Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Inquiring together: A pre-participation phase for a coteaching clinical

practice model in teacher education
Carol Rees a, *, Colette Murphy b, Rupinder Deol Kaur a, Alexis Brown a
a
Faculty of Education and Social Work, Thompson Rivers University, 805 TRU Way, Kamloops, BC V2C 0C8, Canada
b
School of Education, Room 3087, Arts Building, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

h i g h l i g h t s

 Exploring ideas for a coteaching model for clinical practice in a local context.
 The importance of the pre-participation phase for preparing for coteaching.
 Novel activities for sharing multiple perspectives across professional groups.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This qualitative case study focused on the pre-participation phase of a three-year trial-run of a
Received 18 January 2020 coteaching model for clinical practice within a teacher education program in western Canada. In this
Received in revised form two-day workshop, teacher candidates, teacher mentors and faculty mentors worked in inter-
10 March 2022
professional groups on novel activities to discuss potential advantages and challenges. They identified
Accepted 21 June 2022
Available online xxx
five key issues necessary for the success of coteaching in their local context: Time, Building Relationships,
Communication, Students See Teachers as Equal Partners, Engagement and Active Contribution. This pre-
participation phase provided crucial support for upcoming coteaching by allowing concerns to be
Keywords:
Teacher education
voiced and breaking down hierarchies.
Coteaching practicum models © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pre-participation phase in coteaching

1. Inquiring together: sharing ideas for a coteaching clinical
practice model in a teacher education program
In recent decades, there has been a shift towards a more central
role for clinical practice in teacher education programs, and dis-
cussions in the literature regarding the form that these experiences
should take (e.g. Burn & Mutton, 2015; Grossman et al., 2009;
Mattson et al., 2011; Zeichner, 2010). In North America, this clinical
practice ‘turn’ (Mattson et al., 2011) has culminated in the recently
commissioned report from the American Association for Colleges of
Teacher Education (AACTE, 2018), which calls for a central role and
reform of clinical practice. This study takes up three points from the
AACTE report: first, “local context matters when considering how
to best operationalize clinical practice” (p.4); second, there should
be “shared responsibility … by university [and] school” (p.35);
third, that voices of teacher candidates (pre-service; student-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: crees@tru.ca (C. Rees).
teachers) should be included, “as emerging professionals …are
essential contributors and collaborators within programs and
partnerships” (p.30). In particular, this study focuses on one local
context, and gathers voices from university and schoold faculty,
teachers and teacher candidates at the beginning pre-participation
phase of a plan for local reform. In this study, the term faculty
mentor (FMs) refers to university faculty who visit classrooms to
observe and assess teacher candidates on clinical practice in
classrooms; teacher mentors (TMs) are the qualified classroom
teachers and teacher candidates (TCs) are the pre-service student-
teachers.
1.1. Local context
The context of this study was a teacher education program for
secondary teachers of science and mathematics in British
Columbia, Canada. More recently, the Ministry of Education had
introduced a new curriculum with reformed pedagogical ap-
proaches (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2015-2018). As
such, TCs were experiencing dissonance between the curriculum

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103814
0742-051X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
and pedagogical approaches they were learning about in their
university courses, and the curricula and pedagogical approaches
that they were encountering in schools during clinical practice in
the program. Compounding TCs experiences of dissonance be-
tween theory and practice, was the hierarchy that existed between
the TCs and their TMs. TCs tended to emulate the practices of their
more experienced TMs, resulting in TCs perpetuating old curricula
and pedagogical models that they learned from them.
Author 1, who was coordinator of the program in this local
context, had studied coteaching for professional learning with in-
service teachers (Rees & Roth, 2019). She had learned of teacher
education programs using coteaching as a model for teacher edu-
cation. Studies had shown that when TCs shared responsibility for
teaching with their TMs, including co-planning, implementing
curriculum, and co-reflecting on the outcomes (Murphy, 2016), the
usual hierarchy between TCs and TMs could be broken down.
Furthermore, in a coteaching model TCs' and TMs' learning was
reciprocal as they learned alongside each other and from each other
(Murphy et al., 2015; Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2016). Therefore,
Author 1 proposed that a coteaching model for clinical practice in
the local context might not only create opportunities for TCs to
practice the new curricula and pedagogical models, but TMs could
practice them as well.
Research on coteaching had indicated that participation and
active engagement in coteaching takes time and there are impor-
tant phases including the pre-participation phase where TCs, TMs
and FMs can come together and prepare for working together in the
coteaching model (Guise et al., 2017; Kerin, 2019). Therefore, to
begin this three-year trial-run of a coteaching model for clinical
practice in this local context, Author 1 invited Author 2, an inter-
nationally known scholar in coteaching in teacher education, to
work with her on the design and implementation of a pre-
participation phase where FMs, TMs and TCs could work together
to prepare for coteaching by studying potential possibilities and
challenges and begin breaking down hierarchies that often exist in
teacher education.
They designed a two-day pre-participation workshop to create a
hybrid space to bring together the voices of FMs, TMs, and TCs to
consider the coteaching model for clinical practice for this location
and prepare for the three-year trial-run.
The specific research question addressed was:
How did TCs, TMs and FMs working together in a pre-
participation workshop identify issues in their local context and
prepare for a coteaching model for clinical practice?
2. Theoretical framework
We take a socio-historical view of learning at all levels, seeing
learning as occurring through social, historical, and cultural in-
teractions (Vygotsky, 1978). The Vygotsky concept of the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) is usually interpreted as asymmet-
rical, where learning occurs in one direction only. The teacher or
more capable peer scaffolds students to learn at the outer limit of
their ability (Vygotsky, 1978). However, Roth and Radford (2010)
take a symmetrical interpretation of Vygotsky's ZPD, making the
point that learning can occur in both directions. For example, just as
the institutionally designated learner acquires content, the teacher
learns to be a better teacher. They argue that students can be
teachers, and teachers can be students (Roth & Radford, 2010, p.
304). Using Roth and Radford's (2010) view, our participants'
learning in the pre-participation coteaching workshop could be
seen as occurring within multiple ZPDs, in the interactions between
TCs, TMs, and FMs. Ferna ndez et al. (2001) propose a related view,
Mercer's (2000) concept of the Inter-mental Development Zone
(IDZ), as a way to understand how learning is supported in
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
collaborative, goal-directed tasks that create and maintain an active
conceptual basis of shared knowledge and understanding.
To create opportunities for symmetrical learning in collabora-
tive groups in our pre-participation workshop, we hoped to find
ways to transform the hierarchy between TCs, TMs, and FMs so
often present in teacher education. As Boath (2019) observes,
“adopting approaches to engaging learner voice without a careful
and critical examination of issues of power and hierarchy is unlikely
to realise the potential for transformation” (p. 41).
Transforming the hierarchy towards a more egalitarian rela-
tionship between TCs, TMs, and FMs is part of a larger goal
throughout teacher education that aims to change ‘whose knowl-
edge counts …. using tools afforded by deliberative democracy
theory’ (Zeichner et al., 2015, p. 122). If we are to prepare teachers
for a democratic society we need to be deliberative, to build our
teacher education programs on a foundation that is itself demo-
cratic, and that places equivalent value on the different knowledges
that come from TCs, TMs, and FMs (Zeichner et al., 2015). Indeed, in
order to transform the hierarchy of relationships, we need to begin
by creating collaborative spaces such as pre-participation work-
shops e where all voices are heard and where collective decisions
build upon the mutual respect of all parties e placing high value on
the reciprocal nature of their interactions.
Through pre-participation workshops, an emphasis is placed on
collaboration through sharing horizontal expertise that treats the
knowledge of each group (TCs, TMs, and FMs) as equally valuable.
Horizontal expertise (Anagnostopoulos et al., 2007) respects the
knowledge and experience of all professionals, as opposed to the
traditional model where knowledge in passed down. “Horizontal
expertise recognizes the unique knowledge and understanding that
each professional brings to a collective activity and treats the
knowledge as equally valuable, relevant, and important” (Zeichner
et al., 2015, p. 125).
We are choosing a coteaching model to make our clinical
practice and program more egalitarian, where TCs, TMs and FMs
are equally comfortable sharing their voices. In this study, we began
this process by gathering representatives of TC, TM, and FM pro-
fessional groups in a pre-participation workshop.
3. Literature review
This brief literature review identifies some of the important
literature in each of four areas: Clinical practice models in teacher
education; Coteaching and coteaching models in teacher educa-
tion; Pre-participation workshops; and Inter-professional groups.
3.1. Clinical practice models in teacher education
Historically, TCs' clinical practice was modeled after a ‘sink or
swim’ approach, whereby the TC would join the classroom of a TM,
observe a lesson, then teach their own prepared lessons, and then
receive feedback from the TM and an FM (Patrick, 2013). Many
problems with this type of model have been described including
the isolation of the TCs and lack of collaboration between TMs and
TCs (Rabin, 2020); a lack of respect for the knowledges that each
bring (Zeichner, 2010); and the existence of a hierarchy between
the TCs and TMs (Roth & Tobin, 2002).
To address the identified concerns of the traditional clinical
practice model, new clinical practice models were developed and
investigated in diverse locations (e.g. Darling-Hammond & Baratz-
Snowden, 2007; Goodnough et al., 2009; Roth & Tobin, 2002). Such
models were oriented towards making teacher education more
collaborative (Rabin, 2020) and democratic (Zeichner et al., 2015),
and helping bridge the gap between university and school
(Zeichner, 2010). The term “coteaching” has been applied to one of
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
these alternative clinical practice models (Roth & Tobin, 2002).
3.2. Coteaching in teacher education
Although coteaching is best known in inclusive education, as a
way for two teachers to come together (classroom teacher and
specialist teacher) to share expertise for the benefit of all students
(e.g. Friend et al., 1993; Pancsofar & Petroff, 2016), it has been used
as a model for clinical practice in teacher education for decades
(Roth & Tobin, 2002).
Roth and Tobin (2002) began the study of coteaching for clinical
practice in teacher education programs in the early 2000s. They
conducted a seven-year study, in multiple urban schools located in
Philadelphia, looking at how a coteaching model and cogenerative
discussion facilitated new teacher learning (Roth & Tobin, 2002). As
a result, Roth and Tobin (2002) developed a coteaching model for
teacher education in clinical practice that was taken up by many
teacher education programs across the world (Roth and Tobin,
2005). Since then, researchers including Murphy & Beggs (2005);
Scantlebury et al. (2008); Bacharach et al. (2010); Guise et al.
(2017); Hawkman et al. (2019); and Rabin (2020); have demon-
strated that in their contexts a coteaching model for clinic practice
supports TCs to understand teaching and learning at a deeper level.
In addition, coteaching supports students' learning (Bacharach
et al., 2010), and can encourage the school-university partnership
to be more collaborative and more supportive of teacher education
(El Kadri & Roth, 2015).
In coteaching models for clinical practice (e.g. Bacharach et al.,
2010; Roth & Tobin, 2002; Scantlebury et al., 2008), the TC and
TM work in the classroom taking responsibility together for student
learning, and ultimately for co-teachers’ learning. They co-plan, co-
implement and co-reflect on student learning. Coteaching aims to
remove the hierarchy between TM and TC and facilitate both
teachers' learning. TMs an TCs can both contribute to a symmetrical
sharing of pedagogical knowledge (Murphy et al., 2015), so that
TMs can learn alongside TCs (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2016). Gallo-
Fox and Scantlebury (2016) found that coteaching provided pro-
fessional development for TMs in their study. TCs were introduced
to up-to-date approaches for science education in their methods
classes, in their teacher education program. When TCs became
equal partners through coteaching, they shared this knowledge
with their TMs. However, in situations where the differential status
of TCs and TMs failed to break down, TCs were discouraged from
sharing this knowledge (Gallo-Fox & Scantlebury, 2015). Soslau
et al. (2019) emphasized the importance of developing equal sta-
tus in coteaching otherwise TCs tended to mirror the methods that
TMs were using, even when TMs were open to change. Authors
including Guise et al. (2017) and Kerin (2019) indicated that
beginning with a pre-participation workshop for TCs, TMs and FMs
helped break down the hierarchy between TCs and TMs.
3.3. Pre-participation workshops
Kerin (2019), in her study of elementary teachers coteaching
with music teachers, identified the importance of a pre-
participation phase for coteaching. Her participants explained
their initial hostility to coteaching. They discussed that they needed
time for deep inquiry to develop understanding, not just instruc-
tion on how to do co-planning, coteaching, and co-reflection. Kerin
(2019) stressed that the participants needed opportunities for
dialogue and meaning-making, as well as opportunities to
conceptualize a new professional role in a ‘coteaching dyad’. Guise
et al. (2017) also stressed the need for pre-participation workshops
with a greater emphasis on theoretical perspectives of teachers'
learning, and the need to move beyond a focus on the ‘six
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
coteaching strategies’ (from Friend et al., 1993).
Teacher participants in Kerin's (2019) study talked about the
importance of the pre-participation workshop in helping them
better understand and develop their role, and the skills needed to
collaborate with another professional. The participants revealed
that they were also anxious about getting along with their
coteacher, and, as such, Kerin (2019) discussed the need to “exca-
vate common ground and shared meaning” (p.145). All teachers in
Kerin's (2019) study valued the time for discussion and the support
of their attempts to make sense of coteaching prior to participation.
The participants also appreciated the time they had with university
faculty, which helped them establish shared meaning (Kerin, 2019).
Based on the work of Kerin (2019) and Guise et al. (2017), we
decided to start our coteaching study by conducting a two-day pre-
participation workshop with TCs, TMs and FMs.
3.4. Inter-professional groups
In designing the pre-participation workshop, we drew upon the
literature on inter-professional groups. We see TCs, TMs, and FMs as
different professional groups and we wanted to help them feel on
an equal footing and engage all voices.
Inter-professional collaborations can be difficult, and it is
important to recognize the origins of these difficulties if we are to
create successful collaborations. One issue in the teacher education
context is that different professional groups, namely high school
teachers and university faculty, have different identities (Gee,
2000), including ways of communicating and performing within
their profession. Their values, priorities, and systems are different,
and the ways to be seen as competent also differ among pro-
fessions. These differences need to be bridged (Edwards et al.,
2009).
These different professional groups may have a history of hier-
archical relations. Historically, universities were seen as the sites of
expertise, and university faculty in Schools of Education, were seen
as founts of knowledge. Teachers in schools were seen as the pro-
fessionals who applied this knowledge. Learning in this context was
seen as travelling in one direction only from faculty to teachers.
Faculty and teachers can unknowingly operate within this vertical
learning model even when they want to create a horizontal, cross-
professional, learning model. Edwards et al. (2009) discussed the
creation of hybridity, where ways of talking and performing across
professional groups can be found, with each group maintaining
their professional strength.
In addition, TCs can experience difficulties in their efforts to
negotiate their roles as developing university scholars and devel-
oping teachers. Their junior status in each professional corner can
cause conflict for them and ways to respect their knowledge and
raise their relative status need to be found (Zeichner et al., 2015).
4. Research design: the coteaching pre-participation
workshop
The pre-participation workshop was designed to prepare TCs,
TMs and FMs for a coteaching model for clinical practice within a
teacher education program for secondary science and mathematics
teachers. The workshop was widely advertised within the teacher
education program. Of the 24 TCs in the program, eight volunteered
for the workshop, which took place when they had a break in
classes. Compensation was not offered to TCs. All teachers who had
been TMs for the program the previous year were also invited, and
four teachers accepted. Since the teachers were on unpaid holidays,
they were offered a honorarium ($200/day). All full-time FMs in the
School of Education (17 faculty), were invited and six attended the
workshop. FMs were not compensated for their participation. The
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
workshop ran from 8.30am to 12.30pm on each of the two days.
Authors 1 and 2 led the pre-participation workshop together.
Author 2 had over 25 years' experience in teacher education and
was well known for her work on coteaching in teacher education.
Author 1 had twelve years' experience in teacher education, was
coordinator of the program and had led the development of the
program.
At the pre-participation workshop (2 days; 8 h total) the at-
tendees were introduced to the coteaching literature through a
presentation and discussion format (90 min), and in their inter-
professional groups they explored ideas through two novel goal-
directed activities designed by Author 2: the pyramid activity
(day 1); and the feasibility versus desirability graph (day 2). The
activities took approximately (90 min) to complete through
collaborative discussion. Upon completion, each inter-professional
group presented their work (60 min total). These activities are
described below.
4.1. Novel activity day 1: the pyramid activity
On the first day of the workshop inter-professional groups
engaged in the first novel activity created by Author 2 e the Pyr-
amid Activity. Each inter-professional group was provided with the
following: a chart (see Fig. 1) that had ten spaces organized in a
pyramid format; 20 cards (Table 1), each containing a written item
of importance to coteaching that were derived from the knowledge
shared in the participants' booklets that summarized the coteach-
ing literature; and a number of blank cards on which participants
could write additional items thought to be important.
The task for each group was to select ten items from the 20 items
provided (and/or create their own) and organize them in a hierar-
chy of importance on the pyramid (see Fig. 1 for an example).
Groups then presented their ideas explaining their choices. Dis-
cussions and presentations were video recorded for the research
study.
4.2. Novel activity day 2: the feasibility versus desirability graph
On the second day of the workshop inter-professional groups
Fig. 1. Pyramid Diagram Example. Note. This figure presents a pyramid diagram from one of the workshop groups in our study (Group 4). The printed cards are ten of the 20 cards
that the group was presented with and asked to place on the pyramid in a hierarchy of importance for effective coteaching. The handwritten additions were contributed by the
workshop group (Group 4).
4
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
engaged in the second novel activity created by Author 2 e The
Feasibility versus Desirability Graph activity. Each group was pro-
vided with a blank desirability versus feasibility graph (the com-
posite graph is shown in Fig. 2), and ten items represented by
stickers. These ten items were the top items that the groups had
chosen from the pyramid activity on the first day (see Table 2 for
the list). The task for the graphing activity on the second day, was
for groups to place each of the top ten items on the graph depicting
how desirable (high, medium, and low) and feasible (high, medium,
and low) they believed the item to be for coteaching. A high-
desirability item was identified as something that the group felt
was much needed in coteaching. A high-feasibility item was
something that would be easy to implement in coteaching. Finally,
groups presented their graphs, explaining their reasons for the
positions where they had placed the items. Discussions and pre-
sentations were video recorded.
5. Research methods
This research used a case study design (Merriam, 1998) to
investigate how TCs, TMs and FMs working together in a pre-
participation workshop identified issues in their local context and
prepared for a coteaching model for clinical practice. A case study
approach was chosen as it is a “pragmatic flexible research
approach capable of providing comprehensive in-depth under-
standing” (Harrison et al., 2017, p. 17) and because the research
question was focused on a process (phenomenon) rather than an
outcome (Merriam, 1998). Furthermore, this is a descriptive case
study that aims to provide a detailed account of a complex social
phenomenon in its real-world context (Yin & Campbell, 2018).
5.1. Participants
Following Research Ethics Board approval, all attendees at the
workshop were invited and agreed to participate in the research
study. There were 18 participants: eight TCs; four TMs; and six FMs
(see Table 3). The TCs had previous education, and varying work
experience, in the fields of science, technology, engineering or
mathematics. They were part way through the Teacher Education
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814

Table 1
Items on cards for the pyramid activity.

Card Item Added by Item

# Groups

1 Deciding what to teach 21 Engagement and active contributions from

coteachers and students
2 Deciding what teaching strategy(s) to use 22 Building relationships
3 Discussing how to assess pupils' learning
4 Have regular scheduled times to meet and discuss our work
5 Communicate freely
6 Each contribute to the planning process
7 Both teachers work with all pupils
8 We use a variety of coteaching roles
9 Pupils see both coteachers as equal partners in the classroom
10 Both participate in the assessment of the pupils
11 We make changes as needed during a lesson
12 We actively reinforce classroom rules and manage the classroom together
13 We demonstrate co-respect
14 Provide feedback to one another on what goes on in the classroom
15 Depend on one another to follow through on tasks and responsibilities
16 Model collaboration and teamwork for our pupils
17 Communicate with our senior colleagues/mentoring convener/university-based tutor about our
needs as a coteaching pair
18 Reflect on pupil learning
19 Reflect on pupil work
20 Make improvements to our lessons based on what happens in the classroom

Fig. 2. Composite Desirability versus Feasibility Graph. Note. This figure shows the composite graph of desirability v/s feasibility produced from the four participant groups' graphs.
The items are indicated by the letters A-J. The group number (1e4) is indicated by the subscript number. The items were: Engagement and active contributions from co-teachers and
students (A); Communicating Freely (B); Students see both teachers as equal partners in the classroom (C); Building relationships (D); Co-respect (E); Both contribute to planning
process (F); Reflect together on student learning (G); Communicate together with others (H); Provide feedback to each other on classroom practice (I); Model collaboration for
students (J).

program and had already completed five university courses but had
not yet started their clinical practice. The four TMs were high-
school science and/or mathematics teachers from the local school
district who would be working with TCs on clinal practice. The TMs'
previous teaching experience ranged from nine to over 20 years of
working in the classroom. The FMs would be working on observing
TCs on clinical practice. FMs ranged from sessional to associate
professor positions, with five faculty holding doctorates in educa-
tion, and one faculty holding a master degree in education with
over 30 years' experience in K-12 and post-secondary settings.
Inter-professional groups were assigned by teaching-subject
5
areas for the TCs and TMs. FMs were assigned to the groups
randomly. See Table 3 for an overview of the inter-professional
groups and background on all participants. Participant names are
pseudonyms.
5.2. Data collection
Multiple sources of data were collected in order to address our
question and gain a holistic understanding of the experiences of the
participants (Merriam, 1998; Yin & Campbell, 2018). Data were
collected from the pre-participation workshop and from post-
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814

Table 2
List of Top 10 Items for the Feasibility versus. Desirability Graphs.

No. Item

A Engagement and active contributions from coteachers and students

B Communicate freely
C Pupils see both coteachers as equal partners in the classroom
D Building relationships
E We demonstrate co-respect
F Each contribute to the planning process
G Reflect on pupil learning; Reflect on pupil work
H Communicate with others (our senior colleagues/mentoring convener/university-based tutor about our needs as a coteaching pair)
I Provide feedback to one another on what goes on in the classroom
J Model collaboration and teamwork for our pupils

Table 3
Participants in the pre-participation workshop.

Group Participant Professional Role Professional Background

1 Sam TC B.Sc. Chemistry (1995)

Marie TC B.Sc. Bio-Tech (2012); M.Ed. (2017)
Dorothy TM Science & Mathematics; 9 years teaching experience
Paula FM Sessional; EdD Leadership

2 Vanessa TC B.Sc. Biology (2018)

Kris TC B.Sc. Micro-Biology (2014)
Kailey TC B.Sc. Biochemistry (2019)
Evan TM Science; 20 years teaching experience
Linda FM Assistant Professor; EdD Leadership

3 Bob TC B.Sc. Civil Engineering (2015)

Garret TM Mathematics & Physics; 20 years teaching experience
Maya FM Assistant Professor, PhD Education
Tony FM Associate Professor; PhD Education

4 Margaret TC B.Sc. Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry (2005)

Barry TC B.Sc. Zoology (1995); M.Sc. Neuroscience (1997)
Ben TM Mathematics; 20 years teaching experience
Sarah FM Post-Doctorate; PhD Education

Observed Bailey FM Sessional; MEd; 30 years in K-12 teaching and administration

workshop focus group and semi-structured interviews. Below we
discuss the collection of all data sources within each of the contexts.
The Pre-Participation Workshop. Data collected included
participant-produced artefacts such as the pyramid diagrams (see
Fig. 1 for an example) and desirability verses feasibility graphs (see
Fig. 2) from each of the four groups. Also collected were tran-
scriptions of video recordings (4 h total) from the group pre-
sentations and discussion of the pyramid diagrams and desirability
verses feasibility graphs.
Focus Group and Semi-Structured Interviews. Six weeks
following the workshop, and after their first two-week clinical
practice, the eight TC participants were invited to a focus group
(1 h). The focus group (led by Rees) took place in a conference room
at the university. All eight participants took part with one via
Skype. At the end of the focus group we shared findings from the
analysis of data collected from the pre-participation workshop and
asked participants if they had any comments. The focus group was
video recorded. Table 4 outlines the interview questions and the
connections to the research question.
Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with the two
TMs (Dorothy and Garrett) and the FM (Bailey) who had agreed to
continue with the study into the next phase. Author 1 conducted
the interviews with the TMs at their school. The questions asked in
the interviews were the same as those addressed to the TCs in the
focus group (see Table 4). Bailey was interviewed by telephone. The
interviews were audio-recorded.
5.3. Data analysis
Following the pre-participation workshop, and before the focus
groups and interviews were conducted, we began analysis of the
data from the workshop. We followed a thematic analysis (Braun &
Clarke, 2006) using a step-by-step approach outlined by Nowell
et al. (2017). The details of the approach to data analysis are
described in the next section.
Analysis of Workshop Data. First, we organized the data by:
transcribing the video recordings of discussions and presentations
made by the four groups during the pyramid activity (day 1) and
the feasibility versus desirability graph (day 2); we photographed
the pyramid diagrams (e.g. Fig. 1); and we created a composite
feasibility versus desirability graph by transferring the points from
the original four graphs, to one graph, so that we could see all the
points together (Fig. 2).
We immersed ourselves in the data including the transcripts,
pyramid diagrams and the composite graph, to familiarize our-
selves with the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
We coded the transcripts, using deductive coding, with the
items from the activities as codes. We identified passages in the
transcript data relevant to these items that had been provided for
the activities (Tables 1 and 2). The transcript data set (12 pages) was
coded on paper. We worked through the data highlighting where
participants talked about particular items that they were ranking
(in the pyramid activity) or deciding where to place (in the

6
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
Table 4
Interview questions for focus group and semi-structured interviews.
Interview Question
What stands out in your mind from the workshop?
What are concerns you might have about this model instead of the one
you just experienced?
What might be the benefits?
What might we do to prepare TCs and TMs in a workshop for the
coteaching model e what would be good to include?
feasibility versus desirability graph activity).
We analyzed the photographs of the pyramid diagrams. We
looked at the placement of the items on the diagrams, and con-
nections made between the items. For example, one group placed
two cards together and indicated that for them they meant the
same thing. Another group indicated that two items needed to be
considered together because they were so tightly related, and they
presented them together on the diagram.
For the composite graph of feasibility versus desirability, we
looked for patterns in the placement of items, such as when a group
clustered certain items together in one section of the graph, or
when all groups placed one item in a particular section of the graph.
Finally, we brought our analyses together to produce a mind
map (Braun & Clarke, 2006) or thematic network (Attride-Stirling,
2001) which we called the “Network of connections” diagram
(Fig. 3). This approach helped us to identify themes, which were
either concepts that connected items (codes) together, such as
“Time”, or items that mentioned repeatedly such as “Students See
Both Teachers as Equal Partners” (see Fig. 4).
Analysis of Semi-Structured Interviews. The focus group and
semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed. The
interview transcripts were coded on paper. Since we had already
analyzed the workshop data before analysing the focus group and
semi-structured interview data, we used the themes from the
workshop data in our data analysis.
Fig. 3. Network of Connections Diagram. Note. Rectangle text boxes include items, ovals include developing themes and items of interest in analysis. Arrows show network of
connections.
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
Connection to Research Question
Building Context
How did TCs, TMs and faculty working together in a pre-participation workshop identify issues in
their local context for a coteaching model for clinical practice?
How did TCs, TMs and faculty working together in a pre-participation workshop identify issues in
their local context for a coteaching model for clinical practice?
How did TCs, TMs and faculty working together in a pre-participation workshop identify issues in
their local context for a coteaching model for clinical practice?
5.4. Trustworthiness
To develop the trustworthiness, we triangulated across data sets
from the workshop including transcripts of presentations, pyramid
diagrams and feasibility versus desirability graphs (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). We first coded each data set independently and then
compared across data sets as can be seen in the Findings section.
We also used member checking by sharing the Network of Con-
nections diagram (Fig. 3) generated from the analysis for the
workshop data, with the TC focus group and in the interviews with
TMs (source) and asking for comment. Following the phone inter-
view with Bailey (FM) the Network of Connections diagram was
sent to her for comment by e-mail.
6. Findings
The findings relevant to the research question “How did TCs,
TMs and FMs working together in a pre-participation workshop
identify issues in their local context and prepare for a coteaching
model for clinical practice?” are presented according to the five
themes that were elucidated through data analysis. These themes
were: Time; Building Relationships; Students see both teachers as
equal partners; Engagement and active contributions; and
Communication. Within each section we first present findings from
the workshop, followed by the findings from the TCs focus group
and interviews with TMs and FMs.
7
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
Fig. 4. Five Interrelated Themes. Note. This figure shows a diagram representing the five themes and the relationships between them. Engagement and active contribution as an all-
encompassing theme, is represented by the box which contains the circles that represent the other four themes. The name of each of the other four themes is written on the outside
of that circle that represents it. The names of the items that make up each theme are written inside each circle. Items that have been identified as belonging to more than one theme
are written in the spaces where circles overlap.
6.1. Time
There were four items from the list in the workshop activities
that participants related to Time. These items were Building re-
lationships (D); Both contribute to the planning process (F); Reflect
together on student learning (G); and Provide feedback to each
other on classroom practice (I).
For example, on day one of the pre-participation workshop,
during the pyramid diagram activity, Group 1 talked about how
items D, F, G and I go together because each lesson needed to have a
planning, execution and reflecting piece. The group agreed that
these take Time and that finding Time for this would be chal-
lenging. Dorothy (TM) said “of course, so none of this is going to
happen without any [teacher] prep. time or teacher release time”.
Dorothy was referring to the need for money to be spent on hiring a
teacher-on-call to release TMs from their teaching so that they
would have time to co-plan with the TC.
Examination of the desirability versus feasibility graph (Fig. 2)
indicated that no group placed these four items at the highest
feasibility level. In their presentations, the reasons groups gave,
came back to Time. For example, in the presentation from group 1,
Sam (TC) explained that they had placed the item “Reflect together
on student learning” (G) in the high desirability, low feasibility
sector of the graph because “teachers would need time to sit down
together outside class time and it would be hard to find the time”.
For group 4, Building relationships (D) was the most important
item and they talked about how relationships take time to build.
Margaret (TC) explained, “for building relationships and trust we
talked about what relationships meant, and we said peer re-
lationships build on trust that was genuine and that was reciprocal
and that takes time”. TCs in the focus group highlighted the need
for planning time. For example, Barry argued “How would you get
time? Would you have the TCs meeting TMs during their prep block
or something? Because for teachers to come after school or before
could be a problem for them, I would think”.
In her interview, Dorothy (TM) again stressed the importance of
8
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
Time being built into the program when she said “Finding the time
for preparation would definitely be a huge problem - teachers
would need release time”.
Bailey (FM) talked about the importance of “meaningful meet-
ings outside class time where all three of us [TC,TM, FM] are
involved”. She mentioned the importance of taking the time to put
the feedback for TCs in the positive, saying “no-one can grow unless
the feedback is positive. TMs need time to learn how to give posi-
tive critique and to try not to delay talking about it in a meeting as
there might be an easy fix”.
Although participants had talked about the item Building re-
lationships (D) in relation to Time, they also talked about Building
relationships in connection with Co-respect (E), Modeling collab-
oration (J) and Communicating freely (B) (Fig. 3). In the next section
we describe these connections further.
6.2. Building relationships
The Building relationships item (D) was created by group 4 for
their pyramid activity (Fig. 2) and they placed it at the top of their
pyramid. In their presentation, they explained that they felt
everything in their pyramid is relationship-based.
On the feasibility versus desirability graph, all groups placed
Building relationships (D) at the high desirability level. Since this
item was identified as important by all groups we elevated it to a
theme. The item Co-respect (E) was also placed at the high desir-
ability level and groups indicated that it was closely related to
Building relationships (D). The groups' placement of Building re-
lationships (D) ranged from low-to-high for feasibility, with Co-
respect (E) landing in the medium and high sector. The groups'
placement of Co-respect (E) as slightly higher suggests that groups
thought it would be easier to do. Three of the four groups placed
Communicate freely (B) in the high desirability, high feasibility
section and only group 1 placed this item in the medium feasibility
sector. In their presentations, the groups associated these three
items with the need for TCs and TMs to understand each other. Sam
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
(TC) talked about compatibility in relation to Co-respect (E). She
said, “I guess it could have a lot to do with personalities as well.
There could have been a personality clash”.
Groups also associated Building relationships (D) and Co-
respect (E) with Modeling collaboration (J). As Barry (TC), in
group 4 said in his presentation of the pyramid activity, “we see co-
respect and modeling collaboration as one because they are so
tightly associated so we've written them on the same card - you
can't have one without the other, and they couldn't happen without
a good relationship between the TC and TM”. On the graph, this
cluster can be seen (D4, E4, J4) at the upper edge of desirability,
between the medium and high feasibility sectors (Fig. 2).
In the focus group, TCs talked about the difficulties that can arise
when positive relationships are lacking. Sam wondered about what
to do “when TCs and TMs clash, or when you just don't feel you can
work with [the TM]”. This was a topic that she had mentioned
previously in the pre-participation workshop.
In her interview, Bailey (FM) talked about the need for trust for
developing understanding and how good it is to see the TC and TM
reach the point in their relationship when they have achieved “that
feeling they get from knowing each other well enough so that they
can be open.” In this quote Bailey was making a connection be-
tween building relationships and being open in communication, or
communicate freely (I).
Communicate freely (I) was one of two communication items in
the preparticipation workshop activities. The other being
Communicate with others (H). In the next section we look at these
communication items.
6.3. Communication
The two items from the lists (Figs. 1 and 2) that were connected
to communication were Communicate freely (B) and Communicate
together with others (H). Group 1 chose Communicate freely for the
pinnacle of their pyramid on the first day of the workshop. On the
feasibility versus desirability graph on Day 2, groups varied with
where they placed these two communication items. Group 2 placed
them in the medium desirability and high feasibility sector. They
explained that “some things that are desirable are not as impor-
tant…yes they are important but less important to have…The thing
easiest to do is communicate freely…everyone can do that”. Group
3 agreed about Communication freely (B) being relatively easy to do
saying “Everyone can do this” but they disagreed with group 2 in
that they believed “free communication is at the heart of
coteaching”.
Bailey (FM) focused on the importance of Communicate Freely
(B) when she talked about open communication between TC and
TM. “They both need to know what is coming up … like, for
example, if a student has a counselling appointment and is going to
leave class part way through, if the TC doesn't know they might
question the student about leaving, which wouldn't be
appropriate”.
Regarding Communicate together with others (H), on the graph,
variation in placement was found across desirability and feasibility.
Bob (TC), in group 3, expressed, “[It is] something that maybe we
should be looking at but it is not always easy because we're not
going to be sitting next to them or e-mailing”. It seemed like Bob
was reinforcing the independence of teachers in their classroom.
Although Bob and group 4 did not see this item as very important,
Bailey (FM) in her interview indicated the contrary opinion that
Communication with others (H) such as administrators in schools
was very important. She stated “administration at the school really
should be included and I think they would be very interested and
could help”. Bailey went on to explain ways that school adminis-
trators could support TCs, “Admin[istrators] could get the TCs keys,
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
put TCs names on the classroom door and introduce the TCs to staff
and teachers at faculty meetings, and therefore help to place them
on a more equal footing with TMs.”
Bailey's suggestions would help Students see teachers as equal
partners (C), the theme in the next section.
6.4. Students see both teachers as equal partners
During the pyramid activity, Group 3 placed Students seeing
both teachers as equal partners in the classroom (C) at the top of
their pyramid. Group 2, on their card for Modeling Collaboration (J)
wrote Co-respect (E). Linda (FM, Group 2) explained “we added it to
indicate that in our minds these two were interrelated and so we
were considering them as one”. On the graph on day 2, all groups
placed it at the high desirability level. Since this item became such a
focus for our participants, we elevated it to a theme. Groups
differed in how feasible they thought seeing both teachers as equal
in the classroom was. Group 1 talked about how hard it would be in
practice to help students See both teachers as equal partners (C).
Dorothy (TM) shared a story from a previous experience where the
students in her class did not treat her TC as an equal until she
(Dorothy) left the room. She wondered how it would be possible to
demonstrate for students that both teachers were equal partners.
Group 3 made a connection between Students seeing both
teachers as equal partners (C), Co-respect (E) and Modeling
collaboration (J) by placing all three together in the high desirability
and high feasibility sector of the graph. In their presentation of their
graph Maya, (FM), made the point that “students might accept TCs
as equal partners if the co-teachers modeled collaboration”. She
suggested that “modeling collaboration for students could occur
naturally but it also could be planned” and she talked about how
“coteachers could co-reflect aloud about student work, and co-
evaluate student work, such as presentations, therefore showing
the students that the coteachers were equal partners”.
In the TC focus group, the issue of Students seeing teachers as
equal partners (C) was of significant concern for TCs, with five out
of eight mentioning it in their final comments. Examples included:
“The TM is always slightly above you”; “The students are more
focused on the TM rather than you”; “[The students] will see their
TM as number one and that's who they would follow all the time
and the other person [TC] would be just kind of disregarded.”
In his interview, Garrett (TM), also talked about the challenges
of having Students seeing teachers as equal partners (C) by saying
that, “we don't want the students to see them [TCs]…Oh that's just
the student teacher or something - we want them to see … this is
our teacher or one of our teachers.” He recommended how this
could be achieved “instead of just telling them [students], actually
making that visible for the students to see, ‘oh look, they are
collaborating, they are sharing ideas equally, these really are co-
teachers’”. Garrett's comment is directly related to the comments
he and Maya made during the workshop presentation when they
explained the same idea.
Dorothy (TM) talked about “how important [it was] creating the
space with the kids [so] that both teachers are their teachers”. She
added “and I remember I was thinking that would be one thing that
would be very challenging”. She further added “sharing of re-
sponsibility [so] students see the equality of teachers. This is
challenging, I'm not really sure what this is going to look like”. This
is in line with Dorothy's earlier comments at the workshop.
In her interview, Bailey (FM), talked about the need for the TM
and TC to talk about classroom practice around the little things like
how students let the teacher know they are leaving for the wash-
room or getting a drink (since the teachers always need to know
where the students are):
[t]he TC needs to be in the know about all these little [classroom
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
practice] things if they're to be recognized by the students as a
teacher e because if the student asks can they go, the TC needs to
be able to respond.
When talking about Students seeing teachers as equal partners
(C) during the pyramid activity in the pre-participation workshop,
Evan (TM) discussed the need for the TM to remain engaged in the
TCs lessons so that students would see that both teachers were
engaged and this would more likely engage students. This led to
group 2 creating a new item Engagement and active contribution
from co-Teachers and students (A). This theme is discussed in the
next section.
6.5. Engagement and active contribution
At the pre-participation workshop, during the pyramid activity,
Group 2 created the item Engagement and active contribution from
co-teachers and students (A) as their top item on their pyramid.
Following this, on day 2 on the graph, all groups placed this item at
the high desirability level and across the full range of feasibility. At
their presentations, all the groups mentioned the importance of
Engagement and active contribution from co-teachers and students
(A). Since our participants all agreed that this item was of great
importance we elevated it to a theme. Although groups agreed
about its high desirability they were concerned about its feasibility.
For example, speaking for group 1 (who had placed this item in the
low feasibility sector), Sam (TC) explained that their issue was
about compatibility between TC and TM and how this could affect
TC and TM engagement and active contribution. She mentioned
that “there are so many factors such as the personalities of the
teachers and the environment of the classroom, and therefore this
could be hard to achieve”.
In the TC focus group, when speaking about Engagement and
active contribution from co-teachers and students (A), TCs also
emphasized that both teachers need to be engaged together in
collaboration. Barry (TC) recommended the importance of having
pre-participation workshops to support this, “the TMs have [the]
workshops and then they are on board … and the TCs have the
workshops and they are committed to what is going on. I think that
will be really a good way”.
In his interview Garrett emphasized the importance of the TM
remaining engaged when the TC was teaching a lesson. In this way
the TM would be supporting the TC. In her interview, Bailey (FM),
spoke about how TM and TC could alternate being a support, “they
could be helping with students who need help and creating re-
sources such as notes for each other and the richness that could
bring”.
6.6. Summary
In summary, the findings demonstrate how participants in the
groups in the pre-participation workshop brought forward five is-
sues related to the transformation to a coteaching model for clinical
practice in the program. Identification of these issues was sup-
ported in the data from the semi-structured interviews conducted
weeks later. This process of identification of advantages and chal-
lenges for coteaching in their local context helped prepare TCs, TMs,
and FMs for the coteaching they would be doing in the future. In
addition, the discussions in inter-professional groups, helped to
break down hierarchies between TCs, TMs and FMs. In the next
section the significance of these findings is discussed.
7. Discussion
In the discussion we first relate our findings to the literature and
present implications for our model of coteaching in this local
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
context; we then turn to the importance of the pre-participation
phase. Next, we discuss limitations of our study and future work,
and we end with a consideration of the significance of our study.
7.1. Relating our themes to the literature
The importance of setting aside time for coteachers outside the
classroom has been emphasized in a variety of studies. For example,
Gallo-Fox and Scantlebury's (2015) study of the challenges for
coteaching showed that TC|TM pairs encountered difficulty in
finding time to co-plan and co-reflect. Guise et al. (2017) reported
that in their study a lack of planning time contributed to coteaching
pairs reverting to a more traditional clinical practice model. In our
model we plan to build in release time for TMs so that they can
meet with TCs and the FM to plan and reflect.
In terms of building relationships between coteachers, in
Murphy & Beggs's (2005) study, TCs and TMs were interviewed
before participation to help in the creation of TC|TM pairs that were
well aligned. Bacharach et al. (2010), however, consider that
coteachers should be able to get along given adequate time to
nurture their relationship. Hawkman et al. (2019) reported that
extensive opportunities should be provided for relationship-
building at the beginning of coteaching and throughout coteach-
ing at ‘pairs training’ sessions. We plan to build in opportunities
such as these to future pre-participation workshops.
Similar to our findings, Gallo-Fox and Scantlebury (2015)
mentioned the vital role of co-respect for building relationships
in coteaching; while Thompson and Schademan (2019) emphasized
the need for developing understanding and building relationships
through negotiating difference, which depends upon co-respect.
They found that “the successful negotiation of difference was only
possible when pairs were willing to engage tensions directly and
work through them” (p.4). This is a powerful recommendation for
us, rather than finding TM|TC pairs who are compatible, we believe
it would be preferable to engage TC|TM pairs in the kind of learning
spaces where they could overcome tensions and negotiate
difference.
Communicating freely was noted of great importance in Gallo-
Fox and Scantlebury's study (2015), where TC|TM pairs noted dif-
ficulties keeping up with communication on an ongoing basis.
Bacharach et al. (2010) reported that “participants in [coteaching]…
receive instruction and opportunities to purposefully practice…
communication… with each other” (p.7). In our model of
coteaching for clinical practice we plan to build in opportunities
such as these.
On the issue of communicating with administration, Hawkman
et al. (2019) found this to be of major importance. They recom-
mended that teacher education programs invite administrators
from collaborating schools to participate in workshops at the uni-
versity. Administrators need to understand the aims of coteaching
so that they can support it and promote TCs being equal to fully
credentialed teachers. We plan to follow Bailey's advice and invite
school administration to pre-participation workshops so that they
can help TCs be seen as equal partners by acknowledging them and
naming them as such. Looking at this through Gee's (2000) concept
of professional identity, TCs need to be recognized as teaching
professionalsd to be seen by students as teachers.
The importance of students seeing teachers as equal partners is
indicated by Tobin and Roth (2005) when they explained that
cogenerative dialogues facilitated coteachers in examining “the
power relationships and roles” (p.318-319). Guise et al. (2017)
described the importance of “dismantling the power differential”
(p.379). We plan to incorporate activities in pre-participation
workshops to follow this advice.
Tobin (2006) also noted the importance of both coteachers
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
remaining engaged and making active contributions, when he
concluded that failure of coteaching could result from “the failure of
one or more of the coteachers to fully participate in co-planning
and cogenerative dialogues.” (p. 140). Bacharach et al. (2010)
argued the importance of the TM remaining actively involved
even when the TC is leading the class. We plan to incorporate
discussion of this need into our pre-participation workshop.
In summary, the issues identified in our study are similar to
issues identified in studies of coteaching in other contexts. An
important feature of our study is that these issues were identified
by our participants in a pre-participation phase, before engaging in
coteaching. This approach helped prepare TCs, TMs and FMs for the
coteaching they would be doing in the future. It helped to break
down hierarchies between these groups and it allowed us to build
our coteaching model for our local context upon a democratic
foundation that includes voices of TCs, TMs and FMs. In the next
section we expand upon how this was achieved.
7.2. The importance of the pre-participation phase
There were four elements of our pre-participation workshop
that we believed were conducive for TCs, TMs, and FMs working
together: interprofessional groups; two novel activities; breaking
down the hierarchy and building relationships.
Our use of interprofessional groups built upon the work of Guise
et al. (2017) and of Kerin (2019) to provide opportunities for TCs,
TMs, and FMs to work together to share views, ideas, and per-
spectives. Our design drew upon the work of Edwards et al. (2009)
who studied interprofessional groups collaborating to solve prob-
lems. They noted the difficulty professionals have in sharing and
valuing knowledge across professions. This is no different for the
professionals who are involved in teacher education programs. By
creating inter-professional groups, it was hoped that we could
begin the process of breaking down this divide and finding hybrid
language to bridge the gap (Edwards et al., 2009). We saw evidence
of this in our groups. For example, when Garrett (TM) and Maya
(FM) discussed and then presented ways that coteachers could
work towards helping students see coteachers as equal partners by
modeling purposeful collaboration.
Author 2 designed two novel activities, the pyramid diagram
activity and the feasibility versus desirability graph activity, to
provide a structure for discussions within interprofessional groups.
They provided a common vocabulary which allowed participants
from different professional groups to collaborate (Edwards et al.,
2009). Through discussion, participants could explore their opin-
ions on the importance of elements of coteaching and identify is-
sues of most importance for them in their local context. Thus,
immersing participants in these activities provided a site for
interprofessional learning. In Kerin's (2019) study participants
indicated that in the pre-participation workshop they wanted op-
portunities to learn more about the ideas behind coteaching rather
than only learning about how to do coteaching. In our study, the
pyramid activity and the desirability versus feasibility graph offered
our participants this opportunity. Thus, the pre-participation
workshops helped prepare participates for the coteaching in their
clinical practice that was coming up.
The pre-participation workshop offered opportunities to break
down the hierarchy between TMs, TCs and FMs before they began
working together on clinical practice in classrooms. TMs could
begin to examine and alter their relative status with respect to TCs.
Within groups, we saw that TMs did begin to let go of a hierarchical
view and see TCs as having much to offer to them and their stu-
dents. Evidence suggests they were seeing learning as reciprocal, as
proposed by a symmetrical interpretation of the ZPD (Roth &
Gardner, 2012; Fern andez et al., 2001).
11
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
Within the groups in the pre-participation workshop we could
see the beginnings of relationship building in the side conversa-
tions during the activities. Though these conversations faculty,
teachers and TCs had an opportunity to build understanding of each
others' perspectives, which is fundamental for strengthening the
school-university partnership (Zeichner, 2010).
7.3. Limitations and future work
Limitations of our study include the selection of participants and
the size of our study. Our participants were volunteers e they were
TCs, TMs and FMs who had an interest in coteaching. Therefore,
their opinions were those of people already committed, to some
degree, to a change in the model for clinical practice. To help us
effect change, it would be valuable to scale up the study and include
the voices of those who are resistant to change. This would require
mandatory workshops. With a larger number of representative TCs,
TMs and FMs, we could hear the points of view of a wider range of
individuals, address their concerns, and include their recommen-
dations, helping to scaling up the coteaching model.
Although the activities in our workshop, particularly the desir-
ability versus feasibility graph, offers great potential as a means to
collect ideas from groups that can then be discussed, a larger
number of participants could increase the precision of our findings.
7.4. Significance
Although the issues about coteaching brought forward in our
study were not new, what is critical is that these issues were
brought forth in a pre-participation phase by TCs, TMs and FMs
working together, thus preparing them for the coteaching model in
clinical practice. Also of importance is that identification of these
issues occurred though a unique approach using novel activities
and discussion in inter-professional groups in a pre-participation
workshop. With this approach, we not only provided a space for
deepening understanding of coteaching, but also took a step to-
wards democratization of our teacher education program by
including voices of TCs, TMs and FMs, reducing hierarchical re-
lations and creating a site to develop positive relationships. TCs
were comfortable to voice their opinions and TMs talked about
learning from TCs. FMs, TCs and TMs shared horizontal expertise
through multiple zones of proximal development. Our study sup-
ports the value of the pre-participation phase for coteaching where
TCs, TMs, and FMs can more deeply examine ideas in coteaching
and advance the ultimate goal of stronger and more equitable
collaboration for teacher education across university and school.
Funding
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Hu-
manities Research Council of Canada.
References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2018). A pivot toward
clinical practice, its lexicon, and the renewal of educator preparation: A report of
the AACTE clinical practice commission. https://aacte.org/programs-and-servies/
clinical-practice-comission.
Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E. R., & Basmadjian, K. G. (2007). Bridging the uni-
versityeschool divide: Horizontal expertise and the “Two-Worlds Pitfall”.
Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 138e152.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 1, 385e405.
Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student
teaching through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3e14.
Boath, L. E. (2019). Children's aspirations and perceptions of science learning beyond
the teacher-led (Doctoral dissertation). Trinity College Dublin http://tara.tcd.ie.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
C. Rees, C. Murphy, R.D. Kaur et al.
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77e101.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2015-2018). Building students' success:
Curriculum for kindergarten to grade 12. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/.
Burn, K., & Mutton, T. (2015). Review of ‘research-informed clinical practice’ in
initial teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 217e233.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every
classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve.
Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111e132.
Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (2009).
Improving inter-professional collaborations. Routledge.
El Kadri, M. S., & Roth, W. M. (2015). The teaching practicum as a locus of multi-
leveled, school-based transformation. Teaching Education, 26(1), 17e37.
Fern andez, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001). Re-concep-
tualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of
symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36/37(1/2),
40e54.
Friend, M., Reising, M., & Cook, L. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a
glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 37(4), 6e10.
Gallo-Fox, J., & Scantlebury, K. (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), 324e337.
Gallo-Fox, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2016). Coteaching as professional development for
cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 191e202.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Chapter 3: Identity as an analytic lens for research in education.
Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 99e125.
Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009).
Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and cooper-
ating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 285e296.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K. M., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-
imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273e289.
Guise, M., Habib, M., Thiessen, K., & Robbins, A. (2017). Continuum of co-teaching
implementation: Moving from traditional student teaching to co-teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 370e382.
Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017, January). Case study research:
Foundations and methodological orientations. In Forum qualitative sozialfor-
schung/forum: Qualitative social research (Vol. 18). No. 1.
Hawkman, A. M., Chval, K. B., & Kingsley, L. H. (2019). ‘I feel like I can do it now’:
Preservice teacher efficacy in a co-teaching community of practice. Teaching
Education, 30(1), 86e104.
Kerin, M. (2019). Coteaching music in a primary school: Teacher perspectives (Doctoral
dissertation). Trinity College Dublin.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Mattson, M., Eilertson, T., & Rorrison, D. (2011). A practicum turn in teacher educa-
tion. Sense.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How we use language to think together.
Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Murphy, C. (2016). Coteaching in Teacher Education: Innovative Pedagogy for Excel-
lence. Critical Publishing.
12
Teaching and Teacher Education 117 (2022) 103814
Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2005). Coteaching as an approach to enhance science
learning and teaching in primary schools. In W.-M. Roth, & K. Tobin (Eds.),
Teaching Together, Learning Together (pp. 207e223). Peter Lang.
Murphy, C., Scantlebury, K., & Milne, C. (2015). Using Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development to propose and test an explanatory model for conceptualising
coteaching in pre-service science teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 43(4), 281e295.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis:
Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 16(1), 1e13.
Pancsofar, N., & Petroff, J. G. (2016). Teachers' experiences with co-teaching as a
model for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
20(10), 1043e1053.
Patrick, R. (2013). “Don't rock the boat”: Conflicting mentor and pre-service teacher
narratives of professional experience. Australian Educational Researcher, 40(2),
207e226.
Rabin, C. (2020). Co-Teaching: Collaborative and caring teacher preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education, 7(1), 135e147.
Roth, W.-M., & Gardner, R. (2012). “They’re gonna explain to us what makes a cube a
cube?” Geometrical properties as contingent achievement of sequentially or-
dered child-centered mathematics lessons. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 24, 323e346.
Roth, W.-M., & Radford, L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development
(symmetrically). Mind, Culture and Activity, 17(4), 299e307.
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by co-
teaching. Peter Lang.
Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. G. (2005). Teaching together, learning together. Peter Lang.
Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J., & Wassell, B. (2008). Coteaching as a model for pre-
service secondary science teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24(4), 967e998.
Soslau, E., Gallo-Fox, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2019). The promises and realities of
implementing a coteaching model of student teaching. Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 70(3), 265e279.
Thompson, M., & Schademan, A. (2019). Gaining fluency: Five practices that
mediate effective co-teaching between pre-service and mentor teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 1e9.
Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to teach through coteaching and cogenerative dialogue.
Teaching Education, 17(2), 133e142.
Tobin, K., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative
dialoguing in urban science education. School Science & Mathematics, 105(6),
313e322.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. K., & Campbell, D. T. (2018). Case study research and applications : Design and
methods. Sage Publications.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and
clinical practice in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61, 89e99.
Zeichner, K., Payne, K. A., & Brayko, K. (2015). Democratizing teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 122e135.