
































Microsoft Word - 4. Guise-Dec 2016.docx


Vol. 5, No. 1, Dec 2016, pp. 37-51   
 
 
 
 
From Pre-Service to Employed Teacher: Examining One Year Later the Benefits and 
Challenges of a Co-Teaching Clinical Experience 
Megan Guise and Krystal Thiessen 
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo 
 
 

Abstract 
 

The research study described in this article is an extension of a yearlong mixed methods 

study of eight co-teaching pairs (four English and four science) and their implementation of co-

teaching during the clinical experience. A year after these eight pre-service teachers participated 

in the co-teaching research study while enrolled in a teacher education program, they were 

interviewed at the conclusion of their first year of employed teaching with the goal of exploring 

the impact that the co-teaching experience had on their development as a teacher. Findings reveal 

that co-teaching during the clinical experience provides an opportunity to shape pre-service 

teachers to be collaborative, reflective practitioners who seek out opportunities to collaborate and 

position themselves as lifelong learners. However, teacher education programs that implement 

co-teaching during the clinical experience have a responsibility to ensure that co-teaching occurs 

with fidelity and that pre-service teachers are supported to transition to full-time employment 

where the day-to-day co-teaching opportunities may be more limited. 

 

  



38	
     M. Guise & K. Thiessen	
  
 

Introduction 
As teacher education programs continue to explore alternative models for preparing 

beginning teachers, the focus of reform has turned to the clinical experience. Several key teacher 
educators advocate for a reconceptualization of fieldwork, stressing the importance of an 
extended, collaborative experience that partners a beginning teacher with a practicing teacher, 
reflecting collaboratively on practice (Cochran-Smith 1991; Darling-Hammond, Pacheco, 
Michelli, LePage, & Hammerness, 2005; Zeichner 2002). Building off of these 
recommendations, departments of education and other education stakeholders propose co-
teaching during the clinical experience as a productive model for supporting beginning teachers 
to learn how to teach, moving beyond the model of traditional student teaching that has often 
been viewed as a “sink or swim” model with little active mentoring of the beginning teacher 
(The National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers, 2010; California Commission on 
Teacher Credentialing). 

Although research on co-teaching during the clinical experience has shown a positive 
impact on the development of the beginning teacher (for examples, see Authors; Badiali & Titus, 
2010; Murphy & Carlisle, 2008; Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox, & Wassell, 2008), the students (for 
examples, see Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Hang & Rabren, 2009), and even the 
cooperating teacher (for an example, see Authors), few studies have examined the long-term 
effects of co-teaching on the development of the beginning teacher (for an exception, see Beers, 
2009). The research study described in this article is an extension of a yearlong mixed methods 
study of eight co-teaching pairs (four English and four science) and their implementation of co-
teaching during the clinical experience. A year after these pre-service teachers participated in the 
co-teaching research study while enrolled in a teacher education program, they were interviewed 
at the conclusion of their first year of employed teaching with the goal of exploring the impact 
that the co-teaching experience had on their development as a teacher. This longitudinal research 
study addresses the current gap in co-teaching research and speaks to some of the concerns 
voiced by those opposed to implementing a co-teaching model for the clinical experience. 
 In the sections that follow, we provide a brief review of previous research on co-teaching 
before describing the methodology of the year-out research study. In the findings section, we 
present the primary themes that resonated from the data, noting both co-teaching benefits and 
challenges that the research participants provided when reflecting on their experience in the 
teacher education program and during their first year of teaching. Finally, we conclude the article 
with implications for teacher education programs, providing recommendations on how to 
capitalize on the benefits of co-teaching and address co-teaching concerns. Throughout the 
article, we posit that co-teaching during the clinical experience provides an opportunity to shape 
pre-service teachers to be collaborative, reflective practitioners who seek out opportunities to 
collaborate and position themselves as lifelong learners. However, teacher education programs 
that implement co-teaching during the clinical experience have a responsibility to ensure that co-
teaching occurs with fidelity and that pre-service teachers are supported to transition to full-time 
employment where the day-to-day co-teaching opportunities may be more limited. 



  From Pre-Service to Employed Teacher  39 
 

 
Background on Co-Teaching 

 Drawing on the work of Badiali and Titus (2010) and Bacharach et al. (2010), we define 
co-teaching as the following: 

Both cooperating teacher and pre-service teacher are engaged in student learning at all 
times through daily co-planning, co-instructing, and co-assessing.  

In this definition, we communicate that co-teaching is more than just implementing co-
instructional strategies (e.g., one teach/one observe, team teaching) and includes collaborative, 
reflective planning and assessment. 
 Although co-teaching has its origins in the field of special education with pioneers such 
as Friend and Cook, in the 1980s teacher education programs began to appropriate the practice of 
co-teaching as a model for the clinical experience (Darragh, Picanco, Tully, & Henning, 2011). 
Since then, research on co-teaching has found positive gains for the learning of K-12 students as 
well as the learning of pre-service teachers. For learning gains of K-12 students, researchers have 
documented gains on high-stakes exams in co-taught classrooms versus non-co-taught 
classrooms (Bacharach et al., 2010; Hang & Rabren, 2009). Additional benefits to K-12 students 
in co-taught classrooms include additional support for individual students as a result of a lower 
student-to-teacher ratio and differentiated instruction (Hartnett, McCoy, Weed, & Nickens, 2014; 
Heckert, Strieker, & Shaheen, 2013). 
 Research on co-teaching has also examined the affordances for pre-service teachers and 
their cooperating teachers. Researchers have concluded that by engaging in all facets of co-
teaching (co- planning, instructing, assessing, reflecting), co-teachers have an opportunity to 
reflect on a shared experience and grow professionally through collaboration (Beers, 2008; 
Scantlebury et al., 2008). Furthermore, research has shown that co-teaching can facilitate the 
development of critical reflection skills (Murphy & Carlisle, 2008).   
 

Methodology 
The research study described in this article was an extension of a yearlong mixed 

methods study that occurred during the 2014/2015 school year of a yearlong post baccalaureate 
credential program. Pre-service teachers who enrolled in the credential program simultaneously 
completed three quarters of coursework and a yearlong clinical experience that gradually 
increased from a practicum experience (consisting mainly of observing, assisting, and tutoring in 
a secondary classroom) to a co-teaching placement (teaching side-by-side with a cooperating 
teacher, first part-time – half days – and then full-time -- full days). For the yearlong research 
study, participants included eight single subject pre-service teachers (four English and four 
science) and their cooperating teachers. The focus of this yearlong research study was to 
investigate the implementation of co-teaching and identify pre-conditions for and barriers to 
success. 

Data collected for the yearlong study included weekly reflections (including both 
quantitative and qualitative prompts), which asked the pre-service teacher to reflect on his/her 



40	
     M. Guise & K. Thiessen	
  
 

experience implementing co-teaching, denoting experiences with co-planning, co-instructing, 
and co-assessing. Data collected also included three semi-structured interviews conducted 
separately with both the pre-service teacher and cooperating teacher. These interviews allowed 
the research team to gain more insight into what co-teaching looked like for each of the eight 
pairs, exploring co-teaching successes and challenges. Interview data were transcribed and coded 
prior to the second and third interviews, and member checking occurred at these interviews 
(Carspecken, 1996; Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). Finally, bi-monthly classroom observations 
conducted by the university supervisor occurred for six months of the yearlong program, and the 
university supervisor was also interviewed at the conclusion of the experience with the goals of 
capturing what co-teaching looked like in action and triangulating the data.  

Data presented in this article were collected a year after the pre-service teachers were 
enrolled in the teacher education program. The data collected in the year-out extension of the 
original study included an interview with the pre-service teacher – now a practicing teacher – at 
the conclusion of his/her first year of employed teaching. This interview included a series of 
questions that asked the participant to reflect on the affordances and limitations of co-teaching 
during the clinical experience now that he/she was concluding his/her first year of employed 
teaching (see Appendix A for the interview protocol). From the eight pre-service teachers who 
participated in the original study, six pre-service teachers were interviewed and participated in 
the follow-up study.  

When coding the interview data, we first separated the data into episodes – “a series of 
turns that all relate to the same topic or theme” (Lewis & Ketter, 2004, p. 123). Once these 
episodes were demarcated, open coding occurred to explore ideas and themes related to teaching 
and co-teaching (Emerson et al., 1995). A core set of codes were established based on this open 
coding, with focused coding occurring in order to identify patterns and sub-themes related to 
teaching and co-teaching (Emerson et al., 1995). All data was double coded and inter-rater 
reliability was found to be above 85%. The agreed-upon codes for the data set were then put into 
NVivo for additional analysis. 

We recognize that a limitation of this year-out study on co-teaching was that the data 
collected and analyzed were entirely self-reported. For example, if the beginning teacher 
described how co-teaching enhanced her ability to collaborate with others, we did not collect 
observation data or evidence from a performance evaluation to confirm whether the teacher was, 
in fact, collaborative during her first year as an employed teacher. However, we feel that the self-
reported interviews provide insight into co-teaching successes and challenges to explore in future 
research studies and are an informative start to research currently not conducted on co-teaching.  
 

Findings 
 In the yearlong study that occurred during the 2014/2015 academic year, one finding of 
the study of the implementation of co-teaching was that there was variety in the degrees to which 
co-teaching was implemented by the eight pairs. We posited that a continuum of co-teaching 
implementation exists with some pairs aligning more with notions of traditional student teaching 
(e.g., differential in power dynamic between pre-service and cooperating teacher, extended 
periods of solo teaching) while others collaborated even when one teacher was in the lead. 



  From Pre-Service to Employed Teacher  41 
 

Knowing where each of the pairs lived in terms of the co-teaching continuum, we kept this in 
mind when interviewing them a year later because for some, co-teaching might have not 
impacted their first year of employed teaching since they did not fully experience the model 
during their teacher education program. See Table 1 for a description of each pre-service teacher 
(all names are pseudonyms) and Appendix B for a description of the continuum categories. 
 
Table 1: Description of Pre-Service Teacher and School Site 

Pre-Service 
Teacher 

Classes Taught Grade(s) Description of 
School Site 

Continuum 
Identification 

Elliot 
 

Biology & Life 
Science 7th & 8th Suburban  Traditional 

Student Teaching  

Grace 
Environmental 
Science & AP 
Biology 

9th - 12th  Urban  Traditional 
Student Teaching 

Molly   English  
 7th & 8th Urban  Forward 

Momentum 

Carol  English  
 11th  Suburban/Rural  Forward 

Momentum 

John  Physics 
 11th & 12th  Suburban/Rural  Scaffold & Grow 

Lexie English  
 7th  Urban  Scaffold & Grow 

 
In the sections that follow, we present our findings from the year-out study, organizing 

these findings thematically around the affordances and challenges of how the yearlong co-
teaching clinical experience impacted the practices of pre-service teachers one year after the 
experience. 
 
Affordances of a Co-Teaching Clinical Experience When Learning to Teach 

Collaborative and reflective view of the profession. Three of the six first-year teachers 
interviewed for this year-out study expressed an appreciation for co-teaching during the clinical 
experience because of its alignment with the field of education that embraces collaboration and 
continual learning. When asked whether the teacher education program should continue to 
implement co-teaching as the model for the clinical experience, Molly explained, 

I would say yes just because I think that’s the way education is going anyway. It’s 
becoming a much more collaborative experience. It’s not just a teacher in that classroom 
kind of doing their thing. It’s much more of a community effort. And I think that the 
sooner we [pre-service teachers] get into that mentality, especially just starting out as 
student teachers, the more we will be able to improve and grow. 

In these comments, Molly posits that co-teaching during the clinical experience could impact the 
mindset of a beginning teacher, encouraging him/her to collaborate and become part of a 



42	
     M. Guise & K. Thiessen	
  
 

“community effort” if afforded the opportunity to do so when enrolled in a teacher education 
program.  
 Similarly, Carol also expressed that participating in a co-teaching model to the clinical 
experience reiterated the importance of teachers being life-long learners and learning through 
collaboration. Carol stated, “Co-teaching is something that is ideal in terms of being a positive 
environment for both new teachers and for more experienced teachers to be able to learn and to 
grow. And for me, that’s a huge core value – continuing to learn and continuing to grow. It’s one 
of the reasons why I became a teacher in the first place.”  
 Although Molly and Carol posited that co-teaching was in line with their desire for 
collaboration and continual learning, the interviews also revealed that the beginning teachers’ 
views of feedback had been shaped by the co-teaching experience. For example, when reflecting 
on her co-teaching experience and the subsequent year of employed teaching, Lexi explained, 
“that a lesson plan should always go through another person first – like, that seems really normal 
to me now because that's what co-teaching taught me – that the more feedback is always better.” 
Working in a collaborative school environment for her first year of employed teaching, Lexie 
often sought out the advice of her colleagues when planning her lessons, perhaps a receptiveness 
to feedback established because of the collaborative feedback experienced from her clinical 
experience.  

Influenced by cooperating teacher’s practice. Another common finding across the six 
interviews was that for those beginning teachers who experienced co-teaching during the clinical 
experience, the yearlong experience allowed them to learn side-by-side their cooperating teacher 
and a year later had identified numerous practices that they now implemented in their own 
classroom that they attributed to their cooperating teacher. For example, John explained that the 
greatest benefit to him when learning how to teach was to observe and teach with an effective 
teacher, something that could not have occurred if the cooperating teacher allowed him extended 
periods of solo time where the cooperating teacher was not in the room:  

I think I really got lucky because my collaborating teacher – he's like the Dumbledore of  
teachers. He's really funny, and so I learned a lot just watching him. He's a very 
masterful teacher. I mean, very good at all the different aspects of teaching with regards 
to delivering instruction, and assessing, and reflecting, and developing performance in 
students. And so picking up on all that, I think that's just really helped me. 

John’s comments stress the importance of what can be learned by “watching” and “picking up 
on” the practices of an effective teacher.  

Similarly, Lexie expressed that she learned a lot from the co-teaching clinical experience 
by working with a cooperating teacher who was strong in classroom management. In addition, 
Lexie implemented instructional strategies, graphic organizers, and other techniques that she had 
learned from her cooperating teacher during her first year of teaching. 

Desire to collaborate with others. The beginning teachers interviewed who experienced 
co-teaching during the clinical experience reported that they sought out opportunities to 
collaborate with colleagues at their new school because they learned the value of collaboration 



  From Pre-Service to Employed Teacher  43 
 

during the clinical experience. Molly explained how she goes “to other members of [her] English 
department regularly and asks them for contributions, to see what they’re doing in their class,” 
with Molly arguing that “the more information and ideas [she has], the more to choose from, and 
the better to enhance [her] teaching with.” Lexie also expressed how the school in which she 
works is “really collaborative” and how that during her first year she was able to “collaborate all 
the time” recognizing that she was really used to collaboration since she “worked with [her] co-
teacher so well” the previous year. 

Similar to Molly and Lexie, Carol saw opportunities to collaborate with another teacher 
when planning for instruction. Missing being able to work with a co-teacher like Carol had done 
the previous year, Carol explained: 

A coworker and I have essentially decided to co-teach. We’re teaching the same course. 
And so we’re not necessarily co-teaching in the sense that we are in the same room at the 
same time and we can do co-instructional strategies….We’ll co-plan it of course. And so 
using lesson plans and developing them together, which will relieve a lot of the stress of 
planning and developing good activities. 

Not only did Carol intend on co-planning with a colleague, but she recognized that co-reflection 
could occur since she and her colleague would be teaching the same lessons. Carol elaborated 
that the impetus for the co-planning and co-reflecting was a result of her colleague also having 
“co-taught before and had enjoyed the experience.” 
 In John’s first year of employed teaching, he was the only physics teacher at his school 
site, so there was not an opportunity to collaborate with another teacher who was teaching the 
same content like Carol. During the interview he explained how this was good and bad for it 
“gave [him] the freedom to kind of do what [he] wanted but [he] also didn’t have anyone to 
bounce ideas off of.” Desiring an opportunity to collaborate with others and looking ahead to 
next year, John reached out to a math teacher: 

One of the major issues I had with my students this year was their lack of preparedness in 
math for physics. And so I'm going to be working alongside another teacher next year, 
and we're going to try align our curriculums so that they're working on the techniques in 
math that they're going to need in physics. And we're also going to give them a pre-
assessment that he's going to help me write. 

Although participating in a co-teaching clinical experience may not be the sole reason why John 
sought out this collaboration possibility, having an opportunity to collaborate when learning to 
teach perhaps made John more open to this approach to planning curriculum.  
 
Challenges of a Co-Teaching Clinical Experience When Learning to Teach 

Transition to non-co-taught classroom. Although the four participants interviewed who 
experienced high levels of co-teaching during the clinical experience identified aspects of the 
experience that set them up for success during their first year of employed teachers, these 
participants also identified challenges. One challenge in particular was the transition from co-
teaching in a supportive, collaborative environment to one where there perhaps was less support 



44	
     M. Guise & K. Thiessen	
  
 

and collaboration. During her interview, Carol communicated that one challenge she faced with 
this transition was specific to planning: “I really struggled with planning properly in a sense that 
I didn’t have someone to bounce ideas off of.” John also echoed Carol’s sentiments and found 
the biggest challenge his first year of teaching was planning, for “it can be hard to plan without 
somebody” because he had grown accustomed to collaboratively planning with his cooperating 
teacher. Although Carol and John both faced challenges when it came to planning during their 
first year of employed teaching, both sought out the help of colleagues with Carol creating a co-
planning relationship with another teacher since they were teaching the same course. This shows 
that the value seen in this collaboration enabled Carol and John to find a solution to not being in 
a co-teaching environment.  

In addition to challenges with transitioning to solo planning, the participants also 
mentioned needing help in having a realistic understanding of what the level of support might 
look like their first year of employed teaching. For example, Carol stated that when comparing 
her first year of employed teaching to the clinical experience, “[She] just didn’t have that same 
support to the extent that [she] did as a co-teacher.” It is vital that pre-service teachers feel 
supported throughout the clinical experience and that when learning to teach, it is important to 
have strong role models and someone with whom to collaborate and reflect. In order for teaching 
decisions to be transparent, this collaborative reflection is essential. However, more support does 
need to be provided in helping the pre-service teachers to transition to more of a leadership role 
toward the end of their clinical experience as well as the following year as an employed teacher. 
Carol, specifically, struggled with the “freedom and a lot more independence” that her first year 
of employed teaching provided, and teacher education programs need to prepare pre-service 
teachers for this transition. 

Implementing co-teaching with fidelity. A second challenge associated with the co-
teaching model was in regards to the fidelity to which the co-teaching model was implemented. 
The pre-service teachers who when reflecting on their clinical experience recognized that they 
did not, in fact, co-teach, felt like they missed out on an effective approach to preparing 
beginning teachers, especially when they saw co-teaching implemented at their school site 
during their first year of employed teaching. Elliot, having had experienced more of a traditional 
approach to student teaching, reflected in the year-out interview on the benefits and drawbacks to 
this approach when learning to teach. Elliot stated, “We never did co-teaching anyway...I guess 
last year kind of prepared me for what it was to kind of be on my own….I would say maybe 
doing it individually like we did do it kind of was better for my first year as a teacher because it 
was kind of more realistic.” Elliot seemed torn, however, when he reflected on his first year of 
employed teacher and recognized the value in collaboration, commenting “We [teachers at his 
school site] really got to collaborate a lot and work together, so that made my experience as a 
first-year teacher so much easier.” He elaborated and described how co-teaching was 
implemented at his school site with a special education teacher paired with a general education 
teacher, and he felt like the co-teaching model during the clinical experience was “kind of cool 
because they’re [his current school site] doing it.” Elliot in particular felt like he “signed up to 



  From Pre-Service to Employed Teacher  45 
 

co-teach, and then just didn’t get it” during his clinical experience. Reflecting on this experience 
a year later, he wished that “there was follow through” on the part of the university that “we 
[Elliot and his cooperating teacher] weren’t actually doing it.”  

Lexie expressed similar sentiments to Elliot when reflecting on the members of her 
credential cohort who did not implement co-teaching to the extent that she and her cooperating 
teacher did. Lexie attributed this difference in co-teaching implementation to the dispositions of 
the cooperating teachers and their motivation for hosting a pre-service teacher. Lexie stressed the 
importance of properly screening cooperating teachers if implementing co-teaching with fidelity 
was the goal:  “Having them [cooperating teachers] interview just so you can see if they are a 
naturally collaborative person….Even people who are just naturally outgoing or have warm 
personas….Or even maybe asking them, ‘What is your intention on having a co-teacher?’”  
 In addition, the year-out data revealed that there was confusion about the co-teaching 
model and the extent of collaboration and solo time. This was revealed in the interview with 
Grace who explained: 

Pretty much at the end when we were supposed to mostly take over and do more of our 
individual teaching, it was very difficult that quarter because we were basically teaching 
on our own. We still had the co-teacher with suggestions and everything in there for 
support, but we had to do all the lesson plans, and all the teaching, and all the grading. 
The difficult part was going back to [the university] to take the night classes.” 

Grace’s comments reveal a misunderstanding of the co-teaching model for during the times 
when she was taking evening classes at the university, she was in the part-time portion of the 
clinical experience (phase #2). This portion of the experience was not meant to be extended solo 
time, and her description of her experience aligns more with traditional student teaching. In 
addition, there was little collaboration evident in Grace’s description of her experience, and one 
characteristic of co-teaching is to have collaboration even when one teacher is in the lead. 
Grace’s comments solidify the importance of a teacher education program clearly articulating the 
co-teaching model and ensuring that all co-teaching pairs understand how to implement co-
teaching and are able to recognize when their approaches to mentoring a beginning teacher 
misalign with this model. 
 

Implications 
 Although the case studies presented in this article provide further support as to the 
benefits of the co-teaching model when learning to teach, it is important for future research and 
teacher education programs to investigate and address these challenges in order to strengthen the 
co-teaching model and its potentially positive impact on beginning teachers. Two key areas of 
concern include the transition from a collaborative co-teaching clinical experience to solo, 
employed teaching in addition to how teacher education programs can intervene when a co-
teaching pair is not implementing co-teaching with fidelity.  

For the first challenge, pre-service teachers need to be scaffolded to understand the 
realities of teaching beyond the teacher education program. For a pre-service teacher like Carol, 



46	
     M. Guise & K. Thiessen	
  
 

she was surprised when teachers at her school site did not collaborate or did not see opportunities 
for collaboration. Elliot, however, taught his first year at a school site where collaboration was 
encouraged and a part of the school culture. It is important for teacher education programs to 
expose their pre-service teachers to the different levels of collaboration that may be enacted at a 
school site. Engaging in conversation about these possibilities by inviting local teachers and 
alumni of the program to speak at a seminar class session could be a useful first step. A next step 
could be to prepare school scenarios and have the pre-service teachers brainstorm what they 
might do in that particular context. For example, pre-service teachers could be given a prompt to 
identify one aspect of teaching in which they would like to collaborate (e.g., planning). Then, 
they could be given a teaching scenario and be asked to determine how they might overcome a 
collaboration obstacle and achieve the desired level of collaboration. This activity could invite a 
rich discussion about how to negotiate tensions at a school site while maintaining a personal 
philosophy of teaching and how to advocate for oneself. 
 For the second challenge of how teacher education programs can support pairs to 
implement co-teaching with fidelity, as Elliot expressed in his interview a year after he 
completed the teacher education program, he wished that there was an intervention by the 
teacher education program to ensure that he had an opportunity to co-teach during his clinical 
experience. If co-teaching is a model that a teacher education program implements, it is 
important that guidance is provided to co-teaching pairs in order to encourage this type of 
mentoring. One way would be for a teacher education program to have co-teaching pairs 
complete a co-teaching self-assessment at different times in the co-teaching experience. This 
self-assessment could be shared with a university supervisor, and the university supervisor could 
facilitate a conversation on how to move beyond the current co-teaching implementation. 
Beyond an assessment that gauges co-teaching implementation and identifies when support is 
needed, providing co-teachers with a clear sense of the co-teaching model is essential in order to 
be able to implement the model with fidelity. Supporting co-teachers to understand the model 
could occur in face-to-face workshops, bi-monthly co-teaching newsletters, a co-teaching 
website, and other repositories for resources.  
 In addition, future research exploring the impact of co-teaching during the clinical 
experience on the practices of beginning teachers could be enhanced by collecting observation 
and performance evaluation data during the first year of employed teaching. Knowing where the 
research participant falls on the continuum of co-teaching implementation that occurred during 
the clinical experience and comparing this to the observation-based performance data in addition 
to self-reported data, more conclusive claims about the impact of co-teaching on beginning 
teacher practices and dispositions could be achieved.  
 

Conclusion 
 Findings from the yearlong and year-out studies suggest that co-teaching during the 
clinical experience is beneficial to the professional growth of a beginning teacher, primarily in 
regards to developing beginning teachers who are collaborative, reflective, and prepared for the 



  From Pre-Service to Employed Teacher  47 
 

first year of teaching. There is a need, however, to address the concerns of educators who posit 
that a co-teaching model of the clinical experience might negatively impact a beginning teacher. 
The year-out data shows that the transition to employed teaching can be challenging, and that the 
pre-service teachers may not have a realistic view of the extent to which they relied on their 
cooperating teacher during the co-teaching experience. Therefore, it is important for teacher 
education programs to be transparent about how the co-teaching experience can prepare 
beginning teachers for that first year while also identifying and discussing the challenges that 
may be faced when on their own. According to John and others interviewed, “co-teaching got 
[him] really ready for that first year as a teacher.” John’s comments further support the notion 
that co-teaching can be an effective model to the clinical experience, but with any model, it is 
important that it is implemented with fidelity and that teacher education programs realistically 
assess and address challenges that may result from the model. 
  
 
 
 
 

 
  



48	
     M. Guise & K. Thiessen	
  
 

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

     teaching through coteaching. 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), 74-79. 

Beers, J. (2008). Negotiating the transition between different teaching contexts through 

     shared responsibility and shared reflection. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 

     4(2), 443-447. 

California Commision on Teacher Credentialing (2016). Preliminary multiple subject and single 

     subject credential program standards. Sacramento, CA: Author. 

Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. New York, NY: 

      Routledge. 

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 

     42(2), 104-118. 

Darling-Hammond, L., Pacheco, A., Michelli, N., LePage, P., & Hammerness, K. (2005). 

     Implementing curriculum renewal in teacher education: Making organizational and 

     policy change. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for 

     a changing world (pp. 442-479). San Francisco: John Wiley. 

Darragh, J. J., Picanco, K. E., Tully, D., & Henning, A. S. (2011). When teachers 

     collaborate, good things happen: Teacher candidate perspectives of the co-teach 

     model for the student teaching internship. The Journal of the Association of 

     Independent Liberal Arts Colleges of Teacher Education, 8(1), 83-109. 

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic field notes. 



  From Pre-Service to Employed Teacher  49 
 

     Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy 

     indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259-268. 

Hartnett, M.J., McCoy, A., Weed, R., & Nickens, N. (2014). A work in progress: 

     Unraveling the lessons learned in a co-teaching pilot. The Renaissance Group, 3(1), 

     33-54. 

Heckert, J., Strieker, T., & Shaheen, M. (2013). Kennesaw Sate University 

     Collaborative clinical practice. The Renaissance Group, 1(2), 83-96. 

Lewis, C., & Ketter, J. (2004). Learning as social interaction: Interdiscursivity in a 

     teacher and researcher study group. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical 

     discourse analysis in education (pp. 117-146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Murphy, C., Carlisle, K. (2008). Situating relational ontology and transformative activist 

     stance within the “everyday” practice of coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. 

      Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 493-506. 

Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Coteaching as a model for 

     preservice secondary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 

     24, 967-981. 

The National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers (2010). Transforming teacher education 

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

     Author. 

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

     Education Quarterly, 29(2), 59-64. 



50	
     M. Guise & K. Thiessen	
  
 

Appendix A 

Year-Out Co-Teaching Interview Protocol 

1. Tell me about your first year of teaching including successes and challenges? 
 

2. When you were an employed first-year teacher, what aspects of planning, instructing, 
assessing, and/or reflecting were challenging to do without a co-teacher? 

 
3. When you were an employed first-year teacher, did you seek out another teacher and/or 

resource to fill any of the roles filled by your cooperating teacher? Why or why not? 
 

4. How did the co-teaching experience help you when you were employed your first year of 
teaching?  

 
5. Are there ways that the co-teaching model made your first year of teaching more 

difficult? 
 

6. Now that you have a year of experience, do you think the teacher education program 
should continue to implement the co-teaching model? Why or why not? 

 
7. What suggestions do you have for improving the co-teaching model at the teacher 

education program in which you were enrolled? 
 

8. If you could change an aspect of your co-teaching experience, what would it be and why? 
 

 

  



  From Pre-Service to Employed Teacher  51 
 

 
Appendix B 

Co-Teaching Implementation Continuum Categories 
 

Traditional Student Teaching 
● Planning primarily done individually (either the pre-service teacher or the cooperating 

teacher took the lead) 
● Co-instructional strategies primarily used included one teach/one observe and one 

teach/one assist in addition to solo time 
● Pre-service teacher received feedback on his/her teaching from the cooperating teacher 

  
Blended Experience: Co-Teaching Guidance Needed 
● Planning, instructing, and assessing occurred individually and in collaboration with the 

cooperating teacher 
● Co-instructional strategies primarily used included one teach/one observe, one teach/one 

assist, and team teaching 
● Pre-service teacher received feedback on his/her teaching from the cooperating teacher 

  
Forward Momentum: Lessons Learned from Prior Co-Teaching Experience 
●  Co-teachers implemented various approaches to co-planning, co-instructing, and co-

assessing 
● Co-teachers were strategic with when to implement co-teaching and when to implement 

solo time 
● Co-teachers reflected on lessons collaboratively, moving beyond feedback on just the 

pre-service teacher’s practice 
  
Scaffold and Grow: Teacher Educators & Lifelong Learners 
● Co-teachers implemented various approaches to co-planning, co-instructing, and co-

assessing 
● Co-teachers were strategic with when to implement co-teaching and when to implement 

solo time 
● Co-teachers reflected on lessons collaboratively, moving beyond feedback on just the 

pre-service teacher’s practice 
● The cooperating teacher showed openness to new ideas and was learning alongside the 

pre-service teacher 
 



52	
     M. Guise & K. Thiessen	
  
 

Page intentionally blank 


