After school session in Prince Rupert to continue to conversation re: collaboration. Focus on different models of co-teaching, as first discussed at CR4YR in August.

1. Frameworks for
Collaboration
CR4YR August 27th, 2013
Vancouver Hilton Hotel
Faye Brownlie and Randy Cranston

2. Learning Intentions
 I have a better understanding of collaboration and
co-teaching.
 I have a plan of how to increase the effectiveness
of my collaboration and my co-teaching.
 I can create a class review and use it to plan for
instruction.

3. Why Collaboration/Co-teaching?
 Based on the belief that collaborative planning,
teaching and assessing better addresses the diverse
needs of students by creating ongoing effective
programming in the classroom
 It allows more students to be reached
Learning in Safe Schools, page 102 Chapter 9

4.  Based on the belief that collaborative planning,
teaching and assessing better addresses the diverse
needs of students by creating ongoing effective
programming in the classroom
 It allows more students to be reached
 It focuses on the ongoing context for learning for the
students, not just the specific remediation of skills
removed from the learning context of the classroom
 It builds a repertoire of strategies for teachers to
support the range of students in classes
page 102 Chapter 9
Learning in Safe Schools,

5. Why Collaboration/Co-teaching?
 Based on the belief that collaborative planning, teaching
and assessing better addresses the diverse needs of
students by creating ongoing effective programming in the
classroom
 It allows more students to be reached
 It focuses on the ongoing context for learning for the
students, not just the specific remediation of skills
removed from the learning context of the classroom
 It builds a repertoire of strategies for teachers to support
the range of students in classes
 Imperative students with the highest needs have the most
consistent program
Learning in Safe Schools, page 102 Chapter 9

6. Rationale:
 By sharing our collective
knowledge about the whole class
and developing a plan of action
based on this, we can better meet
the needs of all students.

7. Goal:
 to support students to be successful
learners in the classroom environment

8. A Key Belief
 When intervention is focused on classroom
support it improves each student’s ability and
opportunity to learn effectively/successfully in the
classroom.

9. The Vision
A
Shi:
from…..
to
A
Remedial
Model
(Deficit
Model)
An
Inclusive
Model
(Strengths
Based)
‘Fixing’
the
student
‘Fixing’
the
curriculum
Outside
the
classroom/
curriculum
to
Within
the
classroom/
curriculum

10. Transforma)ons
within
the
Inclusive
Model
Pull-­‐out
Support
/
Physical
Inclusion
•
sDll
a
remedial
model
–
to
make
kids
fit
•
In
the
class,
but
o:en
on
a
different
plan
Inclusion
•
Classroom
Teacher
as
central
support
•
Resource
Teacher
–
working
together
in
a
co-­‐teaching
model

11. No plan, No point

12. Questions to Guide Co-Teaching
 Are all students actively engaged in meaningful
work?
 Are all students participating by answering and
asking questions?
 Are all students receiving individual feedback
during the learning sequence?
 How is evidence of learning from each day’s coteaching fueling the plan for the next day?

13. A Co-teaching Question:
Is this the best approach to maximize student
learning:
• at this time
• for this task
• for this student?

14.  What is your co-teaching dream?

15. Co-Teaching Models
(Teaching in Tandem – Effective Co-Teaching in the Inclusive
Classroom – Wilson & Blednick, 2011, ASCD)
 1 teach, 1 support
 Parallel groups
 Station teaching
 1 large group; 1 small group
 Teaming

16. 1 Teach, 1 Support
 most frequently done, least planning
 Advantage: focus, 1:1 feedback, if alternate roles,
no one has the advantage or looks like the ‘real’
teacher, can capitalize one 1’s strengths and build
professional capacity
 Possible pitfall: easiest to go off the rails and
have one teacher feel as an ‘extra pair of hands’,
no specific task (buzzing radiator)

17. 1 Teach, 1 Support: Examples
 demonstrating a new strategy so BOTH teachers
can use it the next day – e.g., think aloud,
questioning from pictures, listen-sketch-draft
 Students independently working on a task, one
teacher working with a small group on this task,
other teacher supporting children working
independently

18. Parallel Groups
 both teachers take about half the class and teach
the same thing.
 Advantage: half class size - more personal
contact, more individual attention
 Possible pitfalls: more time to co-plan, requires
trust in each other, each must know the content
and the strategies.

19. Parallel Groups: Examples
 word work. At Woodward Elem, the primary worked together
3 X/week, with each teacher, the principal and the RT each
taking a group for word work. Some schools have used this
with math activities.
 Focus teaching from class assessment. Westwood
Elementary: Came about as a result of an action research
question: How do we better meet the needs of our students?:
 primary team used Standard Reading Assessment, highlight
on short form of Performance Standards, Resource, ESL,
principal involved, cross-graded groups 2X a week, for 6 to 8
weeks driven by information from the performance standards
(Text features, Oral Comprehension, Risk taking, Critical
thinking with words, Getting the big picture,… , repeat
process
 NOT paper and pencil practice groups…teaching/thinking
groups

20. Station Teaching
 mostly small groups
 can be heterogeneous stations or more homogeneous
reading groups
 each teacher has 2 groups, 1 working independently at
a station or writing, 1 working directly with the teacher.
 Advantage: more individual attention and personal
feedback, increased focus on self regulation
 Possible pitfall: self regulation (needs to be taught),
time to plan for meaningful engagement.

21. Station Teaching: Examples
 Guided reading: 4 groups; RT has two and CT has
two
 math groups – Michelle’s patterning (1 direct
teaching, 2 guided practice, 1 guided practice with
observation)
 science stations: CT and RT each created two
stations; co-planning what they would look like to
ensure differentiation, teachers moved back and
forth between groups supporting self-monitoring,
independence on task

22. 1 large group, 1 small group
 Advantage: either teacher can work with either
group, can provide tutorial, intensive, individual
 Possible pitfall: don’t want same kids always in
the ‘get help’ group

23. 1 large group, 1 small group:
Examples
 Writing: 1 teacher works with whole class prewriting
and drafting, small groups of 3-4 students meet with 1
teacher to conference
 Reading: everyone’s reading. large group: teacher
moving from student to student listening to short oral
reads. Small group: 2 to 3 students being supported to
use specific reading strategies or
 small group is working on a Reader’s Theatre
 Math: large group using manipulatives to represent
shapes, small groups, rotating with other teacher,
using iPads to take pictures of shapes in the
environment

24. Teaming
 most seamless.
 co-planned
 teachers take alternate roles and lead-taking as the lesson
proceeds
 Most often in whole class instruction and could be followed
up with any of the other four co-teaching models
 Advantages: capitalizes on both teachers’ strengths, models
collaboration teaching/learning to students, can adjust
instruction readily based on student need, flexible
 Possible pitfalls: trust and skill

25. Teaming: Examples
 Brainstorm-categorize lesson – 1 teacher begins, other
teacher notices aspects the first teacher has missed or
sees confusion in children, adds in and assumes lead
role.
 Modeling reading strategies: two teachers model and
talk about the strategies they use to read, noting things
they do differently.
 Graphic organizer: Teachers model how to use a
semantic map as a post reading vocabulary building
activity, teacher most knowledgeable about semantic
mapping creates it as other teacher debriefs with
students; both flow back and forth