1 / 29

Assessing the Outcomes of Implementing the Co-Teaching Clinical Practice Model

Assessing the Outcomes of Implementing the Co-Teaching Clinical Practice Model. Hillary Merk (merk@up.edu) Jacqueline Waggoner (waggoner@up.edu) James B. Carroll (carroll@up.edu) Bruce Weitzel (weitzel@up.edu). About the University. Private Catholic University 3900 students

foster
Download Presentation

Assessing the Outcomes of Implementing the Co-Teaching Clinical Practice Model

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. Assessing the Outcomes of Implementing the Co-Teaching Clinical Practice Model Hillary Merk (merk@up.edu) Jacqueline Waggoner (waggoner@up.edu) James B. Carroll (carroll@up.edu) Bruce Weitzel (weitzel@up.edu)

  2. About the University • Private Catholic University • 3900 students • NCATE accredited School of Education • 4-year undergraduate teacher education • 5th Year/MAT graduate teacher education • M.Ed. and post-masters • Ed.D.

  3. Objectives • Gain an understanding of: • How a co-teaching clinical practice model was established. • How the model has progressively improved over the last three years. • Benefits of the model for: • Cooperating teacher • Teacher candidate • P-12 students • Challenges and limitations of model.

  4. What is Co-Teaching? • A cooperating teacher and teacher candidate simultaneously have responsibility for a common group of learners. • Two adults collaborate in: • Lesson planning • Instruction • Development of assessments • Behavior management • Similar to an apprentice model.

  5. Why the Co-Teaching Model? • P-12 learners do as well and often better when being taught in a two-teacher environment. • Candidates learn to be teachers authentically in “real time,” observing, practicing, and acquiring higher-order questioning strategies. • Cooperating teachers receive “free” professional development.

  6. Why the Co-Teaching Model? • Placements are becoming difficult to secure for teacher candidates. • Teachers and administrators are worried about “handing over” their classrooms to a teacher candidate due to issues of: • Standardized testing (school ranking; teacher evaluation based on test scores) • Transition between “lead” teacher & candidate • Parent concerns

  7. Data-Based Changes Changes were implemented in the following areas: • Selection of participants • Trainings • Course offered– initially, 4 CEUs for CT • Changed to three semester hours for CT • Evaluations of effectiveness

  8. Changes in Selection of Co-Teaching Participants • Year 1 (2011-2012): • Purposeful selection of 14 teacher candidates • Field experience evaluations (UG) • Professional Disposition forms (UG and MAT) • Content match for high school/middle school teacher candidates

  9. Changes in Selection of Co-Teaching Participants • Year 2 (2012-2013) and Year 3 (2013-2014): • Cooperating teacher enrolled in co-teaching course • Candidates placed in those classrooms were selected to participate • Content match for high school/middle school teacher candidates • Number of co-teachers expanded by 10 co-teachers in Year 3

  10. Co-Teaching Training • Year 1 (2011-2012) • Candidate informational (September) • CT and US overview and expectations (October) • CT, Candidate, US training on strategies and planning (November) • Check-in (February) • Final meeting (May)

  11. Co-Teaching Training • Year 2 (2012-2013) • Added a US training (August) • CT overview and expectations (October) • Student teaching requirements • CT training on strategies and planning (Nov.) • No candidates were able to attend due to course conflict • Check-in (February) • Final meeting (May)

  12. Co-Teaching Training • Year 3 (2013-2014) • US training (August) • CT overview and expectations (November) • Added summary of year 1 and 2 results • Check-in (February)

  13. Co-Teaching Training • Year 3 (2013-2014) • CT and Candidate training on strategies and planning (January) • All Candidates attended training • Strategies altered based on year 1 and 2 • Final Meeting (May) • Final project presentation with Candidates

  14. Co-Teaching Course • Year One (2011-2012) • 4 CEU’s • Assessment • Attendance at trainings

  15. Co-Teaching Course • Year 2 (2012-2013) • Course of 3 graduate credits • Assessment • Participation at trainings • Online discussions based on selected readings • Mentorship strategiessuch as questioning skills and providing effective feedback

  16. Co-Teaching Course • Year 3 (2013-2014) • Course of 3 graduate credits • Assessment • Participation at trainings • Online discussions based on selected readings • Final project

  17. Evaluation of Effectiveness • Year 1 (2011-2012) • Faculty member was lead evaluator • Initial conference meeting and mid-term check-in with all co-teaching partners • Observations of co-taught lessons (3x/classroom) • End of experience survey (CT) • Focus interviews with Candidates

  18. Evaluation of Effectiveness • Year 2 (2012-2013) • US leads • Observation of at least one co-taught lesson • Participation in online discussions • End of experience survey (CT) • Check-ins with faculty member lead evaluator • Focus interviews with Candidates • Analysis of quantitative data

  19. Evaluation of Effectiveness • Year 3 (2013-2014) • US checks in with co-teachers • Participation in online discussions • Trainer video records co-taught lessons • End of experience survey (CT) • Check-ins with faculty member and lead evaluator • Focus interviews with Candidates • Analysis of quantitative data

  20. Comparison of Co-Teachers and Matched Student Teachers • No statistically significant differences between work sample ratings of assessment practices. • No statistically significant differences between gain scores of P-12 students. • No statistically significant differences between posttestscores of P-12 students.

  21. Comparison of Co-Teachers and Matched Student Teachers • Statistically significant differences (p < .05) on work sample evaluations in the areas of: • Goals for Concept Attainment • Summary Analysis and Reflection • Statistically significant differences (p < .05) between summary student teaching evaluationscores in the areas of: • Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Planning) • Content Knowledge Application

  22. Qualitative Outcomes of the Co-Teaching Model: Cooperating Teacher • CT felt professionally challenged and enriched by the experience. • Improved mentoring skills especially in areas of giving feedback and teaching questioning strategies • Reflective conversations led them to be better teachers

  23. Outcomes of the Co-Teaching Model: Teacher Candidate • Teacher candidates valued the co-planning time and collaborative discussions that focused on student learning. • Intentional conversations about curriculum, instruction, and assessment provided increased knowledge and skills in these areas. • Increased understanding of and strategies for differentiation. • Candidates observed the co-teachers’ questioning, instructional, and management skills and how they met various learning needs.

  24. Outcomes of the Co-Teaching Model: P-12 Students • P-12 students’ needs were better met • Improvement in student behaviors were realized. • Students felt supported in the classroom • P-12 students “coach” the CT and Candidates about their learning and behavior needs

  25. Challenges to Implementing the Co-Teaching Model • Mismatch between cooperating teacher and teacher candidate. • Co-teaching as an apprenticeship model, yet with a seasoned and novice teacher. • Does the cooperating teacher truly embrace the idea of collaboration?

  26. Challenges to Implementing the Co-Teaching Model • Determining the semester to implement the co-teach model. • Resources: • Staff/faculty to train US, CT, Candidate • Faculty to monitor fidelity to model • Evaluation of the program • Accountability

  27. Discussion • Ensure the co-teaching model is legal in your state. • Provide clear guidelines that identify the specific expectations during each of the stages when using the co-teaching model. • Provide training with candidates to assist with transitioning into lead co-teacher role (rather than remaining a “guest” partner) in the classroom.

  28. Discussion • Provide graduate credits (or CEUs) to CTs who choose to participate in the training. • consider calling the training “Co-Teach Academy” • Maintain a co-teaching training website as a resource and support to the current participants and to all supervisors and former training participants. • Offer certificates to all candidates who participate in the training with their CTs.

  29. Thank You Hillary Merk (merk@up.edu) Jacqueline Waggoner (waggoner@up.edu) James B. Carroll (carroll@up.edu) Bruce Weitzel (weitzel@up.edu) Questions?

More Related