Windows of Opportunity: The Role of Leadership in Initiating Co-Teaching in a Teacher Preparation Program

• In Event: Synergies and Tensions: Experiences of Administration, Faculty, and Students in Co-Taught Teacher Preparation Courses

Abstract

The extant research on co-teaching in teacher preparation tends to focus on instructor perspectives and teacher candidate outcomes (e.g., Ricci & Fingon, 2018). Though scholars have noted that the support of leadership is needed for effective co-teaching (Bryant et al., 2018), research has not focused on the perspectives of administrators on co-teaching efforts (Murawski & Dieker, 2013).
The purpose of this study was to explore the role of leadership (dean and chairs) in initiating co-taught foundations courses within a teacher preparation program. In-depth interviews considered the conditions that sparked the change to shared, co-taught courses; their roles in leading the change; considerations in negotiating logistical issues with internal and external stakeholders; and reflections after the first year of implementation.
Thematic analysis in the first round utilized the CHAT theoretical framework (Engeström, 2000) to understand the roles of each area of the “activity system” on the implementation of the new program. The second round of coding was performed using a constant comparative analytic approach (Fram, 2013) to interpret major themes within each area of CHAT discussed by the participants.
Results indicate that leadership and administrators initiated the move to co-teaching based on values related to inclusion and the need to break down silos between general education and special education. Though these values were ongoing, it was the emergence of new state standards for teacher preparation (policy within the CHAT framework) that opened
a “window of opportunity” to initiate change. In higher education, which does not lend itself naturally to change, policy can act as a significant lever for shifts in the system. Administrators leaned on their values rather than focusing initially on logistics in garnering buy-in from faculty (the community). Logistical issues were then negotiated with external university stakeholders—especially as co-teaching operated at a cost deficit—and with internal program stakeholders, regarding co-teaching pairings and workload arrangements with faculty (representing tools and division of labor). Thus, there were both “top-down” and “bottom-up” processes at work, but all steering toward a clear goal (object) guided by their convictions that this course of action was best for the program and its students. During the first year of implementation, the issue of balance emerged as a major concern for leadership, as they managed sometimes opposing considerations: for example, of maintaining consistency across courses while also encouraging co-teaching pairs to develop their own content to reflect their unique strengths. These tensions in the activity system were never fully resolved; however, maintaining a focus on the object enabled continued efforts to hone the program.
The results of this study provide a window into a very unique and under-researched aspect of co-teaching, involving the role of leadership in initiating and maintaining the program. The study therefore has both scholarly and practical value in presenting the experiences and concerns of individuals in these roles, particularly in navigating logistics and collaborating with internal and external stakeholders to bring to fruition courses with potential to broaden and deepen the program’s impact on teacher candidates, and the districts and students they eventually serve.

Author

• Stacy Kula, Azusa Pacific University
  Presenting Author