Exploring Coteaching from All Perspectives: Developing a Suite of Survey Instruments for Multiple Stakeholders Andrea Drewes, Kathryn Scantlebury, Elizabeth Soslau, Jennifer Gallo-Fox, Stephanie Kotch-Jester, and Susan Gleason 1
Traditional Student Teaching vs. Coteaching models Coteaching occurs when teachers share the responsibility for all aspects of pupils’ learning during instructional time including planning, teaching, assessment and evaluation (Martin, 2008). As an innovative model for student teaching, coteaching involves teacher candidates sharing expertise with experienced teachers as they coplan, copractice, and coevaluate both their work and pupil learning. 2
History of Coteaching at UD 2003-2004 Secondary Science Teacher Education 2008 Select cohorts in Elementary Teacher Education Spring 2013 Early Childhood Teacher Education Fall 2014 All Elementary Teacher Education We currently have about 200 coteaching placements each semester. 3 Much of the work around coteaching has been descriptive in nature, detailing the development and implementation as opposed to examining the broader implications of this teacher preparation model (Gallo-Fox, 2009). This prior qualitative work has been insightful, but doesn’t allow for effective research with larger groups of teacher candidates, clinical educators, and pupils. As coteaching as a method for teacher preparation expands, it is imperative to better understand the experiences of the numerous stakeholders involved in this system: TCs, CEs, and their students. (Madden & Wiebe, 2015; Roth & Tobin, 2001) because the views of these stakeholders can be powerful and influential on the development of teachers’ pedagogical expertise (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2016). 3
Research Goal • Need for quantitative measures to evaluate coteaching model • Ongoing qualitative research provided support for mixed methods approach to instrument development - aided in determining what could be and should be assessed via the instruments • Surveys developed for teacher candidate (TC), clinical educator (CE) & students (grades 4-12) Coteaching has been identified as a promising practice for improving clinical practice (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010) and as CAEP and other accreditation organizations require research to assess the impact of teacher preparation programs on teacher candidates, students, and clinical partners, there is a demonstrated need for improved evaluation of this approach. Our work to develop a collection of psychometrically reliable and valid survey instruments for multiple stakeholders of the coteaching experience aims to address this need. Utilizing a quantitative measure, such as this survey, will allow researchers to document teacher candidates’ and clinical educators’ coteaching perspectives and to understand patterns of the diverse experiences that occur during coteaching. Researchers have used predominantly qualitative approaches to document these positive outcomes from coteaching for teacher candidates, clinical educators, and students. This study establishes reliable and valid instruments on coteaching to collect quantitative data. 4
Development of TC and CE instrument(s) • Item Writing – Items developed from literature and UD’s research findings – Collaborative development process between educational researchers and professors, university field supervisors, clinical educators, and graduate and undergraduate students from teacher education programs – Desire for an instrument that could capture multiple perspectives from the coteaching relationship Employing a mixed methods approach (Onwuegbuzie & Combs, 2010), university personnel and clinical educators collaborated to develop three survey instruments – two similar parallel versions for the coteachers (teacher candidates and clinical educators) and a related third instrument for pupils of coteaching placements using student friendly language intended for pupils aged 10 years and above. Catherine Milne - NYU Milne, C., Scantlebury, K., Blonstein, J., & Gleason, S. (2010). Coteaching and disturbances: building a better system for learning to teach science. Research in Science Education , 41 (3), 413–440. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9172-7. Colette Murphy – Univ Dublin, Ireland Murphy, C. & Beggs, J. (2006). Co-teaching as an approach to enhance science learning and teaching in primary schools. Science Education Review, 5(2), 63.1-10. Nancy Bacharach – St Cloud Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through co-teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32 (1), 3-14 Udel Coteaching Team Gallo-Fox, J. (2009). Transferring schema or transforming culture? Cultural studies of 5
science education, 4, 449-460. Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. A. (2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice science teacher education. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 967–981. Gallo-Fox, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2016). Coteaching as professional development for cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 191-202. Soslau, E., Gallo-Fox, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2018). The promises and realities of implementing a coteaching model of student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 5
Thematic Analysis and CFA • First pilot, Fall 2014 TC (n=81) and CE (n=100) for initial responses had 88 items • Employed thematic analysis – Equality in the Classroom – Professional Development – Learning Opportunities for Students – Personal Skill Development – Connecting Theory to Practice – Types of Teaching – Coteacher Collaboration – Reflections on Coteaching • Continued qualitative review process with stakeholders to improve language, meaning, and clarity of items 6
Review and Revision Process • A revised instrument was administered over the following 4 semesters for a secondary sample of 590 responses • Used iterations of EFA and CFA with the increasing data set of responses • Establish a “final” instrument version for our TC and CE for all three audiences (ECE, ETE, SSE) • Final model parameters to establish fit 7
8
Test Statistic Result Good fit? Chi-square 1647.7 No (p = .001) CMIN/DF 4.14 Good NFI (Normed-fit) .901 Good CFI (Comparative Fit) .912 Good RMSEA (Root mean square .073 Acceptable error of approximation) SRMR (Standardized Root .066 Good Mean Square Residual) AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of .806 Acceptable Fit) PCFI (Parsimonious .781 Good Comparative Fit) 9
Survey Scales Scale N Rel Sample Items Equality in the 5 .869 4. While planning with my coteacher, we all shared Classroom ideas equally. 7. A mutual sense of respect was developed between my coteacher and me. Learning 4 .863 6. Coteaching helps the students learn content Opportunities for more effectively. Students 18. Coteaching allowed the students to get the help they needed. Connecting Theory 5 .835 9. My coteacher and I worked together to develop to Practice a shared understanding of what effective teaching looks like. Coteacher 6 .852 10. My coteacher and I discussed issues that Collaboration impacted our teaching. 12. My coteacher and I worked together to resolve issues related to student motivation. 10
Survey Scales Scale N Rel Sample Items Professional 7 .876 14. Planning and discussing lessons with my Development coteacher helped to provide personally relevant professional development. 16. My coteacher provided insight and knowledge that improved my own teaching. Personal Skill 5 .925 40. Coteaching has shown me new ways to build Development student engagement. Types of Teaching* 6 n/a 34. I stepped up to take the lead instructional position. 35. I stepped back to take a supportive instructional position. Reflections on 5 n/a 42CT. As a result of the coteaching experience, I Coteaching* reflect more on my own teaching practice. 11
Development of Student Survey • Desire to reach beyond the perspectives of TC and CE to investigate how students view a coteaching experience. • Qualitative studies previously utilized to uncover student perspectives • No large quantitative studies with psychometrically valid and reliable instruments • Instrument refined through collaborative approach – Spring 2015: initial pilot of 28 items with 89 students – Fall 2015 – Fall 2016: over 7,620 students in grades 4-12 with 23 items 12
Scales for Student Survey Scale N Rel Sample Items Behavior & .685 2. If a student breaks the rules, both teachers 6 would give the same consequence. Classroom Management 5. I am confused about which teacher to listen to in the classroom. (reverse code) Respectful and 9 .857 11. My teachers in this class care about me and Caring Learning my learning. Environment 7. My teachers get along and work well together. Engagement 8 .837 14. I get my questions answered quickly because and Motivation I have more than one teacher. towards 19. When there is more than one teacher, we do more activities in class. Learning 13
Recommend
More recommend
