


































Microsoft Word - 1-Kennesaw FINAL (2).docx


Vol. 1, No. 2, January 2013, pp. 83-96   

 

 
 
 
 
Kennesaw State University – Collaborative Clinical Practice 

Jennifer Heckert, Toni Strieker and Maria Shaheen 
Kennesaw State University 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

I've had many student teachers before, and I always felt like a host in my own classroom. With 

this model, I feel that I've become part of the teacher educator team. There are so many 

teachable moments... for the children, my student teacher and myself. ~ Third Grade 

Collaborating Co-Teacher 

  



84         J. Heckert, T. Strieker and M. Shaheen 
 
 

 

Introduction 
 

As teacher educators in the United States, our capacity to prepare competent P-12 
educators who are ready to meet the challenges of 21st century schooling has been called into 
question (Darling-Hammond, 2006).  Low student achievement and high teacher attrition rates 
have resulted in a national call to prepare prospective and practicing teachers with the 
knowledge, skills, and dispositions to collaborate with colleagues and to provide an equitable 
and quality education for all students, particularly those from diverse backgrounds (Darling-
Hammond, 2010).  For example, the NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and 
Partnerships for Improved Student Learning (2010) recommends the transformation of clinical 
practice in order to better prepare prospective and practicing teacher with programs that create 
opportunities: (a) for partnerships with schools to advance shared responsibility for teacher 
preparation; (b) for prospective teachers to learn by doing; (c) for transforming curriculum, 
pedagogy, structure and delivery; and (d) to ensure prospective teachers will know how to 
collaborate with colleagues.  

In response to this call as well as on-going challenges from the field, the teacher 
education faculty from Kennesaw State University (KSU) created formal partnerships with local 
school districts and designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated a collaborative model of 
practice that occurs throughout a yearlong clinical experience.  Inherent in this model are two 
key partnerships that simultaneously support novice and practicing teacher development 
including pre-service co-teaching (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Badiali & Titus, 2010) 
and classroom coaching (Knight, 2007).    

  
Context 
 

Kennesaw State University (KSU) is located in metropolitan Atlanta and enrolls 
approximately 25,000 students.  KSU is home to the Bagwell College of Education (BCOE), the 
largest preparer of P-12 teachers in the University of Georgia System.  KSU’s Collaborative 
Model of Clinical Practice (CCP) was initiated under the auspices of a Teacher Quality 
Partnership (TQP) grant funded by the United States Department of Education (USDOE).  In 
2009, the BCOE began collaborating with a large local school district to develop seven 
professional development schools (PDS) in an urban feeder path of five elementary schools, one 
middle school, and one high school.  The overarching goal of this partnership was to improve P-
16 student achievement in high needs schools by transforming teacher preparation.  In many 
ways, KSU’s reformed teacher preparation program has been “turned upside-down” and reflects 
the recommendations of NCATE’s Blue Ribbon Panel.  For example, through a shared 
partnership, the university and school district faculty designed the highly rigorous pre-
baccalaureate curriculum that prepares P-12 students to effectively educate students who attend 
high needs schools.  The Pre-baccalaureate Urban Education (UE) Teacher Preparation Option 
is co-administered, and co-taught by school and KSU faculty at the seven PDS sites.  Given the 
site-based nature of this program, teacher candidates are offered continuous field experiences 
throughout their junior year.  During their senior year, teacher candidates enroll in a yearlong 
clinical experience designed to enhance the learning of novice and practicing teachers as well as 
their classroom students through pre-service co-teaching (PSCT). 

 
 



Collaborative Clinical Practice      85 
 

 

Purpose 
 

The purpose of this paper is to describe the CCP Model and its components: (a) 
professional development, (b) PSCT, (c) classroom coaching, and (d) inquiry.  Further, brief 
results from a pilot study that utilized focus groups to inform the CCP Model are presented. 

 
Collaborative Clinical Practice 

 
 The CCP Model was founded in the previous work of faculty committed to creating a 
more clinically engaged teacher preparation program through formal yearlong partnerships with 
local school districts (Gray, Stockdale, & Monti, in press) and co-teaching (Strieker, Zong, 
Gillis, Wright, & Stockdale, 2012).  This initiative to enhance candidates’ knowledge and 
implementation of co-teaching practices has evolved significantly over the past year. 
 
Innovative Professional Development 
 

During the fall of 2011, university and district faculty collaborated to create a research-
based professional development series to prepare three levels of practitioners (i.e., novice 
teachers [NT], collaborating teachers [CT], and classroom coaches [CC]) to support the 
successful implementation of PSCT during spring 2012 (Strieker & Lozo, 2011).  The 
professional development series was offered throughout the yearlong internship by means of 
seminars, site-based follow-up sessions, and job-embedded professional development provided 
by classroom coaches.  

The initial professional development session emphasized broad principles and values 
related to diversity, inclusive classrooms, and the need for intentional relationship building 
between the co-teachers (NT and CT) as well as with diverse classroom students and their 
families.  The session addressed the expectations for co-teaching throughout the clinical 
experience and introduced collaborative practices (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008) as well as 
the six co-teaching models that would be utilized (Cook, 2005).  The interactive seminar also 
provided the co-teachers with opportunities to discuss their teaching philosophies, establish 
ground rules for their co-taught classroom, and practice co-planning a co-taught lesson.  The 
three subsequent follow-up sessions were held at the school sites ,and content focused on 
effective ways in which co-teaching strategies would facilitate increased positive classroom 
management, differentiated instruction, and formative assessment.  Participants were given 
multiple opportunities to revisit the broad principles and apply their knowledge and skills to 
solve real problems of practice.  This model carefully guided and supported the novice teachers’ 
shift in autonomy from systematic observer to team teacher to teacher.  Upon completion, the co-
teachers received a TQP Certificate on Collaboration and Co-teaching.  

 
Pre-Service Co-Teaching 
 

KSU researchers made critical assumptions regarding PSCT. 
• An actively engaged CT models best practice, scaffolds instruction, and collaborates 

to facilitate positive student outcomes; 
• PSCT serves as a vehicle for developing novice teacher’s knowledge and skills to 

teach all students through collaborative practices, positive classroom management, 



86         J. Heckert, T. Strieker and M. Shaheen 
 
 

 

formative assessments, and differentiated instruction. 
 

The CCP Model (see Figure 1) embraced the following definition to facilitate the initial 
vision of PSCT: “Two teachers (a cooperating teacher and a teacher candidate) working together 
with groups of students; sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of 
instruction, as well as the physical space” (Heck, Bacharach, Mann, & Ofstedal, 2005).  Whereas 
the content of the professional development described above drew heavily from literature 
describing co-teaching between two certified teachers (Cook & Friend, 1995; Murawski, 2009), 
it was adjusted to meet the needs of CTs and NTs. After completing the professional 
development series, 70 pairs of CTs and NTs engaged in PSCT.  These pairs committed to 
implementing PSCT strategies in their classrooms during the semester as appropriate to meet 
their classroom students’ needs.  Participants were encouraged to utilize the varied PSCT models 
and strategies to co-plan and co-teach daily. 

 

 
Figure 1. Collaborative Clinical Practice Model (Strieker, Heckert, & Blaver, 2012) 
 
Classroom Coaching 
 

Our concept of classroom coaching as well as the content of the professional 
development series for the CC drew heavily from the literature on executive coaching 
(Goldsmith, Lyons, & Freas, 2000), cognitive coaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002), and 
instructional coaching (Knight, 2007).  For CCP purposes, classroom coaching is described as 
professional development provided by trained CCs.  Classroom coaching was designed as 
another layer of support for the NT in their journey in becoming an effective teacher; however, 
CTs also benefit from this collaborative and reflective opportunity.  During the spring, 13 CCs 
(comprised of KSU and district faculty) completed 4–5 classroom observations of a pair where 
they collected non-evaluative data focused on implementation of PSCT practices, such as the 



Collaborative Clinical Practice      87 
 

 

PSCT models, classroom management, differentiation strategies and formats, assessment, and 
student and teacher engagement.  

Following each observation, CCs engaged in debriefing sessions with participants 
focused on collaborative dialogue and reflection, analysis of teaching and learning, and personal 
goal setting.  As the classroom coaches collaborated with participants, they engaged in a form of 
reflective analysis of the presenting problem or current situation.  Specifically, during the 
reflective analysis, the coach guided the conversations by asking critical questions, rather than 
offering solutions or making recommendations (Bearwald, 2011).  As the co-teachers reflected 
upon their teaching and student outcomes, they theorized the lesson with their coach, seeking to 
understand the theory-to-practice (or practice-to-theory) implications as they co-generated ideas 
for improving teaching and learning (Roth, Tobin, Camambo, & Dalland, 2004).  

 
Inquiry: Focus Group Study 

 
 The purpose of this pilot study was to explore novice and collaborating teachers’ 
perceptions of the benefits and challenges/barriers to CCP, with an emphasis on PSCT.  It was 
the researchers’ intention to utilize the outcome data to further inform the CCP Model.  Please 
note that focus groups are only one of the multiple methods being utilized to facilitate the 
ongoing development of the CCP Model. 
 
Method 
 

Participants.  Participants were elementary, middle, and high school novice and 
collaborating teachers.  Participants were asked to voluntarily participate in the focus group 
interviews upon completion of PSCT during the novice teacher’s final semester of clinical 
practice.  Consequently, of the 70 PSCT pairs (CT and novice), 19 collaborating teachers 
participated (N = 19; elementary school [ES] n = 10, middle school [MS] n = 2, high school [HS] 
n = 7), whereas 22 novice teachers agreed to participate (N = 22; ES n = 9, MS n = 4, HS n = 9) 
in the focus group interviews. 

 
Focus group interviews.  Procedures and processes for the focus groups were created to 

facilitate accurate methods for data collection.  An interview guide was prepared to ensure 
interview questions were consistently asked across focus groups.  We conducted eight 90-minute 
focus groups (four groups of collaborating teachers and four groups of novice teachers).  ES, 
MS, and HS levels primarily separated collaborating teachers and novice teachers.  The number 
of focus group participants ranged from 9 to 1 participant(s) (M = 5.5).  Participants filled out 
demographic surveys and then participated in the interviews.  Each focus group was audio-
recorded and conducted by two facilitators.  One facilitator moderated the discussion and the 
other summarized participants’ big ideas on chart paper.  Summarized responses were sent to 
participants for member checks with no changes noted.  

 
Data analysis.  The data sets collected for our study were a result of focus group 

interviews.  The flow of analysis used to examine the qualitative data occurred in three steps 
(Miles & Huberman, 1994): (a) transcribing interview tapes and summarizing big ideas; (b) 
generating categories and themes; and (c) establishing trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).  
Using data collected during the interviews, one author and a research assistant used a priori 



88         J. Heckert, T. Strieker and M. Shaheen 
 
 

 

codes based on the research questions to independently establish initial categories.  CT and 
novice teacher data were initially analyzed separately; however, because there were no 
significant differences in responses, they were combined for the remainder of the data analysis.  
Categories and themes were compared and revised through dialogue and agreement.  Another 
author independently reviewed the coding scheme as a peer de-briefer.  

 
Results 

 
The results were organized into themes (see Table 1) related to perceived benefits and 

themes regarding challenges of the CCP Model (with a focus on PSCT). 
 

Table 1. Focus Group Themes 
 

 
Theme 

 

 
Brief Description 

 
 
Mentor Modeling 

 
CTs were able to provide consistent, immediate feedback. 
 

Co-Learning/Reciprocal 
Relationships 

CTs and NTs learned from each other and developed collaboration 
skills. 
 

Shift in Power NTs noted increased self-efficacy due to “feeling like a teacher” 
from the first day. 
 

Meet Student Needs CTs and NTs reported an increased ability to differentiate 
instruction to meet student needs. 
 

Challenges of PSCT CT buy-in, defined CC role, as well as clear purpose and 
expectations are important prerequisites. 
 

 
 

Benefits of PSCT: Keeping Each Other Afloat 
 

The participants discussed the positive collaborative relationships developed during the 
implementation of CCP.  Specifically, they reported the influence of Mentor Modeling and the 
development of Reciprocal Relationships. 

 
Mentor modeling.  Both the CTs and NTs noted the mentoring benefits that were 

prevalent during PSCT.  The NTs reported, in comparison to the “traditional” model of student 
teaching, the CTs were there to help continuously provide ongoing mentoring and feedback.  
NTs were overwhelmingly positive about this instant feedback and modeling, noting that the 
ongoing support for behavior management and teaching strategies allowed them to immediately 
take on the role of the teacher without feeling “alone.”  The CTs were equally supportive of this 
mentoring model because they felt it allowed them to maintain greater control over the quality of 



Collaborative Clinical Practice      89 
 

 

their classroom instruction.  Instead of “giving up” their classroom to a NT, they were able to 
“step in” and provide mentoring as they taught together. This allowed the NTs to grow and take 
on larger responsibilities within the classroom.  

 
Co-learning: Reciprocal relationships.  In addition to the ongoing mentoring, the CTs 

and NTs also expressed that as PSCT progressed, there was evidence of co-learning and 
reciprocity among the co-teaching team.  As the NTs became more comfortable in the classroom 
and “learned the ropes” from the CTs, they became more confident and took more risks.  The 
novice teachers reported that this risk-taking was only possible because they knew their CT was 
there to help out if any mistakes were made.  Through these risks, the CTs expressed that they 
also learned new ideas and teaching strategies from their NTs so the learning was a reciprocal 
process for both co-teachers.  As the relationship grew, CTs and NTs began experiencing a more 
collaborative relationship where co-planning and the co-generation of ideas became 
commonplace.  A direct result of this was a reported increase in the development of collaboration 
skills.  Further, participants communicated that the CCs offered an additional level of 
collaboration, providing both the CT and NT with valuable suggestions, new ideas, resources, 
and strategies to improve instruction.  

 
Shift in Power Distribution 
 
 As the participants reflected on PSCT, they commented on the various ways their 
relationships shifted over the course of the experience.  CTs and NTs both noted the positive 
nature of the shifting power relationship dynamics.  For example, NTs reported being frequently 
asked by their CTs, “What do you think?”  Also, the NTs appreciated being considered an 
“equal” from the first day of class and expressed this helped increase their self-efficacy and 
confidence because the classroom students perceived them as another teacher with co-authority 
rather than as a student teacher.  Another key finding that the participants communicated 
explained how the NT slowly moved into the lead position during co-teaching.  
 
Increased Ability to Meet Student Needs 
 

Participants reported that PSCT encourages the CT and NT to collaborate to design 
instruction to better meet the diverse needs of all students through the frequent implementation 
of multiple pedagogical methods.  Focus group data suggest the opportunity to individualize 
instruction increased for several reasons.  First, both the CT and NT reported that having more 
than one teacher in the classroom allowed for multiple ways to structure grouping formats to 
allow for smaller teacher-to-student ratios.  This allowed the co-teachers to use formative 
assessments more frequently to plan and implement instruction to meet individual students’ 
needs.  In addition, classroom management was easier with two teachers, thus increasing active 
engagement and more time on task.  Finally, participants cited that having two teachers in the 
classroom allowed students to benefit from two different teaching styles.  Participants expressed 
that all of these factors contributed to their increased ability to meet student needs.  

 
 
 
 



90         J. Heckert, T. Strieker and M. Shaheen 
 
 

 

 
Challenges of PSCT 
 

With any type of new initiative, there will always be challenges to overcome, and this 
model was no exception.  Participants were asked direct questions regarding their perceived 
challenges and were asked to provide suggestions for improving the model. 

 
Improving CT buy-in.  Though most of the CTs willingly participated in the PSCT 

model, there were a few that were “chosen” to participate by administration.  These teachers 
resisted using the PSCT models, and their NTs reported this gave them a negative PSCT 
experience (compared to their peers).  

 
Clarifying purpose and expectations.  Some participants communicated that the 

purpose of the initiative was not clear.  For example, some CTs expressed that the novice teacher 
needed to “stand on their own” and not co-teach because they would most likely not be a co-
teacher in the future.  Some NTs also echoed this view.  Further, some participants voiced 
confusion of the role of the CC as opposed to the university supervisor.  The CCs fulfilled a non-
evaluative role, and this was in direct opposition to the supervisor’s role. Finally, participants 
reported concerns with the amount of face-to-face professional development hours required as 
well as some redundancy in the PD content. 

 
Conclusion 

 
The KSU Collaborative Clinical Practice Model has evolved since its inception, and 

researchers are utilizing various methods to continue informed development and revisions.   
While this paper has reported on the results of a pilot focus group study, inquiry pervades our 
CCP Model, ranging from formal research projects and comprehensive program evaluation to 
content analysis of project artifacts.  Whereas only some of the results are disseminated, all of it 
is used to inform the revisions to our model to assure that it meets the needs of our novice and 
collaborating teachers and the P-12 students who attend the schools where they work.  Through 
the completion of this investigative work we have gleaned valuable insights related to the 
ongoing development and refinement of the CCP Model, including the following: 

• A new definition and deeper understanding of PSCT; 
• A revised professional development focus and delivery method; 
• A clarification of the classroom coach role; 
• A clarification of the purpose and expectations of CCP/PSCT. 
We have adopted a definition of PSCT to reflect more accurately our understanding of 

PSCT and how the partnership principles and teacher reflection influence the PSCT relationships 
and outcomes: 

When two or more teachers, novice and experienced, collaborate to teach a group of 
students and reflect on teaching and learning.  It focuses on the K-12 student learning, 
and provides professional development for practicing teachers.  For student teachers and 
experienced teachers, co-teaching emphasizes responsibility, reflection, respect, and 
equity in collaborative planning and teaching. (Gallo-Fox, Scantlebury, Wassel, Juck, & 
Gleason 2005)    
Further, as demonstrated in the results of the focus group data, PSCT facilitates mentor 



Collaborative Clinical Practice      91 
 

 

modeling and reciprocal relationships by requiring the NT and CT to “teach at one another’s 
elbow” (Roth & Tobin, 2002) and share responsibilities in all aspects of instruction by co-
planning, co-teaching, co-assessing, and co-reflecting.  This finding is very encouraging in light 
of the implication that this type of collaborative relationship may provide NTs and CTs with 
frequent opportunities to practice and improve critical collaboration skills.  As reported by 
interview participants, the NT is not left to “sink or swim” on his or her own; rather, he or she 
has direct access to an experienced professional who is able to engage in on-going dialog and 
instant feedback about the teaching and learning process.  This finding is promising as the 
continuous presence of an experienced cooperating teacher increases the novice teacher’s access 
to information, social networking, and teaching resources; this ultimately increases the quality of 
the clinical experience and the individual’s ability to teach (Roth et al., 2004).   

We believe the model also provides opportunities for the CT to improve his or her own 
professional practice and fully participate in the development of the NT, rather than simply 
acting as a classroom host.  This encourages a paradigm shift in hierarchy that builds NT’s self-
efficacy and allows him or her access to co-authority as well as the chance to “take the lead” 
during co-teaching.  Finally, we understand that PSCT provides NTs frequent opportunities to 
co-plan and co-assess in order to gain confidence and practice with implementing small groups 
and individualized instruction to meet the diverse needs of classroom students. 

As our model has evolved, we have also become increasingly aware of the roles and 
significance of reflective practice and equitable partnerships.  Reflective practice is viewed as an 
important component of professional development, a problem-solving strategy and a means of 
assessment (Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004).  Through reflective practice, NTs work closely with 
their CTs and CCs to examine and resolve important issues related to their emerging practice.  
Given this, we intentionally integrated reflective practice opportunities as well as explicitly 
incorporated Knight’s (2007) Partnership Principles into the refined PD content.  These revisions 
are critical as we realize the classroom environment as well as CCP relationships must support 
reflective, trusting, equitable, and open communication that encourages mutual respect and risk 
taking in order for participants to achieve maximum benefit from their CCP experiences.  
Ultimately, we hope the CC and CT will facilitate a safe learning environment where the NT can 
openly discuss her perceptions of her current reality and have clear choices in collaboratively 
developing a plan to improve her personal effectiveness as a teacher.  

Based on feedback received during the focus groups, the professional development 
content was revised and transformed into an on-line learning format: A Partnership Approach to 
Pre-service Co-Teaching.  A Moodle environment supported by the KSU IT team is currently 
utilized to house the self-enrolling course.  The content is divided into four learning modules: (a) 
An Introduction to PSCT, (b) PSCT to Support Classroom Management, (c) PSCT and 
Assessment, and (d) PSCT to Support Differentiated Instruction. The modules require CTs and 
NTs to complete collaborative activities focused on reflection and practical application including 
the creation of co-planned lessons. 

Overall, the NTs and CTs both stated that the benefits of PSCT far outweighed any 
challenges.  In fact, some expressed, “We can’t go back! We love this!”  However, as noted, 
challenges to the CCP model emerged.  One such challenge is the need to improve CT buy-in.  
We now believe it is critical to ensure that CTs elect to participate in this model and are not 
forced to do so by administration.  An additional challenge was the clarification of the CC role.  
Classroom coaching is non-evaluative and non-supervisory; therefore, it was in direct contrast to 
evaluations completed by the university supervisor who had the power to make high-stakes 



92         J. Heckert, T. Strieker and M. Shaheen 
 
 

 

decisions relative to the novice teacher’s standing in the teacher preparation program 
(Tschannen-Moran & Tschannen-Moran, 2011).  We are currently collaborating with our 
placement office to increase the supervisor’s understanding of the CCP Model and its impact on 
the NT and CT expectations during clinical practice as well as the CC’s role. We hope to 
negotiate an outcome that is mutually beneficial to all stakeholders.  Finally, we have 
intentionally revised the professional development for all participants to ensure it provides 
explicit information regarding the purpose and expectations of the CCP Model.   
  



Collaborative Clinical Practice      93 
 

 

 
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. 

Badiali, B., & Titus, N. (2010). Co-teaching: Enhancing student learning through mentor-intern 

partnerships. School-University Partnerships, 4(2), 74–80. 

Bearwald, R. (2011). It’s about the questions. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 74–77. 

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

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

Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance 

schools (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. 

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

Education, 57(3), 300–314. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to 

equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.  

Friend, M. (2005). The power of 2. [DVD]. Greensboro, NC: Marilyn Friend. 

Gallo-Fox, J., Scantlebury, K., Wassel, B., Juck, M., & Gleason, S. (2005). Co-teaching: A 

professional development model of co-respect, co-responsibility, and co-generative 

dialogues for interns and cooperating teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 

the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. 

Goldsmith, M., Lyons, L., & Freas, A. (2000). Coaching for leadership: How the world’s 

greatest coaches help leaders learn. New York, NY: Hyperion. 

Gray, K., Stockdale, S., & Monti, T. (in press). From year-long internship to PDS: Working 

together to build better teachers. National Association of Professors of Middle Level 



94         J. Heckert, T. Strieker and M. Shaheen 
 
 

 

Education. 

Heck, T., Bacharach, N., Mann, B., & Ofstedal, K. (2005, February). Co-teaching workshops: A 

platform for enhancing collaboration in student teaching. Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Chicago, IL. 

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook 

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Murwaski, W. W. (2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools: Making the marriage 

work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE]. (2010). Transforming 

teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective 

teachers. Report to the blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for 

improved student learning. Washington, DC. Retrieved from  

www.ncate.org/publications 

Osterman, K., & Kottkamp, R. (2004). Reflective practice for educators (2nd ed.): Professional 

development to improve student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 

Roth, W. M., Tobin, M., Camambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2004). Co-teaching: Creating resources 

for learning and learning to teach chemistry in urban high schools. Journal of Research in 

Science Teaching, 41(9), 882–904. 

Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. G. (2002). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by co-teaching. 

New York, NY: Peter Lang. 



Collaborative Clinical Practice      95 
 

 

Strieker, T., Zong, G., Gillis, B., Wright, J. & Stockdale, S. (April, 2012). Improving pre-service 

middle school teachers’ confidence, competence, and commitment to co-teaching. 2012 

AERA Distinguished Paper Award, presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

Strieker, T., Heckert, J. & Blaver, A. (May, 2012). KSU-CCSD collaborative clinical practice 

model.  Webinar presentation sponsored by the US Department of Education in 

Washington, DC and funds received from the Kennesaw State University and Cobb 

County School District Teacher Quality Partnership Grant. 

Strieker, T., & Lozo, D. (2011). Collaboration, co-teaching & classroom coaching. Professional 

development series offered at Kennesaw State University in Atlanta, GA. This series was 

supported by funds received from the Kennesaw State University and Cobb County 

School District Teacher Quality Partnership Grant. 

Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2011). The coach and the evaluator, 

Educational Leadership, 69(2), 10–16. 

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for 

facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 

 

Acknowledgement 

The content of this presentation (and/or research) was facilitated through the 

collaboration between Kennesaw State University and Cobb County School District Teacher 

Quality Partnership Grant. 

  



96         J. Heckert, T. Strieker and M. Shaheen 
 
 

 

Page intentionally blank. 

 


