Under the Microscope:

Examining Multiple Data Points to Determine

the Effects of 2:1 Co-Teaching

AACTE 2016

Christina M. Tschida Elizabeth A. FogartyVivian M. Covington

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 QuestionsWhat are the differences, if any, in the experiences of a 2:1 co-

teaching intern 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?

What do audio recordings of co-planning sessions tell us about the co-teaching experience?

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 42015-2016•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 42015-16

Classrooms 1 14 88 76 99

School Districts 1 2 5 8 8

Program Areas 1 2 8 9 8

Clinical Teachers 1 10 91 88 99

Interns 2 25 111 106 120

Faculty 6 8 30 20 12University

Supervisors 1 6 31 41 23

Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU

Participants

1500 field placements each semester

university with approximately 27,000 students

Study Year # in Co-Teaching/Total # Participants

Year 1 2012-2013 21

Year 2 2013-2014 50 / 85

Year 3 2014-2015 42 / 106

● 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

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.

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.

The 2:1 Co-Teaching Model of Student

Teaching 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.

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

Observations ✔ ✔ ✔

Strategies Chart ✔ ✔ ✔

Audio Recordings of Planning Sessions

✔ ✔ ✔

Collaboration Self Assessment Tool

✔

Co-Teaching Survey ✔ ✔ ✔

Focus Group Interviews

✔ ✔ ✔

edTPA ✔ ✔ ✔

Audio Recording of Planning Session Data

1. Interns record 2 co-planning sessions (beginning and end of student teaching)

2. Recorded PS data listened to, transcribed, and read for understanding of co-planning. Use of NVivo to analyze the PS data more closely - new themes have emerged

3. Year 1 data demonstrated a need for additional training in co-planning and clarification of expectations for co-teaching strategy use.

4. Adjustments to trainingDeeper analysis needs to be done (especially 1:1 vs 2:1)Additional data from individual co-teaching teams to gain greater understanding of the co-planning process

Collaboration Data (CSAT)1. The CSAT was used during the first year of implementation to have interns

self-assess their comfort with and ability to collaborate.

2. Conducted a repeated measures ANOVA to determine whether there was a time effect. Then conducted ANOVAs to determine group differences.

3. There was a statistically significant difference between the time 1 and time 2 scores on collaboration meaning that interns reported a higher degree of collaboration at the end of the internship. Co-teachers were statistically significantly higher in total collaboration, interpersonal, and intrapersonal collaboration.

4. Confirmed our belief that co-teaching increases collaboration and helped secure placements with clinical partners.

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 Question Co-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 data)

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.

Co-Teaching Survey (Qualitative data)

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 and 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.”

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 Data

Control 1:1 Co-Teaching 2:1 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=24

2014-2015 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

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?

Thank you for coming.