Co-Teaching as a Dynamic System to Support Students with Disabilities: A Case Study

Abstract

Approximately 66% of students with disabilities spend most of their day in a general education classroom co-teaching has been the answer to providing inclusive instruction and support though co-teaching is a high-leverage practice for supporting students with disabilities, the effectiveness of the implementation is debatable. We aimed to better understand what influencers affect co-teaching systems, the resulting effects of those influencers, and what teachers identify as influential components to a successful system of co-teaching. This case study of two co-teaching partnerships was analyzed through the lens of dynamic systems theory using emergent qualitative coding methods. Data from classroom observations and a private semi-structured interview were analyzed. Implications on current practice, such as targeted coaching supports, and future research considerations, such as longitudinal studies of instructional changes for a partnership, are discussed.

1. Introduction

The majority (66%) of school-aged students with disabilities (SWDs) spend 80% or more of their school day in the general education setting (Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2022). In other words, the majority of special education services and specially designed instruction occur in the general education setting. Specially designed instruction can be challenging to operationally define as it may look different from classroom to classroom (Rodgers et al., 2021), but it is legally considered adapted instruction for the unique needs of SWDs to ensure access to the general curriculum (IDEA, 2004). For many schools, co-teaching has been the answer to providing these services, as well as providing more availability to inclusive educational settings. The effectiveness of co-teaching as a special education service delivery model, however, is up for debate, with researchers reporting little statistical significance for academic outcomes (King-Sears et al., 2021).

1.1. Co-Teaching in the Literature

Co-teaching is a service delivery model for special education (Friend, 2015). It requires two or more educators to provide instruction (Cook & Friend, 1995). A co-teaching partnership requires both educators to collaborate and provide specially designed instruction to meet their students’ needs (Friend, 2015). The six standardized models for co-teaching are (a) one teach/one observe, (b) one teach/one assist, (c) parallel teaching, (d) station teaching, (e) alternative teaching, and (f) team teaching (Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend, 2015; see

Table 1. Six co-teaching models.

Model	Visual	Description
One Teach/One Observe		One teacher is the lead of whole group’s instruction while the other teacher is observing students. The teacher observing is gathering data on an individual student, group, or the whole class.
One Teach/One Assist		One teacher is the lead of whole group’s instruction while the other teacher moves around the room to support individual student needs. Some examples of what the assisting teacher could be doing are answering questions, briefly reteaching a concept, and keeping students on task.
Parallel Teaching		The class is divided into two groups, with one teacher working with a group. Students can be grouped by academic need or just to reduce the student-to-teacher ratio for instruction. Teachers could be working on the same activity with both groups or providing instruction in a different way for differing academic needs.
Station Teaching		Teachers group students to complete learning activities in different stations. The teachers can lead the learning in a specific station, as well as monitor independent student work. Students can be grouped by academic need. Students rotate to different stations either when they have completed the activity or after a specified amount of time.
Alternative Teaching		While most students stay in a whole-group setting, a small group is assigned to the other teacher to engage in different instruction. This small-group work could include activities like reteaching, accommodated assessment, or previewing upcoming instruction.
Team Teaching		In whole group’s instruction, both teachers lead portions of the direct instruction. Both teacher’s contributions on instruction are integrated throughout the lesson.

). Co-teaching is a collaborative high-leverage practice (HLP) for supporting SWDs. HLPs are a set of effective teaching practices for working with SWDs that includes instructional decision-making, assessment, collaboration, and social/emotional/behavioral practices (McLeskey et al., 2017).

Though co-teaching is identified as an HLP, most researchers have found little evidence to prove it is an effective instructional practice. Much of the quantitative research on co-teaching is exploratory or descriptive. There are limited studies that employ experimental or quasi-experimental designs that test the effects of different co-teaching models. Quantitative researchers have reviewed topics such as perception (King-Sears et al., 2020; Keeley et al., 2017; Burks-Keeley & Brown, 2014; Grenier, 2011; Hang & Rabren, 2009), instructional strategy frequency (Burks-Keeley & Brown, 2014; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005), and academic outcomes (Bottge et al., 2018; Murawski, 2006; Packard et al., 2011; Tremblay, 2013).

Teachers feel that co-teaching supports student learning and provides greater access to content and that students improve over the year because of co-taught instruction (Grenier, 2011; Hang & Rabren, 2009). Students in co-taught classrooms share this positive outlook on their experience (Keeley et al., 2017). Though teachers and students see the value in co-teaching, the most often used model is also considered the least effective: one teach/one assist (Burks-Keeley & Brown, 2014). Moreover, there are often few instructional differences found when comparing the same class with one section co-taught and the other solo-taught (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005).

Though there are many factors that could contribute to the instructional choices teachers make and the frequent usage of the one-teach/one-assist model, teachers report that professional experiences with co-teaching and training have a large influence on their co-teaching practices (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2016; Colson et al., 2021). As a result of this lack of specially designed instruction, there is moderate to little evidence of significant changes in academic performances for SWDs in co-taught classes when compared to their peers with and without disabilities in traditional classroom placements (King-Sears et al., 2021; Losinski et al., 2019; Murawski, 2006). These findings are similar when comparing the academic outcomes for SWDs in co-taught classes versus their peers who receive special education services in a more restrictive setting, such as resource classes (Packard et al., 2011). These results indicate a disconnect between what co-teaching should be, which is specially designed instruction to support SWDs, and what it often is: a special educator circling the room while the general educator leads instruction.

In a meta-synthesis of qualitative co-teaching studies (Strogilos et al., 2023), researchers identified that the following topics and themes were present in the majority of the findings: teacher perception of the impact of co-teaching; how teachers gain their skills and understanding of co-teaching, relationships and roles; willingness to co-teach; instructional practices; and barriers to co-teaching. These findings indicate that there has been some progress made in how teachers approach co-teaching to enhance the learning experience of both SWDs and students without disabilities, but there is still work to be carried out. For example, researchers have concluded that adequate co-planning is beneficial to a co-teaching partnership but is often not provided (Bessette, 2008; Strogilos et al., 2016; Weiss & Rodgers, 2020); that the one-teach/one-assist model is most frequently used (Weiss & Rodgers, 2020; Strogilos & King-Sears, 2019), making the special education teacher feel underutilized (Bessette, 2008); that consistency in partnerships can support better collaboration (Strogilos & Tragoulia, 2013); and that there is a lack of preparation for co-teaching skills (Meadows & Caniglia, 2018; Moin et al., 2009; Strogilos et al., 2015). Though there is research on the different influencers and components of co-teaching, there is a need for research that considers co-teaching as a dynamic framework and how the different components and influencers affect teachers and instructional choices (Strogilos et al., 2023).

1.2. Dynamic Systems Theory

Co-teaching partnerships are a compilation of complex parts and experiences that create a unique and ever-changing system when brought together. Thus, co-teaching partnerships can be thought of as a dynamic system that contains multiple interactive components. Dynamic systems theory explores how interactions between the components of a system can influence the overall system and the results of that system over time (Thelen, 2005). Haggis (2008) argues that dynamic systems do not have a singular influential variable driving the results but instead a number of factors interacting at the local level. For this study, the term influencers will be used to define variables or components (e.g., co-teaching experience, student population) that could be a part of the interactions that have affected the system. These influencers could be internal (e.g., experiences that the teachers have had) and external (e.g., classroom structure).

The goal of analyses with dynamic systems theory is to better understand the system and what results from influencer interactions. Through the lens of dynamic systems theory, each co-teaching partnership is a unique local system within the classroom that exists inside of a larger school system (see Figure 1). Thus, interaction between influencers in each context or system ultimately establishes a unique and dynamic system. The history of interactions among teachers and students is specific to each partnership, as are the effects of each interaction. This history gives each system coherence (e.g., establishes the system itself). Although co-teaching has existed for decades, few studies have explored the role of co-teaching as a dynamic system.

1.3. The Current Study

By exploring how co-teaching partnerships function, along with what internal and external structures are influencing them, we aimed to understand why there is a disconnect between what the literature tells us co-teaching should be, which is a collaborative partnership, and what it often is: a general educator leading instruction and a special educator in a supporting role. This was carried out through semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and the lens of dynamic systems theory. The following two research questions drove this study: RQ1: What do educators identify as influencers of their co-teaching systems, and what are the results of the interactions of those influencers? RQ2: What do educators identify as essential to a successful co-teaching system?

2. Materials and Methods

This case study, conducted from a secondary review, is focused on the phenomenon (i.e., co-teaching partnership development) of individual cases (i.e., specific co-teaching partnerships; Yin, 2018, p. 28). The cases included two co-teaching partnerships. These partnerships were selected to provide differing viewpoints, as one teacher in the partnership was new and teaching math, and the other had been working together for four years, teaching English Language Arts. The case was bounded by four weeks of observation time and the classes they taught together. The educators worked in other partnerships; however, those interactions are not included in this case study. Participants included one math teacher, one English Language Arts teacher, and two special education teachers.

2.1. Positionality

As an educator, I (first author) closely connected with the focus of this study. My experience as a co-teacher in a poorly functioning partnership and supporting co-teachers as an instructional coach has influenced my desire to explore what makes co-teaching partnerships function. I believe co-teaching has many benefits when the system operates the way it was intended to function, with two professionals working as a team to design instruction for the unique needs of SWDs. However, many partnerships, including my own, are less centered on specially designed instruction and more on the benefit of having an extra adult in the room to mitigate behavioral problems. Understanding what factors influence co-teaching is essential to student success. My own prior experiences lead me to have an opinion on what makes a co-teaching partnership function and what factors act as a barrier to successful partnerships. Though I had a negative experience as an educator, I have a positive outlook on how co-teaching can support SWDs. I reflected on any possible negative bias while coding to ensure that my personal experience did not influence the findings from the story each educator shared. The second and third authors did not participate in data analyses but did support the writing of this manuscript.

2.2. Ethical Considerations and Trustworthiness

District and university research approvals for this case study were received under the category of secondary data analysis. Participants’ names are pseudonyms, and any names were removed prior to the secondary data analysis. The original data was collected for an informal observation and interview. All data (i.e., interview transcripts and observation notes) were then shared with the first author for formal review. Individual interviews were conducted privately, as some questions required the interviewee to reflect on their co-teaching counterpart’s role.

To align with credibility measures for a case study analysis (Brantlinger et al., 2005), a code book is provided, data triangulation is used (e.g., observation and interview data), a thick description is included in the findings, and an audit trail was established. To address the trustworthiness and validity of the study, reflection on subjectivity and bias was essential throughout the study. A research memo was written weekly to reflect on matters such as ethical considerations, bias, and the coding process (Saldaña, 2015). An audit trail of all documents was established, including the codebook (Appendix A.1).

2.3. Data Collection

The original data collected for this secondary review was collected for an informal review of current practice. Each co-teaching partnership was observed during academic direct instruction twice, with each lasting at least one hour. The observation data provided for this secondary review were informal note-taking, including what the teachers were doing and saying and the instructional practices used. Observation notes and reflections were kept in a journal. Each teacher participated in a private semi-structured interview that was recorded and transcribed. Limited follow-up questions were used by the researcher. Each interview lasted approximately 45 min. See Appendix A.2 for a list of interview questions.

2.4. Data Analysis

Codes were established through several reviews of interview transcripts and observation notes to organize and group responses into themes that shared a characteristic or pattern with dynamic systems theory as the lens (Saldaña, 2015). Through the usage of dynamic systems theory and the process of emergent coding (Stemler, 2001), different interactions between elements in the co-teaching system were identified. Because of the irregularity of a dynamic system, consistent elements cannot be categorized, however, historical evidence (e.g., time, location, people) of influencer interactions was used to establish three code categories with subcodes. The first author used a thematic analysis process to develop themes based on the codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The first code category (i.e., components of co-teaching) was established based on specific components (e.g., length of the partnership) that the participants identified during the interview. The second category (i.e., effects of those components) was developed from any identified effect on the results of the partnership. The final category reflects what the teachers in the study believed were necessary internal and external structures for a successful system. After initially reviewing the interview responses, a secondary round of coding was completed to identify specific themes that were reported in the analysis (Clarke & Braun, 2016). To provide a more comprehensive analysis and increase validity, data triangulation was used to make connections between observations and interview responses (Thurmond, 2001).

2.5. Setting and Participants

The original data collection for this case study took place in one high school in a large southeastern school district. The 107 teachers and professional staff members (i.e., nurse, office staff, etc.) in the high school served 1786 students. The population size resulted in an 18:1 student-to-teacher ratio. Regarding inclusive educational needs, 21% of students received special education services (U.S. Office of Civil Rights Data Collection, 2020). As the data for this study was considered under the approval of a secondary review, only complete partnerships were included in the data review. The two partnerships are described in the following section.

2.5.1. Partnership 1: Mark and Bethany

Mark has been a mathematics educator for over a decade and has experience teaching middle and high school math. He also has experience with co-teaching at both levels. At the time of the interview, he was in his third year at the current high school. He was teaching two co-taught sections of Algebra 2 with his co-teaching partner, Bethany. He indicated that this was his first year working with her.

Bethany was a special education teacher with experience co-teaching English Language Arts and Mathematics. She had been teaching for seven years. Those seven years include teaching in two states (e.g., different states in the United States of America) and at the current school before moving to a different state. This was her first year back at her current school and her first year working with Mark in co-teaching Algebra 2. Her teaching schedule consisted of two co-teaching classes with Mark and one solo-teaching special education class called Educational Support (i.e., a resource class).

2.5.2. Partnership 2: Lynn and Amy

Lynn was an English Language Arts teacher in her fourth year of teaching. She had experience with a wide variety of English Language Arts courses, both in a co-taught and traditional solo-taught settings. She also had four years of experience working with her co-teaching partner, Amy. During the interview, she indicated that her schedule for the semester included co-teaching two English 2 courses with Amy and one solo-taught class.

Amy had been teaching for nineteen years and was in her seventh year at the current school. She had co-taught many times throughout her career. At the time of the interview, she was also serving as a co-department chair for the special education department. Her class schedule consisted of two co-taught classes with Lynn and one other co-taught English Language Arts class with a different teacher.

3. Findings

3.1. Components of the System and the Effects

When asked to describe the “perfect” co-teaching situation, teachers did not select one key influencer for the perfect scenario but multiple elements instead that must all be in play to support a well-functioning system. This section will break down each perceived influencer into four levels: (1) individual teacher, (2) partnership, (3) classroom, and (4) school.

3.1.1. Level 1: Individual Teacher

The most local level of the system of co-teaching was the individual teacher. Each teacher brought their own unique experiences, expectations, and beliefs. All educators in the study had previous co-teaching experience and teaching experience in general. Along with this, all teachers, except for Lynn, indicated that they were familiar with all six instructional models of co-teaching. Each of these educators also had a unique set of responsibilities outside of the classroom. These responsibilities included completing teacher duty (i.e., monitoring the halls) during planning time and supporting state testing, IEP meetings, and professional learning. One instance of differing school responsibilities was present in the observation notes for Lynn and Amy. Amy, a special education teacher, arrived at the class five minutes after Lynn, an English Language Arts teacher, had started instruction because she was completing a task as the department chair. Another classroom observation example occurred when Bethany worked with an individual student receiving oral accommodations on an assessment for 30 min of a 90 min instructional block, which kept her from monitoring other students’ work.

When asked about their specific role in the co-teaching partnership, the two special educators indicated that they tended to fall into a supportive role, with the content teachers typically leading instruction. For example, Mark, a math teacher, discussed his relationship with his special education co-teacher, Bethany, and stated the following:

…she [Bethany] is an expert in special education and knows exactly individuals learning difficulties or learning problems… while I read the IEP, she’s more versed in what works. I think I’m more on the math side where I know where the problems are for kids grabbing content or making connections with content.

In this quote, Mark identified how each teacher’s individual strengths also create different roles in a co-teaching partnership. He identified the special educator as the teacher with the most understanding of learning disabilities; therefore, she took on more of that role, whereas he was the content leader. The differing roles were apparent in their classroom observations. Mark led the lesson while Bethany walked around the room and supported individual students.

Another key component that teachers discussed was the educators’ desire to work with SWDs specifically as a co-teacher. Amy, a special education teacher working with the English Language Arts department, felt that teachers should be able to volunteer to be a co-teacher rather than being assigned, stating, “I think there needs to be this opportunity to volunteer. We need to be in a system where we can accommodate someone’s preference because we are asking them to take on more”. Amy discussed the need for the teachers to be interested in working with another professional, as well as the time commitment needed to plan specially designed instruction. She also reflected on other special educators’ experiences with not being welcomed in the partnership and being used more as an assistant and not as a teacher. Amy stated the following:

I’ve [Amy] had a very, very unusual co teaching experience, because it’s always been positive, has always been amazing. Some people are not, [they are] never welcomed in the room. They’re handed copies, so they’re told to go make copies. They don’t have any input on anything.

In this quote, Amy was discussing the more common experience of special educators in co-teaching partnerships. She referred to a general education teacher who was not interested in working with the special educator in planning and executing collaborative instruction. This quote also provides evidence of the one-teach/one-assist model being commonplace in co-taught classrooms. Bethany, a special educator, stated, “I think to make the best co-teaching scenario work, you have to be paired with somebody who likes these kids and who knows how to work with them”. Bethany identified the importance of the passion a teacher has for working with SWDs and that the success of a co-teaching partnership can be influenced by the general educator’s special education expertise.

3.1.2. Level 2: Co-Teaching Partnership Components

Bringing together educators creates another level in the system. For Bethany and Mark, their relationship was still growing as it was their first year working together. Mark said that they were still learning each other’s strengths and weaknesses, which played a role in how they taught. Amy and Lynn had been working together for four years and felt more comfortable teaching as a team. Both groups agreed that having a good relationship allows co-teaching to run more smoothly and that they could “balance each other out” when they were familiar with each other’s expertise. Amy, a special educator, stated, “Lynn [general educator] could teach this class, technically, without me. Where our partnership is important is in the presentation where we’re more equal, and in the reflection on what needs to change”. Amy was reflecting on how the individual teachers had their own strengths but that their partnership brought more to the classroom by identifying the role of the partnership. As the English Language Arts teacher, Lynn did not need a special educator with her to teach the class, but the dynamic of Lynn and Amy teaching together established a stronger and more supportive classroom. Evidence of their dynamic was seen during the classroom observation. Both Lynn and Amy stood at the front of the room during direct instruction and led portions of the content. During a station activity, both teachers worked equally with student groups, providing support with instructions and content and refocusing students to stay on task.

Both partnerships indicated that communication between teachers was a key influencer. Talking with each other throughout the day allowed for last-minute changes and allowed the teachers to understand the lesson plan before class. Mark, a math teacher, discussed how Bethany was not included in the unit planning meeting with the other math teachers. He thought that it would have been beneficial for their partnership if she had been a part of that planning. Mark stated the following:

In hindsight, I wish she [Bethany] would have been along for the course planning the other math PLC [professional learning community] teacher and I did last year. I think when we were making the plan I [Mark] wasn’t thinking about how I would do this as a co teacher. We [Mark and Bethany] probably should have planned ahead for some of those activities.

In this quote, Mark was reflecting on how he planned for the class in collaboration with another math teacher but did not include Bethany, his co-teaching partner. Because of this, he did not consider how to implement the co-teaching models into the unit plan. Mark’s counterpart, Bethany, also referenced planning and making instructional choices. She said the following:

They [math department] have the algebra PLC. In general, they had planned out last year, like, the timeline and everything. So he [Mark] already has that set. But we’ll talk almost daily about like, should we get rid of this part? Should we do this instead? You know, second block didn’t really get this part so fourth block, should we change it up this way? So we definitely plan and talk about it every day.

In this quote, Bethany noted the importance of being able to plan and carry out discussions daily in making instructional decisions collaboratively, even if they did not work together to establish the semester’s plan. Both partnerships agreed that co-planning allowed for more frequent and timely communication and collaborative instruction.

3.1.3. Level 3: Classroom Components

Teachers reported that classroom structure affected which instructional strategies they used. For example, Bethany indicated that she had learned about Parallel Teaching in prior special education training but did not use the model because the classroom space was too small to divide the students into two groups while also having both teachers instructing.

We [Mark and Bethany] kind of came to the conclusion that it [Parallel Teaching] just doesn’t work with both of us in the room, like having two groups at the same time. Like, doing like full on instruction, because then kids are like, he said something like what you say, and so it just didn’t work. It [Parallel Teaching] doesn’t work in the same room…it doesn’t work because we’re both talking at the same time have tried that before. It does work if you can find a room.

In this quote, Bethany explained why she felt the model of Parallel Teaching was not used as often. She indicated that it would be too distracting for both teachers to be instructing at the same time in their classroom. All teachers referenced class size as influencing their system. Too large a class resulted in the teachers being unable to provide as much individual attention for students and affected their instructional choices.

3.1.4. Level 4: School-Level Components

The school plays a role in how the system functions. Different schools have differing expectations of teachers, which influence who is paired together and for what classes. Amy and Lynn felt that their partnership consistency had influenced how their system functioned. Lynn felt that she could trust Amy to teach more content because she had been a special educator with the English Language Arts department for several years. Beyond the partnership’s longevity, consistency in the courses being taught was important to both partnerships. All teachers talked about the benefits of teaching together for multiple classes of the same content, allowing the pair to adjust between classes. Bethany stated, “that is helpful, because we can gauge like, hey, second block didn’t get it. Let’s do this differently in fourth block.” Bethany was reflecting on how they can make instructional changes to better the lesson for the next class. Amy had a clearer picture of the school components as a department chair. When asked about logistics and keeping partnerships consistent, she said the following:

You get a good pairing and you leave it… you have the allowance in the master schedule to identify a good thing and keep it going. With that same allowance, you identify a bad thing and you abandon it and you fix it.

In this quote, Amy identified how school leaders can make the choice to schedule co-teaching partnerships, allow good partnerships to continue, and find different solutions for partnerships that do not work.

Another influence that the school had was including co-planning in scheduling. When discussing a prior experience where Bethany did not have co-planning, she said, “It was just really hard to like touch base, and I would walk in, and then she would have changed the plans… we didn’t get a chance to talk about it”. In this quote, Bethany identified the barriers created by not having co-planning, which affected her connection to instruction. Though Amy did not believe that co-planning was vital for a successful partnership, she did indicate that it is helpful for newer partnerships and that administrators should keep that in mind when creating schedules.

4. Discussion

Co-teaching is not just a partnership between two educators; it is a dynamic system where the individual components, though important on their own, interact to reveal emergent phenomena. This is evident in the influencers of co-teaching that the participants identified and was made apparent during classroom observations.

4.1. Duration of the System

At the teacher level, classroom experience was important; however, experiences with respect to being together as a team seemed to be essential. Experience with being together in a partnership allows for the system to develop and flourish over time. For a dynamic system, time allows history and influencers to establish an effect, ultimately establishing the system’s existence. Haggis (2008) considers this history and interaction time as what gives a dynamic system coherence and what makes a system exist. When connecting this concept to a co-teaching system, if a partnership is not kept consistent with respect to influencers, such as their experience, content understanding, or instructional expertise in interactions, then their system is never truly established. A dynamic system requires time to be a functioning system (Haggis, 2008). One group in this study was allowed time to establish coherence, and the result of this was more collaborative teaching. In Mark and Bethany’s case, they both had experience with co-teaching; however, their lack of experience in working together stifled how they integrated collaborative strategies. This is in line with the findings of Strogilos and Tragoulia (2013); teachers felt that they could be more collaborative when their partnerships were kept consistent. School leaders must consider this need for consistency when establishing master schedules. Cotaught classes require more intentionality when bringing teachers together, and this intentionality must stretch beyond a semester or school year to establish a collaborative co-teaching system. If partnerships are constantly changing, coherence is never established, and educators are not able to build better systems each year.

4.2. Instructional Decision-Making

Researchers point to co-teachers using the one-teach/one-assist model most frequently, and it is least effective when used as the only instructional model (Burks-Keeley & Brown, 2014; Strogilos & King-Sears, 2019). The system teachers are working in must be considered to better understand why fewer collaborative models are being implemented. For example, parallel teaching is not frequently used (Burks-Keeley & Brown, 2014); however, when teachers were asked why, they did not indicate an unwillingness or unfamiliarity. Instead, teachers pinpointed classroom restrictions and student distractions. Teachers responded that they see the benefit but identified a lack of planning and student behavior as a barrier to the effective usage of more collaborative teaching strategies.

Teachers will not change their practices if they do not feel they have time to prepare for the changes (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). When components interact (e.g., time outside of classroom responsibilities), the resulting effect changes the collaboration. Beyond the time for planning, there must also be considerations for how instructional time is protected to allow for co-teachers to implement more collaborative teaching practices. In this study, Bethany and Mark pinpointed outside-of-the-classroom responsibilities as one influencer on their instructional choices. Bethany, the special educator, was taken away from being present in class for reasons like supporting state testing, providing individual accommodations (e.g., oral testing), and leading IEP meetings. This time away from the class kept this partnership from using strategies that required two educators (e.g., team teaching).

4.3. Co-Teaching as a Dynamic System

Our primary aim was to better understand the perceived influencers that establish co-teaching partnerships through the lens of dynamic systems theory. In a dynamic system, there are different contexts (systems) and internal and external structure influencers for each unique version of this phenomenon (Haggis, 2008; see Figure 1).

Research regarding co-teaching reflects these findings. Teachers report not having adequate time during their workday to plan or connect with their co-teaching partner, despite the benefits of having time to build a cohesive instructional plan (Strogilos et al., 2016; Weiss & Rodgers, 2020). Dynamic systems theory connects this lack of time with partnerships. Whether that time is for a single class or for a more long-term relationship, the findings of this study show that instructional decisions change because of the togetherness influencer. For example, in this study and others, more consistent partnerships report using more collaborative instructional methods (Strogilos & Tragoulia, 2013). However, time spent together may not be the only influencer that has acted on the dynamic system. If this was the case, there would be a singular support that could be put in place that would benefit all co-teaching partnerships in the same way. Haggis (2008) suggests that there is not a singular influencer on a dynamic system. Our findings would suggest that collaborative instructional methods are a result of the multiple influencers acting on the co-teaching partnership and the resulting system that has been developed because of those influencers.

Though it is impossible to identify every influencer interaction that has established the system, after data analysis, we have established a more specific model for a co-teaching system. The interactions of these components are presented in Figure 2, which shows how influencers connect at different levels of the co-teaching system. This model was adapted from Haggis (2008) and explains how an individual narrative is analyzed in the structure of a dynamic system. The interactions between different influencers are represented with small dots. These interactions could be their lack of planning time, previous experiences with co-teaching, and school expectations. These interactions in turn influence the structure of the system (i.e., the overall model). The lines between each interaction (i.e., the dots) represent the developing structure of the system because of the interaction. Over time, these interactions and structure may change as the system evolves. The two small ovals make up the two teachers at the center of this system. Each of the subsequently larger ovals represents other larger systems that the co-teaching partnership functions inside of. These systems also have dynamic boundaries that, in turn, influence the overall system. This model is unique and only represents one co-teaching partnership.

4.4. Implications for Practice and Research

These findings show that looking at these individual pieces without considering the system will not support better practice. There is a need to look at co-teaching as a dynamic framework and to consider how influencers affect instructional choices and ultimately student outcomes (Strogilos et al., 2023). For example, suppose that school leaders are attempting to support partnerships by creating co-planning blocks but are changing teacher pairings every year. In this case, the influence will not be as significant on the overall system because the partnership cannot grow through consistency. Suppose that the partnership is created with more intentionality, but the special educator is frequently pulled from the classroom for other responsibilities. In this case, those well-matched teachers will not be able to integrate more collaborative instructional practices. Instruction in class might be in the form of the one-teach/one-assist model not because the teachers are uncomfortable with using the other models but because their system does not allow it.

Despite the informative findings, they must be interpreted with caution, as this study represents the experiences of two pairs of co-teachers in one district. These findings are very limited by a short observation time frame. More observation data could illuminate the effect of perceived influencers in the future. Though this case study is limited by the partnership that bound the findings, the results provide compelling details of the interworking of a co-teaching system. A final limitation to consider when reviewing these findings is that only one researcher developed and applied the codes used to analyze the data. In future research, this codebook could be applied to other case studies with at least two researchers confirming the thematic findings.

To move co-teaching forward, researchers must look at the whole picture, which is the dynamic system, when considering how to best support partnerships. Before attempting to support the instruction, time must be taken to understand the system, as support cannot be generalized for all partnerships. To understand how each partnership’s complex components function and what supports are needed, a view from inside the system instead of outside is needed (Haggis, 2008). Traditional large-group professional learning will likely not be a successful method that can move the needle on creating collaborative partnerships. Targeted, individualized coaching and support are needed.

Research is needed on how changes in a co-teaching system can influence student outcomes and instructional decision-making. One recommendation would be to focus on relationship building and co-planning. There could be a benefit in teachers attending training together and having the time to plan instruction that incorporates both teachers’ expertise. Another research opportunity would be to conduct a longitudinal study that follows a partnership working together over multiple years to see how instructional choices change. Because it is impossible to identify a single “key” influencer that makes a co-teaching system successful, understanding how factors function together will provide insight into future success stories for co-teaching pairs.