The Promises and Realities of Implementing a Coteaching Model of Student Teaching

Abstract

Within a sociocultural framework, we use situated learning theory to explore the use of a coteaching approach during student teaching. Coteaching is a model for learning to teach where clinical educators and teacher candidates teach alongside one another and share responsibility for pupil learning. Teacher education programs have adopted this model for student teaching because there is evidence that coteaching supports pupil learning and coteacher learning. This study of coteaching in three teacher education programs, within the same university, examined opportunities afforded for teacher candidates’ development of growth competence, adaptive teaching expertise, and collaborative expertise. Data analysis from the nested, cross-case qualitative study enabled us to examine opportunities for candidate learning afforded by coteaching during student teaching, posit recommendations on using coteaching, explain the necessary conditions, and discuss the model’s current limitations.

Keywords

student teaching teacher education preparation field experiences qualitative research

Introduction

Coteaching is a model for learning to teach where teacher candidates¹ and clinical educators work alongside one another and share responsibility for student learning (Darragh, Picanco, Tully, & Henning, 2011; Martin, 2009; Tobin, 2006). Teacher education programs have adopted this model for student teaching because there is evidence that coteaching supports pupil learning (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Emdin, 2007) and coteacher learning (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2016; Guise et al., 2016; Hedin, Conderman, Hedin, & Conderman, 2015; Kerin & Murphy, 2015; Roth, Tobin, Carambo, & Dalland, 2004; Siry, 2011). Coteaching intentionally supports opportunities for teacher candidates to develop expertise that they can use to improve their practice during and after student teaching. This study of coteaching examined opportunities afforded for teacher candidates’ development of growth competence (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999; Conway, 2001; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005), adaptive teaching expertise (Hatano & Oura, 2003; Lin, Schwartz, & Hatano, 2005; Soslau, 2012), and collaborative expertise (Collinson, 1999). We examine opportunities for teacher candidate learning afforded by coteaching during student teaching, posit recommendations on using coteaching, and discuss the model’s current limitations.

Framing the Inquiry: Theoretical Perspectives

The field of teacher education is subject to many “turns” from policy bodies, reformers, and critics that shift teacher preparation responsibilities from university-based teacher programs to other entities in both for-profit and nonprofit sectors (e.g., High Tech High and Aspire U; Cochran-Smith, Villegas, Abrams, et al., 2016). Regardless of program type, a common characteristic of university-based and alternative teacher education models is the field-based practice component, often called student teaching. This increased importance on field-based practice is labeled the “practice turn” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Zeichner, 2012). But, what should field-based practice look like? Which models of field experiences are most likely to yield high-quality learning opportunities for teacher candidates? In this study, we explore one such model, coteaching. Coteaching is when two or more teachers share responsibility for pupils’ learning. When used as a model for student teaching, one or more of the coteachers are experienced teachers who work with one or more teacher candidates to coplan, coinstruct, and coevaluate. Learning affordances of coteaching are supported by sociocultural theories, which are presented in the next section.

Sociocultural Perspectives: Situated Learning

From a sociocultural perspective, coteaching is aligned with situated learning theory (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999; Sawyer, 2006) and Vygotsky’s social constructions of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1934/1986; Murphy, Scantlebury, & Milne, 2015). Situated learning theory helps depict student teaching as a bounded context for learning encompassing a microcommunity of learners (Rogoff, 1994), where learning takes place in the same authentic context as it is applied (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Centering upon pupil learning positions coteachers as immediate collaborators within a learning community, where all human capital in the classroom is utilized to support pupil learning. In contrast to gradual release models² of student teaching, which include feedback sessions pre- and postlesson enactment, coteaching candidates experience educative feedback during coinstruction or lesson enactment. Coteaching affords opportunities for feedback in situ, aligning the coteaching model more closely with sociocultural theories where learning opportunities are afforded during an authentic context. As they are continuously adjusting and reflecting together, coteachers begin to develop deep understandings of practice. This coconstructed learning leads to changes in how coteachers think about and enact teaching decisions, and develop shared expertise resulting in a model that centers on pupil learning, while promoting professional development opportunities for both candidates and clinical educators (Gallo-Fox, Soslau, Scantlebury, & Gleason, 2015).

Within the sociocultural paradigm, learning is defined as a transformation of participation (Rogoff, 1994, 1999). Coteaching destabilizes power hierarchies that are evident in gradual release models where traditional clinical educators are positioned as a “knowledgeable other” throughout student teaching. Coteaching necessitates the distribution of power, acknowledgment of shared expertise, and clinical educators engaged as lifelong learners of teaching. The role of knowledgeable other is fluid, allowing for candidates to build a sense of agency and transform their participation in the community from passive receiver to active generator of ideas to improve practice. As coteachers partner to support pupil learning, candidates develop an understanding of how to enact and make suggestions, collaborate to coevaluate practice, strengthen classroom presence, self-assess, and adapt decision making to respond to pupils’ contextualized learning needs. These learning outcomes for candidates are labeled (a) improved collaborative practice, (b) growth competence, and (c) adaptive expertise.

Promoting learning through collaborative practice

For effective teacher learning, candidates must engage in collaborative reflective discussions that force them to articulate and reveal the invisible web of decisions that support observable teaching actions (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Christensen, 1988; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Dewey, 1938; Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Sawyer, 2006; Soslau, 2012, 2015). Clinical educators can support teacher candidates’ reflections by posing probing questions, providing corrective feedback, and critiquing candidates’ rationales for their pedagogical decisions and choices (Davenport & Smetana, 2004; Soslau, 2012; Zeichner, Liston, Mahlios, & Gomez, 1988). Trust, shared power, agency, and recognition of self-as-learner are necessary conditions for these types of collaborative conversations to flourish.

The coteaching model recognizes that candidates have expertise grounded by innovative and current methods courses, which enable novices to be immediate contributors (Tobin & Roth, 2006), whereas gradual release models of student teaching often position teacher candidates as novices who learn from an expert through observation of practice and the eventual assumption of independent teaching responsibilities (McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996). Traditional models support three pivotal opportunities for candidate learning; first, observing the expert teacher (clinical educator); second, learning from corrective feedback provided by expert teachers and university field instructors; and third, reflecting on independent practice through improvement cycles based on trial of best practices and evaluation of outcomes.

However, there is evidence that lack of collaboration, which occurs during the release portion of traditional student teaching models, may result in limited opportunities for candidate learning. Candidates may base their pedagogical decisions on their interpretation of clinical educators’ unexplained decisions resulting in mimicry without a deep understanding of clinical educators’ rationales (Soslau, 2012). These assumptions are disrupted in coteaching; beginning the first day, candidates assume coresponsibility for pupil learning and coplan with clinical educators. Coplanning sessions allow for candidates to gain deeper understandings of clinical educators’ decision making, because both teachers are responsible for developing instruction based on pupil learning needs and curricular sequence demands. Similarly, in some implementations of gradual release models, solo planning and independent instruction are goals, thus clinical educators critique candidates’ teaching using assumed rationales based solely on observations or brief reviews of lesson plans (Soslau, 2012).

Following sociocultural learning theories, coteaching supports contributions of knowledgeable others within collaborative learning models, which differs from gradual release models in that candidates and clinical educators remain active on-site partners for the duration of student teaching, sharing responsibility for pupil learning and distributing power by acknowledging both coteachers’ contributions and areas for self-improvement. Coteaching explicitly makes collaborative problematizing of practice a normal part of teacher learning.

Coteaching as a student teaching model

Coteaching has several distinguishing features that can lead to opportunities for candidate learning. In addition to the requisite of coresponsibility,³ coteaching consists of three major components—coplanning, coinstruction, and coevaluation (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2015). Successful coteaching relies upon these components, which foster ongoing explication of decision making, regular formal coplanning meetings, and assessment of teaching practice and pupil learning. Research has found that within these coteaching interactions, practice becomes aligned and coteachers externalize thinking about practice (Roth, Tobin, Carambo, & Dalland, 2005).

During coplanning, coteachers generate lessons to support pupil learning and coordinate teaching responsibilities (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2015). Coplanning affords opportunities for learning as coteachers discuss rationales for planning and assessment decisions, make suggestions, and answer questions. In addition, candidates assume coresponsibility by contributing to planning, instruction, and evaluation of enacted curriculum (Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox, & Wassell, 2008). This external articulation of thinking supports candidate learning (Dewey, 1938; Sawyer, 2006) while also functioning to eliminate the potential of mimicry without full understanding seen in gradual release models where candidates observe clinical educators teach but are not necessarily privy to the teachers’ planning and rationale processes.

Coinstruction has various forms including coteachers presenting together, simultaneously working with small groups of learners, or one person presenting while the other provides support (Tobin, 2006). Most noticeably, coteachers teach alongside each other from the first day of student teaching, teaching and learning in situ. Huddling, an impromptu meeting of coteachers before, during, or after lessons, provides a unique context for candidate learning (Tobin, 2006). During huddles, candidates work with clinical educators and learn how to improve instruction based on pupil cues, contextual shifts, and in situ teacher reflection and decision making. Huddling also reduces stigmas around help seeking because coteachers are expected to check in with each other frequently and provide suggestions for how to modify shared instruction in real time to support pupil learning. In gradual release models, clinical educators often report waiting until the end of lessons to provide corrective feedback so as not to interrupt candidates, damage candidates’ sense of efficacy, or undermine their authority in front of pupils. Again, as student learning is paramount in coteaching, huddles provide a structure for coteachers to make instructional decisions, while allowing candidates to learn how to adjust their instruction in real time.

Coevaluation is similar to field-instructor-led debriefing sessions. However, unlike debriefing sessions, which may focus solely on candidates’ practices, coevaluation examines pupil learning. These coteaching conversations allow for reflection on the lesson and include planning for future instruction. Coevalution allows coteachers to expose, explore, and challenge their own thinking and corrective feedback, or retrospective coreflections, and is based on examination of coteachers’ articulated intent, rather than an assumed intent based on observed actions.

What types of learning are possible in a coteaching model?

Coteaching is identified as a way to support high-quality learning within clinical field experiences (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2010). An inherent part of coteaching is ongoing conversations and reflections about planned and actual instruction. These practices may support opportunities for specialized types of teacher learning important to teacher candidates’ future professional growth and teaching practice.

Learning outcomes from a situated learning perspective

As discussed, learning in this study is defined as a transformation resulting from participation in a learning community comprised of clinical educators, candidates, and their pupils. Transformations are noticed in the form of deepening collaborations between clinical educators and candidates, developing capacity to adjust and adapt instruction based on pupils’ contextualized needs, and enriching one’s competencies to self-assess teaching practices by assuming ownership over leading evaluation conversations and self-selecting areas for growth. These learning outcomes are (a) growth competence, (b) adaptive teaching expertise, and (c) collaboration.

Growth competence

Korthagen and Vasalos’s (2005) conceptions of growth competence interpret evidence of learning as candidates’ “ability to continue to develop professionally on the basis of internally directed learning” (p. 48). These learning types run counter to “competency-based” teacher education found in some models of student teaching (Liston & Zeichner, 1991, p. 146). When candidates are coached to explore and challenge their rationales, they are learning a corrective self-reflection process, which can be used in the future. Evidence of candidates’ developing growth competence is seen when they generate ideas to improve practice through self-directed reflection. Growth competence is akin to learning how to learn from one’s own teaching. Reflection and the ability to self-correct are not innate skills, rather teacher preparation programs must incorporate opportunities to teach and provide guided practice for candidates’ reflections. Coteaching is one such opportunity.

Adaptive teaching expertise

Adaptive teaching expertise is at the heart of teaching and cuts across all content areas and grade levels. Adaptive teaching expertise enables a teacher to adapt her planned instruction based on pupil cues in real time, adjust curriculum guides to serve contextual demands, develop lesson plans aligned with pupil needs, and balance experimental teaching approaches with risks to pupil learning and well-being (Cochran-Smith, Feiman-Nemser, McIntyre, & Demers, 2008; Hatano & Oura, 2003; Sawyer, 2006; Soslau, 2012). Others have written about the importance of “noticing” during teaching (Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008; Sun & van Es, 2015). Although noticing is a critical competency, it is not enough to notice. Teachers must learn how to adjust instruction based on what is noticed. When a candidate notices that pupils are bored, confused, or frustrated, he or she must enact change. The ability to notice, identify a cause, select an alternative instructional strategy, and then implemement adjusted instruction in real time is incredibly complex. Coinstruction functions as an ideal context for candidates to enagage in guided practice for devleoping adaptive expertise.

Collaborative expertise

With the expansion of professional learning communities, peer-based coaching, and other arrangements that foreground teachers supporting their own and their colleagues’ professional development, it is critical that candidates develop collaborative expertise (Hadar & Brody, 2013; Harrison, Lawson, & Wortley, 2005). Professional relationships between candidates and clinical educators are critical (Borko & Mayfield, 1995). Candidates are unlikely to know how to advocate for themselves, enact collaborative skills, feel comfortable seeking help, contribute to lesson planning, or integrate into professional learning communities (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002). Productive collaboration results in sharing expertise, a recognition of coresponsibility for pupil learning, a safe space to reveal areas of weakness and engage in adaptive help seeking (Stead & Poskitt, 2010), and affords candidates with opportunities to become active agents in their development. Candidates who fail to develop these competencies during student teaching may have difficulties participating in future professional learning communities.

Supporting growth competence, adaptive teaching expertise, and collaborative practice through coteaching

Coplanning and coevaluation sessions provide spaces for candidates and clinical educators to discuss the development of a quality lesson. Through these discussions, teachers’ internal implicit thinking becomes explicit. Candidates are afforded opportunities to explore clinical educators’ rationales for selecting instructional approaches. Candidates may see self-reflection, self-assessment, and self-correction modeled by clinical educators while participating in the process. Questioning, probing, and justifying are hallmarks of quality coplanning and coevaluation sessions, as are reflections on pupils’ prior knowledge and discussions of how current lessons fit into curricula scope and sequences. As field experiences progress, candidates develop growth competence and take a more active role in coplanning and coevaluation.

The coteaching structure provides opportunities for teacher candidates to develop adaptive expertise through huddling, thinking aloud, soliciting ideas, exploring instructional possibilities, and using pupil data to inform instructional decisions before, during, and after teaching (Roth & Tobin, 2005; Tobin & Roth, 2006). Coteaching positions candidates and clinical educators as colleagues who simultaneously provide instruction to pupils. Huddles provide a context for sharing what is noticed and strategizing what to do next. Coteachers can then implement instructional adjustments. Coteachers’ real-time and authentic engagements in huddles result in responsive adaptations of practice, which provide learning opportunities for candidates to develop adaptive expertise. Similarly, insertions, or stepping up, provide opportunities for candidates to witness a change in planned instruction modeled in real time. Insertions occur when a coteacher steps into the teaching space to provide an analogy, make a connection to instruction that occurred before candidates joined the class, or redirect a lesson.

Coteaching provides candidates opportunities to develop collaborative skills because the model restructures student teaching to position them as colleagues rather than apprentices (Scantlebury et al., 2008). Specifically, coplanning provides consistent opportunities for candidates to develop collaborative expertise as coteachers embrace a shared sense of mutual respect for participant ideas, questions, and contributions (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2015). The same is true during coevaluation or lesson debriefing sessions. Candidates learn to advocate for their own ideas and become active agents in the corrective reflection process through their articulation of thinking with another (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2015). These learning processes are depicted in the teacher learning theory of action shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Theory of action model.

Limitations of Coteaching Model

Coteaching can provide a unique and empowering context for candidates to develop necessary skills to improve practice before, during, and after instruction. But there are tensions between implementing coteaching within hierarchical structures of schools (Siry, 2011) and the underlying assumption that candidates can, and will, contribute to the knowledge base of teaching (Tobin & Roth, 2006). Tensions can arise if experienced teachers do not value candidates’ ideas and perspectives. Coteaching can fail if there is an uneven sharing of responsibility. Previous research has noted that clinical educators can quickly lose respect for their coteachers if candidates are not prepared to discuss teaching approaches or fail to complete tasks in a timely manner (e.g., preparing grade reports). Conversely, candidates lose respect for clinical educators who are unwilling to share teaching responsibilities, are unavailable to discuss curriculum implementation and its impact on pupil learning, or act upon the power that education’s hierarchical structures afford them (Scantlebury et al., 2008; Siry, 2011). The willingness of clinical educators to relinquish power, engage in reflective practice, and collaborate with candidates as peers and colleagues is essential to successful coteaching (Guise et al., 2016; Scantlebury et al., 2008).

Another challenge with coteaching is ensuring that candidates experience independent practice to help develop leadership skills (Guise et al., 2016). Previous research has noted that the timing of independent practice during student teaching has implications for candidates’ development. When independent practice was scheduled toward the end of student teaching, if a candidate struggled with instruction, he or she had no time to implement corrective feedback (Soslau, Gallo-Fox, Scantlebury, & Gleason, 2015). Another concern is whether candidates can succeed as independent practitioners when they graduate (Murphy & Carlisle, 2009).

Coteaching increases time commitment compared with traditional student teaching experiences because clinical educators and candidates coplan and coevaluate instruction (Scantlebury et al., 2008). Guise et al. (2016) recommended that teacher education programs identify clinical educators who are willing to engage in reflective practice with candidates as colleagues and peers. A lack of respect between coteachers can produce a negative working environment. When coteachers are unwilling to share, engage in reflective practice, fail to fulfill responsibilities, and decide together on effective teaching strategies for pupil learning, coteaching fails as an effective model for student teaching.

Context and Participants

The University Human Subjects Review Board approved this research. University faculty solicited participants from candidates and clinical educators involved with coteaching during student teaching. Each participant provided written voluntary informed consent that included rights of refusal and opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time.

The study’s participants were from three teacher preparation programs using coteaching as the model for student teaching at the same mid-Atlantic university. Candidates, clinical educators, and field instructors participated in at least 5 hr of coteaching professional development designed to build relationships while introducing key aspects of the model. Field instructors’ experience with coteaching ranged from novice to more than 10 years. Field instructors met with dyads biweekly to support the model, answer questions, and provide additional resources.

Methods and Data Sources

Method

Twelve clinical educator and candidate dyads provided three video and/or audio recordings each of coinstruction, coplanning, and coevaluation meetings. Researchers conducted clinical educator and candidate end of semester interviews. In summary, 108 recordings of coteaching informed the study (36 recordings, each of coinstruction, coplanning, and coevaluation meetings).

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the coteaching model was functioning as theorized, thus affording opportunities for candidates to develop their adaptive teaching expertise, growth competence, and collaborative skills. Table 1 shows the a priori coding scheme developed from literature on candidate learning and coteaching. Three types of teacher learning were mapped onto specific observable coteaching behaviors of coplanning, coinstruction, and coevaluation. Recordings of coplanning, coinstruction, and coevaluation data were transcribed verbatim. Authors coded transcripts using a priori codes with HyperResearch© coding software and hand coding processes.

Table 1.

Coding Scheme.

Codes	Code abbreviation	Example/definition
Adaptive expertise opportunities codes
Huddles	HU	During instruction, it becomes obvious that pupils are struggling or the lesson is not unfolding appropriately. Coteachers huddle to discuss a change in instruction.
Think aloud	TA	As one coteacher is lecturing during whole group instruction, the other coteacher raises her hand and asks a question—adding to instruction. Or, one coteacher wonders aloud about a concept, idea, or procedure—modeling for pupils.
Use pupil data to justify future instructional plans	JI	Coteachers discuss pupils or groups of pupils’ work, emotions, oral responses as justifications for future lesson planning.
Indicate necessary changes to practice rooted in success and failure of instructional moves	NC	Coteachers decide to make changes to lessons because instruction - was not paced properly - was not aligned - was not appropriate - contributed to undesired pupil behaviors
Determine pupil needs	PN	Coteachers engage in actions aimed at eliciting pupil needs including observation, discussions with pupils, and evaluation of pupil work
Focus on pupil work and outcomes	PO	Coteachers explore and/or discuss pupil work and learning outcomes
Determine what pupils learned	PL	Coteachers discuss what groups of pupils or individual pupils learned using data (informal, formal)
Growth competence opportunities codes
Discussion of teacher learning	TL	Coteachers discuss what they learned about themselves and/or their practice
Rationales for decisions provided	RD	Coteachers share reasons why they have made a particular decision
Collaborative expertise opportunities codes
Evaluation of copractice success and challenges	CS	Coteachers decide whether the copractice approach was a success and/or what challenges arose—giving reasons for their opinions
Stepping up and stepping back	ST or SB	Coteachers physically share/give up/trade off the lead position within the “talking space” of the classroom
Invitation to share ideas	SI	Coteachers ask each other for ideas, advice, support, materials

Table 2 shows the relationships between opportunities to develop specific types of candidate learning (adaptive teaching expertise, growth competence, and collaborative expertise) and components of coteaching.

Table 2.

Relationship Between Learning Opportunities for Teacher Candidates and Coteaching Components.

Learning type	Opportunities	Coplanning	Coinstruction	Coevaluation
Adaptive expertise	Huddles		X
	Think aloud	X	X	X
	Use pupil data to justify future instructional plans	X	X	X
	Indicate necessary changes to practice rooted in success and failure of instructional moves	X	X	X
	Determine pupil needs	X	X	X
	Focus on pupil work and outcomes	X	X	X
	Determine what pupils learned	X	X	X
Growth / Preparation for Future Learning	Discussion of teacher learning	X		X
Growth / Preparation for Future Learning	Rationale for decisions provided	X		X
Collaborative	Evaluation of coinstruction success and challenges	X		X
	Stepping up	X	X	X
	Stepping back	X	X	X
	Invitation to share ideas	X		X
	Coresponsibility	X	X	X

“X” indicates that the opportunity occured during a particular aspect of coteaching (coplanning, coinstruction, and/or coevaluation).

Results

Opportunities for Learning

First, we discuss candidates’ opportunities to develop adaptive expertise, growth competence and collaborative practices (i.e., coplanning, coinstruction, and coevaluation), the variation of those opportunities, and the implementation of the coteaching model. Structural factors accounted for some differences, such as time available during school days to discuss teaching practice, the number of pupils candidates taught (e.g., one class of pupils in early childhood and elementary compared with multiple classes in high school), and clinical educators’ allocated planning time.

In coplanning sessions, coteachers discussed classroom practice, planned activities, asked clarifying questions, and made suggestions. During coevaluations, teachers discussed classroom events, although the degree of reflection, regularity, and meeting length varied by dyad. Conversations affording the most opportunity for adaptive expertise and growth competence occurred in classrooms where coteachers regularly completed anecdotal records about pupils’ learning.

Second, we discuss where, and in what context, candidates and clinical educators missed connections and learning opportunities for developing adaptive expertise, growth competence, and collaborative practices. All data excerpts are illustrative of the full data set. That is, a data example is reflective of the typical data set that carried similar coding labels. Quotes represent authentic examples of what occurred in the field.

Opportunities for Adaptive Expertise

Coplanning

Distinct differences exist in ways that adaptive expertise learning was afforded between coplanning, coinstruction, and coevaluation. Within most dyads, coplanning discussions focused on the curriculum scope and sequence.

TC:

⁴So, the shape activity went well . . . I don’t think I need to change anything with that . . . It might need to be a little modified for [student name’s] group. I don’t know how.

CE:

Well, think about that. What would be, what would be like an earlier stage of [mathematical development] . . . Do you have your trajectories handy? I’m going to go grab mine. [Pause] . . . If you look at pre-composer, [it says], “can manipulate shapes as individuals, but is unable to combine them to compose a larger shape” . . . if you did maybe like an outline of the sun that used—

TC:

—like a circle, and triangle—

CE:

—a circle and either triangles or rhombuses. If you use circle and triangle, those are shapes that [student name] identifies . . . So, then what you would be looking for is—if he had the shapes to choose from, can he match circle to circle, square to square, triangle to triangle to make that picture.

TC:

Okay . . . He’ll also be able to count them with assistance I think . . .

In this example, coteachers continuously refer to one pupil’s needs as a basis for adapting instructional materials. Although the candidate is initially hesitant to make changes, the clinical educator encourages her to consider how additional adaptations might better support pupil learning. The gentle push, “Well, think about that” encourages the candidate to engage in a richer opportunity to develop adaptive teaching expertise.

An additional finding regarding adaptive expertise is that coteachers engaged in different types of learning opportunities at different times. For example, dyads used coplanning sessions to discuss instructional changes based on previous classroom successes and failures. Some dyads also discussed these topics during coevaluation meetings held immediately after lessons. They then referred to these conversations during coplanning meetings.

Coinstruct

Huddles occur during coinstruction when coteachers briefly meet to discuss classroom occurrences, and make decisions or share information to inform future instructional practice. Huddles during a lesson are important to redirect instruction, provide support to candidates by suggesting alternative pedagogical strategies, give examples and analogies to explain concepts, or to monitor classroom management. For example, a candidate sought assistance to restructure a lesson.

I initiated the huddle with [my coteacher] in first period. We had a two-hour snow delay, so the 90-minute period was condensed into a 60-minute period. Halfway through the lesson, I initiated a huddle asking about pacing and sequencing. We decided to spend the last 10 minutes of the class finishing the discussion on the cell membrane, rather than starting the diffusion discussion and only having a few minutes to start a new topic. (Candidate Interview, Spring 2016)

Huddles contribute to effective management of curriculum, afford modifications of lessons to optimize student learning, and produce changes to current and future planned curriculum.

Other opportunities for candidates to develop adaptive expertise during coinstruction occurred when clinical educators “stepped up” into a lead role, often modeling a prompt or asking an additional question. Candidates would incorporate the question into their instruction, adapting original plans.

TC:

[Name], how did you sort them?

Pupil:

[points to ducks]

TC:

So you sorted them by ducks?

Pupil:

Yup.

TC:

By apples?

Pupil:

Mmhmm.

TC:

And by earths?

Pupil:

Mmhmm.

TC:

Awesome job, [name]. Thank you. Does everybody agree with [name]?

Pupil:

Yes.

TC:

Okay so I sorted . . .

CE:

(raising her hand)

TC:

Yes, Ms. X?

CE:

But how did you sort?

TC:

How did you sort, [name]?

Pupil:

I picked one thing.

TC:

You picked each one? He sorted by each thing.

CE:

But how did you know what to put together?

TC:

That’s a good question. How did you know what to put together? So, how did you know how to put the ducks with the ducks?

Coevaluation—Adaptive expertise

The following example highlights how reflecting on pupils’ reactions, a major focus of reflective coevaluation discussions, fosters opportunities for teacher candidates to develop adaptive expertise.

CE:

I think it was a good thing that we used the chart paper because that took up less time having to draw the chart and write the information. Although the information from the textbook ended up being incorrect . . .

TC:

So, definitely make sure we’re double checking what the book has written for us.

CE:

Yes, exactly. And maybe walking through it a little bit more instead of trusting that the book is accurate because that kind of threw the kids off. We were a little bit confused because the information was not correct.

TC:

They actually figured it out. It didn’t completely throw them off that they didn’t know what was going on.

CE:

I also think that they didn’t get enough independent time before.

TC:

Yeah, that was the struggle.

CE:

Yeah, so they may have lost it, so it’s nice that we’re touching on the key terms and with the scale and column, row, just so that they get a basic understanding. And we may want to add in the y axis and the x axis just to be on the safe side ’cause you never know. Some of them might get it, and keep it, and that way they have it, and that takes not a lot of time. Because you never know, it may show up somewhere, and we want them to be able to know that information.

In this postlesson debriefing, coteachers discuss necessary adjustments because of textbook misinformation and additional adjustments (e.g., including columns, rows, axis) for future lessons, requiring modification of curriculum materials. Often candidates are reluctant to exert this type of decision making for fear of straying too far from scripted curriculum. Instead, the clinical educator encouraged the candidate to engage in conversations about adapting, thereby supporting development of an adaptive expertise skill set.

Opportunities for Growth Competence

Opportunities to develop growth competence frequently occurred during coevaluation sessions and to a lesser extent during coplanning sessions. It was difficult to capture evidence of growth competence during coinstruction, because internal thinking of candidates was not externalized.

Coevaluation

During coevaluations, clinical educators would often prompt candidates to reflect on lessons with minimal guidance.

CE:

Alright, so what did you like or dislike about today’s lesson?

TC:

Didn’t like the acrostic. Too advanced for them. Too hard. The first group they were getting some of it finally. But then it was just . . . might as well not do it. The anticipation guide was good. Just so I can see what they do know and what they don’t. And I had them, I decided mid-lesson because they were like, “What is this word?” like, “What’s an equator?” and I was like, “How about we circle the words that, all the words we don’t know what they mean?” With true and false: the only problem I saw with it was just like, one or two students they were just copying their neighbor for it. So, I’m not going to be able to check for understanding using that. I also didn’t like the order of the lesson, how I planned it. I want to change it. I know the first group got far. We didn’t get into any of the actual material.

CE:

Which is great, because we were able to reflect.

TC:

Yeah, and now we know that I want to change the structure.

CE:

Alright, so, and I like the fact that you want to change the structure, because pretty much, we have to take it that they don’t know anything. And if we’re teaching them about maps, we need to go from the basics.

Here, the candidate is asked to reflect on her practice, using evidence of pupil learning as the metric to determine success of the lesson. She notes flaws in both her selected assessment methods and sequencing. The clinical educator points out that these events led to reflection, a key tenant in the development of growth competence.

Opportunities for Collaborative Expertise

Smith (2005, 2007) found that candidates often defer to their experienced clinical educators in coplanning sessions. However, most coteachers, including candidates, engaged in practices to support collaborative expertise during coteaching.

Coplanning

In the excerpt below, the clinical educator engaged the candidate in development of a lesson plan through probing questions. She allows the candidate the opportunity to develop ideas for achieving his or her instructional goals.

CE:

Where do you think you should go, after you went with globe; what do you think you should do next?

TC:

Well the whole, the main idea of this lesson is, “Why we use maps?” like why do we use them, what are their uses? So, I want to go into maps and focus on the key components of a map [first?]. So I’m thinking the skills of the map, we’ll talk about the compass. . . . We can start going into the compass.

CE:

Alright, before any of that, what would be your activating strategy? What are you gonna do to get them to engage?

TC:

I think we could do a read aloud.

This active engagement in planning provides the context for candidates to develop collaborative skills, rather than passively sitting in on a team planning session and deferring to more senior teachers.

Often, coteachers would discuss coteaching approaches during coplanning sessions. These conversations served as helpful windows into how coteachers collaborated to share power and distribute responsibility. In the excerpt below, coteachers determine which coteaching approach they want to use.

CE:

Okay, that’s a plan. And so we’re gonna do combinations of eleven first and now what do you think the best approach for us would be for this lesson as far as like the coteaching? Do you think unified or how would you . . .

TC:

I was thinking teach and assist. So I’ll take the lead role of working with the students on the carpet and I thought maybe if you sat on the carpet with them that you could look for students who are maybe not paying attention and kind of give them a heads up . . . “Oh, make sure you’re watching” and even if I miss something important that needs to be told to the students. If you wanted to pretend to be a student and ask a question . . .

CE:

Okay I think that’s a great plan. I think teach and assist would be great for this lesson.

In the exchange above, the clinical educator invites the candidate to select the coteaching format. The candidate demonstrates a sense of agency and responsibility for pupil learning, going as far as assigning her clinical educator a specific role. In this way, the candidate has accepted the lead role not only for instruction but also for directing the human capital in the classroom. These actions help candidates develop collaborative skills that can be transferred to future work with paraprofessionals.

Coinstruct

Collaborative expertise was also strengthened during construction. In the first excerpt below, the clinical educator steps up to extend questioning opportunities. The candidate allows this interruption, and confirms the concept’s importance by picking up the thread in her own instruction.

TC:

So, we’re looking at this whole column. This long row here . . . it’s called a column when we go down. He says that we have to add fifteen plus twenty-eight . . . let’s do it together. What’s five plus eight?

Student A:

Five plus eight is . . . thirteen.

TC:

Thirteen. Okay, carry my one. What’s one plus one?

Student A:

Two.

TC:

Two plus two?

Student A:

Four.

TC:

Forty-three. Well, I gotta add ten on to that. Three plus zero is three. Four plus one is five. And I have to add one more number on?

Student B:

Seven.

TC:

What’s fifty-three plus seven?

Student B:

It’s the ten, and one, the one. So, it equals sixty?

TC:

Mhm.

CE:

Did anyone use mental math? Raise your hand. Who can tell me what they did mentally to get sixty?

Student C:

What I did was I just added them all up together, and I did seven plus ten and that’s seventeen. And then seventeen plus fifteen which is thirty-two and then I added twenty-eight, and eight plus two is ten so you carry the one, and then two plus three is five and plus the one is sixty.

CE:

Okay. So, does anybody else have a different way they did it mentally?

Student D:

I put the twenty and five, and that will be twenty-five, and I’ll add twenty-eight and then . . . (inaudible)

TC:

So it looks like you all can find different numbers that make sense for you in your head, that are easy for you to add up in your head, and then find all four numbers . . . the sum of all four numbers put together.

In the next example, the clinical educator interjects to help pupils make a connection to a prior experience that occurred before the candidate had begun her student teaching placement. Here, the candidate immediately incorporates her clinical educator’s comment in her own instruction.

TC:

. . . Ok, another way to communicate. Nice job, a smiley face. A good way to communicate without even using your voice.

CE:

[to the class] Who remembers back in April we learned about how people communicate? Who remembers certain people who communicate with pictures?

TC:

Yes, when we went to visit the students downstairs, we learned that some of them can’t speak. So they communicate with pictures.

CE:

So we know that sometimes people communicate with pictures, sometimes with letters in the mail.

In both of these examples, candidates demonstrate that they do not feel threatened by sharing space with another practitioner, rather they openly collaborate to extend instructional moves and enhance the learning environment.

Coevaluation

Opportunities to hone professional collaborative skills were plentiful during coevaluations.

CE:

We have done a lot of rhyming, so I am going to suggest looking at some other things. Let’s look at Teaching Strategies GOLD®. [CE consults classroom evaluation data] . . . They are already very strong with rhyming . . . they are getting really into [phonetic spelling].

TC:

I have an idea. What if we used the magnet boards with the letters and I printed out pictures of things they can sound out and spell on the magnet boards?

CE:

What if we added something like that on the chalkboard? Because that . . . also supports gross motor development.

The candidate has interjected with an idea for how to plan the next lesson, based on a debriefing of the lesson. Coteachers have developed a trusting context, where both coteachers are responsible for collaboratively contributing to evaluating lessons and planning next steps. Data suggest that coteachers are collaborating throughout coteaching.

Missed Connections and Learning Opportunities

Several clinical educators reviewed videos of their coteaching, noting events where they missed connections during classroom instruction to provide candidates opportunities to develop adaptive expertise and collaborative growth. In the next section, we discuss missed learning opportunities for candidates.

Adaptive expertise

Coteachers frequently neglected to coevaluate their lessons based on a review of pupil formative or summative assessment data. A major tenet of adaptive teaching expertise is the ability to rationalize and justify instructional decisions rooted in a systematic examination of pupil data. A lack of discussion about what pupils learned as a result of a lesson is a troublesome finding, because pupils’ academic growth and social-emotional well-being should be central in debriefing sessions.

Stepping in/stepping back/stepping up

Clinical educators stepped back from teaching spaces, so candidates could take lead instructional roles. But clinical educators noted their reluctance to interrupt candidates’ instruction by publically engaging in clarifying a concept, making an analogy or connections to pupils’ prior knowledge. These hesitations constrained candidates’ learning and functioned as missed opportunities.

Candidates missed opportunities to extend teaching skills, especially in regard to classroom management and focusing pupils on learning when they stepped back from teaching spaces. When clinical educators stepped back, they continued to monitor pupil learning and behavior, as well as lesson implementation. In contrast, when candidates moved into peripheral roles, they did not assume responsibility for managing pupils’ behavior and assessing learning.

Growth competence

Another missed opportunity was centered on growth competence when dyads failed to discuss what they had learned about their own teaching. Coteachers are in dual roles, as teachers and learners of teaching. Recognizing and continuously unpacking these two roles are critical to candidates’ development as lifelong learners committed to ongoing professional development. In a post interview, a clinical educator noted that a candidate’s overconfidence in content knowledge resulted in instructional challenges.

[TC] tripped over stuff she hadn’t talked about in a while. And this came up in the post observation conference. I was like where are your notes? . . . a lot of [students] would just sit there and not do anything . . . she didn’t have enough planned. (Clinical Educator, Spring 2016)

Lack of any discourse focused on teacher learning weakens coteaching’s power.

Collaborative practices

Candidates missed opportunities to build their collaborative skills as there was little evidence of their “stepping up” and “stepping back” during lesson delivery. A clinical educator observed that instructional challenges emerged when the candidate was reluctant to engage in coinstruction or provide direct instruction.

She noted,

I should’ve pushed her more into that role of getting up there and not a huge amount more, but I really felt like I did her a little bit of a disservice by not making her be more in terms of that direct instruction more often. (Clinical Educator Interview, Spring 2016)

If candidates do not feel comfortable supporting instruction or allowing coteachers to interject during instruction, they fail to develop understandings that coteachers are collaborative partners who are mutually responsible for pupil learning. They also limit opportunities for experiencing adapted practice in real time.

Similarly, some clinical educators failed to invite candidates to share ideas during coplanning and coevaluation. Invitations act as an acknowledgment that candidates’ expertise is valued and provide a context for learning how to contribute to learning communities, thereby developing skills required for professional collaboration.

Additional missed opportunities occurred during coevaluations when discussions focused solely on candidates’ skills and competence. During midway and final evaluations between coteachers and field instructors, candidates engaged in discussions, but focused solely on their performance as a teacher, reinforcing power/hierarchy structures seen in traditional models. A reframing of these discussions to include practices of coteachers could reinforce the model’s assumption that all teachers are learners.

Discussion and Implications

Is the Coteaching Approach Functioning According to Theory?

Situated learning theory frames the study, and learning was defined as a transformation of participation within a bounded community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Accordingly, we explored how the theoretical model of coteaching was functioning in practice, and examined participants’ implementation against the anticipated learning affordances including growth competence, adaptive teaching expertise, and collaborative expertise. Missed opportunities indicated areas of improvement for the model that, if strengthened, may lead to improved candidate learning. Programs implementing coteaching should focus on learning affordances within a coteaching model such as (a) positioning, power, and agency building; (b) focus on pupil learning; and (c) embodiment of dual roles as teacher and learner of teaching (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Necessary conditions for transformations of participation.

Positioning, power, and agency building

Less than optimal positioning and power sharing weakened coteachers’ learning affordances during coteaching. Candidates did not consistently perceive themselves as agents in their own learning and relied on clinical educators to initiate changes during teaching, hindering opportunities to develop adaptive expertise. Similarly, during postlesson debriefing conferences, clinical educators assumed roles as lead reflectors and pointed out areas of improvement, while candidates remained passive receivers of feedback. These types of exchanges run counter to purposes of coteaching, which explicitly attempt to position coteachers as active contributors in classrooms, with different expertise and abilities to support coteacher and pupil learning. The dominance of clinical educators’ voices and lack of occurrences where candidates took initiative to self-select areas for improvement or suggest changes hinder opportunities for development of collaborative expertise and growth competence. Several studies have documented clinical educators’ inability to “let go” in the classroom or share power and control with candidates (Glenn, 2006; Caruso, 1998, 2000; Sudzina, Giebelhaus, & Coolican, 1997). Similarly, candidates need explicit support to develop the agency to direct their learning. Professional development must extend beyond relationship building and coteaching instructional approaches (Bacharach et al., 2010) to include opportunities for candidates to engage in self-directed goal setting and other activities to promote agency. Simultaneously, clinical educators need to understand the benefits of sharing classroom responsibilities with well-educated novice candidates.

Lack of focus on pupil learning

Both clinical educators and candidates focused on evaluating lesson enactment in relation to candidates’ observed behaviors. Often candidates shared that they “felt” the lesson “went well.” Clinical educators did not push candidates to support self-judgments based on evidence of pupils’ learning. The majority of postconferences included dialogue about lesson pacing or classroom management. Seldom did coteachers analyze pupil work or discuss learning goals and related outcomes. This lack of focus on pupil learning weakens the power of the model, which seeks to center student learning and well-being. Furthermore, candidates cannot learn to self-assess, if assessments are solely rooted in personal feelings. Candidates need deliberate coaching on how to use pupil data to judge the merit of instructional decision making. This coaching should be embedded throughout early field experiences so candidates are accustomed to focusing on pupil learning before entering student teaching.

Failure to embody dual roles: Teacher and learner of teaching

Clinical educators can improve practice through coteaching; thus, the model also functions as professional development (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2016; Guise et al., 2016). However, clinical educators did not take opportunities to talk about their own learning. Teachers must perceive themselves as both teachers and teachers of learning to capitalize on promised benefits of coteaching. Positioning oneself in a dual role is challenging for most educators, particularly when classroom dynamics dictate that teachers focus on their role as expert.

How Can Conditions Be Strengthened?

Coteaching provides rich opportunities for learning, but these opportunities were inconsistent across dyads suggesting insufficient understanding of how to enact coteaching. One way to improve conditions and understanding of coteaching is to involve university-based field instructors as coaches of coteaching dyads. This requires reconceptualizing roles of university-based field instructors such that field instructors serve as both instructor of candidates while also supporting the model’s implementation.

Field instructors and reconceptualizing the triad

Field instructors are well positioned to support coteachers as they are responsible for orienting candidates and clinical educators and facilitating three-way evaluative conversations. Typically, both field instructors and clinical educators act as observers and evaluators, with candidates positioned as receivers of feedback (see Figure 3). These models are hierarchical with an expert/novice positioning of power. Coteaching disrupts this hierarchy by positioning candidates as contributing colleagues with valuable expertise and mutual responsibility.

Figure 3.

Traditional triad.

Findings presented here suggest that reconceptualizing field instructors’ roles, as both a classroom participant and facilitator of the dyad, is necessary and could likely optimize coteachers’ ability to capitalize on learning opportunities (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Reconceptualization of triad.

When field instructors become part of coteaching triads, the group hierarchy flattens with all participants becoming collaborators working to improve pupil learning, classroom teaching, and coteachers’ individualized expertise. This change reflects a shift in focus for field instructors from supporting candidate learning with a secondary focus on pupil learning, to supporting classroom practice and candidate, clinical educator, and field instructor learning that maximizes pupil learning. Engaging with stakeholders from a perspective of shared practice focused on pupil learning provides opportunities for the field instructor to modify coevaluation conversations to support the development of adaptive teaching practices, growth competence, and collaborative expertise. Altering roles from field instructor as observer/evaluator to field instructor as coteaching participant can be challenging, particularly for participants who are strongly aligned with traditional student teaching and appraisal processes. Professional development and support will help field instructors make these shifts in their practice.

Future Research

Future research could explore enactment and impact of these new roles on candidates’ development of adaptive teaching expertise, growth competence, and collaborative skills. Time to plan, reflect, and discuss instructional decisions continues to challenge coteachers, and universities are limited in providing instructional personnel to support coteachers. Further research to maximize teachers’ limited time may improve coteaching’s effectiveness.

In addition, U.S. reform movements emphasize teachers’ use of data to inform instructional decisions and curriculum planning; yet, this examination of current teaching practices showed that coteachers rarely used pupil data as catalysts to shape instructional decisions. Coteaching could provide teachers with structured opportunities to incorporate systematic examination of pupil data when curriculum planning. Finally, few studies have documented coteaching candidates’ continued professional learning and growth as teachers (Guise et al., 2016; Juck, Scantlebury, & Gallo-Fox, 2010; Wassell & Stith, 2007). Future research could focus on candidates’ ongoing development of adaptive expertise, growth competence, and collaborative expertise during their candidacy experiences and beyond, as well as how coteaching functions as a professional development model for clinical educators and university field instructors (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2016; Roth & Tobin, 2005). Coteaching warrants continued investigation to realize its full potential—colleagues sharing expertise through learning, teaching, and evaluating together with the dual purpose aim of improving learning for all pupils and for each other.

Supplemental Material

750126 – Supplemental material for The Promises and Realities of Implementing a Coteaching Model of Student Teaching

Supplemental material, 750126 for The Promises and Realities of Implementing a Coteaching Model of Student Teaching by Elizabeth Soslau, Jennifer Gallo-Fox, and Kathryn Scantlebury in Journal of Teacher Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Elizabeth Soslau is an associate professor in the School of Education in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Delaware. Her research interests focus on exploring learning opportunities within the student teaching practicum, teacher candidates’ development of adaptive teaching expertise, and equity and justice in teacher education.

Jennifer Gallo-Fox is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Delaware. Her research interests focus on teacher learning within the student teaching practicum, early childhood science teacher education, and early childhood educator classroom practice.

Kathryn Scantlebury is a professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Delaware, and Director of Secondary Education in the College of Arts and Sciences. Her research interests focus on gender issues in various aspects of science education, including urban education, preservice teacher education, teachers’ professional development, and material feminism.

References

Bacharach

Heck

T. W.

Dahlberg

(2010). Changing the face of student teaching through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14. doi:10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538

Borko

Mayfield

(1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)00008-8

Bransford

J. D.

Schwartz

(1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.

Caruso

(1998). What cooperating teacher case studies reveal about their phases of development as supervisors of student teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 109-119. doi:10.1080/0261976980210111

Caruso

(2000). Cooperating teacher and student teacher phase of development. Young Children, 55(1), 75-81.

Christensen

(1988). The nature of feedback student teachers receive in post-observation conferences with the university supervisor: A comparison with O’Neal’s study of cooperating teacher feedback. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(3), 275-286.

Cochran-Smith

Feiman-Nemser

McIntyre

D. J.

Demers

(2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.

Collinson

(1999). Redefining teacher excellence. Theory Into Practice, 38, 4-11. doi:10.1080/00405849909543824

Conway

(2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teacher: From a temporally truncated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 89-106.

10.

Darling-Hammond

Bransford

(2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Darragh

J. J.

Picanco

K. E.

Tully

Henning

A. S.

(2011). When teachers collaborate, good things happen: Teacher candidate perspectives of the co-teach model for the student teaching internship. Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges of Teacher Education Journal, 8(1), 83-109.

12.

Davenport

Smetana

(2004). Helping new teachers achieve excellence. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 70(2), 18-22.

13.

Dewey

(1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

14.

Emdin

(2007). Exploring the contexts of urban science classrooms. Part 2: The role of rituals in communal practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(2), 351-373.

15.

Feiman-Nemser

Buchmann

(1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53-65.

16.

Gallo-Fox

Scantlebury

(April, 2015). “It isn’t necessarily sunshine and daisies every time”: Coplanning opportunities and challenges when student teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 324-337. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2015.1060294

17.

Gallo-Fox

Scantlebury

(2016). Coteaching as professional development for cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 191-202. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.007

18.

Gallo-Fox

Soslau

E. G.

Scantlebury

Gleason

(2015). Opportunities for learning in a coteaching model: Implications for university-based field instructors. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

19.

Glenn

(2006). Model versus mentor: Defining the necessary qualities of the effective cooperating teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 85-95.

20.

Guise

Habib

Robbins

Hegg

Hoellwarth

Stauch

(2016). Preconditions for success and barriers to implementation: The importance of collaborative and reflective dispositions to foster professional growth during a coteaching clinical experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(4), 55-76.

21.

Hadar

Brody

D. L.

(2013). The interaction between group processes and the personal professional trajectories in a professional development community for teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 145-161. doi:10.1177/0022487112466898

22.

Harrison

Lawson

Wortley

(2005). Facilitating the professional learning of new teachers through critical reflection on practice during mentoring meetings. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 267-292. doi:10.1080/02619760500269392

23.

Hatano

Oura

(2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26-29. doi:10.3102/0013189X032008026

24.

Hedin

Conderman

Hedin

Conderman

(2015). Shared promises and challenges of coteaching: General-special education and mentor preservice partnerships. Action in Teacher Education, 37(4), 397-417. doi:10.1080/01626620.2015.1078756

25.

Hiebert

Gallimore

Stigler

(2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X031005003

26.

Juck

Scantlebury

Gallo-Fox

(2010). Now it’s time to go solo: First year of teaching. In Murphy

Scantlebury

(Eds.), Coteaching in international contexts: Research and practice (pp. 241-259). New York, NY: Springer.

27.

Kerin

Murphy

(2015). Exploring the impact of coteaching on pre-service music teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 309-323. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2015.1060293

28.

Korthagen

Vasalos

(2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 47-71. doi:10.1080/1354060042000337093

29.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Lin

Schwartz

Hatano

(2005). Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245-255.

31.

Liston

Zeichner

(1991). Teacher education and the social conditions of schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.

32.

Martin

S. N.

(2009). Learning to teach science. In Roth

W.-M.

Tobin

(Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in North America (pp. 567- 586). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

33.

McIntyre

D. J.

Byrd

D. M.

Foxx

S. M.

(1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In Sikula

Buttery

T. J.

Guyton

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 171-193). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.

34.

Murphy

Carlisle

(2009). Can they go it alone? Addressing criticisms of coteaching. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 4(2), 461-475. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9150-9

35.

Murphy

Scantlebury

Milne

(2015). Using Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development to propose and test an explanatory model for conceptualising coteaching in pre-service science teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 281-295. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2015.1060291

36.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning: Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

37.

Rogoff

(1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1, 209-229.

38.

Rogoff

(1999). Cognitive development through social interaction: Vygotsky and Piaget. In Murphy

(Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment (pp. 69-82). London, England: Open University Press.

39.

Rosaen

C. L.

Lundeberg

Cooper

Fritzen

Terpstra

(2008). Noticing Noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347-360. doi:10.1177/0022487108322128

40.

Roth

W.-M.

Tobin

(Eds.). (2005). Teaching together, learning together. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

41.

Roth

W.-M.

Tobin

Carambo

Dalland

(2004). Coteaching: Creating resources for learning and learning to teach chemistry in urban high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 882-904. doi:10.1002/tea.20030

42.

Roth

W.-M.

Tobin

Carambo

Dalland

(2005). Coordination in coteaching: Producing alignment in real time. Science Education, 89, 675-702. doi:10.1002/sce.20055

43.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2006). The new science of learning. In Sawyer

R. K.

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Scantlebury

Gallo-Fox

Wassell

(2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 967-981. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.008

45.

Siry

C. A.

(2011). Emphasizing collaborative practices in learning to teach: Coteaching and cogenerative dialogue in a field-based methods course. Teaching Education, 22(1), 91-101. doi:10.1080/10476210.2010.520699

46.

Smith

E. R.

(2005). Learning to talk like a teacher: Participation and negotiation in co-planning discourse. Communication Education, 54(1), 52-71. doi:10.1080/03634520500076778

47.

Smith

E. R.

(2007). Negotiating power and pedagogy in student teaching: Expanding and shifting roles in expert-novice discourse. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(1), 87-106. doi:10.1080/13611260601037405

48.

Soslau

(2012). Opportunities to develop adaptive teaching expertise during supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 768-779. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.009

49.

Soslau

(2015). Development of a post-lesson observation conferencing protocol: Situated in theory, research, and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 22-35. Doi: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.012

50.

Soslau

Gallo-Fox

Scantlebury

Gleason

(March, 2015). Using coteaching as a model to reposition and professionally develop cooperating teachers as teacher educators Paper presentation for the AACTE Annual Meeting in Atlanta, GA.

51.

Stead

Poskitt

(2010). Adaptive help seeking: A strategy of self-regulated learners and an opportunity for interactive formative assessment. Assessment Matters, 1, 42-63.

52.

Sudzina

Giebelhaus

Coolican

(1997). Mentor or tormentor: The role of the cooperating teacher in the student teacher success or failure. Action in Teacher Education, 18(4), 25-35.

53.

Sun

van Es

. (2015). An exploratory study of the influence that analyzing teaching has on preservice teachers’ classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 201-214. doi:10.1177/0022487115574103

54.

Tobin

(2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133-142. doi:10.1080/10476210600680358

55.

Tobin

Roth

W.-M.

(2006). Teaching to learn: A view from the field. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

56.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1986). Thought and language. Boston, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)

57.

Wassell

Stith

(2007). Becoming an urban physics and math teacher: Infinite potential. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5922-3

58.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932

59.

Zeichner

(2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376-382. doi:10.1177/0022487112445789

60.

Zeichner

Liston

Mahlios

Gomez

(1988). The structure and goals of a student teaching program and the character and quality of supervisory discourse. Teacher and Teacher Education, 4(4), 349-362.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB