Research to Practice Summit

Intervention Strategies for Team Collaboration in the Classroom ¹

by Joan Lieber, Investigator

• Department of Special Education
• University of Maryland

In this presentation, I will present results of two related studies conducted as part of the Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion (ECRII).

Study One

Results from the first study are part of a large, qualitative study of inclusion in 16 early childhood programs (4 programs at 4 sites nation-wide). In this study, we asked: what are the barriers to and facilitators of children’s participation in inclusive settings?

To investigate this question (and for the results reported here) we used a field-study approach with three data collection strategies, including open-ended interviews, participant observation, and document analysis. The primary informants were the staff members of the programs: the teachers, classroom assistants, related services providers, and administrators. Interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes with follow-up interviews as needed. We audiotaped the interviews and transcribed them verbatim. We observed in the 16 programs 2 to 3 times a week for 6 to 16 weeks, and we recorded our observations in the form of field notes.

Finally, staff members and administrators provided documents about their programs including handbooks, and statements of program policies.

Field notes and interview transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method described by Glaser and Strauss (1967). At each ECRII site, researchers generated hierarchies of categories that represented the data, and interpreted the emerging categories. We then met as a group for cross-site analysis. One of the major conceptual categories identified through the analysis process which influenced children’s participation in inclusive setting was adult roles and relationships.

In our results we document several important themes which emerged from the data related to that conceptual category. Each theme reflected issues that affected the ability of staff members in inclusive programs to assume new roles and to forge new relationships with other adults. The themes included: investment in the program, a shared program philosophy, perceived ownership of the children, initiative, staff communication, and administrative support. When these factors were present in a program they seemed to facilitate a program’s successful functioning. When they were absent, barriers were erected.

Study Two

This study, which is ongoing and has preliminary results, is linked to the results of study one. A goal of ECRII, in addition to identifying facilitators and barriers to inclusion, is to develop strategies to overcome barriers. One strategy, described in this study, was to work with programs to develop a collaborative team to focus on team-identified barriers to inclusion.

The purpose of this study was to document the development of a collaborative team at several sites, and to use the findings to describe a general problem solving model to foster collaboration among staff members (and, at some sites, participating families). The research questions addressed were: 1) Can staff members work in teams to solve problems? 2) Does team work improve outcomes for children? 3) Are there system-level changes related to team functioning? Teams used the following framework: identify goals for inclusion, identify barriers for meeting the goals, develop a plan to overcome the barriers, implement and evaluate the plan (Friend & Cook, 1996; York-Barr, Kronberg, & Doyle, 1996).

To date, collaborative teams have been instituted at two sites. To document team functioning, we have: interviews, field notes of team meetings, classroom observations, and documentation of changes in classroom instruction and approaches. Preliminary results from one site show that the team identified a variety of barriers to inclusion. Further, barriers that were well-defined and agreed on by all team members were relatively easy to overcome. For example, team members agreed that coordination of classroom schedules, lack of proximity for classes that were combining for joint activities, and gaining administrative support for joint planning were barriers. Once they were identified, those barriers were quickly overcome.

In other instances, the team had difficulty agreeing on the nature of particular barriers and how they might be remedied. Those barriers included how team members defined inclusion, as well as differences in philosophies and approaches to instruction.

Implications for Inclusion

These studies have a number of implications for inclusion. Implications are most evident in relation to training needs and the preparation of staff members who work in inclusive programs. It is essential that they develop the skills necessary to collaborate with a variety of professionals and other adults. Those skills may be different for staff members in programs using different models of inclusion. For example, staff members who co-teach need to agree on how instruction is delivered. In contrast, adults who serve as consultants to others need to develop skills in motivating their colleagues to learn new approaches such as implementing IEP goals for children with disabilities. In addition, staff members need training in how to make team collaboration a successful experience.

¹ Presented at the Research to Practice Summit, July 30-31, 1998, Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System in collaboration with the Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI).