should involve explicit
conversations about philosophies related to differentia-
tion, accommodations and modifications for students, as
well as grading practices. All of these factors will influ-
ence the unity with which a co-teaching team can plan for
a cohesive delivery of instruction and assessment.
Having a similar philosophy can ensure that different
teaching styles do not impede learning goals for students
(Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006;
Leatherman, 2009). Because students with exceptionalities
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com by guest on August 3, 2016
are often placed in co-taught classrooms (Idol, 2006; Magiera
& Zigmond, 2005; McDuffie et al., 2009; Wilson & Michaels,
2006), the class typically includes learners who require mul-
tiple explanations to understand the topic. Sometimes, one
teacher’s style can reach many of the students, but the second
teacher’s style can support those students who need addi-
tional clarification. The varying styles of the co-teachers can
be utilized in any of the co-teaching instructional models
(e.g., one teach–one assist, parallel teaching, or station work).
Thus, the differences in teaching styles become complemen-
tary to each other and benefit student learning.
As co-teaching teams work together throughout a school
year, the question that often arises is whether co-planning can
be accomplished when common schedules and distractions
of all types regularly occur (Carter et al., 2009; Santoli et al.,
2008). Research has shown several ways in which co-teach-
ers are making co-planning practical and effective within the
normal constraints of their teaching schedules (Author, 2014;
Blood, 2011; Brown et al., 2013; Conderman & Hedin, 2013;
Dieker & Rodriguez, 2013; Leatherman, 2009; Murawski,
2012; Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010; Rice et al.,
2007; Sayeski, 2009). Three general principles seen across
the literature include (a) going beyond a typical school day to
include online interactive solutions, (b) using the individual
expertise of each educator, and (c) dividing and conquering
so that each person does not have to do it all. These three
general principles demonstrate the importance of thinking
creatively to overcome the challenges of finding a common
time for planning and making both teachers equal partners in
their responsibilities and roles.
Strategies and tools for creating an effective co-teach-
ing model are available in the literature (Brown et al.,
2013; Conderman & Hedin, 2013; Friend & Cook, 2010;
Murawski, 2012); however, a clear description of a frame-
work for how co-planning practically works and what it
looks like in the field is lacking. This article describes a
co-planning framework that utilizes the three general prin-
ciples mentioned above and that is currently being used by
practicing co-teachers in the field. This co-planning
framework includes practical steps involved in long-term
planning for a course and units, biweekly planning of les-
sons, and the daily planning that occurs naturally in an
interdependent co-teaching relationship.
Co-planning Framework
Co-planning occurs every time co-teachers come together to
look at the long-term goals and objectives, as well as the finer,
more defined needs of students. The outcome of co-teaching
and the inherent co-planning relies on a focus on both long-
term goals and day-to-day adjustments to achieve the final
objectives. A successful co-teaching partnership is rooted in
the understanding that setting aside time for planning and
reflecting is a priority. It is critical that co-teachers have
Pratt et al. 3

August 2015

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

1 2

5 6 7 8 9

10. 11 12 13 14
“If you really knew me” Group Activity: Read Parallel Activity:
Discuss Syllabus and Highlight: IR direc- Vocab Pretest
Letter to Parents tions Paragraph Activity:
Explain IR tracker reading comp.
Canvas Intro

17 18 19 20 21
Parallel Activity: Writing Benchmark IMC Vocab IR
a. Vocab Pretest *Students will use Word Book Talk Learning Station:
b. Paragraph Activity: Pad Check out IR book (Development, Intro/
reading comp. *no pre-instruction given Start Trackers Claim, Deconstructing
*to be used as a baseline Prompt, Transitions/
Vocab
Give students a card to
indicate individualized
starting point

24 25 26 27 28
NWEA NWEA NWEA NWEA/Vocabulary IR

31
USA Test Prep Benchmark

Figure 1.  Sample Monthly Planning Calendar.

Note. This figure shows a sample of a calendar that was shared online by practicing co-teachers for asynchronous planning.

administrative and district-level support of co-planning time
to ensure the success of both the co-teaching relationship and
the learners within the co-taught classroom.
Within the co-planning framework, conversations need
to be streamlined and focused on the end goal. Asking ques-
tions such as “What is the target for the course, for the
month, or for the class session?” has proven to be effective.
While this sounds very simple in print, it is much more dif-
ficult in practice because creative thinking in the context of
collaboration can cause co-teachers to veer off target and be
unproductive with their use of time. Having a structured
time allotment supports the flow of co-planning. Establishing
a goal and setting a time frame ensure co-teachers can stay
on task and achieve necessary jobs.
Unit Planning
Co-planning discussions must begin by looking at the end-
of-course goals for the students as set forth in the state’s
academic standards and diploma requirements. Whether
the course requires state-mandated exams or school-
administered end-of-semester final exams, teachers must
work together to prepare students for academic success.
Initial discussions of goals and the creation of bench-
marks, which allow co-teachers to assess learning and
growth, is best done face-to-face, perhaps even before
school is in session, to ensure co-teachers share common
objectives. While this initial meeting does require time
outside of the school day (preferably before the course
even starts), it is imperative to have this one-on-one con-
versation about the principles that will guide the semes-
ter’s instruction.
After outlining learning targets for students and creating
benchmark assessments to reflect those learning goals, the
benchmark assessments should be plotted on a shared cal-
endar, such as the one shown in Figure 1. Doing so allows
teachers to create time frames for instruction and formative
assessments within units.

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com by guest on August 3, 2016

4 Intervention in School and Clinic 

Table 1.  Typical Planning Conversation.

Special education teacher:
General education teacher:
Special education teacher:
General education teacher:
Students scored poorly on vocabulary development on the benchmark. I think they need some
mini-lessons on determining word meaning in context. I can create a few bell ringers, maybe
with some manipulatives for our hands-on learners.
Good idea. I’ll send you some of the power verbs they will most likely see on the state tests.
Will that work?
Perfect. I will most likely pull Desmond, Suzy, Simeon, Miranda, and Juan to preteach the words
in isolation tomorrow, as I see they struggled the most. That way they can gain traction to their
learning.
Yes, and maybe Gregory, too. I could also add a written component. Maybe they could
collaboratively write test questions about what they are reading in English class right now.

Biweekly Planning
After the initial benchmark and review of students’ current
levels, the biweekly planning stage of co-planning can
begin. Once teachers are acquainted with current students
and their unique needs, before school, after school, and
lunch time meetings must be commonplace. A shared calen-
dar can be used to identify key learning experiences that the
learners must have and the formative assessments that will
be used to track student progress. Targets, standards cov-
ered, most materials used, and how it will be delivered (e.g.,
parallel, team, alternative teaching) are all helpful aspects to
include on this shared calendar. These conversations can be
held during lunch, after school, or via email; because co-
teachers will have an idea of what students need and the days
in which instruction will need to be provided, co-teachers
will not need to spend excessive amounts of time outside of
school working on this. At this point in the co-planning pro-
cess, co-teachers can begin to divide and conquer the devel-
opment of specific lessons. Responsibilities should be
divided by areas of comfort, professional expertise, and
access (see Table 1 for a typical planning conversation).
From this planning conversation, one can see that a few
minutes spent looking at student data on previous assess-
ments followed by a 3-minute conversation gave each co-
teacher an idea of the specific lessons needed for the next
few days. It also gives both teachers the opportunity to use
their strengths as general education and special education
teachers in the co-planning process. Dividing and conquer-
ing in the co-planning sense is definitely not limited to just
dividing up various jobs. Because of the unique pairing of a
special education teacher and a content area teacher, the
jobs assigned are very specific to the professional expertise
and strengths of the educators. For example, when discuss-
ing and planning for a lesson on constructed responses, the
general education teacher is typically responsible for locat-
ing the content-area text and aligning it to standards,
whereas the special education teacher is generally tasked
with thinking in terms of strategy, including reviewing stu-
dent profiles and scores to determine how various learners
will grasp the concept taught. The longer co-teachers work
together the more interchangeable the roles will become.
However, the critical piece is that each teacher has a distin-
guished job and that neither one is neglected.
Daily Planning
After the course and unit overviews have been established,
the use of a co-planning template, such as one created by
Murawski (2009), allows co-teachers to easily articulate the
learning objective aligned in the subject area and develop
the daily lesson plan(s). In addition, the template lends itself
to establish to-do lists, determine individual task assign-
ments, and write out how the instruction will be imple-
mented, (i.e., which co-teaching method will be used). See
Figure 2 for a sample plan using a co-planning template.
This initial document guides co-teachers’ thoughts to be
systematic and purposeful for students as they develop
learning materials.
At this point in the co-planning framework, Google
Docs or a similar document sharing system can be used to
create the daily learning materials that will be used in class
with students. Once an idea has been decided on for a les-
son, one of the co-teachers can create and share a new
Google Doc to write out the specific assignment and
instructions for the students. Using the sample conversa-
tion regarding vocabulary development from above, the
general education teacher might author a shared Google
Doc with a list of power verbs often seen on the state
assessment. He or she might also type out a chart that
requires students to write what they think each word
means, the dictionary definition, and then an original sen-
tence correctly using each word. Since the special educa-
tion teacher is able to access the same document at any
time, he or she can then write a second mini-lesson that
requires the learners to create flash cards that have the new
vocabulary word on one side and the definition, a picture,
and a memory clue on the other side. Later, the general
education instructor will be able to create the application
part of this vocabulary development lesson by writing out
the collaborative test question assignment. Since this is all
done via Google Docs, either of the co-teachers can get

Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com by guest on August 3, 2016


Date Target
August 17-18 I can define critical verbs.
(2x per week)
August 17-18 I can identify the main
(2x per week) idea of a text.
August 19 I can construct a 3
paragraph essay in
response to a prompt.
August 20 I can improve a specific
area of my writing
based on the writing
benchmark and teacher
evaluations
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com by guest on August 3, 2016
August 21 I can sustain independent
reading on a choice
book; I can comment
on and show
comprehension of choice
book through informal
conversations with
teachers
Figure 2.  Sample Completed Co-teaching Plan.
Note. This figure demonstrates how co-teachers can plan co-teaching to support students in meeting the learning goals.
5
Co-Teaching Approach
Parallel (switch M-T with
parallel activity below).
Parallel (switch M-T with
parallel activity above).
Team Teaching
Stations
General Ed Teacher
Lead group practice
followed by individual
practice; immediate
feedback; redo as
necessary.
Introduce prompt;
answer student
questions as needed.
Special Ed Teacher
Pre-assess; determine individual
benchmarks; lead group matching
activity and ongoing practice
based on student needs.
Introduce prompt; answer
student questions as needed.
Considerations, Notes, and
Action Plan
Special Education Teacher:
develop flash cards
General Education Teacher:
find and copy passages/
questions.
General Education Teacher:
Create prompt.
All: Assess using ECA rubric.
Highlight present levels on
rubric.
All: Google doc (list targets
and directions, provides
examples)
Stations: Development,
Intro/Claim, Deconstructing
Prompt, and Transitions,
Vocabulary, and Sentence
Structure
6 Intervention in School and Clinic 
online and help one another, adjust formatting, revise, and
edit. In addition, using Google Docs allows both instruc-
tors to know what each other is thinking without having to
be together or working on it at the same exact time. Be
sure to consider privacy issues when using any digital data
source that will contain student information that may be
subject to regulations of the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act.
Most interesting and intense is the daily planning, which
occurs during the “unplanned” time that co-teachers must
allow themselves during the day. The precious commodity
of time can be wedged in during transitions between classes
or subjects. Quite often, 3 to 4 minutes debriefing and
reflecting on the lesson could occur by asking questions
such as the following: What did we notice? What should we
reteach? Who is really struggling? Who has reached the tar-
get today? What do we do tomorrow? Do our plans remain
the same or do they require adjustment? Even, do we have
materials for tomorrow?
Beyond spontaneous reflecting and planning, a successful
co-teaching relationship requires a familiarity between teach-
ers that goes beyond colleague status, and as such, co-teach-
ers need to contact each other frequently. Asynchronous and
synchronous technologies are invaluable to frequent conver-
sations that make co-planning feasible for already busy edu-
cators. The beauty of using these two platforms lies in their
flexibility. Not having a shared plan period necessitates that
co-teachers have the ability to work online, together or sepa-
rately. Moreover, having living and breathing documents
accessible to both instructors means they can each add or
change ideas on a daily basis, dependent on what happened in
class that day or a new strategy one stumbled on while read-
ing. In addition, after family obligations are completed for
the day, co-teachers could work together on a Google Doc for
an assignment. Text messages and phone calls are also help-
ful tools for asynchronous co-planning. While driving to or
from school, co-teachers can often have conversations about
particular student concerns that need to be addressed. Phone
technology allows the instructors to check in with each other
for simple questions and reminders.
Throughout daily planning interactions, co-teachers
must be aware of each other’s commitments outside of
the school and classroom walls. They are not just teach-
ers; instead, they also likely have other responsibilities
such as department leaders, volunteers, parents, and
spouses. The time commitment for each of those other
roles needs to be acknowledged and understood by the
co-teaching partner, and there may be days when one
must complete more of the planning than the other. It is
important to be mindful and understanding of these out-
side commitments for the teaching partner. Conversely,
though, co-teachers must also be aware of how often they
are asking their partner to do more than his or her share
of the work.
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com by guest on August 3, 2016
Conclusion
This column has shown how suggestions from the research
on co-teaching can be implemented in practical, everyday
interactions between general education and special educa-
tion teachers. At each step of the co-planning framework
shared above, co-teachers are equally involved in determin-
ing how to make instruction effective for student learning.
They should begin with determining the long-term course
goals and objectives, turn to biweekly planning, and fre-
quently adjust instruction through daily preparation and
communication.
This co-planning framework becomes possible when co-
teachers have both a shared philosophy of student learning
and a commitment to collaboration. Using the special
expertise of each teacher’s individual roles makes it possi-
ble to share the work between each other. The use of syn-
chronous and asynchronous technologies makes co-planning
possible as teachers go beyond their typical work day and
fulfill the various responsibilities in both their personal and
professional lives. Even without a shared co-planning
period during teachers’ contracted work day, investing
small moments from transition times between classes or
evenings at home promotes the formation of a strong rela-
tionship that ultimately benefits the students.
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
Arthaud, T. J., Aram, R. J., Breck, S. E., Doelling, J. E., & Bushrow,
K. M. (2007). Developing collaborative skills in pre-service
teachers: A partnership between general and special education.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 1–12.
Blood, E. (2011). Point systems made easy with Google Docs.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 305–309.
Bouck, E. (2007). Co-teaching . . . not just a textbook term:
Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure, 51,
46–51.
Brown, N. B., Howerter, C. S., & Morgan, J. J. (2013). Tools
and strategies for making co-teaching work. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 49, 84–91.
Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., &
Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role
of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72, 169–185.
Carpenter, L. B., & Dyal, A. (2006). Secondary inclusion:
Strategies for implementing the consultative teacher model.
Education, 127, 344–350.
Carter, N., Prater, M. A., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M. (2009).
Educator’s perceptions of collaborative planning processes
 Pratt et al. 7
for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 54,
60–70.
Conderman, G., & Hedin, L. R. (2013). Co-teaching with strategy
instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 156–163.
Dieker, L. A., & Rodriguez, J. A. (2013). Enhancing secondary
cotaught science and mathematics classrooms through col-
laboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 46–53.
Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995). Creating collabora-
tive cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special
Education, 16, 325–336.
Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2009).
Best friendships of students with and without learning dis-
abilities across late elementary school. Exceptional Children,
76, 110–124.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills
for school professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C.
(2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of col-
laboration in special education. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 20, 9–27.
Hamilton-Jones, B., & Vail, C. O. (2013). Preparing special edu-
cators for collaboration in the classroom: Pre-service teach-
ers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special
Education, 28, 56–68.
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching:
Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special
Education, 30, 259–268.
Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public
policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities
in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52, 5–11.
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students
in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools.
Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77–94.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004).
Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1996). Role of collaborative
dialogue in teachers’ conceptions of appropriate practice for
students at risk. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 7, 9–24.
Leatherman, J. (2009). Teachers’ voices concerning collabora-
tive teams within an inclusive elementary school. Teaching
Education, 20, 189–202.
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle-school
classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional
experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught
and solo-taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 20, 79–85.
McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009).
Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-
co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-
teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75, 493–510.
Murawski, W. M. (2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary
schools: Making the co-teaching marriage work! Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murawski, W. M. (2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more
efficiently. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8–15.
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com by guest on August 3, 2016
View publication stats
Murawski, W. M., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to interven-
tion, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination
for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure,
53, 267–277.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
Paulsen, K. J. (2008). School-based collaboration: An introduc-
tion to the collaboration column. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 43, 313–315.
Ploessl, D. M., Rock, M. L., Schoenfeld, N., & Blanks, B. (2010).
On the same page: Practical techniques to enhance co-teaching
interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 158–168.
Pratt, S. M. (2014). Achieving symbiosis: Working through chal-
lenges found in co-teaching to achieve effective co-teaching
relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 1–12.
Rice, N., Drame, E., Owens, N., & Frattura, E. M. (2007).
Co-instructing at the secondary level: Strategies for success.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 12–18.
Robinson, L., & Buly, M. R. (2007). Breaking the language bar-
rier: Promoting collaboration between general and special
educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 83–94.
Santoli, S. P., Sachs, J., Romey, E. A., & McClurg, S. (2008). A suc-
cessful formula for middle-school inclusion: Collaboration,
time, and administrative support. Research in Middle Level
Education Online, 32(2), 1–13.
Sayeski, K. L. (2009). Defining special educators’ tools: The
building blocks of effective collaboration. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 45, 38–44.
Scheeler, M. C., Congdon, M., & Stansbery, S. (2010). Providing
immediate feedback to co-teachers through bug-in-ear technol-
ogy: An effective method of peer coaching in inclusion class-
rooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 83–96.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007).
Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of
qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.
Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 32–38.
Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & McCulley, L. (2012).
Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical founda-
tions of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools,
49, 498–510.
Tannock, M. T. (2009). Tangible and intangible elements of col-
laborative teaching. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44,
173–178.
Van Garderen, D., & Whittaker, C. (2007). Planning differenti-
ated, multicultural instruction for secondary inclusive class-
rooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 12–20.
Wilson, G., & Michaels, C. (2006). General and special education
students’ perceptions of co-teaching: Implications for second-
ary-level literacy instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly,
22, 205–225.
Winzer, M. A. (1993). The history of special education: From iso-
lation to integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
Winzer, M. A. (2009). From integration to inclusion: A history
of special education in the 20th century. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.