improving classroom instruction with co taught instruction

IMPROVING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION WITH CO-TAUGHT INSTRUCTION:

THE EFFECT OF CO-TEACHING ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Derrick Purtee

The University of Findlay

EDUC 552

Dr. Natalie Abell

INTRODUCTION• Educators continue to search for

ways improve classroom instruction to• Improve student performance

on assessments• Reach all levels of students (low, middle, high, gifted)• Maximize classroom time

• Co-Teaching offers a solution.

PROBLEM STATEMENT ANDPROBLEM SIGNIFICANCE

• Problem Statement:• Teachers are challenged

with reaching all students AND having the demand for all students to be successful on mandated assessments.

• Problem Significance:• How to improve student

achievement without hiring more teachers?

HYPOTHESIS

•If co-teaching is implemented in inclusion classrooms, then student achievement in math will increase.

INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES

• Independent Variable:• The Implementation of Co-Teaching:• 2 or more teachers in one

classroom• Both fully share all teaching

responsibilities• One general education teacher,

one intervention specialist

• Dependent Variable:• Student achievement • As measured by district-created

assessments and OGT results

REVIEW OF LITERATURECO-TEACHING:• Mixed Results (at best)• Limited Research• Current trend in education• Goal: enhance inclusion

classrooms• Success depends on quality of

teachers, instructional strategies

DESIGN• Goal: Determine effectiveness of co-teaching• Rural, Ohio high school• Algebra I• Geometry• SLO Assessments• OGT Results• Find positive correlations• Is it worth the money?• Better than pullout classes?

SUBJECTS

• All Algebra I and Geometry students from a rural Ohio high school• 120 total students• 59 in Algebra I• 23 Co-taught (15 Boys, 8 Girls)• 36 Not Co-taught (23 boys, 13 girls)

• 53 in Geometry• 21 Co-taught (12 boys, 9 girls)• 31 Not co-taught (17 boys, 14 girls)

• 13 percent of all students identified with a disability

PROCEDURE• Data collected from 3 sources• OGT results• Algebra I Assessments (Identical pre and post

assessments)• Geometry Assessments (Identical pre and post

assessments)

• Baseline established after pre-assessment within first 2 weeks of 2013-2014 school year

• Post-assessment given in mid-April 2014

• Growth measure determined from test scores

• Growth measures and OGT results used to

determine effectiveness of co-teaching

INSTRUMENTS• Algebra I Assessment:• 75 multiple choice questions• Aligned with Common Core standards• Created by math teacher and intervention specialist• District approved for SLO

• Geometry Assessment:• 70 multiple choice questions• Aligned with Common Core standards• Created by math teacher and intervention specialist• District approved for SLO

DATA• Average Growth:• Non-Co-Taught Algebra I

• 41%

• Co-Taught Algebra I• 32%

• Every student showed at least 12 points of growth

DATA• Average Growth

• Non-Co-Taught Geometry:• 32%

• Co-Taught Geometry:• 34%

Every students displayed at least 12 points of growth

DATA

Alg. Non Co-Taught Alg. Co-Taught Geo. Non Co-Taught Geo. Co-Taught

41

33 3234

Figure 5Class Growth Averages

Most growth: Algebra I non-co-taught studentsLeast growth: Geometry non-co-taught students

OGT RESULTSCo-Taught Average:Non-Co-Taught Average:

414422

Students in Green = Students with IEP400 = Passing score

Co-Taught: 13 of 17 Passed • 2 of non-passing had score of

399!)Non-Co-Taught: 21 of 24 Passed

DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

• Mixed Results• Effectiveness depends on numerous factors• Class size• Student population• Student effort• Quality of teacher(s) and instruction

CONCLUSION• Limited research available• Further studies needed• Broader studies needed

Justifiable if…• Students with special needs show growth• Low achieving students show growth• Commitment to co-teaching is made from top down