Towards inclusion teacher learning in co teaching anna rytivaara

JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH 453 Anna Rytivaara Towards Inclusion Teacher Learning in Co-Teaching JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH 453 Anna Rytivaara Towards Inclusion Teacher Learning in Co-Teaching Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston päärakennuksen salissa C5 marraskuun 16. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Education of the University of Jyväskylä, in the university main building, hall C5, on November 16, 2012 at 12 o'clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2012 Towards Inclusion Teacher Learning in Co-Teaching JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH 453 Anna Rytivaara Towards Inclusion Teacher Learning in Co-Teaching UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2012 Editors Markku Leskinen Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Sini Tuikka Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä Cover picture: Elli Virmasalo URN:ISBN:978-951-39-4927-3 ISBN 978-951-39-4927-3 (PDF) ISBN 978-951-39-4926-6 (nid.) ISSN 0075-4625 Copyright © 2012, by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä 2012 “There are moments in life where the question of knowing whether one might think otherwise than one thinks and perceive otherwise than one sees is indispensable if one is to continue to observe or reflect.” – Michel Foucault ABSTRACT Rytivaara, Anna Towards inclusion – teacher learning in co-teaching Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2012, 70 p.) ISBN 978-951-39-4927-3 (PDF) The framework of this study is built around the concepts of inclusive education and teacher learning, and embedded in the practice of ethnographic fieldwork. In many classes, in Finland and elsewhere, teachers face diverse groups of pupils.

Many pupils with special educational needs are educated by a general education teacher with little knowledge on special education. Two primary school classroom teachers who had combined their classes and created a pedagogical system that was based on co-teaching provided the data for this study. One-third of their pupils were labelled as with special needs. The study had two aims.

The first aim was to understand how teachers experience co-teaching and how co-teaching is implemented in the classroom. The second aim was to study teacher learning within co-teaching. These aims reflect different levels of teachers’ work. The first aim concerns the level narrated by the teachers and observed by the researcher in the classroom whereas the second level is more conceptual and hidden behind the everyday work of teachers.

The data were collected through ethnographic fieldwork, and comprise fieldnotes and interviews. Ethnographic content analysis and narrative analysis were used to analyse the data. The findings form a story that illustrates different aspects of the teachers’ learning process regarding their co-teaching. They found each other and commenced co-teaching in a supportive working environment.

This resulted in several analytically separate outcomes: a shared professional identity, knowledge-sharing and constructing new knowledge, new practice in the form of a grouping system, and disciplinary practices. Moreover, co-teaching was also a content of their joint learning as they became involved in it together. In practice, the various factors were intertwined in the shared learning process of the two teachers. The teachers’ professional development was oriented towards inclusive education.

It is concluded that teachers’ professional learning is a complex and multi- dimensional process that can have far-reaching consequences in both teacher thinking and classroom practice. When both teachers share certain values and beliefs, co-teaching may also provide teachers’ with sufficient support to teach an inclusive classroom so that it results in positive experiences. Keywords: Teacher learning, co-teaching, inclusive education, classroom management Author’s address Anna Rytivaara Department of Education Special education PL 35 40014 University of Jyväskylä anna.fi Supervisors Markku Jahnukainen Department of Teacher Education University of Helsinki Markku Leskinen Department of Education University of Jyväskylä Reviewers Leena Syrjälä Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education University of Oulu Jan Vermunt Department of Education University of Utrecht Opponent Leena Syrjälä Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education University of Oulu ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research is always a collaborative process, based on significant moments that lead us. I remember numerous moments spent with my favourite cousin Petri, then a PhD student himself, who is to blame that I chose Jyväskylä although I had never visited the city before.

He is also to blame for my decision to strive for a Doctorate myself. I remember a moment sitting on the lawn before Liikun- ta-building on a sunny day in June 1999: here I belong. Later that summer, an- other trip to Jyväskylä with Petri who walked me to the entrance exam of spe- cial education. The moment when I was accepted, my goal was clear.

My parents raised me to believe I can achieve whatever I want. Their love and support have made my life so much easier and helped me to focus on things that really matter. I am ever so grateful that both of you are still here to share these big moments with me. My dearest brother Mikko, I have no words to express how important you are to me – thank you for being so Mikko.

I am also happy to share my life with another PhD, Juha, my love. Now there are two of us! And all my friends, you are the best. Particular thanks goes to Ilona, not only for starting this research with me but for our YYA-agreement; and Carita, for, well, everything. I want to thank all my supervisors: Professor Sakari Moberg, for teaching me not to embrace the whole world at once; Professor Markku Jahnukainen for teaching me to believe in what I am doing and to never give up; and university teacher Markku Leskinen for teaching me to think outside the box.

I also want to thank Professor Paula Määttä for her perspicacious comments. Furthermore, I express my gratitude to Tanja Vehkakoski who always had time to discuss all, more or less, urgent matters, and to read my draft papers when needed. Thank you for your support. Each of you helped to find my own way.

In addition to the official supervisors, two professors have encouraged me in their personal way. They considered the earlier stages of my work as if it may prove out to be appropriate: Professor Jarkko Hautamäki commenting on my research plan and Professor Simo Vehmas commenting on my academic English. I value all these critical approvals and comments as important in preparing me towards aca- demic life. In the final phase of the work, the pre-examiners Professor Jan Ver- munt and Professor Leena Syrjälä gave me valuable comments that helped me to finalise the work – thank you.

I thank the University of Jyväskylä for having me employed throughout the process. I have been happy to work here; first, at the Department of Special Education with Markku Sassi as the head, and later, at the Department of Edu- cational Sciences led by Anja-Riitta Lehtinen. Besides the Department, the for- mer Rector of the University, Aino Sallinen, provided me funding for two years – thank You. Our special education people form a warm community for work- ing, sharing and laughing – let’s keep it that way.

I also want to thank the Finn- ish Cultural Foundation for the grant for our Master’s project of which data I further used for this thesis. The two teachers who let me inside their classroom and in their stories not only provided me with the data for this research but have inspired me with their enthusiasm since we first met. I warmly thank you, and the former princi- pal of the school, and all the pupils I met. This is your story, my version of it.

In Jyväskylä, in the midst of orange October Author LIST OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES Sub-study 1 Rytivaara, A. (2012) ‘We don’t question whether we can do this’: teacher identity in two co-teachers’ narratives. European Educational Research Journal 11(2), 302-313.302 Sub-study 2 Rytivaara, A. (2012) Co-teaching as a context for teachers’ professional learning and joint knowledge construction.

Teaching and Teacher Education 28(7), 999-1008.006 Sub-study 3 Rytivaara, A. (2011) Flexible grouping as a means for classroom management in a heterogeneous classroom. European Educational Research Journal 10(1), 118- 128.118 Sub-study 4 Rytivaara, A. (2012) Collaborative classroom management in a co-taught primary school classroom.

International Journal of Educational Research 53(1), 182-191.008 FIGURES FIGURE 1 The relation of the sub-studies to the whole. 14 FIGURE 2 The relation between teacher learning and professional development .21 TABLES TABLE 1 The research questions across the sub-studies. 15 TABLE 2 Comparative example of stage models. 22 TABLE 3 The data collection process.

35 TABLE 4 Summary of the data analysis and research questions of the sub-studies. 39 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES FIGURES AND TABLES CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .2 Aims of the study. 12 2 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES AND KEY CONCEPTS .1 Inclusive education: ideology and practice .2 Teacher knowledge and teacher identity .3 Professional development and teacher learning .1 The phases and modes of professional development .3 Co-teaching and collaborative teacher learning. 27 3 THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY .1 The Finnish school system and teacher education.

31 4 METHODOLOGICAL STARTING POINTS .1 Story 1: Ethnographic case study (getting started).2 Story 2: The reality of the fieldwork .3 Story 3: Analysis process .2 Credibility and limitations .1 Sub-study 1: Shared teacher identity .2 Sub-study 2: Professional learning and joint knowledge construction .3 Sub-study 3: Flexible grouping .4 Sub-study 4: Collaborative classroom management .5 Metathemes through the sub-studies .1 Co-teaching – the beginning .2 Collaborative and transformative learning .3 Beliefs and values – inclusive education .5 Implications for teacher education and professional development .1 Starting points The research process is always a story with several turns and phases. This pro- cess involves a number of people whose personal and professional lives it is intertwined with. Thus, to be true to the traditions of ethnography and narra- tive research that I have used in this study, this report will unfold in the form of narratives about my research process, and they as such, will constitute a metanarrative (Atkinson 1992; Hammersley & Atkinson 2007). The story begins with the choice of research topic.

My first starting point was inclusive education in the Finnish school sys- tem. In many classes, in Finland and elsewhere, teachers face diverse groups of pupils. Namely, the class to be taught can be a general education class or a “small” or a special education class, although, truly homogeneous groups hard- ly exist. Accordingly, teachers are tagged according to their specific teacher ed- ucation.

Nevertheless, regardless of the teacher education a teacher has received, he or she ought to be able to teach the class. Many pupils with special educa- tional needs are educated by a general education teacher with no, or hardly any, instruction in special education. Some call this approach “inclusive”, which has led to misunderstanding of the meaning of the term. Teachers’ perceptions of this situation differ as do their stance, one reason for this being that teachers are individuals with personal professional identities.

I wished to find a positive case – a teacher who enjoyed teaching his or her class that would include some pupils labelled as having special educational needs. I ended up in doing eth- nography with a co-teaching dyad in a classroom that seemed rather inclusive. My second starting point, doing fieldwork, involves collecting and creat- ing stories: my stories about my research and other people, and other people’s stories as they tell them and as I hear and understand them. At school, I became interested in studying teacher learning and teacher professional development in the co-teaching context.

I first approached teacher learning with the purpose of understanding the teachers with whom I would be spending my time during 12 my fieldwork in their school and from whom I would be collecting my data. For them, self-initiated change was something that drove them forwards; as they put it, they wanted to be teachers “as long as we keep inventing something new”. As such, learning was, besides being essential, a shared process.