Paper presented at the 2015 AACTE Conference in Atlanta

1. How Co-Teaching Saved
Student Teaching: Data and
Decision-Making in a Critical
Time
AACTE
February 26, 2015
Vivian Covington
Liz Fogarty
Judy Smith
Christina Tschida

2. Pirate CODE  Develop the Research on Practice model,
codifying its steps and developing an
implementation model to institutionalize
innovations within programs.
 Document the implementation of research-
based innovations in the teacher education
curricula with concerted efforts to expand
implementation into all ITPs at the
institution.
 Develop and engage in practice-based
research surrounding the seven Pirate
CODE project innovations.
 Document and communicate the process,
the successes, and the challenges of the
Pirate CODE by contributing to the
research literature through publications,
presentations, and collegial conversations
at the institution, state, and national
levels.

3. Co-Teaching initially began as a collaborative
between general education and special education
in response to PL 94-142 (IDEA) legislation.
(Cook & Friend, 1995; Vaughn, Schumm, & Arguelle, 1997; Austin, 2001; Boucka, 2007;
Hang & Rabren, 2008)
Carefully designed student teaching experiences,
specifically Co-Teaching, can effectively prepare
clinical interns while positively impacting student
achievement.
During Co-Teaching,
all teachers are actively involved and engaged
in all aspects of planning, instruction and assessment.

5.  One Teach, One Observe
 One Teach, One Assist
 Station Teaching
 Parallel Teaching
 Supplemental Teaching
 Alternative (Differentiated)
Teaching
 Team Teaching
Cook & Friend, 2001

7.  Reduces the number of student teaching
placements and clinical teachers needed,
allowing us to be more selective
 Due to increased teacher accountability,
a model for student teaching that allows
clinical teachers to remain in their
classrooms is imperative
 Investigates ways to enhance the
relationship between the clinical
teacher and the intern

8.  Definitions and conceptual framework
(Friend, 1993; DeBoer & Fister, 1995; Gately
& Gately, 2001)
 Co-teaching positively influences students in
K-12 classrooms (Goodnough et al., 2009;
Kamen, 2007; Murphy et al., 2012)

9. Cumulative Data
Reading Proficiency
• Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment
• Compares Co-Taught and Not Co-Taught student teaching settings
Copyright 2011, St. Cloud State University,
Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant

10. Cumulative Data
Math Proficiency
• Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment
• Compares Co-Taught and Not Co-Taught student teaching settings
Copyright 2011, St. Cloud State University,
Research Funded by a US Department of Education, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant

11. East Carolina University

12.  5 hours of training using the St.
Cloud Co-Teaching model
 3 hour Foundation Training
 2 hour Pairs Training
 Also invited to participate in
the training sessions:
 university supervisors
 instructional coaches
 faculty

13. Generation 1
Fall 2011
• ELEMENTARY
Generation 2
Fall 2012
• ELEMENTARY
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Generation 3
Fall 2013
• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
• ELEMENTARY
• ENGLISH EDUCATION
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE
• HISTORY EDUCATION
• MATH EDUCATION
• MIDDLE GRADES
• SPECIAL EDUCATION
Generation 4
Fall 2014
• BIRTH-KINDERGARTEN
• DANCE
• ELEMENTARY
• ENGLISH EDUCATION
• HISTORY EDUCATION
• MATH EDUCATION
• MIDDLE GRADES
• SPECIAL EDUCATION

14. 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Classrooms 1 14 88 85
School Districts 1 2 5 9
Program Areas 1 2 8 9
Clinical Teachers 1 10 91 88
Interns 2 25 111 115
Faculty 6 8 30 20
University
Supervisors
1 6 31 41

15. Impact of Co-Teaching at
East Carolina University

16. RQ1: What effects does co-teaching have
on the teaching readiness of elementary
teacher candidates?
RQ2: What are teacher candidates’ and
clinical teachers’ opinions of co-teaching?
edTPA
Co-Teaching Survey, Focus Group Interviews

17. p value = 0.0485*
p value = 0.0283*
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Rubric 9: Subject
Specific Pedagogy
Rubric 15: Using
Assessment to Inform
Instruction
Non Co-Teaching
Co-Teaching
SD 0.889
SD 0.510
SD 0.968
SD 0.671
2012-2013 dataset
n=21
n=141

18. edTPA
Co-Teaching
n=74
Non Co-Teaching
n=237 p
Mean Mean
Task 1 Planning 3.63 3.51 .18
Task 2 Instruction 3.61 3.48 .11
Task 3 Assessment 3.59 3.36 .01
Overall Scores 3.61 3.45 .03
* p < .05 2012-2014 datasets

19. Elementary and Special Education interns (Spring 2013)
Co-Teaching
Interns
n=23
Non Co-
Teaching Interns
n=160
F Sig
M SD M SD
Q5 Preferred
Solo
6.22 2.295 7.09 1.568 5.439 0.021*
Q9
Differentiation
8.70 0.635 8.19 0.998 5.620 0.019*
Q11 Classroom
Management
8.48 0.730 8.00 0.932 5.560 0.019*
* alpha set to p < .05

20. "I think that this is a great model for
teaching; it is very empowering for the
student teacher and creates a great
relationship and future mentor.”
"We both were leaders in our own
respects and at different times.”
"Certain lessons work really well when they
are co-taught. It is a good feeling to pump
out a great lesson cooperatively, knowing
that the lesson would not have been as
dynamic if it had not been co-taught.”
"There is more
creativity
because you
are able to
talk ideas
through and
make them
great by
having the two
perspectives."

21. “Most positive thing about Co-Teaching is the growth
of my students. The classroom is always full of
students learning…definitely getting more teaching”
“I think this will be a great model that will improve
beginning teachers’ confidence, knowledge, etc. as
well as positively impact student learning.”
“I really enjoyed
Co-Teaching
because I felt free
to put the interns
in any situation
right from day one
they walked in the
door and I put
them to work.”
“We don’t have the behavior issues…the wait
time is gone because there’s three of us, so their
questions can be addressed immediately… and
we don’t have time where they’re not getting
what they need right away.”

22. THEME 1: The Effect of Co-Teaching on
Students
“It impacted My students immensely”
THEME 2: Preparation for Teaching
“I worry about them in the real world”
THEME 3:Relationship Building in Co-Teaching
“Breathing each other’s air”
THEME 4:Collaboration in the Classroom
“They’re master collaborators by the time
they finish”

23.  What are the experiences of candidates in a 2:1
scenario as compared to those in a 1:1 scenario?
 Comparing growth trajectories of beginning
teachers and P-12 students
 Fidelity of implementation research
 Looking for patterns across program areas
 Compatibilities of interns

25. DeBoer, A., & Fister, S. (1995). Working together: Tools for
collaborative teaching. Longmount, CO: Sopris West.
Friend, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at
the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School
Failure, 37(4), 6.
Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding co-teaching
components. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 40.
Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M.,& Stevens, K.
(2009). Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service
teacher and cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25, 285-296.
Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative
experience for pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 30(3), 155-166.
Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2012). Students as
‘catalysts’ in the classroom: The impact of co-teaching between
science student teachers and primary classroom teachers on
children’s enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal
of Science Education, 26(8), 1023-1035.