
































Microsoft Word - 5. Stobaugh-Dec 2016.docx


Vol. 5, No. 1, Dec 2016, pp. 53-73   
 
 
 
Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching 
Rebecca Stobaugh and Margaret Gichuru 
Western Kentucky University 
 
 

Abstract 
 

Accrediting organizations and regulations have compelled teacher preparation programs 

to establish partnerships with PK-12 schools to produce quality educators by utilizing effective 

teaching approaches such as co-teaching. The study examined co-teaching survey completed in 

the middle of student teaching. Data was collected from cooperating teachers and student 

teachers at different grade levels. The survey assessed participants' use of co-teaching strategies 

and the number of planning hours in each week. Pearson Correlations measured the relationship 

among the co-teaching strategies and the relationship between the co-teaching strategies and 

planning time. Results suggest there were more correlations among the co-teaching strategies for 

elementary student teachers. Three relationships were found in the middle school cooperating 

teachers data. Additionally, no correlations were found between any co-teaching strategies from 

either high school cooperating teachers or student teachers. The amount of planning time was 

shown to have no significant differences between any of the co-teaching strategies. 

 

Keywords:  Co-teaching, Teacher Education, Student Teaching 

 

 

  



54	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

Introduction 

Teacher preparation programs are continually refining their programs to improve teacher 
candidate quality. As student teaching is the culminating experience for teacher candidates, 
research has been conducted on ways to increase the quality of this experience (Darling-
Hammond, 2010). Moreover, teacher preparation programs are compelled to find connections 
between coursework and clinical practice during student teaching (Darling-Hammond & 
Bransford, 2005). One study that focused on finding ways to enhance the quality of the student 
teaching experience was carried by the Blue Ribbon Panel (2010) Commissioned by the National 
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). The study investigated how to 
prepare effective teachers and cited the co-teaching model at St. Cloud State University as 
showing success in linking teacher candidates’ academic preparation and course work to school-
based clinical experiences.  

Co-teaching is the sharing of roles and responsibilities between a cooperating teacher and 
a student teacher (Friend, et al., 2010). According to Cook and Friend (1995), co-teaching is 
defined as “two or more professionals working together to deliver instruction to a diverse, or 
blended, group of students in a single physical space” (p. 14); this is the most acknowledged 
definition of co-teaching in the literature. Nonetheless, St. Cloud State University modified the 
definition of co-teaching to fit the student teaching context. It is defined as two teachers, a 
cooperating teacher and a teacher candidate, working together in a classroom with groups of 
students; sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of instruction, as well as 
the physical space (Heck, Bacharach, Mann, & Ofstedal, 2005, n.p.).   

Co-teaching in K-12 settings is enhanced by having the knowledge about one’s partner 
approach to teaching (Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004; Murawski, 2003), determining preparedness 
to co-teach (Murawski & Dieker, 2004), clarifying roles, duties, and expectations (Friend & 
Biirsuck, 2002; Murawski & Dieker, 2004), scheduling joint planning time (Friend & Cook, 
2002), and using effective communication that leads to problem solving and practical and 
productive discussions (Wood, 1998). According to Cramer, Liston, Thousand, and Nevin 
(2010), the co-teaching model of student teaching when applied effectively, allows teachers to 
integrate a variety of co-teaching strategies and group student candidates in ways that are not 
possible with just one teacher. This demonstrates that more explicit preparation for teachers who 
co-teach maximize the benefit of co-teaching opportunities (Cramer, et al., 2010).  

With this in mind, the following literature review explores the meaning of co-teaching 
strategies; the benefits and challenges experienced during co-teaching; collaborative planning 
during co-teaching; and the implementation of co-teaching during student teaching. This study 
brings forth an understanding of the variance at different grade levels in the use of co-teaching 
strategies and how collaborative planning influences the employment of the different strategies.  
 
Co-teaching Strategies 

Co-teaching strategies include: One Teach, One Observe; One Teach, One Assist; Station 
Teaching; Parallel Teaching; Supplemental Teaching; Alternative or Differentiated Teaching; 
and Team Teaching. In One Teach, One Observe, either the teacher candidate or the cooperating 
teacher leads the instruction while the other observes for a specific behavior like questioning 
skills.  In One Teach, One Assist, one teacher leads instruction while the other assists, an 
example might be that the one assisting would address student questions or prompt students to 
stay on-task.  In Station Teaching, students are divided into two groups and each teacher leads a 



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  55 
 

segment of instruction and then the groups rotate. Parallel Teaching involves the teachers 
dividing the students in half and presenting the instructional material using the same teaching 
methods to increase student engagement in the lesson. Supplemental Teaching involves the two 
teachers dividing students based on their assessment data in order to provide further challenge or 
remediation. Alternative Teaching involves the two teachers designing two different approaches 
to teaching the same information adapting to learning preferences of the students.  

The final strategy is Team Teaching. During application of this strategy the teacher 
candidate and the teacher candidate naturally share the responsibilities for leading instruction 
(Bacharach, et al., 2010). See Appendix 1 for a chart defining the co-teaching strategies.  
Through the use of the various co-teaching strategies instruction can be differentiated, 
scaffolded, and presented in a variety of ways of supporting both teachers monitoring students 
learning and engaging students in continuous learning (Dugan & Letterman, 2008).  
 
Benefits and Challenges in Implementation of Co-teaching Strategies 

With studies continually investigating methods to enhance field experiences through 
collaborative approaches, research indicates several positive effects of co-teaching practices 
(Martin, Snow, & Torrez, 201; Bacharach, et al., 2010; Kamens, 2007). Studies that used surveys 
and summative assessments show co-teaching as having significant outcomes in teachers 
employing greater flexibility, increasing instructional time and responsiveness, focusing better 
on individual students' needs and applying differentiated instruction more regularly. Also noted 
is that co-teaching has an effect on improved classroom management skills, increased 
collaboration skills, enhanced understanding of the curriculum, increased confidence among 
teachers, and added opportunities to ask questions and reflect (Bacharach, et al., 2010; Santagata 
& Guarino, 2012; Salk, Frank & Beniek, 2004).  

Using co-teaching during clinical experience increases the cooperating teacher and 
student teacher’s skills with collaboration and integration of the co-teaching pedagogy within the 
classroom with the objective of providing unlimited opportunities for students’ learning 
(Bacharach, et al., 2010; Kamens, 2007). Additionally, other co-teaching benefits identified by 
the Blue Ribbon Panel (2010) include; teacher candidates and cooperating teachers work as 
equal partners, teacher candidates receive guidance throughout the clinical experience, and both 
teachers have an understanding of the value for collaborative planning. Studies show 
implementation of co-teaching provides opportunities for teacher candidates to develop advanced 
collaboration dispositions and skills (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 
2005). 

On a different level, the co-teaching approach promotes the building of stronger networks 
between universities and schools, provides more opportunities for placements, supports 
professional development for cooperating teachers, and meets the needs of P-12 students 
(Bacharach et al., 2010). Despite studies showing the value of collaborative approaches, Wong 
and Glass (2011) pointed out that research on the relationship between student learning and 
collaborative approaches such as co-teaching in clinical practice is limited. Notwithstanding the 
evidence of the importance of applying co-teaching strategies, studies show that teachers have 
concerns with the effective implementation of the co-teaching approach due to a lack of training 
(Mastropieri et al., 2005); absence of administrative support (Dieker, 2001; Rea, 2005); and a 
lack of equal status in the classroom [Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Spencer, 2005). Studies suggest 
the need for more precise preparation for teachers in order to implement collaborative skills more 
effectively (Santagata & Guarino, 2012; Bacharach; Salk, Frank, & Beniek, 2004). Therefore, 



56	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

co-teaching research inquiry must take over because of limited literature (Murawski & Swanson, 
2001; Mowbray, Holter, Teague, & Bybee, 2003).  
 
Co-teaching and Collaborative Planning 

To discuss this further, co-planning requires the involvement and contribution of all co-
teachers. Regular weekly co-planning sessions among co-teachers requires much effort because 
all teachers reflect upon their lessons, program objectives and goals, align the learning goals to 
standards, and provide input on assessments (Scantleburya, et al., 2008).  Scantleburya, et al., 
(2008) viewed co-planning as a professional development activity because it provides a platform 
to share ideas, reflect on the past experiences and have a common understanding of the 
classroom to improve practice.  

Scheduling joint planning time is a critical component in co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 
2002; Murawski, 2005; Scantleburya, Gallo-Foxa, & Wassell, 2008).  (Dieker, (2001) observes 
that it is better to plan more than plan less in new situations. Vaughn, Schumm, and Arguelles 
(1997) suggested that to have a successful co-teaching experience, teachers require a minimum 
of 45 minutes planning time each week without interruption.  Another suggestion made by 
several teachers is to set aside a day or a half-day every six to eight weeks for planning time.  
During this time, the teachers will collaboratively plan and discuss the students’ achievements as 
well as ways to modify instructional practices (Vaughn, et al., 1997).  

According to Tobin (2006), without co-planning, teachers will not have common 
understanding of the classroom they are teaching.  Conversely, if co-planning is not 
implemented, then student teachers are consigned to marginal roles, for example, grading papers, 
and checking student work instead of undertaking central responsibilities and sharing an 
instructional role (Tobin, 2006).  With the cooperating teacher having an authoritative position, 
the planning allows for a time to discuss the division of workload and teaching roles 
(Scantleburya, et al., 2008).   

Cochran-Smith and Zeichner (2005) led the American Educational Research Association 
panel on the study of teacher education and indicated that more data are needed on the impact of 
student teaching on P-12 learners.  Moreover, there is lack of research that investigates the 
impact co-planning has on the use of more advanced co-teaching strategies and the commonly 
used co-teaching strategies by student teachers and cooperating teachers at different grade levels 
(Santagata & Guarino, 2012).   
 
Co-Teaching and Student Teaching 

Student teaching is typically the capstone experience for teacher preparation programs in 
the United States. Therefore, the student teaching experience is viewed by teacher educators as 
having a great influence on one’s professional growth (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987).  
Dee (2012) pointed out that improving student teaching is imperative for teacher education 
programs and requires a partnership between higher education and P-12 institutions. 
Collaboration and development of formalized university and school partnerships to meet 
accrediting organizations requirements and regulations compel teacher education programs 
educators to improve the clinical practice experience for teacher candidates (Dee, 2012).   
Researchers continue to investigate strategies that can improve clinical practice through 
collaboration (Martin, Snow, & Franklin Torrez, 2011).Collaboration during clinical practice 
enhances student learning (Blue Ribbon Panel, 2010). More-over, an in-depth qualitative study, 
Goodnough et al. (2009) observed four pairs of student teachers and found that student teachers 



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  57 
 

placed in clinical practice with another peer gained professional experience through      
collaboration.   

Additionally, a report completed by The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) 
Task Force on Educator Preparation and Entry into the Profession Members (2012) discussed 
that one of the teacher preparation programs requirements was to address the nature and quality 
of clinical practice experiences such as co-teaching. The report focused on the learner-ready 
teacher who is well prepared to teach at the first appointment and who can model and develop 
students’ knowledge and skills and foster success. To accomplish this, the teacher would aim to 
support students to think critically and creatively, to problem solve, to be well-versed with the 
curriculum, collaborate with peers, and to have ownership of their education.  

St. Cloud State University (SCSU) as the leading university that directed a co-teaching 
program had pairs of cooperating teachers and student teachers making decisions on when to use 
co-teaching strategies to better improve student learning (Bacharach et al., 2010; Tobin & Roth, 
2006; Tobin, Zurbano, Ford, & Carambo, 2003). Based on research conducted at St. Cloud on 
co-teaching, students who were co-taught out-performed students taught by a single teacher or by 
a supervised student teacher using a non-co-teaching model (Bacharach et al., 2010). 
Additionally, co-teaching addressed concerns during student teaching such as power struggles 
between cooperating and student teachers.  

Other challenges experienced during student teaching that can be resolved by a co-
teaching approach include; the idiosyncratic nature of student teaching, attention to classroom 
management, and inadequate prospects for student teachers to link theory and practice (Smith, 
2005). Co-teaching is an alternative approach in student teaching to support reforms in teacher 
education programs and provide additional and improved clinical experiences for teacher 
candidates (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008). Moreover, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne 
Duncan (2009) viewed co-teaching as having an opportunity to improve partnerships between 
higher education and K-12 and increase student achievement (McDiiffie, Mastropiere, & 
Scruggs, 2009).Studies have discussed the rationale and implementation for co-teaching in 
various teacher education programs (Roth, Tobin, Carambo, & Dalland, 2004). Besides, few 
studies discuss the responsibilities of cooperating teachers and teacher educators in preparing 
teachers (Clift & Brady, 2005).  However, co-teaching strategies when introduced into a teacher 
preparation program and conceptualized as important in addressing education reforms can 
promote collective teaching, respect, and responsibility within classrooms.  

 
Purpose and Research Questions 

The teacher preparation program that provides the context for this study is a four-year 
bachelor program at a public U.S. university. At the end of the fourth year, students are placed in 
different neighboring K-12 schools for student teaching. In this placement, student teachers 
complete their final semester of coursework in teacher education prior to receiving their teaching 
certificate. Cooperating teachers are their mentors who provide a classroom for the student 
teachers to refine their teaching skills. Since research has shown the positive impacts of co-
teaching, this study employed a survey to assess the level of co-teaching strategies used in 
elementary, middle and high schools. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine 
student teachers’ level of implementation of co-teaching strategies in relation to planning time as 
reported by student teachers and cooperating teachers in the Fall 2012 academic term.   

The research questions for this study were: 
1. What co-teaching strategies according to student teacher reports were commonly used by 



58	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

most student teachers during student teaching? 
2. What are the differences and similarities according to the student teacher survey data 

among elementary, middle, and high school teacher candidates in the use of the various 
co-teaching strategies as reported by student teachers? 

3. Based on teacher and student teacher survey data, what co-teaching strategies are used 
more frequently by student teachers at various levels (i.e., elementary, middle, and high)? 

4. How do cooperating teacher and student teacher perceptions on the use of co-teaching 
strategies vary?  

5. How does the quantity of planning time affect the use of co-teaching strategies? 
 

Method 
During the middle of the student teaching semester, cooperating teachers (CT) and 

student teachers (ST) were asked to complete a survey about the co-teaching experience (See 
Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 for the survey).  Participants identified their certification level, e.g., 
elementary, middle, or high school.  The survey asked participants to identify the number of 
hours student teachers and cooperating teachers planned together per week from one to six hours.  
Finally, participants were asked to assess the percentage of time they spent engaging in each of 
the seven co-teaching strategy from zero to 100%. To remind the participants, the co-teaching 
strategies were defined at the bottom of the survey. 

The participants in the study included student teachers and cooperating teachers from 
elementary, middle, and high schools. The student teachers were enrolled in a large university in 
an urban area of the U.S.  From the elementary program, 61% of cooperating teachers (n=54) 
and 62% of student teachers (n=55) completed the survey. In the middle grades program 95% of 
cooperating teachers (n=21) and 91% of student teachers (n=22) completed the survey. In the 
high school program, 46% of cooperating teachers (n=12) and 53% of student teachers (n=14) 
completed and returned useable surveys. See Table 1 for a summary of the sample. Results 
should be considered in light of the small sample size. 
 

Table 1 

Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher Sample  

 CT ST 

 Population Usable 
Surveys 
Returned 

Population Usable 
Surveys 
Returned 

ELE 89 54 (61%) 89 55 (62%) 

MS 22 21 (95%) 22 20 (91%) 

HS 26 12 (46%) 26 14 (53%) 

 



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  59 
 

Data Analysis 

 To analyze the data, mean scores and standard deviations were computed on planning 
time and the seven co-teaching strategies: One Teach, One Observe; One Teach, One Assist; 
Station Teaching, Parallel Teaching, Supplemental Teaching; Alternative Teaching; and Team 
Teaching.  Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Pearson correlations were also computed to 
analyze the relationships between data points.  An ANOVA was used to examine the differences 
of time spent on the strategies and planning time among the three groups—elementary, middle, 
and high school.  In addition, a t-test was used to assess the variance between cooperating 
teacher and student teacher perceptions on the use of co-teaching strategies.  Pearson correlations 
measured the associations between the various measures.  

 
Results 

 
Research Question1:   
What co-teaching strategies according to student teacher reports were commonly used by most 
student teachers during student teaching? 

Elementary student teachers (ST) reported a large percentage of their time on One Teach, 
One Assist (26%) followed by Team Teaching (20%). Alternative Teaching (5%) and Parallel 
Teaching (9%) strategies were used infrequently. 

For middle school student teachers, 30% noted that they mainly engaged in the Team 
Teaching and One Teach, One Assist co-teaching strategies. The next highest proportion of time 
was with One Teach, One Observe which accounted for 23% of their time during student 
teaching.  Similar to elementary student teachers, Alternative Teaching (5%) and Parallel 
Teaching (10%) were the some of the lowest percentages of time for student teachers.  In 
addition, student teachers had a limited time engaging in Station Teaching (9%). 

For high school student teachers, the highest percentage of time was One Teach, One 
Assist (36%). The next highest percentage was for One Teach, One Observe (31%).  Similar to 
the elementary and middle school student teachers, high school student teachers noted that a 
negligible portion of their time was involved Parallel Teaching (5%), Alternative Teaching (2%), 
and Station Teaching (3%). See Table 2 for these descriptive statistics. 

 
Table 2 
Portion of Time Spent by Student Teachers on the Co-teaching Strategies  

Level  Observe Assist Station Parallel 
Supplemental Alternative Team 

N % % % % % 
% % 

ELE 55 16 26 14 9 13 5 20 

MS 14 23 30 9 10 15 5 30 

HS 20 31 36 3 5 9 2 19 



60	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

 

Research Question 2: 
What are the differences and similarities according to the student teacher survey data among 
elementary, middle, and high school teacher candidates in the use of the various co-teaching 
strategies as reported by student teachers? 
 Because the elementary sample size was much larger than the middle or high school 
sample causing a disproportionate sample size, the researchers sought to achieve a more 
balanced sample size for the ANOVA.  Thus, the researchers randomly selected 14 teachers from 
each level (e.g., elementary, middle, high).  SASS Procedure SurveySelect was used to facilitate 
sample selection. 
 To examine differences an ANOVA was run. There were no significant differences found 
between any of the co-teaching strategies or time spent planning. See Table 3 for means and 
standard deviations for each variable. 
 

Table 3 

Mean and Standard Deviations Among Co-Teaching Strategies and Planning Time 

Level N 
Observe Assist Station Parallel Supple-

mental 
Alterna- 

tive 
Team Planning 

         
ELE 14 0.157 

(.128) 
0.236 

(0.134) 
0.118 

(0.107) 
0.054 

(0.050) 
0.150 

(0.116) 
0.054 

(0.050) 
0.261 

(0.162) 
4.714 

(1.069) 
MS 14 0.218 

(0.202) 
0.336 

(0.145) 
0.086 

(0.135) 
0.082 

(0.211) 
0.168 

(0.196) 
0.068 

(0.138) 
0.364 

(0.250) 
4.357 

(1.336) 
HS 14 0.314 

(0.188) 
0.300 

(0.124) 
0.029 

(0.047) 
0.050 

(0.076) 
0.093 

(0.073) 
0.021 

(0.043) 
0.193 

(0.121) 
3.857 

(2.316) 

Note. Standard Deviations appear below the means. 
 
Research Question 3: 
Based on teacher and student teacher survey data, what co-teaching strategies are used more 
frequently by student teachers at various levels (i.e., elementary, middle, and high)? 

For elementary student teachers, there were many correlations among the co-teaching 
strategies. Based on elementary cooperating teacher data, relationships were found between One 
Teach, One Observe and the following strategies: One Teach, One Assist (r = -.34, p. < .05), 
Supplemental Teaching (r = .45, p. < .05), and Alternative Teaching (r = .58, p. < .05).  A 
positive relationship was found between One Teach, One Assist and Supplemental Teaching, r = 
.43, p. < .05.  Station Teaching was positively related to three co-teaching strategies as identified 
by elementary cooperating teachers: Parallel Teaching (r = .48, p. < .05), Supplemental Teaching 
(r = .73, p. < .0001), and Alternative Teaching (r = .87, p. < .0001).   

Additionally, elementary cooperating teachers noted a relationship between Parallel 
Teaching and Supplemental Teaching (r = .52, p. < .05) and Parallel Teaching and Alternative 
Teaching (r = .85, p. < .001).  Finally, Supplemental Teaching was related to Alternative 



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  61 
 

Teaching (r = .81, p. < .0001) and Team Teaching (r = .49, p. < .05).   
 Based on data from elementary student teacher responses, there were several positive 
connections between the co-teaching strategies.  One Teach, One Observe was positively related 
to One Teach, One Assist (r = .31, p. < .05) and Alternative Teaching (r = .65, p. < .05).  There 
was a positive relationship also between Parallel Teaching and Alternative Teaching (r = .87, p. 
< .0001)  
 Three relationships were found in the middle school cooperating teacher data.  One 
Teach, One Observe was positively correlated to One Teach, One Assist (r = .56, p. < .05).  In 
addition, Station Teaching was related to Supplemental Teaching (r = .89, p. < .05) and 
Alternative Teaching (r = .95, p. < .05)  
 The data from the middle school student teachers produced many correlations.  One 
Teach, One Observe was related to all the other strategies: One Teach, One Assist (r = .61, p. < 
.05), Station Teaching (r = .78, p. < .05), Parallel Teaching (r = .96, p. < .001), Supplemental 
Teaching (r = .66, p. < .05), Alternative Teaching (r = .92, p. < .05), and Team Teaching (r = 
.65, p. < .05). Station Teaching was correlated to Parallel Teaching (r = 1.00, p. < .001), 
Supplemental Teaching (r = .96, p. < .001), Alternative Teaching (r = .99, p. < .001), and    
Team Teaching (r = .63, p. < .05).  Correlations also emerged between Supplemental Teaching 
and several of the other co-teaching strategies including: Parallel Teaching (r = .80, p. < .05), 
Alternative Teaching (r = .89, p. < .05), and Team Teaching (r = .60, p. < .05). Finally, 
Alternative Teaching was related to Team Teaching (r = .94, p. < .05), One Teach, One Assist (r 
= .85, p. < .05), and Parallel Teaching (r = .97, p. < .05).  
 There were no correlations found between any of the co-teaching strategies from either  
high school cooperating teachers or student teachers. 
 
Research Question 4: 
How do cooperating teacher and student teacher perceptions on the use of co-teaching strategies 
vary?  

A t-test was conducted but not significant differences were found between cooperating 
teachers and student teachers at any of the three levels (e.g., elementary, middle, high) for any of 
the variables. Table 4 depicts mean and standard deviations for cooperating teachers and student 
teachers for time spent on co-teaching strategies and time spent planning. 
Table 4 
Mean and Standard Deviations for Cooperating Teachers and Student Teachers for Time Spent 
on Co-teaching Strategies and Time Spent Planning 
Level  N Observe Assist Station Parallel Supple- 

mental 
Alter- 
native 

Team Planning 

ELE ST 55 .16 
(.13) 

.55 
(.16) 

.14 
(.13) 

.09 
(.12) 

.13 
(.11) 

.05 
(.09) 

20 
(.19) 

4.45 
(1.51) 

 CT 54 .15 
(.13) 

.54 
(.26) 

.16 
(.17) 

.09 
(.12) 

.17 
(.17) 

.04 
(.08) 

.23 
(.21) 

4.45 
(1.37) 

MS ST 14 .23 
(.16) 

.36 
(.15) 

.9 
(.13) 

.10 
(.23) 

.15 
(.18) 

.05 
(.12) 

.30 
(.24) 

4.05 
(1.39) 

 CT 12 .21 
(.16) 

.33 
(.16) 

.9 
(.12) 

.05 
(.09) 

.17 
(.20) 

.06 
(.12) 

.26 
(.21) 

4.29 
(1.27) 



62	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

HS ST 20 .31 
(.19) 

.30 
(.12) 

.03 
(.05) 

.05 
(.08) 

.09 
(.07) 

.02 
(.04) 

.19 
(.12) 

3.86 
(2.32) 

 CT 21 .24 
(.16) 

.34 
(.14) 

.05 

.05 
.05 

(.08) 
.08 

(.07) 
.03 

(.05) 
.21 

(.13) 
3.92 

(2.31) 
Note. Standard Deviations appear below the means. 
 
Research Question 5: 
How does the quantity of planning time affect the use of co-teaching strategies? 

The amount of planning was shown to negatively relate to One Teach, One Assist as 
reported by elementary cooperating teachers (r = -.40, p. < .05).  Elementary student teachers 
also confirmed this negative relationship between these two variables (r = -.41, p. < .05).  
Similarly, high school cooperating teachers responded that planning time was negatively related 
to One Teach, One Observe (r = -.90, p.<.001).  No correlations emerged between any of the co-
teaching strategies and planning time for middle school student teachers. 

 
Implications and Conclusion  

Kloo and Zigmond (2008) emphasized that focus should be directed on the way teachers 
implement co-teaching practice with the aim of varying co-teaching strategies and utilizing more 
advanced co-teaching strategies such as Team Teaching. Team Teaching is the most effective 
strategy when a classroom teacher and a student teacher collaborate and consequently share 
information, learn from one another, take risks, and progress as professionals (Murawski, & 
Dieker, 2008). In this study, the survey results about co-teaching experience by student teachers 
and cooperating teachers during the middle of student teaching revealed several implications 
related to commonly used co-teaching strategies, effect of planning time on implementation of 
co-teaching strategies, and what co-teaching strategies are used more frequently by student 
teachers at different levels.      

First, the student teacher reports showed that high school student teachers remotely used 
other co-teaching strategies beyond One Teach, One Observe and One Teach, One Assist; with 
evidence of some moderate use of Team Teaching strategy.  The study also showed frequent use 
of One Teach, One Assist co-teaching strategies in elementary school with moderate application 
of One Teach, One Observe and Team Teaching strategies. Conversely, middle school student 
teachers engaged more frequently in One Teach, One Assist and Team Teaching with moderate 
use of One Teach, One Observe. Precisely, there was evidence of greater use of Team-Teaching 
at middle school and moderate application of the same at high school and elementary school. 
Notable application of Team Teaching that applies higher degree of collaboration at all the 
grades levels could be associated with the initial co-teaching training the student teachers and 
cooperating teachers received before student teaching. Mastropieri et al., (2005) underscored the 
importance of training co-teachers to increase the implementation of more advanced co-teaching 
strategies, such as Team Teaching.  

Even though the results indicated high school teachers had moderate use of Team 
Teaching, studies have shown co-teaching to be challenge at high school level because of 
teachers lack of knowledge or experience in a subject’s content and absence of training in co-
teaching practice (Linz, Heater, and Howard, 2008; Murawski & Dieker, 2008). Therefore, to 
increase the implementation of more advanced co-teaching strategies, such as Team Teaching, 
which was extensively utilized at middle school in this study, training must take precedence 
(Mastropieri et al., 2005). In addition, current findings underscore the use of the co-teaching 



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  63 
 

approach by student teachers in terms of planning and organizing instruction and also in 
delivering and assessing learning experiences as evidenced from the Bacharach, Heck, & 
Dahlberg (2010) study.  Improvement in the effectiveness of applying co-teaching strategies by 
student teachers would require better preparation in the clinical model prior to student teaching 
without limiting it to one training. 

Team Teaching in middle school is observed when both teachers assume active and 
passive instructional roles (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007).  On the part of students, Team 
Teaching is beneficial because lesson instruction is carried out by both teachers who support 
students’ discussion and are actively engaged in the management of the lesson and classroom 
behavior (Murawski, & Dieker, 2008). To have ongoing support of co-teaching training in 
schools, administrators must be educated about the practice in order to provide required material 
resources and have a better schedule that allows cooperating teacher to be well prepared to work 
together with a student teacher and instill critical collaborative skills required in co-teaching.   

Second, even though the study showed no significant differences between any of the co-
teaching strategies or time spent planning, studies have shown that the most important issue for 
many educators related to co-teaching is planning time (Dieker, 2001; Keefe & Moore, 2004). 
Limited planning time have student teachers engage in more passive roles of observing and 
assisting (Nierengarten & Hughes, 2010). In addition, co-teaching requires more planning time 
compared to a solo-taught class (Graziano & Navarrete, 2012).  Planning by co-teachers allow 
self-reflection on how the co-teaching relationship is operational and assess how particular 
strategies are implemented to ensure effective application of co-teaching (Friend & Cook, 2007; 
Magiera et al., 2005;  Mastropieri et al., 2005; Scruggs et al., 2007). So, while there is agreement 
that planning time is critical for effective co-teaching, it is important for both co-teachers to have 
equal investment and have equal standing in the classroom. Furthermore, collaboration during 
planning time allows the use of advanced co-teaching strategies because two individuals rather 
than one improves creativity and implementation of co-teaching strategies (Bacharach, Heck, & 
Dahlberg, 2010). 

Third, results showed correlations of the different co-teaching strategies. For elementary 
student teachers, there were more correlations among the co-teaching strategies; as evidenced in 
the greater use of a variety of co-teaching strategies. Three relationships were found in the 
middle school cooperating teachers data. However, there were no correlations found between any 
of the co-teaching strategies from either high school cooperating teachers or student teachers. 
Elementary student teachers seem to engage in more co-teaching strategies as they differentiate 
lessons based on abilities and learning preferences and provide more small-group instruction.  In 
high school classes, often there is less differentiation and teaching in small groups, preventing 
student teachers from implementing a variety of co-teaching strategies.  Even with some studies 
suggesting that well-implemented co-teaching does benefit students (Rice & Zigmond, 2000; 
Walther-Thomas, 1997); there is need for research that further and examine the many variables 
that could affect the implementation of co-teaching strategies that will result to potential 
effective use of the practice (Friend, et al, 2010).  However, some states have passed guidelines 
increasing the number of field hours required by all teacher candidates (Kentucky Administrative 
Regulation, 2013).  Increasing high school field hours may help to address this disparity and 
increase school teacher candidates’ skills in teaming prior to student teaching. 

 
 
 



64	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

Limitations 
One of the reasons for limited studies by researchers is lack of clear definition of co-

teaching that would ensure the practice is implemented across the co-teaching studies in a 
consistent and defensible manner (Mowbray, et al, 2003). This concern was addressed in this 
study by making sure the teachers were trained about the different co-teaching strategies and the 
co-teaching strategies were defined at the bottom of the survey as a reminder. Although this 
study took place during the middle of student teaching, all the cooperating teachers and student 
teachers for different grade levels completed the survey despite a small size of participants; 45 
cooperating teachers and 47 student teachers.  Even with the small groups, findings suggest that 
planning had no influence on the use of a variety of co-teaching strategies. In addition, the ideas 
explored in this article indicate that teachers may have had exposure to different co-teaching 
strategies influencing the frequent or moderate use of advanced Team Teaching strategy. 

 
 

Future Research 
This research shows differences across program levels and a need to provide more 

training on the use of the different co-teaching strategies to increase the use of advance co-
teaching strategies. In addition, further research is needed to examine the underlying causes for 
the variances among program areas in implementing co-teaching strategies. As teacher 
preparation institutions examine ways to improve teacher quality, co-teaching provides a model 
to enhance teacher collaboration skills that would prepare teacher candidates to obtain and apply 
new knowledge and skills that would increase student achievement and growth. Today, teacher 
preparation programs are expected to prepare teacher candidates who are professionally ready 
and can demonstrate mastery of subject content and effective instructional approach that meets 
the needs of all diverse learners and holds the learners to high expectations (Council of Chief 
State School Officers, CCSSO, 2012). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  65 
 

References 

Bacharach, N., Washut Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher education. 

Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(3), 9-16. 

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

through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14. 

Beninghof. A. (2003). Co-teaching that works: Effective strategies for working together in  

today's inclusive classrooms. Bellevue, WA: Bureau of Education and Research. 

Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. 

(2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to 

prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of 

Teacher Education. Retrieved from 

http://www.ncate.org/Public/Publications/TransformingTeacherEducation/tabid/737/Defa

ult.aspx 

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. 

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  

Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. 

Cochran-Smith, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the 

AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 

Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA 

panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

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

Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-15. 



66	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2007). Interstate New Teacher Assessment 

and Support Consortium (INTASC) Retrieved August 15, 2007 from 

/http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_New_Teacher_Assessment_and_Support_Cons

ortium/S.Cozza, B. (2010). Transforming teaching into a collaborative culture: An 

attempt to create a professional development school university partnership. Kappa Delta 

Pi, 74, 229-241. 

Cramer, E., Liston, A., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2010). Co-teaching in urban secondary U.S. 

school districts to meet the needs of all teachers and learners: Implications for teacher 

education reform. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(2), 59-76. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi 

Delta Kappan, 78(3), 19-22. 

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: 

What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance 

assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, DC: Center for American 

Progress. Retrieved from 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effectiveness.pdf 

Dee, A. L. (2012). 50 Ways to keep your co-teacher: strategies for before, during, and 

after co-teaching. Academic Journal 21(2), 40-48 

Dieker, L. A. (2001). What are the characteristics of "effective" middle and high school co-

taught teams? Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 14-25. 

Dugan, K., & Letterman, M. (2008). Student appraisals of collaborative teaching. College 

Teaching, 56(1), 11-15. 



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  67 
 

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education? 

Teaching & Teacher Education, 3(4), 255–273. 

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. 

(5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. 

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (6th  

ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. 

Friend, M., & Bursuck, D. W. (2002). Including students with special needs: A practical guide 

for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009). Exploring a triad  

model of student teaching: Preservice teacher and cooperating teacher perceptions. 

Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 285-296. 

Graziano, K. V. & Navarrete, L. A. (2012) Innovative practices co-teaching in a teacher  

education classroom: collaboration, compromise, and creativity. Issues in Teacher  

Education, 21(1), 109-126. 

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

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

meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Chicago. 

Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching experience 

for preservice teachers. Teacher Education & Special Education, 30(3), 155-166. 

Keefe, E. B., Moore, V., & Duff, F. (2004). The four "knows" of collaborative teaching. 

Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 36-41. 

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

Frankfort, KY: Author 



68	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

Linz, E., Heater, M. J., & Howard, L. (2008). Team teaching high school science: Game plan for  

success. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(2), 1-9. 

Martin, S. D., Snow, J. L., & Franklin Torrez, C. A. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third space: 

Tentions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher 

Education, 62(3), 299-311. 

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

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

Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270. 

Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2007), The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective  
 

instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. 
 

McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer 

tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-

teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 493-510. 

Mowbray, C., Holter, M., Teague, G., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development,  

measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(4), 316–341. 

McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer  

tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes : Results for content learning and  

student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 493-510. 

Magiera, K. Smith, C. Zigmond, N. & Gebauer, K. (2005). Benefits of co-teaching in secondary 

mathematics classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 20-24. 

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

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



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  69 
 

Murawski, W. W (2003). Co-Teaching in the inclusive classroom: Working together to help all 

your students find success (grades 6-12). Medina, WA: Institute for Educational 

Development. 

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

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

Murawski, W. W. (2005). Co-teaching in the inclusive classroom: Working together to help all 

your students find success. Bellevue, WA: Bureau of Education and Research. 

Nierengarten, G.M., & Hughes, T. (2010). What teachers wish administrators knew about 

co-teaching in high schools. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2 (6), 1-20. 
 
Rea, P. (2005). 20 ways to engage your administrator in your collaboration initiative. 

Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 312-316. 

Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of 

developments in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities: Research & 

Practice, 15(4), 190–197. 

Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2004). Coteaching: Creating resources for 

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

Science Teaching, 41(9), 882–904. 

Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2012). Preparing future teachers to collaborate. Issues in Teacher 

Education, 21(1), 59-69. 

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

science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (4), 967-981. 

Smith, E. R. (2005). Learning to talk like a teacher: Participation and negotiation in coplanning 

discourse. Communication Education, 54(1), 52–71. 



70	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

Spencer, S. A. (2005). An interview with Dr. Lynne Cook and Dr. June Downing: The 

practicalities of collaboration in special education service delivery. Intervention in School 

and Clinic, 40(5), 296-300. 

Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Teaching 

Education, 17(2), 133–142. 

Tobin, K., Zurbano, R., Ford, A., & Carambo, C. (2003). Learning to teach through coteaching 

and cogenerative dialogue. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 10(2), 51–73. 

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Arguelles, M. (1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching. Teaching 

Exceptional Children, 30(2), 4-10. 

Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Coteaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers 

and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395-407. 

Wood, J. (1998). Styles of interaction used by learning assistants: The effectiveness of training.  
 

International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 33, 614-619. 
 

Wong, P. I., & Glass, D. R. (2011). Professional development schools and student learning and 

achievement. National Society for the Study of Education, 110(2), 403-431. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  71 
 

 

Appendix 1 
WKU Co-Teaching Mid-point Checkpoint:  student teacher Form 

WKU Co-teaching Mid-point Checkpoint 
student teacher Form 

Student Teacher’s Name:  
_____________________________ 

School Name:  
_______________________________ 

Level: (Preschool, 
ELE, MS, HS) 
_________________ 

How many hours a week do you co-plan with your teacher?  Circle the number of hours below. 
1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4 hours 5 hours 6 or more 

hours 

Turn in completed form to WKU University Supervisor. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

What percentage of the time are you engaged in each of the co-teaching strategies? Make sure your total 
amount of time equals 100%.  For example, 50% Team Teaching and 50% Alternative (50 + 50 = 100). 
One Teach, One Observe 0 10

% 
20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

One Teach, One Assist 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Station Teaching 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Parallel Teaching 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Supplemental 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Alternative 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Team Teaching 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 



72	
     R. Stobaugh & M. Gichuru	
  
 

Appendix 2 
WKU Co-Teaching Mid-point Checkpoint:  cooperating teacher Form 
 
Co-teaching Mid-point Checkpoint:  cooperating teacher Form 

Student Teacher’s Name:  
_____________________________ 

School Name:  
_______________________________ 

Level: (Preschool, 
ELE, MS, HS) 
_________________ 

How many hours a week do you co-plan with your teacher?  Circle the number of hours below. 
1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4 hours 5 hours 6 or more 

hours 

 
Turn in completed form to WKU University Supervisor. 
 
 
 

What percentage of the time are you engaged in each of the co-teaching strategies? Make sure your total 
amount of time equals 100%.  For example, 50% Team Teaching and 50% Alternative (50 + 50 = 100). 
One Teach, One Observe 0 10

% 
20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

One Teach, One Assist 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Station Teaching 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Parallel Teaching 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Supplemental 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Alternative 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Team Teaching 0 10
% 

20
% 

30
% 

40
% 

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Co-teaching Strategies 
One Teach, One Observe – one teacher has primary instructional responsibility while the other 
gathers specific observational information on students or the (instructing) teacher.  

One Teach, One Assist – an extension of one teach, one observe.  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 divide the instructional content into parts –Each teacher 
instructs one of the groups, groups then rotate  
Parallel Teaching – each teacher instructs half the students.  The two teachers are addressing the 
same instructional material and presenting the material using the same teaching strategies.   



  Co-Teaching Practices During Student Teaching  73 
 

 

Supplemental – this strategy allows one teacher to work 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 – Alternative teaching strategies provide 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.  Using a team teaching strategy, both teachers are actively involved in 
the lesson.  From a students’ 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.  


