Within a sociocultural framework, we use situated learning theory to explore the use of a coteaching approach during student teaching. Coteaching is a model for learning to teach where clinical educators and teacher candidates teach alongside one another and share responsibility for pupil learning. Teacher education programs have adopted this model for student teaching because there is evidence that coteaching supports pupil learning and coteacher learning. This study of coteaching in three teacher education programs, within the same university, examined opportunities afforded for teacher candidates’ development of growth competence, adaptive teaching expertise, and collaborative expertise. Data analysis from the nested, cross-case qualitative study enabled us to examine opportunities for candidate learning afforded by coteaching during student teaching, posit recommendations on using coteaching, explain the necessary conditions, and discuss the model’s current limitations.
BacharachN.HeckT. W.DahlbergK. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14. doi:10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538
2.
BorkoH.MayfieldV. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)00008-8
3.
BransfordJ. D.SchwartzD. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.
4.
CarusoJ. (1998). What cooperating teacher case studies reveal about their phases of development as supervisors of student teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 109-119. doi:10.1080/0261976980210111
5.
CarusoJ. (2000). Cooperating teacher and student teacher phase of development. Young Children, 55(1), 75-81.
6.
ChristensenP. (1988). The nature of feedback student teachers receive in post-observation conferences with the university supervisor: A comparison with O’Neal’s study of cooperating teacher feedback. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(3), 275-286.
7.
Cochran-SmithM.Feiman-NemserS.McIntyreD. J.DemersK. (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
CollinsonV. (1999). Redefining teacher excellence. Theory Into Practice, 38, 4-11. doi:10.1080/00405849909543824
9.
ConwayP. (2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teacher: From a temporally truncated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 89-106.
10.
Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
DarraghJ. J.PicancoK. E.TullyD.HenningA. S. (2011). When teachers collaborate, good things happen: Teacher candidate perspectives of the co-teach model for the student teaching internship. Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges of Teacher Education Journal, 8(1), 83-109.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
14.
EmdinC. (2007). Exploring the contexts of urban science classrooms. Part 2: The role of rituals in communal practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(2), 351-373.
15.
Feiman-NemserS.BuchmannM. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53-65.
16.
Gallo-FoxJ.ScantleburyK. (April, 2015). “It isn’t necessarily sunshine and daisies every time”: Coplanning opportunities and challenges when student teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 324-337. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2015.1060294
17.
Gallo-FoxJ.ScantleburyK. (2016). Coteaching as professional development for cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 191-202. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.007
18.
Gallo-FoxJ.SoslauE. G.ScantleburyK.GleasonS. (2015). Opportunities for learning in a coteaching model: Implications for university-based field instructors. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
19.
GlennW. (2006). Model versus mentor: Defining the necessary qualities of the effective cooperating teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 85-95.
20.
GuiseM.HabibM.RobbinsA.HeggS.HoellwarthC.StauchN. (2016). Preconditions for success and barriers to implementation: The importance of collaborative and reflective dispositions to foster professional growth during a coteaching clinical experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 43(4), 55-76.
21.
HadarL.BrodyD. L. (2013). The interaction between group processes and the personal professional trajectories in a professional development community for teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 145-161. doi:10.1177/0022487112466898
22.
HarrisonJ.LawsonT.WortleyA. (2005). Facilitating the professional learning of new teachers through critical reflection on practice during mentoring meetings. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 267-292. doi:10.1080/02619760500269392
23.
HatanoG.OuraY. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26-29. doi:10.3102/0013189X032008026
24.
HedinL.CondermanG.HedinL.CondermanG. (2015). Shared promises and challenges of coteaching: General-special education and mentor preservice partnerships. Action in Teacher Education, 37(4), 397-417. doi:10.1080/01626620.2015.1078756
25.
HiebertJ.GallimoreR.StiglerJ. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one?Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X031005003
26.
JuckM.ScantleburyK.Gallo-FoxJ. (2010). Now it’s time to go solo: First year of teaching. In MurphyC.ScantleburyK. (Eds.), Coteaching in international contexts: Research and practice (pp. 241-259). New York, NY: Springer.
27.
KerinM.MurphyC. (2015). Exploring the impact of coteaching on pre-service music teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 309-323. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2015.1060293
28.
KorthagenF.VasalosA. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 47-71. doi:10.1080/1354060042000337093
ListonD.ZeichnerK. (1991). Teacher education and the social conditions of schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
MartinS. N. (2009). Learning to teach science. In RothW.-M.TobinK. (Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in North America (pp. 567- 586). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
33.
McIntyreD. J.ByrdD. M.FoxxS. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In SikulaJ.ButteryT. J.GuytonE. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 171-193). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.
34.
MurphyC.CarlisleK. (2009). Can they go it alone? Addressing criticisms of coteaching. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 4(2), 461-475. doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9150-9
35.
MurphyC.ScantleburyK.MilneC. (2015). Using Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development to propose and test an explanatory model for conceptualising coteaching in pre-service science teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 281-295. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2015.1060291
36.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning: Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
RogoffB. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1, 209-229.
38.
RogoffB. (1999). Cognitive development through social interaction: Vygotsky and Piaget. In MurphyP. (Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment (pp. 69-82). London, England: Open University Press.
39.
RosaenC. L.LundebergM.CooperM.FritzenA.TerpstraM. (2008). Noticing Noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347-360. doi:10.1177/0022487108322128
40.
RothW.-M.TobinK. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching together, learning together. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
41.
RothW.-M.TobinK.CaramboC.DallandC. (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. doi:10.1002/tea.20030
42.
RothW.-M.TobinK.CaramboC.DallandC. (2005). Coordination in coteaching: Producing alignment in real time. Science Education, 89, 675-702. doi:10.1002/sce.20055
43.
SawyerR. K. (2006). The new science of learning. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
ScantleburyK.Gallo-FoxJ.WassellB. (2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 967-981. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.008
45.
SiryC. A. (2011). Emphasizing collaborative practices in learning to teach: Coteaching and cogenerative dialogue in a field-based methods course. Teaching Education, 22(1), 91-101. doi:10.1080/10476210.2010.520699
46.
SmithE. R. (2005). Learning to talk like a teacher: Participation and negotiation in co-planning discourse. Communication Education, 54(1), 52-71. doi:10.1080/03634520500076778
47.
SmithE. R. (2007). Negotiating power and pedagogy in student teaching: Expanding and shifting roles in expert-novice discourse. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(1), 87-106. doi:10.1080/13611260601037405
48.
SoslauE. (2012). Opportunities to develop adaptive teaching expertise during supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 768-779. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.009
49.
SoslauE. (2015). Development of a post-lesson observation conferencing protocol: Situated in theory, research, and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 22-35. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.012
50.
SoslauE.Gallo-FoxJ.ScantleburyK.GleasonS. (March, 2015). Using coteaching as a model to reposition and professionally develop cooperating teachers as teacher educatorsPaper presentation for the AACTE Annual Meeting in Atlanta, GA.
51.
SteadC.PoskittJ. (2010). Adaptive help seeking: A strategy of self-regulated learners and an opportunity for interactive formative assessment. Assessment Matters, 1, 42-63.
52.
SudzinaM.GiebelhausC.CoolicanM. (1997). Mentor or tormentor: The role of the cooperating teacher in the student teacher success or failure. Action in Teacher Education, 18(4), 25-35.
53.
SunJ.van EsE. (2015). An exploratory study of the influence that analyzing teaching has on preservice teachers’ classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 201-214. doi:10.1177/0022487115574103
54.
TobinK. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133-142. doi:10.1080/10476210600680358
55.
TobinK.RothW.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn: A view from the field. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
56.
VygotskyL. S. (1986). Thought and language. Boston, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
57.
WassellB.StithI. (2007). Becoming an urban physics and math teacher: Infinite potential. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5922-3
58.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932
59.
ZeichnerK. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376-382. doi:10.1177/0022487112445789
60.
ZeichnerK.ListonD.MahliosM.GomezM. (1988). The structure and goals of a student teaching program and the character and quality of supervisory discourse. Teacher and Teacher Education, 4(4), 349-362.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
