Index

ABSTRACT

This study examined the relationship between co-teaching and elementary special education teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. A combined Co-Teacher Relationship Scaleand Self-Efficacy for Teaching Mathematics Instrumentwas administered to 103 elementary special education teachers from Superintendent’s Regions 2 and 3 in the Commonwealth of Virginia who co-taught mathematics for at least one class period per day yielding a 54% response rate (N = 56). Employing a Spearman’s Rho, analysis revealed moderate, positive, statistically significant correlations between the co-teaching relationship and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics (rs = 0.41, p = 0.002) and between the grade level co-taught and self-efficacy (rs = 0.43, p = 001). There was also a small, positive correlation between the number of years a special education teacher co-taught mathematics and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics (rs = 0.20); however, that relationship was not statistically significant (p = 0.14). A one-way ANOVA revealed that special education teachers who co-taught Grade 5 had the highest self-efficacy score (M = 92.85, SD = 13.39) compared to  those who co-taught Grade 2 (M = 83.38, SD = 13.49), Grade 3 (M = 81.00, SD = 12.49), Grade 4 (M = 80.90, SD = 15.61), Grade 1 (M = 74.33, SD =11.74), Kindergarten (M = 73.25, SD = 13.15), and pre-Kindergarten (M = 68.33, SD = 22.23). The implications include providing co-teachers with time to develop collaborative relationships prior to co-teaching, increasing training and implementing effective scheduling and planning practices for co-teaching teams, and increasing job-embedded mathematics training for special education teachers.

Keywords: Co-teaching, Elementary mathematics teaching, Self-efficacy for teaching mathematics, Special education teachers, Teacher self-efficacy, Teacher collaborative relationships.

DOI: 10.55284/ajel.v7i2.707

Citation | Tamara D. Smith-Moyler; Linda D. Grooms (2022). Examining the Relationship between Co-teaching and Special Education Teachers’ Self-efficacy for Teaching Elementary Mathematics. American Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2): 69-84.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Funding : This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

History : Received: 15 July 2022 / Revised: 29 August 2022 / Accepted: 12 September 2022 / Published: 7 October 2022.

Publisher: Online Science Publishing

1. INTRODUCTION

In Virginia public schools, 65% (n = 100,252) of students with disabilities (SWD) are included in regular classrooms 80% or more of the day (U.S. Department of Education, 2018; Virginia Department of Education, 2017) therefore, manyare learning content in the general education setting. While the overall SWD pass rate on the mathematics Standards of Learning (SOL) test has averaged 50% for the three years immediately preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, the achievement gap between general education students and SWD has been 31% (Virginia Department of Education, 2019b). In order to improve academic outcomes and close that gap, it is imperative that general and special education teachers have a positive collaborative relationship and the specific content knowledge needed to meet the needs of all students.

2. BACKGROUND / LITERATURE REVIEW

A recent national survey completed by 1,467 special education teachers found that only 8% rated their general education teacher colleagues as well-prepared to work with students with exceptionalities, and although only 29% of those special education teachers reported frequent use of co-teaching as a collaborative approach frequently used in their school district, 67% cited working collaboratively with others as a very or extremely important area on which they are evaluated (Fowler, Coleman, & Bogdan, 2019). Regarding planning and teaching subject-specific content, 53% of special education teachers reported they were not confident in teaching content related to high stakes testing. The data further revealed that although general and special education teachers are tasked with working together in co-taught settings to improve outcomes for all students, there is a need to build the content and pedagogical knowledge of special educators, the special education knowledge of general educators, and the co-teaching and collaboration skills of both groups of educators.

For just over a decade, teacher-education scholars have noted that the preparation special education teachers receive does not always prepare them to provide specific content area instruction, and the broad knowledge they do obtain may not always translate into practice (Brownell et al., 2009; Leko & Brownell, 2009; Sweigart & Collins, 2017) . In order to develop mathematical knowledge and be well-prepared to implement research-validated strategies and routines, special education teachers need time, opportunity, and a nurturing environment that encourages them to make sense of the mathematics they teach (Leko & Brownell, 2009; The American Mathematical Society, 2012). One recommended vehicle to facilitate this understanding is school-based collaboration that joins the knowledge bases of both general and special education teachers (Leko & Brownell, 2009).

While extensive research focusing on teacher self-efficacy for teaching mathematics (Althauser, 2015; Amankonah, 2013; Kahle, 2008; McGee, 2012; Pacinello, 2018) and factors influencing special education teachers’ mathematics teaching efficacy (Aerni, 2008; Flores, Thornton, Franklin, Hinton, & Strozier, 2014; Sylne, 2015) exists, a gap in the literature remains concerning how the co-teaching relationship impacts the relationship between these two variables.

2.1. Self-Efficacy

A social learning approach based on a microanalysis of perceived coping capabilities, self-efficacy is focused on judgments of how well one can organize and execute courses of action (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Schunk, 1981). People with high self-efficacy approach difficult tasks as challenges, while dichotomously, others see them as threats (Bandura, 1993). Both task- and situation-specific and focusing on beliefs about whether behaviors can be performed (Bandura, 1986; Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, & Ellett, 2008) self-efficacy relates to one’s self-perception rather than an actual level of competence.

Emanating from this construct, teacher self-efficacy specifically focuses on a teacher’s individual belief in their capacity to successfully perform explicit teaching tasks in a given situation regardless of external factors such as background, Intelligent Quotient, or school conditions (Dellinger et al., 2008; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). In fact, research (Holzberger, Phillipp, & Kunter, 2013; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Zee & Koomen, 2016) has indicated that a strong sense of teacher self-efficacy lays the groundwork for a high-quality classroom environment that advances students’ abilities and involves them in meaningful instructional activities.

When the concept of mathematics self-efficacy is expanded to teaching, there is a clear distinction between teachers’ mathematics self-efficacy and teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. The former refers to a teacher’s own belief in their ability to perform mathematical tasks, while the latteris a teacher’s belief in their ability to teach mathematics to others (Kahle, 2008; McGee, 2012; McGee & Wang, 2014) .

2.2.  Content Knowledge

As students are held to higher standards of mathematics achievement, focus on teachers’ content knowledge has magnified, making it necessary for them to be confident in their abilities to teach mathematics effectively (Ball, 1990; Flores, Patterson, Shippen, Hinton, & Franklin, 2010; Newton, Leonard, Evans, & Eastburn, 2012) . Considering teachers’ self-efficacy is linked to their knowledge and their instructional practices (Althauser, 2015; Ekstam, Korhonen, Linnanmaki, & Aunio, 2017; Manouchehri, 1997; McGee, 2012) practitioners must identify methods for improving teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. Recommendations include strengthening both mathematical content knowledge and developing pedagogical content knowledge (Ekstam, Korhonen, Linnanmäki, & Aunio, 2018; Hinton, 2011; Manouchehri, 1997) .

2.2.1. Mathematical Content Knowledge

To teach mathematics effectively, educators must not only have knowledge of the subject, but also an explicit conceptual understanding of its principles; the various skills in instructional practices; and an understanding of the underlying meaning of its topics, rules, and definitions (Ball, 1988a; Ekstam et al., 2018; Flores et al., 2010; Manouchehri, 1997) . Furthermore, elementary teachers should also know ways to use mathematical drawings, diagrams, manipulative materials, and other tools to illuminate and explain mathematical concepts and procedures and to support students’ construction of ideas (Battista, 1999; The American Mathematical Society, 2012). To develop more substantial content knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics, teachers need guidance to identify practices that yield positive learning experiences, models of effective mathematics instruction, practice using the acquired knowledge, and successful experiences in lesson design and implementation (Althauser, 2015; Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003).

 2.2.2. Pedagogical Content Knowledge

In addition to considerable content knowledge, teaching mathematics requires a special form of pedagogical content knowledge and skills as these influence teachers’ effectiveness (Ekstam et al., 2018; Graham & Fennell, 2001; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Manouchehri, 1997) . Pedagogical knowledge incorporates content knowledge of the discipline with teachers’ “knowledge of students and of learning; knowledge of curriculum and school context; and knowledge of teaching” (Manouchehri, 1997). In preparing lessons, teachers must be able to make decisions based on their knowledge of mathematics, consider students’ instructional needs, evaluate and select appropriate activities, and choose representations that will bring the mathematics concepts into focus (Graham & Fennell, 2001; The American Mathematical Society, 2001).

2.2.3. Special Education Teachers’ Mathematical and Pedagogical Content Knowledge

At the elementary level, qualified special education teachers who have direct responsibility for providing mathematics instruction should possess the same level of mathematical knowledge as general educators (Brownell et al., 2009; Flores et al., 2014; The American Mathematical Society, 2012) . Quality mathematics instruction by special education teachers is dependent on an understanding of (a) the content and how to teach it, (b) specific problems that students with disabilities (SWD) may experience in mathematics, and (c) the role of specific interventions in providing more intensive and explicit instruction (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). As with general educators, the “importance of special educators’ knowledge of content and how to teach in mathematics cannot be underestimated” (van Garderen, Scheuermann, Poch, & Murray, 2018) because both are needed to provide high-quality instruction for SWD (Leko & Brownell, 2009).

Since special and general education elementary mathematics teachers are specialized in different areas, developing ways of organizing educational support to take advantage of the knowledge of both teacher groups is imperative (Ekstam et al., 2018). Collaboratively planning, co-teaching, analyzing, and reflecting upon mathematics lessons could not only improve instructional practices, but more importantly strengthen special education teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics (Althauser, 2015; Ekstam et al., 2018; Kahle, 2008) .

2.3. Self-Contained to Collaboration

As Brownell et al. (2010) noted, in the early stages of educating SWD in public schools, special educators primarily worked in either self-contained classrooms or resource rooms. However, with the legislation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, which demanded more accountability and individualization in special education, and with a heightened focus on SWD being served in the least restrictive environment, schools have begun to embrace the need for genuine collaboration between general and special education teachers to provide high-quality instruction to diverse groups of students (Murawski & Lochner, 2011; Potts & Howard, 2011). The placement that best allows SWD the opportunity to access the general education curriculum and receive services with peers without disabilities is in the general education classroom, which highlights the need for effective service delivery models to accommodate these students (Brownell et al., 2010; Gately, 2005).

2.4. Co-Teaching

Bauwens, Hourcade, and Friend (1989) coined the term cooperative teaching to describe the merger between general and special education teachers to provide direct educational programming to all students within a general education setting. In cooperative teaching, “both general and special education teachers are simultaneously present in the general classroom maintaining joint responsibilities for specified education instruction that is to occur within that setting” (Bauwens et al., 1989). Cook and Friend (1995) later shortened the term to co-teaching and defined it as “two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students in a single space” (p. 2). While co-teaching can occur between a general education teacher and any other specialist, it most frequently merges the expertise of a general and special education teacher to jointly deliver instruction to a cluster of students with special needs in a general education setting, enabling SWD access to the general education curriculum, while at the same time specially designing instruction to meet their individual needs (Friend, Reising, & Cook, 1993; Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010; Weiss & Glaser, 2019) .

Common models used in co-teaching are one teaching, one assisting; station teaching; parallel teaching; alternative teaching; team teaching; and one teaching, one observing (Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend et al., 2010). It should be noted that even though co-teaching provides support for SWD in an inclusive setting, co-teaching is not synonymous with inclusion; it is an approach used to facilitate the inclusion of students (Cook & Friend, 1995; Potts & Howard, 2011). Intending to have students respond to both teachers in the classroom as equals, Cook and Friend (1995) asserted that co-teachers must collaboratively assess students’ strengths and weaknesses, determine educational goals, design intervention strategies and plan for their implementation, evaluate student progress, and evaluate the effectiveness of the co-teaching process.

Although the amount of co-teaching time scheduled in classrooms depends on the number of SWD and the extent of their individual needs, co-teachers should always capitalize on their strengths sharing the responsibility of actively engaging students, using a variety of co-teaching approaches (Friend et al., 1993; Murawski & Lochner, 2011; Potts & Howard, 2011; Pugach & Winn, 2011) . In this partnership, special educators who specialize in strategy instruction and making the curriculum accessible, complement general educators who specialize in understanding, structuring, and pacing the content (Cook & Friend, 1995; Potts & Howard, 2011; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996) .

While co-teaching is intended to fuse inclusive practices into general education classrooms by way of shared planning and instruction, research (Cook & Friend, 1995; Fennick & Liddy, 2001; Mastropieri et al., 2005; Murawski & Lochner, 2011) has identified several barriers to this approach: (a) lack of training, (b) issues with sharing responsibility, (c) ineffective scheduling practices, and (d) lack of time to co-plan. Moreover, in an examination of factors influencing special and general educator attitudes about the implementation of co-teaching in the elementary classroom, Haimowitz (2018) found that co-teaching issues such as personality conflicts, lack of common planning time, and teacher schedules were most influential in determining teachers’ attitudes about co-teaching and its implementation. As Cook and Friend (1995); Friend et al. (2010) and Scruggs and Mastropieri (2017) emphasized, co-teaching is significantly different from the one teacher per classroom model and specific instruction is needed for teachers to be successful in co-teaching. Opportunities for additional skill development in communication skills, content mastery, instructional strategies, and collaborative planning need to be provided.

2.4.1. Co-Teaching Relationships

Mastropieri et al. (2005) asserted that the relationship between co-teachers is a critical component impacting the success or failure of SWD. While it may be assumed that a classroom with two teachers is more beneficial than a classroom with only one, teachers who do not know each other are not able to relate to one another, or do not like each other have invisible walls that separate the teaching and learning space (Gately, 2005; Gately & Gately Jr, 2001; Noonan, McCormick, & Heck, 2003) . In addition, if co-teachers do not share similar beliefs about the capabilities of all children to learn regardless of their ability level, and their role in student learning, they are likely to experience difficulties in the shared classroom (Cook & Friend, 1995).

Personal compatibility is integral to co-teaching success, and interpersonal skills are the means through which cooperative teaching occurs (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1991; Pugach & Winn, 2011). Teachers working collaboratively should openly discuss and come to an agreement on providing feedback, asking questions, and negotiating to solve differences (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1991; Friend et al., 1993). While researchers (Fennick & Liddy, 2001; Friend et al., 2010) noted that co-teaching is time-consuming and requires strong interpersonal skills, co-teaching relationships built upon mutual trust and respect for one another’s abilities lead to healthy co-teaching situations that benefit both teachers and students (Mastropieri et al., 2005).

2.4.2. Co-Teaching Roles and Responsibilities

At a genuinely collaborative level of co-teaching, both teachers actively participate in the delivery of the lesson, provide instruction, and organize learning activities. Dissatisfaction occurs when special education teachers are relegated to the role of classroom assistant or helper (Gately & Gately Jr, 2001). Students are quick to notice the disproportionality as well, weakening the special educators’ position of authority and equitable partnership in the teaching process, which in turn, diminishes their input in instructional lessons (Gately, 2005). In a review of qualitative studies describing over 400 classrooms, Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) reported that the most common mode of co-teaching was that of the general education teacher in charge using whole-class methods, with the special education teacher in a subordinate role providing support. As Fennick and Liddy (2001) previously emphasized, “Without changes in teachers’ traditional responsibilities and classroom practices the classroom environment [will not] become more inclusive” (p. 238).

 2.4.3.  Co-Teaching Planning and Content Knowledge

When general educators plan lessons alone, special educators are unaware of the content and goals of the lessons, leaving them unprepared to participate fully in instruction (Fennick & Liddy, 2001). When there is no co-planning, special educators are at an apparent disadvantage; at best in that situation, the teachers work together in a reactive manner (Gately, 2005; Murawski & Lochner, 2011). To provide quality instruction in inclusive classrooms, co-teachers must be adequately prepared for collaboration as planning on the fly lacks the coordinated effort needed to properly execute lessons (Austin, 2001; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & Mcculley, 2012). Effective co-teaching is dependent upon co-teachers engaging in an authentic partnership, one in which the special educator helps design and implement instruction with strategies known to be effective for SWD (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017).

The most significant barrier to a productive co-teaching relationship between special and general educators may be the knowledge of the content being taught (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017; Scruggs et al., 2007). Special education teachers’ unfamiliarity with the content, curriculum, and methodology used by general education teachers may create a lack of confidence in both teachers, leading the general education teacher to be reluctant to give up the chalk to the special education teacher or be open to suggestions for accommodations and modifications (Gately, 2005; Gately & Gately Jr, 2001). When Mastropieri et al. (2005) and Scruggs et al. (2007) looked across four case studies and 35 qualitative studies consecutively, they found that overall, special education teachers continued to play secondary roles in co-taught classrooms because they lacked adequate content knowledge to take on a more prominent position. Having a solid understanding of the curriculum content and knowledge of the scope and sequence of instruction is essential in the co-teaching relationship; therefore, special educators must be competent and confident in the general education curriculum (Gately, 2005; Gately & Gately Jr, 2001). To assess learning difficulties, and subsequently plan and implement effective instructional techniques, special education teachers must first have knowledge and understanding of the content being taught (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017). Once special educators possess the content knowledge needed, they can play a more active and equal role in instruction and assume greater instructional responsibility (Pugach & Winn, 2011; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017).

3. METHODOLOGY

Based upon a thorough review of the literature, the following three research questions emerged:
RQ1: Is there a statistically significant relationship between the co-teaching relationship and elementary special education teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics?
RQ2: Is there a statistically significant relationship between the number of years a special education teacher has co-taught mathematics and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics?
RQ3: Is there a statistically significant relationship between the grade level being co-taught by a special education teacher and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics?

3.1. Population and Sample

This study focused on 912 pre-K-5 special education teachers who co-taught mathematics in all 32 school divisions in Virginia Superintendent’s Regions 2 (Tidewater; n=15) and 3 (Northern Neck; n=17; (Virginia Department of Education, 2019a)). A combination of metropolitan and rural communities (Policom Corporation, 2019) the demographic makeup of elementary public school students was similar to those across the commonwealth; however, there were two notable differences: (a) the percentage of English learners in pre-K-5 in these regions was considerably lower (4.1%) than across Virginia (11.9%), and (b) these regions had a significantly higher percentage of Black students (34.9%) than Virginia overall (22.2%).

After an initial email query, from the 151 who responded, the sample was then narrowed to those who co-taught mathematics in a collaborative pre-K-5 setting. While 103 met the study criteria, 56 completed the survey, yielding a 54% response rate. Nearly 3/4ths of the respondents (73.2%) were from schools in Region 2 who had co-taught either 1-3 years (35.7%) or 4-6 years (30.4%), and over half (57.2%) co-taught mathematics in Grades 3-5.

3.2. Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures

Two instruments were combined for participants’ ease: Noonan et al. (2003) 19-item Co-Teacher Relationship Scale (CRS) and McGee and Wang (2014) 22-item Self-Efficacy for Teaching Mathematics Instrument (SETMI). In addition, demographic questions were included to collect data on the number of years teaching, the number of years co-teaching, the grade-level mathematics was co-taught, and the Virginia region represented. The word current was added to the survey directions to clarify that participants should focus responses on their present mathematics co-teaching experience. To determine the amount of time needed to complete the combined CRS-SETMI, a pilot study was conducted with five former special education teachers. Study participants had three weeks to respond.

3.3. Data Analysis

Assumptions for the Pearson product-moment correlation were not met, so Spearman’s Rho was used to determine if there was a statistically significant relationship between special education teachers’ co-teaching relationships and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. In addition, the demographic data collected was also analyzed using Spearman’s correlation and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if there was an association between special education teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics and either the number of years in mathematics co-teaching experience or grade level taught.

4. RESULTS

4.1. The Co-Teaching Relationship

With a possible sum of responses ranging from 19 to 95, the perceived co-teaching relationship was measured using the CRS portion of the CRS-SETMI. With 10 statements focused on beliefs and approaches and nine on co-teachers’ perceived similarities and differences, the mean CRS score was 77.5 with a standard deviation of 15.94. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the overall mean scaled score of responses on the CRS was 4.08. Concerning beliefs and approaches, the lowest score pertained to views about how to manage inappropriate behavior (M = 3.79), while the highest highlighted views regarding parent involvement (M = 4.45; see Table 1).

Focusing on perceived similarities and differences, dedication to teaching (M = 4.52) had the highest mean scaled score, while approaches to educational planning (M = 3.86) and ways of dealing with colleagues, supervisors, parents, and other professionals (M = 3.87) had the lowest (see Table 2).

4.2. Self-Efficacy for Teaching Mathematics

With a possible sum of responses ranging from 22 to 110, self-efficacy for teaching mathematics was measured using the second portion of the CRS-SETMI. The mean SETMI score was 81.45 with a standard deviation of 15.88. Part 1 of the SETMI, efficacy for pedagogy in mathematics (EPM), contained seven statements, while Part 2, efficacy for teaching mathematics content (ETMC), contained 15 items. Again, using a 5-point Likert scale, the overall mean scaled score was 3.70. When looking at teacher efficacy for pedagogy, the lowest score pertained to the extent teachers believed they could motivate students who showed low interest in mathematics (M = 3.98), while the highest concerned the extent they could provide an alternative explanation or example in mathematics when students were confused (M = 4.20; see Table 3).

Focusing on content, the highest score related to teachers’ ability to teach students tomeasure the length of objects (M = 4.32), while the lowest (M = 2.77) was their efficacy to teach students toconvert between units in a different [measurement] system (see Table 4).

 4.3. Research Question 1 Results

Employing Spearman’s Rho, the results indicated a moderate, positive correlation between the co-teaching relationship and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics (rs = 0.41), and the outcome was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no statistically significant relationship between the co-teaching relationship and elementary special education teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics was rejected.

4.4. Research Question 2 Results

First, once again using Spearman’s Rho, the results indicated a small, positive correlation between the number of years a special education teacher had co-taught mathematics and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics (rs = 0.20), but that relationship was not statistically significant (p = 0.14). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no statistically significant relationship between the number of years a special education teacher has co-taught mathematics and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics could not be rejected.

Second, a one-way ANOVA was implemented to determine if there were any statistically significant differences between the number of co-teaching years and self-efficacy. The results indicated that on average, special education teachers who co-taught mathematics for 28 years or more had the highest self-efficacy score (M = 107.50, SD = 0.71) compared to teachers who co-taught for 13-15 years (M = 93.00, SD = 13.23), 16-18 years (M = 86.50, SD = 13.00), 4-6 years (M = 82.18, SD = 15.20), 10-12 years (M = 80.17, SD = 12.34), 1-3 years (M = 78.90, SD = 14.96), and 7-9 years (M = 66.25, SD = 21.38). However, the differences observed were not statistically significant (p = 0.06; see Table 5).

4.5. Research Question 3 Results

As with RQ 2, Spearman’s Rho was first performed to determine the possible relationship between the grade level co-taught by a special education teacher and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. The results indicated a moderate, positive correlation between the grade level co-taught and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics (rs = .43), and the relationship was statistically significant (p = 0.001). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no statistically significant relationship between the grade level taught by a special education teacher and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics was rejected. Again, a one-way ANOVA was employed to determine if there were any statistically significant differences between grade level and self-efficacy. The results indicated that special education teachers who co-taught Grade 5 had the highest self-efficacy score (M = 92.85, SD = 13.39) compared to teachers who co-taught Grade 2 (M = 83.38, SD = 13.49), Grade 3 (M = 81.00, SD = 12.49), Grade 4 (M = 80.90, SD = 15.61), Grade 1 (M = 74.33, SD =11.74), Kindergarten (M = 73.25, SD = 13.15), and pre-Kindergarten (M = 68.33, SD = 22.23). In addition, the test confirmed that the relationship was statistically significant (p = 0.03; see Table 6).

Finally, to determine which groups had statistically significant differences in mean scores, a Tukey post hoc test was conducted (see Table 7 ). The test confirmed that self-efficacy for teaching mathematics scores for special education teachers who co-taught Grade 5 (M = 92.85, SD = 13.39) were significantly higher than teachers who co-taught pre-Kindergarten (M = 68.33, SD = 22.23), p = 0.02. No other group differences were statistically significant.

5. IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH, AND CONCLUSION

While previous literature (Flores et al., 2014; Flores et al., 2010; Gately & Gately Jr, 2001) highlighted the importance of special education teachers’ confidence and competence in teaching content, such as mathematics, as a factor for success in the co-teaching relationship, this study had three implications. First, when special education teachers have more perceived personal and professional similarities with their general education counterparts, they have greater self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. Therefore, confirming the work of Friend et al. (1993) and Walther-Thomas et al. (1996) in order to build stronger co-teacher interpersonal collaborative relationships, teachers must have the opportunity and time to develop rapport, which could be accomplished through semi-structured interviews, reflection documents, or checklists as a guide prior to beginning a co-teaching experience. As a starting point, teachers could use these formats to begin to discuss and share reactions regarding their personal attitudes and philosophies about teaching and classroom responsibilities and expectations, with the goal of being able to agree, compromise, or agree to disagree about the items discussed.

Second, some of the lowest mean results on the CRS-SETMI in this research related to co-teacher’s differences in views about approaches to educational planning (M = 3.86), ways to adapt and individualize activities (M = 3.86), and views regarding how to structure class activities (M = 3.93). As noted in previous research (Cook & Friend, 1995; Fennick & Liddy, 2001; Mastropieri et al., 2005; Murawski & Lochner, 2011) this highlights the need for co-teachers to participate in joint training related to co-teaching, implement effective scheduling practices, and have adequate time allocated for co-planning. Administrators play a critical role in ensuring these processes take place as they have the authority to commit resources to enhance the preparation and training of co-teachers, to create teachers’ schedules, to ensure and protect planning time for teaching teams, and to work with teachers to develop and arrange balanced student schedules confirming the work of Cook and Friend (1995); Walther-Thomas et al. (1996); Friend et al. (2010) and Pugach and Winn (2011).

The third implication is that special education teachers may need additional preparation in order to feel confident in teaching mathematics content at various levels in elementary school, especially since special education teachers might be moved to a different grade level at any given time. Scruggs and Mastropieri (2017) conjectured that knowledge of the content taught was perhaps the greatest barrier to a fully collaborative relationship between general and special education teachers. Therefore, confirming the literature (Hill et al., 2005; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017) preservice and in-service special education teachers should have more time and attention devoted to developing their mathematical and pedagogical knowledge in order to understand how to appropriately plan and present elementary mathematics lessons, evaluate learning, and implement instructional strategies to meet the needs of students in co-taught classrooms. Also, confirming the work of Kahle (2008); Loreman, Sharma, and Forlin (2013); Hamilton-Jones and Vail (2014); Althauser (2015) and Martin (2018) through continuous job-embedded training, mentoring, vicarious experiences with others who are teaching mathematics successfully, and opportunities to plan, analyze, and reflect on practices with others, special education teachers can improve their teacher self-efficacy and feel more prepared to teach mathematics successfully in the elementary general education classroom.

5.1. Recommendations for Future Research

While this study provided insight on the impact of the co-teaching relationship on elementary special educators’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics, four recommendations for future research emerged. First, to provide more generalizability, expanding the sample size to include special education teachers from across the commonwealth or even the country would be beneficial. Second, using random selection could also yield a more representative sample of the population. Third, collecting information on the amount of prior co-teaching professional development one received could provide insight into its potential impact on both the co-teaching relationship and special educators’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. Last, while the quantitative nature of this study revealed broad patterns in the relationship between variables, adding a qualitative component could provide both additional depth and greater clarity.

 5.2. Conclusion

Friend et al. (2010) contended that the most crucial element regarding the current and future status of co-teaching is the need for more research; without research addressing the many variables that could affect co-teaching and its implementation and outcomes, effective practices may be lost in overgeneralizations. This study addressed this gap by examining the impact of the co-teaching relationship on elementary special education teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics with the results indicating a moderate positive correlation between the two. While special education teachers may be less familiar with the mathematics curriculum than their general education partners, their content knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching mathematics can be increased through building effective co-teaching relationships and increased experiences with co-planning and co-teaching mathematics in the general education classroom.

REFERENCES

Aerni, P. W. (2008). Teacher self -efficacy and beliefs for teaching mathematics in inclusive settings (Publication No. 304446066). Doctoral Dissertation, The College of William and Mary. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.  

Althauser, K. (2015). Job-embedded professional development: Its impact on teacher self-efficacy and student performance. Teacher Development, 19(2), 210-225.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2015.1011346.

Amankonah, F. O. (2013). K-8 teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for teaching mathematics. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno.  

Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 245-255.

Ball, D. L. (1990). Prospective elementary and secondary teachers' understanding of division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(2), 132-144.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.21.2.0132.

Ball, D. L. (1988a). Research on teacher learning: Studying how teachers’ knowledge changes. Action in Teacher Education, 10(2), 17–24.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–598.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Battista, M. T. (1999). The mathematical miseducation of America's youth: Ignoring research and scientific study in education. Phi Delta the Cape, 80(6), 424-433.

Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. J. (1991). Making co-teaching a mainstreaming strategy. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 35(4), 19-24.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.1991.9944254.

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 17-22.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258901000205.

Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klingner, J. K., Penfield, R. D., Dimino, J., . . . Sindelar, P. T. (2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 391-411.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500401.

Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-377.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600307.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.Available at: https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v28i3.6852.

Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 751-766.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010.

Ekstam, U., Korhonen, J., Linnanmaki, K., & Aunio, P. (2017). Special education pre-service teachers’ interest, subject knowledge, and teacher efficacy beliefs in mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 338–345.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.009.

Ekstam, U., Korhonen, J., Linnanmäki, K., & Aunio, P. (2018). Special education and subject teachers’ self-perceived readiness to teach mathematics to low-performing middle school students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(1), 59-69.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12393.

Fennick, E., & Liddy, D. (2001). Responsibilities and preparation for collaborative teaching: Co-teachers' perspectives. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(3), 229-240.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640102400307.

Flores, M. M., Thornton, J., Franklin, T. M., Hinton, V. M., & Strozier, S. (2014). Elementary general and special education teachers’ mathematics skills and efficacy. Journal of Research in Education, 24(1), 69-82.

Flores, M., Patterson, D., Shippen, M., Hinton, V., & Franklin, T. (2010). Special education and general education teachers’ knowledge and perceived teaching competence in mathematics. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1, 1–10.

Fowler, S. A., Coleman, M. R. B., & Bogdan, W. K. (2019). The state of the special education profession survey report. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(1), 8-29.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919875703.

Friend, M., Reising, M., & Cook, L. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 37(4), 6-10.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.1993.9944611.

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, 20(1), 9-27.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535380.

Gately, S. E. (2005). Two are better than one. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 36-41.

Gately, S. E., & Gately Jr, F. J. (2001). Understanding coteaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40-47.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990103300406.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569.

Graham, K. J., & Fennell, F. (2001). Principles and standards for school mathematics and teacher education: Preparing and empowering teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 101(6), 319-327.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb17963.x.

Haimowitz, B. (2018). Self-perceived teacher attitudes about inclusion and the implementation of co-teaching models in the elementary school classroom. Publication No. 2034429880 Doctoral Dissertation, Caldwell University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.  

Hamilton-Jones, B. M., & Vail, C. O. (2014). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: Pre-service teachers' beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 76-86.

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.

Hinton, V. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ computational knowledge, efficacy, and number sense skills. Publication No. 900573162 Doctoral Dissertation, Auburn University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.  

Holzberger, D., Phillipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774–786.Available at: https://doi.org/doi:10.1037/a0032198.

Kahle, D. K. (2008). How elementary school teachers’ mathematical self-efficacy and mathematics teaching self-efficacy relate to conceptually and procedurally oriented teaching practices. Doctoral Dissertation, the Ohio State University.  

Leko, M. M., & Brownell, M. T. (2009). Crafting quality professional development for special educators: What school leaders should know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(1), 64-70.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990904200106.

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.Available at: https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n1.10.

Manouchehri, A. (1997). School mathematics reform: Implications for mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 197-209.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487197048003005.

Martin, O. (2018). Factors influencing special education teachers’ mathematics teaching efficacy. Doctoral Dissertation, Liberty University.  

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & Mcduffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512050400050201.

McGee, J. (2012). Developing and validating a new instrument to measure the self-efficacy of elementary mathematics teachers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.  

McGee, J. R., & Wang, C. (2014). Validity-supporting evidence of the self-efficacy for teaching mathematics instrument. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(5), 390-403.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913516280.

Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2011). Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for, and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(3), 174–183.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210378165.

Newton, K. J., Leonard, J., Evans, B. R., & Eastburn, J. A. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers' mathematics content knowledge and teacher efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 112(5), 289-299.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00145.x.

Noonan, M. J., McCormick, L., & Heck, R. H. (2003). The co-teacher relationship scale: Applications for professional development. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(1), 113-120.

Pacinello, C. (2018). Factors affecting teacher self-efficacy in elementary mathematics instruction. Publication No. 1990008913 Doctoral Dissertation, St. John’s University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.  

Policom Corporation. (2019). 2019-2020 metropolitan micropolitan state maps. Retrieved from https://policom.com/statistical-area-definitions/.

Potts, E. A., & Howard, L. A. (2011). How to co-teach: A guide for general and special educators. Baltimore, MD, 21285: Brookes Publishing Company.

Pugach, M. C., & Winn, J. A. (2011). Research on co-teaching and teaming: An untapped resource for induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(1), 36-46.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2017). Making inclusion work with co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 284–293.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916685065.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401.

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), 498-510.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21606.

Sweigart, C. A., & Collins, L. W. (2017). Supporting the needs of beginning special education teachers and their students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 209-212.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917695264.

Sylne, V. (2015). Impact of inclusion teachers’ mathematics anxiety and mathematics self-efficacy on the mathematics achievement of learning disabled students. Publication No. 1748049672 Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.  

The American Mathematical Society. (2001). The mathematical education of teachers. Paper presented at the The American Mathematical Society and The Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences.

The American Mathematical Society. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Paper presented at the The American Mathematical Society and The Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). IDEA section 618 data products: State level data files. Retreived from: https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section-618-data-products-state-level-data-files.

van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., Poch, A., & Murray, M. M. (2018). Visual representation in mathematics: Special education teachers’ knowledge and emphasis for instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(1), 7-23.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416665448.

Virginia Department of Education. (2017). Commonwealth of Virginia public schools FFY special education performance report. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/special_ed_performance/division/2017-2018/index.shtml#state.

Virginia Department of Education. (2019a). VDOE: Virginia public school division staff listing by region. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/directories/school_divisions/division_info_by_regions.shtml.

Virginia Department of Education. (2019b). Virginia state quality profile. Virginia School Quality Profiles. Retrieved from http://schoolquality.virginia.gov/virginia-state-quality-profile.

Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching the key to successful inclusion: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17(4), 255-264.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259601700408.

Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, S. P., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Highlights report—looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/horizonresearchwp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/highlights.pdf.

Weiss, M. P., & Glaser, H. (2019). Instruction in co-teaching in the age of Endrew F. Behavior Modification, 1–27.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519836071.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81.

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801.