access center webinar co teaching september 14 2006 l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Access Center Webinar: Co-Teaching September 14, 2006 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Access Center Webinar: Co-Teaching September 14, 2006

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 59

Access Center Webinar: Co-Teaching September 14, 2006 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Access Center Webinar: Co-Teaching September 14, 2006 Stacia Rush, Ph.D. Amy Klekotka, Ph.D. Defining Co-Teaching

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Access Center Webinar: Co-Teaching September 14, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
access center webinar co teaching september 14 2006

Access Center Webinar:Co-TeachingSeptember 14, 2006

Stacia Rush, Ph.D.

Amy Klekotka, Ph.D.

defining co teaching
Defining Co-Teaching

Co-teaching occurs when two or more professionals jointly deliver substantive instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a single physical space (Cook and Friend, 1995, pg 1)

three major models
Three Major Models
  • Consultant model
  • Coaching Model
  • Collaborative (or Teaming) Model
most common approaches
Most Common Approaches
  • One Teaching, One Drifting
  • Parallel Teaching
  • Station Teaching
  • Alternative Teaching
  • Team Teaching

One Teaching, One Drifting

  • One teacher plans and instructs, one teacher provides adaptations and other support as needed
  • Requires very little joint planning
  • Should be used sparingly
    • Can result in one teacher, most often the general educator taking the lead role the majority of the time
    • Can also be distracting to students, who may also become dependent on drifting teacher
parallel teaching
Parallel Teaching
  • Teachers share responsibility for planning and instruction
  • Class is split into heterogeneous groups and each teacher instructs half on the same material
  • Content covered is the same, but methods of delivery may differ
  • Both teachers need to be proficient in the content being taught
station teaching
Station Teaching
  • Teachers divide the responsibility of planning and instruction
  • Students rotated on pre-determined schedule through stations
  • Teachers repeat instruction to each group that comes through--though delivery may vary according to student needs
  • Approach can be used even if teachers have very different pedagogical approaches
  • Each teacher instructs every student
alternative teaching
Alternative Teaching
  • Teachers divide responsibility for planning and instruction
  • The majority of students remain in large group setting, while some students work in a small group for pre-teaching, enrichment, re-teaching or other individualized instruction
  • Allows for highly individualized instruction to be offered
  • Teachers should be careful that the same students are not always pulled aside
team teaching
Team Teaching
  • Teachers share responsibility for planning and instruction
  • Teachers work as a team to introduce new content, work on developing skills, clarify information, and facilitate learning and classroom management
  • This requires the most mutual trust and respect between teachers, and that they are able to mesh their teaching styles
sounds good now what

Sounds good…now what?

Getting co-teaching started at the building and classroom levels

action steps
Action Steps
  • Administrators should provide information, encourage proactive preparation from teachers
  • Assess level of collaboration currently in place
  • Pre-plan
  • Implement slowly…baby steps!
pre planning
  • Requires thoughtful planning time
  • Administrative support is essential
  • Here is where the alignment of special and general education occurs
  • Make this time as focused as possible
  • Take turns taking the lead in planning and facilitating
2 stages in classroom co planning
2 stages in classroomco-planning
  • Getting to know each other
  • Weekly co-planning
getting to know each other
Getting to know each other
  • Ease into working with one another
  • Deal with the “little” things first
  • These typically become the deal-breakers down the road and preventing these road blocks early can make your lives easier
getting to know each other16
Getting to know each other
  • Important to spend time talking and getting better acquainted with each other’s skills, interests, and educational philosophies
  • Semi structured preliminary discussion can facilitate this process
  • Discuss current classroom routines and rules
weekly co planning
Weekly Co-Planning
  • Effective weekly co-planning is based on regularly scheduled meetings, rather than “fitting it in.”
  • Important to stay focused
  • Review content in advance of meeting
collaborative scheduling
Collaborative Scheduling
  • Collaborative Scheduling A
  • Collaborative Scheduling B
  • Collaborative Scheduling C
collaborative scheduling a
Collaborative Scheduling A
  • Special educator divides teaching time between two different classes in the same day
  • Enables students with disabilities to access a broader range of general education classrooms, including AP and honors
  • Ensures the availability of direct support from a special educator for critical parts of the instructional programs
  • Improved ratio of students with disabilities to students without disabilities
  • Requires effective consulting skills on the part of the special educator
  • Larger danger that the special educator will not be seen as an equal partner to the general education partner
  • Possibility for disruption to the class routine exists
collaborative scheduling b
Collaborative Scheduling B
  • The special educator divides time between two different classes
  • The involvement of the special educator varies by days of the week, not within classes in the same day
  • Similar to Scheduling – A
  • Co-teachers report an ability to implement a full range of co-teaching models because of the planned involvement of both teachers in complete classes on certain days of the week
  • Similar to Scheduling –A
  • Need to be cognizant of the presence of two teachers on only certain days of the week.
  • Students with specific support and accommodation requirements have to be well aligned to the schedule
challenges cont d
Challenges (cont’d)
  • Requires ability by general educator to implement IEP requirements in the absence of the special educator
  • Special educator burn-out is an issue, because of the greater demand of knowledge of general ed. curriculum
  • Requires supervisory judgment regarding which teachers can effectively plan and implement this model
collaborative scheduling c
Collaborative Scheduling C
  • The special educator serves as a resource to the interdisciplinary team
  • His/her schedule is established weekly on the basis on instructional activities
  • Requires the greatest amount of flexibility and planning by an interdisciplinary team of teachers
  • Special educator is present when needed most for instructional support
  • Instructional need dictates the cooperative teaching role, not the calendar or time of day
  • Most responsive to student needs and schedules
  • Requires the highest degree of planning and buy-in by a team of teachers
three stages of co teaching relationships
Three stages of co-teaching relationships
  • Beginning stage
  • Compromising stage
  • Collaborative stage
3 stages of co teaching as they apply to
3 stages of co-teaching as they apply to:
  • Physical Arrangement
  • Familiarity with the Curriculum
  • Curriculum Goals and Modifications
  • Instructional Presentation
  • Classroom Management
  • Assessment
physical arrangement beginning stage
Physical Arrangement:Beginning Stage
  • Impression of separateness
    • Students with disabilities vs. general ed students
  • Little ownership of materials or space by special educator
  • Delegated spaces which are rarely abandoned
physical arrangement beginning stage cont d
Physical Arrangement:Beginning Stage(cont’d)
  • Invisible walls
  • A classroom within a classroom
physical arrangement compromising stage
Physical Arrangement:Compromising Stage
  • More movement and shared space
  • Sharing of materials
  • Territoriality becomes less evident
  • Special ed teacher moves more freely around the classroom, but rarely takes center stage
physical arrangement collaboration stage
Physical Arrangement:Collaboration Stage
  • Seating arrangements intentionally interspersed
  • All students participate in cooperative grouping assignments
  • Teachers are more fluid in an unplanned and natural way
physical arrangement collaboration stage cont d
Physical Arrangement:Collaboration Stage(cont’d)
  • Both teachers control space – like an effective doubles team in tennis – the classroom is always “covered”
  • Space is truly jointly owned
familiarity with the curriculum beginning stage
Familiarity with the Curriculum:Beginning Stage
  • Special educator may be unfamiliar with content or methodology used by the general education teacher
  • General ed teacher may have limited understanding of modifying the curriculum and making appropriate accommodations
  • Creates a lack of confidence in both teachers
familiarity with the curriculum compromising collaborative stages
Familiarity with the Curriculum:CompromisingCollaborative Stages
  • Special educator acquires a knowledge of the scope and sequence and develops a solid understanding of the content of the curriculum
  • Special educator gains confidence to make suggestions for modifications and accommodations
familiarity with the curriculum compromising collaborative stages41
Familiarity with the Curriculum:CompromisingCollaborative Stages
  • General ed teacher becomes more willing to modify the curriculum and there is increased sharing in planning and teaching
  • Both teachers appreciate the specific curriculum competencies that they bring to the content area
curriculum goals modifications beginning stage
Curriculum Goals & Modifications:Beginning Stage
  • Programs are driven by textbooks and standards, and goals tend to be “test-driven”
  • Modifications and accommodations are generally restricted to those identified in the IEP/ little interaction regarding modifications to the curriculum
  • Special educator’s role is seen as “helper”
curriculum goals modifications compromising stage
Curriculum Goals & Modifications:Compromising Stage
  • General educator may view modifications as “giving up” or “watering down” the curriculum
curriculum goals modifications collaborative stage
Curriculum Goals & Modifications:Collaborative Stage
  • Both teachers begin to differentiate concepts that all students must know from concepts that most students should know
  • Modifications of content, activities, homework assignments, and tests become the norm for students who require them
instructional presentation beginning stage
Instructional Presentation:Beginning Stage
  • Teachers often present separate lessons
  • One teacher is “boss,” one is “helper”
instructional presentation compromising stage
Instructional Presentation:Compromising Stage
  • Both teachers direct some of the activities in the classroom
  • Special educator offers mini-lessons or clarifies strategies students may use
instructional presentation collaborative stage
Instructional Presentation:Collaborative Stage
  • Both teachers participate in the presentation of the lesson, provide instruction, and structure the learning activities
  • The “chalk” passes freely
  • Students address questions and discuss concerns with both teachers
classroom management beginning stage
Classroom Management:Beginning Stage
  • Special educator tends to assume the role of “behavior manager”
classroom management compromising stage
Classroom Management:Compromising Stage
  • More communication and mutual development of rules
  • Some discussion for individual behavior management plans
classroom management collaborative stage
Classroom Management:Collaborative Stage
  • Both teachers are involved in developing a classroom management system that benefits all students
  • Common to observe individual behavior plans, use of contracts, tangible rewards, and reinforcers
  • Development of community-building and relationship-building activities as a way to enhance classroom management
  • With the current emphasis on high-stakes tests, co-teaching provides an effective way to strengthen the instruction-assessment link
    • Discuss grading before it becomes an issue
    • Consider a variety of assessment options
    • Offer menus of assignments
    • Share the grading load, but be sure your grading styles align
assessment beginning stage
Assessment:Beginning Stage
  • Often 2 separate grading systems, separately maintained by the 2 teachers
  • May be 1 system, exclusively managed by the general educator
  • Measures tend to be objective in nature, only to measure student’s knowledge of content
assessment compromising stage
Assessment:Compromising Stage
  • 2 teachers begin to explore alternate assessment ideas
  • Discussions regarding how to effectively capture students’ progress, not just knowledge of content
assessment collaborative stage
Assessment:Collaborative Stage
  • Both teachers appreciate the need for a variety of options when assessing students’ progress

Thank you!We’ll have time for questions now, and please feel free to contact us in the future.Stacy: srush@air.orgAmy: