The Relationship Between Roles and Responsibilities of Co-teachers and Co-teacher Self-efficacy - dissertation by Dr. Janet Van Heck

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
CO-TEACHERS AND CO-TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
By
Janet C. Van Heck
Bachelor of Arts – Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
1993
Master of Education – Special Education
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
2009
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy - Special Education
Department of Educational and Clinical Studies
College of Education
The Graduate College
December 2017

COPYRIGHT
Copyright 2017 by Janet Carol Van Heck
All Rights Reserved

ii
Dissertation Approval
The Graduate College
The University of Nevada, Las Vegas
September 22, 2017
This dissertation prepared by
Janet C. Van Heck
entitled
The Relationship between Roles and Responsibilities of Co-Teachers and Co-Teacher
Self-Efficacy
is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy - Special Education
Cori M. More, Ph.D. Kathryn Hausbeck Korgan, Ph.D.
Examination Committee Chair Graduate College Interim Dean
Joseph Morgan, Ph.D.
Examination Committee Member
Tracy Spies, Ph.D.
Michael McCreery, Ph.D.
Chyllis Scott, Ph.D.
Graduate College Faculty Representative

iii
ABSTRACT
This study is a survey that was intended to measure the connection between what co-
teachers actually do and what they think they should be doing as best practice. Second, it
intended to study the roles and responsibilities that co-teachers report fulfilling. Finally, whether
self-efficacy is a predictor of co-teacher roles and responsibilities is further reported.
Three hundred twenty co-teachers participated in the study: one hundred sixty special
education and 160 general education teachers in a large urban school district in the southwestern
United States. Bandura’s Teacher Self Efficacy Scale (1994) was used with a tool for co-
teachers designed specifically for this study.
Results of this study indicate that co-teachers, general education and special education,
reported executing fewer roles than what they considered best practice. Both general and special
educators reported engaging in different tasks than their co-teaching partners in the areas of co-
instruction, co-planning, and co-behavior management. Co-teachers who reported having greater
self-efficacy were, according to the survey results, more likely to plan and differentiate together.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the co-teachers who participated in the survey and everyone who
passed the survey link along to fellow co-teachers. Without you, the co-teachers, this study
would not be possible. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Cori More, whom with her guidance and
wisdom has led me through the completion of my dissertation and my Ph.D. She was always
willing go the extra mile to make certain I had a quality study. The members of my dissertation
committee, Dr. Joe Morgan and Dr. Tracy Spies, suggested edits and revisions that brought out
the true meaning of this study. Dr. Michael McCreery contributed many ideas to make the
methods and results sound and of value to the educational community. Also, Dr. Tiberio Garza
advised me on the statistical analyses. Additionally, Theo Small and Amber Lasater distributed
my survey to teachers. Finally, David Van Heck assisted me with editing the dissertation.

v
DEDICATION
My students throughout the years have inspired me to find new evidence-based methods
for their academic and social development. This project is dedicated to them and the hope that
they will receive quality instruction by trained, experienced, willing, and knowledgeable co-
teachers.
This project is also dedicated to my mother, Barbara Reed Hall, and my grandmother,
Reable Gooch Reed, who were both special education teachers, and combined have over a half a
century experience in the field of special education; my father, Charlie Swaney, who taught me
to have a strong work ethic; my son, David Van Heck, who continually inspired and supported
me throughout this project; in memory of my sister, Lee Ann Swaney, who had intellectual
disability; and in memory of my step-father, Alan Hall, Jr., who loved me unconditionally
through my graduate studies. I dedicate my Doctor of Philosophy to Jesus Christ.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…..………………………………………………….…………………..……........iii
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………….…..…......…iv
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………….. v
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………ix
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………...........x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…….…………………………………………………………1
Theoretical Framework of Co-teaching………………………………………………………...3
Co-Teaching Roles and Responsibilities……………………………………………………….4
Co-Teacher Self-Efficacy………………………………………………………………………8
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………………….9
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………………9
Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………………...10
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………….11
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………….……………...11
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………14
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………………………………………16
Roles and Responsibilities of Co-teachers……………………………………..…………….. 17
Co-Teachers Perceptions…………….………………………………………………………..28
Teacher Self-efficacy…….……………………………………………………………………37
Co-Teacher Self-Efficacy………………………………………………………………....44
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………..53
Overview………………………………………………………………………..……………..53

vii
Research Questions……………………………………………………………..……………..54
Participants……………………………………………………………………….................... 56
Setting……………………………………………………………………………....................57
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………..……………57
Materials…………………………………………………………………………....................61
Design and Procedures……………………………………………………………………….. 61
Data Collection………………………………………………………………….…………….63
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS……………………………………………..……………….……….66
Treatment of Data……………………………………………………………………………..67
Demographic Data…………………………………………………………………………….68
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………107
Discussion of Results………………………………………………………………………...108
Implications for Practice……………………………………………………………………..112
Limitations………………………………………………………………………...................113
Recommendations for Further Study……………………………………………...................114
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...................114
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………….......118
A. MATRIX OF AUTHOR SOURCES FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE………..................117
B. SURVEY ON THE INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN CO-TEACHING
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND CO-TEACHER SELF- EFFICACY……….119
C. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH AND DIGITAL CONSENT………………………... 130
D. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATOR
CO-INSTRUCTION AND SELF-EFFICACY……………………………………...…. 132

viii
E. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATOR
CO-PLANNING AND SELF-EFFICACY…...................................................................141
F. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATOR
CO-BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT AND SELF-EFFICACY………………………… 150
G. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATOR
CO-DIFFERENTIATION AND SELF-EFFICACY…………………………………… 159
H. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATOR
CO-INSTRUCTION AND SELF-EFFICACY……….…………………………………168
I. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATOR
CO-PLANNING AND SELF-EFFICACY……………………………………………… 177
J. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATOR
CO-BEHAVIORMANAGEMENT AND SELF-EFFICACY…………...........................186
K. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATOR
CO-DIFFERENTIATION AND SELF-EFFICACY…………………………………… 195
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………..204
CURRICULUM VITAE……………………………………………………..……..................215

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Co-teacher Demographic Data………………………..................................................69
Table 2. General Educators’ Actual and Best Practice Roles………………………………….73
Table 3. Test for Significance for General Educators’ Reported
Actual and Best Practice Roles……………………………………………………….74
Table 4. Special Educators’ Actual and Best Practice Roles…..………………………………76
Table 5. Test for Significance for Special Educators’ Reported
Actual and Best Practice Roles……………………………………………………….77
Table 6. Co-teachers’ (General Education and Special Education)
Reported Actual Roles………………………………………………………………..79
Table 7. Significance of Co-teachers’ (General Education and Special Education)
Reported Actual Roles………………………………………………………………..80

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Non-Normality of Distribution for Research Question 1……………………………70
Figure 2. Non-Normality of Distribution for Research Question 2…………………………....71
Figure 3. Non-Normality of Distribution for Research Question 3……………………………72
Figure 4. Regression Coefficients for General Education Teachers’
Roles and Responsibilities as Predictors of Self-Efficacy…………………….........82
Figure 5. Scatterplot of the Outliers in the Regression Between the Residuals
and Predicted Values for the Co-instruction of General Education Teachers…….133
Figure 6. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-instruction
of General Education Teachers……………………………………………………134
Figure 7. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-Instruction of
General Education Teachers of the Observed and Predicted Residuals…………..135
Figure 8. Scatterplot of the Standardized Residuals of the Predicted Values of the
Regression of Co-Instruction of General Education Teachers……………………136
Figure 9. Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals of the Regression of Co-instruction of
General Education Teachers………………………………………………………137
Figure 10. Chart of Predicted Values and the Unstandardized Residuals of the
Regression for Co-instruction of General Education Teachers…………………....138
Figure 11. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-Instruction of
Figure 12. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-instruction of
and Predicted Values for the Co-planning of General Education Teachers………142
Figure 14. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-planning
of General Education Teachers………………………………………………........143
Figure 15. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-planning of
Regression of Co-planning of General Education Teachers……………………... 145
Figure 17. Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals of the Regression of Co-Planning of

xi
Regression for Co-planning of General Education Teachers……………………...147
Figure 19. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-Planning of
Figure 20. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-planning of
General Education Teachers…………………………………………………........149
Figure 21. Scatterplot of the Outliers in the Regression Between the Residuals and
Predicted Values for the Co-behavior Management of
General Education Teachers…………………………………………………........151
Figure 22. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for
Co-behavior Management of General Education Teachers……………………….152
Figure 23. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-behavior Management of
Figure 24. Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals of the Regression of
Regression for Co-behavior Management of General Education Teachers……… 156
Figure 27. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-behavior Management of
Figure 28. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-behavior Management
of General Education Teachers………………………………………………....... 158
Predicted Values for the Co-differentiation of General Education Teachers……..160
Co-differentiation of General Education Teachers………………………………..160
Figure 31. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-differentiation of

xii
Regression for Co-differentiation of General Education Teachers…………......... 165
Figure 35. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-differentiation of
Figure 36. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-differentiation of
and Predicted Values for the Co-instruction of Special Education Teachers……..169
Co-instruction of Special Education Teachers…………………………………… 170
Figure 39. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-Instruction of
Special Education Teachers of the Observed and Predicted Residuals…………...171
Figure 40. Scatterplot of the Standardized Residuals of the Predicted Values
of the Regression of Co-Instruction of Special Education Teachers……………...172
Co-instruction of Special Education Teachers…………………………………… 173
Regression for Co-instruction of General Education Teachers…………………...174
Figure 43. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-Instruction of
Figure 44. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-instruction of
Special Education Teachers……………………………………………………….176
and Predicted Values for the Co-planning of Special Education Teachers……….178
Figure 46. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-planning
of Special Education Teachers…………………………………………………… 179
Figure 47. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-planning of
Special Education Teachers of the Observed and Predicted Residuals………….. 180
Figure 48. Scatterplot of the Standardized Residuals of the Predicted Values
of the Regression of Co-planning of Special Education Teachers………………..181
Co-Planning of Special Education Teachers……………………………………... 182
Regression for Co-planning of Special Education Teachers……………………...183

xiii
Figure 51. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-Planning of
Figure 52. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-planning of
and Predicted Values for the Co-behavior Management of
Co-behavior Management of Special Education Teachers………………………. 188
Figure 55. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-behavior Management of
Regression for Co-behavior Management of Special Education Teachers……….192
Figure 59. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-behavior Management of
Figure 60. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the
Co-behavior Management of Special Education Teachers………………………..194
Predicted Values for the Co-differentiation of Special Education Teachers……...196
Co-differentiation of Special Education Teachers………………………………...197
Figure 63. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-differentiation of
Co-differentiation of Special Education Teachers……………………………….. 199
Co-differentiation of Special Education Teachers……………………………….. 200
Regression for Co-differentiation of Special Education Teachers………………..201
Figure 67. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-differentiation of
Special Education Teachers……………………………………………………… 202

xiv
Figure 68. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-differentiation of

1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Co-teaching is a service delivery model that brings one general education and one special
education teacher together to plan, instruct, manage behaviors, and differentiate instruction
(Friend & Cook, 2009; Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010; Murawski,
2009; Pugach, & Winn, 2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Solis, Vaughn,
Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). Co-teaching becomes important when a review of the history and
evolution of inclusive classrooms is reviewed. Relationships, roles, and responsibilities have
evolved as the role of the special education teacher has changed over time. Historically, students
with disabilities were taught in separate classrooms with special education teachers so that they
could receive the specialized, individualized education that they needed in order to learn
(Rotatori, Festus, & Bakken, 2011). Students with disabilities often did not attend school at all
(Winzer, 1993). In order to resolve this discrepancy, laws were passed, including the 1975
Education for All Handicapped Children Act. The law required that all children attend school
and receive a free appropriate public education. For the first time, students with disabilities were
required to attend school, and schools were required to provide them with an education. This act
was the result of families and their advocates lobbying for the deinstitutionalization of students
with disabilities (Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 1975). However, students with
disabilities continued to be segregated from the mainstream classroom (Winzer).
To address this pattern of segregation for students with disabilities, some schools started
to use the consultative model in the late 1980s. It was conceived as an indirect or direct service
provided to the student with a general educator seeking the assistance of the special educator on

2
an as-needed basis (Pugach, Johnson, Drame, & Williamson, 2012). By the 1990s, the role of
the collaborative consultant changed into the special education teacher working in the general
education classroom teaching specifically to the student with a disability (Bauwens, Hourcade, &
Friend, 1989; Idol, Nevin, & Paolucci-Whitcomb, 1992).
Concerns related to co-teaching appeared throughout the 1990s. There were difficulties
establishing partnerships between teachers, the lack of common planning time, different beliefs
about teaching and inclusion, communication problems, and lack of administrative support
(Reeve & Hallahan, 1994). Both general education and special education teachers expressed
these concerns. Furthermore, issues arose around poor diagnostic processes, the lack of
appropriate instructional practices, few techniques for managing teaching in the classroom, and
appropriate assessments (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992).
In 1990, the PL 105-17, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was
reauthorized by Congress. This re-authorization of the Education of All Handicapped Children’s
Act (1975) shifted the language surrounding the concept of Least Restrictive Environment. With
this change, the IEP team is to place the student in the environment that best needs his or her
needs and provides them access to the general education curriculum. If students need to be
removed from the general education environment, the IEP team must justify why the student’s
needs cannot be met in a classroom with their typically developing peers (PL105-07, 1997;
IDEIA, 2004). This required that students be instructed in classes that were inclusive and have
access to the general education curriculum. Additionally, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
of 2001 required that all schools be held accountable for the administration of the general
education curriculum to all students.

3
Theoretical Framework of Co-Teaching
As previously stated, students with disabilities were placed in the Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE) per the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL94-142, 1975).
Subsequent laws also reinforced this notion: IDEA of 1997 and IDEIA 2004, which was the
reauthorization of the original IDEA law. Students with disabilities should have exposure to
general education curriculum and more importantly interaction with their age appropriate peers.
These interactions are designed to assist them with adjusting to adult life with people who do not
have disabilities. IDEIA 2004 requires educational programs of all students receiving special
education services and identification of supplementary aids and services to ensure student
involvement with and progress in the general education curriculum (Smith, 2007).
Making the general academic curriculum more accessible includes making curriculum
modifications such as curriculum adaptations and curriculum augmentations. Additionally, there
may be modifications to classroom ecological variables, access to educational and assistive
technology, assessment and task accommodations, and the availability of para-educators or peer
supports (Lee, Soukup, Little, & Wehmeyer, 2009).
Access to general education content can be achieved by using technology to develop
instructional materials based on the principles of universal design as well as by pedagogical
means, including effective instructional strategies and curriculum modifications. Curriculum
modifications, such as graphic organizers, have been shown as effective in meeting the unique
learning needs of students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Lee et al., 2009).
In 2017, over 61% of students with disabilities were spending at least 80% of their school
days in inclusive general education settings (National Center on Educational Statistics, 2017).
There was also increased pressure brought about through the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015)

4
to ensure all students access and demonstrate progress in the general education curriculum. With
this comes a need for effective and efficient instructional procedures that can be used to provide
structured and data-driven instruction in inclusive settings and provide access to functional and
core curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities (James, Walker, Utley, &
Maughan, 2012).
Students may have access to the general education curriculum, but this is useless without
the consideration of social skills instruction, which will ease in communication and interaction
with general education peers. Effective social skills are critical to successful school
performance, including classroom participation, academic engagement, and social interaction.
The impact of peer interactions on the lives of adolescents is substantial. Students spend
proportionately more of their time with their peers as they get older, intensifying the influence of
peer interaction on adolescent development. Interaction with general education peers may play a
role in academic, functional, and social skill development, as well as contribute to increased
social competence, attainment of educational goals, friendship development, and enhanced
quality of life (Angeliki, 2006). Co-teaching is one way to meet the needs of the legal
requirements of the students, by bringing the services of the resource room to the students with
disabilities to the general education classroom. Theoretically, inclusion can be addressed by all
of these points: technology, data-driven instruction, and social skills (Hughes et al., 2011).
Co-Teaching Roles and Responsibilities
To meet the needs of students with disabilities in the general education environment,
special education and general education teachers may be asked to co-teach. These pairings are
often a result of teacher availability rather than designed matches. Unfortunately, teachers
frequently determine how to work together without making an initial plan or receiving guidance

5
on how to proceed from administration. Co-teaching roles can be unclear because teachers do
not begin with a framework for defining responsibilities as to who will teach and when, who will
manage individual student behaviors, or who will implement certain components of the IEP
(Perez, 2012). Having co-teacher roles and responsibilities in place can promote efficiency and
ease of work together and clarify to students what to expect from each teacher (Conderman,
Bresnahan, & Pederson, 2008). Likewise, self-efficacy is important for teachers to develop in
teaching inclusive classrooms in a co-taught environment because of its role in regulating
classroom teaching practices (Shoulders & Krei, 2015). Self-efficacy and clearly defined roles
can improve co-teaching relationships and outcomes for students (Morgan, 2016).
Numerous studies on co-teaching have been conducted (Bryant Davis, Dieker, Pearn, &
Kirkpatrick, 2012; Morningstar, Shogren, Lee, & Born, 2015; Yopp, Ellis, Bonsangue, Duarte, &
Meza, 2014), but little has been written about the roles and responsibilities of teachers in this
pairing. Co-teachers adopt many different roles while working with their teacher partner. Some
teachers do most of the content teaching daily while others reinforce and reteach material to
groups (Fujimoto-Adamson, 2010; Tschida, Smith, & Fogarty, 2015). Additionally, little has
been written about the connection between what co-teachers actually do as compared to what
they think best practice is for co-teaching. Research conducted on co-teaching roles and teacher
self-efficacy, or how effective teachers feel they are as co-teachers is likewise minimal. Friend
& Cook (2009) suggest that the role between these partners be as equal as possible and that their
roles be as well defined as possible.
Special education students in the co-taught environment often need clarification, re-
teaching, and differentiation of the instruction for them to be successful. They have
accommodations and modifications that must be met by the co-teachers. These include

6
repetition for ensured understanding, shortening of assignments, providing extra time, and
having notes provided to them. For students to be in the inclusive classroom, it allows them to
learn the general education curriculum in the same way that their general education peers do, and
it provides them with social interactions with grade-level peers that improve social skills and
friendship-making skills (Solis et al., 2012). Co-teachers meet the needs of both the special
education and general education students in the class.
Initially, the special education teacher helped the teacher and the students but did not
provide instruction (Solis et al., 2012). In order for the students, parents, and co-teachers to
maintain respect, models and techniques for instruction were developed in order to ensure parity
in the co-teaching collaboration (Friend & Cook, 2009). Having an agreeable assignment of
roles and responsibilities between co-teachers would ensure that both teachers plan instruction,
present curriculum, and learn to balance a co-teaching relationship simultaneously (Conderman
et al., 2008). Teachers had to learn to get along and resolve various conflicts (Sileo, 2011).
Co-teaching is important because it provides access to the general education environment
and curriculum in order to aid in the educational and social/emotional outcomes of the students
(Cook & Friend, 1995). This approach also brings the learning strategies of the resource room to
the general education classroom. Students learn the general education material and additionally
have the material explained to them with a strategy, repetition, and re-teaching (Friend & Cook,
2009).
The theoretical framework behind this form of instruction has four main parts: co-
instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-differentiation. These four aspects of
co-teaching are an integral part of working together, creating a positive teaching environment
and co-teaching relationship, and ensuring the success both of their professional endeavor and

7
how much their students learn and progress throughout the year (Conderman et al., 2008; Friend
& Bursuck, 2009; Murawski, 2012).
Co-Planning
Co-teachers meet on a regular basis to discuss lesson planning, develop lessons together,
assign each lesson to each teacher, discuss student progress, and ensure that the current direction
the class is taking is meeting student needs. Teachers discuss which students need to make up
work, retake tests, and need calls made home to parents. Co-planning is important because when
teachers agree, each teacher knows what to expect. Planning also strengthens the relationship
between co-teachers (Friend & Bursuck, 2009).
Co-Instruction
Simultaneously, co-teachers must focus one of the most important aspects of their job,
which is to provide effective instruction to students that meet state and federal curriculum
guidelines, using the most effective strategies and interventions for this population of students.
The teacher whom is most fitted to present information, should be identified as the one to
provide instruction. Both teachers should teach, but oftentimes, the general education teacher
teaches the core of the content, while the special education teacher checks for understanding and
reteaches the material to students who may struggle with the content (Murawski, 2012).
Co-Behavior Management
Managing student behaviors is another role that teachers must negotiate in order to have a
well-run classroom experience. Teachers must determine whether one teacher or both teachers
will assume this responsibility. Classroom rules must be established, and disciplinary
consequences have to be well-defined. Student individual support needs should be aligned with
school-wide behavioral rules and procedures. Classroom interventions should be positive and
focus on supporting appropriate social skills (Morningstar et al., 2015). Additionally, discipline

8
can be applied to the whole class or to individuals (Bouck, 2010). According to Wasburn-Moses
(2005), most teachers whether special education or general education, assume the responsibility
of managing student behavior in a variety of classroom settings.
Co-Differentiation
Co-teachers must implement differentiation of the material for students who need the
lesson presented in simpler terms. This includes making accommodations and modifications
listed in the IEP. This may be conducted in a variety of ways. Co-teachers may present the
material at both an advanced level and a lower level to provide targeted instruction for students
who struggle and those who achieve mastery more easily. Likewise, the teachers can ask the
class to self-identify how well they understood the lesson, and those needing assistance and re-
teaching can be brought into a group to have a review of the material (Strieker, Gillis, & Yong,
2013).
Co-Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy refers to how well teachers perceive that they do their jobs. Self-
efficacy is a person’s assessment of their own capabilities to organize and make decisions
required to achieve certain performances (Fanni, Rega, & Cantoni, 2013). Self-efficacy of
teachers has been associated in prior research with the effectiveness of teachers and favorable
student outcomes (Shoulders & Krei, 2015). Co-teachers with increased self-efficacy were
associated with giving students the kinds of experiences (like evidence-based learning strategies
and behavior management) to obtain positive student outcomes. Co-teaching is positively
associated with teacher confidence (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013). Self-efficacy of teachers is
improved primarily by obtaining more education in co-teaching practices or the teachers’

9
academic area. The more training in co-teaching, the higher the self-efficacy (Loreman et al.,
2013; Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2014; Streiker et al., 2013).
Statement of the Problem
Many teachers, both general education and special education, are assigned to co-teach for
the first time, without being given clear guidance on how to co-teach (Perez, 2012). Sometimes
they are given instructions by administrators that do not have any evidence base or even have the
basis for best practice in co-teaching. New teachers are lacking the knowledge about co-teaching
to understand what a good co-teaching pair looks like, and misperceptions exist as to what their
roles should be (Dinnebeil, McInerney, & Hale, 2006). Even experienced co-teachers have not
read enough of the literature on co-teaching or received adequate training from the school system
to know how to keep parity in co-teaching and develop an equal division of labor by developing
roles and responsibilities (Conderman et al., 2008). Further, co-teachers who have had no
training tend to have lower self-efficacy than those who have had professional development
(Loreman, Sharma, & Forlin, 2013). Although co-teaching is positively associated with teacher
self-confidence (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013), there is little research on the effect of co-teacher
self-efficacy on co-teacher roles and responsibilities.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine what roles and responsibilities the general
education and special education teacher actually do in a co-taught classroom and what roles they
think would be best practice to do. How these roles relate to personal teacher self-efficacy was
also examined. This study used a survey design with participants being both general education
and special education teachers who were in a co-teaching relationship. Questions developed for
the study include the following:

10
Research Question 1: Is there a significant difference between general education co-
teachers’ present roles and responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities that they consider to
be best practice?
Research Question 2: Is there a significant difference between special education co-
be best practice?
Research Question 3: Is there a significant difference between special education and
general education co-teachers’ perceived roles and responsibilities in co-teaching situations?
Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between general education co-teacher roles
and responsibilities in co-teaching situations and teacher self-efficacy?
Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between special education co-teacher roles
Co-teachers were asked questions about the many roles and responsibilities that exist and
should be assigned to each teacher in a co-teaching relationship. They were asked to rate their
relationship in a number of categories. Additionally, co-teachers were asked to reflect on their
own feelings of self-efficacy.
Significance of the Study
This study provides a basis for co-teachers to think about what roles and responsibilities
they actually do in a co-teaching relationship and what they consider to be best practice for each
teacher as a general educator or special educator. Additionally, it examined whether co-teaching
is predictive of teacher self-efficacy. This study contributes to the body of literature on co-
teaching by examining roles of co-teachers and comparing it to co-teacher self-efficacy. It
provides information to administrators that can give them the basis for informing co-teachers

11
how to proceed, and what roles and responsibilities may be a good starting point for a new
collaborative pair. This division of labor is different for each set of co-teachers, but the results of
this study give co-teachers and administrators an opportunity to proceed with knowledge about
what most co-teachers actually do and what they think is best practice in terms of assignment of
roles and responsibilities and how this relates to teachers reported self-efficacy.
Limitations
Limitations to this study include the issue that the survey in this study is not a validated
instrument, and as a result the questions may not have accurately measured what they were
intended to measure. Next, this survey was distributed in only an urban environment in the
southwestern United States and did not include other geographic areas. Also, the total number of
surveys distributed is unknown because of the process of survey distribution. The survey was
lengthy (about 18 minutes), and some teachers may have chosen not to complete the survey
because it took too much time for them to finish (Sapsford, 2007). Finally, survey-takers may
have felt uncomfortable providing information that showed them in an unfavorable manner, and
may have chosen not to answer the questions for that reason (Survey Fundamentals, 2017).
Definition of Terms
Assessment
The productive process of monitoring, measuring, evaluating, documenting, reflecting on,
and adjusting teaching and learning to ensure students reach high levels of achievement. Both
formative and summative assessment processes are used and are aligned with instructional and
curricular goals and objectives (Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 2011).

12
Collaboration
A style of interaction between individuals engaged in shared decision making as they work
toward a common goal. Individuals who collaborate have equally valued personal or
professional resources to contribute and they share decision-making authority and accountability
for outcomes (Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support consortium, 2011).
Co-Teaching
Two educators (one general education and one special education) plan, deliver, and assess
instruction for a single group of students (Pugach, Johnson, Drame, & Williams, 2012).
Direct Instruction
A research-based instructional approach in which the instructor presents subject matter
using a review of previously taught information, presentation of new concepts or skills, guided
practice, feedback and correction, and independent practice (Friend & Bursuck, 2012).
Diverse Learners and Learning Differences
Diverse learners and students with learning differences are those who, because of gender,
language, cultural background, differing ability levels, disabilities, learning approaches, and/or
socioeconomic status may have academic needs that require varied instructional strategies to
ensure their learning (Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support consortium, 2011).
General Education
Curriculum and instruction delivered to students, with and without disabilities. Students
are not separated, and the majority of students spend their day in this classroom setting (NCLB,
2001).

13
Inclusive Learning Environment
Inclusion is a term which expresses commitment to educate each student, to the maximum
extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves
bringing the support services to the student (rather than moving the student to the services) and
requires only that the student will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up
with the other students) (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2017).
Individual Education Plan
The Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) is a program designed to ensure that a child
who has a disability identified under the law and is attending an elementary or secondary
educational institution receives appropriate specialized instruction and related services (A Guide
to the Individual Education Program, 2017).
Resource Room
This is the placement/setting in which the special education teacher delivers direct
instruction in a restrictive environment for part of the day to students with disabilities (IDEIA,
2004).
Special Education
Specifically designed instruction for students with disabilities delivered by a school district
or education agency in the general education or special education classroom (e.g., resource room,
self-contained) (IDEIA, 2004).
Students with Disabilities
Children with disabilities are students eligible to receive special education services under
the provisions of the P.L. 108-446, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004 (IDEIA, 2004).

14
Teacher Education
Education presented as a formal program to prepare elementary and secondary level
teachers, including general education teachers and special education teachers (Pugach, Blanton,
& Correa, 2011).
Teacher Self-Efficacy
A teacher’s judgment of his or her capabilities to organize and make decisions required to
achieve certain types of performances (Fanni, Rega, & Cantoni, 2013).
Summary
Inclusive education came about because of laws such as IDEA (1997), No Child Left
Behind (2001), and IDEIA (2004), that required that special education students be included in
the general education environment and learn the general education curriculum. In order to meet
the criteria of these laws, co-teaching was started to provide special education services to special
education students in the general education classroom. The practice of co-teaching places a
special education teacher and a general education teacher in one setting (Murawski, 2009; Friend
& Cook, 2009). Without equality between teachers, the students sometimes interpret the pair as
a teacher and an aide, which is not accurate (Solis et al., 2012).
The theoretical framework behind co-teaching includes the concept of inclusion and how it
came about. Four points of the theoretical framework will be examined in the study: co-
instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-differentiation (Conderman et al.,
2008; Friend & Bursuck, 2009; Murawski, 2012). Teachers should both provide instruction of
some kind. Teachers must have a time to plan together, and ideally this time should be arranged
on the staff schedule of the school. Behavior management by both co-teachers is critical to
building a positive learning environment. Differentiation must take place daily in the co-taught

15
classroom (Hamdan, Anuar, & Khan, 2015; Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Solis et al., 2012;
Strieker, Gillis, & Yong, 2013).
Defining roles and responsibilities in a co-teaching relationship can ensure that teachers
know what to do and what not to do in the classroom together (Beninghof, 2011). Having co-
teacher roles and responsibilities in place can promote efficiency and ease of work together and
make it clear to students what to expect from each teacher. Both teachers have expectations
placed on them by administration that need to take place, and both teachers need to ensure
student engagement, learning, and academic and social/emotional progress of the class, both
general and special education students (Bronson, 2014; Fujimoto-Adamson, 2010; Kamens,
Susko, & Elliott, 2013; Tschida et al., 2015).
Co-teaching may additionally be a predictor of teacher self-efficacy (Loreman et al., 2013).
Teacher self-efficacy is in close association with teacher effectiveness, better learning
opportunities, and other positive student outcomes (Shoulders & Krei, 2015). Teachers with a
higher level of efficacy are more likely to have the motivation needed to manage the learning
environment with the most effectiveness (Shoulders & Krei). Self-efficacy is critical for teachers
to develop in teaching inclusive classrooms in a co-taught environment because of its role in
regulating classroom teaching practice.

16
CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
Co-teaching is the sharing of responsibilities in one classroom between a general
education teacher and a special education teacher who plan and deliver instruction together in an
inclusive environment (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010; Murawski,
2009; Pugach, & Winn, 2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Solis, Vaughn,
Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). The division of labor between co-teachers is one aspect of co-
teaching that, when more precisely defined, leads to better outcomes for teachers, students,
schools, and communities (Bouck, 2010; Keefe, 2004; Morgan, 2016). Defined roles and
responsibilities are necessary to ensure that co-teachers collaborate in the preparation and
presentation of material in addition to implementing IEPs and differentiation of material for all
students (Conderman et al., 2008; Morgan).
This chapter had three purposes. First, the roles and responsibilities cited in peer
reviewed articles are reviewed and discussed. Second, studies on the perceptions of co-teaching
are reviewed. Finally, articles on teacher self-efficacy were examined, in addition to studies that
include co-teacher self-efficacy. Citations for data-based studies that have been peer-reviewed
and published by an academic publisher were used for the three strands. Both qualitative and
quantitative studies were reviewed. Studies that showed an outcome on the roles or the self-
efficacy of teachers were included in the literature review. Only articles that discussed co-
teaching roles and responsibilities and/or teacher perceived effectiveness were included.
Search terms used were co-teaching, roles and responsibilities of co-teachers,
collaboration, collaborative consultation, inclusion, co-teacher self-efficacy, and teacher self-
efficacy in the literature search. The following data bases were utilized: Education Full Text,

17
ERIC, and Academic Search Premier. The reference lists of all studies selected for the literature
review were checked for related articles to be included in this chapter.
Roles and Responsibilities in Co-Teaching
Co-teaching is a service delivery model that brings the special education teacher into the
general education class to provide services for special education students (Dieker & Murawski,
2003; Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010; Pugach, & Winn, 2011; Solis,
Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). For best practice, the development of ideas that bring
parity to the teachers in terms of providing instruction and guidance to all students in the
classroom came about. Developing roles and responsibilities of co-teachers became significant
because of changes in law and new requirements placed on schools and their staff. The research
shows that well-defined roles and responsibilities make it possible for co-teachers to work better
together in achieving the learning goals in a co-taught class (Bouck, 2010; Keefe, 2004; Morgan,
2016; Wasburn-Moses, 2005).
Roles and responsibilities are needed to ensure that each teacher knows what to do as
instruction is presented in the classroom. This division of labor also provides equality by
ensuring that each teacher has relatively the same amount of work (Benninghof, 2011;
Conderman et al., 2008; Perez, 2008). The co-teaching relationship is a unique one because a
general education teacher and a special education teacher work together to create a positive
learning environment and share all of the responsibilities that one regular general education
would do on his/her own. An equitable division is sought because the teachers are equals in the
classroom, in terms of the expectations placed on them by the administration and in ensuring
engagement, learning, and progress of all of the students in the class, whether they are general or
special education students (Beninghof).

18
Morgan (2016) examined the practices of effective collaboration and co-teaching
between a special education and a general education teacher. The researcher sought to determine
what effective collaboration looked like, the benefits and challenges of co-teacher, and how
collaboration supported inclusion. The role of the collaborative learning specialist was to
provide specialized instruction for students, co-teach and co-plan with educators, and participate
in effective collaboration with all professionals. Teachers who took part in the study were from
Woodhill School, which is a rural K-6 elementary school with 160 students located in a small
town in Vermont that provided specialized instruction both inside and outside of the classroom in
addition to co-teaching.
Data were collected through personal reflection, interviews, teacher feedback, and
student surveys. The role of the researcher was to be fully participating in the instructional
process. Then, data were triangulated by using three different documents (i.e., survey responses,
personal reflections, and expert interviews) that identified the same theme in each document
(Morgan, 2016).
Themes identified were: effective collaboration, benefits to collaboration for all
participants, and competing forces that function as inhibitors to collaboration. Accountability
and flexibility emerged as means of change that created effective collaboration. The findings
emphasized the importance of engaging in collaboration and co-teaching among all educators to
promote inclusion in the school (Morgan, 2016).
Morgan (2016) concluded that co-teaching, when done effectively, has the power to
improve learning outcomes for all students and promote inclusive practices in schools. Further
conclusions were found that effective collaboration had a shared goal, agenda, and clear purpose.
Working together may occur formally and informally and should be practiced thoughtfully and

19
intentionally. Through effective collaboration, instructional services became more cohesively
integrated. The quality of instruction for all students increased. The students were happier, and
the school community became inclusive of all learners (Morgan, 2016).
In another study, the research probed again into the work of two teachers and how
effectively they practiced co-teaching together. Bouck (2010) examined the abilities of two co-
teachers, one special education and the other general education, to work effectively in a
classroom together. This issue was of interest because more special education students were
gaining access to the general education curriculum through the materials presented in a general
education classroom. The researcher wanted to examine what co-teaching looked like in this
case and what can be learned about co-teaching from this particular case that added to the
pedagogical literature (Bouck). An inclusive middle school classroom in an urban school district
in Michigan was the setting.
To initiate the inquiry, Bouck (2010) made observations and conducted informal teacher
interviews. Co-teaching was found to be a highly complex relationship where the teachers had to
negotiate their roles. Roles that were identified were: instructor to the large class, instructor to
individuals, disciplinarian to the large class, disciplinarian to individual students, classroom
manager, supporter, gatekeeper, confidant, and friend. Co-teaching together enabled freedom
but also constrained both co-teachers’ autonomy (Bouck).
However, some of the new roles constrained existing roles (Bouck, 2010).
Recommendations of the author included focusing on the different roles available to both
teachers, the spaces that needed to be shared and divided, and the constraints of this service
delivery option. Bouck (2010) found that teachers had a common planning time, which made it
easier to plan and work together. Students saw the special education teacher as more of an aid

20
and less of an equal teacher. Teachers needed to think about the different roles in the classroom
and determine how their choices for roles in the classroom affected the choices of their co-
teaching partner. Findings suggested that partners should examine how to keep from devaluing
each other and how to enable each other so that the other teacher can begin new roles, as
opposed to being regulated to what the educator’s title typically assigns them to (Bouck).
One important aspect of co-teacher collaboration was classroom management. Rytivaara
(2012) examined the premises of collaborative classroom management in one classroom. The
author asked about how co-teachers management the classroom during co-taught lessons. Two
teachers were subjects of the study: one a general education teacher and the other a special
education teacher, who both agreed to participate in the study. The setting of the study was a
middle-sized elementary school in a suburban city of 90,000 people in Finland (Rytivaara).
Results included the fact that co-teachers worked together to plan and assign roles on a
regular basis. Co-teachers also established plans for behavior management, instruction, and
classroom management; they switched roles flexibly and regularly. One teacher led the
instruction while the other worked with individual students. Then, they switched roles. Further,
a significant part of teachers’ work was classroom management; sharing this responsibility
supported teachers’ well-being. Because teachers were sharing, this also meant that co-teacher
roles were not assigned permanently (Rytivaara, 2012).
Rytivaara (2012) also indicated that working with a difficult student was simpler in a co-
teaching situation. Sometimes students needed extra adult attention and did not require the
support of only the special needs teacher. Behavior problems did not become associated with
individual students because there was more than one adult in the room, who also handled
disruptive students. In this co-teaching arrangement, a teacher had much exposure to another

21
teachers’ presence, and could never hide his or her actions in the room. Co-teaching was found
to be a fruitful environment for professional and personal learning (Rytivaara).
Researchers proposed that the study contributed to understanding about collaborative
classroom management that may positively impact teachers’ attitudes toward teaching in a
diverse classroom. Conclusions exhibited that careful planning was essential in managing a co-
taught class. Working as a team played an important role in the teachers’ job satisfaction, which
was reflected in the class atmosphere. Open communication was a very useful tool for the
teachers to put to use during the lessons (Rytivaara, 2012).
Considering co-teachers’ roles and the work that they did on a daily basis was valuable.
Wasburn-Moses (2005) used a survey to investigate teachers’ daily work lives, their roles and
responsibilities, the positions they held, and the effectiveness of their teacher preparation.
Teaching and non-teaching roles such as working with other professionals, working with
students, and completing paperwork was the focus. Each of the roles was related to three
demographic factors: total number of years teaching, highest degree held, and number of
endorsements held. One hundred ninety-one (191) participants who taught students with
learning disabilities were randomly selected from high schools in the state of Michigan, where
378 public high schools were randomly selected for the study (Wasburn-Moses).
Results indicated many special education teachers also taught study skills and functional
skills. Fourteen percent (14%) reported being in a co-taught class, and spent 47% of their time
giving direct instruction. Co-teachers spent 20% of their time re-teaching students in the co-
taught class, and they reported working with general education students 71% of the time. In
conclusion, Washburn-Moses (2005) ascertained that given the many roles and responsibilities

22
that special education teachers handled daily, they must set as their priority the use of learning
strategies among all learners in the co-taught classroom (Wasburn-Moses).
Wasburn-Moses (2005) found that the field of special education was changing to drive
results in student outcomes and noted that as special education programs required co-teachers to
be knowledgeable in every subject, they also became masters of no subject area. Researchers
recommended that first priorities of leaders and administrators be the roles and responsibilities of
the special education teacher which changes daily, accompanied by teaching a wide array of
subjects (Wasburn-Moses, 2005).
How to help teachers who are new to co-teaching become successful was another crucial
issue in examining co-teacher roles and responsibilities. Keefe (2004) researched the challenges
of co-teaching and sought to discover what factors would help other co-teachers with the
inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classes in high schools. Eight
general education and eight special education teachers who were co-teaching were invited to
participate. Of these 16 co-teachers, three teachers were general education; four teachers were
special education; and one was the manager of the special education teachers. Years of
experience ranged from two to 20. Cactus Ridge High School, a suburban high school in the
Southwestern United States with approximately 2700 students was the setting of the study
(Keefe).
Interview questions were developed and three major themes emerged: the nature of
collaboration, roles of the teachers, and outcomes for students and teachers (Keefe, 2004).
Results indicated that the teachers struggled with their roles within a co-teaching context.
Teachers were left to determine how to work together. Some teachers found a division of roles
involving the general education teachers taking responsibility for curriculum and the special

23
education teachers taking responsibility for modifying the curriculum for students with special
needs. Throughout, teachers did not feel prepared for the demands that co-teaching placed on
them, particularly regarding collaboration skills, content knowledge, and knowledge of special
education (Keefe).
Conclusions brought forth that the relationship between the co-teachers appeared to be
the most relevant factor in how successful the teachers viewed co-teaching and how likely they
would be to continue co-teaching. Identifying co-teaching practices that support learning for all
students was an issue that was also vital to consider, particularly when examining student
outcomes (Keefe, 2004).
Further conclusions suggested that teachers should be better prepared for the demands of
co-teaching through pre-service teacher instructional programs. Ideally, preservice teacher
training programs should have modelled co-teaching, especially for special education teachers
who need greater knowledge about high school content area curriculum. General education
teachers needed more education in the area of disabilities and the need for modifications.
Knowing how to collaborate was key, particularly how to connect with each other about roles
and responsibilities. Relations between co-teachers were the most important factor in finding
success for the co-teachers. Teachers in this study made it clear that they wanted to have input
about selecting their co-teaching partner (Keefe, 2004).
Morningstar et al. (2015) purposed their study to identify inclusive classroom practices
that support participation and learning in the general education curriculum for all students.
Participants were the students and co-teachers in schools that were considered exemplary for
inclusive practices. Six knowledge development sites identified by the SWIFT Center (National
Center on School-wide Inclusive School Reform) as having excellent inclusive school practices

24
were the sites of the setting. All six of the schools were observed twice over a one-year period.
Methods included classroom observations focusing on classroom interactions and arrangements,
and a comprehensive observation checklist was utilized (Morningstar et al.).
Results indicated that general education and special education teachers were in each
class, and the teachers worked as a team to organize and deliver the material and provided tiered
instructional supports. Roles of the teachers were fluid. Two of the teachers engaged in multiple
instructional roles across each lesson. In conclusion, Morningstar et al. (2015) found that all
students spent most of their school day in the general education environment with the specialized
supports that they needed.
Furthermore, schools often did not want to take part in changes in service, and this led to
obvious differences between what evidence based knowledge was and what practices were
actually taking place in the classroom. Researchers detected insights into the routine of teaching
and learning that provided a leading way to academic achievement for students with a wide
range of support needs. Data exemplified for policymakers and teachers the extent to which
classroom-level supports and services could be changed to improve academic and functional
outcomes for all students (Morningstar et al., 2015).
Other aspects of roles and responsibilities of co-teachers in the literature review was how
well-trained pre-service teachers were and whether they were receiving the instruction and
experience they needed as student teachers. Dinnebeil, McInerney, & Hale (2006) conducted a
research study to understand the roles and capabilities of representatives from four groups: early
childhood special education (ECSE) student teachers, general education teachers with whom the
student teachers worked, parents of the children whom the student teachers served, and the
student teachers’ supervisors. These authors considered the perceived roles and responsibilities

25
of the student ECSE teachers and whether the ECSE teachers thought it was salient to provide
direct training in preparation to become a professional in any of these roles. The participants
selected for the study came from different locations around the United States: 23% lived in the
Northeastern United States; 38% lived in the Midwest; 22% resided in the South; and 17% lived
in the Western United States (Dinnebeil et al).
The instrument was an open-ended survey that was coded with the teacher roles and
responsibilities being identified. Results showed that ECSE student teachers achieved consensus
on 22 of the 44 responsibilities listed on their questionnaire. Roles and responsibilities listed in
the survey were: assessor/monitor, consultant/coach, direct service provider, lifelong learner,
service coordinator, and team member. The early childhood general education teachers reached
consensus on 14 of the 26 responsibilities listed on their questionnaire, and the parents came to
consensus on 15 of the 29 responsibilities listed. The supervisors met consensus on 36% of the
responsibilities listed on their questionnaire (Dinnebeil et al., 2006).
Participants identified a range of responsibilities associated with the many diverse roles
of the student teachers. Authors considered the roles of the special education teacher both in the
co-taught class and the special education environment (Dinnebeil et al., 2006). Results disclosed
that there needs to be improved awareness of the perspectives of both the general education
teacher and the student teacher, which could be addressed with better training of special
education, general education, and pre-service teachers. Researchers found it surprising that
student teachers had different perspectives in their experiences, which were dependent on the
point of view of each pre-service teacher. Evidence-based instructional practices promoted
learning and generalization of skills for ECSE students. Working together required consistent
practice in routines and activities. The field of ECSE instruction needed to review what exactly

26
an effective student teacher did during visits to children on his or her caseload. Defining and
improving student teacher ECSE service was identified as critical in finding successful student
outcomes (Dinnebeil et al.).
Considerations that should be made in order for a co-teaching pair to work successfully
together were examined in the next article. Weiss & Lloyd (2002) sought to find the congruence
between roles and actions of secondary special educators in co-taught classrooms. They inquired
about the differences in instructional procedures between co-taught classrooms and classrooms
that had exclusively special needs students. Participants were three educators at the high school
level, who provided services in co-taught and special education settings. A middle school and
high school of a rural local education agency in the Mid-Atlantic region of the Unites States were
the settings of the study (Weiss & Lloyd).
Variables involved the roles and instructional practices of special educators in both co-
taught and special education classes. Themes identified were: definitions, roles, instruction, and
actions. These descriptors were compared to the roles and actions in the special education class
and the co-taught class (Weiss & Lloyd, 2002).
Results indicated that certain roles should be established between the co-teachers:
providing support, providing content in a separate setting, providing separate content in the co-
taught class, and teaching as a team. Authors discussed the fact that not all of the co-teachers
had a common planning time, and they found there was little consistency in training for co-
teaching. Few teachers changed their instructional roles based on the instructional task. Special
education teachers circled the room, presented content, and managed the class. Clear
understanding between the special educators and the administrators was lacking in terms of how
co-teaching would be used to deliver specially designed instruction (Weiss & Lloyd, 2002).

27
Authors intended to interpret the meanings and actions that special educators brought to
co-taught classrooms. Conclusions included that there were barriers for the special education
teachers, including clear gaps in skill levels of students with and without disabilities found in the
co-taught class. Instruction that teachers introduced in the co-taught environment was further
explored at a later time in the special education class. When in the co-taught class, the special
education teacher almost always took on the role of the aide of the classroom. Because of the
issues stated above, Weiss & Lloyd (2002) concluded that co-teaching at the secondary level is
difficult for special education teachers.
Additionally, the teachers in this study participated in instructional activities that focused
on small, explicit parts of educational tasks in the special education room; and they were not able
to accomplish this in the co-taught classroom. Special educators circulated, presented content,
and managed the class in the co-taught environment. However, in the special education
classroom, these teachers used direct instruction, behavior modification, and strategy instruction
to meet their goals for instructions. Co-teaching, according to the interviews, was conducted to
get students with disabilities into the general education environment without thought about how
to best proceed with such plans for co-teaching. Due to this, authors concluded that co-teaching
is not always the correct service-delivery model for all students, teachers, or schools (Weiss &
Lloyd, 2002).
In conclusion, the literature on roles and responsibilities in co-teaching showed common
issues. Maintaining fluid and well-defined roles increased learning for students and created
positive outcomes for the school and community (Bouck, 2010; Morgan, 2016; Morningstar et
al., 2015; Rytrivaara, 2012). Other researchers further found that co-teachers should use
professional practices such as team teaching and defining roles and responsibilities (Morgan,

28
2016; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). Training in co-teaching led to positive outcomes and more well-
defined roles and responsibilities for co-teachers (Dinnebeil et al., 2006). The studies on roles
and responsibilities indicated that teachers need to plan, instruct, and manage together as a team
as they define their roles and responsibilities (Bouck, 2010; Keefe, 2004; Rytivaara, 2012;
Wasburn-Moses, 2005).
Co-Teacher Perceptions
Many studies have been conducted to measure co-teachers’ perceptions of their co-
teaching situation, and these studies are mainly in the form of surveys. The research examined
here showed that co-teachers had generally positive perceptions of co-teaching; it further
indicated that teachers stated that they needed a common planning time and training on co-
teaching to be capable of doing their jobs well as co-teachers (Austin, 2001; Gurgur & Unuzer,
2010; Hang & Rabren, 2009; Mumba, Banda, & Chabalengula, 2015).
Austin (2001) conducted a study to investigate the perceptions of co-teachers currently in
the classroom. The author looked at what practices co-teachers found effective and what they
thought was needed in teacher preparation to inform future teachers about co-teaching. The
study investigated which teacher did more in the co-taught classroom: the special education
teacher or the general education teacher. The participants were 139 co-teachers from nine school
districts in northern New Jersey who taught Kindergarten through 12th
grades, and inclusive
practices were well established in these districts.
Procedures for this study involved using an equal number of general education and
special education co-teachers, which were chosen randomly from the survey responses. The
Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey (PCTS) was utilized. Demographic information and

29
questions related to collaboration were gathered. An interview was developed, and participants
indicated a willingness to participate in a follow-up interview (Austin, 2001).
T-tests of paired samples on the demographic categories were analyzed (Austin, 2001).
The results included the fact that most of the co-teachers taught social studies, science, English
language arts, and math classes at the secondary level. Significant percentages of both general
and special educators indicated that they believed that the general education teacher did most of
the work in the co-taught classroom (p=.001). Most of the co-teachers acknowledged that they
should meet daily to plan lessons. Co-teachers agreed that they should establish and maintain
specific areas of responsibility and highly valued scheduled planning time, administrative
support, and in-service training (Austin).
In conclusion, the majority of the co-teachers had not volunteered for the experience but
considered co-teaching a worthwhile experience. Further, the authors suggested that school
administrators develop and promote a model of collaboration that is supported by research and
practice. Educational systems should have effective in-service training for co-teachers, and
schools should respond to the expressed needs of co-teachers with respect to logistical and
administrative support (Austin, 2001).
A review of student records also showed whether students benefited from co-teaching.
Hang & Rabren (2009) developed surveys in order to identify perspectives of teachers and
students with disabilities in order to determine the effectiveness of co-teaching using student
academic and behavioral records. The participants included 31 general education and 14 special
education teachers who were in their first year of co-teaching. These teachers represented 82%
of all the co-teachers in the school system. The authors included 58 students with disabilities
who represented 52% of all students with disabilities. Seven schools participated within a

30
Southeastern public-school system: four elementary, one middle school, and one high school.
Student SAT scores, discipline referrals, and tardy and attendance records from two school years
were gathered to determine whether students showed social and/or academic progress (Hang &
Rabren, 2009).
Students and teachers completed surveys, and analysis was conducted to determine if
typical gain was achieved by the co-taught students with disabilities as compared to the entire
student population. The Teacher’s Perspective and the Student’s Perspective Surveys were
designed to identify co-teacher and student attitudes on co-teaching and employed a Likert scale.
Once data were gathered, a one-way ANOVA was used to compute statistics (Hang & Rabren,
2009).
All teachers believed they needed common planning time. The general education teacher
believed that they were primarily responsible for monitoring student behaviors. Special
education teachers indicated the same belief that general education teachers assumed most of the
behavioral classroom management duties. In conclusion, teachers and students had positive
perspectives of co-teaching. Teachers perceived that students with disabilities had higher
academic performance in co-taught classes. This contributed positively to student behaviors.
However, findings from student behavioral records were in contrast with the opinions of the
respondents. Students with disabilities had more absences and behavior referrals, but SAT
scores improved among the students with disabilities (Hang & Rabren, 2009).
Another aspect in the literature was one school’s approach to co-teaching, and whether
the school could successfully provide a quality education to both special education and general
education students. Leatherman (2009) examined the dynamics of attitudes, collaboration, and
administration within the inclusive classroom, which adds to the complexities of schools

31
providing appropriate education for all students. Participants of the study were eight general
education teachers, three special education teachers, three instructional assistants, and the
principal in a two-year research project on studying the inclusive program at an elementary
program in the rural Midwest.
Multiple aspects of one elementary school’s implementation of an inclusion program
were the subject of this study (Leatherman, 2009). Case-study designs investigated the insights
and perceptions of the complexities of collaboration and co-teaching. In the second year of the
program, results of the successful inclusive program were produced and had creative scheduling
and planned collaboration time included. Team-teaching matches were successful for the
teachers and students in the co-taught class (Leatherman).
Conclusions identified themes that emerged through the voices of the teachers, including
scheduling challenges, team-teacher characteristics, and modeling and support in the co-taught
classes. Findings presented both success and problem-solving aspects of the co-taught class
(Leatherman, 2009). Issues of collaboration and co-teaching were explored in the study. Results
pointed to better preparation for co-teaching through professional development or pre-service
teacher university programs (Leatherman).
In many schools, training in co-teaching was needed, especially among content area
instructors. Mumba et al. (2015) asked about the impact of inquiry-based instruction in co-
taught high school science classes. Participants were 62 chemistry teachers in different school
districts in the United States. One of the outcomes of the study was information on teachers’
views on the benefits and challenges of inquiry in inclusive chemistry classrooms. According to
the study, the teachers were enrolled in chemistry education classes in 2013 at a university
located in the Midwest of the United States. The courses were about the concept of knowledge

32
and inquiry instructional knowledge. Twenty-one (21) teachers had bachelor’s degrees in
biology and an endorsement in chemistry. Forty (40) teachers had bachelor degrees in chemistry
with endorsement in physics or biology, and 45 teachers had masters’ degrees in education.
Data collection was conducted utilizing a questionnaire that was developed by Staer,
Goodrum, and Hackling (1998). Many of the teachers had little knowledge about co-teaching,
which they attributed to a lack of training. Teachers reported finding the following benefits of
inclusive teaching practices: student engagement, student seeking explanation through activities,
group work benefitting both special education and general education students, and students
taking ownership of the results. Responses of teachers also indicated challenges for teachers:
meeting curricular goals through planning; classroom management; special education students
requiring extra time; students not having the same level of competence; and achieving good
high-level and low-level student pairs (Mumba et al., 2015).
Results further indicated the following benefits to students in inclusive chemistry classes:
development of problem solving skills, learning scientific procedures, students’ obtaining
ownership of results, development of personal skills, and motivation of students to learn. Both
general education and special education students had many difficulties with the chemistry
curriculum, including difficulties in written expression, ability to connect ideas, and behavioral
issues (Mumba et al., 2015).
Another examination of co-teacher perceptions was conducted to determine what
procedures worked best for teachers in a co-taught class. Gurgur and Uzuner (2010) analyzed
the opinions of special and general education teachers on the procedures they followed in the co-
taught classroom. A survey collected data on teacher opinions, teacher preparation, opinions of
the co-teachers about planning meetings, and opinions of co-teachers on co-teaching. The

33
participants were one general education teacher, one special education teacher, and 35 second
grade students, including nine special education students. The setting was a school certified by
the Ministry of National Education and located in a low socio-economic neighborhood of
Ankara, Turkey.
Qualitative methods included semi-structured interviews and observations during
planning meetings, and reflective journals utilized with the classroom teachers (Gurgur &
Uzuner, 2010). Results indicated that the general education teacher was confident that she could
meet the needs of her students. However, this teacher had very little knowledge about co-
teaching. Planning meetings were found to be vital to determine the roles and responsibilities of
the teachers. The general education teacher had pre-made lesson plans that could only be
adapted but were not developed together between the co-teachers; this teacher also did not
approve of the use of co-teaching models. The authors concluded that both co-teachers receive
training and have a designated time to meet and plan together (Gurgur & Unuzer).
Researching one co-teaching team’s perceptions revealed whether they had a positive
working relationship and how this affected student outcomes. King-Sears, Brawand, Jenkins, &
Preston-Smith (2014) sought to triangulate data elicited from one pair of co-teachers and their
students to determine how co-teacher perceptions may or may not align with that of their
students. Researchers pondered how co-teachers divided roles and responsibilities when
presenting new content to the co-taught class and whether students and teachers agreed or
disagreed on their experiences in co-teaching. The participants were one general education and
one special education teachers, each with a master’s degree. The general education science
teacher had nine years of experience co-teaching. The special education teacher was in his third
year of co-teaching. The setting was a school system in the South Atlantic region in the U.S. that

34
was recommended to participate by a high school administrator and co-teachers who were
willing to commit to the requirements of the study (King-Sears, et al.).
Procedures in this study involved using video recordings for observation and analysis of
the two co-teachers’ behaviors. Two surveys were used to gather information on teacher and
student perceptions (King-Sears et al., 2014). Results indicated that teachers were observed
managing behavior, presenting instruction, giving directions, responding to students, responding
to teachers, monitoring, and questioning. The science teacher presented the science content to
the large group 66% of the time, and the special education teacher presented content 18% of the
time.
From the survey, the teachers reported overwhelmingly that they had a good working
relationship. Students perceived the science teacher was the one who planned instruction and
graded classwork. However, the students indicated that they learned best from both co-teachers
and both explained things most of the time. In the conclusion, students perceived that the co-
teachers had the same job. The model of team teaching was so fluid that it was very clear that
both teachers were leading the instruction (King-Sears et al., 2014).
Another study on perceptions considered how willing and able teachers were to work
together in an inclusive classroom. Blecker and Boakes (2010) measured how much teachers
wanted to instruct students with disabilities in the inclusive environment. Authors wanted to find
out what the skills, knowledge, and dispositions of general and special educators were in a co-
teaching situation. Researchers compared teacher perceptions and readiness for the co-taught
class based upon their years of experience, and they also measured teacher perceptions of school
climate regarding co-taught classes. The participants were teachers of grades K-12 from 54

35
schools in the three southern counties of New Jersey: Atlantic, Cape May, and Ocean. A total of
546 teachers responded to the survey (Blecker & Boakes).
Development of the instrument included statements about teachers’ perceptions of their
school climate, and teachers’ attitudes and readiness for inclusion. After the survey was
available for a total of four months, a series of independent t-tests were run on the data (Blecker
& Boakes, 2010).
Findings included a high agreement with the statement that students with learning
disabilities profit from friendships, followed by encouraging full participation of students with
disabilities, and providing students with disabilities as much of the curriculum as possible.
Authors also found that students were more likely to use a variety of materials and vary the pace
of learning. Co-teachers showed highly similar responses to chunking parts of assignments,
using interest centers, and providing templates or graphic organizers (Blecker & Boakes, 2010).
Blecker and Boakes (2010) concluded that teachers support the concept that children with
disabilities benefit from interactions with their non-disabled peers. In general, teachers had
concerns about the lack of planning time and professional development. Teachers with more
than seven years of teaching experiences had greater concerns about the lack of professional
development in co-teaching than co-teachers with fewer years teaching. Special educators used
strategies for differentiation more often than their general education counterparts. The
researchers suggest that there is a need for continued in-service trainings in the area of
collaboration (Blecker & Boakes).
Focusing on one population of students with disabilities, the deaf, enlightened researchers
on how teachers perceive hearing impaired students. Eriks-Brophy and Whittingham (2013)
wanted to determine teacher attitudes and perceptions of students with hearing loss who were in

36
the general education classroom. This research study also examined the extent to which
classroom teachers felt prepared by their training to work effectively with this population.
Researchers analyzed teachers’ knowledge-base on the impact of hearing loss on
communication, language development, and learning. The participants were 63 respondents to a
survey in a school district of the Ottawa-Carleton region of Ontario, Canada (Eriks-Brophy &
Whittingham).
A questionnaire implemented in the study was developed from published literature
related to teacher attitudes, knowledge, and skills that have been documented as being
fundamental to successful inclusion (Eriks-Brophy & Whittingham, 2013). Conclusions and
results indicated that most respondents showed that their hearing-loss students were taught in a
separate room by a trained professional. As high levels of the effect of inclusion on the hearing
loss students were reported, high levels of effects of inclusion on teacher workload were likewise
found. Teachers had favorable attitudes toward the inclusion of students with hearing loss in the
general education classroom and were confident in their ability to teach these students.
Likewise, teachers were knowledgeable about the effects of hearing loss on language
development and learning (Eriks-Brophy & Whittingham).
Inclusive models for students with hearing loss not only required that teachers display a
positive attitude about inclusion, but also that teachers had basic knowledge about language
development and how classroom participation and learning are affected by hearing loss (Eriks-
Brophy & Whittingham, 2013). Supports and accommodations were communicated clearly to
the teachers to ensure that co-teachers acquire the needed skills. Providing teachers with such
support was a decisive step toward respectful, responsible, and collaborative strategies that were
found in successful inclusion (Eriks-Brophy & Whittingham).

37
In conclusion, survey studies on co-teacher perceptions had some elements in common.
Co-teachers reported that there should be maintenance of specific responsibilities; however,
defining roles and responsibilities and finding time to plan together was a challenge (Austin,
2001; King-Sears et al., 2015; Leatherman, 2009). Further challenges included meeting
academic goals through enhanced planning, addressing the needs of all students which may
include extra time, and students having varying levels of competence with the curriculum
(Mumba et al., 2015). As teacher attitudes toward co-teaching improved, student attitudes also
increased. This led to more positive student behaviors (Eriks-Brophy & Whittingham, 2013).
Training was another common theme noted in the literature review (Gurger & Unuzer, 2010).
Leatherman (2009) identified the need for more thorough and consistent training programs to
prepare teachers for the experience of co-teaching. Survey results indicated that teachers needed
a common planning time and training (Austin, 2001; King-Sears et al., 2015; Leatherman, 2009).
Co-teachers also noted that mutually positive relationship between co-teaching pairs was
important (Eriks-Brophy & Whittingham, 2013). These criteria should be met despite challenges
in creating and meeting these positive circumstances to produce positive co-teaching
experiences.
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy refers to how well teachers perceive that they do their jobs. Self-
efficacy is a person’s judgment of their capabilities to organize and make decisions required to
achieve certain types of performances (Fanni, Rega, & Cantoni, 2013). According to Bandura
(1994), there are four main sources of influence on self-efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasion, and emotional states. Mastery experiences were the memories of

38
previously successful experiences that people may remembered when facing another situation.
Vicarious experiences came from the observation of peers that became a process of comparing
oneself to other people. Social persuasion derived from positive reinforcement; this implies that
a person’s self-efficacy increased when encouraged or motivated by other individuals.
Emotional states were related to the way people felt in a certain moment. People with a high
sense of self-efficacy used previous emotional states to improve their current performance (Fanni
et al.).
Self-efficacy of teachers has been associated in prior research with the effectiveness of
teachers and favorable student outcomes (Shoulders & Krei, 2015). Teachers with a high
perception of self-efficacy were associated with giving students the kinds of experiences they
needed to obtain positive outcomes. The effectiveness of teachers was essential for students to
achieve in an academic setting. Teacher beliefs about self-efficacy influenced teacher
instructional practices. When teachers had confidence in their teaching ability, they were more
willing to try innovative instructional practices. Students who were highly engaged perceive
their teachers as caring. Likewise, a well-structured classroom was characterized by high
academic expectations. Teachers who had a greater sense of self-efficacy tended to have the
motivation needed to manage the learning environment successfully (Shoulders & Krei).
For teachers to develop as teachers in inclusive classrooms, teacher self-efficacy was
salient due to its role in regulating classroom teaching practice. The skills required involved
differentiating instruction, adjusting and modifying curriculum, and adopting methods that
satisfy the learning needs of a wide variety of learners. Possibly because of a result of low
feelings of self-efficacy in inclusive teaching practice, some educators disclosed feelings of

39
anxiety about the implementation of co-teaching, viewing themselves as under-trained and not
skilled enough to meet the increasing demands of a diverse classroom (Shoulders & Krei, 2015).
Teaching was related to many educational outcomes that were meaningful, including
teachers’ enthusiasm and commitment. In a study on teacher self-efficacy, Fanni et al. (2013)
began with the concept that the self-efficacy construct is proposed as a tool to measure how
teachers’ perceptions of being able to use technology affects the teachers’ perceptions of being
an effective teacher. Participants were teachers in Brazil and South Africa and were selected
based on whether they had access to computer facilities, showed a great motivation in the
learning experience, and lacked prior computer skills.
A questionnaire was utilized, and an analysis of changes among the teacher perceptions
throughout the computer training program was conducted. Pre-test and post-test assessments
were given to the group and experimental group to measure self-efficacy. Self-efficacy
increased in the group that received the computer training (Fanni et al., 2013).
Results pointed toward the conclusion that teacher self-efficacy showed significant
improvement when utilizing computers. Researchers suggested continuing investigations in the
use of computers to increase self-efficacy among teachers in these countries, and a more suitable
tool for measuring the use of computers needed to be developed. Although teachers mastered the
computer program, these teachers did not feel that they had become better at providing
instruction. However, teachers did not only need to know how to properly use computer
software, but also how to supplement and utilize knowledge students gained on the computers
(Fanni et al., 2013).
In addition to the use of computers, researchers also studied the self-efficacy of
mathematics teachers. Stevens, Aguirre-Munoz, Harris, Higgins, and Lui (2013) wanted to

40
determine the extent to which teachers with varying levels mathematical background had unique
self-efficacy development over time. Central to the purpose of this study was the question of
whether two groups of teachers had the same patterns in gains in self-efficacy and whether they
rated themselves as being more self-efficacious after a professional development. Participants
were 65 middle school-level mathematics teachers who were part of the West Texas Middle
School Math Partnership project. The teachers were provided instruction in mathematics
through this program at four different institutions of higher education in southwest Texas.
Procedures in this study involved dividing participants into two groups based on whether
they had taken coursework beyond college algebra, a course which typically includes the
teaching of inequalities, equations, and binomial theorem. The sum of mathematical courses was
calculated, and groups who took these courses were created. One group took only algebra, and
another group consisted of teachers who had taken college-level mathematics in addition to
algebra. A pre- and post-test were administered before and after the professional development in
advanced mathematics (Stevens et al., 2013).
Results reviewed mean scores by group and independent t-tests for each efficacy measure
across time points (Stevens et al., 2013). These tests revealed increasing self-efficacy scores and
statistically significant differences between the groups. One group that took fewer advanced-
level college math classes showed much greater gains in self-efficacy than the teachers who had
only taken more advanced-level math classes in college. Conclusions considered that teachers
with different mathematical backgrounds showed different levels of self-efficacy gains as they
participated in the professional development (Stevens et al.).
In reviewing the literature on self-efficacy, the relationships between principals and
teachers and how this impacted teacher self-efficacy was also been explored. Calik, Sezgin,

41
Kavgaci, and Dilinc (2012) investigated the relationships between school principals’ leadership
behaviors and self-efficacy of teachers for all teachers in the school. The participants were 328
teachers, and the setting was public elementary schools in the center of Ankara, Turkey, during
the 2010-2011 school year. The surveys were taken over a period of three years. The
Instructional Leadership Scale, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale, and the Collective Efficacy
Scale were used to gather the data for the study (Calik et al., 2012)
Results showed that instructional leadership had a significant direct and positive impact
on collective teacher efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy affected the relationship between
instructional leadership and collective teacher self-efficacy. Conclusions disclosed that school
principals’ instructional leadership behaviors had a positive and significant effect on teachers’
self-efficacy. Instructional leadership affected the collective efficacy indirectly through
teachers’ self-efficacy (Calik et al., 2012).
Professional development programs further demonstrated much success in improving
teacher self-efficacy in co-teaching. Another study involving teacher self-efficacy by Sandholtz
and Ringstaff (2014) measured the extent to which teachers’ participation in a three-year
professional development program enhanced teacher self-efficacy and prompted changes in
science instruction in primary elementary grades. Participants were teachers from 16 schools in
Northern California.
Procedures of the study involved providing professional development over three years
and focused on increasing teachers’ content knowledge and the use of research-based
instructional strategies in science. Teachers received instruction to build subject matter
knowledge while also learning specific learning strategies. A survey measuring self-efficacy,

42
interviews of the teachers, and classroom observations were conducted to gather data (Sandholtz
& Ringstaff, 2014).
Sandholtz and Ringstaff’s (2014) study exhibited that teachers’ overall self-efficacy in
teaching science increased during and after the professional development sessions. Teachers
disclosed improvement in outcome expectancy efficacy; their beliefs that student learning in
science depended on effective teaching also improved across the three-year period. The authors
concluded that there needed to be progress in teachers’ preparedness to teach science and the
potential of professional development to increase the teachers’ self-efficacy in science
instruction. Gains in self-efficacy corresponded with changes in instructional practices in
science, especially the use of student participation activities (Sandholtz & Ringstaff).
Other studies also signaled that professional development results in higher levels of self-
efficacy for teachers. Anderson and Standerford (2012) scrutinized the self-efficacy of teachers
and the effectiveness of their instruction in a new spelling program. Researchers purposed to
discover the reasons that teachers decide to alter their teaching, what practices actually changed,
and how a school-university partnership served to alter the practices and beliefs of three teachers
over nine months. Rural school districts in the upper Midwest serving about 2,500 students in K-
12 were the setting, and three teachers participated. The university and the school district had a
quasi-Professional Development School relationship for almost 20 years (Anderson &
Standerford).
Case analysis design was selected to examine the complexity of the school-university
partnership. Methods such as informal conversation with the professors about the need to
improve spelling instruction were used to collect data. Each of three second grade teachers were
interviewed, and several spelling lessons were observed for the study. Further, the researchers

43
collected and analyzed curriculum materials, student work, and materials developed to present
the changes to colleagues. Expertise the researchers brought to the study along with the depth of
the data allowed them to construct explanations of the consequential and causal components of
the case (Anderson & Standerford, 2012).
Findings contained what changes were made to the curriculum and how teachers’
paradigms of teaching and learning changed. Students improved in spelling and writing, and the
instruction became differentiated across the curriculum. Teachers’ beliefs about spelling were
considered more transformational in learning the new spelling program, which affected teachers’
behaviors and beliefs across their entire teaching practice in addition to teachers’ sense of self-
efficacy. Teachers felt they had the power to make changes within their work contexts and had
both the will and the capacity to improve their instruction (Anderson & Standerford, 2012). As
teachers changed their beliefs or actions, they improved in teaching practices. Teachers believed
they could positively affect student learning and continue experimenting with new ways of
teaching, asking questions, and building relationships with colleagues who support them in their
efforts. Participants in this study grew in confidence as they implemented and experienced
success with the new spelling program (Anderson & Standerford).
Thus, one of the commonalities indicated most in these studies was the concept that
teachers who had training in a certain field such as co-teaching, teaching mathematics, or
spelling had an overall higher sense of self-efficacy in their teaching practice than those who had
less training. More knowledge led to increased levels of perceived effectiveness (Fanni et al.,
2013; Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2014; Shoulders & Krei, 2015; Stevens et al., 2013). Other
elements appeared to cause increased perceived effectiveness. Standardized professional
practices in implementing a school-wide curriculum initiative improved self-efficacy (Anderson

44
& Standerford, 2012). Strong school leadership also increased a school-community’s perceived
self-efficacy (Calik et al., 2012).
Co-Teacher Self-Efficacy
The self-efficacy of co-teachers had a limited research based. Of the studies in the
literature, co-teachers who had training (either professional development or pre-service classes at
a university), a set planning time with their co-teacher, and support from administration report
higher levels of self-efficacy in the co-taught classroom. Co-teaching is positively associated
with teacher confidence (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013). Other studies indicate that co-teachers,
both general education and special education, frequently had no preparation or training in co-
teaching and felt somewhat anxious about co-teaching. Their self-efficacy was low due to a lack
of knowledge in the field of co-teaching (Loreman et al., 2013).
Shoulders and Krei (2015) conducted a study to compare the differences in rural high
school teachers’ self-efficacy in student engagement, instructional practices, and classroom
management in inclusive classes using selected teacher qualities. The study included 256
teachers in rural areas in Tennessee and Indiana.
A survey was developed at Ohio State University that measured teacher self-efficacy in
high school teachers; measured teacher attitudes toward students; and covered the areas of
instruction, management, and engagement. A one-way analysis of variance was used to analyze
the data (Shouders & Krei, 2015).
Researchers concluded that individual student engagement, instructional practices, and
classroom engagement were all notable. Classroom management was found particularly
significant. Furthermore, teachers with more education had better classroom management.
Teachers with more teaching experience scored higher in engagement, instruction, and classroom

45
management. However, these experienced teachers did not have the same significance in self-
efficacy for student engagement. No significant differences were found between the means of
this group and teachers with either zero to four or five to 14 years of experience. Also, teachers
with an education level above a master’s degree had no significant difference in student
engagement compared to teachers who only had a bachelor’s or master’s degree. Results
contrasted the researchers’ expectations that experienced and highly educated teachers would
think of themselves as more efficacious in this area. All groups had relatively positive views of
their efficacy. Benefits of helping teachers develop strong beliefs in self-efficacy was found in
research that shows positive relationships between teacher efficacy and student outcomes
(Shouders & Krei, 2015).
Other studies probed into whether in-service and pre-service trainings improved self-
efficacy of co-teachers. In a study conducted by Pancsofar and Petroff (2013), the researchers
wanted to determine whether in-service training in co-teaching would improve teacher
confidence, interests, and attitudes. A total of 129 teachers from five districts in a Mid-Atlantic
state took part in the online survey. Most of the teachers had 10 or more years or professional
teaching experience and had a master’s degree.
The Co-teaching Experiences and Attitudes Survey (CEAS) was developed for the study
and was meant to be applicable for teachers of all age ranges and subject levels, as well as for
teachers who were not currently co-teaching. Extensive interviews were completed with 11 of
the participants, which contributed to the refinement of the survey to enhance its validity and
relevance (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013).
Results were calculated using t-tests to determine if there were significant differences
across groups in pre-service and in-service training opportunities and teacher confidence,

46
interest, and attitudes around co-teaching across teacher demographics (Pancsofar & Petroff,
2013). Regression analyses were conducted with pre-service and in-service training as outcome
variables and teacher demographics such as veteran teacher status, experience with co-teaching,
and special educator status as independent variables. These data were analyzed to gain a better
sense of the associations between pre-service and in-service training opportunities and teacher
outcomes. Highly elevated levels of confidence in co-teaching were found among teachers who
received training. Additionally, professional development on co-teaching was significantly
associated with each teacher outcome. After the training, co-teachers were more interested in
inclusion, more confident in their ability to co-teach, and held more positive attitudes about co-
teaching (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013).
Pancsofar and Petroff (2013) concluded that teacher education and professional
development should cover the variety of skills and practices necessary to promote effective co-
teaching. Further, pre-service and in-service training in co-teaching was associated with higher
levels of co-teacher confidence, interest in co-teaching, and more positive attitudes about this
service delivery model (Pancsofar & Petroff).
Significant research indicating that pre-service preparation for co-teaching leads to
greater self-efficacy among new teachers also emerged (Conderman, Johnston-Rodriguez,
Hartman, & Walker, 2012). Researchers in this study were university professors who taught pre-
service teachers and investigated recent graduates’ perceptions of their teacher preparation
programs. Central to the study was the notion that new special education teachers were well
prepared and were personally confident in their co-teaching practices. Participants were 64
graduates of Northern Illinois University. Eleven percent taught in inclusive classrooms; 25%

47
were primarily in resource rooms; and the other 64% taught in self-contained units (Conderman
et al.).
Mixed methods were used in collecting and analyzing the data. Questions were
developed by contacting professors within the department, who each provided core competencies
of their courses that were explicitly matched to the Council for Exceptional Children’ Initial
Standards. Surveys were mailed to 103 former students of the education department of the
university. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to determine reliability (Conderman et al.,
2012).
Results of the survey showed that the beginner teachers had the most confidence in
displaying professionalism, and the least confidence in enhancing the language skills of English
Language Learners (Conderman et al., 2012). Newly-graduated teachers scored highest in areas
of professionalism in using effective communication skills, planning individualized instruction,
providing instruction, implementing positive behavior supports, and collaborating with
colleagues to make student accommodations. In measuring teachers’ levels of confidence, they
scored highest again in professionalism, behavior management, and instruction (Conderman et
al.).
The authors were impressed that new teachers could thoughtfully reflect on their
undergraduate preparation and indicated that they were happy to hear from a person from the
university who genuinely cared about them. The researchers concluded that reflections of new
teachers were a good source for making improvements in teacher preparation programs
(Conderman et al., 2012).
In another study, researchers also found that improving preparation programs led to
greater self-efficacy of middle school co-teachers. Strieker et al. (2013) sought to improve pre-

48
service middle-school special education and general education teachers’ self-efficacy, and they
indicated that the research base on the effectiveness of co-teaching and preparation of general
education teachers was inadequate. Effectiveness of improving pre-service teachers’ knowledge
of and attitudes toward co-teaching in middle school content classrooms was found in this study.
Strieker et al. purposed to find out what knowledge of attitudes toward co-teaching with special
education professionals pre-service middle school teachers possess. Next, researchers asked
what impact working with special educators had on the attitudes of pre-service general educators.
From the fall of 2008 to the fall of 2012, 256 middle school pre-service teachers registered in the
program at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. One hundred twenty (120) of these pre-
service teachers volunteered to participate; these represented pre-service teachers who were
preparing to teach in social studies, science, language arts, and mathematics. They completed
two 45 course hour content area methods courses and a field experience which required them to
complete 135 hours of student teaching (Strieker, et al.).
Classroom observations and an interview of co-teaching professionals were conducted,
and authors noted that teacher attitudes were linked to their feelings of self-efficacy, and this in
term affected their teaching effectiveness. Strieker et al. (2013) used the constant comparative
method to identify themes in the participants’ understanding of effective co-teaching.
Results indicated that the preparation program at the university was effective in
improving pre-service teachers’ awareness of the challenges of co-teaching as well as their
confidence, competence, and commitment to co-teaching (Streiker et al., 2013). Pre-service
teachers learned about co-planning, co-instruction, and co-teaching models, and they came to
understand the importance of balance in the roles and responsibilities of co-teachers and the
value of communication between co-teachers. Prior to the initiation of the program, most of the

49
pre-service middle school teachers did not think that teaching students with disabilities was their
responsibility. Strieker et al. indicated a need for more systematic approaches to teaching and
learning about collaboration and co-teaching.
Teacher self-efficacy in relation to their associations with students with disabilities was
likewise studied. Montgomery & Mirenda (2014) extended the investigation conducted by
Savolainen, Engelbrecht, Nel, & Malinen (2012) to examine the relationship between teacher
self-efficacy and teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education, with a
focus on students with developmental disabilities. Participants were attendees of a conference.
In all, 115 people took part in the survey, and 10 surveys were complete enough to be included in
the sample. Data of the online survey were analyzed to find out whether teachers had positive or
negative sentiments toward students with disabilities.
Results of the study suggested a weak but statistically significant negative relationship
between sentiments and teacher self-efficacy related to collaboration for using inclusive
instruction and managing problem behavior. Teachers with more positive attitudes about
including students with developmental disabilities tended to feel more confident in their ability
to use inclusive instructional practices and collaborate and manage problem behaviors
(Montgomery & Mirenda, 2014).
Conclusions disclosed that the findings of the study replicated a previous investigation
that teachers’ self-efficacy related to collaboration was primarily associated with positive
sentiments and attitudes and fewer concerns about inclusive education. Training in co-teaching
was a contributor to the implementation of inclusive educational practices for students with
developmental disabilities (Montgomery & Mirenda, 2014).

50
Lack of preparation and training in co-teaching led to anxiety and lower levels of self-
efficacy of co-teachers. Loreman et al. (2013) conducted an international study examining pre-
service teacher reports of teaching self-efficacy for inclusive education, focusing on the
explanatory relationship between Bandura’s (1994) scale to measure self-efficacy. The study
examined 380 pre-service teachers in four teacher preparation programs in Canada, Australia,
Hong Kong, and Indonesia. Primary procedures of the study included implementing a survey to
the pre-service teachers. Different aspects of teacher self-efficacy for preparedness to teach in an
inclusive classroom were asked in the instrument (Loreman et al., 2013).
Results indicated that previous teaching experience with children with disabilities,
interactions with people with disabilities, and a working knowledge of law and policy on
inclusive education all had statistically significant relationships with teacher self-efficacy.
However, confidence levels in teaching students with disabilities and previous training in special
education displayed low statistical power in relation to teacher self-efficacy scores. The country
in which the data were gathered was found to be significant in the study (Loreman et al., 2013).
Researchers concluded that teacher self-efficacy of pre-service teachers with respect to
inclusion increased when they undertook coursework on inclusive education. This study
provided information for program emphasis in order to address areas of low teaching self-
efficacy. Strong differences internationally were most evident in the data, with pre-service
teachers in Hong Kong reporting lower inclusion self-efficacy scores than did their counterparts
in all other countries on the scale and subscales. Australians reported significantly higher
responses in terms of feelings of self-efficacy in inclusion (Loreman et al., 2013).
Therefore, best practice, professional development, and an openness to instructing
students with disabilities were found to increase perceived effectiveness in the inclusive

51
classroom. Co-teacher self-efficacy improved when co-teachers engaged in evidence-based
instructional practices and classroom management (Anderson & Standerford, 2012; Fanni et al.,
2013; Shoulders & Krei, 2015). Additionally, in-service and pre-service training in co-teaching
led to higher self-efficacy among teachers in the co-taught classroom (Conderman et al., 2012;
Loreman et al., 2013; Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013; Streiker et al., 2013). Finally, co-teachers
possessing positive attitudes about students with disabilities experienced increased perceived
effectiveness (Montgomery & Mirenda, 2014).
Conclusion
The review of the literature showed that when co-teachers define their roles and
responsibilities, outcomes improved for the students, the teachers, and the entire school
community (Morgan, 2016). Planning together built the relationship between the co-teachers,
and they worked more efficiently together (Austin, 2001; Morgan, 2016; Rytivaara, 2012, Weiss
& Lloyd, 2002). Teachers who had more experience and training in co-teaching displayed
higher levels of self-efficacy. Professional practices such as defining roles and responsibilities
that resulted in more student engagement also increased co-teacher self-efficacy (King-Sears et
al., 2014; Rytivaara, 2012, Wasburn-Moses, 2005). If people working in educational settings
knew that they could improve their practice and increase their perceived effectiveness by
defining roles and responsibilities, then educators at all levels would understand the benefits of
setting professional standards for co-teachers and others who collaborate on a regular basis.
Research indicated that co-teachers work better together if they plan, instruct, and
manage the classroom together (Austin, 2001; Bouck, 2010; Wasburn-Moses, 2005). Surveys on
co-teacher perceptions showed that co-teachers had certain needs that had to be met if they are to
manage the roles and responsibilities of co-teaching successfully: in-service training in co-

52
teaching, a common planning time, administrative support, and a positive relationship between
co-teachers (Austin, 2001). Self-efficacy of teachers is improved primarily by obtaining more
training in co-teaching practices or the teachers’ academic area. The more training in co-
teaching, the higher the self-efficacy (Loreman et al., 2013; Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013;
Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2014; Stevens et al., 2013; Streiker et al., 2013). Professional school
leadership additionally led to high levels of self-efficacy for school staff (Calik et al., 2012).

53
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Overview
Many general and special educators are assigned to co-teaching with little regard for their
preparation and no clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities to learners with
disabilities in the co-taught classroom setting (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; Weiss & Lloyd,
2003). The role of co-teacher was created to meet the needs of students in inclusive classrooms
as a required by IDEA (1997), NCLB (2002), and IDEIA (2004). Co-teaching provides special
education services to students in the general education classroom. This places a special
education teacher and a general education teacher in one setting (Friend & Cook, 2009;
Murawski, 2009; Pugach, & Winn, 2011; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Solis,
Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). The framework involved when entering into co-teaching
centers around co-planning, co-instruction, co-behavior management, and co-differentiation
(Conderman et al., 2008; Friend & Bursuck, 2009; Murawski, 2012). Defining roles and
responsibilities in co-teaching can help teachers to know what to do and when to do it while
working in the classroom together (Beninghof, 2011). Additionally, this practice coupled with
co-teaching techniques improves student outcomes (Morgan, 2016). In classroom collaboration,
together teachers determine who will apply accommodations, where the teachers will plan
together, who will handle behavior management, and who will grade papers (Perez, 2012).
Although there are practices common in the field of special education for teachers to utilize in
their co-teaching experiences, there are other factors that determine the success or failure
between co-teachers. Examples include volunteering to be a co-teacher, having a regular
planning time for lessons, and having administrative support, as written about by Bouck (2010),

54
Conderman et al. (2012), Klingner and Vaughn (2002), Kohler-Evans (2006), and Ronfeldt,
Farmer, McQueen and Grisson (2015). Teacher self-efficacy, or one’s personal belief about
one’s capabilities, can also affect a co-teacher’s performance, attitude, and decision-making
(Bandura, 1994). Positive self-efficacy can improve student outcomes (Shoulders & Krei, 2015).
Co-teaching is an increasingly common practice in schools around the world and is used
in almost every school district in America (Conderman et al., 2008). The practice of co-teaching
is supported by changes in U. S. law (IDEA, 1997; IDEIA, 2004). It brings a general education
teacher and a special education teacher together in one class to provide for the academic and
social needs of all the students. Co-teachers must cooperate and collaborate in order to achieve
success (Perez, 2012). However, there is little research to support best practices for co-teaching.
This research seeks to examine co-teacher roles and responsibilities comparing roles teachers
currently undertake as compared to what the teacher perceives as best practices for co-teaching
situations. Additionally, the study examines teacher self-efficacy in relation to co-teaching
situations. This chapter describes the methods used to develop and refine a survey, implement
the survey, and collect results.
Research Questions
The study addresses the following research questions:
teachers’ present roles and responsibilities from the roles and responsibilities that they think are
best practice?
It was hypothesized that general education teachers’ present roles and responsibilities
would differ from the roles and responsibilities that they think are best practice.

55
be best practice?
It was hypothesized that special education teachers’ present roles and responsibilities
would differ from the roles and responsibilities that they think are best practice.
Research Question 3: Is there a significance between special education and general
education co-teachers’ perceived roles and responsibilities in co-teaching situations?
It was hypothesized that special education and general education teachers would differ in
how they perceive their roles and responsibilities in a co-teaching role.
Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between general education co-teacher roles
It was hypothesized that general education co-teacher self-efficacy would be predictive of
roles and responsibilities.
It was hypothesized that special education co-teacher self-efficacy would be predictive of
roles and responsibilities.
The overall goal of this study was to understand which roles and responsibilities each
teacher actually does in their current or most recent co-teaching situation. Another goal was to
understand which roles and responsibilities the teachers think are best practice for co-teaching
(the special education teacher and the general education teacher) in order to establish a guideline
for informing the co-teaching process. An understanding of whether co-teachers are reporting

56
performing at the level of best practice is pertinent. Whether self-efficacy of co-teaching roles
are impacted by self-efficacy is also important.
Participants
The survey was sent using the following methods: 1) via email in classes at a large
Southwestern University, including Alternative Route to Licensure coursework in general and
special education, the Educational Psychology introductory class subject pool, where only co-
teachers were instructed to participate, and; 2) via email through the local teacher union list
serve. Moreover, the researcher brought a laptop to two university classes for pre-service and in-
service teachers who were taking student teaching in special education and another class that
prepared ARL candidate beginner teachers to learn about behavior management. While taking
the survey, demographic information was collected from teachers. Data were collected from
teachers who were currently co-teaching or had any previous experience in co-teaching, either as
a special education teacher or a general education teacher. Only teachers with this experience
were solicited to take the survey.
The sample included 160 general education and 160 special education teachers exceeding
the minimum ratio of 10 participants for every 1 new question created in the literature (Costello
& Osborne, 2005). The demographic information collected reflected categories utilized in the
2010 Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) and included age, gender, and ethnic origin.
Additionally, level of education, type of educator, years of experience teaching, years of
experience in co-teaching, and current teaching assignment were documented. Participation in
the study was completely voluntary and anonymous.

57
Setting
The survey was taken online through the Qualtrics (2017) survey system. Most of the
participants were teaching in a large urban school district in the southwest United States. The
survey was created to allow participants to complete the information from any computer, tablet,
or hand-held mobile device. Participants were able to exit the survey at any time.
Instrumentation
The survey consisted of 70 Likert questions and six demographic questions. Items for the
survey came from two sources. Questions were created based on themes identified from a
review of literature (see Appendix A), the Bandura (1994) Teacher Self-Efficacy survey, and
demographic information. Specifically, six questions aimed at indicating demographic data; 20
questions were developed to indicate the roles and responsibilities of the co-teachers (to be
answered twice: once indicating what they actually do; and the second time answering what they
think best practice is); and 30 questions (the entirety) of Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale
(1994). The survey questions were on a scale of 1 to 10 on the self-efficacy scale and from 0 to
4 for the roles and responsibilities part of the survey.
Co-Teaching Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire on co-teaching was developed by a thorough review of the literature.
The terms “Co-teaching,” “Collaboration,” “Collaborative Consultation,” “Inclusion,” “Co-
teacher Self-efficacy, and “Teacher Self-efficacy” were searched in three different databases:
ERIC, Academic Search Premiere, and Education Full Text. The recent literature on co-teaching
was sought, so only articles from the searches between the years 2001 – 2017 were included in
the analysis. The total number of articles found on co-teaching was 67, and 25 of these were
used to develop the questionnaires. Only empirical studies published in peer-reviewed sources

58
were included. Findings from the studies were reviewed and placed into categories. A matrix
indicating how articles were used to develop the survey was created.
Initially 20 categories were identified, and articles were sorted according to these
categories. Once the articles were reviewed, common themes for practical aspects of how co-
teachers work were identified: instruction, planning, behavior management, and differentiation.
Each article containing these topics was used as a source for the survey, and placed on the matrix
in Appendix A. A total of 25 empirical studies were used to form the questions in the survey.
Five questions were developed for each of the four identified themes, for a total of 20 questions.
The most common activities of co-teachers identified in the 26 articles were formed into
questions, resulting in 5 distinct questions per category (Bouck, 2010; Mastropieri & McDuffie,
2007; Ronfeldt et al., 2015; Strieker et al., 2013; Tschida, Smith & Fogarty, 2015).
Questions in the survey were focused on practical aspects of the co-teaching relationship
that authors recommend co-teachers discuss when they begin co-teaching (Conderman et al.,
2008). Some studies specifically discussed how often teachers should meet to plan, who will
deliver the main part of the lesson or the warm-up, which teacher handles discipline and
enforcing rules, differentiating instruction, as well as other issues (Fujimoto-Adamson, 2010;
Tschida et al., 2015). These 20 survey questions were asked in two different ways. In the first
instance, teachers were asked what their actual roles are in co-teaching. In the second instance,
teachers were asked what roles they think are best practice for someone in his or her role.
For each item on the roles and responsibilities portion, teachers indicated on a 5-item
Likert scale how frequently they executed certain roles: never, seldom, some of the time, most
of the time, or almost always. Researchers have found that including a five-point scale that
includes a middle category allows respondents to indicate a neutral response and be more

59
discriminating in their response (Cronbach, 1950). The questions were categorized into different
categories of co-teaching roles: co-planning, co-instruction, co-differentiation, and co-behavior
management.
Once the questions were developed, they were field-tested in the following ways. A
preliminary survey was developed from this set of roles and responsibilities. The questionnaire
was transferred to Qualtrics. This preliminary survey was given to 15 co-teachers, and then the
survey was given to 20 students in a college class of current teachers and student teachers. The
co-teachers and pre-service teachers were asked about their understanding of survey items and
whether they understood survey directions. The time it took to complete the survey was noted
also. The survey was revised based upon the recommendations. No data were analyzed in this
process. The finalized and revised version of the survey was used to collect data in the
questionnaire developed in Qualtrics (2017).
Experts in the field of co-teaching were contacted to ask them to review the survey: an
Assistant Professor at a large southern university, an Associate Professor at a top tier university
in the U. S. Southwest with experience in co-teaching and survey development, and a Professor
Emirita from the southwestern United States with experience with inclusive practices. These
experts were emailed a copy of the survey and asked if they would provide feedback on the
questions and formatting of the survey. Revisions were made based on the professional experts’
comments.
Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale Development
Bandura’s self-efficacy scale was also added to the survey to find out whether there was a
relationship between co-teaching and self-efficacy (1994). No modifications were made to the

60
Bander (1994) survey. Bandura’s scale (1994) has been used in numerous studies and is a
respected, valid tool for measuring self-efficacy of educators.
On the self-efficacy section, teachers indicated level of confidence on a scale of 0 to 10:
zero was cannot do at all; five was moderately can do; and 10 was highly certain can do. These
included questions on efficacy to influence decision-making, instructional self-efficacy,
disciplinary self-efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to enlist community
involvement, efficacy to create a positive school climate, and efficacy to meet legal requirements
(Bandura, 1994).
Perceived self-efficacy is a major predictive factor of personal intention. The make-up of
Bandura’s efficacy scale relies on a good conceptual analysis of the process of functioning.
Knowledge of the chosen activity specifies which aspects of personal efficacy should be
measured (Bandura, 2006). Perceiving efficacy is measured on Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy
Scale against levels of tasks that represent gradations to successful performance. The scale
defines the level of difficulty individuals believe they can overcome. If there are no obstacles to
work through, then the activity is easy, and everyone can be very efficacious (Bandura).
The standard procedure for measuring beliefs of personal efficacy includes a number of
procedures to minimize any motivational effects of self-assessment. These precautions are found
in the instructions of the scale including instructing participants to rate how certain they are that
they can do the items in the self-efficacy section of the survey. Respondents in this part of the
survey were reminded that their answers would be kept strictly confidential and would not be
identified by name (Bandura, 2006).

61
Materials
The materials used for the study were the surveys, Qualtrics (2017), and the IBM SPSS
(2017) software used to run statistical analyses on the research questions. The survey was
administered using Qualtrics (Qualtrics Lab, Inc., 2017), a web-based questionnaire software
package. The initial version of Qualtrics (2017) software was released in 2005. Qualitrics
allows more than 100 types of questions and allows data to be shown in over 30 types of graphs.
This software is free for faculty and students at the university where this study was conducted.
Additionally, this software allows downloading and exporting data into Excel and the IBM
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (2017).
The survey was sent via a dedicated link to teachers; this gave them access to the online
questionnaire. All survey responses were maintained digitally, and access to the information
from the questionnaire was limited to the primary investigator and the doctoral committee chair.
Data gathered in the questionnaire were used only for the purpose of statistical analysis and
dissemination of information about the purpose of the study.
Design and Procedures
Four phases were implemented in defining the design and procedures of the study.
Phase One: Development of Questionnaire
The survey was developed by generating an item pool through a review of literature and
allowing the preliminary survey to be reviewed by potential survey respondents.
Generate item pool. Literature on co-teaching was identified and reviewed. From the
literature review themes related to the roles and responsibilities of co-teachers were identified. A
total of 40 questions were developed from the identified themes: instruction, planning, behavior
management, and differentiation.

62
Survey development. A preliminary survey was developed from the above of roles and
responsibilities. Co-teachers and pre-service teachers were asked about their understanding of
survey items and whether they understood survey directions. The survey was revised based upon
the recommendations. The finalized and revised version of the survey was used to collect data in
the survey developed in Qualtrics (2017). The survey (Appendix B) was developed ensuring
that it was user friendly (Dillman, 2007). The teachers clicked the link to the questionnaire, and
the initial screen was the protocol describing the purpose of the study and the approximated time
to complete the questionnaire.
Phase Two: Experts in the Field of Co-Teaching
Experts in the field of co-teaching were contacted to ask them to review the survey: an
Assistant Professor at a large southern university, an Associate Professor at a top tier university
in the Southwest United States with experience in co-teaching and survey development, and a
Professor Emirita from the southwestern United States with experience with inclusive practices.
These experts were emailed a copy of the survey and asked if they would provide feedback on
the questions and formatting of the survey. Revisions were made based on the professional
experts’ comments.
Phase Three: Solicitation of Participation
The population sought to participate included anyone who had ever been either a general
education or special education teacher in a co-teaching role. The local teachers’ union
distributed the survey to educators listed as resource room teachers, including special education
co-teachers. These special education co-teachers were requested to ask their general education
counterparts to take the survey as well. This procedure was necessary because the union did not
have a list that specified which teachers were currently co-teaching. Digital consent obtained is

63
considered acceptable consent for the online survey. Teachers who did not give their consent
were exited from Qualtrics (2017). Participants who exited the survey by closing the survey
window were not able to re-enter the survey at a later time. When a participant completed the
questionnaire, repeat access to the survey was denied by Qualtrics (2017).
Phase Four: Use of Data
Descriptive statistics were analyzed from the data, and three statistical analyses were
chosen to answer each of the research questions: Wilcoxon signed rank test, Mann-Whitney U
test, and bivariate regression models. A Wilcoxon signed rank (Huang, 2016) and a Mann-
Whitney U (Runxton, 2006) (the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test) are statistical tests
that determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the means of two
unrelated groups. A bivariate regression model was used to estimate the relations among
different variables. It is used when analyzing the relationship between a dependent variable and
one or more independent variables (Scott, Flaherty, & Currall, 2012). Once the analysis was
complete, findings were reported.
Data Collection
Survey responses and demographics were collected anonymously and stored
electronically by the online database until enough participants had taken it. All participants gave
their consent prior to participating in the survey. The researcher went to three Alternative Routes
to Licensure classes at a high research institution (according to Carnegie rankings) in the
Southwestern U.S., to allow beginner teachers to take the survey on a laptop. The local
education union distributed the survey to their members, instructing potential participants to only
answer the questions if they have ever been a co-teacher. The survey was distributed to teachers
identified as resource room teachers, and these teachers were asked to pass the survey along to

64
their general education counterpart. Once a target of 160 co-teachers for each group was met,
the survey was closed. This took place during the Spring 2017 semester. Then, the data were
organized into a database. Data were then examined, and incomplete survey responses were
discarded. Surveys that were not fully completed were not usable because they contained only
partial amounts of the data required. At this point, there were 170 special education and 160
general education responses. Ten special education responses were randomly selected and then
discarded to obtain an equal number of data points for each group. This procedure was used
because it was a random selection of the excess special educator surveys.
The research questions are as follows:
be best practice?
Analysis: In order to determine if a significant relationship existed between the co-
teachers’ actual roles and the roles they consider to be best practice, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test was employed. The alpha level was set at .05.
be best practice?
Analysis: In order to determine if special education teachers’ actual roles and the roles
they consider to be best practice, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was conducted. The alpha level
was set at .05.
Research Question 3: Is there a significant difference between special education and
general education co-teachers’ perceived roles and responsibilities in co-teaching situations?

65
Analysis: In order to determine whether special education and general education
teachers differ significantly in how they perceive their actual roles and responsibilities in a co-
teaching situation, a Mann-Whitney U test was run. The alpha level was set at .05.
Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between general education teacher roles
Analysis: In order to determine whether general education co-teacher roles and
responsibilities in co-teaching were predictive of teacher self-efficacy, a simultaneous regression
model was conducted. The alpha level was set at p<.05.
Analysis: In order to determine whether special education teacher roles and
responsibilities in co-teaching situations were predictive of teacher self-efficacy, a simultaneous
regression model was conducted. The alpha level was set at p<.05.

66
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The literature indicates that co-teachers should develop roles and responsibilities for best
practice (Austin, 2001; Bouck, 2010; Morgan, 2016; Rytivaara, 2012; Wasborn-Moses, 2005;
Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). Co-teaching is positively associated with self-efficacy (Pancsofar &
Petroff, 2013). Further, the literature shows that best practice, professional development, and an
openness to instructing students with disabilities are found to increase perceived effectiveness in
the inclusive classroom. Co-teacher self-efficacy improves when co-teachers engage in
evidence-based instructional practices and classroom management (Anderson & Standerford,
2012; Fanni et al., 2013; Shoulders & Krei, 2015). Teachers with higher self-efficacy have
greater student engagement in the classroom (Shoulders & Krei). The results of this survey will
indicate whether co-teachers do what they think is best practice. It will reveal whether self-
efficacy is a predictor of any elements of co-teaching roles.
The purpose of this study was to determine associations between reported co-teacher
roles and responsibilities and whether self-efficacy had a relationship with these reported roles.
An online survey was developed for use in this study, and all participants were directed to the
Qualtrics (2017) online survey system, where all data were stored and transferred to SPSS
(2017). The survey was distributed by the local teachers’ union twice. The union contacted
special education teachers who were asked to pass the survey along to their general education co-
teaching counterparts. A total of 320 participants took part in the questionnaire. Data were
collected over a three-month period and subsequently analyzed with the use of quantitative
statistical analyses.

67
The questionnaire was developed based on the co-teaching literature using a matrix (see
Appendix A) and Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (1994). The 70-item questionnaire was
designed to measure the reported roles and responsibilities of co-teachers in addition to the self-
reported co-teacher self-efficacy. For each item on the roles and responsibilities portion,
teachers indicated on a 5-item Likert scale how frequently they undertook certain roles: never,
seldom, some of the time, most of the time, or almost always. The questions were categorized
into different types of roles: co-planning, co-instruction, co-differentiation, and co-behavior
management. On the self-efficacy section, teachers reported their level of confidence on a scale
of 0 to 10: zero was cannot do at all; 5 was moderately can do; and 10 was highly certain can do.
These included questions on efficacy to influence decision-making, instructional self-efficacy,
disciplinary self-efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to enlist community
involvement, efficacy to create a positive school climate, and efficacy to meet legal requirements
(Bandura). The data from the questionnaire were analyzed to answer the questions below.
Treatment of Data
Analyses were run on each research question. Wilcoxon signed rank tests, Mann-
Whitney U tests, and simultaneous regression models were conducted. Mann-Whitney U
(Runxton, 2006) and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (Huang, 2016) (the non-parametric alternatives
to a paired t-test) disclosed whether there was statistical significance among variables in the
questionnaire. These tests were used due to non-normality of the distribution of the data. A
bivariate regression model analyzed the relationships among the roles and responsibilities and
the teacher self-efficacy indicators (Scott, Flaherty, & Currall, 2012). Data were taken from
Qualtrics (2017) as an Excel file. The file was imported into IBM SPSS (2017) (Statistical
Packages for the Social Sciences) for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated,

68
such as special education as opposed to general education teachers, educational background, and
years of experience.
Demographic Data
The sample included 160 general education and 160 special education teachers. The age
range for participants was from 22 to 70. The demographic information collected reflected
categories utilized in the 2010 Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) and included age,
gender, and ethnic origin. Additionally, level of education, type of educator, years of experience
teaching, years of experience in co-teaching, and current teaching assignment were documented
(see Table 1).

69
Table1.
Co-Teacher Demographic Data
_______________________________________________________________________
General Education Special Education
Gender
Male 34 32
Female 126 128
Age 40.37 40.42
Race
White 130 117
African American 6 9
American Indian 0 1
Asian 4 4
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander 1 2
Two or More Races 6 5
Hispanic or Latino 13 22
Not Hispanic 0 0
Education Level
Bachelor’s degree 47 33
Master’s degree 110 119
Doctoral degree 3 8
Years of Teaching Experience 11.87 12.62
Years of Experience Co-teaching 4.00 5.27
Prior Training in Co-teaching
Yes 71 121
No 89 39
______________________________________________________________________
Non-normality in the Distribution of Data
Distribution of the data was found to be non-normal. Due to this non-normality in the
data, alternatives to a t-test (non-parametric measures) were used for research questions one, two,
and three. Normality in the distribution of data is an assumption for using a t-test for analysis
(Salkind, 2007). Since this assumption was not met, non-parametric measures must be used.

70
Because the distribution of the data for general education teachers’ actual and best
practice roles in Research Question one was non-normal, a non-parametric measure was used.
The non-normality is displayed in Figure 1.
Because the distribution of the data for special education teachers’ actual and best
practice roles in Research Question two was non-normal, a non-parametric measure was used
(see Figure 2).
Figure 1. Non-Normality of Distribution for Research Question 1.
Figure 1. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank test (a non-parametric measure) was used because of
non-normality of the distribution. Figure 1 shows the non-normal distribution for Research
Question 1.

71
Because the distribution of the data for special education teachers’ actual and best
practice roles was non-normal in Research Question 3, a non-parametric measure was used (see
Figure 3).

72
Research Question 1
The first research question asked the following: Is there a significant difference between
general education co-teachers’ present roles and responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities
that they consider to be best practice?
In order to determine if a significant relationship existed between the co-teachers’ actual
roles and the roles they consider to be best practice, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was
employed. The alpha level was set at .05.
Results indicated a statistical significance between the actual (N=160) and best practice
roles (N=160) of general education teachers’ roles and responsibilities (p<.05). Results are
presented in Table 2.

73
Table 2.
General Educators’ Actual and Best Practice Roles
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mean SD Median
_______________________(n=160)_______________________________________________
Actual Roles
Co-instruction 18.7 3.26 18
Co-planning 17.5 4.45 18
Co-behavior management 21.72 2.58 22
Co-differentiation 20.33 3.18 20
Best Practice Roles
____________________________________________________________________________
In Table 2, the means and medians for what co-teachers thought were best practice were
consistently higher than the means for the roles they reported actually doing. This includes
means and medians for co-instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-
differentiation.

74
Table 3.
Test for Significance for General Educators’ Reported Actual and Best Practice Roles
__________________________________________________________________
Z r
__________________________________________________________________
Co-instruction -8.01* .45
Co-planning -8.36* .47
Co-behavior management -4.418* .25
Co-differentiation -6.654* .37
__________________________________________________________________
Note. * Indicates statistical significance, p<.05.
In Table 3, the Wilcoxon Sign Rank test showed Z-scores that were consistently
significant for the reported actual role and the roles that general education teachers reported were
best practice.
General educator co-instruction. A statistical significance between co-instruction
actual roles and best practice roles was found through the means of a Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test (the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a
statistically significant reduction in actual roles among general education teachers’ roles and
responsibilities as they participated in the survey: z = -8.01, p<.05, with a medium effect size (r
=.45) (See Table 2). The medium effect size is based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria of .1 = small
effect, .3 = medium effect, and .5 = large effect.
General educator co-planning. The statistical significance between planning actual
roles and best practice roles was assessed through the means of a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
(the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a

75
=.47).
General educator co-behavior management. There was a statistical significance
between behavior management actual roles and best practice roles found through the means of a
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test). A Wilcoxon
Signed Rank Test revealed a statistically significant reduction in actual roles among general
education teachers’ roles and responsibilities as they participated in the survey, z = -4.418, p<.05,
with a small effect size (r =.25).
General educator co-differentiation. The statistical significance between
differentiation actual roles and best practice roles was assessed through the means of a Wilcoxon
Signed Rank Test (the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test revealed a statistically significant reduction in actual roles among general education
teachers’ roles and responsibilities as they participated in the survey: z = -6.654, p<.05, with a
medium effect size (r =.37).
Research Question 2
Research question two asks if there is a significant difference between special education
co-teachers’ present roles and responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities that they consider
to be best practice.
In order to determine if special education teachers’ actual roles and the roles they
consider to be best practice, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was conducted. The alpha level was
set at .05.

76
There was a statistical significance between the actual roles and the roles reported as best
practice (i.e., between co-instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-
differentiation) of special education teachers’ roles and responsibilities. Results are listed on
Table 4.
Table 4.
Special Educators’ Actual and Best Practice Roles
______________________________________________________________________
Mean SD Median
________________________(n=160)________________________________________
Actual Roles
Best Practice Role
_____________________________________________________________________
The means and medians for what teachers reported were best practice roles were
consistently higher than what co-teachers reported actually doing in a co-teaching situation.

77
Table 5.
Test of Significance for Special Educators’ Actual and Best Practice Roles
__________________________________________________________________
Z r
__________________________________________________________________
Co-instruction -8.691* .49
Co-planning -8.772* .49
Co-behavior management -5.574* .31
Co-differentiation -7.019* .39
___________________________________________________________________
In Table 5, the Wilcoxon Sign Rank test showed Z-scores that were consistently
significant for the reported actual role and the roles that general education teachers reported were
best practice.
Special educator co-instruction. The statistical significance between instructional
actual roles and best practice roles was assessed through the means of a Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test (the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a
=.49).
Special educator co-planning. The statistical significance between co-planning actual
roles and best practice roles was assessed through the means of a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
(the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a

78
=.49).
Special educator co-behavior management. The statistical significance between co-
behavior management actual roles and Best practice roles was assessed through the means of a
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test). A Wilcoxon
Signed Rank Test revealed a statistically significant reduction in actual roles among general
education teachers’ roles and responsibilities as they participated in the survey: z = -5.574,
p<.05, with a medium effect size (r=.31).
Special educator co-differentiation. The statistical significance between Co-
differentiation actual roles and best practice roles was assessed through the means of a Wilcoxon
Signed Rank Test (the non-parametric alternative to a paired t-test). The difference between
actual roles and best practice roles wre assessed for statistical significance by a non-parametric
means. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a statistically significant reduction in actual
roles among general education teachers’ roles and responsibilities as they participated in the
survey: z = -7.019, p<.05, with a medium effect size (r =.39).
Research Question 3
Research question 3 examines the following: Is there a significant difference between
special education and general education teachers’ perceived roles and responsibilities in co-
teaching situations?
In order to determine whether special education and general education co-teachers differ
significantly in how they perceive their actual roles and responsibilities in a co-teaching
situation, a Mann-Whitney U was run. The alpha level was set at .05.

79
There was a statistical significance between special education and general education
teachers’ actual roles and responsibilities in a co-teaching situation for Co-instruction, Co-
planning, and Co-behavior management. Differentiation between general education and special
education teachers’ actual roles did not display a statistically significant difference at the p<.05
level.
Table 6.
Co-Teachers’ (General Education and Special Education) Reported Actual Roles
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mean SD Median
________________________(n=160)_______________________________________________
General Education
Special Education
____________________________________________________________________________

80
Table 7.
Significance of Co-Teachers’ (General Education and Special Education) Reported Actual Roles
_____________________________________________________________________________
U Z r
____________________________ _______________________________________________
Co-instruction 9976.50* -3.429 .19
Co-planning 1063.50* -2.621 .15
Co-behavior management 11093.00* -2.079 .12
Co-differentiation 11977.50 -1.727 .10
____________________________________________________________________________
Co-teacher instruction. The difference between general education and special
education teachers’ actual roles were assessed for statistical significance by a non-parametric
means (i.e., Mann-Whitney U Test). A Mann-Whitney U Test revealed a statistically significant
difference between general education teachers’ roles and responsibilities and that of special
education teachers, U = 9976.50 z = -3.429, p<.05, with a small effect size (r =.19). The small
effect size is based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria of .1 = small effect, .3 = medium effect, and .5 =
large effect. The mean rank between general education (Mean Rank = 178.15) and special
education (Mean Rank = 142.85) teachers’ roles and responsibilities was higher for general
education teachers.
Co-teachers planning. The distribution for actual roles for both special education and
general education teachers were both non-normal, as observed from Research Question 1 and 2.
Actual roles for general education teachers had a mean of 17.50 (SD = 4.45) and a median of 18,
while actual roles for special education teachers had a mean of 16.10 (SD = 5.02) and a median
of 16. Therefore, the difference between general education and special education teachers’

81
Actual roles were assessed for statistical significance by a non-parametric means (i.e., Mann-
Whitney U Test). A Mann-Whitney U Test revealed a statistically significant difference between
general education teachers’ roles and responsibilities and that of special education teachers’
(U=10635.50 z = -2.621, p<.05), with a small effect size (r =.15).
Co-teacher co-behavior management. The difference between general education and
special education teachers’ actual roles were assessed for statistical significance by a non-
parametric means (i.e., Mann-Whitney U Test). A Mann-Whitney U Test revealed a statistically
significant difference between general education teachers’ roles and responsibilities and that of
special education teachers’ (U = 11093.00 z = -2.079, p<.05), with a small effect size (r =.12).
The mean rank between general education (Mean Rank = 171.17) and special education (Mean
Rank = 149.83) teachers’ roles and responsibilities was higher for general education teachers.
Co-teacher co-differentiation. A Mann-Whitney U Test revealed no statistically
significant difference between general education teachers’ roles and responsibilities (Md=20;
N=160) and that of special education teachers’ (Md=20; N=160), U = 11377.50, z = -1.727,
p=.084. There was a small effect size (r =.10).
Research Question 4
The study also looked to examine relationships between self-efficacy and the roles
teachers fulfilled. Question 4 asks the following: Is there a relationship between general
education co-teacher roles and responsibilities in co-teaching situations and teacher self-
efficacy?
In order to determine whether general education teacher roles and responsibilities in co-
teaching were predictive of teacher self-efficacy, a bivariate regression model was conducted.
The alpha level was set at p<.05.

82
Across co-instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-differentiation, self-
efficacy had a positive correlation with each and had effect sizes of either small (co-instruction
and co-behavior management) or medium (co-planning and co-differentiation). The figure
below summarizes the standardized coefficients (beta) of the predictive ability of self-efficacy on
co-instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-differentiation. There were higher
betas for co-planning and co-differentiation, suggesting self-efficacy contributes to those two
areas more so than co-instruction and co-behavior management.
Self-efficacy and instruction. First, bivariate regressions were conducted between co-
instruction and self-efficacy with co-instruction as the dependent variable and self-efficacy as the
independent variable. Co-instruction had a regression coefficient of .32, which was relatively
Figure 4. Regression Coefficients for General Education Teachers’ Self-Efficacy as
Predictors of Roles and Responsibilities.
Figure 4. Self-Efficacy as predictor of roles and responsibilities (4 Regression models,
meaning one outcome per regression model). Positive self-efficacy is a predictor of all areas
of roles and responsibilities measured: co-instruction, co-planning, co-behavior
management, and co-differentiation.
Co-instruction
Co-planning
Co-behavior
Management
Co-differentiation
.47
.34
.44
.32
Self-Efficacy

83
low compared to co-differentiation and co-planning. General education teachers reported that
they were less likely to participate in co-instruction. The intent was to observe self-efficacy as a
predictor to instruction. Initially, three cases prosed as outliers according to Tabachnick and
Fidell (2013), which described any standardized residual below -3.3 or above 3.3 an outlier (See
Appendix D, Figure 5).
Thus, the three cases were removed from the analysis as outliers and the bivariate
regression between self-efficacy and instruction was re-ran with a sample of 157 (originally the
sample was 160). However, another outlier was identified through prediction errors (i.e., using
casewise diagnostics in SPSS).
Therefore, four cases were removed for normality in the bivariate regression model. The
sample was decreased to 156 general education teachers and the bivariate regression model
resembled normality. Other assessments of normality were within acceptable parameters. For
instance, the histogram of the standardized residuals was examined in having a distribution close
to normality. When inspecting the Normal Probability Plot (P-P) of the Regression Standardized
Residual, there was an indication of normality since the Normal P-P Plot seemed to display a
reasonable spread of data points lying along the straight diagonal line from bottom left to top
right. Additionally, the Scatterplot of the standardized residual, had a reasonable display of
normality by showing a roughly rectangularly distributed spread with most of the scores centered
along the 0 point. From the Scatterplot, all values were now within the -3.3 and 3.3 range to not
be identified as an outlier and resembled a rectangular shape tendency toward independence of
residuals (i.e., another regression assumption met) (see Appendix D, Figure 6, Figure 7, and
Figure 8). After the exclusion of four cases, the sample size was N=156 general education

84
teachers. The sample of 156 general education teachers was considered within accepted
sampling guidelines for regression (Tabachnick & Fidell,2013)
Generally, the assumption for homoscedasticity was indicated by observing the
Scatterplot of standardized residuals with the dependent variable. In the scatterplot (below), the
data points generally were consistent in aligning to the linear line of best fit and did not start to
form a cone-shape. As a follow-up, the unstandardized predicted values were cut into five equal
groups to observe the variance ratio between the highest and the lowest value. As a general rule,
the ratio of high to low variance is not an issue if less than 10 (Keith, 2015). The variance ratio
was approximately 3, which was considered good in conjunction with a ration to not exceed 10.
From the scatterplot, the data points also did not resemble a cone-shape, which would be a
concern. The results coincided with the scatterplot and illustrated a small depression in group 3
that showed up in the scatterplot as an indention in the data point pattern. Generally, the
indention was considered within acceptable parameters and the variance ratio (highest variance =
13.415, lowest variance = 4.068) was within parameter limits to have met homoscedastic
assumptions for regression (see Appendix D, Figure 9 and Figure 10).
The linearity of the regression model was evaluated through the Scatterplot of the
unstandardized residual and predicted value. The nonparametric best fitting line or lowess line
was used to assess linearity and had to illustrate the form of a reasonably straight line. An
indication of not departing from linearity for the lowess line (i.e., what the lowess line looks like)
was described by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), “a young child’s freehand drawing of
a straight line” (p. 111). Because the lowess line resembled a straight line, there was no
indication of a departure of linearity. Also, the deviation from linearity had a Sig. value of .673
(i.e., ANOVA table for the unstandardized residual), which is greater than .05 and indicated a

85
linear relationship between the unstandardized residual (i.e., from self-efficacy) and instruction
(or unstandardized predicted values) among general education teachers (see Appendix D, Figure
11).
The bivariate regression model with self-efficacy explained 10.2% (R2
) of the variance in
the dependent variable (instruction) among general education teachers. Self-efficacy positively
correlated with co-instruction (r=.319, p<.05). The mean of instruction was 18.79 (SD=3.10),
and the mean for self-efficacy was 261.12 (SD=40.76). The model was further supported by
ANOVA findings, F(1,154)=17.446, p<.05, which indicated the regression model was fitting the
general education data. Self-efficacy was statistically significant (p<.05) in predicting
instruction. Self-efficacy had a unique contribution of .319 (beta; or b=.024 [unstandardized],
standardized error [SE] =.006, 95% Confidence Intervals for b [CI] = .013, .036) for instruction,
meaning that for each unit increase in self-efficacy there was a .024 increase in general education
teacher instruction (i.e., the unstandardized increase from b). Said using beta, for each additional
standard deviation (SD) of self-efficacy resulted in a .319 SD increase in instruction (or about a
third SD increase). When we examine how much instruction is explained by self-efficacy, we
find out that self-efficacy uniquely explains 10.2% of the variance in instruction. Using Cohen’s
f2
(1988), the effect size was found to be .11, a small effect. Additionally, the regression
equation is instruction(predicted)=12.461+.024(self-efficacy), where 12.461 represents the y-
intercept and .024 represents the slope (i.e., see Figure 12). The regression equation can be used
to predict general teachers’ roles and responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data (see
Appendix D, Figure 12).
Self-efficacy and planning. Second, bivariate regression was conducted between co-
planning and self-efficacy with planning as the dependent variable and self-efficacy as the

86
independent variable. Co-instruction had a regression coefficient of .44, which was relatively
high compared to co-instruction and co-behavior management. General education teachers
reported that they were more likely to participate in co-planning.
The intent was to observe self-efficacy as a predictor to planning. Initially, three cases
prosed as outliers according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), which described any standardized
residual below -3.3 or above 3.3 an outlier. Additionally, one case was observed as an outlier
related to prediction error through casewise diagnostics in SPSS (see Appendix E, Figure 13).
Thus, the four cases were removed from the analysis as outliers and the bivariate regression
between self-efficacy and planning was re-ran with a sample of 156 (originally the sample was
160). Other assessments of normality were within accepted parameters. For instance, the
histogram of the standardized residuals was examined in having a distribution close to normality.
When inspecting the Normal Probability Plot (P-P) of the Regression Standardized Residual,
there was an indication of normality since the Normal P-P Plot seemed to display a reasonable
spread of data points lying along the straight diagonal line from bottom left to top right.
Additionally, the Scatterplot of the standardized residual, had a reasonable display of normality
by showing a roughly shaped rectangle spread with scores centering around the 0 point. From
the Scatterplot, all values were now within the -3.3 and 3.3 range to not be identified as an
outlier and resembled a rectangular shape tendency toward independence of residuals (i.e.,
another regression assumption met) (see Appendix E, Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16).
After the exclusion of four cases, the sample size was N=156 general education teachers. The
sample of 156 general education teachers was considered within accepted sampling guidelines
for regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

87
The assumption for homoscedasticity was indicated by observing the scatterplot of
standardized residuals with planning. In the scatterplot (below), the data points generally were
consistent in aligning to the linear line of best fit and did not start to form a cone-shape. As a
follow-up, the unstandardized predicted values were cut into five equal groups to observe the
variance ratio between the highest and the lowest value. As a general rule, the ratio of high to
low variance is not an issue if less than 10 (Keith, 2015). The variance ratio is approximately 2,
nor did the data points tend to form a cone-shape. The variance ratio coincides with the
scatterplot by displaying a spread from the line of best fit as a pattern. Generally, the variance
ratio (highest variance = 22.713, lowest variance = 10.601) was considered within good
parameters and within limits to have met homoscedastic assumptions for regression (see
Appendix E, Figure 17 and Figure 18).
unstandardized residual and predicted value. The nonparametric best fitting line or lowess line
was used to assess linearity and had to illustrate the form of a reasonably straight line. Because
the lowess line resembled a straight line, there was no indication of a departure of linearity.
Also, the deviation from linearity had a Sig. value of .747, which is greater than .05 and
indicated a linear relationship between the unstandardized residual (i.e., from self-efficacy) and
planning (or unstandardized predicted values) among general education teachers (see Appendix
E, Figure 19).
the dependent variable (co-planning) among general education teachers. Self-efficacy correlates
positively with planning (r=.441, p<.05). The mean of co-planning was 17.60 (SD=4.36), and
the mean of self-efficacy was 216.12 (SD=40.76). The model was further supported by ANOVA

88
findings, F(1,154)=37.243, p<.05, which indicated the regression model was fitting the general
education data. Self-efficacy was statistically significant (p<.05) in predicting planning. Self-
efficacy had a unique contribution of .441 (beta; or b=.047, SE =.008, 95%CI = .032, .062) for
planning, meaning that for each unit increase in self-efficacy there was a .047 increase in general
education teacher planning. Using beta, for each additional SD of self-efficacy resulted in a .441
SD increase in planning (or about a half SD increase). Thus, when we look at how much
planning is explained by self-efficacy, we find out that self-efficacy uniquely explains 19.5% of
the variance in planning. Using Cohen’s f2
(1988), the effect size was found to be .24, a medium
effect. Additionally, the regression equation is planning(predicted)=5.276+.047(self-efficacy),
where 5.276 represents the y-intercept and .047 represents the slope (i.e., see scatterplot below).
The regression equation can be used to predict planning values for general teachers’ roles and
responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data (see Apendix E, Figure 20).
Self-efficacy and behavior management. Third, bivariate regression was conducted
between co-behavior management and self-efficacy with behavior management as the dependent
variable and self-efficacy as the independent variable. Co-behavior management had a
regression coefficient of .34, which was relatively low compared to co-differentiation and co-
planning. General education teachers reported that they were less likely to participate in co-
instruction. The intent was to observe self-efficacy as a predictor to behavior management.
Initially, three cases were identified as outliers according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), which
described any standardized residual below -3.3 or above 3.3 an outlier. Additionally, one case
was observed as an outlier related to prediction error through casewise diagnostics in SPSS. In
total, there were four outliers removed from the sample (see Appendix F, Figure 21).

89
Other assessments of normality were also evaluated. For example, the histogram of the
standardized residual was examined in having a distribution like normal data. The Normal
Probability Plot (P-P) of the Regression Standardized Residual indicated normality since the
Normal P-P Plot seemed to display a reasonable spread of data points lying along the straight
diagonal line from bottom left to top right. Additionally, the Scatterplot of the standardized
residual, had a reasonable display of normality by showing a roughly shaped rectangle with
scores centering around the 0 point. From the Scatterplot, all values were now within the -3.3
and 3.3 range to not be identified as outliers and resembled a rectangular shape tendency toward
independence of residuals (see Appendix F, Figure 22, Figure 23, and Figure 24). The exclusion
of four cases resulted in a sample size of N=156 general education teachers. The sample of 156
general education teachers was considered within accepted sampling guidelines for regression.
standardized residuals with behavior management. In the scatterplot, data points were generally
consistent to the linear line of best fit and did not start to form a cone-shape. As a follow-up, the
unstandardized predicted values were cut into five equal groups to observe the variance ratio
between the highest and the lowest value. As a general rule of thumb, the ratio of high to low
variance is not an issue if less than 10 (Keith, 2015). The variance ratio was approximately 2,
nor did the data points resemble a cone-like shape. The variance ratio coincides with the
scatterplot by displaying an evenly spread of data points along the diagonal line. Generally, the
variance ratio (highest variance = 7.684, lowest variance = 4.310) was considered within good
parameters and met homoscedastic assumptions for regression (See Appendix F, Figure 25 and
Figure 26).

90
unstandardized residual (self-efficacy) and predicted value (co-behavior management). The
nonparametric best fitting line or lowess line was used to assess linearity and had to illustrate the
form of a reasonably straight line. Because the lowess line resembled a straight line, there was
no indication of a departure of linearity. Also, the deviation from linearity had a Sig. value of
.910, which is greater than .05 and indicated a linear relationship between the unstandardized
residual (i.e., from self-efficacy) and behavior management (or unstandardized predicted values)
among general education teachers (see Appendix F, Figure 27).
the dependent variable (behavior management) among general education teachers. Self-efficacy
correlates positively with behavior management (r=.344, p<.05). The mean for behavior
management was 21.801 (SD=2.54), while self-efficacy had a mean of 261.013 (SD=40.66).
The model was further supported by ANOVA findings, F(1,154)=20.655, p<.05, which indicated
the regression model was fitting the general education data. Self-efficacy was statistically
significant (p<.05) in predicting behavior management. Self-efficacy had a unique contribution
of .344 (beta; or b=.021, SE =.005, 95%CI = .012, .031) for behavior management. Meaning
that for each unit increase in self-efficacy there was a .021 increase in general education teacher
behavior management. Describing the unit increase in beta terms, for each additional SD of self-
efficacy resulted in a .344 SD increase in behavior management (or about a third SD increase).
Thus, when we look at how much behavior management is explained by self-efficacy, we find
out that self-efficacy uniquely explains 11.8% of the variance in behavior management. Using
Cohen’s f2
(1988), the effect size was .13, a small effect. Additionally, the regression equation is
behavior management (predicted) = 16.197+.021(self-efficacy), where 16.197 represents the y-

91
intercept (where self-efficacy = 0) and .021 represents the slope (i.e., see scatterplot below). The
regression equation can be used to predict behavior management values for general teachers’
roles and responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data (see Appendix F, Figure 28).
Self-efficacy and differentiation. Fourth, bivariate regression was conducted between
co-differentiation and self-efficacy with co-differentiation as the dependent variable and self-
efficacy as the independent variable. Co-instruction had a regression coefficient of .44, which
was relatively high compared to co-instruction and co-behavior management. General education
teachers reported that they were more likely to participate in co-planning.
The intent was to observe self-efficacy as a predictor to differentiation. Initially, three
cases were identified as outliers according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), which described any
standardized residual below -3.3 or above 3.3 an outlier. Additionally, one case was observed as
an outlier related to prediction error through casewise diagnostics in SPSS. In total, there were
four outliers removed from the sample. Thus, the sample was 156 general education teachers
(see Appendix G, Figure 29).
Other assessments of normality were also evaluated. For example, the histogram of the
standardized residual was examined in having a distribution like normal data. The Normal
Probability Plot (P-P) of the Regression Standardized Residual indicated normality since the
Normal P-P Plot seemed to display a reasonable spread of data points lying along the straight
diagonal line from bottom left to top right. Additionally, the Scatterplot of the standardized
residual, had a reasonable display of normality by showing a roughly shaped rectangle with
scores centering around the 0 point. From the Scatterplot, all values were now within the -3.3
and 3.3 range to not be identified as outliers and resembled a rectangular shape tendency toward
independence of residuals (see Appendix G, Figure 30, Figure 31, and Figure 32). The exclusion

92
of four cases resulted in a sample size of N=156 general education teachers. The sample of 156
general education teachers was considered within accepted sampling guidelines for regression.
standardized residuals with differentiation. In the scatterplot (below), data points were generally
consistent to the linear line of best fit and did not start to form a cone-shape. As a follow-up, the
between the highest and the lowest value. As a general rule, the ratio of high to low variance is
not an issue if less than 10 (Keith, 2015). The variance ratio was approximately 2, nor did the
data points resemble a cone-like shape. The variance difference coincides with the scatterplot by
displaying an even spread of data points along the diagonal line. Generally, the variance ratio
(highest variance = 8.956, lowest variance = 5.435) was considered within good parameters and
met homoscedastic assumptions for regression (See Appendix G, Figure 33 and Figure 34).
The linearity of the regression model was evaluated through the scatterplot of the
unstandardized residual (self-efficacy) and predicted value (co-differentiation). The
form of a reasonably straight line. Because the lowess line resembled a straight line, there was
no indication of a departure of linearity. Also, the deviation from linearity had a Sig. value of
.902, which is greater than .05 and indicated a linear relationship between the unstandardized
residual (i.e., from self-efficacy) and co-differentiation (or unstandardized predicted values)
among general education teachers (see Appendix G, Figure 35).
the dependent variable (co-differentiation) among general education teachers. Self-efficacy
correlates positively with differentiation (r=.472, p<.05). The mean for differentiation was

93
20.442 (SD=3.04), while self-efficacy had a mean of 261.494 (SD=40.78). The model was
further supported by ANOVA findings, F(1,154)=44.243, p<.05, which indicated the regression
model was fitting the general education data. Self-efficacy was statistically significant (p<.05) in
predicting differentiation. Self-efficacy had a unique contribution of .472 (beta; or b=.035, SE
=.005, 95%CI = .025, .046) for differentiation. Meaning that for each unit increase in self-
efficacy there was a .035 increase in general education teacher differentiation. Describing the
unit increase in terms of beta, for each additional SD of self-efficacy resulted in a .472 SD
increase in differentiation (or about a half SD increase). Thus, when we look at how much
differentiation is explained by self-efficacy, we find out that self-efficacy uniquely explains
22.3% of the variance in differentiation. Using Cohen’s f2
(1988), the effect size was .29, a
medium effect. Additionally, the regression equation is differentiation (predicted)=
11.227+.035(self-efficacy), where 11.227 represents the y-intercept (where self-efficacy = 0 or
no self-efficacy) and .035 represents the slope (i.e., see scatterplot below). The regression
equation can be used to predict differentiation values for general teachers’ roles and
responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data (see Appendix G, Figure 36).
Research Question 5
The study also looked to examine relationships between self-efficacy and the roles
teachers perform. Question 4 asks the following: Is there a relationship between special
education co-teacher roles and responsibilities in co-teaching situations and teacher self-
efficacy?
In order to determine whether special education teacher roles and responsibilities in co-
teaching were predictive of teacher self-efficacy, a bivariate regression model was conducted.
The alpha level was set at p<.05.

94
Across co-instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-differentiation, self-
efficacy had a positive correlation with each and small effect sizes. The graphic below
summarizes the standardized coefficients (beta) of the predictive ability of self-efficacy on co-
instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-differentiation. There were higher
betas for co-planning and co-differentiation, suggesting self-efficacy contributes to those two
areas more so than co-instruction and co-behavior management. The same result among general
education teachers was also observed (namely, self-efficacy effecting co-planning and co-
differentiation the most).
Self-efficacy and instruction. First, bivariate regression was conducted between
instruction and self-efficacy for special education teachers with instruction as the dependent
variable and self-efficacy as the independent variable. Co-instruction had a regression
Regression Coefficients for Special Education Teachers’ Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Roles
and Responsibilities.
Positive self-efficacy is a predictor of all areas of roles and responsibilities measured: co-
instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and co-differentiation.
Co-instruction
Co-planning
Co-behavior
Management
Co-differentiation
.33
.21
.28
.22
Self-Efficacy

95
coefficient of .22, which was relatively low compared to co-planning and co-differentiation.
Special education teachers reported that they were less likely to participate in co-instruction.
The intent was to observe self-efficacy among special education teachers as a predictor to
instruction. Four cases were identified as outliers according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013),
which described any standardized residual below -3.3 or above 3.3 as an outlier. Also, one of the
four cases were also an outlier based on prediction error through casewise diagnostics in SPSS.
In total, there were four outliers removed from the sample and observed in the figure below.
Thus, the sample was 156 special education teachers (see Appendix H, Figure 37).
Additional assessment on normality were evaluated. For example, the histogram of the
standardized residual was examined in having a distribution resembling normal data. The
Normal Probability Plot (P-P) of the Regression Standardized Residual indicated normality since
the Normal P-P Plot seemed to display a reasonable spread of data points lying along the straight
diagonal line from bottom left to top right. The Scatterplot of the standardized residual, had a
reasonable display of normality by showing a roughly shaped rectangle with scores centering
around the 0 point. From the Scatterplot, all values were now within the -3.3 and 3.3 range to
not be identified as outliers and resembled a rectangular shape tendency toward independence of
residuals (see Appendix H, Figure 38, Figure 39, Figure 40).
The exclusion of four cases resulted in a sample size of N=156 special education
teachers. The sample of 156 special education teachers was considered within accepted
sampling guidelines for regression. For instance, Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) recommend the
following equation in determining an appropriate sample size, N > 50 + 8m (m = number of
independent variables). Thus, with one independent variable proposed the equation becomes N

96
> 50 + 8(1), which equals N > 58 or the sample needs to be greater than 58. Since N=156, that
means the current sample is an appropriate sample indicating no issues with sample size.
standardized residuals with instruction. In the scatterplot (below), data points were generally
consistent to the linear line of fit and did not start to form a cone-shape. As a follow-up, the
not an issue if less than 10 (Keith, 2015). The ratio of low to high variance was approximately 2,
nor did the data points resemble a cone-like shape. The ratio of the variance coincides with the
scatterplot by displaying an even spread of data points along the diagonal line. Generally, the
variance ratio (highest variance = 18.205, lowest variance = 8.460) was considered within good
parameters and met homoscedastic assumptions for regression (see Appendix H, Figure 41; and
Figure 42).
unstandardized residual (self-efficacy) and predicted value (instruction). The nonparametric best
fitting line or lowess line was used to assess linearity and had to illustrate the form of a
reasonably straight line. Because the lowess line did not resemble a straight line, there was not a
clear indication of linearity. However, the deviation from linearity (i.e., tested through ANOVA)
had a Sig. value of .677, which is greater than .05 and indicated a linear relationship between the
unstandardized residual (i.e., from self-efficacy) and instruction (or unstandardized predicted
values) among special education teachers (see Appendix H, Figure 43).
the dependent variable (instruction) among special education teachers. Self-efficacy correlated

97
positively with instruction (r=.224, p<.05). The mean for instruction was 17.391 (SD=3.76),
while self-efficacy had a mean of 252.667 (SD=41.67). The model was further supported by
ANOVA findings, F(1,154)=8.162, p<.05, which indicated the regression model was fitting the
special education data. Self-efficacy was statistically significant (p<.05) in predicting instruction.
Self-efficacy had a unique contribution of .224 (beta; or b=.020, SE =.007, 95%CI = .006, .034)
for instruction, meaning that for each unit increase in self-efficacy there was a .020 increase in
special education teacher instruction. Describing the unit increase in terms of beta, for each
additional SD of self-efficacy resulted in a .224 SD increase in instruction (or about a fifth SD
increase). Thus, when we look at how much instruction is explained by self-efficacy, we find
out that self-efficacy uniquely explains 5.0% of the variance in instruction. Using Cohen’s f2
(1988), the effect size was .05, a small effect. Additionally, the regression equation is
instruction(predicted)= 12.269+.020(self-efficacy), where 12.269 represents the y-intercept
(where self-efficacy = 0 or no self-efficacy) and .020 represents the slope (i.e., see scatterplot
below). The regression equation can be used to predict instruction values for special education
teachers’ roles and responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data (Appendix H, Figure
44).
Self-efficacy and planning. Second, bivariate regression was conducted between
planning and self-efficacy for special education teachers with planning as the dependent variable
and self-efficacy as the independent variable. Co-planning had a regression coefficient of .28,
which was relatively high compared to co-instruction and co-behavior management. Special
education teachers reported that they were more likely to participate in co-planning.
planning. Three cases were identified as outliers according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013),

98
which described any standardized residual below -3.3 or above 3.3 as an outlier. At or near -3.3
was also considered an outlier for this data set. No cases were considered an outlier based on
prediction error through casewise diagnostics in SPSS. In total, there were three outliers removed
from the sample and observed in the figure. Thus, the sample was 157 special education teachers
(see Appendix I, Figure 45).
diagonal line from bottom left to top right. The Scatterplot of the standardized residual, had a
around the 0 point. From the Scatterplot, all values were now within the -3.3 and 3.3 range to
not be identified as outliers and resembled a rectangular shape tendency toward independence of
residuals (Appendix I, Figure 46, Figure 47, and Figure 48).
The exclusion of three cases resulted in a sample size of N=157 special education
sampling guidelines for regression. For instance, Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) recommend the
following equation in determining an appropriate sample size, N > 50 + 8m (m = number of
independent variables). Thus, with one independent variable proposed the equation becomes N
> 50 + 8(1), which equals N > 58 or the sample needs to be greater than 58. Since N=157, that
means the current sample is an appropriate sample indicating no issues with sample size.
standardized residuals with planning. In the scatterplot (below), data points were generally

99
consistent to the linear line of fit and did not start to form a cone-shape. As a follow-up, the
variance is not an issue if less than 10 (Keith, 2015). The ratio between the low and high
variance was approximately 2 and did not exceed 10, nor did the data points resemble a cone-like
shape. The variance ratio coincides with the scatterplot by displaying an even spread of data
points along the diagonal line. Generally, the variance ratio (highest variance = 33.363, lowest
variance = 13.649) was considered within good parameters and met homoscedastic assumptions
for regression (see Appendix I, Figure 49 and Figure 50).
unstandardized residual (self-efficacy) and predicted value (planning). The nonparametric best
fitting line or lowess line was used to assess linearity and had to illustrate the form of a
reasonably straight line. Because the lowess line did resemble a straight line, there was an
indication of linearity. However, the deviation from linearity (i.e., tested through ANOVA) had
a Sig. value of .203, which is greater than .05 and indicated a linear relationship between the
unstandardized residual (i.e., from self-efficacy) and planning (or unstandardized predicted
values) among special education teachers (see Appendix I, Figure 51).
the dependent variable (planning) among special education teachers. Self-efficacy correlated
positively with planning (r=.275, p<.05). The mean for planning was 16.185 (SD=5.00), while
self-efficacy had a mean of 253.006 (SD=41.75). The model was further supported by ANOVA
findings, F(1,155)=12.654, p<.05, which indicated the regression model was fitting the special
education data. Self-efficacy was statistically significant (p<.05) in predicting planning. Self-

100
efficacy had a unique contribution of .275 (beta; or b=.033, SE =.009, 95%CI = .015, .051) for
planning. Meaning that for each unit increase in self-efficacy there was a .033 increase in special
education teacher planning. Describing the unit increase in terms of beta, for each additional SD
of self-efficacy resulted in a .275 SD increase in planning (or about a fourth SD increase). Thus,
when we look at how much planning is explained by self-efficacy, we find out that self-efficacy
uniquely explains 7.5% of the variance in planning. Using Cohen’s f2
(1988), the effect size was
.08, a small effect. Additionally, the regression equation is planning(predicted)=
7.859+.033(self-efficacy), where 7.859 represents the y-intercept (where self-efficacy = 0 or no
self-efficacy) and .033 represents the slope (i.e., see scatterplot below). The regression equation
can be used to predict planning values for special education teachers’ roles and responsibilities
for self-efficacy values outside the data (Appendix I, Figure 52).
Self-efficacy and behavior management. Third, bivariate regression was conducted
between behavior management and self-efficacy for special education teachers with behavior
management as the dependent variable and self-efficacy as the independent variable. Co-
behavior management had a regression coefficient of .21, which was relatively low compared to
co-planning and co-differentiation. Special education teachers reported that they were less likely
to participate in co-behavior management.
their behavior management. Two cases were first identified as outliers based on prediction error
through casewise diagnostics in SPSS and were removed (see Appendix I9, Figure 53).
However, an additional case was identified as an outlier based on prediction error through
casewise diagnostics and was also removed. Once this outlier was removed and the regression

101
model re-assessed, another outlier was identified through prediction error. This outlier was also
removed.
In total, four cases were removed because of prediction error. Four data points were on
the fence and close to what Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) described as outliers, which were
standardized residuals below -3.3 or above 3.3. Normality was poorly met, but considered the
best result without taking more from the sample. In total, there were four outliers removed from
the sample, the sample was 156 special education teachers.
Normality of the data was poor and considered for further analysis. For example, the
histogram of the standardized residual was examined in having a poor distribution resembling
normal data. The Normal Probability Plot (P-P) of the Regression Standardized Residual
indicated normality at the bottom half and not at the top half, as indicated by the diagonal line
from bottom left to top right. The scatterplot of the standardized residual was improved by
removing outliers; however, there was still a rough resemblance to normality by an unclearly
shaped rectangle with scores centering around the 0 point. From the Scatterplot, all values were
now within the -3.3 and 3.3 range to not be identified as outliers and roughly tended toward
independence of residuals. In other words, at the best display for ideal conditions for normality;
however, to reach improved normality conditions by taking away further from the sample
seemed to misrepresent the data (i.e., the statistical difference pertaining to special education
teachers’ behavior management compared to general education teachers observed in research
question 3) (see Appendix J, Figure 54, Figure 55, and Figure 56).
The exclusion of four cases resulted in a sample size of N=156 special education
sampling guidelines for regression. Furthermore, attempts were made to retain the maximum

102
possible sample in order to capture data representing special education teachers’ behavior
management as it pertains to the influence of self-efficacy.
standardized residuals with behavior management. In the scatterplot (below), data points were
generally consistent to the line of fit and did not start to form a cone-shape. As a follow-up, the
variance is not an issue if less than 10 (Keith, 2015). The ratio between the low and high
variance was approximately 2 and did not exceed 10, nor did the data points resemble a cone-like
shape. The variance ratio coincides with the scatterplot by displaying an even spread of data
points along the diagonal line. Generally, the variance ratio (highest variance = 13.786, lowest
variance = 7.833) was considered within good parameters and met homoscedastic assumptions
for regression (see Appendix J, Figure 57 and Figure 58).
unstandardized residual (self-efficacy) and predicted value (behavior management). The
form of a reasonably straight line. Because the lowess line resembled a poor looking straight
line, there was no indication of linearity. However, the deviation from linearity (i.e., tested
through ANOVA) had a Sig. value of .883, which is greater than .05 and indicated a linear
relationship between the unstandardized residual (i.e., from self-efficacy) and behavior
management (or unstandardized predicted values) among special education teachers (see
Appendix J, Figure 59).

103
the dependent variable (behavior management) among special education teachers. Self-efficacy
correlated positively with behavior management (r=.210, p<.05). The mean for behavior
management was 20.994 (SD=3.26), while self-efficacy had a mean of 251.474 (SD=44.06).
The model was further supported by ANOVA findings, F(1,154)=7.085, p<.05, which indicated
the regression model was fitting the special education data. Self-efficacy was statistically
significant (p<.05) in predicting behavior management. Self-efficacy had a unique contribution
of .210 (beta; or b=.015, SE =.006, 95%CI = .004, .027) for behavior management, meaning that
for each unit increase in self-efficacy there was a .015 increase in special education teacher
behavior management. Describing the unit increase in terms of beta, for each additional SD of
self-efficacy resulted in a .210 SD increase in behavior management (or about a fifth SD
increase). Thus, when we look at how much behavior management is explained by self-efficacy,
we find out that self-efficacy uniquely explains 4.4% of the variance in behavior management.
Using Cohen’s f2
(1988), the effect size was .05, a small effect. Additionally, the regression
equation is behavior management(predicted)= 17.10+.015(self-efficacy), where 17.10 represents
the y-intercept (where self-efficacy = 0 or no self-efficacy) and .015 represents the slope (i.e., see
scatterplot below). The regression equation can be used to predict behavior management values
for special education teachers’ roles and responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data
(Appendix J, Figure 60).
Self-efficacy and differentiation. Fourth, bivariate regression was conducted between
differentiation and self-efficacy for special education teachers with differentiation as the
dependent variable and self-efficacy as the independent variable. Co-differentiation had a
regression coefficient of .33, which was relatively high compared to co-instruction and co-

104
behavior management. Special education teachers reported that they were more likely to
participate in co-differentiation.
differentiation. One case was identified as an outlier according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013),
which described any standardized residual below -3.3 or above 3.3 an outlier. One case was also
observed as an outlier based on prediction error through casewise diagnostics in SPSS. In total,
there were two outliers removed from the sample and observed in the figure below. Thus, the
sample was 158 special education teachers (see Appendix K, Figure 61).
diagonal line from bottom left to top right. The scatterplot of the standardized residual, had a
around the 0 point. From the scatterplot, all values were now within the -3.3 and 3.3 range to not
be identified as outliers and resembled a rectangular shape tendency toward independence of
residuals (see Appendix K, Figure 62, Figure 63, and Figure 64).
The exclusion of two cases resulted in a sample size of N=158 special education teachers.
The sample of 158 special education teachers was considered within accepted sampling
guidelines for regression. With one independent variable proposed the equation becomes N > 50
+ 8(1), which equals N > 58 or the sample needs to be greater than 58. Since N=158, that means
the current sample is an appropriate sample indicating no issues with sample size.

105
standardized residuals with differentiation. In the scatterplot (below), data points were generally
consistent with the line of fit and did not start to form a cone-shape. However, there were
roughly two data points sticking out from the consistent pattern. As a follow-up, the
not an issue if less than 10 (Keith, 2015). The ratio between the low and high variance was
approximately 2.5 and did not exceed 10, nor did the data points resemble a cone-like shape.
The variance ratio coincides with the scatterplot by displaying an even spread of data points
along the diagonal line. Generally, the variance ratio (highest variance = 17.652, lowest variance
= 7.047) was considered within good parameters and met homoscedastic assumptions for
regression (see Appendix K, Figure 65 and Figure 66).
unstandardized residual (self-efficacy) and predicted value (differentiation). The nonparametric
best fitting line or lowess line was used to assess linearity and had to illustrate the form of a
reasonably straight line. Because the lowess line did resemble a straight line, there was an
indication of linearity. However, the deviation from linearity (i.e., tested through ANOVA) had
a Sig. value of .493, which is greater than .05 and indicated a linear relationship between the
unstandardized residual (i.e., from self-efficacy) and differentiation (or unstandardized predicted
values) among special education teachers (see Appendix K, Figure 67).
the dependent variable (differentiation) among special education teachers. Self-efficacy
correlated positively with differentiation (r=.334, p<.05). The mean for differentiation was

106
19.69 (SD=3.57), while self-efficacy had a mean of 250.962 (SD=44.07). The model was further
supported by ANOVA findings, F(1,156)=19.641, p<.05, which indicated the regression model
was fitting the special education data. Self-efficacy was statistically significant (p<.05) in
predicting differentiation. Self-efficacy had a unique contribution of .334 (beta; or b=.027, SE
=.006, 95%CI = .015, .039) for differentiation, meaning that for each unit increase in self-
efficacy there was a .027 increase in special education teacher differentiation. Describing the
unit increase in terms of beta, for each additional SD of self-efficacy resulted in a .334 SD
increase in differentiation (or about a third SD increase). T hus, when we look at how much
differentiation is explained by self-efficacy, we find out that self-efficacy uniquely explains
11.2% of the variance in differentiation. Using Cohen’s f2
(1988), the effect size was .13, a small
effect. Additionally, the regression equation is differentiation(predicted)= 12.897+.027(self-
efficacy), where 12.897 represents the y-intercept (where self-efficacy = 0 or no self-efficacy)
and .027 represents the slope (i.e., see scatterplot below). The regression equation can be used to
predict differentiation values for special education teachers’ roles and responsibilities for self-
efficacy values outside the data (see Appendix K, Figure 68).

107
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Co-teaching has become the most common method to provide direct instruction of the
general education curriculum for special education students (Bryant Davis et al., 2012;
Morningstar et al., 2015; Yopp et al., 2014). However, there are few standards for professional
practice for co-teachers, particularly in defining co-teaching roles and responsibilities (Morgan,
2016). This study examined what roles and responsibilities the special education and the general
education teacher report actually performing in a co-taught classroom as well as what roles they
think would be best practice to do. How these reported roles relate to personal teacher self-
efficacy was also examined.
There is little in the literature that indicates whether co-teachers report on the roles and
responsibilities that they consider to be best practice. Additionally, co-teacher self-efficacy has
not thus far been tied to the roles that teachers report actually performing or report that they think
are best practice. Research does indicate that defining roles and responsibilities is a best practice
that co-teachers should undertake and leads to positive co-teacher, student, and school-wide
outcomes (Austin, 2001; Bouck, 2010; Morgan, 2016; Rytivaara, 2012; Wasborn-Moses, 2005;
Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). Also, co-teacher self-efficacy improves when co-teachers engage in
activities considered to be best practice (Anderson & Standerford, 2012; Fanni et al., 2013;
Shoulders & Krei, 2015). Previously, there was little in the research on co-teacher self-reported
roles in the co-taught classroom and what co-teachers do to prepare for co-taught lessons,
including in the areas of instruction, planning, behavior management, and differentiation
(Hamdan, Anuar, & Khan, 2015; Morningstar et al., 2015; Strieker et al 2013). This chapter will

108
describe the results, discuss implications of the findings, limitations of the research, and provide
a discussion for future lines of inquiry.
Discussion of Results
Research Question 1
Question one examined whether there was a significant difference between general
education co-teachers’ present roles and responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities that
they consider to be best practice. The data analysis indicated there was in fact a significant
difference. On all roles and responsibilities listed, general education teachers overwhelmingly
responded that they considered the roles presented in the questionnaire to be best practice, and
that they executed fewer of these roles. The results disclose that general education teachers do
not perform specific roles and responsibilities and that general education teachers do not do what
they think is best practice. This is in contrast to the literature, which indicates that co-teachers
should develop roles and responsibilities for best practice (Austin, 2001; Bouck, 2010; Morgan,
2016; Rytivaara, 2012; Wasburn-Moses, 2005; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002).
Although fulfilling roles and responsibilities has been found to improve cooperation
between co-teachers in the literature, the current findings show that teacher participants in this
setting do not do what they think is best practice. These respondents could greatly improve their
performance if they determined together which teacher would perform what roles prior to and as
they teach (Bouck, 2010; Morgan, 2016, Rytivaara, 2012). Teachers are conclusively not
reporting functioning at a level that supports best practice to maximize student growth.
Research Question 2
Question two examined whether there was a significant difference between special
education co-teachers’ present roles and responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities that

109
they consider to be best practice. The data analysis indicated there was a significant difference
between actual practice and perceived best practice. Of roles and responsibilities presented in
the survey, special education teachers overwhelmingly responded that they fulfilled fewer of the
roles that they reported as best practice. Special educators reported doing far fewer actual roles
than best practice roles in the area of co-instruction, co-planning, co-behavior management, and
co-differentiation. The results show that special education teachers, like their general education
partners, do not do what they think is best practice. This finding does not align with the
recommendations in the literature which reveals that co-teachers should develop roles and
responsibilities for best practice (Austin, 2001; Bouck, 2010; Morgan, 2016; Rytivaara, 2012;
Wasborn-Moses, 2005; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002).
Based on the results of the survey, teachers are not reporting performing at a level that
would be considered best practice. If teachers were able to engage students through co-teacher
cooperation, this might lead to positive student outcomes (Bouck, 2010; Morgan, 2016;
Rytivaara, 2012).
Of the respondents in this setting, a breakdown is evident between what the teachers
actually do and what teachers think is best practice. If co-teachers followed the
recommendations found in the literature, co-teacher and student outcomes could be quite
different (Morgan, 2016; Ritivaara, 2012). The results of this study indicate that teachers could
greatly improve their practice. Training and preparation for co-teaching could be a key in
increasing self-efficacy to solve this problem (Loreman et al., 2013; Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013;
Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2014; Stevens et al., 2013; Streiker et al., 2013).

110
Research Question 3
Question three analyzed whether there was a significant difference between co-teachers’
(special education and general education) perceived roles and responsibilities in co-teaching
situations. The results display that there is a significant relationship between the roles that
special education and general education teachers report doing in a co-taught class in the areas of
co-instruction, co-planning, and co-behavior management. They were the same in the area of co-
differentiation. This means that the roles reported by co-teachers in these areas differed to an
extent that general educators assumed roles that were distinctly unique from their special
educator partners.
The roles for instruction were statistically significantly different between general
education teachers and special educators. General educators, who are curriculum specialists, are
providing more academic direction on the material while the special education teachers, who are
the strategy specialists, are implementing more learning strategies to increase comprehension
(Rytivaara, 2012; Wasborn-Moses, 2005). The outcome for students is increased comprehension
of the general education curriculum (Morgan, 2016).
Responsibilities for behavior management were found to be significantly different
between general education and special education teachers. This aligns with the literature that
indicates that special education teachers provide more individualized behavior instruction, and
the general education teachers give more generalized instruction about enforcing classroom rules
(Morningstar et al., 2015).
Research Question 4
Question four sought to determine whether there is a relationship between general
education co-teacher roles and responsibilities in co-teaching situations and co-teacher self-

111
efficacy. The analysis displayed that self-efficacy was a predictor of the roles co-planning and
co-differentiation for general educators. The higher the self-efficacy of general educators, the
more likely the teachers were to plan in advance for the lesson. The greater the general educator
self-efficacy, the more likely they were to report differentiating instruction. The research
displays that when co-teachers engaged in evidence-based instructional practices and classroom
management, they had higher self-efficacy and that best practice was found to increase perceived
effectiveness in the inclusive classroom (Anderson & Standerford, 2012; Fanni et al., 2013;
Shoulders & Krei, 2015). The literature stating that co-teaching is positively associated with
self-efficacy was affirmed (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013)
For general education teachers with higher self-efficacy, the focus is more academic (co-
planning and co-differentiation), and less focused on teaming together to achieve positive
behaviors and co-instruction of the material. General education teachers are planning and
differentiating with their co-teachers, which results in students receiving a well thought out
lesson and having the material geared toward their specific needs, which confirms the literature
on co-teaching (Bouck, 2010; Morgan, 2016).
Research Question 5
Question five asked if there was a relationship between special education teacher roles
and responsibilities in co-teaching situations and co-teacher self-efficacy. The statistical analysis
exhibited that self-efficacy is a predictor of differentiation of the instruction and planning for the
instruction for special education teachers. The higher the self-efficacy or perceived
effectiveness, the more a special education teacher differentiates the instruction. The higher the
self-efficacy of special educators, the more likely the teachers were to engage in planning for the

112
lesson. This confirmed the literature that reported that co-teaching is positively associated with
self-efficacy (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013).
The findings were consistent with findings in the literature. The research shows that
when co-teachers engaged in evidence-based instructional practices and classroom management,
their self-efficacy increased. Previous research found that engaging in best practice was found to
increase perceived effectiveness in the inclusive classroom (Anderson & Standerford, 2012;
Fanni et al., 2013; Shoulders & Krei, 2015). The current study found that co-teachers with high
self-efficacy reported participating in more of the roles listed in the survey.
Co-teachers reported in the current findings that they meet to plan with their co-teacher,
and they also differentiate the curriculum. Research indicates that this leads to improved student
outcomes (Morgan, 2016).
Implications for Practice
The results of this study elude to the need for improvement in the practice of co-teaching.
For co-teachers to begin doing more of what they themselves consider to be best practice,
increased knowledge about co-teaching is needed. Previous research shows that levels of self-
efficacy increase with more education (Anderson & Standerford, 2012; Conderman et al., 2012;
Fanni et al., 2013; Loreman et al., 2013; Montgomery & Mirenda, 2014; Pancsofar & Petroff,
2013; Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 2014; Shoulders & Krei, 2015; Stevens et al., 2013; Streiker et al.,
2013). As self-efficacy in this case predicted the differentiation and planning of co-teachers,
school districts could consider adding additional professional development to help improve
teachers’ confidence in the classroom. Bridging this gap can be found with increased in-service
training and professional development (Pugach & Winn, 2011).

113
Limitations
As with all research, there are several limitations to this study. First, the survey which
gathered information about co-teaching roles and responsibilities of co-teachers had not been
validated, which would have ensured that the questions indeed measured what they intended to
measure. The questions on roles and responsibilities of co-teachers may not have been the result
of an adequate or thorough enough review of the literature, and therefore the data gathered may
not be accurate or a true reflection of the population (Sapsford, 2007).
Secondly, the survey was distributed across one geographic area and did not include
participants from other regions of the United States. Next, the participants in this study self-
reported their own thoughts and behaviors. If a researcher were to interview or observe the
teachers, the findings could be confirmed. Additionally, due to the process of survey
distribution, the total number surveys sent out remains unknown. Moreover, the questionnaire
was relatively long (approximately 18 minutes), and many co-teachers chose not to complete the
survey. This created incomplete surveys that had to be discarded, which could have led to
inaccuracies in the reporting of results (Sapsford, 2007).
Finally, respondents may not have felt comfortable providing answers that may show the
participant in an unfavorable manner. In the survey, teachers were asked to answer honestly, but
having to admit that they do not do what is considered best practice in co-teaching situations is
incriminating. If the respondents did not trust that the information provided and the identities of
the respondents will be held confidential, then they may not have answered truthfully (Survey
Fundamentals, 2017).

114
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research should examine the roles and responsibilities that co-teachers should
undertake in order to achieve best practice. Further study should include a direct examination of
the roles and responsibilities that co-teachers are actually doing in the classroom and compare
this to self-reporting. Examining the difference between general education and special education
teachers for specific tasks in instruction, planning, behavior management, and differentiation
should be the focus of future research. It is also important to examine the factors in schools that
are impeding co-teaching as well as those that are in place that support co-teaching as related to
teacher self-report. This would provide more specific comparisons of roles between general and
special education teachers as related to the working environment. Additionally, if future
research took place on a national level, this would result in all of the participants being
representative of all regions of the United States. A validation of the survey instrument used in
this study should be conducted in a research study in the future. Further research should
examine the differences between high school and elementary school co-teachers. Finally, future
research should include observations that would be compared to the self-reported roles in this
study.
Conclusion
This study contributes to the knowledge regarding reported roles and responsibilities of
co-teachers and the effect of reported self-efficacy on the roles that co-teachers choose to fulfill.
The five research questions in this study focused on the reported actual and best practice roles of
co-teachers and the extent to which co-teacher self-efficacy predicted reported roles. The data
analysis disclosed that co-teachers reported executing fewer roles than what they considered best
practice. These results are a signal that there is a considerable discrepancy between what co-

115
teachers perceive best practice is and what they are actually doing in the co-taught classroom.
Significantly, both general educators and special educators reported engaging in completely
different tasks than their partners in the areas of co-instruction, co-planning, and co-behavior
management. Further, the analysis indicated that co-teachers with greater self-efficacy were
more likely to plan and differentiate the instruction together. This result is a promising sign that
co-teachers report intentionally planning the instruction and differentiating the instruction for the
diversity of learners found in a co-taught class.

117
APPENDIX A
MATRIX OF AUTHOR SOURCES FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE

118
MATRIX OF AUTHOR SOURCES FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Author Instruction Planning Behavior
Management
Differentiation/
Instructional
differences
Dinnebeil, McInerney, & Hale,
2006
X x
Wigle, & Wilcox, 2003 X x x
Bouck, 2010 X x x
Rytivaara, 2012 x x
Weiss & Lloyd, 2002 X x
Wasburn-Moses, 2005 X x x
Murphy, & Beggs, 2006 X
Morningstar, Shogren, Lee, &
Born, 2015
X x x
Klingner, & Vaughn, 2002 x
Keefe, 2004 x x
Beamish, Bryer, & Davies, 2006 X x x
Kohler-Evans, 2006 x
Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, &
Grisson, 2015
x
Walther-Thomas, Bryant, &
Land, 1996
x
Yopp, Ellis, Bonsangue, Duarte,
& Meza, 2014
x
Bryant Davis, Dieker, Pearn, &
Kirkpatrick, 2012
x
Tschida, Smith, & Fogarty, 2015 X x x
Fujimoto-Adamson, 2010 X x
Bronson, 2014 X x
Kamens, Susko, & Elliott, 2013 X x
Strieker, Gillis, & Yong, 2013 X x x
Hamdan, Anuar, & Khan, 2015 X x x
Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007 X x x x
Solis, Vaughan, Swanson, &
McCulley, 2012
X x
Gurgur, & Yildiz, 2011 X x x

119
APPENDIX B
SURVEY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CO-TEACHING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND
CO-TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

120
SURVEY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CO-TEACHING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND
CO-TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Definitions:
Co-teaching is defined as one general education teacher and one special education teacher
planning, collaborating, instructing, and managing a classroom together.
Team-teaching is two teachers delivering content to the whole group of students
simultaneously.
Collaboration is a style of interaction between individuals engaged in shared decision
making as they work toward a common goal, and they share decision-making authority and
accountability for outcomes.
Please note that your honest answers are being sought. Answer the questions in a way
that reflects your actual practice. Later in the survey, you will be asked about roles you believe
special education teachers or general education teachers should fulfill in co-teaching and co-
teaming arrangements. Be aware that we realize that no teacher is able to attend to all of their
many roles simultaneously.
Think of a co-teaching situation (one general education teacher and one special education
teacher) that you are currently in (or were recently in). Below is a list of roles co-teachers often
assume in the classroom. Please indicate how much time you CURRENTLY SPEND (or have
most recently spent) in a co-taught classroom using the 5-point scale, with 0 being Never, and 4
being Almost Always.
When in a co-teaching situation, I do the following.
Instruction
When in a co-teaching situation, I currently do the following.
1. Attend to all students.
0 1 2 3 4
Never Seldom Some of the time Most of the time Almost Always
2. Provide instruction to the whole class.
0 1 2 3 4
3. Provide instruction to individuals or small groups.
0 1 2 3 4
4. Participate in team teaching.
0 1 2 3 4

121
5. Apply effective collaboration techniques in instructional settings.
0 1 2 3 4
Planning
1. Assign roles and responsibilities for my co-teacher and me.
0 1 2 3 4
2. Have a regular planning time to meet with my co-teacher.
0 1 2 3 4
3. Collaborate with my co-teacher to design and implement instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
4. Use student data to plan my instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
5. Plan for individual student needs (whether special education or general education).
0 1 2 3 4
Behavior Management
1. Address the behavior of the whole class.
0 1 2 3 4
2. Address the behavior of individual students.
0 1 2 3 4
3. Enforce the rules of the classroom.
0 1 2 3 4

122
4. Share responsibility with my co-teacher in behavior management together.
0 1 2 3 4
5. Implement positive behavioral supports that teach appropriate social skills.
0 1 2 3 4
Differentiation/Instructional Differences
1. Work one-on-one, in small group, or in a large group with student on IEP objectives.
0 1 2 3 4
2. Provide supports necessary for participation and engagement in learning.
0 1 2 3 4
3. Make modifications for students who are struggling with the material.
0 1 2 3 4
4. Implement learning strategies for students.
0 1 2 3 4
5. Develop collaborative lessons to ensure that individuals with special needs have access to
and participate in the general education instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
Demographic Data
Now, we would like to ask you some demographic questions.
1. What position were you in when you were co-teaching?
General Education Teacher
Special Education Teacher
2. Please tell us how many years of experience you have teaching:
3. Please type in how many years of experience you have:

123
4. Please tell us how many years of experience you have co-teaching (when a general
educator and special educator jointly plan for and teach in the same classroom for the
benefit of both students with and without disabilities):
5. Please write in the number of years you have co-taught:
6. Please indicate your gender:
Male Female
7. Have you had training in the practice of co-teaching?
Yes No
8. Please indicate your age:
9. Please indicate your race:
White
African American
American Indian
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
Two or More Races
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino
10. Educational Level:
Bachelors
Masters
Doctorate
Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura)
Now, we would like you to shift focus to thinking about how effective you feel you are as a
teacher. This part of the survey is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of
things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please rate how certain you
are that you can do the things discussed below by indicating the appropriate number. Your
answers will be kept strictly confidential and will not be identified by name.
Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 10 using the scale given
below:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cannot do at all Moderately can do Highly certain can do

124
Efficacy to Influence Decision Making Confidence (0-10)
Influence the decisions that are made in the school
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Express my views freely on important school matters
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Get the instructional materials and equipment I need
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructional Self-Efficacy
Get through to the most difficult students
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Get students to learn when there is a lack of support from the home
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Keep students on task on difficult assignments
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Increase students’ memory of what they have been taught in previous lessons
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Get students to work well together
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Overcome the influence of adverse community conditions on students’ learning
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

125
Get children to do their homework
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Disciplinary Self-Efficacy
Get children to follow classroom rules
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Control disruptive behavior in the classroom
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prevent problem behavior on the school grounds
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement
Get parents to become involved in school activities
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assist parents in helping their children do well in school
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Make parents feel comfortable coming to school
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement
Get community groups involved in working with the school
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Get businesses involved in working with the school
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

126
Get local colleges and universities involved in working with the school
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate
Make the school a safe place
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Make students enjoy coming to school
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Get students to trust teachers
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Help other teachers with their teaching skills
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Increase collaboration between teachers and the administration to make the school run effectively
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reduce school dropout
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reduce school absenteeism
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

127
Meeting Legal Requirements
Provide differentiated instruction when required by an IEP or SS504 Plan
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Complete all required paperwork surrounding a child’s IEP or 504 Plan
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Use technology and tools required by the school to track student progress
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Implement Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions for children in a Response to Intervention model
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assess Tier 2 or Tier 3 progress in a Response to Intervention model
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Now that you have answered questions about how effective you feel you are as a teacher
in a variety of ways, we would like you to reflect on the roles and responsibilities of co-teachers
again and indicate what tasks someone in your role should do as either the general education or
special education teacher.
Think of a co-teaching situation (one general education teacher and one special education
teacher) that you are currently in (or were recently in). Below is a list of roles co-teachers often
play in the classroom. Please indicate how much time you THINK BEST PRACTICE IS for
someone in your role as either the general education teacher or the special education teacher in a
co-taught classroom using the 5-point scale, with 0 being Never, and 4 being Almost Always.
When in a co-teaching situation, I think best practice for someone in my position is
_______________.
Behavior Management
When in a co-teaching situation, I think best practice for me would be _______________.
1. Sharing responsibility with my co-teacher in behavior management and implement discipline
together.
0 1 2 3 4

128
2. Enforcing the rules of the classroom.
0 1 2 3 4
3. Addressing the behavior of the whole class.
0 1 2 3 4
4. Implementing positive behavioral supports that teach appropriate social skills.
0 1 2 3 4
5. Addressing the behavior of individual students.
0 1 2 3 4
Instruction
1. Participating in team teaching.
0 1 2 3 4
2. Providing instruction to the whole class.
0 1 2 3 4
3. Applying effective collaboration techniques in providing instruction to the class.
0 1 2 3 4
4. Attending to all students.
0 1 2 3 4
5. Providing instruction to individuals or small groups.
0 1 2 3 4
Planning
When in a co-teaching situation, I think best practice for my role would be _______________.
1. Collaborating with my co-teacher to design and implement instruction.
0 1 2 3 4

129
2. Having a regular planning time to meet with my co-teacher.
0 1 2 3 4
3. Planning for individual student needs.
0 1 2 3 4
4. Planning with my co-teacher to define roles and responsibilities for each co-teacher.
0 1 2 3 4
5. Assigning roles and responsibilities for my co-teacher and me.
0 1 2 3 4
Differentiation/Instructional Differences
When in a co-teaching situation, I think best practice for my role would be _______________.
1. Implementing learning strategies for students.
0 1 2 3 4
2. Working one-on-one, in small group, or in a large group with student on IEP objectives.
0 1 2 3 4
3. Making modifications for any students who are struggling with the material (whether or
not the student has an identified disability).
0 1 2 3 4
4. Providing supports necessary for participation and engagement in learning.
0 1 2 3 4
5. Developing collaborative lessons to ensure that individuals with special needs have access
to and participate in the general education instruction.
0 1 2 3 4

130
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH AND DIGITAL CONSENT

131
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH AND DIGITAL CONSENT
EXEMPT RESEARCH STUDY
INFORMATION SHEET
TITLE OF STUDY: The Relationship Between Co-Teaching Roles and Responsibilities
and Co-Teacher Self-Efficacy
INVESTIGATOR(S) AND CONTACT PHONE NUMBER:
Janet Van Heck, M.Ed. and Dr. Cori More, 702-895-3205
The purpose of this study is to examine the roles, responsibilities, and self-efficacy of general
and special education co-teachers. You are being asked to participate in the study because you
meet the following criteria: you are or have in the past been a general education or special
education teacher in a co-teaching situation.
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following: complete a
questionnaire on co-teacher roles and co-teacher self-efficacy.
This study includes only minimal risks. The study will take 20 minutes of your time. You will
not be compensated for your time.
For questions regarding the rights of research subjects, any complaints or comments regarding
the manner in which the study is being conducted you may contact the UNLV Office of
Research Integrity – Human Subjects at 702-895-2794, toll free at 877-895-2794, or via
email at IRB@unlv.edu.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may withdraw at any time. You are
encouraged to ask questions about this study at the beginning or any time during the research
study.
Participant Consent:
I have read the above information and agree to participate in this study. I am at least 18 years of
age. A copy of this form has been given to me.

132
APPENDIX D
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATOR CO-INSTRUCTION
AND SELF-EFFICACY

133
Predicted Values for the Co-instruction of General Education Teachers.
Figure 5. This chart shows the residuals and the predicted values of the regression model
for the co-instruction of general education teachers. This measure is important because a
regression model compares predicted values (predicted data points) with actual values
(data points) in its estimation.

134
Figure 6. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-instruction of
General Education Teachers.
Figure 6. Distribution of standardized residuals for the co-instruction of general education
teachers showed most residuals were close to -0.5.

135
Figure 7. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-Instruction of General Education
Teachers of the Observed and Predicted Residuals.
Figure 7. This scatterplot shows the strong positive correlation of the regression
residuals of the co-instruction of general education teachers.

136
Regression of Co-Instruction of General Education Teachers.
Figure 8. This chart shows the residuals and the predicted values of the regression model. This
measure is important because a regression model compares predicted values (predicted data
points) with actual values (data points) in its estimation.

137
Figure 9. Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals of the Regression of Co-instruction of
Figure 9. The scatterplot displays a weak positive relationship between co-instruction of
general educators and the standard residuals of the regression.

138
Regression for Co-instruction of General Education Teachers.
Figure 10. Unstandardized predicted values were separated into five equal groups to
observe the variance between the highest and the lowest value. The distance between the
lowest and highest group explained the data point distances from the line of best fit.

139
Figure 11. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-Instruction of General Education
Teachers.
Figure 11. The lowess line was used to determine linearity. The deviation from linearity had
a significance value of .673, which is more than .05. This shows a linear relationship
between the unstandardized residual from self-efficacy and predicted values of co-
instruction.

140
Figure 12. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-instruction of General
Education Teachers.
Figure 12. The regression equation of co-instruction and self-efficacy, where 12.461
represents the y-intercept and .024 represents the slope. This can be used to predict general
teachers’ roles and responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data.

141
APPENDIX E
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATOR CO-PLANNING
AND SELF-EFFICACY

142
Predicted Values for the Co-planning of General Education Teachers.
Figure 13. This chart shows the residuals and the predicted values of the regression
model for the co-planning of general education teachers. This measure is important
because a regression model compares predicted values (predicted data points) with actual
values (data points) in its estimation.

143
Figure 14. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-planning of
Figure 14. Distribution of standardized residuals for the co-planning of general education

144
Figure 15. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-planning of General Education
Figure 15. This scatterplot shows the strong positive correlation of the regression residuals
of the co-instruction of general education teachers.

145
Regression of Co-planning of General Education Teachers.
Figure 16. This chart shows the residuals and the predicted values of the regression model.
This measure is important because a regression model compares predicted values (predicted
data points) with actual values (data points) in its estimation.

146
Figure 17. The scatterplot displays a weak positive relationship between co-planning of
general educators and the standard residuals of the regression.

147
Regression for Co-planning of General Education Teachers.

148
Figure 19. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-Planning of General Education
Teachers.
Figure 19. The lowess line was used to determine linearity. This shows a linear
relationship between the unstandardized residual from self-efficacy and predicted values of
co-planning.

149
Figure 20. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-planning of General
Education Teachers.

150
APPENDIX F
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATOR
CO-BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT AND SELF-EFFICACY

151
Predicted Values for the Co-behavior Management of General Education
Teachers.
Figure 21. This chart shows the residuals and the predicted values of the regression model for
the co-behavior management of general education teachers. This measure is important

152
Figure 22. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-behavior
Management of General Education Teachers.
Figure 22. Distribution of standardized residuals for the co-behavior management of general
education teachers showed most residuals were close to .5.

153
Figure 23. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-behavior Management of General
Education Teachers of the Observed and Predicted Residuals.
of the co-instruction of general education teachers.

154
Figure 24. Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals of the Regression of Co-behavior
Management of General Education Teachers.

155
Figure 25. Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals of the Regression of Co-Behavior
management of General Education Teachers.
Figure 25. The scatterplot displays a weak positive relationship between co-behavior
management of general educators and the standard residuals of the regression.

156
Regression for Co-behavior Management of General Education Teachers.
Figure 26. Unstandardized predicted values were separated into five equal groups to observe
the variance between the highest and the lowest value. The distance between the lowest and
highest group explained the data point distances from the line of best fit.

157
Figure 27. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-behavior Management of General
Education Teachers.
Figure 27. The lowess line was used to determine linearity. This shows a linear relationship
between the unstandardized residual from self-efficacy and predicted values of co-behavior
management.

158
Figure 28. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-behavior Management of
Figure 28. The regression equation of co-instruction and self-efficacy, where 16.2 represents
the y-intercept and .02 represents the slope. This can be used to predict general teachers’
roles and responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data.

159
APPENDIX G
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATOR
CO-DIFFERENTIATION AND SELF-EFFICACY

160
Predicted Values for the Co-differentiation of General Education Teachers.
for the co-differentiation of general education teachers. This measure is important because a
regression model compares predicted values (predicted data points) with actual values (data
points) in its estimation.

161
Figure 30. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-differentiation
of General Education Teachers.
Figure 30. Distribution of standardized residuals for the co-instruction of general education
teachers showed most residuals were close to .25.

162
Figure 31. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-differentiation of General Education
of the co-differentiation of general education teachers.

163
Figure 32. Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals of the Regression of Co-
differentiation of General Education Teachers.
This measure is important because a regression model compares predicted values with actual
values in its estimation.

164
differentiation of General Education Teachers.
Figure 33. The scatterplot displays a weak positive relationship between co-differentiation
of general educators and the standard residuals of the regression.

165
Regression for Co-differentiation of General Education Teachers.
Figure 34. Unstandardized predicted values were separated into five equal groups to observe
the variance between the highest and the lowest value. The distance between the lowest and
highest group explained the data point distances from the line of best fit.

166
Figure 35. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-differentiation of General
Education Teachers.
Figure 35. The lowess line was used to determine linearity. This shows a linear relationship
differentiation.

167
Figure 36. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-differentiation of General
Education Teachers.

168
APPENDIX H
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATOR
CO-INSTRUCTION AND SELF-EFFICACY

169
Predicted Values for the Co-instruction of Special Education Teachers.
for the co-instruction of special education teachers. This measure is important because a
regression model compares predicted values (predicted data points) with actual values

170
Figure 38. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-instruction of
Special Education Teachers.
Figure 38. Distribution of standardized residuals for the co-instruction of special
education teachers showed most residuals were close to -0.5.

171
Figure 39. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-Instruction of Special Education
Figure 39. This scatterplot shows the strong positive correlation of the regression
residuals of the co-instruction of special education teachers.

172
Regression of Co-Instruction of Special Education Teachers.

173
instruction of Special Education Teachers.
Figure 41. The scatterplot displays a weak positive relationship between co-instruction
of special educators and the standard residuals of the regression.

174
Regression for Co-instruction of General Education Teachers.

175
Figure 43. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-Instruction of General Education
Teachers.
Figure 43. The lowess line was used to determine linearity. The deviation from linearity
had a significance value of .673, which is more than .05. This shows a linear relationship
instruction.

176
Figure 44. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-instruction of Special
Education Teachers.

177
APPENDIX I
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATION
CO-PLANNING AND SELF-EFFICACY

178
Predicted Values for the Co-planning of Special Education Teachers.
model for the co-planning of special education teachers. This measure is important

179
Figure 46. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-planning of
Figure 46. Distribution of standardized residuals for the co-planning of special education

180
Figure 47. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-planning of Special Education
of the co-instruction of special education teachers.

181
Regression of Co-planning of Special Education Teachers.
model. This measure is important because a regression model compares predicted values
(predicted data points) with actual values (data points) in its estimation.

182
Figure 49. The scatterplot displays a weak positive relationship between co-planning of
special educators and the standard residuals of the regression.

183
Regression for Co-planning of Special Education Teachers.

184
Figure 51. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-Planning of General Education
Teachers.
relationship between the unstandardized residual from self-efficacy and predicted values
of co-planning.

185
Figure 52. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-planning of General
Education Teachers.

186
APPENDIX J
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATOR
CO-BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT AND SELF-EFFICACY

187
Predicted Values for the Co-behavior Management of Special Education
Teachers.
for the co-behavior management of general education teachers. This measure is important

188
Figure 54. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-behavior
Management of Special Education Teachers.
Figure 54. Distribution of standardized residuals for the co-behavior management of
special education teachers showed most residuals were close to .5.

189
Figure 55. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-behavior Management of Special
Education Teachers of the Observed and Predicted Residuals.
of the co-instruction of special education teachers.

190

191
Figure 57. The scatterplot displays a weak positive relationship between co-behavior
management of special educators and the standard residuals of the regression.

192
Regression for Co-behavior Management of Special Education Teachers.

193
Figure 59. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-behavior Management of Special
Education Teachers.
co-behavior management.

194
Figure 60. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-behavior Management
of Special Education Teachers.
represents the y-intercept and .02 represents the slope. This can be used to predict
special teachers’ roles and responsibilities for self-efficacy values outside the data.

195
APPENDIX K
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATION
CO-DIFFERENTIATION AND SELF-EFFICACY

196
Predicted Values for the Co-differentiation of Special Education Teachers.
for the co-differentiation of special education teachers. This measure is important because
a regression model compares predicted values (predicted data points) with actual values

197
Figure 62. Frequency of the Residuals of the Regression Model for Co-differentiation
of Special Education Teachers.
Figure 62. Distribution of standardized residuals for the co-instruction of special education
teachers showed most residuals were close to zero.

198
Figure 63. Scatterplot of the Regression of the Co-differentiation of Special Education
of the co-differentiation of special education teachers.

199
differentiation of Special Education Teachers.
This measure is important because a regression model compares predicted values with
actual values in its estimation.

200
differentiation of Special Education Teachers.
Figure 65. The scatterplot displays a weak positive relationship between co-differentiation
of special educators and the standard residuals of the regression.

201
Regression for Co-differentiation of Special Education Teachers.

202
Figure 67. The Lowess Line of the Regression of Co-differentiation of Special
Education Teachers.
co-differentiation.

203
Figure 68. Scatterplot of the Regression Equation of the Co-differentiation of Special
Education Teachers.
represents the y-intercept and .03 represents the slope. This can be used to predict special

204
REFERENCES
A Guide to the Individual Education Program. (2017). U.S. Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html#closer
Anderson, D. L., & Standerford, N. (2012). Inside out and outside in: Rethinking spelling in
inclusive elementary classrooms. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(2), 125-146.
Angeliki, G. (2006). The effects of prompting and social reinforcements on establishing social
interactions with peers during the inclusion of four children with autism in preschool.
International Journal of Psychology, 41(6), 541-554.
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education,
22(4), 245-255.
Bandura, A. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. New York: Information Age
Publishing.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramacaudran (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for
general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10,
17-22.
Beamish, F., Bryer, F., & Davies, M. (2006). Teacher reflections on co-teaching unit of work.
International Journal of Whole Schooling, 2(2), 3-19
Beninghof, A. (2011) Co-teaching that works: Structures and strategies for maximizing student
learning. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

205
Blecker, N. S., & Boakes, N. J. (2010). Creating a learning environment for all children: Are
teachers able and willing? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(5), 435-447.
Doi: 10.1080/1363031108024937
Bouck, E. C. (2010). Co-Teaching … not just a term: Implications for practice. Preventing
School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth a Textbook, 16(42).
Bronson, C. E. (2014). Partner teaching: A promising model. Education, 134(4), 506-520
Bryant Davis, K. E., Dieker, L., Pearl, C., & Kirkpatrick, R. M. (2012). Planning in the middle:
Co-planning between general and special education. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 22(3), 208-226 Doi: 10.1080/10474412.2012.706561
Calik, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgaci, H., Dilinc, A. C. (2012). Examination of relationships between
instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective
teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences, Theory, & Practice, 12(4), 3498-4504
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 28(3).
Conderman, G., Johnson-Rodriguez, S., Hartman, P., & Walker, D. (2012). Honoring voices
from beginning special educators for making changes in teacher preparation. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 36(1), 65-76.
Conderman, G. J. , Bresnahan, M. V. , & Pedersen, T. (2008). Purposeful co-teaching: Real
cases and effective strategies. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com

206
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
Cronbach, L. J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 3-31.
Dieker, L.A., & Murawski, W.W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique
issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86, 1-13.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dinnebeil, L., McInerney, W., & Hale, L. (2006). Understanding the roles and responsibilities
of itinerant ECSE teachers through delphi research. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 26(3), 153-166.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (1975). U.S. Congress.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). U.S. Congress.
Eriks-Brophy, A., & Whittingham, J. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of the inclusion of children
with hearing loss in general education settings. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(1),
63-97.
Fanni, F., Rega, I., & Cantoni, L. (2013). Using self-efficacy to measure primary school
teachers’ perception of ICT: Results from two studies. International Journal of
Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1),
100-111.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2009). Including students with special needs: A practical guide
for classroom teachers (6th
Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

207
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2009). Interactions: Collaborative skills for school professionals,
(6th
ed.) New York, NY: Pearson.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-Teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21(1), 97-27. Doi:
10.1080/10474410903535380
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1992). Limitations of a feel-good approach to consultation. Journal
of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3, 93-98.
Fujimoto-Adamson, N. (2010). Voices from team-teaching classrooms: A case study in junior
high schools in Japan. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 200-205.
Gurgur, H., & Yildiz, U. (2011). Examining the implementation of two co-teaching models:
Team teaching and station teaching. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(6),
586-610. Doi: 10.1080/1360311903265032
Gurgur, H., & Uzuner, Y. (2010). A phenomenological analysis of the views on co-teaching
applications in the inclusion classroom. Educational Theory & Practice, 10(1), 311-331.
Hamdan, A. R., Anuar, J. K., & Khan, A. (2015). Implementation of co-teaching approach in an
inclusive classroom: Overview of the challenges, readiness, and role of special education
teacher. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17, 289-298. Doi: 10.1007/s12564-016-9419-8
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspective and efficacy
indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 259–268. Doi:
10.1177/0741932508321018
Huang, L. F. (2016). Adjusted Wilcoxon signed rank test tables for ratio of percentiles.
Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation, 0(0), 0.

208
Hughes, C., Golas, M., Cosgriff, J., Brigham, N., Edwards, C., & Cashen, K. (2011). Effects of
a social skills intervention among high school students with intellectual disabilities and
autism and their general education peers. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 36(1-2), 46-61.
IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY:
IBM Corp.
Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Palucci-Whitcomb, P. (1992). Collaborative consultation, 2nd
ed. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, P. L. 105-17, 20 U. S. C. 1400
§et seq.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C., 1400 §et seq.
(2004).
Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2011). Council of Chief State School
Officers.
http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Interstate_Teacher_Assessment_Consortium_
(InTASC).html
James, J.M, Walker, R., Utley, K., & Maughan, R. (2012). A comparison of embedded total
task instruction in teaching behavioral chains to massed one-on-on instruction for
students with intellectual disabilities: Accessing general education settings and core
academic content. Behavior Modification, 36(3), 320-340.
Kamens, M. W., Susko, J. P. & Elliott, J. S. (2013). Evaluation and supervision of co-teaching:
A study of administrator practices in New Jersey. NASSP Bulletin, 97(2), 166-190. Doi
10.1177/0192636513476337

209
Keefe, E. B. (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.
Keith, T.Z. (2015). Multiple regression and beyond. An introduction to multiple regression and
structural equation modeling (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
King-Sears, M. E., Brawand, A. E., Jenkins, M. C., & Preston-Smith, S. (2014). Co-teaching
perspectives from secondary science co-teachers and their students with disabilities.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 651-680. Doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9391-2
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (2002). The changing roles and responsibilities of an LD
specialist. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 19-31.
Kohler-Evans, P. A. (2006). Co-Teaching: How to Make This Marriage Work in Front of the
Kids. Education, 127(2), 260-264.
Leatherman, J. (2009). Teachers' voices concerning collaborative teams within an inclusive
elementary school. Teaching Education, 20(2), 189-202.
Lee, S.H., Soukup, J.H., Little, T.D., & Wehmeyer, M.L. (2009). Student and teacher variables
contributing to access to the general education curriculum for student with intellectual
and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 29-44.
Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2013). Do pre-service teachers feel ready to teach in
inclusive classrooms? A four-country study of teaching self-efficacy. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 38(1) 27-44.
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine
conditions: Does the instructional experience different for students with disabilities in
co-taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disability Research and Practice, 20(2), 79-
85. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00123.x

210
Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-
synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416.
Montgomery, A., & Mirenda, P. (2014). Teachers self-efficacy, sentiments, attitudes, and
concerns about the inclusion of students with developmental disabilities. Exceptionality
Education International, 24(1), 18-32.
Morgan, J. (2016). Reshaping the role of a special educator into a collaborative learning
specialist. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 12(1), 40-60.
Morningstar, M. E., Shogren, K. A., Lee, H., & Born, K. (2015). Preliminary lessons about
supporting participation and learning in inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 4(3), 192-210. Doi: 10.1177.1540796915594158
Mumba, F., Banda, A., & Chabalengula, V. M. (2015). Chemistry teachers' perceived benefits
and challenges of inquiry-based instruction in inclusive chemistry classrooms. Science
Education International, 26(2), 180–194.
Murawski, W. W. (2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools: Making the co-
teaching marriage work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Company.
Murawski. W. W. (2012). Ten tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8-15.
Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2006). Co-teaching as an approach to enhance science learning and
teaching in primary schools. The Science Education Review, 5(20), 1-10.
National Center on Educational Statistics. (2017). Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107-110, § 115, Stat 1425 (2002).

211
Pancsofar, N., & Petroff, J. G. (2013). Professional development experiences in co-teaching:
associations with teacher confidence, interests, and attitudes. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 36(20), 83-96.
Perez, K. D. (2012). The Co-Teaching Book of Lists. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Pugach, M.C., Blanton, L.P., & Correa, V.I. (2011). A historical perspective on the role
of collaboration in teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of
teaching all students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 183-200.
Pugach, M.C., Johnson, L.H., Drame, E.R., & Williamson, P. (2012). Collaborative
practitioners: Collaborative schools. (3rd Ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Pugach, M.C., & Winn, J.A. (2011). Research on co-teaching and teaming: An untapped
resource for induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24, 36-46.
Qualtrics. (2017). Qualtrics Lab, Inc. Available from: http://www.qualtrics.com
Reeve, P. T., & Hallahan, D. P. (1994). Practical questions about collaboration between
general and special educators. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(7), 1-11.
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. (2015). Teacher collaboration in
instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
52(3), 475-514.
Rotatori, F. E., Festus, E. O., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). History of Special Education. Bingley,
UK: Emerald.
Runxton, G. D. (2006). The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to student's t-test
and the Mann–Whitney U test. Behavioral Ecology, 17(4), 688-690. Doi:
10.1093/beheco/ark016

212
Rytivaara, A. (2012). Collaborative classroom management in a co-taught primary school
classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 182-191.
Salkind, N. J. (2007). Paired samples t test (Dependent samples t test). In: Encyclopedia of
Measurement and Statistics. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952644.n326
Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (2014). Inspiring instructional change in elementary school
science: The relationship between enhanced self-efficacy and teacher practices. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 25, 729-751. Doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9393-0
Sapsford, R. (2007). Survey research. London: Sage.
Savolainen, H., Englebrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O-P. (2012). Understanding teachers’
attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-
service teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27, 51–68.
doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.613603
Scott, M., Flaherty, D., & Currall, J. (2013). Statistics: Using regression models. Journal of
Small Animal Practice, 54(6), 285-290. DOI: 10.1111/jsap.12068
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(74),
392-416.
Shoulders, T. L., & Krei, M. S. (2015). Rural high school teachers’ self-efficacy in student
engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management. American Secondary
Education, 44(1), 50-61.
Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 43(5), 32-38.

213
Smith, D. (2007). Introduction to special education: Making a difference. Pearson:
San Francisco.
Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & McCulley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of
instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the
Schools, 49(5), 498-410. Doi: 10.1002/pits.21606
Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hacking, M. (1998). High school laboratory work in western
Australia: Openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 219-228.
Stevens, T., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., Harris, G., Higgins, R., & Liu, X. (2013). Middle level
mathematics teachers' self-efficacy growth through professional development:
Differences based on mathematical background. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 38(4), 144-164.
Strieker, T., Gillis, B., & Zong, G. (2013). Improving pre-service middle school teachers’
confidence, competence, and commitment to co-teaching in inclusive classrooms.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(4),159-180.
Survey fundamentals: A guide to designing and implementing surveys. (2017). Office of Quality
Improvement, University of Wisconsin Madison. Retrieved from: www.quality.wisc.edu
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Tschida, C. M., Smith, J. J., & Fogarty, E. A. (2015). “It just works better”: Introducing the 2:1
model of co-teaching in teacher preparation. Rural Education, 11-26.
U. S. Census Bureau. (2010). U.S. Demographic Information.
http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/
Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M. & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: the key
to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 255-264.

214
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2005). Roles and responsibilities of secondary special education teachers
in an age of reform. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 151-158.
Weiss, M., & Lloyd, J. (2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary special
educators in co-taught and special education settings. Journal of Special Education, 36,
58-68.
Wigle, S. E., & Wilcox, D. J. (2003). Changing roles and responsibilities of special educators:
implications for teacher education. Action Teacher Education, 25(1), 27-37.
Wisconsin Education Association Council. (2017). http://weac.org/articles/specialedinc/
Winzer, M. A. (1993). The history of special education: From isolation to integration.
Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Yopp, R. H., Ellis, M. W., Bonsangue, M. V., Duarte, T, & Meza, S. (2014). Piloting a co-
teaching model for mathematics teacher preparation: Learning to teach together. Issues
in Teacher Education, 23(1), 91-111.

215
CURRICULUM VITAE
JANET VAN HECK
4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3014
email: janetv1@netzero.com
vanhejc@nv.ccsd.net
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION:
Co-teaching and Inclusion
Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities
Leadership Area: Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities
EDUCATION
Degrees:
Ph. D. 2017 University of Nevada, Las Vegas Special Education
M. Ed. 2009 University of Nevada, Las Vegas Special Education
Post Graduate Diploma 2000 Amsterdam School of the Arts Museum Studies
B. A. 1993 University of Texas at Austin Anthropology
Licenses:
State of Nevada, Special Education Generalist K-12
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2015 – present Special Education Teacher in Mathematics,
Desert Rose Adult High School. Las Vegas, NV.
2012 – 2015 Co-Teacher in English Language Arts,
Hyde Park Academy of Math and Science,
Las Vegas, NV.
2008 – 2012 Co-Teacher in Mathematics,
DDK Global Empowerment School, Las Vegas, NV.
2007 – 2008 Announcer,
Salem Music Network Christian Radio, Nashville, TN.
2003 – 2006 Assistant to the Director of Children’s Services,
M C Community Services Agency, Nashville, TN.
PUBLICATIONS
Van Heck, J. C. (2015). Using Interactive Whiteboard Technology to Implement the Concrete-
Representational-Abstract Mathematical Sequence. LD Forum.

216
TEACHING
Undergraduate Courses Taught
Fall 2012 EDSP 423 Collaborative Consultation in Special Education
PRESENTATIONS
Van Heck, J. C. (August, 2016). Developing a Contract of Roles and Responsibilities for Co-
Teachers. Poster Session at the Doctoral Symposium at University of Nevada, Las
Vegas.
Van Heck, J. C. (November, 2015). Developing a Contract of Roles and Responsibilities for
Co-Teachers as a Professional Development Activity. Interactive session at the Council
for Exceptional Children Teacher Education Division, Phoenix, Arizona.
Van Heck, J. C. (October, 2015). Using IWB Technology to Implement the Concrete-
Representational-Abstract Mathematical Sequence. Panel session at the Council for
Learning Disabilities Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Van Heck, J. C. (April, 2015). Using Interactive Whiteboard Technology to Implement the
Concrete-Representational-Abstract Mathematical Sequence. Poster session presented at
the meeting of the Council of Exceptional Children Convention, San Diego, California.
Van Heck, J. C. (April, 2012). Changing the Term ‘Mental Retardation’ to ‘Intellectual
Disability.’ Paper session presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional
Children Convention, Denver, Colorado.
Van Heck, J. C. (March, 2011). The Change of the Term ‘Mental Retardation’ to ‘Intellectual
Disability.’ Poster Presented at the Doctoral Symposium, University of Nevada, Las
Vegas.
Van Heck, J. C. (March, 2011). Cultural and Linguistic Diversity. ESP 722 Multicultural
Perspectives. University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Van Heck, J. C. (April, 2010). Technology Needs Teamwork. Poster session presented at the
meeting of the Doctoral Symposium of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
SERVICE & COMMUNITY
Guest Reviewer for Intervention in School and Clinic (2014).
Presented Doctoral Competency Requirements at the Doctoral Symposium at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. (2016).

217
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
2010 - present Council for Exceptional Children
2014 – present Council for Learning Disabilities
2014 – present Sigma Alpha Pi, National Society of Leadership

The Relationship Between Roles and Responsibilities of Co-teachers and Co-teacher Self-efficacy - dissertation by Dr. Janet Van Heck

More Related Content

Similar to The Relationship Between Roles and Responsibilities of Co-teachers and Co-teacher Self-efficacy - dissertation by Dr. Janet Van Heck (20)

More from Dr. Janet Van Heck (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Relationship Between Roles and Responsibilities of Co-teachers and Co-teacher Self-efficacy - dissertation by Dr. Janet Van Heck