Effective Collaborative Teaching 1
EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIVE TEACHING STRATEGIES: A STUDY OF THREE SIXTH GRADE CLASSROOMS
A thesis submitted
by
Jarrod Paul Bingham
to
Lagrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
Lagrange, Georgia
May 10, 2011
Abstract
This action research study was designed to test the effect of using parallel, station, and alternative collaborative teaching structures in a sixth grade mathematics classroom. The three focus questions that guided the research process were concerned with discovering how to implement the structures, student learning outcomes, and teachers’ and students’ appreciation of and ability to adapt to working in a classroom in which the three structures are being used. While the treatment group in this study did not show significant academic gains when compared to the control groups, they did display an improved outlook toward learning in a collaborative classroom.
Table of Contents
Abstract...... iii
Table of Contents...... iv
List of Tables ...... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1
Statement of the Problem...... 1
Significance of the Problem...... 2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks...... 2
Focus Questions...... 6
Overview of Methodology ...... 7
Human as Researcher...... 8
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ...... 9
Inclusive Education: Equal Access to all Students ...... 9
Collaborative Teaching: A Definition and Brief Rationale ...... 10
General Guidelines for Effectively Implementing the Strategies ...... 12
Implementing Specific Collaborative Teaching Strategies ...... 15
Measuring Student Outcomes in Collaborative Teaching Classrooms.....18
Student and Teacher Perception of Collaborative Teaching...... 20
Chapter 3: Methodology...... 22
Research Design...... 22
Setting...... 23
Subjects and Participants...... 23
Procedures and Data Collection Methods ...... 24
Validity and Reliability Measures...... 27
Analysis of Data ...... 30
Chapter 4: Results...... 33
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results...... 55
Analysis...... 55
Discussion...... 67
Implications...... 70
Impact on Student Learning...... 73
Recommendations for Future Research...... 73
References...... 74
Appendices………………………………………………………..…………………77
Appendix A Instructional Plan
Appendix B Instructional Plan Rubric
Appendix C Pre/Post Test
Appendix D Student Survey
Appendix E Reflective Journal Prompts
Appendix F Interview Questions
List of Tables
Tables
Table 3.1Data Shell...... 25
Table 4.1Anova: Pretest...... 36
Table 4.2Anova: Posttest...... 37
Table 4.3t-Test: Treatment Group...... 37
Table 4.4t-Test: Control Group A...... 38
Table 4.5t-Test: Control Group B...... 38
Table 4.6Anova: Pretest, No Outliers...... 39
Table 4.7Anova: Posttest, No Outliers...... 40
Table 4.8t-Test: Treatment, No Outliers...... 40
Table 4.9t-Test: Control Group A, No Outliers...... 41
Table 4.10t-Test: Control Group B, No Outliers...... 41
Table 4.11Anova: Pretest, Girls...... 42
Table 4.12Anova: Pretest, Boys...... 42
Table 4.13Anova: Posttest, Girls...... 43
Table 4.14Anova: Posttest, Boys...... 43
Table 4.15t-Test: Treatment, Girls...... 44
Table 4.16t-Test: Treatment, Boys...... 44
Table 4.17t-Test: Control Group A, Girls...... 45
Table 4.18t-Test: Control Group A, Boys...... 45
Table 4.19t-Test: Control Group B, Girls...... 46
Table 4.20t-Test: Control Group B, Boys...... 46
Table 4.21Chi Square...... 48
Effective Collaborative Teaching 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of established collaborative teaching strategies upon the achievement of both general and special education students in a sixth grade math inclusion classroom. Villa, Thousand, and Nevin define a collaborative or co-teaching team as “a content teacher and a special education teacher who teach the curriculum to all students” (as cited in Little & Dieker, 2009, p. 42). In an effective co-teaching situation, each teacher has a partner with which to plan and share ideas, and each student has an additional teacher to provide a fresh prospective and small group instruction. It follows that co-teaching should greatly benefit both teachers and students.
In many classrooms, however, the teaching partners do not work together as they should. Patterson, Connolly, and Ritter (2009) describe a typical collaborative teaching classroom. The general education teacher teaches as he/she has always taught; he/she guides the students through a lesson, shows a few example problems, and gives an independent assignment for the students to complete. During this time, the special education teacher floats around the room and encourages the students to stay on task and pay attention. The teachers in the previous example are employing a commonly used co-teaching model that Friend (2008) dubs “one teach, one assist” (p. 92). Patterson et al. (2009) explain that the teachers’ sole use of the one teach, one assist method leads to the students becoming very dependent upon the teachers. These teachers, like many teachers throughout the United States, collaborate in this way only because it seems like the most natural way to work together—not because it is the best way to teach. Teachers often receive very little co-teach training; they are thrown into the same classroom and told to teach the content together. As a result, both teachers teach “as they had always taught” (Patterson et al., 2009, p. 48).
Significance of the Problem
When co-teachers rely solely upon a single co-teaching strategy, particularly if it is a strategy that fails to take full advantage of the skills of both teachers, the students do not benefit as much as they should from having two teachers. Furthermore, an unhealthy classroom dynamic often forms in which one educator appears to be the main teacher and the other appears to be a helper or teacher’s assistant. After relying solely upon the one teach, one assist approach, the teachers in Patterson, et al.’s (2009) example realize that they are not meeting the needs of their students. In the most dramatic cases, co-teaching in an inclusion classroom hurts the general education and/or the special education students as the single lead teacher tailors instruction to a particular group of students. When collaborative teachers employ a variety of co-teaching methods, particularly methods that involve both teachers equally, they are better able to meet their students’ needs.
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
When executed correctly, collaborative teaching enables classroom teachers to more easily establish instruction that is built upon the principles of social constructivism. Powell and Kalina (2009) explained that constructivism, or cognitive constructivism, was construed by Piaget, who claimed that “humans cannot be given information, which they immediately understand and use; instead, humans must construct their own knowledge” (p. 242). Years later, Vygotsky built upon Piaget’s theory in creating social constructivism (Powell & Kalina). Vygotsky theorized that “ideas are constructed through interaction with the teacher and other students” (Powell & Kalina, p. 241).
The following example illustrates the difference between the practices of a traditional teacher and a constructivist teacher. A father wants to teach his son how to build a tree house. He buys the needed supplies, grabs his son, and begins to talk the boy through the process. After a couple of hours of instruction, the father is sure that his son will be successful—he did, after all, go over every little detail. The father points to the supplies, wishes his son well, and walks back into his house confident that his son will not fail. Two hours later, the man expectantly emerges from his dwelling only to see a hideous construct that appears more like the work of crazed beavers than the tree house that he knew his son was capable of building. Like the father in the story, many well intentioned teachers believe that continuously telling students how to follow an algorithm will eventually lead to their being able to solve problems correctly. This method of teaching, which many call direct instruction, is a viable teaching strategy when used in extreme moderation. Teachers who overuse direct instruction, however, fail to consider their students’ background knowledge, preferred learning styles, and current level of understanding. Furthermore, co-teachers who use too much direct instruction in an inclusion classroom risk boring the more capable students and leaving the special needs students behind as they aim instruction at the students in the middle. It follows that co-teachers, more than any other educators, must not fall into the direct instruction trap.
What if the father in the previous example had approached the situation differently? Instead of explaining how to build a tree house, he gives his son a hammer and shows the boy how to get started. This time the father watches and assesses as his son works. As the man watches his son, he provides support by telling the boy what he is doing wrong as well as what he is doing right. When the boy doesn’t know how to do something, his father helps him out. The boy learns how to build a tree house in the most obvious way: by building a tree house. Every time the boy builds a new tree house, he needs a little less help from his father. Eventually, the boy is able to show his friends how to build their own tree houses. This time, the father taught his son from a constructivist viewpoint. Rather than telling his son how to build a tree house, he provided a task that was within his son’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), provided scaffolding, and allowed his son to “construct” his own knowledge. ZPD, scaffolding, and social interaction are three of social constructivism’s most important tenants (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Powell and Kalina (2009) define ZPD as “a zone where learning occurs when a child is helped in learning a concept in the classroom.” (p. 244). Scaffolding is “an assisted learning process that supports the ZPD” (p. 244). Constructivist teachers seek to understand their students’ current knowledge levels, set goals within their students’ ZPDs, and scaffold students as they build new knowledge. Effective co-teaching strategies, like parallel and station teaching, enable teachers to move past the traditional role of dispensers of knowledge to the new role of facilitator. Once teachers implement these strategies, they will better understand their students’ current level of understanding. This will enable teachers to design appropriate tasks for each group of students. Because effective co-teaching strategies lower the student-teacher ratio, practicing them will also allow teachers to better provide the appropriate scaffolds to each student. Students also benefit from the increased social interaction that many co-teaching models provide. Considering the variety of student levels that are present in most inclusion classes, collaborative teaching practices that do not approach student variance and learner profiles from a constructivist viewpoint could hardly be considered effective.
The content of this thesis most closely relates to Tenet one of the Lagrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework, which states that learners should be enthusiastically engaged in the learning process. The third cluster, in particular, states that teachers should not only understand how students learn and develop, but should also be able to provide learning opportunities that “support students’ intellectual, social, and personal development based on students’ stages of development, multiple intelligences, learning styles, and areas of exceptionality” (p. 4). The purpose of intentionally implementing specific co-teaching strategies is to create a classroom environment in which teachers better understand their students’ learning needs, which enables them to provide instructional opportunities based upon those needs. Students who are taught according to their developmental and learning needs are much more likely to be enthusiastically engaged in learning.
The first Tenet of the Lagrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework bears remarkable similarity to the second domain and third proposition of the Georgia Framework for Teaching and the NBPTS Core Propositions for Experienced teachers respectively. The first document reiterates that teachers should consider students’ knowledge and development when planning and delivering instruction. Proposition three of NBPTS specifically states that teachers should utilize a variety of instructional techniques in order to keep students motivated and engaged. When implemented correctly, co-teaching provides teachers with several methods to easily reach all of the above goals.
Focus Questions
This research was guided by three focus questions. Before implementing specific co-teaching strategies in the classroom, teachers must know the most effective way to do so. The first focus question—What is the most effective way to implement parallel, station, and alternative teaching structures in a co-teach classroom?—was designed to address this.
The second focus question, which follows, quantitatively measured the study’s results: “what effect do co-teaching strategies have upon student achievement?” In the wake of No Child Left Behind’s test driven educational reforms, any study must focus, at least in part, on student achievement on written assessments. In this study, I measured student achievement by calculating both individual student growth using pre and post tests and overall class performance by comparing the class that received the treatment to a control class, which did not receive the treatment.
The last focus question was “how well do students and teachers adapt to this new type of instruction?” Because analyzing test data alone cannot render a complete picture of the effects of implementing specific co-teaching structures, I designed the third focus question to gauge important qualitative factors including student engagement and perception as well as the perceptions of the teachers involved in the study. The teachers’ perceptions of the co-teach structures that were studied were considered critical due to the simple fact that teachers generally will not teach in a way that they hate to teach. In order for strategies like these to achieve widespread usage, they must be presented in a way that is pleasing to teachers regardless of their teaching style.
Overview of Methodology
This study, which most closely followed the principles of action research, used both qualitative and quantitative data types as well as descriptive and inferential statistics to examine the effects of implementing parallel, station, and alternative teaching in a sixth grade mathematics inclusion class. To study these effects, I drew a convenience sample from a rural middle school in west Georgia. The subjects were chosen based upon their placement in one of three sixth grade mathematics classes. The control group was the only class that did not have a co-teacher; the remaining two groups were in inclusion classes and therefore had both a general and a special education teacher. I administered a pretest to all three groups and found that there was no significant difference between the classes at the onset of instruction. All three groups received quality instruction that was differentiated according to student need, learning style, and/or interest. The major difference between the three groups was the structure in which the information was presented. For the first inclusion group, the special education teacher and I implemented the following three team based co-teaching structures: parallel, station, and alternative teaching. I have used the term “team based” to describe these particular structures because all three of them fully utilize the skills of both teachers. The second inclusion group received the more common, but often considered the least effective, co-teach structures of one teach, one assist and one teach, one observe. The non-inclusive class received no co-teaching. All classes received an identical posttest at the study’s conclusion. I then used a dependent t-test to measure growth within each class and an ANOVA to compare each of the groups.
In addition to the quantitative measurement enumerated in the preceding paragraph, I recorded observational data in a reflective journal. The data included notes on student engagement as well as objective observations concerning my perception of each class. To obtain perception data from the special education teacher, I administered a written survey. Student perception was gathered from surveys.
Human as Researcher
In the year and a half that I have been a classroom teacher, I have had the opportunity to work with sixth, seventh, and eighth grade general and special education students. The undergraduate program from which I graduated focused heavily upon the principles of learner centered and constructivist education. As a result, I have endeavored to incorporate differentiated learning strategies into classroom instruction. Going into this study of collaborative teaching strategies, I believed that parallel, station, and alternative teaching would lead to greater student engagement and achievement. I also believed that using the one teach, one assist and one teach, one observe methods would produce similar results to teaching without a co-teaching partner.
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Inclusive Education: Equal Access to all Students
The passage of Public Law 94-142, or The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and subsequent amendments fundamentally altered the delivery method of special education services in the United States of America by mandating that all handicapped children be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) that is possible given their disability (Falvey & Givner, 2005; Little & Dieker, 2009; Patterson et al., 2009; Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2006). Inclusive classes, which are classes that include both general and special education students, fulfill the LRE requirement of IDEA for many students with disabilities (Patterson et al., 2009). According to Falvey et al. (2005), denying inclusive education is very difficult in the post IDEA education system. Indeed, the 2008 National Center for Education Statistics claims that “54 percent [of students with disabilities] receive instruction in general education classrooms at least 80 percent of the school day and another 25 percent of those students are in general education classrooms between 40 percent and 80 percent of the day (as cited in Treahy & Gurganus, 2010, p. 485).”