Pds Value Added

© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University

Co-Teaching in Student Teaching: A Value Added Model

St. C loud State University – College of EducationFunded by a Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grant from the U.S.

Department of Education


St. Cloud State University

Located in Minnesota – 60 miles NW of Minneapolis

18,000 students

400+ teacher candidates a year


St. Cloud TQE Initiative• 5 year U.S. Dept. of Education, Teacher Quality

Enhancement Partnership Grant - awarded in October 2003

• Looked at Co-Teaching In Student Teaching

• Collected 4 years of data (qualitative and quantitative)

• Training and Support for Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors

• Teacher Candidates get co-teaching as a part of their program

• Workshop for Pairs


Co-Teaching

Co-Teaching is defined as two teachers working together in a classroom with groups of students; sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of instruction as well as the physical space.

Both teachers are actively involved and engaged in all aspects of instruction.


What Do You Mean Value-Added?

Who Benefits From Co-Teaching? P-12 Students Cooperating Teachers Teacher Candidates School Partnerships


“Value Added” forP-12 Students


Co-Teaching in P-12 classrooms826 Pairs to date

2004-2005 179 Pairs2005-2006 203 Pairs2006-2007 231 Pairs2007-2008 243 Pair

Co-teaching has impacted over 25,000 P-12 students in Central Minnesota

34 Pre K classrooms601 Elementary (K-6) classrooms120 Secondary (7-12) classrooms71 Special Education classrooms


Measuring AchievementMinnesota Comprehensive

Assessment (MCA)Woodcock Johnson III – Research

Edition (WJIII)

Reading/Math – Grades 3 - 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


K-6 Reading GainsWoodcock Johnson III – Research EditionIndividually administered pre/post testStatistically significant gains in all four years

Woodcock Johnson III Research Edition

W Score GainsCo-Taught Not

Co-Taught p

2004-2005 15.7(N=221)

9.9(N=99)

.001

2005-2006 24.4(N=225)

18.7(N=124)

.024

2006-2007 14.8(N=322)

11.8(N=172)

.010

2007-2008 19.6(N=245)

14.8(N=182)

.001


K-6 Math GainsWoodcock Johnson III – Research EditionIndividually administered pre/post testStatistically significant gains in two of four years;positive trend in each year

Woodcock Johnson III Research Edition

W Score GainsCo-Taught Not

Co-Taught p

2004-2005 17.2(N=221)

13.9(N=99)

.039

2005-2006 20.3(N=206)

17.4(N=143)

.075

2006-2007 14.3(N=313)

12.1(N=182)

.045

2007-2008 17.9(N=250)

16.0(N=177)

.089


Reading ProficiencyMinnesota Comprehensive Assessment

0

20

40

60

80

100

Co-Teaching Candidate

(N=318)

One Teacher (N=934)

Traditional Student Teacher (N=101)

82.1 75.7

65.3

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

MCA Reading Proficiency2004-2005

χ² (2 df, N=1353) = 12.79, p = .002 χ² (2 df, N=2241) = 12.54, p = 002

0

20

40

60

80

100


(N=484)

One Teacher (N=1597)


78.7 73.5

65.0

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s



Reading ProficiencyMinnesota Comprehensive Assessment

0

20

40

60

80

100


(N=261)



80.8

61.4 62.1

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s


χ² (2 df, N=2507) = 38.01, p <.001

0

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

MCA Reading Proficiency2006-2007 (K-6)

Insufficient Data to Analyze


Math ProficiencyMinnesota Comprehensive Assessment

0

20

40

60

80

100


(N=317)

One Teacher (N=927)


82.375.8

70.5

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

MCA Math Proficiency2004-2005

0

20

40

60

80

100


(N=524)



68.964.7

57.9

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s


χ² (2 df, N=1349) = 8.31, p=.016 χ² (2 df, N=2355) = 7.35, p=.025


Math ProficiencyMinnesota Comprehensive Assessment

0

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

MCA Math Proficiency2006-2007 (K-6)

0

20

40

60

80

100


(N=314)



74.5

59.5 62.6

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s


Insufficient Data to Analyze

χ² (2 df, N=1939) = 26.04, p <.001


Type of Student Teaching Reading Proficiency

Minnesota Comprehensive AssessmentCompares Traditional and Co-taught student teaching settingsStatistically significant in each year with sufficient data (3 of 4)Significance between co-taught and traditional student teaching highlighted

MCA Reading Proficiency Co-Taught One Licensed

Teacher

Traditional Student Teaching

P

OVERALL (4 Year Cumulative)

78.8%(N=1461)

67.2%(N=6403)

64.0%(N=572)

< .001

Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible

65.0%(N=477)

53.1%(N=2684)

49.5%(N=222)

< .001

Special Education Eligible

74.4%(N=433)

52.9%(N=1945)

46.4%(N=179)

< .001

English Language Learners

44.7%(N=76)

30.7%(N=515)

25.8%(N=31)

.069


Type of Student Teaching Math Proficiency

Minnesota Comprehensive AssessmentCompares Traditional and Co-taught student teaching settingsStatistically significant in each year with sufficient data (3 of 4)Significance between co-taught and traditional student teaching highlighted

MCA Math Proficiency Co-Taught One Licensed

Teacher

Traditional Student

TeachingP

OVERALL (4 Year Cumulative)

72.9%(N=1519)

63.7%(N=6467)

63.0%(N=597)

< .001

Free/ReducedLunch Eligible

54.2%(N=513)

47.3%(N=2778)

45.7%(N=232)

.032

Special Education Eligible

72.0%(N=472)

54.7%(N=1906)

48.9%(N=180)

< .001

English Language Learners

30.5%(N=118)

28.8%(N=671)

26.8%(N=41)

.656


7-12 Student DataBenefits

Cumulative Data 2004-2008 N=1,686

4

43.1

45

46.1

50.9

51.2

60.3

65.8

66.4

68.9

79.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

No Benefits

More in‑depth knowledge

Better discussions

More energy between teachers

Assignments graded & returned …

More creative lessons

Teachers build off each other

Get 2 perspectives

More indiv attention

Different styles of teaching

More help with questions

Percent of responses


7-12 SurveyDrawbacks

Cumulative Data 2004-2008 N=1,686

7.1%

8.3%

8.8%

11.6%

13.0%

13.5%

18.8%

0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0%

Less material covered

Candidate too dependent

Teachers interrupt each other

Contradicting information

Grading Issues

Confusing who to go to

Confusing with 2 explanations

Percent of Responses

ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY


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

Benefits to P-12 StudentsFocus Groups (N=546)


In their own words . . .

“I think we learned more, because it was more than just one point of view. Like one teacher would say something and then the other teacher would build off of that, so it would go in more directions than if it was just one teacher talking by themselves.”

High School Student



“If one teacher was busy with someone and you needed to ask a question and the other one wasn’t busy, you could just ask her instead of waiting around for the other teacher – or interrupting the class like you have to with one teacher.”

Middle School Student


“Value Added” forTeacher Candidates


Benefits to Teacher CandidatesEnd of Experience Survey (N=249)

• Improved classroom management skills (92.4%)

• Increased collaboration skills (92.0%)

• Teaching more (90.0%)

• Deeper understanding of the curriculum (89.2%)

• Added opportunities to ask questions and reflect (88.8%)

• Increased confidence (88.4%)


Benefits to Teacher CandidatesFocus Groups (N=136)

Additional benefits of co-teaching:

Being seen as a “real” teacher

Equal partnership

Sharing resources

Mutual support and learning



“Our student teacher did a lot more teaching. He acted more like a teacher than a student teacher.”

High School Student



“Usually when you have a student teacher they just come in and they have, like, a list of things they need to do – but she actually knew what she was doing and taught us – and you could ask her questions and she would answer them for us.”

Elementary Student


“Value Added” forCooperating Teachers


Benefits to Cooperating TeachersEnd of Experience Survey (N=279)

Cooperating Teachers Indicate 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 with a traditional model (81.7%)

SCSU Teacher Quality Enhancement 2008


Benefits to Cooperating TeachersFocus Groups (N=92)

Additional Benefits of Co-Teaching:

Ability to do projects more successfully

Class time is more productive

Modeling and participating in teamwork

Candidates become competent more quickly



“Co-teaching was far more fulfilling than the traditional student-teaching model. We all benefited. I think the biggest benefit is that the students saw my co-teacher as a "teacher" right from the start. “

Cooperating Teacher


“Value Added” forSchool Partnerships


School Partnerships

Strengthened our partnerships with districts

Teachers felt a “part” of the teacher preparation program

More cooperating teachers then teacher candidates (in most areas)



“The results are proven as far as I’m concerned we have better student teachers,

we have better cooperating teachers,so it’s the best of both worlds for me.”

“I think it’s a blueprint for teacher preparation institutions to follow.”

Mike SpanierSartell Middle School Principal


What Now?Institutionalization of ProjectDissemination of Findings

PresentationsPublicationsTrain-the-trainer workshopDVDHandbook

www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe


Contact Us

Teacher Quality Enhancement CenterNancy Bacharach - [email protected]

Beth Mann - [email protected] Washut Heck - [email protected]

www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe

http://www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe

mailto:[email protected]



Pds Value Added

Documents

Transcript of Pds Value Added