Roundtable presentation for 2016 AERA Conference in Washington DC.

1. Christina M. Tschida
Elizabeth A. Fogarty
East Carolina University

2.  Recognize the need for change in the student teaching
experience due to the context of accountability facing
teachers today.
 Examine the effects of 2:1 co-teaching on teacher candidates’
readiness to teach and ability to collaborate.
 Examine and evaluate data sources used in evaluating the
readiness to teach in our teacher candidates and determine if
these tools could be applicable to their own contexts.

3. During a time when the relevance
and usefulness of teacher
education is being challenged on a
state and national level, it is vital that
we explore new and innovative
ways to prepare teachers.
Ways that will ensure not only the
relevance but also the effectiveness
of teacher education.
The initiatives within the Pirate Code offer innovative ways to
address the questions and challenges facing teacher education.

4. ⦿North Carolina Teacher Evaluation: Six Standards
✓ The first 5 standards on
NC Teacher Evaluation
measure teacher
performance.
✓ The sixth standard is
based on individual
growth of a teacher’s
students and the school-
wide growth value.

5. ⦿ One Teach, One Observe
⦿ One Teach, One Assist
⦿ Station Teaching
⦿ Parallel Teaching
⦿ Supplemental Teaching
⦿ Alternative (Differentiated)
Teaching
⦿ Team Teaching
(Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend, 1993, 2001)

6.  What are the differences, if any, in the experiences of
a 2:1 and a 1:1 co-teaching intern?
 Are interns in one condition better prepared as
indicated by the data collected?
 What do focus groups and surveys tell us about
candidate, clinical teacher, and school system
perceptions of co-teaching implementation?
 Is there a difference in readiness to teach between
the 2:1 and 1:1 co-teaching interns as measured by
the edTPA?

7. Year 1
2012-2013
• ELEMENTARY
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Year 2
2013-2014
• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
• ELEMENTARY
• ENGLISH EDUCATION
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE
• HISTORY EDUCATION
• MATH EDUCATION
• MIDDLE GRADES
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Year 3
2014-2015
• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
• DANCE
• ELEMENTARY
• ENGLISH EDUCATION
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE
• HISTORY EDUCATION
• MATH EDUCATION
• MIDDLE GRADES
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Year 4
2015-2016
• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
• ELEMENTARY
• ENGLISH EDUCATION
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE
• HISTORY EDUCATION
• MATH EDUCATION
• SCIENCE EDUCATION
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU

8. Squishy
2011-12
Year 1
2012-13
Year 2
2013-14
Year 3
2014-15
Year 4
2015-16
Classrooms 1 14 88 76 99
School Districts 1 2 5 8 8
Program Areas 1 2 8 9 8
ClinicalTeachers 1 10 91 88 99
Interns 2 25 111 106 120
Faculty 6 8 30 20 12
University
Supervisors 1 6 31 41 23
Evolution of Co-Teaching at ECU

9.  university with approximately 27,000 students
 1500 field placements each semester
StudyYear
# in Co-Teaching/
Total # Participants
Year 1 2012-2013 21
Year 2 2013-2014 50 / 85
Year 3 2014-2015 42 / 106

11.  Observing the CT and
students
 Planning for Instruction -
slowly taking on
additional responsibility
 Teaching lessons - slowly
building up to full-days
 Assessment of student
learning
 Evaluation - typically
from outside source CT or
US
 Reflection - typically done
alone after evaluation
 Cycle repeats itself

12. During the Traditional
Student Teaching
experience, most interns
find themselves working
with their Clinical Teacher
during the planning and
evaluation stages of the
cycle. The other stages
tend to be done in
isolation and with less
modeling of instructional
choices from the Clinical
Teacher.

13. The 1:1 Co-Teaching
Model of Student
Teaching creates more of
a team approach to all
stages of the student
teaching experience. The
Clinical Teacher models
instructional decision-
making more explicitly
with the Intern and
provides feedback and
opportunities for
reflecting with the intern
across the cycle.

14. The 2:1 Co-Teaching
Model creates an even
more dynamic team
approach to all stages of
the student teaching
experience. The Clinical
Teacher models
instructional decision-
making more explicitly
with both interns and
provides feedback and
reflecting across the
cycle. Additionally, the
two Interns typically
work together more
closely in planning,
teaching, and reflection
of their experience. The
level of professional
discourse increases in the
2:1 model.

15. Collaboration - two or more teachers working together and
sharing responsibility for planning, delivery, and assessment
of instruction without the sharp distinction between beginning
teacher candidate and experienced classroom teacher.
Mentoring - a process of collaborative work in co-created space
in which an expert imparts knowledge and skill, as well as
models pedagogical decision-making to a novice who receives
continuous feedback on performance.This process is
relationship-based and occurs for a sustained amount of time.
Feedback - information shared between collaborators intended to
provide critique on performance in a way that enhances
confidence and grows expertise.

16. Data Source 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Co-Teaching
Survey
✔ ✔ ✔
Focus Group
Interviews
✔ ✔ ✔
edTPA ✔ ✔ ✔

17. 1. This survey is given to all interns at the end of their student teaching
experience. It contains both Likert scale questions and open-ended
questions about their experiences during internship.
2. Responses were measured on a 9-point Likert scale and anANOVA was
used to determine whether differences exist between co-teaching
participants and non co-teaching participants.
3. Significant differences were found on three items indicating that co-
teachers felt more self-efficacious about classroom management,
believed they would use co-teaching strategies more in the future, as
well as preferred solo teaching less than their non co-teaching peers.
4. Survey data helped debunk ClinicalTeachers’ worries that interns might
struggle with classroom management.

18. Survey Question
Co-
teachers
(Mean)
Non
Co-teachers
(Mean)
ANOVA Results
Q5. I prefer teaching solo in
the classroom (such as
during ALL DAYS).
6.25 7.12 F(1, 159) = 4.538, p=.03
Q11. I have strong classroom
management skills. 8.55 8.01 F(1, 159) = 6.470, p=.01
Q12. In the future, I would
like to use Co-Teaching to
enhance and improve my
teaching.
6.25 5.25 F(1, 159) = 4.202, p=.04

19. 1. Survey completed by all teacher candidates following
student teaching - includes Likert scale and open-ended
questions about their experience
2. Open-ended questions pulled from survey data, organized,
imported into NVivo and coded for themes.
3. Mix of positive and negative responses among co-teaching
interns on the open-ended questions with some common
themes emerging.
4. Survey data helped us see areas that needed improvement
in training and fidelity of implementation.

20. Collaboration: Co-Teaching interns reported greater
opportunities for collaboration.
Mentoring: Co-Teaching interns were
2.5 times more likely to share feelings
of being supported or mentored by
their CT.
Feedback: Increase in interns mentioning
the level of feedback received from their
CT over the three years.
“I am comfortable moving forward into my future classroom. I am better
able to collaborate with colleagues, plan, and teach my students.”

21. 1. Interns, ClinicalTeachers, and University Supervisors participated in a
focus group at the end of student teaching. Participants were asked the
same semi-structured questions to examine their experience with the
co-teaching model
2. Recordings of FGs were transcribed and read for accuracy.Transcriptions
were uploaded to NVivo and coded for a priori themes such as
collaboration, mentoring, feedback, and planning.Additional themes
emerged such as Change,
3. Co-Teaching interns felt supported through co-planning and feedback
from CTs (2:1s receiving additional feedback from co-intern) and very
confident in their collaborative skills and classroom management.
4. Training for CTs, interns, and USs has changed substantially over the
three years. Shifts to logistics with implementation also occurred.

22. Collaboration was the most commonly
discussed theme in focus group data
and reported area of efficacy in co-
teaching interns.
“I think the co-teaching experience
provides a great window into a daily
PLC (Professional Learning Community)
and since we will be expected to
collaborate with our peers when we are
full teachers, co-teaching is necessary.”
“..an underrated part of the
teaching is the amount of
cooperation and teamwork
that is needed. Co-teaching
makes teamwork an essential
part of the planning and
instructional process.”

23. mentoring through dialogue
“My CT was open to planning
and would let me have free input
and not eliminate my ideas. I
feel as though both of us learned
from each other.”
“Co-teaching definitely helped
strengthen my lesson planning
and reflection on instruction. It is
great in the beginning when the
confidence is lacking.”
mentoring through
demonstration
“I liked knowing that I wasn’t
alone.When I wasn’t quite clear
on the content or a student’s
question tripped me up, my CT
was my backup and would step in
with a better explanation than I
could offer.This was a plus.”

24. “Instead of being thrown into the
deep-end and having to manage
everything by myself I had a great
support system behind me.”
“My CT was helpful
with providing feedback
and suggestions while
also giving me space
and opportunity to do
some things alone.”
“It is definitely a plus knowing I am not
alone. I have someone there to support
me if I need it. I can discuss problems...get
advice and another perspective on the
situation.” (2:1 placement)

25. 1. Interns complete the Elementary Literacy edTPA during their
internship semester. Although we have administered it all
years of ourCo-Teaching study, we used local scoring for the
first year of data. All years since have included official Pearson
scores.
2. Ran one-way ANOVAs for each ofYears 1, 2, and 3 comparing
total edTPA scores for each of the three groups (traditional, 1:1
Co-teaching, and 2:1 Co-teaching).
3. There were no statistically significant differences among
scores from any of the three groups.
4. These data showed that co-teaching was not harming our
interns and could safely be used for placements in the field.

26. Control 1:1 Co-Teaching 2:1 Co-Teaching
2012-2013* 49.5
(9.66)
n=20
53.25
(6.375)
n=20
2013-2014 45.171
(30.676)
n=35
46.846
(17.325)
n=26
46.417
(26.514)
n=24
2014-2015 44.672
(7.534)
n=64
45.783
(5.116)
n=23
44.684
(5.354)
n=19
*Note:Year 1 data are locally scored. Random sample comparison analysis was used.

27. Note:Year 1 data were scored locally.Years 2 and 3 are Pearson scores.

28.  Validation of possibility of placing two teacher
candidates within one classroom with a quality
mentor teacher (reducing # of placements and
increasing selectivity in picking clinical teachers)
 Potential to develop beginning teachers more
reflective, better collaborators, and ready to
teach

29.  Comparing student achievement data in classrooms
with 1:1 and 2:1 co-teaching interns.
 Examining student achievement data in classrooms
of beginning teachers who completed co-teaching
internship (1:1 and 2:1)
 Examining the growth trajectory of interns (through
observation data) across traditional, 1:1, and 2:1
placements.

30. Contact Information for the
Co-Teaching ResearchTeam at ECU
Dr. Liz Fogarty fogartye@ecu.edu
Dr. ChristinaTschida tschidac@ecu.edu