The Effectiveness of the Co-Teaching Model for First Grade English

Language LearnersLillian Crespo

Brooklyn CollegeCourse # 7201T

Fall Semester, 2012

Table of Contents1.

Introduction .......................................... 3,4a. Statement of the problem.................. 5,6b. Literature Review, leading research.. 7c. Statement of the hypothesis............... 8,9

2. Resources ............................................ 10

3. Video clip .............................................. 11

IntroductionThe growing number of students

enrolled in public school whose native language is not English has led to increasing attention of Bilingual Education.

According to the U.S. Department of Education Web site Ed Data Express, English language learners (ELLs) comprised 8.7 percent of the nation’s K–12 students in 2009.

Introduction continued...Leading theorists, specialists, as well as

researchers, in the field of education debate over which method works best for ELL's.

• Marilyn Friend PhD.- Professor of Specialized Education

• Lynne Cook PhD. - Prof. from the college of Education; California State

• Andrea Honigsfeld - associated Prof. Division of Education at Molly College

What the research shows Schools have been searching for ways to

provide ELLs with access to content, and thus have begun to use co-teaching between ESL teachers and general education teachers as a means for support.

• curriculum needs to be established• data needs to be taken and used• individualized plans needs to be

created based on the data.

Relevance in the Field of EducationThe Con's:Pushing Back

Against Push-In: ESOL Teacher Resistance and the Complexities of Co-teaching.

(McClure, T. & Cahnman, M. 2010)

The Pro's:Research-Based

Methods of Reading Instruction for English Language Learners Grade K-4.

(Hoffman, P. & Dahlman, A. 2007)

Literature Review - Leading Researchersthere are many models in the realm of

co-teaching:• one student group one teacher (Dove)• one student group two teachers (Dove)• multiple student groups two teachers

(Dove)• SIOP model (Vogt)• Multi-lingual approach (Short)• monolingual program (Honigsfeld)• combination practice (Goldberg)

What is co-teaching?

Research HypothesisHR1: Implementation of a co-teaching strategy in ELA for an urban group of six English Language Learners four times a week for 37.5 minutes in the

early morning hours of instruction (8:00 - 8: 37 a.m.) will impact early language

acquisition skills and will increase learning of early literacy skills.

Research Design My research is a quasi-experimental,

non-equivalent control group design. My participants are two

groups of 10 students who will be pretested, exposed to

treatment (small group, implicit instruction) and post-tested.

Threats to External ValidityHistoryEvents outside of the study/experiment or between repeated

measures of the dependent variable may affect participants' responses to experimental procedures.

MaturationOvertime students may lose interest; their emotional state may be

affected.Testing-pretest sensitizationTesting will not be a problem for my research design because

students are interested to see their growth this is essential to their progress.

Threats to External ValidityInstrumentationThe instrument used during the testing process can change

the experiment. MortalityThis error occurs if inferences are made on the basis of

only those participants that have participated from the start to the end.

Statistical RegressionThis type of error occurs when subjects are selected on

the basis of extreme scores (one far away from the mean) during a test.

Threats to External ValidityDifferential Selection of subjectThis is a valid threat, as students will not be randomly

assigned. They are assigned using participant’s previous tests scores as well as my pretesting data will determine student’s developmental and cognitive levels before treatment; therefore purposeful grouping will (independent variable) will be affected.

Selection – Maturation Interaction This is a threat to my research design because

students in these groups are affected in different ways by maturation; therefore it will affect my dependent variable.

Threats to External ValidityEcological validityI’m not too sure about this one. On one hand this can cause

a threat to my dependent variable because the results can be generalized because the same treatment is given to both groups, as well as the tests.

Pre-test treatmentThis is a valid threat because some students may be

nervous test takers, maybe the setting doesn’t make them feel comfortable, the teachers approach is too abrasive, or the teacher doesn’t have enough data (both personal and educational) about the student to determine the best pre=-test treatment for that student.

Treats to External Validity

Treats to External ValiditySelection – treatment interactionThis does not affect my research because two pre-selected

groups will participate; I do not have any volunteerism.Specificity of VariablesThis will not be a threat to my research because all students

will receive an individualized lesson plan that will be tailored to their needs but are still within the confines of the same reading program.

Multiple TreatmentsI don’t feel this is a threat to my external validity...

Threats to External ValidityTreatment DiffusionThis is not a threat to my external validity because both

groups will receive the same treatment (co-teaching method).

Experimenter Effects (Active Elements)This is not a threat to my research because some all

students are of the same age. Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects I don’t believe reactive arrangements will affect my

research because students will be aware their progress is being monitored.

Threats to External ValidityCompensatory Rivalry EffectThis directly affects both independent and dependent

variables in my case. Placebo EffectThis does not affect my research because all students will

be given treatment that will enable him/her to be a successful reader.

Novelty EffectThis will directly affect my research...

Statistical Format

What is DIBELS?• Dynamic• Indicator of• Basic• Early• Literacy • Skills

NWF Benchmark Goals

nonsense word fluency is a brief, direct measure of the alphabet principals and basic phonics. • Number of correct letter sounds• Number of whole words read

The Data• Nonsense word fluency: Beginning of

YearStudents 1 2 3

NWF

Student Score 35 33 44

Goal Score 27 27 27

1 2 30

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Nonsense Word Fluency

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF)

• Gives students a passage to read and monitors their success rate of reading the passage with in a minute.

1 2 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Oral Reading Fluency

Student score Goal Score

NWF- Middle of Year

Students 1 2 3

NWF

Student Score 47 17 89

Goal Score 43 43 43

1 2 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NWF - MOY

Student Score Goal Score

1 2 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

DORF - MOY

Student Score Goal Score

Data Summary • The Data shows that not every student

benefits from co-teaching, maybe the student was receiving mixed messages from both teachers?

• My data shows me that some students progressed in nonsense word fluency but did not master reading fluency

Next Step • Based on the data the students will

receive intensive support, change method, and modified instruction.

ResourcesAustin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education,22(4), 245-255Arkoudis, Sophie1 s.arkoudis@unimelb.edu.au International Journal of Bilingual Education &Bilingualism; 2006, Vol. 9 Issue 4, p415-433, 19p

Arkoudis, S. (2006).Negotiating the Rough Ground between ESL and Mainstream Teachers. TheInternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol. 9, No. 4.

Alexandria, VA, Haynes, J. Collaborative Teaching: Are Two Teachers Better Than One? Reprinted fromEssential Teacher, Volume 4, Issue 3,September 2007,: Teachers of English to Speakers of OtherLanguages (TESOL)

Bell, A.B., Baecher, L. (2012). Points on a Continuum. ESL Teachers Reporting13on Collaboration.

ResourcesCreese, A. (2010). Content-Focused Classrooms and Learning English: How TeachersCollaborate. The college of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University.

Cramer, E., Nevin, A., Thousand, J., & Liston, A. (2006, January). Co-teaching in urban schooldistricts to meet the needs of all teachers and learners: Implications for teacher education reform.Paper presented at the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED491651)

Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to developteacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 3-22.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: Anillustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational &Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27. doi:10.1080/10474410903535380

Goldberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners What the Research Does – and DoesNot –Say. American Education summer 2008.

ResourcesHoffman,P., Dahlman, A. (2007).MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT ESLCURRICULUM. [wed blog post] minnetesol.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/.../6_hoffman.pdf

Honigsfeld, A. (2009). “Not One Size Fits All” ELL’s Program. Kappa Delta PIRecords Summer, 166-171.

Honigsfeld, A. & Dove, M. (2008). Co-teaching in the ESL classroom [Electronicversion]. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(2), 8-14.

Honigsfeld, A. & Dove, M. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies forEnglish learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

ResourcesHoffman,P., Dahlman, A. (2007).MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT ESL CURRICULUM. [wedblog post] minnetesol.org/blog1/wp-content/uploads/.../6_hoffman.pdf

Kohler-Evans, P. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids[Electronic version]. Education, 127(2), 260-264.

Murawski, W. W. & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, andco-teaching: A logical combination for successful systematic change. PreventingSchool Failure,53, 1-9.

Murawski, W. W. & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research:Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258-267.Nelson, T. & Slavit, D Supported Teacher Collaborative Inquiry. Tamara Nelson & DavidSlavit Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 2008

Real World Experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hadT55umZU0&feature=player_detailpage