Flora Henry-Smith



Making Co-Teaching Mandatory in Early Childhood Classrooms District-WideFlora Henry-SmithUniversity of St. ThomasResearch Professor: Sharon M. D’Orsie Sc.D. (Hyg.)May 8, 2013Table of ContentsAbstract 4Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Problems and Background Information 5 Self-Reflection 7 Population and Variables 9 Hypothesis 9 Justification 9Chapter 2: Literature Review 11 Models of Co-Teaching 11 Co-Teaching and Inclusion 15 Benefits of Co-Teaching 19 Conclusion 23Chapter 3: Method 25Participants and Sampling 25Measures 26Design 26Procedure 27Data Analysis Plan 28Ethical Issues 28Chapter 4: Results 30 Chapter 5: Discussion 32 Strengths and Limitations 33 Recommendations and Action Planning 34 References 35 Appendix 38 AbstractThe co-teaching model has been utilized in university settings and inclusion classrooms for many years. In this qualitative/quantitative study, the potential benefits of using the co-teaching model in early childhood classrooms were addressed. The co-teaching model was primarily used in Head Start Programs and some charter schools for students three-to-five years old. Through teacher interviews and student data, a comparison of co-taught classrooms and traditional classrooms was made to explore the need for co-teaching to become mandatory throughout public school districts. Student data indicated that both school models started at about the same developmental level and ended at the same developmental level in Upper-Case and Lower-Case Letter Recognition. Furthermore, by contrast it appeared that the co-taught school had a meaningful increase than the traditional school in the Rhyming Domain. The responses from teacher interviews showed teachers from both schools believed that the co-teaching model is an effective tool in pre-kindergarten classrooms that should be employed district-wide.Chapter 1IntroductionProblems and Background InformationThe simplicity of earlier Pre-Kindergarten/Kindergarten programs in America has evolved into a structured sophisticated environment that is strictly data driven. In 2001, a new set of educational reforms were signed into law. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was proposed to deal with many of the new issues that the States were facing concerning the quality of education for the nation’s children. A primary focus of this new legislation was to address the youngest of school members, and to improve their abilities to achieve in elementary school (Isenberg & Jalongo, 2003). The added responsibilities of NCLB were added to existing requirements of early childhood teachers. Teachers of early childhood are bombarded with a list of non-negotiables - higher student/teacher ratios, extensive paperwork, continual analysis of student data and a newly retooled teacher appraisal system that evaluates teachers based on their students’ test scores. The challenges facing Pre-K and Kindergarten teachers to effectively meet these increased requirements and demands have escalated to astronomical proportions. Teachers average a 45-hour workweek. A national study of teachers’ work conditions found that full-time public school teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels are required to be at school for an average of 33 hours a week. In addition, teachers spend an average of 12 hours working after and before school and on weekends (Spring, 2012). School leaders and educators must identify ways to work more effectively rather than just increase the amount of time “on the job” in order to balance their workload. Collaborative teaching (co-teaching) is a possible solution for many of these existing problems in the education field. Teachers who co-teach build their own knowledge base through collaboration, while also increasing the students’ success. Such collaboration can both scaffold understanding of classroom practice and refection, as well as aid the discovery of new and innovative ways to think about problems and teaching in particular context (Roth & Tobin, 2004). Co-teaching is defined by Wenzlafff et al. (2002) as two or more individuals coming together in a collaborative relationship to share work in order to achieve what could not have been done as well alone. In the study of Birrell and Bullough (2005), children benefited from the co-teaching model. They found that when two teachers are in the room, students received increased attention and their questions were addressed in a timelier manner. It could be assumed this improvement was because there were two sources of expertise in the room (Ferguson & Wilson, 2005).Spring (2012) states that a major issue for teachers is class size. Besides affecting the quality of learning for students, class size has a direct bearing on the working conditions of teachers. Large classes result in more papers to grade and more problems in class discipline. Also, large classes affect the quality of interaction between students and teachers (Spring, 2012). In a typical environment, each grade-level is held accountable for the student’s academic achievement. As the student is promoted to a higher grade-level, and the student is not adequately prepared, the previous teacher is held accountable for the student’s educational shortcoming. The researcher is solely responsible for twenty-two Pre-Kindergarten students; there is also one other regular Pre-Kindergarten class and one bilingual Pre-Kindergarten class, both with only one teacher. The same holds true for the four Kindergarten classes; there are no teacher assistants or classroom volunteers to assist throughout the day or when conducting mandatory assessments and testing of students. This research study compared the educational models currently being utilized by a Charter School’s half-day Pre-Kindergarten Program, a co-teaching model to a full-day Pre-Kindergarten program, a solo teaching model, regarding teachers’ satisfaction and student performance. The schools are in the approximate same neighborhood in a Texas city. Student performance was measured by students’ cognitive learning and teachers’ reflections on shared classroom responsibilities were the measure for satisfaction. Roth and Tobin (2004) described co-teaching as teaching at one another’s elbow and sharing responsibility for instruction. Regardless of the words used to explain the idea, co-teaching is seen as an effective instructional technique capitalizing on the knowledge and expertise of two or more teachers in the same classroom in order to increase student learning (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). According to Hyche (2005), W. Alton Jones once said, “The man who gets the most satisfactory results is not always the man with the most brilliant single mind, but rather the man who can best coordinate the brains and talents of his associates”.Self-ReflectionHaving served as an educator for over twelve years I have watched our young children come to school with significant disparities including basic social skills, fragmented home environments and socio-economic issues. As a former Head Start Teacher, I worked in a two-teacher collaborative classroom that serviced children ages four-to-five years old; with a 2:20 teacher/student ratio. Students’ cognitive and social development soared, learning objectives were met and the classroom brimmed with innovative lessons that sparked children’s creativity and imagination. Teaching wasn’t considered a forced, manipulated stage production; it was genuine and well executed. The effectiveness of having a co-teaching team seemed to positively impact individual student learning. Head Start, a program in existence since the 1960’s has been an excellent source of information about what changes should be made to better educate our youngest students. Head Start is effective. As a comprehensive child development program, Head Start provides education, health, nutrition, and social services to children and families through direct services or referrals (Barnett 2002). Two teachers from various educational and social backgrounds paved the way for a learning environment that was rich in ‘real world’ experiences that fostered student engagement. General education teachers said that co-teaching reached more students and that it provides for better student care; the support of a second adult is invaluable (Roth & Tobin 2004). In a class of twenty-two students there is a crucial need for two teachers to be in one classroom throughout the day to effectively guide the students to the level of desired cognitive development. Solely working alone as a teacher with twenty-two Pre-Kindergarten students, I find it quite difficult to meet and cover everything that is required and expected of me. My main purpose as an educator is to thoroughly teach my students. I strongly believe that my students’ learning is first and foremost. Experiencing first-hand the benefits of having two teachers in one classroom, I know that active learning can take place with good sound instruction focused on content rather than individual work issues. Ferguson & Wilson (2005) believe that co-teaching provides an avenue by which the teachers could build meaningful relationships within the school community. Actually experiencing first hand, the many benefits of co-teaching, I feel that it should be state mandated that all district early childhood programs have two teachers throughout the physical school day. Also, it meets the needs of a wider student spectrum; it is not the ‘one size fits all’ notion. Population and VariablesThis study was based on qualitative/quantitative approaches using student testing results and interviews of teachers from a charter school and a public school both in a Texas city. The purpose of this study was to help identify the professional and academic benefits of having two teachers co-teach students in a single classroom opposed to a single teacher. Both schools were in the same urban geographical area, with the same socio-economic student population. This charter school had four pre-kindergarten classes, two of which were in a collaborative program in conjunction with Head Start. There was one teacher and one Head Start teacher co-teaching a class of twenty students. The traditional public school had three pre-kindergarten classes; there was one teacher per classroom with twenty-two students. HypothesisThe hypothesis of this research study was that by having two educators teach in a collaborative learning setting students’ acquisition of letter recognition, rhyming skills and teachers’ overall work satisfaction would increase. The charter school employs the concept of co-teaching and has a successful educational program that stimulates and validates young students’ learning. JustificationThe significance of this study is to examine the need for two teachers to co-teach in an early childhood classroom in order to foster the whole child and eliminate teacher exhaustion. This information may be used to influence policy makers who have thus far considered solo teaching as the only model. Meeting the needs of our students and families, co-teaching needs to be addressed in order for teachers to have twice the opportunity to assist their students and to grow professionally. The charter school program examined in this study is a bold effort to create a network of charter schools designed to transform and improve the educational opportunities available to low/income families. These schools seek to actively engage students and parents in the educational process to expand the time and effort students devote to their studies, reinforce students' social competencies and positive behaviors, and dramatically improve their academic achievement. Ultimately, the goal of this program is to prepare students to enroll and succeed in college (Tuttle, Teh, Nichols-Barrer, Gill &?Gleason, 2010). Although, there are many wonderful teachers that work alone in early childhood classrooms and continue to produce a great group of students yearly, the benefits of co-teaching merit exploration as a mechanism to enhance student learning. Chapter 2Literature ReviewCo-teaching is becoming an increasingly popular trend in the educational realm to help deal with the increasing demands being put on educators. This chapter provides a foundation for the study of the benefits using the co-teaching model for the advancement of teachers professionally and academically. To accomplish this review of literature empirical scholarly articles, opinion pieces and general reviews were used to gain knowledge and document the strengths and weaknesses of the co-teaching model. Several collaborative approaches were reviewed for the effectiveness of co-teaching. Key Words used includes: Co-Teaching, collaborative teaching, team teaching, cooperative teaching and inclusion.Models of Co-Teaching The co-teaching model in the university setting is being used as a springboard in teacher preparation programs. Teacher education programs have long utilized student teaching as a capstone experience to become a certified teacher. While student teaching is a widely accepted practice, the nature of the experience itself has been largely unchanged over the last 100 years. In recent years the innovative use of a co-teaching model of student teaching is gaining national attention (Bacharach, Dahlberg & Heck, 2008). Student teachers utilized the co-teaching model to help set the stage to strengthen their teaching repertoire and to support interaction with their colleagues. The Bacharach, Dahlberg & Heck (2008) study in the Midwest compared co-taught classrooms with non-co-taught classrooms. Two academic measures were employed including the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (State No Child Left Behind approved assessment) and the Woodstock Johnson III-Research Edition. Both assessments focused on Reading and Math skills of co-taught students verses non-co-taught students. Results from the two years of study on the use of a co-teaching model of student teaching demonstrated an increase in academic achievement for K-12 students in co-taught classrooms (Bacharach et. al., 2008). The findings from Bacharach et. al., also shown additional data that supported the positive impact a co-teaching model of student teaching has on teacher candidates and cooperating teachers. While observing the benefits of the co-teaching experiment the researchers needed an instrument to identify all the elements to evaluate successful co-teaching models. The first step in this process involved six university faculty members brainstorming the elements. The brainstorming list was then divided into skills, knowledge and dispositions necessary for successful co-teaching. From the list What Makes Co-teaching Work (WMCW) instrument was created. The instrument uses a 6-point Likert scale, to rate the importance of thirty-two fundamental elements of co-teaching. University supervisors identified thirty cooperating teachers as successful co-teacher teams to complete the WMCW instrument and attend a half-day workshop to discuss the instrument and findings. Subsequently, the teachers participated in a focus group to discuss what makes the co-teaching model work.Results from the administration of the instrument used concluded that there are five inter-related components that are critical to the success of co-teaching including planning, communication, relationship, classroom applications and co-teaching knowledge. It was also noted that one must not assume that these components occur naturally in the student teaching partnership. This study solidified the importance of establishing strong and successful co- teaching partnerships to meet the crucial needs of educators. The bias of the study occurred because the study was one on educators who supported the co-teaching model. One positive factor of the study concluded the innovative approach of the co-teaching model in the university setting. The research of Bacharach, Dahlberg and Heck (2008) supported the co-teaching model used for teacher preparation programs to address the needs of student teachers as, well as, the research of Cramer and Nevin (2006). In this study the information gathered from teacher educators was used for universities to better prepare urban co-teacher teams to meet their needs and the needs of their students. Generalist and special education teachers adopted a collaborative relationship to better serve diverse student populations. The study based on quantitative and qualitative data obtained through the use of surveys, interviews and observations focused on two secondary co-teaching teams, one conducted in Florida and the other in California. Federal legislative changes, such as those described by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) reauthorized in 2004 and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 require that students with increasing diverse learning characteristics have access to and achieve high academic performance in the general education curriculum (Cramer & Nevin, 2010). The authors’ conducted a mixed method study to validate two instruments used with elementary and secondary co-teacher teams in Miami-Dade public Schools in Florida. The Are We Really Co-Teachers Scale developed by Villa, Thousand, Nevin & Liston (2005) and the Noone, McCormick & Heck Co-Teaching Relationship Scale, (2003). The data retrieved from the two instruments showed similarities, which included two of the top five items rated reflected strong similarities: flexibility in dealing with unforeseen events and sharing responsibility through collaborating with others. Based on the study in Florida, researchers found evidence that supported both instruments that validated the areas of flexibility and collaboration in the co-teaching model to promote positive student outcomes and teacher benefits. The Cramer and Nevin (2010) study conducted in the San Diego City Schools (SDCS), the second largest district in California and the seventh largest in the United States used a varying approach to obtain data. General and Special Educators who participated in Project Co-Teach, a university-district partnership to promote co-teaching as a way to promote inclusive practice as well as comply with IDEA and NCLB requirements were interviewed and used a needs assessment to determine the skills needed to effectively co-teach. Teachers acquired educational skills through instructional modules and systematic support to better meet the high demands of teaching. The authors’ with the help of the teachers were able to come up with six “best practice” themes that emerged from the interviews: 1) administrative support, 2) ongoing professional development, 3) collaboration, 4) communication, 5) instructional responsiveness, and 6) expanded authentic assessment approaches. The authors’ suggest several implications that derived from the analysis of the two studies. First, when all general and special educators are engaged in collaborative planning and teaching, they are demonstrating at least three sets of standards: Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 2005 (INTASC), the Council for Exceptional Children, 2005 (CEC), and the National Board for Professional Teacher Standards, 2005 (NBPTS). Special education teachers seeking their credentials can demonstrate mastery of general education standards without having separate general education experience because of the co-teaching collaboration. Cramer and Nevin’s study concluded that restructuring teacher preparation programs at the pre-service and in-service levels can better prepare both general and special educators to work effectively with each other and also with the diverse students they encounter in the classroom today and in future years. Having the opportunity to co-teach together from the beginning of their preparation prospective teachers could more readily and effectively be prepared to meet the educational standards set by the State and government.Co-Teaching and Inclusion More students than ever get their special education services in general education classrooms due to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Among the most common delivery systems is collaborative teaching, or co-teaching, where a general and special educator work together to teach a group of predominately nondisabled students along with disabled ones (Rea and Connell, 2005). The authors’ noted with the increase of the co-teaching model, changes to the structure and delivery of instruction in general education classrooms needs adjusting. Lesson plans, classroom management, student evaluation and professional interactions may require teachers to gain and demonstrate new skills. The shift also places different demands on school administrators responsible for appropriate delivery of special education services. To effectively address the needs of the teachers and students, administrators need to first establish a framework for meaningful supervision and direct support. Proper evaluation of collaborative teachers is crucial to the success of the professionals involved, the special education program and most importantly, the classroom students (Connell, et. al., 2005).Administrators needed to first assess their prior knowledge, attitudes and professional expectations of what a partnership between a general and special educator would entail. The administrator then work to help facilitate a culture that fosters those collaborations. In the article, the authors gauge readiness to support the co-teaching model by evaluating, communicating, supervising and providing support for growth and success in co-taught classrooms. The quality of co-taught classrooms stands to substantially affect outcomes for students, disabled and nondisabled. The authors suggest that co-teaching structures that are well-planned, skillfully implemented, and meticulously evaluated can potentially address demands for greater accountability and meaningful teacher/student collaborations. The popularity of the inclusion model in schools has been growing since the early 1990s. Inclusion, as it is currently defined, refers to the instruction of all students, with and without disabilities, in the general education classroom, unless substantial evidence is provided to show that such a placement would not be in the student’s best interests (Austin, 2001). The study conducted by Austin (2001) focused on teachers’ perceptions of collaboration and the concurrent effects of collaboration on student learning in inclusive classrooms. This investigation focused primarily on important factors affecting collaborative teaching and strategies that were both valued and used. To accomplish this research the author developed an instrument called the Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey (PCTS). The survey consisted of two critical components: Part I sought demographic information; Part II solicited information according to four specific categories relevant to teacher’s perceptions of collaboration. The research involved 139 collaborative elementary, middle school, and high school teachers from districts across Northern New Jersey. Each of the schools in the study was identified as having inclusionary classrooms. The research focused on co-teacher’s perceived current experiences, effective teaching practices, teacher preparation for co-teaching and identifying school base support. Teachers completed the Perceptions of Co-Teaching Survey (PCTS). The samples of the teachers that participated in the survey were randomly interviewed by the researcher. The results indicated areas where general and special education teachers differed in some of their perceptions.The findings of Austin’s research indicated that general and special education teachers considered the co-teaching model worthwhile. The most compelling outcome of this study is that both special and general co-teachers agreed that general education teachers do more than their special education partners in the inclusive classroom. The author suggests that it may be due to the fact that the special education teachers are viewed as experts on curriculum adaption and remediation, whereas the general education teacher is regarded as more of an expert in the content area. Furthermore, Austin’s study found that a majority of the co-teachers interviewed believed co-teaching contributed positively to the academic development of all their students. The results from prior studies in this literature review supported the researcher’s findings that validated the co-teaching model and found it to be a beneficial collaboration between general and special education teachers. Yet, further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the co-teaching model in facilitating academic achievement in students with or without learning disabilities. Chapple (2009) found similar information about inclusive classrooms citing that since 1975, with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (EHA), schools have been attempting to implement the provision of the least restrictive environment. Although the law defines a continuum of services process, children with disabilities should be educated to the maximum extent that is appropriate with children who are non disabled. Least restrictive learning environments should always be the general education classroom with appropriate support and services as determined by the Individual Education Program (IEP) team. Chapple (2009) analyzed results of the research of Austin (2001) that focused on theoretical framework for collaborative teaching and discussed many issues related to a collaborative teaching process. The research study used surveys, descriptive analyses, practitioner action research and interviews to evaluate the use of co-teaching in inclusionary classrooms. Analyzing the gap in current co-teaching research and teacher preparation programs the author feels there is a crucial need for collaborative teachers and administrators to understand what co-teaching truly involves. To identify and understand how to effectively develop a partnership for successful collaborative co-teaching experiences results show that data must be utilized. The review of the current research on evaluating collaborative teaching indicated that various research methods can and yield different results. In this study general education teachers noted the co-teaching model improved their skills in adapting curriculum and improved classroom management. Special education teachers noted they increased the knowledge of curriculum content. Both general and special education teachers cited the use of cooperative group learning and effective use of small groups successful and created positive experiences for the educators and students. It was also identified that having adult communication in the area of providing feedback to the teaching partner, sharing classroom management having a common planning time, and the use of cooperative group learning approaches where critical for a successful co-teaching experience.The author discovered that while many special education teachers felt they shared teaching responsibilities with general education teachers there were minor issues. The survey data showed general education teachers assumed the lead role and the special education teachers were responsible for remediation and modifying the lessons that were planned. To adequately foster a positive co-teaching environment it is necessary for all teachers involved in inclusive classrooms to attend both pre-service and in-service trainings to keep abreast of current trends and practices. Benefits of Co-TeachingThe benefits of effective co-teaching have been documented in nearly all fields of the education system, notably and substantially in grades Pre-Kindergarten to 12th grade. The research of Vemette, Jones & Jones (2010) found evidence that supported the benefits of co-teaching for both students and educators. As professors in a small private university in Western New York, the authors developed a “team” in which they conceived to holistically educate student teachers in the field of co-teaching. Through discussions, research, practice and reflection the authors developed a course to guide pre-service teachers to collaborate in meaningful co-teaching practices. In their research of Pugach & Wesson (1995) they found that when compared to non-co-teaching colleagues, teachers in collaborative settings were more confident in their ability to teach all learners due to the expertise and assistance of their co-teacher. The increased level of self-efficacy translated into greater ability and willingness to attend to the needs of all learners. The authors’ contends that one of the most powerful ways to change teacher mindsets is to immerse teacher candidates in an environment of collaboration while in teacher’s college. By establishing the professional expectation of collaboration research suggest that pre-service teachers are more likely to engage in shared decision-making with their colleagues, co-plan lessons and develop new instructional techniques. Collegial and collaborative partnerships are necessary for reaching today’s learner.Fortunately, the authors are aware that the co-teaching model they developed is an exception rather than a norm. Further research is needed to validate the role that co-teaching has in teacher preparation programs. Vemette, Jones & Jones concluded that more data was needed in order to substantiate co-teaching in teacher preparation programs whereas, Ferguson and Wilson (2011) found varying differences. In their research, the two professors co-taught an undergraduate methods course to model the benefits of the co-teaching in a university setting. The purpose of this study was to implement a co-teaching model and explore the role that universities could aid in the success of “authentic” teacher collaborations. To obtain data to support the authors’ research during a 15-week semester journals were kept and teacher candidates filled out surveys to document their experiences. Data analysis of both sources allowed the professors to get a better understanding of what teacher candidates thought co-teaching employed and their concerns. The journals allowed the researchers to reflect and document first-hand co-teaching experiences including the negative and positive aspects. The student surveys provided insight about how the co-teaching model was being received and if there were benefits and limitations of co-teaching. The two main concerns dealt with power and expertise that many teachers experience in a co-teaching collaboration. As the semester progressed Ferguson and Wilson (2011) found that student teachers were less competitive and focused on how others perceived their teaching ability. The authors concluded that in order for positive collaboration to occur within the co-teaching model issues of power and expertise should be addressed openly. If the teaching profession wishes to experience true educational reform that increases student learning and engagement, then educators, both classroom teachers and professors, must change the way they think of themselves Ferguson and Wilson (2011). Ferguson and Wilson (2011) believe that using a co-teaching format at the university level allows future teachers to experience the strength and weaknesses of working collaboratively. The authors note that continued research on co-teaching in higher education will: 1) improve higher educational instructional practices; 2) empower pre-service teachers to engage in co-teaching for the benefit of their students; 3) model collaboration; and 4) provide professional development for university professors. Bacharach, Dahlberg and Heck (2008) stated the innovative use of co-teaching at the university level is gaining national attention, the same holds true for co-teaching in elementary schools. Students in co-taught classes receive attention of two teachers and increased academic applications. Nicholas, Dowdy and Nichols (2010) research on co-teaching found the benefits at the elementary level included more attention was given to not only students who have special needs, but also to those who have not been identified. Thus, offering a more enriched curriculum and positive outcomes for all students involved in the co-teaching arrangement. According to the authors, special education students lost the label and stigma of being learning disabled to some extent to the collaboration of team teaching. Co-teachers reported higher levels of academic achievement in students with learning disabilities as well as regular students. The authors also noted that pairing two teachers in a classroom, one experienced and the other a novice demonstrated promise for the potential to produce better teachers. The authors found that the negative aspect was the emphasis on high stakes testing on the co-teaching experience. Nicholas, Dowdy and Nichols (2010) concluded the push to cover the content that appeared on state mandated assessments pressured teachers to teach for the test and not fully check for the students’ understanding. Those most likely to be left behind were students with learning disabilities. The pressure to cover content decreased the amount of differential instruction occurring within the classroom. Observing the co-teaching model in early childhood classrooms Oblak (2003) found that cooperation between teachers in early childhood education has been widely recognized as a powerful issue in professional development. Two or more teachers can more effectively respond to the educational and psychological needs of the learners. The author suggests that working as a team develops and refines healthy teacher relationships that build responsibilities, professional and personal growth. The collaborative planning approach is interactive for teachers and their young students. The co-teaching approach is not easy. Oblak (2003) noted that for some teachers it required changes in professional attitudes and skills levels as well as trust-building among the team members. It is crucial that both teachers are actively involved in all stages of lesson development, assessments and reflection. The author concurred, that discussions with colleagues prior to teaching and preparation time is as essential as teaching itself. Furthermore, Oblak (2003) believe that each member has their own individual needs and it is of great importance to be aware of the personal needs of others and support those needs when possible. ConclusionThe research studies in this literature review embodied the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the co-teaching model in early childhood classrooms to drive academic instruction and teacher performance. Classrooms that incorporate the co-teaching model in their daily environment transcend learning for young students helping them to grasps concepts by providing increased one-on-one instruction time and guide in early intervention. Teachers who participated in co-taught classrooms indicated higher levels of academic achievement and less feelings of isolation in the teaching profession. There is no need to say that there are more advantages than disadvantages. According to Oblak (2003) what helps is talking to experienced colleagues, reviewing literature, becoming acquainted with one another’s teaching style, opening the channels for communication in order to cooperate, confront and critique in philosophical discussions. Creating the optimal co-teaching environment can avoid potential power struggle and lead to better group dynamics. The authors believe that these techniques are a tremendous help for teachers to learn how to function effectively as a team. Collaborative teaching offers a wealth of benefits for the many teachers and students that utilize this model. Oblak (2003) stated that if teachers function well as a team and are able to address various problems and obstacles, they can transfer positive experiences of holistic learning to their students through social and academic interactions. It is imperative for educators to have access to teaching models that will enhance and expand their professionalism and meet the needs of students’ individual learning styles. The previous research studies in this literature review focused primarily on the co-teaching model at the high school level, university level and inclusion classrooms. This study will help to validate the need for the co-teaching model to be a requirement in early childhood classrooms throughout public school districts to better serve students and their teachers. Chapter 3MethodParticipants and SamplingThe study involved comparing student achievement data over a twelve-week period from four different pre-kindergarten classes in two separate schools, each with one of two different, specific teaching models. Beginning of the Year Assessments (BOY) and Middle of the Year Assessments (MOY) from the students were studied to note variations in scores between the two teaching models. Student data were coded to eliminate student names before data were transmitted to the researcher. Additionally, interviews were conducted with six pre-kindergarten teachers at these two different schools. These schools were in the same geographical area in a Texas city; over 96% of the student population is socio-economically disadvantaged and predominately minority. The interview participants were selected based on whether they participated in a co-teaching model or a traditional teaching model at their schools. Participation was voluntary. There were four classrooms included in the study; two of the classes were from a charter school in a collaborative Head Start Program, which pairs two teachers in a classroom with a teacher/student ratio of 2:20. The other two classrooms were from a traditional public school with self-contained classes and the teacher/student ratio is 1:22. Ages of the interviewees ranged from twenty-four years old to forty-five years old with teaching experience that varied from two years to twenty-three years. Prior consent to conduct the interviews was obtained from the teachers.MeasuresThis study is qualitative (narrative) and quantitative (comparative). The measures used for this research study consisted of teacher interviews and student data over a course of a twelve-week period to determine the impact of the co-teaching model in early childhood classrooms. The researcher developed interview questions to examine teachers’ attitudes on current educational reforms, opinions on professional growth and student attainment in co-taught and self-contained classrooms. The assessments used to collect student data were from the Frog Street Press Curriculum for the traditional classrooms. The charter school developed their own assessment. Both assessments utilized the newly revised Texas Education Agency (TEA) Pre-Kindergarten Guidelines that aligned both schools’ curriculum.The researcher believed that conducting a structured interview using open-ended and closed questions along with confidentiality supported the reliability of this study. The interviews allowed teachers to candidly discuss the pros and cons of using both teaching models and addressed the need for having two teachers co-teach in a pre-kindergarten classroom. Student test data also provided evidence that supported this study. In qualitative research the researcher is the primary data collection instrument. Qualitative researchers can establish trustworthiness of their research by addressing the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of their studies and findings (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2012). DesignThis study used a qualitative comparative/quantitative comparative design that utilized formal assessments and interviews. Students’ academic growth was compared over a twelve-week period to evaluate the effectiveness of the two teaching methods. The measures included: Upper-Case and Lower-Case Letter Recognition and Rhyming. Teacher interviews were also conducted. The validity of this study was enhanced by in depth teachers’ interviews addressing their perceptions of the benefits of having two teachers sharing teaching responsibility to ease teacher workloads and improve students’ academic growth. A possible limitation to this study would be student achievement data not being aligned between both schools. Varying educational philosophies between a traditional public school and a charter school could change the academic gains in students’ achievement, thus causing a threat to the external validity of this research. ProcedurePrior to the teacher interviews, signed consent forms were obtained from the teachers. An explanation of what the researcher was focusing on was discussed confidentially with each participant. The teacher interviews were conducted individually in their classrooms and took an average of forty-five minutes for each teacher to complete. To ensure the clarity of face-to-face interviews, teachers consented to be tape recorded; responses were later transcribed. Interviews were used to identify commonalities and differences between both teacher groups. Student assessment data was also utilized to compare cognitive growth in both school models for a twelve-week period. Teacher interviews and students’ assessment data for this study were conducted for the duration of approximately twelve-weeks. Teacher interviews were conducted over a two-day period as to not conflict with both schools’ daily schedules. Audio data was stored on the researcher’s iPod and other contributing data was collected and placed in a file.Data Analysis PlanData from this study were compiled using teacher interviews and students’ assessment results. The collection of data retrieved from this study occurred in an uncontrolled setting to get a naturalist point of view concerning the two teaching models. Students’ data results from the BOY and MOY from both schools were compared to find if students’ cognitive growth increased in co-taught classrooms compared to traditional classrooms. Student achievement data (BOY and MOY) were compared for the co-taught classrooms and additional classrooms for the following indicators: Upper-Case Letter Recognition, Lower-Case Letter Recognition and Rhyming. The student t test was utilized to determine significance. Teacher interviews were analyzed by the researcher to determine if there was a common belief that the co-teaching model had a positive effect on students’ academic attainment in pre-kindergarten and teachers’ overall satisfaction in their work environment. Interviews were transcribed and themes identified. Data retrieved from the study was kept confidential and maintained by the researcher in a locked file cabinet in a residential area in a northeast Texas area. The participants, research professor and university officials only had access to the data used for the research study. Upon completion of the study all data were shredded. Ethical IssuesPermission to conduct this research study was first obtained through the school administration from both schools. Written consent forms from teachers involved in the study were also obtained. The researcher used coding and pseudonyms to protect the identity of participants involved in this study. All information gathered was maintained in a confidential manner with regard to the participants and reported in an unbiased fashion. Chapter 4ResultsThis twelve-week study examined the benefits of using a co-teaching model in early childhood classrooms. Four pre-kindergarten classes were observed; two from School A that utilized the traditional teaching model and two from School B that utilized the co-teaching model. Both schools conducted Beginning of the Year Assessments (BOY) to identify students’ prior knowledge of letter recognition, letter sounds and rhyming. Also, a Middle of the Year Assessment (MOY) was conducted in those same domains to note cognitive growth in students. Additionally, teachers from both School A and School B were interviewed to find if commonalities of the benefits of having two teachers co-teach existed. MOY Upper-Case Letter Recognition Assessments results suggest that School A and School B students had similar growth with the mean score of 19.7% to 19.5% Table 1 (See Appendix) presents the data for groups’ increases. MOY Lower-Case Recognition also showed similar results with the mean scores of 21.5% to 19.7% Table 2 (See Appendix). Conversely, School B’s MOY Rhyming improvement was greater than School A with an increase of 32% vs. 16.4% Table 3 (See Appendix). Unfortunately, the raw data of each tested domain were not available so inferential statistics could not be calculated. The interview component of the study Table 4 (See Appendix) revealed that the participants at School A had more teaching experience in pre-kindergarten than the participants at School B. All participants felt that the co-teaching model should be utilized throughout school districts in Texas. Whereas, School B was satisfied with their school leader’s knowledge and support in early childhood; School A did not have the same perception. Both sets of participants believed that there is a need for two teachers in a pre-kindergarten classroom. School A expressed greater obstacles that inhibited their teaching due to only having one teacher in the classroom. School B felt that there were no visible obstacles in their teaching because of the shared responsibilities. Participants at School A responses also revealed that they felt over-worked and pressured in their current job position opposed to School B who responded differently. Student data indicated that School A and School B’s Upper-Case Letter Recognition and Lower-Case Letter Recognition started at about the same developmental level and ended at the same developmental level. Furthermore, by contrast it appeared that the co-taught school had a meaningful increase than the traditional school in the Rhyming Domain. Reviewing the responses from teacher interviews showed teachers from both schools believed that the co-teaching model is an effective tool in pre-kindergarten classrooms that should be employed. Chapter 5DiscussionThe hypothesis for this research study was that by having two educators teach in a collaborative setting, students’ acquisition of letter recognition and rhyming skills increases and teachers’ overall work satisfaction increases. Data collected from this comparative study showed there is some limited evidence for the co-teaching model to be implemented in Early Childhood Classrooms district-wide to increase students’ scores. Only the scores for the Rhyming Domain showed an increase in scores for the co-taught classroom. Scores for Upper-Case and Lower-Case Letter Recognition did not increase compared to the traditional classroom. Both models (Traditional and Co-Teaching) had equal success in that area possibly because of the mandated statewide literacy initiative. Information obtained from teacher interviews supports the hypothesis that by utilizing two educators teaching in a collaborative learning setting, teachers’ overall job satisfaction increases. These findings are consistent with previous literature, which found the co-teaching model to be a feasible tool. Bacharach, Dahlberg and Heck (2008) stated the innovative use of co-teaching at the university level is gaining national attention, the same holds true for co-teaching in elementary schools. Students in co-taught classes receive attention of two teachers and increased academic applications. The research of Bacharach, Dahlberg and Heck (2008) supported the co-teaching model as well as, the research of Cramer and Nevin (2006). Teacher satisfaction was also evident in the of research of Pugach & Wesson (1995). They found that when compared to non-co-teaching colleagues, teachers in collaborative settings were more confident in their ability to teach all learners due to the expertise and assistance of their co-teacher. The increased level of self-efficacy translated into greater ability and willingness to attend to the needs of all learners. Strengths and LimitationsOne of the strengths of this study was the well-constructed questions the researcher prepared for the teacher interviews. Talking one-on-one within each group of participants from traditionally taught classrooms and co-taught classrooms gave informative opinions concerning their views on having two teachers co-teach in early childhood classrooms. All of the participants had similar beliefs on the benefits that co-teaching could provide for students and teachers. In Austin’s study (2001) he also found that a majority of the co-teachers interviewed believed co-teaching contributed positively to the academic development of all their students. The researcher’s findings validated the co-teaching model and found it to be a beneficial collaboration as supported by literature. Observing the co-teaching model in early childhood classrooms Oblak (2003) found that cooperation between teachers in early childhood education has been widely recognized as a powerful issue in professional development. Two or more teachers can more effectively respond to the educational and psychological needs of the learners. The author suggests that working as a team develops and refines healthy teacher relationships that build responsibilities, professional and personal growth.A limitation of this study was that there was no access to raw data scores for students in co-taught classrooms. Data were available only as classroom percentages. These data only showed success in the Rhyming Domain area for the co-taught class compared to the traditionally taught class. Results from the Letter Recognition Domain had no obvious increase. The research of Vemette, Jones & Jones (2010) also indicated that more data were needed in order to substantiate the co-teaching model in their teacher preparation program. Nonetheless, the advantages of the co-teaching model were evident through the interviews of traditional classroom and co-taught classroom teachers. Despite assurances that both schools used the same assessment tool, when the data were collected the researcher found that this was not the case. Recommendations and Action PlanningThis study suggests that there is a need for further research in order to validate the role that co-teaching has in Early Childhood Classrooms. Fortunately, Pugach & Wesson (1995) were aware that the co-teaching model they developed was an exception rather than a norm. This study has shown that more school districts in Texas should pilot a co-teaching model in their primary classrooms to give students the needed attention of two teachers and thus increase academic achievement. Bacharach, Dahlberg and Heck (2008) stated the innovative use of co-teaching at the university level is gaining national attention: the same holds true for co-teaching in elementary schools. Another recommendation for primary school teachers and administrators is that, in areas where both teaching models exist, a formal assessment should be designed and planned before the start of the school year so that powerful comparisons could be made.Concerning my own findings in the study I concluded that the co-teaching model is viable and should be explored at greater depths to examine the positive outcomes attributed to having two teachers actively involved in one classroom. Students and teachers gain additional benefits that help to create engaging learning environments and productive relationships in co-taught classrooms. I will continue literature searches to amass overwhelming support for co-teaching so that the information could be presented at a school board meeting.ReferencesAustin, V.L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 245-255.Bacharach, N. L., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. R. (2008). What Makes Co-Teaching Work? Identifying the Essential Elements. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(3), 43-48.Barnett, W. S. (2002). The battle over head start: What the research shows. Retrieved from National Institute for Early Childhood Research website: , J.W. (2009). Co-teaching: from obstacles to opportunities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ashland University, Ashland, OH. Cramer, E., Liston, A., Nevin, A., & Thousand, J. (2010). Co-Teaching in Urban Secondary School Districts to Meet the Needs of All Teachers and Learners: "Implications for Teacher Education Reform". International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(2), 59-76.Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-604.Ferguson, J., & Wilson, J. C. (2011). The Co-Teaching Professorship: Power and Expertise in the Co-Taught Higher Education Classroom. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5(1), 52-68. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Qualitative Data Collection. In Pearson Educational, Inc. (10th eds.). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. (pp. 396-397). New Jersey: Pearson Educational, Inc. Hyche. W. (2005). The right moment. (p.43). Austin: Common Good Press.Isenberg, J., & Jalongo, M. (Eds). (2003). Major Trends and Issues in Early Childhood Education Challenges, Controversies, and Insights (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Nichols, J., Dowdy, A., & Nichols, C. (2010). Co-Teaching: An Educational Promise for Children with Disabilities or a Quick Fix to Meet the Mandates of No Child Left Behind?. Education, 130(4), 647-651. Oblak, P. (2003). The Young Learner and Learning the Language through the Vehicle of Sports Case study. Oxford Brookes University. Oxford.Rea, P., & Connell, J. (2005). Minding the Fine Points of Co-Teaching. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed For Quick Review, 71(1), 29-35 Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. G. (2004). Co-teaching: From praxis to theory. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 10(2), 161-180.Spring, J. (2012). American education. (15th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Tuttle, C., Teh, B., Nichols-Barrer, I., Gill, B. P., Gleason, P. (2010). Student characteristics and achievement in 22 KIPP middle schools: Final Report. Retrieved from Mathematica Policy Research website: , T., Beral, L., Wiseman, K., Monroe-Baillargeon, A., Bacharach, N., & Bradfield- Kreider, P. (2002). Walking our talk as educators: Teaming as best practice. In E. Guyton & J. Ranier (Eds.), Research on meeting and using standards in the preparation of teachers (pp. 11-24). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishing AppendixTable 1: Means and Growth for School A and School B Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms Upper-Case Letter RecognitionTable 2: Means and Growth for School and School B Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms Lower-Case Letter RecognitionTable 3: Means and Growth for School A and School B Pre-Kindergarten ClassroomsRhymingTable 4: Interview Results for Teachers Using Non-Co-Teaching and Co-Teaching ModelsTable 1: Means and Growth for School A and School B Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms Upper-Case Letter RecognitionBOY (Mean)MOY (Mean)% Increase*School A70%90.2%+19.7%**School B72.5%92%+19.5%Table 2: Means and Growth for School A and School B Pre-Kindergarten ClassroomsLower-Case Letter RecognitionBOY (Mean)MOY (Mean)% Increase*School A70.5%90.2%+19.7%**School B68%89.5%+21.5%Table 3: Means and Growth for School A and School B Pre-Kindergarten ClassroomsBOY (Mean)MOY (Mean)% Increase*School A52.2%68.6%+16.4%**School B55.0%87.0%+32% Rhyming*School A: Traditional Classrooms **School B: Co-Taught ClassroomsTable 4: Interview Results for Teachers Using Non-Co-Teaching and Co-Teaching ModelsQuestions*School ATradition**School BCo-TaughtHow many years have you been teaching in pre-kindergarten?7, 201.5, 3.5, 4,5Do you feel that the co-teaching model should be utilized throughout districts in Texas?YesYesDo you feel that your school leader is knowledgeable and supportive in early childhood?NoYesDo you feel that there’s a need for two teachers to be in a pre-kindergarten classroom?YesYesAre there any major obstacles that you feel inhibit your teaching?YesNoDo you feel over-worked and pressured in your current job?YesNoSchool A Teachers had the most years of teaching experience in Pre-Kindergarten compared to School B Teachers.Both School A Teachers and School B Teachers agreed that the co-teaching model should be utilized throughout school districts in Texas.School A Teachers felt that their school leader was not knowledgeable or supportive in early childhood, while School B Teachers felt the opposite. Both School A Teachers and School B Teachers felt there was a need for two teachers to be in a pre-kindergarten classroom.School A Teachers felt there were major obstacles that inhibited their teaching due to the lack of time and excessive paperwork; School B Teachers did not have any issues with major obstacles.School A Teachers felt over-worked and pressured in their current job position because of the data-driven school society. School B Teachers did not feel over-worked or pressured because they shared responsibilities in the classroom. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download