BACK TO THE CASE1 1.Among the professionals, the relationship between interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and trans-disciplinary directly affects the function and priorities of a team. However, these three terms are used interchangeably and defined ambiguously(Pennington, Simpson, McConnell, Fair, & Baker, 2013). Multidisciplinary defines the knowledge from distinct disciplines; though, stays within their boundaries. Interdisciplinary synthesizes, analyses, and harmonises relations between disciplines into overall coherence and coordination. Lastly, trans-disciplinary shows integration of the social, natural and health education in relation to humanities along with transcending their traditional boundaries(Mauser, et al., 2013). This shows different approaches of multiple disciplinary for resolving complex or real world problems, creating comprehensive research questions, providing distinct perspectives on problems, providing comprehensive health services, and developing clinical guidelines and definition consensually. These three terms involves numerous disciplines for degrees to vary on the same scale. Moreover, they can be termed as interactive, additive, and holistic having their own meanings specifically which cannot be used interchangeably. In terms of education, multiple-disciplinary shows involvement of nature in relation to unspecified and unknown multiple disciplines where its teamwork describes correctness for complex problems that never ensures presence in every single project or assignments in case of students(Hernandez, 2013). Also, it is same in the case of students with disabilities. 2.The administration needs to take active role in co-teaching and the partners as well need to maintain decorum in certain situations as it can get loud when the thinking of each individual does not match or work in co –ordination. The major ethical dilemma in such a scenario is that each of the members or partners are not in sync with the philosophy of the co –teaching(Friend M. , Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010). All of these can be avoided by keeping in mind about all the partners and as per each one of the individual’s workings, the sessions shall be conducted. This way, there will be synchronization amongst the members as well as better approach can be taken up if required by the co –teachers resulting in better outcomes. There are so many ways in which the co –teaching can be constrained, few of those constraints related to administration as well as logistics include the, improper
BACK TO THE CASE2 planning related to training of the co –teachers as well as resolving basic problems between the partners before it becomes a conflict between the parties. These can be overcome by communicating openly with the administration or even providing timely assistance regarding the same(Hawkman, Chval, & Kingsley, 2019). Administration can prevent major disturbances or issues amongst the parties just by being well connected with the co –teachers and that too on an individual level. 3.Apart from all of the above mentioned, there are other aspects as well that need recognition, for instance, consultation, mentoring and coaching. Consultation refers to the guidance provided to the student in relation with their skills and providing them direction as to in which the students need to head. Mentoring refers to the sharing of personal information or experience to motivate the student in a particular direction. Coaching refers to the act, where the individual is monitored and guided in a certain direction that is set by the individual providing such information. All three of these are very essential as provide information or counselling students who are stuck or who need guidance is what a teacher’s basic task is. In order to do so, the entire above mentioned are provided. This makes the student’s efficiency better at understanding things and working accordingly. Also, it helps students channelize their energy towards something productive and that can help them in future by enhancing their skills(Michael, 2020).
BACK TO THE CASE3 References Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education.Journal of educational and psychological consultation, 9-27. Hawkman, A. M., Chval, K. B., & Kingsley, L. H. (2019). ‘I feel like I can do it now’: preservice teacher efficacy in a co-teaching community of practice.Teaching Education, 86-104. Hernandez, S. (2013). Collaboration in Special Education: Its History, Evolution, and Critical Factors Necessary for Successful Implementation.Online submission, 3(6), 480-498. Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3- 4), 420-431. Michael, C. N. (2020). Relationships, Mentorship and Self-Renewal: Co-Teaching as a Vehicle for Personal and Professional Growth. . InMastering the Art of Co-Teaching: Building More Collaborative Classrooms(p. 149). Pennington, D., Simpson, G., McConnell, M., Fair, J., & Baker, R. (2013). Transdisciplinary research, transformative learning, and transformative science.BioScience, 63(7), 564- 573.