improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction
DESCRIPTION
Summary of research project for EDUC 505 and EDUC 552 at university of FindlayTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
IMPROVING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH CO-TAUGHT INSTRUCTION:
THE EFFECT OF CO-TEACHING ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Derrick Purtee
The University of Findlay
EDUC 552
Dr. Natalie Abell
![Page 2: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
INTRODUCTION• Educators continue to search for
ways improve classroom instruction to• Improve student performance
on assessments• Reach all levels of students (low, middle, high, gifted)• Maximize classroom time
• Co-Teaching offers a solution.
![Page 3: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
PROBLEM STATEMENT ANDPROBLEM SIGNIFICANCE
• Problem Statement:• Teachers are challenged
with reaching all students AND having the demand for all students to be successful on mandated assessments.
• Problem Significance:• How to improve student
achievement without hiring more teachers?
![Page 4: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
HYPOTHESIS
•If co-teaching is implemented in inclusion classrooms, then student achievement in math will increase.
![Page 5: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES
• Independent Variable:• The Implementation of Co-Teaching:• 2 or more teachers in one
classroom• Both fully share all teaching
responsibilities• One general education teacher,
one intervention specialist
• Dependent Variable:• Student achievement • As measured by district-created
assessments and OGT results
![Page 6: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
REVIEW OF LITERATURECO-TEACHING:• Mixed Results (at best)• Limited Research• Current trend in education• Goal: enhance inclusion
classrooms• Success depends on quality of
teachers, instructional strategies
![Page 7: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DESIGN• Goal: Determine effectiveness of co-teaching• Rural, Ohio high school• Algebra I• Geometry• SLO Assessments• OGT Results• Find positive correlations• Is it worth the money?• Better than pullout classes?
![Page 8: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
SUBJECTS
• All Algebra I and Geometry students from a rural Ohio high school• 120 total students• 59 in Algebra I• 23 Co-taught (15 Boys, 8 Girls)• 36 Not Co-taught (23 boys, 13 girls)
• 53 in Geometry• 21 Co-taught (12 boys, 9 girls)• 31 Not co-taught (17 boys, 14 girls)
• 13 percent of all students identified with a disability
![Page 9: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
PROCEDURE• Data collected from 3 sources• OGT results• Algebra I Assessments (Identical pre and post
assessments)• Geometry Assessments (Identical pre and post
assessments)
• Baseline established after pre-assessment within first 2 weeks of 2013-2014 school year
• Post-assessment given in mid-April 2014
• Growth measure determined from test scores
• Growth measures and OGT results used to
determine effectiveness of co-teaching
![Page 10: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
INSTRUMENTS• Algebra I Assessment:• 75 multiple choice questions• Aligned with Common Core standards• Created by math teacher and intervention specialist• District approved for SLO
• Geometry Assessment:• 70 multiple choice questions• Aligned with Common Core standards• Created by math teacher and intervention specialist• District approved for SLO
![Page 11: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
DATA• Average Growth:• Non-Co-Taught Algebra I
• 41%
• Co-Taught Algebra I• 32%
• Every student showed at least 12 points of growth
![Page 12: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
DATA• Average Growth
• Non-Co-Taught Geometry:• 32%
• Co-Taught Geometry:• 34%
Every students displayed at least 12 points of growth
![Page 13: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
DATA
Alg. Non Co-Taught Alg. Co-Taught Geo. Non Co-Taught Geo. Co-Taught
41
33 3234
Figure 5Class Growth Averages
Most growth: Algebra I non-co-taught studentsLeast growth: Geometry non-co-taught students
![Page 14: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
OGT RESULTSCo-Taught Average:Non-Co-Taught Average:
414422
Students in Green = Students with IEP400 = Passing score
Co-Taught: 13 of 17 Passed • 2 of non-passing had score of
399!)Non-Co-Taught: 21 of 24 Passed
![Page 15: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
• Mixed Results• Effectiveness depends on numerous factors• Class size• Student population• Student effort• Quality of teacher(s) and instruction
![Page 16: Improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022052506/557db2acd8b42acb768b536f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
CONCLUSION• Limited research available• Further studies needed• Broader studies needed
Justifiable if…• Students with special needs show growth• Low achieving students show growth• Commitment to co-teaching is made from top down