Understanding Co-teaching at the Secondary School Level


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Understanding Co-teaching at the Secondary School Level

  1. 1. Understanding Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level Yishun Secondary School
  2. 2. Scope• 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
  3. 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. 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. 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. 6. Purpose of the StudyThe study aims to1. 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. 7. Rationale of the Study1. 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. 8. Significance of the StudyFindings of the study will:1. support the school in terms of deployment of various co-teaching models effectively for greater engaged learning2. benefit other schools in the cluster in structuring the co-teaching models
  9. 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. 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. 11. Literature Review Models of Co-Teaching1. One Teach, One Assist2. Station Teaching3. Parallel Teaching4. Alternative Teaching5. Team Teaching (Friend & Cook, 1996)
  12. 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. 13. Literature Review3. 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. 14. Literature Review5. 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. 15. Literature ReviewUnderstanding Co-Teaching Components1. Interpersonal Communication2. Physical Arrangement3. Familiarity with the Curriculum4. Curriculum Goals and Modifications5. Instructional Planning6. Instructional Presentation7. Classroom Management8. Assessment (Gately & Gately, 2001)
  16. 16. Literature Review3 Phases of Co-TeachingBeginning StageGuarded, careful communicationCompromising StageGive and take communication, with a sense of having to “give up” to “get”Collaborating StageOpen communication and interaction, mutual admiration (Gately & Gately, 2001)
  17. 17. Literature ReviewThe Co-Teaching Rating Scale (Gately & Gately, 2001)
  18. 18. Literature ReviewThe Effects of Team Teaching inMathematics 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’ collaboration3. Regrouping based on students’ ability. (Jang, 2006)
  19. 19. Literature Review Summary1. 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 considerations3. Level of collaboration between co- teachers is key to success.
  20. 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. 21. Research Design• 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.
  22. 22. Instrumentation1. Mathematics Achievement Tests (Common Tests, SA1)2. Students’ Survey on Co-teaching3. Students’ Interviews
  23. 23. Class Procedures (Sem 2) Period T/S Co-Teaching Model Intervention1T2 123.6 One Teach One Assist Term 1(Math) Parallel Teaching* Term 2, (heterogeneous groups) Parallel Teaching* Term 3, 4 (groups org based on ability)2T2 128.2 Parallel Teaching* Term 1, 2, 3, 4(Math) (groups org based on behaviour) Alternative Teaching Term 3 Station Teaching Term 32T2 128.2 Alternative Teaching Term 1, 3(EL) (groups org based on ability) One Teach One Assist Term 2, 3, 4 Team-teaching Term 3
  24. 24. Academic Results1T2 Math CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2(39students)No. of 5 20 13 26failuresPassing 87.2% 48.7% 38.5% 33.3%RateTarget 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95Actual 3.21 3.97 4.33 4.36EPI 0.74 -0.20 -0.38 -0.41
  25. 25. Academic Results2T2 Math CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2(40students)No. of 14 32 18 13failuresPassing 62.2% 20.0% 56.1% 64.9%RateTarget 3.73 3.77 3.77 3.77Actual 3.32 4.67 3.54 3.92EPI 0.41 -0.90 0.23 -0.16
  26. 26. Academic Results2T2 EL CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2(41students)No. of 9 5 7 5failuresPassing 77.5% 87.5% 72.5% 87.5%RateTarget 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85Actual 3.88 4.02 4.0 3.85EPI -0.02 -0.17 -0.15 0
  27. 27. Findings from SurveysQ. 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. 28. Findings from SurveysQ. 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. 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. 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. 31. Recommendations• Which co-teaching model to adopt for your class? One-teach, one assist1. 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 Teaching1. When a lower adult-student ratio is needed to improve instructional efficiency.2. To foster student participation in discussions.
  32. 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 usedextensively to help co-teachers focus onareas that need improvement.
  33. 33. Recommendations Station Teaching•In class, not feasible, physical spaceconstraint•EL (SIO the same, v hard to do itindoor, 2T2: 36)•Outdoor more successful (Math lessonon Geometry)•A lot of careful planning needed
  34. 34. RecommendationsHybrid Model 1•1st period-1 teach 1 assist•2nd period-parallel teaching/alternativeteachingHybrid Model 2•1st and 2nd period-Station Teaching•Last 10 min (consolidation)-1 teach 1assist/parallel teaching/alternativeteaching
  35. 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. 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. 37. Q & A
  38. 38. Interim Findings Co-Teaching Rating Scale (CTRS) Class SEM 1 SEM 21T2 (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 A2T2 (Math) Tcr B