Sunday, May 31, 2009

analitic essay


Only information about coteaching

Susan and Frank Gately in their article “Understanding Coteaching Components” state the importance of “identify the developmental level for each component may help teachers set goals that will let them move more quickly from one developmental level to the next”. (2001, p40) After reading and analyzing their ideas, I shall say that even though the authors provide information about coteaching to support their thesis, the definition of each of these levels does not explain how to move from one level to another.
They start their argument by giving importance to the collaborative work between general and special educators. They define their thesis and state that the article is compound of descriptions and examples about each level of the developmental stage needed to acquire a collaborative classroom. Also at the end of the article, they include an instrument called the coteaching rating scale (CtRS) which has been created to examine teachers’ coteaching work and focus on those areas which need improvement.
What seems disconnected of the argument is the way they present the CrRS and the ways the authors believe should be used. First of all, they present scales for each teacher separated and it is evidently seen that both are the same. This is something that may confuse the reader in terms of using different instruments to measure the same job in the classroom. Secondly, the authors suggest some ways in which teachers can use this scale focusing only in the agreement between the teachers’ answers more than in the way this work can be improved. Finally, they conclude the article by stating the use of the scale as an instrument without referring to any of the levels previously presented.
This article states there are uneven ways of development in the components of coteaching, and it has been said that there is some information missing in order to improve their coteaching work in the classroom. What should be included in this article is a way of applying this scale where teachers not only get together, but work on a way to use the components in the classes and acquire those levels faster. There should be more research on the topic to find out more ideas of how to improve coteaching work in every type of classroom. Also, it is important to follow an organized form of presenting the elements, avoiding the lack of conclusion. Reflecting not only in the presentation of the scale but also on the input these levels of developing can bring to the discussion about coteaching work.
In the end, it is fundamental to say that if the authors pretend to identify the developmental levels of the components to improve the time in which they move from one to another, they should have to include not only the levels. Moreover, they need to include some more information about coteaching and the appropriate use of the scale to find the applicability of this one in the classroom. Exposing ideas and information is not enough to produce a possibility in the teachers’ ways of working within their classrooms.


Gately, Susan E. and Frank J. Gately. “Understanding Coteaching Components.” Teaching Exceptional Children 33.4 (2001) : 40-47.

3 comments:

C Hickerson said...

Only information about coteaching ((Is this your title? If so, it’s a bit unclear what you mean.))

Susan and Frank Gately,* in their article “Understanding Coteaching Components,”* state *that identifying* "the developmental level for each component may help teachers set goals that will let them move more quickly from one developmental level to the next”. (2001, p40) ((Check format for parenthetical citation! Also, is it really necessary to quote them here, in your first sentence? It really takes away from your voice as the writer.)) After reading and analyzing their ideas, I shall say that even though the authors provide information ((what kind of information?)) about coteaching to support their thesis, the definition of each of these levels does not explain how to move from one level to another. ((State why that is important.))
They ((Don't start a paragraph with a pronoun.)) start their argument by giving importance to the collaborative work between general and special educators. They define their thesis and state that the article is compound WW of descriptions and examples about each level of the developmental stage needed to acquire a collaborative classroom. Also,* at the end of the article, they include an instrument called the coteaching rating scale (CtRS) which has been created to examine teachers’ coteaching work and focus on those areas which need improvement.
What seems disconnected *in their* argument is the way they present the CrRS and the ways the authors believe SM should be used. First of all, they present scales for each teacher separated ?M and SS it is evidently seen that both are the same. ((If I ignore the conversation we had in class, I'm not clear on the problem as it is described here.)) This is something that may confuse the reader in terms of using different instruments to measure the same job in the classroom. Secondly, the authors suggest some ways in which teachers can use this scale,* focusing only in WW the agreement between the teachers’ answers more than in the way this work ((What work?)) can be improved. Finally, they conclude the article by stating the use of the scale as an instrument without referring to any of the levels previously presented.

C Hickerson said...

This article states there are uneven ways of development in the components of coteaching, and it has been said ((who has said this? This is a bit confusing.)) that there is some information missing in order to improve their coteaching work in the classroom. What should be included in this article is a way of applying this scale where teachers not only get together(,) but work on a way to use the components in the classes and acquire those levels faster. There should be more research on the topic to find out more *about* how to improve coteaching work in every type of classroom. Also, it is important to follow an organized form of presenting the elements, avoiding the lack of conclusion. ((Is this a new criticism of yours? That they lack a conclusion? If so, you should introduce it and address it before making your suggestions.)) Reflecting not only in the presentation of the scale but also on the input these levels of developing can bring to the discussion about coteaching work. ((This isn't a sentence.))
In the end, it is fundamental to say that if the authors pretend to identify the developmental levels of the components to improve the time in which they ((who is they?)) move from one to another, they should (have to) include not only the levels. ((Usually, when you say 'not only,' you include 'but also.' However, I think you mean to say that they shouldn't include the levels alone but should include ...))) Moreover, they need to include some more information about coteaching and the appropriate use of the scale to find the applicability of this one ((this one?)) in the classroom. Exposing ideas and information is not enough to produce a possibility ((a possibility of what?)) in the teachers’ ways of working within their classrooms.

A very well-organized essay. You're right on task. The thing to watch out for is clearly explaining the problems you have with the text. I feel I understand this essay only because you have talked to me about your critique beforehand. See my specific questions and comments in the text for areas to focus on clarification.

C Hickerson said...

Check this out for citing your gov't source:
http://citationmachine.net/index.php?reqstyleid=1&reqsrcid=27&mode=form&more=yes