coteaching in a secondary science methods course: learning through a coteaching model that supports...

Journal of Science Teacher Education 15(3): 197–209, 2004C© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Feature Article

Coteaching in a Secondary Science Methods Course:Learning Through a Coteaching Model that SupportsEarly Teacher Practice

Charles J. EickAuburn University, AL 36849, USA

Frank N. WareSanford Middle School, Opelika, AL 36801, USA

Mark T. JonesDrake Middle School, Auburn, AL 36830, USA

Coteaching as a form of situated learning supports early induction into scienceteaching. A coteaching model for secondary science methods students and whathas been learned from this model is described. Secondary science methods stu-dents in pairs were placed with a science teacher to begin teaching as peripheralparticipants. A cooperative inquiry method was used to study this model. In-depthlearning about the model and how to make it work effectively came from a pro-cess of “research cycling” over multiple semesters. This learning has been put inpractical form as a primer for cooperating teachers and methods students par-ticipating in coteaching. Constraints and limitations of this coteaching model arediscussed.

Introduction: Coteaching in Learning to Teach

Coteaching as a form of situated learning for teacher induction has beginningteachers learning to teach by working at the elbows of a more experienced teacher(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1996; Roth, 2002). Unlike other famil-iar apprenticeship models in teacher education, coteaching moves beyond lengthyperiods of observation and assistance to a form of team teaching, which is thenfollowed by shared dialogue on practice (Tobin, Zurbano, Ford, & Carambo, 2003).In coteaching, two or more individuals teach lessons together with one person tak-ing the lead role at any one time. Afterwards, coteachers reflect together on thecoteaching experience: the enactment of the lesson, intended and unintended out-comes, and collective accountability for student learning. Coteaching is a means tointegrate theory and practice—in practice—what can only be learned in practiceand followed by reflective dialogue on practice (Korthagen, 2001). Like other ap-prenticeship models, learning from coteaching comes from being in the classroomwith another teacher (Roth, 2002).

198 EICK, WARE, & JONES

Beginning teachers may benefit most in learning to teach by coteaching with anexperienced teacher (Roth, 2002). Inexperienced teachers model in practice specifictraits or attributes of an experienced teacher, such as gaining proficiency in askingproductive questions (Roth & Boyd, 1999; Roth, Masciotra, & Boyd, 1999). Tobinet al. (2003) found in one case study that a pair of student teachers modeled theirexperienced teacher’s mannerisms (verve and movement) that were suited to suc-cessfully teach and interact with students in their urban classrooms. Eick, Ware, andWilliams (2003) found that methods students in coteaching with experienced teach-ers gained confidence in their ability to teach through enhanced teacher presenceand practical knowledge. This practical knowledge included growing classroommanagement skills and ability to implement inquiry-based activities that promoteconceptual understanding (National Research Council, 1996).

Peripheral Participation and Coteaching as a Transition to Teaching

Becoming a science teacher is indeed a culture shock for beginning teachersbecause their perceptions and abilities do not match the realities and demands ofthe classroom (Adams & Krockover, 1997; Dollase, 1992; Veenman, 1984). Thebeginning of this culture shock often occurs during the first field practicum wherepreservice teachers must regularly teach students. Preservice teachers’ initially ex-pect classroom contexts and student behavior to mirror their personal learning ex-periences and memories as past science students (Geddis & Roberts, 1998; Kagan,1992; Knowles & Holt-Reynolds, 1991). They idealistically think that they will im-mediately be effective teachers and will teach students who want to learn from them(Fessler, 1995). When they discover otherwise, they are unsure how to proceed asteachers under different assumptions (Veenman, 1984).

While preservice teachers grapple with unexpected student behavior, they mustsimultaneously begin to adopt their role as teacher. Adopting the role of teacher isoften an uncomfortable experience because young preservice teachers still viewthemselves as students. As they transition to their role as teacher, preservice stu-dents must consider the type of teacher that they want to become. Part of this con-sideration includes reflection on their desired teaching practice within the unfoldingcontexts of the classroom (Eick & Reed, 2002). Beliefs about teaching and actualteaching practice are often in a state of disharmony at this time (Simmons et al.,1999). Throughout this early period, preservice teachers (and beginning teachers)continually reevaluate their role as teacher and their personal self within that role(Schempp, Sparkes, & Templin, 1999; Volkmann & Anderson, 1998). While try-ing to find their self as teacher within unfamiliar contexts, they also must learn toperform their craft (Sarason, 1999). This learning is often done in isolation in theclassroom with little support from other experienced teachers.

Without prior experience as teachers of science, preservice teachers’ great-est assets during their transition to teaching are past experiences working withyouth, meaningful content knowledge, strong “take charge” personalities, and solidplanning and organizational skills (Eick, 2002; Borko, Bellamy, & Sanders, 1992;Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Knowles, 1992). Coteaching can build on

COTEACHING IN A METHODS COURSE 199

these assets and ease the transition into the classroom through a process of periph-eral participation that is conjoined with coparticipation (Eick et al., 2003; Brownet al., 1989; Lave, 1996; Roth, 2002). Starting coteaching early in teacher education,such as in a methods course, can begin this process sooner when ample support fromanother teacher in the classroom is available.

Coteaching in a Science Methods Course

Coteaching has become an integral part of our field-based science methodscourse in our secondary program. We prepare students for coteaching through read-ings, teachings, and viewing videos of model cases of coteaching. Similar meetingsare held with participating teachers. The model that we have developed has twoscience methods students placed as partners with an experienced science teacher.Experienced teachers typically have more than 2 years of classroom teaching ex-perience. Partnered students attend their assigned classroom for 2 mornings (orafternoons) each week for 12 weeks. These 2 days are not consecutive but fit theuniversity schedule of alternating day courses. Two days of coteaching is an exten-sion of time from our initial pilot of one day (Eick et al., 2003). Cooperating teachersmust teach at least two of the same courses during the morning (or afternoon) whenpartnered students are present.

During the first 2 weeks of the field placement, methods students spend time asperipheral participants in the classroom, observing their cooperating teacher, gettingto know the students, and assisting the cooperating teacher in classroom tasks and du-ties. These tasks include taking role, monitoring students, passing out papers, record-ing grades, and assisting individual or groups of students during the lesson at hand.

After 2 weeks, methods students continue their role as peripheral participantsduring the first science class. However, they take the lead in teaching segments of thecooperating teacher’s lesson during the second period of the same science course.Methods students alternate the days on which each will take the lead in coteachingas coparticipants with their assigned teacher. In this way, methods students try theirhand at teaching through modeling their cooperating teacher and her lesson. Duringthe time that one of the methods students takes the lead in teaching, their partnerand cooperating teacher are present to assist them. However, the cooperating teacheracts as an equal coteacher while the partner still acts as a peripheral participant.Cooperating teachers as equal coteachers freely participate in a supporting role inguiding the lesson and student management through their words and actions; whatwe call interjections.

After coteaching each day, teachers and methods students meet at a time conve-nient for all to dialogue about practice. This time often occurs during planning, lunchperiod, or after school on the same day. Sometimes, due to problematic schedul-ing, methods students and cooperating teachers meet to dialogue about practicebefore school the next day. This dialogue focuses on the lead methods student’spractice from a technical perspective with suggestions for future practice. In thisway, this model is different from other coteaching models where the coteachers(student teachers and cooperating teacher) dialogue more as equals in improving


joint practice (Tobin et al., 2003). Partners and cooperating teachers must also maketime to dialogue about pending lessons, establishing the framework of the lessonand the content that will be taught.

After the first month of coteaching, methods students take the lead in teachingthe entire time during the second class. They gradually assume the full role as leadcoteacher during this second period, while remaining peripheral participants duringthe first period. Later in the semester, as methods students gain confidence in theirabilities and growing practical classroom knowledge, they begin modeling morethan mimicking their teacher’s approach within the lesson (Eick et al., 2003).

Cooperative Inquiry on Our Coteaching Model

Working closely with lead teacher colleagues in our professional developmentschools (Darling-Hammond, 1994), we have adopted a cooperative inquiry approachto the ongoing study of our coteaching model (Eick et al., 2003; Reason, 1998;Reason & Heron, 1986). In cooperative inquiry, we work as coresearchers (profes-sor and teachers) in planning, studying, and revising our model as “[cocreators] ofknowing about [ourselves]” ( Reason & Heron, p. 462). Coresearchers share weeklyfield notes of observed (and experienced) practice in an ongoing basis as equalpartners in the inquiry on this model. Field notes focus on the practical applica-tion and effectiveness of this model in learning to teach: What apparent difficultiesarise in practice for the methods students and cooperating teachers; and how meth-ods students’ practical knowledge and teaching abilities change over time? Thismethodology supports the generation of knowledge—and its subsequent applica-tion back to the classroom—from the classroom teachers’ experiential and practicalperspective (Reason & Heron, 1986). The sharing of field notes (as data) mainlytakes place while the methods professor visits the participating schools each weekas a participant observer (Maxwell, 1996 ). Data on the coteaching experience alsocomes from participating methods students. Student comments occur privately tothe professor while in individual conference and publicly on an electronic bulletinboard and on-campus discussions. Coresearchers use a grounded theory approachto study these data, triangulating between data sources and searching for common-alities among cases (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Recurrent themes in learning to teachin this model are addressed by the coresearchers as strengths, limitations, or prob-lems with the model that should be addressed in the next research cycle of modelmodification and study.

Through successive iterations or “cycling” of our coteaching model (since1999) we have deepened our understanding of essential components in coteachingin the methods course (Reason & Heron, 1986; see Eick et al., 2003, for first cycle).We have learned what makes our model more effective for easing the transitionto “first-time” science teaching. Coresearchers make judgments on those issuesgrounded in the data that cycle through each term of coteaching and that directlyimpact the coteaching experience. Modifications in the model and preparation for itare made for the next term or round of coteaching ( Reason & Heron, 1986). Learningfrom our research about what is essential to make coteaching work well includes


what we call “powerful” learning required to facilitate the best possible experiencefrom the coteaching model. This information is incorporated into a simple primerof “must know and do” statements for cooperating teachers and methods studentsparticipating in coteaching. The primer is used as a follow up and synopsis ofthe preparation that we consider important for participants to make the coteachingmodel work optimally. Thus, this document is an evolving record of learning andpreparation to make our coteaching model more effective. The primer incorporatesour in-depth learning from our cooperative inquiry over time that directly impactsthe success of our model for easing the transition to classroom science teaching.

Our Coteaching Primer

The Coteaching Primer was written as a useful document for cooperatingteachers and methods students to read and refer to frequently during the coteachingprocess. It includes information and suggestions for cooperating teachers and stu-dents to follow in making this coteaching model more effective in learning to teach.The data for this primer were generated from the ongoing cooperative inquiry on thismodel over three research cycles (Reason, 1998; Reason & Heron, 1986). Commonthemes of learning about the model, generated and sustained through each cycle ofthe model, were written as “to do” statements for what participants must do beforecoteaching, as well as during coteaching. Thus, each statement of the primer wasdeemed important for participants to know and do for coteaching to work well. Eachstatement and its description are arranged in the primer following the chronologyof the field experience.

Before Coteaching

Methods Students Must be Eager to Take the Initiative in Getting HighlyInvolved in their Cooperating Teachers’ Classroom and School Life. Oftenmethods students think that they are doing well if they carry out every directive oftheir cooperating teacher. However, in learning to teach, this is not good enough.Methods students must take the initiative, such as assisting their teacher and coteach-ing, without being asked. It also includes learning more about the role of teacheroutside the teaching period. Methods students with great initiative have been ob-served staying longer in their teacher’s classroom in order to assist their teacher andlearn more about teaching. This could even include participating in field trips, clubs,athletic events, and dances.

Methods Students Must Begin Learning the Names of the Students in theirClasses. Methods students should plan with their cooperating teacher some “get toknow you” activities or games to learn the names of the students during the first fewweeks of the term. A crucial element of connecting with students for teaching andmanagement is to know their names and something about each student as quicklyin the term as possible.


Cooperating Teachers Should Share with Methods Students their Class-room Policies and Procedures, as Well as Other Duties and Responsibilities thatGo with Teaching. Cooperating teachers should give methods students a writtencopy of their policies and procedures for their students and discuss it with them. Co-operating teachers should frequently share other aspects of teaching where methodsstudents can also learn through doing. Cooperating teachers should ask and expectmethods students to take roll, pass out papers, help monitor hallways, assist withlunch duty and bus duty, try grading student papers, to name a few. Cooperatingteachers can also share the nature of the paperwork and organization required inteaching and invite methods students to teacher meetings and open house.

Methods Students Should Eat Lunch with their Cooperating Teacher toIncrease their Meeting Time and to Better Get to Know their Teacher and OtherTeachers. Methods students need as much time with their cooperating teacheroutside of coteaching as possible. Due to conflicting schedules, meeting during aplanning period is not always possible. Lunchtime will likely take place duringall methods students scheduled field time. Methods students should use the lunchperiod to talk with their teachers about upcoming lessons and teaching practice, aswell as receive feedback on teaching. Also, they can meet other teachers and taketime to listen to their “shop talk” for a better idea of what is going on outside oftheir classroom experience.

Cooperating Teachers Should Make Clear How Methods Students are toDiscipline their Students. Methods students and cooperating teachers should dis-cuss before coteaching how methods students are to discipline classroom students.Cooperating teachers must share their classroom management and discipline planwith the methods students. They can also support them in using it, including itsconsequences for student misbehavior. Some cooperating teachers prefer to havemethods students refer a disciplinary issue to them immediately so that the coop-erating teacher handles it. Either way, the methods students need to be very clearabout their role in disciplining students. In addition, cooperating teachers should notoverprepare their students to be “on their best behavior” when methods students arepresent. This will not allow the methods students the chance to practice handlingdiscipline issues.

Partners Should Try to Carpool to their School in Order to Dialogue Infor-mally About their Teaching and Thoughts on Practice. Reflective and insightfuldiscussions can ensue between methods partners about their school and coteachingexperiences. Methods students share helpful advice for improved practice, as well asideas for future practice. Carpooling to and from the school site will allow studentsthe time to share their insights, reflections, and “friendly” feedback on each other’steaching and evolving role in the classroom. Such conversations help methods stu-dents think more deeply about their teaching and potentially improve in areas ofweakness.


Cooperating Teachers Should Try to Plan on Having Some Form ofInquiry-Based Activities, Group Work, or Laboratories for Many of theCoteaching Lesson Plans. Having many teachers in the room can facilitate theteaching and management of laboratory, activity, and project-based lessons. Al-though we know that inquiry-based activities don’t occur everyday in science teach-ing, we still want methods students to begin to see how they are done, as well as getexperience in doing them. If we want new science teachers to teach in a hands-onmanner, then they will need experience in this area while coteaching. However,cooperating teachers could not plan such activities for every visit because methodsstudents also need experience teaching well in interactive lecture and whole-classteaching situations.

During Coteaching

Create a Transition to Coteaching for All Involved. During the first fewweeks in the school, partners should be observing and assisting their cooperatingteacher. Fairly soon, partners individually should begin to take the lead in directinga lesson—with the assistance of their partner and cooperating teacher. This periodshould be long enough to allow the methods students the time needed to feel com-fortable in adopting their teacher role and trying their skill at teaching. Partners andcooperating teachers must also get accustomed to each other’s approach and stylein teaching.

Partnered Methods Students Should Assist Each Other DuringCoteaching. Each day in the school one partner is taking the lead in coteach-ing while the other partner is assisting them in carrying out the lesson. Assistingpartners should take an active role in helping their partner throughout the lesson.This role will not be as active or vocal as the classroom teacher’s role, but it caninclude helping pass out or collect papers, monitoring student on-task behavior andquietly intervening where appropriate, helping assist individuals or groups of stu-dents needing help during the lesson, and making mental notes of how the lesson isgoing for feedback for their partner. The assisting partner should NOT take a passiverole of simply observing the lesson from the sidelines or back of the class.

Cooperating Teachers Should Share a Copy or Outline of their LessonPlans for Coteaching with Methods Students. Methods students need more de-tailed structure about lessons than experienced teachers do. In this regard, methodsstudents need an outline of the lesson that is planned for coteaching. Just talkingabout it in generalities will not do—Methods students need a copy of a lesson plan,even a brief outline of one.

Cooperating Teachers and Methods Students Must Make Time Each Weekto Meet to Discuss Lessons Before they are Cotaught. Methods partners andcooperating teachers need to make time to meet and discuss the upcoming lessonplan for coteaching. This discussion should include the format of the lesson and the


specific content objectives. Methods students will have great difficulty in taking thelead during the second class period if they are unfamiliar with the lesson plan andits content. A designated time for each partner to meet each week for discussing anupcoming lesson must be set up before, during, or after school. A formal checksheetmust be completed by both student and teacher to ensure that this prebriefing meetinghas taken place. Lesson plans change readily in teaching, so meeting to discuss plansclosest to the coteaching day works best.

Cooperating Teachers and Methods Students Must Meet Regularly AfterCoteaching to Dialogue About Practice and Share Constructive Feedback.Methods students need constant feedback both orally and written on their teaching,as well as how the lesson could be improved. The time for this debriefing shouldtake place at the end of a coteaching episode—typically during planning period,at lunch, or after school. A simple feedback form given to methods students mustbe completed by the cooperating teacher to ensure written feedback. This form iscrucial when cooperating teachers, methods students, or both don’t have as muchtime to dialogue as they would like due to teaching and class obligations. In thesecases, dialogue about the lesson may need to take place the following day.

Methods Students Must Know their Subject Well on Any Topic that isBeing Cotaught. One of the greatest difficulties in coteaching for the methodsstudents is teaching without knowing well the content or topic that they are leadteaching. In these instances, methods students must study the content of lessons pre-sented before the day of coteaching. Methods students who teach very unfamiliarcontent are often hesitant and unsure about what they are teaching. They may eventeach something wrong. Also, they have less room to maneuver in their teachingand cannot respond to most student questions on the content. When methods stu-dents lead lessons that cover unfamiliar territory, their confidence, flexibility, andadaptability suffer greatly.

Make Sure that Everyone is Clear About the Nature of Interjections Dur-ing Coteaching. Cooperating teachers and coteaching partners can verbally inter-ject while the lead partners are teaching. Interjections should feel natural and fitinto the unfolding lesson. These interjections are not to critique or embarrass thelead teacher. Interjections often take the nature of adding what might be forgotten,suggesting a better way of doing something, correcting student misbehavior, askingthe students more questions, emphasizing a point of learning (or safety), or gentlycorrecting a mistake made. This should not be viewed as disrespecting the role of thelead teacher because all teachers present have a teaching role. Interjections shouldbe tactfully done. In essence, all the “teachers” are teaching together, but the leadteacher takes the role of directing the lesson at each step or leading in the teaching.Cooperating teachers and coteaching partners should always feel free to interject tohelp add to or direct a lesson, but should first allow the lead partners the chance toteach first.


Cooperating Teachers Should Begin to Interject Less and Allow theMethods Students to Lead More Strongly During the Last Half of Coteaching.Methods students need to begin moving toward independence in their ability to teachand manage students during an entire class period. Cooperating teachers can helpfoster this greater independence through refraining from interjecting “too much”during the second half of the semester. For example, cooperating teachers need tobegin to allow methods students to take the lead in handling disciplinary issues,giving them the first chance before intervening. Although we do not encouragealoofness on the part of the cooperating teacher by not assisting or interjecting atall, we do encourage the cooperating teacher to begin “pushing the methods studentsout of the nest” so they can begin to “fly more on their own.” Cooperating teachersshould continue to dialogue and give ample feedback to methods students at thistime, especially on prescribed performance criteria.

Limitations and Constraints of Our Coteaching Model

Coteaching Without Coplanning

Our coteaching model has limitations in helping our methods students learnto teach science through a process of increasing peripheral participation. Most ofthese difficulties center on use of the cooperating teacher’s lesson plan. Even thoughmethods students and cooperating teachers meet to discuss upcoming lessons, thetransition to coteaching can be difficult because our students do not coplan withtheir teachers. Coplanning lessons for coteaching would build more upon methodsstudents’ existing strengths, such as content knowledge and newly learned teach-ing strategies and tested ideas (Roth & Boyd, 1999). Better understanding of thelesson because of coplanning would also likely increase confidence in teaching it.Lemlech & Hertzog (1999) favor a model of field placement that reduces the notionof apprenticeship in favor of a professional community. Partnered field studentsrely less on the cooperating teacher and more on each other in planning, sharingexpertise, and peer coaching. Coplanning helps in creating a learning communitywhere cooperating teachers and field students coplan and colearn together (Lemlech& Hertzog, 1999). Models that support collegial planning among student teachersare also more effective in increasing reflective practice (Berg & Clough, 1999).

Coplanning may be the preferred approach within our model but would requiremuch more time for joint planning on the part of the methods students and cooper-ating teachers. This amount of time may be impractical in the secondary methodscourse because students have other on-campus course obligations in their sciencemajor and as full-time students. Cooperating teachers also have limited time forscheduling planning during the daytime hours that the schools are open. They oftenuse their (50 minutes) planning time for preparing materials for teaching. Also, long-standing traditional roles exist where cooperating teachers are viewed as experts andpreservice teachers are viewed as novices. Equal sharing of roles as coplanners andcolearners may be hard to accept for many of our cooperating teachers, especiallywith methods students who are just beginning their field experiences.


Gaps in Prior Knowledge of Previous Lesson

Another limitation of this model of coteaching is that methods students do notexperience portions of the lesson that preceded the coteaching day. Experiencingwhat happened during the preceding days of the lesson would help methods studentslead teach without missing prior knowledge of the unfolding lesson—their priorknowledge and their students’ prior knowledge. This continuity of experience andthought would likely aid the methods students’ maneuverability in the classroom ontheir second (or later) day of lead teaching (Roth, 2002). Methods students wouldbetter know what was taught and what students learned. Multiple consecutive daysof coteaching would prevent this loss of continuity of experience for most days.Although our latest model has added a day of coteaching each week, this day wasnot consecutive with the first day due to the university’s alternating day scheduleof courses.

Making Coteaching Work Better

Subject Matter Knowledge

With the above mentioned limitations and constraints, we have found thatprebriefings on upcoming lessons with copies of teachers’ lesson plans are crucialin helping methods students prepare for coteaching from a content and rehearsalframework (Borko et al., 1992; Grossman et al., 1989). Modeling alone from aprevious period is not enough in our experience to make this coteaching modelwork effectively for most of our students. Our students have difficulty in modelinglessons on subject matter that they do not know (or know well) because it is outsideof their subject major or strength (Grossman et al., 1989; Hashweh, 1987; Sanford,1988). The level of difficulty of subject matter varies based on grade level (6–12).However, even in middle school, content areas come up that fall outside of ourstudents’ majors because middle school science in our state is integrated science(all science subjects). Pairing methods students up with a teacher teaching only intheir subject major or strength could only happen in area high schools. Relying onhigh schools for coteaching placements is problematic because more than half ofour students major in biology, and insufficient numbers of biology teachers existin our rural location. In this case, struggling with learning middle school contentoutside of a major is preferred, but requires our students to be vigilant in studyingor restudying upcoming lesson content, especially in earth and physical sciences.

Teaching Styles and Personalities

We identify each semester a small number of methods students who do notbegin to blossom in their classroom skills and role as teacher through coteaching.In some of these cases, these students are more effective as teachers when askedto plan and teach their own lessons. These students share with us that coteaching


does not work for them because they have difficulty in modeling their cooperatingteacher’s approach or style. Early in coteaching, our students are able to beginidentifying personal characteristics, abilities, and beliefs that form their identityand role as teacher (Eick & Reed, 2002; Schempp et al., 1999). This identificationis particularly salient for our 5th-year program students where graduate studentsmay be more mature and experienced in identifying and voicing these differences—sometimes based on past teaching and work experience (Crawford, 1999). Furtherstudy on understanding these early teaching beliefs, styles, or temperaments amongour students may help in making better placements with cooperating teachers ofsimilar bent (Bunting, 1988).

Future Directions

Coteaching in our methods courses will continue to develop as a model forbeginning the learning process for science teaching. We have found that our modeldoes help ease the transition to teaching for our preservice students so that theyenter their last semester of student teaching with some practical knowledge anddeveloping abilities that they otherwise would not have (Eick et al., 2003; Roth,1998, 2002). As we make changes in our secondary science program to integrate fieldexperience with coursework and theory alongside practice, coteaching also supportsour goals in becoming a constructivist program where learning to teach is basedin teaching itself (Korthagen, 2001). The evolution and development of teachingknowledge and abilities through coteaching is an ongoing area of our research: Whatpractical knowledge learned in praxis is most salient from coteaching? How doesreflection on practice change for students involved in coteaching? How can learningto teach through coteaching foster a learning community for ongoing professionaldevelopment? These are just a few of the questions that we hope to address throughfurther study on coteaching.

Acknowledgment

This manuscript was accepted under the editorship of Craig Berg and LarryEnochs.

References

Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginningsecondary science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81, 29–50.

Berg, C. A., & Clough, M. (1999). Research on and activities to facilitate part-nering in field experiences. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Borko, H., Bellamy, M. L., & Sanders, L. (1992). A cognitive analysis of pat-terns in science instruction by expert and novice teachers. In T. Russell &H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp.49–70). London: Falmer Press.


Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the cultureof learning. Educational Researcher, January–February, 32–42.

Bunting, C. (1988). Cooperating teachers and the changing views of teacher candi-dates. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 42–46.

Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create aninquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175–194.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for de-veloping a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dollase, R. H. (1992). Voices of beginning teachers: Visions and realities. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Eick, C. J. (2002). Studying career science teachers’ personal histories: A method-ology for understanding intrinsic reasons for career choice and retention. Re-search in Science Education, 32, 353–372.

Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher?The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identify and practice.Science Education,86, 401–416.

Eick, C. J., Ware, F., & Williams, P. (2003). Coteaching in a science methods course:A situated learning model of becoming a teacher. Journal of Teacher Education,54, 74–85.

Fessler, R. (1995). Dynamics of teacher career stages. In T. R. Guskey & M.Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms andpractices (pp. 171–192). New York: Teachers College Press.

Geddis, A. N., & Roberts, D. A. (1998). As science students become science teach-ers: A perspective on learning orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Educa-tion, 9, 271–292.

Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance:Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge basefor beginning teachers (pp. 23–36). New York: Pergamon.

Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching ofbiology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109–120.

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

Lemlech, J. K., & Hertzog, H. H. (1999, April). Reciprocal teaching and learning:What do master teachers and student teachers learn from each other? Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, Montreal, Canada.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers.Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169.

Knowles, J. G. (1992). Models for understanding pre-service and beginning teach-ers’ biographies. In I. F. Goodson (Ed.), Studying teachers’ lives (pp.99–152).New York: Teachers College Press.

Knowles, J. G., & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1991). Shaping pedagogies through personalhistories in preservice teacher education. Teachers College Record, 93, 87–113.

Korthagen, F. A. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realisticteacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.London: Sage.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press.

Reason, P. (1998). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 261–291). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Reason, P., & Heron, J. (1986). Research with people: The paradigm of cooperativeexperiential inquiry. Person-Centered Review, 1, 456–476.

Roth, W. (1998). Science teaching as knowledgability: A case study of knowing andlearning during coteaching. Science Education, 82, 357–377.

Roth, W. (2002). Being and becoming in the classroom. Westport, Connecticut:Ablex.

Roth, W., & Boyd, N. (1999). Coteaching, as colearning, is praxis. Research inScience Education, 29, 51–67.

Roth, W., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming-in-the-classroom: A casestudy of teacher development through coteaching. Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 15, 771–784.

Sanford, J. P. (1988). Learning on the job: Conditions for professional developmentof beginning science teachers. Science Education, 72, 615–624.

Sarason, S. B. (1999). Teaching as a performing art. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Schempp, P. G., Sparkes, A. C., & Templin, T. J. (1999). Identity and induction:Establishing the self in the first years of teaching. In R. P. Lipka & T. M.Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of self in teacher development (pp. 142–161). Al-bany, New York: SUNY Press.

Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D.,Richardson, L., Yager, R., Craven, J., Tillotson, J., Brunkhorst, H., Twiest,M., Hossain, K., Gallager, J., Duggan-Haas, D., Parker, J., Cajas, F., Alshan-nag, Q., McGlamery, S., Krockover, G., Adams, P., Spector, B., LaPorta, T.,James, B., Rearden, K., & Labuda, K. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs andclassroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930–954.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theoryprocedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tobin, K., Zurbano, R., Ford, A., & Carambo, C. (2003). Learning to teach throughcoteaching and cogenerative dialogue. Cybernetics and Human Knowing,10(2), 51–73.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educa-tional Research, 54, 143–178.

Volkmann, M. J., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Creating professional identity:Dilemmas and metaphors of a first-year chemistry teacher. Science Education,82, 293–310.

coteaching in a secondary science methods course: learning through a coteaching model that supports...

Documents