




































Stobaugh 2019 Proof Final


Educational Renaissance Vol. 8  (2019)

St udent  Teacher  Engagem ent  in Co-Teaching 
St rat egies

Rebecca St obaugh, PhD.  Western Kentucky University

     email: rebecca.stobaugh@wku.edu

 Kim ber lee Everson, PhD.  Western Kentucky University

     email: kimberlee.everson@wku.edu

Feature Article

To prepare teacher candidates to work with 
diverse populations of P-12 students, teacher 
educators are incorporating a variety of 
clinical-based experiences into teacher 
preparation and introducing teacher candidates to 
authentic instructional practices before entering 
the teaching field. Co-teaching, defined as ?two or 
more professionals working together to deliver 
instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of 
students in a single physical space? (Cook & 
Friend, 1995, p. 14), is recognized as a promising 
delivery model to support the development of 
inclusive classrooms, (Strogilos & Tragoulia, 2013; 
Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2007) as well as an 

auspicious approach to prepare teacher 
candidates. Co-teaching has long been 
implemented with a special focus on satisfying the 
needs of diverse learners, such as students with 
disabilit ies and English language learners in 
general educational settings (Hughes & Murawski, 
2001; Isherwood & Barger-Anderson, 2008; 
Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Pardini, 2006). In 
recent decades, co-teaching served as a beneficial 
approach for student teachers by facilitating 
teacher candidates? understanding of 
subject-specific pedagogy and the value of 
collaborative planning in clinical practice 
(Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008; Rytivaara & 

Abst ract   

Recently there has been increasing emphasis on co-teaching experiences for teacher candidates. 
Despite the significance of collaboration between cooperating teachers and student teachers, limited 
empirical attention has focused on student teachers? co-teaching experiences. The following study 
utilized survey data to ascertain if student teachers? use of different co-teaching strategies changed 
over the course of their student teaching semester, as well as, compared student teacher use of 
co-teaching strategies in elementary, middle, and secondary program areas. Pilot Study Survey data 
revealed that approximately one-fourth of the student teacher?s time is spent teaching alone. 
However, the Student Teacher Survey data indicated that the Team Teaching co-teaching strategy 
increased more than any other co-teaching strategy in all program areas. The study concludes that as 
teacher education programs seek to maximize the benefits of the co-teaching model, student 
teachers and cooperating teachers need additional training in ways to utilize all the co-teaching 
strategies to maximize student learning.

Keywords:  student teaching, teacher education, co-teaching

mailto:rebecca.stobaugh@wku.edu
mailto:kimberlee.everson@wku.edu


STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

Kershner, 2012). 

Given various types of effective collaborative 
models identified in the literature (Zigmond & 
Magiera, 2001), the present study is concerned 
with a group of student teachers? self-reported use 
of co-teaching strategies at various points of time 
during the student teaching semester. Specifically, 
we investigate if and how the professional roles 
and responsibilit ies of the student teachers 
changed over the course of their clinical 
involvement. 

We also identified the unique features of the ways 
that co-teaching models were employed at 
elementary, middle, and secondary levels. 

Lit erat ure Review

The following literature review explores research 
detailing the effectiveness of co-teaching and its 
various models in practice. The challenges of 
co-teaching and lack of parity in such efforts are 
also documented, followed by a discussion of the 
impact that co-teaching during pre-service has on 
future teaching at the in-service level. 

As the popularity of the co-teaching model 
increases (Kentucky Administrative Regulation, 
2012), research has documented the positive 
effects of co-teaching, such as the increased 
flexibility in scheduling, more observed positive 
social interaction, and the cultivation of a sense of 
collegial support for professionals involved (Dugan 
& Letterman, 2008; Zigmond & Magiera, 2001). In 
addition, findings show that educators engaged in 
co-teaching practice are better able to provide 
accommodations to meet the diverse needs of 
learners (McHatton & Daniel, 2008). For instance, 
Mageria and Zigmond?s (2005) observational study 
on student-teacher interactions reported that 
students with disabilit ies interacted significantly 
less than students without identified disabilit ies 
with the general education teacher, but these 
students received more individual instruction 
during co-teaching. Further research found that 
students in co-taught classrooms statistically 
outperformed students in traditional class settings 
in reading and math in the Minnesota 

Comprehensive Assessment and the 
Woodcock-Johnson III psychoeducational battery 
tests of academic achievement (Bacharach, Heck, 
& Dahlberg, 2008). 

Co-teaching also encouraged teacher candidates 
to reflect on their own personalities and engaged 
in healthy interactions and negotiations with 
mentors when differences in personality occurred 
(Kamens, 2007). In addition, co-teaching 
experiences provided a context for advancing both 
co-teachers? professional learning and leading to a 
joint knowledge construction that may result in 
new ideas in practice. The collaborative nature of 
co-teaching enables teachers to share and create 
knowledge through experimenting with innovative 
ideas in practice and reflection. Teachers are also 
able to implement the principles of cooperative 
learning during co-teaching. Co-teaching may also 
support teachers to meet their professional 
responsibilit ies more efficiently, since these 
seemingly small experimentations can be 
significant steps toward a bigger change in a 
teacher?s thinking, beliefs and practice? steps in 
their professional development (Rytivaara & 
Kershner, 2012). 

Co-Teaching St rat egies

The extant literature has also highlighted several 
different strategies for co-teaching that work in a 
variety of settings, depending on the degree of the 
collaboration (Friend & Cook, 2010; Villa, 
Thousand, & Nevin, 2013; Zigmond & Magiera, 
2001). For example, Friend and Cook (2010) 
indicate that co-teaching includes the 
professionals planning and delivering instruction 
using seven approaches and variations of them. 
These approaches to co-teaching include: 

1. One Teach, One Observe: One co-teacher 
leads large group instruction, while the 
other observes and gathers social, 
academic, or behavioral data on specific 
students or the class group. 

2. One Teach, One Assist: One teacher leads 
instruction, while the other co-teacher 
circulates among the students and provides 

31



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

individual assistance.
3. Station Teaching: The instruction is divided 

into three non-sequential parts. Students 
are divided into three groups and rotate 
from station to station. Two co-teachers 
teach at two stations, leaving the third 
group to work independently. 

4. Parallel Teaching: Each teacher is with half 
the class group and presents the same 
material with the primary purpose of 
fostering instructional differentiation and 
increasing student engagement. 

5. Alternative Teaching: One teacher works with 
the majority of the students, while the 
other works with a small group for 
remediation, enrichment, assessment, or 
other purposes.

6. Supplemental Teaching: Students are divided 
into groups based on their assessment 
data, with one teacher working with a large 
group of students and the other working 
with the rest of the students to provide 
further challenge or remediation.  

7. Team Teaching: Both teachers lead 
large-group instruction by both lecturing, 
illustrating two ways to solve a problem, 
representing opposing views in a debate, or 
various other strategies where both 
teachers have equal amounts of control 
and input in the teaching and learning 
process. 

It is recommended that teacher candidates and 
mentors should use various co-teaching strategies 
depending on student needs and instructional 
intent (Friend & Bursuck, 2009; Friend & Cook, 
2010). Within these seven approaches, co-teachers 
can provide varied and differentiated instructional 
practices to meet the individual needs of students 
(Friend, 2014).  The most prominent and most 
frequently cited co-teaching model according to 
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie?s (2007) 
meta-synthesis study was the One Teach, One 
Assist co-teaching model and its variations. The 
less frequently implemented models were Team 
Teaching, Station Teaching and Alternate Teaching. 

Co-Teaching Dur ing St udent  Teaching

Traditionally, the student teaching is defined as ?a 
master teacher who gradually releases 
responsibility of classroom instructing to the 
student teacher, often with an extended period of 
?take-over?? (Guise, Habib, Thiessen, & Robbins, 
2017, p. 374). Cooperating teachers provided 
space for student teachers to implement 
instruction and receive feedback. St. Cloud State 
University pioneered the co-teaching model in the 
student teaching context (Heck, Bacharach & 
Dahlberg, 2008). This format of co-teaching is 
defined as two teachers, a cooperating teacher 
and a teacher candidate/student teacher, working 
together in a classroom with groups of students, 
while sharing the planning, organization, delivery 
and assessment of instruction, as well as the 
physical space (Heck, Bacharach, Mann, & 
Ofstedal, 2005). 

The co-teaching practice at the pre-service level 
has generated increasing research interest. The 
existing research on teacher candidates? 
co-teaching training highlighted student teachers? 
negative reflection and anxiety toward their 
co-teaching practices (Strogilos & Tragoulia, 2013), 
while some studies showed that student teachers 
could overcome their initial concerns about 
co-teaching and build stronger partnership with 
their cooperating teachers (e.g. Kamens, 2007). 
During student teaching, teacher candidates 
reported they became more open-minded and 
embraced increasingly positive attitude toward the 
collaborative internship (Shin, Lee, & McKenna, 
2015; Strogilos & Tragoulia 2013). 

The changing nature of teaching and learning and 
the power dynamics between the cooperating 
teacher and student teacher may lead to the 
complexity of co-teaching practices. For instance, 
the cooperating teachers were often positioned as 
the evaluator and the ?supervisor of practica? 
(Borko & Mayfield, 1995, p.9), while student 
teachers may subsequently assume a 
subordinating role. The power differential in these 
environments may influence the degree of the 
collaboration in planning and instruction (Gardiner 

32



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

& Robinson, 2009) and the formation of 
co-teaching relationship with ?co-respect and 
co-responsibility? (Guise, Habib, Thiessen, & 
Robbins, 2017, p. 372). Roth and Tobin (2004) 
presented a praxis of co-teaching and 
co-generative dialoguing that was particularly 
suited for analyzing complex practices and the 
nature of cooperating teacher and pre-service 
teacher?s debriefing. During type of dialoguing, 
both co-teachers engage in the discussion and 
collectively generate solutions to problems 
(Scantleburg, Gallo-Fox, and Wassell, 2008). 
According to Roth and Tobin (2004), co-generative 
dialoguing has potential for ?enlarging the 
subjective possibilit ies? and ?produces 
recommendations for concrete actions and change 
that teachers experience as an opening of their 
possibilit ies? (p. 175). 

The recent study from Guise, Habib, Thiessen, and 
Robbins (2017) proposed a continuum of the 
relationship between the cooperating teacher and 
the student teacher based on the degree of 
student teachers? involvement of co-teaching. 
According to the role of co-operating teachers in 
mentoring a pre-service teacher and power 
differentials of two parties involved, the 
co-teaching practices were observed fell into four 
categories? traditional student teaching, blended 
experience, forward momentum, and scaffold and 
grow. The first one involved mainly solo teaching 
and unidirectional learning, while the last one was 
framed as a social practice with a more equal 
power dynamic that allows both co-operating 
teacher and the student teacher to mutually 
engage in a co-generative dialogue and form a 
community of learners (Guise, Habib, Thiessen, & 
Robbins, 2017). Arshavskaya (2014) argued that 
though the novices can obtain the on-the-spot 
critical emotional and professional support 
through the shared co-teaching and co-reflecting 
experiences with mentors, dialogues sometimes 
revealed certain contradictory beliefs, which the 
pre-service teachers continued to hold even at the 
end of the teaching practicum. 

As previous studies have indicated, educators in a 

co-teaching team use a variety of co-teaching 
strategies and the responsibilit ies of each team 
member varies (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2016; Villa, 
Thousand & Nevin 2007), recent scholarship began 
to focus on the frequency of teacher candidates? 
use of co-teaching strategies and its variation 
among different grade levels or program areas. In 
Stobaugh and Gichuru?s study (2016), the 
researchers investigated how elementary, middle, 
and secondary student teachers engaged in 
different co-teaching models using self-reported 
data. The study examined student teachers? and 
cooperating teachers? perceptions of co-teaching.  
Data showed there were no significant differences 
between the student teachers? and cooperating 
teachers? perceptions.   The researchers pointed 
out that some of the previously proposed 
co-teaching model descriptions did not clearly 
reveal the experiences of student teachers. For 
instance, with the One Teach, One Observe model, 
the cooperating teacher could lead instruction 
while the student teacher observes or the student 
teacher could instruct with the cooperating 
teacher observes. Specifically, Stobaugh and 
Gichuru (2016) refined the descriptions of One 
Teach, One Observe and One Teach, One Assist 
models and divided the descriptions of original 
two models into three:     

- Student Teacher Teaches Alone (Solo 
Teaching)? The student teacher has the 
primary instructional responsibility while 
the cooperating teacher gathers specific 
observational information.  (Formerly One 
Teach, One Observe)

- Student Teacher Observes? The cooperating 
teacher is the primary teacher while the 
student teacher gathers specific 
observational information.  (Formerly One 
Teach, One Observe)

- Student Teacher Assists? The cooperating 
teacher has primary instructional 
responsibility of leading instruction while 
the student teacher assists students with 
their work, monitors behaviors, or corrects 
assignments.  (Formerly One Teach, One 
Assist)

33



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

This revised instrument, utilized in this study, 
revealed the complexity of co-teaching models in 
the context of student-teaching. To further the 
understanding of the dynamics within a 
co-teaching union, more research on different 
aspects of the professional collaboration between 
student teachers and cooperating teachers is 
critically needed to precisely identify and address 
variables influencing co-teaching implementation 
at different grade levels. 

In all, despite the significance of collaboration 
between the cooperating teachers and teacher 
candidates, limited empirical attention has focused 
on teacher candidates? co-teaching experiences 
(Shin, Lee, & McKenna, 2015). To date, only the 
handful of studies mentioned above (Pancsofar & 
Petroff, 2016; Stobaugh & Gichuru, 2016; Villa, 
Thousand & Nevin 2007), have specifically 
examined the frequency of student teachers? use 
of different co-teaching strategies and the variance 
among grade levels or program areas. This gap 
needs to be bridged to gain a more 
comprehensive picture of how co-teaching can be 
effectively implemented in classrooms and to 
maximize co-teaching effectiveness in teacher 
preparation programs and beginning teacher 
internship training

Present  St udy

Cultural psychologists believe that people learn 
through participating in daily sociocultural activity 
(Bruner, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). Lave and Wenger?s 
notion of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) 
and social constructivism (Bruner, 1996; Vygotsky, 
1978) served as the theoretical framework for this 
study. 

Lave and Wenger (1991) offered a social practice 
theory and viewed learning as a situated activity, 
since ?learners inevitably participate in 
communities of practitioners and that mastery of 
knowledge and skill requires newcomers to move 
toward full participation in the sociocultural 
practice of a community? (p. 29). They introduced 
the notion of legitimate peripheral participation to 
describe how newcomers become experienced 

members of a community of practice or 
collaborative project. Situated at the periphery of 
communities, social beings are not yet full 
members. They learn the culture and norms of the 
social group by observing and through 
apprenticeships. They become increasingly 
competent through their evolving participation 
and eventually gain membership or access to the 
community. This changing participation leads 
individuals to take on new identities that are 
necessarily bound up with new knowledge and 
skills (Lave, 1996). Student teaching is considered a 
form of apprenticeship and other teacher 
candidates are learning how to become 
experienced professionals through the 
collaborative relationship with cooperating 
teachers in a variety of education settings. In the 
current study, we employ Lave and Wenger?s 
(1991) notions of situated learning as a lens to 
examine teacher candidates? changing 
participating in co-teaching activities throughout 
their apprenticeship. 

This research study utilized survey results to 
determine student teachers' use of different 
co-teaching strategies prior to student teaching 
and during student teaching along with the 
comparison of the use of co-teaching strategies 
among student teachers? respective teacher 
education program areas such as elementary, 
middle, and secondary education. Due to no 
statistically significant differences between the 
cooperating teachers? and student teachers? 
perceptions of co-teaching in (Stobaugh & Gichuru, 
2016) this study focused exclusively on the student 
teachers? perspectives rather than both the 
student teachers? and cooperating teachers? 
perspectives. The following research questions 
guided this focus: 

1. How do student teachers (as delineated by 
their respective program areas: elementary, 
middle grades, and secondary grades) 
differ in their use of the eight co-teaching 
strategies during student teaching?

2. How do student teachers (as delineated by 
their respective program areas: elementary, 

34



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

middle grades, and secondary grades) 
differ in their use of seven co-teaching 
strategies prior to student teaching 
compare to the use of strategies during 
student teaching?

3. How do student teachers (as delineated by 
their respective program areas: elementary, 
middle grades, and secondary grades) vary 
in their choices of seven co-teaching 
strategies during student teaching?

Met hod

The teacher preparation program that provided 
the context for this study is a four-year bachelor 
program in a large, comprehensive, and public 
university in the southeastern region of the United 
States. As a part of the Kentucky school statute, all 
teacher candidates are required to have 200 hours 
of clinical experience prior to student teaching.  In 
addition, the state required all cooperating 
teachers who host student teachers to be trained 
in the various co-teaching approaches by 2013. 
Kentucky Administrative Regulation 5:040 states 
that

The educator preparation institution shall provide 
opportunities for the student teacher to assume 
major responsibility for the full range of teaching 
duties, including extended co-teaching 
experiences, in real school situations under the 
guidance of qualified personnel from the educator 
preparation institution and the cooperating 
elementary, middle, or high school. (Kentucky 
Administrative Regulation, 2012)

As result of this Kentucky statute, the university 
trained all cooperating teachers, student teachers, 
and university teacher education faculty on the 
co-teaching model. Before student teaching, 
teacher candidates utilize co-teaching strategies as 
they teach lessons, observe teachers leading 
instruction, lead small intervention groups, and 
assist teachers.

During the student teaching semester, teacher 
candidates are placed throughout neighboring 
K-12 schools. Prior to receiving their teaching 
certificate, student teachers must complete the 

final semester of coursework in this placement by 
working with their cooperating teachers who serve 
as their mentors to refine their teaching skills. At 
the time of data collection, all participants were 
enrolled in the culminating undergraduate 
teaching methods course offered through the 
School of Teacher Education during their student 
teaching semester. 

Dat a Collect ion and Sam ple

Two sets of survey data were collected: (a) the Pilot 
Survey; and (b) the Student Teacher Survey. The 
Pilot Survey, administered in the middle of the Fall 
2014 student teaching experience, aimed to 
present new labeling for the co-teaching strategies 
(see Figure 1). Student teachers were to identify 
the extent of their exposure and involvement by 
reporting the time spent on each co-teaching 
strategy. The Pilot Study used the revised eight 
co-teaching strategies proposed by Stobaugh and 
Gichuru (2016), including Student Teacher Teaches 
Alone (Solo Teaching), Student Teacher Observes, 
Student Teacher Assists, Station Teaching, Parallel 
Teaching, Supplemental Teaching, Alternative 
Teaching, and Team Teaching.

Participants identified their certification level: 
elementary, middle, or secondary. The survey then 
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 strategies from 0% to 100% 
in ten percent increments. As a reminder to the 
participants, the co-teaching strategies were 
defined at the bottom of the survey. The Pilot 
Survey was given only in Fall 2014 to determine if 
the proposed eight co-teaching categories 
provided a richer data source to analyze the 
co-teaching practices of student teachers. The 
measures in the Pilot Study investigated whether 
there were any differences of co-teaching 
approaches over the course of teacher training. 
The intention was to examine the relationship 
between co-teaching strategies and different uses 
in program areas. 

35



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

The participants in the Pilot Student Teacher 
Survey included:  elementary education (n=55), 
middle grades education (n=20), and secondary 
education (n=14) student teachers, with a total of 
89 participants. The response rate was an 
acceptable 61%.

The second set of data was collected through the 
Student Teacher Survey (see Figure 2). The Student 
Teacher Survey is administered at the close of the 
student teaching semester, so all teacher 
candidates could reflect on their use of the 
co-teaching strategies in clinical experiences prior 
to their student teaching and during student 
teaching. Completion of this survey was required 
by the teacher education department and has 
been in place for several years. An addition of 
co-teaching items to the survey occurred in 2012 
to assess the level of co-teaching during student 
teaching. The survey, administered Fall 2012 
through Spring 2016, represented four years of 
data.  The seven co-teaching strategies used on 
the survey included: One Teach, One Observe; One 
Teach, One Assist; Station Teaching; Parallel Teaching; 
Supplemental Teaching; Alternative Teaching; and 
Team Teaching.

Student teachers were asked to evaluate the 
implementation of the co-teaching strategies both 
before and during student teaching using the 
following rubric indicators:  Extensive 
Exposure? Very comfortable with the model and 
successfully used it during student teaching (4 
level); Moderate Exposure? Somewhat 
comfortable with the model and tried to use it 
during student teaching (3 level); Minimal 
Exposure? Not Comfortable with the model and 
did not use it during student teaching (2 level); and 
None At All? Limited or no exposure to the model 
(1 level).

The participants in the Student Teacher Survey 
included elementary education (n=567), middle 
grades education (n=148), and secondary 
education (n=316), for a total of 1,031 participants 
(Table 1). The survey, administered Fall 2012 
through Spring 2016, supplied four years of data. 
The response rate was slightly higher at 67% than 

the Pilot Survey response rate of 61%.

Table 1.

 Characteristics of Study Samples

Var iables

In the Pilot Survey, the co-teaching strategies were 
interval scales as participants were assessing the 
level of implementation of each model during the 
student teaching semester based on 10 percent 
increments. In the second instrument, the Student 
Teacher Survey, the variable was also an interval 
scale, with student teachers rating from 1 to 4 on a 
rubric their level of implementation of each of the 
co-teaching strategies.    

Analyses

To answer the first research question, which used 
the pilot data, beta regressions were conducted 
(Ferrari & Cribari-Neto, 2010). The dependent 
variable is a percentage at the individual response 
level which is inappropriate for a typical linear 
regression or Analysis of Variance-based (ANOVA) 
model. The beta regression approach used a 
regression structure but assumed the dependent 
variable followed a beta distribution.  This model 
incorporated the additional estimation of a 
parameter ? , or precision parameter, which 
related to the shape of the beta distribution best 
fitt ing the data. Its? value is immaterial to 

36

Survey and Number Program Area Sample Size

Pilot Survey

(N=89)

Elementary 
Education

55

Middle Grades 
Education

20

Secondary 
Education

14

Student Teacher Survey

(N=1031)

Elementary 
Education

567

Middle Grades 
Education

148

Secondary 
Education

316



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

interpretation of results in this research project. 
With this approach, homoscedasticity or 
non-normality of residuals were irrelevant. 
Outliers or multicollinearity could be problematic, 
but were not issues in this study.  The betareg 
package (Cribari-Neto & Zeileis, n.d.) in R software 
was used to estimate the beta regressions.

The remaining research questions were answering 
using mixed ANOVAs. Mixed ANOVAs included 
both repeated measures (pre- and post-ratings) 
and independent measures (program area). 
Regression models were not appropriate because 
of the repeated measures. A multi-level model 
with time-point as level 1 could have been used, 
but the mixed ANOVA was chosen in this case due 
to its greater simplicity. 

Result s

The results of the Pilot Survey addressed Research 
Question #1:  How do student teachers (as 
delineated by their respective program areas: 
elementary grades, middle grades, secondary 
grades) differ in their use of the eight co-teaching 
strategies during student teaching?

Based on the Pilot Survey completed by student 
teachers in elementary (E), middle (M), and 
secondary (S), the highest percentages were in the 
same three co-teaching strategies:  Student Teacher 
Alone, Student Teacher Assists, and Team Teaching 
(Table 2). Student Teacher Assists (E =21.1%; M=19%; 
S=18.8%) was the highest percentage for 
elementary student teachers. The co-teaching 
strategy Student Teacher Alone (E=19.7%; M=23.5%; 
H=26.1%) was the highest percentage for 
secondary student teachers. For Team Teaching 
(E=16%; M=28%; H=21%), middle grades student 
teachers reported spending the most time utilizing 
this co-teaching strategy. There were negligible 
levels of Parallel Teaching and Alternative Teaching 
reported for all levels.  

Table 2.  

Pilot Study Percentage of Student Teacher Use of 
Strategy

Utilizing the Pilot beta regression data displayed in 
Table 3 below, the only statistically significant 
difference was between elementary and 
secondary student teachers on Station Teaching. 
Elementary teachers reported higher levels of 
Station Teaching than secondary teachers. 

To answer Research Questions 2 and 3, mixed 
model ANOVAs were used to examine the 
interaction between program area and seven 
co-teaching strategies for both the prior to student 
teaching and during student teaching data 
collections based on the end of the semester 
student teacher survey. In both cases, the ANOVA 
assumption of sphericity was violated 
(Greenhouse-Geisser estimate, ? = .758, .803). This 
suggested that variances or covariances across 
groups may be non-equivalent, potentially leading 
inaccurate p-values and, therefore, wrong 
conclusions. A correction to the degrees of 
freedom, the Huynh-Feldt estimate, thus was used 
(Field, 2013, p. 548) to assure p-values were 
accurate. 

37

Elementary Middle High

Student Teacher 
Alone

19.7 23.5 26.1

Student Teacher 
Observes

10.6 9.5 9.0

Student Teacher 
Assists

21.1 19.0 18.8

Station Teaching 12.5 6.0 4.6

Parallel Teaching 4.4 5.5 4.4

Supplemental 
Teaching

12.0 5.5 11.7

Alternative 
Teaching

3.7 3.0 4.4

Team Teaching 16.0 28.0 21.0



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

Table 3.

Pilot Beta Regression

38

Estimate Std Error Z P-Value

Student 
Teacher Alone

Intercept -1.187 0.088 -13.486 0

Secondary vs. 
Elementary

0.024 0.159 0.15 0.881

Middle vs.   
Elementary

0.139 0.208 0.671 0.502

Phi 5.257 0.551 9.543 0

Student 
Teacher 
Observe

Intercept -2.218 0.121 -18.306 0

Secondary vs. 
Elementary

-0.259 0.242 -1.067 0.286

Middle vs.   
Elementary

-0.088 0.181 -0.487 0.626

Phi 4.856 0.617 7.875 0

Student 
Teacher Assists

Intercept -1.333 0.072 -18.615 0

Secondary vs. 
Elementary

-0.155 0.134 -1.155 0.248

Middle vs.   
Elementary

-0.032 0.175 -0.184 0.854

Phi 9.544 1.021 9.345 0

Station 
Teaching

Intercept -2.078 0.128 -16.229 0

Secondary vs. 
Elementary

-0.793 0.25 -3.175 0.001

Middle vs.   
Elementary

-0.733 0.189 -3.89 0

Phi 3.882 0.523 7.428 0

Estimate Std Error Z P-Value

Parallel 
Teaching

Intercept -3.124 0.165 -18.979 0

Secondary vs. 
Elementary

-0.066 0.186 -0.354 0.723

Middle vs.   
Elementary

0.248 0.245 1.013 0.311

Phi 5.082 0.84 6.049 0

Supplemental 
Teaching

Intercept -2.01 0.102 -19.799 0

Secondary vs. 
Elementary

-1.067 0.241 -4.427 0

Middle vs.   
Elementary

-0.167 0.169 -0.991 0.322

Phi 4.856 0.617 7.875 0

Alternative 
Teaching

Intercept -3.29 0.168 -19.598 0

Secondary vs. 
Elementary

-0.079 0.245 -0.322 0.748

Middle vs.   
Elementary

0.086 0.185 0.464 0.643

Phi 5.804 0.985 5.893 0

Team Teaching

Intercept -1.856 0.127 -14.594 0

Secondary vs. 
Elementary

0.276 0.193 1.431 0.152

Middle vs.   
Elementary

1.094 0.254 4.297 0

Phi 2.695 0.314 8.569 0



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

The prior to student teaching data indicated that the 
interaction was statistically significant (F (99.64, 
18.34) = 9.569, p < .001). Similarly, the interaction 
was statistically significant during student teaching 
(F (142.61,19.43) = 13.36, p < .001). These results 
suggest which co-teaching strategies were used 
more or less frequently varied by program areas 
and specifically provides results for Research 
Question #2: How do student teachers (as 
delineated by their respective program areas: 
elementary, middle grades, and secondary grades) 
differ in their use of co-teaching strategies prior to 
student teaching compared to the use of strategies 
during student teaching?    

The use of the One Teach, One Observe strategy 
increased in all program areas. All program areas 
reported mean ratings above 3.0 for the observe 
co-teaching strategy as student teachers reported 
consistently high use of this strategy for both prior 
to student teaching and during student teaching, 
thus the reasoning for the strategy resulting in (a) 
the most utilized strategy overall, and (b) the least 
increased strategy of all program areas. 

Student teachers reported the One Teach, One 
Assist strategy as the second most utilized strategy 
overall. The use of this strategy increased from 
prior to student teaching to during student 
teaching. However, the gain was a minimal 
increase of a 1.6 supporting the interpretation that 
the assist strategy is frequently used throughout 
the undergraduate teacher education program as 
well as the student teaching experience. The 
largest increase in the assist strategy occurred in 
the MGE program moving from a 3.1 to 3.7 with a 
gain of .6.  

ELED student teachers increased their use of the 
Station Teaching strategy more than in any other 
program area with a rise of a .5 mean rating 
between prior to student and during student 
teaching. The MGE and SEC student teachers 
reported the least used strategy in both prior to 
student teaching and during student teaching. 

All program areas increased in the use of the 
Parallel Teaching from prior to student teaching to 

during student teaching. Nevertheless, the parallel 
strategy was reported as the least used strategy 
overall. Mean ratings for the parallel strategy 
remained below 3.0 in prior to student teaching 
and during student teaching in all program areas.  

Student teachers in ELED and MGE programs 
exhibited more increase in the use of the 
Supplemental Teaching than the other program 
areas with mean ratings of 3.0 and 2.9, 
respectively. The supplemental strategy is reported 
as the second least used strategy overall with the 
parallel strategy remaining the least utilized 
co-teaching strategy. 

Student teachers reported a low use of the 
Alternative Teaching in both prior to student 
teaching and during student teaching. This 
strategy rates as the third least used co-teaching 
strategy overall. There was, however, an increase 
in use from prior to student to during student 
teaching with a mean rating increase of 1.6. The 
use of the Team Teaching increased more than any 
of the other strategies in any program areas with a 
rise of 2.1.  The ELED program showed the most 
gains with a .5 increase in the use of the team 
strategy from prior to student teaching to during 
student teaching. The team strategy was the third 
most utilized strategy overall. 

Research Question #3 addressed: How do student 
teachers (as delineated by their respective 
program areas: elementary, middle grades, and 
secondary grades) relate to their choice of seven 
co-teaching strategies during student teaching?

Overall, student teachers reported the One Teach, 
One Observe strategy the most utilized strategy in 
all program areas with the One Teach, One Assist 
strategy rating the second most used. Both the 
Observe and Assist strategies produced mean 
ratings of at least 3.5 and above in all program 
areas.  The ELED student teachers utilized observe 
and assist more than any of the other strategies 
with each strategy resulting in a mean rating of 
3.5. The Parallel strategy was the least employed 
strategy by ELED student teachers with a mean 
rating of 2.7.  

39



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

The MGE program indicated that One Teach, One 
Assist strategy was the most used with meaning 
ratings of 3.7. The least used strategies in the MGE 
program was the Supplemental strategy with a 2.7 
mean rating. The SEC program data revealed 
similar results as observe and assist were the most 
used strategies with 3.6 and 3.5 mean rating and 
Parallel was the least used strategy during student 
teaching by SEC student teachers with a mean of 
rating of 2.5.   

The SEC program student teachers made the least 
use of the Supplemental strategy when compared 
to the other program areas with a mean rating of 
2.6. In addition, the SEC program utilized the 
Alternative co-teaching strategy less than the other 
program areas with a mean rating of 2.7.  

Discussion

This research study examined the frequency of 
student teacher use of co-teaching strategies 
along with the variance of the strategies among 
teacher education program areas. The purpose 
was to gain insight on how co-teaching strategies 
could be more effectively implemented in (a) 
student teaching experience, (b) P-12 classrooms, 
and (c) teacher preparation programs. Finally, as 
expected with each teacher education initiative, 
the goal was to contribute to improved student 
achievement in P-12 classrooms (Willis, 2015). The 
three research questions provided a focus for the 
data collection and analysis as well as a lens to 
determine study outcomes. The research 
questions are reviewed below along with the 
discussion relevant to each question.   

The first research question related to student 
teachers (as delineated by program areas) and 
their use of the eight co-teaching strategies during 
student teaching as measured by the pilot survey 
results. In Stobaugh and Gichuru?s study (2016), 
student teachers at all grade levels engaged 
primarily in One Teach-One Observe, One Teach-One 
Assist, and Team Teaching. By using the eight versus 
the seven co-teaching strategies, the Pilot Survey 
revealed a clearer picture of student teachers? 
actions. Comparing the data from Stobaugh and 

Gichuru?s research (2016) with the Pilot Study 
results, revealed that student teachers engaged in 
less observation. So, perhaps the higher numbers 
for the One Teach-One Observe strategy in 
Stobaugh and Gichuru?s study (2016) represented 
a mixture of the cooperating teacher observing 
with the student teacher teaching and other times 
the student teacher observing with the 
cooperating teacher teaching. With the extensive 
number of clinical hours required prior to student 
teaching, student teachers should be spending few 
hours observing, unless those are targeted 
observations such as observing questioning skills 
or discipline strategies. 

The new co-teaching strategy Student Teacher Alone 
included in the Pilot Survey revealed a clear picture 
of the percentage of time student teachers led 
instruction. When the co-teaching model was first 
introduced, many cooperating teachers had 
concerns over whether student teachers would be 
adequately prepared to lead their own classroom 
if they continually had support from the 
cooperating teacher. The Pilot Survey data 
revealed that in all levels, approximately 
one-fourth of the student teachers? time was spent 
teaching alone, thus independently utilizing 
necessary skills to lead classroom instruction and 
handle classroom management issues. 

In both the Pilot Study and Stobaugh and Gichuru?s 
research study (2016), results indicated high levels 
of Team Teaching and was reported as one of most 
effective strategies with a classroom teacher and a 
student teacher collaborating, learning from one 
another, and advancing as professionals 
(Murawski, & Dieker, 2004).  Additionally, in both 
the current study and Stobaugh and Gichuru?s 
research (2016), Alternative and Parallel Teaching 
were used infrequently. Kloo and Zigmond (2008) 
recommended the use of a variety of co-teaching 
strategies including more advanced co-teaching 
strategies such as Alternative and Parallel, which 
often require advanced training to understand the 
best ways utilize the strategies (Mastropieri et al., 
2005). 

The second and third research questions 

40



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

measured how student teachers differ in their use 
of the co-teaching strategies prior to student 
teaching compared to the use of co-teaching 
strategies during student teaching As noted in 
Hartnett, Weed, McCoy, Theiss, and Nickens (2013), 
a traditional model of student teaching includes 
classroom observations by the student teacher 
with more instructional responsibilit ies added to 
the student teacher?s role with the progression of 
time. Therefore, it should not be surprising that 
the co-teaching strategy, One Teach, One Observe, 
increased in all program areas from prior to 
student teaching to during student teaching. The 
survey items did not afford student teachers the 
opportunity to indicate the role of the student 
teacher while utilizing the observe strategy, that is 
if the student teacher was observing the 
cooperating teacher or was the person being 
observed [name deleted to maintain the integrity 
of the review process]. However, the results 
revealed that the observe strategy is the most 
used strategy overall and its historical use must 
play a part in the frequency of its use. 

These results supported Scruggs, Mastropieri, and 
McDuffie?s (2007) findings by indicating the One 
Teach, One Assist strategy as the most frequently 
used co-teaching strategy both prior to student 
teaching and during student teaching. According 
to Keeley (2015), teachers utilizing the assist 
strategy in a co-teaching model research study 
perceived the strategy as the easiest co-teaching 
strategy to implement, which could contribute to 
the frequent use of the strategy identified in this 
study. Notable, though, were Keeley?s (2015) 
findings through the student responses that One 
Teach, One Assist did not improve learning when 
compared to Station Teaching, Parallel Teaching, or 
Team Teaching. 

The MGE student teachers reported an increase in 
use of the Assist strategy from prior to student 
teaching to during student teaching. During 
student teaching, MGE teachers seem to be either 
team teaching, solo teaching, or assisting.  There is 
less utilization of the other co-teaching strategies 
to support diverse learning needs.

Student teachers in the ELED program reported 
use of the Station strategy both prior to and during 
student teaching. This is not a surprising result as 
early childhood programs have utilized stations, or 
its variation mostly known as learning centers, for 
many years (Lara-Cinisomo, Fuligni, Daugherty, 
Howes, & Karoly, 2009). The MGE and SEC student 
teachers reported a low use of Station Teaching. 
Typically, stations or its variations, are not used as 
often in the secondary program as in early 
learning programs such as Elementary. Elementary 
teachers must provide developmentally 
appropriate learning experiences for students and 
stations are effective methods to do so. The MGE 
and SEC students can learn at more independent 
levels, thus the apparent need for stations or 
centers may not seem as necessary as for early 
learners. However, the opportunity to differentiate 
instruction through the co-teaching Station 
strategy should not be overlooked by any grade 
level. 

The results revealed the Parallel Teaching as the 
least used strategy overall. The Parallel co-teaching 
strategy requires more planning and collaboration 
between co-teachers than some of the other 
co-teaching strategies. Due to the nature of the 
strategy, co-teachers must know the learning 
needs of students as well as ways to differentiate 
content to implement the Parallel strategy 
effectively. It is possible that the cooperating 
teachers may need more training on this strategy 
to collaborate effectively with the student teacher 
[name deleted to maintain the integrity of the 
review process].

Supplemental Teaching requires one co-teacher to 
work with a group of students at grade level, while 
the other co-teacher supplements the content 
through reteaching, remediation, or extension (St. 
Cloud University, 2009). It is somewhat surprising 
that student teachers reported the Supplemental 
co-teaching strategy as one of the least utilized 
strategy both prior to student teaching and during 
student teaching. A reason for the lack of 
implementation of the Supplemental strategy could 
be a lack of co-teachers? understanding of how to 

41



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

prepare for and implement this strategy. Another 
reason for the lack of implementation might be 
that the planning time for the Supplemental 
strategy could be more involved than some of 
other co-teaching strategies, therefore, 
cooperating teachers may not be able to devote 
extra time for planning and collaboration with the 
student teacher. 

Alternative Teaching is another strategy in which 
student teachers reported minimal use in both 
prior to student teaching and during student 
teaching. The alternative or differentiated 
co-teaching strategy includes two different 
approaches to teaching the same content with the 
same learning outcomes for all students (St. Cloud 
University, 2009). A possible rationale for the low 
use of this strategy would be like the low use of 
Parallel and Supplemental co-teaching: (a) lack of 
training, (b) more time required for preparation, 
and (c) lack of initial training in the co-teaching 
strategy model for both the student and 
cooperating teachers. 

The results indicated that Team Teaching increased 
more than any other strategy in all program areas, 
which could indicate a positive outcome from the 
2013 mandated co-teaching training for all 
cooperating teachers. Moreover, due to the state?s 
high stakes accountability assessment system 
(Kentucky Department of Education, 2017), 
cooperating teachers could be hesitant to ?turn 
over their classroom? to the less experienced 
student teacher, thus, employing the Team 
Teaching strategy, which would afford the 
cooperating teacher and the student teacher to be 
equal parts of the teaching and learning process 
with the cooperating teacher still able to support 
the student teacher?s professional growth. 

Lim it at ions

There are several limitations with the present 
study.  Although we have a sufficiently large 
sample size, the participants were from one 
university, which limits the generalizability of the 
findings. Another limitation is the lack of prior 
research on this topic. Many teacher education 

programs utilize the special education model of 
co-teaching; however, this study focused on 
student teachers in a variety of program areas 
rather than exclusively focusing on the special 
education and general education teaching pair. We 
examined the co-teaching model through student 
teachers enrolled in three program areas. 
Additionally, this data is self-reported data which 
was not independently verified. Self-reported data 
has some negative aspects including participants 
having selective memory or exaggeration. 

Fut ure Research

The purpose of this study was to gain insight on 
how co-teaching strategies could be more 
effectively implemented in student teaching, P-12 
classrooms, teacher preparation programs, and 
first year teacher internship programs. 
Maintaining the study?s purpose, future research 
could focus on utilizing the Pilot Study?s eight 
co-teaching strategies. This instrument identified 
the level of time student teachers are teaching 
alone and assisting to obtain a clear sense of 
student teachers? actions in the clinical experience. 
This concentration may inspire researchers to 
evaluate the strategies in and among themselves 
that is to examine exactly how the strategies are 
implemented in ways to differentiate instruction 
and assessment and better meet student learning 
needs. 

Building on this study, additional research may be 
done exploring the reasons for the increase in the 
Assist strategy for MGE student teachers.  This 
could help identify ways to support student 
teachers as a move to more sophisticated 
co-teaching strategies.  

Additionally, future research can investigate ways 
the co-teachings strategies are implemented in the 
teacher education programs using 
developmentally appropriate practices prior to 
student teaching.  For example, early learners 
enrolled in introductory education courses could 
begin with Stobaugh and Gichuru?s (2016) Student 
Teacher Observes and Student Teacher Assists 
strategies. 

42



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

Moreover, university faculty may consider a 
heavier emphasis on the Team Teaching 
co-teaching strategy in the undergraduate teacher 
education clinical experiences to better prepare 
teacher candidates for the use of the strategy 
throughout the student teaching semester. The 
cooperating teachers may benefit from specific 
training on the Team Teaching strategy to promote 
a positive transformation of the student teaching 
experience. Researchers could collect data prior to 
and following the trainings to capture the value 
and impact of a Team Teaching inclusion in the 
student teaching process.

References

  Arshavskaya, E. (2014). Introducing co-teaching 
and co-generative dialogues in a pre-service 
teaching practicum: Stepping in and remaining 
contradictions. World Journal of English 
Language, 4(3), 44-57. 

Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). 
What makes co-teaching work? Identifying the 
essential elements. The College Teaching 
Methods & Styles Journal, 4, 43-48. 

Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the 
cooperating teacher and university supervisor 
in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher 
Education, 11, 501-581.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching 
guidelines for creative effective practice. Focus 
on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1?12. 

Cribari-Neto, F., & Zeileis, A. (n.d.). Beta Regression 
in R.  Retrieved October 10, 2017 from 
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/betare
g/vignettes/betareg.pdf

Dugan, K.B., & Letterman, M.R. (2008). Student 
appraisals of collaborative teaching. College 
Teaching, 56,11-15. 

Ferrari, S., & Cribari-Neto, F. (2010). Beta 
regression for modeling rates and proportions. 
Journal of Applied Statistics, 7, 799-815. 

Field, A. (2013).  Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS 
Statistics.  Los Angeles: SAGE.

Friend, M. (2014). Co-Teach! A handbook for creating 
and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in 
inclusive schools (2nd ed.). Greensboro, NC: 
Marilyn Friend, Inc.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2009). Including 
students with special needs: A practical guide for 
classroom teachers (5th ed.). Upper Saddle 
River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: 
Collaboration Skills for School Professionals (6th 

43



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2009). Paired field 
placements: A means for collaboration. The 
New Educator, 5, 81-94.

Guise, M., Habib, M., Thiessen, K., & Robbins, A. 
(2017). Continuum of co-teaching 
implementation: Moving from traditional 
student teaching to co-teaching. Teaching and 
Teacher Education, 66, 370-382.

Hartnett, J., Weed, R., McCoy, A. Theiss, D. & 
Nickens, N. (2013). Co-Teaching: A new 
partnership during student teaching. SRATE 
Journal, 23(1): 5-12. 

Heck, T., Bacharach, N., Mann, B., & Ofstedal, K. 
(2005). Co-teaching workshops: A platform for 
enhancing collaboration in student teaching. 
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 
Association of Teacher Educators, Chicago.

Hughes, C. E., & Murawski, W. A. (2001). Lessons 
from another field: Applying co-teaching 
strategies to gifted education. Gifted Child 
Quarterly, 45, 195? 204. 

Isherwood, R., & Barger-Anderson, R. (2008). 
Factors affecting the adoption of co-teaching 
models in inclusive classrooms: One school?s 
journey from mainstreaming to inclusion. 
Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 
2, 121-128. 

Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: 
A collaborative student teaching experience for 
preservice teachers. Teacher Education and 
Special Education, 30, 155?166. 

Keeley, R. (2015). Measurements of student and 
teachers? perceptions of co-teaching models. 
Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 4(1) 
1-15. 

Kentucky Administrative Regulation (2012).   16 KAR 
5:040:  Admission, placement, and supervision in 
student teaching.  Frankfort, KY:  Author.  
Retrieved from 
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/016/005/040.htm

Kentucky Department of Education (2017). 

Assessments. Frankfort, KY: Author.  Retrieved 
from 
http://education.ky.gov/AA/Assessments/Pages
/default.aspx

Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Coteaching 
revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing 
School failure, 52(2), 12-20. 

Lara-Cinisomo, S., Fuligni A., Daugherty, L., Howes, 
C. & Karoly, L. (2009). A qualitative study of 
early childhood educators? beliefs about key 
preschool classroom experiences. Early 
Childhood Research & Practice, 11(1), 1-8. 

Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. 
Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(3), 149?164.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: 
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, 
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Graetz, J, Norland, 
J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case 
studies in co- teaching in the content areas: 
Successes, failures and challenges. Intervention 
in School and Clinic, 40, 260-270. 

McHatton, P. A., & Daniel, P. L. (2008). Co-teaching 
at the pre-service level: Special education 
majors collaborate with English education 
majors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 
31, 118?131. 

Murawski, W.W., & Swanson, H. (2001). A 
meta-analysis of co-teaching research. 
Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267. 

Murawski, W. W., & Dieker. L. A. (2004). Tips and 
strategies for co-teaching at the secondary 
level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-58.

Pancsofar, N., & Petroff, J. (2016). Teachers? 
reported use of co-teaching methods: 
Associations with structural elements of 
co-teaching, teacher attitudes and professional 
development opportunities. The International 
Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 1043-1053.

Pardini, P. (2006). In one voice: Mainstream and 
ELL teachers work side-by-side in the 
classroom teaching language through content. 

44



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

Journal of Staff Development, 27(4), 20?25. 

Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (2004). Coteaching: from 
praxis to theory. Teachers & Teaching, 10(2), 
161-180. 

Rytivaara, A & Kershner, R (2012). Co-teaching as a 
context for teachers? professional learning and 
joint knowledge construction. Teaching and 
Teacher Education, 28(7), 999-1008.

Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.E., & McDuffie, K.A. 
(2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A 
metasynthesis of qualitative research. 
Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392?416. 

Shin, M., H. Lee, & McKenna, J.W. (2015). Special 
education and general education preservice 
teachers? co-teaching experiences: A 
comparative synthesis of qualitative research. 
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(1), 
91-107. 

St. Cloud University (2009). Co-teaching strategies 
and examples. St. Cloud, MN: Author. Retrieved 
from 
http://www.stcloudstate.edu/oce/_files/docume
nts/coteaching/Co-Teachingdefinitionsandexam
ples.pdf 

Strogilos, V., & Tragoulia, E. (2013). Inclusive and 
collaborative practices in co-taught classrooms: 
Roles and responsibilit ies for teachers and 
parents. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 
81-91.

Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2007).  
Differentiated instruction: Collaborative planning 
and teaching for universally designed learning. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J.S., & Nevin, A.I. (2013). A 
Guide to co-teaching: New lessons and strategies 
to facilitate student learning (3rd ed.). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Willis, D. (2015). A Reflection on Lessons Learned 
from Implementation of a State-Mandated 
Co-Teaching Model for Student Teaching. 
AILACTE Journal, 12(1): 53-71

Zigmond, N., & Magiera, K. (2001). Current practice 

alerts: A focus on co-teaching. Use with 
caution. DLD Alerts, 6, 1-4.

45



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

Figure 1. Pilot Student Teacher Survey

WKU Co-teaching Mid-point Checkpoint Student Teacher Form

46

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

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).

Student Teacher Teaches Alone

(Solo Teaching)

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Student Teacher   Observes 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Student Teacher   Assists 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

St udent  Teacher    Teaches Alone (Solo Teaching)? The Student Teacher has the primary   instructional responsibility while the 
Cooperating Teacher gathers specific   observational information.(One Teach,   One Observe)

St udent  Teacher    Observes-The Cooperating Teacher is the primary teacher while the Student   Teacher gathers specific observational 
information.(One Teach, One Observe)

St udent  Teacher    Assist s? The Cooperating Teacher has primary instructional   responsibility of leading instruction while the Student 
Teacher assists   students? with their work, monitors behaviors, or corrects assignments.(One Teach, One Assist)

St at ion Teaching? The Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher divide the   instructional content into parts. Each teacher instructs one of 
the groups,   then the groups rotate.

Parallel Teaching?The Cooperating Teacher   and Student Teacher instruct half the students.The two teachers are addressing the same   
instructional material and presenting the material using the same teaching   strategies.

Supplem ent al?The Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher   plan and implement a task/activity where one teacher works with students 
at   their expected grade level, while the other teacher works with those students   who need the information and/or materials extended or 
remediated.

Alt ernat ive?The Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher   plan and implement two different approaches to teaching the same   
information.The learning outcome is   the same for all students however the avenue for getting there is different.

Team  Teaching?Well planned,   team taught lessons, exhibit an invisible flow of instruction with no   prescribed division of authority 
between the Cooperating Teacher and Student   Teacher.Using a team teaching   strategy, both teachers are actively involved in the 
lesson.From a 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.



STOBAUGH & EVERSON | STUDENT TEACHER ENGAGEMENT IN CO-TEACHING STRATEGIES

Figure 2. Student Teacher Survey

Co-Teaching Models

- One Teach, One Observe: One teacher has the primary responsibility while the other gathers specific observational information on 
students or the instructing teacher. The key to this strategy is to have a focus for observation.

- One Teach, One Assist: One teacher has primary instructional responsibility, while the other assists students with their work, monitors 
behaviors, or corrects assignments.

- Station Teaching: The co-teaching pair divides the instructional content into parts and the students into groups. Groups spend a 
designated amount of time at each station.

- Parallel Teaching: Each teacher instructs half the students, addressing the same instructional materials and presents the material using 
the same teaching strategy.

- Supplemental Teaching: One teacher works with students at their expected grade level while the other teacher works with those 
students who need the information and/or materials re-taught, extended, or remediated.

- ·lternative or Differentiated Teaching: Provides students with different approaches to learning the same information.
- Team Teaching: Well-planned, team-taught lessons with no prescribed division of authority.

Quest ion 1: To what extent were you were exposed to the co-teaching models during your coursework and field experiences pr ior  t o student 
teaching experience?

Quest ion 2: To what extent were exposed to the co-teaching models dur ing your student teaching experience?

Extensive exposure Moderate exposure Minimal exposure None at all

Very comfortable with the 
model   and my ability to 
use it during student 
teaching

Somewhat comfortable 
with the model and was 
ready to use it during 
student teaching

Not Comfortable with the 
model   and would not use 
it during student teaching

Limited or no 
exposure to the   
model

One Teach, One Observe 4 3 2 1

One Teach, One Assist 4 3 2 1

Station Teaching 4 3 2 1

Parallel Teaching 4 3 2 1

Supplemental Teaching 4 3 2 1

Alternative or Differentiated 
Teaching

4 3 2 1

Team Teaching 4 3 2 1

Extensive exposure Moderate exposure Minimal exposure None at all

Very comfortable with 
the model and 
successfully used it 
during student teaching

Somewhat comfortable 
with the   model and 
tried to use it during 
student teaching

Not Comfortable with the 
model and did not use it 
during student teaching

Limited or no exposure 
to the model

One Teach, One Observe 4 3 2 1

One Teach, One Assist 4 3 2 1

Station Teaching 4 3 2 1

Parallel Teaching 4 3 2 1

Supplemental Teaching 4 3 2 1

Alternative or 
Differentiated Teaching

4 3 2 1

Team Teaching 4 3 2 1

47


	Stobaugh 2019 Proof Final
	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8
	Page 9
	Page 10
	Page 11
	Page 12
	Page 13
	Page 14
	Page 15
	Page 16
	Page 17
	Page 18


