You Want Me To Do What?
Presentation Title (View – Master – Slide Master)
You Want Me To Do What? Developing and Using a Co-teaching Model within a Middle Level Education Program
Presented by:
Ellis Hurd and Gary Weilbacher AMLE Symposium @ Austin, Texas (View Department/Unit/Office/Organization October 9, 2016
- Master – Slide Master)
What We Know • We believe our main task is to help prepare our teacher candidates to function effectively in schools for young adolescents and to implement middle level specific practices (NMSA, 2010). • Exemplary middle schools use interdisciplinary teaming which often involves co-planning and co-teaching with two or more teachers coming from different subject areas (Beane, 1997; Weilbacher, 2013). • Federal mandates for supporting students have led to frequent co-teaching between special educators, bilingual specialists, and regular classroom teachers.
Statement of Problem • In a review of over 400 articles related to student teaching, only one form of co-teaching was referenced, which involved two teacher candidates co-teaching with each other under the guidance of one cooperating teacher (Clarke, Triggs, & Neilson, 2013). • Although numerous researchers have studied the co-teaching of regular and special education teachers in the normal classroom environment, limited attention has been given to the occurrences of co-teaching among middle level teacher candidates, cooperating classroom teachers, and university faculty.
Research Question What are some of the professional educational benefits for teacher candidates, middle grades classroom teachers, and university faculty members who engage in co-teaching?
Setting and Participants • Small urban city within Illinois with a minority of 20%. • Pop. of app. 130,000 residents. • Two local schools (Meadow View and Prairieland JHS-pseudonyms) with long standing involvement in and support of the Middle Level Education Program. • 9 CTs and 8 TCs in grades 7th through 8th participated in the study.
Procedures Data were collected over one academic year (8-9 months) through two interrelated phases: individual and focus group interviews. We gathered demographic information and field notes during weekly school observations. Open-ended questions focused on key factors derived from observations included the following: 1. What are the professional educational benefits for teacher candidates, middle grades classroom teachers, and university faculty members who engage in co-teaching? 2. What do you see as potential drawbacks with co-teaching as a professional development experience? 3. How do you see yourself as a co-teacher? Describe how your colleagues see you? 4. How can higher ed. faculty assist teachers and teacher candidates with school transitions and young adolescents?
Co-teaching Models 4 Co-teaching Models
Definition
One Teach, One Assist
One teacher has primary instructional responsibility while the other assists students with their work, monitors behaviors, or corrects assignments.
Station Teaching
The co-teaching pair divides the instructional content into parts where each teacher instructs one of the groups with groups spending time at each station.
Alternative (Differentiated)
There are two different approaches to teaching the same information. While the learning outcome is the same for all students, the instructional strategy is different.
Team Teaching
Well planned, team-taught lessons that exhibit an invisible flow of instruction with no prescribed division of authority occurs. Using a team teaching strategy, both teachers are actively involved in the lesson.
Findings for TCs • The co-planning part of the co-teaching process was not evident prior to the time TCs taught in the clinical courses involved in the study. • Reported numerous benefits of co-teaching with faculty members: – Faculty stayed current/fresh with techniques – Faculty can “walk their talk” and are “legit”
– Modeled co-planning process – Mentoring was collegial v. evaluative/punitive – Closer relationship with faculty
Findings for CTs • Reported benefits included (TIME): – Professional growth – Flexibility in meeting kids’ needs
– Satisfaction in watching and assisting TCs becoming more independent.
• Reported unique perspectives of themselves as co-teachers: – Family and paternal metaphors – Increased respect for colleagues
Drawbacks for TCs • Lack of pedagogical/philosophical agreement in terms of classroom management and coplanning and teaching • Lack of time/commitment on behalf of CTs for co-planning led to feelings of “winging it” • (Meadow View) Unestablished relationships with students • Distractions and issues with transitions while teaching between CTs and TCs and each other
Drawbacks for CTs • Team scheduling and external demands made co-planning difficult. • Lack of time/extended time together
• Misalignment of CT and TC partnerships (e.g., lazy CT) led to tensions and made co-teaching challenging. • Unidentified co-teacher identity for some who engage with co-teaching
Experiences w/ the Models School
One Teach, One Assist 1x in MA
Meadow View
Station Teaching
Alternative (Differentiated)
1x in MA; 2x in SCI, SS, ELA (most
Team Teaching 1x in MA
common)
Prairieland
8x in MA, Reading, ELA (most
8x in MA, Reading, ELA
4x in MA, Reading, ELA
3x in MA, Reading, ELA
common)
Hurd
Weilbacher
1x in MA
MA, SCI, SS, ELA-1x each
1x in MA 8x in MA, Reading, ELA
Findings for Faculty • Self-affirming efficacy of knowing “We still got it!” • Stronger relationships with and the preparation of TCs for middle level classrooms • Leaving co-teaching up to CTs led to infrequent episodes • Co-planning was virtually absent between CTs and TCs at Prairieland. • Time-intensive work; time-expensive as the academy does not necessarily value it
Implications • Minimal drawbacks mentioned but most agreed that benefits of co-teaching far outweigh the drawbacks • Unfolding nature of co-teaching as it might occur among ML CTs and TCs working on teams • Fights against the dismantling of ML concept as it is student-centered • Co-teaching done well can potentially serve as a means to fight against the lack of financial/political commitment to public schools; it also serves as a means to perpetuate the status quo
Turn & Talk • What benefits do you see in adding a coteaching model to your courses/program? • What are some potential challenges to it? • What initial steps can you take to learn more and/or begin to infuse co-teaching?
• Which of the 4 co-teaching models is most applicable (or N/A) for your setting?
Contact Information Ellis Hurd, Ed.D. [email protected] (309) 438-5115
Gary Weilbacher, Ph.D. [email protected] (309) 438-3920
Illinois State University School of Teaching & Learning Normal, IL 61790
You Want Me To Do What? Developing and Using a Co-teaching Model within a Middle Level Education Program
Presented by:
Ellis Hurd and Gary Weilbacher AMLE Symposium @ Austin, Texas (View Department/Unit/Office/Organization October 9, 2016
- Master – Slide Master)
What We Know • We believe our main task is to help prepare our teacher candidates to function effectively in schools for young adolescents and to implement middle level specific practices (NMSA, 2010). • Exemplary middle schools use interdisciplinary teaming which often involves co-planning and co-teaching with two or more teachers coming from different subject areas (Beane, 1997; Weilbacher, 2013). • Federal mandates for supporting students have led to frequent co-teaching between special educators, bilingual specialists, and regular classroom teachers.
Statement of Problem • In a review of over 400 articles related to student teaching, only one form of co-teaching was referenced, which involved two teacher candidates co-teaching with each other under the guidance of one cooperating teacher (Clarke, Triggs, & Neilson, 2013). • Although numerous researchers have studied the co-teaching of regular and special education teachers in the normal classroom environment, limited attention has been given to the occurrences of co-teaching among middle level teacher candidates, cooperating classroom teachers, and university faculty.
Research Question What are some of the professional educational benefits for teacher candidates, middle grades classroom teachers, and university faculty members who engage in co-teaching?
Setting and Participants • Small urban city within Illinois with a minority of 20%. • Pop. of app. 130,000 residents. • Two local schools (Meadow View and Prairieland JHS-pseudonyms) with long standing involvement in and support of the Middle Level Education Program. • 9 CTs and 8 TCs in grades 7th through 8th participated in the study.
Procedures Data were collected over one academic year (8-9 months) through two interrelated phases: individual and focus group interviews. We gathered demographic information and field notes during weekly school observations. Open-ended questions focused on key factors derived from observations included the following: 1. What are the professional educational benefits for teacher candidates, middle grades classroom teachers, and university faculty members who engage in co-teaching? 2. What do you see as potential drawbacks with co-teaching as a professional development experience? 3. How do you see yourself as a co-teacher? Describe how your colleagues see you? 4. How can higher ed. faculty assist teachers and teacher candidates with school transitions and young adolescents?
Co-teaching Models 4 Co-teaching Models
Definition
One Teach, One Assist
One teacher has primary instructional responsibility while the other assists students with their work, monitors behaviors, or corrects assignments.
Station Teaching
The co-teaching pair divides the instructional content into parts where each teacher instructs one of the groups with groups spending time at each station.
Alternative (Differentiated)
There are two different approaches to teaching the same information. While the learning outcome is the same for all students, the instructional strategy is different.
Team Teaching
Well planned, team-taught lessons that exhibit an invisible flow of instruction with no prescribed division of authority occurs. Using a team teaching strategy, both teachers are actively involved in the lesson.
Findings for TCs • The co-planning part of the co-teaching process was not evident prior to the time TCs taught in the clinical courses involved in the study. • Reported numerous benefits of co-teaching with faculty members: – Faculty stayed current/fresh with techniques – Faculty can “walk their talk” and are “legit”
– Modeled co-planning process – Mentoring was collegial v. evaluative/punitive – Closer relationship with faculty
Findings for CTs • Reported benefits included (TIME): – Professional growth – Flexibility in meeting kids’ needs
– Satisfaction in watching and assisting TCs becoming more independent.
• Reported unique perspectives of themselves as co-teachers: – Family and paternal metaphors – Increased respect for colleagues
Drawbacks for TCs • Lack of pedagogical/philosophical agreement in terms of classroom management and coplanning and teaching • Lack of time/commitment on behalf of CTs for co-planning led to feelings of “winging it” • (Meadow View) Unestablished relationships with students • Distractions and issues with transitions while teaching between CTs and TCs and each other
Drawbacks for CTs • Team scheduling and external demands made co-planning difficult. • Lack of time/extended time together
• Misalignment of CT and TC partnerships (e.g., lazy CT) led to tensions and made co-teaching challenging. • Unidentified co-teacher identity for some who engage with co-teaching
Experiences w/ the Models School
One Teach, One Assist 1x in MA
Meadow View
Station Teaching
Alternative (Differentiated)
1x in MA; 2x in SCI, SS, ELA (most
Team Teaching 1x in MA
common)
Prairieland
8x in MA, Reading, ELA (most
8x in MA, Reading, ELA
4x in MA, Reading, ELA
3x in MA, Reading, ELA
common)
Hurd
Weilbacher
1x in MA
MA, SCI, SS, ELA-1x each
1x in MA 8x in MA, Reading, ELA
Findings for Faculty • Self-affirming efficacy of knowing “We still got it!” • Stronger relationships with and the preparation of TCs for middle level classrooms • Leaving co-teaching up to CTs led to infrequent episodes • Co-planning was virtually absent between CTs and TCs at Prairieland. • Time-intensive work; time-expensive as the academy does not necessarily value it
Implications • Minimal drawbacks mentioned but most agreed that benefits of co-teaching far outweigh the drawbacks • Unfolding nature of co-teaching as it might occur among ML CTs and TCs working on teams • Fights against the dismantling of ML concept as it is student-centered • Co-teaching done well can potentially serve as a means to fight against the lack of financial/political commitment to public schools; it also serves as a means to perpetuate the status quo
Turn & Talk • What benefits do you see in adding a coteaching model to your courses/program? • What are some potential challenges to it? • What initial steps can you take to learn more and/or begin to infuse co-teaching?
• Which of the 4 co-teaching models is most applicable (or N/A) for your setting?
Contact Information Ellis Hurd, Ed.D. [email protected] (309) 438-5115
Gary Weilbacher, Ph.D. [email protected] (309) 438-3920
Illinois State University School of Teaching & Learning Normal, IL 61790
