Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Co-planning among science and special education teachers: How do different conceptual lenses help to make sense of the process?

  • Published:
Cultural Studies of Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the process of teacher co-planning. We examined two teams of high school science and special education teachers brought together to co-plan inclusive, inquiry-oriented science units as part of a professional development effort. We used three conceptual lenses to help make sense of this process: (1) characteristics of collaboration, (2) small group interactions, and (3) community discourse. Using these lenses individually and collectively, we identified strengths and limitations in teachers’ co-planning efforts. A strength was that all teachers, irrespective of discipline, shared ideas and helped make decisions about the content and activities included in unit and lesson plans. A limitation was that teachers, again irrespective of discipline, discussed science education topics in their teams more often than special education ones. We found this latter finding of note as it spoke to issues of parity among teachers during the professional development. In our discussion, we argue that each conceptual lens yielded both unique and common findings on co-planning. We also provide recommendations for professional developers and educational scholars intent on organizing and/or researching co-planning among science and special education teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, D., Thomas, G. P., & Nashon, S. M. (2009). Social barriers to meaningful engagement in biology field trip group work. Science Education, 93, 511–534. doi:10.1002/sce.20304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessette, H. J. (2008). Using students’ drawings to elicit general and special educators’ perceptions of co-teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1376–1396. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1039–1066. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1039:AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 499–514. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00048-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., Novak Lauscher, H., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435–455. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C. N., & Green, J. L. (2001). Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics and Education, 11, 353–400. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00032-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. doi:10.3102/0091732X024001249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120. doi:10.3102/00028312032001099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amour, D. (1997). Structuration de la collaboration interprofessionnelle dans les service de santé de première ligne au Québec. Thèse de doctorat. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

  • Dooner, A.-M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the realities of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 564–574. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend, M. (2007). Co-teaching connection. Retrieved December 31, 2013, from, http://www.marilynfriend.com/basics.htm.

  • Friend, M. (2008). CoTeach! A handbook for creating and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools. Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012. doi:10.1111/0161-4681.00140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of coteaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 259–268. doi:10.1177/0741932508321018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203–235. doi:10.1023/B:JMTE.0000033084.26326.19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, E., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, H. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18, 225–237. doi:10.1080/13561820410001731278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Practice, 20, 79–85. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00123.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S., & Scantlebury, K. (2009). More than a conversation: Using cogenerative dialogues in the professional development of high school chemistry teachers. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 119–136. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9062-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2011). Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for, and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 174–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawan, F., & Ortloff, J. H. (2011). Sustaining collaboration: English-as-a-second-language, and content-area teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 463–471. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (1995). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X029001004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<839:AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, M. (1990). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York, NY: Bantum Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siry, C. (2011). Emphasizing collaborative practices in learning to teach: Coteaching and cogenerative dialogue in a field-based methods course. Teaching Education, 22, 91–101. doi:10.1080/10476210.2010.520699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., Roth, W., & Zimmermann, A. (2001). Learning to teach science in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 941–964. doi:10.1002/tea.1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S., & Marshall, J. (1995). Heterogeneous grouping as an element of cooperative learning in an elementary education science course. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 401–405. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb10192.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and enjoying the journey. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 139–162. doi:10.1177/0021886391272001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education and Child Development, Whittier College, 13406 E. Philadelphia Street, P.O. Box 634, Whittier, CA, 90608, USA

    Lauren H. Swanson

  2. Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-9490, USA

    Julie A. Bianchini

Authors
  1. Lauren H. Swanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie A. Bianchini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren H. Swanson.

Additional information

Lead Editor: A. Bellocchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swanson, L.H., Bianchini, J.A. Co-planning among science and special education teachers: How do different conceptual lenses help to make sense of the process?. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 10, 1123–1153 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9582-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9582-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation