The Final Project/Research Paper is a written paper of about 8-10 pages (double-spaced) on an approved topic (research and practical applications) from course content. The documenting and referencing sources must follow APA style. You may select one of the topics we cover in this course that is of your interest. The goal is to conduct in-depth research on a topic in Teaching English Learners (ELs) with Sheltered Content Instruction that you find intriguing and to develop research skills through literature review and case studies. 

Approved Topic:Implementation of  CoTeaching in the General Education Classroom and Implications  for ELLs PrePandemic and During the Pandemic

General Psychology

Blog Topic – Week 2

I’d Hate to Lose My . . .

Clearly, the brain is a vital part of the body. But suppose you were the subject of a diabolical experiment looking at the functions of the various brain areas. A mad scientist wants to do “removal studies” in order to isolate these functions. The mad scientist does have a heart though–he lets his subjects decide which brain structures they’d like to give up. If you were a subject in this heinous (and thankfully fictional) experiment, which three brain structures would you be willing to give up?

Week 2 Assignment

Chapter 3

1. Do you think it’s possible that personality is completely localized in one portion of the brain? If so, how could you explain the fact that someone’s personality can seem to change depending on the situation?

2. Other than as a treatment for epilepsy, can you think of any situations in which having a split brain might actually be more beneficial than a unified brain?

3. Initiation of the flight or fight response clearly has adaptive value. Can you think of any circumstances in which this response might actually lower the chances of an adaptive response?

4. Define the field known as neuroscience.

5.What is the function of the endocrine system? What are hormones? What does the pituitary gland do?

6. Distinguish between a genotype and a phenotype.

Chapter 4

TV Characters and Erikson’s stages

In this exercise, it’s your assignment to watch TV! Look over Erikson’s stages and the “psychosocial conflicts” that he claims are encountered by people entering various stages of life.

Television shows are filled with people in different stages of life (although you will find more TV shows focusing on the 20-50 set than on any other). Pick out four characters (or real people, in the case of talk shows) from TV shows that differ substantially in age, covering different parts of the life span. These characters might be in four different shows, or might all be in the same show. What are the everyday trials and tribulations experienced by these characters? What are their main concerns or worries? Do they fit in with Erikson’s stages of development? Explain.

70 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / F E b r u a r y 2 0 1 6

Anne Beninghof

and Mandy Leensvaart

T
hree years ago, Juan
arrived from the streets
of Honduras to enroll at
Field Elementary School
in Little ton, Colorado.

He spoke no English, had never
attended school, and had no idea how
to function in a classroom. Juan had
trouble walking in a line of students
and sitting still in the classroom, and
he could not identify one letter name
or sound. However, Juan did bring
a wealth of experiences and a rich
culture to share with his peers.

Andrea Scott, an English language
development (ELD) teacher at Field
Elementary, remembers how she ini-
tially felt about Juan being placed in a

regular classroom when he entered his
4th grade year:

In the beginning, I balked. I argued
about where Juan should be during
the 4th grade reading lessons. Juan
was reading at a kindergarten level! He
couldn’t decode 4th grade texts and did
not have enough English to participate
in classroom discussions. I wanted to
pull him out and rescue him.

In the past, students like Juan
received language instruction in a
pullout model, at times segregated
from native-speaking peers. The
emphasis was on basic interpersonal
communicative skills and foundational
reading skill instruction. This method
of instruction seemed to serve stu-
dents well, but the demographics at
Field Elementary School have changed
significantly in the last few years.

Today, 61 percent of its population
is Hispanic, 42 percent of students
are English language learners (ELLs),
and 81 percent qualify for free and
reduced-price lunch.

This changing demographic con-
tributed to a drop to “Improvement”
status on the Colorado State Per-
formance Framework. This was
disheartening for Field, a school in
a district that has been “Accredited
with Distinction” for five years in a
row. As the only school in the district
on “Improvement” status, the Field
Elementary community felt defeated
and isolated.

But we didn’t stay discouraged for
long. Instead, we became invested
in the idea that by changing what
we could control—our instruc-
tional practices—we could improve

Co-Teaching
to Support
ELLs A Colorado elementary school brings together

teachers with
differing areas of
expertise to change
students’ lives.

Beninghof.indd 70 1/6/16 5:55 AM

A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 71

outcomes for our ELLs. District and
building leadership, including teacher
leaders, redesigned the instructional
model at Field to include these
priorities:

n Access to classroom instruction for
every ELL 100 percent of the day.

n Co-teaching partnerships in which
English language development (ELD)
teachers and classroom teachers
shared equal responsibility for all
aspects of the instructional cycle.

n Specialized daily language
instruction for ELLs integrated into
reading and math.

With these ends in mind, the
leader ship team dove into the work
of strategic planning. Co-teaching
quickly revealed itself as the most
effective, efficient way to maximize
teacher and student growth.

The Co-Teaching Ideal
Co-teaching brings two educators with
differing areas of expertise together to
serve students for part or all of their
school day. During the co-planning
phase, each teacher typically has a
specific role. For example, the ELD
teacher might contribute knowledge
and skills regarding language learners

by identifying vocabulary barriers
in the lesson, determining needed
language scaffolds, and planning for
meaningful speaking and listening
opportunities. The classroom teacher’s
role might be to determine the
learning target, pacing of content, and
alignment to standards.

As they co-teach the lesson, both
teachers are actively engaged. As the
lesson progresses, partners might
decide, on the basis of formative
assessment, to transition from the
whole group to small groups, with
each teacher taking responsibility for
one or two groups. In effective co-
teaching, the sense that all students are
“our students” pervades every aspect
of the instructional cycle.

Unfortunately, examples of poor
co-teaching abound. Simply placing
two educators together in a classroom
does not result in effective co-teaching.
When districts have tried this, many
found that the classroom teacher ends
up in charge while the ELD teacher is
drastically underused, holding up the
wall in the back waiting to help out
or becoming a “kid whisperer” for the
ELLs. To avoid this kind of situation,
we needed to provide systematic, long-
term professional learning activities for
our co-teachers.

Our Learning Plan
To implement our new co-teaching
plan, we designed professional
learning activities organized in an I
do, we do, you do, or gradual release,
framework.

I Do
In the I do phase, we brought in
experts to provide high-quality
workshops on the basics of

Co-teaching quickly
revealed itself as

the most effective,
efficient way to

maximize teacher
and student growth.

©
S

U
S

IE
F

IT
Z

H

U
G

H

Beninghof.indd 71 12/31/15 12:01 PM

72 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / F E b r u a r y 2 0 1 6

co-teaching. Facilitators modeled
effective co-teaching and showed
videos (such as the one at https://
youtu.be/xOI5sPJFoDA) for co-
teachers to analyze. After viewing
videos and modeled examples,
teachers commented, “Oh, that’s what
it’s supposed to look like!” and “Now
we have a clearer picture of what
we’re trying to do.” These models
were indispensable in developing a
positive vision.

Because partners attended together,
they could share expertise right from
the start. When watching videos,
ELD teachers were able to point out
language barriers and scaffolds in
the model lessons, while classroom
teachers were able to draw attention
to large-group management issues and
content-driven strategies.

Partners also discussed their roles
and responsibilities, how they would
design lesson plans together, and
which grouping practices might
work best. We provided some
guidance, while recognizing that
each partner ship might have unique
features.

We Do
The we do phase, which spanned a
two-year period, involved a variety
of activities for co-teachers. Every
co-teaching pair received extensive
coaching from district ELD leadership,
customized to meet team members’
specific needs. For instance, some
ELD teachers needed to boost their
strategies for academic vocabulary
instruction, and some classroom
teachers needed additional ideas for
differentiation.

This phase also included side-by-
side teaching, in which the coach
would intervene during an observed
lesson to demonstrate a language
development strategy or participation
structure.

You Do
As co-teachers became more confident,
they were ready to embrace the you do
phase. Initially, this phase focused on
structured reflection. Partners were
encouraged to examine their practices
honestly and deeply and to commu-
nicate with each other about areas for
growth. Reflections included questions
like these:

n Do we have clearly defined
roles that capitalize on our areas of
expertise?

n Are there times when one of us is
underused?

n How engaged are the students?
Are we providing enough rigor?

n Are we maximizing our ELLs’ lan-
guage development?

Co-teachers then began to visit one
another’s classrooms and provide their
peers with constructive feedback.
These observations were especially
powerful for one ELD teacher. After
watching her colleagues, she realized
that she needed to raise her expecta-
tions for ELLs’ participation in whole-
group activities. Her next planning
session with her co-teacher was
rich with discussion about partici-
pation structures that would increase
engagement. The very next week,
she used a strategy called Blanket the
Table. Each student had four scraps

of paper. As a team, students brain-
stormed ideas and drew or wrote them
on the scraps, covering their table as
much as possible in the time provided
and ensuring that every ELL con-
tributed at least one idea.

Refining the Work
As the co-teaching initiative con-
tinued, two needs became vividly
clear. First, partners needed more
guidance in clarifying their new
roles. Second, repeated coaching and
practice was necessary to guarantee
that lesson planning was truly scaf-
folded and differentiated for ELLs.

Role Clarification
Because ELD teachers were now
delivering instruction to an entire
classroom and not just a small group
of ELLs, we needed to define their
roles more clearly. Some classroom
teachers struggled with sharing
instructional time, releasing control,
and seeing the value of their co-
teacher. Some ELD teachers struggled
with teaching a large group of students
and integrating effective language
instruction into their teaching. We had
to get clear on what students needed.

Because of the significant level of
poverty at Field Elementary, we knew
that students had likely been exposed
to less oral conversation in the home
than students from wealthier back-
grounds and thus had a significant
gap in their vocabulary size. Whether
students were native English speakers
or not, the ELD teachers could help;
they had a valuable set of skills they
used to provide explicit instruction
in the language of reading, writing,
and mathematics to decrease this
gap. Once this role was explicitly
defined and the rationale clear,
teachers were able to move forward
in  implementing  co-teaching.

Now, observers in a Field Ele-

We became invested
in the idea that by
changing what we
could control—
our instructional

practices—we could
improve outcomes

for our ELLs.

Beninghof.indd 72 12/31/15 12:01 PM

A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 73

mentary co-taught classroom will see
each teacher using his or her particular
areas of expertise. Mrs. Oliver, an ELD
teacher, might lead the class in a game
to review important terms in their
fractions unit. While she is leading, the
classroom teacher might develop stu-
dents’ content knowledge by jumping
in with practice problems. As the game
progresses, Mrs. Oliver will point
out cognates or draw simple illustra-
tions on the board to help students
understand the meaning of numerator,
denominator, half, quarter, whole, and
so on. Mrs. Oliver’s role is distinctly
that of language acquisition specialist,
while her co-teaching partner is the
content specialist.

Lesson Planning
When it became clear
that ELD teachers
needed to take the lead
on the language com-
ponents of instruction,
the co-planning process
shifted. We redesigned
lesson plan forms to
include prompts related
to learning targets,
academic language
instruction, and partici-
pation structures.

For a 5th grade
reading comprehension
lesson with a target
of “I can sequence key events from
a story,” ELD teacher Andrea Scott
identified crucial academic vocabulary
words—sequence, main idea, plot, char-
acter—as well as vocabulary from the
text students would read. She then
taught students this new vocabulary
with visuals, gestures, oral rehearsal,
and kid-friendly synonyms. Classroom
teacher Sally Moore, knowing stu-
dents more thoroughly than Scott did,
composed the student teams. Moore
also printed sentence strips for these

student teams to put in order and
developed a computerized version of
the exercise that was similar to a task
from the PARCC test. The partners
decided to use a Twister spinner to
choose which teams would share their
sequences, ensuring that everyone,

including the ELLs,
would be expected to
share and justify their
decisions.

Changing Lives
After just one year
of implementing
this model, Field
Elementary School’s
median student growth
percentile moved from a
rating of “Approaching”
to “Exceeds,” the
highest rating possible
in Colorado. Teacher
and principal surveys

reported tremendous support for the
model. Classroom teacher Sally Moore
shared,

This is my 10th year at Field, and I
finally feel like we’re reaching our ELL
population, mostly because of the co-
teaching model. My co-teacher brings
scaffolds to the classroom that help all
students be successful. I only wish we
co-taught all day together!

Thanks to the rapid success at Field
Elementary, co-teaching has now
expanded to a districtwide model.

Littleton Public Schools received
the English Language Proficiency
Act Excellence Award from the state
education department in 2014, rec-
ognizing it as one of the top 10 ELD
programs in Colorado.

A year later, ELD teacher Andrea
Scott notes how school has changed
for Juan:

It happened. In a classroom shared-
reading lesson, Juan was called on to
share his group’s thinking. I was worried
that he was going to be silent and point
to a friend for help. But this time and
every time after that, he spoke up. I was
floored by his knowledge, his poise, and
his sincere comprehension of the 4th
grade-level text. The scaffolds we had
provided worked! He was doing the
thinking of a 4th grader. That’s when it
hit me; he had been a 4th grade thinker
all along. He deserved to be doing this
work alongside his classmates. By taking
him away from the classroom as I had
initially wanted, I would have starved
him of these rich discussions and
robbed him of grade-level content. This
was the moment I realized co-teaching
was where my work and energy needed
to be focused as an ELD professional.

Because the Field Elementary staff
invested in improving instructional
practices and partnered together to
engage in complicated work, ELLs like
Juan now have a brighter future. And
the practice of two teachers like
Andrea and Sally is forever changed. EL

Copyright © 2016 Anne Beninghof and
Mandy Leensvaart

Anne Beninghof (anne@ideasfor
educators .com) is the author of Co-
Teaching That Works: Structures and
Strategies for Maximizing Student
Learning (Jossey-Bass, 2012) and works
as a consultant and trainer with schools
around the country. Mandy Leensvaart
(mleensvaart@lps.k12.co.us) is a school
district administrator leading the English
language development program for
Littleton Public Schools.

Video Bonus
Scan the QR code or

go to https://youtu.be/
xOI5sPJFoDA to watch

two teachers share their
instruction to support
all students in learning
academic vocabulary

and content.

In effective co-teaching,
the sense that all

students are “our
students” pervades
every aspect of the
instructional cycle.

Beninghof.indd 73 12/31/15 12:01 PM

Copyright of Educational Leadership is the property of Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

WINTER 2008

Co-teaching in the ESL Classroom
BY ANDREA HONIGSFELD AND MARiA DOVE

The authors explore the transferability of co-
teaching models and techniques from the field
of Special Education to that of Teaching English
to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). They
review five possible co-teaching configurations
and offer suggestions on avoiding potential
pitfalls. They conclude that co-teaching can
(a) become an effective support for inclusive
practices to accommodate the needs of diverse
English Language learners; (b) help all students
meet national, state, and local standards; (c)
establish a vehicle for creative collaboration
between English as a Second Language (ESL)
and mainstream teachers.

^ ^Creative collaboration flourishes
when everyone understands that
great ideas generally emerge from

a democratic process of throwing all
ideas (good and goofy) into a pot where
they tumble and merge, collapsing
and reforming into something often
completely unexpected and new” (Snead
& Wycoff, n.d.).

TeachercoUaboration must have intrigued
educators ever since the Little Red School House
expanded to include more than one teacher. Even
though most schools are still considered to follow
the early 20th century model of “Cells and Bells”
(Nair & Fielding, 2005) with most teachers
working in isolation in their own classrooms, we

ANDREA HONIGSFELD MARIA DOVE

believe that for the sake of our students, there is a
place and time for creative collaboration among
all teachers.

Co-teaching is traditionally defined as
the collaboralion between general and special
education (SPED) teachers for all of the teaching
responsibilities of all of the students assigned
to a classroom (Gately & Gately, 2001). This
definition has frequently been expanded to
allow the collaborative partnership between a
mainstream teacher and a service provider or
specialist other than a SPED teacher, such as
a remedial math teacher, a reading specialist,
a teacher of the gifted and talented and, more
recently, the English as a Second Language (ESL)
teacher. The purpose of this article is to explore
how co-teaching can (a) become an effective

T H E DELTA KAPPA GAMMA BULLETIN

support for inclusive practices to accommodate
the needs of diverse English Language Learners
(ELLs); (b) help all students meet the national,
state and local standards; and (c) establish a
vehicle for creative collaboration between ESL
and mainstream teachers. In addition, we also
share practical tips on how to implement an
effective co-teaching model to differentiate
instruction for ELLs.

To date, limited resources are available
concerning co-teaching between ESL and
mainstream educators. Oflen, educators working
with special-needs chiidren, at-risk youth,
ELLs, or gifted students look to borrow possible
program models and ideas from a related field.
Vaughn, Schumm, & Arguelles (1997) outlined
five possible co-teaching models for the inclusive
classroom to illustrate ways special educators and
their mainstream colleagues might collaborate.
We have adapted these five models to illustrate
ways in which they could be applicable to the
ESL context.

Co-teaching Models
(1) One Group: One Lead Teacher and One
Teacher “Teaching on Purpose”

The mainstream teacher and the ESL
teacher take turns assuming the lead role, while
the other teacher “teaches on purpose.” This
approach provides the teachers an opportunity to
give short (1 -5 minute) mini lessons to individuai
students, pairs of students, or even a small group
of students. Teaching on purpose may focus on a
unique language need or take the opportunity to
pre-teach or re-teach a concept or a skill.

(2) Two Groups: Two Teachers Teach Same
Content

The students in the class are placed in
two heterogeneous groups; each teacher works
with one of the groups. By learning in smaller
groups, ELLs experience additional opportunities
to interact with each other, listen to their peer
models, volunteer responses, or receive feedback
from the teacher.

(3) Two Groups: One Teacher Re-teaches; One
Teacher Teaches Alternative Information

Teachers assign students to one of two
groups, based on their language proficiency levels.

knowledge, orskillsfortarget content. During this
type of fiexibie grouping arrangement, students
are assigned to their groups on a temporary basis.
As the topic and skills that are addressed change,
so does group composition.

(4) Multiple Groups: Two Teachers Monitor/
Teach

Creating multiple groups allows
teachers to facilitate and monitor student work
simultaneously as they work on a designated skill
or topic. At the same time, selected students can
receive instruction targeting their unique needs.
Learning centers, learning stations, and guided
reading groups also can be incorporated into this
model of co-teaching.

(5) One Group: Two Teachers Teach the Same
Content

Two teachers are directing a whole
class of students, and both teachers are working
cooperatively and teaching the same lesson
at the same time. For example, a mainstream
teacher presents a lesson, and the ESL teacher
interjects with examples, explanations, and
extensions of the key ideas. The ESL teacher can
provide strategies to assist the students in better
remembering and organizing the information that
was presented.

How do Co-taught Classes Support
Inclusive Practices to Accommodate
the Needs of Diverse English
Language Learners?

In a co-taught classroom, ELLs
learn mainstream content along with their
monolingual peers. When learning groups remain
heterogeneous, ELLs are given the opportunity to
work with students who have various academic
capabilities and English language fluency. This is
in contrast to remedial or ESL pullout programs,
in which ELLs are either grouped with youngsters
who are struggling readers and writers or have
no English language proficiency.

ELLs have different needs than do
remedial students. An ESL program should
enhance student understanding of English while
learning classroom content, as well as offer
English-proficient peers to serve as language
models. In our view, these are some of the basic

10

ingredients of a successfiil ESL co-teaching
model. Within a mainstream classroom, an ESL
teacher can demonstrate strategies during a co-
taught lesson, and the classroom teacher can
continue to use the same strategies with ELLs
when the BSL teacher is no longer present. Often,
the exchange of ideas between teachers allows
for more risk taking and the use of innovative
strategies on the part of each teacher to benefit all
students in the classroom.

Planning is an important factor in a
successful co-teaching program. It gives teachers
the opportunity to divide lesson preparation tasks
and modify class work, textbooks, and homework
assignments so that all students can take part
in the learning process. The ideal co-planning
structure provides ESL and classroom teachers
time to meet on a weekly basis to plan activities
and strategies based on the curriculum and state
standards. The proper amount of joint-meeting
time can help educators review, select from, and
shape a variety of co-teaching models into well-
organized, productive academic programs for
ELLs. However, many school districts are unable
to schedule adequate time for ESLand mainstream
teachers to meet during the school day. For this
reason, we urge collaborating teachers to agree
upon a feasible model and experiment with its
practicability: a model of instruction in which one
teacher leads and the other assists or teaches on
purpose may prove to be an effective approach to
co-teaching. Having one teacher lead and the
other assist students during a lesson requires
less planning time and coordination between the
teachers involved. As trust and mutual respect
for each teacher’s ability build, this model can be
executed simply with rewarding results for both
students and teachers. It is most successful when
both the ESL teacher and the classroom teacher
share the responsibility of taking the lead role. In
this way, both teachers’ individual talents can be
used to benefit the students.

Parallel teaching is another co-teaching
method that may be implemented successfully
even if less-than-adequate planning time is
available. In this teaching environment, the
class is divided in half heterogeneously, and
each teacher delivers instruction using the same
content to one part of the class. This type of
small-group instruction benefits ELLs because

WINTER 2008

they can obtain more individual attention.
Eurthermore, activities are easier to manage, and
more students are able to participate when the
teacher-student ratio is lower.

Some co-teaching teams have opted to
use an eclectic model of instruction. This works
best when the ESL and mainstream teacher have
an established rapport with one another and their
teaching styles are able to accommodate much
flexibility. A team that has similar instructional
and disciplinary styles will have less difficulty
navigatingtheuseofdifferentco-teachingmodels.
However, others work best using established
routines and well-defined expectations.

Establishing a Vehicle for Creative
Collaboration between ESL and
Mainstream Teachers

When planning time is scarce, teachers
need to develop communication strategies that
consistently keep all parties informed and allow
for shared decision making. Ideas regarding
planning and implementing instruction are often
supplemented with creative ways to communicate
with each other about students, lesson ideas,
teaching strategies, and supplementary materials.
A teaching log can serve to frame the major
concepts and skills that all students must learn
for a particular unit of study and assist the ESL
and the classroom teacher to organize lessons.
We offer the following templates that mainstream
teachers and their ESL colleagues can utilize as
they exchange key ideas about their instructional
plans (see figures 1 and 2)

Meeting National, State, and Local
Standards

Teacher collaboration provides the
necessary venue for meeting national, state,
and local standards with ELLs. ESL specialists
are trained to design and implement lessons
utilizing national and state level ESL standards
(if available). Teachers of English to Speakers
of Other Languages (TESOL 2006) revised its
standards to include language development both
for social and academic purposes:
Standard 1: English language learners
communicate for social, intercultural, and
instructional purposes within the school setting.
Standard 2: English language learners

T H E DELTA KAPPA G A M M A BULLETIN

communicate information, ideas, and concepts
necessary for academic success in the area of
language arts.
Standard 3: English language learners
communicate information, ideas, and concepts
necessary for academic success in the area of
mathematics.
Standard 4: English language learners
communicate information, ideas, and concepts
necessary for academic success in the area of
science.
Standard 5: English language learners
communicate information, ideas, and concepts
necessary for academic success in the area of
social studies.

Many states have published their own set
of ESL standards in recent years. For example.
New York State ESL Performance Standards
(2004) establishes clear guidelines for teachers
regarding the expectations for their students’
language and literacy development (see figure 3).

Performance indicators aligned to each of
the five standards specify the measurable skills
ELLs need to develop. ESL teachers are best
equipped with strategies to address the varied
linguistic needs of their students, but they cannot
do it alone. Conversely, mainstream educators
are most well versed in content-specific, grade-
appropriate learning standards. Their daily lesson
planning must include goals and objectives that
help all their students master the required content-
based material. Most mainstream educators,
however, have limited training in second language
acquisition or pedagogy. Collaboration between
these two groups of teachers helps ensure that
English language learners have access to the
mainstream curriculum and language instruction
that helps them stay in school and develop (a)
socially by interacting with their peers in English
and (b) academically by demonstrating adequate
yearly progress in the various content areas
(Wertheimer & Honigsfeid, 2000).

Parting Words
Woodrow Wilson once said “I not only

use all of the brains I have, but all I can borrow.”
His acknowledged reliance on others may fit our
co-teaching context as well. We are confident
that once they have tried it, many teachers
will welcome the opportunity to collaborate

11
regularly, even co-teach in the same classroom
for several periods a day to be able to borrow
from each other, to share wisdom about teaching,
to experience complex situations together, to
reveal insights about instructional planning, to
show skills of delivering a lesson, and to meet
challenges and enjoy rewards of helping a new
generation become integrated into the fabric of
the classroom and the school community.

References
Gaiely. S.. & Ciately. F. (2001). Understand ing co-teaching components.

Teuching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40-47.
ESL Slandards for Pre-K-12 Students. (1997). Alexandria. VA: TESOL.
Keefe, E.. Moore. V , & Duff, F. (2003). The four “knows” of collaborative

teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5). 36-42.
Nair, P., & Fielding, R. (2005). The language of school design: Design

patterns /or 21 st century schools. www.DesignShare.com.
New York State ESL Performance Standards (2004). Retrieved July 18,

2(H)7, from http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/biiing/resaurce/ESL/
standanls.html

Pre-K-12 English Language Proficiency Standards. (2006). Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.

Snead, 0 . L. & Wycoff, J. (n.d.). Stimulating innovation with collaboration
rooms. Retrieved July 27. 2007. from http://www.thinksmart.
CO m,’a rt i c I e s/c 01! aborat i on_roo m s. htm 1

Vaughn. S.. Scliumm, J. S.. & Ai^uelles, M. E. (Nov/Dec. 1997). The
ABCDEs of co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2).

Wortbeimcr. C . & Honigsfeld. A. (2000), Preparing ESL students to meet tbe
new standards. TESOL Journal. 9( I), 23-28.

rea Honigsfeld, Ed.D., is a member of Alpha
Pi Chapter. New York, and is associate professor of
the Division of Education at Molloy College. She
is a Fulbright scholar and member of the American
Educational Research Association. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kappa
Delta Pi. International Reading Association, Phi
Delta Kappa. Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages (TESOL). and NYSTESOL.
Maria Dove is an ESL teacher in Valley Stream.
N.Y. and adjunct instructor at Molloy College. She
is currently pursuing an advanced degree in the
Instructional Leadership Doctoral Program.

12 WINTER 2008

Figure 1. Planning templates

Mainstream Educator

Day Aim
Big Idea

Key Activities Assessment

ESL Specialist

lypeot Co-teaching Language and Content
Modifications

Notes on Individual
Students

T H E DELTA KAPPA G A M M A BULLETIN

Figure 2. A Bird’s Eye View of the Curriculum

13

Content Area:

Teacher:

September

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

K.ey Ideas Language Goals

•

14 WINTER 2008

Figure 3. NYS ESL Standards

Statidard I: English for information and understanding refers to the competencies and knowledge
of English that students must obtain in order to communicate effectively in social and academic settings.
Students learning English as a second language leam, use, and reflect on English language and concepts
from the core content areas, such as social studies, sciences, and mathematics. The organization of
information and the ability to explain the relationships among pieces of information (in forms such as
cause and effect, chronological order, problem/solution, comparing and contrasting, and interpreting)
form the essential concepts in Standard 1.

Standard 2: English for literary response, enjoyment, and expression requires that students
develop the knowledge and skills of English to read and understand rich literature that ranges from
classical to contemporary, and includes works representing a variety of cultures. Students are required to
present oral and written interpretations of literature, and write works of literature of their own. Through
Standard 2 students gain an understanding of literary concepts such as genre, plot, setting, character,
point of view, theme, and other literary elements. Students become familiar with and competent using
strategies in English such as predicting, previewing, reviewing, and purposeful listening to increase
comprehension and meaning of text in English.

Standard 3: English for critical analysis and evaluation develops students’ abilities to read, write,
listen, and speak in English to analyze and evaluate texts and issues. Students learning English are
required to consider divergent perspectives on oral and written texts and evaluate texts and interpretations
of texts, using a variety of criteria. Students develop an understanding of the impact of personal and
alternative points of view and use English to form, present, and defend their own positions on significant
issues, both orally and in writing. To meet Standard 3, LEP/ELLs are expected to take an experience,
text, or idea, and question it from a variety of critical perspectives. These viewpoints are informed by
the students’ cultural background and their experiences as newcomers to the US.

Standard 4: English for social and classroom interaction outlines the skills and strategies, both
in and out of school, that LEP/ELLs must master to communicate effectively in English. The focus of
Standard 4 is to develop the competencies students need to engage in functions such as negotiating,
explaining, participating in discussions, following and providing directions, and requesting and providing
assistance in English. The indicators in Standard 4 apply to an array of meaningful and authentic
communicative contexts, from informal social situations to formal academic situations.

Standard 5: English for cross-cultural knowledge and understanding articulates the components
of acquiring a “second culture” in both a social and academic context. Interactions and knowledge that are
subsumed under Standard 5 are designed to help LEP/ELLs entering the United States to be successful
in their new host culture. Standard 5 validates and builds on the cultural background of the individual
student, promotes articulation and exchanges of ideas and assumptions across cultures, and provides a
context in which the student can explicitly and implicitly acquire knowledge and understandings that
facilitate the process of acculturation. Teaching to Standard 5 requires an awareness of the dimensions
of culture by ESL teachers, bilingual teachers, and other educators of LEP/ELLs. These dimensions
include the varieties of cultural practices, norms, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations that fall under
the general descriptor of “American.” In addition, attention to Standard 5 heightens the contribution
cultural diversity makes to classroom instruction and interaction. Education under Standard 5 does not
promote a list of cultural “facts” or “do’s and don’ts,” but, rather, encourages an exploration of the facets
of culture, the student’s own as well as the cultures of others, and how culture is manifested in words,
actions, and learning.

BY LISA UWTER

Countdown to Co-Teaching:

ARE YOU READY?

Many new teachers accept positions that include
co-teaching assignments. What does it mean to
co-teach? What does co-teaching look like? How
do teachers begin to co-teach?

Co-teaching is defined as the partnering of a
general education teacher and a special education
teacher or another specialist for the purpose of
jointly delivering instruction to a diverse group of
students, including those with disabilities or other
special needs, in a general education setting and
in a way that flexibly and deliberately meets their
learning needs (Friend, 2008). Friend, Cook, Hurley-
Chamberlain, and Shamberger (2010) offer six
approaches to co-teaching.

Models of Co-Teaching
1. One teach, one observe. In this approach,

one teacher leads instruction while the other
observes the students in the class.

2. One t e a c h , one assist. One teacher is
the active teacher while the other circulates
and assists students. The co-teacher answers
questions, directs attention, and provides
additional explanations.

3. Station teaching. Students rotate among
several different learning stations. Each co-
teacher leads a station, while the other stations
are completed individually by students.

4. Parallel teaching. The class is divided into two

10 • New Teacher Advocate • Summer 2013

www.kdp.org

heterogeneous groups. Each teacher provides
the same instruction to one of the groups.

5. A l t e r n a t i v e teaching. Pre-teaching, re-
teaching, review, and accelerated instruction
are provided by a co-teacher to a small group
while the other teacher leads the remaining
large group.

6. Team teaching. Both teachers equally share
the instructional delivery because they know the
curriculum and they are at ease with each other’s
teaching style and management techniques.
This model takes longer for teachers to feel
comfortable implementing.

Choosing the Model to Implement
The model implemented depends on many

factors. First, the co-teachers’ strengths should be
considered. If a teacher has a passion for a topic or a
unique strategy, the co-teachers can implement the
one teach, one assist model. If there have been many
students absent in the class, the alternative teaching
model allows one teacher to re-teach those students.

Benefits of Co-Teaching
Co-teaching benefits everyone. Students

benefit from having two teachers support their
learning. If a student does not understand the
directions given by one teacher, the co-teacher
can explain it again. Students receive more one-on-
one feedback and instruction. Co-teachers benefit
from joint planning. More elaborate lessons can
be presented. Each teacher can take responsibility
for planning and assessing student growth. Co-
teaching provides support for each teacher as well.

Getting Started
For co-teaching to be successful, pre-planning

is essential. Conversations about each teacher’s
expectations allow teachers to get acquainted,
understand unique characteristics, and develop a
plan for success. Constant communication from pre-
planning through implementation is crucial. When
plans go differently than expected, it is important to
spend time reflecting and brainstorming solutions
together.

Cook and Friend (1995) suggested discussing
planning time, parity signals (how will we convey
to students and others that we are equals in the
classroom?), confidentiality issues, acceptable noise

levels, classroom routines, discipline, feedback,
and pet peeves.

Questions for co-teachers to discuss:
1. What are your expectations for students

regarding participation, daily preparation, written
assignments, and homework completion?

2. What are your basic classroom rules? What are
the consequences?

3. How are students grouped for instruction in
your classroom?

4. What instructional methods do you like to use
(lectures, class discussions, hands-on activities)?

5. How do you monitor and evaluate student
progress?

6. In what ways do you differentiate instruction for
students with special needs?

7. How and when do you communicate with
families?

8. What are your strengths as a teacher? What are
your weaknesses?

9. What do you see as potential roles and
responsibilities as co-teachers?

10. What are your hopes for our work as a team?
What are your concerns?

Walther-Thomas, Bryant, and tand (1996)

Care must be taken to adequately plan and
communicate throughout the process. Co-teachers
become frustrated when adequate planning time is
not allowed.

Successful co-teaching benefits all students
and teachers. Meeting the diverse needs of
all students is challenging; co-teaching is one
effective method teachers can use to reach all
students.

References
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines

for creating effective practices. Focus on
Exceptional Children 28(3), 1-16.

Friend, M. (2008). Co-Teach! A manual for creating
and sustaining classroom partnerships in inclusive
schools. Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., &
Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-Teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration
in special education, lournai of Educationai and
Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.

Walther-Thomas, C , Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996).
Planning for effective co-teaching: The key
to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special
Education, 17{4), 255-264.

|1
Dr. Lawter is an Assistant
Professor of Education at
Okiahoma City University.
Her classroom experience
includes co-teaching at all the
P-12 levels. She completed
her doctorate in special
education. Her research
interests include systems
change and co-teaching.

New Teacher Advocate • Summer 2013 • 11

Copyright of New Teacher Advocate is the property of Kappa Delta Pi and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Making Virtual Co-Teaching Work in a Covid-19 Environment142

Issues in Teacher Education

Making Virtual Co-Teaching Work
in a Covid-19 Environment

Estella W. Chizhik
Regina R. Brandon

San Diego State University

Issues in Teacher Education, Fall 2020

Abstract
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, teachers must rely on technology to
reach and teach their students who no longer sit in school classrooms.
In so doing, chasms in the quality of engagement have become evident
based on students’ ability, ethnicity, and home language. We propose
that co-teaching between a mentor teacher and a teacher candidate
could mediate opportunities for two adults to equitably instruct all
students in structured and productive ways within virtual educational
environments. This article describes implementation of co-teaching
experiences between teacher candidates and mentor teachers through
virtual instruction by using video-based conferencing tools (e.g., Zoom).
We describe six co-teaching models and explain how they can support
the needs of diverse learners in virtual educational environments.

Disquisition

In the fall semester of 2019, our teacher-education programs (Special
Education Department and School of Teacher Education) held our an-

Estella W. Chizhik is a professor in the School of Teacher Education
and Regina R. Brandon is an associate professor in the Special Edu-
cation Department, both in the College of Education at San Diego
State University, San Diego, California. Their email addresses are:
chizhik@sdsu.edu & rbrandon@sdsu.edu

© 2020 by Caddo Gap Press

Estella W. Chizhik & Regina R. Brandon 143

Volume 29, Numbers 1 & 2, Fall 2020

nual mentor-teacher workshop to share information about our programs’
expectations for our teacher candidates and to provide relevant coaching
tips. For the first time, our workshop focused on promoting co-teaching
between teacher candidates and their mentor teachers, as we attempted
to foster the notion that classroom spaces can be places where two or
more teachers can coordinate their efforts to engage all students in rig-
orous instruction (Cook & Friend, 1995). We also shared that educators
at St. Cloud University (Bacharach et al., 2010) advocate that co-teach-
ing between mentor teachers and teacher candidates would not only
engage more students in the classroom, but also provide opportunities
for coordinated teaching and planning between teacher candidates and
their mentor teachers. To conclude the workshop, we asked participants
whether they wanted more information about co-teaching. Nearly all of
the 35 mentor teachers indicated little desire to learn more about the
topic. “Well,” we thought, “either we did a bang-up job (they learned ev-
erything that they needed) or most were not interested in co-teaching.”
We suspected that our mentor teachers felt that they “did not need to
fix something that is not broken” because they were already providing
quality instruction to their students, as well as sharing their expertise
with our teacher candidates.
Indeed, the mentor teachers with whom we work are extremely ef-
fective classroom teachers. In addition to engaging their own students
in the classroom, they often go above and beyond with their support
of teacher candidates. They share packets of lesson plans, recommend
useful teaching tips, and provide glowing letters of recommendation.
They are experienced classroom teachers who are able to model effec-
tive teaching methods to their apprentices. It is likely that they were
not in need of co-teaching because they felt confident in their abilities
to control their classrooms.
Once Covid-19 began to infect Americans across the country, and
various cities, counties, and school districts imposed social-distance re-
strictions that shut down schools, teachers and teacher candidates were
abruptly no longer in control. Within our teacher education programs,
a sense of uncertainty and vulnerability impacted our professional and
personal lives. Our colleagues were not sure how to provide the safest
(let alone the best) education for our teacher candidates. This lack of
certainty was also evident in teacher candidates who weighed the cost
of continuing to be in the classroom versus protecting themselves. Some
of our teacher candidates didn’t continue their clinical practice after
March, having already completed California requirements for clinical
practice (i.e., 500+ hours) as well as the edTPA. Other teacher candidates
volunteered to continue student teaching in order to gain experience

Making Virtual Co-Teaching Work in a Covid-19 Environment144

Issues in Teacher Education

with online instruction. Mentor teachers were similarly divided. Some
were so overwhelmed with adapting their classroom-based instruction
to the online environment that having a teacher candidate seemed an
impossible burden. Others gladly accepted the extra pair of hands and
technical assistance from a teacher candidate that supported their
move from in-class instruction to the virtual space. Ultimately, these
few mentor-teacher and teacher-candidate pairs collaborated to find
useful online instructional tools, while dividing their time to reach out
to students who were now learning from home. As a result, these pairs
found the move to online instruction manageable. Nearly overnight,
teachers who mere months ago expressed no interest in co-teaching in
the fall semester, now found themselves benefiting from co-teaching in
the shift to virtual instruction during the Covid-19 pandemic.
As schools rely on online instruction during the pandemic, we hope
that teachers will recognize co-teaching as a viable and valuable op-
portunity to meet emerging and challenging issues associated with
online instruction. For many teachers, distance learning will remain
the primary instructional method for the foreseeable future. In this
virtual space, mentor teachers and teacher candidates will continue to
struggle to meet the instructional needs of students who are learning
from home. As they struggle, they may ask themselves the following
questions: How does a teacher manage 20 to 40 young children during
a video-conferencing call and keep them interested and engaged in each
lesson? How does a mentor teacher support a teacher candidate who
also works from home? We believe the answers to these questions can
be found in co-teaching.

Dispatch

In this section, we propose ways that each of the co-teaching models
of Friend and Cook (1995) and Bacharach et al. (2010) can address the
learning needs of students as well as meet the needs of teacher candi-
dates in an online environment.

One-Teach/One-Observe. The purpose of One-Teach/One-Observe
is to have a classroom teacher take the lead and teach while the teacher
candidate either observes students or classroom instruction until they
develop the competency to be the lead instructor (Bacharach et al,
2010). This approach can be adapted to the virtual classroom by having
the mentor teacher teach via Zoom or some other video-conferencing
platform, while the teacher candidate observes students (e.g., noticing
which students leave the session, play video games, or are distracted).
The observing teacher uses these observations to inform future lessons

Estella W. Chizhik & Regina R. Brandon 145

Volume 29, Numbers 1 & 2, Fall 2020

or decisions about engaging specific students, and the teacher candidate
can be supported when the mentor teacher makes time to observe the
candidate teach a lesson. Additionally, using a video-conferencing plat-
form (e.g., Zoom) to video record lessons allows both teachers to examine
recorded instructional behaviors that need reinforcement or refinement
(Barnhart & van Es, 2015).

One-Teach/One-Assist. To foster students’ equitable access and
engagement during face-to-face instruction, one teacher teaches while
the other teacher assists students who are struggling or distracted during
the lesson. In a virtual space, ensuring equitable participation can be
an even greater challenge because students are learning from a myriad
of home environments. Moreover, when students do login, some may
elect to keep their cameras off. Teacher candidates may find it difficult
when working alone to use multiple gallery pages to monitor students
on Zoom, to notice when a “blue” hand (a Zoom feature) or an actual
hand is raised, or to assist students in unmuting or muting themselves
at the right time during a discussion. Monitoring the chat to ensure a
positive learning environment can also be a struggle when teaching
alone. The challenge of managing and monitoring all these aspects in
Zoom can be mitigated with the One-Teach/One-Assist model, in which
the assisting teacher help foster a more equitable system of participation
during synchronous instruction (by re-engaging or re-directing) without
interrupting instruction. Teacher candidates may adopt the role of the
assistant initially, but over time, they can take the lead while the mentor
teacher monitors the other features of video conferencing. In this way,
teachers and teacher candidates balance responsibilities while bolster-
ing student participation.

Station Teaching. Station Teaching occurs when two adults in the
classroom implement a variety of learning activities simultaneously
during one lesson. In this model, the class is split into three groups and
one teacher works with one group, the other teacher works with another
group, and the third group works independently. For example, when
Station Teaching a math lesson, the mentor teacher may facilitate a
math activity at one station that allows students to use actual or virtual
manipulatives to solve problems, another station may have the teacher
candidate facilitate the same math lesson in which students illustrate the
problem, and a third station may have students working independently
to review math problems. In the virtual space, the same class structure
can be achieved using breakout rooms. The mentor teacher, depending
on the independence of each group of students, can float in and out of
breakout rooms as needed, to monitor both the students and the teacher

Making Virtual Co-Teaching Work in a Covid-19 Environment146

Issues in Teacher Education

candidate. Extensive co-planning between the mentor teacher and the
teacher candidate can further ensure that students are getting high-
quality teaching at all stations.

Parallel Teaching. In this model, students are divided into two
groups and each group is led by a co-teacher who covers the same infor-
mation. In a physical classroom, this can get noisy and cramped, but a
virtual space diminishes these challenges. With extensive co-planning,
the teacher candidate enters the breakout room fully prepared to teach
and each teacher can be with a smaller group of students in a breakout
room. The mentor teacher can momentarily join other breakout rooms
(provided students are engaged in independent work) to monitor or
support the teacher candidate, if necessary. These virtual lessons can be
taught simultaneously within breakout rooms or consecutively, so that
the teacher candidate can teach a small group of students after observ-
ing the mentor teach the same lesson. Both sessions can be recorded for
the teachers to review and reflect upon later.

Alternative Teaching. This co-teaching model encourages one
teacher to teach a lesson to the majority of the students, while a second
teacher pulls a small group for an alternate or modified lesson. One
problem with using this model in a face-to-face classroom is that it has
the potential to stigmatize students who may be perceived as low per-
forming (Cook & Friend, 1995). In the virtual space, however, separate
video conferences in breakout rooms prevent students from knowing
about, monitoring, or judging the work their peers are doing.

Team Teaching. Often heralded as the ideal model of co-teaching
because there is parity between the two teachers (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
2017), team teaching encourages both teachers to engage equally in a
lesson as well as to be equally responsible for the content and students’
learning. In an actual classroom, team teachers share the same space
and the same responsibilities. In the virtual space, team teaching can
be used by both teachers to monitor, support, and engage with students
equally. Team teaching becomes especially useful when using online
instructional apps (e.g., Jamboard, Peardeck, or Lucidspark) that fos-
ter student engagement because teachers and teacher candidates can
distribute the responsibilities of managing both the technology and the
students’ use of the technology.

Supplemental Teaching. Supplemental Teaching, like Team teach-
ing and all other co-teaching models, is designed to increase students’
access to a teacher (Bacharach et al., 2010; Cook & Friend, 1995). The
goal of this model is to have each teacher work with an individual student

Estella W. Chizhik & Regina R. Brandon 147

Volume 29, Numbers 1 & 2, Fall 2020

or a small group of students to provide specific needed support. In the
physical classroom, this usually means one teacher finds a quiet place
in the room to engage with a small group of students, while the other
teacher engages the rest of the class. With supplemental teaching, it is
possible for such classrooms to become noisy and for some students to
feel singled out by the teachers’ extra attention. In the virtual classroom,
however, breakout rooms provide quieter spaces for students to engage
with the teacher (provided their home environment is also quiet) and
minimize the fear of being stigmatized (as peers cannot tell what type
of instruction is taking place in breakout rooms).

All aforementioned co-teaching models benefit learners by placing
another adult in the classroom to observe, assist, and expand access to
quality teaching. With online instruction, co-teaching has the potential
to offer these same benefits by easing some of the technological chal-
lenges teachers frequently encounter. Furthermore, online co-teaching
can remedy the challenges to classroom-based parallel, station, or al-
ternative teaching by removing added classroom noise and providing
confidentiality in breakout groups (without the stigma associated with
overt extra support from a teacher). In order to provide these benefits,
co-teaching works best when teachers have opportunities to co-plan and
collaborate with each other. Given that teachers have many competing
interests that limit ad hoc co-planning sessions, we recommend that co-
teachers set regular daily or weekly collaborative meetings. Co-teachers
might also use the phone when Zoom fatigue sets in. Finally, teachers
may also work collaboratively in the same classroom (sans students),
provided that they follow appropriate safety guidelines to protect against
Covid-19. While in the same physical or virtual environment, formal
and informal conversations can take place organically in between Zoom
lessons or during lunch.

Conclusion

As we write this manuscript, large school districts throughout Cali-
fornia and the rest of the United States are foregoing reopening school
buildings to start the academic year with online instruction. Teacher
education programs, as a result, are scrambling to convince wary teach-
ers to serve as mentor teachers and invite novice teacher candidates
into their virtual classrooms. Many of these teachers will need to start
the academic year with community building activities that must be
cultivated virtually. They may be worrying about how to connect with
their students who will be learning from home and whether the digital
divide will hamper their work with students who struggle with academic

Making Virtual Co-Teaching Work in a Covid-19 Environment148

Issues in Teacher Education

content. Research on technology and equity suggest that such worry is
real (Hockly & Dudeney, 2018; Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). Is-
sues related to the digital divide have morphed from technology access
(e.g., computers and software) to the skills needed to use the technology
(Dolan, 2016). Supporting students in using technology to attain their
learning goals is an area of professional development for many teachers
during this pandemic. Teachers need to know how to use the many soft-
ware programs and apps to engage their students. From our perspective,
they do not need to shoulder this burden on their own. Co-teaching in the
virtual world, much like the actual classroom, can help teachers reach
and support more students as well as increase engagement of families
because there are more teachers to provide quality instruction and to
build community for all students. Mentor teachers who open their vir-
tual classrooms to tech-savvy teacher candidates may find a tech savvy
partner eager to foster a better education for all students.

References
Bacharach, N., Heck, T., W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student

teaching through co-teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14, DOI:
10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538

Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the
relationship among pre-service science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze
and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83-
93. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.005

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching mentor lines for creating effective
practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.17161/
foec.v28i3.6852

Dolan, J. E. (2016) Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving
digital divide among K–12 students. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 48(1), 16-37. DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2015.1103147

Hockly, N., & Dudeney, G. (2018). Current and future digital trends in ELT. Relc
Journal, 49(2), 164-178. DOI: 10.1177/0033688218777318

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2017). Making inclusion work with co-
teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 284-293. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0040059916685065

Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in school-
ing: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.

Copyright of Issues in Teacher Education is the property of Caddo Gap Press and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.