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