Pds Value Added

1,102 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,102
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pds Value Added

  1. 1. Co-Teaching in Student Teaching: A Value Added Model St. C loud State University – College of E ducation Funded by a Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grant from the U.S. Department of Education © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  2. 2. St. Cloud State University Located in Minnesota – 60 miles NW of Minneapolis 18,000 students 400+ teacher candidates a year © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  3. 3. St. Cloud TQE Initiative • 5 year U.S. Dept. of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grant - awarded in October 2003 • Looked at Co-Teaching In Student Teaching • Collected 4 years of data (qualitative and quantitative) • Training and Support for Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors • Teacher Candidates get co-teaching as a part of their program • Workshop for Pairs © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  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. © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  5. 5. What Do You Mean Value-Added? Who Benefits From Co-Teaching?  P-12 Students  Cooperating Teachers  Teacher Candidates  School Partnerships © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  6. 6. “Value Added” for P-12 Students © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  7. 7. Co-Teaching in P-12 classrooms 826 Pairs to date 2004-2005 179 Pairs 2005-2006 203 Pairs 2006-2007 231 Pairs 2007-2008 243 Pair Co-teaching has impacted over 25,000 P-12 students in Central Minnesota 34 Pre K classrooms 601 Elementary (K-6) classrooms 120 Secondary (7-12) classrooms 71 Special Education classrooms © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  8. 8. Measuring Achievement Minnesota Comprehensive Woodcock Johnson III – Research Assessment (MCA) Edition (WJIII) Reading/Math – Grades 3 - 7 Reading/Math – Grades K-12 Group Administered Individually Administered Compares cohorts Can use as pre/post intervention Results include raw score and Results reported as scale score, standard score, but can also compute index points and proficiency gain scores © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  9. 9. K-6 Reading Gains Woodcock Johnson III – Research Edition Individually administered pre/post test Statistically significant gains in all four years Woodcock Johnson III Not Research Edition Co-Taught p Co-Taught W Score Gains 2004-2005 15.7 9.9 .001 (N=221) (N=99) 2005-2006 24.4 18.7 .024 (N=225) (N=124) 2006-2007 14.8 11.8 .010 (N=322) (N=172) 2007-2008 19.6 14.8 .001 (N=245) (N=182) © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  10. 10. K-6 Math Gains Woodcock Johnson III – Research Edition Individually administered pre/post test Statistically significant gains in two of four years; positive trend in each year Woodcock Johnson III Not Research Edition Co-Taught p Co-Taught W Score Gains 2004-2005 17.2 13.9 .039 (N=221) (N=99) 2005-2006 20.3 17.4 .075 (N=206) (N=143) 2006-2007 14.3 12.1 .045 (N=313) (N=182) 2007-2008 17.9 16.0 .089 (N=250) (N=177) © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  11. 11. Reading Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment MCA Reading Proficiency MCA Reading Proficiency 2004-2005 2004-2005 100 100 82.1 75.7 78.7 73.5 80 80 Percent of Students Percent of Students 65.3 65.0 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 Co- One Traditional Co- One Traditional Teaching Teacher Student Teaching Teacher Student Candidate (N=934) Teacher Candidate (N=1597) Teacher (N=318) (N=101) (N=484) (N=160) χ² (2 df, N=1353) = 12.79, p = .002 χ² (2 df, N=2241) = 12.54, p = 002 © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  12. 12. Reading Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment MCA Reading Proficiency MCA Reading Proficiency 2006-2007 (K-6) 2007-2008 100 80.8 80 Percent of Students 61.4 62.1 Percent of Students 60 Insufficient Data 40 to Analyze 20 0 0 Co- One Traditional Teaching Teacher Student Candidate (N=1977) Teacher (N=261) (N=269) χ² (2 df, N=2507) = 38.01, p <.001 © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  13. 13. Math Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment MCA Math Proficiency MCA Math Proficiency 2004-2005 2005-2006 100 100 82.3 75.8 70.5 80 68.9 80 64.7 Percent of Students Percent of Students 57.9 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 Co- One Traditional Co- One Traditional Teaching Teacher Student Teaching Teacher Student Candidate (N=927) Teacher Candidate (N=1660) Teacher (N=317) (N=105) (N=524) (N=171) χ² (2 df, N=1349) = 8.31, p=.016 χ² (2 df, N=2355) = 7.35, p=.025 © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  14. 14. Math Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment MCA Math Proficiency MCA Math Proficiency 2006-2007 (K-6) 2007-2008 100 74.5 80 Percent of Students 62.6 59.5 Percent of Students 60 Insufficient Data 40 to Analyze 20 0 Co- One Traditional Teaching Teacher Student 0 Candidate (N=1939) Teacher (N=314) (N=278) χ² (2 df, N=1939) = 26.04, p <.001 © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  15. 15. Type of Student Teaching Reading Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Compares Traditional and Co-taught student teaching settings Statistically significant in each year with sufficient data (3 of 4) Significance between co-taught and traditional student teaching highlighted Traditional MCA Reading One Licensed Co-Taught Student P Proficiency Teacher Teaching OVERALL 78.8% 67.2% 64.0% < .001 (4 Year Cumulative) (N=1461) (N=6403) (N=572) Free/Reduced Lunch 65.0% 53.1% 49.5% < .001 Eligible (N=477) (N=2684) (N=222) Special Education 74.4% 52.9% 46.4% < .001 Eligible (N=433) (N=1945) (N=179) English Language 44.7% 30.7% 25.8% .069 Learners (N=76) (N=515) (N=31) © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  16. 16. Type of Student Teaching Math Proficiency Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Compares Traditional and Co-taught student teaching settings Statistically significant in each year with sufficient data (3 of 4) Significance between co-taught and traditional student teaching highlighted Traditional MCA Math One Licensed Co-Taught Student P Proficiency Teacher Teaching OVERALL 72.9% 63.7% 63.0% < .001 (4 Year Cumulative) (N=1519) (N=6467) (N=597) Free/Reduced 54.2% 47.3% 45.7% .032 Lunch Eligible (N=513) (N=2778) (N=232) Special Education 72.0% 54.7% 48.9% < .001 Eligible (N=472) (N=1906) (N=180) English Language 30.5% 28.8% 26.8% .656 Learners (N=118) (N=671) (N=41) © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  17. 17. 7-12 Student Data Benefits Cumulative Data 2004-2008 N=1,686 More help with questions 79.7 Different styles of teaching 68.9 More indiv attention 66.4 Get 2 perspectives 65.8 Teachers build off each other 60.3 More creative lessons 51.2 Assignments graded & returned  … 50.9 More energy between teachers 46.1 Better discussions 45 More in‑depth knowledge 43.1 No Benefits 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of responses © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  18. 18. 7-12 Survey Drawbacks Cumulative Data 2004-2008 N=1,686 Confusing with 2 explanations 18.8% Confusing who to go to 13.5% Grading Issues 13.0% Contradicting information 11.6% Teachers interrupt each other 8.8% Candidate too dependent 8.3% Less material covered 7.1% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% Percent of Responses © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY
  19. 19. Benefits to P-12 Students Focus Groups (N=546) Able to work in smaller groups Receive more individual attention Get questions answered faster Get papers and grades back faster Students behave better Fewer class disruptions © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  20. 20. In their own words . . . “I think we learned more,  because it was more than just one point of view. Like one teacher would say something and then the other teacher would build off of that, so it would go in more directions than if it was just one teacher talking by themselves.” High School Student © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  21. 21. In their own words . . . “If one teacher was busy with someone and you needed to ask a question and the other one wasn’t  busy, you could just ask her instead of waiting around for the other teacher – or interrupting the class like you have to with one teacher.” Middle School Student © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  22. 22. “Value Added” for Teacher Candidates © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  23. 23. Benefits to Teacher Candidates End of Experience Survey (N=249) • Improved classroom management skills (92.4%) • Increased collaboration skills (92.0%) • Teaching more (90.0%) • Deeper understanding of the curriculum (89.2%) • Added opportunities to ask questions and reflect (88.8%) • Increased confidence (88.4%) © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  24. 24. Benefits to Teacher Candidates Focus Groups (N=136) Additional benefits of co-teaching: Being seen as a “real” teacher Equal partnership Sharing resources Mutual support and learning © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  25. 25. In their own words . . . “Our student teacher did a lot more teaching. He acted more like a teacher than a student teacher.” High School Student © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  26. 26. In their own words . . . “Usually when you have a student teacher they just come in and they have, like, a list of things they need to do – but she actually knew what she was doing and taught us – and you could ask her questions and she would answer them for us.” Elementary Student © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  27. 27. “Value Added” for Cooperating Teachers © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  28. 28. Benefits to Cooperating Teachers End of Experience Survey (N=279) Cooperating Teachers Indicate That Co-Teaching Led To:  Ability to reach more students, particularly those with high needs (93.5%)  Better relationship with their teacher candidate (91%)  Experienced professional growth (89.2%)  Enhanced energy for teaching (87.8%)  Hosting a candidate without giving up my classroom (87.1%)  Teacher candidate had a better experience than they would have through with a traditional model (81.7%) © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University SCSU Teacher Quality Enhancement 2008
  29. 29. Benefits to Cooperating Teachers Focus Groups (N=92) Additional Benefits of Co-Teaching:  Ability to do projects more successfully  Class time is more productive  Modeling and participating in teamwork  Candidates become competent more quickly © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  30. 30. In their own words . . . “Co-teaching was far more fulfilling than the traditional student-teaching model. We all benefited. I think the biggest benefit is that the students saw my co- teacher as a "teacher" right from the start. “ Cooperating Teacher © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  31. 31. “Value Added” for School Partnerships © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  32. 32. 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) © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  33. 33. In their own words . . . “The results are proven as far as I’m concerned  we have better student teachers, we have better cooperating teachers, so it’s the best of both worlds for me.” “I think it’s a blueprint for teacher preparation  institutions to follow.” Mike Spanier Sartell Middle School Principal © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  34. 34. What Now? Institutionalization of Project Dissemination of Findings Presentations Publications Train-the-trainer workshop DVD Handbook www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
  35. 35. Contact Us Teacher Quality Enhancement Center Nancy Bacharach - nlbacharach@stcloudstate.edu Beth Mann - bjmann@stcloudstate.edu Teresa Washut Heck - twheck@stcloudstate.edu www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe © 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University

×