1 / 21

How Does a Research-Based Co-Teaching Model Affect Teacher’s Beliefs and Practices?

How Does a Research-Based Co-Teaching Model Affect Teacher’s Beliefs and Practices?. Teacher SUSTAINED Change. “The brain can and will change.” (Jensen, p. 83)

brinley
Download Presentation

How Does a Research-Based Co-Teaching Model Affect Teacher’s Beliefs and Practices?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How Does a Research-Based Co-Teaching Model Affect Teacher’s Beliefs and Practices?

  2. Teacher SUSTAINED Change • “The brain can and will change.” (Jensen, p. 83) • Researchers now know that adult brains generate new neurons in at least one site, the hippocampus (Sousa, 2006) and that this part of the brain is responsible for the creation of memory. We must connect new information to old information in order to retain information. • Zull(2002) gives a beautiful illustration

  3. Sustained Teacher Change • Professional development is a serious unsolved problem (Borko, 2004) because we neglect to tie research to practice (Guskey, 2003). One problem associated with teacher learning is that we try to link the outcome of professional development to student outcomes instead of teacher learning (Cochran-Smith, 2005), thusoverlooking the importance of the effectiveness of professional development.

  4. Why Care About Beliefs? If participant’s thoughts and actions in explaining change or causal explanation are not explored, the effectiveness of the professional development may lead the provider to assume that teacher’s beliefs and practices have changed and “can lead to serious distortions of causal conclusions” (Maxwell, 2004, p. 7). In other words, change in beliefs may be perceived but in actuality, only short-term practices have been implemented, but not sustained. Therefore, the effectiveness of the professional development is a false positive.

  5. Quick Talk What example do you have of perceived professional development “success”? Do beliefs effect practices?

  6. Co-teaching Definition • Definition of co-teaching: • The collaboration between the general education and special education teachers for all of the teaching responsibilities, as well as, of all students in any one classroom Gately& Gately (2001)

  7. District Demographics • 4 elementary buildings enrollment – 1,616 • 2 middle school buildings enrollment – 1,390 • 1 high school enrollment – 1,548 • Special education population – 720 • Title I population – 2 schoolwidebuidings, 2 targeted assistance buildings – over 700 students

  8. Special Education Population • 27 multiple disability, 5 hearing impaired, 2 visually impaired, 145 speech & language, 7 orthopedically handicapped, 78 other hearing impaired, 51 emotionally disturbed, 93 cognitive disability, 281 specific learning disability, 44 preschool, 51 autism • Total special education population 720

  9. Free and Reduced Lunch High School25% Center Middle27% Glenwood Middle42% Market Elementary 52% Robinwood Elementary 45% Stadium Elementary 25% West Elementary 34% District Totals32%

  10. 2005-06 – Year 1 • Form teams to visit “like schools” that have a co-teaching model • ½ day visits, ½ day “heated” conversation CONCLUSION: Saying you are doing something and actually doing something are two different things!

  11. Quick Talk Heated Discussion All the good-to-great companies had a penchant for intense dialogue. Phrases like “loud debate,” “heated discussions,” and “healthy conflict” peppered the articles and interview transcripts from all the companies. They didn’t use discussion as a sham process to let people “have their say” so that they could “buy in” to a predetermined decision. The process was more like a heated scientific debate, with people engaged in a search for the best answers (Collins, 2001, p. 77). Does your district take the time to have “heated discussion”? Is it worth the time?

  12. Our Research-Based Model • Administrative support • Using teacher volunteers • Time to building collegiality • Quality professional development

  13. Administrative Support • For professional development to be successful, there must be administrative support to enable teachers to feel free to create an atmosphere of learning. (Perrone, 1997) • “Leadership not only matters, it is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its impact on student learning” (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 3)

  14. Teacher Volunteers • Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi and McDufffie (2005) agree and conclude “voluntary participants tended to report more positive perceptions than did teachers who were assigned to co-teaching”. (p. 261) • Buckingham and Coffman (1999) insist that the best managers do not waste time trying to change people, trying to put in what does not exist in a person’s talent pool, but instead they draw on the talent that each person already possesses.

  15. Collegiality • Setting the stage for a climate of trust (King & Newmann, 2001) and the importance of collegiality (Springer, 2007; Engstrom & Danielson, 2006; Darling- Feiman-Nemser, 2001; DuFour, 2001; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000; Clement & Vandeberghe, 1999; Hammond, 1996;) is repeatedly stressed in research. • It is imperative that conditions are created so that teachers can find their voice and be empowered to move society forward (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1998; Greene, 1988).

  16. Quality Professional Development • “Teachers expressed a need for training to promote learning of more flexible thinking (Buckley, 2005); strategies, and practical skill development (Curtin, 1998); different co-teaching models (Feldman, 1998); use of technology (Luckner, 1999) ; characteristics of disabilities (Norris, 1997); collaborative consultation skills (Rick and Zigmond, 2000); group interpersonal skills (Rosa, 1996); and communicating more effectively (Walter-Thomas, 1997). Most of these investigations provided several examples of training needs” (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007, p. 404)

  17. 2006-07 – Year 2 Implementation • Two elementary buildings are targeted • Met with principals several times over the year • Asked for volunteers or hired special education teacher with the intent to co-teach • Schedule co-planning time for teachers • Rick Welsh training • 1 day introduction, 3 day intensive training, 1 day following year follow-up

  18. 2007-2009 - Years 3 and 4 • 2007-08 Two remaining elementary buildings and two middle schools • 2008-09 High School • 2009-11 – Observe, interview and survey teachers to see if teachers beliefs AND practices have changed.

  19. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly • Good • Working in elementary and middle schools • Very positive feedback for special education children and general education children • Bad and ugly • High school is participating but have had 2 teachers turn over • Money and large numbers of children are a deterrent to co-teaching

  20. Questions?

  21. Co-teaching Presenter Rick Welsh, VP NOBOX Inc.Educational Consulting Corporation919-499-6695 (phone)708-570-1326 (fax)392 Bullard RoadSanford, NC 27332noboxinc.come-mail rickwelsh@aol.com

More Related