Moving Beyond Sink or Swim: 2:1 CoTeaching Model for AERA 2016 Roundtable

Moving Beyond “Sink or Swim”: A Framework for 2:1 Co-teaching

in Student Teaching

Christina M. TschidaElizabeth A. Fogarty

East Carolina University

Learner/Participant Outcomes

Recognize the need for change in the student teaching experience due to the context of accountability facing teachers today.

Examine the effects of 2:1 co-teaching on teacher candidates’ readiness to teach and ability to collaborate.

Examine and evaluate data sources used in evaluating the readiness to teach in our teacher candidates and determine if these tools could be applicable to their own contexts.

The Need for Something Different

During a time when the relevance and usefulness of teacher education is being challenged on a state and national level, it is vital that we explore new and innovative ways to prepare teachers.

Ways that will ensure not only the relevance but also the effectiveness of teacher education. The initiatives within the Pirate Code offer innovative

ways to address the questions and challenges facing teacher education.

Teacher Accountability in North Carolina

⦿North Carolina Teacher Evaluation: Six Standards ✓The first 5 standards

on NC Teacher Evaluation measure teacher performance.

✓The sixth standard is based on individual growth of a teacher’s students and the school-wide growth value.

7 Co-Teaching Strategies

⦿ One Teach, One Observe

⦿ One Teach, One Assist

⦿ Station Teaching

⦿ Parallel Teaching

⦿ Supplemental Teaching⦿ Alternative

(Differentiated) Teaching

⦿ Team Teaching(Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend, 1993, 2001)

Our Questions

What are the differences, if any, in the experiences of a 2:1 and a 1:1 co-teaching intern?

Are interns in one condition better prepared as indicated by the data collected?

What do focus groups and surveys tell us about candidate, clinical teacher, and school system perceptions of co-teaching implementation?

Is there a difference in readiness to teach between the 2:1 and 1:1 co-teaching interns as measured by the edTPA?

Year 12012-2013• ELEMENTARY • SPECIAL EDUCATION

Year 22013-2014• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN• ELEMENTARY• ENGLISH EDUCATION• FOREIGN LANGUAGE• HISTORY EDUCATION• MATH EDUCATION• MIDDLE GRADES• SPECIAL EDUCATION

Year 32014-2015• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN • DANCE• ELEMENTARY • ENGLISH EDUCATION • FOREIGN LANGUAGE• HISTORY EDUCATION • MATH EDUCATION• MIDDLE GRADES • SPECIAL EDUCATION

Year 4

2015-2016• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN • ELEMENTARY • ENGLISH EDUCATION • FOREIGN LANGUAGE• HISTORY EDUCATION • MATH EDUCATION• SCIENCE EDUCATION• SPECIAL EDUCATION

Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU

Squishy2011-12

Year 12012-13

Year 22013-

14

Year 32014-

15

Year 42015-

16Classrooms 1 14 88 76 99

School Districts 1 2 5 8 8Program

Areas 1 2 8 9 8Clinical

Teachers 1 10 91 88 99Interns 2 25 111 106 120Faculty 6 8 30 20 12

University Supervisors 1 6 31 41 23

Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU

Participants

university with approximately 27,000 students

1500 field placements each semester

Study Year# in Co-Teaching/

Total # Participants

Year 1 2012-2013 21Year 2 2013-2014 50 / 85Year 3 2014-2015 42 / 106

Models of Student Teaching

Observing the CT and students

Planning for Instruction - slowly taking on additional responsibility

Teaching lessons - slowly building up to full-days

Assessment of student learning

Evaluation - typically from outside source CT or US

Reflection - typically done alone after evaluation

Cycle repeats itself

Experiences During Student Teaching

During the Traditional Student Teaching experience, most interns find themselves working with their Clinical Teacher during the planning and evaluation stages of the cycle. The other stages tend to be done in isolation and with less modeling of instructional choices from the Clinical Teacher.

During Traditional Student Teaching

The 1:1 Co-Teaching Model of Student Teaching creates more of a team approach to all stages of the student teaching experience. The Clinical Teacher models instructional decision-making more explicitly with the Intern and provides feedback and opportunities for reflecting with the intern across the cycle.

During 1:1 Co-Teaching

The 2:1 Co-Teaching Model creates an even more dynamic team approach to all stages of the student teaching experience. The Clinical Teacher models instructional decision-making more explicitly with both interns and provides feedback and reflecting across the cycle. Additionally, the two Interns typically work together more closely in planning, teaching, and reflection of their experience. The level of professional discourse increases in the 2:1 model.

During 2:1 Co-Teaching

Focus in Co-Teaching

Collaboration - two or more teachers working together and

sharing responsibility for planning, delivery, and assessment

of instruction without the sharp distinction between beginning

teacher candidate and experienced classroom teacher.

Mentoring - a process of collaborative work in co-created space in which an expert imparts knowledge and skill, as well as models pedagogical decision-making to a novice who receives continuous feedback on performance. This process is relationship-based and occurs for a sustained amount of time.

Feedback - information shared between collaborators intended to provide critique on performance in a way that enhances confidence and grows expertise.

Utilizing Data to Redesign the Traditional Student Teaching

Experience

Data Source

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

Co-Teaching Survey

✔ ✔ ✔

Focus Group Interviews

✔ ✔ ✔

edTPA ✔ ✔ ✔

Co-Teaching Survey (Quantitative)

1. This survey is given to all interns at the end of their student teaching experience. It contains both Likert scale questions and open-ended questions about their experiences during internship.

2. Responses were measured on a 9-point Likert scale and an ANOVA was used to determine whether differences exist between co-teaching participants and non co-teaching participants.

3. Significant differences were found on three items indicating that co-teachers felt more self-efficacious about classroom management, believed they would use co-teaching strategies more in the future, as well as preferred solo teaching less than their non co-teaching peers.

4. Survey data helped debunk Clinical Teachers’ worries that interns might struggle with classroom management.

Co-Teaching Survey Data

Survey QuestionCo-

teachers

(Mean)

NonCo-

teachers(Mean)

ANOVA Results

Q5. I prefer teaching solo in the classroom (such as during ALL DAYS).

6.25 7.12 F(1, 159) = 4.538, p=.03

Q11. I have strong classroom management skills.

8.55 8.01 F(1, 159) = 6.470, p=.01

Q12. In the future, I would like to use Co-Teaching to enhance and improve my teaching.

6.25 5.25 F(1, 159) = 4.202, p=.04

Co-Teaching Survey (Qualitative)

1.Survey completed by all teacher candidates following student teaching - includes Likert scale and open-ended questions about their experience

2.Open-ended questions pulled from survey data, organized, imported into NVivo and coded for themes.

3.Mix of positive and negative responses among co-teaching interns on the open-ended questions with some common themes emerging.

4.Survey data helped us see areas that needed improvement in training and fidelity of implementation.

Collaboration: Co-Teaching interns reported greater opportunities for collaboration.

Mentoring: Co-Teaching interns were 2.5 times more likely to share feelings of being supported or mentored by their CT.Feedback: Increase in interns

mentioning the level of feedback received from their CT over the three years.“I am comfortable moving forward into my future

classroom. I am better able to collaborate with colleagues, plan, and teach my students.”

Co-Teaching Survey (Qualitative)

Focus Group Data 1. Interns, Clinical Teachers, and University Supervisors

participated in a focus group at the end of student teaching. Participants were asked the same semi-structured questions to examine their experience with the co-teaching model

2. Recordings of FGs were transcribed and read for accuracy. Transcriptions were uploaded to NVivo and coded for a priori themes such as collaboration, mentoring, feedback, and planning. Additional themes emerged such as Change,

3. Co-Teaching interns felt supported through co-planning and feedback from CTs (2:1s receiving additional feedback from co-intern) and very confident in their collaborative skills and classroom management.

4. Training for CTs, interns, and USs has changed substantially over the three years. Shifts to logistics with implementation also occurred.

Focus Group Data - Collaboration

Collaboration was the most commonly discussed theme in focus group data and reported area of efficacy in co-teaching interns.

“I think the co-teaching experience provides a great window into a daily PLC (Professional Learning Community) and since we will be expected to collaborate with our peers when we are full teachers, co-teaching is necessary.”

“..an underrated part of the teaching is the amount of cooperation and teamwork that is needed. Co-teaching makes teamwork an essential part of the planning and instructional process.”

Focus Group Data - Mentoring

mentoring through dialogue

“My CT was open to planning and would let me have free input and not eliminate my ideas. I feel as though both of us learned from each other.”

“Co-teaching definitely helped strengthen my lesson planning and reflection on instruction. It is great in the beginning when the confidence is lacking.”

mentoring through demonstration

“I liked knowing that I wasn’t alone. When I wasn’t quite clear on the content or a student’s question tripped me up, my CT was my backup and would step in with a better explanation than I could offer. This was a plus.”

Focus Group Data - Feedback “Instead of being thrown

into the deep-end and having to manage everything by myself I had a great support system behind me.”“My CT was

helpful with providing feedback and suggestions while also giving me space and opportunity to do some things alone.”

“It is definitely a plus knowing I am not alone. I have someone there to support me if I need it. I can discuss problems...get advice and another perspective on the situation.” (2:1 placement)

edTPA Data

1. Interns complete the Elementary Literacy edTPA during their internship semester. Although we have administered it all years of our Co-Teaching study, we used local scoring for the first year of data. All years since have included official Pearson scores.

2. Ran one-way ANOVAs for each of Years 1, 2, and 3 comparing total edTPA scores for each of the three groups (traditional, 1:1 Co-teaching, and 2:1 Co-teaching).

3. There were no statistically significant differences among scores from any of the three groups.

4. These data showed that co-teaching was not harming our interns and could safely be used for placements in the field.

edTPA DataControl 1:1 Co-

Teaching2:1 Co-

Teaching

2012-2013* 49.5(9.66)n=20

53.25(6.375)n=20

2013-2014 45.171(30.676)

n=35

46.846(17.325)

n=26

46.417(26.514)

n=242014-2015 44.672

(7.534)n=64

45.783(5.116)n=23

44.684(5.354)n=19

*Note: Year 1 data are locally scored. Random sample comparison analysis was used.

Note: Year 1 data were scored locally. Years 2 and 3 are Pearson scores.

edTPA Data

Scholarly Significance

Validation of possibility of placing two teacher candidates within one classroom with a quality mentor teacher (reducing # of placements and increasing selectivity in picking clinical teachers)

Potential to develop beginning teachers more reflective, better collaborators, and ready to teach

Next Steps

Comparing student achievement data in classrooms with 1:1 and 2:1 co-teaching interns.

Examining student achievement data in classrooms of beginning teachers who completed co-teaching internship (1:1 and 2:1)

Examining the growth trajectory of interns (through observation data) across traditional, 1:1, and 2:1 placements.

Questions or Comments?

Contact Information for the Co-Teaching Research Team at ECU

Dr. Liz [email protected]. Christina [email protected]