Co-Teaching Versus Apprentice Teaching

Abstract

Although the term co-teaching has for many years described a service delivery option for students with disabilities or other special needs, recently, it has been used as a label for an alternative approach to student teaching. In this article, the authors describe the essential characteristics of co-teaching and what is appropriately called apprentice teaching and outline the similarities and differences between these two collaborative practices, including overall program structure, the contributing characteristics of the participating individuals, and the nature of the professional relationships. The authors provide conclusions regarding the risks for teacher candidates and faculty members of using the same term for significantly different models.

Keywords

apprentice teaching collaboration co-teaching special education inclusion student teaching teacher education field experiences internship

The field of education, including special education, is in the midst of a dizzying array of reforms and initiatives. Examples of these efforts abound: Nearly all states are in the process of implementing the Common Core State Standards with an emphasis on academic rigor and preparation for careers and college (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012), technology-based assessment systems are being implemented to measure student achievement (Educational Testing Service, 2013), and sophisticated teacher evaluation models are being put into place that include student academic progress in the rating metric (Council for Exceptional Children, 2012; Jones, Buzick, & Turkan, 2013). At the same time, pressure continues to raise expectations for students with disabilities to provide access to the general curriculum (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013) and ensure that instruction utilizes research-based practices (Embury & Dinnesen, 2012; No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2001, 2002; Odom, 2009).

Not surprisingly, teacher education is also transforming rapidly in the face of the shifting education landscape. College and university programs are being challenged to be more responsive to the realities of today’s schools (Anderson & Stillman, 2013) and are being evaluated for their rigor and the expertise of their graduates (Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013). Furthermore, revised standards for accreditation are contributing to changes in how educators are prepared (Lynch, 2013).

Given the complex dynamics of contemporary education and teacher preparation, it is critical that professionals be precise in their understanding of the emerging trends. This is not a unique idea. For example, the term differentiation has been questioned because it has too often been attached to any and all changes made in student work to the point that it sometimes loses any meaning at all (Pappano, 2011). Similarly, the term inclusion is often used to refer to seating a student in a general education setting rather than an educational practice and belief system about students as full members of their school learning community, resulting in endless discussions about appropriateness and misunderstandings about programs and services for students with disabilities (Causton & Theoharis, 2013; Dessemontet & Bless, 2013).

A new addition to the set of terms being used in more than one way and leading to confusion with potentially negative effects for teacher education, especially in special education, is co-teaching. Co-teaching for students with disabilities and those learning English as a second language has a substantial history and is receiving renewed interest as a vehicle for embedding students’ specially designed instruction in general education settings. The term co-teaching, however, is also being used as a label for an innovative alternative approach for student teaching and related field experiences (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010).

The purpose of this article is to outline the essential characteristics of co-teaching as a service delivery model and those of apprentice teaching, a term that more accurately describes programs associated with the preparation of educators, whether in general education or special education. In addition, our goal is to provide an analysis of the similarities and differences in these two models, examine areas of potential confusion in using one term for two significantly different concepts, and offer recommendations to teacher educators as they address co-teaching as well as apprentice teaching in their professional preparation programs.

Characteristics of Co-Teaching and Apprentice Teaching

A beginning point for an analysis of co-teaching and apprentice teaching is understanding the evolution and key characteristics of each model. Each has distinct roots, and each serves a specific educational purpose.

Co-Teaching

Co-teaching is a widely implemented service delivery option for students with disabilities, as well as those who are learning English as a second language. It was first mentioned in the professional literature in the mid-1980s as a means of accomplishing what then was a novel goal: the education of students with disabilities in general education settings (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989). During the late 1980s and most of the 1990s co-teaching was sporadically implemented in school districts committed to inclusive practices; the emphasis was on integrating students with disabilities into typical classrooms, often for social as much as academic opportunities. With the turn of the 21st century and significant changes in federal education legislation, co-teaching quickly emerged as a vehicle through which new requirements for access and rigor could be met (Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012; Friend & Cook, 2013). Since then, it has grown in popularity and has become increasingly focused on instructional quality.

Two professionals with equivalent licensure, most often a general educator and a special educator or other specialist, implement co-teaching and share instructional responsibility and accountability for part or, occasionally, all of the school day. They each make a unique contribution to instruction and together, ensure that a rigorous curriculum is delivered in a general education classroom with specially designed instruction embedded based on student needs and Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals (Friend, 2014).

A considerable literature exists on co-teaching. Much of it consists of descriptions of programs and effective practices (Conderman, Bresnahan, & Pedersen, 2009; Embury & Kroeger, 2012; Pearl, Dieker, & Kirkpatrick, 2012). Three other widely addressed topics are co-teaching logistics, especially common planning time (Murawski, 2012); the professional relationship (Embury & Dinnesen, 2012; Ploessel, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010); and the quality of implementation (Mastropieri et al., 2005; McDuffie, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2011). Although critics justifiably note the paucity of research demonstrating co-teaching effectiveness (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012), several reviews and evaluation projects have documented its effectiveness (Silverman, Hazelwood, & Cronin, 2009; Walsh, 2012).

Apprentice Teaching

Although called co-teaching, apprentice teaching is a relatively recently conceptualized model for student teaching and related experiences for pre-service teachers and other teacher candidates (e.g., graduate students in residency programs; Fraser & Watson, 2013). This alternative to typical student teaching originated at St. Cloud State University in 2006 as part of a Teacher Quality Enhancement partnership grant from the U.S. Department of Education (Bacharach et al., 2010). It has been presented at numerous state and national conferences, and training on the use of the model has been offered at colleges and universities in 35 states. Some agencies, including the Kentucky Department of Education (N. Bacharach, personal communication, May 22, 2013), are mandating this student teaching model, and it is recommended in others, including the California State University system.

The goal of apprentice teaching is to address shortcomings in traditional models of student teaching usually characterized by a handoff of responsibility after a period in which the teacher candidate played a very limited role in classroom instruction (Kamens, 2007). It is premised on a mentoring process that includes extensive participation by the pre-service educator from the outset, and it draws on several of the practices recommended as part of the just-described co-teaching for students with special education needs. The model stresses building a strong professional relationship between the master and apprentice educators, clear communication, collaboration, joint planning, and explicit instruction and practice. That is, it stresses partnership and places the pre-service teacher in the role of an apprentice.

The literature on apprentice teaching is just beginning to emerge. The most comprehensive study to date was reported by Bacharach et al. (2010) and included an analysis of elementary students’ reading and math achievement scores in classes implementing an apprentice teaching model and solo-taught classes, as well as focus group interviews with participants. Results demonstrated that classes using an apprentice teaching approach generally outperformed those that were solo-taught, and educators found value in this student teaching model. In an ethnographic study, Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox, and Wassell (2008) concluded that shifting student teaching to a collaborative model led to the creation of strong master–candidate partnerships and more effective teacher preparation.

Comparison of Key Characteristics of Co-Teaching and Apprentice Teaching

Although, at a surface level, the two models currently called co-teaching seem similar because they both involve two adults in the classroom and emphasize collaboration, at least nine critical differences exist between them, and these differences are essential for teacher educators to understand. They are explained in the following sections and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comparison of Co-Teaching and Apprentice Teaching.

Dimension of the model	Co-teaching	Apprentice teaching
Factors related to program structure
Purpose	Delivery of special education services for students with disabilities or other special needs	Induction of an apprentice teacher into the field
Time frame	Durable service: Usually for the entire school year or course, and continuing across school years	Temporary: Usually for one semester or an academic year, depending on program requirements
Factors related to the participating professionals
Frame of reference	The master teacher approaches teaching with the perspective of a credentialed professional	The apprentice teacher’s perspective is that of a learner striving for credentialing
Areas of expertise	One teacher’s primary expertise is the general curriculum; primary expertise for the other teacher is specially designed instruction	The primary area is the same for the master and apprentice teachers (e.g., elementary education, English)
Scope of duties	Both teachers have significant additional responsibilities beyond the co-teaching situation	Apprentice educator’s responsibilities are all based on the classroom assignment
Accountability	Both teachers are accountable for student progress in general curriculum and IEP goals	Only master teacher is accountable for student outcomes
Factors related to the professional relationship
Power	Two teachers have equivalent qualification and share power in the classroom	Master teacher has primary power, including directing the work of the apprentice educator
Supervision	Supervision is not a relevant concept for the relationship	The master teacher is responsible for supervising the apprentice educator
Parity	Teachers have parity	Although parity may exist for specific activities, it is not a given characteristic of the relationship

Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program.

Factors Related to Program Structure

Purpose of the model

At the most basic level, co-teaching and apprentice teaching are designed to address completely different purposes. Co-teaching is a service delivery option; its purpose clearly is for the delivery of the specially designed instruction that students with disabilities must receive as specified in their IEPs. Apprentice teaching, however, is a form of induction. Its focus is to develop the skills of the apprentice teacher, and so it is focused on that individual. Apprentice teaching is not undertaken because of specific student needs. In fact, selection of a placement for students in this type of field experience usually is based on the qualifications (e.g., degrees earned and years of experience) and preparation of the master teacher (e.g., attendance at a workshop related to the model) rather than on identified student needs.

Time frame

As a service delivery vehicle, co-teaching is a durable arrangement that typically occurs on a regularly scheduled basis (whether daily or less frequently) for an entire course or school year. Furthermore, unless changes occur related to the students receiving this service, it is anticipated that it would be offered in some form in subsequent years. In contrast, apprentice teaching is appropriately a temporary assignment. In many programs, this arrangement lasts for a university semester so that the weeks of practice required to obtain licensure are met. No intent of durability exists.

Factors Related to the Participating Professionals

Professional frame of reference

Co-teaching is premised on participants’ status as professional educators. That is, both educators have completed their professional preparation (or, in limited cases, are highly qualified while enrolled in a teacher education program) and are considered fully ready to complete the responsibilities of teaching. In contrast, in apprentice teaching, only one teacher—the practicing teacher—has such credentialing; the apprentice teacher is still working toward obtaining the qualifications to seek licensure. The result is that one individual approaches teaching with the perspective of a credentialed professional; the other’s perspective is that of a learner striving for credentialing.

Areas of expertise

Co-teaching is based on the two professionals having specific areas of expertise. The general educator has a specialization in a particular content area and related pedagogy, proficiency in managing groups of students, and focus on instructional pacing. The special educator’s contribution centers on specialized instructional practices that are the core of special education; understanding of each student’s unique needs; the legal and technical details of the field; and a focus on mastery, regardless of pacing. Depending on professional preparation and experience, the teachers may overlap in their knowledge and skills, but the partnership’s power derives from teachers’ complementary expertise that can be used to best meet the needs of students in diverse classrooms. In contrast, apprentice teaching pairs a practicing teacher with a pre-service teacher with a similar academic preparation and the same content area expertise. Although the master teacher has more knowledge and experience than the apprentice, both participants in this model have similar pedagogical and content preparation. A direct difference that results concerns planning: In co-teaching, general educators prepare the overall lesson plan, and special educators annotate those plans with the needed specially designed instruction for some students. In apprentice teaching, the apprentice has responsibility for preparing the same lesson plans as the master teacher, whether those are general education or special education plans.

Scope of duties

Co-teachers are professionals who share responsibilities while together in the classroom, but each also has a significant number of additional responsibilities. General educators often co-teach for just a small part of the day; they must complete all the tasks and chores associated with teaching for the rest of the day or for the remaining class periods. In addition, they usually have a variety of duties, committee responsibilities, and other functions associated with their roles. Similar comments can be made about special educators. They often co-teach in multiple classrooms with several partners, may provide some instruction in a separate setting, have assessments and paperwork to complete, and are assigned to additional duties. That is, both professionals have a wide range of obligations within the scope of their jobs.

The situation is considerably different for apprentice teachers. Their primary focus is their classroom assignment. They may assist in carrying out other duties or responsibilities, may shadow or share specific duties or assignments, and certainly are busy, but they do not in any way carry the same set of obligations as co-teachers, nor are they accountable for any outcomes associated with those responsibilities.

Accountability

In co-teaching, both the special education and general education teachers are formally or informally accountable for student learning and outcomes, reporting to parents, administrators, and the school district. In apprentice teaching, only the practicing teacher is truly accountable for student learning and student outcomes, whereas the apprentice teacher is accountable to his or her practicing teacher, supervising teacher, and university.

Factors Related to the Professional Relationship

Power

An indicator of co-teaching effectiveness is the extent to which the general and special education teachers share power in their classroom and in their instructional decision making. Matters of power still can be an issue in co-teaching, especially when general educators are reluctant to share it and special educators are reluctant to be assertive, but strong co-teachers resolve this issue (Embury & Kroeger, 2012).

In apprentice teaching, the power is sometimes shared, particularly in terms of expectations for and instruction of students. Power, however, is not shared in terms of the relationship between the teachers. That is, the master teacher ultimately holds power in relation to the apprentice educator. For example, the master teacher might decide that a proposed activity for students is not acceptable; that decision would take precedence. Furthermore, in many programs, the master teacher evaluates the novice’s performance during the apprentice teaching experience and may contribute to a determination of whether student teaching has been successfully completed.

Supervision

In a co-teaching relationship, the general and special education teachers are supervised traditionally by an administrator such as a principal or special education director. Neither teacher supervises the other. In contrast, in apprentice teaching, the master teacher appropriately supervises the apprentice teacher. In some ways, this is a specific example of the power differential between the individuals, and it is a clear demonstration of how the relationships in the two models have fundamentally dissimilar foundations. Furthermore, in the latter model, a university supervisor is directly responsible for supervision of the novice educator; no equivalent of an outside supervisor with decision-making authority is a characteristic of co-teaching.

Parity

In many ways, issues related to the character of the power and supervision are key contributing factors to the overall notion of parity. Parity, although the final topic addressed in this discussion, may be the most critical difference between co-teaching and apprentice teaching. Co-teaching relies on parity: Co-teachers recognize that they bring different but equally important knowledge and skills to their shared classroom, and they work diligently to use their differences to create instruction that is significantly different than that occurring in a solo-taught class. The teachers learn from each other but do not try to become each other. Apprentice teaching may include specific instances of parity, as when the teachers are both working with students with responsibilities divided. This, however, does not imply that the entire relationship can or should have parity as the foundation.

Implications for Teacher Educators

Co-teaching and apprentice teaching have considerable value for educators and students. The former fosters general education access, high expectations, and specialized instruction integrated into the curriculum for which nearly all students are accountable. The latter encourages active participation and partnerships between master and apprentice teachers, and it makes possible more intensive instruction that benefits today’s diverse student groups. Both models emphasize collaborative practice, a critical dimension of education in today’s schools. Treating these two options, however, as though they are essentially the same—and using the same term to refer to each—can lead to a variety of misunderstandings and communication issues.

One area for concern relates to the understandings and expectations of apprentice teachers. That is, when special education teacher candidates have learned about co-teaching in their coursework, they may believe that they have an extensive preparation for this role in their field experience. They may even resist attending student teaching orientation sessions because of their perception that they already know the expectations. They may interpret information shared at such an orientation through their lens as a special educator and, as a result, may have unrealistic or inappropriate expectations for the student teaching experience. For general education apprentice teachers, a somewhat different issue may occur. If their knowledge of co-teaching derives from apprentice teaching, which is an induction process, they may carry into their career pre-conceived notions of the roles special educators should play in a shared classroom. Unfortunately, that perception is likely to place the special educator in the role of a learner and apprentice, appropriate for a pre-service teacher but clearly not appropriate for a credentialed colleague.

The importance of clarity related to co-teaching and apprentice teaching has direct implications for university faculty members as well. Conversations among general education and special education teacher educators often are complex, and challenges persist in sharing understandings about program priorities, designing teacher education curricula, and ensuring that candidates have all the knowledge and skills necessary to be a successful educator. When one term is applied to two very different concepts, the risks are great. First, teacher educators may miss the nuances of differences between co-teaching and apprentice teaching, and this may affect how they address these topics with candidates. In addition, it is likely that miscommunication will occur, with some faculty members referring to general education/special education co-teaching whereas others referencing a program for field experiences.

Co-teaching and apprentice teaching each represent the increasingly collaborative status of education that new teachers will experience. What is important is that each be carefully introduced to candidates, integrated into the design of teacher preparation curricula, and incorporated into candidate performance appraisal. What is essential is that teacher educators understand and implement their programs and practices with a thorough understanding of each model. Words have precise meanings, and precision of language is required to accurately communicate with students, teachers, and teacher candidates. Using one word for vastly different models has a high risk of causing confusion in an already exceedingly complex educational landscape.

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.

Author Biographies

Marilyn Friend, PhD, is a professor emerita in the Department of Specialized Education Services at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She is the author of numerous books, chapters, and articles on co-teaching and other inclusive practices, and the co-producer of a widely used video series addressing these topics.

Dusty Columbia Embury, EdD, is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education at Eastern Kentucky University. Dusty taught in public schools in a co-teaching setting for 5 years before beginning to research the topic formally during graduate studies. She is the author of three articles addressing the experiences of co-teachers and their students.

Laura Clarke, EdD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education at Ball State University. Laura taught in public schools using co-teaching and is the co-author of six articles focusing on inclusive practices for students with disabilities.

References

Anderson

L. M.

Stillman

J. A.

(2013). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83, 3-69.

Bacharach

Heck

T. W.

Dahlberg

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

Bauwens

Hourcade

J. J.

Friend

(1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 17-22.

Brinkmann

Twiford

(2012). Voices from the field: Skill sets needed for effective collaboration and co-teaching. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7, 1-13. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ997467.pdf

Causton

Theoharis

(2013). Inclusive schooling: Are we there yet? School Administrator, 70(2), 19-25.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards. Available from http://www.corestandards.org/

Conderman

G. J.

Bresnahan

M. V.

Pedersen

(2009). Purposeful co-teaching: Real cases and effective strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2012). The Council for Exceptional Children’s position on teacher evaluation. Arlington, VA: Author.

Dessemontet

Bless

(2013). The impact of including children with intellectual disability in general education classrooms on the academic achievement of their low-, average-, and high-achieving peers. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 38, 23-30.

10.

Educational Testing Service. (2013, August). Now underway: A step change in K-12 assessment. Retrieved from http://k12center.org/rsc/pdf/a_step_change_in_k12_testing_august2013.pdf

11.

Embury

D. C.

Dinnesen

M. S.

(2012). Planning for co-teaching in inclusive classrooms using structured collaborative planning. The Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning, 10(31), 36-52.

12.

Embury

Kroeger

S. D.

(2012). Let’s ask the kids: Consumer constructions of co-teaching. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 102-112.

13.

Fraser

J. W.

Watson

(2013). Bring student teaching into the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(7), 25.

14.

Friend

(2014). Co-teach: Building and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools (2nd ed.). Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend.

15.

Friend

Cook

(2013). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

16.

Goldhaber

Liddle

Theobald

(2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-44.

17.

Jones

N. D.

Buzick

H. M.

Turkan

(2013). Including students with disabilities and English learners in measures of educator effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 42, 234-241.

18.

Kamens

M. W.

(2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching experience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 155-166.

19.

Lynch

(2013, September). Overview of accreditation pathways (CAEP conference presentation). Retrieved from http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/overview_to_accreditation_pathways.pdf

20.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

Graetz

Norland

Gardizi

McDuffie

(2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260-270. doi:10.1177/10534512050400050201

21.

McDuffie

K. A.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2011). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75, 493-510.

22.

Murawski

W. W.

(2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8-15.

23.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress 2012 [NCES 2013-456]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

24.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), (2001). Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

25.

Odom

, (2009). The ties that bind: Evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 53-63. doi:10.1177/0271121408329171

26.

Pappano

(2011, May/June). Differentiated instruction reexamined: Teachers weigh the value of multiple lessons. Harvard Education Newsletter, 27(3). Retrieved from http://hepg.org/hel/article/499

27.

Pearl

Dieker

Kirkpatrick

(2012). A five-year retrospective on the Arkansas Department of Education co-teaching project. Professional Development in Education, 38, 571-587. doi:10.1080/19415257.2012.668858

28.

Ploessl

D. M.

Rock

M. L.

Schoenfeld

Blanks

(2010). On the same page: Practical techniques to enhance co-teaching interactions. Intervention School & Clinic, 45(3), 158-168. doi: 10.1177/1053451209349529

29.

Scantlebury

Gallo-Fox

Wassell

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

30.

Silverman

S. K.

Hazelwood

Cronin

(2009). Universal education: Principles and practices for advancing achievement of students with disabilities. Columbus: Ohio Department of Education, Office for Exceptional Children.

31.

Solis

Vaughn

Swanson

McCulley

(2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 498-510. doi:10.1002/pits.21606

32.

Walsh

J. M.

(2012). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement. Preventing School Failure, 56, 29-36. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.555792