Pds Enhancing Student Teaching Though Co Teaching

3,039 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,039
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
41
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
83
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pds Enhancing Student Teaching Though Co Teaching

  1. 1. Enhancing Student Teaching Through Co-Teaching Teresa Washut Heck Nancy Bacharach Beth Mann St. Cloud State University
  2. 2. St. Cloud State University Located in Minnesota 60 miles northwest of Minneapolis 18,000 students 400+ teacher candidates a year Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  3. 3. Our Goals… 1. Provide an overview of co-teaching in student teaching. 2. Describe the essential elements for co-teaching. 3. Establishing buy-in for co-teaching. 4. Implementing a co-teaching model. 5. Discuss how to get others supportive of and trained in a collaborative co-teaching model. Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  4. 4. Co-Teaching Co-Teaching is defined as two teachers working together in a classroom with groups of students; sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of instruction as well as the physical space. Both teachers are actively involved and engaged in all aspects of instruction. Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  5. 5. Co-Teaching is an Attitude… An attitude of sharing the classroom and students. Co-Teachers must always be thinking… WE’RE BOTH TEACHING!
  6. 6. Why SCSU Chose Co-Teaching • Student Teaching hasn’t changed much in 80 years! • Re-examination of student teaching. • Growing resistance from teachers to take teacher candidates with high emphasis on NCLB testing. • Pressures from NCATE and other accreditation agencies. Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  7. 7. History of Co-Teaching ! PL94 – 142; Now IDEA ! Least Restrictive Environment ! Special and General Education teachers needed to work together ! 1993 Walsh and Snyder ! 1995 – Landmark research by Cook and Friend Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  8. 8. Co-Teaching at SCSU At SCSU Our Program Impacted by: • ATE Presentation – Michael Perl (1999) • ATE Presentation – Mid-Valley Consortium (2000) • Visit to Virginia - (2000) • Co-Teaching Workshops - (2000-01) • Applied for Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant • Received Grant, October 2003 • Utilized Cook and Friend research • Developed Program & Collected Data • Disseminated our research and program • Train the Trainer Program • 150+ faculty from other institutions Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  9. 9. At The Heart of Co-Teaching… • Building Better Relationships • Communication/Collaboration • Co-Teaching/Co-Planning • Active vs. Passive • Use Expertise of Cooperating Teacher • Attitude • Best Way to Meet Student Needs Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  10. 10. Key Elements • Co-teaching workshop for cooperating teachers and university supervisors • Co-teaching instruction incorporated in teacher preparation curriculum • Workshop for matched pairs • One teacher candidate per classroom • Clearly defined expectations, including lead and solo teaching time for candidates • Designated planning time for co-teaching each week Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  11. 11. " One teach, one observe " One teach, one assist " Station teaching " Parallel teaching " Supplemental teaching " Alternative (differentiated) teaching " Team teaching Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  12. 12. Things We Kept • Solo teaching time • Placement procedures • Total time in classroom • Evaluation forms • Individual lesson planning Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  13. 13. Things We Added • Support and Training • Co-Planning • Permission for Cooperating Teacher to Stay • Enhanced Collaboration and Communication • Focus on Differentiation • Increased Opportunities for Teacher Candidate to Bring Ideas • Professional Development Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  14. 14. Why Co-Teach? " Increase instructional options for all students " Reduce student/teacher ratio " Address diversity and size of today’s classroom " Enhance classroom management " Increase student participation and engagement " Enhance collaboration skills Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  15. 15. Results • Improved Math & Reading Achievement for students in Grades 1-6 • Benefits to 7-12 learners • Benefits to Cooperating Teachers • Benefits to Teacher Candidates • Improved Relationships with Partner Schools Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  16. 16. Reading Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Compares Non Co-Taught (traditional) and Co-Taught student teaching settings Significance between Co-Taught and Non Co-Taught (traditional) student teaching Non MCA Reading One Licensed Co-Taught Co-Taught P Proficiency Teacher Student Teaching OVERALL 64.0% 78.8% (N=1461) 67.2% (N=6403) < .001 (4 Year Cumulative) (N=572) Free/Reduced 49.5% 65.0% (N=477) 53.1% (N=2684) < .001 Lunch Eligible (N=222) Special Education 46.4% 74.4% (N=433) 52.9% (N=1945) < .001 Eligible (N=179) English Language 44.7% (N=76) 30.7% (N=515) 25.8% (N=31) .069 Learners Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  17. 17. Math Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Compares Non Co-Taught (traditional) and Co-Taught student teaching settings Significance between Co-Taught and Non Co-Taught (traditional) student teaching Non MCA Math One Licensed Co-Taught Co-Taught P Proficiency Teacher Student Teaching OVERALL 72.9% (N=1519) 63.7% (N=6467) 63.0% (N=597) < .001 (4 Year Cumulative) Free/Reduced Lunch 54.2% (N=513) 47.3% (N=2778) 45.7% (N=232) .032 Eligible Special Education 72.0% (N=472) 54.7% (N=1906) 48.9% (N=180) < .001 Eligible English Language 30.5% (N=118) 28.8% (N=671) 26.8% (N=41) .656 Learners Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  18. 18. Co-Teaching & School Partnerships • Strengthened our partnerships with districts • Teachers felt a “part” of the teacher preparation program • More cooperating teachers then teacher candidates (in most areas) • Schools now want our candidates • Over 900 area teachers trained in co- teaching Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  19. 19. Getting Started Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  20. 20. University Level Buy-In Administrative and Faculty • Provide Basic Information • Secure Dean Support • Secure Departmental Buy-In • Identify Key Faculty Within Departments Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  21. 21. University Supervisor Buy-In University Supervisors: • Need co-teaching training • Clarification of expectations and observation keys • On-going support • Resources • Supervisor meetings • 2-3x/semester Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  22. 22. District Buy In High Level District Support • Initial presentations to administrative teams • Multiple methods of information sharing • Present updates to administrative groups and school board Grass Roots Support • Present to individual schools • Identified building contacts Memorandums of Understanding • Formal agreements with each district superintendent prior to involvement Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  23. 23. Implementing
  24. 24. Recommendations • Develop a clear vision and scope • Determine leadership team • Design evaluation plan • Identify institutional and community – Barriers – Supports – Resources Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  25. 25. Recommendations • Faculty buy-in – cross departmental • District buy-in • Develop communication plan • Implementation Plan – Preparation – Planning – Expectations – Ongoing Support Have FUN!!! Infuse Energy… Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  26. 26. What Former Candidates are Saying… • Comfortable and capable of collaborating effectively with colleagues • Equipped to deal with classroom management issues as they arise • Eager to receive feedback and seek out opportunities for internal and external reflection • Able to effectively differentiate instruction to better meet the needs of their students • Knowledgeable in ways to maximize the human resources that might be available, including paraprofessionals, volunteers and parents. Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  27. 27. What’s Next?
  28. 28. Support Materials • Train the Trainer Workshop – Two day training – Materials • DVD - “Changing Student Teaching Through Co-Teaching: Collaboration That Makes A Difference • Co-Teaching Handbook – “Mentoring Teacher Candidates Through Co-Teaching: Collaboration That Makes A Difference Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center: Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
  29. 29. St. Cloud State University, College of Education Teacher Quality Enhancement Center Dr. Teresa Washut Heck Coordinator of Co-Teaching twheck@stcloudstate.edu 320-308-1742 Dr. Nancy Bacharach TQE Project Director nlbacharach@stcloudstate.edu 320-308-4885 Ms. Beth Mann Co-Teaching Specialist bjmann@stcloudstate.edu www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe

×