bs_bs_banner

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs

doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01270.x

Volume 13 Number 4 2013

251258

Comparative outcomes of two instructional models

for students with learning disabilities: inclusion with
co-teaching and solo-taught special education
jrs3_1270

251..258

Philippe Tremblay
Universit Laval

Key words: Inclusive practices, collaboration/consultation, special education, programme, learning disabilities.

We compared two instructional models (co-teaching

inclusion and solo-taught special education) for students with learning disabilities (LD) with regard to
their effect on academic achievement and class
attendance. Twelve inclusive classes (experimental
group) and 13 special education classes (control
group) participated in the study. In grade 1, there
were eight inclusive classes and nine special education classes with a total of 353 students (195
without disabilities, 58 with LD in inclusion and 100
with LD in special education classes). The data were
collected from academic tests. Although our results
revealed no significant difference between the two
models in terms of target population, objectives and
assigned resources, significant differences were
observed in the effects on student outcomes in
reading/writing and on attendance, as the inclusion
model was shown to be globally more effective compared with the special education setting.

The role of the special educator in the inclusive classroom

has gradually evolved towards a greater collaboration with
the general education teacher. Formerly provided outside of
school or the regular classroom, special education services
are now taking place within the general classroom (pull-in)
in a co-teaching approach with the general educator. For
example, in 1995, the National Center on Education
Restructuring and Inclusion reported that this co-teaching
collaboration involving general and special education
teachers was the most used service organisation model in
the inclusion setting.
Co-teaching is defined as two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse, or blended group
of students in a single physical space (Cook and Friend,
1995, p. 2) and thus comprises four basic characteristics:
two qualified teachers (i.e., a general education teacher and
a special education teacher), teaching that is dispensed by
both teachers, a heterogeneous group of students (i.e., both
general education and special needs students) and a shared
setting (i.e., classroom) (Friend and Cook, 2007). This collaboration consists of either temporary (a few hours per day,

week, etc.) or permanent (full time, yearlong) co-teaching

activities. Five major configurations compose the
co-teaching operations: (1) support teaching, (2) parallel
teaching, (3) station teaching, (4) alternative teaching, and
(5) team teaching (Friend and Cook, 2007; Walther-Thomas
et al., 2000). In a meta-analysis of qualitative research on
co-teaching, Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007)
found that in the traditional classroom setting, the dominant
configuration was support teaching, where one taught and
the other observed or assisted, and where the special
education professional assigned to the class often held a
subordinate role.
Despite the enormous popularity of co-teaching, there is
surprisingly little literature on the effectiveness of this
approach. In examining meta-analyses on the effectiveness
of a co-teaching model in an inclusive setting, Murawski
and Swanson (2001) concluded that insufficient data prevented a clear determination, as only 6 out of the 99 studies
reviewed met the meta-analysis selection criteria. The latter
demonstrated a moderately significant size effect (+0.40).
The authors thus called for more research with experimental
and control groups with a more defined characterisation of
the populations involved to better determine how
co-teaching differs from other practices or when no special
educational services are provided. In a literature review,
Magiera and Zigmond (2005) observed that between 1986
and 2003, only 13 studies on co-teaching addressed student
achievement. Seven of these studies showed significant
positive academic gains for students with disabilities.
Rea, McLaughlin and Walther-Thomas (2001) compared
two integrative models for students with learning disabilities (LD): a pull-in model with co-teaching and a pull-out
model in a resource class. Compared with the other groups,
the outcomes of the pull-in students were superior in first
language, mathematics and science. These authors also
examined the social integration of these students and
reported less negative behaviours and greater attendance.
Fontana (2005) noticed that a co-taught model had a highly
significant impact on the self-esteem of secondary level LD
students in math but not in writing. In comparing the outcomes of students with LD over 2 years following a soloteaching/co-teaching experiment, Hang and Rabren (2009)

2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2012 NASEN. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

251

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 251258

found that these students scored higher in reading and in

math under co-teaching than they did the previous year in
the presence of only one teacher. However, absenteeism was
higher for these students during the second year (coteaching) compared with the previous year. Moreover, these
authors observed no differences between the students
without disabilities and their peers with LD on standardised
tests.
On the other hand, Murawski (2006) noted that students
with LD in co-taught classrooms did not achieve better
standard test scores than did those in resource, selfcontained special education classrooms. Idol (2006) also
reported that scores on high-stakes tests were little affected
by co-teaching (students with and without disabilities).
Research by Walsh and Jones (2004) corroborated that
co-teaching was a moderately effective procedure for
influencing student outcomes.
Finally, we found that very few studies addressed
co-teaching in the inclusive model in the primary school
setting, particularly in grades 1 and 2. Indeed, most of the
research on the subject concern secondary education.
This study consisted of a comparative analysis of two
instructional models for students LD in the Communaut
franaise de Belgique (French Community of Belgium):
co-teaching in an inclusive setting and solo teaching in a
self-contained special education classroom with pull-out
(speech therapy, remedial teacher, etc.). We focused on the
indicators that enabled us to compare the two models and to
measure their effect on the students outcomes in reading/
writing, mathematics and attendance. We performed a characterisation and a comparison of the populations in the two
subsamples (inclusion and special education), followed by
an analysis of the resources assigned to each education
model, with a final comparison of the students outcomes to
external testing as well their attendance levels.
In the French Community of Belgium, special education
differs from regular instruction in that it is proposed for
students with specific needs in all three levels (kindergarten,
primary and secondary) and consists of eight teaching
models corresponding to different needs (physical, sensory,
intellectual, etc.). Type 8 special education, reserved for
children with learning difficulties, is defined as special
education provided for the educational needs of children
with instrumental disabilities and designed for students for
whom the pluridisciplinary evaluation (. . . ) concludes that
despite having normal levels of intelligence, hearing, and
sight, they present difficulties in language or speech development and/or the acquisition of reading, writing, or calculation, with a level of gravity requiring specific intervention
which regular instruction alone cannot provide (Communaut franaise de Belgique, 2004; authors translation).
Over the last 20 years, the population benefiting from type
8 instruction has considerably increased. For example, from
19961997 to 20072008, the clientele went from 5138 to
6086 students in type 8 for the entire French Community of
252

Belgium (Communaut franaise de Belgique, 2010), and

during the year preceding our study, only 15 students with
LD had been integrated into regular classrooms.
Orientation of students towards type 8 special education
(entry) is led by a neutral organisation [Psychological
Medical and Social Center (CPMS)] that provides nonbinding recommendations supported by standard protocols
(social, pedagogical, psychological, and medical evaluations and conclusions) and is mandatorily established to
orient students towards special education.
Method
Participants
Matched comparison groups were chosen for this study. In
20072008, four grade 1 regular classes participated in a
joint inclusion/co-teaching experiment with students with
LD. These four classes continued this experiment the following year in grade 2, at which time four new grade 1
classes were added to the initial sampling to form the
experimental group, chosen on a voluntary basis. The
special education classes thus formed the control group and
were subsequently selected by the author according
to sociogeographic proximity (urban/rural, privileged/
underprivileged) and academic level. For analysis purposes,
the classes were grouped according to level. There were
4.83 students with LD per class in inclusion compared with
8.15 in special education. In grade 1 (eight inclusive classes
and nine special education classes), a total of 228 students
participated in the study, including 133 students without
disabilities, 37 students with LD in inclusion and 58 with
LD in special education. In grade 2, there were only four
inclusive classes and four special education classes for a
total of 125 students: 62 students without disabilities, 21
students with LD in inclusion and 42 students with LD in
special education.
Following a multidisciplinary evaluation by the neutral
organisation (CPMS), the students with LD were referred to
one or the other instructional model. Informed written
consent was obtained by the students parents for each
orientation, and the parents were informed of both the
research objectives and their childs participation in in-class
assessments at the beginning and end of the school year.
Each school relayed this information to the parents and
collected any eventual refusal to participate in the study.
Only one parent refused consent.
The population under study was characterised by analysing
the independent CPMS evaluation reports and student
records. The analysis centred on intelligence quotient (IQ)
(mandatory for this type of referral), gender, socioprofessional status, nationality, language spoken in the home and
age. Results were compared at that time with those of
Tremblay (2007), who examined the characteristics of this
population.
The average IQ was 80.95 [standard deviation (SD) = 8.21]
in the inclusion model and 80.26 (SD = 11.24) in the special
education model. The comparative t-test for independent
2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2012 NASEN

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 251258

Table 1: Characteristics of inclusion classes

Classes
Grade

iA

iB

iC

iD

iE

iF

iG

iH

iI

iJ

iK

iL

17

18

23

24

24

29

17

18

17

19

23

24

Students with LD

Average speech therapy/remedial teacher/week

Average ratio Full-Time Equivalent

0.26

0.18

0.30

0.36

0.23

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.20

0.21

0.21

0.41

Total number of students

LD, learning disabilities.

samples confirmed the absence of significant differences

between the two groups (P = 0.728). Tremblay (2007)
arrived at an average of 82 IQ points with a sample in the
French Community of Belgium using the identical methodology (n = 440).
Our analysis of the average age at the beginning of the
school year in each subsample revealed that this average
was higher by approximately 1 year in the special education
classes (M = 7.82 years; SD = 307 days) compared with the
inclusion classes (M = 6.88 years; SD = 190 days) in grade
1. The t-test showed significant differences between the two
samples (P = 0.010). The following year, the difference
between the two groups was exactly 1 year: 6.99 years in
inclusion (SD = 210 days) and 7.99 years in special education (SD = 317 days).
Concerning gender, the two samples were composed identically of 2/3 boys. An over-representation of boys was
therefore present in the two models. In comparing this proportion with that in the total number of schools for students
with LD within the French Community of Belgium (Communaut franaise de Belgique, 2010) and with Tremblay
(2007), we found this same over-representation (2/3 boys)
to be equally present for this type of special education.
The socioprofessional level of the parents (occupation) was
divided into two categories: more favourable (management
and employee) and less favourable (manual worker and
unemployed). Of interest was that 82.86% of the students in
inclusion were in the less favourable category compared
with 66.66% of students in special education. The chisquare independence test showed no significant difference
(P = 0.089) between the two groups, although we did
observe significant inter-school variations because of the
size of the recruitment pool.
Regarding nationality, an average of 7.50% foreign students
was recorded in the inclusion setting against 10.11% in the
special education model, with no significant difference
observed (P = 0.356). As for origin (parents place of birth),
42% of the students in the inclusion model were of foreign
origin compared with 39% in the special education groups,
which were very similar and thus showed no significant
difference.
Finally, the first language of 17.39% of the students in
special education was other than French compared with
2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2012 NASEN

35% of the students in inclusion (French being the language

of instruction). The chi-square independence test revealed
that the two groups differed significantly on this point (P =
0.027); however, this factor, among others, was found to be
largely dependent upon the sociogeographical background
of each school.
Treatment and comparison conditions
The first instructional approach consisted of a full-time1
co-teaching context involving a general education teacher
and a special education teacher and centred on the inclusion
of a group of students with LD within a larger group of
students without disabilities (Table 1). The participating
educators were free to choose any teaching method. The
second instructional approach consisted of special education classes at the same academic level and was reserved for
students with LD. Here, a special education teacher
instructed a smaller group of students. Speech therapy and
remedial interventions were also provided during the day.
On the one hand, this type of operation involved separating
the students with LD within the classes and specialised
schools and, on the other, using pull-out for speech therapy
and other remedial sessions (Table 2).
Regarding the available human resources (teacher, speech
therapist), on average, the students in the inclusion model
received 0.25 full-time equivalent (FTE) (SD = 0.071),
although those in special education received 0.23 FTE
(SD = 0.091). The t-test showed no significant difference on
this point between the two samples (P = 0.475). These
resources varied from 0.14 to 0.44 FTE, depending on the
class. We also found that on average, the students with LD
received more collective, small-group or individual in-class
interventions provided by a remedial teacher, psychomotor
therapist, kinesiologist or speech therapist. Lastly, the
special education classes distinguished themselves by an
appreciable use of speech therapy (M = 1.34; SD = 1.03
compared with M = 0.68; SD = 0.28). Thus, the amount of
intervention in speech therapy differed significantly (P =
0.042) between the two groups. The included students benefited primarily from resources related to the presence in
class of a special education professional.
As for the teachers qualifications, each one possessed a
degree in primary education, with the exception of two
special education teachers in the inclusive setting who did
1

Grade 1 classes in one school shared the same special educator on a part-time basis.

253

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 251258

Table 2: Characteristics of special education classes

Classes
Grade

sA

sB

sC

sD

sE

sF

sG

sH

sI

sJ

sK

sL

sM

Total number of students

10

10

13

10

12

10

14

Students with LD

10

10

11

12

10

12

Average speech therapy/remedial teacher/week

11

13

30

24

15

18

21

Average ratio Full-Time Equivalent

0.15

0.14

0.19

0.13

0.44

0.30

0.20

0.29

0.15

0.30

0.19

0.29

0.16

LD, learning disabilities.

not have the necessary credentials (kindergarten teachers)

and who worked together in the same class. The special
education teachers also differed in terms of their complementary specialised training and were in fact almost half
(3 out of 7) to have this degree in the inclusive co-teaching
setting compared with those in special education (3 out of
13). Moreover, one teacher had an additional bachelors
degree in speech therapy and another, a masters in education sciences. In fact, in the inclusion model, five out of
seven teachers possessed an extra job-related degree. In
contrast, only one general educator had an additional
diploma (masters in education sciences). The remedial
teachers in the inclusive setting were shown to have less
experience (M = 4.43 years, SD = 3.74) than were those in
the special education classes (M = 9.5 years, SD = 2.49). In
contrast, the general educators working in inclusion had an
average of 7.75 years of experience (SD = 6.13). The previous integrative experiment was very limited, as only one
teacher had experience in an inclusion setting.
The participating teachers initially attended an information
session and one meeting with their future colleague during
the school year prior to implementing the co-teaching
model. The first part consisted of an individual meeting
with the volunteer teacher, the principal and their immediate supervisor (school inspector, school counsellor, etc.)
during which the teachers were informed of the project
goals and limitations and were able to address any concerns.
During the second interview, this time with their co-teacher,
we went over the various possible configurations and
explored several themes of the co-teaching model and its
implementation in terms of planning, schedules, academic
programme, intervention plan, etc. One half-day was then
set aside to enable both co-teachers to meet alone in one of
their classes (observation) so as to plan their next meeting.
Thereafter, two training days were organised during the
year with all of the participating co-teaching teams. The
first year, the first day was divided into three segments: a
traditional training session during which the teachers were
given content relative to co-teaching and individualised
methods; the presentation of a video filmed in one of the
classes, which enabled the group to analyse the practices
they saw and to apply the acquired training content; and
finally, focus groups where the teachers were asked to react
to various situations proposed by the moderator that
254

recalled various aspects that were potentially problematic to

the implementation of the co-teaching model in a classroom
(advantages and disadvantages, major challenges, role
sharing, etc.). The second training day proceeded along the
same lines, with the exception of a discussion period in the
morning and training content that addressed educational
differentiation.
Measures
To assess the effectiveness of the two instruction models,
student achievement was investigated. In terms of student
outcomes, the students were tested in class in reading/
writing and mathematics in October and June of each
school year. The first evaluation at the beginning of grade 1
was done on an individual basis. The reading/writing tests
were taken from the Observation Survey (Clay, 2003),
although those in math were based on TEDI-Math (Van
Nieuwenhoven, Grgoire, & Noel, 2001). The validity and
reliability of each task in the Observation Survey have been
documented (Clay, 2003; Denton, Ciancio and Fletcher,
2006), and the Observation Survey highly correlates with
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Rodgers et al., 2005; Tang and
Gmez-Belleng, 2007). The French version was tested
with 360 students (Clay, 2003), although the TEDI-Math
was experimented with 583 students (Belgian Francophone
and French) in levels kindergarten through grade 3. This
battery of tests constitutes a complete evaluation of the
different skills composing the basic competencies in arithmetic (Lion, 2002).
The June evaluation (PEDA-1Ca) consisted of both an individual assessment as well as a test for the entire class
(Simonart, 1998) and was experimented with 290 Belgian
Francophone students. In grade 2, the October evaluation
consisted again of a group assessment (PEDA-1Cb),
although that in June (PEDA-2C) was an individual test
(Simonart, 1998). This evaluation involved 232 Belgian
francophone students and the items pertained to the education programme in the French Community of Belgium. This
test concerned three subjects: reading (oral reading and
comprehension), spelling (sentence dictation) and mathematics (calculation, problems).
The data were analysed by means of SPSS. The level of
statistical significance was determined as 0.05. A paired
samples t-test was used to determine the presence of
any significant differences between the two subsamples
2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2012 NASEN

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 251258

Figure 1: Performance gap between grade 1 students

with learning disabilities (LD) in inclusion and in special
education

(co-teaching inclusion and solo-taught special education).

A ranks analysis was also performed of all of the students
outcomes (LD and without disabilities).
Results
At the beginning of grade 1 (October), our student outcomes analysis (pre- and post-test) showed no significant
differences between the two groups under study (students
with LD in co-teaching inclusion and students with LD in
special education) in reading/writing and math (t = 0.110,
P = 0.913; t = -1.67, P = 0.097, respectively). In June, the
t-test showed that these differences were significant (t =
3.271, P = 0.002) in reading/writing for the students in the
inclusion setting, but not in math (t = -0.363, P = 0.718)
(Figure 1).
For the students with LD in inclusion, compared with their
peers, the Wilcoxon test showed a decrease in rank between
the beginning and the end of grade 1, with the exception of
the students with the lowest scores in reading/writing. This
would suggest that the students with lower outcomes progressed better than the others did and explains the difference in average between the two groups in this subject in
grade 1. However, the Wilcoxon test results were not significant for the two subjects evaluated (P = 0.147 and P =
0.326, respectively). For the students with LD in the special
education model, we observed a significant drop in rank
between the beginning and the end of grade 1 in both
subjects evaluated (P = 0.000 and P = 0.000, respectively).
In grade 2, the students with LD in special education fared
better in reading/writing and math compared with the students in inclusion, although the differences were not significant (t = -0.883, P = 0.382; t = -1.132, P = 0.263,
2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2012 NASEN

Figure 2: Performance gap between grade 2 students

with learning disabilities (LD) in inclusion and in special
education

respectively). In June, we observed that the average deviation became positive in favour of the included students, as
the difference went from -0.67 to 1.35 in reading/writing
and from -0.82 to 1.95 in math. The t-test did reveal,
however, that these differences were not significant for
these two subjects (t = 1.802, P = 0.091; t = 1.726, P =
0.079, respectively). The ranks analysis with the Wilcoxon
test was significant in reading/writing (P = 0.035), but not in
math (P = 0.086). For the students in special education, we
again observed a significant decrease in achievement in
math (P = 0.021), but not in reading/writing (P = 0.070)
(Figure 2).
For the grade 1 co-taught students with LD, compared with
the students without disabilities, the latter were shown to
score higher in reading/writing (t = -0.186, P = 0.853) than
in math (t = -2.588, P = 0.011), although these differences
were only significant in math. At the end of grade 1, the
means difference between the two groups grew was significant (t = 2.155, P = 0.036; t = -5.680, P = 0.000). Early in
grade 2, we observed significant differences between the
two groups to the advantage of the students without disabilities (t = -3.546, P = 0.001; t = -3.661, P = 0.001). In
June, however, despite the fact that the two means continued to differ significantly in both subjects, the gap stabilised
and even decreased in math (t = -2.401, P = 0.022) and in
reading/writing (t = -2.664, P = 0.009).
Although we observed a progression of the rank differences
between the students without disabilities and those with LD
in the special education setting at the beginning of grade 1,
the difference in the means between the two groups were
low and thus not significant in reading/writing and math
(t = -0.399, P = 0,30; t = -0.424, P = 0.672). However, at
the end of this year, greater differences were apparent
between the two groups and were statistically significant
(t = -7.317, P = 0.000; t = -5.338, P = 0.000). In grade 2,
marked differences between the two groups were observed
255

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 251258

in reading/writing (t = -3.429, P = 0.001) and in math

(t = -2.502, P = 0.015), and in June, these differences were
shown to be even greater (t = -5.066, P = 0.000; t = -5.169,
P = 0.000).
Discussion
We examined and compared two instructional approaches
for students with LD (full-time co-teaching in an inclusive
setting and solo teaching in a self-contained special education setting). More specifically, we sought to measure the
effect of these two education models on student outcomes
in reading/writing and mathematics.
The two groups (students with LD in co-teaching inclusion
and in special education) presented generally similar characteristics. In addition, the t-test early in grade 1 also
revealed no palpable differences between the two groups in
both reading/writing and mathematics. On the whole, both
settings were provided with the same level of human
resources. Only in average age and language spoken in the
home was there any distinction. The students in these two
groups appeared to be representative of the reality observed
elsewhere in special education with regard to previous
studies on the subject (Tremblay, 2007).
The impact of the two instructional models on student
achievement demonstrated that compared with students in
special education, the students in the inclusive setting
noticeably progressed on the external evaluations in
reading/writing between the beginning and the end of grade
1 and grade 2, but the differences were only statistically
significant for grade 1. In mathematics, no significant difference was observed in both years, yet in grade 2, the
average deviation between the two cohorts was quite different. The student rank analysis shows that in grade 1, the
noticeable progress made by the included students in
reading/writing pertained to those students with the lowest
scores. In grade 2, the gains in reading/writing were both
generalised and significant. As for the special education
students, their scores decreased significantly between the
beginning and the end of grade 1, regardless of rank, and in
grade 2, the same tendency was observed, with the gap
between groups increasing over time. These results also
appear to correlate with those of Rea, McLaughlin and
Walther-Thomas (2001), who reported superior outcomes
by students in a pull-in setting over those in a pull-out
setting.
We sought to determine whether this difference in average
age between the two samples was likely to affect the test
results. To control this possible association between age and
academic outcome, we proceeded with a rank analysis.
According to this variable, the results show no significant
difference in performance in math, whereas the older students in both models were more likely to have better outcomes in reading/writing early in the year and to maintain
their rank at years end.
Our findings reveal relatively unequal outcomes by the
three groups under study, namely students with LD in inclu256

sion, students with LD in special education and students

without disabilities. The first two groups scored lower than
did the students without disabilities in the general education
setting. However, the gap between the included students
with LD and the students without disabilities appeared to
stabilise or decrease by the second year. As for the students
in special education, the gap significantly and systematically increased compared with that of the two other groups.
Hang and Rabren (2009) demonstrated that the rate of progression of students with disabilities was not significantly
different from that of students without disabilities. These
findings appear to show that inclusion with co-teaching
provided students with LD with the necessary support for
academic achievement on standardised tests. Finally, contrary to Fontana (2005), who observed an effect in math but
not in writing, our results tend to show the opposite, with a
significant effect in reading/writing rather than in math.
Although not significant, the outcomes in math for the students in the inclusive model are positive. Furthermore, Fontanas study regarded secondary level students, although
our study focuses on the early primary school years for
which little or no research of this type has been done in this
population of students with LD.
Limitations
Although a relatively apparent stabilisation of the performance gaps in grade 2 was observed between the included
students with LD and their pairs without disabilities, the
more rapid pace of the general education model nevertheless tends to naturally produce these differences and to
accentuate them over time. As a result, these increasingly
obvious gaps in achievement levels make it difficult to
maintain certain students in these classes. Indeed, we
observed that 25% of the students in inclusion were redirected into special education at the end of grades 1 and 2. In
the French Community of Belgium, a hierarchy between the
inclusion model and special education model transpires in
the decisions to redirect these students towards largely segregative special education models. Aside from this, logically speaking, these losses have the collateral effect of
increasing its effectiveness by lightening the load for those
students having the most difficulty keeping up. The mere
existence of these losses thus constitutes a definite cause
to question the effectiveness of the inclusion model.
Because of the relatively limited sample, it is difficult to
extrapolate further. Indeed, on the basis of the available
data, we can argue that the two subsamples were globally
comparable. Thus, despite being representative of certain
aspects of the population in this type of special education in
the French Community of Belgium, the sampling was relatively limited in both groups, as only 12 classes in inclusion
and 13 in special education were studied. As a result, it is
difficult to assert that these classes are representative of
what is being done (or can be done) in each setting.
Our assessment of the first 2 years of implementation of the
inclusive co-teaching model in the French Community of
Belgium was basically a study of their start-up period,
as the classes were prototypes of the inclusive model.
2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2012 NASEN

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 251258

Moreover, having only considered the first 2 years of

primary school, this study lacks sufficient longitudinal data
on the compared achievement of the students within the
context of these instructional models.
Implications for future research
This study on the relative effectiveness of co-teaching with
data collected from experimental groups (inclusion) and
controls (special education) enabled us to determine how
co-teaching differs from other instructional models with
regard to student achievement. Future research should be
longitudinal so as to evaluate the effects of these two
models on students over a long period and to verify whether
these effects can in fact be maintained over time under
routine conditions.
In this study, the co-teaching involving a general education
teacher and a special education teacher was either full-time
or part-time, but in actual fact, this collaboration takes place
most often only a few hours a week. It would thus be of
interest to compare various co-teaching configurations by
considering this temporal dimension on the actual duration
and intensity of this collaboration between these two educators. This would be particularly relevant for smaller
schools with limited resources. For example, if a special
education teacher co-teaches with several general teachers,
certain factors related to effectiveness and efficiency may
be compromised (i.e., time allotted for planning, type of
co-teaching involved, etc.). Further studies should determine the impact of the number of general educators with
whom a special education teacher can effectively co-teach.
Though most often present in the inclusive setting, these
strategies are, however, not exclusive and may also be found
in or transferred to the special education setting; therein lies
the importance of extending and reinvesting the knowledge
produced by research on the flexibility of these two instructional models. In fact, the connection between education
models and practices merit further exploration.

Address for correspondence

Philippe Tremblay,
Dpartement dtudes sur lenseignement et
lapprentissage,
Facult des sciences de lducation,
Universit Laval,
2320, rue des Bibliothques,
Bureau 1034,
Qubec, QC, G1V 0A6
Canada.
Email: philippe.tremblay@fse.ulaval.ca.

References
Clay, M. (2003) Le Le sondage dobservation en
lecture-criture [An observation survey of early
literacy achievement]. (G. Bourque, Trans.) Montral,
Canada: ditions Chenelire/McGraw-Hill.
2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2012 NASEN

Communaut franaise de Belgique (2004) Dcret sur

lenseignement spcialis. Communaut franaise de
Belgique. Moniteur belge, 03 June 2004.
Communaut franaise de Belgique (2010) Les
indicateurs de lenseignement. Brussels: ETNIC
Services des Statistiques de la Communaut franaise
de Belgique.
Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995) Co-teaching: guidelines
for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 28, pp. 116.
Denton, C. A., Ciancio, D. & Fletcher, J. (2006) Validity,
reliability, and utility of the observation survey of
early literacy achievement. Reading Research
Quarterly, 41, pp. 834.
Fontana, K. C. (2005) The effects of co-teaching on the
achievement of eighth-grade students with learning
disabilities. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 11 (2), pp.
1723.
Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2007) Interactions: Collaboration
Skills for School Professionals. (5th edn). New York:
Pearson Education.
Hang, Q. & Rabren, K. (2009) An examination of
co-teaching: perspectives and efficacy indicators.
Remedial and Special Education, 30 (5),
pp. 25968.
Idol, L. (2006) Toward inclusion of special education
students in general education: a program evaluation of
eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27
(2), pp. 7794.
Lion, P. (2002) Test Diagnostique des Comptences de
Base en Mathmatiques (TEDI-MATH). Cahiers de la
SBLU, 11, pp. 2933.
Magiera, K. & Zigmond, N. (2005) Co-teaching in
middle school classrooms under routine conditions:
does the instructional experience differ for students
with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes?
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20 (2),
pp. 7985.
Murawski, W. W. (2006) Student outcomes in
co-taught secondary English classes: how can
we improve? Reading/Writing Quarterly, 22, pp.
25868.
Murawski, W. W. & Swanson, H. L. (2001) A
meta-analysis of co-teaching research: where are the
data? Remedial and Special Education, 22 (5), pp.
25867.
Rea, P., McLaughlin, V. L. & Walther-Thomas, C. (2001)
Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in
inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children,
68 (2), pp. 20323.
Rodgers, E. M., Gmez-Belleng, F. X., Wang, C. &
Schultz, M. M. (2005, April) Examination of the
validity of the observation survey with a comparison
to ITBS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association in
Montreal, Quebec.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A. & McDuffie, K. A.
(2007) Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: a
metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional
Children, 73 (4), pp. 392416.
257

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 251258

Simonart, G. (1998) Tests pdagogiques de premier cycle

primaire. Braine-le-Chteau, Belgium: ATM.
Tang, M. & Gmez-Belleng, F. X. (2007, April)
Dimensionality and concurrent validity of the
observation survey of early literacy achievement.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association in Chicago, Illinois.
Tremblay, P. (2007) valuation de la validit et de
lefficacit interne de lenseignement spcialis
primaire de type 8 en Wallonie. ducation
Formation, pp. 286, 921.

258

Van Nieuwenhoven, C., Grgoire, J. & Noel, M. P. (2001)

TEDI-MATH, Test Diagnostique des Comptences de
Base en Mathmatiques. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium:
C. Edition ECPA.
Walsh, J. M. & Jones, B. (2004) New models of
cooperatively teaching. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 36, pp. 1420.
Walther-Thomas, C. S., Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V. L. &
Williams, B. T. (2000) Collaboration for Inclusive
Education: Developing Successful Programs. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.

2012 The Author. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2012 NASEN

Copyright of Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs is the property of WileyBlackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.