Co-Teaching: A Win-Win for Public School Classrooms and
Teacher Preparation Programs
Christina M. Tschida, Judith J. Smith, Elizabeth A Fogarty,
Kristen Cuthrell, Joy Stapleton
Christina Tschida, Assistant Professor for the Department of Elementary Education and Middle
Grades Education, East Carolina University, College of Education, MailStop 504, Speight Building,
Greenville, NC 27858, 252-328-4945 tschidac@ecu.edu Dr. Tschida’s primary research areas are teacher
education, online teaching and learning, culturally responsive teaching, and social studies instruction. She
has presented at AERA, NCSS, CUFA, SITE, and NAME.
Judith J. Smith, Assistant Professor for the Department of Elementary Education and Middle
Grades Education, East Carolina University, College of Education, MailStop 504, Speight Building,
Greenville, NC 27858, 252-737-2486, smithjud@ecu.edu Dr. Smith’s primary research areas are teacher
education, language/literacy, and educational technology/21 century literacies. Dr. Smith has published
st
articles in Studying Teacher Education, Journal of Information Technology Education, Insight: A Journal
of Scholarly Teaching, The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Current Issues in Education, Computers in the
Schools, and Education Research and Perspectives Journal. She has presented nationally at AACTE,
ELEARN, SITE, AERA, LRA, and AACE.
Elizabeth Fogarty, Interim Associate Chairperson and Associate Professor for the
Department of Elementary Education and Middle Grades Education, East Carolina University,
College of Education, MailStop 504, Speight Building, Greenville, NC 27858, 252-328-4945
fogartye@ecu.edu
Dr. Fogarty’s research centers on teacher effectiveness including teachers’ ability to differentiate
and meet the needs of gifted learners. Dr. Fogarty advocates for gifted children and their teachers
through several professional organizations.
Kristen Cuthrell, Interim Associate Chairperson and Associate Professor for the Department of
Elementary Education and Middle Grades Education, East Carolina University, College of Education,
MailStop 504, Speight Building, Greenville, NC 27858, 252-328-5748 cuthrellma@ecu.edu Dr. Cuthrell’s
primary research areas are teacher education, curriculum revision issues, and assessment. Dr. Cuthrell has
published articles in Childhood Education, The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, The Clearing House, Computers in the Schools, The Social Studies, Preventing School
Failure, and Florida Reading Quarterly. She has presented nationally at NCSS, AACTE, ELEARN, SITE,
ATE, AERA, and ASCD.
Joy Stapleton, Associate Professor for the Department of Elementary Education and Middle
Grades Education, East Carolina University, College of Education, MailStop 504, Speight Building,
Greenville, NC 27858, 252-328-6649, stapletonj@ecu.edu Dr. Stapleton’s primary research areas are
teacher education, curriculum revision issues, and assessment. Dr. Stapleton has published articles in
National Social Science Journal, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Tech Trends,
Preventing School Failure, E Journal of Teaching and Learning in Diverse Settings, Childhood Education,
Reading Research and Instruction, Journal of Interactive Learning and Research. She has presented
nationally at NCSS, AACTE, ELEARN, SITE, ATE, and ASCD.
Abstract
While Co-Teaching in student teaching has proved successful with a ratio of one
to one, that is, one student teacher and one clinical teacher working together, this study
investigates a new model of student teaching: Co-Teaching two to one where two student
teachers work in collaboration with one clinical teacher. Researchers argue that the new
model (2:1) is as good as, if not, better than the traditional model of student teaching and
enhances the student teaching experience.
Introduction
Surprisingly, the student teaching experience has been significantly unchanged
since the 1920s (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). According to the Council of Chief State
School Officers (2012) clinically-based preparation programs must provide relevant,
well-planned experiences to prepare teacher candidates. More important, the clinical
experience should be placed at the center of teacher preparation in order to inspire preservice teachers as they begin their teaching career.
Large teacher preparation programs face significant challenges in placing clinical
interns in the field because schools and clinical teachers are unwilling to host them
(Goodlad, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Sinclair, Dawson, & Thistleton- Martin, 2006;
Zeichner, 2002). Because the need is so great, oftentimes, clinical teachers who agree to
host a clinical intern are unqualified to model best teaching practices for the novice intern
(Grimmett & Ratzlaff, 1986; Lewis, 1990). Hence, during this impressionable time,
clinical interns may experience unrealistic expectations (Sparks & Brodeur, 1987) and
receive little valuable feedback from the clinical teacher (Morehead & Waters, 1987). In
their report for transforming educator preparation and entry into the profession, The
Council of Chief State Schools Officers (2012), advocated for a screening process for
identifying clinical teachers as well as providing training to demonstrate effective
instructional practices and to positively impact student achievement.
To overcome the challenges of placing large numbers of clinical interns and to
strengthen the teacher preparation program, the college of education at a large regional
university is engaged in a new model of student teaching: Co-Teaching. After completing
Co-Teaching training, clinical teachers and clinical interns plan together, deliver
instruction, assess students’ progress, as well as, share students and the organization and
physical space of the classroom. The College of Education is experimenting with
different Co-Teaching models as alternatives to traditional student teaching: a two-to-one
(2:1) model which involves two clinical interns and one master clinical teacher, a one-toone (1:1) model involving one clinical intern and one master clinical teacher, and a two-
to-two (2:2) model where two clinical interns and two master clinical teachers work
together. Co-Teaching should reduce significantly the number of internship placements;
thereby, enabling the Office of Teacher Education to be more selective in choosing
clinical teachers.
Perspectives/Theoretical Framework
Co-Teaching is defined as two or more teachers [intern(s) and clinical teacher]
working together with groups of students...sharing the planning, organization, delivery
and assessment of instruction, as well as the physical space. Co-Teaching is an attitude of
sharing responsibility for the students and the classroom.
The “Co” in Co-Teaching stands for “collaborative” which means that clinical intern and
master clinical teacher are co-planning, co-teaching, co-assessing, and co-reflecting on
practice. Carambo & Stickney (2009) found that co-teaching is better than the traditional
model for student internships because it takes away the sharp dichotomy between the
beginning teacher candidate and the experienced classroom teacher. Ruys, Van Keer &
Aelterman (2010) report that both teacher educators believe that collaborative learning
has value and that implementation of collaborative learning will yield positive results
such as high student achievement.
The Co-Teaching initiative is patterned after Marilyn Friend’s research which
includes 7 strategies for Co-Teaching (Cook & Friend, 1995). These strategies are: one
teacher, one observe; one teach, one assist; station teaching; parallel teaching;
supplemental teaching; alternative or differentiated teaching; and team teaching. More
recently, the Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration at St. Cloud State University
(Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008) applied co-teaching in the student teaching
experience enabling two professionally prepared adults to collaborate in the classroom
and expanding Co-Teaching to two teachers (clinical teacher and clinical intern) 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 clinical teachers and clinical interns believe that
collaborative learning has value and that implementation of collaborative learning will
yield positive results for k-12 students as well as clinical interns.
What are experts saying about Co-Teaching?
Carefully designed student teaching experiences, specifically Co-Teaching, can
effectively prepare clinical interns while impacting student achievement. Co-Teaching
initially began as a collaboration between general education and special education in
response to PL94-142 (IDEA) legislation to support students with disabilities in general
education classrooms (Boucka, 2007; Cook & Friend, 1995; Hang & Rabren, 2009;
Vaughn, Schumm, Arguelle, 1997). Faculty at St. Cloud State University applied this CoTeaching method/principle to the student teaching experience allowing clinical teachers
to collaborate with clinical interns in the classroom. 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 CoTaught 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 preschool to senior high. Clinical interns and their clinical teachers have effectively
incorporated co-teaching into the classroom (Bacharach, Heck & Dahlberg, 2010). St.
Cloud’s Co-Teaching model of student teaching has been recognized as a promising
practice by the NCATE Blue Ribbon panel on clinical practice (2010). In addition, this
innovative initiative received the 2008 American Association of Colleges of Teacher
Education (AACTE) Best Practice Award for Research in Teacher Education, and the
2007 American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) Christa
McAuliffe Award for Excellence in Teacher Preparation.
Rationale for adopting the Co-Teaching Model
The need to change student teaching to the Co-Teaching model is rooted in
several public education initiatives. The Professional Teaching Standards now evaluates
teachers on five general standards and a sixth standard tied directly to student
achievement. In the past, classroom teachers would give their class over to the clinical
intern for a full three weeks, which is no longer desirable. This new model of CoTeaching has both teachers continuously working with all students. Co-Teachers are
always thinking, they are both teaching; giving clinical interns more engaged teaching
experience than traditional models.
Using Marilyn Friend’s and St. Cloud’s Co-Teaching research, we are
experimenting with two clinical interns in a single classroom with one master clinical
teacher and two clinical interns with two master clinical teachers, in addition to, the more
common model of one clinical intern and one master clinical teacher in a single
classroom.
Co-Teaching has tremendous potential for raising student achievement, especially for
diverse learners as noted in the following participants’ comments: “I think this is a great
model that will improve beginning teachers’ confidence, knowledge, as well as positively
impacting student learning.” Another remarked, “We do not have the behavior
issues…wait time is gone because, with 3 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!”
Researching different models of Co-Teaching
This large university College of Education researched effective teacher preparation
through models of Co-Teaching focused on the following objectives:
1. exploring the nature of co-teaching that is naturally occurring during student teaching
2. examining experience of clinical interns engaged in 1:1, 2:1, and 2:2 models of CoTeaching
3. determining differences in teaching ability of clinical interns participating in CoTeaching and those not participating in Co-Teaching
4. exploring effects of collaboration on clinical interns’ dispositions
5. examining planning in Co-Taught classrooms and determining whether the planning
differs from the traditional internship classrooms
Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to gather data from two
cohorts of 162 participants randomly assigned to either Co-Teaching or non Co-Teaching
elementary classroom placements from 2012-2013. Clinical interns and clinical teachers
were given five hours of training on the Co-Teaching model. Data sources included CoTeaching strategy usage records, surveys, collaboration self assessments, intern
collaboration assessments, focus group transcriptions, transcriptions from recorded
planning sessions, Teaching Portfolio Assessment (edTPA) results, progress reports,
walkthrough observations, and teaching evaluations.
Preliminary findings from analysis of interns’ edTPA scores show positive trends for
those participating in Co-Teaching. Interns that co-taught attained higher mean scores on
11 of the 15 edTPA rubrics than those in the non-Co-Teaching classrooms. Co-Teaching
interns performed significantly higher in “subject-specific pedagogy” and “using
assessment to inform instruction” than non-Co-Teaching interns. Data also indicate that
interns in the Co-Teaching treatment group felt that they were better able to differentiate
than their non-Co-Teaching peers.
What are the implications of Co-Teaching for clinical preparation?
Current Co-Teaching research is being used to support engaging, collaborative
partnerships between the university and local public schools lowering the number of
classrooms needed and allowing for a more careful selection of effective clinical
teachers. Clinically-based teacher education programs are using data analysis of the CoTeaching 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. Co-Teaching is
a win-win for public school classrooms and pre-service teacher preparation programs.
References
Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the Face of Student
Teaching Through Coteaching. Action in Teacher Education 32(1), 3-14.
Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). What makes co-teaching work?
Identifying the Essential Elements. College Teaching Methods & Styles
Journal, 4(3), 43-47.
Boucka, E. C. (2007). Co-Teaching…not just a textbook term: implications for practice.
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 51(2),
46-51.
Carambo, C., & Stickney, C. T. (2009). Coteaching praxis and professional service:
Facilitating the transition of beliefs and practices. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 4(2), 433-441.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for creating effective
Practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-17.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise:
Transforming educator preparation and entry into the profession. Washington,
DC: Author.
Goodlad, (1994). The national network for educational renewal. Phi Delta Kappan,
75(8), 632-639.
Grimmett, P., & Ratzlaff, H., (1986). Expectations for the cooperating teacher role.
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), p 41-50.
Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W.
Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.514-534). New
York: Macmillan
Hang, Q. & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching perspectives and
efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259-268.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teacher in
Diverse classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, M. (1990). AACTE RATE study finds enrollment increase. AACTE Briefs
11(3), 1,6.
Morehead, M., & Waters, S. (1987). Enhancing collegiality: A model for training
Cooperating teachers. The Teacher Educator, 23(2), 28-31.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming
teacher education through clinical practice: Report of the blue ribbon panel on
clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. Washington,
DC: Author.
Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2010) Collaborative learning in pre-service
Teacher education: An exploratory study on related conceptions, self-efficacy
And implementation. Educational Studies, 36(5), 537-553.
Sinclair, C., Dawson, M., & Thistleton- Martin, J. (2006). Motivations and profiles of
Cooperating teachers: Who volunteers and why? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22, 263-279.
Sparks, S., & Brodeur, D. (1987). Orientation and compensation for cooperating
Teachers. Teacher Educator, 23(1), 2-12.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Arguelle, M. (1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 30(2), 4-10.
Zeichner, K. (2002). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 64.