Co-Teaching, Co-LearningFindings from year 12010-2012 Knowles Science Teaching Foundation Grant
Jessica Thompson & Sara Hagenah
A Co-Learning Model
• Supporting novice learning (Thompson, Windschitl, & Braaten, 2010)
– Student teaching can be a time for on-going learning of core practices from methods
– Focus on developing a student thinking lens– Supportive contextual discourses
• Co-learning can’t fully operate under a traditional apprenticeship model to produce individual artisans (Feinman-Nemser, 2001)
Data Sources
• 8 CT-TC pairs• Observed each pair co-teach 5 times• Observed and participated in 4 planning
and 4 debriefing sessions with pairs • Pre & post interviews with individuals • CT conversations from summer
institute, 2 meetings at critical times, & CTs social media conversations
4
Student Teaching Phases
Phase
1
Sept-
Oct
•FOCU
S:
Coac
hing
& co-
inquir
y into
stude
nt
thinki
ng
and
teach
er
quest
ions
Phase
2
Oct-
Dec
•FOCU
S:
Co-
Inquir
y into
plann
ing
lesso
ns
and
analy
zing
stude
nt
thinki
ng
Phase
3
Jan-
Mar
•FOCU
S:
Colle
gial
explo
ration
into
teach
ing
and
learni
ng
5
Points of Discussion
• Having structured phases to student teaching• Aligning Practices among UW, CTs, and TCs• Co-teaching at its best--what this sounds like
in classroom discourse & planning• Turning over responsibility during student
teaching• Midcourse refocusing• Targeted coaching (TC/CT/Coach & social
media)
Aligning Practices
1. Not at all aligned
2. Aiming for different targets
3. Aligning: Building on kids’ ideas
4. Aligning: Working through explanations & scaffolding students’ thinking
CT
UW
TC
CTUWTC
CTUWTC
CTUWTC
7
Alignment of practice & TC practice
Teacher
Selecting Big Ideas/Models
Working with Science Ideas
Pressing for Explanation
Working with Students’ Ideas
Topic focusProcess focus
Theory focus
Method focus
Discover/ Confirm science ideas
Forward science ideas to work on together
MBI focus
No press What happened explanation
How/ partial why some-thing happened explanation
Causal explanation
Monitors, checks, re-teaches ideas
Elicits Ss’ initial understandings
References Ss’ ideas & adapts instruction
Lisa
4,5
2,5
2,4,5 1,3 1,2 3 1,2 3,4,5 1,4 3
Alisa
1,3,4,5
2
1,3,4,5
2
3 1,4,5 2
1
2,3,4,5
Kirsten
2
1,3
1,3 4,5 1 3,4 2,5 3 1 2,4,5 2,4 5
Mike
4 1,2,3
1,3
5 4,5 2 5 4 4,5 1,2,3
Robert
1,2,3,5
12,3,4,
5
4
1,2,4,5 4 1,5 2,3
Sasha
2,3
1
1,4,5 2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,4 2,3,5
Jack 1,2,5 3, 4 �� 2 1,3,4,5 2 1,3,5 4
3 1,2,4,5
Keith
4,5
5
1,2,3,4,5
4,5 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 =Classroom observation of TC practice from September (1) to March (5)
CT
UW
TC
CTUWTC
Case A
Case B
Case C
8
Understanding Alignment
1. Co-teaching = co-planning, co-instruction, co-debriefing
2. CT theory behind “turning over responsibility” during student teaching
3. Midcourse refocusinga) CT refocusing
b) Calibrating through targeted coaching
c) Calibrating through social media
CT
UW
TC
10
Co-planning at its best
• Co-planning a full explanation & connecting activities– Set time– With colleagues – Used a tool- as a starting place for conversations & a standing
public document representing sharing thinking – Challenging one another’s content knowledge beyond the
textbook – Willingness to revise ideas from the text, curriculum
• If not:– Loss of rigor– CT lost & can not track student ideas
CT
UW
TC
11
Co-teaching at its best
S: Would ash be considered a physical change? Like an egg?
S: So we did an example of melted cheese.
TC: So what did we just have in the back of the
class?
S: We thought also that it was physical changes
even though it comes after melting and boiling.
S: I don’t agree with that because even though there
was a color change CO2 was emitted so the identity of the log would have had to have changed
CT: Does anyone have something to add to this? …
TC: Raise your hand if you have seen a fire
burning…so is it possible that a physical
change is happening?
Students’ stories
Participation
Working on students’ ideas
12
Co-teaching at its best con’t
CT: so this is chemistry. Let’s think about this at an atomic level…What makes up an egg?
S: Elements
S: Potassium
TC: Be specific
S: Proteins, and when we cook proteins the proteins change
TC: What does it look like? What happens when it cooks? [TC draws on board and shows a tightly bound protein
and an unwound protein.]
S: So it is breaking and forming bonds
S: It expanded because of heat. When it
heated they [bonds] move apart rather than
together.
Students’ stories
Participation
Working on students’ ideas
13
Co-debriefing at its best
• Focused on student thinking– Daily reflection questions about
student thinking, including specific individual students
– Planning for the next day informed by key episodes of rich classroom dialogue or what students were NOT talking about
• NOTE: only a few CT-TC pairs had routines in place for these conversations
CT
UW
TC
Turning over Responsibility
Individual artisans Co-Planning
Co-Planners• Never fully turning over unit planning, staying involved in lesson
planning until the end• Creating richest learning experience for students • On board with others from same department OR didn’t have pressure
Individual Artisans• Tended to use teacher learning rather than student learning as a meter
stick--meeting CTs limited repertoire or more limited understanding of core practices?
• Tension between freedom (TC) and readiness (CT)• Tension between “keeping pace” with department members NOT on
board with core practices
CT
UW
TCCTUWTC
Midcourse Refocusing
• In January/February many TCs tooka nose dive
• CT re-focusing– High expectations & accountability
• New requests were made easier if nightly communication and submitting lesson plans was already established as a routine (i.e. adding back-pocket question)
– Had tough but supportive conversations, challenged instead of “being nice”
– Had stayed in touch with planning so easier to get re-involved, for others CTs all they could do is watch TC regression away from student ideas
CT
UW
TC
Refocusing: Targeted Coaching
Pedagogical Content Coaching around 4 core practices • What we did:
– listen for richest classroom conversations & analyzed for rigor & responsiveness
– Involved CTs • What TCs had to say about our coaching
– Some TC-CT kept coaching feedback “alive” after we left• What CTs had to say about coaching
– Designated time for reflection– Supportive of CTs’ learning
• BUT for some CT/TCs coaching was about “tweaks” and “tricks”
CT
UW
TC
17
Midcourse Refocusing: CT calibrating with other CTs
Transition 1: November Transition 2: February
Focus on student thinking in… 1. Planning2. In the moment3. Debrief4. Assessment
Tool revision & CT action plan
1. Mapping a path for students to build explanations
2. Scaffolding questions and predicting students thinking
3. Summarizing student ideas after D1 and explicitly building from these
4. Reflecting on why learning goes well, or not
5. Working with small groups6. Moving ideas from small group
whole group discussions, 7. Connecting activity back to big goal
in whole class conversations
8. CT/TC Action plan