Pds Enhancing Student Teaching Though Co Teaching

Enhancing Student Teaching
Through Co-Teaching

Teresa Washut Heck
Nancy Bacharach
Beth Mann
St. Cloud State University

St. Cloud State University
Located in Minnesota
60 miles northwest
of Minneapolis

18,000 students

400+ teacher
candidates a year

Copyright 2010, St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality Enhancement Center:
Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant

Our Goals…

1. Provide an overview of co-teaching in student
teaching.
2. Describe the essential elements for co-teaching.
3. Establishing buy-in for co-teaching.

4. Implementing a co-teaching model.
5. Discuss how to get others supportive of and
trained in a collaborative co-teaching model.


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.

Co-Teaching is an Attitude…
An attitude of sharing the
classroom and students.
Co-Teachers must always
be thinking…

WE’RE
BOTH
TEACHING!

Why SCSU Chose Co-Teaching

• Student Teaching hasn’t changed much in 80
years!
• Re-examination of student teaching.
• Growing resistance from teachers to take
teacher candidates with high emphasis on
NCLB testing.
• Pressures from NCATE and other
accreditation agencies.


History of Co-Teaching
! PL94 – 142; Now IDEA
! Least Restrictive Environment
! Special and General Education teachers
needed to work together
! 1993 Walsh and Snyder
! 1995 – Landmark research by Cook and
Friend


Co-Teaching at SCSU
At SCSU Our Program Impacted by:
• ATE Presentation – Michael Perl (1999)
• ATE Presentation – Mid-Valley Consortium (2000)
• Visit to Virginia - (2000)
• Co-Teaching Workshops - (2000-01)
• Applied for Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant
• Received Grant, October 2003
• Utilized Cook and Friend research
• Developed Program & Collected Data
• Disseminated our research and program
• Train the Trainer Program
• 150+ faculty from other institutions

At The Heart of Co-Teaching…
• Building Better Relationships
• Communication/Collaboration
• Co-Teaching/Co-Planning
• Active vs. Passive
• Use Expertise of Cooperating Teacher
• Attitude
• Best Way to Meet Student Needs


Key Elements
• Co-teaching workshop for cooperating
teachers and university supervisors
• Co-teaching instruction incorporated in
teacher preparation curriculum
• Workshop for matched pairs
• One teacher candidate per classroom
• Clearly defined expectations, including lead
and solo teaching time for candidates
• Designated planning time for co-teaching
each week

" One teach, one observe
" One teach, one assist
" Station teaching
" Parallel teaching
" Supplemental teaching
" Alternative (differentiated)
teaching
" Team teaching

Things We Kept

• Solo teaching time
• Placement procedures
• Total time in classroom
• Evaluation forms
• Individual lesson planning


Things We Added
• Support and Training
• Co-Planning
• Permission for Cooperating Teacher to Stay
• Enhanced Collaboration and Communication
• Focus on Differentiation
• Increased Opportunities for Teacher
Candidate to Bring Ideas
• Professional Development

Why Co-Teach?
" Increase instructional options for all
students
" Reduce student/teacher ratio
" Address diversity and size of today’s
classroom
" Enhance classroom management
" Increase student participation and
engagement
" Enhance collaboration skills

Results
• Improved Math & Reading Achievement
for students in Grades 1-6
• Benefits to 7-12 learners

• Benefits to Cooperating Teachers

• Benefits to Teacher Candidates
• Improved Relationships with Partner
Schools


Reading Proficiency
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment
Compares Non Co-Taught (traditional) and Co-Taught student teaching settings
Significance between Co-Taught and Non Co-Taught (traditional) student
teaching

Non
MCA Reading One Licensed Co-Taught
Co-Taught P
Proficiency Teacher Student
Teaching
OVERALL 64.0%
78.8% (N=1461) 67.2% (N=6403) < .001
(4 Year Cumulative) (N=572)

Free/Reduced 49.5%
65.0% (N=477) 53.1% (N=2684) < .001
Lunch Eligible (N=222)

Special Education 46.4%
74.4% (N=433) 52.9% (N=1945) < .001
Eligible (N=179)

English Language
44.7% (N=76) 30.7% (N=515) 25.8% (N=31) .069
Learners

Math Proficiency
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment
Compares Non Co-Taught (traditional) and Co-Taught student teaching settings
Significance between Co-Taught and Non Co-Taught (traditional) student
teaching

Non
MCA Math One Licensed Co-Taught
Co-Taught P
Proficiency Teacher Student
Teaching
OVERALL
72.9% (N=1519) 63.7% (N=6467) 63.0% (N=597) < .001
(4 Year Cumulative)
Free/Reduced Lunch
54.2% (N=513) 47.3% (N=2778) 45.7% (N=232) .032
Eligible
Special Education
72.0% (N=472) 54.7% (N=1906) 48.9% (N=180) < .001
Eligible
English Language
30.5% (N=118) 28.8% (N=671) 26.8% (N=41) .656
Learners


Co-Teaching & 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)
• Schools now want our candidates

• Over 900 area teachers trained in co-
teaching

Getting Started


University Level Buy-In
Administrative and Faculty

• Provide Basic Information

• Secure Dean Support

• Secure Departmental Buy-In

• Identify Key Faculty Within
Departments


University Supervisor Buy-In
University Supervisors:
• Need co-teaching training
• Clarification of expectations and
observation keys
• On-going support
• Resources
• Supervisor meetings
• 2-3x/semester


District Buy In
High Level District Support
• Initial presentations to administrative teams
• Multiple methods of information sharing
• Present updates to administrative groups and
school board
Grass Roots Support
• Present to individual schools
• Identified building contacts

Memorandums of Understanding
• Formal agreements with each district
superintendent prior to involvement

Recommendations
• Develop a clear vision and scope

• Determine leadership team

• Design evaluation plan

• Identify institutional and community
– Barriers
– Supports
– Resources


Recommendations
• Faculty buy-in
– cross departmental
• District buy-in
• Develop communication plan
• Implementation Plan
– Preparation
– Planning
– Expectations
– Ongoing Support

Have FUN!!! Infuse Energy…

What Former Candidates are Saying…
• Comfortable and capable of collaborating
effectively with colleagues
• Equipped to deal with classroom management issues
as they arise

• Eager to receive feedback and seek out
opportunities for internal and external reflection

• Able to effectively differentiate instruction to
better meet the needs of their students

• Knowledgeable in ways to maximize the human
resources that might be available, including
paraprofessionals, volunteers and parents.

Support Materials
• Train the Trainer Workshop
– Two day training
– Materials

• DVD - “Changing Student Teaching
Through Co-Teaching: Collaboration That
Makes A Difference

• Co-Teaching Handbook – “Mentoring
Teacher Candidates Through Co-Teaching:
Collaboration That Makes A Difference

St. Cloud State University, College of Education
Teacher Quality Enhancement Center

Dr. Teresa Washut Heck
Coordinator of Co-Teaching
twheck@stcloudstate.edu
320-308-1742

Dr. Nancy Bacharach
TQE Project Director
nlbacharach@stcloudstate.edu
320-308-4885

Ms. Beth Mann
Co-Teaching Specialist
bjmann@stcloudstate.edu

www.stcloudstate.edu/coe/tqe

Pds Enhancing Student Teaching Though Co Teaching

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Pds Enhancing Student Teaching Though Co Teaching

Similaire à Pds Enhancing Student Teaching Though Co Teaching (20)

Pds Enhancing Student Teaching Though Co Teaching