Co-Teaching: A mutually beneficial school-university partnership for preparing teacher candidates - a paper presented at AACTE in Atlanta, GA.

1. Co-Teaching: A mutually
beneficial school-university
partnership for preparing
teacher candidates
67th Annual AACTE Meeting 2015
Atlanta, Georgia
Symposium Session
Ball State University
East Carolina University
Southeast Missouri State University

2. Purpose
The purpose of this symposium
session is to present a series of
papers that together highlight the
development of Co-Teaching
initiatives within Colleges of
Education at three universities in
partnership with local school
districts.

3. Genesis of Collaboration
• St. Cloud State University Co-
Teaching Training 2011
• Regional Teacher Quality
Partnership Un-Conference hosted
by Winthrop University 2012
• ECU Co-Teaching Webinar Fall
2013
• AACTE Annual Meeting 2014
• Co-Teaching TAG 2015

4. Principles of Co-Teaching
Each institution agrees firmly in the following
principles
1) Co-Teaching training is essential.
2) Co-Teaching is collaborative.
3) Co-teaching enhances the performance of
college of education graduates.
4) Co-Teaching enhances learning of P-12
students.
5) Co-Teaching requires co-planning, co-
assessing, and co-reflecting on practice.

5. Co-Teaching: A win-win for
public school classrooms and
teacher preparation programs
East Carolina University
Vivian Covington - Discussant
Elizabeth Fogarty - Presenter
Judith Smith- Presenter
Christina Tschida - Presenter

6. Why ECU Decided to
Explore Co-
Teaching
 Reduces the number of student teaching
placements and clinical teachers needed,
allowing us to be more selective
 Due to increased teacher accountability, a
model for student teaching that allows
clinical teachers to remain in their
classrooms is imperative
 Investigates ways to enhance the
relationship between the clinical
teacher and the intern

7. Overview of Co-Teaching
Co-Teaching initially began as a collaborative
between general education and special education in
response to PL 94-142 (IDEA) legislation.
(Cook & Friend, 1995; Vaughn, Schumm, & Arguelle, 1997; Austin, 2001; Boucka, 2007;
Hang & Rabren, 2008)
Carefully designed student teaching experiences,
specifically Co-Teaching, can effectively prepare
clinical interns while positively impacting student
achievement.
During Co-Teaching,
all teachers are actively involved and engaged
in all aspects of planning, instruction and assessment.

8. Evolution of Co-
Teaching
At ECU
Generation 1
Fall 2011
•ELEMENTARY
Generation 2
Fall 2012
•ELEMENTARY
•SPECIAL EDUCATION
Generation 3
Fall 2013
•BIRTH-
KINDERGARTEN
•ELEMENTARY
•ENGLISH EDUCATION
•FOREIGN LANGUAGE
•HISTORY EDUCATION
•MATH EDUCATION
•MIDDLE GRADES
•SPECIAL EDUCATION
Generation 4
Fall 2014
•BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
•DANCE
•ELEMENTARY
•ENGLISH EDUCATION
•HISTORY EDUCATION
•MATH EDUCATION
•MIDDLE GRADES
•SPECIAL EDUCATION

9. University/Public
School
Partnerships
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Classrooms 1 14 88 76
School Districts 1 2 5 8
Program Areas 1 2 8 9
Clinical Teachers 1 10 91 88
Interns 2 25 111 106
Faculty 6 8 30 20
University
Supervisors
1 6 31 41

10. Research
Questions
RQ1. What has been the impact of
Co- Teaching on public school
classrooms
RQ2. What has been the impact of
Co-
Teaching on the preparation of

11. Literature Review
P-12 Student Achievement
Several studies have shown that students in the classroom
benefit when a co-teaching arrangement is present.
• Kamens’s (2007) study reported that the co-teaching
positively impacted the students in the class because
students were able to receive individualized support.
• Teacher candidates also reported that they believed co-
teaching yielded better outcomes for their students
(Goodnough et al., 2009).
• Cumulative student achievement data gathered from 2003-
2007 at St. Cloud State University found statistically
significant gains in reading and math proficiency when
35,000 P-12 students were compared in Co-Taught and Not
Co-Taught student teaching settings (Bacharach, Heck,
Dahlberg, 2010).

12. Literature Review
Teacher Preparation
• One of the most promising aspects of co-teaching is that both teachers
plan and deliver lessons together based on student needs. As a result
of sharing ideas and strategies both partners benefit from the support
and collaboration. (Sileo, 2005).
A study completed by Kamens (2004) found that:
• Participants thought it was beneficial to have two cooperating teachers
in the class because of the increased support for lesson planning,
working with the children, and behavior management.
• Teacher candidates found it advantageous to have multiple people to
plan with because they were better able to plan for the diverse range of
abilities in the classroom.
• At the end of the year, teacher candidates felt more confident of their
teaching and more aware of their abilities.

13. Quantitative
Analysis of edTPA
scores
Co-Teaching
74 interns
Non Co-Teaching
237 interns
p value
edTPA Task 1
Planning
3.63 3.51 .18
edTPA Task 2
Instructions
3.61 3.48 .11
edTPA Task 3
Assessment
3.59 3.36 .01*
Ave score across
all 15 rubrics
3.61 3.45 .03*
*p<.05

14. Findings
Preliminary findings from analysis of interns’ edTPA
scores show positive trends for those participating in Co-
Teaching:
• 2012-2013 - Higher mean scores on 11 of the 15
edTPA rubrics than non-co-teaching interns
2013-2014 – All 15 rubrics higher means scores
except Rubric 8 where scores were the same
• Co-Teaching interns performed significantly higher in
“subject-specific pedagogy”, “using assessment to
inform instruction”, “analysis of student learning”, and
“student use of feedback”.
• Co-Teaching interns leave the internship more ready
to teach than their non Co-Teaching peers

15. Qualitative
Analysis
Surveys
Semi Structured Interviews
Program 1:1 Co-Teaching 2:1 Co-Teaching Non Co-Teaching
Elementary 3 classroom
(n=3 students)
9 classrooms
(n= 18 students)
152 classroom
(n= 143 students)
Special
Education
NA 2 classrooms
(n= 4 students)
44 classrooms
(n = 42 students
Total
Number of
Placements
3 classrooms
(n=3 students)
11 classrooms
(n=22 students)
196 classrooms
(n=185 students)

16. Findings
Analysis of survey and semi structured interview
data indicate that interns in Co-Teaching:
1) felt better able to differentiate than their Co-
Teaching peers
2) learned valuable lessons in collaboration and co-
planning
3) built strong relationships with peers and
cooperating teachers
4) positively impacted K-6 student learning

17. Thoughts from
Teacher
Candidates
"I think that this is a great model for teaching; it is very
empowering for the student teacher and creates a
great relationship and future mentor.”
"There is more creativity because you are able to talk
ideas through and make them great by having the two
perspectives."
"We both were leaders in our own respects and
at different times.”

18. Thoughts from
Clinical teachers
“The most positive thing about Co-
Teaching is the growth of my
students. The classroom is always
full of students learning…definitely
getting more teaching.””
“I really enjoyed Co-Teaching
because I felt free to put the interns
in any situation right from day one
they walked in the door and I put
them to work.”
“We don’t have the behavior
issues…the wait time is gone
because there’s three of us,
so questions can be
addressed immediately… and
we don’t have time where
they’re not getting what they
need right away.”

19. Implications
 It is hypothesized that in Co-Teaching, new
teachers will exhibit increased ability to
positively impact student achievement earlier
in their career.
 The Co-Teaching model can serve as an
exemplar for field experiences that benefit
practicing teachers and student teachers as
well as P-12 students.

20. Implications
 Practical and Process implications of Co-Teaching
o Alleviates real challenges of finding quality
placements
o Eases clinical teacher concerns about turning
over their classrooms to novices for prolonged
periods of time when their evaluations depend
on their students’ achievement
o Increases the amount of planning, teaching, and
assessing required of student teachers.

21. References
Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration. (2012). Mentoring teacher
candidates
through co-teaching [Train The Teacher Workshop]. St. Cloud State
University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Bacharach, N., Heck, T., Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the Face of Students
teaching Through Coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14.
Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative experience
for
preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(3), 155-
166.
Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009).
Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and
cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 285-296.
Sileo, J. M. (2005, August). Co-teaching: Best practices for education. In Inclusive
and
Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference

22. Co-Teaching in clinical experiences:
The impact upon the triad of teacher
candidates, cooperating teachers,
and P-12 students
Southeast Missouri State
University
Simin Cwick - Presenter
Brandy Hepler - Presenter
Julie Ray - Presenter

23. Co-Teaching in Clinical
Experiences:
The Impact upon the Triad of
Teacher Candidates, Cooperating
Teachers, and P-12 Students
AACTE Annual Meeting
Atlanta, GA Feb. 28, 2015
Julie Ray, Simin Cwick and Brandy Hepler
Southeast Missouri State University

24. SoutheastMissouri StateUniversity
Co-Teaching ResearchProject
• Spring 2012: University funded grant, “Co-
Teaching: Rethinking Clinical Experiences”
• Fall 2012: Research instruments piloted with 5
student teachers
• Spring 2013 - Spring 2014: Data gathered on co-
teaching in student teaching
• Fall 2014: All student teaching placements use
co-teaching model
• Teacher candidate/cooperating teacher
• Fall 2014: All pre-student teaching field
experiences use co-teaching model
• Teacher candidate / teacher candidate

25. Research Questions
1. Does the use of Co-Teaching in the student
teaching clinical experience have an impact
upon P – 12 student learning?
2. Does Co-Teaching have an impact upon
teacher candidates’ planning for instruction?
3. Does Co-teaching have an impact upon the
relationship between the cooperating
teacher and teacher candidate?

26. Data Collection
• Three semesters
• 30 teacher candidates / cooperating teachers
• Purposeful selection
• Nine Kdg – 5th grade classrooms
• Two Special Education placements
• K -4 and 9 – 12th
• One Elementary Art classroom
• Three 9 – 12th grade classrooms
• English and Art
• Six school buildings
• Four school districts

27. Data Collection
• Classroom Observations
• Co-teaching / Solo teaching
• Video Lessons
• Co-Teaching / Solo teaching
• Teacher Candidate Interviews
• Cooperating Teacher Interviews
• Bi-weekly Journal
• Work Log

28. Co-TeachingImpact upon P – 12 Student
Learning
• Lesson Observations
• Time Sampling Method
• Analysis of video lessons continuing
Co-Teaching
Students
Engaged
Solo Lesson
Students
Engaged
Co-Teaching
Students Off-
Task
Solo Teaching
Students Off-
Task
95.467% 88.867% 4.533% 11.133%

29. Co-TeachingImpact upon P – 12 Student
Learning
• Teacher Candidate Interviews and Journals
• More 1:1 attention and small groups – better met
students’ needs
• Able to help struggling students and provide challenge
for those who needed it
• Questions answered quicker, students had access to
two experts
• More engaging teaching strategies
• Fewer management issues
• Better connections with students, due to being able to
get to know them better

30. Co-TeachingImpact upon P – 12 Student
Learning
• Cooperating Teacher Interviews
• Students got more attention
• Was able to do more support and interventions as needed,
clear up misconceptions quickly
• Doubled time for reading and math groups
• Allowed for differentiation for both students who were
struggling and those who needed challenge
• Able to explain things in different ways
• Higher test scores than other grade level classes
• “Remarkable” growth in reading levels
• Improved students’ grades

31. Teacher Candidate Comments
Our students have benefited more than any other
class in the building due to having two involved
teachers with them. Our reading scores and DRA
assessments have improved tremendously just in the
few months we have been teaching together. In our
classroom we also have two children with special
needs. By having both teachers in the classroom, the
boys were able to stay in the room much more often
and get the attention and time devoted to them,
which they needed to allow them to benefit from the
lesson. I am so blessed that I have had the experience
to teach with a great teacher and also have her
observe me while I was teaching alone.
(1st Grade Teacher Candidate)

32. Cooperating Teacher Comments
At the beginning of the year, our ARI scores
were at 1.2, and by December were at 3.9 –
partly due to the small groups we could do.
(2nd Grade Teacher)
At Christmas, we test our kids to see if any
more qualify for Title. I had no kids qualify –
my first time in 8 years. To have time to reach
all these low readers was amazing.
(1st Grade Teacher)

33. Administrator’s Comments
When our students are given their quarterly summative
assessment, the students in this co-teaching room, scored the
second highest, out of 8 classrooms. (Please note that this room
is 30% IEP aka all the LD resource students)
During parent/teacher conferences the parents met with both
teachers. The parents of the “higher” students were excited that
their children were excelling! Our teachers report that this is
because they actually have more time to spend with them
during station, parallel and supplemental teaching times. Of
course the other parents were very excited that their students
were making higher gains as they had the benefit of learning
from both teachers and actually hearing the same material on
different levels in different ways.
(Elementary Principal)

34. Co-TeachingImpact upon Teacher
Candidates’Planning for Instruction
• Teacher Candidate Interviews and Journals
• Helpful to share ideas “excited” to bounce ideas off each
other
• Better lessons due to collaborative planning
• Confidence in planning
• Felt like part of a team
• Awkward and time consuming in the beginning, but more
comfortable and natural by end
• Sometimes wouldn’t know whose idea was whose
• Stronger collaboration skills
• Difficult to find time for planning, structured plan times
helped

35. Impact upon TeacherCandidates’
Planning for Instruction
• Cooperating Teacher Interviews
• Fun, good to have someone to discuss plans with, feed off
each other’s ideas
• Lessons went better when co-planned
• Conducive to reflection
• Difficult to find time to co-plan effectively, never enough
time
• Lot more preparation time than in traditional student
teaching model
• At first planned together, then Teacher Candidate took the
lead
• Struggle due to differing planning styles, got better by end
of semester

36. Work Log data
Time spent each week on planning and instruction
*Planning: Statistically significant difference
*Instruction: No statistically significant difference
Spring 2013 Fall 2013 Spring 2014
Solo Planning 4.41 hours 4.79 hours Insufficient
data
Co-Planning 2.07 hours 3.43 hours Insufficient
data
Solo Teaching 12.06 hours 10.34 hours Insufficient
data
Co-Teaching 12.38 hours 9.19 hours Insufficient
data

37. Co-teachingImpact upon Relationship
BetweenCooperatingTeacherand
TeacherCandidate
• Teacher Candidate Interviews and Journals
• Stronger guidance and mentoring than previous field exp.
• Lifelong friend, highlight of the experience
• Comfortable bouncing ideas off each other
• Pairs workshop very helpful in relationship building
• Finish each other’s sentences
• Respectful
• Not intimidated or uncomfortable with suggestions for
improvement
• Comfortable asking for resources, help, advice
• Wanted to please Cooperating Teacher

38. Co-teachingImpact upon Relationship
BetweenCooperatingTeacherand
TeacherCandidate
• Cooperating Teacher Interviews
• Good relationship, got along well
• Worked as a team
• Strengthened one another
• Respect built, Teacher Candidate open and willing for
ideas and critiques
• Friendship will continue, will miss working together
• Enjoyed the mentoring opportunity
• Enjoyed watching the Teacher Candidates’ growth
• Strained due to Teacher Candidates’ poor planning or
instructional skills, but improved by end of semester

39. Teacher Candidate Comments
In the past, I never felt as a real teacher. With this
experience, the entire faculty accepted me as a real
teacher. My input and opinions were valued during
staff meetings, along with collaboration. I have
learned many new strategies from my cooperating
teacher and the other staff members in the building.
I made lifelong friends and confidantes from this
experience .
(5th Grade Teacher)

40. 1st Year Teacher Comments
The main highlight of my co-teaching
experience was getting the opportunity to
work with a mentor on a regular basis. It was
a very cooperative process; she learned
different techniques from me as I did her. The
traditional student teaching experience tends
to make candidates feel overwhelmed and
that they are “treading water” to survive.
There was never a day in my experience
where I felt lost or unprepared.
(High School Math Teacher)

41. 1st Year Teacher’s Comments
When I started my first year, I felt more
prepared than most of the other new teachers
in my building. I was prepared because I
learned from the criticism, learned time-
management, classroom management and
most of all, I have the confidence from my
experience.
(3rd Grade Teacher)

42. Challenges and Responses:
Cooperating Teachers
• Resistance from cooperating teachers or administrators
• Packets of information to teachers and administrators
• Individual meetings and presentations at regional
administrator meetings
• Testimonials from other administrators and teachers
• Adequate training for all cooperating teachers
• Required “Last Steps” orientation and pairs workshop
• Cooperating teachers’ inability to give up control OR
wanting teacher candidates to do all planning/instruction
• University supervisors’ training and guidance

43. Challenges and Responses:
Teacher Candidates
• Weak teacher candidates
• Added co-teaching to pre-student teaching methods
courses and field experiences to improve instruction and
planning skills
• Too dependent upon cooperating teacher in planning
• Required “Last Steps” orientation and pairs workshop that
included information on co-planning expectations
• Added Co-Teaching/Planning to Student Teaching
Summative Evaluation Professional Disposition section
• Evaluated and coached teacher candidates six times per
semester by supervisor
• Perception of not being in control; cooperating teacher did not
relinquish control
• Increased supervisor training on co-teaching
• Supervisor mediation

44. Questions?
• Dr. Julie Ray jaray@semo.edu
Chair, Dept. of Elementary, Early, and Special Education
• Dr. Simin Cwick scwick@semo.edu
Chair, Dept. of Middle & Secondary Education
• Mrs. Brandy Hepler bhepler@semo.edu
Director, Office of Field & Clinical Experiences

45. Co-Teaching with pre-
service teachers and its
impact on classroom teacher
effectiveness and student
learning
Ball State University
Peg Lewis - Presenter

46. Special Education to Student Teaching back to Inclusion: Using
co-teaching strategies to maximize learning and instructional
practice
Co-teaching Comes
Full Circle
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
Annual Meeting
Atlanta, GA 2015

47. BSU PDS partnership with Muncie
Southside Middle School
Charity Coffman, Assistant Principal

48. • Three sessions developed around the theme
“Teaching and Learning in the Least Restrictive
Environment”
• Session 1: Clear the Air and set goals with 2 strategies
• Session 2: Debrief experience and add new strategies
• Session 3: Debrief experience and discuss future plans
• Teachers paid a stipend to attend
• Attendance not mandatory
• Encouraged to attend with teaching partner(s)
Professional Development

49. • Lessons based on grade level standards
• Better student-teacher ratio
• More classroom management (better behavior)
• Learning opportunities for teachers
• Spec Ed teachers more patient than content teachers
• Differentiation possible
• Small group instruction easier
• Meeting different learning styles
• Find and use alternative assessment strategies
• Bounce ideas off of each other and try new ways to teach a
lesson
What are the benefits/strengths of
co-teaching in the gen ed
classroom?

50. • Spec ed teacher isn’t used to holding the students to grade
level standards and materials
• Miscommunication between teachers
• Content knowledge level of teachers
• Entire lesson must be slower
• Large class sizes
• More teachers=more students
• No common planning time
• Undefined roles
• Students understanding both teachers are in-charge
• Managing behavior similarly
• Both teachers knowledgeable about learning plans (IEP,etc)
• Reliability of spec ed teacher being there
• Accountability issues for general education teacher (SLO)
What are the struggles/obstacles
of co-teaching in the gen-ed
classroom?

51. • Consider the following as priority in any
discussion/planning:
• Students
• Teacher engagement
• Communication
• Space
• Tools
• Parallel teaching
• Alternative teaching
Made a commitment to at
least try:

52. • Less whole group instruction with everyone doing the same thing at the same
time
• Students moved fluidly in groups
• Teachers could play good cop/bad cop
• Students wanted to behave to have the chance to work in a different location—
independent of who was teaching
• More acceptance of the special ed teacher
• Students related to multiple representations
• More engaged
• Fewer discipline issues
Debrief after 2 weeks

53. • Station teaching
• Pre-teaching (one teach-one assist)
• Content terminology
• Prepping to think or work through questions
• Pre-write
• Debrief findings:
• Even more success with behavior and engagement
• Finding more time to plan
• Partner combinations make a difference
More strategies and new
tries

54. Perspective on results

55. • Working with a second district
• Collecting data on students and teachers
Peggy Lewis
Director, Clinical Practice Network
Ball State University
plewis2@bsu.edu
Next steps: