1

EDU 604: Culminating Project

Dr. Marilyn Johnson-Farr
Jessica LaFranca-Peterson
Final Action Report
Focus:
The focus of this study is to understand if there is a difference in student achievement in a solo-taught
class versus a co-taught class.
Primary Question:
What noticeable changes are inherent with students in a co-taught classroom versus a solo-taught
classroom?
Guiding Questions:
1. How can planning for co-teaching be effective?
2. Does co-teaching have an impact on student achievement in reading comprehension?
3. How are students engaged in the course material when using co-teaching models?
Rationale for Changes in Research from EDU 603:
I decided to eliminate the Guiding Question: How effective are the different co-teaching models?
This was due to the idea that my co-teacher and I would be using multiple strategies per day and data
would be difficult to collect.
The guiding question: Does co-teaching have an impact on student achievement? was narrowed
down to specifically focus on reading comprehension. The new question is: How does co-teaching
have an impact on student achievement in reading comprehension?
Statement of Context:
I teach 2 blocks of sixth grade language arts at Park Middle School. Each block is comprised of
approximately 25 students and runs for 2 hours and 15 minutes. The first block contains only general
education students; I am the only teacher in the room. The second block contains a mixture of general
education students, ELL, and special education students; I teach along with a special education
teacher, and sometimes a speech/language pathologist. For the purposes of this study, I surveyed,
observed, and recorded test results for 8 students; 4 students from my first block and 4 students from
my second block. 4 boys and 4 girls were selected at random. 2 students in my co-taught classroom
have IEPs for reading and writing, 1 student has an IEP for behavior, 1 student is ELL level 4, and 1
student is in the SAT process. This student population is comprised of 3 White students, 2 Hispanic
students, 2 Two or More Race students, and 1 Asian student. This is my third year teaching at Park
Middle School.
Commitment:
I consider myself to be a passionate, lifelong learner. My high level of commitment to this research
stems from my desire to learn and implement new teaching practices to increase individual student
achievement.
Research Process:
June
Participate in EDU 603 Research Methods
Develop primary and guiding questions
Collect and analyze research on topic
Create an action plan proposal
Create and send off permission letter to administration
Meet with administration to discuss research proposal

2
July
Continue to research topic
Review and revise methods for implementing co-teaching models and collecting data
Write permission letter to be sent home to student
August
Add in demographics of students
Send home permission letters to parents of randomly selected students
Students are to complete surveys for engagement - teachers are to analyze
Students are to complete chart for weekly assessment and goals - teachers are to analyze
Teacher and co-teacher are to make observations to be added to journal
Teacher and co-teacher are conduct interviews once this month
September
Participate in EDU 604
Students are to complete surveys for engagement - teachers are to analyze
Students are to complete chart for weekly assessment and goals - teachers are to analyze
Teacher and co-teacher are to make observations to be added to journal
Teacher and co-teacher are conduct interviews twice this month
October
Continue to have students complete surveys and charts
Teachers continue observations, journaling, and interviews
Finish collecting data by end of month
Begin to analyze data
November
Continue to analyze data
Do write up of findings
Present data in EDU 604

Data Collection:
Data was collected over time in the following ways:
Lesson Planning Guide: Twice each week my co-teacher and myself would sit down to plan
the lessons and decide which model would be used. We used the What/How/Who lesson
planning guide to identify objectives, how we would teach, and which students would need
extra assistance in learning the concepts.
Journal:
After teaching the lessons each week, my co-teacher and myself wrote down our
thoughts on how everything went. We discussed whether or not we felt the co-teaching
models being used were effective. We used this information to develop lessons for the next
week.
Observations:
Students were observed 5 times at random during reading time. The date,
time, co-teaching model, grouping, and behavior of each student was recorded.
Weekly Assessments: The weekly tests came from the Wonders curriculum. Each test
consisted of the reading of a passage and answering 10 questions. The questions related to
the skills and strategies that were taught throughout the week.
Interviews:
Students were interviewed twice monthly on how they felt they were progressing
as students. The information was recorded and categorized based on responses. These were
used to guide instruction.
Student Rating Scales:
Students were given rating scales to complete 5 separate times in
order to gage how interested they were in the learning activities. These were used to guide
instruction.

3
Data Analysis:
The lesson planning guide and journaling allowed my co-teacher and myself to keep track of what
types of co-teaching models were used. We would discuss whether or not the model we used was
beneficial to student success based on observations, discussions, and weekly assessments. We would
make plans for the following week based on how students performed in class throughout the week
and on their assessments. The frequency of each model used was charted weekly.
Students weekly assessments were recorded on a spreadsheet. I compared students scores to the
type of co-teaching models that were used the during the week to see if there was a correlation. I also
compared scores between my solo-taught class and my co-taught class to see if there was a difference
in student achievement. Student achievement was assessed based on individual student growth.
Student interviews and rating scales consisted of five major questions that students were to answer.
The questions asked students to discuss and/or rate how they participate in class, what activities they
most prefer, and why are those activities enjoyable. Students were also asked about how they feel
they are progressing as learners, and if they had suggestions for improvement. Responses were
recorded and categorized to determine patterns and the effects on student engagement.
Findings:
For each of the guiding questions, data from Unit 1 and Unit 2 were averaged to show progress. This
was done because the skills and strategies taught changed from week to week, and the co-teaching
models utilized also varied in frequency.
Guiding Question 1: How can planning for co-teaching be effective?
The journaling and lesson planning guide allowed my co-teacher and myself to plan lessons
that incorporated several different co-teaching models. From Unit 1 to Unit 2, 1 Teach 1
Observe decrease from 5 to 3 times, 1 Teach 1 Assist decreased from 10 to 9, Alternative
decreased from 3 to 0, Parallel increase from 1 to 6, Station increased from 1 to 15, and Team
increased from 6 to 10 times. Below is a table that represents the type of co-teaching model
that was used and the number of times it was implemented throughout Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Decreases from Unit 1 to Unit 2 are highlighted in blue. Increases from Unit 1 to Unit 2 are
highlighted orange.

Implementation of Co-Teaching Models

Model

Number of Times Used Unit 1

Number of Times Used Unit 2

1 Teach, 1 Observe

1 Teach, 1 Assist

10

Alternative

Parallel

Station

15

Team

10

4
Guiding Question 2: How does co-teaching have an impact on student achievement in reading
comprehension?
Student achievement in reading was measured by 5 weekly assessments, containing 10
questions each. Each of the students 5 scores were averaged to show differences from Unit 1
to Unit 2.Students average scores from Unit 1 to Unit 2 were as follows: Solo-Taught: 1)
Increased from 6.6 to 7.2, 2) Decreased from 7.8 to 7.2, 3) Increased from 5.6 to 7.2, and 4)
Increased from 6.2 to 7.2. Co-Taught 5) Increased from 4.6 to 7.2, 6) Increased from 5.2 to 6.0,
7) Increased from 5.8 to 7.0, and 8) Decreased from 8.0 to 6.8. In each unit there were 5
weekly assessments. Increases from Unit 1 to Unit 2 have been highlighted green for
solo-taught students, and yellow for co-taught students.

Student Weekly Assessments

Solo-Taught Student

Average Score Unit 1

Average Score Unit 2

6.6

7.2

7.8

7.2

5.6

7.2

6.2

Co-Taught Student

Average Score Unit 1

Average Score Unit 2

4.6

7.2

5.2

5.8

6.8

Weekly assessment data was further analyzed to determine if there was a difference in
student growth between solo-taught and co-taught classrooms. Students in the co-taught
classroom showed an average increase of .85 points compared to students in the solo-taught
classroom who had an average increase of .60 points.

Comparison of Weekly Assessments Between Solo- and Co-Taught Classrooms

Solo-Taught Average of All
Students Unit 1

Solo-Taught Average of All

Students Unit 2

Growth

6.55

7.15

+.60

Co-Taught Average of All

Students Unit 1

Co-Taught Average of All

Students Unit 2

Growth

5.9

6.75

+.85

5
Guiding Question 3: How are students engaged in the course material when using co-teaching
models?
The student interviews provided valuable information in terms of how students saw
themselves as learners. Questions and trends included: How often do you feel you participate,
favorite activities, why are they enjoyable, progression as learner. Students identified partner
work and station work to be enjoyable in both the solo-taught and co-taught classrooms.
Students stated they felt more confident as learners.

Student Interviews
Questions

Solo-Taught Trend

Co-Taught Trend

1. How often do you

participate and add to
class discussion?

Average number of times per class

period was 5.

Average number of times per class period

was 4.

2. What are your favorite

activities to do in reading?

Independent reading times, partner

work, and stations.

Partner work, stations, small group time.

3. What makes those

activities enjoyable?

Getting to work with other students.

Learn something new by playing
games.

Getting to work with other students and

the teacher. Reviewing what was learned
as a whole group and using it differently.

4. How do you feel you are

progressing as a learner?

More confident in reading

comprehension. Grades were
improving.

More confident in reading comprehension.

Grades were improving. Able to get help
when needed.

Below is a table based on students responses on the rating scales. They were asked to rate
the following statements on a scale of 1-5. The score of 5 is considered high, and a score of 1
is considered low. Increases from Unit 1 to Unit 2 have been highlighted green for solo-taught
students and yellow for co-taught students.
Student Rating Scales
Solo-Taught
Average Score
Unit 1

Solo-Taught
Average Score
Unit 2

Co-Taught
Average Score
Unit 1

Co-Taught
Average Score
Unit 2

3.75

4.0

3.25

3.75

2. I participated in class by talking

with a partner.

4.5

3.25

4.0

3. I participated in class by doing

the assigned activities.

4.25

4.25

4.5

4.75

4. I enjoyed the learning activities

today.

4.5

4.5

4.75

4.5

5. I moved around the classroom.

4.5

4.75

4.25

6. A teacher helped me when I

needed help.

3.5

4.0

4.5

4.75

Questions

1. I participated in class by
answering questions.

Data was further analyzed to determine if there was a difference in the degree of students
perceived engagement in class between the solo-taught classroom and the solo-taught
classroom. On average, students in the solo-taught classroom increased their responses by
.23, compared to students in the co-taught classroom with an increase of .29.

Comparison of Student Rating Scales Between Solo- and Co-Taught Classrooms

Solo-Taught Average of All
Students Unit 1

Solo-Taught Average of All

Students Unit 2

Growth

4.10

4.33

+.23

Co-Taught Average of All

Students Unit 1

Co-Taught Average of All

Students Unit 2

Growth

4.04

4.33

+.29

Conclusion:
After reviewing my data, I can conclude that there are noticeable changes in students within a
co-taught classroom versus a solo-taught classroom. When looking at the average student score on
weekly assessments, students in the co-taught classroom were able to make a larger increase in
reading comprehension than students in the solo-taught classroom. I believe this was due to the
increase in parallel, station, and team teaching that took place in the co-taught classroom. As my
co-teacher and I became more comfortable with our students and teaching practices, we utilized the
more complex models such as parallel, station, and team. The 1 teach, 1 observe, 1 teach, 1 assist,
and alternative were deemphasized from Unit 1 to Uni 2. Having two teachers available allowed for
small group time to be more effective and individualized to students needs.
When examining the student interviews, students in both classes showed enjoyment in working with
partners and small group time. Students in the solo-taught classroom also cited independent time as
something they liked doing. No student in the co-taught classroom mentioned this during interviews.
Students in the co-taught classroom also stated that they were able to get more teacher help when
needed. This leads me to believe that having more than one teacher in the classroom allows for more
one-on-one help. My research also supported an increase in participation and enjoyment in the
co-taught classroom. As the year progressed, co-taught students felt they were answering more
questions, working with partners more, moving around in the classroom, and were able to get help
from a teacher. My research helped me understand the importance of working as a team to plan
effective instruction. It also allowed me to expand my teaching practices and to grow as an educator.
Applications for Teaching and Learning:
I plan to continue implementing the various co-teaching models, as well as planning with my
co-teacher in order to develop lessons. I have incorporated my research project into one of my
professional goals for the school year because I have found it to be a useful tool in gauging student
interest and achievement in reading. Through this experience, I have learned one specific model of
co-teaching in not necessarily better than the other. Instead, the models should be varied in order to
meet the needs of the lesson objectives and students within the classroom.
On-Going Questions:
How would the continued use of co-teaching models impact students reading
comprehension?
How could other teachers on my team and in my building benefit from incorporating
co-teaching models within their own classrooms?
If students in the solo-taught classroom were placed in the co-taught classroom, would they
show a greater increase in engagement and reading comprehension?