


































Microsoft Word - 2Murley-final.docx


Vol. 3, No. 1, Dec 2014, pp. 7-20   
 
 
 
 
Introducing the Co-teaching Model in Teacher Education Clinical Practice 
Lisa D. Murley, Rebecca R. Stobaugh, and Charles S. Evans 
Western Kentucky University 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract 
 

With national and state regulatory changes related to clinical practice within teacher education 

programs a reality, one university examined the outcomes of co-teaching model trainings 

required for stakeholders, both higher education faculty and P-12 educators.  The training 

participants indicated the co-teaching model could increase student teacher preparedness while 

also positively impacting P-12 student learning.  Nearly a year after the co-teaching training, one 

university surveyed student teachers on their co-teaching experience prior to and during student 

teaching.  While there were increase mean scores of all the co-teaching models, results pointed to 

questions of whether teacher candidates were engaged in lower-level impact co-teaching models, 

which involved teacher candidates observing and assisting.  

  



8	
     L. Murley, R. Stobaugh, & C. Evans	
  
 

 
Introduction 

 With national and state regulatory changes related to clinical practice within teacher 
education programs, it is imperative that higher education and primary through 12th grade (P-12) 
partners explore opportunities to strengthen clinical aspects of teacher education programs 
(Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board, 2011; KAR 5:040).  One current practice in 
P-12 settings which shows promise in teacher preparation programs is the co-teaching model 
(Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States and the National 
Research Council, 2010). 
 As a model for preparing teacher candidates, co-teaching can be defined in a variety of 
ways.  However defined, co-teaching during the student teaching experience must include 
collaboration between the student teacher and classroom teacher in the development, delivery, 
and evaluation of teaching and learning in the student teaching experience.  Both individuals are 
in the classroom throughout the student teaching experience.  While the interaction can take 
different forms, both are integrally involved with students in the learning experiences; therefore, 
providing tremendous opportunities to enlist the expertise of both professionals to increase 
student learning. Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2010) provide a definition of co-teaching that 
is relevant and adaptable to the use in the co-teaching model in teacher preparation programs 
which includes the following:  

• Two or more individuals working together. 
• Conducted in the same classroom at the same time. 
• Conducted with heterogeneous groups. 
• When both teachers plan for instruction together. 
• When both teachers provide substantive instruction together. 
• When both teachers assess and evaluate student progress. 
• When teachers maximize the benefits of having two teachers in the room by having 

both teachers actively engaged with students. 
• When teachers reflect on the progress and process, offering one another feedback on 

teaching styles, content, activities, and other items pertinent to improving the teaching 
situation.  (p. 2) 

 
Literature Review 

With increased accountability in P-12 education through federal reform initiatives such as 
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) and Race to the 
Top, a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (U.S. Department of 
Education, 2009), came greater demand of teacher preparation programs (Wiseman, 2012).  It is 
seemingly impossible to initiate reform in P-12 schools without including a focus on teacher 
quality and ultimately teacher preparation programs.  
       Central to this increased focus on teacher preparation programs in recent educational 
reform is the Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel commissioned by the National Council for 
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) titled Transforming teacher education through 
clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers (National Council of 
Accreditation of Colleges, 2010).  The Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations include greater 
linkages between higher education and P-12 educators in teacher preparation experiences that are 
centered on clinical practices such as development, implementation, and evaluation.  These 
recommendations are aligned with the 2010 National Research Council report that identified 



 Co-Teaching Models    9 
 

clinical preparation as one of three components of teacher preparation that have the potential for 
having the greatest impact on P-12 student learning (Committee on the Study of Teacher 
Preparation Programs in the United States and the National Research Council, 2010).  
 As a result of recommendations from numerous national agencies and panels focused on 
reform, one state formed an educational task force to study ways to transform education 
(Governor’s Task Force on Transforming Education in Kentucky, 2011).  An action area in the 
task force report focused on more clinical experiences for teacher candidates to ensure better 
teacher preparedness for the 21st century classroom.  These recommendations led to state 
regulatory changes including the directive that student teachers will be provided opportunities to 
“…engage in extended co-teaching experiences with experienced teachers” (Kentucky Education 
Professional Standards Board, 2011; KAR 5:040).  

Much of the current literature on co-teaching is derived from models associated with 
special educators interacting with general education or content teachers delivering instruction in 
settings that include students receiving special services with no teacher candidates present in the 
co-teaching setting (Austin, 2001; Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; 
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi, & McDuffie, 2005; Murawski & Swanson, 
2001).  The co-teaching model has also been endorsed by some teacher preparatory institutions 
to prepare teacher candidates (National Council of Accreditation of Colleges, 2010).  In 2004, 
Roth and Tobin posited that co-teaching could help teachers become more effective and “… 
provide(s) new opportunities for enhancing student learning and learning to teach” (p. 161). 
Furthermore, Eick, Ware, and Williams (2003) reported the positive effects of using co-teaching 
in clinical components of science methods courses.  However, there are little data on the impact 
of co-teaching on the improvement of student learning.   

One notable exception is a study reported by Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2010).  
The reported data was associated with a Teacher Quality Enhancement initiative at St. Cloud 
University that involved co-teaching and non co-teaching settings in the St. Cloud area school 
district.  Co-teaching settings included student teachers and cooperating teachers who attended 
workshops on how to incorporate co-teaching models during student teaching.  The study 
spanned a period of four years.  The analysis revealed a statistically significant effect (p< .01) for 
co-teaching on reading proficiency each of the four years and a statistically significant effect (p< 
-05) for co-teaching on math proficiency each of the four years.  Additional data analysis was 
conducted to examine the effect of student teaching on reading and math proficiency.  Students 
in the co-taught student teaching setting attained higher reading and math proficiency than those 
in the other two groups of classrooms.  The differences were significant for all years except 
2006-2007 where there were an insufficient number of classrooms that were not co-taught.  They 
also found a statistically significant positive impact on reading and math scores for special 
education and those students receiving free or reduced lunch.  In addition to the findings from 
the data analysis, students in the co-taught classrooms felt that there were fewer disruptions 
related to routine classroom tasks and improved student behaviors.  These same observations 
were found in studies focusing on co-taught classroom with general education teachers and 
special education teachers.  The co-taught setting allowed students greater opportunities to 
receive help and teachers were afforded opportunities to implement strategies and learning 
experiences that would have been more challenging to implement with just one teacher.  
Findings from the study supported the use of the co-teaching model and more specifically the use 
of the model in student teaching situations. 



10	
     L. Murley, R. Stobaugh, & C. Evans	
  
 

Eick, Ware, and Williams (2005) explored the use of the co-teaching models in early 
clinical experiences.  In this study, the co-teaching model was implemented within the clinical 
component of a science methods course.  Methods students found the experience to be positive 
and provided opportunities to not only learn from veteran teachers but to also improve their skills 
related to classroom management, use of inquiry-based strategies, and felt supported when taking 
the lead in the instructional experiences.  Basically, the methods students were learning to teach 
alongside and with veteran teachers. 

Current findings support the use of the co-teaching model in classroom settings.  While 
the evidence from the Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2010) study provides a solid foundation 
for implementing the co-teaching model during student teaching, there is potential value in 
extending the model into coursework prior to student teaching which requires clinical 
experiences.  

The design and implementation of early clinical components of the teacher education 
programs are critical to preparing teacher candidates for student teaching.  Prior to the capstone 
experiences, teacher candidates spend time in classroom settings observing, assisting, and when 
possible, leading instructional experiences.  As such, some candidates enter the student teacher 
experience having greater opportunities for developing, implementing, and evaluating learning 
experiences.  Implementing the co-teaching model prior to student teaching would provide 
teacher candidates with increased clinical experiences that would more than likely prove to be 
some of the most meaningful and rigorous of their teacher preparation program.  

 
Purpose of the Study 

 With new state mandates requiring the implementation of the co-teaching model in 
teacher education clinical practice, one university embraced the challenge of providing co-
teaching model training for stakeholders, both higher education faculty and P-12 educators.  The 
purpose of this study was to determine if these introductory training initiatives increased the 
capacity of participants to develop and implement co-teaching models in teacher education 
clinical practice.  In addition, the institution desired to collect baseline data of co-teaching 
practices before and during student teaching to assess the current level of engagement of teacher 
candidates in co-teaching strategies.  
 

Research Questions 
This study examined pre- and post-survey data from a statewide co-teaching training in a 

southeastern state.  In addition, data was collected from a southeastern university a year after the 
training to assess student teacher’s engagement in co-teaching experiences.  The research 
questions were as follows: 

1. To what extent do participants attending a co-teaching training believe co-teaching will 
increase the student teaching experience? 

2. To what extent are participants attending a co-teaching training currently utilize co-
teaching strategies? 

3. How effectively did the co-teaching training increase participants’ knowledge of the co-
teaching principles and belief they could implement the model? 

4. To what extent were student teachers exposed to the co-teaching strategies during their 
coursework and field experiences prior to student teaching? 

5. To what extent were student teachers exposed to the co-teaching strategies during their 
student teaching experience? 



 Co-Teaching Models    11 
 

Methodology 
The study included data from two sources:  (a) a statewide co-teaching training and (b) 

student survey data from a university. 
 
Co-teaching Training 
 The participants for this study include faculty and administrators from thirty teacher 
education institutions across the state who attended a two day co-teaching training.  The number 
of participants invited from each institution was based on the respective program’s number of 
student teachers the previous year.  At least two participants from each institution attended with 
the largest institutions bringing up to six participants.  Each teacher education institution was 
asked to bring a P-12 school administrator or teacher to participate in the training.  For the 
purpose of this study participants of the co-teaching training are defined as higher education 
faculty and administrators along with P-12 teachers and administrators.  
 As a part of the training evaluation, participants completed a survey related to co-
teaching.  The survey was administered as a pre-assessment, before the training, and again as a 
post-assessment after the training.  
 
Student Teacher Survey 

In an effort to assess the level of skill related to co-teaching strategies and teacher 
candidates, one university added items focused on the co-teaching model to a student teacher 
survey administered to teacher candidates prior to and during the final semester of their 
undergraduate program.  This student teacher survey was given almost a year after the statewide 
training initiative referenced above.  During this year, those trained at the statewide co-teaching 
training subsequently led professional development in one university for the majority of all 
teacher education faculty and cooperating teachers who support the student teachers in the 
schools. In total over 1,000 faculty and cooperating teachers attended the co-teaching 
professional development.  Student teachers were also trained on the co-teaching strategies in an 
orientation meeting prior to student teaching. 

To determine the baseline level of implementation, the new items for the survey served to 
assess what type of co-teaching strategies student teachers engaged in before and during student 
teaching.  The co-teaching strategies were identified based on the co-teaching strategy 
definitions by Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2010).  The teacher candidates represented 252 
elementary education, middle grades education, secondary education, special education, 
interdisciplinary early childhood education, P-12 and 5-12 education majors. 

For the purpose of the student teacher survey, the co-teaching strategies were defined as: 
One Teach, One Observe: One teacher has the primary responsibility while the other 
gathers specific observational information on students or the instructing teacher.  The key 
to this strategy is to have a focus for observation. 
One Teach, One Assist: One teacher has primary instructional responsibility, while the 
other assists students with their work, monitors behaviors, or corrects assignments. 
Station Teaching: The co-teaching pair divides the instructional content into parts and the 
students into groups. Groups spend a designated amount of time at each station.  
Parallel Teaching: Each teacher instructs half the students, addressing the same 
instructional materials and presents the material using the same teaching strategy. 



12	
     L. Murley, R. Stobaugh, & C. Evans	
  
 

Supplemental Teaching: One teacher works with students at their expected grade level 
while the other teacher works with those students who need the information and/or 
materials re-taught, extended, or remediated. 
Alternative or Differentiated Teaching: Provides students with different approaches to 
learning the same information. 
Team Teaching: Well-planned, team-taught lessons with no prescribed division of 
authority. (School of Teacher Education, 2013) 

The student teachers were instructed to answer the survey items based on the leveled response 
descriptors (a) extensive exposure - very comfortable with the model and my ability to use it; (b) 
moderate exposure – somewhat comfortable with the model and ready to use it during student 
teaching; (c) minimal exposure – not comfortable with the model and would not use it during 
student teaching; (d) none at all – limited or no exposure to the model. 
 

Results and Findings 
 The data analysis resulted in these findings for each research question.  
 
Research Question One 
 On the co-teaching training survey, participants indicated on a four point scale (1= not at 
all; 4= to a great extent) whether co-teaching would (a) improve the learning experience of 
student teachers, (b) provide a better instructional experience during students teaching for P-12 
students, and (c) better prepare new teachers for the classroom.  Means for P-12 educators 
ranged from 3.45 to 3.55 on the pre-assessment.  The mean scores on the post-assessment 
increased slightly, ranging between 3.81 and 3.86. Mean scores for higher education faculty were 
slightly lower that P-12 educators on the pre-assessment, ranging from 3.26 to 3.33.  The mean 
scores increased slightly to ranges between 3.37 and 3.4 on the post-assessment.  Total mean 
scores on the post-assessment were higher on these three items than all other survey questions. 
 
Table 1.  Benefits of the Co-teaching Model 

 
Research Question Two 

Using the same four point scale, two questions on the survey measured participant 
experience with co-teaching: “I have been involved in a co-teaching experience,” and “A 

Survey Question P-12 
Pre 
n= 30 

P-12 
Post 
n= 37 

Higher 
Ed Pre 
n= 29 

Higher 
Ed Post 
n=41 

Total 
Mean 
Pre 
N= 59 

Total 
Mean 
Post 
N=78 

Co-teaching will improve the 
learning experience of student 
teachers. 

3.47 3.81 3.33 3.82 3.39 3.81 

Co-teaching will provide a better 
instructional experience during 
student teaching for P-12 
students. 

3.55 3.86 3.26 3.79 3.4 3.83 

Co-teaching will better prepare 
new teachers for the classroom. 

3.45 3.83 3.29 3.81 3.37 3.82 



 Co-Teaching Models    13 
 

majority of people in my workplace use co-teaching strategies.”  When participants were asked if 
they had been involved in a co-teaching experience initially the scores were low (MP-12 

Educators=1.97; MHigher Education=1.76).  However, after training there were slightly higher mean 
scores (MP-12 Educators=2.54; MHigher Education=2.53).  On the item, “A majority of people in my 
workplace use co-teaching strategies,” participants indicated low ratings across all groups on the 
pre- and post-assessment.  Total mean scores for all participants on the post-assessment was 
1.74, the lowest scoring item on the post-assessment.  
 
Table 2. Experience with Co-teaching 

 
Research Question Three 
 Participants were assessed on their understanding of the co-teaching model and the 
strategies within the model.  On a four point scale, participants rated their knowledge of the 
following:  (a) theoretical base of co-teaching, (b) specific strategies of co-teaching, and (c) the 
co-planning process.  Both higher education faculty and P-12 educators scored the items with a 
low mean score (ranging from 1.3-1.91) on the pre-assessment.  However, on the post-
assessment the means for these items were all above 3.60 for both higher education faculty and 
P-12 educators.  Total mean post-assessment scores increased from the pre-assessment by almost  
two points for each survey question. 
 
Table 3. Knowledge of Co-Teaching 

 
Participants were also assessed on their understanding of the six co-teaching strategies:  

Survey Question P-12 
Pre 
n= 30 

P-12 
Post 
n= 37 

Higher 
Ed Pre 
n= 29 

Higher 
Ed Post 
n=41 

Total 
Mean 
Pre 
N= 59 

Total 
Mean 
Post 
N=67 

I have been involved in a co-
teaching experience. 

1.97 2.54 1.76 2.53 1.86 2.54 

A majority of people in my 
workplace use co-teaching 
strategies. 

1.63 1.67 1.32 1.79 1.47 1.74 

Survey Question P-12 
Pre 
n= 30 

P-12 
Post 
n= 37 

Higher 
Ed Pre 
n= 29 

Higher 
Ed Post 
n=41 

Total 
Mean 
Pre 
N= 59 

Total 
Mean 
Post 
N= 67 

Theoretical base of co-
teaching 

1.86 3.68 1.91 3.69 1.86 3.68 

Seven strategies of co-
teaching 

1.3 3.86 1.44 3.87 1.38 3.87 

The co-planning process 1.83 3.78 1.65 3.64 1.73 3.71 
Co-teaching demonstrations 1.73 3.78 1.5 3.6 1.61 3.68 
Specific co-teaching 
strategies to use in the 
classroom 

1.63 3.81 1.65 3.69 1.64 3.74 



14	
     L. Murley, R. Stobaugh, & C. Evans	
  
 

 (a) Parallel Teaching, (b) Station Teaching, (c) One Teach, One Observe, (d) One Teach, One 
Drift, (e) Remedial Teaching, and (f) Team Teaching.  Based on pre-assessment data, both 
higher education faculty and P-12 school practitioners had some knowledge of these approaches 
to co-teaching with mean scores ranging from 1.86 to 2.62.  Post-test data shows higher means 
for each of the strategies with total mean scores ranging from 3.63 to 3.78.  The total mean post-
assessment scores increase slightly more than 1.5 points for each of the co-teaching strategies.  
 
Table 4.  Knowledge of the Co-Teaching Strategies 

 
Participant belief in self-efficacy to implement the co-teaching model increased from the 

pre- to post-assessment. Initially, P-12 participants (M=1.66) and higher education faculty  
(M=1.67) had low levels of confidence in their ability to utilize the co-teaching strategies.  
However, in the post-assessment means increased to a total mean score of 3.54 on this item, a 
1.87 point increase. 
 
Table 5. Self-Efficacy 

 
Research Question Four 

Nearly a year after the initial state-wide training, one university surveyed student teachers 
on their co-teaching experience prior to student teaching.  The survey item stated, “To what 
extent were you were exposed to the co-teaching models during your coursework and field 
experiences prior to student teaching experience?”  Table 6 depicts the results.  The state 
professional licensure groups teacher programs in six areas:  Interdisciplinary Early Childhood 
Education (IECE), Elementary Education (ELED), Middle Grades Education (MGE), Secondary 
Education (SEC), 5-12 programs (e.g., Agriculture, Business and Marketing, Family and 

Survey Question P-12 
Pre 
n= 30 

P-12 
Post 
n= 37 

Higher Ed 
Pre 
n= 29 

Higher Ed 
Post 
n=41 

Total Mean 
Pre 
N= 59 

Total Mean 
Post 
N= 67 

Parallel Teaching 1.86 3.76 2.06 3.62 1.97 3.68 
Station Teaching 1.9 3.77 2.06 3.64 1.97 3.68 
One Teach, One 
Observe 

2.27 3.84 2.32 3.73 1.98 3.7 

One teach, One 
drift 

2.2 3.73 2.14 3.56 2.29 3.78 

Remedial Teaching 2.07 3.76 2.32 3.61 2.17 3.63 

Team Teaching 2.3 3.78 2.62 3.71 2.2 3.68 

Survey Question P-12 
Pre 
n= 30 

P-12 
Post 
n= 37 

Higher 
Ed Pre 
n= 29 

Higher 
Ed Post 
n=41 

Total 
Mean 
Pre 
N= 59 

Total 
Mean 
Post 
N= 59 

I feel ready to utilize the co-
teaching model. 

1.66 3.58 1.67 3.51 1.67 3.54 



 Co-Teaching Models    15 
 

Consumer Science), and K-12 programs (e.g., Art, German, Chinese, Physical Education), and 
Exceptional Education or Special Education (SPED).  These teacher program areas were used to 
meaningfully collapse the data into representative groups. 

With 256 student teachers responding, two co-teaching strategies with the highest mean 
scores across all program areas were One Teach, One Observe (M=3.32) and One Teach, One 
Assist (M=3.16).  Special Education (SPED) student teachers reported high levels for Team 
Teaching (M=3.25), but even so One Teach, One Observe (M=3.40) and One Teach, One Assist 
(M=3.50) had the highest means. The K-12 program area, which also has larger mean scores for 
One Teach, One Observe and One Teach, One Assist, had the highest mean score for Station 
Teaching (M=3.09). 

 
Table 6. Student Teaching Survey Results of Co-Teaching Model Skill Level Prior to 
Student Teaching 
 
Program 
Areas 
  

# of  
Student
s 

One 
Teach 
One 
Obser
ve 

One 
Teac
h 
One 
Assi
st 

Station 
Teachin
g 

Parallel 
Teachin
g 

Supplemen
tal 
Teaching 

Alternative 
or 
Differentiat
ed 
Teaching 

Team 
Teachin
g 

IECE 4 3.75 3.5 2.5 2.75 2.75 2.50 2.75 
ELED 106 3.34 3.37 2.89 2.13 2.53 2.49 2.21 
MGE 41 3.54 3.12 2.59 2.32 2.44 2.54 2.81 
SEC 54 2.59 2.37 1.81 1.65 1.69 1.85 1.93 
5-12 8 3.25 2.38 1.75 1.50 1.88 2.00 2.00 
K-12 23 3.52 3.22 3.09 2.74 2.61 2.78 2.91 
SPED 20 3.40 3.50 2.85 2.80 2.75 2.90 3.25 
Total 256 3.32 3.16 2.65 2.21 2.40 2.46 2.45 
 

With One Teach, One Observe and One Teach, One Assist, typically it is the teacher 
candidate doing the observing and the assisting.  Both of these strategies provide low-levels of 
engagement in the teaching process in classrooms.  The other five co-teaching strategies involve 
the teacher candidates leading instruction with small or large group instruction providing more 
quality experiences preparing teacher candidates for student teaching. 
 
Research Question Five 

The second survey item added to the Student Teacher Survey stated, “To what extent 
were you exposed to the co-teaching models during your student teaching experience?”  Table 7 
displays the results.  Similar to the other student teacher survey item results, the two co-teaching 
strategies with the highest mean scores across all program areas were One Teach, One Observe 
(M=3.64) and One Teach, One Assist (M=3.64).   Station Teaching also received high rankings 
from the student teachers (M= 3.06).  Means for the other co-teaching strategies did increase 
compared to the other survey item ranking student teacher engagement in the co-teaching 
strategies before student teaching.  

 



16	
     L. Murley, R. Stobaugh, & C. Evans	
  
 

Table 7. Student Teaching Survey Results of Co-Teaching Model Skill Level During 
Student Teaching 
 
Program  
Areas  

# of 
Student
s 

One 
Teach 
One 
Obser
ve 

One 
Teac
h 
One 
Assi
st 

Station 
Teachin
g 

Parallel 
Teachin
g 

Supplemen
tal 
Teaching 

Alternative 
or 
Differentiat
ed 
Teaching 

Team 
Teachin
g 

IECE 4 3.25 3.75 2.75 3.0 3.0 2.75 3.0 
ELED 106 3.71 3.78 3.46 2.57 2.96 2.92 2.75 
MGE 41 3.88 3.85 3.12 2.90 3.05 3.10 3.46 
SEC 54 2.96 2.80 2.02 1.96 1.98 2.11 2.41 
5-12 8 3.75 3.50 1.75 2.13 2.0 2.88 2.75 
K-12 23 3.65 3.65 3.04 2.78 2.87 3.04 3.13 
SPED 20 3.60 3.60 3.35 3.15 2.80 3.35 3.45 
Total 256 3.64 3.64 3.06 2.61 2.78 2.89 2.96 
 

While there were increase mean scores of all the co-teaching strategies on the student 
teaching item as compared to the prior the student teaching field experiences, both items point to 
questions of whether teacher candidates are engaging in lower-level impact co-teaching 
strategies which involve teacher candidates observing and assisting.  

 
Conclusions 

University and P-12 educators participating in the training clearly believed that the co-
teaching model could increase student teacher preparedness while also positively impacting P-12 
student learning.  After learning about the co-teaching model, some participants realized the co-
teaching strategies were already a part of the curriculum.  However, they believed few of their 
colleagues were engaged in co-teaching.  This training increased participant knowledge of the 
co-teaching model and the seven strategies while also elevating their confidence in their ability 
to implement the model.  A limitation of the study was the number of participants responding to 
the survey.  A higher number of survey participants could have resulted in a better estimate of 
the population rather than a potential representative of only those who participated.  

As teacher education institutions replicate this training with teacher education faculty and 
P-12 teachers and administrators, the hope is that through understanding more about the co-
teaching model and the seven strategies, educators can more confidently design teaching 
experiences for teacher candidates to impact P-12 student learning in positive ways.  Teacher 
education institutions must partner with P-12 educators to communicate the vision for co-
teaching model.  Schools must understand the reason for implementing co-teaching, research 
supporting the model, and determine how to utilize the co-teaching strategies.  This may involve 
teacher preparatory institutions leading trainings to engage stakeholders in the conversation on 
implementing the model.  As new teachers are hired each year teacher preparation programs 
must develop ways of providing this training for new teachers who will be welcoming teacher 
candidates in their classrooms. 



 Co-Teaching Models    17 
 

The student teacher survey results point to questions about the level of engagement of 
student teachers.  Support of that outcome can be found as Hattie (2012) noted the important 
elements of the co-teaching model: 

Planning can be done in many ways, but the most powerful is when teachers work 
together to develop plans, develop common understandings of what is worth teaching, 
collaborate on understanding their belief of challenge and progress, and work together to 
evaluate the impact of their planning on student outcomes. (p. 37) 

 
Implications 

 Adopting the co-teaching model will require significant changes within teacher 
preparation programs.  Teacher education faculty must examine coursework prior to student 
teaching to ensure teacher candidates understand the co-teaching model and have engaged in the 
models so they are adequately prepared for their student teaching semester.  This may require 
faculty to reexamine course assignments.  Institutions can create an intentional plan outlining 
where teacher candidates will learn about the model and engage in the strategies. 

As teacher education faculty work to integrate more co-teaching strategies into clinical 
work, students can be more prepared for student teaching and it is expected high scores will 
result on future surveys.  Additionally, as student teachers engage in the variety of co-teaching 
strategies they can further refine their skills and be more prepared to lead their own classroom 
after graduation.  As the institution continues to track data on co-teaching, teacher education 
faculty can ascertain if there are increases in higher-impact co-teaching strategies. 
 The co-teaching model implementation may provide opportunity for collaboration with 
special education preparation programs as the co-teaching has been part of special education 
classrooms for many years.  Another positive benefit for teacher candidates who have engaged in 
the co-teaching model is that they should be able to co-teach with special education professionals 
in their own classroom as the teacher candidate will have experience implementing the model in 
their clinical experience.  
 

Recommendation for Future Study 
Future research could replicate Bacharach, Heck, and Dahlberg (2010) study examining 

the impact of the co-teaching model on student achievement.  A teacher preparation institution 
could determine if implementing co-teaching positively impacted student achievement as well as 
survey P-12 students and teachers to assess their beliefs on the impact of co-teaching.  
An additional study would examine the co-teaching models further to clearly identify the types 
of experience student teachers are experiencing.  One Teach, One Observe could be divided into 
two categories:  Solo Teaching and Student Teacher Observes.  This would clearly identify who 
is leading the instruction—the cooperating teacher or the student teacher.  In addition, definitions 
could clearly specify the role of the student teacher and the cooperating teacher (See Table 8).  
Additionally, teacher preparation institutions could replicate the survey to assess the level of co-
teaching practices at their university and consider these revised definitions and categories in 
Table 8. 
 
 
 
 
 



18	
     L. Murley, R. Stobaugh, & C. Evans	
  
 

Table 8.  Co-Teaching Strategies Defined for Future Research 
 
 

As one university seeks to examine the field experiences both before and during student 
teaching, teacher candidates engaging in a variety of co-teaching strategies provide an 
opportunity for teachers and teacher candidates to work in a collaborative manner that focuses on 
the learning of all students, which is the most important outcome of the co-teaching initiative.  
Hattie (2012) emphasized the importance of the model and says it best with a cautionary note of 
what may happen if educators work in isolation, “…schools cannot help all students to learn” (p. 
62).    

 
 

References 
 

Austin, V. L. (2001).  Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching.  Remedial and Special Education, 

22(4), 245-255. 

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

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

Student Teacher Observes - The Cooperating Teacher is the primary teacher while the 
Student Teacher gathers specific observational information.  (One Teach, One Observe) 
Student Teacher Assists – The Cooperating Teacher has primary instructional responsibility 
of leading instruction while the Student Teacher assists students with work, monitors 
behavior, or corrects assignments.  (One Teach, One Assist) 
Station Teaching – The Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher divide the instructional 
content into parts. Each teacher instructs one of the groups, and then the groups rotate. 
Parallel Teaching – The Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher instruct half the students.  
The two teachers are addressing the same instructional material and presenting the material 
using the same teaching strategies.   
Supplemental – The Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher plan and implement a 
task/activity where one teacher works with students at their expected grade level, while the 
other teacher works with those students who need the information and/or materials extended 
or remediated. 
Alternative – The Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher plan and implement two 
different approaches to teaching the same information.  The learning outcome is the same for 
all students however the avenue for getting there is different. 
Team Teaching – Well planned, team taught lessons, exhibit an invisible flow of instruction 
with no prescribed division of authority between the Cooperating Teacher and Student 
Teacher.  Using a team teaching strategy, both teachers are actively involved in the lesson.  
From a student’s perspective, there is no clearly defined leader – as both teachers share the 
instruction, are free to interject information, and available to assist students and answer 
questions.  
 



 Co-Teaching Models    19 
 

 

Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States and the National 

Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. 

Washington DC: The National Academies Press.  

Dieker, L., & Mujrawski, W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current 

trends, and suggestions. The High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13. 

Eick, C. J., Ware, F. N., & Williams, P. G.  (2003). Coteaching in a science methods course:  A 

situated learning model of becoming a teacher.  Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 74-

85.  

Hattie, J.  (2012). Visible learning for teachers. New York: Routledge. 

KAR 5:040 Admission, placement, and supervision in student teaching. 

Governor’s Task Force on Transforming Education in Kentucky. (2011). Breaking new Ground:  

Final report of the Governor’s Task Force on Transforming Education in Kentucky 

(TEK).  Frankfort, KY: Author. 

Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board. (2011). 16 KAR 5:040. Section 6.(5)(e) 1.). 

Frankfort, KY: Author.  

Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005).  Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine 

conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-

taught and solo-taught classes?  Learning Disabilities Research, 20(2), 79-85. 

Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). 

Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures and challenges. 

Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260-270.  



20	
     L. Murley, R. Stobaugh, & C. Evans	
  
 

Murawski, W., & Swanson, H.  (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research:  Where are the 

data?  Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258-267. 

National Council of Accreditation of Colleges. (2010). Transforming teacher education through 

clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington DC: 

Author.  

Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (2004).  Co-teaching:  From praxis to theory.  Teachers and Teaching, 

10(2), 161-179. 

School of Teacher Education. (2013). WKU Co-Teaching. Retrieved from 

http://www.wku.edu/ste/co-teaching/ 

United States Department of Education. (2009). The American recovery and reinvestment Act of 

2009: Saving and creating jobs and reforming education. Washington DC: Author. 

United States Department of Education. (2001). Public law 107–110. Washington DC: Author. 

Wiseman, D. (2012). The intersection of policy, reform, and teacher education. Journal of 

Teacher Education, 63(2), 87-91.   

 


