How Co-Teaching Saved Student Teaching: Data and Decision-Making in a Critical Time
Section I: Content
A. Statement of the Issue:
Once a foundational aspect of the development of pre-service teachers, clinical field
experiences in American public school classrooms are changing. Once wide-open, doors are closing
as teachers realize how legislated changes in the use of test scores will negatively affect their own
performance ratings and pay scales if student gains are not in evidence. A study by the Academy
for Co-Teaching and Collaboration at St. Cloud State University showed that students in classrooms
in which a pre-service teacher completed his or her student teaching performed more poorly than
students in classrooms with only a regular teacher present (Academy for Co-Teaching and
Collaboration, 2012). Though these data are plausible when one recognizes that pre-service
teachers are still novice teachers and need care and mentorship to grow to their potential,
however veteran teachers are unwilling to allow their own evaluations to reflect this phenomenon,
particularly when evaluations are tied to job security and pay.
In one large southeastern university in the United States which makes nearly 3,000 field
placements each year, the decreasing willingness of public school partners to take pre-service
teachers was of significant concern due to changes in state laws linking teachers to their students’
achievement data. When programs are built around field experiences that occur early and often,
partnerships with public school partners are paramount. Data from the study at St. Cloud State
were evidence of the need to begin an innovative study of the effects of co-teaching on the
development of pre-service teachers, as well as K-12 students in an attempt to retain critical field
placements with public school partners. The St. Cloud State data suggested the need to collect our
own data on the effectiveness of co-teaching in redefining the student teaching experience and a
carefully articulated research design was conceived.
B. Literature Review:
Co-teaching has many definitions, and is somewhat dependent upon the context in which it is
being used. Its use originated as a partnership between special educators and regular classroom
teachers and has been heavily influenced by the work of Marilyn Friend and colleagues (Friend,
1993; 2001). While DeBoer & Fister (1995) defined co-teaching as teachers sharing planning,
presentation, evaluation, and classroom management, Gately & Gately (2001) further expanded
the definition by adding that teachers with different knowledge, skills, and talents are responsible
for designing, delivering, monitoring and evaluating differentiated instruction in general education
classrooms. Murawski (2010) referred to co-teaching as a “professional marriage” where two
teachers provide instruction to all students where both adults are considered equal as teachers.
More recent work has examined the use of co-teaching with pre-service teachers during the
student teaching experience and has shown positive effects for the development of both the preservice teachers as well as the K-12 students. Cumulative student achievement data gathered from
2003-2007 at St. Cloud State University found statistically significant gains in reading and math
proficiency when 35,000 P-12 students were compared in Co-Taught and Not Co-Taught student
teaching settings. Co-teaching strategies applied to student teaching have been used successful at
all grade levels and in every content area, from pre-school to senior high, teacher candidates and
their cooperating teachers have effectively incorporated co-teaching into the classroom (Academy
for Co-Teaching and Collaboration, 2012).
Finally, several studies have shown that students in the classroom also benefit from when a coteaching arrangement is present. The teacher candidates in Kamens’s (2007) study reported that
the co-teaching positively impacted the students in the class because students were able to get
individualized support. Murphy et al. (2012) examined students' enjoyment of their science lessons
after a six month experience being in a co-taught classroom. At the end of the six months, the
students in the co-taught classrooms had more positive attitudes about their science lessons than
those who were non-participating (Murphy et al., 2012). Teacher candidates also reported that
they believed co-teaching yielded better outcomes for the students (Goodnough et al., 2009).
C. Contribution:
The potential contribution of this work is twofold. First, it has the potential to positively affect
K-12 student achievement by improving the mentoring that occurs during student teaching for a
more positive and immediate effect on K-12 students. The second contribution of this work is that
positive gains for students would mean that classroom teachers and administrators would be more
willing to accept student teaching and field experience placements. This would mean the door to
field placements would remain open and available as a critical aspect of the preparation of preservice teachers.
D. Relevance:
This session recognizes the urgency of the need for change in field placement practices. Field
placement practices, such as student teaching, have remained largely unchanged for many years. In
one southeastern state, the accountability movement has created an ‘Imperative’ which teacher
education must address in order to retain partners willing to host field placements in which preservice teachers can learn and grow. Directly addressing the conference theme, “Advancing the
Imperative,” this session demonstrates to participants how one university was able to leverage an
adverse situation to utilize data to redesign the traditional student teaching experience. What once
may have taken many years to change, was transformed due to strong data and a reason to
change, or an imperative. It is likely that many universities are facing similar challenges.
E. Implication for Action:
Implementation of co-teaching has changed the nature of pre-service teacher preparation at
this university, which has remained largely unchanged for many years. The challenges of CoTeaching are many and some of these include (1) co-planning time for co-teaching teams, (2)
administrator support, (3) co-teacher working relationships, and (4) classroom roles and
responsibilities. However, data from both St. Cloud State University, as well as initial data from this
study indicate that co-teaching positively influences both the development of the teacher
candidate, while creating gains for K-12 student learners. Colleges of Education facing similar
challenges when working with public school partners can learn from this university’s use of data in
decision-making.
Section II: Outcomes and Methods
A. Learner/participant outcomes:
 Participants will recognize the need for change in pre-service field experiences due to
today’s context of accountability for teachers
 Participants will recognize the effects of co-teaching on pre-service teachers’ readiness to

teach
Participants will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of several data sources in
the evaluation of pre-service teachers’ readiness to teach and determine whether those
tools would be applicable in their own contexts
B. Methods:
Presenters will show how a carefully constructed study addressed the need for change in order
to retain field-based placements for student teaching. Presenters will discuss assessment measures
that are being used at this university to capture candidates’ readiness to teach (including
observational instruments and the edTPA), as well as results from 2 years of implementation of coteaching. Effects on K-12 student outcome measures will also be shared.
References
Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration. (2012). Mentoring teacher candidates through
co-teaching [Train The Teacher Workshop]. St. Cloud University, St. Cloud.
DeBoer, A., & Fister, S. (1995). Working together: Tools for collaborative teaching. Longmont,
CO: Sopris West.
Friend, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and
considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure,37(4), 6.
Friend, M. (2001, February). Co-teaching for general and special educators. Paper presented for
Clark County School District, Las Vegas, NV.
Gately, S. E., & Gately Jr., F. J. (2001). Understanding Coteaching Components. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40.
Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009). Exploring a triad model of
student teaching: Pre-service teacher and cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 25, 285-296.
Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative experience for preservice
teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(3), 155-166.
Murawski, W. W. (2010). Collaborative teaching in elementary schools: Making the co-teaching
marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2012). Students as 'catalysts' in the classroom: The
impact of co-teaching between science student teachers and primary classroom teachers on
children's enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8),
1023-1035.