The following is an excerpt from my coteaching analysis in which I analyzed the data we gathered from our TLIC scores:


Data gathered from TLIC ratings:
  • For #12, we were given a “3”:
TC plans how to communicate the content and language learning goals/targets/objectives to students so that they can articulate what they are learning, why they are learning it, and how they will be successful in demonstrating their understanding.
Comments about this score included that our lesson was well planned and articulated. Aside from the confusion about the purpose of the photos in the file folder, it was easy to grasp what was expected of students.
We agreed that our folders’ contents could have been explained better orally (they were addressed in writing on a piece of paper in the folder, but students did not know to read that paper first).

  • For #22, we were given a “3”:
TC plans differentiated learning opportunities to meet students’ diverse needs (e.g., small group instruction; differentiating the content, the processes students use to learn the content, and/or the ways students can demonstrate their understanding).
This student said that we did a great job to differentiate activities and expectations were great; however directions could have been more clear.
Shortly in to the group activity, we noticed that we could have been more explicit about the purpose of each resource in the file folders by sorting through an example folder with the students. Not doing so resulted in confusion about what to do with each of the resources, and completing tasks that weren’t necessary. We learned, especially when you are presenting a variety of learning tools to accommodate for differentiated instruction, it is important to clearly explain what the purpose of the tools and give clear directions.

  • For #24, we were given a “4”:
TC collaborates with other professionals including CT and learning specialists (SPED, ELL, Speech/ Lang., Interventionists, School Psych) to engage in co-teaching models to deliver specific, purposeful instruction to meet the needs of the students.
Comments we were given based on this score were, “Great Job both sharing responsibility, organization, and helping students! Each co-teacher has exceptional understanding of the content, and demonstrated great strategies for how management of differentiating groups can work in the classroom setting. Thank You So Much!!!”
We did use the DI book and my CT’s experience in differentiated instruction in order to help develop our co-teaching plans. However, we did not use any other specialists to help us assess/deliver DI for our students. This grade may have been a bit generous, considering our access to specialists and their expertise on our students learning. However, we did the best we could with what information we did have about our students. We provided kenisthetic, visual, audio, and writing tools for students to use to access the content and we even put them into groups or by themselves based on their preference for how to work in class.

  • For #16, we were given a “1”:
TC selects or creates appropriate (developmental, sensitive to cultural, linguistic, and ability differences), high quality formative assessment strategiesthat provide ongoing information to the teacher and students about student progress towards the content & language goals/targets/objectives.

Comments we were given based on this score were that they really enjoyed the “HELP” flags as a formative assessment tool for teachers to be able to check in with students for understanding. They also said that they were not sure what other formative assessment we could have used understanding our time constraints, but that it’s something to think about.
Although we agree that we can always use different an/or more forms of formative assessment, we believed that we used more forms than these students may have been aware of. Not only were the “HELP” flags one way were were able to check in with students and assess their working-understanding of the content, but our pre-assessment, check-ins, matching activity, post-assessments, and exit tickets were also strategies we used for formative assessments.