Understanding Co-teaching at the Secondary School Level
- 1. Understanding Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level Yishun Secondary School
- 2. Scope • Background • Problem Statement • Purpose, Rationale and Significance of the Study • Literature Review • Research Questions + Hypotheses • Methodology-Research Design, Instrumentation, Procedures, Data Analysis • Interim Findings • Discussion
- 3. Background Yishun Secondary School • Mixed ability (HA, MA, LA) of students within each class, despite streaming • Big class size of 30-40 • Greater challenges faced in NT classes (8 classes), in student management and student engagement in T&L • NT students academically challenged
- 4. Background • 4 AEDs (1 untrained) • More classes deploying 2 teachers (AED + EO or 2EOs), especially NT stream • For NT EL and Math classes, 6/16 classes (37.5%) have co-teachers.
- 5. Problem Statement • In NT classes, teachers face three main challenges in T&L: 1. Maintaining classroom discipline 2. Differentiated Abilities 3. Using engaging pedagogies to match kinesthetic/visual learning styles
- 6. Purpose of the Study The study aims to 1. understand and deploy the different models of co-teaching effectively so as to enhance the learning in classes. 2. make students more engaged in learning and attain greater academic achievements.
- 7. Rationale of the Study 1. To identify what co-teaching is and what it is not. 2. To provide greater support for co-teachers by understanding the various models of co- teaching and their key components. 3. To study the various strategies for co- teaching to succeed in the areas of content, structure, assessment and diversity.
- 8. Significance of the Study Findings of the study will: 1. support the school in terms of deployment of various co-teaching models effectively for greater engaged learning 2. benefit other schools in the cluster in structuring the co-teaching models
- 9. Literature Review • Definition of Co-Teaching • Models of Co-Teaching • Understanding Co-Teaching Components • Phases of Co-Teaching and the Co- Teaching Rating Scale • Past Studies on Co-Teaching
- 10. Literature Review Definition of Co-Teaching • “Co-teaching is defined as two professionals, typically a special education teacher and a general education teacher, delivering substantive instruction to a diverse group of students in a single physical space”. (Friend & Cook, 2003)
- 11. Literature Review Models of Co-Teaching 1. One Teach, One Assist 2. Station Teaching 3. Parallel Teaching 4. Alternative Teaching 5. Team Teaching (Friend & Cook, 1996)
- 12. Literature Review 1. One Teach, One Assist - one teacher takes an instructional lead while the other assists students when necessary. 2.Station Teaching - each teacher works on a specified part of the curriculum, so that students rotate from one station to the other. (Friend & Cook, 1996)
- 13. Literature Review 3. Parallel Teaching - the class is divided into two equal heterogeneous groups; each is taught the same content at the same time by one of the two co-teachers. 4. Alternative Teaching - classroom reorganised into one large group and one small group, where one teacher is able to provide main instruction, the other to review a smaller group of students. (Friend & Cook, 1996)
- 14. Literature Review 5. Team Teaching -both teachers are actively engaged in instruction for the whole class and feed off one another by finishing each other’s sentences, clarifying each other’s comments, or answering student questions. (Friend & Cook, 1996)
- 15. Literature Review Understanding Co-Teaching Components 1. Interpersonal Communication 2. Physical Arrangement 3. Familiarity with the Curriculum 4. Curriculum Goals and Modifications 5. Instructional Planning 6. Instructional Presentation 7. Classroom Management 8. Assessment (Gately & Gately, 2001)
- 16. Literature Review 3 Phases of Co-Teaching Beginning Stage Guarded, careful communication Compromising Stage Give and take communication, with a sense of having to “give up” to “get” Collaborating Stage Open communication and interaction, mutual admiration (Gately & Gately, 2001)
- 17. Literature Review The Co-Teaching Rating Scale (Gately & Gately, 2001)
- 18. Literature Review The Effects of Team Teaching in Mathematics Achievement on 8th Graders. (Chung-Yuan Christian University, Taiwan) 1. The average final exam scores of students receiving team teaching were higher than those receiving traditional teaching. 2. Co-generative dialogues resulted in greater teachers’ collaboration 3. Regrouping based on students’ ability. (Jang, 2006)
- 19. Literature Review Summary 1. Joint planning, instruction and evaluation essential for success of co-teaching. 2. Models to be adopted depends on: i. Student characteristics and needs ii.Teacher characteristics and needs iii. Curriculum iv. Practical considerations 3. Level of collaboration between co- teachers is key to success.
- 20. Research Question • To what extent would co-teaching enhance the academic achievement of Lower Secondary NT students in English and Mathematics? Hypothesis • Co-teaching enhances the English and Mathematics achievement of students.
- 21. Research Design • Mixed Research-Quantitative and Qualitative • Longitudinal Project (1-2 years) • 3 NT Classes-1T2 (Math), 2T2 (EL and Math) • Project started in Term 1 Week 4, to last till Term 4.
- 22. Instrumentation 1. Mathematics Achievement Tests (Common Tests, SA1) 2. Students’ Survey on Co-teaching 3. Students’ Interviews
- 23. Class Procedures (Sem 2) Period T/S Co-Teaching Model Intervention 1T2 123.6 One Teach One Assist Term 1 (Math) Parallel Teaching* Term 2, (heterogeneous groups) Parallel Teaching* Term 3, 4 (groups org based on ability) 2T2 128.2 Parallel Teaching* Term 1, 2, 3, 4 (Math) (groups org based on behaviour) Alternative Teaching Term 3 Station Teaching Term 3 2T2 128.2 Alternative Teaching Term 1, 3 (EL) (groups org based on ability) One Teach One Assist Term 2, 3, 4 Team-teaching Term 3
- 24. Academic Results 1T2 Math CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2 (39 students) No. of 5 20 13 26 failures Passing 87.2% 48.7% 38.5% 33.3% Rate Target 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 Actual 3.21 3.97 4.33 4.36 EPI 0.74 -0.20 -0.38 -0.41
- 25. Academic Results 2T2 Math CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2 (40 students) No. of 14 32 18 13 failures Passing 62.2% 20.0% 56.1% 64.9% Rate Target 3.73 3.77 3.77 3.77 Actual 3.32 4.67 3.54 3.92 EPI 0.41 -0.90 0.23 -0.16
- 26. Academic Results 2T2 EL CA 1 SA 1 CA2 SA2 (41 students) No. of 9 5 7 5 failures Passing 77.5% 87.5% 72.5% 87.5% Rate Target 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 Actual 3.88 4.02 4.0 3.85 EPI -0.02 -0.17 -0.15 0
- 27. Findings from Surveys Q. Do you think you learn better when there are two teachers teaching you? Why? • Yes, because one teacher can teach the class while the other teacher can maintain discipline in the class. (1T2) • Yes. It is because one could teach and the other could help those who do not understand. (2T2) • Yes. Because two teachers can control the class and the class is very quiet. (2T2) • Yes. Able to work in group discussions better. (2T2)
- 28. Findings from Surveys Q. Give some suggestions on how the two teachers can teach you better in class. • Separate 2 classes (2T2) • Take out the most noisy people in our class! If only it could be a separate class. (2T2) • One teaching the weaker ones, the other teaching the better ones. (1T2)
- 29. Conclusions • Academic results for 2T2 EL met target; 2T2 Math did not meet target, but showed improvement from SA1 to SA2 . Reasons: -2T2 EL co-teachers unchanged in SEM 1 & 2, co-teaching models used were effective -2T2 Math co-teachers were different in Sem 1 & 2, and it took a while for co- teaching models to be effective -2T2 EL co-teachers reached “collaborating stage” much earlier than 2T2 Math
- 30. Conclusions • 1T2 Math did not met target and no improvement shown from SA 1 and SA2 -1T2 Math teachers still experimenting with various co-teaching models in Semester 1 - Change of Math tcr in Sem 2
- 31. Recommendations • Which co-teaching model to adopt for your class? One-teach, one assist 1. When the lesson lends itself to delivery by one teacher/teaching a new topic. 2. When one teacher has particular expertise for the lesson. Parallel Teaching 1. When a lower adult-student ratio is needed to improve instructional efficiency. 2. To foster student participation in discussions.
- 32. Recommendations Alternative Teaching In situations where students’ mastery of concepts taught or about to be taught varies tremendously, due to great disparity in abilities. •How to group students? - Based on behaviour or learning abilities. •The Co-teaching Rating Scale will be used extensively to help co-teachers focus on areas that need improvement.
- 33. Recommendations Station Teaching •In class, not feasible, physical space constraint •EL (SIO the same, v hard to do it indoor, 2T2: 36) •Outdoor more successful (Math lesson on Geometry) •A lot of careful planning needed
- 34. Recommendations Hybrid Model 1 •1st period-1 teach 1 assist •2nd period-parallel teaching/alternative teaching Hybrid Model 2 •1st and 2nd period-Station Teaching •Last 10 min (consolidation)-1 teach 1 assist/parallel teaching/alternative teaching
- 35. Team-talking (3E8 EL) • It happens in 3E8 (Rachel and Muizz) • Chemistry between 2 tcrs • Subject Content knowledge must be on par • Regular communication-collaborating phase • Class will respond when both tcrs respond
- 36. References • Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2004). Co-Teaching: Principles,Practices, and Pragmatics. New Mexico Public Education Department Quarterly Special Education Meeting, Albuquerque, NM April 29, 2004. • Dieker, L.A., & Murawski, W.W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success.The High School Journal; Apr/May 2003; 86, 4; Teacher Journals, pg. 1 • Gately, S.E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding coteaching components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40-47. • Jang, S. J. (2006). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers. Educational Research, Vol. 48, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 177 – 194.
- 37. Q & A
- 38. Interim Findings Co-Teaching Rating Scale (CTRS) Class SEM 1 SEM 2 1T2 (Math) Tcr A 2.86 ? 1T2 (Math) Tcr B 2.36 ? 2T2 (EL) Tcr A 2.86 ? 2T2 (EL) Tcr B 2.86 ? 2T2 (Math) Tcr A 2T2 (Math) Tcr B
Editor's Notes
- #22: A1 to B3 but extended to B4 as Tutors volunteer. Cross pairing was possible because subject trs had taught students in the lower sec
- #23: A1 to B3 but extended to B4 as Tutors volunteer. Cross pairing was possible because subject trs had taught students in the lower sec
- #24: A1 to B3 but extended to B4 as Tutors volunteer. Cross pairing was possible because subject trs had taught students in the lower sec