


































Microsoft Word - 4Hartnett-final.docx


Vol. 3, No. 1, Dec 2014, pp. 33-54   

 

 
 
 
 
A work in progress: Unraveling the lessons learned in a co-teaching pilot  
Mary Joanie Hartnett, Ann McCoy, Rahila Weed and Nicole Nickens 
University of Central Missouri 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract 
 

Colleagues at a midwestern university implemented a multi-semester co-teaching pilot 

for student teaching, and based on the data collected, are moving toward full implementation in 

the spring of 2015 for all pre-service teachers in the College of Education (COE). Part of the 

study replicated work conducted by St. Cloud University (Bacharach & Heck, 2011) and utilized 

that university’s evaluation instruments.  However, the lessons learned in the pilot reveal some of 

the still “unanswered” questions as to how to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the co-

teaching model during student teaching.  Researchers share results and insights, and suggest 

action steps for full implementation of the co-teaching model. 

  



34	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

What is Co-teaching? 
 

The idea of teachers collaborating and partnering to support the learning of students is not 
new.  Models of co-teaching have been used for some time by general education teachers and 
special education teachers working together to meet the needs of students in the least restrictive 
environment possible (Cook & Friend, 1995; Friend, 2000; Friend & Cook, 2006; Murawski & 
Dieker, 2004).  Co-teaching is defined as “two teachers (teacher candidate and cooperative 
teacher) working together with groups of students; sharing the planning, organization, delivery, 
and assessment of instruction, as well as the physical space” (Bacharach, Heck, & Dank, 2004, p. 
7).  The application of the co-teaching model to student teaching transforms teacher preparation 
to better prepare future teachers and impact students they work with in the classroom (Perl, 
Maughmer, & McQueen, 1999; Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004). 

There are seven co-teaching strategies. These strategies allow both teachers (teacher 
candidate and cooperating teacher) to be actively engaged in the learning: One Teach, One 
Observe; One Teach, One Assist; Station Teaching; Parallel Teaching; Supplemental Teaching; 
Alternative or Differentiated Teaching; and Team Teaching (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 
2010).   

Why Co-teaching?  
 

The St. Cloud State University’s Teacher Quality Enhancement project studied and evaluated 
the co-teaching Model with 826 pairs of co-teachers in 34 pre-K classrooms; 601 elementary (K-6) 
classrooms; 120 secondary (5-12 & 7-12) classrooms, and 71 special education classrooms over a 
four-year period. Reading and math proficiency gains were significantly higher in classrooms where 
there was a co-teaching model. The impact on reading and math achievement of students from 
poverty (free/reduced lunch eligibility) was significantly increased in classrooms that were co-taught 
(Bacharach & Heck, 2011). Beyond test scores, students who were given appropriate assignment and 
the instructional scaffolding to succeed, displayed stronger motivation to learn.  

District cooperating teachers report that because candidates become competent in a short 
time,  class instruction quickly becomes more productive.  Individual and whole class objectives 
are met more easily. The positive effect of co-teaching on teachers’ attitudes has also been 
studied, showing that teachers have more job satisfaction and their teaching is energized and 
more fun (Murawski, 2010; Bacharach & Heck, 2011).   

Teacher candidates in the co-teaching classrooms show improved classroom management 
skills and increased collaboration skills (Heck & Bacharach, 2010).  Confidence and excitement 
about their new careers are lifetime benefits of a successful co-teaching experience.  In the co-
teaching model, student teachers experience an apprenticeship in teaching which prepares them 
for a collaborative environment in schools and gives them the skills to work with other adults in 
the classroom to meet the needs of students (Darragh, Picanco,Tully, & Henning (2011).  

Students benefit from the co-teaching model in academics, attitude, and opportunity for 
engagement.  The student to teacher ratio is cut in half and student needs are met more efficiently 
and quickly.  The in-service teacher has a renewed sense of purpose and the teacher candidate 
develops skills necessary for a collaborative classroom, better suited to meet the diverse needs of 
children.   

 
 
 



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    35 
 

Implementing the Co-teaching Pilot  
 

The mid-western university’s College of Education (COE) team piloted the co-teaching 
Model in the 2012-2013 school years with 18 teacher candidates; 20 cooperating teachers; 12 
university mentors, and administrators from 6 participating school districts (rural, suburban, and 
urban settings) in the fall 2012 semester.  For the spring 2013 semester, 76 students in more than 
21 school districts were placed, more than quadrupling the number in the fall pilot. In the 
upcoming fall 2014 semester, all teacher candidates will be placed in co-teaching partnerships 
for student teaching.   

 
Data Collection 

 
Weekly Reflective Journal   

The co-teaching team met weekly to monitor and review ongoing data collection.  A 
Weekly Reflective Journal (adapted from Bacharach & Heck, 2011) was filled out online by the 
cooperating teacher and the teacher candidate. The results were reviewed by the team and 
examined to pinpoint areas needing attention or improvement, as well as noting the strengths and 
weaknesses of the implementation of the co-teaching model.  The Weekly Reflective Journal 
asked participants to share what co-teaching strategies were used in instruction during the week.  
The pair of teachers (candidate and host teacher as noted above) reflected on the successes and 
challenges together, and shared one example of a co-teaching lesson.   
 
End of Experience Survey 
 An End of Experience Survey (adapted from Bacharach & Heck, 2011) was administered 
to cooperating teachers; teacher candidates; university mentors, and building administrators. 
Questions focused on which of the co-teaching strategies were challenging and which were 
utilized most frequently.  It also invited participants to rate their experiences, to identify benefits 
to the triad and the impact on children P-12.  The results were used to identify patterns and make 
recommendations for changes to the processes used to implement the co-teaching model.  

 
Results   

 
Weekly Reflective Journal  

Use of multiple co-teaching strategies. 
Over the span of the semester, both cooperating teachers and the teacher candidates 

reported using multiple co-teaching strategies as shown in Table 1.  The reporting for both 
participants each week was also consistent for the reported co-teaching strategies used in lessons.  
It is interesting to note that there is a significant dip in the use of co-teaching strategies during 
Week Eight to Nine. An examination of journal entry reflections for these weeks revealed an 
overemphasis on preparation for mid-term grades and parent conferences.   

 
 

 

 



36	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

Table 1. Use of Multiple Co-teaching Strategies  

 
 
  

Comparison of Implemented Strategies. 
 Week One co-teaching strategies .  

Each week, the strategies selected for implementation were analyzed to see which 
strategies were chosen. Journal reflective entries were reviewed to identify patterns that might 
relate to the chosen strategies.  In Table 2, the first week that participants reported the strategies, 
One teach, one observe and One teach, one assist was used more than any other strategies 
reported for that week.  This comment is typical of what many participants shared in the first 
week, “Megan and I did the One Teach, One Assist method for the first week of school.  Megan 
is still learning how I go about instructing and did a lot of assisting me in my teaching while she 
observed. During one class, Megan would assist students in drawing and staying on task while I 
did the main instruction.  She also would pass out materials and check to see that students 
understand during work time.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

0	
  
10	
  
20	
  
30	
  
40	
  
50	
  
60	
  
70	
  
80	
  
90	
  
100	
  

1	
   2	
   3	
   4	
   5	
   6	
   7	
   8	
   9	
   10	
   11	
   12	
  

Pe
rc
en
t	
  o
f	
  R
es
po
ns
es
	
  

Week	
  of	
  Semester	
  

Use	
  of	
  Multiple	
  Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategies	
  

Cooperating	
  Teachers	
  

Teacher	
  Candidates	
  



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    37 
 

 
 
Table 2: Co-teaching strategies utilized-Week 1  
 
 

 
  

     Week Five co-teaching strategies.  
 By Week Five, the researchers noted that all teams were using multiple strategies as 
shown in Table 3. The first month of school was completed and routines and procedures for 
classrooms had been established, contributing to a readiness to explore more co-teaching 
strategies.  One participant reported, “Our successes with co-teaching this week was the actual 
act of changing, multiple times, the different types of co-teaching in one class period depending 
on the type of class.”  Another participant stated, “Co-teaching is going on the majority of the 
time in my classroom. Most of that time, we do team teaching.  However, this week we did 
several Station Teaching lessons in social studies.  

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

0	
  
10	
  
20	
  
30	
  
40	
  
50	
  
60	
  
70	
  
80	
  
90	
  
100	
  

Pe
rc
en
t	
  R
ep
or
ti
ng
	
  U
se
	
  

Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategy	
  

Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategies	
  Utilized	
  -­‐	
  Week	
  1	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  



38	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

Table 3. Week 5 Co-teaching Strategies 

 

 
Week Eight co-teaching strategies.  
 During Week Eight, the researchers noticed a distinct change in the pattern of reported 

strategies used by teams. (See Table 4). This was nearly halfway through the pilot semester. 
When journal reflections were reviewed, it was clear that time had been limited during this 
period to plan for co-teaching strategies. Mid-semester demands for grade reporting and 
conducting parent-teacher conferences had increased. Stress levels seemed high. One co-teacher 
shared, “Not enough time for planning.”  Another co-teacher said,  “This week we have been 
getting stuff ready for our parent teacher conferences.  I feel that I have not been a huge part of 
this process which is a little upsetting. . . “ 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0	
  
10	
  
20	
  
30	
  
40	
  
50	
  
60	
  
70	
  
80	
  
90	
  

Pe
rc
en
t	
  R
ep
or
ti
ng
	
  U
se
	
  

Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategy	
  

Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategies	
  Utilized	
  -­‐	
  Week	
  5	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    39 
 

Table 4. Week 8 Co-teaching Strategies  

 
  

Week Ten co-teaching strategies.  
By Week Ten, the co-teaching pair once again began indicating the use of multiple strategies 

in instruction. (See  Table 5).  This pattern persisted through Weeks Eleven and Twelve.  The 
pairs reported finding a comfort level and confidence with their ability to work together to meet 
the needs of students.  The following comment is typical of Week Ten, “I think we're finding a 
good rhythm with team teaching. It's almost like the lessons become conversations. We ask 
questions and build on the information each of us provides. These conversations create a less 
formal environment in the classroom and model thinking-out-loud/questioning for students.” 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0	
  
5	
  
10	
  
15	
  
20	
  
25	
  
30	
  
35	
  

Pe
rc
en
t	
  R
ep
or
ti
ng
	
  U
se
	
  

Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategy	
  	
  

Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategies	
  Utilized	
  -­‐	
  Week	
  8	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  



40	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

Table 5. Week 10 Co-teaching Strategies  

 

 
Co-teaching Strategy Trends.  
The researchers analyzed the data for trends, patterns, and differences between the 

teacher candidate and the cooperating teacher’s reported use of co-teaching strategies.  In Tables 
6-11 (see Appendix) it is interesting to note that the pairs are parallel in their reporting of what 
strategies were used consistently throughout the semester.  This may indicate that pairs talked 
about when and how to use the strategies and is an indication of strong planning.  Table 12 (see 
Appendix) shows that there was more discrepancy in how the pairs reported the use of station 
teaching compared to their reporting related to any of the other strategies.  This raises some 
questions as to how the pairs are defining and operationalizing the station teaching strategy in the 
classroom.  A review of the open-ended questions in the Weekly Reflective Journal entries 
provided more insight into this discrepancy.  For example, one candidate described a strategy as 
parallel and station, when it would most likely be categorized as parallel.  Examining when 
training and mentoring pairs, the use of this strategy will be clarified and implementation in 
future research may help to understand this discrepancy.  

Open-ended Responses. 
 A random sampling of the open-ended responses from the Weekly Reflective Journal was 
coded based on three criteria. The first was whether the candidate’s reflection was positive, 
negative, or neutral in regards to co-teaching. The second code indicated whether the response 
addressed student engagement, instructional strategies, or classroom management. Finally, the 
researchers looked for statements regarding personal efficacy, teacher efficacy, or commitment 
to the profession (Chan, Lau, Nie, Lim, & Hogan, 2008; Ebmeier, 2003).  An analysis of teacher 
candidates’ responses to the weekly reflective journal questions showed some trends. Many 

0	
  
10	
  
20	
  
30	
  
40	
  
50	
  
60	
  
70	
  
80	
  
90	
  
100	
  

Pe
rc
en
t	
  R
ep
or
ti
ng
	
  U
se
	
  

Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategy	
  

Co-­‐Teaching	
  Strategies	
  Utilized	
  -­‐	
  Week	
  10	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    41 
 

candidates reflected on the relationships formed during co-teaching, both with their cooperating 
teacher and their students. A majority of responses were positive about the relationships 
developed, and discussed students’ perceptions of both as teachers. The results indicate that co-
teaching promotes a generally positive and successful partnership between the teacher candidate 
and the cooperating teacher. 
 
End of Experience Survey  
 Data for the End of Experience Survey was collected in the spring 2013 semester after an 
initial trial survey was completed with the first pilot group of 16 participants, fall 2012. Nine 
building administrators, 24 university mentors, 40 cooperating teachers, and 33 teacher 
candidates responded to the survey.    
 Co-teaching strategies.  

All four levels of participants in the co-teaching Pilot were asked to identify the most 
comfortable and the least comfortable strategy for partners to implement in the classroom.  Team 
teaching was identified as being the most comfortable strategy for all participants as seen in 
Table 13.  This was also noted in Table 14 as the one co-teaching strategy most observed by both 
the university mentor and the administrator when watching lessons in the classroom. One teacher 
candidate summed up the experience of team teaching with the following comment, “There was 
a great flow between the two of us.  It was a constant give and take and felt very natural.” 

 
Table 13.  Most Comfortable Strategy Usage  

 
                                              Co-teaching Strategy 

 
 

 

 

0	
  
5	
  
10	
  
15	
  
20	
  
25	
  
30	
  
35	
  
40	
  
45	
  
50	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  

University	
  Mentor	
  	
  

Bld	
  Admin	
  

Pe
rc

en
t M

os
t C

om
fo

rt
ab

le
 S

tr
at

eg
y 

U
sa

ge
 



42	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

Table 14. Reported Opportunity to Observe Strategies  

Percent of Reported Opportunity to Observe Strategies by University Mentors/Building Administrators 

Co-teaching Strategy  University Mentor  Building Administrator  

Parallel Teaching  67 44 

Team Teaching  88 89 

One Teach, One Observe  67 67 

One Teach, One Assist  92 78 

Station Teaching  50  44 

Supplemental  7 8 

Alternative Differentiated  26 25 

 
There was no identifiable strategy that stood out from the others as least comfortable for 

the co-teaching partners [Table 15 in Appendix ]. This may be due in part to the fact that 
participants were asked to try all seven strategies by the end of the semester.   

Benefits to P-12 students. 
Participants specified many benefits for P-12 students, including the quality of instruction 

for students in the co-teaching classroom. The university mentor (63%), classroom teacher 
(56%), teacher candidate (67%), and building administrator (56%) reported that the quality of 
instruction was better in the co-teaching model compared to the traditional student teaching 
setting. On additional survey questions, participants rated the statements with most important 1 
to 5 least important. The greatest benefit reported with a rating of 1 or 2 was more individual 
attention given to students (56%-86%) as shown in Table 16. Teachers building off each other 
(69%-79%) also showed a significant benefit to the children in the classroom.  One teacher 
candidate stated, “The ratio of teachers to students allowed for more small group time and to 
further differentiate their needs…”  This was echoed by the comments from a cooperating 
teacher, “Students got more one on one attention and help from teachers.”  One administrator 
shared, “[I] thought there were amazing benefits to having two teachers in a classroom with 
students….more immediate feedback is available and instructional time is maximized.” 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    43 
 

Table 16. Benefits to P-12 Students  

 

  
 
Benefits to classroom teachers/cooperating teachers.  
The survey asked the pilot group to respond to statements regarding the benefits of the 

co-teaching model to classroom teachers/cooperating teachers with the same scale of most 
important 1 to least important 5. There were many benefits identified, including more help for 
children with special needs, cooperating teachers not having to give up or leave their classroom, 
and enhanced relationships with the teacher candidate as noted in Table 17 below. Comments 
from cooperating teachers support these identified benefits.  One classroom teacher stated, “[I] 
get more time to learn individual students learning styles in depth and can offer more help to 
both students and the teaching candidate.  Administrators rated not giving up their classroom 
with 89% most important to important as a benefit to cooperating teachers. The following 
statement by an administrator illustrates this benefit; “My master teachers felt like it was a great 
time for true reflection as they worked side by side with their teacher candidates.  Intervention 
could be taking place frequently within the classroom without jeopardizing the core instruction.” 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0	
  
10	
  
20	
  
30	
  
40	
  
50	
  
60	
  
70	
  
80	
  
90	
  
100	
  

Individual	
  
Attention	
  	
  

Heard	
  2	
  
perspectives	
  

2	
  teaching	
  
styles	
  

Teachers	
  
more	
  
engaged	
  	
  

Teachers	
  
build	
  off	
  each	
  

other	
  	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

University	
  Mentor	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  

Building	
  Administrator	
  	
  

Pe
rc

en
t R

at
in

g 
of

 1
 o

r 
2 

Benefit 



44	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

Table 17. Benefits to Classroom Teachers/Cooperating Teachers 

 

 
 
Benefits to student teachers/teacher candidates.  
The survey asked participants to respond to a series of statements regarding the benefits 

to the student teacher/teacher candidate using the scale of most important 1 to least important 5.  
Benefits to the teacher candidate included increased collaboration skills and confidence, more 
exposure to expert modeling, and an increased awareness of classroom management strategies 
shown in Table 18.  It is interesting to note that the teacher candidate and the cooperating teacher 
both rated the opportunity to ask questions and reflect as less important.  This may be related to 
the strong relationship between the partners and the trust they had built throughout the 
partnership as reported by this teacher candidate, “It was great to have Mrs. P’s advice and help 
instead of just being thrown into a situation with kids you have not built relationships with yet. It 
made the process more productive and educational rather than just getting through it alone.”  
The following comment by a cooperating teacher also speaks to the benefits to the teacher 
candidate.  “They [student teachers] have a chance to get to know the students and the teacher 
better.  Also, this gives them time to build up their confidence without the pressure of just 
jumping in.”  

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

0	
  
10	
  
20	
  
30	
  
40	
  
50	
  
60	
  
70	
  
80	
  
90	
  
100	
  

More	
  help	
  
for	
  children	
  
with	
  special	
  
needs	
  	
  

Mutual	
  
learning	
  	
  

Enhanced	
  
energy	
  for	
  
teaching	
  	
  

Better	
  
relationship	
  
to	
  teacher	
  
candidate	
  

Not	
  give	
  up	
  
classroom	
  	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

University	
  Mentor	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  

Building	
  Administrator	
  	
  

Pe
rc

en
t R

at
in

g 
of

 1
 o

r 
2 

Benefit 



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    45 
 

Table 18. Benefits to Student Teachers/Teacher Candidates 

 

 
 
Drawbacks to the co-teaching model.  
Although there were many noted benefits to the co-teaching model, some drawbacks 

were identified by participants (see Table 19).  The building administrators reported that the co-
teaching model took too much time and that the peer relationship encouraged by the model could 
be uncomfortable for the cooperating teacher.  The administrators rated the need for the teacher 
candidate to have more time teaching with 0% or with no importance as a drawback to the co-
teaching model. The following comment by a building administrator relates to this rating. ”For 
those who say that there isn’t enough teaching time for the candidates, I believe that they need as 
much time with a master teacher as possible. They will have 30 years of alone time.  We need to 
maximize the learning experience during their student teaching block.”   

Although not evident in the ratings on the survey questions relating to drawbacks, there 
were additional identified drawbacks or concerns in some of the comments shared in the open-
ended portions of the survey.  This statement by an administrator shows the concern that the co-
teaching model may not benefit the pre-service teachers. “The co-teaching model has great 
benefit during the school year.  However, not as effective for the growth and development of a 
pre-service teacher.”  Another building administrator shared this concern. “Individual 
preparation is still necessary for teacher candidates.  Co-teaching should not allow for a teacher 
candidate to be ill-prepared for class. Too much leaning on the classroom teacher was done.” 
One cooperating teacher shared, ”Behavior changes when the lead teacher is not in the 
classroom though, and I felt like I couldn’t give the teacher candidate a real chance to fly solo in 
regards to managing behavior as often as I wanted.”  A teacher candidate makes similar remarks 
when they talk about the need for more practice on their own, “ [I] think it does not help us with 
classroom management, as the supervising teacher does more of the lead, more out of habit.  

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

70	
  

80	
  

90	
  

Collaboration	
  
skills	
  

Classroom	
  
management	
  

More	
  
Exposure	
  to	
  
Modeling	
  

ConMidence	
  	
   Opportunity	
  
to	
  ask?	
  ReMlect	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

University	
  Mentor	
  	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  

Building	
  Administrator	
  	
  

Pe
rc

en
t R

at
in

g 
of

 1
 o

r 
2 

Benefit 



46	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

This provides us with a great example, but something that young teachers need to practice and 
get comfortable doing.”  

 
Table 19. Drawbacks to the Co-teaching Model 

 
 

 
 
Planning and doing co-teaching again.  
Planning is an essential part of the co-teaching process, ensuring successful 

implementation of the co-teaching strategies.  Participants were asked if the pairs had planning 
time of sufficient length.  Overwhelming, all of the respondents indicated “yes” with 
percentages 71% (Cooperating Teacher), 75% (Teacher Candidate), 88% (University Mentor) 
and 100% (Building Administrator).   When asked if they would participate in a co-teaching 
model again respondents positively reported, “yes” with percentages that ranged from 88% to 
100% (Teacher Candidate/88%; Building Administrator/89%; Cooperating Teacher/94%; and 
University Mentor /100%).  Both the amount of effective planning for the co-teaching model and 
the willingness to participate in a partnership of co-teaching affirms that the implementation of a 
co-teaching model would provide more benefit than drawbacks to all members of the co-teaching 
partnership.   

 
What Did We Learn?  

Many of the benefits that were reported by the St. Cloud University study (Bacharach & 
Heck, 2011) were also evident in the data collected in the pilot study at this university.  In the 
self-reported instruments used (End of Experience Survey and the Weekly Reflective Journal) the 
researchers found similar results to those of St. Cloud University. P-12 students benefited from 
having two individuals in the classroom, making it possible to better differentiate the instruction 
for learners. Communication skills were enhanced between the cooperating teacher and the 

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

70	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

University	
  Mentor	
  	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  

Building	
  Administrator	
  	
  

Pe
rc

en
t R

at
in

g 
of

 1
 o

r 
2 

Benefit 



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    47 
 

teacher candidate. The teacher candidates were supported in their developing skills in 
management and instruction.  The evidence served as support for the decision to transition 
commit to  full implementation of the co-teaching model for all COE in the spring of 2015.    
 
A Work in Progress: Looking Beyond the Data to Action Steps 
 The two instruments provided researchers with the data they needed to answer the 
research questions. Results supported the decision to fully implement of the co-teaching model 
for student teaching at this university.  It might seem that the researchers could relax and be 
assured that the implementation of the co-teaching model would go smoothly, but additional 
questions began formulating almost immediately, and new, unanswered questions now loomed 
as the date for full implementation approached.  

First, student teaching observations and journal entries indicated that the co-teaching 
training team had not fully recognized the importance of the university mentor in the success of 
the co-teaching model. The university mentor must be adept at helping co-teaching teams form 
the relationships necessary to maximize the benefits of co-teaching. He or she must have the 
knowledge and skills necessary to help the cooperating teacher and teacher candidate work 
through issues that arise in the partnership. The team has learned that it is essential for the 
university mentors to receive specialized training that goes beyond the basics of co-teaching and 
instead focuses on the creation, facilitation, and support of co-teaching partnerships. Such 
training will be provided for the university mentors in the future.  
 Next, the team also underestimated the importance of buy-in from all programs on 
campus. Some teacher education programs on campus supervise their own teacher candidates 
while others rely on adjuncts to provide supervision. The co-teaching training team quickly 
learned that faculty in those programs relying on adjuncts must still be very knowledgeable about 
co-teaching. The idea of co-teaching must be included in the courses education majors take early 
in their programs as well as in later methods courses. Thus, it is essential that all faculty who 
work with teacher education candidates be trained in co-teaching.  

In addition, the researchers continue to struggle to understand and identify the type of 
data to collect to really determine if co-teaching is successful. The research team collected quite 
a bit of data from numerous sources, but there is still the question of whether or not the model is 
working successfully in terms of the intended roles for cooperating teachers, university 
supervisors, and student teachers. The researchers are currently working on creating a plan for 
data collection that includes measures of fidelity for implementation of the model. Such data 
should provide information on the extent to which the model is truly being implemented, and  
will be valuable in helping the research team better assess the success of the model. 

Finally, the structural organization of the training process for co-teaching has been 
revised, based on observational and journal data.  The new model will include a coordinator from 
the university to oversee all training and data collection, as well district liaisons who will serve 
in the role of mentors, coaches, and trainers within individual districts.  This will help facilitate 
the fidelity of the implementation of the model across different districts in the state.  A 
walkthrough observation tool will be developed that will document evidence of co-teaching 
strategies utilized within P-12 classrooms. It should collect data on the effectiveness of co-
teaching partnerships at the building level and address the reporting concerns related to co-
teaching strategies.  The district liaison will be responsible for the collection and sharing of 
walkthrough data.  This observation tool will provide an opportunity to collect data at all levels 
of co-teaching. Resulting data will help researchers evaluate the successful implementation of 



48	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

the co-teaching model.  Data will also be used in making programmatic decisions, based on 
evidence from the field.  It will ensure that accountability measures are put into place at the 
building level site and are coordinated with the university to implement a co-teaching model.  
The program coordinator for co-teaching will also facilitate the identification of achievement 
data and data gathering tools that can assess the impact of co-teaching in P-12 classrooms.  This 
will be done in partnership with area districts accepting student teachers for the co-teaching 
model.  Finally, training will be tailored to the specific teaching levels and disciplines in which 
the cooperating teachers and teacher candidates are placed, appreciating the unique benefits and 
challenges that each one offers (Berry & Van Dreil, 2013). 
 
Future Research 

The area that has been least studied is the use and effect of co-teaching in the secondary 
and K-12 levels, and in specific content areas (Eick, Ware, & Williams 2003). Future research 
will include the implementation of a more targeted study, focusing on co-teaching at these levels, 
as well as a longitudinal study on the long-term effects of co-teaching. The following questions 
provide a foundation for future research: 

1. How can the fidelity of the model’s implementation be measured?  
2. In what ways can specific content areas and K-12 and secondary co-teaching models 

be supported and studied?  
3. How can the impact on P-12 student achievement be measured and planned for with 

partner districts?   
 
Conclusion 

In the spring of 2015, more than three hundred student teachers from this midwestern 
university, in all settings (rural, urban, suburban) and across the state will be co-teaching as their 
culminating experience.  These new student teachers will help the co-teaching training team 
envision the future of the co-teaching model.  Data collection methods from the pilot will 
continue to be used, with minor adjustments. The Weekly Reflective Journals will be done bi-
monthly instead of weekly due to the large number of student teachers, but remains an 
informative data piece about the “true” implementation of the co-teaching model.   The End of 
Experience Survey will continue to be used to provide information about the benefits to the co-
teaching model for the university and partner districts.  In addition, the changes listed in the 
previous section will help determine the future of the program. 
 

References 
 

Bacharach, N, & Heck, T. (2011). Mentoring teacher candidates through co-teaching: Train-the-

Trainer workshop handbook. St. Cloud, MN: St. Cloud State University, Teacher Quality 

Enhancement Center. 

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

co-teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1) 1-13. 



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    49 
 

Bacharach, N., Heck, T. & Dank, M. (February, 2004). Co-teaching in Student Teaching: A case  

study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, 

Dallas, Texas. 

Chan, W. Y., Lau, S., Nie, Y., Lim, S., & Hogan, D. (2008). Organizational and personal  

predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and 

identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 597-630. 

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

on Exceptional Children 26(3), 1-16. 

Ebmeier, H., (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An 

investigation of a path model, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 110-141. 

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

learning model of becoming a teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (1), 74-85). 

Friend, M. (2000). Myths and misunderstandings about professional collaboration. Remedial 

& Special Education, 21(3), 130-132. 

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2006). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (5th 

Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 

Heck, T. & Bacharach, N. (2010). Mentoring teacher candidates through co-teaching: 

Collaboration that makes a difference. St. Cloud, MN: St. Cloud State University. 

Murawski, W. (2010). Collaborative teaching in elementary schools: Making the co-teaching 

marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 

Murawski W. & Diker, L. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary level.  

Teaching Exceptional Children 36(5), 52-58.   

Perl, M., Maughmer, B., & McQueen, C. (1999). Co-teaching: A different approach for 



50	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

cooperating teaches & student teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 

Association of Teacher Educators, Chicago. 

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

facilitating student learning (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

  



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    51 
 

Appendix  

Table 6 One Teach, One Assist  

 

 Table 7 Supplemental  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



52	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

Table 8 One Teach One Observe  

 

Table 9 Alternative/Differentiated Teaching  

 

Table 10 Parallel Teaching  

 



 

 Co-Teaching Pilot    53 
 

Table 11 Team Teaching  

 

Table 12 Station Teaching  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



54	
     M. Hartnett, A. McCoy, R. Weed & N. Nickens	
  
 

 

Table 15. Least Comfortable Strategy Usage 

 
                                                                                   Strategies 
 
 

0	
  

5	
  

10	
  

15	
  

20	
  

25	
  

30	
  

Teacher	
  Candidate	
  

Cooperating	
  Teacher	
  	
  

University	
  Mentor	
  	
  

Bld	
  Admin	
  

Pe
rc

en
t L

ea
st

 C
om

fo
rt

ab
le

 S
tr

at
eg

y 
U

sa
ge

 


