You are on page 1of 25

The Influence of Co-teaching:

Analyzing data from co-taught and solo-taught Algebra I classrooms

Presented to the University of Northern Iowa

Department of Educational Leadership and Postsecondary Education

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the

Master of Arts in Education

Aaron Reinhart

West Waterloo High School

Waterloo, Iowa

May 3, 2016

Dr. Curt Nielsen and Dr. Benjamin Forsyth

University of Northern Iowa


Introduction

This research study was done at Waterloo West High School in Waterloo, Iowa. West

High School is a grade 9-12 building and serves 1,642 students (1,642 was the official reported

enrollment). The student population is very diverse racially (1.46% Pacific Islanders, 4.5%

Asian, 4.63% Multi-Race, 10.1% Hispanic, 18.5% Black, and 60.4% White with a large Bosnian

population), economically (49% receive free/reduced lunch), and linguistically (8.5% are English

language learners). Additionally, 12.9% of the student population receive special education

services as part of their Individual Education Plan (IEP).

Figure 1.1

(Iowa Department of Education)

West High has 19 special education teachers to serve the approximately 200 students who

receive special education services. Each teacher has approximately 10 students on their roster,

with that number almost always changing throughout the school year. Each of these 19 teachers

have different roles in the building, but for the purpose of this study I will describe the typical

schedule of a special education teacher who co-teaches in general education classrooms.

West High is in the second year of having content specific co-teaching assignments. This

means the special education teacher will co-teach in all math, social studies, science, or English
classrooms throughout the day rather than switching from one discipline to another. This study

was done in math classrooms and West High has two special education teachers that co-teach

with math teachers. “Teacher K” co-teachers in Algebra I, Algbera I Part II, and Algebra I for

ELL classrooms with three different math teachers. “Teacher T” co-teaches in Algbera I and

Algebra I Part I classrooms with two different math teachers, although Teacher T did start the

school year co-teaching Consumer Math with a third math teacher. Teacher T replaced

Consumer Math with a second section of Pre-Algebra that is solo-taught. Finally, neither of these

two teachers have a background in math. Both teachers fulfilled their own math requirements to

graduate high school and college, but neither teacher majored or minored in mathematics in

college and this is the first year teaching math for both teachers.

All of these details should be kept into consideration as I expound upon my research on

the effects of co-taught classrooms. The relationships special education teachers build with

students, the time spent before and after class with students, and the percentage of time spent

providing instruction are just a few examples of things impacted by the structure.

Personal Background in Research Topic

I have been a math teacher for four years – all at West High School. In those four years I

have co-taught with a different special education teacher each year. The following is a short

description of the teachers I co-taught with.

Year 1: 60 year-old white female. BA degrees in 5-12 Mathematics, 5-12 Psychology, 5-12

Instruction Strategist I, 5-12 Multi-categorical Resource Mild. Teaching style was “direct teach.”

Main classroom role was management. Strong belief in holding students accountable to school

policies and rules (i.e. dress code, tardy policies. Proud Republican.
Year 2: 38 year-old white female. BA degree in 5-12 Mathematics, MA degree in 5-12

Instructional Strategist. Struggled to manage classroom of students. Preferred teaching students

in small groups or one-on-one outside of the classroom. Teacher was absent from class many

days throughout the school year.

Year 3: 27 year-old white female. BA degree in American History. MA degree in 5-12

Instructional Strategist, K-12 Principal (in progress). Very much relationship centered, very good

at connecting with students and deescalating conflicts. Felt uncomfortable leading class due to

having no background in math, but made valid efforts throughout the year to be in front of the

class.

Year 4: 22 year-old white male. BA degree in Physical Education and Instructional Strategist I.

First-year teacher. Student-taught in West High’s feeder middle school previous Fall, substitute

taught there previous Spring. Classroom management and teaching philosophy are developing.

Throughout my experiences with a relatively diverse group of co-teachers I have had

many questions cross my mind. Many of these questions were related to the purpose and

effectiveness of the co-taught setting and how to make it better for everyone involved. My

observation of students’ classroom performance and their performance in future math classrooms

tells me the co-taught classroom is not dramatically increasing their math skills and in some

cases the co-teacher has been a distraction to the learning environment. Additionally, this past

school year we have spent a lot of time looking at students who are failing and discussing

options for them in our implementation of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support model. I have

observed a large number of students with IEPs show up on our “F list.” Again I wonder what

impact the extra support students are being provided is having. Therefore, my research will be in
the area of overall student impact and achievement among students in co-taught classrooms and

solo-taught classrooms.

Literature Review

The idea for co-teaching isn’t exactly new as Bauwens (1989) explained that co-teaching

provides “alternative educational approach in which general and special education educators

shared teaching responsibility and provided differentiated instruction for academically and

behaviorally diverse students in the least restrictive setting of the general education classroom.”

More recently we have had a push for inclusion, or “bringing support services to the child (in the

school and classroom students who do not receive support services attend) rather than bringing

the child to the services” (Schultz, n.d.), which has led to more use of co-teaching (in the

Waterloo Schools and speculatively the reason for co-teaching in other Districts). The theory of

co-teaching is well developed and available, but research to support the theory is not as readily

available.

Theory: Co-teaching is described as “a partnership between two teachers” (Cook &

Friend, 1995). Although typically two teachers it could be more than two professionals who

jointly deliver instruction in a single space, typically to a diverse group of students (Brinkmann

& Twiford). Within the school “co-teaching can be described as a high-leverage school system

strategy that can result in continuous improvement for all students, and accelerated achievement

for students with disabilities…” (Walsh, 2012). This classroom strategy can be categorized in six

different forms (McDuffie)…

One teach, one observe: One teacher teaches while the other observes the classroom.
Parallel teaching: Divide the class into two groups and each teacher is actively teaching their

own group.

One lead, one assist: One teacher delivers the core instruction while the other teacher circulates

the classroom.

Station teaching: Each teacher takes a segment of the content and students rotate between

teachers.

Team teaching: Both teachers are contributing to the delivery of the core instruction.

Alternative teaching: One teacher teaches a large group of students while the other teacher

teaches a small group.

Figure 1.2 shows the ideal use for each method, according to education expert and

researcher Marilyn Friend, as well as amount of use from a recent research study done by the

author and three classmates from the University of Northern Iowa. That research was done at

West High School and East High School in Waterloo, Iowa and Jefferson High School and

Roosevelt Middle School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Figure 1.2
Co-Teaching Method Ideal* Research**
One Teach, One
Observe 0-5% 23%
Less than
One Lead, One Assist 15% 41%
Less than
Parallel Teaching 30-40% 10%
Less than
Station Teaching 30-40% 10%
Less than
Alternative Teaching 20-30% 10%
Team Teaching 20-30% 27%
*(Georgia Department of Education)
**(Blythe, LeMasters, Timmins, Reinhart)
These approaches are designed to increase instructional options for all students, improve

the intensity and continuity in school programs, reduce stigma for students with special

education needs, increase support for teachers and related service specialists (Cook & Friend).

Research: Research in the area of student achievement as a result of co-teaching is very

difficult to find. I was able to find one such study by Witch & Feng but found too many conflicts

in the research to use it as a credible source. The result of that study was the co-teacher was

effective in raising student achievement, but the researcher was the co-teacher and the research

did not contain enough supporting evidence to validate that claim.

Research does exist in the area of how to support co-teaching, or what needs to be done

to improve co-teaching, but neither is the subject of my research question. I do not believe I am

alone in my research question. However, my literature search tells me few have published

research in this area.

Methodology

Initially I had hoped to compare data of all students in solo-taught classes and all students

in co-taught classes. As I dug into that process I realized that there are a lot of students who do

not have identified special education needs in a single co-taught class and sometimes multiple

co-taught classrooms. Similarly, students with identified needs are in a varying number of co-

taught classes depending on their specific needs. Simply dividing the student body by whether or

not they are in a co-taught classroom immediately creates a flaw, given my research question,

because none of the advanced classes are co-taught. Realizing there was going to be an issue

with the groups regardless of how it was done I started to create constants and build off of that. I
settled on looking at only students who are in an Algebra I class at West High (because that is

my co-teaching experience), and separating that group into solo-taught and co-taught sub groups.

Number of Algebra I students: 317

Number of Algebra I students in solo-taught classrooms: 189

Number of Algebra I students in co-taught classrooms: 128

I numbered each subgroup 1-189 and 1-128 respectively. I then used a random number

generator to select 30 numbers in each range and identified the student associated with that

number.

Next I identified various data pieces I was interested in collecting; attempting to quantify

behavior, academic, social standing. The following data was collected on each student for the

2016-2017 school year: tardies, absences, positive behavior referrals, negative behavior referrals,

Q1 GPA, Q2 GPA, Q3 GPA, GPA increase/decrease/neutral for the year, D/F grades Q1, D/F

grades Q2, D/F grades Q3, school recognized activities participated in.

All data was manually collected by the researcher using the District’s student information

portal Infinite Campus.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

As I began analyzing the data that I collected I made some observations that are worth

noting in advance. Given that Algebra I is a “freshmen” class I made the assumption that I would

be looking at all freshmen level students. I have taught Algebra I enough times to know this not

the case, but it was simply something I overlooked that may or may not influence my results.

Some of my subjects are first-year freshmen, some are Sophomore, Juniors, or Seniors for

various reasons (enough credits to move on in grade level but have not passed Algebra I, ELL
students who are taking Algebra I for the first time, identified students who are taking Algebra I

for the first time, etc.). At least one subject is a second-year freshmen, and five subjects joined

West High after the beginning of the school year or left West High during the 3rd quarter.

Additionally, some students switched Algebra I classes at Semester, some switched teachers at

Semester, and some switched from solo-taught to co-taught or vice versa.

Behavior: Behavior trends can be noted with tardies, absences, positive referrals, negative

referrals.

Tardies: The biggest difference in the tardy data was the sheer number of tardies. Figure

1.3 shows the breakdown; 35% of the 1,020 total tardies were from students in a co-taught

Algebra I class, the remaining 65% of the tardies came from students in a solo-taught Algebra I

class.

Figure 1.3

Total Number of Tardies

Co-Taught
Solo-Taught

Another calculation I did for each data set was the effect size. Effect size is often used

when comparing last year to this year, but in this instance we are comparing the use of co-

teaching. I calculated effect size in two ways [(co-taught average – solo-taught average)/avg.

SD] and [(solo-taught average - co-taught average)/average SD]. As you can see, the only

difference is whether a positive or negative effect is had. This will depend on your perspective,
which for many people will be that co-teaching is the initiative and the effect should be viewed

from that lense. Effect size and other statistical calculations can be found in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4
Co-Taught Solo-Taught
Total Number of Tardies (30
subjects) 358 662
Avg. Number. of Tardies 11.9 22.1
SD 16.77 33.7
Minimum Number 0 0
Maximum Number 62 142
Effect Size -0.4 0.4

Why the variance in the amount of tardies from one group to the next? Anecdotal

evidence suggests the special education teacher influences this because the special education

teacher is traveling from another classroom and often a different floor in the building. In route to

their next class they have reported running into these students and redirected them to arrive to

class on time. Additionally, upon arriving to the classroom they can usher students from the

hallway to the classroom while the content teacher monitors the classroom.

Another variable is the structure of our schedule at West High has put all co-taught

Algebra I classes in periods 1-4 (before lunch). Further research would need to be done to see if

tardiness has a higher frequency in the morning or afternoon.

Absences: Absences were counted per class period. West High has an eight-period day

meaning the co-taught average of 82.2 and solo-taught average of 87.5 would equate to

approximately 10 and 11 days of school missed respectively. Some absences were for a full day,

some were a partial day, and some were from skipping an individual class. While there are some

differences between, the data statistical significance was not calculated to determine if there are

any meaningful differences.


One stat worth noting is that co-taught students had a lower average but a higher standard

deviation. The co-taught subgroup had one student with 481 total absences with the second

highest total being 223. In fact, only 7 of the 30 subjects had more than 100 total absences,

whereas 11 of the 30 subjects in the solo-taught group had more than 100 total absences. Figure

1.5 provides a visual to this breakdown.

Figure 1.5
16
14
12
10
8
6 Co-Taught
4 Solo-Taught
2
0
0-50 51-100 101-150 150 +
Number of Absences

Figure 1.6 provides a statistical breakdown of the absence data. It should be noted that

one co-taught data point (481 total absences) was 4.3 standard deviations above the mean, well

above the default of three standard deviations used to identify outliers. Additionally, one solo-

taught data point (326 total absences) was exactly three standard deviations above the mean.

Figure 1.6
Co-
Taught Solo-Taught
Total Number of Absences (30
subjects) 2466 2626
Avg. Number. of Absences 82.2 87.5
SD 91.7 79.6
Minimum Number 9 1
Maximum Number 481 326
Effect Size -0.06 0.06
Figure 1.7 reflects the statistical breakdown with the two outliers removed. This presents

a new issue with each subgroup having one data point three standard deviations away from the

new mean. It is unclear whether either random sample is reflective of the populations. A new

study with a larger sample size would be beneficial in this case.

Figure 1.7
Co-
Taught Solo-Taught
Total Number of Absences (30
subjects) 1985 2300
Avg. Number. of Absences 68.4 79.3
SD 53.2 66.8
Minimum Number 9 1
Maximum Number 223 288
Effect Size -0.18 0.18

Positive Referrals: Positive referrals are a relatively new idea at West High School. This

is the second year they have been an option and are slowly catching on. The intention is to

recognize positive behavior, not just punish poor behavior. Positive behavior is typically

categorized in the acronym Be WEST; Be Wise, Be Engaged, Be Safe, Be Trustworthy.

Figure 1.8 breaks down the small amount of data there was.

Figure 1.8
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
Total Number of Pos. Referals (30
subjects) 3 7
Avg. Number. of Positive Referals 0.1 0.23
SD 0.3 0.63
Minimum Number 0 0
Maximum Number 1 3
Effect Size -0.29 0.29
Figure 1.9 reflects the limited amount of data available with 52 of 60 data points

receiving zero positive referrals. With such little data to go on no meaningful interpretation can

be determined at this point.

Figure 1.9
25
Number of Students

20

15

10 Co-Taught
1
5

0
1 2 3 4
Number of Positive Referrals

Negative Referrals: For my research purposes I did not count referrals for dress code,

electronic device violation, or tardies; all of which carry an automatic 15-minute detention. I

only counted referrals for things like fighting, skipping class, defiance/insubordination, etc.

Figure 1.10 shows the statistical breakdown of the data with, again, little difference between the

two subgroups.

Figure 1.10
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
Total Number of Neg. Referals (30
subjects) 21 19
Avg. Number. of Negative Referals 0.7 0.63
SD 1.5 1.45
Minimum Number 0 0
Maximum Number 5 7
Effect Size 0.05 -0.05
Figure 1.11 shows the frequency of negative referrals, again revealing a trend that most

students in both groups earn zero negative referrals. Additional trends are unavailable with the

current research data.

Figure 1.11
25
Number of Students

20

15

10 Co-Taught
1
5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of Negative Referrals

Academics: Like behavior, academic effect is tough to measure. As educators we are

continually working to measure academic success and the effect initiatives have on that success.

When considering the effects of co-teaching I chose to stick with data for the current year rather

than comparing data from previous years. My intent is to minimize the number of variables

contributing to any changes. This meant eliminating indicators such as standardized test scores. I

chose to focus specifically on GPA by quarter and number of D’s and F’s by quarter.

GPA: Grade-point average was collected at each individual quarter, not as a cumulative

average. Grade point average would reflect the grades earned by each subject, and assuming the

grade is a true reflection of what is learned in the course, GPA would be a reflection of academic

success and learning. Figures 1.12 – 1.14 show the breakdown of the results.
Figure 1.12
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
First quarter average 2.49 2.68
First quarter SD 0.89 1.1
First quarter minimum 0.445 0.0945
First quarter maximum 4 4
Effect size -0.19 0.19
Figure 1.13
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
Second quarter average 2.29 2.54
Second quarter SD 0.92 1.07
Second quarter minimum 0.112 0.476
Second quarter maximum 4 4
Effect size -0.25 0.25
Figure 1.14
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
Third quarter average 2.31 2.46
Third quarter SD 0.97 1.02
Third quarter minimum 0.28 0.33
Third quarter maximum 4 3.95
Effect size -0.14 0.14

As shown by the effect size, being in a solo-taught class had a low effect on overall GPA.

It should be noted that this is a measure of correlation not causation. Given the nature of co-

taught classrooms, students with a skill deficit or learning disability are often placed in those

classrooms. With that structure and the results of this research, it is inconclusive whether or not

there is an effect on GPA.

Number of D/F grades: This measure correlates with GPA, so similar results are

expected. The number of D and F grades are important to us at West High because it is an

indicator of failure, or near failure, and whether or not a student is on pace to graduate. Figures

1.15 – 1.17 show an increase in the number of D and F grades throughout the year, but the gap
between co-taught and solo-taught narrows as the year goes on. This is also reflected in the effect

size as it is lowered from .27 to .15 (meaning co-taught classrooms have more D and F grades).

Figure 1.15
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
Total 48 38
First quarter average 1.7 1.27
First quarter SD 1.46 1.91
First quarter minimum 0 0
First quarter maximum 6 6
Effect size 0.27 -0.27
Figure 1.16
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
Total 59 48
Second quarter average 2.1 1.6
Second quarter SD 1.85 2.11
Second quarter
minimum 0 0
Second quarter
maximum 7 7
Effect size 0.26 -0.26
Figure 1.17
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
Total 62 55
Third quarter average 2.14 1.83
Third quarter SD 2.01 1.95
Third quarter minimum 0 0
Third quarter maximum 7 6
Effect size 0.15 -0.15

Social: Research on the benefits of co-teaching for students is limited. Dugan & Letterman cite

interpersonal and oral and written communication benefits for all students in co-taught

classrooms. Measuring these benefits and other social indicators is challenging. I chose to look at

involvement in school recognized activities.


School Activities: West High has well over three dozen athletic, fine arts, and club

organizations for students to participate in. Figure 1.18 shows virtually no difference in the

participation levels between the co-taught and solo-taught groups.

Figure 1.18
Co- Solo-
Taught Taught
Total number of activities 22 21
Average number of
activities 0.73 0.7
SD 0.78 0.88
Minimum 0 0
Maximum 2 3
Effect size 0.04 -0.04

Recommendations and Conclusion

When I began this research I anticipated finding multiple correlations that could be

explored deeper. What I found was a bunch of data that shed little light on the benefits of co-

teaching. My biggest takeaway as a leader is that many initiatives have great intentions with a

sound theory behind them. Showing that the intervention is working is difficult to do. Like many

aspects of education, success cannot always be measured with quantifiable data.

My recommendation to Principal Miehe at West High School will be to open up a more

detailed research study exploring the connection between co-teaching and student success.

Many, many variables exist in this initiative and should be considered when researching.

However, proceeding with an unproven theory is a dangerous endeavor.

I did uncover some interesting attendance data that I plan to explore further. Currently I

plan to analyze the attendance data for all students in Algebra I and look to see if attendance

correlates with grades, or other achievement indicators. I plan to propose an intervention to

improve the attendance of students at West High. While this was not the original intention of my
research, my research did uncover this area of concern that I feel is worth pursuing. It is a much

smaller bite to chew at this point. I will revisit the effectiveness of co-teaching in the future.

For input and advice on the structure of this additional research, please contact me at

reinharta@waterlooschools.org.
Appendix I

Negative Number
Number
Behavior GPA Numbe Number of school
Positive of D/F
Referals - Up/N r of D/F of D/F recognize
Student Abse Behavio Q1 Q2 Q3 grades
Tardies Non- eutra grades grades d
Number nces r GPA GPA GPA 1st
tardies/dress l/Do 1st at 3rd activities
Referals Semeste
code/electroni wn quarter quarter participat
r
c ed in
Cotaught
Group
1 11 109 0 5 1.268 1.068 1 0 2 4 4 1
2 0 122 0 0 2.763 2.477 2.667 1 1 3 1 0
3 0 9 0 5 1.888 2.278 2.833 2 3 2 1 1
4 37 54 0 0 2.388 2.332 1.888 0 2 1 1 1
5 0 28 0 0 3.761 3.381 3.571 1 0 0 0 1
6 28 481 0 0 1.777 0.112 0.667 1 3 7 6 1
7 58 204 0 3 1.809 1.096 0.278 0 3 5 7 0
8 3 41 0 0 2.381 2.524 2.445 1 2 1 0 2
9 10 42 0 0 1.833 1.835 1.763 1 3 2 3 0
10 10 42 0 0 2.286 1.811 2.074 1 2 4 3 1
11 3 12 0 0 2.571 2.334 1.571 0 1 1 4 0
12 30 12 1 0 4 3.953 4 1 0 0 0 1
13 6 147 0 0 3 2.722 1.62 0 0 0 3 0
14 0 122 0 0 1.951 2.191 1.945 1 2 2 2 2
15 33 77 0 0 3.057 2.5 1.33 0 0 1 5 0
16 62 97 0 1 0.445 1.333 3.476 2 6 4 0 2
17 0 38 0 0 2.555 2.612 3.498 2 1 1 0 0
18 4 56 0 4 1.429 1.904 2.943 2 4 3 1 1
19 1 49 0 0 1.6 2 0
20 7 86 0 0 2.19 1.523 1.266 0 3 4 5 2
21 5 74 0 0 3.286 3 2.763 0 1 1 0
22 2 29 0 0 4 3.953 3.427 0 0 0 0 1
23 4 223 1 0 2.945 2.555 2.714 1 2 2 2 0
24 4 45 0 0 1.278 1.5 2.143 2 3 3 1 0
25 1 36 0 0 2.714 2.334 1.761 1 1 2 4 0
26 11 55 0 0 2.333 3 1
27 2 34 1 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 2
28 3 34 0 0 3.476 3.141 3.096 0 0 0 1 2
29 21 35 0 2 2.168 1.167 1.761 1 2 5 3 0
30 2 73 0 1 2.6 2.534 3 0 1 1 0 0
Cotaught 2.4935 2.291 2.314 0.777 1.7142 2.10714 2.13793 0.7333333
Average 11.93333 82.2 0.1 0.7 36 786 433 778 85714 2857 1034 33
Cotaught Standard 16.77 91.6855 1.5120 0.894 0.924 0.965 0.7510 1.46204 1.85271
Deviation 423 2 0.305128577 20799 048 575 28 68 177 1441 2.0128895 0.784915253
Total 358 2466 3 21 11 12 5 48 59 62 22
Min 0 9 0 0 0.445 0.112 0.278 0 0 0 0
Max 62 481 1 5 4 4 4 6 7 7 2
Appendix II

Solo-Taught
Group
Student
Number
1 17 97 0 1 3.097 2.81 1.734 0 0 0 2 0
2 32 95 1 0 2.429 2.286 1.667 0 2 1 2 0
3 2 50 0 0 3.524 3.62 3.619 1 0 0 0 1
4 5 4 0 0 2.833 2.89 3 2 1 0 0 0
5 42 41 0 0 2.046 2.097 1.8 0 1 0 3 0
6 116 131 0 1 0.571 0.476 0.333 0 6 7 6 0
7 142 174 3 7 1.333 1.002 0.5 0 4 5 5 0
8 1 73 0 0 3.777 3.612 2.945 0 0 0 1 2
9 4 64 1 0 3 2.191 2.571 1 0 2 1 2
10 15 83 0 1 0.0945 1.502 2.191 2 4 3 2 1
11 39 176 0 4 3.333 2.239 1.61 0 1 2 4 1
12 10 22 1 0 3.732 2.904 3.134 1 0 0 0 3
13 31 288 0 0 1.143 1.286 1.066 1 5 5 5 0
14 20 88 0 0 3.523 3.333 2.945 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 2 0 0 3.667 3.833 3.723 1 0 0 0 0
16 2 152 0 0 2.943 2.888 2.777 0 0 1 1 1
3.953
17 0 1 0 0 4 5 3.833 0 0 0 0 2
18 9 79 0 1 2.096 2.047 2.239 1 0 1 1 2
19 34 12 0 0 2.857 2.381 3 1 1 1 1 1
20 13 326 0 1 1.049 0.857 0 5 5 5 0
21 18 5 0 1 2.857 2.524 1.778 0 0 1 2 0
22 0 17 0 0 3.953 4 3.953 1 0 0 0 1
23 1 10 0 0 3.667 3.906 3.761 1 0 0 0 0
24 1 101 0 0 3.714 3.573 3.333 0 0 0 0 1
25 19 100 0 1 1.498 0.945 1.857 1 5 6 4 0
26 7 48 0 0 2.476 2.286 1.669 0 1 2 3 0
27 2 107 1 0 3.667 3.857 3.2 1 0 0 0 2
28 0 18 0 0 3.953 3.857 3.8 0 0 0 0 0
29 73 118 0 0 1.668 1.2 1.286 1 1 4 5 0
30 7 144 0 1 2.055 1.89 1.953 1 1 2 2 1
22.06 87.5333 0.6333 2.685 2.541 2.457 0.5666 1.26666 1.8333333
Solo-Taught Average 667 3 0.233333333 33333 183 517 828 67 6667 1.6 33 0.7
Solo-Taught Standard 33.66 79.6088 1.4499 1.101 1.071 1.023 0.6260 1.91064 2.11072 1.9490640
Deviation 666 4 0.626062316 30636 637 145 04 62 7721 7935 25 0.876906789
Total 662 2626 7 19 15 13 2 38 48 55 21
Min 0 1 0 0 0.0945 0.476 0.333 0 0 0 0
Max 142 326 3 7 4 4 3.953 6 7 6 3
Appendix III

Cotaught 2.4935 2.291 2.314 0.777 1.7142 2.10714 2.13793 0.7333333


Average 11.93333 82.2 0.1 0.7 36 786 433 778 85714 2857 1034 33
Cotaught Standard 16.77 91.6855 1.5120 0.894 0.924 0.965 0.7510 1.46204 1.85271
Deviation 423 2 0.305128577 20799 048 575 28 68 177 1441 2.0128895 0.784915253
22.06 87.5333 0.6333 2.685 2.541 2.457 0.5666 1.26666 1.8333333
Solo-Taught Average 667 3 0.233333333 33333 183 517 828 67 6667 1.6 33 0.7
Solo-Taught Standard 33.66 79.6088 1.4499 1.101 1.071 1.023 0.6260 1.91064 2.11072 1.9490640
Deviation 666 4 0.626062316 30636 637 145 04 62 7721 7935 25 0.876906789

Average Standard 25.22 85.6471 1.4809 0.997 0.997 0.994 0.6885 1.68634 1.98171 1.9809767
Deviation 044 8 0.465595446 75718 842 86 16 65 4745 9688 62 0.830911021
- - - -
0.401 - 0.0450 0.192 0.250 0.144 0.3065 0.26543 0.25591 0.1537613
Effect Size (Co - Solo) 79 0.06227 -0.286371644 15368 06 27 24 96 7449 049 7 0.04011661
- - - -
0.401 0.06227 0.0450 0.192 0.250 0.144 0.26543 0.25591 0.1537613
Effect Size (Solo - Co) 79 1 0.286371644 15368 062 267 237 -0.3066 7449 049 7 -0.04011661
References

Bauwens, J. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education

integration. Remedial and special education. 10(2), 17-22.

Blythe, L., LeMasters, I., Timmins, W., & Reinhart, A. (2017, April 19). Co-Teaching. Address

presented at School Board Presentation in Online broadcast, eLearning, Cedar Falls,

Iowa.

Brinkmann, J., & Twiford, T. (2012). Voices from the field: Skill sets needed for effective

collaboration and co-teaching. International Journal of Educational Leadership

Preparation, 7(3), n3.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus

on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.

Georgia Department of Education (n.d.). Effective Co-Teaching: The Siz Approaches to Co-

Teaching. Lecture.

Iowa Department of Education. (2016) District and School Profile Reports. Retreived from

http://reports.educateiowa.gov/Home/reportWrapper
McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer

tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-

teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 493-510.

Schultz Stout, K, & Huston, J (n.d). Special education Inclusion. Retrieved from

http://weac.org/articles/specialedinc/

Walsh, J. M. (2012). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement.

Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(1), 29-36.

Witcher, M., & Feng, J. (2010). Co-Teaching vs. Solo Teaching: Comparative Effects on Fifth

Graders' Math Achievement. Online Submission.

You might also like