Feb.+3rd+Product+-+Research+Team

Research Team product from February 3rd meeting

Here’s how our Research Team work is structured:

I’ll download articles here, in this group section over time. Each of us will put our name next to the article we’re reviewing, so as not to duplicate effort (who knows, we may be working at the same time). For example, I've selected the Weiss & Brigham article. We’ll follow these steps:
 * 1) Determine if it’s research or not rigorous enough to use but would work as a resource that may prove to be helpful for the other teams. Under RESOURCES section of the wiki, download the article to the corresponding heading (either Resources or Research.) If “resource,” then provide a description of the valuable information it contains. The reason why I thought we'd want to do it this way is that a study may be weak methodologically yet contribute creative ways to implement co-teaching. If the study is unusable (Ex: flawed design and irrelevant), then simply mark: UNHELPFUL next to it and your name and let it remain here.
 * 2) If “Research,” then complete these steps:
 * 3) Address all relevant and appropriate questions under SUB-TOPICS section of wiki.
 * 4) Add the information to the research studies table under the FAQ section of the wiki.
 * 5) Review all answers to the FAQ questions addressed by our colleagues and add any relevant information from your article using a different color font.

If there’s anything else you want to do with your article, feel free to look for other ways it can be utilized/integrated into the modules. Please share this with us as well by posting what you’ve done. Post it next to the article and your name.

ALSO, POSE ALTERNATIVE/IMPROVED WAYS TO DO THIS, SINCE AS WE WORK WITH THIS WE MAY COME UP WITH A BETTER STRUCTURE...

Paula

UNHELPFUL Mary Russell

Mary Russell

Paula

Mary Russell

Minnie

Marge

Marge

Marge

Marge

Marge NOT RESEARCH BUT POTENTIALLY HELPFUL, moved a copy to RESOURCES

Marge NOT RESEARCH BUT POTENTIALLY HELPFUL, moved a copy to RESOURCES

Marge

Marge

Marge NO STUDENT OUTCOMES MEASURES BUT POTENTIALLY HELPFUL, moved a copy to RESOURCES

Marge

Marge

Marge

Paula



[Note: Informal rating scales and informal self-report data have been eliminated from this review.]
 * Research Group **
 * Table: Student outcomes measured in co-teaching studies **

behavioral assessments || Other assessments || Grades/ Passing and/or Retention rates || Referrals to Special Ed || Disciplinary referrals and/or suspension rates || Referrals to AIG || CBM ||  ||   ||   || Replace w/ grade range || Reviewer needs to do outcomes ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || High School ||  ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || // Georgia Criterion-referenced Competency Test-GCCT // ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Study || Grades || Achievement tests || Statewide assessments || Affective and/or
 * Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg (2008) || All
 * Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg (2010) || K-6 || // Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment //, //Woodcock Johnson III-RE// ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Flicek, Olsen, Chivers, Kaufman, & Anderson (1996) || 4th& 5th grade || // Stanford Achievement // Math subtest ||  ||   ||   ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Idol (2006) || K-6 &
 * Johnston (1994) || 4th & 6th grade || // Iowa Test of Basic Skills // ||  X   || // Self- esteem Index // ||   ||   ||   ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Mote (2010) || 6th- 8th ||  ||   ||   || Lexile scores,
 * Murawski (2006) || 9th grade || Reviewer needs to do outcomes ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Rea, McLaughlin& Walther-Thomas (2002) || 8th grade || // Iowa Test of Basic Skills // ||  X   ||   ||   ||   X   ||   ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Schwab Learning (2003) || 16 schools ||  ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||   X   ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Walsh & Snyder (1993) ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Welch (2000) || 4th & 5th grade ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||

[Note: Rating scales and self-report data have been eliminated from this review.]
 * Table: Articles recommending specific student outcomes for measuring effectiveness of co-teaching **

behavioral assessments || Other assessments ||  Grades/ Passing and/or Retention rates  || Referrals to Special Ed || Disciplinary referrals and/or suspension rates || Referrals to AIG || CBM ||  ||   ||   || (2003) ||  ||   X   ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||   || ||   ||   ||   ||   X   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Article || Grades || Content-specific pre and post-tests || Progress toward IEP goals || Achievement tests || Statewide assessments || Affective and/or
 * Dieker & Murawski

Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). What makes co-teaching work? Identifying the essential elements. //College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4//(3), 43-48. Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through coteaching. //Action in Teacher Education, 32//(1), 3-14 Dieker, L., & Murawski, W. (2003). Co-Teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. //High School Journal, 86//(4), 1-13. Flicek, M., Olsen, C., Chivers, R., Kaufman, C.J., & Anderson, J.A. (1996). The combined classroom model for serving elementary students with and without behavioral disorders. //Behavioral Disorders, 21//, 241-248. Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. //Remedial and Special Education, 27//(2), 77–94.

Johnston, W.F. (1994). How to educate all students…together. //Schools in the Middle, 3//, 3-12.

Mote, S.Y. (2010). //Does setting affect achievement of students with disabilities: Comparing co-teaching to resource.// Dissertation, Liberty University.

Murawski, W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How can we improve? //Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22//, 227–247.

Rea, P., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. S. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. //Exceptional Children, 68//(2), 203–222. Schwab Learning. (2003). Collaboratively speaking; A study on effective ways to teach children with learning differences in the general education classroom. //The Special EDge//, 1-4. Walsh, J.M., & Snyder, D. (1993). //Cooperative teaching: An effective model for all students.// Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children. San Antonio, TX.

Welch, M. (2000). Descriptive analysis of team teaching in two elementary classrooms: A formative experimental approach. //Remedial and Special Education//, //21//(6), 366-376.