


































Microsoft Word - 07-JM.docx


Vol. 1, No. 1, August 2012, pp. 49-61   
 
 
 
 
Voices from the Field: Multiple Perspectives on a Co-Teaching in  
Student Teaching Model  
 
Nancy Bacharach and Teresa Washut Heck 
Saint Cloud State University, Saint Cloud, Minnesota 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract 

The goal of this project is to reform teacher preparation through the implementation of a 

research-based model of co-teaching in student teaching at teacher preparation 

institutions across the country. Four years of research conducted on a co-teaching model 

of student teaching has demonstrated a statistically significant increase in academic 

performance for elementary learners in co-taught classrooms. Co-teaching is designed to 

assist both the cooperating teacher and teacher candidate in collaboratively planning, 

organizing, delivering, assessing, and sharing the physical space of the classroom, 

allowing the classroom teacher to partner with the teacher candidate rather than give 

away responsibility. The Renaissance Group (TRG), a national consortium of teacher 

preparation institutions, proposed to take the co-teaching model initially developed at 

Saint Cloud State University and provide the training and support necessary for teacher 

preparation institutions across the nation to successfully expand it. The 14 institutions 

involved in this proposal collectively produce over 2,500 teachers each year and work 

with over 600 school partners. One hundred percent of these institutions work with high 

needs schools and all of them place students in classrooms where Adequate Yearly 

Practice (AYP) has not been met. During the 2011-12 academic year, TRG applied to the 

US Department of Education for a thirteen plus million dollar grant on behalf of its 

member universities to expand the co-teaching model. Although the proposal was not 

funded, the co-teaching model has become a high priority and practice in educator 

preparation institutions across the country. 



     N. Bacharach, T. Washut-Heck 50 

Voices from the Field: Multiple Perspectives on a Co-Teaching in 
Student Teaching Model 

 
While many aspects of teacher preparation have been studied over the years, student 

teaching itself has experienced little change since the 1920’s (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). 
Student teaching is generally considered to be the capstone experience in the journey to 
becoming a “real teacher,” the time when methods and theories are transferred and applied in 
actual classroom situations. Traditionally, student teachers begin their experience as a passive 
observer, eventually taking on the role of the cooperating teacher and finally left alone to take 
over the entire classroom. This model of learning to teach in isolation, however, is no longer best 
practice for preparing new teachers.  

Linda Darling-Hammond (2006) asserted that the clinical side of teacher education has 
traditionally been somewhat haphazard and frequently disconnected from theoretical teachings. 
She advocated for the development of stronger models of teacher preparation and urged schools 
of education to design programs that would help prospective teachers “understand deeply a wide 
array of things about learning, social and cultural contexts, and teaching” (p. 3). Such an 
approach would move teacher preparation away from clinical experiences, where prospective 
teachers practice the art of teaching with little guidance, toward clinical experiences that allow 
candidates to “learn from expert modeling of practice” (p. 8) alongside teachers who can show 
them how to teach in ways that are responsive to learners who have a wide range of learning 
needs. A key report by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010) 
critically studied the role of clinical preparation and agreed with Darling-Hammond’s assertions. 
The Blue Ribbon panel examined the status of clinical preparation nationwide and found it to be 
“poorly defined and inadequately supported” (p. 4). They reported that clinical experiences were 
the most highly valued element of preparation for teachers, and in many programs, the most ad 
hoc part of teacher education.  

Field experience directors across the country experience increasing difficulty in securing 
high quality student teaching placements, with cooperating teachers wary of exiting the 
classroom especially during the term in which state-mandated No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 
tests are given (Ellis & Bogle, 2008). The number of placement requests coming from teacher 
education programs are not always matched by the number of receptive school sites or willing 
cooperating teachers (Goodlad, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 2001; Sinclair, Dawson, & Thistleton-
Martin, 2006; Zeichner, 2002). Often, the institution's immense need for cooperating teachers is 
so overwhelming that they fall back on cooperating teachers who are willing to host teacher 
candidates, but do not model effective teaching practices for them. As a result, during the most 
impressionable time in the preparation program, future teachers often work with cooperating 
teachers who are ill-prepared for their role (Grimmett & Ratzlaff, 1986; Lewis, 1990), have 
unrealistic expectations (Sparks & Brodeur, 1987), and are tentative about the feedback they give 
(Morehead & Waters, 1987).  

 
St. Cloud State University’s Co-Teaching Model 
 

In an effort to strengthen the teacher preparation program, overcome the challenges of 
placing teacher candidates, and maximize the human resources in the classroom, St. Cloud State 
University adapted the work of special educators Cook & Friend (1995), applying the concepts 
and strategies of co-teaching to the student teaching experience. While co-teaching is not a new 



       Voices from the Field: Multiple Perspectives     51 

phenomenon, its application in the student teaching experience is a new area of study. Co-
teaching in student teaching provides two professionally prepared adults in the classroom, 
actively engaged with students for greater periods of time than does the traditional model of 
student teaching. This co-teaching model of student teaching allows children increased 
opportunities to get help when and how they need it.  It affords teachers an opportunity to 
incorporate co-teaching strategies, grouping and teaching students in ways that are not possible 
with just one teacher. 

Through a Teacher Quality Enhancement grant from the U.S. Department of Education, 
St. Cloud State University (SCSU) in Minnesota has studied the impact of shifting from a 
traditional to a co-teaching model of student teaching. Both quantitative and qualitative data 
were collected on the impact of a co-teaching model of student teaching on teacher candidates, 
cooperating teachers and the students in the classroom.  SCSU’s co-teaching model of student 
teaching has been recognized as a promising practice by the NCATE Blue Ribbon panel on 
clinical practice (2010). In addition, this innovative initiative received the 2008 American 
Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) Best Practice Award for Research in 
Teacher Education, and the 2007 American Association of State Colleges and Universities 
(AASCU) Christa McAuliffe Award for Excellence in Teacher Preparation. 

The quantitative results gathered on this co-teaching model have been previously 
reported (Bacharach, Heck & Dahlberg, 2010). However, a brief summary of the quantitative 
results follow. The focus of this paper will be to share the qualitative data collected on the SCSU 
Co-Teaching model. 

 
Quantitative Results 
 

Data collected on the co-teaching model of student teaching focused on academic 
performance for elementary students in reading and mathematics as the result of being in a co-
taught environment. The original research study on co-teaching utilized two independent 
measures of student academic performance over a four year period. The two measures employed 
were the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) and the Research Edition of the 
Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery, (WJIII-RE). The MCA is a standardized test 
administered every year in the state of Minnesota to measure students’ performance toward 
meeting state standards. The MCA complies with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 
2001, and is aligned with what students are expected to know and do in a particular grade. This 
test is used to determine levels of proficiency and the degree to which the student is on track to 
pass the required Minnesota Basic Skills Tests in later grades. The study also employed WJIII-
RE tests of academic achievement (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). The WJIII-RE is individually 
administered, has been normed for all grade levels, and can be used as a pre- and post-
intervention measure. Pretesting occurred in September and post testing occurred in May, using 
the same test.  

Results from the MCA and the WJIII-RE were analyzed separately and yielded very 
similar results regarding the effect of co-teaching on achievement. In each of the four years 
studied, the MCA indicated a statistically significant increase in academic performance in 
reading and math proficiency for students in a co-taught classroom as compared to students in a 
non co-taught classroom. The WJIII-RE showed a statistically significant gain in all four years in 
reading and in two of the four years in math.  



     N. Bacharach, T. Washut-Heck 52 

While the results comparing the achievement of students in co-taught classrooms to the 
achievement of students in non co-taught classrooms is convincing, possibly the most 
compelling data lies in the comparison between the academic achievement of students in three 
different types of classrooms. Using the MCA data, students in a classroom that utilized the co-
teaching model of student teaching statistically outperformed their peers in classrooms that were 
taught by either a single teacher or a cooperating teacher and teacher candidate using a 
traditional model of student teaching in both reading and math.  

 
Qualitative Results 

 
While these quantitative results are notable, it was important to gather qualitative data on 

the impact of co-teaching on stakeholders involved in the co-teaching model of student teaching, 
including teacher candidates, cooperating teachers and the students in the classrooms. 

 
Teacher Candidates 

As is typical in most universities, teacher candidates at St. Cloud State University are 
observed multiple times during their student teaching experience by both their university 
supervisor and their cooperating teacher. At the end of the student teaching experience, the 
university supervisor completes a summative assessment based on the observed performance of 
the teacher candidate. This summative assessment is based on the ten Interstate New Teacher and 
Assessment Support Consortium (INTASC) standards for new teachers, plus one standard 
measuring professional dispositions—and was scored on a four-point Likert-type scale. 
Cumulative data showed that candidates in co-taught settings had equal or higher average ratings 
on each of the ten INTASC standards (Table 1). Co-teaching candidates outscored their peers at 
a level that nears statistical significance in two areas that are hallmarks of co-teaching, reflection 
and professional development, and partnerships. There were no statistically significant 
differences in the remaining standards which 

 
  



       Voices from the Field: Multiple Perspectives     53 

Table 1  

Teacher Candidate Summative Assessment (2005-2008) 

Standard Co-Teaching Mean 

Score  N=408 

Not Co-Teaching 

Mean Score N=728 

p 

Subject Matter  3.37 3.36 .55 

Student Learning  3.32 3.28 .39 

Diverse Learners  3.09 3.09 .95 

Instructional Strategies  3.31 3.29 .68 

Learning Environment  3.28 3.28 .94 

Communication  3.32 3.32 .98 

Planning Instruction  3.35 3.34 .98 

Assessment  3.06 3.06 .82 

Professional Develop.  3.47 3.40 .08 

Partnerships  3.40 3.33 .08 

Prof. Dispositions*  3.61 3.51 .01 

 

 
is not surprising since these categories focus on knowledge attained in coursework prior to 
student teaching and all candidates, whether they co-taught or not, completed the same 
coursework. Professional dispositions is the one area where teacher candidates involved in co-
taught classrooms statistically out-performed their peers in non-caught classrooms. Professional 
dispositions include such things as enthusiasm, reliability, responsibility, initiative, and 
sensitivity and responsiveness to the needs of students and staff.  

Candidates completing a co-teaching student teaching experience were asked to complete 
an end-of-experience survey and were invited to participate in a focus group. End-of-experience 
surveys were completed by 249 teacher candidates and 195 teacher candidates participated in 
focus groups. 

On the end of experience survey, teacher candidates reported many benefits from their 
participation in co-teaching (Table 2), including increased classroom management skills, 
heightened collaboration, and deeper understanding of the curriculum. 

 
  



     N. Bacharach, T. Washut-Heck 54 

Table 2  

Benefits of Co-Teaching to Teacher Candidates (N=249) 

Teacher Candidates Indicated that Co-Teaching led to: 

Improved classroom management skills 92.4% 

Increased collaboration skills 92.0% 

More teaching time 90.0% 

Deeper understanding of the curriculum through co-planning 89.2% 

More opportunities to ask questions and reflect 88.6% 

Increased confidence 88.4% 

 

Teacher candidates participating in focus groups were asked to discuss the pros and cons 
of the co-teaching model of student teaching. Overwhelmingly, candidates discussed how 
important it was that students saw them as a “real teacher.” Candidates co-teaching were 
introduced as a “teacher candidate” or “co-teacher” and were expected to be actively engaged 
with students from the very first day. As one teacher candidate said, “Being active in the lessons 
right away (through co-teaching) is better than observing. You feel more comfortable.” Another 
candidate reported, “The strong bond you have with your co-teacher is just amazing. You truly 
do feel that you are a second teacher in the room, not a student teacher.” 

Teacher candidates consistently cited a number of key elements that led them to feel like 
a real teacher. These elements have been organized into three main themes: sharing resources, 
mutual support and learning, and equal partnership. 
 
Sharing and managing resources including human resources 

Many candidates noted that through the co-planning process they became much more 
aware of the resources available to them and much more confident about using and managing 
them. They also discussed how they were mentored to become the instructional leader where 
they were responsible for directing other adults in the classroom, including the cooperating 
teacher and paraprofessionals. One teacher candidate said: 
 

Looking back on it, I’m so glad that I did co-teaching because now I have more 
skills when it comes to working with people. When I go out there and I have 
paraprofessionals in my room or maybe on my own team, we’ll have four teachers that 
need to work together. I know that I can handle that now. I don’t think I could have done 
that nearly as comfortably before co-teaching. 
Another candidate added: 

I like that my cooperating teacher helped me along with planning. At the 
beginning we sat down and planned together, but now that it’s coming towards the end, 
I’m in charge and I’m telling her what I want to do. It’s really great with my teacher 
because she gives me so much freedom. She’s says, ‘This is your time. Tell me what you 
want me to do. You be in charge and let me be your assistant.’ I really like that. 



       Voices from the Field: Multiple Perspectives     55 

Mutual support and learning  
When co-teaching, both the teacher candidate and cooperating teacher share ideas and 

strategies. As a result, both partners benefit from the support and collaboration developed 
through the experience. As one cooperating teacher noted:  
 

A highlight of this co-teaching experience for me was watching how my teacher 
candidate started implementing some of my techniques in her teaching style and then 
realizing how I was implementing some of her techniques into my strategies. We really 
grew together! 

 
Equal partnership 

Candidates felt they shared leadership, ownership, and responsibility for teaching and 
classroom management. Co-teaching pairs are provided with specific strategies and activities 
enabling them to openly discuss the power differential that exists between a cooperating teacher 
and teacher candidate. The goal in co-teaching is for both teachers to be involved in all aspects of 
the classroom, with no consistent “leader” or “assistant.” One candidate described it this way, 
“My teacher includes me in everything. She always finds a way to incorporate my name so kids 
know it’s both of us.” 
 
Public School Students 

Since academic achievement data was not available for grades 7–12, students in co-
taught classrooms were surveyed to gather insight about their experiences with teacher 
candidates. The survey was administered over four years to 1,686 students. The survey listed the 
most frequent benefits and drawbacks of co-teaching based on a review of co-teaching literature. 
Students were asked whether in their current co-teaching experience a benefit happened more, 
the same, or less than in their previous student teacher experiences. Likewise, possible 
drawbacks were listed, and students were asked to identify whether they had experienced these 
individual drawbacks in their current co-teaching experience.  

Most students stated that they received more help with questions in co-teaching 
classrooms than they did in settings that did not include co-teaching (Table 3). Students in co-
teaching classrooms also reported they enjoyed the different styles of teaching and appreciated 
more individual attention. Only 4% of the almost 1,700 students surveyed found no benefits to 
being in a classroom where the teacher candidate and cooperating teacher were co-teaching. 
 
Table 3  

Benefits of Co-Teaching (2004-2008 n=1,686) 

Benefits of Co-Teaching Percent 

Responding 

More help with questions 79.7 

Different styles of teaching 68.9 

More individual attention 66.4 



     N. Bacharach, T. Washut-Heck 56 

Get two perspectives 65.8 

Teachers build off each other 60.3 

More creative lessons 51.2 

Assignments graded and returned faster 50.9 

More energy between teachers 46.1 

Better discussions 45.0 

More in-depth knowledge 43.1 

No benefits 4.0 

 

 
Although very few drawbacks were identified by secondary students (Table 4), some found two 
explanations confusing while others were unsure about which teacher they should go to for 
answers to questions or for help with issues.  
 
Table 4  

Drawbacks to Co-Teaching (2004-2008 n=1,686) 

Drawbacks to Co-Teaching Percent 

Responding 

No drawbacks to Co-Teaching 47.6 

Confusing with two explanations 18.8 

Confusing who to go to 13.5 

Grading issues 13.0 

Contradicting information 11.6 

Teachers interrupt each other 8.8 

Candidate too dependent 8.3 

Less material covered 7.1 

  
 

Survey participants also cited differences between their co-teaching experience and previous 
student teaching experiences (Table 5). Secondary students, most of whom had experienced a 
teacher candidate in a traditional student teaching setting, noticed clear differences between 
traditional student teaching and co-teaching. Almost 80% of secondary students surveyed 
indicated that co-teaching should be used more often in student teaching. 



       Voices from the Field: Multiple Perspectives     57 

Table 5 

Differences between Co-Teaching and Traditional Student  

Teaching (2004-2008, n=1,686) 

Differences in Student Teaching Experiences Percent 

Responding 

Cooperating teacher and teacher candidate worked more as a team 62.1 

Teacher candidate was more involved with the lessons 59.1 

Teacher candidate was more ready to teach 56.1 

Teacher candidate was more prepared for class 50.8 

Teacher candidate brought in more new ideas and methods 50.5 

Cooperating teacher was more involved with the class 42.3 

 

 
Over 540 students in grades 1-12 were interviewed in focus groups over the course of the four-
year project. Students overwhelmingly identified increased engagement and available help when 
they needed it as the biggest benefits to co-teaching. They described the benefits of co-teaching 
in the following terms: 
 

• Increased opportunities to work in small groups 
• More individual attention 
• Questions answered faster 
• Papers and grades returned more quickly 
• Better behavior by fellow students 
• Fewer classroom disruptions 

 
Students noted they spent less time waiting in class and more materials were covered when co-
teaching was used. In addition to getting help when they needed it, students in all focus groups 
appreciated the two different styles of teaching, and they enjoyed being able to do a variety of 
activities that were not possible with just one teacher. Furthermore, students indicated that they 
felt more connected to school and looked forward to going each day.  
 
Cooperating Teachers 

Cooperating teachers who participated in the co-teaching model of student teaching were 
invited to complete an end-of-experience online survey. The 279 cooperating teachers 
completing the survey reported experiencing a variety of benefits as the result of participating in 
co-teaching (Table 6). Cooperating Teachers indicate that co-teaching led to the ability to reach 
more students, particularly those with high needs. One teacher noted, “The students in my 



     N. Bacharach, T. Washut-Heck 58 

classroom love the attention they are given by an additional teacher. The opportunities to extend, 
review, repeat, and individualize lessons to meet student needs is extremely valuable.” 

 
Table 6  

Benefits of Co-Teaching to Cooperating Teachers (N=279)  

Cooperating Teachers Indicated that Co-Teaching led to: 

More help for students with high needs 94.5% 

A better relationship with their teacher candidate 92.3% 

Professional growth through co-planning 90.5% 

Enhanced energy for teaching 89.0% 

Ability to host candidate without giving up classroom 87.1% 

 

 
Cooperating teachers felt they had a better relationship with their teacher candidate than 

they did with candidates they hosted who did not co-teach. Another benefit reported by 
cooperating teachers was the emphasis on continued professional growth. One teacher noted, “I 
liked it because most curriculum we’ve had a long time. She’d see it with a fresh look and make 
suggestions. It was nice to hear new ideas.”   

Cooperating teachers overall agreed that the co-teaching experience provided richer 
learning opportunities for candidates. One teacher said: 

 
Teacher candidates get a better experience of what teaching is truly about. They 

end up spending more time working with students either one on one, in small groups, or 
as a whole classroom. Their experience is closer to a true classroom.” 

 
Yet another cooperating teacher stated: 
 

 I believe my teacher candidate received far more teaching experience in 
planning, instruction, and management from the very beginning—becoming engaged in 
the teaching of lessons right away (as compared to candidates who have gone through a 
traditional student teaching experience with me.) 

 
In addition to the end-of-experience survey, 107 cooperating teachers participated in 

focus groups. Cooperating teachers who co-taught agreed that they completed projects more 
successfully, found class time to be more productive, modeled and participated in effective 
teamwork, and believed their teacher candidates became competent more quickly. One 
cooperating teacher summed it up by saying:  

 
Watching my teacher candidate grow in all aspects of the teaching job was 

rewarding. Teaching is no longer a solo job so learning how to delegate and use her 
resources is so essential! The co-teaching model gives candidates an opportunity to grow 
in all aspects of the job.  



       Voices from the Field: Multiple Perspectives     59 

 
Partnerships 

Universities and their school partners have noted a number of benefits as they shifted to 
the co-teaching model. School districts partners reported feeling more valued and indicated they 
had a closer connection to the teacher preparation process. As one cooperating teacher stated, “I 
learned so much about how to help a student teacher myself. This has never been addressed 
before. Somehow we were just supposed to know what we were doing. It was very helpful, 
supportive, and enjoyable.”  

District administrators also supported the implementation of the co-teaching model. One 
middle school principal said “The results are proven as far as I’m concerned we have better 
student teachers, we have better cooperating teachers, so it’s the best of both worlds for me.” 

The impact of co-teaching at the university has been significant. The largest impact has 
simply been on the ability to make placements.  Prior to the implementation of co-teaching, little 
was done to prepare cooperating teachers to host a candidate; there was no formal preparation, 
and the information about the program was expected to be delivered by university supervisors. 
With the advent of cooperating teacher workshops, the number of teachers interested in and 
willing to host a candidate rose dramatically. According to the coordinator of student placements 
at SCSU “The use of a co-teaching model of student teaching has made placing student teachers 
SO much easier!” In fact, in some areas, we now have more cooperating teachers willing to host 
than there are available candidates.  

 
Conclusions 

 
Teacher preparation programs face continued scrutiny, and to address these concerns it is 

imperative that teacher educators examine all aspects of their current preparation programs. The 
student teaching experience serves as a critical component in teacher preparation and must 
undergo careful review. The SCSU co-teaching model provides a proven alternative to the 
traditional student teaching experience. This model not only strengthens university/school 
partnerships but also has the ability to provide benefits for all stakeholders. Teacher candidates 
who co-teach with their cooperating teachers do so in an environment where they are guided and 
mentored as they learn the art of teaching. Cooperating teachers experience professional growth 
and find it easier to meet the needs of the students in their classrooms. Students receive more 
individual attention and get their questions answered faster. 

The qualitative data reported in this paper coupled with the quantitative data reported 
early (Bacharach, Heck & Dahlberg, 2010) provides a persuasive argument for colleges and 
universities to adopt a co-teaching model of student teaching. Teacher preparation institutions 
adopting a co-teaching model of student teaching can strengthen their partnerships and better 
prepare teachers for tomorrow’s classrooms. In the words of one Assistant Superintendent:  
… the compelling evidence is clear. Traditional student teaching is not conducive to maximizing 
educational benefits for our students. Co-teaching, however, has transformed the student teacher 
and teacher relationship. Instead of throwing a student teacher into the complexities of teaching, 
without a lifeline, student teachers are coached as they practice the art of teaching. Teaching is 
rocket science, and co-teaching is the power source! 
  



     N. Bacharach, T. Washut-Heck 60 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Intentionally blank 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  



       Voices from the Field: Multiple Perspectives     61 

 
References 

Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through 

co-teaching. Action in Teacher Education. 32(1), 3-14. 

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus 

on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-17. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher 

Education, 57(10), 1-15. 

Ellis, J, & Bogle, D. (2008, November). Placement: An unforeseen casualty of No Child Left 

Behind. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Regional Association 

of Teacher Educators, Myrtle Beach, SC. 

Goodlad, (1994). The national network for educational renewal. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 632-

639.  

Grimmett, P., & Ratzlaff, H., (1986). Expectations for the cooperating teacher role. Journal of 

Teacher Education, 37(6), p 41-50. 

Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. Houston 

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514-534). New York, NY: 

Macmillan Publishing. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teacher in diverse 

classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Lewis, M. (1990). AACTE RATE study finds enrollment increase. AACTE Briefs, 11(3), 1, 6. 

McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical manual: Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, 

IL: Riverside. 



     N. Bacharach, T. Washut-Heck 62 

Morehead, M., & Waters, S. (1987). Enhancing collegiality: A model for training cooperating 

teachers. The Teacher Educator, 23(2), 28–31. 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, (2010). Transforming teacher 

education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. 

Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved 

Student Learning. Washington, D.C., NCATE. 

Sinclair, C., Dawson, M., & Thistleton-Martin, J. (2006). Motivations and profiles of 

cooperating teachers: Who volunteers and why? Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 

263-279. 

Sparks, S., & Brodeur, D. (1987). Orientation and compensation for cooperating teachers. 

Teacher Educator, 23(1), 2–12. 

Zeichner, K. (2002). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching. Teacher 

EducationQuarterly, 29(2), 64. 

 

 

 
 

 


