INTERNATIONAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY: APPLIED BUSINESS AND EDUCATION RESEARCH Collective Efficacy and Co-Teaching Relationships in Inclusive Classrooms

Co-teaching is becoming prevalent in meeting the needs of students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Co-teachers face more challenges in collaboration, relationships, and defining roles. Collective teacher efficacy is the shared belief that a team of co-teachers can make a positive difference in student achievement and school culture. This quantitative study aims to assess the teachers' self-efficacy and the collective efficacy of the co-teaching team to develop cohesive and working relationships to benefit students in inclusive middle classrooms in a suburban school district in the United State s. Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory and efficacy as a set of proximal determining factors of teachers’ affect and ac-tions theoretically framed the study. The research questions used focused on understanding the kinds of things that create challenges for teachers. Also, they considered the combination of the current ability, resources, and opportunities for teachers and the co-teach-ing team. The data from the instruments were collected, catego-rized, and tabulated for interpretation and analysis. The findings show correlated efficacy factors in student engagement, instructional practices, and classroom management. The results recom-mended for same planning time, collaboration, and understanding of shared roles of the co-teaching team.


Background
Co-teaching settings are becoming common and an increasing trend as school districts and educators pursue meeting the vast range of students' learning needs. Washut and Bacharach (2004) defined co-teaching as two teachers, a general education teacher and a special education teacher, who may not have the same expertise, jointly working together with a group of students, sharing the planning, IJMABER 1813 Volume 3 | Number 9 | September | 2022 delivering instructions, administering, and evaluating assessments as well as organizing the learning environment. According to the report of the National Center of Education Statistics, about 12.9 percent of students in the United States of America have some specific learning disabilities. With another about 9 percent who are English language learners, theoretically there are about 20 percent of the student population in the United States of America are students with a wide range of special needs.
The validity of teaching children who were intellectually hindered in segregated classrooms and schools ws questioned by Dunn in 2000. In his article which was recorded in the text of the anti-segregation movement revealed the need to end the segregated nature of classes for students with disabilities.
However, in the late 1960s, a movement initially driven by concerned parents with the purpose of including special education learners and later other group of students facing other type or kind of conditions and circumstances to have access to a regular education program and not be segregated nor isolated from their peers became the basis for the creation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or the acronym IDEA. The said act included two fundamentals as provisions: a free, appropriate education (FAPE) and the least restrictive environment (LRE), respectively. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also mandates due process and the implementation of the Individual Education Plan (IEP). The IDEA was initially signed into law in 1975 and has been amended, revised, and expanded many times ever since.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is a legal regulation that necessitates students with disabilities be taught in the general education environment with their peers. Morin (2014), at a glance, simplified LRE as "students who get special education need to be in the same classroom as other kids as much as possible, a principle that guides a child's education program and may look different as each child is unique". Osborne, Dimattia, & Curran (2004) stressed that "LRE was included in the IDEA to help students with disabilities access the general education and prohibit the practice of segregating students with special needs". However, many students with disabilities remain segregated using pullout and categorical placements. The efforts to reach the needs of all students evolved from mainstreaming to inclusion. Mainstreaming was an effort to place special education students into the general education classroom without having specialized assistance, but many students struggled.
It is noted that, inclusion was the new wave of reform with co-teaching as its most ideal effort. Students with special needs are instructed in the general education classes and supported by specialists. As inclusion evolves, co-teaching denotes the relationship of the general education teacher and the special education teacher to provide a better environment for students and to help students perform well. And the practice of co-teaching is increasingly observed and embraced at all levels. Many educators look at a colleague to co-teach in anticipation while an equal number fear or even dread the thought.
This research is led to examine the self-efficacy and collective efficacy of general and special education teachers in forming co-teaching relationships in a school setting organized to serve students through an inclusion setting. The study examined the teaching beliefs and self-efficacy of teachers specifically general education teachers and special education teachers in developing collective efficacy in coteaching relationships in an inclusive school setting. The study will explore factors that contribute to the success or the lack thereof in forming a cohesive co-teaching relationship.

Methods
This research made use of the quantitative research design especifically descriptive resaerch. The descriptive research design helped the researcher assess the self-efficacy of teacher and collective efficacy of co-teaching partnerships in middle schools. The teachers' efficacy survey identified the abilities, challenges, resources and opportunities of the teacher and combination of both the general educator and special educator.
The researcher identified the challenges as well in the co-teaching environment and determine the strengths, abilities, resources and IJMABER 1814 Volume 3 | Number 9 | September | 2022 opportunities that are factors for a successful co-teaching partnership. Moreover, this study determined the exhibited the roles of the general education and special education teachers in the inclusive setting.

Locale of the Study
The study is conducted in selected middle schools in Northern Virginia school district. These schools serve general education and special education students in the same classroom using the inclusion co-teaching model. The schools are Harmony Intermediate School and Valley Middle School in the United States of America.

Participants and Sampling Procedure
The participants for this study included general education teachers and special education teachers who use the co-teaching model in inclusion classes. The general education teachers may teach academic core classes like language arts, mathematics, sciences and social sciences. The participants were invited to take questionnaire. The participation was fully voluntary if they wish to be part of the study. Total enumeration was adminstered among the respondents of the study from both instituions, respectively -in Harmony Intermediate School and Valley Middle School in the United State of America.

Data Gathering Procedures
Through a request letter, the permission to conduct this study was sought from the school district of selected schools. After getting a favorable approval, the questionnaires in Google form were sent to teachers' email. Responses of the select respondents were tallied, reviewed and subjected to specific statistical tools for treatment of the data.

Research Instrument
The survey questionnaire is the principal tool in the gathering the needed data. The survey questionnaire has four (4) parts. The first part deals with the profile of the teacher which includes the gender, age, marital status, race, teaching assignment, and years of experience and role as a general educator or a special educator. The second elicit the teacher's sense of self-efficacy where to assess their capability concerning instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management. The third presents with collective efficacy scale in a co-teaching setting with assessment of ability, resources, and opportunities of the co-teaching partnership. The fourth deals with identifying and assessing roles and responsibilities of each teacher in the co-teaching partnership and the rating of their co-teaching team.

Statistical Treatment
The data gathered from the respondents through the Google form were collected, classified, categorized, analyzed and tabulated for interpretation and analysis. Frequency counts and percentage were used in treating the profile of the respondents. Mean was used to determine the efficacy of teachers and the efficacy of the co-teaching team. The Teacher Efficacy and Collective Efficacy Scale uses factor analysis. It will find three moderately correlated factors: Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practice and Efficacy in Classroom Management. To determine the Teacher Scale Efficacy subscale scores, the unweighted means that load on each factor will be computed. The grouping are as follows: • Efficacy in Student Engagement Items 1,2,4,6,9,12,14,22 • Efficacy in Instructional Practice Items 7,10,11,17,18,20,23,24 • Efficacy in Classroom Management Items 3,5,8,13,15,16,19,21 In the study reported in Tschamen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001) The respective roles and responsibilities were collected, organized, tabulated and analyzed using listing and values.

Value
Exhibited Role 1 General Education Teacher Role 2 Shared Role 3 Special Education Teacher Role The co-teaching rate was analyzed by frequency and percentage.

Rate
Descriptive Value 5 Highly efficacious 4 More efficacious 3 Moderately efficacious 2 Less efficacious 1 Not efficacious

Profile of the Respondents
A total of 83 teachers with a distribution of 49 general education teachers (59%) and 34 special education teachers (41%) answered the instrument. The respondents are general education teachers and special education teachers from two middle schools in the Northern Virginia public school district.

Figure 2. Profile of Respondents according to Gender
Therev are 62.7% of the respondents pertained to people who identified as female, 30.1% were people who identified as male, and 7.2% preferred not to mention their gender.
This means that the pool of teachers was female dominated. The respondents also accurately reflect the gender of the teachers in the reference area.

Figure 3. Profile of Respondents based on Marital Status
There are 63.9% of the respondents are married, 16.9% are single, 16.9% are divorced, and 7.2% are living together.

Figure 4. Profile of Respondents based on Race
Most ofn the teachers are White with a percentage of 73.5%, followed by Hispanic or Latino with 9.6%, an even percentage of 3.6% for Asians and Black African, and 9.6% for other race.

Figure 5. Profile of Respondents based on Age
Most of the teachers were middle-aged with about 59%, and a significant percentage of 22.9% was closer to retirement. IJMABER 1817 Volume 3 | Number 9 | September | 2022

Figure 6. Profile of Respondents based on Years of Experience
Based on the data, most respondents have only five years or less of teaching experience, 34.9%. In comparison to the age range where most teachers are in the middle-aged group, there is a possibility that many teachers are career shifters or have started teaching at a later age.

Correlation between subgroups
There was no significant correlation between gender, marital status, grade level of teaching assignment, or race for any sub scores with scales. There were few differences and therefore had some significant correlations with the teachers' age or the number of years they have been teaching on any of the factors.
Even though the evidence collected presents limitations like a low percentage of male teachers, a limited percentage of racial demographic, and limited role descriptions of teachers, the overall results are promising. That is, the understanding of teachers' self-efficacy and collective efficacy creates strength in building good co-teaching relationships. Thus, progress could be made in strengthening the teaching task and its recognition as a team task.

Data Analysis of the Efficacy Scales
TSES data were analyzed using guidelines suggested by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), with average scores calculated across all items and for items within each subscale. The TSES has used factor analysis and consistently found three moderately correlated factors: Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practices, and Efficacy in Classroom Management. According to the results, teachers generally believe establishing student engagement poses the most significant challenge in teaching. The ability of teachers to foster creativity (M = 6.0) and the resource availability to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork (M = 6.3) ranked lowest. Most teachers think helping students value learning and achieve success tends to be complicated.
Most teachers consider that developing instructional strategies is important and yet are confronted with the challenges of implementing alternative teaching strategies and alternative assessments in the classroom (M = 6.3).

IJMABER
1818 Volume 3 | Number 9 | September | 2022 Some other challenges are gauging students' comprehension and crafting good questions to develop critical thinking skills (M = 6.5). Efficacy in classroom management averages the highest of the sub-components. Most teachers believe that they can control disruptive behavior (M = 6.9), define clear expectations about students' behavior (M = 7.1), and establish a working classroom management system with each group of students (M = 7.1).
The overall results of the Teacher's Self Efficacy Scales which are M = 6.7 (SD =1.5) is slightly different from the reliabilities reported in Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001) as Mean = 7.1, SD = 0.94 and alpha = 0.94. The teacher's general self-perception about their potential to perform at a satisfactory level of attainment and how they deal with challenges is at a below-average level. They believe that they have an influence on some degree regarding students' achievement, instruction, and discipline. Barni (2019) states that teachers' belief in their ability to effectively handle the task, obligations, and challenges plays a key role in influencing important academic outcomes like students' achievement and motivation, and well-being in the working environment.

Mean SD Interpretation
Item 1. to get through to the most difficult students 6.7 1.5 Some Degree Item 2. to help your students think critically 6.6 1.5 Some Degree Item 4. to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork 6.4 1.5 Some Degree Item 6. to get students to believe they can do well in school 6.7 1.4 Some Degree Item 9. to help your students value learning 6.5 1.6 Some Degree Item 12. to foster student creativity 6.0 1.6 Some Degree Item 14. to improve the understanding of a student who is failing (1-2 None at all, 3-4 Very Little, 5-6 Some Degree, 7-8 Quite a Bit, 9 -Presented in Table 6 are the efficacy questions, responses, Mean, SD and the interpretation pertaining to the Self-efficacy of the Teachers. The lowest mean in the student engagement category is fostering creativity with a mean of 6.0 (SD = 1.6). This shows that teachers have a difficult time in encouraging authentic creativity among students. The highest mean is dealing with the most difficult students with a mean of 6.7 (SD = 1.4). Both responses were interpreted as some degree of teacher influence on student engagement. For the instructional strategies, the lowest mean is for implementing strategies with a mean of 6.3 (SD =1.7). This shows that most teachers find it challenging to introduce and implement different teaching strategies in every lesson for a better understanding of the concepts. The highest mean is about how they respond to difficult questions. Both were interpreted as some degree of how much teachers can accomplish about teaching strategies. In classroom management, the lowest mean is the extent of controlling disruptive behavior in a class with a mean of 6.9 (SD = 1.4). Most teachers believe that controlling disruptive behavior creates challenges for them. The highest mean that teachers believe creates opportunities is about establishing a classroom management system with a mean of 7.1 (SD = 1.4).
Based on this, it becomes of extreme relevance to understand what influences teacher's belief in his or her ability to successfully cope with task, obligations and challenges related to his or her professional role.  Note: Scores range from 1 -9.
(1-2 None at all, 3 -4 Very Little, 5 -6 Some Degree, 7-8 Quite a Bit, 9 -A Great Deal) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) According to the results, co-teaching teams generally believe that implementing instructional strategies create challenges in the inclusive classroom. Questions about gauging student comprehension and implementing alternative strategies were asked where responses were rated as a little lower than average. Most co-teacher pairs at some point believe that they can do quite a bit in engaging students in class. The responses that emerged as their abilities are in helping the students value learning, assisting families in helping children do well, and helping students to think critically. The efficacy in classroom management averages the highest of the sub-components. Teachers collectively believe that they have the resources and opportunities to define clear expectations about students' behavior, calm disruptive or noisy students, and establish a working classroom management system with each group of students The overall results of the Collective Efficacy Scales which are M = 7.5, SD =1.2, and alpha = 0.99 is a bit closer to the reliabilities reported in Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy (2001) as Mean = 7.1, SD = 0.94 and alpha = 0.94.
The co-teaching team's general perception about their potential to perform at a satisfactory level of attainment and how they deal with challenges is at the above-average level. They believe that they have quite a bit of influence regarding students' achievement, instruction, and discipline. (1-2 None at all, 3 -4 Very Little, 5 -6 Some Degree, 7-8 Quite a Bit, 9 -A Great Deal) (1-2 None at all, 3-4 Very Little, 5-6 Some Degree, 7-8 Quite a Bit, 9 -A Great Deal) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) Presented in Table 8 are the efficacy questions, responses, Mean, SD and the interpretation pertaining to the Collective Efficacy of the Co-Teaching Team. The lowest mean in the student engagement area is fostering creativity with a mean of 7.1 (SD = 1.2) which ranked lowest also on the teacher self-efficacy scale. The highest mean which is 7.5 (SD = 1.1) is dealing with motivating students who show low interest in schoolwork. This shows that most teams believe that they can encourage and motivate students to do well. For instructional strategies, the results are very close to each other and were interpreted as teachers believing that they have "quite a bit" of ability and opportunities in using a variety of assessment strategies, implementing alternative teaching strategies, and differentiating lessons to the proper level for individual student needs.The collective efficacy of the co-teaching team is higher in classroom management. Responses that rated high are about the ability to respond to defiant students, the ability to establish routines, and to make expectations clear about student behavior.
Based on the responses, data imply that generally, co-teaching team has not tapped their utmost strength and still have lot of room to grow professionally and in their relationship with regards to student engagement, instructional practice and classroom management. Note: Scores range from 1 -9. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) According to the data, most teachers ranked their co-teaching efficacy higher than their self-efficacy. Comparing the co-teaching efficacy scale to the self-efficacy scale, the ability to manage the class ranked the highest of the three sub-components. Effectiveness in instructional strategies stood the lowest among the other sub-components. However, co-teaching settings have determined better opportunities and resources for developing instructional strategies. Co-teaching settings have shown a higher average in comparison to one teacher set-up in all sub-components of efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional strategies, and efficacy in classroom management. The combination efficacy of the co-teaching partnership is a little higher compared to the self-efficacy scores of the teacher respondents. The overall self-efficacy scores are M = 6.7 (SD = 1.5). The overall co-teaching efficacy scores are M = 7.5 (SD = 1.2) The data imply that teachers' perception of co-teaching has more benefits and that they can accomplish more in partnership than working by themselves. Furthermore, the teachers in an inclusive setting believe that they have more resources, and better opportunities and can deal with challenges in a greater sense. The findings are verifiable with other research about different kinds of efficacy. Evaluations of collective efficacy, which involves relationships in coteaching, make an additional contribution to behavior beyond self-efficacy. Beliefs in external material means in turn should contribute to predicting behavior over and above self and collective efficacies. Collective efficacy was also positively linked to people's evaluations of their innovative performance and actual quality of decision making. Collective efficacy also mediated the relationship between ability-enhancing practices and team creativity. (Yaakobi, 2018) to task depending on each other's individual strengths and preferences. Co-teaching is an attitude of sharing the classroom and the students. Both teachers need to think that they are both teaching (Samuel, 2016). The data suggest that there is a direct relation to the teacher's collective efficacy with how teachers rate their team. The higher collective efficacy indicated by the teacher; the higher teachers rate their co-teaching team as efficiently working. The data also suggest that having a strong belief in the team and the ability of each team member to work cohesively make a good impact not only on the students' achievement but also on the professional growth of the teachers in the team.

Conclusion
In the light of the above-mentioned findings, the following conclusions are arrived at: 1. Teachers' personal efficacy and personal value drive their own goals, methods, instruction, and performance in teaching. The most significant challenge for most teacher is establishing student engagement. With regards to instructional practices, most teachers admit that they need more knowledge in designing and implementing various teaching strategies. They also believe that strong beliefs and confidence in one's ability to manage a class is essential in classroom management. Teachers with high self-efficacy scores are confident in their skills and have a more remarkable ability to work with other teachers as partners. They also have stronger beliefs on the importance and effectiveness of the co-teaching model. 2. The co-teachers place more confidence in collective efficacy with regards to student engagement. Team-taught classes have more resource and opportunities for students to engage in small group instruction, and for individual assistance. Co-teaching creates a dynamic curriculum when teachers of different abilities, expertise and experience work together for a common goal and outcome. Strong beliefs and confidence in one's ability to manage a class is essential in classroom management. Coteachers need to have the same management style to have effective classroom management. Teachers generally rate their collective efficacy higher than their self-efficacy. The belief that a cohesive coteaching partnership has a more remarkable ability, more resources, and better opportunities for how they perceive to improve student achievement and classroom procedures is evident in the study. 3. Shared responsibilities, communication, and co-planning are related to a cohesive co-teaching partnership. The roles, respect, and responsibilities are collective. The importance of shared responsibility was apparent in respondents who rated their team as efficacious. Collective efficacy is evident when co-teachers see themselves as part of a team working for their students. When educators believe in their collective ability to lead the improvement of student outcomes, higher levels of achievement result. 4. Enjoyment of teaching and working as a team are critical for success. Teachers who dislike co-teaching were found to have lower group cohesion and lower collective efficacy. These teachers tend to have not accepted being part of a group. Acceptance of being part of a group includes accepting views, sharing roles, and accepting IJMABER 1824 Volume 3 | Number 9 | September | 2022 individual approaches to meeting team goals. This acceptance helps co-teaching pairs develop better communication skills to process issues and adapt to playing shared roles. Teachers who do not believe in the benefits of co-teaching and dislike working in a partnership are less likely to forecast future individual conflicts and resolve differences that might lead to team disbandment. The understanding of teachers' self-efficacy and collective efficacy builds confidence and creates strength in building good co-teaching relationships. Thus, progress could be made in strengthening the teaching task and its recognition as a team task.