coteaching & coaching 2016 mn presentation

Can we Combine Co-teaching and Coaching

to Improve Teacher Readiness?

Co-Teaching Conference 2016Elizabeth FogartyUniversity of Minnesota

Christina TschidaEast Carolina University

Kristen CuthrellEast Carolina University

Joy StapletonEast Carolina University

① Discuss the innovations② Share study results③ Discuss conclusions④ Generate take-aways

SESSION GOALS:

Theory of Action

Objective Outcome Data from

Innovations

Program

Change

(Darling-Hammond, Newton, & Wei, 2013; Fallon, 2006; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; Peck & McDonald, 2013Peck, Singer-Gabella, Sloan, & Lin, 2014; Peck & McDonald, 2013)

Three Research-based Models of Internship Support were Developed for Use

Model 3: Co-

teachingplus

Coaching

Model 2: Instruction

al Coaching

Model 1: Co-

teaching

Picture credits: nea.org; college311.org; journal-news.com

::2:1 Model

2 Interns to 1 Clinical Teacher

1:1 Model

1 Intern to

1 Clinical Teacher

Model 1: Co-teaching

1:1 Co-Teaching Model

2:1 Co-Teaching Model

Mentoring In-class Observatio

ns

Targeted Professiona

l Developme

nt

Model 2: Instructional Coaching

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

Instructional Coaching Co-Teaching

Instructional Coaching & Co-Teaching

Control

Treatment

Conditions

Teacher candidates were randomly assigned to oneof 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.

Coached

Onlyn=42

Coached & Co-Taught

n=49

Co-Teach Onlyn=39

Controln=114

Totalsn=244

Spring 2014 42 49 - 22 113

Fall 2014 - - - 49 49

Spring

2015- - 39 43 82

Table 1. Participants by Treatment Condition and Semester

Coached Only Coached & Cotaught

Cotaught Only

Control0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4249

39

114

Number of Students Per Condition

Figure 1. Total number of students per treatment condition across 3 semesters

CoachedOnlyn=42

Coached & Co-Taught

n=49

Co-Teach Onlyn=39

Controln=114

% of Totaln=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

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?

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.

n Mean SD

Coached 42 47.10 6.71

Co-Teach plus Coached 49 46.59 4.65

Co-Teaching 39 45.08 5.29Control 114 45.37 6.71

Table 3. Total Scores on edTPA by Treatment Condition

t Sig.B Std. Error

(Constant) 31.064 4.335 7.166 .000SAT Score .009 .004 2.237 .026Female 5.051 1.817 2.780 .006White .577 1.276 .452 .652Coached 2.190 1.090 2.008 .046Co-Teach plus Coached

1.217 1.024 1.188 .236

Co-teaching -.713 1.118 -.638 .524F-ratio (p value) 3.111 (p<.01)

Table 4. Results of Standard Multiple Regression using Three Control Variables

Reference Group = Traditional

Research Question #1Do 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 .000SAT Scores .009 .004 2.237 .026Female 5.051 1.817 2.780 .006White .577 1.276 .452 .652Coached 2.190 1.090 2.008 .046Co-Teach + Coached

1.217 1.024 1.188 .236


Research Question #2Do 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


1.217 1.024 1.188 .236


Research Question #3Do 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


1.217 1.024 1.188 .236


• 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

• 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

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).

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.

Think Tank Discussions

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?

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?

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 observationsVAM data edTPA

What do you consider when deciding on this?

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?

CONTACT US WITH QUESTIONS

DR. ELIZABETH FOGARTY [email protected]. CHRISTINA TSCHIDA [email protected]. KRISTEN CUTHRELL [email protected]. JOY STAPLETON [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




coteaching & coaching 2016 mn presentation

Education