1 / 61

Different Perspectives of Co-teaching Research

Different Perspectives of Co-teaching Research. Overview of Co-teaching Case Studies:

herne
Download Presentation

Different Perspectives of Co-teaching Research

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. Different Perspectives of Co-teaching Research Overview of Co-teaching Case Studies: Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260-270. Meta-synthesis of Qualitative Co-teaching Research Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffie, K.A. (In Press). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children. To be presented at CEC 2007 in Louisville, KY Quantitative Study examining Co-teaching and Academic Achievement McDuffie, K. (2006). Promoting success in content area classes: Is value added through co-teaching?Dissertation Abstracts International, 67 (03), (AAT No. 3208959) To be presented at AERA 2007 in Chicago, IL

  2. Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures and challenges • Investigated experiences of several co-teachers in content area classes • A total of four case studies • upper elementary and middle school earth science, • middle school social studies, • high school world history • high school chemistry

  3. Data • Observations • ranging from one semester to two years • Interviews • Field notes • Videotapes of classes • Artifacts

  4. Overall Findings • Level of the special education teacher’s content knowledge. • Due to this imbalance, which occurred more frequently in the upper grade levels, the general education teacher would quickly become the lead teacher and the special education teacher would assume the role of an instructional assistant. • High-stakes testing created an environment where teachers believed covering all of the content was more important than pedagogical features, • which were commonly implemented by the special education teacher, and ultimately diminished the role of the special education teacher. • Compatibility between the co-teachers was a vital component to the success or failure of co-teaching. • When co-teachers were able to get along and work well together, students with disabilities were more likely to be successful in inclusive settings. • When co-teachers were unable to work together and conflicts arose, it is much more challenging for students with disabilities to succeed in inclusive settings.

  5. Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A “Meta-Synthesis” of Qualitative Research Tom Scruggs Margo Mastropieri Kimberley McDuffie

  6. Co-teaching • Implemented to provide support for increasing inclusion of students with disabilities • Usually consists of one general education teacher paired with one special education teacher

  7. Models of Co-teaching • According to Cook and Friend (1996): • One teach, one assist • Station teaching • Parallel teaching • Team teaching • Alternate teaching

  8. Questions • How is co-teaching being implemented? • What are perceptions of teachers? • What problems are encountered? • What are benefits perceived to be? • What factors are needed to ensure success of co-teaching?

  9. Qualitative Research Synthesis • In this investigation, we systematically integrated and synthesized qualitative research using original data from all available research reports, using NVivo software.

  10. Method: Search Procedures • Search of electronic data bases, (PsychINFO, ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts) • Descriptors: co-teaching, inclusion, mainstreaming, cooperative teaching • Ancestry search (references) • Descendant search (SSCI) • Hand search of relevant journals

  11. Qualitative research primary methodology (could include supplementary quantitative data) Primary focus on co-teaching (rather than, e.g., inclusion) Published in available journal, ERIC document, dissertation or thesis Described one or more aspects of the process of co-teaching Search of electronic data bases, (PsychINFO, ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts) Descriptors: co-teaching, inclusion, mainstreaming, cooperative teaching Ancestry search (references) Descendant search (SSCI) Hand search of relevant journals Method: Selection Criteria

  12. Studies identified • 32 original qualitative investigations • Journal articles, dissertations, ERIC documents • Described 323 teachers, including at least 138 special education teachers • Schools in states in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, southeast, midwest, and west coast of the U.S.; and Australia • 13 primary, preschool or elementary school • 13 junior high, middle school, or high school • 6 elementary and secondary combined

  13. What do studies represent? • Co-teachers represented a wide variety of geographical areas, locations (urban, rural, suburban), and grade levels • Schools were chosen as “typical,” “representative,” or “outstanding” (10) in implementing co-teaching • Therefore, the present sample may be somewhat more successful than the overall co-teaching population.

  14. Method: Procedures • Once obtained, relevant data from the original investigations were entered directly into NVivo from text. • Study characteristics were entered into attributes page.

  15. Data Analysis • We employed procedures common to qualitative analysis of original data: • Analytic induction: "involves scanning the data for categories of phenomena and for relationships among such categories, developing working typologies and hypotheses upon an examination of initial cases, then modifying and refining them on the basis of subsequent cases" (Goetze & LeCompte, 1984, p. 179-180). • Data were assimilated and evaluated to develop hypotheses about the processes of co-teaching. Discrepant-cases and negative-cases were used to further understanding and refine hypothetical constructs.   

  16. Data Analysis • Data from a variety of sources were subjected to the constant comparative method, in which incidents, categories, and constructs are subjected to overlapping comparisons (Goetze & LeCompte, 1984). • Finally, obtained and internally validated results were compared with qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the co-teaching experience.

  17. Summary • Benefits • Teachers and students reported: • Social and academic benefits to students with disabilities • Social benefits to students without disabilities • Professional benefits to teachers • Needs • Administrative support • Planning time • Compatibility of teachers • Student skill level

  18. Summary • Roles • Often compared with marriage • Varied roles rarely observed • Overwhelmingly, one teach, one support • Content knowledge determines classroom leadership • Instruction • General education teachers teach to whole class, special education teacher supports • General education teachers do not wish to individualize for special needs • Special education teachers do not teach specific strategies to promote learning or memory

  19. Conclusions • Co-teaching has great potential for promoting the effective inclusion of students with disabilities • Many teachers, students, and administrators report satisfaction with the efficacy of co-teaching • In many or most cases, special education teachers do not participate as full partners in the co-teaching enterprise, but function more as “support” personnel. This difference is increased when there is a difference in content knowledge • In many or most cases, inclusive co-taught classes operate similarly to typical general education classes • Students with disabilities receive additional attention, but do not receive instruction in specific academic and behavioral strategies more typical of special education classes. • If present data are representative of co-taught classrooms, co-teaching is not generally being implemented as originally envisioned. • Schools should re-double efforts to engage participation of both teachers as full partners in the co-teaching process • Administrative support, time for planning, and screening for co-teacher compatibility are important issues that should be carefully considered

  20. Promoting Success in Content Area Classes: Is Value Added Through Co-teaching?This research was supported in part by a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs, US Department of Education Grant Numbers H234C020085, H325D020020, and a fellowship for The Kellar Institute for Human Disabilities. This paper does not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the funding agencies and no official endorsements should thereby be inferred.

  21. Statement of the Problem • IDEA and NCLB • Lower standardized test scores and grades (Anderman, 1998) • Co-teaching (Weichel, 2001) • However, limited empirical research exist on the effectiveness of co-teaching and academic achievement (Murawski & Swanson, 2001)

  22. Purpose • Examine the effectiveness co-teaching on achievement of inclusive middle school science students • In co-taught versus non co-taught classes • With and without classwide peer tutoring on science concepts and facts

  23. Components that Enhance Science Instruction for Students with Disabilities • Use of Activity-Based Science Instruction (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1992) • Use of Interventions: • Reading comprehension strategies (e.g., Bakken et al., 1997) • Textbook adaptations and study guides (e.g., Horton et al., 1990) • Mnemonics strategies (e.g., Mastropieri et al.,1985) • Review activities (Maheady at al., 2002) • Classwide peer tutoring (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001) • Collaboration/co-teaching (Cawley et al., 2002; Weichel, 2001)

  24. Classwide Peer Tutoring • Many studies have examined peer tutoring and its positive effects on academic achievement: • Reading (Mathes et al.,1994) • Spelling (Maheady et al., 1991) • Math (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001) • Social Studies (Maheady et al., 1988; Mastropieri et al., 2003) • Science (Mastropieri et al., 2005; Nobel, 2005) • Health and safety (Utley et al., 2001). • Overall, these studies report that classwide peer tutoring is an effective intervention for teaching students, with and without disabilities, a variety of academic content.

  25. Background Literature for Co-teaching • Components for successful co-teaching • (e.g., Dieker, 2001;Vaughn et al., 1997) • Perceptions of key players • (e.g., Pugach & Wesson , 1995; Walther-Thomas, 1997) • Description of co-teaching • (e.g. Buckley, 2005; Mastropieri et al., 2005) • Teacher roles and use of their time • (e.g., Weiss & Lloyd, 2002; Zigmond & Matta, 2004) • Academic achievement and co-teaching • (e.g., Boudah et al., 1997; Weichel, 2001).

  26. Several studies suggested essential components of co-teaching were: • Joint planning • Open and effective communication • Similar philosophical beliefs about teaching • Classroom management • Establishing roles and avoiding the special education teacher from becoming an instructional assistant • Resolving conflicts immediately • Flexibility • Compatibility • Shared responsibility • On-going training • Administrative support (e.g., Bixler, 1998; Carlson, 1996; Dieker, 2001; Vaughn et al., 1997).

  27. Benefits: Increased professional development Improved social skills Enhanced academic achievement Additional help in the classroom Barriers: Inadequate training Lack of joint planning time Differences in philosophies Differences in personalities Lack of administrative support Perceived Benefits & Barriers of Co-teaching (e.g., Austin, 2001; Pugach & Wesson , 1995; Walther-Thomas; 1997).

  28. Studies that provided the foundation for my dissertation: Boudah, Schumaker, and Deshler (1997) • Examined the effects of a collaborative instructional model in secondary classes Weiss and Lloyd (2002) • Compared the roles of secondary special education teachers in co-taught and self-contained settings Zigmond and Matta (2004) • Examined the role of special education teachers in co-taught high school classes Magiera and Zigmond (2005) • Observed how students with disabilities spent their time in a co-taught classroom

  29. Research Questions • Do students using classwide peer tutoring perform better on academic achievement tests? • Do students who attend co-taught science classes perform better on academic achievement tests? • Do students using classwide peer tutoring in co-taught classes perform better on academic achievement tests? • How do teacher/student interactions differ in co-taught classes? • How do the instructional methods differ in co-taught classes? • What are teachers’ and students’ perceptions of co-teaching and classwide peer tutoring?

  30. Method: Design2 Conditions by 2 Settings by 2 Groups Repeated Measures Stratified by co-teaching vs. non-co-teaching, then randomly assigned to condition

  31. Method: Participants • Teachers • 4 general education teachers • 2 special education teachers • 1 instructional assistant • Students • 203 students • 141 general education students • 62 special education students • Mean Age: 152.84 months • Mean GPA: 2.61

  32. Materials: Classwide Peer Tutoring • Materials were based on Virginia’s Standards of Learning (SOLs) and classwide peer tutoring. • In classwide peer tutoring, all students are paired with another student, who then alternate roles of tutor and tutee to master the provided content. • Rules & procedures • (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000). • Key concepts and vocabulary were identified for five units of science instruction • These concepts and vocabulary were used to create supplementary science activities. • These materials were implemented as a warm-up activity and used for the first 10-15 minutes of class. • Students and teachers completed tracking sheets.

  33. Procedures • HSRB approval and district approval. • Obtained informed consent from participants. • Pre-test was given. • Teacher and Student Training • CWPT was implemented as a warm-up for the first 10-15 minutes in exp. classes for 6-8 weeks. • After each unit, a posttest was given. • Traditional science curriculum continued throughout data collection. • During the eight weeks of data collection, classroom observations were conducted. • Total of 64 Observations • Posttest and Surveys were given after all 5 units. .

  34. Data Sources for Students • Pretest- 25 identification multiple choice items and 10 production open ended questions • Unit posttests- Each unit of instruction (5 units total)consisting of identification multiple choice items • Posttest- 42 identification multiple choice items and 12 production open ended questions • Survey- 40 question survey focusing on co-teaching, science, and classwide peer tutoring

  35. Data Sources for Teachers • Observational system • Based on previous observational research • Flanders, 1970 • Adapted to examine co-teaching • Boudah et al., 1997; Mageria & Zigmond, 2005; Zigmond & Matta, 2004 • Examining: • interactions between teachers and students • To examine if more interactions occur in co-taught settings • Instructional Strategies • To examine the differences in instructional strategies in co-taught classes • Survey • 25 question survey about co-teaching and CWPT

  36. Interactions were Coded for: • Setting (code for each class) • Individual student • Teacher the interaction occurred with • general or special education teacher • Initiator of the interaction • general education teacher, special education teacher, or student • Instructional setting • whole class, small group, or one-on-one • Focus of interaction • Academic, behavior, or other • Length of interaction • Short (less than a minute) • Medium (one minute to five minutes) • Long (more than five minutes)

  37. Instructional Methods included:(It was coded each time it changed) • Directions • Lecture with no discussion • Lecture with minimal discussion • Lecture with maximum discussion • Group work- lab activity • Group work- Classwide Peer Tutoring • Group work- other • Individual work • Reviewing assignments • Multi-media • Free time/transitional time • Other (i.e. fire drill)

  38. Reliability • Reliability checks were conducted by a second observer during 18% of total observation sessions • 75% of the observations were videotaped • 98 to 100% reliability was established between the two observers • 99.95% for interactions • 100% for instructional methods

  39. Academic Achievement Results • Two separate 2 X 2 X 2 Repeated Measures ANCOVA with repeated measures on test factor and pre tests as covariates were conducted. • Unit tests • 5 Science Units • Identification Items • Cumulative Test • Production Items • Identification Items

  40. Results for Unit Tests

  41. ANCOVA for Unit Tests

  42. Results for Cumulative Tests

  43. ANCOVA for Cumulative Tests

  44. Effect Size Adjusted Mean for Sample 1- Adjusted Mean for Sample 2 √ Mean Square Error

  45. Observational Results • 48 observations • 6 per class • Classes varied on length (48-58 minutes) • Data converted into per hour increments. • Teacher/Student Interactions • Analyzed using a 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA • Instructional Methods • Analyzed using a Mann Whitney U Test • Results indicated no statistical differences

  46. Results for Teacher/Student Interactions for co-taught vs. Non co-taught • Total Interactions • Non co-taught classes (M = 4.61, SD = 3.95) > co-taught classes (M = 3.04, SD = 1.93) • Student Initiated Interactions • Non co-taught classes (M = 2.21, SD = 2.18) > co-taught classes (M = 1.32, SD = 1.12) • Teacher Initiated Interactions • Non co-taught classes (M = 2.39, SD = 2.34) > co-taught classes (M = 1.69, SD = 1.24). • Whole Class Interactions • Non co-taught classes (M = 2.82, SD = 3.15) > co-taught classes (M = 1.00, SD = 0.80) • Short Interactions • Non co-taught classes (M = 4.37, SD = 3.77) > co-taught classes (M = 2.83, SD = 1.76). • Behavior Interactions • Non co-taught classes (M = 1.06, SD = 1.64) > co-taught classes (M = 0.31, SD = 0.55).

  47. Results for Teacher/Student Interaction for Students w/ and w/o Disabilities • Teacher Initiated Interactions • Students w/ disabilities (M = 2.46, SD = 2.12) > Students w/o disabilities (M = 1.79, SD = 1.67) • Individual Interactions • Students w/ disabilities (M = 2.46, SD = 2.12) > Students w/o disabilities (M = 1.79, SD = 1.67) • Medium Interactions • Students w/ disabilities (M = 2.13, SD = 1.47) > Students w/o disabilities (M = 0.29, SD = 0.44). • Behavior Interactions • Students w/ disabilities (M = 0.70, SD = 1.44) > Students w/o disabilities (M = 0.62, SD = 1.12).

  48. Survey Results • Teachers • Descriptively Analyzed • Reliability of the survey was 0.74, according to Cronbach's alpha. • Overall teachers had positive perceptions • Co-teaching (M= 4.55, SD= 0.31) • CWPT (M= 4.10, SD= 0.60)

  49. Teachers’ Perceptions About Co-teaching • Overall Findings • Enjoyed co-teaching • Beneficial to students with and without disabilities • Improved academic achievement • Strongly agreed that students with disabilities receive more help in a co-taught class. • Benefits of co-teaching • professional development (learning from one another, sharing ideas) • providing additional help to all students. • Barriers • Finding the time to plan, • conflict of personalities. • Ways to overcome barriers • Communicating through e-mail • Sharing files • Keeping it professional can help overcome these barriers.

  50. Teachers’ Perceptions About CWPT • Teachers reported that they • Enjoyed CWPT • Beneficial • Easy to implement • Promoted learning through drill and practice • Improved memorization skills • Increased student engagement • However, they were neutral on whether they preferred CWPT to traditional instruction. • Little noisy and unstructured

More Related