TEAM TEACHING IN

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY:
THE IMPACT OF COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
ON LECTURE AND LABORATORY CURRICULUM
Jared Wuerzburger and Oscar Henriquez
NEERO Conference - Presentation - April 28th, 2016

Introduction:
Statement of the Problem, Theoretical Frameworks, Instructional Purpose

The Problem:
Researchers:
Jared Wuerzburger - Full
Time Instructor
Oscar Henriquez Graduate Student
Instructor
Indiana State University Electronics and Computer
Engineering Technology

Problem?
The field of technology is
largely based on the
instructional strategy of
hands-on laboratory
engagement. Often, lecture
sessions are not featured in
a laboratory environment and
students are expected to
pick up terminology,
procedures, and purposes of
processes which are taught
in this style of learning.

Solution?
Co-teaching practices
may be the balance of
laboratory and lecture
material needed to
students to meet
information technology
practical learning
objectives.

Theoretical Framework: Co-Teaching

The primary theoretical framework which

will be utilized in order to determine the
power of both team-teaching and coteaching strategies was put forth most
recently by Friend, et al in 2010, and as
early as 1996.
Literature regarding station teaching
traditionally defines the process as
including two or more instructors during
the pedagogical process.

Co-Teaching Model 1: Station Teaching

Instruction is divided into three parts in
which two stations are taught by the
instructors while the third station is for
working independently. The students
rotate from station to station;

Instructional
Purpose:

The station-teaching
method, co-teaching
model 1, will be used for
the purpose of this study
as it best fits the learning
objectives of constructing
an Ethernet cable.

Methodology:
Research Questions, Null Hypothesis, Variables, Participants, and Procedures

Research Questions: ANOVA Method

RQ1:

RQ2:

RQ3:

1. Are there significant

differences among coteaching vs non-coteaching groups and
the performance on IT
cabling exam
performance?

2. Are there significant

differences among
students who either
have experience or do
not have experience in
designing Ethernet
cables on IT cabling
exam performance?

3. Is there interaction
between co-teaching
groups, and
experience groups on
IT cabling exam
performance?

RQ4:

Research
Questions (cont)
The research questions for the
multiple regression analysis is
as follows:

Multiple Regression:
Does class standing, preference of
co-teaching, difficulty in focusing
levels predict a significant
proportion of the variance in IT
cabling exam performance in a coteaching environment?

Null Hypotheses: ANOVA Method

Null 1:

Null 2:

Null 3:

1. There is no
significant differences
among co-teaching vs
non-co-teaching
groups and the
performance on IT
cabling exam
performance?

2. There is no
significant differences
among students who
either have experience
or do not have
experience in
designing Ethernet
cables on IT cabling
exam performance?

3. There is no
significant interaction
between co-teaching
groups, and
experience groups on
IT cabling exam
performance?

Null 4:

Null Hypothesis
(cont)
The null hypothesis for the
multiple regression analysis is
as follows:

Multiple Regression:
The predictors of class standing,
preference of co-teaching, and
difficulty in focusing levels do not
predict the criterion of pre and post
delta scores on IT cabling exam.

Multiple Regression - Independent Variables:

IV 1: Class Standing

IV 2: Preference

IV 3: Difficulty Focus

Class standing. This predictor is

defined as Freshmen are those
who have achieved between 0
and 31 credit hours. Sophomore
standing is at the 32-62 credit
hour achievement level. Junior
status is achieved at the 63-93
credit hour level. Senior standing
is at 94 and above credit hours
achieved level. Class standing will
be measured from Indiana State
University academic records.

Preference of co-teaching.
This predictor is defined using
the scores of a Likert scale
question that will be provided
to students during their posttest examination. The student
will have the choice of
reflecting that they Strongly
Agree, Agree, Disagree, and
Strongly Disagree to the
questions being asked on the
survey.

Difficulty in Focusing. This

predictor is defined using the
scores of a Likert scale
question that will be provided
to students during their posttest examination. The student
will have the choice of
reflecting that they Strongly
Agree, Agree, Disagree, and
Strongly Disagree to the
questions being asked on the
survey.

Dependant
Variable:
Delta Scores

IT cabling exam pre and posttest

delta. The delta of the student
values from pre and post Tests will
be captured by a multiple choice
examination made of 5 questions
regarding the learning experiences
from the co-teaching sub-group in
order to form the dependent
variable. The delta score was
created by taking the difference of
total points between the posttest
and pretest (Post-Pre) score to
create a raw score.

ANOVA - Independent Variables:

IV 1: Co-Teaching Group or Control

IV 2: Cable Construction Experience

Experimental (Co-Teaching) or Control Group.

This independent variable has two levels. The
levels are the two classroom environments
being employed in the study: co-teaching
environment, and Single-Teacher environment.
In order to determine if significant differences
exist between pedagogical strategies of coteaching vs Single-teaching on student delta
scores, we must place each member of n in
either the co-teaching level, or Single-Teacher
level.

Prior Experience. The students prior

experience in constructing Ethernet cables or
the lack thereof is second independent
variable for the ANOVA portion of the
analysis. Any experience with the process of
constructing an Ethernet cable will place the
student in the Prior Experience category,
otherwise, they will be placed in the no prior
experience category. This will be measured
via a simple two-option multiple choice
question.

Dependant
Variable:
Delta Scores

IT cabling exam pre and posttest

delta. The delta of the student
values from pre and post Tests will
be captured by a multiple choice
examination made of 5 questions
regarding the learning experiences
from the co-teaching sub-group in
order to form the dependent
variable. The delta score was
created by taking the difference of
total points between the posttest
and pretest (Post-Pre) score to
create a raw score.

Participants:
Data sources for this study will be taken from Information Technology students at
Indiana State University at various academic levels from freshmen to seniors. The
students are currently enrolled in ECT 372: Advanced computer components and
will be engaging in either a co-teaching pedagogical model, or a single-teacher
pedagogical model in order to instruct students in the process of creating a
functional Category 5 Ethernet Cable.
The purpose of this research will help to determine if the incorporation of coteaching strategies are effective for Information Technology laboratory learning
using simultaneous multiple regression and a 2x2 factorial analysis of the
variance.

Lecture Instruction
Student then engages
in lecture instruction
regarding the Ethernet
standard.

Student takes the

pretest examination.

Step 1:
Pretest

Step 2:
Station One

Laboratory Instruction
Student then engages
in lab instruction for
the creation of the
Ethernet cabling.

Step 3:
Station Two

Student takes the

survey.

Step 4:
Posttest

Student then takes the

posttest assessment.

Step 5:
Survey

Results:
Analysis, Descriptives, Factorial ANOVA, and Multiple Regression

Analysis:
Multiple Regression:

ANOVA:

A simultaneous multiple regression

will be performed to analyze the extent
to which the predictors of year in
school, preference of co-teaching
(Likert), and difficulty in focusing
(Likert) can predict the criterion of delta
scores of pre and posttest on Category
5 Ethernet cabling construction.

Then, a 2 x 2 Factorial Analysis of

Variance will be employed to determine
the effect of co-teaching vs non-coteaching, and experience with cable
construction vs no experience with
cable construction on the dependent
variable of delta scores of pre and
posttest covering Category 5 Ethernet
cabling construction.

Descriptives:

The study sample had a total of 36 students. By group of control or experimental this
encompassed non-co-teaching of n = 18 and co-teaching of n = 18.
Grade level included freshman n = 12, sophomore n = 8, junior n = 8 and senior n = 8.
The dependent variable for the factorial ANOVA and multiple regression was pretest /
posttest delta score score (M = 1.06, SD = .98).
Students involved in the co-teaching experimental group reported via a four-point Likert
scale that it was difficult to focus. (M = 2.06, SD = 1.06) Coded as:SA=1, A=2, D=3,
SD=4.
Students in the experimental group also reported that they preferred a co-teaching
environment over traditional student environments (M = 3.00, SD = .49).
Coded as: SA=4, A=3, D=2, SD=1.

ANOVA:
Factorial ANOVA:
A factorial ANOVA was conducted with
prior experience with Ethernet cable
construction (yes or no) and group level
(co-teaching or non-co-teaching) as the
independent variables and delta scores of
pre and posttest Ethernet exam as the
dependent variable. Assumptions of the
variables involved in the factorial ANOVA
were assessed validated.

Findings:

There was not a significant main

effect of experience (experience or
no experience) on delta scores, F
(1, 32) = 1.9, p = .183.
There was not a significant main
effect of group (coteaching or noco-teaching) on delta scores, F(1,
32) = 1.3, p = .724.

Multiple Regression:
Regression:
A simultaneous multiple regression will
be performed to analyze the extent to
which the predictors of year in school,
preference of co-teaching (Likert), and
difficulty in focusing (Likert) can
predict the criterion of delta scores of
pre and posttest on Category 5
Ethernet cabling construction.

Findings:

The results from the simultaneous

multiple regression indicated that year
in school, preference of co-teaching
(Likert), and difficulty in focusing
(Likert) do not predict a significant
proportion of the variance in Ethernet
Cable construction Test delta,
Rsquared = .069, R 2 adj = -.130, F(3,
14) = .39, p = .79.
Specifically the model accounted for
7% of variance in degrees of freedom.

Findings - Summary
Regression:

ANOVA:

The findings revealed that in the multiple

regression we must fail to reject the null
hypothesis. Thus, demonstrating that in fact
Year in School score, preference of coteaching score, and difficulty of focus score
are not valid predictors of our co-teaching
lesson for constructing Ethernet cabling. A
non-substantial portion of the variance in
delta lesson scores was attributed to the
linear combination of the predictors.

It was concluded to fail to reject the null

hypotheses since there was not: a significant
mean difference among co-teaching vs nonco-teaching and delta performance scores, a
significant mean difference among students
who have experience or do not have
experience and delta performance scores,
and no significant interaction was found
between co-teaching groups and experience
groups on delta performance scores.

What does this all mean?

Conclusion and Implications

Conclusion:

It is important to note that if we widen the data view to encompass the entire 36 person
sample containing both co-teaching and non-co-teaching groups, 52.8 percent of our
students had no previous experience with the instructional content, while 47.2 percent of
the sample did have previous experience.
It is also worth noting that it may have been possible that with a larger sample the
ANOVA model may have resulted in a significant mean difference among those who had
previous experience and those who did not, as it was our lowest sig value of .183.
In the future, it would be beneficial to open this lesson up to all Information Technology
students in order to further compare the results of this study to a larger sample.

Implications:

The potential implications of this research are that with this size of student base, with
the pedagogical strategy of station-teaching within the subject matter of IT, we are not
finding the appropriate predictors of delta scores on our assessment.
We did see an increase in delta scores to mean of 1, thus the instructional materials
were helpful and increase learning.
More specifically, it was found that the mean delta score performance was identical in
both groups.
Thus, the co-teaching strategy in laboratory Ethernet cable activities was neither
beneficial nor harmful as the performance in both co-teaching and non-co-teaching was
identical.

Additional research is needed to find:

Additional
Research

(a) the missing causes of variance on

delta scores with this assessment, coteaching strategy, student population
and instructional materials
(b) increase sample size in order to find
potential sources of mean difference
among co-teaching vs no co-teaching
groups, experience vs no experience
groups, in information technology
lecture and laboratory environments.

Thank you!