Presentation for the 2016 AACTE Conference in Las Vegas NV

1. Under the Microscope:
Examining Multiple Data Points to Determine
the Effects of 2:1 Co-Teaching
AACTE 2016
Christina M. Tschida
Elizabeth A. Fogarty
Vivian M. Covington
East Carolina University

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. Our Questions
What 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?

7. Year 1
2012-2013
• ELEMENTARY
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Year 2
2013-2014
• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
• ELEMENTARY
• ENGLISH EDUCATION
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE
• HISTORY EDUCATION
• MATH EDUCATION
• MIDDLE GRADES
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Year 3
2014-2015
• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
• DANCE
• ELEMENTARY
• ENGLISH EDUCATION
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE
• HISTORY EDUCATION
• MATH EDUCATION
• MIDDLE GRADES
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Year 4
2015-2016
• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
• ELEMENTARY
• ENGLISH EDUCATION
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE
• HISTORY EDUCATION
• MATH EDUCATION
• SCIENCE EDUCATION
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU

8. Squishy
2011-12
Year 1
2012-13
Year 2
2013-14
Year 3
2014-15
Year 4
2015-16
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 12
University Supervisors 1 6 31 41 23
Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU

9. 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

10. ● 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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 ✔ ✔ ✔

16. 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 training
Deeper 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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Co-Teaching Survey Data
Survey Question Co-teachers
(Mean)
Non
Co-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

20. 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.

21. 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.”

22. 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.

23. 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.”

24. 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.”

25. 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)

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Note: Year 1 data were scored locally. Years 2 and 3 are Pearson scores.
edTPA
Data

29. 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.

30. Questions or Comments?
Thank you for coming.