Gauging Diverse Students' Learning: Co-Assessment in a Co-Taught Teacher Education Program

• In Event: Synergies and Tensions: Experiences of Administration, Faculty, and Students in Co-Taught Teacher Preparation Courses

Abstract

While scholarship reflects efforts to better understand faculty members’ general perceptions of co-teaching (Ricci & Fingon, 2018; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007), less clear is how co-teachers in higher education approach assessment in their classrooms, though they inherently serve as models of co-teaching and co-assessment for novice teachers. Historically, K-12 teachers have struggled to engage in valid, culturally appropriate assessment. Although data can serve to illuminate teachers’ pedagogical strengths and weaknesses to foster professional growth, some teachers utilize assessment results to affirm ineffective practices and to blame young learners for their academic struggles (Betrand & Marsh, 2015; Kitiashvili, 2014)—practices that can lead to inappropriate instructional plans and erroneous referrals for special education evaluation. It is therefore vital that co-instructors in teacher preparation courses model effective and appropriate assessment practices.
This paper serves to explore the following: (1) What assessment approaches are utilized by the general and special education co-teachers in one co-taught teacher education program in its first year of implementation? (2) How are these assessment approaches influenced by the various co-teaching pairings that took place, as well as other conditions within the department and university?
For this paper, the data was coded using an inductive approach in order to examine the relationships among the six elements of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and to illuminate any potential tensions or contradictions within the activity system. A constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was then utilized; open coding procedures allowed categories such as “examples of formative assessment” and “approaches to shared grading responsibilities” to emerge. Lastly, redundant codes were collapsed and reorganized into patterns (Creswell, 2007).
Findings revealed that collaborative planning across the broader department led to the use of a diverse set of formative (e.g., classroom discussions, presentations, poetry, songs) and summative (e.g., research papers, lesson and unit plans, teaching demonstrations, reflection papers) assessments across the co-taught courses. Faculty members shared their ideas for assessment with their co-teachers and within weekly online course-alike meetings, where the instructors consistently examined the implications their understandings of data held for instruction. In that sense, multiple levels of collaboration in the broader department encouraged faculty members to utilize multiple measures when examining teacher candidate learning.
Although faculty members seemed to have a shared value of using diverse assessment approaches to guide instruction, there were also many instances of tension between co-teachers’ broader philosophies of assessment, which included differing views on what constituted timely grading, interpretations of shared rubrics, and appropriate ways to allocate grading responsibilities. Importantly, these tensions were recognized and resolved to varying degrees; however, tensions did not lead to transformation. Oftentimes, due largely to time constraints, faculty members did not have the opportunity to unpack tensions and interrogate their assessment philosophies—in other words, co-teachers did not challenge their own thinking in light of their partner’s opposing views on assessment practices.
The findings are significant to scholarship in that they illuminate the potential for learning surrounding assessment, as well as limitations in cases where resources—such as time—are in short supply.

Author

• Joyce M. Gomez-Najarro, California State University - Fullerton
  Presenting Author