This research study shows one teacher preparation program’s (TPP) attempt to better gauge coteaching implementation and how a TPP can provide more immediate pair support. We present findings from the analysis of 777 weekly coteaching reflection surveys completed by 44 secondary preservice teachers over 20 weeks of the clinical experience. The research team developed “ideal” benchmarks for the coteaching reflection prompts and analyzed the data in respect to these benchmarks to see how close preservice teachers met coplanning, coinstructing, and coassessing benchmarks. Data are reported according to these benchmarks, presenting these data for the entire cohort and by individual disciplines before providing detailed case studies for two pairs within the English cohort. Recommendations are provided for TPPs who want to use a similar coteaching reflection survey and approach to data analysis to inform more immediate pair support.
AmbrosettiA.DekkersJ. (2010). The interconnectedness of the roles of mentors and mentees in pre-service teacher education mentoring relationships. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n6.3
2.
BacharachN.HeckT. W.DahlbergK. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538
3.
BadialiB.TitusN. (2010). Co-teaching: Enhancing student learning through mentor intern partnerships. School University Partnerships, 4(2), 74–79.
4.
BeckC.KosnikC. (2002). Components of good practicum placement: Student teacher perceptions. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 81–98.
5.
BeersJ. (2005). The role of coteaching in the development of the practices of an urban science teacher. In RothW. M.TobinK. (Eds.), Teaching together, learning together (pp. 79–95). Peter Lang.
6.
BeersJ. (2008). Negotiating the transition between different teaching contexts through shared responsibility and shared reflection. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 443–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9153-6
7.
BeninghofA. M. (2015). To clone or not to clone?Educational Leadership, 73(4), 10–15.
8.
BorkoH.MayfieldV. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(95)00008-8
9.
BrunnerC.FascaC.HeinzeJ.HoneyM.LightD.MandinachE.WexlerD. (2005). Linking data and learning: The Grow Network study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 241–267.
10.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In HallinanM. T. (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127–162). Springer.
11.
CookL.FriendM. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17161/fec.v28i3.6852
12.
Gallo-FoxJ.ScantleburyK. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1060294
13.
Gallo-FoxJ.StegemanL. (2019). Coteaching in early childhood clinical experiences: A cross-case study of learning affordances. Teaching Education, 31(3), 298–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1561661
14.
GuiseM.HabibM.RobbinsA.HeggS.HoellwarthC.StauchN. (2016). Pre-conditions for success & 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
15.
GuiseM.HeggS.RobbinsA. (2021). Learning together through coteaching coaching: A model of support for coteaching pairs in clinical practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100, 103278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103278
16.
GuiseM.ThiessenK.RobbinsA.HabibM. (2017). Continuum of co-teaching implementation: Moving from traditional student teaching to implementing co-teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.002
17.
HalversonR.PrichettR. B.WatsonJ. G. (2007). Formative feedback systems and the new instructional leadership. University of Wisconsin.
18.
HeckertJ.StriekerT.ShaheenM. (2013). Kennesaw State University collaborative clinical practice. The Renaissance Group, 1(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.33499/edren.v1i2.51
LangleyG. J.MoenR. D.NolanK. M.NolanT. W.NormanC. L.ProvostL. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. Wiley.
21.
LeMahieuP. G.EdwardsA. R.GomezL. M. (2015). At the nexus of improvement science and teaching: Introduction to a special section of the. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 446–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115602125
22.
LewisC. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education?Educational Researcher, 44(1), 54–61.
23.
MandelK.EisermanT. (2015). Team teaching in high school. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 74–77.
24.
MasonJ. (2017). Qualitative researching. SAGE.
25.
MurdockL.FinneranD.TheveK. (2015). Co-teaching to reach every learner. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 42–47.
26.
MurphyC.CarlisleK. (2008). Can they go it alone? Addressing criticisms of coteaching. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 4(2), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9150-9
27.
PrattS. (2014). Achieving symbiosis: Working through challenges found in co-teaching to achieve effective co-teaching relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.006
28.
RabinC. (2020). Co-teaching: Collaborative and caring teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119872696
29.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
30.
ScantleburyK. (2005). Gender issues in coteaching. In RothW. M.TobinK. (Eds.), Teaching together, learning together (pp. 233–248). Peter Lang.
31.
ScantleburyK.Gallo-FoxJ.WassellB. (2008). Coteaching as a model for preservice secondary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 967–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.008
32.
SindelarN. W. (2003). Using data to increase student achievement, step-by-step. Classroom Leadership, 6(6), 12.
33.
SmagorinskyP. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815
34.
SoslauE.Gallo-FoxJ.ScantleburyK. (2018). The promises and realities of implementing a coteaching model of student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117750126
35.
SoslauE.Kotch-JesterS.ScantleburyK.GleasonS. (2018). Coteachers’ huddles: Developing adaptive teaching expertise during student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.016
36.
TaberK. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296.
37.
ThompsonM.SchademanA. (2019). Gaining fluency: Five practices that mediate effective co-teaching between pre-service and mentor teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102903
38.
TobinK.RothW. M. (2005). Coteaching/cogenerative dialoguing in an urban science teacher preparation program. In RothW. M.TobinK. (Eds.), Teaching together, learning together (pp. 59–77). Peter Lang.
39.
TomlinsonC. A. (2015). Teaching in tandem: A reflection. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 90–91.
40.
TomlinsonP. D.HobsonA. J.MalderezA. (2010). Mentoring in teacher education. In PetersonP. L.BakerE.McGawB. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 749–756). Elsevier.
41.
ValenciaS. W.MartinS. D.PlaceN. A.GrossmanP. (2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109336543
