Co-Teaching as Best Practice in Student Teaching

Co-Teaching as Best Practice in Student Teaching

Co-Teaching as Best Practice in Student Teaching Data Collection Information 1 Sowhat can this do for you? 2 St. Cloud Data Collection P-12 Learners Academic Achievement (1-6) 7-12 Survey Focus Groups Teacher Candidates Summative Assessment End of Experience Survey Focus Groups Cooperating Teachers End of Experience Survey Focus Groups 3 Co-Teaching in P12 Classrooms 826 Pairs 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 179 203 231 243 Pairs Pairs Pairs Pairs Co-Teaching has impacted over 25,000 P-12 students in Central Minnesota 34 Pre-K classrooms 601 Elementary (K-6) classrooms

120 Secondary (5-12 & 7-12) classrooms 71 Special Education classrooms 4 Measuring Achievement Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) Woodcock Johnson IIIResearch Edition (WJIII) Reading/Math Grades 3-5-7 Reading/Math Grades K-12 Group Administered Individually Administered Compares cohorts Can use as pre/post intervention Results reported as scale score, index points and proficiency Results include raw score and standard score, but can also compute gain scores 5 Type of Classroom Reading Proficiency MCA Reading Proficiency 2004-2005 90 MCA Reading Proficiency 2005-2006 82.1 90 75.7 80 50 60 30 20 10

0 C o a Te ch g in C an d di e at (N 3 = ) 18 O ne Te he ac on N r = (N C o 6 )

34 a Te ch g in C an d di e at = (N 1) 10 x(2 df,N=1353)= 12.79, p= .002 Percent of Students Percent of Students 60 70 40 78.7 80 65.3 70 73.5 65 50 40 30 20 10 0

C e oT ac n hi g C a i nd d e at = (N 48 4) O ne Te he ac r on N = (N C 9 15 e oT

7) ac ng hi C an di d e at = (N 10 1) x(2 df,N=2241)= 12.54, p= .002 10 Type of Classroom Reading Proficiency 80 90 70 80 60 70 50 60 Insufficient Data To Analyze 40 30 20 10 0

C o a Te ch i ng MCA Reading Proficiency 2007-2008 C an d di e at (N 31 = 8) O ne Te r he c a on N = (N C o 63

a Te 4) ch i ng C an d di e at = (N 1 10 ) Percent of Students Percent of Students MCA Reading Proficiency 2006-2007 90 62.1 61.4 50 40 30 20 10 0 C x(2 df,N=1353)= 12.79, p= .002 80.8 o

a Te ch i ng C an te da di (N = 26 1) O ne Te ac r he = (N 9 15 7) on N C oT ea c ng

hi C a i nd da te x(2 df,N=2507)= 38.01, p= .001 11 Type of Classroom Math Proficiency MCA Math Proficiency 2004-2005 84 82.3 82 70 80 68 74 72 70.5 70 68 66 64 C o a Te ch i C an d

di e at (N 31 = 8) O ne Te he ac on N r = (N C o 92 a Te 7) ch i ng 68.9 66 75.8 76 C

an d di e at = (N 10 1) x(2 df,N=1349)= 8.31, p= .016 64.7 64 Percent of Students Percent of Students 78 ng MCA Reading Proficiency 2005-2006 62 60 57.9 58 56 54 52 C oT ea i ch ng C an

di d e at = (N 52 4) O ne a Te ch er on N = (N C 16 e oT 60 ac ) ng hi C an di d

e at (N = 17 1) x(2 df,N=2355)= 7.35, p= .025 12 Type of Classroom Math Proficiency 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 Insufficient Data To Analyze 40 30 20 10 0 C o a Te ch g in MCA Math Proficiency 2007-2008

C an d di e at (N 31 = 8) O ne Te he ac on N r = (N C o 63 a Te 4) ch g in C an d

di e at = (N 10 1) x(2 df,N=1353)= 12.79, p= .002 Percent of Students Percent of Students MCA Math Proficiency 2006-2007 90 74.5 62.6 59.5 40 30 20 10 0 C e oT a i ch ng C a i nd d e at

(N 31 = 4) O ne T e ch ea r on N = (N C 3 19 e oT ac 9) n hi g C an di d e at = (N

27 8) x(2 df,N=1939)= 26.04, p= .001 13 Cumulative Data Reading Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Compares Co-Taught and Not Co-Taught student teaching settings MCA Reading Proficiency Non Co-Teaching Candidate P .001 Co-Taught One Licensed Teacher 78.8% 67.2% 64.0% N=1461 N=6403 N=572 Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible 65.0% 53.1% 49.5% N=477 N=2684 N=222

Special Education Eligible 74.4% 52.9% 46.4% N=433 N=1945 N=179 English Language Learners 44.7% 30.7% 25.8% N=76 N=515 N=31 OVERALL (4 year cumulative) .001 .001 .069 14 Cumulative Data Math Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Compares Co-Taught and Not Co-Taught student teaching settings MCA Reading Proficiency Non Co-Teaching Candidate

P .001 Co-Taught One Licensed Teacher 72.9% 63.7% 63.0% N=1519 N=6467 N=597 Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible 54.2% 47.3% 45.7% N=472 N=2778 N=232 Special Education Eligible 72.0% 54.7% 48.9% N=472 N=1906 N=180 English Language Learners

30.5% 28.8% 26.8% N=118 N=671 N=41 OVERALL (4 year cumulative) .032 .001 .656 15 7-12 Survey Cumulative Data 2004-2008 (N= 1686) More help with questions 79.7 Different styles of teaching 68.9 More individual attention 66.4 Get 2 perpectives 65.8 Teachers build off each other 60.3 More creative lessons 51.2 Assignments graded & returned faster 50.9 More energy between teachers 46.1

Better discussions 45 More in-depth knowledge 43.1 No Benefits 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 16 7-12 Survey Drawbacks of Co-Teaching Cumulative Data 2004-2008 (N= 1686) Confusing with 2 explanations 18.8 Confusing who to go to 13.5 Grading Issues 13 Contradicting information 11.6 Teachers interrupt each other 8.8 Candidate too dependent

8.3 Less Material Covered 7.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 17 Benefits to K-12 Students Focus Groups (N= 546) Increased student engaged time Able to work in smaller groups Receive more individual attention Get questions answered faster Get papers and grades back faster Students behave better Fewer class disruptions (for passing out papers, having projects checked, other housekeeping tasks) 18 Benefits to Teacher Candidates End of Experience Survey (N= 157) Teacher Candidates indicated that Co-Teaching led to: Improved classroom management skills (95.5%)

Increased collaboration skills (94.9%) More teaching time (94.6%) Increased confidence (89.9%) Deeper understanding of the curriculum through coplanning (89.1%) More opportunities to ask questions and reflect (88.6%) 20 Benefits to Teacher Candidates Focus Groups (N= 136) Additional benefits of co-teaching: Being seen as a real teacher Equal partnership Sharing resources Mutual support and learning 21 Benefits to Cooperating Teachers End of Experience Survey (N= 279) Cooperating Teachers indicated that Co-Teaching led to: Ability to reach more students, particularly those with high needs (93.5%) Better relationship with their teacher candidate (91%) Experienced professional growth (89.2%) Enhanced energy for teaching (87.8%) Hosting a candidate without giving up my classroom (87.1%) Teacher candidate had a better experience than they would have through a traditional model (81.7%) 22 Benefits to Cooperating Teachers Focus Groups (N= 92) Additional benefits of CoTeaching: Ability to do projects more successfully Class time is more productive Modeling and participating in teamwork Candidates become competent more quickly 23 1st,2nd, & 3rd Year Teachers Co-Taught in Student Teaching Focus Groups (N= 18)

Comfortable and capable of collaborating effectively with colleagues. Equipped to deal with classroom management issues as they arise. Eager to receive feedback and seek out opportunities for internal and external reflection. 24 1st,2nd, & 3rd Year Teachers Co-Taught in Student Teaching Focus Groups (N= 18) Able to effectively differentiate instruction to better meet the needs of their students. Knowledgeable in ways to maximize the human resources that might be available, including paraprofessionals, volunteers, and parents. 25 Thoughts from Teacher Candidates I think this is a great model for teaching; it is very empowering for the student teacher and creates a great relationship and future mentor. -Teacher Candidate We both were leaders in our own respects and at different times. - Teacher Candidate Certain lessons work really well when they are co-taught. It is a good feeling to pump out a great lesson cooperatively, knowing that the lesson would not have been as dynamic if it had not been co-taught. -Teacher Candidate There is more creativity because you are able to talk ideas through and make them great by having the two perspectives. - Teacher Candidate 26 Thoughts from K-12 Students They work together. If one gets tired of teaching, the other takes over, they help each other in tight situations. Its a lot different that past student teachers. I like this much better. -Elementary Student I think we learn more because there are two different teachers in the room-which means they teach different ways-which means they know different facts-which means youre going to learn a lot more. -Elementary Student While one is teaching, the other comes around and asks if we need help. It makes it easier to get around to everybody. -High School Student Double the teachers, double the learning. - Middle School Student 27

Thoughts from SCSU The use of a co-teaching model of student teaching has made placing student teachers SO much easier. Kathy Watson, Assistant Director Coordinator of Student Teaching Placements Office of Clinical Experiences, SCSU 28 JSU Co-Teaching Project and Timeline for 2012-2013 29 JSU Co-Teaching Project Goals and Timeline for 2013-2014 30 JSU Data Collection Cooperating Teachers and Teacher Candidates Pretest and Posttest Questionnaire Focus Groups Building Administrators and P-12 Students Posttest Questionnaire District Test Coordinators Student Assessment Data 31

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Welcome Public Policy Town Hall 11-16 1 Our

    Welcome Public Policy Town Hall 11-16 1 Our

    Progress Toward MoreEffective Treatment. A future Alzheimer's therapy will likely include both lifestyle interventions and medicines. We are proud that the Alzheimer's Association is the third largest investor in Alzheimer's research in the world… surpassed only by the governments of...
  • Cuban Revolution and Modern Day Cuba

    Cuban Revolution and Modern Day Cuba

    Cuban Revolution What is the purpose of a revolution? Castro and Hitler Cuban Revolution Notes Topic Notes America's Relationship with Cuba Causes of the Revolution The Revolution Effects of the Revolution Other Facts…
  • Benthic Macroinvertebrates - Alice Ferguson Foundation

    Benthic Macroinvertebrates - Alice Ferguson Foundation

    Times New Roman Tempus Sans ITC BakerSignet Tiepolo Book Technical Default Design Microsoft Word Document Bridging the Watershed An Outreach Program of the Alice Ferguson Foundation in Partnership with the National Park Service and Area Schools Slide 2 Macroinvertebrate Identification...
  • Estates Strategy 2012-2022 CPSC 18th September

    Estates Strategy 2012-2022 CPSC 18th September

    Residential redevelopments Refurbishments Whole building refurbishments - Coupland 3, Dover Street Part refurbishments - Simon, Samuel Alexander, Stopford, CHP Business as Usual Long term maintenance Planned maintenance Energy management Carbon management Catering/conferences Revolving Green Fund Public Realm/Landscaping Draft Landscaping ...
  • 2016 National Training Program Module 10 Medicare and

    2016 National Training Program Module 10 Medicare and

    There's a Part A, a Part B, and a durable medical equipment (DME) Medicare Summary Notice (MSN). The MSN shows all services and supplies that were billed to Medicare, what Medicare paid, and what you owe each provider. You should...
  • Chapter 6 Leadership McGraw-Hill/Irwin Contemporary Management, 5/e Copyright

    Chapter 6 Leadership McGraw-Hill/Irwin Contemporary Management, 5/e Copyright

    House's Path-Goal Theory A contingency model of leadership proposing that effective leaders can motivate subordinates to achieve goals by: Clearly identifying the outcomes that subordinates are trying to obtain from their jobs.
  • SOMETHINGS ARE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFOWARD Use Amos and Herodotus

    SOMETHINGS ARE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFOWARD Use Amos and Herodotus

    All of these clearly define a difference in operating principles between science and religion. Thucydides is a good example of the bias free method. Proclamations. ... because they came to find greater things puzzling," ...
  • Chapter 9: Linear Optimization - Tuck School of Business

    Chapter 9: Linear Optimization - Tuck School of Business

    LINEAR OPTIMIZATION MODEL CLASSIFICATION Linear optimization or linear programming Objective and all constraints are linear functions of the decision variables. Nonlinear optimization or nonlinear programming Either objective or a constraint (or both) are nonlinear functions of the decision variables.