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