Descripción y fundamento del webinar

The first phase in the research included the development of the initial instrument. In order to create this instrument, a comprehensive review of literature was completed in order to identify gaps in the current research and identify the core elements of effective co-teaching practices. There was also a review of existing instruments that included the Classroom Observations of Student-Teacher Interactions (COSTI), the Teacher-Pupil Observation Tool (T-POT), and the Teacher-Student Relationship Inventory (TSRI). It was determined that no instrument had been developed or validated to measure co-teaching practices in the co-taught classroom. The review

of literature identified practices that were equated with effective co-taugth classrooms; therefore, those practices were integrated into the initial instrument as items for observation (see Table 2). This initial instrument consisted of 48 items comprised of 44 Likert-type scale items and four checklist items. The 44 questions included items related to the six dimensions of effective co- teaching: (a) teacher parity/collaboration, (b) teacher to student interaction, (c) instructional roles, (d) instructional strategies, (e) individualized instruction, and (f) classroom management. Phase 2: Expert Review-Face and Content Validity

During Phase 2 of the study, an expert review was conducted on the 48 item instrument in order to establish face and content validity. Face validity is defined as how well an instrument appears to measure what it is intended to measure, or its face value (Kucuk & Walters, 2009). The definition of content validity takes analysis one step farther and refers to whether the items in the instrument actually measure what they are stated to measure (Delgado-Rico, Carretero- Dios, & Ruch, 2012).

During the expert review, 10 experts in the field of special education were asked to participate. These experts were asked to pilot the instrument in one classroom and complete the two section evaluation document. These experts were asked to give feedback on the readability, suitability, and intelligibility of the instrument and its items. They were asked to indicate whether items were critical, beneficial, or extraneous in assessing the components in the study

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) via a three point Likert type scale (Appendix I).

The resulting instrument derived from analysis of the data produced from the expert review was a 43 item instrument consisting of 39 five point Likert-type scale items and 4

practices done very poorly or not observed to practices done well or consistently observed during the observation.

Phase 3: Field Testing, Construct Validity, and Reliability

Following the expert review, the 43-item instrument was field tested. Observers used the instrument to observe 160 pairs of co-teacher participants in co-taught classrooms across the state of Georgia. The data collected from the field underwent quantitative analyses to examine the construct validity and reliability for the instrument. Construct validity is defined as whether or not the instrument measures what it claims to measure based on proven relationships between the variables determined during data analysis (Salkind, 2000). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to examine this construct validity and allowed a reduction of variables while retaining the maximum variance (DeCoster, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and Spearman-Brown prophecy formula were used to examine the internal consistency and reliability of the instrument (Cohen, 1992; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). These forms of analyses were most appropriate for this study as they encompass the recommended method of data analysis for determining if certain items impacted responses in the expected manner. PCA was chosen rather than exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis due to the fact that this research sought to determine the components based on the measured responses rather than determining the responses based on the components (DeCoster, 1998; Kahn, 2006; Smolkowski & Gunn, 2012).

Questions and Hypotheses The research questions for this study were:

RQ1: Does the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) have face validity for measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher

interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management?

RQ2: Does the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) have content validity for measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher

interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management?

RQ3: What is the underlying factor structure of the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) used in this study?

RQ4: Does the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) show internal consistency for the composite scale and its subscales?

The following were the research hypotheses:

H11: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) has face validity for measuring

co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.

H12: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) has content validity for

measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher

interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.

H13: The underlying factor structure of the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI)

used in this study will be co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.

H14: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) shows internal consistency for the

composite scale and its subscales.

Alternatively, the following were the null hypotheses:

H01: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) does not have face validity for

measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher

interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.

H02: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) does not have content validity for

measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher

interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.

H03: The underlying factor structure of the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI)

used in this study will not be co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.

H04: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) does not show internal

consistency for the composite scale and its subscales. Participants

There were two distinct groups of participants in this research study. In order to analyze face and content validity (Phase 2), a participant group of 10 experts were invited to evaluate the initial instrument. This constituted the participant group for Phase 2 of the research. Phase 3 was the field testing portion of the study, which allowed the analysis of construct validity and

Due to the fact that the observations were submitted via Qualtrics, I did not collect the actual number of observers participating. .