The document discusses frameworks for collaboration and co-teaching, emphasizing their importance in addressing diverse student needs through effective classroom programming. It outlines various co-teaching models like '1 teach, 1 support' and 'station teaching', focusing on strategies for increased student engagement and meaningful learning experiences. The goal is to enhance educational outcomes by fostering collaboration among educators to support all learners in an inclusive environment.

1. Frameworks for
Collaboration
CR4YR August 27th, 2013
Vancouver Hilton Hotel
Faye Brownlie and Randy Cranston

2. Learning Intentions
 I have a better understanding of collaboration and
co-teaching.
 I have a plan of how to increase the effectiveness
of my collaboration and my co-teaching.
 I can create a class review and use it to plan for
instruction.

3. Why Collaboration/Co-teaching?
 Based on the belief that collaborative planning,
teaching and assessing better addresses the diverse
needs of students by creating ongoing effective
programming in the classroom
 It allows more students to be reached
Learning in Safe Schools, page 102 Chapter 9

4.  Based on the belief that collaborative planning,
teaching and assessing better addresses the diverse
needs of students by creating ongoing effective
programming in the classroom
 It allows more students to be reached
 It focuses on the ongoing context for learning for the
students, not just the specific remediation of skills
removed from the learning context of the classroom
 It builds a repertoire of strategies for teachers to
support the range of students in classes
page 102 Chapter 9
Learning in Safe Schools,

5. Why Collaboration/Co-teaching?
 Based on the belief that collaborative planning, teaching
and assessing better addresses the diverse needs of
students by creating ongoing effective programming in the
classroom
 It allows more students to be reached
 It focuses on the ongoing context for learning for the
students, not just the specific remediation of skills
removed from the learning context of the classroom
 It builds a repertoire of strategies for teachers to support
the range of students in classes
 Imperative students with the highest needs have the most
consistent program
Learning in Safe Schools, page 102 Chapter 9

6. Rationale:
 By sharing our collective
knowledge about the whole class
and developing a plan of action
based on this, we can better meet
the needs of all students.

7. Goal:
 to support students to be successful
learners in the classroom environment

8. A Key Belief
 When intervention is focused on classroom
support it improves each student’s ability and
opportunity to learn effectively/successfully in the
classroom.

9. The Vision
A
Shi:
from…..
to
A
Remedial
Model
(Deficit
Model)
An
Inclusive
Model
(Strengths
Based)
‘Fixing’
the
student
‘Fixing’
the
curriculum
Outside
the
classroom/
curriculum
to
Within
the
classroom/
curriculum

10. Transforma)ons
within
the
Inclusive
Model
Pull-­‐out
Support
/
Physical
Inclusion
•
sDll
a
remedial
model
–
to
make
kids
fit
•
In
the
class,
but
o:en
on
a
different
plan
Inclusion
•
Classroom
Teacher
as
central
support
•
Resource
Teacher
–
working
together
in
a
co-­‐teaching
model

11. No plan, No point

12. Questions to Guide Co-Teaching
 Are all students actively engaged in meaningful
work?
 Are all students participating by answering and
asking questions?
 Are all students receiving individual feedback
during the learning sequence?
 How is evidence of learning from each day’s coteaching fueling the plan for the next day?

13. A Co-teaching Question:
Is this the best approach to maximize student
learning:
• at this time
• for this task
• for this student?

14.  What is your co-teaching dream?

15. Co-Teaching Models
(Teaching in Tandem – Effective Co-Teaching in the Inclusive
Classroom – Wilson & Blednick, 2011, ASCD)
 1 teach, 1 support
 Parallel groups
 Station teaching
 1 large group; 1 small group
 Teaming

16. 1 Teach, 1 Support
 most frequently done, least planning
 Advantage: focus, 1:1 feedback, if alternate roles,
no one has the advantage or looks like the ‘real’
teacher, can capitalize one 1’s strengths and build
professional capacity
 Possible pitfall: easiest to go off the rails and
have one teacher feel as an ‘extra pair of hands’,
no specific task (buzzing radiator)

17. 1 Teach, 1 Support: Examples
 demonstrating a new strategy so BOTH teachers
can use it the next day – e.g., think aloud,
questioning from pictures, listen-sketch-draft
 Students independently working on a task, one
teacher working with a small group on this task,
other teacher supporting children working
independently

18. Parallel Groups
 both teachers take about half the class and teach
the same thing.
 Advantage: half class size - more personal
contact, more individual attention
 Possible pitfalls: more time to co-plan, requires
trust in each other, each must know the content
and the strategies.

19. Parallel Groups: Examples
 word work. At Woodward Elem, the primary worked together
3 X/week, with each teacher, the principal and the RT each
taking a group for word work. Some schools have used this
with math activities.
 Focus teaching from class assessment. Westwood
Elementary: Came about as a result of an action research
question: How do we better meet the needs of our students?:
 primary team used Standard Reading Assessment, highlight
on short form of Performance Standards, Resource, ESL,
principal involved, cross-graded groups 2X a week, for 6 to 8
weeks driven by information from the performance standards
(Text features, Oral Comprehension, Risk taking, Critical
thinking with words, Getting the big picture,… , repeat
process
 NOT paper and pencil practice groups…teaching/thinking
groups

20. Station Teaching
 mostly small groups
 can be heterogeneous stations or more homogeneous
reading groups
 each teacher has 2 groups, 1 working independently at
a station or writing, 1 working directly with the teacher.
 Advantage: more individual attention and personal
feedback, increased focus on self regulation
 Possible pitfall: self regulation (needs to be taught),
time to plan for meaningful engagement.

21. Station Teaching: Examples
 Guided reading: 4 groups; RT has two and CT has
two
 math groups – Michelle’s patterning (1 direct
teaching, 2 guided practice, 1 guided practice with
observation)
 science stations: CT and RT each created two
stations; co-planning what they would look like to
ensure differentiation, teachers moved back and
forth between groups supporting self-monitoring,
independence on task

22. 1 large group, 1 small group
 Advantage: either teacher can work with either
group, can provide tutorial, intensive, individual
 Possible pitfall: don’t want same kids always in
the ‘get help’ group

23. 1 large group, 1 small group:
Examples
 Writing: 1 teacher works with whole class prewriting
and drafting, small groups of 3-4 students meet with 1
teacher to conference
 Reading: everyone’s reading. large group: teacher
moving from student to student listening to short oral
reads. Small group: 2 to 3 students being supported to
use specific reading strategies or
 small group is working on a Reader’s Theatre
 Math: large group using manipulatives to represent
shapes, small groups, rotating with other teacher,
using iPads to take pictures of shapes in the
environment

24. Teaming
 most seamless.
 co-planned
 teachers take alternate roles and lead-taking as the lesson
proceeds
 Most often in whole class instruction and could be followed
up with any of the other four co-teaching models
 Advantages: capitalizes on both teachers’ strengths, models
collaboration teaching/learning to students, can adjust
instruction readily based on student need, flexible
 Possible pitfalls: trust and skill

25. Teaming: Examples
 Brainstorm-categorize lesson – 1 teacher begins, other
teacher notices aspects the first teacher has missed or
sees confusion in children, adds in and assumes lead
role.
 Modeling reading strategies: two teachers model and
talk about the strategies they use to read, noting things
they do differently.
 Graphic organizer: Teachers model how to use a
semantic map as a post reading vocabulary building
activity, teacher most knowledgeable about semantic
mapping creates it as other teacher debriefs with
students; both flow back and forth