Exploring Coteaching from All Perspectives: Developing a Suite of - - PDF document

Exploring Coteaching from All Perspectives: Developing a Suite

• f 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

3

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.

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

• Employed thematic analysis

– Equality in the Classroom – Learning Opportunities for Students – Connecting Theory to Practice – Coteacher Collaboration – Professional Development – Personal Skill Development – Types of Teaching – Reflections on Coteaching

• First pilot, Fall 2014 TC (n=81) and CE (n=100) for initial

responses had 88 items

• 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 (p = .001) No CMIN/DF 4.14 Good NFI (Normed-fit) .901 Good CFI (Comparative Fit) .912 Good RMSEA (Root mean square error of approximation) .073 Acceptable SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) .066 Good AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit) .806 Acceptable PCFI (Parsimonious Comparative Fit) .781 Good

9

Survey Scales

Scale N Rel Sample Items

Equality in the Classroom 5 .869

• 4. While planning with my coteacher, we all shared

ideas equally.

• 7. A mutual sense of respect was developed

between my coteacher and me. Learning Opportunities for Students 4 .863

• 6. Coteaching helps the students learn content

more effectively.

• 18. Coteaching allowed the students to get the help

they needed. Connecting Theory to Practice 5 .835

• 9. My coteacher and I worked together to develop

a shared understanding of what effective teaching looks like. Coteacher Collaboration 6 .852

• 10. My coteacher and I discussed issues that

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 Development 7 .876

• 14. Planning and discussing lessons with my

coteacher helped to provide personally relevant professional development.

• 16. My coteacher provided insight and knowledge

that improved my own teaching. Personal Skill Development 5 .925

• 40. Coteaching has shown me new ways to build

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 Coteaching* 5 n/a

• 42CT. As a result of the coteaching experience, I

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 & Classroom Management 6 .685

• 2. If a student breaks the rules, both teachers

would give the same consequence.

• 5. I am confused about which teacher to

listen to in the classroom. (reverse code) Respectful and Caring Learning Environment 9 .857

• 11. My teachers in this class care about me and

my learning.

• 7. My teachers get along and work well together.

Engagement and Motivation towards Learning 8 .837

• 14. I get my questions answered quickly because

I have more than one teacher.

• 19. When there is more than one teacher, we do

more activities in class.

13

Implications for Practice and Future Inquiry

• Linking research to educational practice across diverse

instruction settings using participant responses

• Informative of coteaching implementation from
• utsider/insider perspectives
• Data on TC/CE pairings, can modify teacher education

courses and coteaching professional development.

• Strengthen clinical partnership to improve candidate’s

practical experiences and meet CE’s professional development needs By employing these surveys collectively within multiple coteaching pairings, we have gathered specific data on both individual coteacher’s experiences and more generalizable data to speak to more diverse instruction settings (for example, early childhood, elementary, middle or high school). For example, these surveys allow educational researchers to investigate the correlation between teacher candidate and clinical educator subscale scores which would demonstrate the effectiveness of coteaching to develop a mutual understanding of practice among the partners. Additionally, by examining pupil surveys, we identified coteaching dyads where pupils’ learning and attitudes were positively influenced by the coteaching experience. After identifying stronger or less developed coteaching pairs, the surveys of these dyads were examined for theoretical and practical alignment. This will allow teacher educators and other clinical faculty to adjust and improve clinical practice preparation through coursework and professional development offerings. This survey development work will continue to inform and revise the coteaching teacher preparation model through changes to the PD provided to CEs as well as 14

improvements to the coteaching collaborations between our university and schools. Survey data will inform future work to strengthen the clinical partnership, improve the candidate’s practical experiences, as well clinical educators’ professional development needs. By considering the experiences of all stakeholders involved, these surveys provide unique insights into the coteaching model for teacher preparation. 14

Acknowledgements

• Teacher candidates, clinical educators & students
• DCTE (Delaware Center for Teacher Education)
• CSE (Center for Secondary Education: College of Arts &

Sciences)

• UD College of Education & Human Development
• UD College of Arts & Sciences

15