Can Both Co-teaching and Coaching Improve Teacher Readiness? What the Data

Tell UsAERA 2016

KRISTEN CUTHRELL, CHRISTINA TSCHIDA, JOY STAPLETON, ELIZABETH

FOGARTYCOLLEGE OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND MIDDLE GRADES EDUCATION

① Discuss the innovations② Share study results③ Discuss conclusions

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: Coaching

plusCo-

teaching

Model 2: Co-

teaching

Model 1: Instructional Coaching

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

Mentoring In-class Observatio

ns

Targeted Professiona

l Developme

nt

Model 1: Instructional Coaching

::2:1 Model

2 Interns to 1 Clinical Teacher

1:1 Model

1 Intern to

1 Clinical Teacher

Model 2: Co-teaching

1:1 Co-Teaching Model

2:1 Co-Teaching Model

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 America

n2 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 5.29

Control 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

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

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

(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

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

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

(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

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

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.  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).

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.

NEXT STEPS: Determine how to sustain both the

coaching and co-teaching models with current level of resources.

Determine effectiveness of 2:1 vs 1:1 co-teaching models.

CONTACT US WITH QUESTIONS

DR. KRISTEN CUTHRELL CUTHRELLMA@ECU.EDUDR. CHRISTINA TSCHIDA TSCHIDAC@ECU.EDUDR. JOY STAPLETONSTAPLETONJ@ECU.EDUDR. ELIZABETH FOGARTY FOGARTYE@ECU.EDU

References

Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration. (2012). Mentoring teacher candidates through co-teaching [Train The Teacher Workshop]. St. Cloud

University, St. Cloud.

Bacharach, N., Washut Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher education. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 5(3), 9-16.

Bacharach, N., Washut Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education,

32(1), 3-14.

Bastian, K., Henry, G., Pan, Y., & Lys, D. (2015, January 1). Evaluating a pilot of the teacher performance assessment: The construct validity,

reliability, and predictive validity of local scores. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from publicpolicy.unc.edu

Charles, C. M. (1998). Introduction to educational research (2nd ed.).White Plains, NY: Longman.

Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J., Bullock, A., Lys, D., Smith, J., and Fogarty, E. (2014). Mapping the journey of reform and assessment for an elementary

education teacher preparation program. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1).

Darling-Hammond, L., Newton, S.P., & Wei, R.C. (2013). Developing and assessing beginning teacher effectiveness: The potential of performance

assessments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(3), 179-204. doi: 10.1007/s11092-013-9163-0

References

DeBoer, A. & Fister, S. (1995). Working together: Tools for collaborative teaching. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Fallon, D. (2006, February). Improving teacher education through a culture of evidence. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Teacher

Education Accreditation Council, Washington, DC.

Friend, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 6.

Friend, M. (2001, February). Co-teaching for general and special educators. Paper presented for Clark County School District, Las Vegas, NV.

Gately, S. E. & Gately Jr., F. J. (2001). Understanding Coteaching Components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40.

Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gliner , J.A. & Morgan, G.A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009). Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and

cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 285-296.

Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teacher: Re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice, 15(2), 273-290.

Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative experience for preservice

teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(3), 155-166.

References

Knight, J. & van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2012). Instructional coaching: A focus on practice. Coaching: International Journal of Theory, Research, and

Practice, 5(2), 100-112.

Martella, R.C., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N.E. (1999). Research methods: Learning to become a critical research consumer. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Murawski, W. W. (2010). Collaborative teaching in elementary schools: Making the co-teaching marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2012). Students as 'catalysts' in the classroom: The impact of co-teaching between science

student teachers and primary classroom teachers on children's enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal of Science

Education, 26(8), 1023-1035.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional

capacity, promises, and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute

Peck, C. & McDonald, M. (2013). Creating “Cultures of Evidence” in Teacher Education:

Context, Policy, and Practice in Three High-Data-Use Programs, The New Educator, 9(1), 12-28, DOI: 10.1080/1547688X.2013.751312.

Peck, C.A., Singer-Gabella, M., Sloan, T., & Lin, S. (2014). Driving blind: Why we need standardized performance assessment in teacher

education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 8-30. doi: 10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1-30

ReferencesPoglinco, S., Bach, A., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. (2003).

The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America's choice schools.

Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from

www.cpre.org/Publications?Publications_Research.html

Reeve, P. T., & Hallahan, D. P. (1994). Practical questions about collaboration between general and special educators. Focus on Exceptional

Children, 26(7), 1-10.

Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2010). Collaborative learning in pre-service teacher education: An exploratory study on related

conceptions, self-efficacy and implementation. Educational Studies, 36(5), 537-553.

SCALE  (2013). edTPA Field Test: Summary Report.  Retrieved July 16, 2015 from https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=827&ref=edtpa

Smith, J.J, Tschida, C.M., & Fogarty, E.M. (2015). A New Model for Student Teaching: Co-Teaching meets the needs of diverse learners.

Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

Smith, J., Stapleton, J., Cuthrell, K., Covington, V., Castro, K., Gaddis, A., Edmondson, G., & Greene, A. (2014). Positive gains: Instructional

coaches coaching interns. Paper paper presented at AACTE Annual Meeting and Exhibits, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Tschida, C. M., Smith, J. J., & Fogarty, E. A. (2015). The co-teaching model of student teaching: New directions in teacher preparation. Paper

presented at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU Generation 1

Fall 2011•ELEMENTARY

Generation 2

Fall 2012•ELEMENTARY•SPECIAL EDUCATION

Generation 3

Fall 2013•BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN•ELEMENTARY•ENGLISH EDUCATION•FOREIGN LANGUAGE•HISTORY EDUCATION•MATH EDUCATION•MIDDLE GRADES•SPECIAL EDUCATION

Generation 4Fall 2014•BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN •DANCE•ELEMENTARY •ENGLISH EDUCATION •FOREIGN LANGUAGE•HISTORY EDUCATION •MATH EDUCATION•MIDDLE GRADES •SPECIAL EDUCATION

Generation 5Fall 2015•BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN •DANCE•ELEMENTARY •ENGLISH EDUCATION •FOREIGN LANGUAGE•HISTORY EDUCATION •MATH EDUCATION•SCIENCE EDUCATION•SPECIAL EDUCATION