Inclusive Collaboration:
The Use of the Push-In Model of Intervention and Growth Mindset Approach in
the General Mathematics Classroom

Andrea MacKenzie B.A B.Ed
Thompson Rivers University

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Master of Education
KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
NOVEMBER, 2019

Dr. Gloria Ramirez (supervisor), Dr. Nan Stevens (committee member), Dr. Mahtab
Nazemi (committee member), Dr. Shane Rollans (committee member), Dr. Leyton
Schnellert (external examiner)

©Andrea Ann MacKenzie 2019

ABSTRACT
This thesis examines the effectiveness of providing in classroom (push-in model)
support for learners struggling with mathematics. Using a collaborative teaching model
between the classroom teacher and the Learning Assistant Resource Teacher, two aspects
were examined in children from grades four to seven: 1) Change in Growth Mindset as
measured by a growth-mindset self-rating scale pre and post intervention and students’
reflections and 2) The experiences of teachers during the implementation of a collaborative
push-in model intervention. The children who received the intervention showed important
changes in their mindset as suggested by the increasing scores in the growth mindset
questionnaires from pre- to post-intervention, and the difference was statistically
significant as revealed by a paired sample t-test. Their growth mindset was corroborated
by their journals entries. Examination of the teachers’ collaborative experience revealed
that collaborations facilitated curriculum alignment, timely language scaffolding in math,
and variation within the learning environment. It also improved curriculum scope,
sequence, and learning continuity. Moreover, it afforded flexibility in timing and
organization of the learning environment. The importance of this study directly relates to
the issues of inclusion and providing effective services to students.

Keywords: collaborative teaching, inclusive education, mathematics, growth mindset,
push-in student support.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first like to thank my thesis advisor Dr. Gloria Ramirez of the School of
Education and Social Work at Thompson Rivers University. Dr. Ramirez encouraged me
to be brave and follow my passion for educational change.

I would also like to

acknowledge thesis committee members Dr. Nan Stevens and Dr. Mahtab Nazemi for
taking the time to guide and mentor my research and my writing. I am honoured to have
spent countless hours with the entire thesis committee writing, researching, and engaging
in conversations that enlightened, informed, and entertained.
I would also like to thank my professional family who collaborated, supported, and
shared in my journey. Deborah Endean, Ashley Klymchuk, Raelene Scarr, Jayne Latta,
Melanie Gilmar. I can always count on you for a social break, philosophical insight, or an
encouraging text.
I must express my profound gratitude to my closest friends and family. Chrystie
Stewart, Raquel Standish, and Marla Tinney, you have become my sisters and will always
be part of all aspects of my life. Chrystie, you taught me to never close doors that weren’t
open and I thank you for making sure I kept the door open by completing this thesis. To
my husband Dave for your support and partnership in our life together, and to my children
Madison, Amanda, Cayleigh, Brandon, and Keira, every day you encourage me to be the
best person I can be, and I hope you never give up on your dreams. Finally, to my mom
and to my late grandfather, you believed in me throughout my life, and your unfailing
support and continuous encouragement have made me the person I am today. Grandpa
Bill, you made me love education and I know you are always with me.
Andrea MacKenzie

iii

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Literature Review.................................................................................................... 6
The Emergence of Inclusion in British Columbian Schools ............................... 6
The Pull-out and Push-in Model of Student Services ......................................... 8
Collaborative Teaching ..................................................................................... 12
Mathematical Competency ............................................................................... 13
Identification and referral of students experiencing challenges to developing
mathematical competency. ........................................................................................ 14
Growth Mindset and Education ........................................................................ 16
Methods................................................................................................................. 19
Process .............................................................................................................. 21
Participants........................................................................................................ 22
Sampling Approaches of the Participants ......................................................... 23
The Intervention ................................................................................................ 24
Growth mindset............................................................................................. 24
Push-in collaborative teaching model ........................................................... 26
Data Collection Methods and Analyses ............................................................ 28
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................... 30
Findings................................................................................................................. 34
Growth Mindset Changes Across Time and Differences Across Groups ......... 34
iv

Qualitative Data: Experience of the Push-In Model for Participants ............... 36
Professional collaboration in the general mathematics classroom. .............. 38
Curriculum alignment. .............................................................................. 40
Scope and sequence ...................................................................................... 41
Timely scaffolding for math language .......................................................... 43
Flexibility of the learning environment .................................................... 45
Variation within the learning environment. .............................................. 46
Flexibility of timing ...................................................................................... 49
Continuity of learning. .............................................................................. 50
Relationships with teachers........................................................................... 51
Professional vulnerability.......................................................................... 51
Professional identities. .............................................................................. 53
Extended relationships. ............................................................................. 56
Inclusive access to all.................................................................................... 58
Relationships with all students...................................................................... 60
Reducing stigma........................................................................................ 61
Growth mindset............................................................................................. 62
Discussion ............................................................................................................. 68
Growth Mindset Changes of Students in the Push-In Model ........................... 69
Experiences of the push-in model. ................................................................ 72
v

Teacher autonomy. ........................................................................................ 73
Inclusion implications and limitations. ......................................................... 74
Vision for the future. ..................................................................................... 76
Implications for teachers. .............................................................................. 80
Application to universal design for learning and response to intervention. . 81
Implications for teacher education ................................................................ 82
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 84
References ............................................................................................................. 87
Appendix A ........................................................................................................... 94
Appendix B ........................................................................................................... 95
Appendix C ........................................................................................................... 96
Appendix D ........................................................................................................... 97
Appendix E ........................................................................................................... 98
Appendix F............................................................................................................ 99
Appendix G ......................................................................................................... 101
Appendix H ......................................................................................................... 104
Appendix I .......................................................................................................... 105
Appendix J .......................................................................................................... 106
Appendix K ......................................................................................................... 107

vi

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Introduction
The main purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of providing
mathematical interventions for struggling learners of mathematics within the classroom
setting (push-in model). The push-in model provides support for students by a specialist
teacher inside the classroom environment. Using a collaborative teaching model between
the classroom teacher and the Learning Assistant Resource Teacher, two aspects were
examined in children from grades four to seven: change in students’ Growth Mindset and
the collaborative experiences of the teachers involved.
The importance of this study directly relates to how educators can deliver
effective services to students; as well as, issues surrounding inclusion. Historically,
students with exceptionalities were segregated from the general classroom, “contained”
in one institution, but not included (Moore, 2016). Students with exceptionalities were
traditionally educated by a specialized teacher in a resource room within the same school
but were not included in the general classroom (Towle, 2015). In the school district
where I work, the term Learning Assistant Resource Teacher (LART) is used; however, in
this paper LART will also encompass the following terms: Special Education Teacher, or
Resource Teacher, which appear in the literature. The roles and responsibilities of the
specialist teacher regardless of which name is being used is to case manage, plan, and
implement student services for children with exceptionalities. LARTs assist in
developing the Inclusive Educational goals of students and monitor progress in the goal
completion. The LART also monitors the social/emotional needs of students by offering
strategies for self-regulation and develop behaviour plans with staff.

1

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The current model of support provided by LARTs is the pull-out model of
intervention. The LART commonly pulls students from the general classroom
environment to receive interventions in another room, directly taught by the LART. As
schools are applying a full inclusion approach to learning, there is a contradiction
between promoting inclusion and the practice of removing students from the general
classroom to receive specialized support. This study aims at addressing the issue of
providing support services by using an alternate approach (push-in model) to promote
inclusion.
The second issue that the study addresses is Growth Mindset, and specifically the
Fixed Mindset of students in regards to mathematics. When students approach
mathematics with a Fixed Mindset they will often have an “internal monologue that is
focused on judgements” (Dweck, 2016, p.215). As a teacher/LART, I often hear students
with a Fixed Mindset say things such as: “I am not good at math”, “My mom/dad is not
good at math so I’m not”, “I like art not math”, “Why would I try, I am just going to fail
anyway?” Students with Fixed Mindsets, often frame their judgements as internal
statements that create barriers to learning (Dweck, 2016; Boaler, 2016). The research
study hypothesizes that if students can change their mindsets, especially struggling
learners, then they will be more open to learn and succeed in mathematics by potentially
changing how they view themselves as a learner; therefore, changing the way they
internalize the concept of failure.
Theoretically, the study is situated within two major frameworks: inclusion;
specifically, how student services are currently being provided to students with
exceptionalities and Growth Mindset. I briefly examine each of them below.

2

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
In North America, the practice of inclusion has become an important component
of special education services (Moore, 2016). The push-in model has been gaining
attention by educators who wish to bridge the gap between special education and the
general classroom teacher. Imbedded within the framework of inclusion is the push-in
model and collaborative teaching. This study explores how professionals and experts can
work together in the general mathematics classroom with a collaborative teaching and
push-in model of support.
In my dual role as a participant and researcher, I bring an autobiographical lens to
this study. As such, I acknowledge bias in regards to personal school history and
philosophy of teaching. As a student in elementary school, I was involved in a pull-out
program for speech and language intervention. I have vivid memories at the age of five
of being pulled out of my classroom and learning speech sounds with a specialist in a
separate classroom. I have fond memories of the specialist teacher and enjoyed our time
together; however, I disliked being removed from the class. I felt like the other children
knew that I had to leave because something was “wrong with me” and I remember the
transition back to class was difficult. I always felt like I was missing something when I
left the room, and I was often confused when I returned because I missed a story or part
of a lesson. The pull-out program did improve my speech sound identification; however,
it also left me with the feeling that I was not as smart as the other students in my class.
Reducing stigma through celebrating diversity and inclusion is at the core of my
teaching philosophy. I strongly agree with Shelley Moore (2016) that “Inclusion is not
about a place in time; it is about place with purpose” (p.23). If supports are provided to
all students inside the classroom, then there is no stigma associated with receiving

3

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
support. The place of learning with collaborative partnerships has a clear purpose of
creating an inclusive setting, and the diversity of learning is then normalized. I believe in
a community of learners and professionals that work together to collaborate for a
common purpose and vision to benefit their learning community.
The populations that were studied included students in grades four to seven at a
public rural school in the Interior of British Columbia. Students from the target school in
grades four to seven have been experiencing low academic achievement scores on
assessments in mathematics, as evidenced by school report cards of student progress and
results from the 2017 Foundation Skills Assessment. In response to the low achieving
math levels of the students, the school has made numeracy an important school goal that
all professionals will be addressing. I am the Learning Assistant Resource Teacher at the
school where the study took place, and my role is to provide support services to all
students including students who have been identified as struggling in mathematics.
Along with providing support within an inclusive environment, students need to
believe that they can succeed. The Growth Mindset theory (Dweck, 2016) lends itself as a
promising framework to shift struggling students’ mental perspectives on their ability to
succeed. Individuals can either have a Fixed Mindset, where a person believes their
ability is fixed, or a Growth Mindset where changeability and growth is developed
through learning opportunities (Dweck, 2016). The concept of Growth Mindset can be
directly applied to mathematics because when students’ mindsets become more flexible
they are more willing to re-examine their learning potential as not one of ability but one
of continuous growth (Boaler, 2016). A possible benefit of identifying the Growth
Mindset of learners is that it provides information for the teachers and professionals

4

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
working with the students’ insight into the student’s self-esteem and feelings towards
themselves and mathematics.
The following sections of the research study will be organized based on a
literature review of the Inclusive Collaboration model of the Learning Assistance
Resource Teacher and the general classroom teacher working together to provide student
services, an overview of mathematic disabilities, followed by a discussion of Growth
Mindset. The methodology and procedure sections will include the research methods and
research design, and finally, there will be a discussion of the findings, limitations,
recommendations for future research and a conclusion.

5

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Literature Review
The literature review of the research study is organized around five main
components: 1) the emergence of inclusion in British Columbian schools, 2) the pull-out
and push-in models of student services, 3) collaborative teaching, 4) mathematical
competency; and 5) Growth Mindset and education. All of the components, when
bridged together, create the foundation for the research study and links together how a
push-in model, collaborative teaching, mathematics, and Growth Mindset, can all be
applied to inclusive education.
The Emergence of Inclusion in British Columbian Schools
In British Columbia, the Ministry of Education is the governing body that
regulates the practices, policies, and procedures of how education is delivered to all
students (Special Education, 2006). The Ministry of Education policy manual outlines all
information including the definitions of disabilities, programming guidelines, assessment,
and reporting. During the 1980’s the move towards inclusion was implemented in British
Columbia when students with exceptionalities were beginning to be included in general
education; however, it was “integration-groups of students housed together” not inclusion
(Moore, 2016, p.13). Students with exceptionalities were segregated from the general
classroom, “contained” in one institution, but not included in the general classroom.
(Moore, 2016). Students were educated by a specialized teacher in a resource room
within the same school and remained segregated from their peers and school community
(Towle, 2015).
It was not until 2012, when the Moore case (Moore vs. British Columbia) proved
in court for the first time that school districts have the responsibility to provide access to

6

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
education to students with exceptionalities, that the push for full inclusion in schools took
momentum (Stegemann & Aucoin, 2018). The Moore case proved to be a pivotal point
in Canadian history in regards to inclusion rights. Parents now had a precedent set with
the Moore case that provided them opportunities to go to court and demand inclusion for
all children with exceptionalities. In North America, the practice of inclusion has become
an important component of special education services, but we do not have full inclusionyet (Moore, 2016). Full inclusion involves the school and school districts supporting the
teachers and learners in the regular classroom (Carr, 2016). In full inclusion, teachers
receive additional training and time for professional collaboration in order to design
supports for specific learners but accessible to all learners in the classroom (Carr, 2016;
Moore, 2016).
As a Learning Assistant Resource Teacher in British Columbia, the Ministry of
Education governs me; however, how I deliver special education services to students can
be flexible with the support of administration. In order to incorporate inclusive and
differentiated supports for students it is important to establish an environment/community
in classrooms that are inclusive to all learners and professionals (Brownlie & King,
2011). One way of building supports within the classroom is to include specialized
teachers, including LARTs, into the classroom environment and to have all learners
remain in the classroom to receive interventions. To elaborate on how the LART can be
included in the classroom environment, I have researched the common student support
practices of the pull-out and push-in models, as well as, co-teaching/collaborative
learning. In order to incorporate inclusive and differentiated learning supports for
students, which enhance a school that is safe and inclusive to all learners, I have

7

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
researched the common student support service practices of the “pull-out” and “push-in”
models, as well as, co-teaching/collaborative learning.
The Pull-out and Push-in Model of Student Services
Two models of intervention are employed by educators to support students who
need support: the pull-out and the push-in models. A pull-out model of providing special
education services can be defined as any program that removes “students from the
general classroom to special classes or separate rooms to receive services” (Swartz, n.d).
It is standard practice that “students continue to be pulled out of the classroom for various
services such as counseling, speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy”, and
academic support (Barton, 2016, p.2). Students work in a separate area for individualized
or small group instruction with the purpose of targeting instruction to the student’s
learning needs (Bean, Cooley, Eichelberger, Lazar & Zigmond, 1991; Fernandez &
Hines, 2016). In British Columbia, the Learning Assistant Resource Teacher (LART) is
responsible for providing support for students including academic interventions for
reading, mathematics, and behaviour support programs (Moore, 2016). Reading and
mathematics groups are determined by “achievement”, special needs designation and can
include students from various classrooms (Allington & Cunningham, 2007). There are
some benefits of the pull-out program, but it is also important to acknowledge the
consequences that a pull-out program may have to the student’s learning and their selfesteem (Allington & Cunningham, 2007; Barton, 2016, Bean, Cooley, Eichelberger,
Lazar & Zigmond, 1991; Beninghof, 2012; Fernandez & Hynes, 2016; Moore, 2016;
Shanahan, 2008; Swartz, n.d; Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009 & Zigmond, 2003).

8

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The main advantage for students receiving a pull-out model of student support is
that students receive direct instruction from a specialist teacher in a small classroom
setting (Barton, 2016). A separate teaching environment may also be less distractible for
students than a general classroom and they could feel less embarrassed to make mistakes
and become more involved in discussions compared to a larger classroom (Barton, 2016;
Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). Additionally, there can also be instructional
benefits to teachers in a pull-out model. The LART can plan specific lessons for learners
with exceptionalities, provide more attention to individual students, and the LART can
group students from multiple classrooms based on ability level and provide targeted
interventions (Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009).
Having students removed from the general classroom for specialized instruction
by a learning specialist can create challenges involving coordination and planning,
curriculum fragmentation, and student stigmatization (Allington & Cunningham, 2007;
Bean et.al, 1991; Barton, 2016; Fernandez & Hynes, 2016; Moore, 2016; Shanahan,
2008; Swartz, n.d; Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). When students are pulled-out
of the general classroom, general teachers and the Special Education Teacher often have
little collaboration and planning due to “time crunches” and when planning does take
place it is more for assessment purposes than lesson planning (Woodward & TalbertJohnson, 2009). Fernandez & Hynes (2016) reason that the lack of collaboration between
teachers during pull-out programming could be a direct result of the general teacher’s
perception that they “did not have the expertise, resources, time, and training to
implement inclusion effectively”, which is why teachers trust the interventions put in
place by the Special Education Teacher (p.35).

9

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
In relation to the lack of collaboration between the specialist and classroom
teacher students who participate in a pull-out program receive “curriculum
fragmentation” (Allington & Cunningham, 2007; Bean et al., 1991; Barton, 2016;
Fernandez & Hines, 2016). Allington and Cunningham (2007) characterize the
curriculum the student receives from the specialist teacher as the “other organized”
curriculum that includes intervention programs that are not part of the general classroom;
furthermore, “special education teachers were often unfamiliar with the regular
curriculum and rarely used regular classroom curriculum materials” (p.193). This results
in students, receiving two programs.
The most important factor when considering a pull-out program is the
social/emotional effects it may have on the self-esteem of the student who is removed
from the classroom (Barton, 2016; Fernandez & Hynes, 2016; Moore, 2016). Peers in the
classroom will also notice the absences of students who are receiving pull-out instruction
from the classroom, and the student themselves may feel stigmatized for receiving
instruction with the special education teacher (Barton, 2016; Fernandez & Hynes, 2016;
Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). In contrast to the pull-out model, the push-in
model allows students who need support to stay in their classroom with their peers.
Inclusion is the “concept of teaching to the diversity of all” by providing student
services inside the classroom instead of having the students pulled out to receive services
(Moore, 2016). The push-in model of special education services enhances the
educational experiences of all learners because a specialized teacher is in the classroom
available to help anyone while providing interventions to those who require targeted
supports (Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). Having the Special Education Teacher

10

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
inside the general classroom can promote inclusion, as well as, professional collaboration
(Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). This professional collaboration may address the
need for extra support that most teachers experience when working with children with
diverse learning needs.
Teachers in “general education are expected to cope with students with diverse
needs” (Gal, Schreur & Engel-Yehger, 2010, p.89); however, they may not always be
supported sufficiently or even have the necessary professional knowledge to support all
learners in the classroom. Having a trained professional in addition to the classroom
teacher can provide professional development opportunities for general teachers
(Schnellert & Butler, 2014; Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009, p.190). The main
advantages of having a LART providing student services in the general classroom is that
it decreases curriculum fragmentation since students do not lose transitional time and it
reduces the stigma for those students of being pulled out of the general classroom
(Allington & Cunningham, 2007; Barton, 2016; Bean et. al., 1991; Fernandez & Hynes,
2016; Shanahan, 2008; Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). Instruction becomes
“collaborative problem solving” when professionals work together and the students’
needs are identified and interventions are provided in the classroom, not as a separate
program (Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). Shanahan (2008) speculates that one of
the main reasons for the failure of many pull-out programs is that when the curriculum
materials are used outside of the classroom, it is “unlikely to help the struggling students
learn what they need to do well in the classroom” (p.114). One way that curriculum
fragmentation can be avoided is through a collaborative/co-teaching model.

11

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Collaborative Teaching
Co-teaching or collaborative teaching can be defined as “the sharing of instruction
by a general education teacher and a Special Education Teacher, or another specialist in a
general class that includes students with disabilities”, and it is a “relatively recent
application” to special education pedagogy (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain &
Shamberger, 2010, p.9). Co-teaching may present like the push-in class model of
providing student support but differs “because both educators are simultaneously engaged
in the instructional process” (Beninghof, 2012, p.8). In this research study, the method of
instruction meets the criteria of co-teaching defined by Murawski (2008), because I was
involved in co-planning and in aspects of co-assessing; however, it is also important to
note that my time in the classroom is limited.
Both the push-in and co-teaching models allow for collaboration and cooperation
between teachers, the difference lies in that with the push-in model the professionals are
not both actively engaged with students for the entire length of a designated time in the
general classroom (Beninghof, 2012). In a push-in model, professionals providing
student services spend only the time needed in the classroom to provide interventions to
students who would have been pulled out of the classroom. The push-in model can be an
integrated part of co-teaching depending on how both the general classroom teacher and
the LART decide to design instruction.
The main benefit of co-teaching is that it promotes inclusion of students and
creates a professional relationship between teachers for the purpose of addressing how to
effectively service students with exceptionalities in the general classroom (Brownlie &
King, 2011; Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010). The needs of the

12

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
designated student(s) can be met; as well, all students have the potential to share the
benefit of additional support in the classroom (Beninghof, 2012; Friend, Cook, HurleyChamberlain & Shamberger, 2010). Co-teaching is becoming more and more of a
necessity as a response to the complexities of teaching to diverse learners in a classroom
(Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010). The next section discusses
various ways to implement a co-teaching model.
There are many ways of delivering instruction using a co-teaching model. One of
the most effective ways of co-teaching is to approach co-teaching in the form of station
teaching or skills group model (Allington & Cunningham, 2007; Beninghof, 2012;
Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010). In the station teaching and
skills group models, students are distributed into small groups, and teachers can directly
lead group instruction and directly teach target skills such as a new literacy or numeracy
concept (Beninghof, 2012; Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010)
Mathematical Competency
Throughout the history of mathematics education, there has been a definite shift
in the understanding of what constitutes strong mathematical abilities (Gersten & Chard,
1999). Mathematical education has changed in teaching practices from the rote, direct
teaching of mathematical facts, to a new concept of visualization, skill construction,
computation strategies, memory retrieval, and an overall understanding of numeracy
(Brownlie & King, 2011; Butterworth, 2005; Calkins, 2003; Emerson & Babtie, 2010,
2014; Gersten & Chard, 1999; Mighton, 2007). In contemporary understanding of
mathematical abilities, a student who exhibits strong mathematical abilities does not just
recall facts, they can problem solve, extend their thinking, apply their knowledge, and

13

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
engage in the inquiry process analytically and creatively (Brownlie & King, 2011; Boaler,
2016; Emerson & Babtie, 2010, 2014). In analyzing how a student learns mathematics,
also comes a realization of how others do not learn the concepts of mathematics and the
unfortunate consequences of living with poor numeracy skills.
Mathematical skills are essential life skills. Mathematical competency is needed
to count money, budget, secure employment, perform problem-solving skills, and it
directly influences other aspects of daily life, which ultimately affects quality of life
(Butterworth, 2010; Rourke & Conway, 1997; Vukovic & Siegel, 2010). Unfortunately,
almost “60 percent of North American adults have mathematical skills below levels
considered necessary for coping with everyday life and work and advance in society”
(Vukovic & Siegal, 2010, p.25). If a student does not acquire the necessary mathematical
skills for academic achievement, they may struggle in their daily lives, which is why
timely intervention is crucial, and is the rationale behind focusing on mathematics for this
research study (Butterworth, 2010; Vukovic & Siegal, 2010).
Identification and referral of students experiencing challenges to developing
mathematical competency. Many factors contribute to challenges students have when
developing mathematical competency. Vukovic and Siegel (2010) address the persistent
mathematical difficulties children exhibit in a three-year longitudinal study with children
from first through fourth grade. The longitudinal study affirms that students who are
struggling in mathematics exhibit difficulties in working memory, processing speed,
visual-spatial abilities, phonological processing, and lack a general mathematical
background (p.26-27). The study assessed mathematical improvement by a series of
academic assessments and compared the results with a series of ANOVAS in order to

14

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
determine which academic skills resulted in achievement growth and the cognitive
processes of the learners. The results from the study found that the lack of “crystallized
knowledge”, defined as numerical reasoning, rather than the number series and mastery
of math facts contributed significantly to the challenges in mathematical competency.
Linking previously taught patterns, problem solving, and accessing a variety of strategies
becomes essential to the process of learning, not memorizing mathematics. Vukovic and
Seigel state that “formal mathematics instruction is not enhancing children’s
mathematics” (p.36).
The research from Vukovic and Siegal (2010) is important to this research study
as the study presents alternative approaches to learning mathematics. Students are not
pulled-out of the classroom to receive formal mathematical instruction based on facts;
instead, students are differentiated in their mathematical instruction within the classroom
environment while being exposed to the language and learning of their peers.
The research study reported in this thesis focused on students in grades four to
seven. By grade four, students are taught the fundamentals of mathematical concepts and
the skills become increasingly difficult based on the mastery of the basic skills. It is also
expected that by grade four, students will be able to demonstrate concepts of numeracy
such as one to one correspondence, quantity, be able to manipulate sets of things, and use
counting strategies (Butterworth, 2005; 2010). If there are any lagging skills in
mathematical concepts, it is typically in grade three or four that persistent problems in
mathematics present such as working memories issues, visual-spatial, and language
difficulties (Vukovic & Siegal, 2010). As a result, a child with math exceptionalities may
become fatigued quickly when presented with a new learning task and can demonstrate

15

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
difficulties retrieving and mentally manipulating numerical quantities and recalling
number sense (Morsanyi & Devine, 2014; Nobes & Szucs, 2013; Sousa, 2015). If a
teacher notices any lagging skills in mathematics a referral could be made to the Learning
Assistant Resource Teacher at the school. The LART would then meet with the school
and parents in order to understand the learning challenges of the student. School based
assessments and possibly assessments by a School Psychologist could be recommended
in order to determine mathematical exceptionalities. It is important to provide
interventions as soon as lagging skills present in order for students to become successful
math learners and to avoid the consequences of living with poor numeracy skills. It is
also important to address the social/emotional factors that contribute to becoming a
successful math learner, which can include the learner’s mindset.
Growth Mindset and Education
Dweck’s (2016) research discusses how the psychology of mindsets directly
influences success. There are two different types of mindsets. The Fixed Mindset is the
belief that ability is set by perceived “smartness” and Growth Mindset is a belief that
ability is developed through learning (Boaler, 2013; Dweck, 2016). The concept of
mindsets has a direct relationship with education and learning. When students have a
Fixed Mindset, they internalize failures; in contrast, the student with the Growth Mindset
views failures as an opportunity to learn, and Growth Mindsets for teachers is an
awareness of how teachers communicate ability, especially in the subject area of
mathematics (Boaler, 2013; Mighton, 2007). The education system has traditionally
relied on standardized test scores to predict achievement not internal motivation or the
process of thinking (Boaler, 2016; Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015). Mathematical

16

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
knowledge through assimilation and accumulation of facts instead of learning for
meaning is more ability based than acknowledging competency through attitude and
motivation (Saragih & Napitupulu, 2015). Success in academics could be influenced
more by beliefs, goals, persistence, and adaptive responses than ‘ability’ in order for all
students to achieve at all levels in the classroom ( Boaler, 2016; Hochanadel & Finamore,
2015; Mangels, Butterfield, Lamb, Good & Dweck, 2016; Moser, Shroder, Heeter, Moran
& Lee, 2011).
This research study focused on how the LART can model Growth Mindset by
praising processes of mathematics instead of ability. Several studies have illustrated how
improving teacher communication with students regarding success and failure can have a
positive impact on self-esteem and academic success (Chin, 2012; Boaler, 2013;
Brougham& Kashubeck-West, 2018; Gersten & Chard, 1999; Dweck, 2016; DeBacker,
Heddy, Kershen, Crawson, Looney & Goldman, 2018). Starting feedback messages with
“I like the way you” and adding specific details about the learning process builds the
belief that the student’s process is what matters, not the fact that they have a correct or
incorrect response (Brougham & West, 2018). I used the suggested phrases from Growth
Mindset research to model a Growth Mindset approach in the general mathematics
classroom.
The projects length is also reflective of research that implies that even a “one
shot” intervention of a Growth Mindset approach to learning could have a positive impact
on learning. Although the studies involving a short Growth Mindset intervention have
not demonstrated positive replication, there is growing literature to suggest that a longer

17

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
intervention may have a greater impact (DeBacker, Heddy, Kershen et al., 2018). For this
reason, the period of a twelve-week intervention was chosen for the research study.

18

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Methods
This mix-methods research, primarily qualitative with a small quantitative
exponent, used a Participatory Action Research design as described in Creswell (2015)
and included both qualitative and quantitative research questions, data collection tools,
processes, and analyses. This section provides further elaboration on criteria for selection
and recruitment of participants, the nature of the math and Growth Mindset intervention,
the Push-in Collaborative Model, the tools and strategies for data collection and analyses,
and ethical considerations.
The research design of the study is grounded in the practice of Participatory
Action Research. This research study adhered to the qualities of a Participatory Action
Research Design because it is practical and collaborative. The practical component of the
research is that it reflects commonly accepted practices in delivering student services and
not only explains the practices but critically examines the practices for the purpose of
making improvements to education (Newton & Burgess, 2008). Participatory Action
Research was also chosen because it directly relates to both the research focus and the job
description and responsibilities of a LART. It is my responsibility as a LART to provide
the best educational opportunities for all students and to work with the general teachers
effectively. As the main researcher and a participant in this Participatory Action Research
project, the decisions about different aspects of the study were in consultation with the
participating teachers. There was equal collaboration between the LART and the general
classroom teacher through continuous reflection and analysis of current practices and
action plans were discussed in relation to the needs of the students.

19

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The Participatory Action Research approach (Cresswell, 2015; Newton &
Burgess, 2008) provided a perfect match for the intention of the study –to assess the
effectiveness of the push-in model of inclusion. A Participatory Action Research project
is designed to examine current practices that are commonly accepted in education, and
has a purpose for not only improving practice but to critically examine and interpret
components of education (Newton & Burgess, 2008). The push-in model requires the
Learning Assistant Teacher and the general teacher to work together to provide support
within the general classroom instead of the LART pulling students out of the general
classroom to provide support. The push-in model fits within the framework of
Participatory Action Research because there is an emphasis on collaboration and
transparency between the participants and the researcher (Creswell, 2015; Newton &
Burgess, 2008). Another key element of a Participatory Action Research Design is that
the researcher is also a participant, and the main goal of the research is to provide an
action plan- a plan to adjust teaching and improve practice. As such, the action plan for
this research project, which centered around the push-in model through collaborative
teaching and Growth Mindset for a mathematics intervention was developed and adjusted
throughout the study through on-going consultation with all participating teachers.
Educational practices evolved as the research project was implemented. The action plan
throughout this project was developed, implemented and adjusted collaboratively through
lesson planning sessions among the participating teachers, and it is summarized and
discussed in the Findings and the Discussion sections of this thesis report.
In a Participatory Action Research, there are multiple sources of data (Cresswell,
2015). The first part of the methods section explores the quantitative data collection

20

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
instruments and analyses techniques and then addresses the qualitative component. The
specific quantitative questions are: 1) Are there significant changes in Growth Mindset
for children participating in the push-in math intervention? 2) Are there significant
differences in Growth Mindset between children struggling with math and their peers? It
was expected that the gap between the two groups would narrow by the end of the
intervention. In order to measure Growth Mindset, a survey was given at the beginning
of the research project and the same survey was administered at the end of the research
project.
The qualitative component aims at answering the following question: What are
the experiences of teachers and students in a push-in model of intervention for students
struggling with mathematics? The main aspects of the qualitative component consists of
journals from the teachers and researcher, student math reflection sheets (administered
twice), and final interview questions of the teacher participants.
Process
In the beginning of the school year, the LART and the classroom teachers
conducted individual meetings to discuss students that were identified as being struggling
learners in mathematics. The students were identified as struggling learners because they
were not meeting curriculum expectations for their grade level based on assignments,
tests, and participation in classroom activities.
Once the students needing additional math support were identified, in class
support interventions were instructed, twice a week for approximately 20 minutes each
time for twelve weeks. The LART designed the interventions in consultation with the
classroom teacher and provided the interventions directly in the classroom. The

21

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
researcher also used fidelity treatment by journaling every day after the exact time the
researcher spent with the students who received the intervention. This journaling kept the
researcher on track with the purpose and focus of the intervention.
Participants
The students that participated in the study were from grade 4 to grade 7 and there
was a mix of both females and males in the classes. This age range was chosen because
early interventions of any learning challenges are more effective for the growth and
development of children. In total there were 45 student participants in the study and 15
of them, those struggling with math, were part of the intervention group. The student
participants were recruited by a letter that was sent home to their guardians by the
researcher asking for voluntary participation in the study.
The participants of the intervention groups for mathematics were chosen by the
teachers in consultation with the LART in regards to the need of mathematic intervention.
An important factor in the demographics of the participants is that all participants are part
of a rural community. The rural community has approximately 250 students in total from
grades Kindergarten to grade 12. There are two schools within the community with the
Elementary housing students from Kindergarten to grade 4 and the elementary/secondary
school includes students in grade 5 to grade 12. The research study included one class
(grade 4) from the elementary building, and two classes from the elementary/secondary
building (grade 5 and grade 6/7). I am the LART for both buildings and provide student
services to students in both buildings.
All the teachers of the participating students were invited to participate in the
research study. Three teachers agreed to participate. Data from these three teachers only

22

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
was included in the study. All of the teachers are female and varied in the grades they
teach and years of teaching experience. The grade 4 teacher has taught for over five
years, the grade 5 teacher is a new teacher with less than five years of experience, and the
grade 6/7 teacher is a seasoned teacher with almost twenty years of experience.
Sampling Approaches of the Participants
The sampling of the participants included a mixture of convenience purposeful
sampling combined with extreme case and opportunistic sampling (Cresswell, 2015).
The purposeful sampling of the teachers included all general teachers but varied in the
grades they taught and years of experience. The opportunistic sampling participant
included the Social Studies teacher who was not part of the general math teachers;
however, as the opportunity of collaboration was extended in the schools, they ended up
having an important part of the research study.
The students were purposefully chosen because of their grades and the fact that
they were students in the school I am a LART. The intervention group of participants had
the commonality that they all were struggling learners; however, they had diverse needs,
ability, and personal and physical characteristics. They could be considered extreme
sample participants also because they do not represent typical learners; rather they are
learners performing below expectations. In addition, a grade 8 student was recruited
through opportunistic sampling and became an important highlight in the research study.
His participation illustrated the value of collaboration and extended relationships outside
the classroom.

23

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The Intervention
The mathematic intervention of the research study included two specific aspects:
providing mathematic intervention to identified learners needing support and the
collaborative nature of the LART with the general teacher in the classroom. An
additional goal of the intervention was to include a Growth Mindset approach as a
teaching strategy to create positive beliefs surrounding mathematics. The researcher
worked with the students in the intervention group in the general classroom environment
for twenty minutes, twice a week, for the duration of twelve weeks. The following
sections provide details into the specific teaching strategies the researcher used when
teaching the intervention group and how the push-in collaborative teaching model was
used in each classroom.
Growth mindset. The students that were chosen to participate in the intervention
group were struggling learners, and I wanted to provide learning opportunities that were
built on success. I told the students that everyone was going to learn and everyone was
going to succeed. At the beginning of the research study, the students were a bit hesitant
in what I meant about them “all succeeding”, but when I introduced the first tasks, which
were a departure from traditional direct instruction and rote learning math tasks, they
started to become engaged in learning. In the classrooms, I focused on reducing paperbased tasks and introduced more games and manipulatives as learning opportunities.
With games, students were engaged in learning opportunities that I could facilitate, and
the students could work together (Boaler, 2016). By focusing on strategies and the
students’ thinking, when there was an incorrect response we discussed the process as

24

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
growth in learning. I reinforced that mistakes were a learning opportunity and focused on
the successful parts of the process- then guided the student to the “correct” response.
Frontloading struggling learners on the concepts being taught in class was used in
all of the classrooms. Re-teaching and pre-teaching was the main instructional strategy
used in the intervention groups. When frontloading students, re-teaching previously
taught concepts was also used in all classrooms. I strongly agree with Bellert (2015) that
re-teaching concepts provides a “second-chance opportunity for both teachers, and
students, as teachers can refine and target instruction and students can try again to learn
the concept” (p.4). Re-teaching focusses on the process of learning without worrying
about failure; therefore, increasing the opportunity for an increase in Growth Mindset.
Pre-teaching new concepts to students has the same purpose as re-teaching
concepts. The students were introduced to the concept in a small group, instead of with
the rest of the class, with the purpose of feeling confident about the topic or concept
when the teacher introduced it to the whole class.
In all of the intervention groups, a key teaching component to the lessons was the
use of positive language. I used many phrases and suggestions from Boaler (2016) when
praising students and encouraging a Growth Mindset. Instead of telling students they
were “smart”, I focused my praise on specific strategies they used in their learning. I
used the word “thinking” when phrasing my responses such as “I like the way you
showed your thinking by…”, and acknowledged various ways of finding solutions. If
students did not execute a correct response, I would highlight what they did do correctly
and draw more attention to their process and thinking than the step they had incorrect.
Students were encouraged to talk about their strategies and thinking and have number

25

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
talks associated with different math problems which encouraged diversity of thought and
process (Boaler, 2016). I also encouraged the students to think of themselves as
“mathematicians” in order to encourage them to dispel the myth that mathematics is
about ability (Boaler, 2016; Mighton, 2007).
There were also opportunities in the research studies where students from the
intervention group became leaders. I used games to pre-teach the intervention group, but
then had the students in the intervention group become the students who taught the
general learners in the classroom. The games where the students from the intervention
group demonstrated leadership included: Place Value Battleship, a dice game that
involved strategic planning of building the largest number, and a game called Slap Card
where students have to identify an odd or even number by slapping the card first
(Researcher Notes, Lesson 2, Gr.6/7; Researcher Notes, Lesson 3, Gr.6/7; Researcher
Notes, Lesson 11, Gr.5). These games were based on basic skill building, but also
encouraged Growth Mindset by shifting the roles of learners from the dependent learners
to leaders.
In order to implement the Growth Mindset approach in the general mathematics
classroom, I used a push-in model of support and worked collaboratively with each
general classroom teacher planning lessons that met the needs of the students.
Push-in collaborative teaching model. The inclusive nature of the study was
further explored through the collaborative teaching model between the Learning
Assistance Resource Teacher/researcher and the general teacher in each classroom.
The teachers reflected regularly on the experience of collaboration as part of the
qualitative research component of this study. Instead of having a separate intervention

26

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
curriculum outside the general classroom, teachers were actively involved in
communicating the needs of their students in order to provide the most suitable
interventions. The students receiving math intervention were not pulled out of the
classroom; instead, mathematical interventions took take place within the classroom
hoping to decrease the social/emotional negative effects that being removed from the
classroom may have on the student’s self-esteem (Barton, 2016; Fernandez & Hynes,
2016; Moore, 2016).
The collaborative teaching model in each classroom was adapted to each of the
students and teachers’ needs. In the grade 4 classroom, the teaching style of the teacher
was more of a lecture and paper based model of instruction. An intervention model that
worked for the grade 4 classroom was a station model where students had a designated
table in the back of the room where they received direct instruction (Beninghof, 2012).
The station model worked well with the natural flow of the classroom.
In the grade 5 classroom, students were engaged in group learning activities on
the days that I was available in the classroom. Students were involved in a warm up
group that we called “Brain Booster” groups and we worked on re-teaching a specific
skill. It was natural during the Brain Booster groups to work with the intervention group.
I could adapt the material to the needs of the students and we had the smallest group.
This classroom also had the smallest number of students (15), which made the
intervention group even less noticeable. After the warm up group, students would work
in rotation groups where there were four activities to work on for the remainder of the
class. The teacher also used a timer of twenty minutes to ensure pacing.

27

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The grade 6/7 classroom required more organization on how to design the
intervention group without the students feeling stigmatized. The classroom teacher and I
had several discussions on what would work best for the classroom. The classroom
environment had a back room with a table that students could use for a quiet space to
work. There was also another space that was available for students to use just outside the
classroom. Between the grade 6/7 classroom is a glass sliding door that opens to the
library to provide an ‘extended classroom’. It was very motivating for the students to
work at the round table in the library, just outside of the glass door in the classroom.
Since the library table was a desirable work area, we decided that the table would be a
very positive space for students in the intervention group.
The students started the intervention ten to fifteen minutes at the end of their
silent reading time and only missed the beginning of the classroom lesson. The purpose
of the timing was to be as discrete as possible and all of the students welcomed the
interruption of silent reading to begin working on skills with the LART. The intervention
group worked mostly on skill building games that they would then introduce to the class
and pre-teaching and re-teaching concepts were also effective strategies for this grade
level.
Data Collection Methods and Analyses
Quantitative data was collected through the Growth Mindset Survey (see
Appendix A) given to all students at the beginning of the project and at the end of the
project. I used the Growth Mindset Questionnaire designed by Boucher (2016). Boucher
is an Educator in the United States of America who uses the Growth Mindset
Questionnaire as part of professional development and as a guide to general teachers of

28

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
mathematics who are interested in Growth Mindset. The purpose of the Growth Mindset
Questionnaire is to assess differences across study groups. It contains fifteen questions,
and each question corresponds with a value of 0 = not true, 1= a little true or 2 = very
true. The maximum score a student can achieve in this survey is 30. This instrument
presented an inter-item reliability of α = .69 at pre-test and α = .59 at post-test. . A high
alpha value (.70 or more) suggests a high internal consistency. There was a lower interreliability of the alpha value in the post-test compared to the pre-test suggesting that there
was less consistency in how the various items in the scale captured growth mindset at the
end of the intervention.
The data from the Growth Mindset Survey was organized and coded in an Excel
document. The nominal codes were sorted by gender (male, female), intervention group
or comparison, and grades. The data in the excel document was cleaned of any errors and
then exported to SPSS for statistical analyses. Quantitative data was analyzed by paired
and independent sample t-tests to examine whether there was a significant change in
Growth Mindset within groups from pre- to post-intervention and whether the growth
was significantly different between students who are struggling learners in mathematics
and the general learners in the classroom.
Qualitative data was collected using reflection journals from the teachers and
students. Students who received interventions completed a My Math Reflections sheet at
the beginning of the research project and again at the end of the research project (see
Appendix I). The students were given 4 questions to answer: 1) I am doing well with…2)
I still need help with…3) Math connection I made today…4) My math goal…. Math
reflections questions were based on the mathematical mindset work of Boaler (2016).

29

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The math reflection sheets were given twice during the research study, once at the
beginning and another at the end of the study. These students’ self-assessments were
analyzed by examining the wording students use to describe goals and general positive
and negative emotions referring to mathematics, which identified whether a student was
demonstrating a Growth Mindset or Fixed Mindset.
The researcher and the teacher participants also completed reflective journals
throughout the research project. The focus of the journals was to reflect on the
collaborative process of providing in class support for students. Teachers were expected
to complete weekly journal entries that highlighted their experiences of participating in
the research study. The teachers were not given a template for the reflective journals;
rather, teachers were encouraged to write individual thoughts without a frame.
At the end of the twelve weeks of research, all journals were submitted to the
researcher and the classroom teachers. To establish trustworthiness, the researcher used
member checks to verify statements and the meaning of the teacher participant quotes in
their journals. Teachers also participated in a semi-structured interview with the
researcher at the end of the study (see Appendix H).
Qualitative data obtained from the journals was analyzed using thematic coding.
Coding was inductive, not pre-determined and data was triangulated for accuracy,
transferability, and consistency through a peer check.
Ethical Considerations
All students in grades 4 to 7 were invited to participate, but only those authorized
through parental consent were asked to complete the reflection journals and the Growth
Mindset Questionnaires, which are components specific to the proposed research. All

30

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
students completed the Growth Mindset Questionnaire, but only data from those whose
parents gave authorization were included in the analyses and reports deriving from the
proposed research. All students identified as needing additional support in mathematics
received support, but only data from those who gave consent was used in the study.
Approximately 20-25% of each class was in the intervention group. There were no risks
to the participants in the study beyond the normal stressors that school may pose on
children; in fact, risks were minimized to students who received math support because
their learning was facilitated through the intervention in the general classroom.
This research project has been approved by Thompson Rivers University REB
(see certification of approval attached in Appendix B), it has also been approved by the
Superintendent of School District 73 (see Appendix C), and by the school Principal (see
Appendix E) of the schools where the study took place. I also reviewed the official policy
of the school board regarding research being conducted in classrooms (see Appendix D).
Before beginning the study, I requested consent from the teachers and parents.
Participants were recruited by informed consent letters sent home to the
parents/guardians (see attached consent forms in Appendix F). In the written consent
form to the parents/guardians, there was a section that informed the parents that students
had the right to withdraw at any point of the study. None of the students withdrew from
the study. In the first meeting with students, I affirmed assent by explaining to the
students that I had consent of their parents; however, they also had the right to not
participate in the research, and it would not reflect on their academic records (marks).
Adult participants were also informed of the right to voluntarily withdraw from the study

31

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
at any point of the project, but before the final report (see attached consent form
Appendix G).
In this thesis report and all future publications student names have been removed
and participant names (teachers and students) were replaced with a pseudo name or a
code to adhered to strict confidentiality and privacy. Any other identifying information,
such as the location of the study and the name of the school, was removed to protect the
confidentiality of all participants in the study. All data material (questionnaires and
reflective journals) is stored in a locked filing cabinet with the only key belonging to the
researcher. All electronic data was passcode protected. It will be kept for a minimum of
five years and will be destroyed once the study has been completed and published. There
was no monetary compensation for participating in the research study.
Fairness and equity was addressed in the research by the consideration that the
research will involve members of a vulnerable group. Students in the general classroom
may be identified as having special learning needs/disabilities, which would qualify the
students as members of a vulnerable group. All learners with consent were included in
the study as the study involves inclusive learning in the general classroom. The whole
purpose of the study is to improve the learning support services for struggling learners
and children with exceptionalities.
As a researcher and participant in this Participatory Action Research project, there
could be a perceived conflict of interest in the research study. The researcher is a teacher
and the participants are the students (minors) which does create a power imbalance and
expectation that the learner will participate in all learning activities. As a researcher and
a teacher, there can be the perception of the teacher having power over the student. To

32

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
mitigate the perception of the power imbalance I was not responsible for grading the
students for their report card. Monitoring student progress, collaboration and discussions
with the general teachers are all within the regular duties of the Learning Assistant
Resource Teacher. The researcher also kept a regular reflection journal to self-check and
make sure there is no bias.

33

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Findings
The main purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of providing
mathematical interventions for struggling learners of mathematics within the classroom
setting (push-in model). The LART worked collaboratively with the classroom teachers,
and the participatory action research was analyzed by both quantitative and qualitative
research methods to investigate the research questions. The quantitative research
questions addressed the questions: 1) Are there significant changes in Growth Mindset for
the children participating in the push-in intervention? 2) Are there significant differences
in Growth Mindset between children struggling in mathematics compared to their peers?
The Qualitative component aimed at answering the following question: What are the
experiences of the teachers and students in a push-in model of intervention for students
struggling in mathematics? The findings section of the research project is organized by
the research questions.
Growth Mindset Changes Across Time and Differences Across Groups
Growth Mindset Questionnaire was given to all students, once at the beginning of
the research study and again at the end of the intervention. Once the data was collected, I
used descriptive statistics to present the scores of the students in the intervention group as
compared with their peers no receiving intervention. Table 1 shows raw and percentage
scores of the Growth Mindset Questionnaire administered before and after the
intervention. The results provided evidence to answer the question of whether there were
significant differences in Growth Mindset between children struggling in mathematics
that were part of an intervention group compared to their peers whom were the control
group.

34

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Table 1
Pre- and Post-Intervention Growth Mindset Questionnaire
N

Comparison 30
Group
Intervention 15
Group
Combined
45

Pre-Intervention
Questionnaire
Mean (SD)
Mean
Raw score
(SD) %
16.83 (4.4)
56.11
(14.7)
16.07 (5.2)
53.56
(18.9)
16.58 (4.6)
55.26
(15.6)

Post-Intervention
Questionnaire
Mean (SD)
Mean
Raw score
(SD) %
17.57 (3.9)
58.56
(13)
18.93 (3.8)
63.11
(12.7)
18.02 (3.9)
60.07
(12.9)

As can be gleaned from Table 1, both groups showed changes in their Growth
Mindset from the pre-intervention questionnaire to the post-intervention questionnaire.
The control group shows a 2% increase and the intervention group a 9% increase.
To examine whether differences within and across groups were statistically
significant, a series of t-test analyses were run. Before running these analyses, data was
examined to confirm that all assumptions were met. Frequency analyses with skeweness
and kurtosis values indicate that data was normally distributed and skeweness and
kurtosis were within acceptable ranges. The skeweness scores for the comparison group
was -1.11 at pre-intervention and -0.91 at post-intervention. The skeweness for the
intervention group was -2.07 at pre-intervention and -0.81 at post-intervention. The
kurtosis scores for the comparison group was -0.19 at pre-intervention and -0.60 at postintervention. The kurtosis for the intervention group was 0.87 at pre-intervention and 0.86 at post-intervention.
To examine whether there were significant differences in scores between the two
groups before and after the intervention, two independent sample t-test were run. As

35

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
expected from the information provided by the descriptive statistics, there were no
statistically significant differences between the two groups, t(24) = .483, p = .633 (with
equal variances not assumed) for pre-intervention and t(43) = -1.116, p = .270 (with equal
variances assumed) for post-intervention. To examine whether the growth from preintervention to post-intervention made by each group was significant two paired sample ttests were run. These analyses revealed that the comparison group did not make
significant gains, t(29) = -.928, p = .361 from pre to post intervention, whereas the gains
by the intervention group (MD = -2.87) were statistically significant, t(14) = -1.889, p
= .080.
Qualitative Data: Experience of the Push-In Model for Participants
I collected qualitative data from the teacher participants, the students in the
intervention groups, and from the LART/researcher. The data collections methods
consisted of teacher journals, the researcher journal, final interview responses from the
teachers, and student self-reflections. The purpose of the qualitative data was to provide
information to answer the question: What are the experiences of teachers and students in
a push-in model of intervention for students struggling in mathematics? Four major
categories emerged from the qualitative research data: 1) Professional collaboration in the
general classroom with the subthemes of curriculum alignment, scope and sequence,
timely scaffolding for math language, flexibility of the learning environment, flexibility
of timing, and continuity of learning, 2) Relationships with teachers and the subthemes
of professional vulnerability, professional identities and extended relationships, 3)
Inclusive access to all with the subthemes of relationships with all students and stigma of

36

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
help, and 4) Growth Mindset (see Figure 1). These categories with their corresponding
subthemes will be discussed next.

Figure 1 Qualitative Themes and Subthemes

37

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Professional collaboration in the general mathematics classroom. Having two
trained professionals in the general classroom provided opportunities to instantly
collaborate instead of planning a meeting. As the grade 6/7 teacher commented in her
final interview “having two people in the room made it easier to catch things in the
moment and collaborate and discuss things on the spot (compared to making the time
after class)”, and collaboration in the moment was echoed by the grade five teacher who
stated that one benefit of being in the same room together was that it gave us the
opportunities “to chat about difficulties and find solutions” instantly (Teacher Notes,
gr.5).
Prior research has noted that professional collaborations benefit several aspects of
teaching and learning such as encouraging teachers to take risks and engage in
professional development (Brownlie & King, 2011; Schnellert & Butler, 2014). The
teachers in the general classroom and me all took risks when working together. We
listened to each other’s ideas, problem solved together, and we trusted each other to share
the instruction in the classroom based on the needs of the students. Teaching became
collaboratively transparent. We challenged each other with extensions of ideas and
solutions to situations that we may not have thought about if we were alone in the
process. We also maximized each other’s strengths, such as when I was given the
opportunity to teach the math language lesson. There were also times where we
supported each other when things did not work out, such as when the math division
worksheet was confusing in the grade 6/7 classroom or in the grade 5 classroom when the
students did not have the skills to complete a task and we had to regroup and re-teach
skills. From my experience as a classroom teacher, when lessons do not turn out the way

38

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
that is expected, it can affect your confidence as a teacher; however, when we are
working together we can get through those moments with professional support as equals.
Prior research theorize that professional collaboration benefits several aspects of
teaching and learning including creative problem solving, effective co-planning of
lessons based on teacher strengths, and creates meaningful relationships in schools
(Brownlie & King, 2011; Friend, Cook, Hurley, Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2009;
Murawski, 2008; Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). Beninghof (2012) lists several
benefits to co-teaching including building relationships, effective communication, and
even the physical arrangements in the classroom. Flexibility became a key component in
the effectiveness of the research study because one model was not going to work in all of
the classrooms. The teachers and I had to create a vision of how our professional
collaboration would work in each classroom based on the needs of the students and the
needs of the teacher. It would not have worked for example to use the station model in
every classroom. Many researchers such as Beninghof (2012) and Murwaski (2018) can
help guide professionals into effective collaborative strategies, but it is ultimately the
flexibility of the teachers, who create a shared vision in the classroom, that will provide
the most effective collaboration.
In the study reported in this thesis, it was observed that my collaborations with
different teachers facilitated curriculum alignment, timely language scaffolding in math,
and variations within the learning environment; improved curriculum scope and
sequence, and learning continuity; and increased learning environment and timing
flexibility. Each of these aspects will be discussed below.

39

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Curriculum alignment. In a Learning Assistant and Resource Room, the
LART’s role is to provide interventions to struggling learners. The interventions may
include a stand-alone program that is different to the one that is being used in the general
classroom. One of the main advantages of having interventions delivered to students
within the general classroom is that there was a natural opportunity to ensure curriculum
alignment. The classroom intervention was based on the content of the curriculum the
teachers were teaching in the general classroom. It was not what Allington and
Cunningham (2007) refer to as the “other curriculum”. I was not teaching a separate
program, instead I was scaffolding, pre-teaching, and re-teaching components of the
classroom curriculum the students needed in order to be successful in the classroom.
I was also scheduled in the classroom at math time, not a separate time, which
reduced the lag time of applying the learned skills. Since I was immersed in the general
classroom, I was able to listen to the lectures and observe teaching strategies in the
natural classroom environment. I was then able to provide interventions and scaffold
student learning based on the resources and concepts the teachers are using in the
classroom such as Jump Math, Journeys, Leaps and Bounds, or Math Antics. By
understanding “what the classroom teacher is working on” (Final Interview Question.1,
Gr.5 Teacher) the “in-class support has the potential to more closely fit the needs of the
students-support can be provided that relates directly to the curriculum being covered in
the classroom” (Teacher Notes, Gr. 6/7 Teacher).
An example of how an intervention was aligned with the curriculum occurred
when the students in the grade 4 intervention group were having difficulty understanding
regrouping. I brought base ten rods, cubes, and squares for the students to use in order to

40

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
visualize the regrouping of the place value. The grade 4 teacher commented in their
teacher notes that “Andrea has brought manipulatives, students seem to like these”. I was
able to directly align the intervention to meet the needs of the classroom concept being
taught that day. The students were able to visualize the process and practice the
regrouping skills with hands on materials. After using the manipulatives, students had a
choice to use the manipulatives for future practice exercises.
Another example of how I aligned the curriculum to meet the needs of the
intervention students was in the grade 6/7 classroom, during a lesson when the students
were having difficulty understanding place value. I used a place value chart to
supplement their worksheet and directly instructed how to use the chart (Researcher
Notes, Lesson 6, Gr. 6/7). I then used the chart to teach the students a game with the
chart and modelled how to use the “game chart” as a math aid to complete their
worksheet on expanded and standard notation of numbers.
Scope and sequence. When collaborating in the classroom with all of the
teachers, we were able to have valuable scope and sequence discussions within the grade,
as well as, across the grade levels. Since I was directly involved in the general math
classes, I could share what the other teachers were doing in their classroom and provide
input on future grade levels. For example, the Place Value Battleship Game that was
introduced in the grade 6/7 classroom (Researcher Notes, Lesson 3, Gr. 6/7) was adapted
to the grade 4 and grade 5 classrooms, which provided a differentiated scope and
sequence across the curriculums. I would often bring resources from other classrooms
(activities, observations, lesson plans), my personal library (books, resources, lesson

41

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
plans), and suggest ideas that would build from the textbook resources or provide a
deeper understanding of the concept being taught.
Understanding, and having experience in all grade levels proved to be a valuable
asset to the teachers. The grade 6/7 teacher reflected in their teacher journal, “because
Andrea was familiar with high school mathematics, she was able to identify when this
concept would resurface and whether we needed to focus on it at this time”. In the same
classroom the teacher referred to a conversation we had and commented, “we spent some
time looking on what I am doing, curriculum wise, and scope and sequence” (Teacher
Notes, Gr. 6/7). Together, the teacher and I could discuss scope and sequence goals for
the week. The grade 5 teacher and I often had quick discussions regarding weekly goals
for the class. “Met with Andrea for discussion of group goals for the week
(understanding skip counting and arrays to help with multiplication)” (Teacher Notes,
Gr.5).
Another benefit of being present in the classroom also provided opportunities to
reflect on lessons right after they were taught. After a lesson in the grade 5 classroom,
the teacher and I reflected on whether it made sense to move forward with the next
concept and it became an imperative conversation on the importance of going back and
relearning a previously taught lesson instead of moving forward. The scope was more
important than moving forward in the sequence.
The Learning Assistant and Resource Teacher typically form a relationship with
the teacher that is based on the learning needs of students with exceptionalities. From my
experience as a LART, teachers may collaborate with the Learning Assistant Teacher or
ask for assistance for a particular issue that is presented in the classroom; however, those

42

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
conversations are often held in a quick passing in the hallway or in a meeting outside of
scheduled class time. Having a LART available within the general classroom is not a
general practice, but the qualitative data from this research study illustrates how valuable
having a trained professional in the classroom can for both the general teacher and the
LART.
Timely scaffolding for math language. Math has content specific language.
There are specific words associated with each mathematic operation. For example, in a
math story, the word ‘altogether’ is a signal to the learner that the numerals will be added
together or the words ‘shared equally’ connotes division of numerals. Instead of handing
out a math language worksheet, I was able to directly provide math language support at
specific classroom curriculum moments. In the grade 4 classroom during Lesson 7, I
specifically taught the entire class a math language session. I started the lesson by writing
the four operations of addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication on the board. I
asked the students to generate some words that they already knew that would tell them
which operation to use. One student provided a response that the word ‘away’ is a word
that indicates subtraction. I asked the student for a number story that related to the word
‘away’ and they responded with “and one bird flew away”. I then provided students with
additional words and asked the class under which operation heading they should be
placed. I used positive corrective feedback for students, reassuring the process of
thinking instead of focusing on the correct responses. After the group discussion, I had
the students work in small groups with math stories and asked the students to identify the
key words (circling, colouring, and underlining) that represented a mathematical
operation.

43

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
After the class activity, I had the students attempt to solve the math stories
individually, while the intervention group then received additional guided instruction of
the meaning of the operations. I reviewed each math story with the intervention group
and highlighted the key words that they needed to know and wrote the associated
operation symbol above the word. Each question we worked through as a group instead
of individually, reinforcing the learning target taught to the entire class.
The same math language lesson was introduced to the grade 6/7 class to the
intervention group to frontload their learning while watching a math video called
“Flatland”. The movie teaches students about properties of shapes and since the
characters are part of an alternative universe that is all about math, they use math
language. The visual and the spoken word reinforce the concepts of the math language
the students were being exposed to in the movie. The grade 6/7 teacher and I briefly
discussed the class activity associated with the movie, which was to generate as many
math terms as the students could, as they heard the terms in the movie. I frontloaded the
intervention group on math language terms before the movie, so they were aware of
words that were associated with each operation and we generated some additional words
that could be used such as “angle” or shape words like “quadrilateral” or “sphere”. By
front loading the struggling learners, they were able to be successful with the whole class
activity.
The two math language lessons were adapted to meet the student and the
classroom teacher’s needs; however, the importance of the lessons is that I was used as a
bridge to connect the math language learning between the two classes. The math
language lessons provided a common language between the grades and allowed the

44

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
introduction of the language at the appropriate moments in the classroom. The grade 5
teacher commented on the importance of all of the educators using the same math
language because the language could be “used in 2 different buildings” (Teacher Notes,
Gr.5). The research study took place in a rural community where the grades 4-7 classes
are separated between two buildings. The teacher’s reflection is based on the opportunity
to have the continuity of a common math language being used at the two school
locations.
Flexibility of the learning environment. The traditional pull-out model involves
students being assigned a block of time with the Learning Assistant and Resource Teacher
in a separate learning center. The blocks of time are determined by the LART, the
teachers, and the number of students. Precise times may vary and there is not a standard
intervention time. From my experience as a Learning Assistance teacher, blocks of time
are usually around 20-30 minutes. In a pull-out model, the LART creates a schedule and
the students are pulled out to attend lessons at the learning center. In the push-in model
of intervention, I created a schedule that corresponded the needs and timing of the
general classrooms (see Figure 2). Since I work within the classroom, flexibility of the
learning environment and timing of the lessons could take many forms depending on the
needs of the classroom and the learners. The intervention time with the struggling
learners were 20 minutes in length and I spent the remainder of the block of time
assisting all learners in the classroom. Each classroom had a 45-minute block twice a
week allocated to LART scheduled time. The high school schedule varied in scheduled
time due to the unique block rotations and my availability.

45

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Figure 2 LART Schedule
MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

emails/meetings

emails/meetings

FRIDAY

Elementary School
8:00 - 8:45

emails/meeting

emails/meetings

emails/meetings

8:50 - 9:30

Grade 3

Kindergarten

Grade 3

Grade 1/2

Grade 1/2

9:30 - 10:15

Grade 2

Grade 4

Grade 2

Grade 4

Kindergarten

10:15 - 10:30

Recess

Recess

Recess

Recess

Recess

High School
10:44 - 11:09

Grage 5/6

Grade 5/6

Grade 5/6

Grade 5/6

Grade 5/6

11:10 - 11:26

Break

Break

Break

Break

Break

11:27 - 11:44

Student Check-in

Student Check-in

Student Check-in

Student Check-in

Student Check-in

11:45 - 12:30

Grade 6/7

Grade 5

Grade 6/7

Grade 5

Intermediate Block

12:31 - 12:43

Student Check-in

Student Check-in

Student Check-in

Student Check-in

Student Check-in

12:43 - 1:38

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

1:38 - 2:55

Block Rotations

Block Rotations

Block Rotations

Block Rotations

Block Rotations

Below are the two examples of flexible learning options that the push-in model
afforded: physical classroom arrangement and timing.
Variation within the learning environment. A unique quality of the push-in
model is that it provides an opportunity to have variations within the learning
environment that is not typical in a pull-out model. In a pull-out model, student learning
is typically confined to the LART designated room and includes individual or small
groups of learners. There may be instructional variation by the LART but the LART in a
pull-out model does not collaborate with the classroom teacher on how to physically
arrange students or decide on pacing that corresponds with the rest of the class.
In a push-in model, the teacher and the LART collaborate on all aspects of the
learning environment including the physical arrangement, pacing, and whole class
transition integration. In the research study each classroom had variance in how the
push-in model would be delivered and there was flexibility within the environment based
on the needs of the students, teacher preferences, or driven by the learning targets of the
46

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
lesson. For example, was it more beneficial for the students to receive the intervention at
the beginning or end of the lesson? Do the students in the intervention group need access
to materials in another part of the classroom? These questions would be answered
collaboratively between the teacher and the LART. The following examples of variations
and flexibility within the learning environment illustrate how each classroom was
adapted to the needs of the learners.
In the grade 5 classroom, the teacher and I decided that what would work best for
our collaboration was to work with the students in a station model since we agreed
collaboratively that the students would learn through a series of group rotation. The
classroom was arranged in warm up groups and math groups that rotated every 15-20
minutes. The warm up group was called “Brain Booster” groups, which allowed a
natural grouping for a math intervention group within the classroom. There was not a
designated area where I worked with the intervention group, instead I moved to a location
that maximized student learning. Often, I would locate to where the students were
located instead of have the students come to where I was located within the classroom.
The intervention group was part of the warm up group and was set to a timer of
20 minutes. During the intervention group I would re-teach or frontload the students on
concepts that needed additional support. In one lesson, I focused on reviewing strategies
for multiplication such as how to use a multiplication chart and patterns within the
multiplication chart. The teacher and I had previously discussed that the students could
use the multiplication chart as a tool for learning but she was not confident that the
struggling learners knew how to use a multiplication chart properly and she did not feel
the whole class needed the lesson on multiplication chart use. Teaching the students how

47

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
to use the multiplication chart was a warm up activity that taught a specific skill that
could be used right away in their group work activities.
In contrast to the grade 5 classroom rotations, in the grade 6/7 classroom, I
worked with the intervention group in either the backroom of the classroom or just
outside the classroom in the library. We opened the glass doors and extended the
classroom so the intervention group was within the classroom perimeter. The high chairs
and the high desk in the library was an already established place of privilege to work and
created a positive space for the intervention group to work.
The grade 4 classroom is located in the elementary building, which is separate
from the high school building. The grade 4 classroom has a back table that is often used
by adults to support learning. Using the back table for the intervention group within the
classroom was a natural fit for everyone in the classroom. Flexibility of the physical
arrangement of where the interventions took place also became flexible. For example,
during lesson 9 in the grade 4 classroom, the teacher wanted the students to work at their
desks. I worked with the intervention group at their desks individually in order to
differentiate learning and it went surprisingly well (Researcher Notes, Gr.4). I was able
to adapt to the needs of the classroom teacher yet still provide meaningful support for the
students, which illustrated how flexibility of the physical arrangement in the classroom
can be effective (see Figure 3).

48

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Figure 3 Physical Arrangements of the Classrooms

Each teacher designated purposeful spaces for learning within the classrooms and
we collaborated as professionals on how the intervention groups would become included
in the classroom in a positive, meaningful way. Within each classroom, individual
teaching styles differed which affected the arrangements of the intervention group. The
grade 5 teacher liked the small group rotations whereas the grade 4 teacher preferred a
designated area to support learning. In a pull-out model, students will work one to one
with learners or in small groups and professional collaboration is not part of the physical
arrangement of the LART room.
Flexibility of timing. In response to the question of “what is one of the main
benefits of having the LART in the classroom?” the grade 4 teacher stated, “flexible
schedules: if time needs to be rearranged there is flexibility between the teacher and the
LART” (Teacher Final Interview Quest.1, Gr.4). If there is an interruption to a pull-out
schedule, students and the LART will often lose their time together. There were times

49

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
throughout the research project where interruptions resulted in time needing to be rearranged. In the push-in model we could quickly adjust our schedule or discuss rearranging an alternate time. For example, in the grade 4 classroom during one of our
lessons, the teacher had to deal with an unexpected situation. In response, we flipped the
lesson where I taught the whole class first (allowing the teacher the time they needed)
and once the teacher returned, I took the intervention group (Researcher Notes, Lesson 7,
Gr.4).
Continuity of learning. A common situation in the classroom environment is
teacher absences. A Teacher Teaching On Call (TTOC) is scheduled to teach the class
when the classroom teacher is absent. In a pull-out program the absence of a teacher
does not affect the intervention since lessons are taught separately, unlike the push-in
model where the absence of a teacher can affect the learning environment since the
intervention is taught within the classroom.
In all three classrooms there were instances of teacher absences; however, having
the LART present in the room created a continuity of learning for students. The grade 6/7
teacher reflected that “thankfully, because Andrea was assisting and supporting students
while I was away, she was able to identify that there was a problem, and we were able to
discuss and analyze what the problem was and to back up and change direction” (Teacher
Notes, Gr.6/7). When the teacher was absent, I had the unique opportunity to tell the
TOC about the routines and expectations of the class and the TOCs thanked me for the
support (Researcher Notes, Lesson 12, Gr.5; Researcher Notes, Lesson 8, Gr.6/7). As the
research study progressed throughout the twelve weeks, so did my relationships with the
teachers.

50

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Relationships with teachers. One of the most critical elements of the success of
the research study is the relationships that developed between the teachers and myself. I
had never met the teachers before arriving to the schools. One teacher had a few years of
experience, one teacher is a relatively new teacher, and one teacher is a seasoned teacher
of over a decade. Every teacher had experience working with Learning Assistant
Resource Teachers but no one had ever had a Learning Assistance Resource Teacher
become part of their classroom. Although we all knew our professional roles and
responsibilities, how the relationships would evolve, grow, or even potentially become
damaged were risks that all of us were willing to take in order to examine a new model
for student learning.
In this research study, three subthemes regarding the relationships between the
teachers emerged: professional vulnerability, professional identities, and extended
relationships. Each subtheme of the relationships with teachers is discussed below.
Professional vulnerability. One of the most unexpected feelings that I had
starting the research study was professional vulnerability. I felt that I had to be the best
teacher I could be, so that I could earn the honour of working in their classrooms.
There was a sense that I was entering their territory, and yet I had a territory of my own to
maintain as a Learning Assistant Resource Teacher. With physical classroom boundaries
being meshed together there was uneasiness. In a separate room, in my learning center, I
felt confident with my routines in place, and I knew my plans. I felt effective. Now, I
was entering another person’s classroom bringing in my resources, adapting to their
environment. I now felt exposed. What I did not anticipate was that the teachers also felt
the same way.

51

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
When reflecting on the idea of another professional working with them in their
classroom, the grade 6/7 teacher stated:
I recognize that it will require me to be vulnerable-willing to have a colleague
observe what I was doing, and to be willing to receive feedback and accept
suggestions to do things differently - and to hear that something I’m doing could
be done differently - or better. This can be a little unnerving! (Teacher Notes,
Gr. 6/7).
The grade 4 teacher similarly stated that when another professional is working in
the same room you feel ‘vulnerable as a teacher’. Along the same lines, the grade 6/7
teacher remarked that they were “willing to do what’s best for the students, even if it
makes me uncomfortable as an educator” (Teacher Notes, Grade 6/7). Even though we
all felt the vulnerability, there was a common goal, which made the relationships we were
establishing worth building.
Schnellert and Butler (2014) mention the idea of a “culture of trust” when
referring to professionals being valued and their strengths honored in a collaborative
relationship. Trust was an essential component in the relationships with the teachers, and
I felt an overwhelming sense that I had to earn the respect and trust of the teachers to
allow me into their classrooms. We established trust over time through effective
communication and getting to know each other; but there was a deeper feeling than just
trust. I felt that I could trust the teachers and that trust was reciprocal; however, it was
not trust that seemed to chisel at my self-confidence, it was professional vulnerability.

52

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Professional identities. When I first started entering the classroom,
professionally, we had to redefine our identities. I was not an educational assistant that
would support learners, I was a teacher, and I have additional training that includes being
efficient in delivering intervention programs that are academic and social/emotional
based. I knew I wanted to be a co-teacher in the classroom, but there was a fear that I
would not be seen as a co-teacher. Slowly, those fears extinguished as the professional
relationships grew and our professional identities were established. In the first lessons,
my role was more of one as an educational assistant but quickly it grew as a valued
teacher within the classroom.
What facilitated the change in relationships was establishing a deeper relationship
of professional parity. It is difficult to pin point the exact moment when our professional
relationship changed, but with each teacher, we grew to maximize the potential of having
two professionals in the room. There was an understanding that we were part of a
process of learning for the students and for each other. The grade 6/7 teacher
summarized our experiences together stating that “we weren’t experts over each other, we
were equals” (Teacher Final Interview, Quest.3, Gr.6/7).
Once we established our professional identities as trained professionals, there
were specific lessons that were clear turning points of when I felt the teachers in the
classrooms and I became co-teachers. The grade 4 teacher and I were planning lesson 7
together, and I was asked to teach the math language lesson. I felt validated as a
professional and respected that she saw me as co-teacher (Researcher Notes, Lesson 7,
Gr.4). In the grade 4 classroom, one student said that the teacher and I “look like really
good friends” (Researcher Notes, March 27, Gr.4). The statement from the student made

53

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
me truly reflect on the identity and relationship the grade 4 teacher and I were
developing, and the impact it had on the students. We were not two people ‘forced’ to
work together, instead we wanted to work together for their benefit. Professionally, that
statement from the student made me realize that the professional relationship between the
teacher and I had significantly changed, and that change was noticed by the class. The
relationship with the grade 4 teacher was highlighted once again at the end of the
research study. On one of the last lessons in the research study, the teacher sent me a
video of two students reading. The teacher chose me to share the good news with
because it was an important moment in the classroom and although it was not our
designated time together, we both celebrated as co-teachers.
In the grade 5 classroom, it was during lesson 4 where I felt there was a pivotal
moment in our professional relationship. During a brief conversation, the teacher turned
to me and said “I like working with you” (Researcher Notes, Lesson 4, Gr.5). It was a
very simple statement, but it was a genuine statement on the importance of our
professional and personal relationship. It was at that moment that our relationship shifted
from teachers sharing the same place, to co-teachers that built a genuine relationship. As
our relationship continued to grow, the grade 5 teacher trusted me to make adaptions to
lessons, and I was even included in professional development planning for the classroom;
this never would have happened if we taught in separate classrooms (Researcher Notes,
Dec.3).
One of the most powerful co-teaching moments of the research study was during
a math lesson in the grade 6/7 classroom. I started the lesson with the intervention group;
it was a lesson on investigating division. The purpose of the lesson was to understand

54

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
division of zero and to identify what number needs to be placed in the divisor and what
number is placed in the dividend. As I was scaffolding their learning, one student voiced
their opinion that they did not understand how 0 could not be divided by 5. Their logic
was that if there was nothing (0), and there were 5 people, then it makes sense that the 5
people received 0 because there was 0 to begin with. Another student in the group said
that if you have 5 and you share with 0 people, then you still have 5! Both answers were
completely logical; however, their answers did not correspond with the answers on the
worksheet. It was in that moment that I understood where the students had difficulties
understanding the purpose of the worksheet lesson, and I immediately went to the
teacher. Instead of just dismissing the question as unclear, we took the opportunity to
illustrate to the class our learning. We gathered the students and took turns explaining
how we saw the relationship of division (Researcher Notes, Lesson 10. Gr.6/7). We
asked the class to explain 5 divided by 0 vs 0 divided by 5 and the teacher and I both
stated our understanding of division. It was an excellent debate on the concept of
division. Having both of us explain our thinking and the thinking of the other students
created a rich dialogue. “Andrea was able to jump in and use their conversation as a
discussion point to further their learning. This is the beauty of in class support!” (Teacher
Notes, Gr. 6/7). After the lesson, the discussion did not end for both of us. We spent our
lunch hour discussing different approaches to scaffold learning and how differently
students and ourselves as professionals viewed the concept of division, which “generated
an interesting philosophical discussion” (Teacher Notes, Gr. 6/7). The teacher further
reflected on the importance of the lesson in their journal as it related to the teacher’s
confidence and the value of having a co-teacher:

55

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
These past few days -and lessons- have been incredibly enlightening -and
exciting! I can confidently say that in the past, it would have been enough
to unnerve me and shake my confidence as an educator-but being able to
collaborate, come up with new strategies, try again and experience success
and new insights has made less-than-ideal lesson days some of the most
powerful learning and teaching lessons for us! (Teacher Notes, Gr. 6/7).
During this lesson, I was able to use the voice of the students in the intervention
group to illustrate learning that extended into a true co-teaching moment. I felt confident
I could share my ideas, and the teacher allowed us to learn together with the class.
Extended relationships. Building relationships with colleagues within the
classrooms, created a ripple effect within the school and across the school district. We
were fortunate to have a member from our school district math department come to our
school to coach the students and teachers for a math lesson. I had the opportunity to
interact and be part of the class and see how the coordinator taught the lesson. If I had
not been in the class, I do not feel I would have had the chance to work with the math
coordinator (Researcher Notes, Lesson 5, Gr.4). Several events throughout the research
study extended my professional relationships with other colleagues.
Because the push-in model was so successful in the math classrooms, I used the
model for both the elementary and the secondary schools. It was in a high school class
where I was fortunate enough to have one of the most valuable experiences I have had as
a teacher. As an LART, I am responsible for the case management of students with
exceptional learning needs. One of the students on my caseload heard the announcement
one day that the district would allow grade 8 students to attend the Model United Nations

56

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Conference. There was only one grade 8 student that showed up to the meeting. The
student’s smile could be seen across the hall, as they wanted to be part of the World
Health Organization Committee because they were a self-proclaimed expert on viruses.
The student’s mother phoned me all excited about the opportunity, but shortly after the
parent’s phone call, I saw the teacher sponsor in the hallway, and they looked very
concerned. With the student’s complex needs, there was no way that they would be able
to support the student and look after the other candidates. The student could not go
without support. The student’s parents were working, and it seemed like the student’s
dream would be crushed unless another teacher went. The sponsor teacher and I decided
that it would be an excellent opportunity for me to go with them.
I truly believe that without welcoming colleagues into a professional relationship
and by being seen as a partner in the school, a co-teacher, it would not have been an
option for me to attend. I spent three days co-supervising with the sponsor teacher and
witnessed the most incredible growth from the student because of this opportunity. The
sponsor teacher and I had many concerns about the trip including whether he could attend
all of the sessions. We developed plans to make sure that the student had options if
things did not quite work out as we had planned. I have never actually seen this student
focus and attend a lecture type session for more than twenty minutes, and surprisingly to
everyone, he was able to sit through multiple sessions and twelve-hour days. One of the
student’s personal educational goals was to remain on topic at school. At the Model
United Nations, he not only prepared a speech on a specific topic, but he was one of the
first students who spoke in front of a large audience. With a perfectly fitted blazer, the
student was “in his element” and thrived (see Figure 4). Being visible in the school,

57

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
communicating, building relationships with colleagues extended outside of the math
classrooms and resulted in a student having one of the best experiences of his education.
Figure 4 Student at the Model United Nations Conference

The extended relationships that developed between colleagues during this
research study were critical in the success of the research project, and another unexpected
and important theme emerged. I was provided with several opportunities in the general
classrooms to not only authentically observe all students but also develop relationships
with all students in the schools.
Inclusive access to all. Just as the relationships started to extend to colleagues
outside of the math classrooms, the relationships I developed in the intervention groups
extended to the rest of the class. After the intervention group and I had our time, I
remained in the classroom to assist the teacher/students. It is important to mention that
although I did not work specifically on Growth Mindset strategies for the general
58

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
classroom learners but because I use a Growth Mindset approach to teaching (positive
language use, multiple ways and modes and learning, math talks, and thinking strategies)
the general learners were exposed to a Growth Mindset approach because that is the
instructional approach I use as a teacher.
The time spent in the classroom also provided a unique professional observational
opportunity because of the push-in model. Observation time by the LART is often
scheduled but during a push-in model, I had the opportunity to observe all students in
their “natural” classroom environment frequently. My presence in the classrooms was
not questioned, which only added to the authenticity of observations. Opportunities to
observe the entire class proved to be most valuable for Inclusive Educational Planning
(IEP) meetings.
When discussing the classroom environment at IEP meetings, I could comment on
the learning in the classroom because I was witnessing how students were learning and
interacting. I also had a rich context to ground the IEP goals for students or other
students who require a school base meeting (Researcher Notes March). I could ask
teachers questions about particular students that may not have ever caught my attention
before and likewise, the teachers could make comments about student learning
immediately instead of scheduling a meeting. I felt as though I could provide another
lens to the classroom learning environment that benefited not only struggling learners,
but all learners.
In this research study, it was also observed that the professional collaborations
established with the teachers in the general classrooms provided opportunities to have
inclusive access to all students. Since the research study took place in the general

59

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
classrooms the subthemes of relationships with all students and stigma of help also
emerged and will be discussed further below.
Relationships with all students. Teachers have commented on the importance
of the LART working with all students as it allows more Universal Design opportunities,
and the fact that the LART “can catch struggling learners before they fall” (Teacher
Notes, Gr.5; Teacher Final Interview, Quest.1, Gr.4). “The LART knows the class as a
whole (friendship dynamics, interactions, can see other struggling learners)” (Teacher
Final Interview, Quest.1, Gr.5). One teacher reflected that my presence in the classroom
“seems to be somewhat easy, natural” (Teacher Notes, Gr.4). Following a lesson with the
intervention group, we asked if anyone else would like to participate with what we were
learning. The students responded so positively that we tried it again and when asked to
join my group “many hands go up-THIS is the kind of thing we WANT to see!” (Teacher
Notes, Gr.6/7). The grade 6/7 teacher further explained that:
Andrea knows all of my students, not just a small group that joins her elsewhere.
My students know her too. Now, it is nothing unusual for her to be in the
classroom, circulating, chatting, discussing ideas and strategies and brainstorming
with me-and we ‘tag team’ those strategies and ideas as class discussions occur
(Teacher Notes, Gr.6/7).
There seemed to be a fluidity of assistance in the classrooms and all students were willing
to learn.

60

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Reducing stigma. During the first lesson together in the grade 5 classroom, we
decided to have the intervention group located just outside the glass sliding door that lead
to the library. The idea was to extend the classroom. The teacher and I had no idea how
traumatic relocating the students in the intervention group to just outside the door would
be for them. The students did not want to go to the table. Some shut down completely,
and there were tears (Researcher Notes, Lesson 1, Gr.5; Teacher Notes, Gr.5). The
reaction of the students who were just inches from the classroom symbolized how a pushin intervention can destigmatize working with a Learning Assistance and Resource
Teacher. “Students know if they are good at something or not-as much as we think they
don’t know they do and a pull out would signal to them there is something wrong with
them” (Final Interview, Quest. 3, Gr.5). The students did not want to be taught outside
the classroom and internalized the relocation.
The issue of stigmatization resurfaced in the grade 6/7 classroom. One student
that we decided to place in the intervention group did not want to work with me. I also
happen to be the case manager for that student’s older sibling who needs considerable
support. The grade 6 student associated working with me as a sign that they also needed
considerable support. The student wondered what was wrong with them to warrant my
support (Researcher Notes, Session 3, Gr.6/7). I explained that working with me was
voluntary, and soon that same student who was reluctant to work with me said in a future
lesson that “I do better with a little bit [of time] from you” (Researcher Notes, Lesson 12,
Gr. 6/7). The student chose to seek help from me instead of feeling like they HAD to go
to me for help because something was ‘wrong’ with them. The stigma of receiving

61

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
support from the LART was lifted and she became confident in asking for help from
another ‘teacher’ in the classroom.
The final theme of the qualitative research from the research study in this thesis is
Growth Mindset. The instructional approach of Growth Mindset was previously
discussed in the quantitative research; however, the student math reflection sheets and
observations from the teachers provide further insight into how Growth Mindset also
gained importance as a qualitative component of the research study.
Growth mindset. I wanted to examine during the research study if the push-in
model had an impact on the Growth Mindset of the students. When I started the research
study students in the intervention groups presented with a fixed mindset; believing that
their ability in math could not be changed. When asked to complete a self-reflection,
which asked the students for their strengths in math, one student did not complete the
initial one. The student stated that they were not good at anything in math and submitted
a blank paper. Students in general were not confident and felt as though they were just
not good at math.
As the lessons continued with the intervention group, the teachers perceived that
there was a change in the mindsets of the students. “The quality of work has improved”
and “there was a change in confidence. The students were excited to start math and
looked forward to Tuesdays and Thursdays when the LART came to the room” (Teacher
Final Interview, Quest. 4, Gr.5). In the grade 5 classroom the teacher reported that the
students in “the LART group in particular are communicating ideas and using more math
language” and a common phrase in the classroom is “I’m a mathematician” (Teacher
Final Interview, Quest.4, Gr.5). In the grade 4 classroom, one student “showed more

62

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Growth Mindset by not shutting down as much” (Teacher Final Interview, Quest. 5,
Gr.4). Similarly, a student in the grade 6/7 class was able to complete their self-reflection
sheet at the end of the research study, which was an unobtainable task at the beginning of
it (Researcher Notes, Gr. 6/7).
At the end of the twelve lessons, it was exciting to witness the changes in the
student’s Growth Mindset. When I asked how one student felt about their math, they
responded with “good, I’m faster now, I got this” (Researcher Notes, Lesson 3, Gr.4). A
student who would break down crying when they got a question wrong came running up
to me in the hallway and said “Mrs. Mackenzie, I’m learning my 2 times with flashcards.
I’m learning math facts!” (Researcher Notes, Feb. 22, Gr.4). One of my most
heartwarming moments was when one of the students from my intervention asked to
leave the group because they felt confident and did not need my support (Researcher
Notes, Lesson 11, Gr.4). This same student did not feel they were good at math at the
beginning of the study and now “has shown an increase in confidence” to a point where
they could work through strategies on their own (Teacher Notes, Gr.4). The purpose of
the math reflections was to provide an opportunity for the students to reflect on their
learning and provide a platform for their voice. Within the reflections, Growth Mindset
data can be examined qualitatively through the words students used to describe goals and
general positive and negative emotions referring to mathematics.
When the student growth and improvement was examined, there were trends that
supported growth and improvement (see Appendix K for student responses). At the end
of the research study when the second reflection sheet was given to the students to
complete, all students completed the sheet. Generally, there were more details provided

63

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
by students in the second response sheet, which included the students explaining
mathematical thinking and diagrams. There was also an increase in positive statements
with a reduction of “I don’t know” or “nothing” responses that would be considered
negative Growth Mindset responses. The responses in the second reflection journal by
participants in my research illustrates a shift from what is typically observed in students’
attitudes towards math (e.g., that it is about getting the answers right, Boaler, 2016)
suggesting that my intentional efforts to foster Growth Mindset in mathematics
throughout the intervention period were effective.
In the grade 6/7 class, one student did not submit their beginning math reflection
sheet. The student turned their paper over, and put their head down on their desk and did
not complete the assessment. The same student did complete the math reflection sheet at
the end of the research study. Although their answers were not elaborate, the fact that
they were able to complete the second reflection sheet demonstrates an increase in the
students’ Growth Mindset (see Figure 5).
Figure 5 Student Reflections on their Math Ability and Learning: Sample 1

64

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The student made a math connection with a mathematical concept, which was
money and they listed three curricular topics with which they feel they are doing well.
The student states what they need help with and set a goal of “long division”. The “get
better at everything” statement is an example of a fixed mindset statement; however, the
identification that long division is the topic that is causing difficulties for the student
signals an improvement in Growth Mindset.
When identifying growth from students and assessing mathematical mindset, the
explanation of mathematical concepts and evidence of visual solutions are factors to
consider (Boaler, 2016). In the grade 5 classroom a student illustrated growth in
mathematical mindset by providing complete answers in the second math reflection sheet,
as well as, illustrations and specific information regarding goal setting such as
“multiplying 5 digit numbers” (see Figure 6).
Figure 6 Student Reflections on their Math Ability and Learning: Sample 2

65

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The student had only one-word responses for the first math reflection, but
illustrates greater detail in their responses in the second math reflection. The phrases the
students used are positive and the student provided examples of what they are doing well.
As a teacher, I have a clearer idea from the second assessment of what the student needs
helps with and what they have learned instead of vague math language.
One of the most important aspects of number sense and Growth Mindset in
mathematics is being able to see the “openness of numbers”, and to be able to share
different methods of how to solve a mathematical equation, instead of feeling that there is
only one correct way to solve a math problem (Boaler, 2016). The following example of
a student’s math reflection illustrated how a student used different strategies to illustrate
their learning (see Figure 7).
Figure 7 Student Reflections on their Math Ability and Learning: Sample 3

66

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The second math reflection uses an array model by the student to show the
student’s thinking and method of solving 5 x 9 = 45. Instead of using just the word
‘multiplication’ the student used the word “array” which demonstrates an understanding
of math language and the conceptual knowedge of the meaning of mutiplication as it
relates to repeated addition in the form of arrays. Although the student did not think of a
math connection, the overall presentation of her mathematical thinking in the second
reflection indicates an improvement in Growth Mindset.

67

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Discussion
The purpose of the research study was to determine the effectiveness of providing
mathematical interventions for struggling learners within the classroom setting (push-in
model), to examine Growth Mindset changes in the students, as well as, investigate the
experiences of the classroom teacher, LART, and students, using a collaborative teaching
model. The quantitative and qualitative research were discussed and organized by the
following research questions: 1) Are there significant changes in Growth Mindset for the
children participating in the push-in intervention? 2) Are there significant differences in
Growth Mindset between children struggling in mathematics compared to their peers?
The qualitative component aimed at answering the following question: What are the
experiences of the teachers and students in a push-in model of intervention for students
struggling in mathematics?
One of the strengths of this study is that it combines both qualitative and
quantitative data to capture Growth Mindset in mathematics in a group of struggling
learners. Another strength of this study is that it provides a thorough examination of a
model of professional collaboration between a LART and the general classroom teacher
through a push-in, co-teaching model. The Participatory Action Research design was
essential for successful collaboration. The action plan and inquiry was motivated by the
need to use an alternative teaching model to provide student services that reflected a more
inclusion approach to numeracy instruction.
The main topics of discussion for this section of the research paper are presented
in the following order: Growth Mindset changes of students in the push-in model,
experiences of the push-in model, teacher autonomy, inclusion implications, and the

68

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
implications for teachers, applications to Universal Design for Learning and Response to
Intervention, and the implications for teacher education. Finally, I will present direction
for future research and vision.
Growth Mindset Changes of Students in the Push-In Model
Growth Mindset is a trending concept in all subject areas and has been recently
applied to mathematics; however, measures to determine Growth Mindset are limited,
most notably in Canada. The main researcher of Mathematics in Canada that addresses
the issue of mathematics and the myth of ability (some can do math, some cannot) is John
Mighton (2007). Dweck, and Mighton both address the importance of pursuing a change
in self-perception related to mathematics; however, measures are often anecdotal or
formative, based on an increase of grade scores. One popular measure that is used by
classroom teachers is the Growth Mindset Questionnaire (Boucher, 2016). The
questionnaire was used in the research twice (once at the beginning of the study and
again at the end of the study) to establish if there was significance in Growth Mindset
gains for students who were in the intervention group compared to the rest of the class.
The data indicated that the students in the intervention reported a 9% increase in Growth
Mindset (see Table 1). The 9% growth in a 12-lesson period is important in terms of
evaluating if a teaching program, method, or approach is valuable for the learners. I was
very pleased to see an increase in Growth Mindset; however, there were some limitations
to the research.
One of the main limitations to the Growth Mindset Questionnaire as a quantitative
research method is the validity of the measure. The Growth Mindset Questionnaire,
although highly popular and presented as part of professional development for teachers,

69

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
did not have data regarding validity and reliability. The reliability of the questionnaire
obtained with the sample in this study was moderate. A stronger reliability for a measure
will produce more accurate data, affording more valid conclusions; however, an
alternative measure was not found at the time of the research study. Future research
should include establishing a measure that has a higher reliability and validity than the
Growth Mindset Questionnaire used in this study. If the measures being used in the
research have a high validity then there is confidence in the results of the research
(Briggs & Coleman, 2007). In regards to this research study, the Growth Mindset Survey
questionnaire did not result in a high validity which then questions whether the measure
of the survey used accurately represented the Growth Mindset of the learners in the
general mathematics classroom exposed to the push-in model. It is possible that stronger
reliability of the instrument used to measure Growth Mindset would have yielded
stronger statistical results. Having said this, when combining all sources of data on
Growth Mindset, including qualitative data from the student math journals, and the
interview questions, there is evidence to support that the central phenomenon of Growth
Mindset was observed in students participating in the intervention. Thus, data
triangulation increases the trustworthiness of this study. The robust qualitative data
provides credibility of the observations made on students changes in Growth Mindset.
The research project did use many of the strategies that relate to encouraging
instruction of a positive Growth Mindset, but I did not use all of Dweck’s instructional
strategies in the research study. Dweck’s (2016) work also includes video modelling
which was not a method used in this research study due to the limitation of time
designated to each classroom. I have used video modelling as a LART for behaviour

70

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
intervention, and it would be valuable to examine, in the future, the effectiveness of video
modelling in relation to Growth Mindset.
Another component that should be considered in additional research is to
examine the academic achievement of the intervention group specifically related to
mathematics. There was an attempt by the researcher to determine academic growth of
the students in the intervention group; however, a valid measure that would capture
learning growth across the multiple ages included in the study was not found. The
qualitative data; however, did present some encouraging insights. The student reflections
and teacher interviews suggest that there were changes in student understanding of math.
Many of the limitations of the study echoes previous research studies that imply
that the empirical research of Growth Mindset is limited due to many factors that affect
attitudes and beliefs such as attendance, poverty, and appropriate measures available to
accurately and quantitatively study Growth Mindset, as well as, sustained teaching
practices (DeBacker, Heddy, Kershen, Crowson, Looney & Goldman, 2018). In this
study, I was able to model a Growth Mindset approach to the learners in the classroom;
however, I could not control how much or how little the approach continued when I left
the classroom.
Since quantitative measures were difficult to find for this research study, the
project relied on the experiences of the researcher, teachers, and students in order for all
participants in the study to have a voice in describing their experiences of having the
LART in the general mathematics classroom collaborating with the general teacher.

71

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Experiences of the push-in model. The qualitative component of the research
study clearly represents the experiences of the teachers, LART, and the students through
journals, interviews, and math reflections. The experiences of the teachers and the
students were highlighted in the findings in regards to their participation in a push-in
model of intervention aimed at students struggling in mathematics. As the qualitative
data was analyzed, themes emerged such as relationship building, curricular alignment,
and reducing the stigma of struggling learners. These themes align well with the
literature regarding the positive influence of the push-in model in the general classroom
(Arlington & Cunningham, 2007; Bean et al., 1991; Barton, 2016; Fernandez &Hines,
2016; Woodward &Talbert-Johnson, 2009).
The most significant finding from this study about the influence of the push-in
model was the strength in the relationships that developed between the LART and the
classroom teacher, as well as, the relationships established with the students. Horn,
Kane, and Garner (2018) discuss the growing evidence that directly relates to teacher
collaboration and student achievement. They note that there is evidence that student
achievement increases because of two teachers working collaboratively in one classroom
(Horn, Kane & Garner, 2018). Although mathematical/overall achievement was not a
component of this research study, there could be a connection made from the data of this
research study that when teachers were involved in a collaborative process with the
LART, there could potentially be an increase in the academic achievement of learners.
Future research should examine the effect of a collaborative, push-in, learning support
model on student achievement in math.

72

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
The relationships among teachers and students in this research study had pivotal
moments where a teacher accepted the LART as a co-teacher, such as, when the LART
was asked to lead a lesson on Math Language (Researcher Notes, Lesson 7, Gr.4). The
relationships with the students became a genuine teacher/student relationship instead of
the LART having the reputation of only being someone you go to if you are a struggling
learner.
One of the most surprising themes that emerged from the research study was
professional vulnerability. At the beginning of the study, all of the participants, including
myself, felt “uneasy”, or “vulnerable” sharing a classroom. In the school district where
the research was conducted, it is common for teachers to share a classroom in their
practicum placement, or when they mentor a student teacher, but it is uncommon to
consistently professionally collaborate and witness firsthand each other’s teaching.
Having two professionals in the same classroom co-teaching lessons is not a common
experience in our school district. Once the barriers were broken and trust established the
professional collaboration became “natural, easy” parity. Although the professional
vulnerability became a highlighted experience of the research study, professional
vulnerability could also be a limitation to the model depending on individual
personalities.
Teacher autonomy. I was very fortunate to have co-workers that welcomed my
presence in the classroom, which enabled me to use effectively a push-in model of
intervention. If teachers do not believe in the push-in model, or do not want to engage in
professional collaboration, the push-in model could not be pursued due to professional
autonomy. The British Columbia Teacher’s Federation (BCTF), the union that represents

73

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
teachers in British Columbia, Canada, has a clearly written statement, which clarifies that
teachers have the professional rights and autonomy (see Appendix J). Depending on the
beliefs and interpretation of the push-in model, a teacher could feel that the push-in
model violates professional autonomy within the general classroom. This is a critical
factor in the acceptance and effectiveness of the push-in model that I feel needs to be
addressed by teachers. Co-teaching success therefore may not be only dependent on the
support of administration but dependent on the relationships between specific teachers.
Inclusion implications and limitations. As a Participatory Action Research
project, the research study has a clearly established action plan, which is to provide
effective inclusive practices for struggling learners. The research study illustrated how a
push-in program can be effective for students by reducing stigma surrounding struggling
learners. One of the most emotional and enlightening part of the research study was the
students’ reactions of being positioned right outside the boundary of the classroom. The
purpose of the positioning of the students was to create an extended learning
environment, not to segregate the students, but the interpretation of the students was that
there was a separation and that separation was due to their lack of ability in mathematics
(Researcher Notes, Lesson 1, Gr.5; Teacher Notes, Gr.5).
Students are acutely aware that they are being segregated and students do feel
stigmatized when relocated to a separate learning environment. Research on the negative
aspects of the pull-out model is discussed in a research study by Woodward & TalbertJohnson (2009). Although the study involved reading intervention in the United States,
the intervention model is the same and the experiences of the students directly relates to
the experiences of the students in the research study. Woodward and Talbert-Johnson

74

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
(2009) report that socialization is a negative aspect of a pull-out program because
students were removed from peers resulting in self-esteem issues because the child “starts
to realize they go to” a separate location for a reason that excludes them from their peers
(p.195). In the grade 6/7 classroom, the issue of stigma was a social issue. An example
from the research study that addresses student perception of LART assistance is the one
student in the intervention group that has a sister with exceptionalities. The grade 6
student resisted ‘help’ from the LART because of the fear of being “labelled” or
“embarrassed” (Researcher Notes, Session 3, Gr.6/7; Woodward & Talbert-Johnson,
2009). Once I started working with her inside the classroom, our relationship developed
and she was confident in asking for assistance in her learning and saw my presence in the
classroom as positive not stigmatizing
Another limitation to the push-in model is the school district and school
administration’s support of inclusion practices. The push-in model cannot be
implemented if the administration is not in support of push-in practices. I was very
fortunate that I had two administrators who trusted my judgement and respected my
professional autonomy of knowing how to provide best services to struggling learners. I
also had conversations with the Superintendent of Schools in our district, and they fully
supported the research study and wants further dialogue to continue on how we can
improve inclusion practices in our school district. Since the push-in model is not a
common practice, there is limited research from Canada that discusses the effectiveness
of a push-in program, which is why this research study may be used to create not only
dialogue but action plans for better inclusive practices in our schools. I agree with Moore
(2016) that “Inclusion is not about integrating students by housing them into (or out of)

75

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
forced containers of classrooms and schools” (p.17). A school should be inclusive
throughout the building for students and professionals.
Vision for the future. This research study has demonstrated important findings
in the areas of Growth Mindset, push-in model of inclusion, and the effectiveness of
mathematic interventions applied in a co-teaching classroom student success. As a
researcher and a teacher, I appreciated the opportunities and the support I was given to
proceed with new research in the field of education, but I feel that this research is only
the beginning of a larger vision.
Growth Mindset is a positive approach to student learning, but it is an approach
that needs to be strengthened by further application of learning opportunities. It is not
enough to teach positive statements, students need extended opportunities to journal and
reflect about their experiences and opportunities to talk about their learning (Boaler,
2016; Parrish, 2014). If a teacher is teaching Growth Mindset statements but has
multiple- choice exams and students fail at their attempts at learning, Growth Mindset
will fail. Teachers need to have a Growth Mindset and multiple strategies to ensure that
students will feel that failure is a first attempt at learning.
Providing a collaborative teaching model and Growth Mindset approach in the
subject area of mathematics is also a beginning of a mathematics intervention model.
When I provide student services inside the general mathematics classroom, I am aware of
further issues that may be more serious than a belief about self-esteem. A student may
perceive to have a Fixed Mindset but could actually have math anxiety or a specified
learning disability in mathematics.

76

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Math anxiety can lead to a “global avoidance pattern” which can include
withdrawing from attempts at learning and negative self-esteem (Chinn, 2012, p.2). An
example of one of the students in the research study that demonstrated math anxiety traits
was the student in the grade 6/7 class that did not complete the first Math Reflections
sheet. As a teacher and a LART, I will want to monitor the student and create a plan with
the general teacher to address the avoidance and anxiety traits that are presenting.
It is important to note that Growth Mindset, although important and helpful for
many students struggling with math, is not a sufficient intervention for children with
profound math challenges resulting from a specified math learning disability. A specified
learning disability in mathematics can be described as “severe impairments in the
acquisition of mathematical skills” (Mammarella, Caviola, Cornoldi & Lucangeli, 2013,
p. 13). Students with a specified learning disability in mathematics may have difficulty
solving arithmetic, spatial reasoning, and decoding (Emerson & Babtie, 2010;
Mammarella, Caviola & Szucs, 2017). These issues are more severe than a belief in
ability. In each of these examples, additional intervention beyond a Growth Mindset
approach will be needed for a student’s success; thus, a Growth Mindset approach can be
used as a complimentary, but not main approach to address difficulties in mathematics.
Using the push-in model in the general mathematics classroom created rich
experiences for mathematic learning and mathematical thinking. Having the LART
directly involved in the general mathematics classroom can create a mathematical
environment where dialogue is encouraged, ideas are celebrated, mistakes are just a first
draft, and problem solving is a tool for learning. The teaching of mathematics has shifted
from the rote learning, pass or fail, experience into a way of teaching problem solving

77

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
and critical thinking. My hope is that by working collaboratively, teachers and LARTs
can use each other’s knowledge to create a mathematical classroom that is an inclusive
“thinking classroom”. Liljedahl (2016) explains that a “thinking classroom” is
“conductive to thinking but also occasions thinking, a space inhabited by thinking
individuals thinking collectively, learning together and constructing knowledge and
understanding through activity and discussion” (p.3). In an inclusive thinking classroom
professionals and students will discuss curriculum goals and use multiple modes of
learning which include: vertical surfaces, reflective journaling, number talks, and
problem based learning activities that celebrate the success of learning, instead of paper
and pencil tasks that focus on the ability of accuracy (Boaler, 2013; Boaler, 2016;
Calkins, 1996; Liljedahl, 2016; Parrish, 2014).
I recognize that as a researcher and a teacher I was very fortunate to have the
support of using a push-in model to provide student services. I am the only LART in our
school district that uses a push-in model as the main instructional method of delivering
student services. The more common model used is the pull-out model. There are several
reasons that may prevent the push-in model from being successful, the main barrier being
lack of support, either fiscally or philosophically. If the caseloads and student needs are
quite demanding, the LART needs to work with students in crisis. That is the priority of
the job. If there are not enough certified educational assistants to support students in the
classroom, then it is the LART that may be pulled to assist students. The LART needs to
be supported professionally for the LART to be supportive in the classroom.
While recognizing the benefits of push-in models of learning support, it is also
critical to appreciate the positive aspects of a pull-out model including reduction of noise,

78

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
smaller groups, individual attention, and ability grouping (Bean et al., 1991; Barton,
2016; Jones, 2002; Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). Whereas the findings reveal
that the benefits of a push-in model outweigh those of a pull-out model, it is important to
recognize unique situations in which support through pull-out would be required. I
acknowledge that there are times where a pull-out short term intervention is valuable, and
I do pull individual students to work one to one; however, pulling out a student should
require careful consideration and done only when strictly necessary; it should be the
exception rather than the rule in models of instructional support. In fact, because the
push-in model is the prime method of delivering students services at the schools where I
work, when I do pull a student to work one-to-one it is often more effective. Because I
have already established the relationship with the student in the classroom, the location of
my assistance is fluid, not stigmatizing.
It is also important to recognize that when using the push-in model, there may be
many barriers to professional collaboration including support from administration and
school districts, personality conflicts, scheduling, and adapting to shared space
(Murawski, 2008; Schnellert & Butler, 2014). These challenges were all addressed
effectively at various points during the research study presented in this report. Therefore,
they did not become barriers in the research project. In fact, this research project presents
many positive aspects of collaboration that directly addresses overcoming barriers that
can be suggestions for future implications for teachers and teacher education.

79

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Implications for teachers. The implications of the study directly relate to
applying a Growth Mindset approach to education, and the implementation of
collaboration amongst teachers, including a push-in model in all subject areas. It is
essential that when applying a Growth Mindset approach, the focus is the process of
learning, not the accuracy and ability of the learner. Applied to mathematics, the Growth
Mindset approach is a shift from traditional rote learning, where speed and correct
responses were paramount compared to differentiated learning and scaffolding
knowledge. Mathematics is a subject that often creates anxiety about failure. Reducing
anxiety by celebrating thinking and problem solving can create “mathematicians” in
every classroom; the classroom teacher does not have to do it alone.
The findings from this study corroborate those of Schnellert and Butler (2014)
indicating that teacher collaboration could be empowering for teachers as it directly
relates to their own professional development of inquiry. Teachers can co-plan, and
communicate with each other about, not only the learning process of the students in the
classroom, but also about their own learning process. For example, the grade 6/7 teacher
and I had that special moment together when we were discussing the division of zero
question on a worksheet. Instead of tackling the problem alone, we involved the class
and directed the class into our own process of inquiry. By happenstance, the grade 6/7
teacher and I were engaging in a transformative teaching practice called Teacher Time
Out (Gibbons, Kazemi, Hintz & Hatmann, 2017).
The practice of Teacher Time Out encourages teachers to plan lessons together
with the intent to “pause” a lesson and to “think aloud, share decision-making with one
another, and/or determine where to steer direction” (p.28). When the grade 6/7 teacher

80

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
and I paused the class and shared the responsibility of scaffolding the learning together,
the students were informally witnessing the collaborative teaching strategy of Teacher
Time Out. The grade 6/7 teacher and I have plans to formally adopt the strategy and
implement it in future math classes.
Collaboration creates communities of learners and should be supported in schools
by administration and all members of the professional team. Communication, thinking,
and problem solving must be collaborative and teachers should be encouraged to continue
to learn from each other inside and outside of their own classrooms.
Application to universal design for learning and response to intervention.
The inclusive nature of this study and the quantitative data has implications for direct
applications of two pedagogical approaches to education, which is Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) and Response to Intervention (RTI). The purpose of UDL is to achieve
full inclusion for individuals with different abilities and to provide equitable access by
eliminating discriminatory practices (Dalton, Lyner-Cleophas, Ferguson & McKenzie,
2019). UDL applied to education removes barriers for individuals with different abilities
by promoting multiple modes of learning, multiple representations of learning (visual,
auditory), and multiple ways of expressing ideas based on the needs of all learners in the
classroom (Dalton, Lyner-Cleophas, Ferguson & McKenzie, 2019; Katz, 2013). Having
the LART become a collaborative partner in the general classroom encourages UDL
because the classroom teacher receives mentorship and coaching on how to apply
differentiated instruction based on the needs of the students (Katz, 2013). If a teacher
incorporates UDL in their classroom, then there is a natural application of using the pushin model of intervention to enhance the learning of all students.

81

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Response to Intervention (RTI) facilitates inclusion because it is based on the
framework of providing specific interventions for pro-active academic interventions, as
well as, targeted interventions for specific learners (Grosche & Volpe, 2013). RTI asks
the questions: Is the intervention working? If not, then why? RTI encourages a
collaborative approach to designing and implementing interventions based on tiers of
supports for individuals in the general classroom, small groups, and individuals who
benefit from research-based targeted instruction with a specialist teacher (Grosche &
Volpe, 2013). This research study can be directly applied to a RTI approach in regards to
using the Growth Mindset quantitative data. In this research study, the results of the
Growth Mindset Questionnaire could be used to analyze effective interventions and guide
teachers to further instructional goals. If a Growth Mindset approach is interpreted as a
successful intervention, then a collaborative team can work together to develop
curriculum in response to the data. Individual students can also be looked at to determine
whether there is a greater need for targeted intervention (example: the student who
exhibited traits of math anxiety who may need one to one support). Teachers and schools
who use a RTI model can incorporate aspects of this research study (Growth Mindset
Questionnaire, My Math Reflection sheets) to promote Growth Mindset in the general
classroom; while simultaneously promoting inclusion.
Implications for teacher education. I was very fortunate that during my
practicum experience for the Bachelor of Education program, I had the opportunity to
collaborate and co-teach. There were two teachers that opened the doors between their
classrooms, and learning opportunities became fluid with students and teachers crossing
the physical and pedagogical boundaries at different times. The result of having two

82

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
teachers mentoring me early in my career shaped how I view professional collaboration
and may have influenced the successful collaborations experienced int this study. From
my mentors, I learned about the benefits of collaboration for both the learners and the
teachers. If teacher education presented more opportunities for teacher candidates to be
mentored in collaborative teaching, they might develop the skillset to implement coteaching techniques in their own classrooms.
My vision for future schools is to establish full inclusion where general teachers,
specialists, and all staff and students, work collaboratively in schools to create a learning
environment that welcomes everyone through not only the front door but through all
doors.

83

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

Conclusion
The main purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of providing
mathematical interventions for struggling learners of mathematics within the classroom
setting using the push-in model. Examination of a collaborative teaching model between
the classroom teacher and the Learning Assistant Resource Teacher (LART), the research
study focused on children from grades four to seven and their teachers within a
Participatory Action Research framework. Both quantitative and qualitative data
collection enabled comprehensive and robust insights into the research issue.
Quantitative data methods included the Growth Mindset Questionnaire and Qualitative
data collection included teacher, student, and researcher reflections, as well as, final
interview answers provided by the teacher participants.
The results of the research study, supported by both the quantitative and the
qualitative components, suggest that there was an increase in the Growth Mindset of
struggling learners. The results of the qualitative research through inductive coding
resulted in themes associated with the experiences of the participants in the push-in
model of intervention such as: stigma, professional vulnerability, curriculum
fragmentation, and collaborative teaching. These themes parallel past research on the
positive aspects of a push-in intervention. The research study was unique in that it also
included research in the area of mathematics where the push-in method and Growth
Mindset approach was applied by the LART in the general mathematics classroom. The
positive relationships that developed within the general math classroom reinforced a

84

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
positive approach to mathematics that encouraged mathematical thinking and critical
thinking.
The findings from this study are significant and create the foundation for
opportunities to further explore collaborative teaching in a push-in model of learning
support as a model of inclusion and how providing access to specialists in the general
classroom can influence all learners. The opportunity to examine how the push-in model
of intervention and Growth Mindset approach can be applied to the general mathematics
classroom was an example of how LARTs and general teachers can work together in a
common space to benefit all learners.
Concluding Thoughts
One important factor in the research study that continued to be unsettling for me
was the term “push-in” model. The literature uses the terms “push-in” and “pull-out”
models to explain the common practices associated with providing student services to
exceptional learners inside or outside of the general classroom. The term “push-in” feels
aggressive. My intention is not to push colleagues into having me support learners in the
general classroom. I want teachers to “pull-me-into” their classrooms. I want them to
view my role as the Learning Assistance Teacher as one that will enhance the classroom
experience. Throughout this research study, the teachers did pull me into their daily
classroom experiences. For this reason, the term “pull-in” model of collaborative
instruction is more appropriate in capturing the intent of the professional relationship
examined in this study.
Through inclusive collaboration, quantitative and qualitative research reinforced
that when given the support, methods and models of education can be successfully

85

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
changed to an informed action (praxis). The praxis of this research study relates to Paulo
Freire’s (2005) definition of praxis, where the action of using the push-in model is
directly linked to the values of inclusion and Growth Mindset. Praxis is also evident in
the need to create a community of learners in our schools where everyone (general
teachers, exceptional learners, all professionals) belongs, feels safe, and demonstrates an
“I can” attitude (Brownlie & King, 2011, p.21). The dialogue relating to the evidence
presented in this research study needs to be examined amongst school staff teams, all
educational stakeholders, and future researchers on the collaborative models of
intervention with the intention to reach all students’ needs within the regular classroom
with their peers.
This research study unveiled several unexpected and remarkable themes that
created evidence for the possibility for teachers to work together towards a common
vision of creating an effective “pull-in” model, making full inclusion a reality.

86

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
References
Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (2007). Schools that work: Where all children
read and write. San Francisco.CA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Barton, K. (2016). Pull-out or push in? Impact on students with special needs social,
emotional, and academic success. Education Masters. Paper 334. Retrieved from
http://libguides.sjfc.edu/citation/citations.
Bean, R. M., Cooley, W. W., Eichelberger, R. T., Lazar, M. K., & Zigmond, N. (1991). In
class or pullout: Effects of setting on the remedial reading program. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 23(4), 445-464. doi:10.1080/10862969109547753
Bellert, A 2015, 'Effective re-teaching', Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 20(2)
163-183.doi:10.1080/19404158.2015.1089917
Beninghof, A. M. (2012). Co-teaching that works: Structures and strategies for
maximizing student learning. Los Angeles.CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and Mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping
education. Forum, 55(1), 143. doi:10.2304/forum.2013.55.1.143
Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students' potential through
creative math, inspiring messages, and innovative teaching. San Francisco: CA:
Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer Imprints.
Boucher, D. (2016). Math survey: Student attitudes and beliefs about math. Retrieved
from https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Math-Survey-StudentAttitudes-and-Beliefs-About-Math-2660603

87

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Brownlie, F., & King, J. (2011). Learning in safe schools creating classrooms where all
students belong. Pembroke.
British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. (BCTF) (n.d.) Statement of professional rights
and autonomy. Retrieved from https://bctf.ca/IssuesInEducation.aspx?id=29583
Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetical abilities. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(1), 3-18. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.14697610.2004.00374.x
Butterworth, B. (2010). Foundational Numerical Capacities and the Origins of
Dyscalculia. Space, Time and Number in the Brain, 249–265.
http://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385948-8.00016-5
Calkins, T. (1996). Power of ten: an effortless way to learn your basic facts. Victoria,
B.C.: Power of Ten Educational Consulting.
Caplan, L, & Wallace, W. (Producers), Johnson, D., & Travis, J. (Director). (2007).
Flatland. United States: Flat World Productions.
Carr, J. (2016). Legal framework inclusive education. Retrieved from
https://inclusiveeducation.ca
Chinn, S. (2012). Beliefs, Anxiety, and Avoiding Failure in Mathematics. Child
Development Research, 2012, 1-8. doi:10.1155/2012/396071
Creswell, J.W. (2015). Education research: planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Dalton, E. M., Lyner-Cleophas, M., Ferguson, B. T., & Mckenzie, J. (2019). Inclusion,
universal design and universal design for learning in higher education: South

88

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Africa and the United States. African Journal of Disability, 8.
doi:10.4102/ajod.v8i0.519
Debacker, T. K., Heddy, B. C., Kershen, J. L., Crowson, H. M., Looney, K., & Goldman,
J. A. (2018, 01). Effects of a one-shot growth mindset intervention on beliefs
about intelligence and achievement goals. Educational Psychology, 38(6), 711733. doi:10.1080/01443410.2018.1426833
Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success: How we can learn to
fulfill our potential: Parenting, business, school, relationships. New York, NY:
Ballentine Books.
Emerson, J., Babtie, P. (2010). The dyscalculia assessment. New York. NY: Continuum
International Pub. Group.
Emerson, J., Babtie, P. (2014). The dyscalculia solution: teaching number sense. New
York, NY: Continuum International Pub. Group.
Fernandez, N., & Hynes, J. (2016). The efficacy of pullout programs in elementary
schools: Making it work. The Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research,
2(3), 32-47.
Freire, P., (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York. NY: Continuum International
Pub.Group.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20 (1), 9-27.doi:
10.1080/104744100903535380

89

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Gal, E., Schreur, N., & Engel-Yeger, B. (2010). Inclusion of children with disabilities:
Teachers’ attitudes and requirements for environmental accommodations.
International Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 89-99.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999, 04). Number Sense: Rethinking Arithmetic Instruction
for Students with Mathematical Disabilities. The Journal of Special Education,
33(1), 18-28. doi:10.1177/002246699903300102
Gibbons, L., Kazemi, E., Hintz, A., & Hartmann, E. (2018). Teacher Time Out: Educators
Learning Together In and Through Practice. NCSM, 28–45.
Grosche, M., & Volpe, R. J. (2013). Response-to-intervention (RTI) as a model to
facilitate inclusion for students with learning and behaviour problems. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(3), 254-269.
doi:10.1080/08856257.2013.768452
Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D. (2015, 01). Fixed And Growth Mindset In Education
And How Grit Helps Students Persist In The Face Of Adversity. Journal of
International Education Research (JIER), 11(1), 47. doi:10.19030/jier.v11i1.9099
Horn, I., Kane, B., & Garner, B. (2018). Teacher Collaborative Time: Helping Teachers
Make Sense of Ambitious Teaching in the Context of Their Schools. In Cobb, P.,
Jackson, K., Henrick, C., & Smith, T. M., Systems for instructional improvement:
Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office (pp.93-112). Harvard
Education Press.
Katz J. (2013). The three block model of universal design for learning: Engaging students
in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education 36(1), 153–194.

90

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Liljedahl, P. (2016). Building thinking classrooms: Conditions for problem solving. In P.
Felmer, J. Kilpatrick, & E. Pekhonen (eds.) Posing and Solving Mathematical
Problems: Advances and New Perspectives. New York, NY:
Springer. [ResearchGate, Academia]
Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S., Giofrè, D., & Szűcs, D. (2017, 08). The underlying
structure of visuospatial working memory in children with mathematical learning
disability. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 220-235.
doi:10.1111/bjdp.12202
Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006, 09). Why do
beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive
neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(2), 75-86.
doi:10.1093/scan/nsl013
Morsanyi, K., Devine, A., Nobes, A., & Szűcs, D. (2013). The link between logic,
mathematics and imagination: Evidence from children with developmental
dyscalculia and mathematically gifted children. Developmental Science, 16(4),
542-553. doi:10.1111/desc.12048
Mighton, J. (2007). The myth of ability: Nurturing mathematical talent in every child.
Walker and Co.
Moore, S. (2016). One without the other: Stories of unity through diversity and inclusion.
Winnepeg.MA: Portage & Main Press
Moser, J. S., Schroder, H. S., Heeter, C., Moran, T. P., & Lee, Y. (2011, 10). Mind Your
Errors: evidence for a neural mechanism linking growth mind-set to adaptive
posterior adjustments. Psychological Science, vol. 22, no. 12, 2011, pp. 1484
–1489., doi:10.1177/0956797611419520.

91

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Murawski, W. (2008). Five keys to co-teaching in inclusive classrooms. The School
Administrator, p.27.
Newton, P. & Burgess, D. (2008). Exploring types of education action research:
Implications for research validity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
7(4), 18-32.
Parrish, S. (2014). Number talks: Helping children build mental math and computation
strategies, grades K-5. Math Solutions. Psychological Science, 22(12), 14841489. doi:10.1177/0956797611419520
Rourke, B. P., & Conway, J. A. (1997, 01). Disabilities of arithmetic and mathematical
reasoning: perspectives from neurology and neuropsychology. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 34-46. doi:10.1177/002221949703000103
Saragih, S., & Napitupulu, E. (2015, 05). Developing student-centered learning model to
improve high order mathematical thinking ability. International Education
Studies, 8(6). doi:10.5539/ies.v8n6p104
Shanahan, T. (2008). Implications of RTI for the reading teacher. InFuchs, D., Fuchs, L.,
& Vaughn, S. (eds.) Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators.
Newark DE: International Reading Association.
Sousa, D. A. (2015). How the brain learns mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, a
SAGE Company.
Special Education. (2006). Public schools policy. Retrieved from
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/administration/legislationpolicy/public-schools/special-education

92

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Stegemann, K. C. & Aucoin, A. (2018). Inclusive Education: Stories of Success and
Hope in a Canadian Context. Toronto, ON: Paerson.
Swartz, S (n.d). Working together: A collaborative model for the delivery of special
services in general classrooms. Foundation for Comprehensive Early Literacy
Learning. Retrieved from http://www.stanswartz.com/
Towle, H. (2015). Disability and inclusion in Canadian education policy procedure, and
practice. Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved from
http://policyalternatives.ca
Vukovic, R. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2010, February). Academic and cognitive:Characteristics
of persistent mathematics difficulty from first through fourth grade. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(1), 25-38. doi:10.1111/j.15405826.2009.00298.x
Woodward, M. M., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2009, November). Reading intervention
models: Challenges of classroom support and separated instruction. The Reading
Teacher, 63(3), 190-200. doi:10.1598/rt.63.3.2
Zigmond, N. (2003, November). Where should students with disabilities receive special
education services? The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 193-199.
doi:10.1177/00224669030370030901

93

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix A

94

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix B

95

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix C

96

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix D

97

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix E

98

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

Appendix F

Informed Consent for Minors by Parent, Guardian, and/or
Other Appropriate Authority to Participate in a Research
Project or Experiment
Thompson Rivers
University
805 TRU Way
Kamloops, BC
V2C 0C8
Telephone
(250)-828-5000

Note: The University, and those conducting this project, subscribe to the ethical conduct of

research and to the protection at all times of the interests, comfort, and safety of subjects.
This form, and the information it contains, is given to you for your own protection and
full understanding of the procedures, risks and benefits involved.

I have been asked by Andrea MacKenzie of the Faculty of Education and Social Work at
Thompson Rivers University, telephone number 250-851-8785, to consent on behalf of (name of
child)______________________, to participate in a research project entitled: Inclusive
Collaboration: The Use of the Push-In Model of Intervention and Growth Mindset Approach in
the General Mathematics Classroom.
The purpose of the research is to explore how providing student services within the general
classroom will increase mathematic achievement and improve Growth Mindset in Mathematics
for learners who require additional support in mathematics. The research will also provide
reflective feedback from the students and the teachers regarding the collaborative learning
opportunity of having the Learning Assistant Teacher provide interventions within the general
classroom. All students will also have access to additional support within the classroom by the
Learning Assistant Teacher. The teacher and Mrs. MacKenzie will both have access to the data.
The data collected will also be part of a thesis publication.
I certify that I understand the procedures to be used. I have tried as fully as possible to explain
the procedures to (name of child): ______________________ and to obtain the subject's consent.
If the subject displays any sign of distress or reluctance to participate in any aspect of this
research she/he will be withdrawn from the research procedure, and this will be brought to my
attention.

I also understand that I may ask any questions or register any complaint I might have
about the project with either the chief researcher named above or with Dr. Gloria Ramirez
(Associate Professor School of Education, Faculty of Education and Social Work, TRU)
Gramirez@tru.ca or by contacting the chair of the TRU Ethics Committee TRU99

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
REB@TRU.ca or 250-828-500. Copies of the results of this study, upon its completion, may be
obtained by contacting: Mrs. Andrea MacKenzie (amackenzie@sd73.bc.ca or 250-851-8785)
I agree that my child will participate by being a member of the classroom where the Learning
Assistant Teacher will collaboratively work with the general teacher during mathematic
instruction as described above, during the period: September 2018 to January 2019 XXXXXX
Elementary and XXXXX Elementary/Secondary.
NAME (Please print): __________________________________________________________

ADDRESS: __________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
I have read and understood the above information regarding this project, voluntarily agree to
participate in the project, and understand that I have the right to withdraw my consent at any time.
I understand that the subject's identity and any information obtained will be kept confidential
through the process of coding student identity instead of providing names. All data collected will
be kept in a locked filing cabinet at the school for up to five years and any information will be
shredded.
Please check the boxes below that apply:
I have received a copy of this consent form and a subject feedback form.
I authorize that my child to participate in the research study.
I do not authorize that my child to participate in the research study.

SIGNATURE: ______________________________________ DATE: __________________

RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT: ________________________________________________

100

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix G

Informed Consent by Teachers Participating in the
Research Project

Thompson Rivers
University

Inclusive Collaboration: The Use of the Push-In model of
Intervention and Growth Mindset Approach in the General
Mathematics Classroom

900 McGill Road
Box 3010
Kamloops, BC
V2C 5N3
Telephone
(250) 828-5000

Note: The University and those conducting this project subscribe to the ethical conduct of

research and to the protection at all times of the interests, comfort, and safety of
participants. This form and the information it contains is given to you for your own
protection and full understanding of the procedures, risks and benefits involved in this
research project.
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of
informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and
what your participation will involve. If you would like more details, feel free to ask
anytime. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying
information.

I have been asked by Mrs. Andrea Mackenzie, Graduate student in the Faculty of Education and
Social Work of Thompson Rivers University, telephone number 250-851-8785, to participate in a
research project entitled: Inclusive Collaboration: The Use of the Push-In Model of Intervention
and Growth Mindset Approach in the General Mathematics Classroom
•

•

•

The study will involve working collaboratively with the Learning Assistant Teacher within
the designated math instructional time. I will have students participate in a Growth Mindset
Questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of the research project.
I will work with Mrs. MacKenzie to identify students who need additional math interventions
and collaborate with Mrs. MacKenzie regarding effective interventions for the students that
she will teach within the classroom. The students requiring additional support will also record
reflections in a Growth Mindset Journal.
As part of the research I will also be providing reflective responses to the collaborative
teaching process using a double entry journal and I will participate in an interview at the end
of the research project.

101

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
•

•

My participation and any information gathered from me will be kept confidential. To
guarantee this, my name will be replaced with a pseudo name (chosen by myself) on all data
protocols as soon as data is collected. Folders containing my information will be always kept
under close vigilance by the researcher and will be stored in a locked filing cabinet at the
researcher's office. The research team will not share my information with anybody outside the
research team; only members of the research team will have access to this data. Information
that will potentially identify me will never appear in study reports; instead, general
descriptors and pseudonyms will be used. Electronic files and databases will be secured with
a login password with access only to the researcher and the classroom teacher. Data will be
shredded, and electronic files deleted after three years of concluding the study.
It is anticipated that participating in this research will bring benefits for my school
community as it opens an opportunity for professional development. It will open a space for
reflection, dialogue and discussion on issues related to professional collaboration, inclusive
learning, Growth Mindset, and effective instructional practices. At the end of the study, the
researcher will offer a summary report to share with the teachers at my school the insight
gained from the study. Results will also be presented at professional and academic meetings
and will be published in academic journals. I will be invited to take part in presentations and
written publications. Copies of the results of this study, upon its completion, may be obtained
by sending a request by email to Dr. Gloria Ramírez at gramirez@tru.ca.

My signature on this form indicates that I understand the information regarding this research
project, including all procedures and the personal risks involved, and that I voluntarily agree to
participate in this project.
I understand that my identity and any identifying information obtained will be kept confidential.
I understand that I may refuse to participate or withdraw my participation in this project at any
time without consequence. My involvement or non-involvement in this project is in no way
related to my employment contract.
I also understand that I may ask any questions or register any complaint I might have about the
project with either the chief researcher Andrea MacKenzie amackenzie@sd73.bc.ca or by
telephone at 250 851-8785, or with Dr. Gloria Ramirez, Associate Professor in the School of
Education within the Faculty of Education and Social Work at Thompson Rivers University by
telephone 250-371-5565.
I have received a copy of this consent form and a Subject Feedback form.
Name (Please Print):
___________________________________________________________________________
Address:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

102

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Signature: ___________________________________________

Date: _________________

Investigator and/or Delegate’s signature: _______________________

Date: _____________

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

103

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix H
Research Project:
Inclusive Collaboration: The Use of the Push-In Model of Intervention and Growth
Mindset Approach in the General Mathematics Classroom

Researcher: Mrs. Andrea MacKenzie
Final Interview Questions

1. What do you feel are the main strengths of working collaboratively with the
Learning Assistance Teacher in the classroom?
1. What do you feel are the main weaknesses of working collaboratively with the
Learning Assistance Teacher in the classroom?
2. What did you learn from participating in the research project?
3. Can you reflect on student achievement in your classroom in regards to the last
twelve weeks?
4. Could you briefly reflect on the student’s Growth Mindset during the research
project?

104

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix I

Name: _________________

Date:_________
My Math Reflections

I am doing well with…

I still need help with…

Math connection I made today…

My Math goal…

Self-Assessment

105

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix J

BCTF statement of professional rights and autonomy
(November 2007)
Teachers have the professional right and autonomy:
1. to establish the teaching and learning environment including setting standards of
behaviour and using classroom management strategies that best suit the needs of
students and teachers
2. to use discretion in carrying out their professional responsibilities and primary
control in diagnosing learner needs, planning and delivering curriculum, and
determining appropriate methods of instruction to meet those needs
3. to use primary control over assessment and over the interpretation and
communication of evaluation data in regard to students
4. to use significant influence over curriculum development, learning resource
evaluation and selection, policy formulation, and other decision-making through
the school staff at the school level, through locals at the district level, and through
the BC Teachers' Federation at the provincial level
5. to a working environment, that supports the judgments and choices that teachers
make in order to carry out their professional responsibilities, and is free from
administrative procedures or supervision practices that limit or undermine their
professional autonomy
6. to significant opportunities and resources to organize and engage in professional
development activities, which address their self-determined professional needs
and interests
7. to advocate for the rights of children and adult students
8. to have unrestricted participation in union activities

106

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION
Appendix K
Beginning and Ending Reflections
(Note: First example student did not submit a beginning reflection)

107

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

108

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

109

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

110

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

111

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

112

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

113

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

114

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

115

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

116

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

117

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

118

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

119

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

120

INCLUSIVE COLLABORATION

121