Co-Teaching Models for Inclusion

Co-teaching is a service delivery model where two professionals share one classroom. Usually, this means a general education teacher and a special education teacher plan, teach and assess a mixed group of learners together. Friend and Cook (1996) give the definition used most often in research: both professionals share teaching responsibility for a heterogeneous group of learners, including those with disabilities, in the same physical space.

That rules out much of what schools informally call "co-teaching." For more on this topic, see What is inclusion. A teacher and a paraprofessional are not a co-teaching pair, and a special educator who drops in and out of a general education class is not co-teaching. The starting point is two professionals with shared accountability, and everything else follows from that.

In the US context, IDEA's least restrictive environment requirement says learners with disabilities should learn with learners who are not disabled as much as is appropriate. Co-teaching is one service-delivery option schools use to keep specialist support in the general classroom. IDEA gives the policy context, but it does not prove that co-teaching is always the right placement.

‍

What Co-Teaching Actually Is

Friend and Cook (1996) say co-teaching has three key parts. First, it needs two qualified teachers, not an aide. Special educators bring vital skills, like disability knowledge.

They also know individual instruction and assessment under IDEA. Aides cannot give specialised instruction legally. Using them as a second teacher hurts learning.

Second, co-teaching means both teachers deliver real instruction together. Both professionals must teach, rather than one teaching while the other manages behaviour or copies notes onto the board. If the special educator spends most of the lesson moving around quietly and correcting work, this is not co-teaching by any research definition. It is also unlikely to produce the outcomes linked with co-teaching in the literature.

Third, co-teaching serves a heterogeneous group, which means a mixed class that includes learners with disabilities. It is not a model for general ability grouping or team teaching among general educators. Its purpose is to bring the expertise of special educational needs provision into the general education classroom. This helps learners with IEPs receive their services in the LRE.

Co-teaching is also distinct from two related models. Push-in means a specialist enters the general classroom to work with specific learners while the class teacher continues with the whole group. This can be useful, but it is not co-teaching unless both teachers share responsibility for the whole class.

Pull-out means learners leave the mainstream setting for teaching in a resource room or separate space. Pull-out can be appropriate when the learner's plan requires a more intensive setting. Co-teaching sits between these approaches: it keeps learners in the mainstream classroom while bringing specialist teaching into the lesson for everyone.

‍

The Six Co-Teaching Models

Friend and Cook identified six clear models of co-teaching. Each model has a different structure, places different demands on teachers, and offers different benefits for learners. Effective co-teaching depends on understanding all six and knowing when to use each one.

‍

One Teach, One Observe

In this model, one teacher teaches the whole class while the other collects planned evidence. This is not passive monitoring. The observing teacher needs a clear focus, a simple recording tool and time to discuss the findings afterwards.

For example, they might record which learners answer open questions, who never volunteers, how long a learner with ADHD sustains attention, or whether a learner with a reading IEP goal tracks the shared text. The evidence should feed directly into the next planning conversation.

One Teach, One Observe is most useful at the start of a co-teaching relationship. At this point, both teachers are still building a shared understanding of which learners need what. It is also useful at specific diagnostic moments during the year. These moments help both teachers get an accurate picture of classroom functioning before they make decisions about grouping or intervention.

A concrete example: a Year 8 science class is learning about states of matter. The general education teacher leads the lesson. At the same time, the special educator uses a structured observation form to track responses.

They note which learners answer correctly first time, which answer after a prompt, and which do not respond at all. That data feeds into planning for the next lesson, where the special educator can suggest who needs extra pre-teaching before the next topic.

One Teach, One Observe is not a sustainable everyday model and should not become the default. Its value is in the quality of data it generates, not in its instructional power.

‍

One Teach, One Assist

In this model, one teacher teaches the whole class while the other moves around the room. The second teacher gives quiet support to individual learners when needed. This is the model most often seen in co-taught classrooms, and it is also the one most often misused. Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007) conducted a qualitative meta-synthesis of 32 co-teaching studies and found that One Teach, One Assist was by far the dominant model in observed classrooms, with the special educator almost always in the assistant role.

The problem is not with the model itself. It is appropriate when the general education teacher introduces new content for the first time. It also fits when a learner with a specific support need needs brief in-the-moment help, or when the lesson structure does not suit splitting the class. The problem starts when it becomes the only model used, because it casts the special educator as a glorified aide, makes learners with IEPs stand out as the recipients of that assistant's attention, and removes any instructional contribution from the co-teacher's expertise.

Used correctly, One Teach, One Assist looks like this: a maths class is working through a new multi-step problem. The general education teacher explains the procedure at the front. The special educator circulates, watching for learners who have stalled at step two, quietly rereading the prompt to a learner with a processing difficulty, or redirecting a learner with executive function challenges back to their work.

The circulating teacher is not interrupting the flow of instruction. They are providing responsive, just-in-time support that keeps learners on track without public identification.

The risk to monitor is micro-segregation. If learners with IEPs always wait for the special educator, the class may look inclusive while separating support in practice. Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007) and Kilanowski-Press, Foote and Rinaldo (2010) both show how co-teaching can slide into an assistant pattern where the general educator keeps ownership of the curriculum and the SEND specialist becomes attached to a small set of learners. Rotate support, teach all learners and plan independence from the start.

‍

Station Teaching

In station teaching, the class is split into three or more groups. Groups move from one learning station to the next at set times. Each teacher leads one station, while at least one station is for independent or group work without direct teacher input. This lowers the teacher-to-learner ratio and gives both teachers real teaching roles of equal weight.

Station teaching works best when the content can be divided into coherent parts and both teachers can lead purposeful small-group instruction. This is a co-teaching design decision from the Cook and Friend framework, not a finding from general classroom-management or differentiation texts. Learners can gain from varied practice, but the model only works when transitions, station tasks and assessment evidence are planned in advance.

A concrete example: a Year 6 English lesson on figurative language uses three stations. The class teacher leads close reading of a poem. The SEND specialist supports learners to write two examples of figurative language. The independent station uses cards to match terms to definitions.

By 2026, generative AI can reduce the resource drafting burden for this model. Teachers can ask it to produce the same poem task in plain text, symbol-supported and oral rehearsal formats, then check accuracy and bias before use. This aligns with Universal Design for Learning because it creates multiple routes into the same goal, while teacher judgement still controls the curriculum (CAST, 2024; Evmenova, Borup, & Shin, 2024).

Station teaching requires more planning than One Teach, One Assist. Both teachers need to design their stations in advance, agree on the content focus of each, and establish clear transition routines. The payoff is a lesson where both professionals are genuinely teaching and where learner groupings can be adjusted lesson by lesson based on observed need.

‍

Parallel Teaching

In parallel teaching, the class is divided into two roughly equal groups, and each teacher delivers the same instructional content simultaneously to their group. The content is the same. The approaches may differ. The benefit is a halved learner-to-teacher ratio, which increases the frequency of learner response and the teacher's ability to monitor understanding.

Parallel teaching helps discussion lessons where thirty learners struggle to speak. Review and practice sessions benefit too, letting learners get feedback often. General and special educators can vary teaching, keeping content the same (Cook & Friend, 1995).

The key design principle is that both teachers must teach the same learning objective. The differentiation is in the mode of delivery, the examples used, or the level of scaffolding provided, not in what learners are expected to learn. A learner with an IEP who receives parallel teaching with the special educator should be working toward the same grade-level standard as their peers, with access to whatever accommodations and modifications their IEP specifies.

A concrete example: a Year 9 history class is reviewing causes of the First World War. The general education teacher takes half the class through a discussion-based analysis of the alliance system.

The special educator takes the other half through the same analysis using a graphic organiser framework that provides more structure for learners who need it. Both groups are working on the same historical thinking skill. Fifteen minutes in, both groups have produced analysis they can share with the other group.

Scheduling, tight timetables and classroom space can make co-teaching hard. Parallel teaching, say researchers (Friend, 2008), needs a big room. Two groups must learn without too much noise. Both teachers should feel happy leading on their own (Cook & Friend, 1995).

‍

Alternative Teaching

In alternative teaching, one teacher works with a small group of learners for a targeted purpose while the other teacher works with the remaining, larger group. The small group might be receiving pre-teaching, re-teaching, enrichment, or assessment. This model addresses the reality that in any class, some learners are ready to proceed, some need more time with current content, and some have gaps from previous learning that are blocking progress.

Alternative teaching is the model most directly connected to tiered support within an MTSS framework. The small group pulled by the special educator is not necessarily always learners with IEPs. It might be learners who struggled on last week's exit ticket, or learners who are ready for an extension task, or a rotating group receiving strategic intervention on a specific skill.

A concrete example: a Year 7 maths lesson on fractions. Exit data from the previous lesson showed that six learners cannot yet reliably convert between improper fractions and mixed numbers. At the start of the lesson, the special educator takes those six learners to one side of the room for a fifteen-minute re-teaching session using manipulatives, while the general education teacher leads the rest of the class through the day's new content: adding and subtracting fractions with different denominators.

The six learners then rejoin the class for the independent practice phase. No learner has missed the new content. Six learners have received targeted intervention that would otherwise require a pull-out session.

The risk is that the same learners are always in the small alternative group, which re-creates the stigma of pull-out inside the general education classroom. The composition of the alternative group should rotate, and the purpose of the small group should vary across the week.

‍

Team Teaching

In team teaching, both professionals teach the whole class simultaneously, sharing delivery, discussion facilitation, and instructional decision-making in real time. One teacher might be explaining a concept while the other models a worked example on the board. One might ask a higher-order question while the other listens to learner responses and follows up. One might notice a widespread misconception mid-lesson and signal to the other to pause and address it.

Team teaching requires the highest level of trust, communication, and planning of all six models. Both teachers must be genuinely comfortable with the content, comfortable with each other, and comfortable departing from a script when the lesson calls for it.

Structured questioning strategies work especially well in team teaching because one teacher can ask while the other listens and probes learner responses. It takes time to develop. New co-teaching pairs rarely manage genuine team teaching in their first semester together.

When it works, team teaching is the most powerful model because learners benefit from two expert perspectives integrated as an integrated lesson. The special educator is not positioned as the helper. Both teachers are positioned as co-authorities on the content. Learners with IEPs receive the implicit message that their teacher knows the subject matter, not just "the special education stuff."

A concrete example: a Year 10 biology lesson on natural selection. The general education teacher explains the mechanism of natural selection, while the special educator draws a visual timeline of generations on the board. During the explanation, the special educator asks a clarifying question: "So when you say 'survival of the fittest,' do you mean the physically strongest individual?" The general education teacher then explains the misconception raised by the question.

The special educator follows up with a learner who shrugged: "What do you think? Strongest or best adapted?" The exchange feels like a genuine intellectual dialogue. Learners see two professionals thinking through content together, which models the kind of academic talk they are expected to produce.

‍

Choosing the Right Model

The most common mistake co-teaching pairs make is treating the choice of model as fixed, either defaulting permanently to One Teach, One Assist or rotating models by day of the week regardless of what the lesson needs. Model selection should be driven by three questions: What does this lesson require structurally? What do these learners need right now? What are both teachers comfortable delivering?

Model	Teacher Roles	Learner Grouping	Best For	Planning Demand	Trust Level	Lesson Example
One Teach, One Observe	One leads; one collects data	Whole class	Diagnostic, start of unit, IEP data collection	Low (agree observation focus)	Low	Science teacher introduces states of matter; SpEd records response rates per learner
One Teach, One Assist	One leads; one circulates	Whole class	New content introduction, complex demonstrations	Low	Low	Maths teacher models multi-step equation; SpEd supports learners who stall
Station Teaching	Each leads one station; learners rotate	Small rotating groups (6-10)	Practice, skill consolidation, mixed-content lessons	High (three stations, transitions)	Medium	English: figurative language across three stations, each with different task type
Parallel Teaching	Each teaches same content to half the class	Two equal halves	Discussion-heavy lessons, review, practice with feedback	Medium (align on objective and approach)	Medium	History: both teachers lead WWI cause analysis with half the class each
Alternative Teaching	One leads large group; one leads small targeted group	Large group + small group (4-8)	Re-teaching, pre-teaching, enrichment, assessment	Medium (agree small group purpose)	Medium	Maths: SpEd re-teaches fractions to 6 learners; GenEd introduces adding unlike denominators
Team Teaching	Both teach simultaneously, shared delivery	Whole class	Complex concepts, Socratic discussion, modelling academic dialogue	High (shared script, agreed cues)	High	Biology: both teachers explain natural selection, one explains while other models and asks

Model selection should also account for where you are in the unit sequence. New content introductions often suit One Teach, One Observe or One Teach, One Assist. Mid-unit practice suits station teaching or parallel teaching.

Pre-assessment or re-teaching suits alternative teaching. End-of-unit review suits parallel teaching or team teaching. This is not a rigid formula, but it gives both teachers a starting framework.

‍

Co-Planning: The Non-Negotiable

Co-planning helps protect the quality of implementation, but it is not a magic ingredient. Murawski and Swanson (2001) reviewed 89 articles, but only six had enough quantitative information to calculate effect sizes, and the outcomes varied widely. Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007) found that lack of planning time was a common barrier in qualitative studies. So protected planning time is a defensible condition for quality, but the article should not claim that a weekly meeting alone causes higher attainment.

Planning time has a specific content. It is not social catch-up, and it is not one teacher briefing the other on what the lesson will cover. Effective co-planning addresses at least five questions for each lesson or lesson sequence.

What is the learning objective? What does mastery look like for learners at different readiness levels? The general education teacher needs to state the content standard clearly. The special educator then identifies where learners with IEPs or other learning needs sit in relation to that standard, and which accommodations or modifications will help them access it.

What is the lesson structure, and which co-teaching model fits it? Model selection happens in planning, not at the classroom door. Both teachers need to know their role before the lesson begins.

What does each teacher specifically do at each phase of the lesson? "We'll use station teaching" is not a plan. "I lead station one on paragraph structure using the graphic organiser we agreed; you lead station two on revision using the mentor text; station three is independent writing" is a plan.

Which learners need what, and how will we know? The SEND specialist brings IEP, EHCP or support-plan knowledge to this question. Which learners need extended time, reduced visual complexity, a preferred seat, assistive technology or verbal rather than written response?

Agree who will provide each adaptation, and how it will happen without singling learners out. Understanding working memory helps because many accommodations have a clear purpose. For example, chunked instructions and reduced written output help manage working memory demand.

How will we assess understanding at the end of the lesson, and what do we do with that information? Formative assessment strategies can work especially well in a co-taught class. Two teachers can each watch half the room at the same time. The special educator can also circulate and collect spoken responses from learners who do not respond in writing.

A co-planning template that both teachers complete in advance of the meeting is more efficient than open-ended discussion. Dieker (2001) developed a lesson plan format specifically for co-taught classrooms, which uses a two-column structure showing what each teacher does at each phase of the lesson. Using a shared template keeps planning focussed and ensures both teachers leave with the same understanding of who does what.

‍

Making the Co-Teaching Relationship Work

The instructional quality of a co-taught class is inseparable from the quality of the relationship between co-teachers. A skilled pair of educators who have built genuine trust and mutual respect can make even an imperfect model work well. A pair with unresolved tensions about roles, expertise, and authority will underperform regardless of which model they use.

The most persistent structural problem in co-teaching relationships is power imbalance. General educators often control the content, pace and classroom routines. SEND specialists may then be treated as visitors, behaviour managers or casework holders. They are not always treated as teachers of the curriculum.

This matters for neurodiversity-affirming practice. If the SEND specialist is only called over when a learner is off-task, distressed or non-compliant, the model can reinforce a deficit view of that learner. Inclusive co-teaching should redesign access to the lesson. It should not label particular bodies as the problem (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).

Friend (2008) describes "parity" as the visible sign of a genuine co-teaching relationship. Parity means both teachers have an equal presence in the classroom. Both names appear on the door, the whiteboard, and parent communications, and both teachers have a desk or working space in the room.

Both teachers speak to all learners, and all learners speak to both teachers. Both also take a visible part in routines such as homework collection, behaviour management, and transitions. When parity is missing, learners quickly spot the "real teacher" and the "helper teacher," and the special educator's authority and effectiveness drop.

Handling disagreements professionally is part of co-teaching competency. Both teachers will have different views on pace, on how much scaffolding is too much, on whether a learner needs more challenge or more support. Disagreements that are worked out in planning conversations are healthy and productive.

Disagreements that play out in front of learners, or that are suppressed until they become resentments, are destructive. Establishing a norm early in the partnership, such as signalling a need to talk with a mutually agreed phrase and then following up outside the classroom, prevents public conflict while keeping both teachers honest.

Collaboration requires mutual respect. General teachers know the curriculum and the whole class; special educators bring disability knowledge, individualisation and assessment expertise. The model works when both teachers turn those strengths into one shared plan.

Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain and Shamberger (2010) warn that co-teaching is hard to study and use because roles, relationships and programme logistics vary so much. No single teacher knows it all.

‍

What the Research Says

The research base on co-teaching is useful, but it has limits. Murawski and Swanson's (2001) meta-analysis is still an important early review. They reviewed 89 articles, but only six had enough quantitative information to calculate effect sizes. The average effect size was 0.40, with wide variation across outcomes.

Later, Vembye, Weiss and Hamilton Bhat (2024) reviewed a much larger evidence base, excluded studies at critical risk of bias, and found a positive but smaller short-term achievement effect. The safe conclusion is that co-teaching can help when schools design it carefully, but putting two adults in the same room is not enough.

Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) reviewed 32 co-teaching studies. They found "One Teach, One Assist" was common, with special educators assisting.

Teachers wanted co-teaching but faced barriers; joint planning was rare. Leaders thought simply placing teachers together sufficed. The researchers concluded co-teaching's reality often fails to meet its promise.

Conderman and Hedin (2012) describe co-assessment as the often missed third part of co-teaching. It sits alongside co-planning and co-instruction. Their article gives useful guidance on shared assessment duties, differentiated assessment and progress monitoring. Leadership still matters, but this source does not prove that headteacher backing alone improves outcomes.

Dieker and Murawski (2003) discuss limits at secondary level. These include block scheduling, high-stakes testing, varied classroom structures and the need for clear practical strategies. Use their article for secondary implementation pitfalls and role clarity. Do not use it as proof that partner matching alone improves retention or learner results.

‍

Co-Teaching and IEP Implementation

Co-teaching is a way to deliver support, not a separate placement. Learners with IEPs, EHCPs or other support plans still have a right to the services, accommodations and modifications listed in those plans. The co-teaching structure is simply the route for providing that support in the general classroom. Without clear planning, a co-taught lesson can slip into whole-class teaching and miss individual targets.

Special educators should help make the agreed IEP services, accommodations and modifications clear in lesson planning and progress review. The legal duty comes from the IEP and IDEA framework. It does not come from curriculum-planning texts or a generic RTI paper. In practice, co-teachers should decide who checks extended time, reduced written load, text-to-speech or other accommodations, and how they will record evidence of progress.

Specialised instruction (SDI) needs careful planning in lessons. SDI is not just help for struggling learners; it is planned instruction matched to the learner's needs. In co-teaching, SDI might include small-group teaching, pre-teaching vocabulary, guided practice, a structured intervention or an adapted response mode. Its form changes, but it must always be intentional and monitored rather than simply "extra help".

Co-teaching can make progress monitoring easier to manage. One teacher can teach while the other collects brief evidence during independent work, discussion or targeted small-group teaching. Conderman and Hedin (2012) frame this shared responsibility as co-assessment. Use these data for planning and IEP review, but formal decisions about placement should follow the school's required IEP procedures, not a generic regional RTI guide.

Teachers should know 504 plans and IEPs, as co-taught classes include learners with both. Obligations for each plan differ. 504 plans provide accommodations, but not special instruction. The 504 coordinator, not a special educator, monitors this plan.

‍

Common Pitfalls

This creates what Cook and Friend (1995) call the "glorified aide" trap, and it can become micro-segregation inside a mainstream room. Learners with IEPs may be physically present, but support is narrowed to hovering, prompting and behaviour correction. The result is weaker specialist teaching and lower independence.

The structural default to One Teach, One Assist is the mechanism by which the glorified aide problem perpetuates itself. It is low-planning, low-conflict, and low-disruption, which makes it comfortable for both teachers. It also produces the weakest outcomes of any model when used as the default across the school year.

Lack of planning time is the barrier named most often in both quantitative and qualitative research on effective co-teaching. When schools put two teachers in one room but do not protect joint planning time, they create co-habitation rather than co-teaching. Teachers in this situation often describe the arrangement as superficial, stressful, and unsatisfying, and that judgement is fair. The fix is structural: leaders must commit to scheduling time for planning.

Poorly matched or unsupported partnerships create predictable implementation problems. If one teacher resists inclusion, or if both teachers lack time to agree roles, the arrangement can slide into One Teach, One Assist. Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain and Shamberger (2010), Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007) and Idol (2006) are safer sources for this implementation warning than the unverifiable placeholder citation. When schools assign partners, they should consider relationships, expertise and training, not just timetable convenience.

No training is a systemic failure. Friend (2008) emphasises that co-teaching is a professional skill that must be learned and practised. Both teachers need practice with the six models, co-planning tools, role negotiation and feedback. Without training, the class teacher returns to solo whole-class instruction and the SEND specialist returns to circulating support.

Learners choosing "the real teacher" flags an issue. Parity suffers when learners only ask the class teacher questions. If learners seek permission or react differently to instructions, revisit visible role-sharing, parent communication, classroom routines and who leads each part of the lesson (Friend, 2008; Friend et al., 2010).

‍

Making Your Next Lesson Better

Before your next co-taught lesson, both teachers should answer three questions in writing. Which of the six models fits this lesson's structure and this group's current needs? What is each teacher specifically doing at each phase of the lesson? Which IEP accommodations need to be implemented during this lesson, and who is responsible for each?

If you cannot answer all three questions before the lesson starts, the planning has not happened yet. Start there.

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

‍

‍

‍

Limitations and Critiques

The evidence base for co-teaching is promising but uneven. Murawski and Swanson (2001) found a moderate mean effect, but from a small set of studies. King-Sears et al. (2021) reported benefits for learners with disabilities in co-taught classes, while also warning that many studies did not describe instruction, group assignment or specially designed instruction in enough detail.

A second criticism is implementation drift, which means the model changes in practice. Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007) found that co-teaching often falls back into One Teach, One Assist. Kilanowski-Press, Foote and Rinaldo (2010) also showed that inclusion classrooms can depend on support roles rather than shared teaching. This can create micro-segregation: learners stay in the mainstream room, but they get a narrower curriculum and more public adult hovering.

There are cultural limits too. Much of the research comes from US IEP and IDEA settings, so it does not transfer directly to English EHCP practice, the SEND Code of Practice or 2026 staffing pressures. The theory also draws on broad learning principles.

Vygotsky (1978) supports the social case for guided participation, but not every paired adult arrangement creates a productive zone of proximal development. Karpicke (2008) shows the value of retrieval, but retrieval tasks still need accessible design and feedback.

Despite these limits, co-teaching can still be valuable. Schools need to protect planning time, preserve specialist expertise and measure the partnership honestly.

‍

Further Reading: Verified Co-Teaching Sources

‍

References

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective Practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3). View DOI record.

Conderman, G., & Hedin, L. (2012). Purposeful Assessment Practices for Co-Teachers. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(4), 18-27. View ERIC record.

Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level: Unique Issues, Current Trends, and Suggestions for Success. The High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13. View ERIC record.

Education Endowment Foundation. (2015). Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants: Guidance Report. View DERA archive record.

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 & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27. View ERIC record.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5). Least restrictive environment. View official IDEA statute page.

Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001).

A Meta-Analysis of Co-Teaching Research: Where Are the Data? Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258-267. View ERIC record.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007).

Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416. View ERIC record.

Vembye, M. H., Weiss, F., & Hamilton Bhat, B. (2024). The Effects of Co-Teaching and Related Collaborative Models of Instruction on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 94(3), 376-422. View ERIC record.