Fabulous literacy teaching and research are happening all around our state, and we need to share it. Have you implemented a new teaching strategy? Are you integrating technology into your literacy instruction? Do you have some apps that you or your students use for literacy projects that you just have to share? Have you discovered an excellent example of children’s literature to use in your content area instruction? Are you conducting literacy research and would like to share your findings with others? YES?!?! Then submit your writing to The Missouri Reader! We would love to read what you have to share—and so would others! If interested, read on……
You are invited to submit your writing for consideration in upcoming issues of The Missouri Reader (TMR). Here at TMR, we are inviting ALL authors to let their voices be heard—from literacy researchers, veteran classroom teachers, beginning teachers, and graduate students alike.
Manuscripts will be accepted in the following categories:
Resourceful Research – Scholarly articles and field research (5-10 pages)
Classroom Close-up – Glimpses into the results of strategy implementation
and literacy activities in the classroom (1-2 pages)
Content Contribution – Integrating literacy into content area instruction and
other areas such as music, art, PE, and special education (3-5 pages)
Tech Talk – Share ways to utilize technology to enhance literacy learning (2-4 pages)
Special Feature: All About Apps – Reviews of apps used for literacy-focused projects and activities; See All About Apps review criteria
Lit Look – Share how best to utilize literature in the classroom and beyond (2-4 pages)
Special Feature: Book Bundle – Reviews of children’s books and young adult literature; See Book Bundle review criteria
Collaboration Collection – Ways to collaborate with families and community members to take literacy learning beyond the classroom (1-3 pages)
Invaluable Invitation – Special section for invited Missouri authors and illustrators to share insights with our readers (1-3 pages)
Other – If a submission does not fit into one of the above categories, it can still be accepted for review, contingent upon its relevance to our readership.
All submissions not published or under consideration for publication elsewhere are welcome. Submissions may be sent electronically at any time. Manuscripts must be written in 12-point font, double-spaced, and follow APA (6th edition) formatting guidelines. Page limits for each category do not include reference pages. Clear, high-resolution digital images, high-quality videos, scanned examples of student work, and student-made digital projects are welcome to be included in your submission for inclusion in our newly redesigned interactive journal. . Including pictures of student work, students working, anchor charts and other classroom artifacts is encouraged, but not required. Portrait style photos of the authors are also welcome. If you are submitting pictures or videos of students or examples of student work, please include a completed Photo and Video Release Form with your submission
When submitting your manuscript, please send it as a Microsoft Word document email attachment with TMR Submission in the subject line to [email protected]. For each submission, the author must also complete The Missouri Reader Submission Form, which includes the category of the submission and other pertinent details. For manuscripts in the Resourceful Research category, an area on the form to include an abstract (100 words or less) is included. Manuscripts submitted to The Missouri Reader are first reviewed internally by the co-editors. If it is determined that a manuscript fulfills the mission of the journal, it is then sent to peers for review. Criteria for evaluating manuscripts are: 1) relevance and applicability to educators; 2) clarity of writing; 3) blend of theory and practice; and 4) content – accurate, consistent, and well-reasoned.
Please email manuscripts and/or questions
about The Missouri Reader to:
Glenda Nugent Co-Editor
The Missouri Reader
Subject line: TMR Submission
Co-planning. As described by Mageria, et al, (2006), “co-teachers need to work on the same goals and always remember to prioritize the needs of the students above anything else” (p. 6). The successes and challenges of co-teaching, as well as the successes from students, need to be communicated with each other (Fontana, 2005). Especially during the first year of implementation of the co-teaching model for any new pair, co-planning time is important.
For successful implementation of any co-teaching model, time must be spent planning between the general education teacher and the interventionist (Magiera, et al, 2006; Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). Teachers need to plan for the type of co-teaching model that will be implemented, the role each teacher will take in the class, classroom management styles, and how discipline will be handled within the classroom (Isherwood & Barger-Anderson, 2008). If possible, finding a time throughout the school day when both teachers would be available to co-plan is most beneficial to both teachers (Brendle & Piazza, 2017; Magiera, et al., 2006). Another consideration is planning which teacher will create the lesson plans, make copies for lessons, or complete grading so that one teacher does not feel all the responsibilities fall on their shoulders (Cook & Friend, 1995).
Communication forms, such as meeting schedules and agendas, as well as lesson plan forms can help to keep both teachers informed and on the same page (Faraclas, 2018). When time is short, using online forms of communication such as Google Forms, Skype, or email may be beneficial (Keeley, Brown, & Knapp, 2017
It is also important to remember once teachers have begun co-teaching, effective communication must continue. Communication will need to be an on-going process in order to best meet the needs of the students and make co-teaching a success (Fontana, 2005). Communication of the successes and failures of co-teaching and self-reflection of strategies implemented during co-planning is valuable (Hurd & Weilbacher, 2017
Co-teaching Models
Once the co-teaching teams have been identified, choosing the co-teaching model is the next step. Co-teaching allows for more flexible groupings within the classroom and more opportunities for collaboration between the two teachers. Teachers are also able to use each other as a resource and learn from each other (Woodward & Talbert-Johnson, 2009). Co-teaching can be presented within the classroom in many different ways. Cook and Friend (1995) identified five different types of co-teaching models that can be successfully implemented within the classroom. Those models are one teach/one assist, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, station teaching, and teaming. When deciding which model to implement, many considerations must be studied. Regardless of which model is chosen, research has shown that co-teaching can positively impact the academic performance of all students (Fontana, 2005; Marston, 1996; Pisheh et al., 2017).
One teach/one assist. The one teach/one assist model is the most commonly implemented co-teaching model because teachers find it the easiest model to implement (Fontana, 2005; Magiera, et al., 2006). One teach/one assist is different from the other co-teaching models, because during the one teach/one assist approach, there is a clear lead teacher in the classroom, and the other teacher is moving around the room helping students with the lesson the lead teacher is presenting (Cook & Friend, 1999). One teach/one assist is beneficial for students with attention issues, because it provides students with focus and attention issues the opportunity to receive the same lesson, the same way as other students, but it allows for another teacher to help keep that student and othersfocused and on-task (Turan & Bayer, 2017). However, when implementing one teach/one assist, it is likely that teachers may feel unneeded, or like a classroom support, instead of a teacher (Keeley, Brown, and Knapp, 2017). Even though teachers may feel this way, research has shown students still felt this model added value to their own learning (Keeley, Brown, and Knapp, 2017). The one teach/one assist model also does not require as much co-planning time together as other models since in this model one teacher is usually responsible for delivering all the content.
Parallel teaching. Parallel teaching is a co-teaching model that helps to decrease the student to teacher ratio within the classroom while presenting the same content just to two smaller groups within the classroom (Cook & Friend, 1995). When using parallel teaching, teachers closely plan and then implement the same lesson in the exact same way to smaller groups within the same physical space. Teachers in a parallel taught classroom have interchangeable rolls with no defined lead teacher. Both teachers present information and teach equally in the classroom. Parallel teaching is often used during hands-on activities, peer interactions, and responding aloud (Cook & Friend, 1995; Embury & Kroeger, 2012). One drawback to parallel teaching is the noise level in the classroom which could be distracting to both the teacher and other students (Carty & Farrell, 2018). Co-planning time is also increased since the goal is to deliver the same exact lesson just in smaller groups (Embury & Kroeger, 2012).
Alternative teaching. Alternative teaching is also a co-teaching model which helps to decrease the student to teacher ratio and allows teachers to more adequately address the needs of all students in the classroom (Keeley, Brown, & Knapp, 2017). In this model, a teacher will take a small group (3-8 students) and teach a separate supporting lesson. The other teacher would be teaching a related lesson to the whole group. This type of co-teaching model is often used with the pre-teach or re-teach approach in order to support struggling students because it allows for a smaller group. However, this could also be used as an enrichment group if that is what is best based on the dynamics of the class (Cook & Friend, 1995). Teachers also feel this co-teaching model helps with “student behavior, student confidence, and teacher authority” (Keeley, Brown, & Knapp, 2017, p. 533).
One consideration for using this model is alternative teaching could distinguish to the students within the classroom which students are receiving separate instruction (Cook & Friend, 1995). To combat this, Carty and Farrell (2018) tried letting students chose whether they would join the alternative group or not. However, the students who need the alternative grouping did not choose that group and instead stayed in the whole group lesson (Carty & Farrell, 2018). Another option to this is to have a private conversation ahead of time with the student so they understand why choosing the alternative teaching group would be best for them. Another idea would be to move the group in close proximity to the student in need
Station teaching. Station teaching also allows the teacher to student ratio to decrease. It also allows for more differentiated instruction within the classroom. In station teaching, teachers split the content into two to three segments and then present different content in address the needs of the students more accurately (Cook & Friend, 1995). Teachers have found this model to be effective though because of the ability to differentiate instruction and address students’ needs (Carty & Farrell, 2018).
.
We Need YOU!
IT's Your Teacher Duty to Share!
43