Collaborative Instruction for the Secondary Instrumental ...



Collaborative Instruction for the Secondary Instrumental Educator

The Orchestrators:

Kelly Taylor

Russ Simpson

EDIT 6170

Summer 2005

Dr. Lloyd Rieber

Executive Summary

The goal for this instructional design was to address the needs of orchestra teachers who must work collaboratively with little predetermined structure or advance preparation. Within the course titled “Strategies for Successful Co-Teaching in the Secondary Instrumental Classroom”, the unit on “team function” addresses practical skills, including communication, conflict resolution, and decision-making. A complete lesson on conflict resolution was the focus of the instructional design project, which was created and implemented via web-based tutorial with a group of tryout learners.

Orchestra teachers who were surveyed indicated that they had little or no pre-service training in the field of collaborative instruction. The results also showed that they are uncomfortable giving their co-director feedback about instruction. Additionally, several of the teachers surveyed said that they frequently disagree with their co-director on major issues such as classroom management, pedagogy, and assessment of students. All participants agreed that an instructional course in cooperative teaching would be helpful for current and/or prospective co-teaching pairs. In conclusion, this information points toward a need for instruction in the area of conflict resolution.

The instructional goal for the lesson was for learners to outline and use three different strategies for resolving conflict in collaborative interactions. The subsequent attitudinal goal was for the students to choose to actively participate, following the appropriate steps, in the constructive resolution of conflict. The instructional content was delivered in the format of a web-based workshop. Media selections included both narrated and interactive Power Point slideshows, digital video, web discussion boards, and printable handouts.

Need Analysis

Background of the Problem

In the public school system in Gwinnett County, Georgia, music teachers often find themselves in a situation where they must co-teach a class. Instructors in these classrooms are very knowledgeable about the subject matter they are instructing. However, some find it difficult to work with multiple instructors in a single classroom setting. Unfortunately, most teacher education and staff development programs do not prepare teachers to work in this situation. Our team conducted a survey of orchestra teachers in Gwinnett County Public Schools to solicit their feedback about issues that they are experiencing in the co-teaching classroom. The results of the survey point to three major areas indicating a need for instruction. First, the survey shows that no training is provided in either pre-service music education classes or local in-service workshops in the field of cooperative teaching. Second, the survey points to conflicts that arise when teachers fail to communicate about pedagogical and classroom management issues. Last, all teachers surveyed replied that they felt that training in cooperative teaching would be very helpful.

Problem Statement

The co-teaching situation is one that commonly exists within the Gwinnett County School System. According to survey results, few instructors are provided with the necessary skills or practice to facilitate a class in this manner. In addition, survey respondents indicated that staff development in this area would be valuable.

Rationale for the need for instruction

Two issues led the team to develop instruction to address this problem. First, in the initial survey, many of the survey respondents indicated that a formal staff development session would be helpful and useful. Second, many of the topics in the co-teaching situation involve skills that require the learner to demonstrate collaboration and receive feedback from their choices. With these considerations, the formal learning environment is a logical choice to meet the needs of co-teachers.

Available Resources

For this project, the team identified three major resources that would be needed to complete the project. First, we identified, contacted, and received agreements from five Gwinnett County Orchestra teachers to participate in the field trial of this instruction. Second, one of the team members has experience in this teaching situation and extensive knowledge in the area of co-teaching. Currently she is pursuing a specialist degree with concentration on this topic. Finally, one team member has web production abilities.

Goal Statement

Certified music teachers will be able to generate a course syllabus by planning cooperatively in a two-person team using strategies for successful co-teaching practice.

Learner Analysis

Our team has identified that the learners for the situation are orchestra teachers in Gwinnett County. To review their knowledge on the subject, the team conducted a survey of five members from the target population. The survey was conducted from June 24th through June 28th, 2005. The responses of the survey are included in the appendix of this paper (See Appendix A).

Entry behaviors identified for this project include familiarity with the orchestra skills and objectives set by the Gwinnett Public School System and a valid teaching certificate. Even though the learner should hold a valid teaching certificate, the designers are constructing content with the understanding that the teachers may have limited knowledge in the co-teaching area.

In terms of the learning environment, learners are should look for a distraction-free environment that allows for flexibility in completing the instruction. In addition, most learners are looking for an independent situation to complete staff development.

Context Analysis

The majority of orchestra directors in Gwinnett County work directly with one or more teachers within an orchestra program. Many of the teams are required to share a classroom and teach collaboratively throughout the day. The teachers are jointly responsible for all aspects of the learning process, including classroom management, curriculum planning, instruction, assessment, grading, and parent communication. Teachers are hired based on a ratio of one teacher per 138 students. Individual class sizes range from 25 to 80 students and are taught either in 40-minute daily segments or 80-minute “blocks”.

The learning environment for instruction will vary, since the course is offered as a web-based workshop. Teachers will be asked to complete the instructional course either at work or at home within a 6-week time period. Throughout the course, the learners will receive feedback from the instructor regarding quality and accuracy of the discussion postings and assignments.

Recommendation from Needs Analysis

A staff development workshop should be created to meet two issues. First, the workshop will provide a risk-free environment to practice the process of working in this shared teaching environment. Second, teachers will participate in a planning session for a collaboratively instructed curriculum.

Course and Unit Design

Introduction

Orchestra teachers in Gwinnett County have the unique opportunity to work collaboratively on a daily basis. Co-teaching can be incredibly rewarding, exciting, and frustrating when conflict emerges. Even well matched pairs will struggle from time to time, and achieving harmonious conditions is a trial-and-error process. Music teachers often feel their role with great intensity, and company in the classroom may not be a welcomed idea. However, by meeting co-teaching opportunities with the appropriate mindset and collaborative skills, both students and teachers benefit tremendously.

Workshop Instructional Goals and Unit Goals

Course Title: Strategies for Successful Co-Teaching in the Secondary Instrumental Classroom

Terminal Objective: Certified music teachers will be able to generate a course syllabus by planning cooperatively in a two-person team using strategies for successful co-teaching practice.

Unit Goals:

Unit 1: General Principles

SWBAT generate a rationale for team teaching citing advantages and disadvantages of collaborative instruction

Unit 2: Program Design

SWBAT design a team teaching program by identifying the methods by which the students will be best served.

Unit 3: Team Function

SWBAT generate a list of norms, expectations, and potential pitfalls for collaborative planning and delivery of instruction.

Unit 4: Evaluation

SWBAT generate a checklist, which will be used for ongoing evaluation of the co-teaching relationship and of the effectiveness of collaborative instruction.

Course and Unit Instructional Curriculum Maps

[pic]

In this project, we created and implemented the lesson on conflict resolution from Unit 3. Even though the other units were not actualized, the process of conflict resolution is an integral part of generating a course syllabus.

[pic]

Formative Evaluation Plan

1. Experts (subject-matter, learning, learners)

a. What is being evaluated?

i. The subject-matter expert (conflict resolution specialist) will evaluate the content of instruction, the feasibility of instructional procedures, and the overall quality of instruction.

ii. The learning expert (school staff development coordinator) will also evaluate the instruction in terms of content, feasibility, and overall quality. Additionally, this expert will provide insight into the practical implementation of the instructional course at the local school level.

iii. The learner expert (secondary instrumental co-teacher) will evaluate the instruction in terms of motivation, clarity, and usability. The learner will help to identify gaps in instructional content and potential malfunctions in instructional software.

b. When: This evaluation should occur approximately one month prior to the field trial to allow sufficient time for data analysis and appropriate revisions prior to the one-to-one evaluation.

c. How: This evaluation will be conducted using interviews, open-response questionnaires, and a designer-generated checklist.

2. Learners (one-to-one)

a. What: Three members of the target population (secondary instrumental co-teachers) will participate in the one-to-one evaluation. The purpose of this evaluation is to gain useful feedback regarding course content, procedures, and effectiveness following the first revision. The designer will compare amount of time needed to complete the instruction and the end results of instruction among the tryout learners.

b. When: The one-to-one evaluation should occur two weeks prior to the field trial to allow sufficient time for data analysis and revision of instruction prior to the small-group evaluation.

c. How: The evaluation will be conducted using pre- & post-test assessments, observation, interviews, and a designer-generated checklist. The designer will be in the room with the learner during the lesson to observe and answer any questions that may arise. The learner will be instructed to "talk through" the steps as they are being completed to ensure that the intended learning sequence is being followed.

3. Small Group

a. What: The small-group evaluation will consist of 10-12 learners from the target population. This is the last opportunity before field trial to gather useful data for revisions related to motivation, content, organization, procedures, assessment tools, time constraints, and overall effectiveness of instruction.

b. When: The small-group evaluation should take place one week prior to the field trial. This gives the designer adequate time following the one-to-one evaluation to analyze data and make improvements in the overall instructional package.

c. How: The evaluation will be conducted using pre- & post-test assessments, remote observation (videotape of learners completing instruction), a questionnaire with open-response items, and exit interviews.

4. Field Trial

a. What: In the field trial, ideally a class of approximately twenty learners from the target population would participate in this final review of instructional content, materials, and overall effectiveness. For this course, however, we will only have 3-5 learners available for field trial. Their performance of the learning objectives prior to and following instruction will indicate whether or not the instruction has been successful. Their feedback related to motivation and usability will guide the designer in making final revisions to the instructional design.

b. When: The field trial should occur as soon as all prior evaluations and revisions are completed.

c. How: The evaluation will be conducted via distance learning. Learners will complete the web-based lesson independently to determine whether revisions have been successful. Pre- and Post- assessments, a perception survey, and exit interviews will also be used to gather data in this final step in the formative evaluation process.

Formative Evaluation

All learners responded positively to the instruction, deeming the lesson both interesting and useful in their professional relationships. Student discussion postings showed fluency and understanding of the new terms and concepts. While the lesson objectives were clear and the accompanying assignments/activities were relevant to the topic, learners indicated that the quantity of information presented was slightly overwhelming. There were also technical difficulties with the web discussion board, preventing several of the tryout learners from posting their discussion responses.

Even with these technical issues, one can see the effectiveness in the pretest/posttest results. All of the respondents demonstrated an improvement from the pretest to the posttest. For example, test taker A moved their score from a nine to an eighteen from pre to post test showing tremendous improvement with the material (See Appendix C).

Recommended revisions include narrowing the scope of material presented, altering the web discussion board format to facilitate ease of use, and rewriting the pre- and post-tests to obtain formative evaluation data that is more valid and reliable.

Appendix A

CO-TEACHING SURVEY RESULTS

TOTAL SURVEYS: 5

| 1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|Strongly |Disagree |Neutral |Agree Somewhat |Strongly |

|Disagree |Somewhat | | |Agree |

I. PRE-SERVICE PREPARATION

|TOTAL RESPONSES |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|Instruction related to cooperative teaching was offered in my pre-service music education program. |3 |1 |1 | | |

|Instruction related to cooperative teaching has been offered in the form of local staff development. |3 |1 | |1 | |

|I have worked with more than one co-director during my teaching career. | | | |2 |3 |

|I had input into the selection of my co-director. |1 |1 | | |3 |

|Prior to working together, we discussed a wide range of topics in depth to compare personal preferences. | |1 |2 |1 |1 |

|Administrative support is available when/if conflict arises. |1 | | |2 |2 |

|We have established “ground rules” for decision-making. |1 | |1 |3 | |

II. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

|TOTAL RESPONSES |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|We agree on most pedagogical issues. | |2 | |1 |2 |

|We have common planning time. |1 | | |1 |3 |

|We spend the majority of our planning time working together. |1 |1 |1 |2 | |

|During cooperative planning, we focus on the needs of the entire group of students. |1 | | |1 |3 |

|We work together to establish a course syllabus at the beginning of each school year and/or grading period.|1 | | |1 |3 |

|We agree on the materials that should be used for instruction. | | | |2 |3 |

|We work together to develop assessments at the beginning of each school year and/or grading period. | |2 | |1 |2 |

|We use grading rubrics in the assessment of students. |1 |1 | |2 |1 |

III. DELIVERY OF INSTRUCTION

|TOTAL RESPONSES |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|We share a common philosophy for classroom management. |1 |1 | |1 |2 |

|We post an agenda on the board for the classes each day. | | | |2 |3 |

|The time each of us spends teaching the class is equal. |1 | | |1 |3 |

|We teach the same concepts and general curriculum in separate rooms for the majority of instruction. |3 | |1 | |1 |

|We take turns teaching within a single class period for the majority of instruction. |2 | | | |3 |

|We divide “lead-teaching” duties among different class periods or ensembles. |2 |1 | | |2 |

|Both teachers remain in the classroom for the duration of the class time. |1 | |1 |1 |2 |

|Our students have a clear understanding of our individual roles within the class. |1 | |1 |1 |2 |

|Our students view us as equals. |1 | |1 |1 |2 |

|We are equally responsible for grading students. | |1 | | |4 |

|We are equally responsible for communicating with parents. |1 | | |2 |2 |

IV. EVALUATION OF THE CO-TEACHING RELATIONSHIP

|TOTAL RESPONSES |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|I am comfortable giving my co-director feedback regarding instruction. | |2 |2 | |1 |

|I am comfortable receiving feedback from my co-director regarding instruction. | |1 | |3 |1 |

|I consult with other teachers who work together successfully. | | | |4 |1 |

|We periodically evaluate our approach to co-teaching and make necessary adjustments. |1 |1 | |2 |1 |

V. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

Please list any additional comments you have related to the topic of co-teaching.

1. There are many ways to co-teach. Most situations have one room, which precludes separate instruction for discrete classes. The most effective model is one teacher leading in the front and the other monitoring the back for tuning, special needs, demonstrations, etc. Teachers should take turns leading and monitoring in the back of the room. Our unique situation in Gwinnett provides a model for other string programs and training in the cooperative teaching process would be VERY helpful if only to present the positive uses of co-teaching and some of the challenges involved as well. Deciding ahead of time how you will handle decisions and division of duties and responsibilities is key to making the relationship work for the teachers and students. Students do pick up on any tension and/or divisions between the co-teachers.

2. One thing I worry about is that string teachers in Gwinnett haven’t done enough to emphasize the power of co-teaching and to document its success as well as the necessity to continue the model.

3. One thing I believe most of us do very well is to avoid the word “assistant.” In the band world, and I don’t mean this as a criticism, they never use the word co-teacher. If they divided authority and collaborated as equals their students would benefit accordingly.

4. There is an article from MENC several years back that addresses the “how to” of co-teaching and it is a good point of departure for someone wishing to learn more about it. Personally I believe all teachers coming into a collaborative teaching situation need to have training WITH their counterparts that they will be working with. Follow up or periodic check-ups or just reserving time to self-assess the effectiveness of the co-teaching relationship and its impact on both teachers would be very helpful. Egos must be checked at the door, and open communication combined with attitude of shared governance over the program as well as valuing each other’s input will surely lead to a more productive learning curve and a much, much more pleasing work environment for both teachers.

5. When walking into a co-teaching situation with someone who is not directly in your field (i.e. band person teaching strings) it is difficult to have many worthwhile and intelligent discussions into pedagogy issues.

6. I do not recommend team teaching to all persons. In the future I will stay away from such situations if at all possible.

7. I have had to learn the hard way the importance of communicating. Classroom curriculum is usually fine but more on the personal level has never really been easy. Men and women view this area very differently and what they think it means towards each other and even a little towards the students/classroom.

Do you think that an instructional course in cooperative teaching would be helpful for current and/or prospective co-teaching pairs?

|TOTAL RESPONSES |YES |NO |

| |5 |0 |

Appendix B

EVALUATION OF WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION RESULTS

TOTAL SURVEYS: 5

| 1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|Strongly |Disagree |Neutral |Agree Somewhat |Strongly |

|Disagree |Somewhat | | |Agree |

|TOTAL RESPONSES |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |

|The learning objectives are clear and easy to understand. | | | | |5 |

|Information presented meets the goals and objectives stated for the lesson. | | | | |5 |

|The information about conflict resolution is useful for co-teachers. | | | |1 |4 |

|The information about conflict resolution is interesting. | | | |2 |3 |

|I will use the information/skills presented in this lesson in my school setting. | | | |3 |2 |

|I would like to learn more about conflict resolution. | | |1 |1 |3 |

|The examples of conflict situations presented in the lesson are relevant to the learning objectives. | | | |1 |4 |

|The web discussion activities are relevant to the learning objectives. | | | |1 |4 |

|I received adequate feedback while completing the lesson. | | | |3 |2 |

|The types of instructional techniques that were used to teach the lesson (lectures, demonstrations, online | | | |1 |4 |

|discussions, etc.) helped me gain a better understanding of the material. | | | | | |

|Assignments are communicated clearly. | |1 | |1 |3 |

|I learned new information and skills relevant to conflict resolution. | | | |2 |3 |

|The lesson content is well organized. | | | |1 |4 |

|The presentation of the material is understandable and enjoyable. | | | |1 |4 |

|The lesson held my attention from start to finish. | | |1 |3 |1 |

|The instructional media (power-point presentations, digital video, web discussion boards, handouts) are | | | | |5 |

|effective in delivering course content. | | | | | |

|The handouts are meaningful and clear. | | | | |5 |

|The course website is easy to navigate. |1 | |1 |1 |1 |

|The course management tool is free of distractions (e.g., clean interface, easy to follow instructions, | |1 |1 | |3 |

|etc.) | | | | | |

|The site is easy to view on my browser. | | | |2 |3 |

|Download of the course is easy. | | | |2 |3 |

|Download of the course is fast. | |1 | |1 |3 |

|The streaming sound and video are high in quality. | | | |1 |4 |

|I did not encounter any technical difficulties while attempting to complete the lesson. |1 |1 | |2 |1 |

|The instructional coordinators are conscientious of delivering materials and solving technical problems. | | | | |5 |

The overall length of the lesson is

a. Too long - 1

b. Adequate - 4

c. Too short

The pace of the lesson is

a. Too long

b. Adequate – 5

c. Too short

What are the strongest features of the lesson? In other words, what contributes most to your learning?

• Learning the systems approach

• Learning when it is appropriate to have a mediator become involved

• I liked the handouts. They were simple to understand and had a lot of information on one page.

• I thought the “Friends” clips were a nice touch.

• Everything was easy to follow, understand, and execute.

• I liked the “Friends” examples…easy to relate to and understand

• The survey that told me how I tend to deal with conflict was interesting and prompted some self-reflection on my part.

• The video clips from “Friends” were entertaining and got the point across.

• Great subject in a great format.

• Strongest features are immediate feedback from the assessments and questions which provoke thoughtful responses

What specific suggestions do you have for changes that we can make to improve the lesson or the way it is taught?

• Navigation of the website should be more clear (comment from preliminary field trial)

• Technical point: the microphone volume setting for the “5 kinds of conflict resolution” section was a bit uneven (too soft)

• Some of the PowerPoint pages had a little too much information thrown at the reader at once.

• Were the discussion board topics in order? That may have been my inexperience with discussion groups.

• I think just put the lesson into smaller modules to somehow break it up. A good project though. Call Random House to publish it!!!

Appendix C

PRE- AND POST-TEST EVALUATIONS AND RESULTS*

|Learner |Pre-Test |Post-Test |

|A |9 |18 |

|B |11 |16 |

|C |12 |18 |

|D |8 |9 |

|E |12 |14 |

*Raw score out of 20 points possible

PRE-TEST

Conflict Resolution Strategies

Multiple Choice – 1 pt. each

1. The primary prerequisite skill to conflict resolution is

a. Effective listening

b. Stress management

c. Persuasive speech

d. Classroom management

2. All of the following are positive outcomes of conflict, except

a. Resulting decisions are high in quality

b. Development of mutual respect

c. Practice in effective communication

d. Heightened sense of power in the relationship

3. It is best to work in an environment where conflict rarely emerges.

a. True

b. False

4. Conflict can be resolved by

a. Competing to win the argument

b. Setting aside your needs to favor the needs of others

c. Working together to develop a unique solution

d. All of the above

5. Compromise is the most effective means for resolving conflict.

a. True

b. False

6. Collaboration is always an available option for conflict resolution.

a. True

b. False

7. A problem is best described as

a. An argument

b. A discrepancy between “what is” and “what should be”

c. A stubborn co-worker

d. A lack of knowledge

8. In the process of brainstorming, you should avoid evaluating ideas as they are presented

a. True

b. False

9. All of the following are strategies for brainstorming, except

a. Nominal Group Technique

b. Brainwriting

c. Mental Rehearsal

d. Storyboarding

10. List four commonly used strategies for resolving conflict. – 4 pts.

11. Which strategy for resolving conflict is most difficult to achieve? Why? – 3 pts.

12. Is it ever appropriate to avoid conflict? Explain your answer. – 4 pts.

POST-TEST

Conflict Resolution Strategies

Multiple Choice – 1 pt. each

1. All of the following are styles of conflict management, except

a. Accommodating

b. Collaborative

c. Delegating

d. Competitive

2. When working collaboratively, the ___________ approach is the most effective means for problem solving.

a. Behavioral

b. Systems

c. Equality

d. Teamwork

3. An environment with little or no conflict is likely resistant to change.

a. True

b. False

4. All of the following are examples of win-lose scenarios, except

a. Competing to win the argument

b. Finding a reasonable compromise

c. Working together to develop a unique solution

d. Avoiding conflict altogether

5. Which of the following strategies can help improve your listening skills?

a. Mentally rehearsing the information being conveyed to you

b. Tuning out the information that is irrelevant

c. Jotting notes for details

d. Both A and C

6. Collaboration is always an available option for conflict resolution.

a. True

b. False

7. Every problem statement should include

a. A clear description of the desired situation

b. Relevant data

c. A potential solution

d. A timeline for resolution

8. If certain ethical issues are of strong personal value to you, which style of conflict management is appropriate?

a. Accommodating

b. Compromising

c. Competitive

d. Avoidance

9. Each person uses one style of conflict management exclusively.

a. True

b. False

10. The accommodating style of conflict management has the following advantages

a. Brings conflict to a quick close

b. Works well for issues that are not very important

c. Personal satisfaction

d. Both A and B

11. It is most appropriate to seek the assistance of a mediator when

a. You know the mediator will support you in your side of the argument

b. You have tried multiple approaches to resolving the conflict without success

c. You want to make others aware that you and your co-teacher are not getting along

d. All of the above

12. Place the steps of the “systems approach” to collaborative problem solving in the appropriate order. – 9 pts.

a. Design the plan

b. Gather relevant information

c. Evaluate the results

d. Determine the most appropriate solution

e. Identify the problem

f. Implement the plan

g. Weigh the possible solutions

h. Brainstorm possible solutions

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download