This document summarizes a study on the effects of co-taught instruction on student performance in math classes. The study examined student assessment results and OGT scores from Algebra I and Geometry classes that used co-taught instruction versus traditional classes. Results were mixed, with non-co-taught Algebra I students showing the most growth but co-taught Geometry and OGT results slightly favoring co-taught classes. The conclusion is that further research is still needed but co-teaching can be justified if it helps low achievers and special needs students to improve.

1. IMPROVING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH CO-TAUGHT INSTRUCTION:
THE EFFECT OF CO-TEACHING ON
STUDENT PERFORMANCE Derrick Purtee
The University of Findlay
EDUC 552
Dr. Natalie Abell

2. INTRODUCTION
• Educators continue to search
for ways improve classroom
instruction to
• Improve student
performance on
assessments
• Reach all levels of students
(low, middle, high, gifted)
• Maximize classroom time
• Co-Teaching offers a solution.

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND
PROBLEM SIGNIFICANCE
• Problem Statement:
• Teachers are challenged
with reaching all students
AND having the demand
for all students to be
successful on mandated
assessments.
• Problem Significance:
• How to improve student
achievement without
hiring more teachers?

4. HYPOTHESIS
•If co-teaching is
implemented in
inclusion
classrooms, then
student
achievement in
math will increase.

5. INDEPENDENT AND
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
• Independent Variable:
• The Implementation of Co-Teaching:
• 2 or more teachers in one
classroom
• Both fully share all teaching
responsibilities
• One general education teacher,
one intervention specialist
• Dependent Variable:
• Student achievement
• As measured by district-created
assessments and OGT results

6. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
CO-TEACHING:
• Mixed Results (at best)
• Limited Research
• Current trend in education
• Goal: enhance inclusion
classrooms
• Success depends on quality of
teachers, instructional strategies

7. DESIGN
• Goal: Determine effectiveness of co-teaching
• Rural, Ohio high school
• Algebra I
• Geometry
• SLO Assessments
• OGT Results
• Find positive correlations
• Is it worth the money?
• Better than pullout classes?

8. SUBJECTS
• All Algebra I and Geometry students from a rural Ohio high school
• 120 total students
• 59 in Algebra I
• 23 Co-taught (15 Boys, 8 Girls)
• 36 Not Co-taught (23 boys, 13 girls)
• 53 in Geometry
• 21 Co-taught (12 boys, 9 girls)
• 31 Not co-taught (17 boys, 14 girls)
• 13 percent of all students identified with a disability

9. PROCEDURE• Data collected from 3 sources
• OGT results
• Algebra I Assessments (Identical pre and post assessments)
• Geometry Assessments (Identical pre and post assessments)
• Baseline established after pre-assessment within first 2 weeks of
2013-2014 school year
• Post-assessment given in mid-April 2014
• Growth measure determined from test scores
• Growth measures and OGT results used to
determine effectiveness of co-teaching

10. INSTRUMENTS
• Algebra I Assessment:
• 75 multiple choice questions
• Aligned with Common Core standards
• Created by math teacher and intervention specialist
• District approved for SLO
• Geometry Assessment:
• 70 multiple choice questions
• Aligned with Common Core standards
• Created by math teacher and intervention specialist
• District approved for SLO

11. DATA
• Average Growth:
• Non-Co-Taught Algebra I
• 41%
• Co-Taught Algebra I
• 32%
• Every student showed at least
12 points of growth

12. DATA
• Average Growth
• Non-Co-Taught Geometry:
• 32%
• Co-Taught Geometry:
• 34%
Every students displayed at
least 12 points of growth

13. DATA
41
33 32
34
Alg. Non Co-Taught Alg. Co-Taught Geo. Non Co-Taught Geo. Co-Taught
Figure 5
Class Growth Averages
Most growth: Algebra I non-co-taught students
Least growth: Geometry non-co-taught students

14. OGT RESULTS
Co-Taught Average: Non-Co-Taught Average:
414 422
Students in Green = Students with IEP
400 = Passing score
Co-Taught: 13 of 17 Passed
• 2 of non-passing had score of 399!)
Non-Co-Taught: 21 of 24 Passed

15. DISCUSSION AND
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
• Mixed Results
• Effectiveness depends on numerous factors
• Class size
• Student population
• Student effort
• Quality of teacher(s) and instruction

16. CONCLUSION
• Limited research available
• Further studies needed
• Broader studies needed
Justifiable if…
• Students with special needs show growth
• Low achieving students show growth
• Commitment to co-teaching is made from top down