How Co-planning and Co-teaching Influences Mentor Teachers During Student Teaching

• In Event: Teaching to Transgress: Implementing and Sustaining a Culturally Responsive Teacher Education Program

Abstract

1. Objectives or purposes:
This work is one of six papers describing an approach to urban teacher education reform funded through a Teacher Quality Partnership grant. This paper will focus on the impact and sustainability of the co-planning/co-teaching process used as an apprenticeship model for all pre-service field experiences.

Ultimately we want interns to view themselves as problem solvers in high-need environments with student learning as the central focus. To improve student learning, teachers must continually identify and track evidence of learning. Outcomes of subsequent discussions guide their teaching. In co-planning/co-teaching, mentors and interns share teaching responsibilities, with the mentor taking primary responsibility at the onset of the placement, and over time, moving to a shared responsibility.

2. Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
This topic is approached from a lens of inter-organizational collaborations and partnerships (Nowell, 2009; Thomson & Perry, 2006). The goal is to create systemic change in policy and practice within and across contexts. Partners include a university, an urban school district, and numerous state and community partners.

3. Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
This study employs a multi-phase, mixed-methods design that combines concurrent and sequential collection of quantitative and qualitative data over multiple phases of program study. Data are analyzed, triangulated and integrated to elicit a full understanding of the impact of the reform initiatives implemented in this program.

4. Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials
Project evidence includes teacher candidate data collected at admission, during the preservice program, and during the first three years of induction into the school setting. Data from other participants (e.g. mentor teachers, faculty, etc.) were collected twice during each academic year. Surveys of participating and non-participating candidates, teachers, and school leaders, reflections, focus groups and individual interviews were also used.

5. Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view
The results from the co-planning/co-teaching apprenticeship model include three major conclusions: a. The intern became more knowledgeable about and prepared for teaching and learning than from traditional field experiences. b. The mentors claimed they were able to become better mentors and classroom teachers as a result of involvement. c. The students were the ultimate benefactors by having two adults teaming to produce greater student learning.

6. Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work
For years the significance of producing high quality teachers has been a national focus due to lackluster performance by students in high-needs schools. The best chance that pre-service programs have to better prepare quality teachers is to design high-quality clinical experiences with a support system that focuses on the critical elements of teaching and learning. In essence, the best teacher is engagement in the practice itself.

Co-Planning and Co-Teaching forces an apprenticeship model that revolves around student learning and teaching as a problem-solving process. Preliminary results from participating mentors, interns, and students indicate great promise of a new way for mentors and interns to make their teaching choices public in ways that enhance student learning.

Authors

• Patricia A. Brosnan, The Ohio State University

• Marguerethe Jaede, Columbus City Schools

• Sandra A. Stroot, The Ohio State University