Co-Teaching, Co-LearningFindings from year 12010-2012 Knowles Science Teaching Foundation Grant

Jessica Thompson & Sara Hagenah

A Co-Learning Model

• Supporting novice learning (Thompson, Windschitl, & Braaten, 2010)

– Student teaching can be a time for on-going learning of core practices from methods

– Focus on developing a student thinking lens– Supportive contextual discourses

• Co-learning can’t fully operate under a traditional apprenticeship model to produce individual artisans (Feinman-Nemser, 2001)

Data Sources

• 8 CT-TC pairs• Observed each pair co-teach 5 times• Observed and participated in 4 planning

and 4 debriefing sessions with pairs • Pre & post interviews with individuals • CT conversations from summer

institute, 2 meetings at critical times, & CTs social media conversations

4

Student Teaching Phases

Phase

1

Sept-

Oct

•FOCU

S:

Coac

hing

& co-

inquir

y into

stude

nt

thinki

ng

and

teach

er

quest

ions

Phase

2

Oct-

Dec

•FOCU

S:

Co-

Inquir

y into

plann

ing

lesso

ns

and

analy

zing

stude

nt

thinki

ng

Phase

3

Jan-

Mar

•FOCU

S:

Colle

gial

explo

ration

into

teach

ing

and

learni

ng

5

Points of Discussion

• Having structured phases to student teaching• Aligning Practices among UW, CTs, and TCs• Co-teaching at its best--what this sounds like

in classroom discourse & planning• Turning over responsibility during student

teaching• Midcourse refocusing• Targeted coaching (TC/CT/Coach & social

media)

Aligning Practices

1. Not at all aligned

2. Aiming for different targets

3. Aligning: Building on kids’ ideas

4. Aligning: Working through explanations & scaffolding students’ thinking

CT

UW

TC

CTUWTC

CTUWTC

CTUWTC

7

Alignment of practice & TC practice

Teacher

Selecting Big Ideas/Models

Working with Science Ideas

Pressing for Explanation

Working with Students’ Ideas

Topic focusProcess focus

Theory focus

Method focus

Discover/ Confirm science ideas

Forward science ideas to work on together

MBI focus

No press What happened explanation

How/ partial why some-thing happened explanation

Causal explanation

Monitors, checks, re-teaches ideas

Elicits Ss’ initial understandings

References Ss’ ideas & adapts instruction

Lisa

4,5

2,5

2,4,5 1,3 1,2 3 1,2 3,4,5 1,4 3

Alisa

1,3,4,5

2

1,3,4,5

2

3 1,4,5 2

1

2,3,4,5

Kirsten

2

1,3

1,3 4,5 1 3,4 2,5 3 1 2,4,5 2,4 5

Mike

4 1,2,3

1,3

5 4,5 2 5 4 4,5 1,2,3

Robert

1,2,3,5

12,3,4,

5

4

1,2,4,5 4 1,5 2,3

Sasha

2,3

1

1,4,5 2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,4 2,3,5

Jack 1,2,5 3, 4 �� 2 1,3,4,5 2 1,3,5 4

3 1,2,4,5

Keith

4,5

5

1,2,3,4,5

4,5 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 =Classroom observation of TC practice from September (1) to March (5)

CT

UW

TC

CTUWTC

Case A

Case B

Case C

8

Understanding Alignment

1. Co-teaching = co-planning, co-instruction, co-debriefing

2. CT theory behind “turning over responsibility” during student teaching

3. Midcourse refocusinga) CT refocusing

b) Calibrating through targeted coaching

c) Calibrating through social media

CT

UW

TC

9

“Co-teaching” at its best

• Co-teaching= co-planning, co-instruction, co-debriefing

10

Co-planning at its best

• Co-planning a full explanation & connecting activities– Set time– With colleagues – Used a tool- as a starting place for conversations & a standing

public document representing sharing thinking – Challenging one another’s content knowledge beyond the

textbook – Willingness to revise ideas from the text, curriculum

• If not:– Loss of rigor– CT lost & can not track student ideas

CT

UW

TC

11

Co-teaching at its best

S: Would ash be considered a physical change? Like an egg?

S: So we did an example of melted cheese.

TC: So what did we just have in the back of the

class?

S: We thought also that it was physical changes

even though it comes after melting and boiling.

S: I don’t agree with that because even though there

was a color change CO2 was emitted so the identity of the log would have had to have changed

CT: Does anyone have something to add to this? …

TC: Raise your hand if you have seen a fire

burning…so is it possible that a physical

change is happening?

Students’ stories

Participation

Working on students’ ideas

12

Co-teaching at its best con’t

CT: so this is chemistry. Let’s think about this at an atomic level…What makes up an egg?

S: Elements

S: Potassium

TC: Be specific

S: Proteins, and when we cook proteins the proteins change

TC: What does it look like? What happens when it cooks? [TC draws on board and shows a tightly bound protein

and an unwound protein.]

S: So it is breaking and forming bonds

S: It expanded because of heat. When it

heated they [bonds] move apart rather than

together.

Students’ stories

Participation

Working on students’ ideas

13

Co-debriefing at its best

• Focused on student thinking– Daily reflection questions about

student thinking, including specific individual students

– Planning for the next day informed by key episodes of rich classroom dialogue or what students were NOT talking about

• NOTE: only a few CT-TC pairs had routines in place for these conversations

CT

UW

TC

Turning over Responsibility

Individual artisans Co-Planning

Co-Planners• Never fully turning over unit planning, staying involved in lesson

planning until the end• Creating richest learning experience for students • On board with others from same department OR didn’t have pressure

Individual Artisans• Tended to use teacher learning rather than student learning as a meter

stick--meeting CTs limited repertoire or more limited understanding of core practices?

• Tension between freedom (TC) and readiness (CT)• Tension between “keeping pace” with department members NOT on

board with core practices

CT

UW

TCCTUWTC

Midcourse Refocusing

• In January/February many TCs tooka nose dive

• CT re-focusing– High expectations & accountability

• New requests were made easier if nightly communication and submitting lesson plans was already established as a routine (i.e. adding back-pocket question)

– Had tough but supportive conversations, challenged instead of “being nice”

– Had stayed in touch with planning so easier to get re-involved, for others CTs all they could do is watch TC regression away from student ideas

CT

UW

TC

Refocusing: Targeted Coaching

Pedagogical Content Coaching around 4 core practices • What we did:

– listen for richest classroom conversations & analyzed for rigor & responsiveness

– Involved CTs • What TCs had to say about our coaching

– Some TC-CT kept coaching feedback “alive” after we left• What CTs had to say about coaching

– Designated time for reflection– Supportive of CTs’ learning

• BUT for some CT/TCs coaching was about “tweaks” and “tricks”

CT

UW

TC

17

Midcourse Refocusing: CT calibrating with other CTs

Transition 1: November Transition 2: February

Focus on student thinking in… 1. Planning2. In the moment3. Debrief4. Assessment

Tool revision & CT action plan

1. Mapping a path for students to build explanations

2. Scaffolding questions and predicting students thinking

3. Summarizing student ideas after D1 and explicitly building from these

4. Reflecting on why learning goes well, or not

5. Working with small groups6. Moving ideas from small group

whole group discussions, 7. Connecting activity back to big goal

in whole class conversations

8. CT/TC Action plan

18

On-going support: CTs & social media

Big Ideas & Puzzling Phenom

30%

Phase II27%

Tracking explanations13%

Mentoring tools13%

Public representations10%

Phase III4%

Other2%

CTs Social Media UseCT

UW

TC