A New Model of Student Teaching: Co-Teaching 2:1
Does Co-Teaching Increase the Teaching Ability of Teacher Candidates?
Elizabeth A. Fogarty, Associate Professor
Department of Elementary and Middle Grades Education
Judith J. Smith, Assistant Professor
Department of Elementary and Middle Grades Education
East Carolina University
Christina Tschida, Assistant Professor
Department of Elementary and Middle Grades Education
East Carolina University
Vivian Covington, Director
Office of Teacher Education
East Carolina University
Abstract
Carefully designed student teaching experiences, specifically Co-Teaching,
can effectively prepare clinical interns while positively impacting student
achievement. In this study the authors examined results of a two-year pilot study of
Co-Teaching to determine outcomes for pre-service teachers and elementary school
students. Drawing from multiple data sources including the Teacher Performance
Assessment (edTPA) results, focus group interviews, and collaboration selfassessment tool surveys, researchers explored the impact of Co-teaching instruction
for training student teachers. Research questions were: 1) What is the difference in
teaching ability of Co-Teaching versus Non Co-Teaching interns? 2) What are the
opinions of the clinical teachers and interns who have participated in the CoTeaching model in the internship?
Findings indicate that Co-Teaching has positive influence on all participants:
student teachers, classroom teachers, and elementary students. In addition student
teachers felt that they were better able to differentiate instruction than their non CoTeaching peers.
KEY WORDS: Co-Teaching, collaboration, student teaching, clinical practice
Keywords: co-teaching, teacher candidates, pre-service teachers, teacher interns,
teaching ability
Abstract
Effects of Co-Teaching on the Preparation of Teacher Candidates
The purpose of this paper is to share research findings of effective teacher preparation
through a model of Co-Teaching. Carefully designed student teaching experiences,
specifically Co-Teaching, can effectively prepare clinical interns while impacting student
achievement. Objectives include:
1. exploring the nature of co-teaching that is naturally occurring during student
teaching;
2. examining experience of interns engaged in 1:1, 2:1, and 2:2 models of Coteaching;
1. determining differences in teaching ability of interns participating in co-teaching
and those not participating in co-teaching;
2. exploring effects of collaboration on pre-service teachers’ dispositions; and
3. examining planning in Co-taught classrooms and determining whether the
planning process is different from that done in traditional classrooms.
Literature Review
The Co-teaching initiative is patterned after Marilyn Friend’s Co-teaching
research which includes 7 strategies for Co-Teaching (1995). More recently, the
Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration at St. Cloud State University (2012) applied
co-teaching in the student teaching experience enabling two professionally prepared
adults to collaborate in the classroom and expanded co-teaching to two teachers
(cooperating teacher and teacher candidate) working together with groups of students
– sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of instruction, as well as
the physical space during student teaching. Both teachers are actively involved and
engaged in all aspects of instruction. Ruys, Van Keer & Aelterman (2010) report that
both teacher educators and teacher candidates believe that collaborative learning has
value and that implementation of collaborative learning will yield positive results.
What effects does co-teaching have on pre-service teachers’ teaching ability?
Methodology
Sample and Participant Selection
This study included all 162 elementary teacher candidates graduating from the
university in the spring of 2013. All participants were elementary education teacher
candidates completing a yearlong student teaching (subsequently referred to as
internship) experience in the classroom of a clinical teacher - the term used for the inservice teacher who has agreed to mentor a pre-service teacher candidate during the
internship experience. During the first semester of the yearlong internship, the
candidate is in the clinical teacher’s classroom one day each week and teaches several
lessons over the course of the semester. In the second semester, the teacher candidate
is in the clinical teacher’s classroom every day of the semester and gradually increases
from one or two lessons a week until he or she is responsible for teaching the entire
day.
There were five conditions to which candidates were assigned. Twenty-one of
the total number of participants were randomly assigned to the co-teaching treatment.
Though the assignment to the co-teaching condition was random in nature, all teacher
candidates are allowed to indicate preferences for where they complete their internship
and only co-teaching assignments were selected randomly from 2 of the counties from
which candidates are able to choose.
Number of Teacher Candidates in Each Study Condition
Elementary
CoTeaching
2:2
Setting
CoTeaching
2:1
Setting
CoTeaching
1:1
Setting
2
18
1
Non Co-Teaching,
Have
Instructional
Coaches
Non Co-Teaching,
Do not have
Instructional
Coaches
Procedure
Research Design.
Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to gather data from 162
participants randomly assigned to either Co-teaching or non Co-teaching elementary
classrooms. Students and Clinical Teachers were given five hours of training on the Coteaching model.
Intervention.
Teacher candidates and their clinical teachers were trained on the co-teaching
method during two sessions in the fall. The first of these trainings was a 3 hour
overview on the foundations of co-teaching which included video tutorials on how to
use each of the 7 strategies and opportunities for teacher candidates to discuss
implementation of the strategies with their clinical teacher mentors. The second
training was a 2 hour session called “Pairs Training” in which teacher candidates and
their clinical teacher mentors received training on developing working relationships
through communication.
Data Sources.
Progress reports, walkthrough observations, final evaluations, and edTPA
results are included as data sources for this study. The progress report is a document
used by the University Supervisor to evaluate and provide feedback to teacher
candidates during their final internship semester. This report is organized into 6
sections including: Professional Dispositions and Relationships, Classroom Climate and
Culture, Instructional Planning, Implementation of Instruction, Classroom Management,
and Evaluation/Assessment - Impact on Student Learning with between 4 and 14
indicators in each area. The indicators are assessed on a scale of 1 to 3 with 1 being
‘Below Proficient,’ 2 being ‘Proficient,’ and 3 being ‘Above Proficient.’ After each section,
the University Supervisor also indicates whether the teacher candidate is making
adequate progress in this area. Progress report scores were compared using a Repeated
Measures ANOVA.
The walkthrough observations Students’ scores on the structured observation
protocol will be totaled and compared using Repeated Measures ANOVA.
QUALITATIVE COMMENTS ON PROGRESS REPORTS?? We will need to gather this info
from the progress reports - we do have some quotes from the focus group interviews
but probably not enough to analyze
(JUDY CAN YOU INSERT INFO ABOUT THE WALKTHROUGH DATA HERE - CLASS
SCAPE, ETC)
As part of the MET project (2009), Charlotte Danielson, ETS, and
Teachscape came together and created the Teachscape Focus assessment
system. This instrument allows individuals to identify and evaluate effective teaching
practices using a system of walk through observations.
http://www.teachscape.com/frameworkforteaching/charlotte-danielson
The Teachscape Walkthrough Observation instrument is organized as a
checklist to observe interns in five areas: 1) curriculum including learning objectives
and grade-level standards, 2) instruction identifying instructional practices,
grouping format and research-based instructional strategies, 3) the learner that
includes identifying student actions and instructional materials as well as determining
levels of student work and level of class engagement, 4) classroom environment,
and 5) the needs of all learners.
In an effort to standardize the process of evaluating pre-service teacher
candidates, Stanford University piloted and developed the edTPA, formerly the Teacher
Performance Assessment. The 2012 pilot was conducted with over 9,000 participants
across 21 states and studies on instrument reliability and validity continue.
Results
Preliminary findings from analysis of teacher candidates’ edTPA scores show
positive trends for those participating in co-teaching. Teacher candidates that co-taught
attained higher mean scores on 11 of the 15 edTPA rubrics than the non-co-teaching
interns. Co-teaching teacher candidates performed significantly higher in “subject-specific
pedagogy” and “using assessment to inform instruction” than non-Co-teaching teacher
candidates. Data also indicate that teacher candidates in the Co-Teaching treatment
group felt better able to differentiate than their non Co-Teaching peers.
Discussion
Current Co-teaching research is being used to support engaging, collaborative
partnerships between the university and local public schools. Clinically based teacher
education programs are using data analysis of the Co-teaching experiences to guide
decision making for reforming clinical experience and initiating successful and effective
practice. In addition, Co-teaching has tremendous potential for raising student
achievement, especially for diverse learners.
Conclusion
As this study has shown, Co-Teaching during the clinical practice internship
positively affects the teaching ability of teacher candidates. However, further research is
needed….
Co-teaching is an attitude of sharing the students and the classroom. Co -teachers are
always thinking, we’re both teaching!
Introduction
“Traditional models of student teaching have provided teacher candidates
with a place to learn their craft under supervision. Given the emphasis on and
accountability for student achievement in today’s classrooms, we must search for
new models of internship.
Co-teaching is one such new model. This new model of collaboration is transforming
the relationship between the classroom teacher and the student teacher while—at
the same time—providing more instructional opportunities for our teacher candidates
and more learning opportunities for our K-12 students.
The need for more powerful models has never been greater—the time to experiment
with new options is now!” (Linda Patriarca, 2012)
The quote above is from the Dean of a large southeastern American
university that is undergoing transformative change in its College of Education. Coteaching is one of several initiatives being supported to raise the quality and
effectiveness of the teacher graduates each year.
This university decided to explore Co-Teaching for three reasons: 1) to allow
clinical teachers to remain in their classrooms due to increased teacher
accountability 2) to investigate ways to enhance the relationship between the clinical
teacher and the intern and 3) to reduce the number of student teaching placements
and clinical teachers needed, allowing the process to be more selective.
Co-Teaching has tremendous potential for raising student achievement, especially
for diverse learners as noted in the following comments from teachers and students:
“I think this is a great model that will improve beginning teachers’ confidence,
knowledge, as well as positively impacting student learning.” Another teacher
involved in this year’s initiative remarked, “We do not have the behavior issues…wait
time is gone because, with three teachers, questions can be addressed immediately.
Students are getting what they need right away.” A middle school student summed
up Co-Teaching by saying, “Double the teachers, and double the learning!”
Review of the Literature
Why should Co-Teaching be the new model of Student Teaching?
Co-teaching initially began as a collaborative between general education and
special education in response to PL94-142 (IDEA) legislation to support students
with disabilities in general education classrooms (Cook & Friend, 1995; Vaughn,
Schumm, Arguelle, 1997; Austin, 2001; Boucka, 2007; Hang & Rabren, 2008).
Though definitions of co-teaching may differ, most educators agree that co-teaching
involves two or more adults collaborating to instruct groups of students (Beninghof,
2011; Adams, Cessna & Friend, 1993).
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.
Friend (1995) identified 7 Co-teaching strategies: 1) One Teach, One
Observe 2) One Teach, One Assist 3) Station Teaching 4) Parallel Teaching 5)
Supplemental Teaching 6) Alternative (Differentiated) Teaching 7) Team
Teaching. Yet, many different co-teaching structures exist (Bauwens & Hourcade,
1991; Bauwens & Hourcade, 1997; Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989; Cook &
Friend, 1995; Friend, 2001; Friend, Reising, & Cook, 1993; Gable, Hendrickson,
Evans, Frye, & Bryant, 1993; Reeve & Hallahan, 1994). A large majority of the
components must exist yet the most promising aspect of co-teaching is that both
teachers plan and deliver lessons together based on student needs (Sileo, 2005).
More recently, the Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration at St. Cloud State
University (2003) applied co-teaching in the student teaching experience enabling
two professionally prepared adults to collaborate in the classroom. St. Cloud State
University expanded co-teaching to two teachers (cooperating teacher and teacher
candidate) working together with groups of students – sharing the planning,
organization, delivery and assessment of instruction, as well as the physical space
during student teaching. Both teachers are actively involved and engaged in all
aspects of instruction.
How does Co-Teaching impact student teaching and P-12 learning?
Co-teaching in student teaching provides a comprehensive and rigorous experience
for teacher candidates, allows cooperating teachers the ability to remain actively
involved, and enhances the quality of learning for P12 students. The Co- teaching
partnership enables cooperating teachers to provide consistent mentoring, giving
teacher candidates the time and support necessary to gain skills and confidence
required to teach successfully.
Various co-teaching studies in special education indicate differing research results
on academic student outcomes. Idol (2006) indicated positive outcomes when
studies focused on teacher, administrator, parent, and/or student perceptions of coteaching. Studies on student outcomes (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland,
Gardizi & McDuffie, 2005) indicate equivocal results.
Findings from a study by Boucka (2007) in middle school history classes
validated previous studies by noting that co-teaching is beneficial in addressing
issues of roles, providing instruction, and handling classroom management, but also
results suggest that researchers should next explore how co-taught classrooms
affect student outcomes.
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 successfully 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 (Bacharach, Heck, Dahlberg, 2010).
Methodology
Th
Setting and Participants
The study began in 2011-2012 as a spinoff of a university/school partnership
resulting from a federally funded Teacher Quality Partnership Grant. The
partnership included the College of Education at one large university and two local
public school districts – one large mixed urban/rural district and one small rural
district. As part of the pathway to an effective teacher, the clinical practice
component of the grant selected Co-Teaching during the internship as a goal for
reforming the student teaching experience. The Co-Teaching experience was
designed specifically to include the traditional one to one teacher/intern model but
also included a new model of one clinical teacher matched with two interns working
side by side in one classroom. To tryout the new model one elementary first grade
teacher volunteered her classroom in the large mixed urban/rural school district as
the test pilot for the study. During year two of the pilot, 2012-2013, the study
included 14 classrooms in the two school districts.
Table 1: Participants
2011-2012 2012-2013
Classrooms
1
14
School Districts
1
2
Program Areas*
1
2
Clinical Teachers
1
10
Interns
2
25
Faculty
6
8
University Supervisors
1
6
*Program areas involved in 2011-2012 = Elementary
in 2012-2013 = Elementary and Special Education
Procedures
The University Office of Clinical Experiences randomly selected participants
for the study. Interns, clinical teachers, faculty, and university supervisors
participated in five hours of Co-Teaching training. A team of faculty, trained in the
St. Cloud State University model of Co-Teaching (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg,
2010), trained the study participants. The five hours of training consists of three
hours of Foundation Training in which participants learn the definition and history of
Co-Teaching as well as the positive student achievement research findings of CoTeaching from Minnesota 2003-2009. An additional two hours of training, Pairs
Training, includes activities for collaboration and relationship building between and
among the participants specifically the clinical teacher and intern(s) that will be
working together daily during the second semester of the internship.
In the fall semester of the senior year while interns are in their schools one
day a week, participants (interns, clinical teachers, university supervisors, and
instructional coaches) attend Co-Teaching training. During the spring semester of
the senior year, participants implement the Co-Teaching strategies and engage in
Co-Teaching for fifteen weeks of student teaching.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected over a two year period. The three data sources used for
this study include: a) edTPA results b) focus group interview transcriptions, and c)
collaboration self-assessment surveys. Responses were analyzed using a
combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. The edTPA scores of
participants were analyzed using Wicoxon Krkuskai-Wallis
Each teacher candidate in the College of Education study completed the required
edTPA electronic portfolio during their senior internship. The edTPA is a nationally
validated assessment designed by SCALE (Stanford Center for Assessment ,
Learning, and Equity, 2013). The University Office of Assessment and Accreditation
analyzed edTPA results of Co-Teaching and non Co-Teaching teacher candidates in
the spring to explore the impact of Co-teaching instruction for training student
teachers.
Findings
Table 2: Internal Findings: Teaching Ability
p value = 0.0485*
p Value = 0.0283*
Discussion and Practical Implications
Conclusion
Acknowledgment
We gratefully acknowledge the support of our colleagues in Pitt and Greene
County Public School Districts: Instructional Coaches Anna Winn Beaman, Tammie
Nobles, Pat Peoples, and Beginning Teacher Coordinator Gwen Smith for their
valuable commitment to the Co-Teaching Project.
References
Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the Face of Student
Teaching Through Coteaching, Action in Teacher Education 32(1), 1-13.
Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE). (2013). 2013 edTPA Field Test:
Summary Report. Retrieved from SCALE website:
https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=827&ref=edtpa