Collaboration between special education teachers and visual arts education teachers in working with pupils with severe specific learning difficulties and its relationship to professional development

ABSTRACT

Collaboration among different teacher profiles is one of the most important factors in meeting the needs of pupils with special needs. In a study of 138 teachers from different regions of Slovenia (57 special education teachers and 85 visual art teachers), we investigated how they collaborate when working with pupils with severe specific learning difficulties and how this collaboration relates to their professional development. The online questionnaire survey found that most participating professionals felt that collaboration was necessary, and 25% had not yet collaborated. Those who have collaborated most often consult informally in hallways and work as a team in expert groups for individualised programmes. The most common team teaching approach is for the visual arts teacher to lead the art class and the special education teacher to assist the teacher by providing support to the pupils with and without learning difficulties. They also see many benefits for the pupils and themselves in this type of collaboration and follow the desirable - positive - side of the S model of professional development. An analysis of the situation in practise can form the basis for recommendations on how to promote professional development in collaboration between these pedagogical professionals.

KEYWORDS:

• Collaboration
• collaborative team teaching
• professional development
• pupils with severe specific learning difficulties (severe SpLD)
• special education (SE) teacher
• visual arts education (VAE) teacher

Introduction

In Slovenia, the proportion of pupils with special needs SEN) who are enrolled in mainstream elementary school is increasing year by year with currently 7,86% receiving special education services (MIZŠ 2022/2023). The highest proportion of pupils with SEN are those with severe specific learning difficulties. The term ‘specific learning difficulties’ (SpLD) refers to a difference or difficulty in certain aspects of learning. The most common SpLDs are dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). An individual may have one of these disorders independently or they may coexist as part of a broader profile. SpLDs exist on a continuum from mild to moderate to severe. There are common patterns of behaviour and ability, but for each person there are a range of different patterns of impact (British Dyslexia Association n.d.; Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre n.d.; The Dyslexia Association n.d.; Magajna et al. 2008). In this paper, we focus on pupils with dyspraxia and nonverbal learning disabilities (NLD). These pupils have a combination of deficits at the level of visual-motor processes (planning and performing practical activities, writing, and social skills) and strengths at the level of auditory-visual processes (verbal domain) (Penketh 2007; Davis and Broitman 2011). Due to the above characteristics, they may have difficulties in the subject of visual arts education (VAE) and need support from the special education teacher (SE teacher) and the visual arts education teacher (VAE teacher) to reach their potential.

Pupils with Dyspraxia and non-verbal specific learning difficulties in visual arts education

Both pupils with dyspraxia and NLD may have specific needs in the areas of organisation (planning time and orientation on the art works), motor skills (handling art materials and tools, planning steps and procedures for making artworks, creating from observation or memory), social integration (understanding instructions and rules, working in pairs or small groups), and special education needs (understanding the art problem and concept, transferring knowledge to new situations, etc.) (NCCA 2007; Lewis, Wheeler, and Carter 2017; Rihter and Potočnik 2022; Rihter, Košak Babuder, and Selan 2021). When we use the term SpLD in the following, we refer to pupils with dyspraxia and NLD.

The subject of VAE in elementary school (in Slovenia, children aged 6 to 15 go through 9 school years including the subject of VAE, that correlate to primary and lower secondary school) includes drawing, painting, graphics, sculpture and architecture. VAE provides learning strategies for self-directed learning and opportunities for self-expression through a problem-based approach and cross-curricular integration (Baidak et al. 2009; MIZŠundefined2011; Malley 2018; Dorff 2018). Therefore, professionals in schools need to provide pupils with high-quality arts experiences (Guay 1994; Coleman et al. 2015). In most European countries, including Slovenia, VAE is taught by general classroom teachers at the primary level (pupils aged 6 to 11) and by visual arts subject teachers at the lower secondary level (pupils aged 12 to 15) (Baidak et al. 2009). In elementary school, pupils with SpLD are also taught by SE teachers, either directly through support or indirectly through teacher support.

To successfully meet the needs of pupils with SEN, many authors have emphasised the importance of practitioner collaboration (Meijer 2001; Magajna et al. 2008; Murawski 2005; Friend and Cook 2014; Solis et al. 2012; Faraclas 2018; Rihter and Potočnik 2022; Rihter, Košak Babuder, and Selan 2021).

Collaboration between a visual arts education teacher and a special education eacher

Collaboration between the teacher and the SE teacher can take place in a variety of ways. The forms of collaboration can be informal (casual) or formal. Formal forms include consultation about working with a pupil who is struggling in a subject, teamwork within expert groups for individualised educational programmes (IEP), and team teaching (Friend and Cook 2014; Magajna et al. 2008; Malley 2018; Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie 2007; Lewis, Wheeler, and Carter 2017). One of the forms in which many authors (Friend and Cook 2014; Solis et al. 2012; Lewis, Wheeler, and Carter 2017, 42; Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie 2007) see great potential is collaborative team teaching (co-teaching), in which a teacher and a SE teacher teach the same group of pupils with and without SEN at the same time and with the same goal. There are six key approaches to collaborative team teaching: one teaches, one observes; station teaching; parallel teaching; alternative teaching; teaming; and one teaches, one assists (Friend and Cook 2014, 132–140). Research has shown that the most common approach is for the teacher to teach the whole class and for the SE teacher assists the teacher (one teaches, one assists) (Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie 2007; Pancsofar and Petroff 2016; Casserly and Padden 2018; Faraclas 2018). The least common is one in which the two teachers plan and deliver instruction together (teaming) (Solis et al. 2012, 501; Pancsofar and Petroff 2016).

Due to the nature of the VAE subject, we see many opportunities and benefits in collaborative team teaching for pupils with SpLD and others SEN. In this paper, we focus on teacher collaboration and SEN teachers in VAE, not on the differences between general teachers and visual arts subject teachers. This is a very important aspect, which we intend to address in the future. When we refer to VAE teachers in the following, we mean those who teach VAE in elementary school (general teachers and visual arts subject teachers).

As part of the collaboration, SE teachers provide the information and technical assistance that pupils with SpLD need to achieve the same artistic goals as other pupils. VAE teachers, in turn, contribute their knowledge of VAE goals and standards (Malley 2018). One example of such collaboration is a pilot program that took place in a Very Special Arts (VSA) organisation in which a teaching artist in a school collaborated with an arts specialist and a SE teacher. Together they were to develop an art project for their pupils with and without SEN. Participating educators reported that children with SEN have both behavioural and educational benefits, namely increased vocabulary, improved social and cognitive skills, planning skills, and greater self-confidence and satisfaction with their artwork, expressing themselves and being braver to ask additional questions and make decisions. Through crafting, they improve their fine motor skills, follow directions, persist to the end of a task, and make connections to other subjects (Ponder and Kissinger 2009).

In addition to the benefits to learners, the process of such collaborative team teaching also provides a valuable stimulus for the professional development of the teachers involved (Murawski 2005; Solis et al. 2012; Mulholland and O’connor 2016; Chitiyo 2017; Faraclas 2018; Hurd and Weilbacher 2017; Casserly and Padden 2018). VAE teachers report progress in adapting instruction structure, implementing differentiation and individualisation in the classroom, providing clear step-by-step instructions with multiple repetitions, and they also mention increased confidence and professional assurance in working with diverse learners (Ponder and Kissinger 2009), which research on models of professional development suggests is an important indicator of an individual’s professional growth and development (Huberman 1993). SE teachers, in turn, gain knowledge about how to plan the art process and integrate art into other lessons. They also mention a more holistic understanding of the individual and recognise that children with SEN are more creative in their artistic expression than previously thought (Ponder and Kissinger 2009). Recognising individual strengths and building realistic high expectations is key to optimal pupil’s progress (Good and Lavigne 2017).

Collaboration and teacher professional development

Teacher professional development is understood as a lifelong learning process in which educators reflect on their conceptions and change their own teaching practices. It is a process that involves growth in the teacher’s personal, professional, and social dimensions, and involves a progression towards critical, independent, and responsible decision-making and action (Valenčič Zuljan 2018, 31). In the following, we explain these dimensions using an example of reflection on a particular change in one’s practice. For example, the dimension of personal development includes, feeling and perceiving professional problems as challenges, clarifying thoughts and feelings about the obstacles that may occur in changing one’s teaching practice. The professional development dimension involves reflecting on the content of a particular innovation – what the research shows to be the benefits of the innovation, how to implement the change in the classroom, how it is experienced and received by pupils, how it is received by their parents, etc. The social development dimension includes, for example perceptions of isolation among teaching staff as a barrier to professional learning, the development of positive attitudes toward collaboration, and, if collaboration is successful, changing the culture of the institution toward a positive appreciation of collaboration (Bell and Gilbert 1994). Research shows that several factors influence an individual’s professional development, among which the collaborative aspect (both teaching staff and school principal collaboration) plays a special role (Day, Gu, and Sammons 2016; Valenčič Zuljan 2018).

Models of teacher professional development are based on different conceptual starting points. Huberman’s (1993) model of the teacher career cycle describes seven stages: Career entry – survival and discovery (1–3 years of teaching); stabilisation (4–6 years); experimentation/diversification and reassessment/interrogation (7–18 years); relaxation, serenity, or conservatism – critical responsibility or powerlessness (19–30 years); and disengagement – serene/relaxed or bitter (31–40). Javrh (2007) confirmed Huberman’s 5-stage model in a qualitative study with a sample of 30 Slovenian primary and lower secondary school teachers.

Like Huberman’s model, Javrh’s S-Model has five stages and distinguishes between ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’ paths. In addition, it also shows a ‘neutral/normal’ developmental pathway that represents a balance of all experiences in the mature period (Javrh 2007; Muršak, Javrh, and Kalin 2015).

In what follows, we summarise the features of the developmental stages in Huberman and S.‘s model, focusing on the dimension of social development that is important for fostering and establishing teacher collaboration (Bell and Gilbert 1994) and on which we focused in our study. In the first stage, the teacher focuses on his or her own role and is particularly confronted with the problems of classroom management. Huberman’s (1993) points out that the type of pupils a teacher has (e.g. motivated or challenging) is very important to his or her professional development at this stage. The mentor who can provide support plays an important role for the prospective teacher. In the stabilisation stage, the teacher focuses more on the learner and gains confidence and autonomy, with the role of the mentor decreasing and that of the colleagues increasing. In the experimentation stage, the teacher is most professionally active, open to new knowledge, and willing to collaborate (Huberman 1993; Javrh 2007). Huberman’s (1993) points out that the way a school is run and the school culture (traditional/open) are important determinants of whether or not a teacher chooses to experiment and innovate. After the relaxation stage, the teacher can continue his or her career in a stage of serenity and calm withdrawal, where personal and professional growth, openness to change and various collaborations, mentoring, and a wealth of suggestions for improving the system are constantly present. After the initial survival stage, conflict situations can lead to professional isolation. When this is compounded by a bad situation in which the teacher does not experience support from the team, trust and confidence erode. Huberman’s (1993) also notes that conservatism and disillusionment can be the result of a school climate in which leadership support is lacking and collaboration among teachers is not encouraged. Feelings of professional incompetence and fractured relationships with colleagues can lead to a stage of powerlessness in which the teacher waits for a stage of bitter withdrawal (Javrh 2007). Thus, the collaborative aspect of Huberman and S.‘s model is a factor that significantly affects whether a teacher follows a ‘sunny, happy’ or a ‘shady, professionally bitter’ path in their career. Day, Gu, and Sammons (2016) also find that career pathways and, in particular, teacher engagement and effectiveness affect pupil achievement.

Research shows that VAE teachers often perceive themselves as inadequately trained to work with students with SEN (Guay 1994; cf. Rihter and Potočnik 2022; Rihter, Košak Babuder, and Selan 2021), rarely use assistive technologies and adaptations (Coleman et al. 2015; Rihter, Košak Babuder, and Selan 2021), rarely or never collaborate with SE teachers (Coleman et al. 2015), which consequently affects these students’ active engagement in the art classroom and achievement of set art task goals (Guay 1994). To ensure high-quality instruction for pupils with SEN in VAE, several authors (Guay 1994; Ponder and Kissinger 2009; Rihter and Potočnik 2022; Rihter, Košak Babuder, and Selan 2021; Malley 2018) advise collaboration between the VAE teacher and the SE teacher. The collaboration benefits both the collaborating practitioners and the pupils.

In this empirical study, we were interested in how often and in what ways SE teachers and VAE teachers in Slovenian elementary school collaborate to teach pupils with severe SpLD (dyspraxia and NLD) and how this collaboration affects their professional development.

Our research questions were:

1. How often do SE and VAE teachers collaborate and what factors influence their collaboration?

2. What are the forms of collaboration between SE and VAE teachers when working with pupils with SpLD (dyspraxia and NLD)?

3. What do the teachers who collaborate perceive to be the benefits for the pupils with SpLD (dyspraxia and NLD) and for the SE and VAE teachers?

4. How does collaboration relate to the S-Model professional development stages of SE and VAE teachers?

Method

Participants

School practitioners teaching in different elementary school in Slovenia (pupils aged 6 to 15 years) participated in the study: 83 VAE teachers (general education teachers (66.2%) and visual arts subject teachers (30.3%)) and 55 SE teachers. The average number of years of service of the respondents was 17 years (SD = 11.8). The years of service were then divided into five groups using SPSS according to the S-Model of career development of Slovenian teachers (Javrh 2007). Most of the VAE teachers surveyed are in the third and fourth stages (7–30 years of service), while most SE teachers are in the first and third stages (Table 1).

Table 1. Frequency and structural representation of the respondents according to their teaching position and stages of professional development.

	Teaching position
The S-Model stages of professional development	VAE teacher		SE teacher		Total
	f	f %	f	f %	f	f %
(1) stage: 1–3 years (survival and discovery)	10	12,0	16	29,1	26	18,8
(2) stage: 4–6 years (stabilisation)	3	3,6	8	14,5	11	8,0
(3) stage: 7–18 years (experimentation/diversification and reassessment/interrogation)	22	26,5	21	38,2	43	31,2
(4) stage: 19–30 years (relaxation, serenity or conservatism)	30	36,1	9	16,4	39	28,3
(5) stage: 31–40 years (disengagement – serene or bitter)	18	21,7	1	1,8	19	13,8
Total	83	100,0	55	100,0	138	100,0

Instrument

For the survey, we designed a questionnaire based on the literature presented in the theoretical background. The SE teacher and VAE teacher respondents were asked about their teaching position and years of service, the need for collaboration (closed yes/no question and open-ended question describing the reasons for their response), the frequency of collaboration (closed-ended question with 5 responses), the two factors they found most conducive and most hindering to collaboration (open-ended question), and due to which groups of pupil with SEN had they collaborated (multiple-choice question with 11 categories). Respondents who had experience collaborating because of a pupil with deficits in nonverbal learning areas (e.g. dyspraxia, NLD) were asked who usually initiates the collaboration (closed-ended question with 10 responses), what the collaboration looks like (closed-ended question with 7 responses), and what they and the pupils gain from such collaboration (2 open-ended questions).

Research design

An electronic questionnaire was sent to all 454 Slovenian elementary schools with a request for responses from VAE and SE teachers. Out of 757 clicks on the questionnaire, we received 138 duly completed questionnaires (response rate 18%).

The following statistical procedures were used: descriptive statistics (frequency and structural distributions) and chi-square statistics to test the statistical significance of the relationship between a pair of categorical variables. Responses to the open-ended questions were categorised and assigned a numerical value for further analyses. Only teachers who provided all the data needed for a particular analysis were included in that particular analysis.

Results and discussion

How often do SE and VAE teachers collaborate and what factors influence their collaboration

The survey found that the majority of teachers generally agree with the need for collaboration. 97.8% of teachers (N = 138) felt that collaboration was necessary. Respondents were asked to write down the reasons for their response. Responses were categorised as follows. Among VAE teachers, the most common explanations were that collaboration is necessary to share knowledge, information, advice, and experiences (24%) and that the VAE subject provides pupils with a release, validation, and a sense of accomplishment, and can be an area in which a pupil has strengths (20%). 10% believe collaboration is not necessary, and 12% have not yet experienced an example of such collaboration. However, among SE teachers, the predominant explanation is that collaboration is necessary because pupils can have difficulties with motor skills, concentration, orientation, and organisation and need adjustments (34.8%), because VAE can be a pupil’s strength and provide release and positive reinforcement (21.7%), and because collaboration is necessary among all who work with the child (17.4%) (Table 2).

Table 2. Frequency and structural distribution of responses on the explanation of the need for collaboration between the SE and VAE teachers, according to teaching position.

Explanation of the need for collaboration between SE and VAE teachers	Teaching position
	VAE teacher		SE teacher		Total
	f	f %	f	f %	f	f %
For sharing knowledge, information, advice, and experiences	12	24,0	2	4,3	14	14,6
VAE can be a pupil’s strength and provides release and positive affirmation	10	20,0	10	21,7	20	20,8
Pupils can have difficulties with motor skills, concentration, orientation, and organisation and need adjustments	0	0,0	16	34,8	16	16,7
Collaboration is necessary among all who work with the child	6	12,0	8	17,4	14	14,6
Collaboration is not necessary	5	10,0	2	4,3	7	7,3
Not yet experienced an example of such collaboration	6	12,0	3	6,5	9	9,4
Depending on the case	3	6,0	3	6,5	6	6,3
For better progress, achievement of pupils’ goals	4	8,0	0	0,0	4	4,2
Already collaborating	1	2,0	0	0,0	1	1,0
**Others	3	6,0	2	4,3	5	5,2
Total	50	100,0	46	100,0	96	100,0

Respondents were asked about the frequency of their collaboration in planning, implementing, and evaluating individualised educational programme (IEP) or in VAE lessons. Of the responses offered, 22.9% indicated that they collaborate regularly and feel it is necessary. 17.9% occasionally collaborate because they feel it is necessary. 12.1% collaborate infrequently, occasionally, or as needed. 25% do not collaborate. Of the latter, just under half do not think collaboration is necessary (10.7%) and 15% think it should be. 17.9% have not yet considered such collaboration. The finding that a quarter of respondents do not collaborate and 12.1% rarely collaborate can be linked to research findings that VAE teachers rarely or never collaborate with SE teachers (Coleman et al. 2015).

In the form of an open-ended question, practitioners were asked to indicate the two factors they believe most promote and most hinder collaboration between the SE and the VAE teacher. As factors that promote collaboration, VAE teachers most frequently cited a positive attitude on the part of the teacher (14.5%), a desire to help the pupil achieve his or her goals (19.3%), and the character of the particular teacher and his or her willingness to collaborate (12.0%). For the SE teacher group, the most frequently cited factors are the desire to help the pupil achieve his or her goals (21.5%) and the cooperative nature of the school (13.9%). The factors most frequently cited by VAE teachers as barriers to collaboration are organisational and time constraints (30.8%, SE teachers 22.2%) and the nature of the person (28.2%, SE teachers 15.3%). The responses of SE teachers are more broadly based. In addition to the above, they also refer to poor interpersonal relationships (11.1%) and a poor attitude towards the subject VAE, which is inferior to other subjects because pupils do not have problems here (11.1%).

Some practitioners attribute greater influence to factors related to the culture and climate of the school (e.g. culture of collaboration, time and organisation, relationships among colleagues), others more to the personal qualities of the individual (individual character and willingness to collaborate, respect for other disciplines, desire to grow professionally) and third, to the pupils with SEN (nature of the pupil’s difficulties, help in achieving goals). The factors highlighted by those involved in the research may promote team effectiveness or may be barriers that lead to problems in teamwork, which is also highlighted by other authors (Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie 2007; Friend and Cook 2014; Solis et al. 2012; Pancsofar and Petroff 2016; Casserly and Padden 2018).

What are the forms of collaboration between SE and VAE teachers when working with pupils with SpLD (dyspraxia and NLD)

Most of the professionals surveyed (61%) had experience of collaborating in working with pupils with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). About 40% of them with pupils with SpLD in the verbal domain (e.g. dyslexia). Of the respondents, only 22% had collaborated because of a pupil with dyspraxia or NLD (N = 22, 11 VAE and 11 SE teachers). Only those who had experience with such collaboration were asked questions about initiation and impetus for collaboration. Because of the small number of respondents, we report only the results from our sample.

Respondents indicate that collaboration is most often initiated by a problem or situation in the classroom that requires action (59.1%), or it is justified in a pupil IEP (59.1%). Collaboration is more often initiated when the pupil has a SEN in the motor domain (50%), when the pupil has multiple related difficulties (41%), when the pupil has dyspraxia (27.3%), and when the pupil has NLD (18.2%). Collaboration is more often initiated by SE teachers (50%), less often by the VAE teacher (36.4%), and very rarely by a request from the school principal (9.1%). The fact that collaboration is mandated by the IEP, especially when dealing with a pupil with deficits in the visual-motor domain, indicates good compliance with the concept of working with SpLD (Magajna et al. 2008; Friend and Cook 2014), which orders collaboration between all practitioners in contact with the pupil, especially if they teach a subject in which the pupil has difficulties. Given the role of SE teachers, who also provide awareness and support to teachers in their tasks and often take on a coordinating role in professional groups (Magajna et al. 2008; Friend and Cook 2014; Lewis, Wheeler, and Carter 2017), they should also take the initiative to initiate collaboration with the teacher (Murawski 2005).

Of the VAE teachers and SE teachers who have already collaborated because of a pupil with deficits in the nonverbal domain, 54.5% of them collaborate in the informal form of consulting about working with a pupil who is having difficulties (e.g. in the hallway), 41% of them collaborate in planning adaptations in IEP for VAE. 41% collaborate in the form of the VAE teacher leading the lesson and the SE teacher being his or her assistant, to guide and support the pupil with SEN, and 23% indicated that they also help other pupils. There was also a response that the two professionals plan, deliver, and evaluate lessons together.

Informal forms predominate among the forms of collaboration. Formal forms are dominated by teamwork within expert groups for IEPs. To a lesser extent, collaborative team teaching approach is also practised, where the VAE teacher plans and delivers the lesson and the SE teacher supports the pupil (one teaches, one assists). Less common is an approach in which the lesson is planned, delivered, and evaluated jointly by both teachers (teaming). The results are consistent with findings from other research on collaborative team teaching approaches between teachers and SE teachers (Solis et al. 2012; Pancsofar and Petroff 2016; Casserly and Padden 2018; Faraclas 2018).

What do the teachers who collaborate perceive to be the benefits for the pupils with SpLD (dyspraxia and NLD) and for the SE and VAE teachers

Eighteen respondents answered the question about the benefits of collaboration for pupils with SpLD (dyspraxia and NLD). SE teachers primarily indicated that pupils experience behavioural and educational benefits, such as: ‘help, attention, satisfaction with their work, better self-image’, ‘self-confidence’, ‘sense of accomplishment’, ‘self-affirmation, progress’, ‘higher academic self-image, more learned skills, knowledge’, ‘grater willingness to participate in art class’, ‘additional instruction, confidence, development of imagination’, ‘better teaching’, ‘strength to overcome difficulties even in weaker areas, VAE also provides many opportunities to get good grades’, ‘see that help in class is useful for all pupils, that a pupil with SpLD has fewer behaviour problems and follows lessons more easily’. VAE teachers mainly cited motor skills and adjustments, such as: ‘More time, extra guidance in work’, ‘Greater clarity in tasks set, adjustment to motor level’, ‘Better performance, feeling better’, ‘self-confidence’, ‘Expression in an area of strength’, ‘Pupils who are helped always benefit…’, ‘Do not know’. It is evident that the practitioners interviewed emphasised both the general benefits of teamwork and team teaching for learners, which are also highlighted by other authors (Murawski 2005; Friend and Cook 2014; Mulholland and O’connor 2016; Chitiyo 2017; Hurd and Weilbacher 2017; Casserly and Padden 2018), and those specific to VAE teaching (Ponder and Kissinger 2009).

Sixteen respondents also answered the question about what they gained by collaborating in VAE because they have a pupil with SpLD (dyspraxia and NLD). SE teachers responded that they gained ‘breadth’, ‘finding new ways to do things’, ‘art techniques’, ‘a wider range of strategies to help the pupil’, ‘the opportunity to improve the pupil’s deficits in VAE’, ‘the desire to collaborate more often’, ‘you need team teaching, there is no other way’, ‘you open up new ways to solve problems, you also get new ideas that you can apply in another situation, with another pupil’. One teacher commented on the benefits to both practitioners: ‘SE teacher: more knowledge about the subject of VAE, VAE teacher: different working methods that can be effective for other pupils’. The VAE teachers’ responses were, ‘We learn new skills, acquire new knowledge…’, ‘Tolerance, honesty, newly acquired knowledge, education’, ‘I gained insight into how to adapt’, ‘Different perspective on this type of problem (SpLD)’, ‘More information about deficits in the non-verbal field’, ‘I do not know’. Positive growth can be observed in both in the personal sphere (tolerance, understanding, empathy, desire to collaborate more often) and in the professional sphere (new knowledge about the subject VAE and new skills for working with students with SpLD). These are the benefits of collaboration, teamwork, and collaborative team teaching that are also highlighted by other authors (Murawski 2005; Friend and Cook 2014; Mulholland and O’connor 2016; Chitiyo 2017; Hurd and Weilbacher 2017; Casserly and Padden 2018).

How does collaboration relate to the S-model professional development stages of SE and VAE teachers?

We were interested in whether there were statistically significant differences between the responses of the teacher respondents (VAE and SE combined) at different stages of the S model of teacher professional development (Table 3) to various questions about (their) collaboration. The chi-square statistic was used to test for statistically significant relationships between two categorical variables; it was calculated for the distribution of teachers in the different stages of the S-Model in terms of their explanation of the need for collaboration, frequency, initiation, and forms of collaboration. Because the conditions for the chi-square Hi2 test were not met in any of the calculations (more than 20% of the expected counts were less than 5 and/or the minimum expected count was less than 1), we present the results of the alternative test (Kullback 2Î test).

Table 3. Finding differences between the responses of the surveyed teachers about collaboration according to the stages of the S-Model.

	Kullback 2Î test
Stages of S-Model	2Î	df	p
Explanation of the need for collaboration between SE and VAE teachers	54,32	36	0,026
Frequency of collaboration between SE and VAE teachers	25,71	24	0,368
Initiation of collaboration:
established in the IEP of pupil with SpLD	10,981	4	0,027
most often initiated by a problem or situation in the classroom	11,889	4	0,018
Forms of collaboration:
We have a quick consultation in the hallway	4,029	1	0,045

The result show some significant differences. Because of the small subsamples (see, e.g. Table 2), we are cautious about generalising the results, so therefore we present the most frequent responses in our sample only descriptively by stage of teachers professional development stage.

Teachers in the first stage (1–3 years of service) cited pupil problems or a classroom situation as a reason for their collaboration (33.3%). The most frequently cited factors influencing collaboration were the school culture (20.0%), time and organisation (16.7%), and the desire to help the pupil achieve his or her goals (16.7%). Organisational and time constraints are most frequently cited as barriers (30.0%). They state that pupils with SpLD gained a sense of accomplishment, adaptability, and a greater willingness to participate in VAE through collaboration. They themselves report gaining new skills and knowledge and a desire to collaborate more often. If we relate the results to the first stage of survival and discovery (Javrh 2007), we can see that they are discovering the dynamics of the school and searching for their place and therefore paying more attention to the culture of the school.

Also in stage 2, teachers most frequently cite pupils difficulty as a reason for participation (50.0%). The most important barrier to collaboration is poor interpersonal relationships (20.0%). They believe that collaboration has given pupils the chance for better grades, additional guidance, self-confidence, and the development of their imagination. They themselves have gained in tolerance, honesty, and knowledge of art techniques. In the stabilisation stage (Javrh 2007), practitioners still attribute a great deal of influence to interpersonal relationships among colleagues. We see that they are still open to new knowledge and are already more familiar with school dynamics.

Teachers in stage 3 emphasise the subject VAE as an opportunity for pupil’s success and strengths (31.3%) and the need for collaboration among all who work with the child (18.8%) more than as difficulties for the pupil. In 68% of cases, collaboration is initiated because it is noted in the pupil’s IEP. About a quarter say that organisational and time constraints, as well as the nature of the person, most influence collaboration. They feel that collaboration offers pupils with SpLD help, attention, their own satisfaction and success in the subject, and better acceptance of learners and instruction. They themselves have the opportunity to reduce the student’s deficits, learn new skills, strategies, adaptations, and receive reassurance that teamwork is necessary. According to the S-Model stage (Javrh 2007), it can be inferred from the respondents’ answers that they are positive towards professional activities and experiments. They are open to collaborations and knowledge.

In stage 4, the response that collaboration is necessary for sharing knowledge and experience stands out (23.3%). There were also isolated responses that we did not categorise, such as that the ‘question made me think’, that ‘there is a correlation between pupil ability and the artwork’, and that ‘collaboration is necessary for cross-curricular connections and event preparation’. They indicated that pupils with SpLD gained affirmation, success, and self-confidence, expressed themselves in areas of strengths and adjustments. They themselves gained new knowledge, tolerance, experience and a different perspective on the subject. Responses from practitioners in the relaxation or serenity stage (Javrh 2007) indicate an openness to experimentation as well as a critical responsibility (e.g. that the question made them think) to attend to school climate, to network across school subjects and to participate in preparing events. Similar to stage 3, organisational and time constraints are also highlighted as significant factors for collaboration.

Among teachers in stage 5, the reasons given for collaboration are the positive impact of VAE on pupils (37.5%), the importance of sharing knowledge and experiences (25%), and the fact that they have never experienced such a situation (25%). Collaboration is most often triggered by a situation or problem in the classroom. The percentage attributing an influence to organisational and time constraints is even higher compared to younger respondents (38.9%). The nature of individual is also attributed a greater influence (27.8%). On the one hand, professionals in the disengagement stage (Javrh 2007) show clear views on the importance of VAE and collaboration, but they are also the most likely to have no experience with such collaboration.

Participants who have had experiences with collaboration follow the desirable-positive side of the S-Model of professional development (Javrh 2007; Huberman 1993; Day, Gu, and Sammons 2016), explore their role and place in the school, are open to collaboration and experimentation, and note the many benefits of collaboration for themselves and for pupils with SpLD. This demonstrates the positive impact of the social dimension on teacher professional development for both SE and VAE teachers.

Conclusion

The contribution of the survey lies mainly in the insight into the current situation in practise. We found that there is little collaboration between SE and VAE teachers (see Coleman et al. 2015), and even less collaborative team teaching due to pupils’s visual-motor difficulties. However, those respondents who do collaborate note a number of benefits to themselves, and to the pupil with SpLD. This confirms the benefits of collaboration and team teaching highlighted by many authors (Murawski 2005; Friend and Cook 2014; Mulholland and O’connor 2016; Chitiyo 2017; Hurd and Weilbacher 2017; Casserley and Padden 2018), as well as the benefits in the VAE subject (Ponder and Kissinger 2009; Malley 2018; Dorff 2018). Collaboration could be enhanced through additional training for practitioners, creating opportunities for team teaching while students are still at university (Dorff 2018; Hurd and Weilbacher 2017), or organising workshops/teacher trainings (Ponder and Kissinger 2009; Faraclas 2018) in which practitioners could gain a positive experiences working with pupils with SpLD in the arts classroom and adopt team teaching as an effective approach and apply it to other school subjects.

We consider the main limitation of the study to be the small number of participants, of which only 22 seemed to have experience with collaboration due to a pupil with severe SpLD (dyspraxia and NLD). Therefore, for most of the results, we could only describe the differences that occurred in our sample. Suggestions for further research would therefore be to recruit more candidates by conducting a survey without selection criteria and to investigate differences between general and subject teachers. This is a very important aspect, which we intend to address in the future. It would also be good to gain insight, through interviews and observation, into the good practices of those who are already successfully collaborating and team teaching.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.