1

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

Co-teaching in Humanities to Enhance EAL Learning

Marian Bradshaw
EDFN 508: Introduction to Educational Research
The College of New Jersey
July 8, 2015

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

Co-teaching in Humanities to Enhance EAL Learning

For the past seven years, I have worked as a humanities teacher four years as a seventh
grade humanities teacher and three years as a sixth grade humanities teacher at Shanghai
American School Pudong, China (SAS). In our school, humanities, is a combination of the
traditional social studies and language art classes; students study history, writing, reading, and
grammar in this class. Seventh grade humanities is organized thematically by the following units:
Identity, Society, and Change. My colleagues and I developed this curriculum three years ago
and continue to modify and make improvements to it every year. However, in August, I will
begin teaching English as a Second Language (EAL) to seventh grade students, both pull-out and
push-in. In order to fully comprehend the action research I intend to carry out, a review of the
current EAL program at SAS is important.
Currently, there are three EAL teachers at the middle school, one for each grade level.
Each teacher has both pull-out and push-in students they are responsible for. At SAS, pull-out
students get an extra support class for 75 minutes every other day. Students take this pull-out
class instead of a foreign language class. In addition, the EAL teacher pushes into her/his
students core classes (math, science, and humanities), though the majority of the time is spent in
the humanities class, as it is where the most help is needed.
Push-in students, on the other hand, only get support when their EAL teacher comes into
their core class. However, push-in students are also encouraged, though not required, to send
their work, particularly writing, to their EAL teacher for review and feedback. In addition, their
elective class during the first quarter is with their EAL teacher (normally, each student in middle
school can choose their elective, but this EAL elective is not a choice; it is a requirement). This
elective is an opportunity for the EAL teacher to get to know his/her charges on a personal level

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

their personality, their strengths/weaknesses, and their ability levels them as individuals. This
is done so that the EAL teacher is not a stranger to them.
The former EAL teacher, as far as I know, did not co-teach with any of the core teachers.
She went into classes, observed what was happening, assisted her students during individual and
group work, and may have viewed this as co-teaching. She stayed for duration of five to fortyfive minutes, depending on the activity and need. This is the structure I hope to modify so I can
co-teach with the humanities, and possibly the science, teachers.
In regards to my own experience with co-teaching, I have never done it formally, but
informally. When I taught sixth grade humanities from 2008-2010, the EAL teacher that was
assigned to the sixth grade team had been the former humanities teacher. Therefore, she was very
informed and knowledgeable about the curriculum, though new changes had been implemented.
She sat down with my teaching partner, the other humanities teacher, and me every week when
we did our planning for the upcoming week. As a result, she knew all the lessons and activities
we would be doing during that week. During the week, she would come into my classroom,
observe my class, and help out her EAL students, and other students, during individual and group
work. However, at times when I was giving instructions or lecturing about a certain teaching
point, I would ask her to take on the subject or her approach to a subject. For instance, while
teaching about showing v. telling in writing, I might have said, Mrs. C., how would you make
this telling statement come alive, move from a telling statement to a showing statement? She
would then give her approach to do so. This is how we operated for the two years she was the
sixth grade EAL teacher.
This year I operated in a similar fashion with the seventh grade EAL teacher, though she
did not sit down and plan with the seventh grade humanities team on a weekly basis (she was not

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

able to come to our weekly meetings because her pull-out class was scheduled at the same time
as our planning period, an issue I am also concerned about for my co-teaching aspirations).
However, she was aware of the topics and activities we were doing since her son was also in my
class. At times, she would also inform me what my teacher partner, who also had her EAL
students, was doing with his class since she was observing and working in both our classes. This
was very valuable information for me. Though we planned the same content, assignments, and
assessments and had similar activities, our approaches and activities would sometimes be
different as we are individuals and expect to teach differently.
Though both of my colleagues were great at on-the-spot instruction, I aspire to do at least
one planned co-teaching lesson a week, with the humanities teacher during the school year and
then possibly add the science teachers once I become comfortable being a co-teacher. Since I am
transferring from Humanities 7 to EAL 7, I know the content of the curriculum very well and
will be able to instruct my EAL students in the content, assignments, assessments, and activities
being done in their humanities classes. However, as happens naturally every year, there will be
changes as there is a new humanities teacher on the team and the program is always developing
and improving. Hence, co-teaching with the humanities team will be a natural fit.
In addition, when my principal informed me that I would be moving from Humanities 7
to EAL 7, she charged me with the task of bringing more strategies to teach EAL students to the
core teachers. Therefore, I thought that learning more about co-teaching models would be one
way I could fulfill this directive while being an integral part of the academic lives of my EAL
students. My action research question in the end is How can I use co-teaching in humanities to
enhance the learning experiences of my EAL students?

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

Literature review
Before researching about co-teaching (also called team teaching, collaborative teaching,
or cooperative teaching), I didnt know there were so many models. I thought co-teaching
involved two teachers up at the front of a classroom teaching together, engaged in a back-andforth exchange. Upon reading the articles, I found out that there are many different co-teaching
models.
Throughout the literature, co-teaching is defined as two equal professionals

collaboratively working together to deliver instruction to a diverse group of students. In the past,
the definition applied to teachers in general education, but has since been expanded to include
special education and English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010;
Bryant Davis, Dieker, Pearl, & Kirkpatrick, 2012). Cook and Friend first defined the term in
1995 (Bryant Davis et al., 2012). Walter-Thomass (1997) definition also includes the words
active, ongoing classroom involvement for one to two hours per day (p. 396). Each model
includes different degrees of teacher involvement, depending on the model used. In the modern
co-teaching model, ESL students and students with disabilities are integrated into the general
education classes instead of being removed to their own separate classes, which lead to
disconnected instruction experience, lack of increased achievement, and no sense of
belonging (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010, p. 9). In an effective co-teaching class, there is no my
students or your students but our students as there is a shared responsibility for the
emotional, academic, and social growth of all students.
The articles I reviewed were a summary article by Dove and Honigsfeld (2010), which
described seven co-teaching models and explored the possibilities of collaboration between
general education teachers and specialist teachers using vignettes. The second article by Walter-

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

Thomas (1997) described a naturalistic inquiry method using classroom observations, semistructured individual interviews, school-developed documents, and informal conversations. The
third article by Bryant Davis et al. (2012) used a content analysis approach to evaluate 155
lesson plans, which were further broken down into 755 days of plans from three cohorts of
middle school co-taught teams.
Collaborative models
The co-teaching models outlined by Bryant Davis (2012) and Dove and Honigsfeld
(2010) included the following: one lead, one support (one teacher guides the lesson while the
other teacher supports by redirecting, coaching, or assessing students); alternative (dividing the
class into one large group and one small group, which was retaught, pre-taught, or given
reinforcement in some content); station, also called multiple-group (using stations to instruct
content that has been divided); parallel (dividing the class into two smaller groups and teaching
the same content); and team teaching (both teachers sharing the instructional stage) (Bryant
Davis, 2012, p. 213, 215-216).
Benefits of co-teaching
All three articles discussed the benefits of co-teaching. Some of these benefits included
better alignment of the curriculum, increased self-confidence and self-esteem of students,
improved academic success of students, improved social skills, improved classroom
communities and increased professional satisfaction by teachers. However, Walter-Thomas
(1997) three-year study of eighteen elementary and seven middle schools pointed out the benefits
to all the stakeholders: students with disabilities, general education students, and the teachers of
these students in much detail.

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

In terms of alignment, Bryant Davis team analysis of the 755 lesson plans they reviewed
revealed that the general education and special education teachers were aligned 65% of the time
(2102). Though not conclusive, this quantitative data is strong empirical evidence that coteaching works, at least on paper. A critique of this study is that the analysis was solely focused
on lesson plans. Planning a lesson together is one thing, but, as most experienced teachers know,
lesson plans are often modified on the spot due to student engagement, teachable moments that
pop up, or other interruptions that arise.
Students, especially low-achieving students, who are in co-taught classrooms had better
academic success because they were getting more individualized attention from the teachers; this
resulted in better academic performance. Naturally, this would lead to better self-confidence and
better self-esteem in the students. It was not surprising to find that many participants reported
that their low-achieving students did better in co-taught classrooms than they did in more
traditional settings (Walter-Thomas, 1997, p. 400).
Other benefits to both students with disabilities and general education students were
improved social skills. This fell into the behaviors of fewer fights and verbal disagreements,
less name-calling, better problem solving, overt acts of kindness, better material sharing, fewer
classroom cliques, and more cooperation during group work assignments (Walter-Thomas,
1997, p. 401). As a result, classrooms felt more like inclusive family-like settings where
people cared about one another.
As for teachers, they generally felt more professional satisfaction as their students were
achieving at higher levels than before and that their efforts were paying off (Walter-Thomas,
1997, p. 401). Moreover, they noted that they had never worked harder, but felt more satisfied
with their achievements. Finally, they were sharing and collaborating more, both formally and

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

informally, which also lead to greater professional satisfaction (Walter-Thomas, 1997, p. 401402).
Persistent problems
There were a number of persistent problems that were pointed out in the studies, among
which included sufficient planning time, communication issues, and lack of administrative
support and staff development. In all of the articles, a consistent theme was insufficient planning
time. Dove & Honigsfeld (2010) pointed out that administrators need to provide the time for
teachers to have professional conversations with their colleagues on an ongoing basis (p. 11).
Otherwise, if enough time is not allotted to planning, much of it becomes informal in the
hallway, in the cafeteria, and on the fly. Common planning time should be a routine, scheduled
part of the school day.
Bryant Davis referenced a report by Scruggs and colleagues (2007) of a fear that special
education teachers [and ESL teachers] were being relegated to that of assistant, p. (220) a point
my interviewee also cautioned against (see First hand account section). This dynamic would
create an unequal relationship that would negatively affect the working relationship of the
teacher-partners and would often lead to a pair not working together in the future.
In addition, communication between the co-teachers is crucial: co-teaching demands the
identification of individual teacher roles and responsibilities as well as firm agreement on the
decision-making process for instruction, student behavior, communication with students and
their parents, and evaluation of student progress. Additionally, each co-teaching member must
possess a common view of co-teaching models and knowledge of effective ways to execute
selected model (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010, p. 10). Therefore, it is essential that the co-teachers
are communicating on a regular basis, both inside and outside of the classroom.

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

Finally, administrative support to organize and arrange resources for collaboration is vital
to the success of the implementation of a co-teaching program. By putting forth this effort, the
administrator is demonstrating a commitment to this paradigm shift. Dove & Honigsfeld (2010)
also referenced reviews by Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) who reviewed 20 years of
research to support effective teacher learning, one of which was professional development.
Dove and Honigsfelds (2010) work also confirmed professional development that is ongoing,
subject specific, and collaborative allows teachers to practice their new skills and provide a
mechanism to debrief and gather new information (p. 12).
First hand account
I had the opportunity to interview a teacher who had engaged in co-teaching at her
school. The interviewee is a middle and high school ESL teacher who was involved in three
instances of co-teaching. These were the questions I asked her:
1. What experience did you have with co-teaching? What classes? And how many
students?
2. What kind of co-teaching did you do? one lead, one support, etc.
3. How much did you plan beforehand?
4. How often did you co-teach?
5. What were the shortcomings or difficulties of co-teaching?
6. What recommendations do you have for me as I embark on co-teaching?
The first instance she co-taught was two years ago when she pushed into a humanities
class (I put co-taught in parenthesis because essentially the situation she described was not coteaching). My interviewees teacher-partner was often unprepared or prepared his lessons at the
last minute, which left her frequently in the position of being an observer at the back of the room
and an unequal partner. The co-planning was improvised on the spot. Therefore, she mostly
supported her students whenever and wherever she could. She reported that she did not have a
good relationship with this teacher.

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

10

The second instance when she co-taught was in a mixed ESL, academic support, and
regular education grade 7 English class. Since she was teaching the same English 7 class as her
teacher-partner, she co-planned with her on a weekly basis, though the teaching partner did most
of the planning and she used to the same lesson. They followed this dynamic because her
teacher-partner was more experienced at teaching English than she was; the interviewee also had
four preps and this arrangement helped her out workload. The teaching model they followed was
one lead, one support.
Last year, the interviewed teacher co-taught a Humanities 6 class with another colleague.
The circumstances of this arose as the parent community had little or no confidence in the
teacher who had replaced the original Humanities 6 teacher, who had to leave the school due to
personal reasons. The principal asked the interviewee to co-teach with the replacement teacher
to assuage the feelings of the parents. They worked well together, co-teaching 2-3 days a week,
and equally shared in the duties and responsibilities of helping their students. They could provide
more individualized attention to their students, as there were two teachers in the room. They
were also able to give better feedback to their students and could focus on language arts
development, like the Six Traits of Writing. Most times they shared the teaching responsibilities
by having one teacher writing on the board while the other instructed the class. The model they
followed was team teaching.
The interviewee made the following recommendations about co-teaching: for an effective
co-teaching program to be work in a school, it has to be implemented properly. First of all, the
administration has to inform the faculty if a paradigm shift is being made from individual
teaching to co-teaching, with whom and how; this was also noted out by Walter-Thomas (1997)
in her article. If the staff is not informed of changes, it can lead to a lot of unpleasant surprises on

11

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

the part of one, or both, of the teachers. Secondly, its important to discuss the roles each teacher
will play during the co-teaching lesson. Third, ensure that there is parity between the two
teachers. Otherwise, a hierarchical relationship will be established that might be hard, if not
impossible, to change. The ESL teacher has to assert himself/herself as an equal, contributing
partner in the relationship.
The overall sentiment I got from doing the literature review and conducting the interview
is that co-teaching is a relatively new teaching technique fraught with difficulties, but one that
holds a lot of promise.
Methods
Setting
The setting for my action research project will be in the middle school of an independent
school in Shanghai, China the Shanghai American School (SAS), Pudong campus. SAS is a
coeducational, preparatory school with a population of about 3,200 students spread out over two
campuses. The make up of the student body is comprised of students from about 40 nations.
The curriculum is American-based and includes AP and IB Diploma offerings. There is a large
ESL population primarily Chinese-Americans and Koreans. As I begin teaching EAL students in
August 2015, the teacher research project will be invaluable to me to a paradigm shift from an
independent humanities classroom teacher to an ESL teacher-partner with the humanities
teachers.
Participants
The participants in this qualitative teacher research project will be primarily my seventh
grade pull-out EAL students. In addition, my push-in EAL students and general education
students will also be directly included as they will be instructed during the co-teaching lessons in

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

12

their humanities class. Most of these EAL students are Chinese-American or Korean nationals,
with a smattering of other nationalities. I have purposefully chosen these students because they
are the ones I will be working with most closely during the school year.
Currently, I do not know if one, two, or all three of the humanities teachers will have
EAL students in his/her class (usually each humanities teacher has 2-5 EAL students in each of
his/her classes). Last year, only two of the four humanities teachers, myself included, had EAL
students. Therefore, I may be co-teaching with one, two, or maybe all three of the humanities
teachers. My co-teaching possibilities are also dependent on whether or not these teachers are
receptive to co-teaching. I have worked, planned, and collaborated with two of the three
humanities teachers, since I worked with them during the last school year; I think they will be
receptive to co-teaching with me based on my past collaborative experiences with them. I have
not worked with the newest humanities teacher and will have to build a relationship with her
before I can introduce the idea of co-teaching to her.
Data collection
The way I will be collecting data for this research project is by the traditional
triangulation instruments in a qualitative study: interview, observation, and documents.
Interview. The first logical place to start with my data gathering is with my science
colleagues, James and Kevin, both of whom co-teach Science 7 at the middle school level. From
what I have observed casually when I have walked past their rooms and have seen them planning
together, they seem to have a very amicable working relationship. I want to delve into why their
partnership seems to be working. From this interview, I hope to get a personal glimpse as to how
co-teaching works and what the characteristics of a positive co-teaching relationship is.

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

13

The other possibility for an interview is another science team in the middle school, the
science 6 team. These teachers, like the humanities team I was a part of, have to give the same
assessments to their students; therefore, they do a majority of their planning together. It is not
mandated by the school that teachers co-teach, but they must give the same assessments, which
has lead to significant planning together, but not necessarily co-teaching.
The questions I will ask the teacher-partners are contained in Appendix A.
Observations
Co-teachers. After interviewing these science colleagues, I will observe them at work,
co-teaching their science classes. This will be an opportunity for me to see them in action: how
co-teaching works logistically, how they share the responsibilities, what model they employ,
how students respond to the lesson, and observe what the students do and say during the lesson.
I intend to observe them at least four times in September and October before I venture to do it
with my humanities colleagues. I will use the observation chart I created in Appendix B.
Video observations of self: When I co-teach a lesson with one of my humanities
colleagues, I will video tape it and review it afterwards, using the same observation chart that I
will use when I observe my science colleagues (see Appendix B). I will also keep a journal about
the experience in my e-journal (see Appendix D). From this self-study, I hope to gain an
understanding of how I operate as a co-teacher. I intend to review the videotape within one day
of its recording.
Documents
Lesson plans: I will create lesson plans with my co-teacher before the intended lessons.
These lessons will be detailed as to the objective of the class, the materials being used, the coteaching model being utilized, the role of each teacher during the lesson, the content to be

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

14

covered, and the activities to be completed during the lesson. The lesson plan needs to be
thorough and detailed to allow little room for disagreement or confusion as to who is doing what.
This does not mean that it is inflexible as good teaching is based on flexibility and modification.
Teachers have to make on-the-spot judgments that are in the best interest of the students.
Journaling: Throughout this action research project I will keep a journal of my findings,
observations, thoughts, and feedback from my teacher-partners. I think it is extremely important
to get feedback from my co-teacher in order to make adjustments and improvements for
subsequent lessons. I will also place an electronic copy of the lesson in the e-journal, which will
be kept in the web-based application, Evernote. At the midway point of this action research
project (end of October 2015) and at the end of the study (December 2015), I will review the
entire journal to see what patterns arise.
Anticipated Timeline
I have created a timeline to ensure timely collection of data during this action research
project (see Appendix C).
Next Steps?
I expect this action research project to be one of discovery and invention since I have
never (formally) done this type of collaborative teaching before to this depth and magnitude.
Upon return to SAS in August, I will begin by talking to the primary stakeholders: the principal,
my seventh grade team and the humanities teachers. I intend to start small by conducting the
interviews with the science teams and what works for them. At this time it would be good to do a
needs assessment as suggested by Bryant David et al (2102). As stated on p. 212 of the article,
Teams were given the opportunity to complete a needs assessment to evaluate their current

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

15

efforts and to develop a plan of action to ensure more systematic support of co-teaching. This
suggestion goes along with the advice given by the teacher I interviewed.
Another crucial step I need to do at the beginning of this action research is to find critical
friends to support me as I begin practicing co-teaching. As Pine explains, it is important to
engage colleagues in a process of collaborative inquiry to advance the developing research
effort (Pine, 2009. p. 235). My science colleagues would be the two natural people to turn to
as they are creative and have relevant and personal insights into the study of my phenomena. In
addition, my humanities colleagues, James, Mark, and Hank would be the ones I would be
engaging the most time with as they will be the ones with whom I would be co-teaching with.
Other periphery members will be math teachers as they are also on my team. These seven
people will be the core of my critical friends who will help me to discuss and analyze the data
and outcomes of the study.
The barrier I anticipate that I will encounter is that some members of my team may be
resistant to co-teaching since they have not done it before. Some people might feel insecure or
threatened by my request to co-teach with them, especially using the team teaching model. In
that case, I will turn to those members who are more receptive and hope the resistant members
they will reverse their thinking as I share my findings with them. The last thing I want to do is to
make any of my colleagues uncomfortable with my presence in their classroom or to feel that
Im forcing a paradigm shift on them. I hope that sharing the knowledge I gain from this action
research will urge them to consider co-teaching as an option for themselves.
My ultimate goal, however, will be to work to the best of my abilities to make coteaching a fulfilling experience for my EAL students. In the end I hope to gain a fuller, more
comprehensive understanding of co-teaching that would best suit needs of the participating

16

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES
teachers while furthering the academic growth of my EAL students. Finally, I hope that this
systemic, intentional inquiry of my practice will help me to become a better teacher for all
students who will be taught by or interact with me.

References
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 & Psychological
Consultation, 22(3), 208-226.
Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL Coteaching and Collaboration: Opportunities to
Develop Teacher Leadership and Enhance Student Learning. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 3-22.
Pine, G.J. (2009). Teacher action research: Building knowledge communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-Teaching Experiences: The Benefits and Problems that Teachers
and Principals Report over Time. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395-407.

17

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

Appendix A
Interview Questions
1. What experience have you had with co-teaching? What classes? And how many
students?

2. What kind of co-teaching model did you follow? one lead, one support, etc.

3. How much do you plan beforehand?

4. How often do you co-teach?

5. What are the shortcomings or difficulties of co-teaching?

6. What are the benefits of co-teaching?

7. What recommendations do you have for me as I embark on co-teaching?

18

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES
Appendix B
Observation Chart
Co-teaching model used: _______________________________
What am I seeing?

What am I hearing?

Running Commentary
(thoughts and questions
going through my mind)

19

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES

Appendix C
Anticipated Timeline
August 2015
*interview coteaching science
7 partners
*observe coteaching science
7 teachingpartners (at least
twice, if
possible)
*develop a
teaching
relationship with
all humanities
teachers
*create a critical
friends group

September 2015
*observe coteaching science
7 teachingpartners (at least
three times)
*continue to
develop a
teaching
relationships
with the
humanities
teachers
*use the
traditional form
of co-teaching
teaching used by
the previous ESL
teachers (one
lead, one
support) to assist
my EAL students
in their
humanities class

October 2015
*teach at least
two lessons using
the team teaching
model; video
tape and journal
after each lesson
*meet with my
critical friends
to discuss the
progress and
findings I have
made to date
(end of October)

November 2015
*continue to coteach with
humanities
teachers, at least
once during the
week; journal
about it within
one day
*co-teach a
lesson, if
possible, with
one of the
science 7
teachers;
videotape and
journal within
one day

December 2015
*design a
systematic
approach to
analyze the data
*analyze the data
gathered over the
course of the
study:
interviews,
observations,
lesson plans, cotaught lessons,
journaling
determine any
patterns that arise
*write up my
findings; share
with my critical
friends and my
principal
*determine next
steps

20

CO-TEACHING IN HUMANITIES
Appendix D
Journaling Questions
1. How did the co-teaching lesson go? What worked? What can be improved?

2. Do I dominate the lesson delivery? I am too submissive? What can I do to improve this
condition?
3. In what ways were the students engaged while I delivered the lesson?
4. What can I do to improve my delivery and be an equal partner in the experience?
5. What feedback did my co-teaching partner give me? In what ways was it reliable and
valid? In what ways was it not?
These are some of the questions I anticipate I will be asking myself and reflecting upon when
I review the videotapes of the co-teaching lessons.