Carter,+N.,+Prater,+M.,+Jackson,+A.,+&+Marchant,+M.+(2009)

Julie Kemper EDU 713 June 1, 2012

__Reference__ Carter, N., Prater, M., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M.(2009). Educators’ perceptions of collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. //Preventing School Failure, 54//(1), 60-70.

__Introduction__ Increasingly, schools and teachers are accountable for the achievement of all students. To effectively meet the educational needs ofdiverse learners, general education teachers and special education teachers must collaborate to plan accommodations. The authors of this study are interested in the collaborative process. In their review of the literature, Carter, Prater, Jackson and Marchant noted research suggesting that student achievement is increased when teachers utilize structured models and procedures to facilitate the collaboration process. (Hunt et al., 2003). In addition, they noted studies suggesting that lack of cooperation between special education and general education teacher can result in failure to provide accommodations that meet students’ educational needs. (Baker& Zigmond, 1995; Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997; Stockall and Gartin, 2002.) To learn more about the collaborative process, Carter, Prater, Jackson, and Marchant studied six pairs of special education and general education teachers. Each pair was taught a collaboration model developed by Prater. The name of this model is the Curriculum, Rules, Instruction, Materials, Environment (CRIME) collaboration model. The authors state their three research questions were: When teachers use the CRIME model to collaboratively plan instructional supports for students with disabilities, what is the nature of their experience? How is collaboration defined in the experience? What are special and general education teachers’ perceptions of the CRIME model?

__The Project__ The researchers studied the collaborative process of six pairs of special education and general education teachers. Each pair was instructed in the use of collaboration model developed by Prater. The model is called the Curriculum, Rules,Instruction, Materials, Environment (CRIME) collaboration model. The model is designed to help teachers collaborate to plan accommodations for students with disabilities who are ingeneral education classrooms. When using this model, teachers first evaluate the curriculum, rules, instruction, and materials in a student’s classroom. Next, they make of a list of the student’s strengths and limitations as they pertain to both academics and behavior. The third step is to identify barriers to learning by reviewing the classroom environment in light of the student’s strengths and limitations. In the final step, collaborating teachers plan accommodations that address the barriers to learning identified in the previous step. The researchers interviewed the teachers after they completed the collaborative process.

__Method__ The six pairs of teachers were recruited from five elementary schools in a large suburban school district in a western state. The researchers first selected the special education teachers to participate in the study. Each special education teacher was asked to select a general education teacher in his or school to be a collaborative partner for the study. The researchers met with each pair of teachers two times. First, they trained the teachers in the use of the CRIME collaboration model. The teachers received blank CRIME model collaboration forms and were instructed to schedule a time to complete the CRIME model process together. The teachers were instructed to give a copy of their completed CRIME model collaboration form to the researchers. Within a week of completing the CRIME model collaboration process, each teacher was interviewed individually by Prater. She inquired about their experience using the CRIME model of collaboration. To analyze the CRIME model collaboration forms and the interview data, the researchers used the philosophical hermeneutics perspective, which assumes that to comprehend the whole, interpreters must understand the parts. The researchers used typological analysis to classify data and make generalizations.

__Results__ As they went through the steps of the CRIME collaboration model, four of the six pairs of teachers discussed their differences of opinion, came to an understanding regarding the other teacher’s opinion, and together were able to define the problem impeding the student’s learning. They were then able to work together to address the student’s problems through accommodations, thus completing the CRIME collaboration process. Two of the pairs of teachers did not complete the CRIME collaboration process. These teachers did not discuss their differences or work together to define barriers impeding the student’s learning. They also failed to jointly identify accommodations to address the student’s problems. In these pairs, the general education teacher identified accommodations without input from the special education teacher. The researchers found that the teacher pairs who completed the CRIME collaboration process together had similar philosophies regarding learning disabilities, perception of specific students’ limitations, and beliefs about the educational needs ofstudents with disabilities. The pairs of teachers who did not complete the CRIME collaboration process together had very different philosophies regarding students with disabilities and their educational needs. The philosophical differences were related to whether or not a teacher believed that a child could choose to control aspects of his or her disability, such as focus. The researchers also asked the teachers to describe their experience participating in the CRIME collaboration process.They found the pairs of teachers who completed all steps of the collaboration process agreed to collaborate, participated in different ways depending on their knowledge and expertise, worked together to discuss and define the student’s problem, and were committed to addressing the problem. All the teachers in the study responded that they found the CRIME collaboration model helpful.

__Discussion__ The researchers noted that this study has a number of implications. First, they found that differing philosophies about teaching students with disabilities may impede collaboration among teachers. Thus, they suggest that teacher training and professional development programs should address different philosophies, as well as communication and conflict resolution skills. The authors also assert that teachers serving students with disabilities need strong collaboration and problem solving skills. They recommend that school administrators support collaboration by providing time for collaboration, as well as models to provide frame work fo rcollaboration. Prior to the implementation of this study, the authors assumed that all the teachersin the study possessed collaboration skills and could successfully use th eCRIME collaboration model as a frame work for collaborative planning. However, they found that one third of the small sample of pairs of teachers had difficulty finishing the collaboration process. They are unsure if the difficulty with the collaboration that some of the pairs encountered, was caused by problems with the CRIME collaboration model or the teachers’ lack of collaboration skills.

__My Thoughts__ As a teacher in training, I found this research thought provoking and informative. I am now interested in the use of models as a framework for collaboration. I know that the collaborative process can be quite challenging, and I think utilizing a model would be helpful, especially to those of us who are learning how to participate in the collaborative process. I am interested in comparing the CRIME model of collaboration to other models. I was also fascinated by the researchers’ findings regarding the effect o fdiffering philosophies about disabilities has on efforts to collaborate. I can definitely understand how having different philosophies can impede collaboration. Thus, I am grateful for the skills I am learning in this class. If I find myself in a collaborative effort that is difficult due to differing philosophies, Iwill stand back and think about the many communication and collaboration strategies I have learned in this class. Although I found the topics addressed by research to be very important, I do have concerns about some of the limitations of the study. First, the sample size was //extremely// small. I was very surprised that the researcher sonly had six teacher dyads involved in the study. Due to the small sample size, I question if th eresults of the study would have been the same had there been more subjects. In addition, Nari Carter, the same individual who created the CRIME collaborative model, instructed the teachers in the use of the model and conducted the interviews with the teachers after they used the model. By having the same person fulfill all of these duties, the researchers may have introduced bias into the study.

__Connections to Course Material__ As I read about the conflict that arose between some of the teachers in this study,I wondered how I would react in a similar situation. I realized this scenario presented me withthe perfect opportunity to apply some of the strategies I have learned in //Crucial Conversations.// (Patterson,Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2002) Based on the study I have described, I am going to establish a hypothetical situation through which I can take a problem identified in the study, and use strategies in //Crucial Conversations// to address it. I will pretend that I am a special education teacher in one of the teacher pairs that were unable to finish the collaborative process due to differing philosophies regarding students with disabilities. Here is my scenario: Mrs. Smith is Janet’s third grade general education teacher. Janet has ADHD. As part of the study described in this paper, Mrs. Smith and I are suppose to use the CRIME collaboration model to develop accommodations that will assist Janet in the general education classroom. We are at a standstill after completing the third step of the CRIME collaboration model (looking at the classroom environment in light of the student’s strengths and limitations.) Mrs .Smith says she believes Janet is capable of focusing in her classroom without accommodations if she was only willing to try. I, however, strongly believe that Janet needs accommodations in order toaccess the general curriculum. Our collaborative efforts are either going to end in frustration for both of us without identifying a solution for Janet, or Mrs. Smith and I need to find away that despite our differences, we can continue to collaborate. I think about //Crucial Conversations// and decide I must Start With Heart. First I ask myself, “what do I want?” I decide what I really want is to give Janet the best opportunity possible to access the general curriculum. I also realize tha tif I engage in Sucker’s Choice by either ending the collaboration or “fighting”for my point of view, Janet will suffer. I am going to have to keep my emotions in check and remember what Ireally want is not to win an argument, but to arrive at the best outcome for Janet. Now that I’ve clarified to myself what I want, and what I don’t want, I can develop a more complex problem to address. I ask myself, “How can I continue the conversations with Mrs. Smith about accommodations for Janet, without alienating her and forcing an end to the collaborative process?” Hopefully, by asking myself these questions,I will facilitate the continuation of our collaboration.

References

Carter, N., Prater, M., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M.(2009). Educators’ perceptions of collaborative planningprocesses for students with disabilities. //PreventingSchool Failure, 54//(1), 60-70.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler,A. (2002). //Crucial conversations.// NewYork: McGraw-Hill.