Effect of Collaboration Training Package on Special Education Teachers' Collaborative Working Skills: A Mixed-Method Research

Effect of Collaboration Training Package on Special Education Teachers' Collaborative Working Skills: A Mixed-Method Research | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of Collaboration Training Package on Special Education Teachers' Collaborative Working Skills: A Mixed-Method Research REYHAN BASIK, EYLEM DAYI This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538149/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examined the effect of the training package offered to teachers working in special education schools on the skills of working in collaboration. Within the scope of this study, a training package supporting professional development was developed and implemented. Teachers were provided with feedback during the implementation process. Within the scope of the research, the Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale, which also provides construct validity, was developed to use it as a measurement tool and to bring it into the field. In the quantitative dimension of this research, in which the mixed methods research simultaneous intervention design was used, the paired experimental (n=16) and control (n=16) groups were pretested and posttested, and in the qualitative dimension, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the experimental group. The results showed that the training package on cooperation, which was implemented, increased teachers’ collaboration skills, and the quantitative and qualitative findings confirmed each other. Special Education School Counseling Special education Collaboration Co-teaching Collaboration skills Teacher training Professional development Performance feedback Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Collaboration has become vital in complex educational contexts. Educators’ success hinges on all school members' tendency, knowledge, and skills to collaborate efficiently (Friend, 2021; Weiss et al., 2015). The primary responsibility during instruction is directly related to teachers, and their ability to work collaboratively affects the quality of the instructional process. Co-teaching practices as an option to provide quality services to students with different disabilities also require collaborative work (Friend et al., 2015; Sebald et al., 2023). Several research emphasizes that teachers do not possess sufficient expertise in collaborative working approaches and co-teaching and that they need support for their professional development (King-Sears et al., 2020; Koç, 2021; Scott, 2021; Turner, 2017; Woodland et al., 2016). Collaboration in Special Education, Co-Teaching, and Professional Development of Teachers Collaboration, as a significant component of the field of education, is considered a distinct topic in special education due to the unique characteristics of the groups receiving special education services and the fundamental role of the collaborative approach (Friend et al., 2015; Dayı & Basık, 2021; Yopp et al., 2014). Legal regulations address the collaboration among specialists, families, and other professionals (IDEA, 2004). Co-teaching models require teachers to adopt a collaborative approach in which two or more licensed professionals share responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating lessons. In this sense, six models of co-teaching have been defined as ‘one teaching, one observing,’ ‘station teaching,’ ‘parallel teaching,’ ‘alternative teaching,’ ‘teaming,’ and ‘one teaching, one assisting’ (Friend, 2014). The primary purpose of co-teaching is for teachers to assume joint responsibility in the planning and teaching phases and support the enrichment of the educational process from different perspectives. High-quality teacher collaboration is theoretically and empirically associated with increased instructional quality, student learning, and teacher knowledge and skills. However, it is challenging to understand the definition of teacher collaboration. The term “collaboration” refers to almost any kind of relationship between people and is often explained in relation to interpersonal communication. Few have clearly discussed what teacher collaboration looks like, how to determine whether the structural, procedural, and interprofessional relationships among teachers are strong, and how to improve them (Woodland et al., 2013; Woodland, 2016). Woodland et al. (2013) developed the teacher collaboration cycle consisting of components of dialogue, decision-making, action, and evaluation (DDAE). In the dialogue, teachers discuss student learning, the impact of instruction on student achievement, and how to provide an appropriate level of support for each child. Moreover, teachers discuss which co-teaching models to use and how to differentiate and implement instruction. In decision-making, teachers work together, identify relative differences in instructional quality, and make decisions to improve practice. During the action phase, programs can be modified to meet students’ needs, changing teaching models through collaboration, managers, and co-teachers to ensure joint planning occurs. However, this requires an evaluation of the practice. Evaluation is conducted to determine how the teaching is progressing by taking notes on what is working and what is not based on both teachers' observations and reviewing the results. Various research in the relevant literature has discussed the challenges of collaboration and co-teaching models, teachers' views on these models, and significant factors affecting collaborative teaching (Brendle et al., 2017; Chitiyo & Brinda, 2018; De Backer et al., 2021; King-Sears et al., 2020; Lochner et al., 2019; Scott, 2021; Turner, 2017; Zagona et al., 2017). In these studies, teachers expressed positive opinions about collaboration, stating that their planning skills improved and delivered their lessons more effectively. However, it was stated in the research findings that further studies are needed to examine teachers' level of knowledge on collaborative planning, implementation, evaluation, and in-class collaboration to execute collaborative teaching efficiently. Current Status and Professional Development on Collaboration Issues in Türkiye In Türkiye, the legal legislations regarding special education services align with the global standards, ensuring legally guaranteed cooperation between families and specialists (Decree Law on Special Education [DLSE], (1997) and Special Education Services Regulation [SESR], (2018)). The main reason for legal grounds is that students receive quality and comprehensive education (Dayı & Basık, 2021). It is highlighted that teachers are responsible for collaborating with colleagues and families, learning novel practices and methods, and ensuring all students’ participation in the learning process. Collaboration is considered a component of teacher competency in professional development (Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2017). Koç (2021) stated that teachers need professional training in collaborative teaching models and collaborative working skills to provide quality special education services. In the Turkish literature, a limited number of research on collaboration and collaborative teaching was conducted on teachers working with students with special needs, and they were implemented in inclusive classrooms in general education settings (Dağlı Gökbulut, 2020; Gürgür, 2005; Kayhan, 2016; Koç, 2021). In these studies, positive results were obtained for cooperative teaching practice, and the researchers took on the role of co-teachers in classrooms due to the absence of assistant teachers. In addition, MoNE organizes in-service training on various subjects to support teachers’ professional development in Türkiye. The importance of providing in-service training with practice-based or other types of teacher professional development, such as coaching, counseling, and performance feedback, has been frequently mentioned in the literature (Akalin & Sucuoğlu, 2015; Demir, 2016; Karasu İşcen, 2017; Yılmaz, 2020). Nonetheless, studies on professional development types such as coaching and performance feedback are limited in Türkiye and have been primarily conducted with teachers working in inclusive classrooms in general education schools. No studies have been conducted on the types of professional development of teachers working in special education schools. Although inclusive education services are provided to 319,881 students in general education schools in Türkiye, solely one teacher is assigned to a classroom (MoNE, 2022). For collaborative teaching practices to be sustainable, two educators should be present in the same classroom. On the other hand, 105,935 students with special needs receive education in special education schools in Türkiye, which are separate educational institutions. It is known that 16,671 teachers work in 1,517 special education schools and classes, providing special education services to different disability groups at all levels (MoNE, 2022). According to the staffing norms regulations, each classroom at these schools has two teachers assigned (MoNE, 2019). In summary, the national and international literature illustrates that the co-teaching model and collaborative working approach enhance general education and special education teachers' professional competencies and collaborative working skills. In addition, there is a consensus that the collaborative teaching model plays an influential role in students' academic and social development in these classrooms. Furthermore, teachers providing special education services need support in dialogue, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation of their classroom practices within the scope of collaborative working skills (Chitiyo & Brinda, 2018; Dayı et al., 2020; Friend, 2015; Dağlı et al., 2020; Kayhan, 2016; Koç, 2021; King-Sears et al., 2020; Scott, 2021; Turner, 2017). In this respect, the main purpose of the study is to identify the effects of the “Collaboration Training Package” developed within the scope of the research on the collaborative working skills of teachers in special education schools with a mixed-method intervention. To this end, the study sought to answer the following quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research questions: Research Question 1 (RQ 1): What is the effect of the Collaboration Training Package on the development of the collaborative working skills of teachers in special education schools? (quantitative) Research Question 2 (RQ 2): What are the opinions of teachers working in special education schools regarding their current workflow before the intervention and the effectiveness of the Collaboration Training Package after the intervention? (qualitative) Research Question 3 (RQ 3): To understand the impact of the Collaboration Training Package, what is the link between the development of collaborative working skills of teachers in special education schools and their views? (mixed) Methods This mixed methods study used an intervention design, and data were collected concurrently. The results of the two data sets (quantitative + qualitative) are compared to determine whether they support each other (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Thus, in the intervention, pre-test/post-test quantitative data obtained from the Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale (TCSS) and qualitative data from teacher interviews were preferred for data diversity. Study Sample The criterion sampling method, a purposeful sampling method, was employed to select the teachers in the study (Başaran, 2019). Teachers employed in MoNE-affiliated special education schools (two special education teachers with undergraduate degrees working in the same classroom) who had not previously participated in any training on collaborative working and collaborative teaching models or similar topics were identified. The teachers who met these criteria were grouped using a quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test control group design. Before and after the intervention, the extent to which changes in the experimental group differed from the control group was examined to identify the effects of the intervention (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Procedure In order to contact the teachers who met the criteria, a list was created by reaching the special education schools in Şanlıurfa province and its central districts through the MoNE database and phone. First, research permission was obtained from the Gazi University Scientific Ethics Commission (E. 300500) and the MoNE (E. 494135). Then, appointments were made with school administrators to visit and interview teachers who were likely to meet the criteria. Following these interviews, teachers (n=16) in a school who met the criteria, volunteered, could assemble in specific periods during the intervention, and whose administrators supported the research were selected as the experimental group. Afterward, the researchers visited the other schools to form a control group with characteristics similar to those of the teachers in the experimental group who met the criteria. Teachers working at a school in a different district from the school where the experimental group was located were assigned to the control group (n=16). 16 teachers in the experimental group represented the eight classes they instruct together at the primary and secondary levels of the special education practice school. Therefore, they were coded as EGCT (experimental group co-teachers), and hereafter, this code with numbers was used to refer to the teachers in that group. The ones coded from EGCT 1 to EGCT 6 worked full-time at the primary level, while EGCT 7 to EGCT 16 were full-time staff at the secondary level. Of those, 11 were female, and 5 were male, and the teachers held their undergraduate degrees in special education and worked in the classes they were assigned for more than one term. The control group also consisted of 16 teachers from eight classes who worked together at the primary and secondary levels in a special education practice school. The control group co-teachers in the study were coded as CGCT and with numbers. The teachers coded from CGCT 1 to CGCT 8 worked full-time at the primary, whereas the ones from CGCT 9 to CGCT 16 worked full-time at the secondary level. Of these teachers holding special education degrees, 9 were female and 7 were male, and they worked in their classes for at least one year. Data Collection The study's data collection and intervention process were completed between November-December 2022 and January 2023. Quantitative data were collected via the Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale (TCSS). It comprised 22 items with four sub-dimensions: dialogue and decision-making, meetings and participation, action, and evaluation (Basık & Dayı, 2024). The scale showed a high model-data fit, and its reliability calculated by Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was found to be .97. The data collection proceeded with implementing the Collaboration Training Package. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after the intervention. Five questions were prepared to learn about teachers’ current teaching practices and how they realized them. For the post-intervention interviews, seven questions were created to understand the participants' views on the intervention and to gather feedback. The interview questions were revised based on expert opinions. Pre-intervention Pre-test Phase and Individual Interviews After obtaining permission from school administrators, convenient meeting times for teachers in the experimental and control groups were arranged. The TCSS pre-test and individual interviews were conducted in an appropriate interview room at the school. During the pre-test phase, data was collected from 16 co-teachers in the experimental and control groups, a total of 32 teachers from eight classes. Before the intervention, individual interviews were conducted with 16 teachers in the experimental group to obtain information about the co-teachers’ current instructional processes. For the interviews, permission for audio recording was obtained. Following the pre-test implementation, the interviews, executed at times pre-determined by the teachers not to disrupt their daily routines, lasted two days. The duration of the interviews varied approximately between 13 and 22 minutes. Intervention Phase [Collaboration Training Package] The training package was developed as a whole, including the topics of collaboration, the six models of co-teaching, and the collaborative work cycle. It was piloted and implemented in practice-based training. The booklets about the training package, along with notebooks and pens, were distributed to all teachers in a cloth bag. These booklets, designed so that each teacher could write his/her name, were used by the teachers while following the researcher’s presentations. The interventions were conducted as seminars (the first three modules) and preparation for implementation (the last two modules) sessions in the school's meeting room and staffroom. The dialogue and decision-making phases of the collaborative working cycle were completed in two sessions during the jointly planned time. The forms included in the intervention package were printed on A4-sized paper to provide a larger writing area and enhance functionality. They were handed out to each teacher in a separate file and delivered as a single file for the classrooms where the teachers worked together. Teachers utilized the forms together during implementation. The forms used during the intervention included the recording forms in the fourth and fifth module booklets of the training package, which were developed in line with the purpose of the study. Initially, the co-teachers utilized a co-teaching model identification form and determined ‘how and when to use’ and ‘points to consider’ for each model. In the following phase, co-teachers used the co-teaching weekly lesson plan sample, and they filled out the appropriate boxes on the planning sheet with the subjects listed in MoNE’s weekly lesson plans, which were planned to be instructed through co-teaching model/s. A joint decision was made on the models that could be applied to the subjects chosen. The teachers presented the models they selected for their classes and provided justifications. This stage was carried out collectively upon the teachers’ requests, and the teachers of the other classrooms listened to the presentations regarding the models that could be implemented at each grade level. Throughout the process, teachers provided recommendations and expressed their opinions on possible adjustments that could be made. The intervention phase is illustrated in Figure 1. The co-teachers fully participated in all sessions during the intervention and filled out all the forms. Meanwhile, the researcher gave supportive feedback about their positive behaviors and answered their questions about using the weekly lesson plan sample. Post-intervention Post-test Phase and Individual Interviews The post-test data of the experimental and control groups were collected face-to-face over two days for each group. Post-intervention interviews were conducted with the experimental group teachers after completing the post-test process and lasted approximately between 15 and 28 minutes. Data Analysis The data collected concurrently were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods, and a combined data analysis was performed regarding the concurrent design. Quantitative Data. Concerning RQ 1, the quantitative data gathered from the experimental and control groups’ pre-and post-tests were analyzed via the SPSS V28 program. Descriptive and central tendency and variability statistics were reported to determine the distributions. The equivalence of the groups was tested (see the supplementary material for the normality distribution and tests of equivalence). Mixed ANOVA was used to determine whether the mean scores of the participants in the experimental and control groups differed regarding the sub-dimensions of the TCSS (dialogue and decision-making [DDM], meetings and participation [MP], action [ACT], and evaluation [EVA]), depending on the training package used. Post-hoc tests were applied to uncover the differences. The effect sizes were also calculated for significant relationships between variables. Qualitative Data. Regarding RQ 2, the qualitative data obtained through pre- and post-intervention interviews with co-teachers were analyzed using content analysis. First, audio recordings were transcribed. Two separate files were created for both interviews, and codes were used to ensure participant confidentiality instead of full names. While forming the codes, texts were divided into small units (paragraph, sentence), and labels were assigned to each unit. Code labels were obtained from the participants' own words with an inductive approach. The codes were grouped under similar subthemes based on their relationships and the research topics and then gathered under a common theme. Two researchers performed the coding, and the internal consistency in coding was calculated with Miles and Huberman's (1994) reliability formula (reliability = [consensus/consensus + disagreement] ×100). As a result of the calculation, the reliability was found to be 83%. Quotations from the raw data were also included in the study. Mixed Data. For RQ 3, quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately, and the findings were presented and interpreted in relation to each other by integrating them. At this stage, a joint display is used and interpreted through a narrative (Fetters et al., 2013). Findings RQ 1 Quantitative Data Results of Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale Teacher Collaboration Skills Dimension One: DDM As shown in Table 1, the differences between the experimental and control groups (F(1,31)=22.511, p<.05) and between the pre-test and post-test measurements (F(1,30)=494.011, p<.05) were significant. The common effects of pre-test and post-test measurements with the experimental and control groups (F(1,30)=585.435, p<.05) were also significantly different. According to the two-way ANOVA results, no significant difference existed between the control group's pre-test (X =2.54) and post-test scores (X =2.44). In contrast, the difference between the experimental group's pre-test and post-test means was significant. It is observed that the training positively affected teachers' dialogue and decision-making behaviors. Regarding the effect sizes, the mean scores of the experimental and control groups in DDM skills showed a difference (.65), and the effect of this difference was at a medium level. The effect of the difference between the pre-and post-test scores (.78) was large. The difference between the groups for the common effect (.97) was quite large. Teacher Collaboration Skills Second Dimension: MP The difference between the experimental and control groups for the MP pre-test and post-test scores presented in Table 2 (F (1,30) =51.668, p<.05) was statistically significant. MP skills of the experimental group (X=2.94) were significantly higher than those of the control group (X=2.09). The difference between the pre-and post-test measurements was also significant (F (1,30) =495.806, p<.05). In other words, a significant difference was observed in teachers' MP behaviors at the end of the training. The main effect (F (1,30)=353.808, p<.05) was also significant. According to the two-way ANOVA results, while the difference between the control group's pre-test (X=1.99) and post-test scores (X=2.20) was not significant, the difference between the experimental group's pre-test (X=1.81) and post-test (X=4.20) mean scores were found significant. The difference between groups (.78) has a large effect, and the differences between measurements (.97) and the common effect (.96) have a very large effect. Teacher Collaboration Skills Third Dimension: ACT Table 3 shows that the difference between the groups in the ACT dimension (F (1,30)=9.49, p<.05) was significant. The ACT skills of the experimental group (X=4.27) were higher than those of the control group (X=3.68). The difference between the pre-and post-test (F (1,30) =42.574, p<.05) was significant. In this case, it can be noted that teachers' ACT skills were enhanced at the end of teacher collaboration training, and the training was effective. When the common interaction between measurements and groups was analyzed, it was observed that the difference (F (1,30)=53.315, p<.05) was significant. When the effect size of the difference in ACT mean score was examined, it was observed that the effect size for the significant difference between groups (.49) was at a low medium level, the pre-test and post-test mean scores were almost large (.77), and the common effect difference (.80) had a large effect. Teacher Collaboration Skills Fourth Dimension: EVA As illustrated in Table 4, the difference between the experimental and control groups in the EVA dimension was significant (F (1,30)=65.261, p<.05). The experimental group (X=3.28) had a higher evaluation skill score than did the control group (X=2.59). The difference between the measurements (F (1,30)=419.321, p<.05) was significant. Post-test scores (X =3.51) differed significantly from pre-test scores (X =2.36). The group measurement common effect result was also significant (F (1,30) =490.829, p<.05). According to the ANOVA results. At the same time, there was no significant difference between the control group's pre-test (X =2.64) and post-test scores (X =2.55), the difference between the other experimental group scores was significant (p<.05). In the comparison of EVA mean scores by group, the difference between the experimental and control groups (.83) had a large effect, the difference between pre-test and post-test means scores (.97) had a very large effect. The common effect differences (.97) had a very large effect. It can be concluded that there was an improvement in EVA skills and that training was effective. RQ 2 Qualitative Data Results Participant opinions are presented under two headings: findings from pre- and post-intervention interviews. Findings from Pre-Intervention Interviews The teachers were asked about their current instructional practices, planning, and evaluation in the interviews conducted before implementation. Current Instructional Practices. Three subthemes formed by related codes were identified. These were (a) an individualized education program (IEP), (b) the MoNE curriculum, and (c) other factors. All of the participating teachers stated that they basically took into account the IEPs of the students while carrying out their practices and that they focused on language skills, daily life skills, and behavior change. However, they also indicated that they had to follow the MoNE curriculum in the weekly lesson flow and shared their views. For example, EGCT 1 stated, “ Our instructional process aligns with the MoNE weekly lesson plan, but we follow students' IEPs apart from subject-specific classes. We assess the performance once a year, and a general evaluation is made. There are students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in our class. Thus, the programs progress individually .” Teachers emphasized that the MoNE has a list of outcomes, but they took an approach based on the students' IEPs. Explaining the reason for this under the code of incompatibility with MoNE, the teachers stated that they use individually tailored programs since their classes involve students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities. Current Planning Process and Lack of System. The teachers highlighted some limitations regarding instructional planning. Under this theme, four codes emerged with the subtheme of ‘limitations in the planning process.’ The primary challenge identified in planning is the diverse needs of students . Another significant limitation is the constrained planning time . Despite these challenges, the teachers also mentioned conducting a verbal-spontaneous planning process based on the students’ IEPs due to their diverse needs . EGCT 2 explained students' varying needs, “... we frequently give individual attention to the students. Our students even show both autism-related and many other problem behaviors in class. Additionally, they are highly energetic. For this reason, we usually try to divide and manage three students in a different area in the classroom for a certain period while actively engaging with another student. We only have the opportunity for individualized instruction. ” Current Evaluation Process and Lack of System. This theme was identified with five codes and two subthemes, ‘limitations in the evaluation process’ and ‘other evaluation factors.’ All teachers generally underlined the lack of a system for the assessment. The teachers pointed out that this is a spontaneous-verbal process, indicating they do not have written records or a system and that they proceed verbally. For instance, EGCT 1 said, “ This process progresses spontaneously according to the condition of the children. ” Similarly, all teachers stated that the assessment progresses in accordance with the students’ learning pace , which is too slow. The teachers, noting the lack of regular meetings outside of classes, emphasized that even short intervals necessitate their presence for students, which poses limitations in evaluating their practices and leads to making daily verbal decisions and implementations. Findings From Post-Intervention Interviews In the interviews conducted after the intervention, 22 codes that emerged from the teachers' opinions about participating in this study and its contribution to their collaborative working skills were grouped under seven subthemes, and three themes were identified. The themes were (a) teacher views on participating in the study, (b) teacher views on collaborative working skills, and (c) teacher views on co-teaching models. Teachers' Views on Their Participation in the Study and the Effects of the Study. Twelve codes grouped under three subthemes were formed regarding this theme. All the teachers described their feelings about participating in the present study as ‘positive’ and ‘enjoyable.’ They all expressed their appreciation for being given the opportunity to be involved in this research and conveyed gratitude. EGCT 8 asserted, ‘ Everything went very well for me. Yeah, collaborative working methods were really productive. I think it was beneficial for both us and our students .” When the subtheme ‘experiences’ was analyzed, ‘interaction-practice and ‘efficiency-knowledge updating’ emerged as recurring codes across all teachers. According to the teachers, the interaction between them and the researcher during the intervention was noteworthy, as was the practical nature of the study and the impact of the process, which included written materials and feedback. The teachers' opinions on the effects of the training package and its implementation were analyzed under the subtheme of ‘the effect of the intervention.’ The codes ‘systematic progress-comparison,’ ‘increase in collaborative work skills,’ and ‘readiness checklist’ were formed when analyzing the opinions of teachers who reported distinct experiences. Regarding the first code, EGCT 11 noted, “ Previously, we had a good rapport. Following this process, it became more student-oriented. In the past, my colleague could say, ‘I know this student better; his/her level is low, and you should proceed with this approach.’ However, now we make decisions together. But now, we decide together considering the students’ level. This aided us in avoiding misunderstandings, such as incorrect entries on forms. We provided feedback to each other as a group during this process.” All teachers who compared their previous practices indicated that this training contributed well to their improved collaborative working skills. Teachers' Views on Collaborative Working Skills. In the analysis of this theme, eight codes grouped under the subthemes of ‘general views’ and ‘views on practice-based intervention’ were labeled. For the former subtheme, in addition to gaining ‘awareness,’ teachers emphasized that collaborative working is ‘necessary,’ especially in special education, and the significance of working based upon the collaboration cycle. For the latter subtheme, the codes ‘joint decision-making—planning,’ ‘record-keeping—forms,’ ‘equality-task sharing,’ ‘mutual communication-feedback’ and ‘frequency of evaluation’ were attained. The teachers, who commented that their practices were carried out verbally and spontaneously before the implementation, used similar expressions for the code of record-keeping and forms. Under the subtheme of views regarding the intervention process, they similarly indicated that working collaboratively during implementation ensured equality between co-teachers and provided a model that would solve possible problems in task sharing. The last codes were ‘mutual communication’ and ‘frequency of evaluation.’ Further, 6 of the 16 teachers participating in the study stressed that they commenced to evaluate their practices and students more frequently. Teachers' Views on Co-Teaching Models. After expressing their opinions in general, the teachers shared their views on the intervention, which were grouped under the subthemes of ‘general views’ and ‘views on practice-based intervention,’ and six codes were reached. All the teachers who participated in the study reported that they liked all of the models in general, explaining the code of ‘usefulness and suggestions’ with different perspectives. Another code that emerged during the data analysis process was ‘realizing-learning.’ Regarding this code, 12 teachers asserted that they reviewed their own roles during the process and considered how the models could be applied in their classrooms. RQ 3 Mixed Data Results To understand the effectiveness of the Collaboration Training Package, the connection/relationship between the development of the collaborative working skills of the teachers who participated in the experimental intervention process and teachers' opinions were summarized. The differences between the pre-test and post-test scores of the teachers in the experimental group and how the quantitative and qualitative findings of the interviews conducted before and after the intervention confirmed each other are visualized and presented in Figure 2. The quantitative data regarding the pre-intervention, namely the teachers' pre-test scores, align with their views on the current implementation processes. Following the intervention, the scores obtained from all TCSS sub-dimensions increased compared with the pre-intervention scores. When the effect size was analyzed, medium- and high-level effect size was observed in all dimensions. These results were in parallel with the co-teachers’ viewpoints in the post-intervention interviews. Participants’ opinions confirmed the effectiveness of the training package. Discussion and Conclusion This study examined the effect of the Collaboration Training Package on the enhancement of collaborative working skills of co-teachers working in special education schools and sharing the same class's responsibilities. The Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale (Basık & Dayı, 2024) was used to determine the statistical significance of the difference between the pre-and post-test scores of the teachers in the experimental and control groups. In addition, interviews were conducted with teachers in the experimental group before and after the intervention. An increase was detected in four skills in the collaboration cycle for all of the experimental group teachers. Moreover, medium-, high-, and very-high-level effect sizes were calculated. A similar result emerged from the teacher-interview findings, consistent with professional development research developed in line with teachers’ needs (Drandic & Paic, 2020; Uysal, 2021). In the pre-intervention pre-test and pre-interview findings, there were no findings regarding the collaboration cycle in the current workflows of co-teachers. However, the general increase in post-intervention scores is noteworthy. Among the reasons for this, it is thought that the teachers’ active role during the implementation and their decision-making about their classes with the co-teachers had an impact. In all sessions held with the teachers, it was observed that they progressed considering the models they determined and the collaboration cycle, and an increase was noticed in line with the post-test scores they received. When the ‘dialogue and decision-making’ dimension, the first step of collaboration skills, is compared with the pre-intervention, a significant difference and a higher effect size were found between the pre-test and post-test scores. The literature emphasizes that dedicating sufficient time to dialogue and decision-making is the most critical step in collaborative working skills, directly affecting the subsequent stages of collaboration (Friend, 2021; Woodland et al., 2016). Prior to the intervention, this dimension was perceived as synonymous with teachers’ interpersonal relationships. As a matter of fact, in national studies, this step was not addressed in terms of student-oriented joint planning time, record keeping, and access to these records by all stakeholders, and findings were mainly focused on interpersonal relationships (Uçar, 2021; Özsoy, 2019). In the ‘decision-making’ dimension of collaboration, it is noteworthy that each decision-making mechanism (unanimity, majority of votes, etc.) was not mentioned but explained in relation to annual formal meetings (Pürsün et al., 2021). In this respect, the research is believed to provide teachers with a new perspective and awareness of collaboration, increase their knowledge and skills in collaborative working skills, and offer a systematic structure in the collaboration cycle, as suggested in the literature (Butera & Martinez, 2014; Friend, 2021; Supovitz & Sirinides, 2018). The current study is the first on collaboration among teachers working with co-teachers in special education classrooms. However, this is similar to other studies conducted in Türkiye regarding the implementation of co-teaching models. Unlike previous research (Dağlı et al., 2020; Gürgür, 2005; Kayhan, 2016; Koç, 2021), the Collaboration Training Package, which was developed distinctly from other existing studies, was presented as a whole to cover the topics of collaboration, six models of co-teaching, collaboration cycle, and practice-based training. The critical importance of teachers working collaboratively was highlighted to effectively implement co-teaching models (Friend, 2021; Koç, 2021; King-Sears et al., 2020). As a result of this research, the findings shed light on a vital issue since the experimental group teachers carried out a process based on a collaborative cycle from the stage of determining teaching models to the planning, action, and evaluation stages. Additionally, while developing the training package, arrangements were made to ensure teachers’ active participation and joint decision-making about their classes. Designing relevant recording forms and receiving feedback during the intervention helped them feel a sense of belonging to the process. This situation was reflected in the results, leading to increased motivation to continue participation in the implementation process and to learn. Similar findings were obtained from the teacher-interview data. Similar results were also observed in teacher education studies that provided teacher feedback (Akalin & Sucuoğlu, 2015; Safak vd., 2016; Karasu İşcen, 2017). Several factors should be considered when evaluating the findings of this study. Firstly, the research implementation process was embraced not only by the participating teachers who volunteered but also by the school administration. Administrators allowed minor adjustments within the intervention, considering the legal boundaries, to maintain the study's validity. The researcher was provided a study room, and the researcher-teacher interaction was supported. Another crucial factor was collecting the quantitative data face-to-face and individually. Teachers could ask the researcher questions about the items they were unsure about while answering the scale questions. Limitations and Suggestions The positive findings of this study should be interpreted in light of some limitations. The operating system of special education schools and teacher characteristics in Türkiye and the region where the research was conducted were highly similar. However, the fact that this study was executed in two schools in this region is one of the limitations. Another one is that the experimental implementation was completed at the end of the autumn term, and the follow-up data were not collected since the semester break commenced after the post-test data collection. In addition, student outcomes were not examined in this study; instead, the focus was on investigating the development of teachers' collaboration skills. Apart from the implementation sessions conducted by the researcher, teachers' equal task sharing and their practices were analyzed through recording forms. In these respects, future research can examine the effects of collaborative working approaches and teaching practices on teacher outcomes by applying them in classrooms with inclusion/integration practices in Türkiye, except for special education schools. In this study, teacher skills were analyzed, and student outcomes were not examined. Future research can explore the effects of collaborative working skills and collaborative teaching models by examining student outcomes. In future studies, the generalizability of the results could be increased by working with larger study groups. Based on cooperation in special education, the current situation can be determined by examining the determination, evaluation, placement, and transition of suitability for special education between institutions and experts providing services in institutions. In this regard, models for collaboration among experts and/or institutions can be developed. To implement collaborative teaching models in general education and special education schools, a systematic structure can be created by making adjustments concerning the logistical needs of collaborative teaching, such as time, financial resources, and professional development. Practice-based in-service training on collaborative working and co-teaching models can be expanded, and the training package applied in the present study can be improved and utilized. Declarations Data Availability: Authors agree to share the data underlying their work and to submit a Data Availability Statement in the manuscript. The relevant link is included in Step 1 of the manuscript submission. References Akalin S, Sucuoğlu B (2015) Effects of classroom management intervention based on teacher training and performance feedback on outcomes of teacher-student dyads in inclusive. Educational Sciences: Theory Pract 15(3):739–758. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.3.2543 Basık R, Dayı E (2024) The development, validity, and reliability study of teacher collaboration skills scale. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi. Advance online puplication https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1416522 Başaran YK (2019) Sampling theory in social sciences. J Acad Social Sci 47(47):480–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.12368 Butera G, Martinez RS (2014) Multidisciplinary collaboration to support struggling readers: Special issue introduction. J Educational Psychol Consultation 24(2):75–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.903190 Brendle J, Lock R, Piazza K (2017) A study of co-teaching identifying effective implementation strategies. Int J Special Educ 32(3):538–550. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184155.pdf Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL (2018) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Chitiyo J, Brinda W (2018) Teacher preparedness in the use of co-teaching in ınclusive classrooms. Support Learn 33(1):38–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12190 Dağlı Gökbulut Ö, Akçamete G (2020) An applied study on co-teaching in inclusive education]. Kesit Akademi Dergisi 6(24):30–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/kesit.45470 Dağlı Gökbulut Ö, Akçamete G, Güneyli A (2020) The effect of co-teaching practices on the reading comprehension skills of primary school students with special needs. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 19(74):879–894. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.592673 Dayı E, Basık R (2021) Collaboration in social adaptation skills. In: Dayı E (ed) Teaching Social Adaptation Skills. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, pp 29–81 Dayı E, Bilgiç HC, Özdemir Kılıç M, Okyar S (2020) The effect of feedback given to prospective teachers working with students with severe and multiple disabilities on collaborative working skills. Hacettepe Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi 35:526–539. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019054153 Demir Ş (2016) The effects of a teacher training program on teachers and children with special needs in inclusive preschool classrooms (Publication No. 443308) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center De Backer L, Simons M, Schelfhout W, Vandervieren E (2021) Let’s team up! measuring student teachers’ perceptions of team teaching experiences. Kayapinar, U. (Ed.), Teacher Education- New Perspectives (pp. 1–22). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96069 Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW (2013) Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv Res 48(6pt2):2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117 Friend M (2021) Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals, 9th edn. Pearson Education, Inc Friend M (2014) Co-Teach! building and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools. Marilyn Friend, Inc Friend M, Embury DC, Clarke L (2015) Co-Teaching Versus Apprentice Teaching: An Analysis of Similarities and Differences. Teacher Educ Special Educ 38(2):79–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414529308 Gürgür H (2005) Examining the collaborative teaching approach in the primary school classroom where mainstreaming is implemented (Publication No. 205204) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2004) https://sites.ed.gov/idea/?src=policy-page Karasu İşcen F (2017) The effect of performance feedback on preschool teachers' preventive classroom management strategies and special needs child outcomes (Publication No. 468277) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center Kayhan N (2016) The effect of a teaching observer model, one of the co-teaching approaches, on the effective teaching skills of classroom teachers in inclusive environments (Publication No. 419282) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center King-Sears ME, Jenkins MC, Brawand A (2020) Co-teaching perspectives from middle schoolalgebra co-teachers and their students with and without disabilities. Int J Incl Educ 24:427–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1465134 Koç H (2021) Examining the collaborative teaching approach in a kindergarten where integration practices are carried out: An action research (Publication No. 705348) [Doctoral Dissertation, Anadolu University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center Lochner WW, Murawski WW, Daley JT (2019) The effect of co-teaching on student cognitive engagement. Theory&Practice Rural Educ 9(2):6–19 https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2019.v9n2p6-19 Ministry of National Education (1997) Decree law on special education . https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/4.5.573.pdf Ministry of National Education (2017) Teaching profession general competencies handbook http:// oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretmenlik-meslegi-genel-yeterlikleri/icerik/39 Ministry of National Education (2018) Special education services regulation . https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/mevzuat-yonetmelik/icerik/1958 Ministry of National Education (2019) Regulation on the norm staff of administrators and teachers of educational institutions affiliated with the Ministry of National Education . https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/21.5.20146459.pdf Ministry of National Education (2022) National education statistics formal education report. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=460 Miller CK (2009) Optimizing collaboration between medical and school-based speech-language pathologists managing pediatric dysphagia. Perspect Swallowing Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) 18(3):91–96. https://doi.org/10.1044/sasd18.3.91 Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Özsoy B (2019) Stating the cooperation level of special education teachers with their headmasters, collegues and students' parents (Publication No. 551530) [Master’s thesis, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center Pürsün T, Okutan S, Atbaşı Z (2021) Opinions of teachers working in special education and rehabilitation centers and special education schools on cooperation. Natl Educ J 50(232):287–311. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.747646 Safak P, Yılmaz HC, Demiryürek P, Doğuş M (2016) The effect of performance feedback provided to student-teachers working with multiple disabilities. Eur J Educational Res 5(3):109–123. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.5.3.109 Sebald A, Myers A, Frederiksen H, Pike E (2023) Collaborative co-teaching during student teaching pilot project: what difference does context make? J Educ 203(1):18–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211016403 Supovitz J, Sirinides P (2018) The linking study: An experiment to strengthen teachers’ engagement with data on teaching and learning. Am J Educ 124(2):161–189. https://doi.org/10.1086/695610 Scott SN (2021) Co-teachers are provided strategies to ımplement co-teaching through the four cycles of teacher collaboration: A Qualitative Case Study (Publication No. 28542703) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Grand Canyon]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global Turner TP (2017) Co-teachers’ perceptions of the four domains of teacher collaboration (Publication No. 10282358) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Grand Canyon]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global Uçar AS (2021) Evaluation the collaboration processes in a primary school providing inclusive education (Publication No. 705134) [Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center Uysal Ç (2021) Empower the power: Investigation of the empowering process of preschool teachers in inclusion practices (Publication No. 705212) [Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center Weiss MP, Pellegrino A, Regan K, Mann L (2015) Beyond the blind date: Collaborative course development and co-teaching by teacher educators. Teacher Educ Special Educ 38(2):88–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414548599 Woodland RH (2016) Evaluating PK–12 Professional Learning Communities: An Improvement Science Perspective. Am J Evaluation 37(4):505–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016634203 Woodland R, Lee MK, Randall J (2013) A validation study of the Teacher Collaboration Assessment Survey. Educational Res Evaluation 19(5):442–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.795118 Yopp RH, Ellis MW, Bonsangue MV, Duarte T, Meza S (2014) Piloting a co-teaching model for mathematics teacher preparation: Learning to teach together. Issues Teacher Educ 23(1):91–111. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045811 Yılmaz B (2020) Investigating the effects of practice based coaching professional development program on the quality of inclusive preschool classrooms, teachers and children (Publication No. 612534) [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center Zagona AL, Kurth JA, MacFarland SZ (2017) Teachers’ views of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Educ Special Educ 40(3):163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969 Tables Table 1. ANOVA Test Results for the Dialogue and Decision-Making Sub-Score Score Source of Variance KT SD KO F p r DDM Between Subjects 6.93 31 Group 2.971 1 2.971 22.511 .000 .65 Error 3.959 30 .132 Pillai’s Trace Hypothesis SD Error SD F p Measurement (Pre/Post) .943 1 30 494.011 .000 .97 Group*Measurement .951 1 30 585.435 .000 .78 DDM* Dialogue and Decision Making Table 2. ANOVA Test Results for the Meetings and Participation Sub-Score Score Source of Variance KT SD KO F p r MP Between Subjects 9.002 31 Group 5.695 1 5.695 51.668 .000 .80 Error 3.307 30 .110 Pillai’s Trace Hypothesis SD Error SD F p Measurement (Pre/Post) .943 1 30 495.806 .000 .97 Group*Measurement .922 1 30 353.808 .000 .96 MP* Meetings and Participation Table 3. ANOVA Test Results for the Action Sub-score Score Source of Variance KT SD KO F p r ACT Between Subjects 23.473 31 Group 5.641 1 5.641 9.490 .004 .49 Error 17.832 30 .594 Pillai’s Trace Hypothesis SD Error SD F p Measurement (Pre/Post) .587 1 30 42.574 .000 .77 Group*Measurement .640 1 30 53.315 .000 .80 ACT* Action Table 4. ANOVA Test Results for the Evaluation Sub-Score Score Source of Variance KT SD KO F p r EVA Between Subjects 5.457. 31 Group 3.738 1 3,738 65.261 .000 .83 Error 1.719 30 ,057 Pillai’s Trace Hypothesis SD Error SD F p Measurement (Pre/Post) .933 1 30 419.321 .000 .97 Group*Measurement .942 1 30 490.829 .000 .97 EVA* Evaluation Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SupplementaryFile.doc SUPPLEMENTARY FİLE Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6538149","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":448523700,"identity":"a51101c7-6be4-4656-8a26-1cfe8a6936a9","order_by":0,"name":"REYHAN BASIK","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4985-7759","institution":"HATAY MUSTAFA KEMAL UNIVERSITY","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"REYHAN","middleName":"","lastName":"BASIK","suffix":""},{"id":448523701,"identity":"956e1a2f-f499-45de-afdd-1ae55ccb65f5","order_by":1,"name":"EYLEM DAYI","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1020-5846","institution":"GAZI UNIVERSITY","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"EYLEM","middleName":"","lastName":"DAYI","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-27 05:25:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538149/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538149/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81614988,"identity":"92a1a749-d2d1-42ef-9109-e113f3845dda","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-29 08:01:27","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56084,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIntervention Process of the Collaboration Training Package\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6538149/v1/bd9634e269134cac6b1820fe.png"},{"id":81614987,"identity":"224fc94d-9c00-4cb3-9821-5d0efbd0ad9b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-29 08:01:27","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":218580,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eJoint display of quantitative and qualitative data obtained before and after the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: Pre-test ANOVA values for the experimental group are displayed in dark gray, while the post-test values are in light gray. Quotations representing the codes from the pre- and post-intervention interviews are also presented.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6538149/v1/ece997caa47835b3c7b4f036.png"},{"id":81616066,"identity":"acdf21d0-642e-42b7-bbd5-cb9e61095924","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-29 08:17:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1357762,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6538149/v1/1368ef0c-340d-4f79-ac11-3512581cc802.pdf"},{"id":81614993,"identity":"d4d3f33c-c669-4626-82c2-f8ad578758d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-29 08:01:27","extension":"doc","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":199168,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSUPPLEMENTARY FİLE\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFile.doc","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6538149/v1/c92262054f3fc2445c701b62.doc"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of Collaboration Training Package on Special Education Teachers' Collaborative Working Skills: A Mixed-Method Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCollaboration has become vital in complex educational contexts. Educators’ success hinges on all school members' tendency, knowledge, and skills to collaborate efficiently (Friend, 2021; Weiss et al., 2015). The primary responsibility during instruction is directly related to teachers, and their ability to work collaboratively affects the quality of the instructional process. Co-teaching practices as an option to provide quality services to students with different disabilities also require collaborative work (Friend et al., 2015; Sebald et al., 2023). Several research emphasizes that teachers do not possess sufficient expertise in collaborative working approaches and co-teaching and that they need support for their professional development (King-Sears et al., 2020; Koç, 2021; Scott, 2021; Turner, 2017; Woodland et al., 2016).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCollaboration in Special Education, Co-Teaching, and Professional Development of Teachers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollaboration, as a significant component of the field of education, is considered a distinct topic in special education due to the unique characteristics of the groups receiving special education services and the fundamental role of the collaborative approach (Friend et al., 2015; Dayı \u0026amp; Basık, 2021; Yopp et al., 2014). Legal regulations address the collaboration among specialists, families, and other professionals (IDEA, 2004). Co-teaching models require teachers to adopt a collaborative approach in which two or more licensed professionals share responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating lessons. In this sense, six models of co-teaching have been defined as ‘one teaching, one observing,’ ‘station teaching,’ ‘parallel teaching,’ ‘alternative teaching,’ ‘teaming,’ and ‘one teaching, one assisting’ (Friend, 2014). The primary purpose of co-teaching is for teachers to assume joint responsibility in the planning and teaching phases and support the enrichment of the educational process from different perspectives. High-quality teacher collaboration is theoretically and empirically associated with increased instructional quality, student learning, and teacher knowledge and skills. However, it is challenging to understand the definition of teacher collaboration. The term “collaboration” refers to almost any kind of relationship between people and is often explained in relation to interpersonal communication. Few have clearly discussed what teacher collaboration looks like, how to determine whether the structural, procedural, and interprofessional relationships among teachers are strong, and how to improve them (Woodland et al., 2013; Woodland, 2016). Woodland et al. (2013) developed the teacher collaboration cycle consisting of components of dialogue, decision-making, action, and evaluation (DDAE).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the dialogue, teachers discuss student learning, the impact of instruction on student achievement, and how to provide an appropriate level of support for each child. Moreover, teachers discuss which co-teaching models to use and how to differentiate and implement instruction. In decision-making, teachers work together, identify relative differences in instructional quality, and make decisions to improve practice. During the action phase, programs can be modified to meet students’ needs, changing teaching models through collaboration, managers, and co-teachers to ensure joint planning occurs. However, this requires an evaluation of the practice. Evaluation is conducted to determine how the teaching is progressing by taking notes on what is working and what is not based on both teachers' observations and reviewing the results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVarious research in the relevant literature has discussed the challenges of collaboration and co-teaching models, teachers' views on these models, and significant factors affecting collaborative teaching (Brendle et al., 2017; Chitiyo \u0026amp; Brinda, 2018; De Backer et al., 2021; King-Sears et al., 2020; Lochner et al., 2019; Scott, 2021; Turner, 2017; Zagona et al., 2017). In these studies, teachers expressed positive opinions about collaboration, stating that their planning skills improved and delivered their lessons more effectively. However, it was stated in the research findings that further studies are needed to examine teachers' level of knowledge on collaborative planning, implementation, evaluation, and in-class collaboration to execute collaborative teaching efficiently.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCurrent Status and Professional Development on Collaboration Issues in Türkiye\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Türkiye, the legal legislations regarding special education services align with the global standards, ensuring legally guaranteed cooperation between families and specialists (Decree Law on Special Education [DLSE], (1997) and Special Education Services Regulation [SESR], (2018)). The main reason for legal grounds is that students receive quality and comprehensive education (Dayı \u0026amp; Basık, 2021). It is highlighted that teachers are responsible for collaborating with colleagues and families, learning novel practices and methods, and ensuring all students’ participation in the learning process. Collaboration is considered a component of teacher competency in professional development (Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2017). Koç (2021) stated that teachers need professional training in collaborative teaching models and collaborative working skills to provide quality special education services.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the Turkish literature, a limited number of research on collaboration and collaborative teaching was conducted on teachers working with students with special needs, and they were implemented in inclusive classrooms in general education settings (Dağlı Gökbulut, 2020; Gürgür, 2005; Kayhan, 2016; Koç, 2021). In these studies, positive results were obtained for cooperative teaching practice, and the researchers took on the role of co-teachers in classrooms due to the absence of assistant teachers. In addition, MoNE organizes in-service training on various subjects to support teachers’ professional development in Türkiye. The importance of providing in-service training with practice-based or other types of teacher professional development, such as coaching, counseling, and performance feedback, has been frequently mentioned in the literature (Akalin \u0026amp; Sucuoğlu, 2015; Demir, 2016; Karasu İşcen, 2017; Yılmaz, 2020). Nonetheless, studies on professional development types such as coaching and performance feedback are limited in Türkiye and have been primarily conducted with teachers working in inclusive classrooms in general education schools. No studies have been conducted on the types of professional development of teachers working in special education schools.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough inclusive education services are provided to 319,881 students in general education schools in Türkiye, solely one teacher is assigned to a classroom (MoNE, 2022). For collaborative teaching practices to be sustainable, two educators should be present in the same classroom. On the other hand, 105,935 students with special needs receive education in special education schools in Türkiye, which are separate educational institutions. It is known that 16,671 teachers work in 1,517 special education schools and classes, providing special education services to different disability groups at all levels (MoNE, 2022). According to the staffing norms regulations, each classroom at these schools has two teachers assigned (MoNE, 2019). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the national and international literature illustrates that the co-teaching model and collaborative working approach enhance general education and special education teachers' professional competencies and collaborative working skills. In addition, there is a consensus that the collaborative teaching model plays an influential role in students' academic and social development in these classrooms. Furthermore, teachers providing special education services need support in dialogue, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation of their classroom practices within the scope of collaborative working skills (Chitiyo \u0026amp; Brinda, 2018; Dayı et al., 2020; Friend, 2015; Dağlı et al., 2020; Kayhan, 2016; Koç, 2021; King-Sears et al., 2020; Scott, 2021; Turner, 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this respect, the main purpose of the study is to identify the effects of the “Collaboration Training Package” developed within the scope of the research on the collaborative working skills of teachers in special education schools with a mixed-method intervention. To this end, the study sought to answer the following quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Question 1 (RQ 1):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eWhat is the effect of the Collaboration Training Package on the development of the collaborative working skills of teachers in special education schools? (quantitative)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Question 2 (RQ 2):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eWhat are the opinions of teachers working in special education schools regarding their current workflow before the intervention and the effectiveness of the Collaboration Training Package after the intervention? (qualitative)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Question 3 (RQ 3):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eTo understand the impact of the Collaboration Training Package, what is the link between the development of collaborative working skills of teachers in special education schools and their views? (mixed)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis mixed methods study used an intervention design, and data were collected concurrently. The results of the two data sets (quantitative + qualitative) are compared to determine whether they support each other (Creswell \u0026amp; Plano Clark, 2018). Thus, in the intervention, pre-test/post-test quantitative data obtained from the Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale (TCSS) and qualitative data from teacher interviews were preferred for data diversity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe criterion sampling method, a purposeful sampling method, was employed to select the teachers in the study (Başaran, 2019). Teachers employed in MoNE-affiliated special education schools (two special education teachers with undergraduate degrees working in the same classroom) who had not previously participated in any training on collaborative working and collaborative teaching models or similar topics were identified. The teachers who met these criteria were grouped using a quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test control group design. Before and after the intervention, the extent to which changes in the experimental group differed from the control group was examined to identify the effects of the intervention (Creswell \u0026amp; Plano Clark, 2018). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc143304682\"\u003eIn order to contact the teachers who met the criteria, a list was created by reaching the special education schools in Şanlıurfa province and its central districts through the MoNE database and phone. First, research permission was obtained from the Gazi University Scientific Ethics Commission (E. 300500) and the MoNE (E. 494135). Then, appointments were made with school administrators to visit and interview teachers who were likely to meet the criteria. Following these interviews, teachers (n=16) in a school who met the criteria, volunteered, could assemble in specific periods during the intervention, and whose administrators supported the research were selected as the experimental group. Afterward, the researchers visited the other schools to form a control group with characteristics similar to those of the teachers in the experimental group who met the criteria. Teachers working at a school in a different district from the school where the experimental group was located were assigned to the control group (n=16).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e16 teachers in the experimental group represented the eight classes they instruct together at the primary and secondary levels of the special education practice school. Therefore, they were coded as EGCT (experimental group co-teachers), and hereafter, this code with numbers was used to refer to the teachers in that group. The ones coded from EGCT 1 to EGCT 6 worked full-time at the primary level, while EGCT 7 to EGCT 16 were full-time staff at the secondary level. Of those, 11 were female, and 5 were male, and the teachers held their undergraduate degrees in special education and worked in the classes they were assigned for more than one term.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe control group also consisted of 16 teachers from eight classes who worked together at the primary and secondary levels in a special education practice school. The control group co-teachers in the study were coded as CGCT and with numbers. The teachers coded from CGCT 1 to CGCT 8 worked full-time at the primary, whereas the ones from CGCT 9 to CGCT 16 worked full-time at the secondary level. Of these teachers holding special education degrees, 9 were female and 7 were male, and they worked in their classes for at least one year.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study's data collection and intervention process were completed between November-December 2022 and January 2023. Quantitative data were collected via the Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale (TCSS). It comprised 22 items with four sub-dimensions: dialogue and decision-making, meetings and participation, action, and evaluation (Basık \u0026amp; Dayı, 2024). The scale showed a high model-data fit, and its reliability calculated by Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was found to be .97. The data collection proceeded with implementing the Collaboration Training Package. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after the intervention. Five questions were prepared to learn about teachers’ current teaching practices and how they realized them. For the post-intervention interviews, seven questions were created to understand the participants' views on the intervention and to gather feedback. The interview questions were revised based on expert opinions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre-intervention Pre-test Phase and Individual Interviews\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter obtaining permission from school administrators, convenient meeting times for teachers in the experimental and control groups were arranged. The TCSS pre-test and individual interviews were conducted in an appropriate interview room at the school. During the pre-test phase, data was collected from 16 co-teachers in the experimental and control groups, a total of 32 teachers from eight classes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore the intervention, individual interviews were conducted with 16 teachers in the experimental group to obtain information about the co-teachers’ current instructional processes. For the interviews, permission for audio recording was obtained. Following the pre-test implementation, the interviews, executed at times pre-determined by the teachers not to disrupt their daily routines, lasted two days. The duration of the interviews varied approximately between 13 and 22 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntervention Phase [Collaboration Training Package]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe training package was developed as a whole, including the topics of collaboration, the six models of co-teaching, and the collaborative work cycle. It was piloted and implemented in practice-based training. The booklets about the training package, along with notebooks and pens, were distributed to all teachers in a cloth bag. These booklets, designed so that each teacher could write his/her name, were used by the teachers while following the researcher’s presentations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe interventions were conducted as seminars (the first three modules) and preparation for implementation (the last two modules) sessions in the school's meeting room and staffroom. The dialogue and decision-making phases of the collaborative working cycle were completed in two sessions during the jointly planned time. The forms included in the intervention package were printed on A4-sized paper to provide a larger writing area and enhance functionality. They were handed out to each teacher in a separate file and delivered as a single file for the classrooms where the teachers worked together. Teachers utilized the forms together during implementation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe forms used during the intervention included the recording forms in the fourth and fifth module booklets of the training package, which were developed in line with the purpose of the study. Initially, the co-teachers utilized a \u003cem\u003eco-teaching model identification form\u003c/em\u003e and determined ‘how and when to use’ and ‘points to consider’ for each model. In the following phase, co-teachers used the \u003cem\u003eco-teaching weekly lesson plan sample,\u003c/em\u003e and they filled out the appropriate boxes on the planning sheet with the subjects listed in MoNE’s weekly lesson plans, which were planned to be instructed through co-teaching model/s. A joint decision was made on the models that could be applied to the subjects chosen. The teachers presented the models they selected for their classes and provided justifications. This stage was carried out collectively upon the teachers’ requests, and the teachers of the other classrooms listened to the presentations regarding the models that could be implemented at each grade level. Throughout the process, teachers provided recommendations and expressed their opinions on possible adjustments that could be made. The intervention phase is illustrated in Figure 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe co-teachers fully participated in all sessions during the intervention and filled out all the forms. Meanwhile, the researcher gave supportive feedback about their positive behaviors and answered their questions about using the weekly lesson plan sample.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePost-intervention Post-test Phase and Individual Interviews\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe post-test data of the experimental and control groups were collected face-to-face over two days for each group. Post-intervention interviews were conducted with the experimental group teachers after completing the post-test process and lasted approximately between 15 and 28 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data collected concurrently were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods, and a combined data analysis was performed regarding the concurrent design.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuantitative Data.\u003c/strong\u003e Concerning RQ 1, the quantitative data gathered from the experimental and control groups’ pre-and post-tests were analyzed via the SPSS V28 program. Descriptive and central tendency and variability statistics were reported to determine the distributions. The equivalence of the groups was tested (see the supplementary material for the normality distribution and tests of equivalence). Mixed ANOVA was used to determine whether the mean scores of the participants in the experimental and control groups differed regarding the sub-dimensions of the TCSS (dialogue and decision-making [DDM], meetings and participation [MP], action [ACT], and evaluation [EVA]), depending on the training package used. Post-hoc tests were applied to uncover the differences. The effect sizes were also calculated for significant relationships between variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQualitative Data.\u003c/strong\u003e Regarding RQ 2, the qualitative data obtained through pre- and post-intervention interviews with co-teachers were analyzed using content analysis. First, audio recordings were transcribed. Two separate files were created for both interviews, and codes were used to ensure participant confidentiality instead of full names. While forming the codes, texts were divided into small units (paragraph, sentence), and labels were assigned to each unit. Code labels were obtained from the participants' own words with an inductive approach. The codes were grouped under similar subthemes based on their relationships and the research topics and then gathered under a common theme. Two researchers performed the coding, and the internal consistency in coding was calculated with Miles and Huberman's (1994) reliability formula (reliability = [consensus/consensus + disagreement] ×100). As a result of the calculation, the reliability was found to be 83%. Quotations from the raw data were also included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMixed Data.\u003c/strong\u003e For RQ 3, quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately, and the findings were presented and interpreted in relation to each other by integrating them. At this stage, a joint display is used and interpreted through a narrative (Fetters et al., 2013).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ 1 Quantitative Data Results of Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher Collaboration Skills Dimension One: DDM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table 1, the differences between the experimental and control groups (F(1,31)=22.511, p\u0026lt;.05) and between the pre-test and post-test measurements (F(1,30)=494.011, p\u0026lt;.05) were significant. The common effects of pre-test and post-test measurements with the experimental and control groups (F(1,30)=585.435, p\u0026lt;.05) were also significantly different. According to the two-way ANOVA results, no significant difference existed between the control group's pre-test (X =2.54) and post-test scores (X =2.44). In contrast, the difference between the experimental group's pre-test and post-test means was significant. It is observed that the training positively affected teachers' dialogue and decision-making behaviors. Regarding the effect sizes, the mean scores of the experimental and control groups in DDM skills showed a difference (.65), and the effect of this difference was at a medium level. The effect of the difference between the pre-and post-test scores (.78) was large. The difference between the groups for the common effect (.97) was quite large.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher Collaboration Skills Second Dimension: MP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe difference between the experimental and control groups for the MP pre-test and post-test scores presented in Table 2 (F (1,30) =51.668, p\u0026lt;.05) was statistically significant. MP skills of the experimental group (X=2.94) were significantly higher than those of the control group (X=2.09). The difference between the pre-and post-test measurements was also significant (F (1,30) =495.806, p\u0026lt;.05). In other words, a significant difference was observed in teachers' MP behaviors at the end of the training. The main effect (F (1,30)=353.808, p\u0026lt;.05) was also significant. According to the two-way ANOVA results, while the difference between the control group's pre-test (X=1.99) and post-test scores (X=2.20) was not significant, the difference between the experimental group's pre-test (X=1.81) and post-test (X=4.20) mean scores were found significant. \u0026nbsp; The difference between groups (.78) has a large effect, and the differences between measurements (.97) and the common effect (.96) have a very large effect.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher Collaboration Skills Third Dimension: ACT\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 shows that the difference between the groups in the ACT dimension (F (1,30)=9.49, p\u0026lt;.05) was significant. The ACT skills of the experimental group (X=4.27) were higher than those of the control group (X=3.68). The difference between the pre-and post-test (F (1,30) =42.574, p\u0026lt;.05) was significant. In this case, it can be noted that teachers' ACT skills were enhanced at the end of teacher collaboration training, and the training was effective. When the common interaction between measurements and groups was analyzed, it was observed that the difference (F (1,30)=53.315, p\u0026lt;.05) was significant. When the effect size of the difference in ACT mean score was examined, it was observed that the effect size for the significant difference between groups (.49) was at a low medium level, the pre-test and post-test mean scores were almost large (.77), and the common effect difference (.80) had a large effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher Collaboration Skills Fourth Dimension: EVA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc143726523\"\u003eAs illustrated in Table 4, the difference between the experimental and control groups in the EVA dimension was significant (F (1,30)=65.261, p\u0026lt;.05). The experimental group (X=3.28) had a higher evaluation skill score than did the control group (X=2.59). The difference between the measurements (F (1,30)=419.321, p\u0026lt;.05) was significant. Post-test scores (X =3.51) differed significantly from pre-test scores (X =2.36). The group measurement common effect result was also significant (F (1,30) =490.829, p\u0026lt;.05). According to the ANOVA results. At the same time, there was no significant difference between the control group's pre-test (X =2.64) and post-test scores (X =2.55), the difference between the other experimental group scores was significant (p\u0026lt;.05). In the comparison of EVA mean scores by group, the difference between the experimental and control groups (.83) had a large effect, the difference between pre-test and post-test means scores (.97) had a very large effect. The common effect differences (.97) had a very large effect. It can be concluded that there was an improvement in EVA skills and that training was effective.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ 2 Qualitative Data Results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eParticipant opinions are presented under two headings: findings from pre- and post-intervention interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings from Pre-Intervention Interviews\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe teachers were asked about their current instructional practices, planning, and evaluation in the interviews conducted before implementation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCurrent Instructional Practices.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThree subthemes formed by related codes were identified. These were (a) an individualized education program (IEP), (b) the MoNE curriculum, and (c) other factors. All of the participating teachers stated that they basically took into account the IEPs of the students while carrying out their practices and that they focused on language skills, daily life skills, and behavior change. However, they also indicated that they had to follow the MoNE curriculum in the weekly lesson flow and shared their views. For example, EGCT 1 stated, “\u003cem\u003eOur instructional process aligns with the MoNE weekly lesson plan, but we follow students' IEPs apart from subject-specific classes. We assess the performance once a year, and a general evaluation is made. There are students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in our class. Thus, the programs progress individually\u003c/em\u003e.”\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers emphasized that the MoNE has a list of outcomes, but they took an approach based on the students' IEPs. Explaining the reason for this under the code of \u003cem\u003eincompatibility\u003c/em\u003e with MoNE, the teachers stated that they use individually tailored programs since their classes involve students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCurrent Planning Process and Lack of System.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe teachers highlighted some limitations regarding instructional planning. Under this theme, four codes emerged with the subtheme of ‘limitations in the planning process.’ The primary challenge identified in planning is the \u003cem\u003ediverse needs of students\u003c/em\u003e. Another significant limitation is the \u003cem\u003econstrained planning time\u003c/em\u003e. Despite these challenges, the teachers also mentioned conducting a \u003cem\u003everbal-spontaneous\u003c/em\u003e planning process based on the students’ IEPs due to their \u003cem\u003ediverse needs\u003c/em\u003e. EGCT 2 explained students' varying needs, “...\u003cem\u003ewe frequently give individual attention to the students. Our students even show both autism-related and many other problem behaviors in class. Additionally, they are highly energetic. For this reason, we usually try to divide and manage three students in a different area in the classroom for a certain period while actively engaging with another student. We only have the opportunity for individualized instruction.\u003c/em\u003e”\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc143726527\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCurrent Evaluation Process and Lack of System.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThis theme was identified with five codes and two subthemes, ‘limitations in the evaluation process’ and ‘other evaluation factors.’ All teachers generally underlined the lack of a system for the assessment. The teachers pointed out that this is a \u003cem\u003espontaneous-verbal\u003c/em\u003e process, indicating they do not have written records or a system and that they proceed verbally. For instance, EGCT 1 said, “\u003cem\u003eThis process progresses spontaneously according to the condition of the children.\u003c/em\u003e” Similarly, all teachers stated that the assessment progresses in accordance with the \u003cem\u003estudents’ learning pace\u003c/em\u003e, which is too slow. The teachers, noting the lack of regular meetings outside of classes, emphasized that even short intervals necessitate their presence for students, which poses limitations in evaluating their practices and leads to making daily verbal decisions and implementations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings From Post-Intervention Interviews\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the interviews conducted after the intervention, 22 codes that emerged from the teachers' opinions about participating in this study and its contribution to their collaborative working skills were grouped under seven subthemes, and three themes were identified. The themes were (a) teacher views on participating in the study, (b) teacher views on collaborative working skills, and (c) teacher views on co-teaching models. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTeachers' Views on Their Participation in the Study and the Effects of the Study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eTwelve codes grouped under three subthemes were formed regarding this theme. All the teachers described their feelings about participating in the present study as ‘positive’ and ‘enjoyable.’ They all expressed their appreciation for being given the opportunity to be involved in this research and conveyed gratitude. EGCT 8 asserted, ‘\u003cem\u003eEverything went very well for me. Yeah, collaborative working methods were really productive. I think it was beneficial for both us and our students\u003c/em\u003e.” When the subtheme ‘experiences’ was analyzed, ‘interaction-practice and ‘efficiency-knowledge updating’ emerged as recurring codes across all teachers. According to the teachers, the interaction between them and the researcher during the intervention was noteworthy, as was the practical nature of the study and the impact of the process, which included written materials and feedback. The teachers' opinions on the effects of the training package and its implementation were analyzed under the subtheme of ‘the effect of the intervention.’ The codes ‘systematic progress-comparison,’ ‘increase in collaborative work skills,’ and ‘readiness checklist’ were formed when analyzing the opinions of teachers who reported distinct experiences. Regarding the first code, EGCT 11 noted, “\u003cem\u003ePreviously, we had a good rapport. Following this process, it became more student-oriented. In the past, my colleague could say, ‘I know this student better; his/her level is low, and you should proceed with this approach.’ However, now we make decisions together. But now, we decide together considering the students’ level.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eThis aided us in avoiding misunderstandings, such as incorrect entries on forms. We provided feedback to each other as a group during this process.”\u003c/em\u003e All teachers who compared their previous practices indicated that this training contributed well to their improved collaborative working skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeachers' Views on Collaborative Working Skills.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eIn the analysis of this theme, eight codes grouped under the subthemes of ‘general views’ and ‘views on practice-based intervention’ were labeled. For the former subtheme, in addition to gaining ‘awareness,’ teachers emphasized that collaborative working is ‘necessary,’ especially in special education, and the significance of working based upon the collaboration cycle. For the latter subtheme, the codes ‘joint decision-making—planning,’ ‘record-keeping—forms,’ ‘equality-task sharing,’ ‘mutual communication-feedback’ and ‘frequency of evaluation’ were attained. The teachers, who commented that their practices were carried out verbally and spontaneously before the implementation, used similar expressions for the code of record-keeping and forms. Under the subtheme of views regarding the intervention process, they similarly indicated that working collaboratively during implementation ensured equality between co-teachers and provided a model that would solve possible problems in task sharing. The last codes were ‘mutual communication’ and ‘frequency of evaluation.’ Further, 6 of the 16 teachers participating in the study stressed that they commenced to evaluate their practices and students more frequently.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc143726530\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeachers' Views on Co-Teaching Models.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eAfter expressing their opinions in general, the teachers shared their views on the intervention, which were grouped under the subthemes of ‘general views’ and ‘views on practice-based intervention,’ and six codes were reached. All the teachers who participated in the study reported that they liked all of the models in general, explaining the code of ‘usefulness and suggestions’ with different perspectives. Another code that emerged during the data analysis process was ‘realizing-learning.’ Regarding this code, 12 teachers asserted that they reviewed their own roles during the process and considered how the models could be applied in their classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ 3 Mixed Data Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo understand the effectiveness of the Collaboration Training Package, the connection/relationship between the development of the collaborative working skills of the teachers who participated in the experimental intervention process and teachers' opinions were summarized. The differences between the pre-test and post-test scores of the teachers in the experimental group and how the quantitative and qualitative findings of the interviews conducted before and after the intervention confirmed each other are visualized and presented in Figure 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe quantitative data regarding the pre-intervention, namely the teachers' pre-test scores, align with their views on the current implementation processes. Following the intervention, the scores obtained from all TCSS sub-dimensions increased compared with the pre-intervention scores. When the effect size was analyzed, medium- and high-level effect size was observed in all dimensions. These results were in parallel with the co-teachers’ viewpoints in the post-intervention interviews. Participants’ opinions confirmed the effectiveness of the training package.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion and Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the effect of the Collaboration Training Package on the enhancement of collaborative working skills of co-teachers working in special education schools and sharing the same class's responsibilities. The Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale (Basık \u0026amp; Dayı, 2024) was used to determine the statistical significance of the difference between the pre-and post-test scores of the teachers in the experimental and control groups. In addition, interviews were conducted with teachers in the experimental group before and after the intervention.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn increase was detected in four skills in the collaboration cycle for all of the experimental group teachers. Moreover, medium-, high-, and very-high-level effect sizes were calculated. A similar result emerged from the teacher-interview findings, consistent with professional development research developed in line with teachers’ needs (Drandic \u0026amp; Paic, 2020; Uysal, 2021). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the pre-intervention pre-test and pre-interview findings, there were no findings regarding the collaboration cycle in the current workflows of co-teachers. However, the general increase in post-intervention scores is noteworthy. Among the reasons for this, it is thought that the teachers’ active role during the implementation and their decision-making about their classes with the co-teachers had an impact. In all sessions held with the teachers, it was observed that they progressed considering the models they determined and the collaboration cycle, and an increase was noticed in line with the post-test scores they received. When the ‘dialogue and decision-making’ dimension, the first step of collaboration skills, is compared with the pre-intervention, a significant difference and a higher effect size were found between the pre-test and post-test scores. The literature emphasizes that dedicating sufficient time to dialogue and decision-making is the most critical step in collaborative working skills, directly affecting the subsequent stages of collaboration (Friend, 2021; Woodland et al., 2016). Prior to the intervention, this dimension was perceived as synonymous with teachers’ interpersonal relationships. As a matter of fact, in national studies, this step was not addressed in terms of student-oriented joint planning time, record keeping, and access to these records by all stakeholders, and findings were mainly focused on interpersonal relationships (Uçar, 2021; Özsoy, 2019). In the ‘decision-making’ dimension of collaboration, it is noteworthy that each decision-making mechanism (unanimity, majority of votes, etc.) was not mentioned but explained in relation to annual formal meetings (Pürsün et al., 2021). \u0026nbsp;In this respect, the research is believed to provide teachers with a new perspective and awareness of collaboration, increase their knowledge and skills in collaborative working skills, and offer a systematic structure in the collaboration cycle, as suggested in the literature (Butera \u0026amp; Martinez, 2014; Friend, 2021;\u0026nbsp;Supovitz \u0026amp; Sirinides, 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current study is the first on collaboration among teachers working with co-teachers in special education classrooms. However, this is similar to other studies conducted in Türkiye regarding the implementation of co-teaching models. Unlike previous research (Dağlı et al., 2020; Gürgür, 2005; Kayhan, 2016; Koç, 2021), the Collaboration Training Package, which was developed distinctly from other existing studies, was presented as a whole to cover the topics of collaboration, six models of co-teaching, collaboration cycle, and practice-based training.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe critical importance of teachers working collaboratively was highlighted to effectively implement co-teaching models (Friend, 2021; Koç, 2021; King-Sears et al., 2020). As a result of this research, the findings shed light on a vital issue since the experimental group teachers carried out a process based on a collaborative cycle from the stage of determining teaching models to the planning, action, and evaluation stages. Additionally, while developing the training package, arrangements were made to ensure teachers’ active participation and joint decision-making about their classes. Designing relevant recording forms and receiving feedback during the intervention helped them feel a sense of belonging to the process. This situation was reflected in the results, leading to increased motivation to continue participation in the implementation process and to learn. Similar findings were obtained from the teacher-interview data. Similar results were also observed in teacher education studies that provided teacher feedback (Akalin \u0026amp; Sucuoğlu, 2015; Safak vd., 2016; Karasu İşcen, 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral factors should be considered when evaluating the findings of this study. Firstly, the research implementation process was embraced not only by the participating teachers who volunteered but also by the school administration. Administrators allowed minor adjustments within the intervention, considering the legal boundaries, to maintain the study's validity. The researcher was provided a study room, and the researcher-teacher interaction was supported. Another crucial factor was collecting the quantitative data face-to-face and individually. Teachers could ask the researcher questions about the items they were unsure about while answering the scale questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and Suggestions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe positive findings of this study should be interpreted in light of some limitations. The operating system of special education schools and teacher characteristics in Türkiye and the region where the research was conducted were highly similar. However, the fact that this study was executed in two schools in this region is one of the limitations. Another one is that the experimental implementation was completed at the end of the autumn term, and the follow-up data were not collected since the semester break commenced after the post-test data collection. In addition, student outcomes were not examined in this study; instead, the focus was on investigating the development of teachers' collaboration skills. Apart from the implementation sessions conducted by the researcher, teachers' equal task sharing and their practices were analyzed through recording forms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn these respects, future research can examine the effects of collaborative working approaches and teaching practices on teacher outcomes by applying them in classrooms with inclusion/integration practices in Türkiye, except for special education schools. In this study, teacher skills were analyzed, and student outcomes were not examined. Future research can explore the effects of collaborative working skills and collaborative teaching models by examining student outcomes. In future studies, the generalizability of the results could be increased by working with larger study groups. Based on cooperation in special education, the current situation can be determined by examining the determination, evaluation, placement, and transition of suitability for special education between institutions and experts providing services in institutions. In this regard, models for collaboration among experts and/or institutions can be developed. To implement collaborative teaching models in general education and special education schools, a systematic structure can be created by making adjustments concerning the logistical needs of collaborative teaching, such as time, financial resources, and professional development. Practice-based in-service training on collaborative working and co-teaching models can be expanded, and the training package applied in the present study can be improved and utilized. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eData Availability:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthors agree to share the data underlying their work and to submit a Data Availability Statement in the manuscript. The relevant link is included in Step 1 of the manuscript submission.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkalin S, Sucuoğlu B (2015) Effects of classroom management intervention based on teacher training and performance feedback on outcomes of teacher-student dyads in inclusive. Educational Sciences: Theory Pract 15(3):739\u0026ndash;758. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.3.2543\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.12738/estp.2015.3.2543\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBasık R, Dayı E (2024) The development, validity, and reliability study of teacher collaboration skills scale. \u003cem\u003eAnkara \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi \u0026Ouml;zel Eğitim Dergisi.\u003c/em\u003e Advance online puplication\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1416522\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1416522\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaşaran YK (2019) Sampling theory in social sciences. J Acad Social Sci 47(47):480\u0026ndash;495. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.12368\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16992/ASOS.12368\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButera G, Martinez RS (2014) Multidisciplinary collaboration to support struggling readers: Special issue introduction. J Educational Psychol Consultation 24(2):75\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.903190\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10474412.2014.903190\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrendle J, Lock R, Piazza K (2017) A study of co-teaching identifying effective implementation strategies. Int J Special Educ 32(3):538\u0026ndash;550. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184155.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184155.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Plano Clark VL (2018) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChitiyo J, Brinda W (2018) Teacher preparedness in the use of co-teaching in ınclusive classrooms. Support Learn 33(1):38\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12190\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1467-9604.12190\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDağlı G\u0026ouml;kbulut \u0026Ouml;, Ak\u0026ccedil;amete G (2020) An applied study on co-teaching in inclusive education]. Kesit Akademi Dergisi 6(24):30\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.29228/kesit.45470\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29228/kesit.45470\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDağlı G\u0026ouml;kbulut \u0026Ouml;, Ak\u0026ccedil;amete G, G\u0026uuml;neyli A (2020) The effect of co-teaching practices on the reading comprehension skills of primary school students with special needs. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 19(74):879\u0026ndash;894. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.592673\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17755/esosder.592673\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDayı E, Basık R (2021) Collaboration in social adaptation skills. In: Dayı E (ed) Teaching Social Adaptation Skills. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, pp 29\u0026ndash;81\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDayı E, Bilgi\u0026ccedil; HC, \u0026Ouml;zdemir Kılı\u0026ccedil; M, Okyar S (2020) The effect of feedback given to prospective teachers working with students with severe and multiple disabilities on collaborative working skills. Hacettepe Egitim Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi 35:526\u0026ndash;539. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019054153\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16986/HUJE.2019054153\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemir Ş (2016) \u003cem\u003eThe effects of a teacher training program on teachers and children with special needs in inclusive preschool classrooms\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 443308) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Backer L, Simons M, Schelfhout W, Vandervieren E (2021) Let\u0026rsquo;s team up! measuring student teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of team teaching experiences. Kayapinar, U. (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eTeacher Education- New Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;22). IntechOpen. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96069\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5772/intechopen.96069\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW (2013) Achieving integration in mixed methods designs\u0026mdash;principles and practices. Health Serv Res 48(6pt2):2134\u0026ndash;2156. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1475-6773.12117\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriend M (2021) Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals, 9th edn. Pearson Education, Inc\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriend M (2014) Co-Teach! building and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools. Marilyn Friend, Inc\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriend M, Embury DC, Clarke L (2015) Co-Teaching Versus Apprentice Teaching: An Analysis of Similarities and Differences. Teacher Educ Special Educ 38(2):79\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414529308\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0888406414529308\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eG\u0026uuml;rg\u0026uuml;r H (2005) \u003cem\u003eExamining the collaborative teaching approach in the primary school classroom where mainstreaming is implemented\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 205204) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2004) \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sites.ed.gov/idea/?src=policy-page\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sites.ed.gov/idea/?src=policy-page\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarasu İşcen F (2017) \u003cem\u003eThe effect of performance feedback on preschool teachers' preventive classroom management strategies and special needs child outcomes\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 468277) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKayhan N (2016) \u003cem\u003eThe effect of a teaching observer model, one of the co-teaching approaches, on the effective teaching skills of classroom teachers in inclusive environments\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 419282) [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKing-Sears ME, Jenkins MC, Brawand A (2020) Co-teaching perspectives from middle schoolalgebra co-teachers and their students with and without disabilities. Int J Incl Educ 24:427\u0026ndash;442. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1465134\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13603116.2018.1465134\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKo\u0026ccedil; H (2021) \u003cem\u003eExamining the collaborative teaching approach in a kindergarten where integration practices are carried out: An action research\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 705348) [Doctoral Dissertation, Anadolu University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLochner WW, Murawski WW, Daley JT (2019) The effect of co-teaching on student cognitive engagement. Theory\u0026amp;Practice Rural Educ 9(2):6\u0026ndash;19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2019.v9n2p6-19\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3776/tpre.2019.v9n2p6-19\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of National Education (1997) \u003cem\u003eDecree law on special education\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/4.5.573.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/4.5.573.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of National Education (2017) \u003cem\u003eTeaching profession general competencies handbook\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehttp://\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eoygm.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretmenlik-meslegi-genel-yeterlikleri/icerik/39\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretmenlik-meslegi-genel-yeterlikleri/icerik/39\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of National Education (2018) \u003cem\u003eSpecial education services regulation\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/mevzuat-yonetmelik/icerik/1958\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/mevzuat-yonetmelik/icerik/1958\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of National Education (2019) \u003cem\u003eRegulation on the norm staff of administrators and teachers of educational institutions affiliated with the Ministry of National Education\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/21.5.20146459.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/21.5.20146459.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of National Education (2022) \u003cem\u003eNational education statistics formal education report.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=460\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=460\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller CK (2009) Optimizing collaboration between medical and school-based speech-language pathologists managing pediatric dysphagia. Perspect Swallowing Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) 18(3):91\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1044/sasd18.3.91\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1044/sasd18.3.91\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;zsoy B (2019) \u003cem\u003eStating the cooperation level of special education teachers with their headmasters, collegues and students' parents\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 551530) [Master\u0026rsquo;s thesis, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eP\u0026uuml;rs\u0026uuml;n T, Okutan S, Atbaşı Z (2021) Opinions of teachers working in special education and rehabilitation centers and special education schools on cooperation. Natl Educ J 50(232):287\u0026ndash;311. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.747646\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.37669/milliegitim.747646\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSafak P, Yılmaz HC, Demiry\u0026uuml;rek P, Doğuş M (2016) The effect of performance feedback provided to student-teachers working with multiple disabilities. Eur J Educational Res 5(3):109\u0026ndash;123. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.5.3.109\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.12973/eu-jer.5.3.109\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSebald A, Myers A, Frederiksen H, Pike E (2023) Collaborative co-teaching during student teaching pilot project: what difference does context make? J Educ 203(1):18\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211016403\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00220574211016403\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSupovitz J, Sirinides P (2018) The linking study: An experiment to strengthen teachers\u0026rsquo; engagement with data on teaching and learning. Am J Educ 124(2):161\u0026ndash;189. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/695610\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1086/695610\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScott SN (2021) \u003cem\u003eCo-teachers are provided strategies to ımplement co-teaching through the four cycles of teacher collaboration: A Qualitative Case Study\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 28542703) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Grand Canyon]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurner TP (2017) \u003cem\u003eCo-teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the four domains of teacher collaboration\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 10282358) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Grand Canyon]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU\u0026ccedil;ar AS (2021) \u003cem\u003eEvaluation the collaboration processes in a primary school providing inclusive education\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 705134) [Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUysal \u0026Ccedil; (2021) \u003cem\u003eEmpower the power: Investigation of the empowering process of preschool teachers in inclusion practices\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 705212) [Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeiss MP, Pellegrino A, Regan K, Mann L (2015) Beyond the blind date: Collaborative course development and co-teaching by teacher educators. Teacher Educ Special Educ 38(2):88\u0026ndash;104. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414548599\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0888406414548599\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWoodland RH (2016) Evaluating PK\u0026ndash;12 Professional Learning Communities: An Improvement Science Perspective. Am J Evaluation 37(4):505\u0026ndash;521. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016634203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1098214016634203\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWoodland R, Lee MK, Randall J (2013) A validation study of the Teacher Collaboration Assessment Survey. Educational Res Evaluation 19(5):442\u0026ndash;460. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.795118\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13803611.2013.795118\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYopp RH, Ellis MW, Bonsangue MV, Duarte T, Meza S (2014) Piloting a co-teaching model for mathematics teacher preparation: Learning to teach together. Issues Teacher Educ 23(1):91\u0026ndash;111. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045811\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045811\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYılmaz B (2020) \u003cem\u003eInvestigating the effects of practice based coaching professional development program on the quality of inclusive preschool classrooms, teachers and children\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 612534) [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZagona AL, Kurth JA, MacFarland SZ (2017) Teachers\u0026rsquo; views of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Educ Special Educ 40(3):163\u0026ndash;178. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0888406417692969\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e ANOVA Test Results for the Dialogue and Decision-Making Sub-Score\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"599\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource of Variance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDDM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Subjects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.971\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.971\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.511\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.959\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.132\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePillai\u0026rsquo;s Trace\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eError SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasurement (Pre/Post)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.943\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e494.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup*Measurement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.951\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e585.435\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.000\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.78\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDDM* Dialogue and Decision Making\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc143252067\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u003c/strong\u003e ANOVA Test Results for the Meetings and Participation Sub-Score\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"599\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource of Variance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003er\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Subjects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.695\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.695\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.668\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.307\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePillai\u0026rsquo;s Trace\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eError SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasurement (Pre/Post)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.943\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e495.806\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroup*Measurement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.922\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e353.808\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.000\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.96\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMP* Meetings and Participation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc143252068\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eANOVA Test Results for the Action Sub-score\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"604\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource of Variance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003er\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eACT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Subjects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.473\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.641\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.641\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.490\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.832\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.594\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePillai\u0026rsquo;s Trace\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eError SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasurement (Pre/Post)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.587\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.574\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroup*Measurement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.640\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.315\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eACT* Action\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc143252069\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eANOVA Test Results for the Evaluation Sub-Score\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"605\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource of Variance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003er\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEVA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween Subjects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.457.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.738\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,738\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.261\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eError\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.719\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e,057\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePillai\u0026rsquo;s Trace\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eError SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasurement (Pre/Post)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.933\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e419.321\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroup*Measurement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.942\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e490.829\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.000\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.97\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;EVA* Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Special education, Collaboration, Co-teaching, Collaboration skills, Teacher training, Professional development, Performance feedback,","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538149/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538149/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the effect of the training package offered to teachers working in special education schools on the skills of working in collaboration. Within the scope of this study, a training package supporting professional development was developed and implemented. Teachers were provided with feedback during the implementation process. Within the scope of the research, the Teacher Collaboration Skills Scale, which also provides construct validity, was developed to use it as a measurement tool and to bring it into the field. In the quantitative dimension of this research, in which the mixed methods research simultaneous intervention design was used, the paired experimental (n=16) and control (n=16) groups were pretested and posttested, and in the qualitative dimension, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the experimental group. The results showed that the training package on cooperation, which was implemented, increased teachers’ collaboration skills, and the quantitative and qualitative findings confirmed each other.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of Collaboration Training Package on Special Education Teachers' Collaborative Working Skills: A Mixed-Method Research","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-29 08:01:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6538149/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"64635a3e-57f1-4063-b943-dc3db57d77d2","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":47733400,"name":"Special Education"},{"id":47733401,"name":"School Counseling"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-29T08:01:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-29 08:01:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6538149","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6538149","identity":"rs-6538149","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}