The study analyzed the effects of three models of internship support - instructional coaching, co-teaching, and a combination of the two - on teacher candidate effectiveness as measured by edTPA scores. Using multiple regression to control for demographic factors, results showed that candidates who received only instructional coaching scored significantly higher than those in traditional internships. There were no significant differences found between the other treatment groups and the control. The conclusions were that the innovations worked as well as traditional methods but may provide non-academic benefits, and they provide research-backed alternatives for programs unable to implement the models.

1. Elizabeth Fogarty
University of Minnesota
Christina Tschida
East Carolina University
Kristen Cuthrell
East Carolina University
Joy Stapleton
East Carolina University

2. ① Discuss the innovations
② Share study results
③ Discuss conclusions
④ Generate take-aways
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:
Co-teaching
plus
Coaching
Model 2:
Instructional
Coaching
Model 1:
Co-teaching
Picture credits: nea.org; college311.org; journal-news.com

5. Model 1: Co-teaching

6. 1:1 Co-Teaching Model
2:1 Co-Teaching Model

7. Mentoring In-class
Observations
Targeted
Professional
Development
Model 2: Instructional Coaching

9. Professional Development Training for Teacher Candidates
Categories Topics
Curriculum  Common Core/Essential Standards
 Pacing guides in math, reading, science, social studies
 Rigor in the curriculum
Assessments  Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)
 K-2 math assessments
 Proficiency tests and rubrics
 Data analysis and using data to plan effective lessons
Approaches to Learning  Readers Workshop
 Focus on 5 Components of Reading (fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, phonics,
phonemic awareness)
 Differentiation
 Instructional Strategies Lessons for Educators Series (ISLES) modules
 Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP)™
 Assistive technology and computer systems

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. • 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.
Summary of Findings

22. • 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

23. 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).

24. Conclusions
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.

25. Think Tank Discussions

26. Think Tank Discussion: Co-Teaching Models
How is your co-teaching model structured?
How are the roles of intern, clinical teacher, supervisor
defined within your model?
What are the teaching requirements within your co-teaching
model?
How is co-teaching taught and used throughout your
program?

27. Think Tank Discussion:
Coaching within Co-Teaching
In what ways are teacher candidates coached
in your co-teaching model?
Formal coaching? Informal coaching?
Do your co-teachers co-plan? What does that co-
planning look and sound like?
What role does coaching play in planning? In teaching?

28. Think Tank Discussion: Evaluating Impact
What kind of valid, reliable outcome measures
are you using to assess teacher readiness?
What are some of the tools/measures your program uses?
dispositions observations
VAM data edTPA
What do you consider when deciding on this?

29. Think Tank Take-Aways
What can we take away from our discussions?
What connections did you make that might help you and
your program?
What action steps have do you have from your
discussions?

30. CONTACT US WITH QUESTIONS
DR. ELIZABETH FOGARTY FOGA0017@UMN.EDU
DR. CHRISTINA TSCHIDA TSCHIDAC@ECU.EDU
DR. KRISTEN CUTHRELL CUTHRELLMA@ECU.EDU
DR. JOY STAPLETON STAPLETONJ@ECU.EDU