Developing Collaboration in the Elementary Mathematics Classroom: Preservice Teachers and Inservice Teachers Working Together for Student Success Robert

Developing Collaboration in

the Elementary Mathematics

Classroom: Preservice

Teachers and Inservice

Teachers Working Together for

Student SuccessRobert Bonner, Ed.D.TOTOM ConferenceSeptember 9, 2011

George Fox University: Preparing Teachers Who Think Critically, Transform Practice, & Promote Justice

The Plan

The Co-Teaching ProjectThe Setting

Co-Teaching is Collaboration

The ImpactMath

The Work Sample

Supporting Students

An Invitation


Changing Paradigms


Setting the StageAll students in the Undergraduate Teacher Education Program

Two student teaching experiences

Elementary & Early Childhood

1 full-time (5 days a week, all semester) (Meets OAR 584.017.180)

1 part-time experience

The part-time experience6 weeks, 2 days a week

3 weeks, full-time

Work Sample Required – In Mathematics

TraditionallyStudent & cooperating teacher chose work sample topic

Work sample was the focus


Math

Attitude AwarenessAnxiety & Angst – Math 211 (n=56)

26.8% - Negative

26.8% - Middle of the Road

17.9% - Positive

25.0 – Enjoy

AvoidanceMost avoid math for their work sample.

Choose a subject with which they are more comfortable


Math

Domains of Knowledge (Ball et al., 2008)Subject Matter Knowledge

Content Matter Knowledge (procedural vs. conceptual)

Horizon Content Knowledge

Specialized Content Knowledge

Pedagogical Content KnowledgeKnowledge of content and students

Knowledge of content and teaching

Knowledge of content and curriculum


Professional Preparation

Model Core Teaching Standards (CCSSO, 2010)

Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice (NCATE, 2010)

Emphasis on the clinical practice of teacher education programs.

Emphasis on collaboration.


Collaboration Through Co-Teaching

Two teachers (a cooperating teacher and a teacher candidate) working together with groups of

students; sharing the planning, organization, delivery, and assessment of instruction, as well

as the physical space.

Foundational elements: Friend & Reising, 1993; Cook & Friend, 1995; Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010.


Paradigm Shift

For the teacher candidate (formerly student teacher), this means that he/she is expected to be involved in all aspects of the classroom experience. This involvement is not the checking off of a list of requirements, but instead is the fulfillment of his/her role as an adult teacher in the classroom. Being a partner and collaborator means that the teacher candidate accepts the responsibility and expectations for the planning, organization, management, and teaching that occurs in the classroom in collaboration with the classroom teacher. His/her focus is the learning and achievement of the students.


Paradigm Shift

For the cooperating teacher, this means that he/she can expect the teacher candidate to be a valued partner and collaborator in the pursuit of success for all students in the classroom. Being a partner and collaborator means that the cooperating teacher shares the responsibility and expectations for the planning, organization, management, and teaching that occurs in the classroom with the teacher candidate.


Fluidity in TeachingTraditional – Often formal delineations between student teacher & cooperating teacher

New Paradigm – Fluid movement with roles transitioning easily

StrategiesOne teach, one observe

One teach, one assist

Station teaching

Supplemental teaching

Differentiated teaching

Team teaching

Parallel teaching


Implementation of Bridges

Concurrently with the implementation of co-teaching, the Newberg School District was also implementing Bridges across the elementary grades.

Students experienced two dimensions of implementation. (Nicol & Crespo, 2006)

Adhering

Elaborating

The third dimension of creating was not present.


The Impact Upon Math

You know, like maybe the fact that they were planning together and they were creating lessons together. They were looking at standards together. They were really focused in on what the task was together. It was very helpful and was a real strength to us. We had a student teacher actually at one point took the lead and try to find different activities to support one of the focal points of Math and did a lot of investigation and took it back to the teacher…and it just helped to divide workload a little bit. And she did a great job of finding and also presenting new ways of doing long division, which was very helpful at that time. (Principal)


The Work Sample

S. …I don’t know that the whole Work Sample Model…It’s effective for the students, but it’s not necessarily effective for our classrooms. When our teachers are very direct about “Yes, you can do a Work Sample and here is what it must be about within this timeframe because this is what I would have been teaching,”…That can work. But I don’t know that we have been that prescriptive and so we’ve had pretty weak content in my opinion, in the form of Work Samples that teachers have allowed the students to do. More, they’re being nice and “making it work for you” and that didn’t really help anybody in my opinion. (1st Principal)


The Work Sample

K. Sometimes it was focused on what standards they were supposed to cover, and sometimes it wasn’t.…Yes, this time it was very focused because it was actually occurring together. They were planning…. (2nd Principal)



The Work Sample

S. …planned it together…delivered it together…. Whereas, I did see that in other staff, just let their person just do their Work Sample while they weren’t present. It was just night-and-day difference at that point in time. And I think the teachers wanted to be there, because they were used to doing the back-and-forth stuff; whereas the other ones were looking forward to having someone else take it over. This just felt different in the building. (2nd Principal)

Learning Together

I think it was a much more valuable experience, because they were learning alongside; so the teacher went through it, especially in Math, since there were some different kinds of situations in Math. Some teachers were learning different concepts, different evaluative tools, and different standards along the way, as well as a new curriculum. So they were kind of doing it together and…I liked that. (Principal)


What if this had said math…

I actually -- I feel like I really made a difference in their confidence and reading ability over the time I was with them because I got so much time to interact with them and try different strategies with them for reading. So that was really valuable and for my cooperating teacher it left her a lot more time to try new strategies for assessment with the kids because the reading groups got done about twice as fast with two people doing it. I especially got to try new strategies and ended up doing some assessments that ended up with her breaking kids into strategy-based reading groups rather than ability-based reading groups by the end which was also very beneficial.


Student Support

I think it’s very beneficial for student learning because you’re just providing them with more support, the more support the better, and I definitely think the learning of the students in my classroom was enhanced by the fact that we have two teachers and two pairs of eyes and two people to, you know, help and encourage and support, so yeah, I would say it was definitely -- it was a positive impact. (Teacher Candidate)


Co-Teaching ReferencesBacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1): 3-14.

Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E.A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. (2010) Female teachers’ math anxiety impacts girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences 107(5): 1860-63. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3):1-17.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010, July). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). Model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue (Draft for public comment). Washington, D.C.: author.

Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics 62:331-355.

Friend, M., & Reising, M. (1993). Co-Teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4):6-11.

Gresham, G. (2009). An examination of mathematics teacher efficacy and mathematics anxiety in elementary pre-service teachers. Classroom Interaction, 44(2): 22-38.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. (Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning). Washington, D.C.: author.


Invitation to ParticipateAre students who have taken Math 211, 212, and 213 better prepared to teach mathematics in the elementary schools than students who have not taken Math 211, 212, and 213?

What is effect on the mathematical knowledge for teaching for students who have taken Math 211, 212, and 213?

Does an emphasis upon student analysis of mathematical situations from the Mathematical Knowledge For Teaching Measures released items in Math 211, 212, & 313 produce greater mathematical knowledge for teaching effects than non-use of the measures in Math 211, 212, & 213?

Other questions that the research team might have.


Math 211 & 212 Study

The released items from the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching assessment were included in the Math 211 and 212 courses as math tasks to be completed.

Students were required to analyze one math task each week. Instead of just choosing an answer, the students were required to provide mathematical justification for why an option should or should not be chosen. Tasks were aligned with the content being studied.

Students were given the secure assessment in a pre- and post- setting via computer.


Preliminary Results

Elementary School Patterns, Functions, & AlgebraMath 211 Fall 2010 – Effect size - 0.1

Math 211 Spring 2011 – Effect size .1428

Elementary School Numbers, Concepts, & Operations (2004)

Math 211 Fall 2010 – Effect size .531


Grades 4-8 GeometryMath 212 Fall 2011 – Effect size .679



Documents

Developing Collaboration in the Elementary Mathematics Classroom: Preservice Teachers and Inservice Teachers Working Together for Student Success Robert