This document summarizes research from a university on the benefits of co-teaching models in student teaching placements. Key findings include: - P-12 students in co-taught classrooms showed statistically significant gains in reading and math proficiency compared to traditionally taught classrooms. Over 25,000 students were impacted. - Teacher candidates felt they taught more, improved classroom management skills, and gained confidence through co-teaching models compared to traditional models. - Cooperating teachers reported benefits like reaching more students, professional growth, and hosting a candidate without giving up their classroom through co-teaching models.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. “Value Added” for
P-12 Students
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. “Value Added” for
Teacher Candidates
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University

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. 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. 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. 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. “Value Added” for
Cooperating Teachers
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University

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. 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. 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. “Value Added” for
School Partnerships
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University

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. 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. 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. 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