1 / 34

The Effectiveness of the Co-Teaching Model for First Grade English Language Learners

The Effectiveness of the Co-Teaching Model for First Grade English Language Learners. Lillian Crespo Brooklyn College Course # 7201T Fall Semester, 2012. Table of Contents . 1. Introduction .......................................... 3,4 a. Statement of the problem.................. 5,6

holland
Download Presentation

The Effectiveness of the Co-Teaching Model for First Grade English Language Learners

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. The Effectiveness of the Co-Teaching Model for First Grade English Language Learners Lillian Crespo Brooklyn College Course # 7201T Fall Semester, 2012

  2. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................... 3,4 a. Statement of the problem.................. 5,6 b. Literature Review, leading research.. 7 c. Statement of the hypothesis............... 8,9 2. Resources ............................................ 10 3. Video clip .............................................. 11

  3. Introduction The growing number of students enrolled in public school whose native language is not English has led to increasing attention of Bilingual Education. According to the U.S. Department of Education Web site Ed Data Express, English language learners (ELLs) comprised 8.7 percent of the nation’s K–12 students in 2009.

  4. Introduction continued... Leading theorists, specialists, as well as researchers, in the field of education debate over which method works best for ELL's. • Marilyn Friend PhD.- Professor of Specialized Education • Lynne Cook PhD. - Prof. from the college of Education; California State • Andrea Honigsfeld - associated Prof. Division of Education at Molly College

  5. What the research shows Schools have been searching for ways to provide ELLs with access to content, and thus have begun to use co-teaching between ESL teachers and general education teachers as a means for support. • curriculum needs to be established • data needs to be taken and used • individualized plans needs to be created based on the data.

  6. Relevance in the Field of Education The Con's: Pushing Back Against Push-In: ESOL Teacher Resistance and the Complexities of Co-teaching. (McClure, T. & Cahnman, M. 2010) The Pro's: Research-Based Methods of Reading Instruction for English Language Learners Grade K-4. (Hoffman, P. & Dahlman, A. 2007)

  7. Literature Review - Leading Researchers there are many models in the realm of co-teaching: • one student group one teacher (Dove) • one student group two teachers (Dove) • multiple student groups two teachers (Dove) • SIOP model (Vogt) • Multi-lingual approach (Short) • monolingual program (Honigsfeld) • combination practice (Goldberg)

  8. What is co-teaching?

  9. Research Hypothesis HR1: Implementation of a co-teaching strategy in ELA for an urban group of six English Language Learners four times a week for 37.5 minutes in the early morning hours of instruction (8:00 - 8: 37 a.m.) will impact early language acquisition skills and will increase learning of early literacy skills.

  10. Research Design My research is a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group design. My participants are two groups of 10 students who will be pretested, exposed to treatment (small group, implicit instruction) and post-tested.

  11. Threats to External Validity History Events outside of the study/experiment or between repeated measures of the dependent variable may affect participants' responses to experimental procedures. Maturation Overtime students may lose interest; their emotional state may be affected. Testing-pretest sensitization Testing will not be a problem for my research design because students are interested to see their growth this is essential to their progress.

  12. Threats to External Validity Instrumentation The instrument used during the testing process can change the experiment. Mortality This error occurs if inferences are made on the basis of only those participants that have participated from the start to the end. Statistical Regression This type of error occurs when subjects are selected on the basis of extreme scores (one far away from the mean) during a test.

  13. Threats to External Validity Differential Selection of subject This is a valid threat, as students will not be randomly assigned. They are assigned using participant’s previous tests scores as well as my pretesting data will determine student’s developmental and cognitive levels before treatment; therefore purposeful grouping will (independent variable) will be affected. Selection – Maturation Interaction This is a threat to my research design because students in these groups are affected in different ways by maturation; therefore it will affect my dependent variable.

  14. Threats to External Validity Ecological validity I’m not too sure about this one. On one hand this can cause a threat to my dependent variable because the results can be generalized because the same treatment is given to both groups, as well as the tests. Pre-test treatment This is a valid threat because some students may be nervous test takers, maybe the setting doesn’t make them feel comfortable, the teachers approach is too abrasive, or the teacher doesn’t have enough data (both personal and educational) about the student to determine the best pre=-test treatment for that student.

  15. Treats to External Validity Treats to External Validity Selection – treatment interaction This does not affect my research because two pre-selected groups will participate; I do not have any volunteerism. Specificity of Variables This will not be a threat to my research because all students will receive an individualized lesson plan that will be tailored to their needs but are still within the confines of the same reading program. Multiple Treatments I don’t feel this is a threat to my external validity...

  16. Threats to External Validity Treatment Diffusion This is not a threat to my external validity because both groups will receive the same treatment (co-teaching method). Experimenter Effects (Active Elements) This is not a threat to my research because some all students are of the same age. Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects I don’t believe reactive arrangements will affect my research because students will be aware their progress is being monitored.

  17. Threats to External Validity Compensatory Rivalry Effect This directly affects both independent and dependent variables in my case. Placebo Effect This does not affect my research because all students will be given treatment that will enable him/her to be a successful reader. Novelty Effect This will directly affect my research...

  18. Statistical Format

  19. What is DIBELS? Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills

  20. NWF Benchmark Goals nonsense word fluency is a brief, direct measure of the alphabet principals and basic phonics. Number of correct letter sounds Number of whole words read

  21. The Data Nonsense word fluency: Beginning of Year

  22. DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Gives students a passage to read and monitors their success rate of reading the passage with in a minute.

  23. NWF- Middle of Year

  24. Data Summary The Data shows that not every student benefits from co-teaching, maybe the student was receiving mixed messages from both teachers? My data shows me that some students progressed in nonsense word fluency but did not master reading fluency

  25. Next Step Based on the data the students will receive intensive support, change method, and modified instruction.

  26. Resources Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 245-255 Arkoudis, Sophie1 s.arkoudis@unimelb.edu.au International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism; 2006, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p415-433, 19p Arkoudis, S. (2006).Negotiating the Rough Ground between ESL and Mainstream Teachers. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol. 9, No. 4. Alexandria, VA, Haynes, J. Collaborative Teaching: Are Two Teachers Better Than One? Reprinted from Essential Teacher, Volume 4, Issue 3,September 2007,: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Bell, A.B., Baecher, L. (2012). Points on a Continuum. ESL Teachers Reporting 13 on Collaboration.

  27. Resources Creese, A. (2010). Content-Focused Classrooms and Learning English: How Teachers Collaborate. The college of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University. Cramer, E., Nevin, A., Thousand, J., & Liston, A. (2006, January). Co-teaching in urban school districts to meet the needs of all teachers and learners: Implications for teacher education reform. Paper presented at the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED491651) Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to develop teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 3-22. Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27. doi:10.1080/10474410903535380 Goldberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners What the Research Does – and Does Not –Say. American Education summer 2008.

  28. Resources Hoffman,P., Dahlman, A. (2007).MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT ESL CURRICULUM. [wed blog post] minnetesol.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/... /6_hoffman.pdf Honigsfeld, A. (2009). “Not One Size Fits All” ELL’s Program. Kappa Delta PI Records Summer, 166-171. Honigsfeld, A. & Dove, M. (2008). Co-teaching in the ESL classroom [Electronic version]. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(2), 8-14. Honigsfeld, A. & Dove, M. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

  29. Resources Hoffman,P., Dahlman, A. (2007).MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT ESL CURRICULUM. [wed blog post] minnetesol.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/.../6_hoffman.pdf Kohler-Evans, P. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids [Electronic version]. Education, 127(2), 260-264. Murawski, W. W. & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination for successful systematic change. PreventingSchool Failure, 53, 1-9. Murawski, W. W. & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258-267. Nelson, T. & Slavit, D Supported Teacher Collaborative Inquiry. Tamara Nelson & David Slavit Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 2008

  30. Real World Experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hadT55umZU0&feature=player_detailpage

More Related