journal+Article+Review

Alison Padilla-Teruel EDU 713 Journal Review Introduction The study’s hypothesis tests the topic of collaborative teaming; the researchers, professors at the University of San Francisco, propose that collaborative teaming affects effectively the social and academic participation of students with significant disabilities and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) needs in a general education classroom. Because of their firm beliefs in the inclusion philosophy and in collaborative techniques, the authors reasoned that students with AAC would benefit greatly from support provided by collaborative teaming in the general classroom. The literature defines collaborative teaming as “a group of individuals with diverse expertise working together to achieve a mutual goal” (Snell & Janney, 2000). It is also stated that for collaborative teaming to be effective there should be regular physical interaction, a structured plan, and agree on responsibilities and accountability on everyone’s part (Nevin et. al, 2002). As for inclusion, the literature provides the inclusion philosophy to be based on the premises that all children can learn, all children have the right to be educated with age-appropriate peers and that it is the school’s responsibility to meet the students’ needs (Thousand & Villa). The Project The research study consisted of the recruitment of three collaborative groups in order to provide support to three special education students in a general education classroom. Each group was assigned to a specific student; each team member worked with the student on a specific task. The collaborative team not only offered academic support, but they offered social and communicative support as well. Method The research took place in two elementary schools in the San Francisco Bay Area district. The two schools practiced inclusion; including special education students in the general education classroom. The participants were three elementary school students who have cerebral palsy to different degrees, in three different grade levels. First, Minh, a fifth grade male with severe physical and speech impairments. Another participant was Khamla, a kindergartner male who had moderate physical and speech impairments and Paolo, a first grader with severe physical and speech impairments. The three collaborative teams were constructed identically; they included one general education teacher, one inclusion support teacher and one instructional assistance individual, a speech-language pathologist and one of the student’s parents. The teams met monthly for an hour and a half and discuss the progress of a unified plan for support. Such support targeted the areas of writing, reading and math as well as social interactions. The study took place for seven months and the data was reviewed and discussed monthly among teams and researchers. The data collection process consisted of behavioral measures and interviews. The behavioral measures involved five sets of observation sessions; each session had the duration of 20 minutes. The behaviors observed were reciprocal interactions with peers, focus-student-initiated reciprocal interactions and the use of technical devices (wheel chairs, lasers pointers). The interviews consisted of three sessions and all collaborative teams were interviewed together. The interviews were recorded and transcripts were made. These transcripts were then reviewed and discussed by the researchers. Results Overall, the hypothesis was proven right. The implementation of collaborative teams for academic and social support increased the students’ performance. Before the implementation the students would not use their technical devices, were disengaged during instruction and did not engage in social interaction. With the implementation of the collaborative teams the students’ level of engagement in the regular classrooms increased (average of ten percent). The students increased their interactions with peers, before implementation only one student had one friend, after implementation all students had two or more friends. The student with the most improvement was Minh, he improved one reading level in seventh months; academically all students improved their performance in math, reading and writing (average of seven percent). By the same token, the members of the collaborative teams expressed satisfaction regarding the collaboration process and a shared sense of responsibility. Discussion, Implications and recommendations The collected evidence through the research process suggests three important components of effective collaboration and student success. First, regular meetings allowed the team to discuss, edit and update the plan and progress of the students’ growth. Second, the entire process provided the team members with a support network and reduced their sense of isolation; they had other individuals to share a goal with. Third, the process allowed the team members to have an open mind towards the possibilities of inclusion. Fourth and fifth, the regular meetings allowed the support plan to be cohesive and dynamic, it changed as needed. Sixth and seventh, the support promoted IEP goals and laid the groundwork for future school years. My thoughts <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The research study was a great example for effective collaboration and student growth promotion. I was surprised at the amount of members needed to construct the team for one child, five team members for each student. It is possible to recreate this model, however, it is important to keep in mind the amount of financial resources needed for such enterprise. This research was funded by a grant and the teams had guidance from scholars. Overall, it demonstrated the importance of planning. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Connections <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The research exemplifies the importance in maintaining a collaborative relationship. “By initially discussing and periodically reviewing topics that can influence co-teaching success, teachers can strengthen their professional relationship and identify and resolve challenges…” (Friend and Cook, p. 126). The collaborative teams acted accordingly to the inclusion philosophy and in the best interests of their students. Parity was obvious among the members and they followed the general classrooms routines. The team members expressed a sense of responsibility towards the process and the team, which allowed them to resolve disagreements and work in harmony to achieve a common goal. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">References: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Hunt, Soto, Maier, Muller, and Goetz. (2002). Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18. pp. 20-35. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2010). //Interactions: Collaboration sills for school professionals// (5th edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.