Understanding Co-Teaching at the Secondary School Level

Powerpoint Presentation for Yishun Secondary School Mini Learning Fest 2012

Transcript

1. Understanding Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level Yishun Secondary School
2. • Background • Problem Statement • Purpose, Rationale and Significance of the Study • Literature Review • Research Questions + Hypotheses • Methodology-Research Design, Instrumentation, Procedures, Data Analysis • Interim Findings • Discussion Scope
3. Background Yishun Secondary School • Mixed ability (HA, MA, LA) of students within each class, despite streaming • Big class size of 30-40 • Greater challenges faced in NT classes (8 classes), in student management and student engagement in T&L • NT students academically challenged
4. Background • 4 AEDs (1 untrained) • More classes deploying 2 teachers (AED + EO or 2EOs), especially NT stream • For NT EL and Math classes, 6/16 classes (37.5%) have co-teachers.
5. Problem Statement • In NT classes, teachers face three main challenges in T&L: 1. Maintaining classroom discipline 2. Differentiated Abilities 3. Using engaging pedagogies to match kinesthetic/visual learning styles
6. Purpose of the Study The study aims to 1. understand and deploy the different models of co-teaching effectively so as to enhance the learning in classes. 2. make students more engaged in learning and attain greater academic achievements.
7. Rationale of the Study 1. To identify what co-teaching is and what it is not. 2. To provide greater support for co- teachers by understanding the various models of co-teaching and their key components. 3. To study the various strategies for co- teaching to succeed in the areas of content, structure, assessment and diversity.
8. Significance of the Study Findings of the study will: 1. support the school in terms of deployment of various co-teaching models effectively for greater engaged learning 2. benefit other schools in the cluster in structuring the co-teaching models
9. Literature Review • Definition of Co-Teaching • Models of Co-Teaching • Understanding Co-Teaching Components • Phases of Co-Teaching and the Co- Teaching Rating Scale • Past Studies on Co-Teaching
10. Literature Review Definition of Co-Teaching • “Co-teaching is defined as two professionals, typically a special education teacher and a general education teacher, delivering substantive instruction to a diverse group of students in a single physical space”. (Friend & Cook, 2003)
11. Literature Review Models of Co-Teaching 1. One Teach, One Assist 2. Station Teaching 3. Parallel Teaching 4. Alternative Teaching 5. Team Teaching (Friend & Cook, 1996)
12. Literature Review 1. One Teach, One Assist - one teacher takes an instructional lead while the other assists students when necessary. 2. Station Teaching - each teacher works on a specified part of the curriculum, so that students rotate from one station to the other. (Friend & Cook, 1996)
13. Literature Review 3. Parallel Teaching - the class is divided into two equal heterogeneous groups; each is taught the same content at the same time by one of the two co-teachers. 4. Alternative Teaching - classroom reorganised into one large group and one small group, where one teacher is able to provide main instruction, the other to review a smaller group of students. (Friend & Cook, 1996)
14. Literature Review 5. Team Teaching -both teachers are actively engaged in instruction for the whole class and feed off one another by finishing each other’s sentences, clarifying each other’s comments, or answering student questions. (Friend & Cook, 1996)
15. Literature Review Understanding Co-Teaching Components 1. Interpersonal Communication 2. Physical Arrangement 3. Familiarity with the Curriculum 4. Curriculum Goals and Modifications 5. Instructional Planning 6. Instructional Presentation 7. Classroom Management 8. Assessment (Gately & Gately, 2001)
16. Literature Review 3 Phases of Co-Teaching Beginning Stage Guarded, careful communication Compromising Stage Give and take communication, with a sense of having to “give up” to “get” Collaborating Stage Open communication and interaction, mutual admiration (Gately & Gately, 2001)
17. Literature Review The Co-Teaching Rating Scale (Gately & Gately, 2001)
18. Literature Review The Effects of Team Teaching in Mathematics Achievement on 8th Graders. (Chung-Yuan Christian University, Taiwan) 1. The average final exam scores of students receiving team teaching were higher than those receiving traditional teaching. 2. Co-generative dialogues resulted in greater teachers’ collaboration 3. Regrouping based on students’ ability. (Jang, 2006)
19. Literature Review Summary 1. Joint planning, instruction and evaluation essential for success of co-teaching. 2. Models to be adopted depends on: i. Student characteristics and needs ii.Teacher characteristics and needs iii. Curriculum iv. Practical considerations 3. Level of collaboration between co- teachers is key to success.
20. Research Question • To what extent would co-teaching enhance the academic achievement of Lower Secondary NT students in English and Mathematics? Hypothesis • Co-teaching enhances the English and Mathematics achievement of students.
21. • Mixed Research-Quantitative and Qualitative • Longitudinal Project (1-2 years) • 3 NT Classes-1T2 (Math), 2T2 (EL and Math) • Project started in Term 1 Week 4, to last till Term 4. Research Design
22. 1. Mathematics Achievement Tests (Common Tests, SA1) 2. Students’ Survey on Co-teaching 3. Students’ Interviews Instrumentation
23. Procedures (Sem 2) Class T/S Co-Teaching Model Intervention Period 1T2 (Math) 123.6 One Teach One Assist Term 1 Parallel Teaching* (heterogeneous groups) Term 2, Parallel Teaching* (groups org based on ability) Term 3, 4 2T2 (Math) 128.2 Parallel Teaching* (groups org based on behaviour) Alternative Teaching Station Teaching Term 1, 2, 3, 4 Term 3 Term 3 2T2 (EL) 128.2 Alternative Teaching (groups org based on ability) Term 1, 3 One Teach One Assist Team-teaching Station-Teaching Term 2, 3, 4 Term 3 Term 3
24. Academic Results 1T2 Math (39 students) CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2 No. of failures 5 20 13 26 Passing Rate 87.2% 48.7% 38.5% 33.3% Target 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 Actual 3.21 3.97 4.33 4.36 EPI 0.74 -0.20 -0.38 -0.41
25. Academic Results 2T2 Math (40 students) CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2 No. of failures 14 32 18 13 Passing Rate 62.2% 20.0% 56.1% 64.9% Target 3.73 3.77 3.77 3.77 Actual 3.32 4.67 3.54 3.92 EPI 0.41 -0.90 0.23 -0.16
26. Academic Results 2T2 EL (41 students) CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2 No. of failures 9 5 7 5 Passing Rate 77.5% 87.5% 72.5% 87.5% Target 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 Actual 3.88 4.02 4.0 3.85 EPI -0.02 -0.17 -0.15 0
27. Findings from Surveys Q. Do you think you learn better when there are two teachers teaching you? Why? • Yes, because one teacher can teach the class while the other teacher can maintain discipline in the class. (1T2) • Yes. It is because one could teach and the other could help those who do not understand. (2T2) • Yes. Because two teachers can control the class and the class is very quiet. (2T2) • Yes. Able to work in group discussions better. (2T2)
28. Findings from Surveys Q. Give some suggestions on how the two teachers can teach you better in class. • Separate 2 classes (2T2) • Take out the most noisy people in our class! If only it could be a separate class. (2T2) • One teaching the weaker ones, the other teaching the better ones. (1T2)
29. Conclusions • Academic results for 2T2 EL met target; 2T2 Math did not meet target, but showed improvement from SA1 to SA2 . Reasons: -2T2 EL co-teachers unchanged in SEM 1 & 2, co-teaching models used were effective -2T2 Math co-teachers were different in Sem 1 & 2, and it took a while for co- teaching models to be effective -2T2 EL co-teachers reached “collaborating stage” much earlier than 2T2 Math
30. Conclusions • 1T2 Math did not met target and no improvement shown from SA 1 and SA2 -1T2 Math teachers still experimenting with various co-teaching models in Semester 1 - Change of Math tcr in Sem 2
31. Recommendations • Which co-teaching model to adopt for your class? One-teach, one assist 1. When the lesson lends itself to delivery by one teacher/teaching a new topic. 2. When one teacher has particular expertise for the lesson. Parallel Teaching 1. When a lower adult-student ratio is needed to improve instructional efficiency. 2. To foster student participation in discussions.
32. Recommendations Alternative Teaching In situations where students’ mastery of concepts taught or about to be taught varies tremendously, due to great disparity in abilities. • How to group students? - Based on behaviour or learning abilities. • The Co-teaching Rating Scale will be used extensively to help co-teachers focus on areas that need improvement.
33. Station Teaching • In class, not feasible, physical space constraint • EL (SIO the same, v hard to do it indoor, 2T2: 36) • Outdoor more successful (Math lesson on Geometry) • A lot of careful planning needed Recommendations
34. Hybrid Model 1 • 1st period-1 teach 1 assist • 2nd period-parallel teaching/alternative teaching Hybrid Model 2 • 1st and 2nd period-Station Teaching • Last 10 min (consolidation)-1 teach 1 assist/parallel teaching/alternative teaching Recommendations
35. Team-talking (3E8 EL) • It happens in 3E8 (Rachel and Muizz) • Chemistry between 2 tcrs • Subject Content knowledge must be on par • Regular communication-collaborating phase • Class will respond when both tcrs respond
36. References • Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2004). Co-Teaching: Principles,Practices, and Pragmatics. New Mexico Public Education Department Quarterly Special Education Meeting, Albuquerque, NM April 29, 2004. • Dieker, L.A., & Murawski, W.W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success.The High School Journal; Apr/May 2003; 86, 4; Teacher Journals, pg. 1 • Gately, S.E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding coteaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40-47. • Jang, S. J. (2006). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers. Educational Research, Vol. 48, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 177 – 194.
37. Q & A
38. Interim Findings Co-Teaching Rating Scale (CTRS) Class SEM 1 SEM 2 1T2 (Math) Tcr A 2.86 ? 1T2 (Math) Tcr B 2.36 ? 2T2 (EL) Tcr A 2.86 ? 2T2 (EL) Tcr B 2.86 ? 2T2 (Math) Tcr A 2T2 (Math) Tcr B