The Effectiveness of
the Co-Teaching Model for
First Grade English
Language Learners
Lillian Crespo
Brooklyn College
Course # 7201T
Fall Semester, 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................... 3,4
a. Statement of the problem.................. 5,6
b. Literature Review, leading research.. 7
c. Statement of the hypothesis............... 8,9
2. Resources ............................................ 10
3. Video clip .............................................. 11
Introduction
The 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
Education
The Con's:
Pushing Back Against
Push-In: ESOL
Teacher Resistance
and the
Complexities of Coteaching.
(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
Researchers
there are many models in the realm of coteaching:
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 Hypothesis
HR1: 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 quasiexperimental, non-equivalent
control group design. My
participants are two groups of 10
students who
will be pretested, exposed to
treatment (small group, implicit
Threats to External Validity
History
Events outside of the study/experiment or between repeated
measures of the dependent variable may affect participants'
responses to experimental procedures.
Maturation
Overtime students may lose interest; their emotional state may be
affected.
Testing-pretest sensitization
Testing 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 Validity
Instrumentation
The instrument used during the testing process can change
the experiment.
Mortality
This error occurs if inferences are made on the basis of
only those participants that have participated from the
start to the end.
Statistical Regression
This 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 Validity
Differential Selection of subject
This 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 Validity
Ecological validity
I’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 treatment
This 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
Selection – treatment interaction
This does not affect my research because two pre-selected
groups will participate; I do not have any volunteerism.
Specificity of Variables
This 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 Treatments
I don’t feel this is a threat to my external validity...
Threats to External Validity
Treatment Diffusion
This 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 Validity
Compensatory Rivalry Effect
This directly affects both independent and dependent
variables in my case.
Placebo Effect
This does not affect my research because all students will
be given treatment that will enable him/her to be a
successful reader.
Novelty Effect
This 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 Year
1
2
3
Student Score
35
33
44
Goal Score
27
27
27
Students
NWF
Nonsense Word Fluency
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
Student Score
3
Goal Score
Correlation NWF
50
45
40
35
Score
30
Student Score
25
Goal Score
Linear (Student Score)
20
Linear (Goal Score)
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
Students
3
4
DIBELS Oral Reading
Fluency (DORF)
• Gives students a passage to read and
monitors their success rate of reading the
passage with in a minute.
Oral Reading Fluency
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
Student score
3
Goal Score
NWF- Middle of Year
1
2
3
Student Score
47
17
89
Goal Score
43
43
43
Students
NWF
NWF - MOY
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
Student Score
3
Goal Score
Correlation NWF -MOY
100
90
80
70
Score
60
Student Score
50
Goal Score
Linear (Student Score)
40
Linear (Goal Score)
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
Student
3
4
DORF - MOY
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
Student Score
3
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.
Resources
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education,
22(4), 245-255
Arkoudis, 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. The
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol. 9, No. 4.
Alexandria, VA, Haynes, J. Collaborative Teaching: Are Two Teachers Better Than One? Reprinted from
Essential Teacher, Volume 4, Issue 3,September 2007,: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL)
Bell, A.B., Baecher, L. (2012). Points on a Continuum. ESL Teachers Reporting
Resources
Creese, A. (2010). Content-Focused Classrooms and Learning English: How Teachers
Collaborate. 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 school
districts 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 develop
teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 3-22.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational &
Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27. doi:10.1080/10474410903535380
Resources
Hoffman,P., Dahlman, A. (2007).MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT ESL
CURRICULUM. [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 PI
Records Summer, 166-171.
Honigsfeld, A. & Dove, M. (2008). Co-teaching in the ESL classroom [Electronic
version]. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(2), 8-14.
Honigsfeld, A. & Dove, M. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for
English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Resources
Hoffman,P., Dahlman, A. (2007).MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT ESL CURRICULUM. [wed
blog 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, and
co-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 & David
Slavit Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 2008
Real World Experience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hadT55u
mZU0&feature=player_detailpage