pds value added
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Co-Teaching in Student Teaching: A Value Added Model
St. C loud State University – College of EducationFunded by a Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grant from the U.S.
Department of Education
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud State University
Located in Minnesota – 60 miles NW of Minneapolis
18,000 students
400+ teacher candidates a year
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
St. Cloud TQE Initiative• 5 year U.S. Dept. of Education, Teacher Quality
Enhancement Partnership Grant - awarded in October 2003
• Looked at Co-Teaching In Student Teaching
• Collected 4 years of data (qualitative and quantitative)
• Training and Support for Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors
• Teacher Candidates get co-teaching as a part of their program
• Workshop for Pairs
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Co-Teaching
Co-Teaching is defined as two teachers working together in a classroom with groups of students; sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of instruction as well as the physical space.
Both teachers are actively involved and engaged in all aspects of instruction.
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
What Do You Mean Value-Added?
Who Benefits From Co-Teaching? P-12 Students Cooperating Teachers Teacher Candidates School Partnerships
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
“Value Added” forP-12 Students
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Co-Teaching in P-12 classrooms826 Pairs to date
2004-2005 179 Pairs2005-2006 203 Pairs2006-2007 231 Pairs2007-2008 243 Pair
Co-teaching has impacted over 25,000 P-12 students in Central Minnesota
34 Pre K classrooms601 Elementary (K-6) classrooms120 Secondary (7-12) classrooms71 Special Education classrooms
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Measuring AchievementMinnesota Comprehensive
Assessment (MCA)Woodcock Johnson III – Research
Edition (WJIII)
Reading/Math – Grades 3 - 7 Reading/Math – Grades K-12
Group Administered Individually Administered
Compares cohorts Can use as pre/post intervention
Results reported as scale score, index points and proficiency
Results include raw score and standard score, but can also compute
gain scores
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
K-6 Reading GainsWoodcock Johnson III – Research EditionIndividually administered pre/post testStatistically significant gains in all four years
Woodcock Johnson III Research Edition
W Score GainsCo-Taught Not
Co-Taught p
2004-2005 15.7(N=221)
9.9(N=99)
.001
2005-2006 24.4(N=225)
18.7(N=124)
.024
2006-2007 14.8(N=322)
11.8(N=172)
.010
2007-2008 19.6(N=245)
14.8(N=182)
.001
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
K-6 Math GainsWoodcock Johnson III – Research EditionIndividually administered pre/post testStatistically significant gains in two of four years;positive trend in each year
Woodcock Johnson III Research Edition
W Score GainsCo-Taught Not
Co-Taught p
2004-2005 17.2(N=221)
13.9(N=99)
.039
2005-2006 20.3(N=206)
17.4(N=143)
.075
2006-2007 14.3(N=313)
12.1(N=182)
.045
2007-2008 17.9(N=250)
16.0(N=177)
.089
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Reading ProficiencyMinnesota Comprehensive Assessment
0
20
40
60
80
100
Co-Teaching Candidate
(N=318)
One Teacher (N=934)
Traditional Student Teacher (N=101)
82.1 75.7
65.3
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
MCA Reading Proficiency2004-2005
χ² (2 df, N=1353) = 12.79, p = .002 χ² (2 df, N=2241) = 12.54, p = 002
0
20
40
60
80
100
Co-Teaching Candidate
(N=484)
One Teacher (N=1597)
Traditional Student Teacher (N=160)
78.7 73.5
65.0
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
MCA Reading Proficiency2004-2005
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Reading ProficiencyMinnesota Comprehensive Assessment
0
20
40
60
80
100
Co-Teaching Candidate
(N=261)
One Teacher (N=1977)
Traditional Student Teacher (N=269)
80.8
61.4 62.1
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
MCA Reading Proficiency2007-2008
χ² (2 df, N=2507) = 38.01, p <.001
0
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
MCA Reading Proficiency2006-2007 (K-6)
Insufficient Data to Analyze
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Math ProficiencyMinnesota Comprehensive Assessment
0
20
40
60
80
100
Co-Teaching Candidate
(N=317)
One Teacher (N=927)
Traditional Student Teacher (N=105)
82.375.8
70.5
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
MCA Math Proficiency2004-2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
Co-Teaching Candidate
(N=524)
One Teacher (N=1660)
Traditional Student Teacher (N=171)
68.964.7
57.9
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
MCA Math Proficiency2005-2006
χ² (2 df, N=1349) = 8.31, p=.016 χ² (2 df, N=2355) = 7.35, p=.025
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Math ProficiencyMinnesota Comprehensive Assessment
0
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
MCA Math Proficiency2006-2007 (K-6)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Co-Teaching Candidate
(N=314)
One Teacher (N=1939)
Traditional Student Teacher (N=278)
74.5
59.5 62.6
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
MCA Math Proficiency2007-2008
Insufficient Data to Analyze
χ² (2 df, N=1939) = 26.04, p <.001
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Type of Student Teaching Reading Proficiency
Minnesota Comprehensive AssessmentCompares Traditional and Co-taught student teaching settingsStatistically significant in each year with sufficient data (3 of 4)Significance between co-taught and traditional student teaching highlighted
MCA Reading Proficiency Co-Taught One Licensed
Teacher
Traditional Student Teaching
P
OVERALL (4 Year Cumulative)
78.8%(N=1461)
67.2%(N=6403)
64.0%(N=572)
< .001
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
65.0%(N=477)
53.1%(N=2684)
49.5%(N=222)
< .001
Special Education Eligible
74.4%(N=433)
52.9%(N=1945)
46.4%(N=179)
< .001
English Language Learners
44.7%(N=76)
30.7%(N=515)
25.8%(N=31)
.069
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Type of Student Teaching Math Proficiency
Minnesota Comprehensive AssessmentCompares Traditional and Co-taught student teaching settingsStatistically significant in each year with sufficient data (3 of 4)Significance between co-taught and traditional student teaching highlighted
MCA Math Proficiency Co-Taught One Licensed
Teacher
Traditional Student
TeachingP
OVERALL (4 Year Cumulative)
72.9%(N=1519)
63.7%(N=6467)
63.0%(N=597)
< .001
Free/ReducedLunch Eligible
54.2%(N=513)
47.3%(N=2778)
45.7%(N=232)
.032
Special Education Eligible
72.0%(N=472)
54.7%(N=1906)
48.9%(N=180)
< .001
English Language Learners
30.5%(N=118)
28.8%(N=671)
26.8%(N=41)
.656
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
7-12 Student DataBenefits
Cumulative Data 2004-2008 N=1,686
4
43.1
45
46.1
50.9
51.2
60.3
65.8
66.4
68.9
79.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
No Benefits
More in‑depth knowledge
Better discussions
More energy between teachers
Assignments graded & returned …
More creative lessons
Teachers build off each other
Get 2 perspectives
More indiv attention
Different styles of teaching
More help with questions
Percent of responses
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
7-12 SurveyDrawbacks
Cumulative Data 2004-2008 N=1,686
7.1%
8.3%
8.8%
11.6%
13.0%
13.5%
18.8%
0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0%
Less material covered
Candidate too dependent
Teachers interrupt each other
Contradicting information
Grading Issues
Confusing who to go to
Confusing with 2 explanations
Percent of Responses
ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Able to work in smaller groups
Receive more individual attention
Get questions answered faster
Get papers and grades back faster
Students behave better
Fewer class disruptions
Benefits to P-12 StudentsFocus Groups (N=546)
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
In their own words . . .
“I think we learned more, because it was more than just one point of view. Like one teacher would say something and then the other teacher would build off of that, so it would go in more directions than if it was just one teacher talking by themselves.”
High School Student
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
In their own words . . .
“If one teacher was busy with someone and you needed to ask a question and the other one wasn’t busy, you could just ask her instead of waiting around for the other teacher – or interrupting the class like you have to with one teacher.”
Middle School Student
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
“Value Added” forTeacher Candidates
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Benefits to Teacher CandidatesEnd of Experience Survey (N=249)
• Improved classroom management skills (92.4%)
• Increased collaboration skills (92.0%)
• Teaching more (90.0%)
• Deeper understanding of the curriculum (89.2%)
• Added opportunities to ask questions and reflect (88.8%)
• Increased confidence (88.4%)
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Benefits to Teacher CandidatesFocus Groups (N=136)
Additional benefits of co-teaching:
Being seen as a “real” teacher
Equal partnership
Sharing resources
Mutual support and learning
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
In their own words . . .
“Our student teacher did a lot more teaching. He acted more like a teacher than a student teacher.”
High School Student
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
In their own words . . .
“Usually when you have a student teacher they just come in and they have, like, a list of things they need to do – but she actually knew what she was doing and taught us – and you could ask her questions and she would answer them for us.”
Elementary Student
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
“Value Added” forCooperating Teachers
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Benefits to Cooperating TeachersEnd of Experience Survey (N=279)
Cooperating Teachers Indicate That Co-Teaching Led To:
Ability to reach more students, particularly those with high needs (93.5%)
Better relationship with their teacher candidate (91%)
Experienced professional growth (89.2%)
Enhanced energy for teaching (87.8%)
Hosting a candidate without giving up my classroom (87.1%)
Teacher candidate had a better experience than they would have through with a traditional model (81.7%)
SCSU Teacher Quality Enhancement 2008
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Benefits to Cooperating TeachersFocus Groups (N=92)
Additional Benefits of Co-Teaching:
Ability to do projects more successfully
Class time is more productive
Modeling and participating in teamwork
Candidates become competent more quickly
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
In their own words . . .
“Co-teaching was far more fulfilling than the traditional student-teaching model. We all benefited. I think the biggest benefit is that the students saw my co-teacher as a "teacher" right from the start. “
Cooperating Teacher
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
“Value Added” forSchool Partnerships
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
School Partnerships
Strengthened our partnerships with districts
Teachers felt a “part” of the teacher preparation program
More cooperating teachers then teacher candidates (in most areas)
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
In their own words . . .
“The results are proven as far as I’m concerned we have better student teachers,
we have better cooperating teachers,so it’s the best of both worlds for me.”
“I think it’s a blueprint for teacher preparation institutions to follow.”
Mike SpanierSartell Middle School Principal
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
What Now?Institutionalization of ProjectDissemination of Findings
PresentationsPublicationsTrain-the-trainer workshopDVDHandbook
www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe
© 2010, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center, St. Cloud State University
Contact Us
Teacher Quality Enhancement CenterNancy Bacharach - [email protected]
Beth Mann - [email protected] Washut Heck - [email protected]
www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe