Individual Reflection: Co-Teaching Model

The co-teaching model that I am most familiar with in my previous high school was the One Teaching, One Drifting approach (Friend & Coach, 2003). The general education teacher normally planned and instructed the lesson, while the special education teacher moved through the class assisting students as needed or addressing behavior problems. This lead support role seemed to develop naturally right at the start of the school year. I saw this happening for several reasons: it was the easiest approach to implement for teachers; general educators and special educators were not given their class assignments until the start of the school year; and general and special educators often were not given the opportunity to plan during the school day. Additionally, this lead support approach did not require teachers to develop a deep, collegial relationship instead allowing them to remain distant.

From the students’ point of view, one teacher was seen as the main teacher. This person was the one that did all of the teaching. This was the course content expert. The special education teacher was seen as an assistant who walked around the classroom and addressed classroom misbehaviors. 

The relationship between these two adults was, at best cordial, but at times shallow or superficial. I’ve observed general educators develop deep resentments towards the special educators. They felt as though they were doing all of the work and that the special educators contributed little to nothing to instruction and planning. The reality in this high school was that there were simply not enough special educators for all of the co-teaching classrooms. 

The special educators were often made to feel like visitors to another person’s space. It was not unusual to walk into a co –teaching classroom and see the special educator with a small cart on wheels or a small area carved out in the back of the room with their instructional materials. The cart lends itself to a brief or temporary condition.

The upgrade of curriculum for the 21^st century meant that for this high school the general educators needed to become more proficient with instructional strategies that addressed a diverse learning population. While observing an Algebra 1 classroom that contained students that belonged in co-teaching classrooms the veteran teacher shared with me a variety of instructional strategies, flexible groupings, and the addition of a mastery learning model to ensure that all of her students were successful. High School Assessment (HSA) scores supported the work this teacher was doing in spite of the lack of an available special education teacher. 

Where resources are spread thin, I believe that a school principal would serve students well by implementing a co-teaching environment with novice teachers or teachers with little to no experience with differentiation strategies. A team teaching approach (Friend & Coach, 2003) would allow both teachers to share responsibilities for sharing and planning. Teachers work as a team to introduce information, facilitate learning, and address classroom management issues. This approach allows the novice teacher to develop a cadre of instructional tools to address the needs of all learners. The special educator role is respected and appreciated for not only helping students learn, but also providing one-to-one instruction for novice teachers on how to differentiate instruction.

Evaluating a co-teaching classroom requires a supervisor to implement similar strategies utilized when evaluating a general education classroom. As a supervisor, I would expect to see lessons that were student-centered, activities that were creative, encouraged collaboration and communication.  I would also expect to see recognition of diverse learners and learning styles. Since I would be evaluating a team teaching classroom I would also evaluate the roles of the two teachers (Arguelles, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1997). 

I would expect to see evidence of co-planning in the instructional strategies and how the students are assessed (Wilson, 2005). I would also evaluate how the teachers treated each other. Is it a collegial, cooperative, supportive relationship?

References

Arguelles, M., Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1997). The ABCDEs of Co-Teaching. The Council For Exceptional Children: Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2).

Friend, M., & Cook, L. H. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wilson, G. L. (2005). This doesn’t look familiar! Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 271–275.

Individual Reflection: Individualizing the Curriculum

The mastery learning model is the ideal approach to combine with the blended learning model in place at my school, ACCESS Online. Anderson (2009) noted some of the common features he observed when analyzing various mastery learning models: clearly specified learning objectives; short, valid assessments; mastery standards; a sequence of learning units; feedback on student progress; and additional time and help correcting specified student errors to assist students in meeting mastery standards. Furthermore, he states, “Learning-for-mastery students have outperformed students in conventional classrooms on measures of achievement, retention, learning rate, attitudes, and self-esteem (Anderson, 2009).

Math students enrolled in the ACCESS Online for credit recovery complete their lessons through Pearson Education’s NovaNet learning management system. Students logging into the site for the first time, are presented with a norm referenced achievement test, Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI), to complete. The results help provide an evaluation of a student’s mathematics and reading skills for initial placement. Afterwards students are presented with a pretest. The results help to determine a prescribed course of action or a specific series of lessons to complete. Students are tested on learning objectives using formative and summative assessments. Assessment scores of 80% or higher allow the student to move through to the next lesson or unit. Assessment scores less than 80% allow the students to receive targeted, direct instruction in areas of weaknesses. Afterwards, students are allowed to repeat the assessment until a grade of 80% is earned.

Implementation of the NovaNet program began in January. Both face-to-face and online teachers have received ongoing professional development to better support the teaching and learning. Initial support for the program was high, due to the prescriptive nature of the program. However, pressure to push graduating seniors to complete the course by the end of April has brought up concerns regarding maintaining the integrity of the NovaNet program and whether or not students would able to complete all of the prescribed lessons in time. Additionally, teachers are often forced to go outside of NovaNet to locate or create activities that target weak areas in student learning. 

As a school leader, I would first use the research evidence suggested by Anderson (1985) to raise mastery standards from 80% to 85% to improve performance standards. Second, I would give math teachers time to collaborate and discuss corrective instruction that was targeted to the specific needs of the students in the credit recovery program. I would share with teachers that they could assemble already created presentations and web links in a program such as LiveBinder. This would create a single repository of digital corrective tools teachers could use for remediation. A second resource I would recommend would be the county supported Study Island, a web-based program that provides instruction, practice, assessment, and reporting built on state standards. This would also be a readily available tool for teachers to access for student remediation. 

Overall, I believe the mastery learning model is the best approach to improving performance standards for students in a blended learning course. Its prescriptive nature helps to ensure credit recovery students are receiving targeted instruction, while meeting state standards. Regular assessment of learning objectives helps to give the student, teachers, and administrators’ confidence that students are mastering the material. Ensuring teachers have access to a wide variety of remediation tools will allow critical corrective instruction that best meets the needs for all learners.

References

Anderson, L.W. (1985). A retrospective and prospective view of Bloom's "Learning for Mastery". In M.C. Wang & H.J. Walberg (Eds). Adapting instruction to individual differences (pp.254-268). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.