Finding Equity in Co-Planning: Administrative Faculty, Full-Time Faculty, and Adjuncts

• In Event: Synergies and Tensions: Experiences of Administration, Faculty, and Students in Co-Taught Teacher Preparation Courses

Abstract

Co-teaching occurs when two instructors share a common class with the responsibilities to co-plan, co-instruct and co-evaluate (Bacharach et al., 2008; Murawski & Dieker, 2013). As school districts turn to this model to meet the needs of a diverse student population (Duchardt et.al., 1999; Graziano & Navarrete, 2012), universities are responding by addressing this approach as part of teacher education programs. Studies on the process of co-teaching at the K 12 level indicate that successful co-teaching requires common planning time (Friend & Cook, 2007; Scruggs, 2007). However, there is a dearth of research examining the experiences of instructors in the co-planning process.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the processes of collaborative planning utilized by faculty members during the first year of co-teaching teacher preparation courses developed collaboratively by special education (SPED) and general education (GE) faculty members. The purpose was to explore the roles of full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and faculty
with administrative roles, to determine the perceived extent of participation, strategies utilized, and levels of equity in the partnerships. This qualitative case study captured the experiences of 20 full-time faculty members, three adjunct faculty members, and two administrators in the roles of instructors through in-depth interviews. Twenty-seven class sessions were observed across ten sections taught in the fall and spring semesters. Weekly online collaborative debriefing and planning meetings were also recorded and transcribed for analysis. CHAT theory (Engestöm, 2000) was utilized as a framework for the study, and guided the first round of coding to identify aspects of the system of co-teaching implementation, and a constant comparative approach (Fram, 2013) was used in the second round to code within each CHAT category and discover emergent themes related to the purpose of the study.
Resulting data indicated that co-planning was time-consuming and experienced differently depending upon responsibilities instructors held outside of teaching. Division of labor thus emerged as a powerful element of the activity system related to planning experiences. Full-time faculty members reported positive rapport and a shared level of planning for each class meeting. However, faculty members who held administrative duties reported insufficient time to fully collaborate with their partners, with an uneven division of labor in relation to their co-teaching partners. Similarly, adjunct professors expressed that they felt left out of the planning process, as they had outside work responsibilities diverting them from an equitable division of labor. Often, therefore, the full-time faculty member would create the lessons for each class with limited input from the adjunct. Effective co-planning was associated with equitable instructional time, and utilization of multiple co-teaching models, while co-teaching pairs who did not plan together sufficiently reported less equitable instruction and reliance on one co-teaching model.
This study confirms the importance of scheduling quality time for co-planning, and attention to issues of division of labor as a major logistical consideration. Future research might consider strategies for effective collaboration with adjuncts in co-teaching. Implications for practice include provision of structures that facilitate co-planning and provide clear expectations for equitable instruction that utilizes a myriad of co-teaching strategies.

Author

• Kathleen Bautista, Azusa Pacific University
  Presenting Author