Presentation for AERA 2016 on Co-Teaching and Coaching

1. KRISTEN CUTHRELL, CHRISTINA TSCHIDA,
JOY STAPLETON, ELIZABETH FOGARTY
C O L L E G E O F E D U C AT I O N
D E PA R T M E N T O F E L E M E N TA R Y E D U C AT I O N A N D
M I D D L E G R A D E S E D U C AT I O N

2. ① Discuss the innovations
② Share study results
③ Discuss conclusions
SESSION GOALS:

3. Theory of
Action
Objective
Outcome
Data from
Innovations
Program
Change
Graduate
Effectiveness
•(Darling-Hammond, Newton, &
Wei, 2013; Fallon, 2006;
Grossman, Hammerness, &
McDonald, 2009; Peck &
McDonald, 2013Peck, Singer-
Gabella, Sloan, & Lin, 2014; Peck
& McDonald, 2013)

4. Three Research-based Models of Internship
Support were Developed for Use
Model 3:
Coaching
plus
Co-teaching
Model 2:
Co-teaching
Model 1:
Instructional
Coaching
Picture credits: nea.org; college311.org; journal-news.com

5. Mentoring In-class
Observations
Targeted
Professional
Development
Model 1: Instructional Coaching

6. Model 2: Co-teaching

7. 1:1 Co-Teaching Model
2:1 Co-Teaching Model

8. Instructional
Coaching
Co-Teaching
Instructional
Coaching & Co-
Teaching
Control
Treatment
Conditions
Teacher candidates were
randomly assigned to one
of the 4 conditions during
the fall semester of their
senior year
Study Design
All teacher candidates
submitted an edTPA
portfolio during the
Spring of their internship
semester.

9. Coached
Only
n=42
Coached &
Co-Taught
n=49
Co-Teach
Only
n=39
Control
n=114
Totals
n=244
Spring
2014
42 49 - 22 113
Fall
2014
- - - 49 49
Spring
2015
- - 39 43 82
Table 1. Participants by Treatment Condition and
Semester

10. 42
49
39
114
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Coached Only Coached &
Cotaught
Cotaught Only Control
Number of Students Per Condition
Figure 1. Total number of students per treatment condition across 3 semesters

11. Coached
Only
n=42
Coached &
Co-Taught
n=49
Co-Teach
Only
n=39
Control
n=114
% of Total
n=244
White 37 43 37 102 89.8%
African
American
2 3 1 7 5.3%
Other 2 3 1 5 4.9%
Table 2. Participants by Treatment Condition and
Race

12. Research Questions
RQ1. Do teacher candidates exposed to the instructional
coaching model demonstrate greater effectiveness in planning,
teaching, and assessing, as measured by the edTPA, than
teacher candidates not exposed to instructional coaching?
RQ2.Do teacher candidates exposed to the co-teaching model
demonstrate greater effectiveness in planning, teaching, and
assessing, as measured by the edTPA, than teacher candidates
not exposed to co-teaching?
RQ3. Do teacher candidates exposed to both the instructional
coaching and co-teaching model demonstrate greater
effectiveness in planning, teaching, and assessing, as measured
by the edTPA, than teacher candidates not exposed to both
models?

13. Data Analysis
 Compared the average edTPA scores for the control
group across three semesters.
 No significant differences = data do not violate the
assumption of normality.
 Control group data were combined into one large control
group.
 Compared treatment groups on the indicator
variables.
 No differences between groups for Race or SAT Scores.
 Significant differences between groups on Gender.

14. n Mean SD
Coached
42 47.10 6.71
Co-Teach plus Coached 49 46.59 4.65
Co-Teaching
39 45.08 5.29
Control
114 45.37 6.71
Table 3. Total Scores on edTPA by Treatment
Condition

15. t Sig.B Std. Error
(Constant) 31.064 4.335 7.166 .000
SAT Score .009 .004 2.237 .026
Female 5.051 1.817 2.780 .006
White .577 1.276 .452 .652
Coached 2.190 1.090 2.008 .046
Co-Teach plus
Coached
1.217 1.024 1.188 .236
Co-teaching -.713 1.118 -.638 .524
F-ratio (p value) 3.111 (p<.01)
Table 4. Results of Standard Multiple Regression using
Three Control Variables
Reference Group = Traditional

16. Research Question #1
Do teacher candidates exposed to the instructional coaching
model demonstrate greater effectiveness in planning,
teaching, and assessing, as measured by the edTPA, than
teacher candidates not exposed to instructional coaching?
t Sig.
B Std. Error
(Constant) 31.064 4.335 7.166 .000
SAT Scores .009 .004 2.237 .026
Female 5.051 1.817 2.780 .006
White .577 1.276 .452 .652
Coached 2.190 1.090 2.008 .046
Co-Teach + Coached 1.217 1.024 1.188 .236
Co-teaching -.713 1.118 -.638 .524
F-ratio (p value) 3.111 (p<.01)

17. Research Question #2
Do teacher candidates exposed to the co-teaching model
demonstrate greater effectiveness in planning, teaching,
and assessing, as measured by the edTPA, than teacher
candidates not exposed to co-teaching?
t Sig.
B Std. Error
(Constant) 31.064 4.335 7.166 .000
SAT Scores .009 .004 2.237 .026
Female 5.051 1.817 2.780 .006
White .577 1.276 .452 .652
Coached 2.190 1.090 2.008 .046
Co-Teach + Coached 1.217 1.024 1.188 .236
Co-teaching -.713 1.118 -.638 .524
F-ratio (p value) 3.111 (p<.01)

18. Research Question #3
Do teacher candidates exposed to both the instructional
coaching and co-teaching model demonstrate greater
effectiveness in planning, teaching, and assessing, as
measured by the edTPA, than teacher candidates not
exposed to both models?
t Sig.B Std. Error
(Constant) 31.064 4.335 7.166 .000
SAT Scores .009 .004 2.237 .026
Female 5.051 1.817 2.780 .006
White .577 1.276 .452 .652
Coached 2.190 1.090 2.008 .046
Co-Teach + Coached 1.217 1.024 1.188 .236
Co-teaching -.713 1.118 -.638 .524
F-ratio (p value) 3.111 (p<.01)

19. The data were analyzed using multiple regression. Three
different treatments, Coaching, Co-teaching, and Co-teaching
plus Coaching, were compared to the traditional internship
experience. The model controlled for intern
race, gender, and SAT score. Controlling for these factors, there
was a positive and statistically significant effect for Coaching (p
< 0.05). On average, students who received coaching only
scored 1.217 points higher on the edTPA than students with a
traditional internship experience. There were no statistically
significant differences between the Co-teaching and the
traditional internship experience or between Co-teaching plus
Coaching and the traditional internship experience.
Summary of Findings

20. Conclusions
1. Teacher candidates assigned to control, co-teaching or to a
combination model involving co-teaching and instructional
coaching score equally well (when controlling for gender,
race, and edTPA scores).
2. Teacher candidates who receive instructional coaching
outperform other candidates (when controlling for gender,
race, and edTPA scores).
3. The innovations work as well as our traditional methods,
but may yield other non-measured benefits such as
collaboration and clinical teacher satisfaction.
4. The results and conclusions of the pilots in this study
provide research-tested alternatives to the traditional
internship model for programs that may not be able to
engage in such pilots because of either fiscal or enrollment
constraints.

21. NEXT STEPS:
 Determine how to sustain both the coaching and
co-teaching models with current level of
resources.
 Determine effectiveness of 2:1 vs 1:1 co-teaching
models.

22. CONTACT US WITH QUESTIONS
DR. KRISTEN CUTHRELL CUTHRELLMA@ECU.EDU
DR. CHRISTINA TSCHIDA TSCHIDAC@ECU.EDU
DR. JOY STAPLETON STAPLETONJ@ECU.EDU
DR. ELIZABETH FOGARTY FOGARTYE@ECU.EDU

23. References
Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration. (2012). Mentoring teacher candidates through co-teaching [Train The Teacher Workshop]. St. Cloud
University, St. Cloud.
Bacharach, N., Washut Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher education. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 5(3), 9-16.
Bacharach, N., Washut Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education,
32(1), 3-14.
Bastian, K., Henry, G., Pan, Y., & Lys, D. (2015, January 1). Evaluating a pilot of the teacher performance assessment: The construct validity,
reliability, and predictive validity of local scores. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from publicpolicy.unc.edu
Charles, C. M. (1998). Introduction to educational research (2nd ed.).White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J., Bullock, A., Lys, D., Smith, J., and Fogarty, E. (2014). Mapping the journey of reform and assessment for an elementary
education teacher preparation program. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1).
Darling-Hammond, L., Newton, S.P., & Wei, R.C. (2013). Developing and assessing beginning teacher effectiveness: The potential of performance
assessments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(3), 179-204. doi: 10.1007/s11092-013-9163-0

24. References
DeBoer, A. & Fister, S. (1995). Working together: Tools for collaborative teaching. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Fallon, D. (2006, February). Improving teacher education through a culture of evidence. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Teacher
Education Accreditation Council, Washington, DC.
Friend, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 6.
Friend, M. (2001, February). Co-teaching for general and special educators. Paper presented for Clark County School District, Las Vegas, NV.
Gately, S. E. & Gately Jr., F. J. (2001). Understanding Coteaching Components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40.
Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gliner , J.A. & Morgan, G.A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009). Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and
cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 285-296.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teacher: Re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 15(2), 273-290.
Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative experience for preservice
teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(3), 155-166.

25. References
Knight, J. & van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2012). Instructional coaching: A focus on practice. Coaching: International Journal of Theory, Research, and
Practice, 5(2), 100-112.
Martella, R.C., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N.E. (1999). Research methods: Learning to become a critical research consumer. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Murawski, W. W. (2010). Collaborative teaching in elementary schools: Making the co-teaching marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2012). Students as 'catalysts' in the classroom: The impact of co-teaching between science
student teachers and primary classroom teachers on children's enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal of Science
Education, 26(8), 1023-1035.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional
capacity, promises, and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute
Peck, C. & McDonald, M. (2013). Creating “Cultures of Evidence” in Teacher Education:
Context, Policy, and Practice in Three High-Data-Use Programs, The New Educator, 9(1), 12-28, DOI: 10.1080/1547688X.2013.751312.
Peck, C.A., Singer-Gabella, M., Sloan, T., & Lin, S. (2014). Driving blind: Why we need standardized performance assessment in teacher education.
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 8-30. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1-30

26. References
Poglinco, S., Bach, A., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. (2003).
The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America's choice schools.
Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from
www.cpre.org/Publications?Publications_Research.html
Reeve, P. T., & Hallahan, D. P. (1994). Practical questions about collaboration between general and special educators. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 26(7), 1-10.
Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2010). Collaborative learning in pre-service teacher education: An exploratory study on related
conceptions, self-efficacy and implementation. Educational Studies, 36(5), 537-553.
SCALE (2013). edTPA Field Test: Summary Report. Retrieved July 16, 2015 from https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=827&ref=edtpa
Smith, J.J, Tschida, C.M., & Fogarty, E.M. (2015). A New Model for Student Teaching: Co-Teaching meets the needs of diverse learners.
Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.
Smith, J., Stapleton, J., Cuthrell, K., Covington, V., Castro, K., Gaddis, A., Edmondson, G., & Greene, A. (2014). Positive gains: Instructional
coaches coaching interns. Paper paper presented at AACTE Annual Meeting and Exhibits, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Tschida, C. M., Smith, J. J., & Fogarty, E. A. (2015). The co-teaching model of student teaching: New directions in teacher preparation. Paper
presented at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.

27. Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU
Generation 1
Fall 2011
•ELEMENTARY
Generation 2
Fall 2012
•ELEMENTARY
•SPECIAL EDUCATION
Generation 3
Fall 2013
•BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
•ELEMENTARY
•ENGLISH EDUCATION
•FOREIGN LANGUAGE
•HISTORY EDUCATION
•MATH EDUCATION
•MIDDLE GRADES
•SPECIAL EDUCATION
Generation 4
Fall 2014
•BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
•DANCE
•ELEMENTARY
•ENGLISH EDUCATION
•FOREIGN LANGUAGE
•HISTORY EDUCATION
•MATH EDUCATION
•MIDDLE GRADES
•SPECIAL EDUCATION
Generation 5
Fall 2015
•BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
•DANCE
•ELEMENTARY
•ENGLISH EDUCATION
•FOREIGN LANGUAGE
•HISTORY EDUCATION
•MATH EDUCATION
•SCIENCE EDUCATION
•SPECIAL EDUCATION