“Co-teaching offers a unique opportunity to utilize the strengths of individual teachers to enhance the learning environment, but it required communication and effort to make sure that both teachers are focused on the same goals and working in tandem. The extra effort is definitely worth the payoff in the end.” –Teacher Candidate

Two university faculty members co-taught two classes to 12 candidates enrolled in a teacher education master’s level STEM program. The teacher candidates were enrolled in a one-year, field-intensive teacher preparation program. The field-intensive program began with the summer semester and the co-taught classes took place during fall semester and were taught by a general and special education faculty member.

Review of Literature

As the classrooms in the United States become increasingly more diverse, school systems must be ready to support the diverse needs of these students with strategies that enhance the educational experience for all children while supporting students who struggle (Friend, 2007; Friend, 2008; Graziano & Navarrete, 2002; Jones & Morin, 2000; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996).  Co-teaching is one such strategy.  Co-teaching is not a new concept and has in fact been in the literature since the mid-90’s (Jones & Morin, 2000; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996).  However, the increase in both diverse and children with special needs in all classrooms, combined with federal mandates, has brought about a push to implement co-teaching in today’s classrooms (Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012; Murawski & Dieker, 2004; Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996). 

In today’s educational landscape, federal legislation such as No Child Left Behind, along with greater reliance on high stakes testing and academic standards, more and more school districts are counting on the concept of a co-teaching model to significantly improve the overall performance of all students, most specifically students with special needs (Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012; Graziano & Navarrete, 2012).  In addition, the latest iteration of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandated school systems to implement full inclusion of students with exceptionalities into the general education classroom to the fullest extent possible, added more pressure for districts to find ways to support struggling students in all subject areas at all levels (Brinkman & Twiford, 2012).  Walther-Thomas, Bryant, and Landing (1996) studied 23 schools over a 3-year period as new co-teaching models were implemented in eight school districts. Teachers and administrators reported many student benefits. Students with disabilities developed more positive attitudes about school and working in an integrated classroom. Student motivation increased while overall dissatisfaction decreased, and students were able to celebrate their own academic and social strengths.

Teacher educators also have some responsibility for the success of these children (Badoali & Titus, 2010). Often a co-teaching dyad is made up of a general educator and an intervention specialist or special educator and because of this, institutions of higher education have an opportunity in their programming to significantly contribute to the development of new teachers both in working with other adults in the classroom and building strategies new teachers can bring to their classrooms in order to serve all children’s needs (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlin, & Shamberger, 2010; Friend, 2008; Friend, 2007, Johnson & Brumback, 2013). 

Method

Context. In addition to taking a full load of classes, this field-intensive, clinical STEM master’s program required teacher candidates to be in a classroom three (3) full days per week for the fall semester. Candidates began their work in the school when the local districts began classes, which included teacher inservice days before the middle and high school students began classes. Candidates worked on the school calendar, so they took breaks with their school, rather than with the university. Therefore, the first semester of field lasted approximately 18 weeks.  The clinical model allowed candidates to implement co-teaching principles that were being discussed and modeled in the two classes. As part of a class assignment during fall semester, candidates were required to co-teach and co-plan on two separate occasions with their cooperating teacher to operationalize how they would utilize co-teaching. During the second semester, candidates had full teaching responsibilities for their professional internship (student teaching) which occurred five (5) days a week for the full school day. Therefore, the second semester lasted from January through the end of May.

Participants

Candidates. Eleven (11) of the twelve (12) dyads were two general education teachers assigned to the same classroom. One dyad was a general education candidate placed with both an intervention specialist and a cooperating teacher.  Nine of the candidates were placed in high school classrooms and three were placed in middle school classrooms.

Faculty. The two college faculty (one with secondary and extensive administrative experience and the other with pre-K through middle school special and general education experience) had a great deal of P-12 experience that was utilized and shared in class and through online discussion board responses. Collectively, they additionally had over 25 years of experience teaching at the university level.

Instruments/Procedure

Surveys. A 35-item online survey was administered using Qualtrics, an online survey tool, three times over the course of the academic year (first week of fall semester, last week of fall semester, and last week of spring semester). The first question asked the candidate for his/her birthdate so that responses could be matched for each participant across the three administrations. The remainder of the survey was made up of 14 open-ended questions (definition of co-teaching, philosophy of co-teaching, expected responsibilities in a co-teaching situation, expectations regarding discipline, classwork, shared materials, and homework) and 20 statements requiring a rating of “rarely” “sometimes” or “usually” (“I can easily read the non-verbal cues of others; I feel comfortable moving freely about the space in a co-teaching classroom regardless of whose room it is; I believe both teachers in a co-taught classroom need to agree on the goals of the classroom”).

Discussion Board Posts. As a class assignment, candidates were required to make a weekly post to the class discussion board. Candidates were instructed to reflect on the co-teaching strategies observed in the co-taught classes as well as any co-teaching experiences in their K-12 classrooms.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the forced-choice items and the open-ended responses were analyzed for common themes.

Results: Surveys

Forced-choice responses. Over time, teacher candidates’ responses to the forced-response questions indicate a more clearly defined understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and expectations related to co-teaching. Tables 1 through 11 summarize the findings from questions most relative to the focus of this paper. Each table provides a comparison of responses from pre- (prior to classroom experience), post- (one semester of experience at midpoint of school year), and delayed post-surveys (at the end of a full academic year).

Table 1

I Can Read the Non-verbal Cues of Others

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		64% (7)		33% (4)		0% (0)
Usually		36% (4)		67% (8)		100% (4)

Table 2

I Feel Comfortable Moving Freely About the Space in the Co-taught Classroom, Regardless of Whose Room It Is

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		36% (4)		33% (4)		0% (0)
Usually		64% (7)		67% (8)		100% (4)

Table 3

I Believe Both Teachers in a Co-taught Classroom Need to Agree on the Goals of the Classroom

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		0% (0)		8% (1)		0% (0)
Usually		100% (11)		92% (11)		100% (4)

Table 4

I Have Presented Lessons in a Co-taught Class

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		55% (6)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		36% (4)		67% (8)		75% (3)
Usually		9% (1)		33% (4)		25% (1)

Table 5

I Believe Classroom Rules and Routines Must be Jointly Developed

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		36% (4)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Usually		64% (7)		100% (12)		100% (4)

Table 6

I Believe All Materials Should be Shared in the Co-taught Classroom

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		18% (2)		25% (3)		25% (1)
Usually		82% (9)		75% (9)		75% (1)

Table 7

I Believe Modifications of Goals for Students with Special Needs are the Responsibility of Both Teachers in a Co-taught Classroom

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Usually		100% (11)		100% (12)		100% (4)

Table 8

I Believe Planning for Classes is the Shared Responsibility of Both Teachers

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		9% (1)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		27% (3)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Usually		64% (7)		100% (12)		100% (4)

Table 9

I Believe the “Chalk” Should Pass Freely Between Both Teachers

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		45% (5)		25% (3)		25% (1)
Usually		55% (6)		75% (9)		75% (3)

Table 10

I Believe it is Important that Time is Allotted (or Found) for Common Planning

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		30% (3)		17% (2)		0% (0)
Usually		70% (7)		83% (10)		100% (4)

Table 11

I Believe that Behavior Management is the Shared Responsibility of Both Teachers

	Pre (%, n)		Post		Delayed Post
Rarely		0% (0)		0% (0)		0% (0)
Sometimes		9% (1)		8% (1)		0% (0)
Usually		91% (10)		92% (11)		100% (4)

Open-ended responses. An analysis of the open-ended responses indicate that responses to the pre-survey were what could be considered generic “textbook” responses, or what the candidates thought would be “acceptable” responses to the instructors. For example, in response to a question about expectations related to giving/receiving feedback, two candidates responded: “I attempt to have an open dialog with my students. If they are not behaving in a manner that is respectful towards me or the other students, I tell them so. I would be open to my students informing me of faults in my teaching, as long as it was done in a respectful manner.” A second responded, “I will provide immediate feedback for verbal answers and respond to written answers with notes on the items I was specifically looking for and/or positive comments on fully correct answers.”

Post-responses were clearly based on actual experience, both in referencing strategies that were modeled and their own one 1-on-1 teaching experiences. Their responses were more detailed, thoughtful, and contained explicit examples. Responses also reflected deeper understanding of the co-teaching concepts. For instance, one candidate remarked, “Co-taught classrooms give students the opportunity to learn in a creative way from multiple skilled teachers and when done correctly have proven to be effective.”

In many instances, when discussing the responsibilities they would like to have in the co-taught classroom, several candidates indicated they would like to share responsibilities, but “would probably prefer to be in charge” “take the leadership position” and “be given full authority for handling discipline issues.”

In response to classroom discipline in a co-taught classroom, one candidate responded, “Each teacher should discipline equally and be consistent.  While one teacher is teaching, the other should be monitoring the classroom; however, the teachers should co-design a plan of action so that they are consistent.”

They clearly became more confident in their skills and clear in their expectations as exemplified by the following: “Students should put forth their best effort and try all assignments. The students should feel comfortable to ask questions and know that I will assist them in understanding, but will not give answers.”  “Students will be assigned classwork based on their ability...gifted students might have 5 higher level problems and other students might have 10 conceptual problems, this would depend and vary on the lesson.” “Students should participate fully in classwork.  Teacher should go over and scaffold students while completing work.  Work done together in class should comprise the majority of the practice that students participate in.”

Finally, responses to the delayed-post survey were more insightful and had a future-orientation.  Specifically, comments were stated in terms of what they intended to do in their own classrooms and expectations they would hold for students as well as co-teachers.  Finally, candidates were able to reflect on their successes and use them to determine a future plan of action

Discussion Board Posts

The weekly discussion board posts mainly focused on four major themes: finding their place or role in the classroom, planning, classroom management, and setting and holding students accountable to expectations.  They viewed classroom management, and establishing behavioral expectations as separate from academic expectations.

Defining roles. Early posts demonstrate candidates’ search for their roles as co-teachers in a classroom with experienced teachers.

I still haven’t really had any teaching experiences yet, aside from going over the previous night’s homework and walking around helping students with their work. It was a lot better than the past, but still trying to figure out my full current role as the second teacher in the room. My role has only solidified as a helper, but it feels more natural now as it is known I will be taking over the classes during the second semester.

Planning. Issues with planning included how to plan for lessons and time management, as well as specifically planning for a co-taught lesson.

 I am painfully aware that my time management skills need work. I never seem to be able to keep myself on schedule. I blame most of it on the fact that when I can get the kids involved in a topic, I want to see where they will go with it, so I keep feeding the conversation. This causes two problems. First, it usually throws my schedule off completely, also I tend to get into these conversations with the more advanced students, and the lower academic achievers don't bother to join, so they aren't getting anything out of it. I am aware of this issue and I have been working on it the last few weeks.

Classroom management. One candidate was challenged early on, when attempting to discipline a student, prior to having truly established the co-teaching roles of both teachers in the classroom.

On Friday another student was disciplined by my mentor teacher and sent to the hall, "to consider her choices". This was an implied purpose, not specified. After the specified time had passed, I went out into the hall to discuss the issues with this student. She came back into the classroom and rejoined the class. this same student again found herself unable to abide by the rules while getting ready for lunch, so once again she and I had a discussion about her behavior. I made certain to use "we" statements, to make sure that the student knew that the concerns I was discussing with her were shared by my mentor teacher as well. 

Upon returning to the classroom, my mentor teacher was clearly concerned about my discussion with the student. I explained the discussion, but I could see that it was still concerning her.

We arranged a meeting for before school on Tuesday and discussed our issues. We had made a lot of assumptions about each other and had failed to actually set the boundaries. I was clearly over-stepping my role as an "observer", by unintentionally derailing her discipline plan. We agreed to start over from square one, with our roles better defined and probably less confusing to the students.

Expectations. Candidates also reflected on how well they communicated their expectations to students and challenges when things were not as clear as they should be.

I have also seen that the students are picking up on my expectations. When I teach the science lesson for the day, I always wrap up class by posing the "Question of the Day". It is a preview of the coming lesson, something that they can think about, but does not require any research. It usually takes the form of a yes or no question. I have made it clear to them that they should not only have their opinion, but my follow-up will always be for them to explain why. They have embraced this concept and are eager to share their answers the following day, and without prompting will explain their rationale for their answer.

As the semester went on, the weekly online reflections became a mechanism for peer mentoring among members of the cohort. Faculty instructors gradually faded their comments on candidates’ posts as candidates provided began to provide feedback to each other.  Over time, in addition to commenting on their co-teaching observations, they began to share strategies and lesson ideas, and gave and received mentoring and support from their peers.

Discussion

Data from this study suggests that support for co-teaching on multiple levels (direct instruction, modeling, classroom practice, and faculty and peer mentoring) helped candidates feel more comfortable and confident in utilizing co-teaching in their P-12 classrooms. In addition, explicitly mentoring cooperating teachers on the use of co-teaching strategies and requiring them to implement co-teaching with candidates benefitted not only the candidates but helped cooperating teachers feel more comfortable about using co-teaching strategies more regularly.

Also evident from the data is the importance of developing a relationship between co-teachers who share the common goal of P-12 student learning.  Open and clear communication about expectations for each other and for their students is critical for a co-teaching situation.  

 

 

REFERENCES

Badiali, B., & Titus, N.E. (2010). Co-teaching: Enhancing student learning through mentor intern partnerships. School-University Partnerships, 4(2), 74-80.

Brinkmann, J., & Twiford, T. (2012). Voices from the field: Skill sets needed for effective collaboration and co-teaching. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(3), 1-13.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1) 9-27.

Friend, M. (2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(2), 9-19.

Friend, M. (2007). The coteaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 48-52.

Graziano, K.J., & Navarrete, L.A. (2012). Co-teaching in a teacher education classroom: Collaboration, compromise, and creativity. Issues in Teacher Education 21(1), 109-126.

Johnson, N.H., & Brumback, L. (2013). Co-teaching in the science classroom. The one teach/one assist model.  Science Scope, 36(6), 6-9.

Jones, S.L., & Morin, V. (2000). Training teachers to work as partners: Modeling the way in teacher preparation Programs. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 67(1), 51-55.

Murawski, W.W., & Dieker, L.A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level.  TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.

Walther-Thomas, C.S., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: the key to successful inclusion. Remedial & Special Education, 17, 255-265.