[Handout #5]
The Canadian Journal for Teacher Research
Teachers Leading Transformations
http://www.teacherresearch.ca/blog/article/2015/12/14/268-co-teaching-two-peas-in-a-pod
Co-Teaching: Two Peas in a Pod
Posted: December 14, 2015, 2:07 PM THEMES: ALL Articles, Team Teaching
By Angela Dalton and Susan Paton
University of Alberta
Abstract
In this article, two teachers, Angela and Susan, outline the benefits they have experienced in their
first year of co-teaching together. They begin by defining co-teaching and provide a few examples of
[Handout #5]
the benefits and issues found in research studies. Finally, they describe how their own experience
has been positive for them, and they believe, also for their students.
What is Co-teaching?
We are co-teachers. In our practice, because it is the model of co-teaching we follow, we
define co-teaching as two teachers working together with a double class of students in one
classroom. In our model, both teachers plan, teach, support, and assess all students. But, we are
not the only model of co-teaching being used.
In fact, a variety of terminology is used interchangeably for the term co-teaching. Some call it team
teaching. Some think of co-teaching as two teachers swapping students, each in their own
classrooms; for example, one teaches math while the other teaches language arts, then the two
classes switch and the teachers repeat their lessons with the other class. Another common style of
co-teaching involves a regular education teacher who teaches the students full-time, and a special
education teacher who comes into the classroom for a specified amount of time each day. The latter
of these examples is often cited in U.S. research (Austin, 2001; Bouck, 2007; Keefe & Moore, 1997;
Walther-Thomas, 1997). Cook and Friend (2000) identified five kinds of co-teaching models, as well
as the benefits and challenges of each. These models were: (1) one teach, one assist; (2) parallel
teaching; (3) alternative teaching; (4) station teaching; and (5) team teaching.
One teach/one assist is often the first and most common style of co-teaching because it is so
closely matched to teaching in a regular classroom with adult support. One teacher leads the lesson
while the other teacher moves around the room observing and assisting students as needed, thus
allowing the flow of the lesson to continue. The mobile teacher is able to monitor student
understanding and offer support when needed. If the one teach, one assist model is used it is
important for teachers to reverse roles so students see the teachers as equals, not as one teacher
and one assistant.
Parallel teaching occurs when teachers plan the lesson together and the students divide into
two heterogeneous groups. Teachers teach the same lesson at the same time, each to their smaller
group. Parallel teaching allows teachers to work with smaller numbers of students at a time.
However, one challenge in this mode can be the noise and activity levels in the room.
When one teacher takes a small group of students, and the other teacher instructs the larger
group, this co-teaching model is called alternative teaching. Small groups allow for pre-teaching or
re-teaching targeted skills, enrichment, or assessment. Teachers need to be careful not to always
groups students by ability. Ability grouping can label some students and studies show students learn
more when they are in mixed ability groups (Tobin & McInnes, 2008).
Station teaching occurs when smaller groups of students work together. Teachers each
instruct a small group or rotate between the groups, which may also include an independent group of
students. Station co-teaching allows for lower teacher-student ratios. Another benefit includes equal
[Handout #5]
status for the teachers because both are actively teaching. Challenges include increased noise level,
and teachers keeping to the scheduled time so all students finish at the same time.
Team teaching, the last model as described by Cook and Friend (2000) is the most effective
and highest level of co-teaching. This model usually develops as teachers become more familiar
with one another. Team teaching may look like: both teachers instructing at the same time, building
on what each one has said; one teacher leading, while the other demonstrates; or teachers role
playing and offering different perspectives. “When teachers co-teach, they bring two sets of
expertise and diverse pedagogical options to the classroom, thus promoting greater student
outcomes and maximizing teacher strengths” (Patel & Kramer, 2013, p. 172). Successful team
teaching requires a strong, trusting relationship between the two teachers. Where there is truly an
equal partnership, this is the most effective level of co-teaching (Cook & Friend, 1995). Research
indicates the necessity of having an equal partnership between the two co-teachers (Magiera &
Zigmond, 2005; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi & McDuffie, 2005; Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).
Many experienced co-teachers identify professional learning as a benefit to team teaching (Bouck,
2007; Magiera, & Zigmond, 2005; Walther-Thomas, 1997). One drawback for team teaching is the
increased amount of time needed for co-planning (Gately, 2005; Graziano & Navarrete, 2012;
Howard & Potts, 2009; Kohler-Evans, 2006).
Co-teaching Stages
Gately (2005) identified three developmental stages co-teachers may move through as they
work together professionally. The first stage is the beginning stage. In this stage, teachers clarify
their roles, expectations, and responsibilities. Communication is key in this early stage; and, without
communication relationships can, and often do, break down. The second stage of co-teaching is the
compromising stage. This second stage is characterized with teachers taking active roles instructing,
give and take with decision-making, and more physical movement around the room. “Interpersonal
communication becomes more effective, more open and more interactive. The use of humour is one
indication the partnership has moved to this stage” (Gately, 2005, p. 39). In the final developmental
stage of co-teaching, known as the collaborative stage, teachers have a better understanding of
student needs, curriculum, and each other’s teaching styles. Teachers are confident and comfortable
with each other, and are able to plan and collaborate to meet the needs of all students in the
classroom.
Co-Teaching Research
Welch (2000), a professor of education at the University of Utah, conducted a research study
of two classrooms, where teachers participated in co-teaching experiments. The five variations of coteaching described were: (1) one teach, one assist; (2) station teaching; (3) parallel teaching; (4)
alternative teaching; and (5) team teaching. During Welch’s study, teachers kept logs detailing the
amount of time teachers spent on planning, and on the type of team teaching utilized. Researchers
[Handout #5]
collected quantitative data using pre-and post-test scores on specified reading skills with a goal of
20% improvement for all students (regular and special needs). Qualitative data was gathered in the
form of monthly focus groups, as well as data from individual teacher journal entries.
Welch (2000) found planning time varied greatly between the two classes. The data indicated both
classrooms utilized the ‘one teach, one assist’ model most frequently. The results indicated both
regular and special education students made gains during the study and students met the goals in
most areas, although gains for the special education students were limited. For teachers, the main
negative comment was the amount of time need for planning. However, teachers experienced many
positives. Teachers reported:
(1) It was easier to deal with interruptions or unexpected changes.
(2) Students seemed to adjust to having two teachers in the room and did not seem to distinguish
between teacher roles.
(3) At risk students who do not qualify for extra support were able to receive additional support.
(4) Teachers enjoyed the time together and learned a lot from each other professionally.
(5) Teachers reported less discipline issues.
Graziano and Navarrete’s (2012) findings from research done at Nevada State College regarding
their own experience with co-teaching a group of preservice teachers discussed both the challenges
and benefits of co-teaching. Both they, as co-teachers, and the students preferred the parallel
teaching and station teaching models because these provided more individualized instruction, which
increased the amount of interaction and engagement between students and instructors. Graziano
and Navarrete (2012) also felt co-teaching provided a way to address the diverse learning needs in
the class and increase student achievement. These co-teachers felt the benefits of co-teaching far
outweighed its challenges.
In a third study, Kohler (2006) surveyed co-teachers in fifteen school districts in Washington, United
States. Kohler (2006) found the majority of teachers surveyed (97%) said they would co-teach again
if given the opportunity. Teachers felt better able to meet the needs of students; teaching was more
fun; and the partnership with another adult added value to their jobs. Of the teachers surveyed, 77%
believed the co-teaching experience improved student learning; however, there is no quantitative
data to support this belief.
Co-teaching: What is Needed to Ensure Success
Cushman (2013), Graziano & Navarrete (2012), Howard & Potts (2009) and Welch (2000) all list
characteristics of effective co-teachers. Primarily, teachers must communicate regularly and openly.
There must be respect, trust, and shared responsibility between co-teachers. It is important to be
flexible and supportive with decisions. Welch (2000) reiterates these qualities as well as the need to
be consistent with classroom rules and expectations.
[Handout #5]
Other researchers identify supports needed for co-teaching success. Cook and Friend (1995),
Gately (2005), and Austin (2001) found administrative support essential to success. Administrators
can support co-teachers by providing resources, professional development opportunities, and
planning time. Research repeatedly emphasized the importance of co-planning (Gately, 2005;
Graziano & Navarrete, 2012; Howard & Potts, 2009; Kohler-Evans, 2006). Teachers need to be
prepared to spend extra time together before the startof the school year planning their units,
clarifying roles, and responsibilities. Planning throughout the year must include outcomes,
assessment, and adaptations for students with special needs, teaching strategies, and details about
clerical and other related tasks. Howard and Potts (2009) believe teachers need to review their plans
regularly and openly and discuss the need for any changes. Welch (2000) also identified that
administrative support is needed to make sure co-planning time is available as well as provide
opportunities for teacher training. Teacher training can consist of everything from professional
development around communication and methods of co-teaching, to pre-service teacher programs.
Co-Teaching Benefits
Co-teachers name one of the main benefits of co-teaching as embedded professional
development. Teachers gained experiences, which provided opportunities to reflect on their teaching
practices and student learning. “Overall, we found that the professional development that is gained
from the communication between co-teaching colleagues brings coherence to ideas and enriches
one’s desire to expand his or her knowledge of pedagogy” (Graziano & Navarrete, 2012, p. 120).
Several studies described co-teaching as fun (Cook & Friend, 1995; Cushman, 2013; KohlerEvans, 2006; and Walther-Thomas, 1997). One teacher stated, “You can do this alone, but it’s a lot
more fun and more rewarding if someone else is there with you…someone who cares about the
students the same way you do. Someone who will appreciate it when they are absolutely wonderful
– or absolutely awful!” (Walther-Thomas, 1997, p 401). Teachers valued the support of another adult
in the room, especially being able to enjoy the humorous moments of teaching together. Co-teaching
led to renewed enthusiasm and excitement for teachers. Some researchers believe increase teacher
engagement leads to increased student engagement and therefore increased learning (Parsons &
Taylor, 2011). Cushman (2013) adds, “Co-teachers agree that not only do they teach more
effectively, but their students also learn more effectively” (p. 7).
Co-Teaching: What Does it Mean to Us?
Nearing the end of our first year of our co-teaching experience, we can understand and appreciate
the benefits of having two teachers in one classroom. We feel we are better able to meet the diverse
needs of the students in our classroom, both academic and social/emotional. Having two teachers
with different teaching styles enables us to adapt the product, process, or content of curriculum to
address each student’s learning style thus improving student learning. One example we have utilized
is the station-teaching model to implement the language arts program we are using. This program
encourages small groups of students to work with one teacher on specific skills while the other
[Handout #5]
children are doing other activities. For us this means that we can both be working with smaller
groups, conferencing or just moving around helping the children not in the small group. Station
teaching also allows one teacher to assess students one on one or in small groups. Another
example of co-teaching in action utilizes the alternative teaching model, “One interesting variation on
this co-teaching approach is to use it for addressing a student’s social skills. A student need is
targeted, and a small group of positive peer models is selected to join that student. The lesson
taught is essentially the same as the one the large group is receiving, but an emphasis is place on
turn taking, talking appropriately with others, or any other needed skill” (Cook & Friend, 1995, p. 89).
The ability to work with small groups or one on one, without disruption, has given us a greater
understanding of each student’s abilities and learning styles, enabling us to better meet those needs.
In another example, we are frequently needed to help children with illnesses, injuries, or social
disputes with peers. Having a second teacher in the room enables us to give our full attention to the
child in need, while the other teacher can continue with the lesson.
We believe our pre-planning and becoming more knowledgeable through other researchers’ findings
has better prepared us for our successful co-teaching experience. Having a common vocabulary has
helped us effectively communicate with each other, anticipate potential problems, and openly work
towards solutions. We know how important co-planning time is for a successful partnership. We
believe having an understanding of other co-teaching models has helped us be purposeful in our
planning. Using a variety of co-teaching models has enriched our teaching and helped us meet the
diverse student needs in our classroom. A deeper understanding of co-teaching has also helped us
communicate with parents and our colleagues.
Research (Austin, 2001; Bouck, 2007; Honingh & Hooge, 2013; Keefe & Moore, 1997; Mastropieri et
al., 2005; Walther-Thomas, 1997; Welch, 2000) states, two challenges with co-teaching are the
amount of collaborative planning time needed and the breakdown of communication between coteachers, which often occurred when pre-planning or training was not in place ahead of time. We
have been diligent with our co-planning time; we have tried to be flexible with our teaching styles;
and we have endeavoured to openly communicate with each other.
We believe our co-teaching experience up to this point has given both of us a sense well-being. We
encourage each other, listen to each other, laugh together, share the ups and the downs and have
fun everyday. We are only just in our second year of our first co-teaching experience, and we love it.
We hope to continue with this opportunity for many years to come.
Cushman (2013) states, “Partners must establish trust, develop and work on communication, share
the chores, celebrate, work together creatively to overcome the inevitable challenges and problems,
and anticipate conflict and handle it in a constructive way” (p. 4). We believe this quote is an
excellent principle to follow.
References
[Handout #5]
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special
Education,
22(4), 245-255. Retrieved
from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.lo
n.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ630944&s
te=ehostlive&scope=site
Bouck, E. C. (2007). Co-teaching ... not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Preventing
School Failure, 51(2), 46-51. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/docview/228458189 accou
ntid=14474
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16. Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.login.ezproxy.library.ual
berta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ545936&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Cushman, S. (2013). What is Co-teaching? Nevin, A., Thousand, J., Villa, R. (3), A Guide to
Co-Teaching (pp. 3-10). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Gately, S. E. (2005). Two are better than one. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 36-41. Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.login.ezproxy.library.ual
berta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ766923&site=ehost-live&scope=site;
http://www.principals.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx
Graziano, K. J., & Navarrete, L. A. (2012). Co-teaching in a teacher education
classroom:
Collaboration, compromise, and creativity. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1),
109-126. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ986819.pdf
Honingh, M., & Hooge, E. (2014). The effect of school-leader support and participation in decision
making on teacher collaboration in Dutch primary and secondary schools.
Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 42(1), 75-98. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/docview/149138416
?acc
ountid=14474
Howard, L., & Potts, E. A. (2009). Using co-planning time: Strategies for a successful coteaching marriage. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(4). Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.login.ezproxy.library.ual
berta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ967747&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at
the
high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education, 32(3),
77
88. Retrieved
[Handout #5]
from
http://search.proquest.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/docview/195187182
accountid=14474
Kohler-Evans, P. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids.
Education, 127(2), 260-264. Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.login.ezproxy.library.ual
berta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ765824&site=ehost-live&scope=site;
http://www.projectinnovation.biz/education.html
Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine
conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and
solo-taught classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(2), 79-85. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00123.x
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(5), 260-270. Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.login.ezproxy.library.ual
berta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ693714&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Meehan, M. L. (1973, May). What About Team Teaching? Educational Leadership, 717-720.
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education,
14(1) Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.login.ezproxy.library.ual
berta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ938960&site=ehost-live&scope=site;
http://cie.asu.edu.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/745
Patel, N. H., & Kramer, T. A. (2013). Modeling collaboration for middle-level teacher
candidates
through co-teaching. The Teacher Educator, 48(3), 170. Retrieved
from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.co /docview
/1376450085?accountid=14474
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/docview/201097061?accountid=14474
Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences: Variations in differentiated
literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy, 42(1),3-9. Retrieved from:
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=b
e4fd0e7-cec6-4f64-bf30-8b0c7be0d5b0%40sessionmgr115&hid=119
[Handout #5]
Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that
teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395407.
Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/docview/194226838
ntid=14474
accou
Welch, M. (2000). Descriptive analysis of team teaching in two elementary classrooms: A
formative experimental approach. Remedial & Special Education, 21(6), 366-376. Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&
db=ehh&AN=3834122&site=ehost-live&scope=site