Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and

cooperating teacher perceptions
Karen Goodnough*, Pamela Osmond, David Dibbon, Marc Glassman, Ken Stevens
Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, G.A. Hickman Building, St. John’s, NL A1B 3X8, Canada

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

Article history: In the student teaching triad model adopted in this study, pairs of pre-service teachers worked collab-
Received 24 April 2007 oratively with cooperating teachers during a 12-week field experience. The main objectives of the study
Received in revised form were to document the benefits and challenges for pre-service teachers and cooperating teachers who
16 January 2008
participate in a triad model and to describe the co-teaching models that would emerge during this
Accepted 6 October 2008
experience. Pre-service teachers and their cooperating teachers reported several strengths of the triad
model in the following areasdlearning from each other, professional support, outcomes for K-12
Keywords:
students, comprehensive feedback about teaching and classroom practice, and pre-service teacher
Pre-service teacher education
Field experiences confidence. Limitations and concerns identified by both groups included dependency, confusion with
classroom management issues, loss of individuality, and competition between the pre-service teachers.
! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Over the past decade, considerable attention has been focused
on exploring meaningful ways to prepare pre-service students for
the teaching profession. With increasing demands placed on
teachers, ranging from meeting the needs of diverse student pop-
ulations to dealing with issues related to standardized testing, the
world of teaching has become far more complex. Hence, university
faculties of education are exploring new approaches to teacher
preparation. Since one of the most influential pedagogies in teacher
education is that of the supervised field experience, there is a need
to study new models to determine how, or if, they assist pre-service
teachers in the transition from the role of student to the role of
beginning teacher. It has been the authors’ experience that the
actual practice of using a field experience varies greatly both within
and across teacher education programs, depending to a large extent
on the amount of support that is provided to the student teacher.
Under the traditional model of the field experience, individual
student teachers are supported by purposeful coaching from
a cooperating teacher who offers modeling, co-planning, frequent
feedback, repeated opportunities for practice, and reflection upon
practice, while the student teacher gradually assumes more
responsibility for teaching. In this paper, the authors examine
a triad model of student teaching1dtwo pre-service teachers are
paired with a single cooperating teacher. Purposeful coaching and
mentoring are still provided by a cooperating teacher; however,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 709 737 3032; fax: þ1 709 737 2345.
E-mail address: kareng@mun.ca (K. Goodnough).
1
The term ‘‘student teaching’’ is used synonymously in the articles with the term
field experience.
two pre-service teachers have opportunities to offer each other
feedback, mentoring, and support.
Four primary/elementary triads participated in this study over
a four-month period. The following questions guided the research
and the same questions provided a framework for reporting the
results: (a) What types of co-teaching models will emerge during
the triad field experience? (b) What are the advantages for pre-
service teachers and cooperating teachers who participate in a triad
model? And (c) What are the disadvantages for pre-service
teachers and cooperating teachers who participate in a triad
model?
1. Theoretical perspectives
Considerable diversity exists in the nature, structure, and
strategies adopted in teacher preparation programs that are offered
in faculties of education. Many program designs have moved away
from traditional formats and models in which theory is first
transferred to the pre-service teacher through university-based
courses before students have school-based experiences. Rather,
newer approaches attempt to integrate theory and practice
throughout the teacher preparation experience, thus assisting pre-
service teachers in developing knowledge, skills, and dispositions
as part of a larger community of educators and co-learners.
Furthermore, many of these approaches view learning through the
lens of situated learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave,
1996). In other words, pre-service teachers become co-learners
with other educators (teachers, university supervisors, university
researchers) to develop their professional knowledge and practice
as they learn to teach. Professional learning, or at least most of it,

0742-051X/$ – see front matter ! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.003
286 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
‘‘cannot be learned out of context and later applied in classrooms’’
(Eick, Ware, & Williams, 2003, p. 75).
Conceptualizing learning within communities of practice
(Wenger, 1998) provides a useful notion to guide the formal and
informal experiences of novices in teacher preparation programs as
they become enculturated into the teaching profession. Commu-
nities of practice are ‘‘groups of people who share a concern, a set of
problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their
knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing
basis’’ (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4). They are ubiq-
uitous, and individuals are often members of several communities.
Within communities of practice, learning is viewed as social
participation; individuals come together to engage in the ‘‘practices
of social communities’’ and to construct ‘‘identities in relation to
these communities’’ (p. 4). In defining practice as community,
Wenger examines the relationship among mutual engagement,
joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement refers
to the actions that people take and the meaning they negotiate
through those interactions. This collective, negotiated meaning
results in the existence of a joint enterprise, a ‘‘negotiated response
to their situation’’ and the development of shared goals (Wenger, p.
77). The repertoire belongs to the members of the community and
is never fully determined or mandated from outside or by an
individual. Over time, a shared repertoire is established that results
in routines, language, experiences, concepts, and ways of doing
things that become part of the practice of a community. Thus, for
newcomers such as pre-service teachers, becoming part of the
teaching community entails working closely with co-learners to
negotiate meaning and to contribute to and develop insight into the
repertoire of teaching.
Teacher communities of practice use many approaches and
strategies such as collaborative action research, study groups, and
curriculum development groups to negotiate meaning about their
work, thus developing shared goals (e.g. fostering students’ higher
level thinking skills) and a shared repertoire (e.g. adopting specific
instructional strategies for particular purposes, developing curric-
ulum). Two of these approachesdpeer coaching and co-teaching
resonate with the type of interactions that emerged within the
triads in this study.
Wynn and Kromrey (1999) define peer coaching as ‘‘a training
method in which pairs of students, student teachers, or classroom
teachers observe each other and provide consultative assistance in
correctly applying teaching skills and proposing alternative solu-
tions to recognized instructional needs’’ (p. 21). Although peer
coaching has typically been used in fostering the continued
professional development of practicing teachers, some work has
been completed in the context of teacher preparation. For example,
Jenkins, Garn, and Jenkins (2005) explored the nature of pre-
service teachers’ (37 in total) observations when engaged in peer
coaching. The North Dakota Center for Persons with Disabilities
(2000) described a peer coaching/mentoring project that was used
to prepare 48 teachers of students with severe behavioural disor-
ders. Wynn and Kromrey (2000) examined the concerns of pre-
service elementary teachers in a paired field experience with
a focus on peer coaching. Results indicated that students experi-
enced growth and insight in a number of areas, such as under-
standing the self, curriculum and instruction, and students’
learning.
Other studies have also reported positive learning outcomes for
pre-service teachers who engaged in peer coaching. Hasbrouck
(1997) conducted a study in which peer coaching was used by 22
pre-service teachers to design and implement lessons for elemen-
tary children completing a four-week skills remediation program.
The author reported that the pre-service teachers improved their
teaching abilities in a number of areas such as planning and orga-
nization, instruction, and classroom management. In working with
five pre-service teachers who were learning to deliver direct
instruction with small groups of elementary students with mild
learning disabilities, Morgan, Menlove, Salzberg, and Hudson
(1994) reported that peer coaching improved the direct instruction
behaviours. Pierce and Miller (1994) compared the use of peer
coaching procedures with undergraduate students participating in
a special education practicum. Their findings report that both
undergraduates and their cooperating teachers viewed the peer
coaching process positively and that the peer coaching was as
effective as the traditional supervision methods in increasing
desirable teaching behaviours.
The notion of co-teaching, as theorized by Roth and Tobin (2002,
2005), also informs this study. This approach to teacher learning
involves pre-service teachers in becoming professionals through
the support and involvement of many educators, including coop-
erating teachers, supervisors, researchers, and pre-service teachers.
Co-teaching ‘‘explicitly brings two or more teachers together to
increase what they can offer to the students; they teach all the
while providing opportunities for the participants to learn to teach’’
(Roth & Tobin, 2005, p. x). Co-teaching is viewed as ‘‘learning in
praxis’’ (Roth, 2001); co-learners (e.g. cooperating teachers, pre-
service teachers, and university supervisors) collaborate in all
phases of teaching, such as planning, implementing a lesson,
reflecting on action, and debriefing to learn from each other as they
are engaged in practice. Roth and Tobin (2005) describe the model
as a means to assist individuals to learn how to teach in urban
settings, decrease teacher isolation, reduce attrition and increase
teacher retention, and increase resources and learning
opportunities.
Another critical aspect of this model is co-generative dialoguing
(Roth & Tobin, 2002; Tobin & Roth, 2005). This is the practice of
having all co-learners meet to discuss specific lessons that have
been implemented, specific or general pedagogical approaches, or
any aspect of teaching and learning. By engaging in shared
meaning-making and establishing shared control of the learning
environment and process, collective decision-making may occur
about changes that are needed in classroom thinking or practice.
Although this resonates with reflection-on-practice (Schön, 1987),
co-learners who use a co-generative approach reflect together and
explicitly articulate their views around an event (e.g. a lesson that
has been implemented) to examine strengths and areas for
improvement. Collaborative interrogation within a group of co-
learners may allow differences in views and perspectives to
enhance learning of all involved.
Operating within a triad model may provide a broad, inclusive
learning environment for integrating theory and practice and for
supporting novices as they make a gradual transition from
peripheral involvement in teaching to full involvement in
communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). Furthermore, if one of the
primary goals of a field experience is to foster collaborative
problem-solving and collaborative learning, then other field
experience models need to be considered. As Howey and Zimpher
(1999) suggest, considering how all teachers (novice and experi-
enced) work and learn together is fundamental to improving
teacher education.
To date, limited research exists on the benefits and limitations of
placing a pair of pre-service teachers in a classroom with a coop-
erating teacher. The existing research on the proposed triad model
has reported positive outcomes for both pre-service teachers and
their cooperating teacherda decrease in student feelings of lone-
liness, higher levels of collaboration, greater risk-taking by pre-
service teachers, the development of more varied lessons, and
a change in the power structure within classrooms and between
cooperating teachers and their pre-service teachers (Bowen & Roth,
2003; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Campbell-Evans & Maloney,
1997; Roth, 1998). There is a need to study how new approaches to
 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
student teaching experiences, as proposed in this study, may
improve learning in the context of teacher preparation. Approaches
guided by the principles of critical reflection and shared meaning-
making within communities of co-learners need to be explored and
evaluated for their potential to enhance the learning of pre-service
teachers as they begin their teaching careers.
2. Context of the study
Each member of the research team (the first and last three
authors of this paper) took responsibility for studying a triad (two
pre-service teachers and a cooperating teacher) in the fall semester
of 2005. Recruitment of eight pre-service teachers occurred in the
previous winter semester through visits to the university classes of
the pre-service teachers. Invitations were extended to cooperating
teachers to participate in this study through letters to school
principals. The eight pre-service teachers were enrolled in an
integrated primary/elementary (K-6) teacher preparation program
within the Faculty of Education at Memorial University. The
program is five years in duration, including both academic (e.g.
Science, Mathematics) and education coursesd75 credit-hours of
academic courses and 75 credit-hours of education courses.
Students complete credit-hours in the following areas before being
accepted into the program: English (6 credit-hours), Mathematics
(6 credit-hours), Psychology (6 credit-hours), Science (9 credit-
hours), French or another language other than English (6 credit-
hours), Focus Area (15 credit-hours), and other credit-hours from
areas outside education to total 60.
In total, once enrolled in the program, students complete six
semesters, with the first two focused on the completion of educa-
tion courses and academic courses. In semesters three and four,
students complete education courses, as well as a series of one-day
school visits (one day per week for five weeks). In the fifth
semester, students complete a 13-week field experience (15 credit-
hours) and then return for a sixth semester to complete more
education courses and electives. Placements in this extended field
experience may occur in urban and/or rural schools in communities
in any province in Canada, although 80% of placements occur in the
home province of the university. The field experience involves
a blended model of supervision in which students meet face-to-
face during the semester and engage in guided reflection, facilitated
by a university faculty member, within small virtual communities
of learners using a learning management system. During the field
experience, through teaching in context with an experienced
teacher (or teachers) and having opportunities for explicit indi-
vidual and group reflection, students have opportunities to develop
a range of abilities, skills, and understandings as stated in the
program handbook that is shared with all students and faculty: (a)
integrate theory and practice, (b) refine skills in utilizing various
instructional strategies and resources to meet the individual needs
of all students, (c) develop and practice effective classroom
management skills, (d) develop and practice the skills of a reflective
practitioner, (e) develop an individual teaching style, (f) develop
critical knowledge of curriculum outcomes and effective teaching
techniques within various grade levels and content areas for
implementation of outcomes, (g) develop a philosophy of educa-
tion and recognize its relationship to educational principles in
professional practice, and (f) experience the working relationship
that exists between teachers and administrators as colleagues and
their relationship with the broader school community (Faculty of
Education, 2007).
Kate, an experienced teacher of 15 years, worked with a grade
three class of 26 students. Marina, an early career teacher of six
years, worked in a grade six class of 38 students. Sue, a mid-career
teacher, worked with a grade two class of 20 students, while
Deneen, an experienced teacher of 20 years who had previously
287
mentored pre-service teachers in filed experiences, worked with
a grade three class of 24 students. All classes were heterogeneous in
terms of student ability, interest, and motivation.
Prior to starting the field experience, the researchers brought
the pre-service teachers and cooperating teachers together for a full
day to get to know each other, to discuss their prospective roles,
and to discuss the triad model in more detail. For example, we
talked about possible configurations of the co-teaching that might
emerge within each triad and expectations surrounding the field
experience within the Faculty of Education. The notion of co-
generative dialoguing was also introduced and all participants were
strongly encouraged to make this practice a salient feature of the
triad model.
3. Methodology
This qualitative study was guided by a constructivist-interpre-
tive framework with the aim of developing understanding through
the collaborative construction of knowledge (Guba & Lincoln,
2005). The experiences of the cooperating teachers and their
respective pre-service teachers were studied, making sense of the
meanings these individuals brought to the student teaching field
experience. To enhance the validity and credibility of the
researchers’ explanations and interpretations, several procedures
were adopted (Maxwell, 2005). Rich, detailed data were collected
in a variety of ways, thus providing a comprehensive and in-depth
representation of what the teachers and pre-service teachers
experienced. Respondent validation or member checking (Creswell,
2007) was used as well. During the final debriefing day, the
researchers elicited feedback from the teachers and pre-service
teachers about the researchers’ interpretations of data and
conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Several data collection
methods and sources were adopted during the study:
1. Semi-structured interviews: the research team conducted
a series of semi-structured interviews with the pre-service
teachers and cooperating teachers. Interviews, 45 min in dura-
tion, occurred at week three and week eleven of the field expe-
rience. All interviews were audiotaped and later transcribed.
2. Electronic journal entries: throughout the four-month field
experience, both pre-service teachers and their cooperating
teachers kept electronic journals, responding to guiding ques-
tions at the beginning, middle, and end of the field experience.
Examples of guiding questions for the pre-service teachers
included: (a) How would you describe the co-teaching model
that is evolving? In other words, how do you and your dyad
partner plan together? How do you and your dyad partner
work together in the classroom? (b) What successes are you
experiencing in your dyad working partnership? And (c) What
challenges are you experiencing? The following are examples
of guiding questions asked of the mentoring teachers: (a) How
would you describe the co-teaching model that is evolving
between the pre-service teachers? In other words, how do the
pre-service teachers plan together? How do they work together
in the classroom? (b) What types of feedback do you give the
pre-service teachers? And (c) How is your role changing during
the field experience? When compared to former mentoring
experiences, how is this experience the same or different? One
of the researchers provided ongoing feedback to the partici-
pants, while all researchers read postings as the study was
unfolding. The journal entries provided insights into how
participants’ beliefs and classroom practice were developing.
3. School visits: to gain insight into the nature of the co-teaching
that emerged among the cooperating teachers and their pre-
service teachers, each member of the research team visited the
school sites of the triads for a minimum of four two-hour
288 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
sessions. During these sessions, observation of the first or
second teaching experience of the pre-service teachers
occurred, as well as the observation of two teaching experi-
ences after the mid-point of student teaching. Field notes were
recorded, becoming another source of data to examine and
support emerging themes.
4. Planning meetings: the researchers attended post-teaching
debriefing and some planning meetings at the school sites.
Usually, the cooperating teachers and the pre-service teachers
were present. As well, a six-hour planning day was held prior to
the field experience and another full debriefing day was held at
the end of the field experience. At times, all participants were
grouped for reflection and discussion, while during part of the
planning days, the cooperating teachers and the pre-service
teachers met separately, with a researcher, to share their ideas.
All meetings were audiotaped and later transcribed.
All researchers were involved in data collection. Using standard
research protocols, each researcher interviewed our respective
triad group members and audiotaped meetings at the school sites.
All researchers participated fully in the planning and debriefing
days.
All transcripts, field notes, and journal entries were read and re-
read by the researchers as the study was ongoing and at the
completion of the study. Notes and memos were generated so
initial comparison of emerging themes could occur among the
research team. Next, members of the research team analyzed all
texts independently to develop initial themes and sub-themes.
If new themes emerged, these were discussed and negotiated
among research team members. The original research questions
were used as broad organizers to start this analysis. For example,
broad themes and their corresponding sub-themes included pre-
service teacher perceptions of the advantages of the model
(assessment, confidence, support, feedback, K-12 student learning,
etc.), mentoring role of the cooperating teachers (friend, modeling,
observing, offering feedback, providing resources), and recom-
mendations about the use of the triad model (use a traditional and
triad model, partner relationships).
To manage the large data set, the researchers used MAXQDA,
a qualitative computer software analysis program, to assist with the
coding and retrieval of data after initial themes had been negoti-
ated. In addition, the program facilitated data analysis by allowing
the group to generate visual maps of developing categories and
their relationships.
4. Findings
Each triad shared similar insights about the triad experience,
while some insights and concerns were unique to a particular triad.
In the subsequent sections, the nature of the co-teaching models
that emerged are described, as well as cooperating teacher and pre-
service teacher perceptions of the advantages and limitations of
a triad model of student teaching.
4.1. Emerging co-teaching models
During the triad student teaching experience, the researchers
did not prescribe or recommend a particular approach to co-
teaching. This promoted flexibility, thus allowing the models to
develop based on the needs of each triad and their respective
teaching contexts (e.g. mentoring approach of the cooperating
teacher, learning needs of students, etc.). In describing the co-
teaching models, the researchers used the categories of team
planning (both pre-service teachers shared in planning for
assigned courses/topics), individual planning (an individual pre-
service teacher had responsibility for planning for an assigned
course or topic), individual teaching (solo teaching where one
dyad partner assumed responsibility for implementation of a lesson
or set of lessons while the other acted as a critical friend), shared
teaching (one pre-service teacher assumed a leadership role and
the other assisted with implementation), and full collaborative
teaching (both pre-service teachers shared equally in implement-
ing a lesson or set of lessons). These categories reflect the varied
and evolving models that emerged.
The dynamics within the triads also evolved during the twelve-
week student teaching experience. Pre-service teachers relied
heavily on their cooperating teachers in the first three to four
weeks of the field experience. However, as the field experience
progressed, this reliance changed and the cooperating teacher was
no longer the ‘‘director’’ of all activities. As one cooperating teacher
commented, ‘‘The mentorship role of the teacher in the triad model
is very different from that of the teacher in the dyad model. The
students in this model do not need some of the reassurance and
support that is necessary when you, as the teacher, are the main
contact within the school. Rather, they tend to look to the teacher
more for pedagogical supportdthe ‘‘how-to’s’’ of teaching’’
(Deneen, Journal entry). Both the cooperating teachers and the
eight pre-service teachers identified providing resources, modeling
classroom teaching approaches and professionalism, evaluating
lesson planning and implementation, and offering encouragement
and advice on all aspects of teaching, as areas of mentoring
provided by the cooperating teachers. In one triad, the cooperating
teacher described the pre-service teachers as friends: ‘‘We worked
really well together as a team, and I felt comfortable in giving them
constructive criticism. They were really open and accepting of it. I
felt like I had friends in the classroom and we were working
together towards a common goal’’ (Marina, Final interview). The
co-teaching models that emerged within each triad are described
below.
4.1.1. Triad A (Kate, Laura, and Megan)
Prior to starting the field experience, Laura and Megan felt
confident that their partnership would be very productive. Despite
this, they did have concernsdMegan wondered if having three
teachers in a class would be the best situation for preparing for
teaching: ‘‘I am not sure this is the perfect situation and thus it may
result in me having difficulty when I graduate and am in a class-
room alone’’ (Journal entry). Laura wondered if one of them would
be superior in terms of teaching ability, and consequently result in
one of them ‘‘just sitting there feeling inferior’’ (Interview). These
concerns did not materialize during their field experience.
As in a single pre-service teacher placement, often the norm, the
pre-service teachers gradually assumed more teaching responsi-
bilities in Kate’s classroom. Initially, they did a lot of observation
and acted in a supportive role (locating and evaluating resources,
monitoring student groups, etc.) when Kate planned and imple-
mented lessons. All three engaged in lesson planning, but by the
mid-point of their field experiences, the pre-service teachers had
assumed 90% of the responsibility for planning. They felt their co-
teaching model evolved smoothly:
I feel as though our co-teaching model is evolving quite natu-
rally. Our routine seems to be that at the end of each day Megan
and I get together with Kate to discuss the next day’s schedule.
As a group we decide what we will teach the following day. We
may decide that tomorrow Megan will teach the religion lesson,
I will teach social studies and together we will do the math
lesson. (Laura, Planning session)
The pre-service teachers engaged mainly in team planning and
to a lesser degree in individual planning. In terms of imple-
mentation of lessons, there was individual teaching in different
subject areas (they wanted opportunities to ‘‘go solo’’ in all
 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
disciplines), but most lesson delivery was shared teaching. Ste-
vens, the researcher that worked collaboratively with this triad
observed, during most of his school visits, that the teachers worked
smoothly together when implementing lessons. He noted that
‘‘both teachers moved around the room constantly, but only one
taught at any particular time. The arrangement was that one knew
when to come in and pick up her piece of the lesson when the other
finished her part’’ (Field notes). Although they attempted full
collaborative teaching, they found they were constantly ‘‘stepping
on each others’ toes’’ and thus abandoned this approach (Interview,
Laura).
Another element of this co-teaching model that emerged was
that the pairs naturally engaged in peer coaching, a process through
which ‘‘two or more professional colleagues work together to
reflect on current practices; expand, refine, and build new skills;
share ideas; teach one another; conduct classroom research; or
solve problems in the workplace’’ (Robbins, 1991). They would plan
a lesson together, and one pre-service teacher would implement
the lesson while the other observed. After the completion of the
lesson, the peer coach would offer critical feedback on the lesson.
As Laura stated during a journal entry:
When one of us is teaching the newly developed lesson, the
other is assessing the student learning and the effectiveness of
the lesson. It is very beneficial when we get together at the end
of a lesson or at the end of the day to discuss what we liked
about the class, how we could have done things differently and
how well we think it went over with our students.
Overall, the cooperating teacher felt the co-teaching model was
very productive:
‘‘There weren’t any big issues. I think both of them were very
comfortable with each other and I found, from my point of view,
we clicked and got along very comfortably and very well’’ (Kate,
Interview).
4.1.2. Triad B (Sue, Diane, and Mary)
Like Triad A, Diane and Mary believed their field experience
would be a positive experience. Mary expressed one concern prior
to startingdthat she might become too dependent on her partner.
‘‘That is a fear of mine. I may become too dependent on having
Diane there and I think you have to spread your own wings, so to
speak’’ (Journal entry). Although Mary did raise this as a concern at
the outset, this anticipated ‘‘dependence’’ did not materialize in her
triad experience. It was, however, an issue raised by other coop-
erating teachers and pre-service teachers.
The planning and lesson delivery by Diane and Mary involved
mainly team planning and individual and shared teaching. ‘‘At
the beginning, [the] pre-service teachers took one small chunk of
a lesson and did parts of it and as time went on, they planned
together but were able to teach individually’’ (Sue, Interview).
Although most of the subsequent lesson delivery involved indi-
vidual teaching, both pre-service teachers were present in the
classroom for most lessons. Mary described the arrangement as
follows:
Working together in the classroom is a joint effort. If I am
teaching a lesson, my partner is either, depending on the lesson,
helping with classroom management by circulating and helping
with discipline problems as I teach, setting up the materials
needed for the lesson, or working with a small group once the
students start a lesson. (Journal entry)
Likewise, Glassman, one of the researchers also commented in
his field notes that the two pre-service teachers demonstrated
‘‘good coordination, with each using materials generated or activ-
ities undertaken by the other.’’
289
The pre-service teachers, in consultation with the cooperating
teacher, decided to engage in mainly individual teaching, as this
would offer a little more consistency for their grade one students.
They had attempted the full collaborative teaching on several
occasions, but found ‘‘the kids were just kind of confused and
inattentive. They didn’t know who they were supposed to be
focusing on’’ (Diane, Interview). This was also observed during
a classroom visit: ‘‘At one time Diane and Mary were both trying to
get input from the students at the same time. This seemed to
confuse the students’’ (Field notes).
Another interesting aspect of this triad partnership was that
their planning extended to working with the other teachers at that
grade level, so they had opportunities to be mentored by several
teachers. Overall, the cooperating teacher felt the pre-service
teachers benefited from participating in the triad model: ‘‘They’ve
given me lots of positive feedback and told me what they have
learned and what they didn’t realize until they came into the
classroom and worked with me. They now realize the amount of
work that goes into teaching; the importance of the evaluating,
especially observing and documenting student progress daily; and
the close relationship that teachers need to have with the curric-
ulum outcomes’’ (Sue, Planning session).
4.1.3. Triad C (Deneen, Audrey, and Tina)
Although Audrey and Tina were friends, they reported that they
felt a little apprehensive about the pairing arrangement, but
believed the triad model would help them ‘‘feel less nervous and
more confident’’ (Tina, Journal entry). The pre-service teachers
started their lesson planning and implementation as team plan-
ning and full collaborative teaching. However, after trying a few
lessons with a full collaborative approach, they reported that it did
not go smoothly and the students seemed confused. Consequently,
they decided to engage in both team and individual planning;
‘‘[we] planned everything together except the individual curric-
ulum units, but implemented most activities individually’’ (Audrey,
Interview). They both wanted to ensure they had exposure to
teaching in all subject areas. According to the pre-service teachers
and based on classroom observations, despite this heavy emphasis
on individual teaching, they observed each other teaching on
several occasions, and provided each other with feedback. This is
recorded in one of Tina’s journal entries: ‘‘We just sat down and
talked about our lessons at the end of every day. We discussed what
we could’ve done differently; it just felt like you knew exactly what
was going on each day and exactly how you should teach it because
we would discuss it.’’ In addition, the cooperating teacher referred
to this ongoing peer mentoring as ‘‘being sounding boards’’ for each
other.
Overall, the cooperating teacher felt the triad model was
successful and allowed each of the pre-service teachers to develop
professionally. ‘‘As a mentor, I watched two students who came into
the classroom as very uncertain, very young student teachers
develop into confident leaders’’ (Deneen, Planning meeting). She
did report, however, that one pre-service teacher was more confi-
dent than the other and this posed some concerns for her as
a cooperating teacher. Despite this concern, Deneen praised the
triad model as ‘‘having huge benefits’’ and having the potential to
foster ‘‘a community of learners [teachers] in the school’’ (Deneen,
Interview).
4.1.4. Triad D (Marina, Jean, and Todd)
Although Jean and Todd were very good friends and had worked
together on previous university assignments and projects, they
shared some concerns about the triad model. They both wondered
if the triad, when compared to the regular model being used in
their teacher preparation program, would allow them to develop
the necessary abilities and skills. As well, they wondered how
290 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
future employers would perceive this arrangement. These concerns
faded as they progressed with their daily responsibilities.
In the first three weeks of their field experience, the student
teachers engaged in mainly team planning and assumed indi-
vidual responsibility for teaching lessons. However, as they
weighed the pros and cons of such an approach, they felt that full
collaborative teaching would be more feasibledthey would both
be teaching all lessons and therefore exposed to all disciplines and
could assume different roles within each lesson. ‘‘At first we
weren’t really sure which way to go and we took some time to feel
out the situation’’ (Todd, Planning session).
The negotiated model within this triad involved primarily team
planning and full collaborative teaching. As Jean commented, ‘‘As
we became used to this teaching method we became more capable
at communicating with each other within our lessons. We devel-
oped a relationship whereby we knew where and when to partic-
ipate in each lesson or activity’’ (Journal entry). The students had
developed a high level of trust with each other, and consequently,
they reported that they were able to work very ‘‘smoothly’’ and
‘‘seamlessly’’ as a triad. The following is an example of this trust:
During this process, if Jean and I disagreed on anything, we were
up front with each other and completely honest. We both agreed
that this model would be impossible if we did not communicate
our feelings openly with each other. We have both found that
this method has eliminated the possibilities of resentment and
established a complete feeling of trust between us. (Todd,
Journal entry)
Marina, the cooperating teacher, also echoed these comments:
‘‘They took on a team teaching model and it worked.it worked
really well. And both of them are on the same level. They’re both
extremely motivated, and really creative’’ (Focus group). This full
collaborative teaching approach was observed in action during her
classroom observations. The following excerpt from field notes
illustrates the seamless manner in which the two pre-service
teachers implemented their lessons:
Jean began the lesson by giving page references from the book,
while Todd also stood at the front of the classroom. Jean referred
to Todd when discussing topics and used eye contact to reinforce
points. Jean continued with the lesson as Todd handed out
sheets. Both now moved to the side to show a demonstration to
the students and both provided feedback to student questions
about the demonstration. Now, Todd took over the lead, posing
questions to the class. Jean interjected occasionally to clarify
points. Todd now moved to the board to explain a point.
Students were assigned a short section of reading and both kept
circulating and keeping students on task. (Field notes)
This approach to teaching was observed during several class-
room visits.
4.2. Advantages of the model
The most significant benefit of the triad model, as identified by
both the pre-service teachers and the cooperating teachers, was the
collaboration that materialized between the pre-service teacher
dyads. Working with the same cooperating teacher provided each
pre-service teacher with an experience that one could not get in
a traditional field experiencedthe opportunity to work with and
learn from a peer. The pre-service teachers had someone to ‘‘share
ideas for lessons and instructions, and to share feelings on how
things were going with lessons, students, and other elements of the
school’’ (Jean, Journal entry). The triad model was described as
being a ‘‘very advantageous situation where we [the pre-service
teachers] can learn and grow from each other’’ (Audrey, Journal
entry), and as providing a more ‘‘rounded and enriched’’ (Mary,
Final interview) field experience because of the collaboration that
resulted.
Based on the perceptions of the pre-service teachers, five
themes are used to discuss the benefits of the triad mod-
eldlearning from each other, support, outcomes for children,
feedback, and confidence. Likewise, the cooperating teachers
identified similar benefits and these are discussed under the
themes learning from each other, outcomes for children, and pre-
service teacher confidence. The perceived benefits are examined in
more detail in the subsequent sections.
4.2.1. Perceptions of pre-service teachers
4.2.1.1. Learning from each other. All of the pre-service teachers felt
that working collaboratively with a fellow pre-service teacher
provided them with the opportunity to learn from each other and
to enhance the quality of their teaching. The pre-service teachers
expressed that they enjoyed having ‘‘the chance to observe two
other teaching styles’’ (Laura, Journal entry) other than their own
and that, in addition, they appreciated being able to observe
someone on their own level. It was generally felt that, as a result of
observing each other, they had developed ‘‘a broader under-
standing of what works with some students and what doesn’t
work’’ (Tina, Final interview). According to one pre-service teacher,
‘‘sometimes I watched my partner in the classroom and she would
do something such as a classroom management technique and I
would think about how good it was and how I could incorporate it
into my own teaching’’ (Mary, Journal entry). Another pre-service
teacher commented:
It’s almost as if you had a chance to experience two field
experiences in a way. I experienced my partner’s field experi-
ence along with my own. They were different but they were the
same and through it, I felt I gained a lot of confidence. I gained
skills that maybe I wouldn’t have developed on my own. (Todd,
Final interview)
In addition to developing more insight into pedagogy and
curriculum by working with another, the pre-service teachers felt
that the triad model allowed them to develop the abilities and skills
necessary for working and collaborating with other professionals.
The triad model has changed my opinions on teaching and the
way you can work within a school and with other people.
Besides each other and our teacher, we had a close relationship
with the resource centre teacher; we had student assistants and
special education teachers in our class.you see how you can
rely on others. (Todd, Final interview)
Diane stated that the triad model was ‘‘great for learning how to
work cooperatively with people’’ and that, even though you may
not always agree with someone, ‘‘you have to work it out and get it
done’’ (Final interview). Another pre-service teacher indicated,
‘‘The team approach offers things like the collaboration and team
work skills that you, otherwise, wouldn’t have encountered.I’ve
never worked with someone so closely before’’ (Audrey, Final
interview).
4.2.1.2. Support. While all pre-service teachers indicated that their
cooperating teachers provided them with a tremendous amount of
support and encouragement, having another pre-service teacher in
the classroom who was experiencing the same fears and challenges
provided an additional layer of support for the pre-service teachers.
All pre-service teachers expressed their gratitude in having
a partner to share their ‘‘ups and downs.’’
Before I knew about the triad model, I was worrying about what
it was going to be like with just me and my cooperating teacher.
What if she doesn’t like me or if I don’t like her? But, with my
 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
partner there, we always had each other for support. She was
going through the exact same things that I was going through so
it was a lot easier. (Diane, Final interview)
Just having someone there who’s in that situation with you; if
you have problems or if you’re having a bad day, you can talk to
them. We’re all in the same situation and just having that
feedback and someone to talk to was probably the biggest
advantage. (Mary, Final interview)
In general, the pre-service teachers commented that they didn’t
feel as ‘‘isolated or alone in the classroom as other pre-service
teachers who were not part of the model’’ (Mary, Journal entry),
and that it was ‘‘very nice to have a peer for support in the class-
room, especially in the beginning when [one] is nervous and does
not know what to expect’’ (Audrey, Journal entry). Overall, the pre-
service teacher pairs provided each other with professional and
emotional support. They perceived this as being critical to the
success they experienced in their placements, as indicated by
another pre-service teacher who stated, ‘‘The biggest success in this
model.more than anything else, was having someone there with
me on my level, someone to discuss various issues and concerns
with’’ (Tina, Journal entry).
4.2.1.3. Outcomes for children. Seven of the eight pre-service
teachers felt that the collaboration with their partners resulted in
better and more efficient planning and, consequently, the devel-
opment of higher quality lessons for the students. As one pre-
service teacher stated, ‘‘It was very helpful to have someone to
bounce ideas off. It was this aspect that helped to make it a much
more creative and enjoyable experience’’ (Todd, Journal entry).
Later, he reflected on this again and commented, ‘‘We planned
everything together. There was a constant flow of ideas and the
students saw the benefits’’ (Todd, Journal entry). In addition, the old
adage ‘two heads are better that one’ was used on more than one
occasion to describe how working together resulted in both the
generation of new ideas and the fine-tuning of existing ideas.
When we were planning a lesson, it wasn’t just what I thought
would be good. You have two people contributing ideas. You can
really make the best lesson that you could possibly make
because you have multiple perspectives. It really makes the
lesson the best it can be for the kids. (Audrey, Interview)
The students are benefiting from more innovative and creative
lessons. You’re getting everyone’s input on something. If I think
of an idea for a language arts lesson, then my cooperating
teacher might add something to make it better and then my
partner, once again, adds something.so it’s three times better
than if you were planning something just on your own. (Laura,
Final interview)
Four of the pre-service teachers also indicated that the students
were benefiting simply from the presence of additional support in
the classroom, which allowed teachers to spend more individual
time with students. One pre-service teacher discussed a language
project completed in her class where the pre-service teachers and
the cooperating teacher assisted each student with the editing and
revising process:
‘‘This was time-consuming and wouldn’t have been possible in
a classroom with only one teacher.Having three teachers in the
classroom is a great way for students to benefit from the indi-
vidual teaching styles. I feel they’re the ones who really
benefited the most from this.’’ (Laura, Final interview)
Likewise, Diane directly commented on the reduced student–
teacher ratio and the benefits of having more individual time to
devote to each child (Final interview). Another pre-service teacher
indicated that having two pre-service teachers allowed one to give
291
the students reinforcement, while the other was conducting
a lesson. She commented, ‘‘If my partner was trying to explain
something to them and they didn’t really understand, I’d cut in and
provide extra examples to help them’’ (Jean, Interview). Laura also
commented that ‘‘having three sets of eyes to look out for indica-
tions of trouble’’ allowed them to more easily ‘‘identify those who
might need additional help or support’’ and to see ‘‘how well they
were grasping the topics’’ (Final interview).
4.2.1.4. Feedback. Five of the pre-service teachers indicated that
they received valuable feedback from their partners during their
placements. They commented that, because of the triad model, they
‘‘had the benefit of receiving feedback from two other teachers’’
(Laura, Journal entry), as opposed to those in the traditional model
who primarily had feedback from their cooperating teacher only.
One pre-service teacher commented that her partner’s feedback
was ‘‘especially valuable in the beginning of the placement, when
she wasn’t so comfortable going to the cooperating teacher’’ (Jean,
Final interview). Another pre-service teacher felt that she didn’t
receive as much feedback from her cooperating teacher as she
would have liked. She commented, ‘‘If you didn’t get the feedback
from the cooperating teacher, you still got it from someone, and
that helped a lot’’ (Diane, Final interview).
It was also felt by three of the pre-service teachers that their
peers might be more candid and straightforward with them about
their teaching and give ‘‘an honest and open opinion about how the
lessons went or what could have been done differently’’ (Mary, Final
interview). They worried that the cooperating teacher wouldn’t
want to say anything to hurt their feelings and commented that ‘‘a
friend is going to tell you like it is’’ (Audrey, Final interview).
I knew that if I went to my partner, she wouldn’t lie to me or try
to make me feel better. She would just tell me like it was, which
is kind of what you need in that situation. It’s best to know that
your lesson wasn’t very good than to have someone say that was
excellent when really you know it was terrible. It’s good to have
someone who’s going to be honest with you. (Audrey, Final
interview)
4.2.1.5. Confidence. Four of the pre-service teachers specifically
stated that working with another pre-service teacher resulted in
them developing more confidence in their teaching and allowed
them to be more comfortable in presenting their ideas to their
cooperating teacher. One pre-service teacher stated, ‘‘Confidence
really goes down when you are entering a new situation. I felt that
having my partner with me took a lot of the pressure off. I was more
confident and was able to step into the role a lot easier because of
that extra support’’ (Jean, Final interview). Similarly, Diane com-
mented that the triad model ‘‘is a lot more supportive [than the
traditional model] and it gives you more confidence to become
more comfortable in your teaching’’ (Final interview), while
another pre-service teacher stated, ‘‘because there were two of us,
we felt more comfortable presenting our ideas to the class and to
the cooperating teacher’’ (Megan, Final interview).
4.2.2. Perceptions of the cooperating teachers
Like the pre-service teachers, the cooperating teachers identi-
fied specific advantages that they associated with the increased
collaboration of the triad model. In addition, the majority of these
perceived benefits were very similar to those identified by the pre-
service teachers themselves and are discussed using the following
themesdlearning from each other, outcomes for children, and pre-
service teacher confidence.
4.2.2.1. Learning from each other. As was the case with the pre-
service teachers, the learning that occurred as a result of working
292 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
closely with others was the main advantage identified by the
cooperating teachers. All teachers felt that the collaboration
generated through the triad model provided the opportunity for
the pre-service teachers to learn a great deal from each other
through both planning and delivering lessons together, as well as
through observing each other conduct classes individually. One
teacher commented,
Audrey and Tina did a great deal of discussing and planning
together, so much so that, at times, they had ideas worked out
and planned before they even approached me. This was
certainly different from what I had experienced before in the
traditional model. (Deneen, Journal entry)
Another teacher reported that as a result of working with each
other, the pre-service teachers seemed to have gained more from
their placement than she had a few years ago when she was a pre-
service teacher. ‘‘Thinking back to when I did this myself, I was
wondering all the time where I was supposed to be going with
things. I think that it was helpful, watching each other teach and
they learned a lot from each other’’ (Marina, Final interview). Like
the pre-service teachers, the cooperating teachers recognized the
value of developing basic collaboration skills. One teacher in
particular stated:
There are huge benefits to learning to work together in that way.
In the school system, you have to be able to work within
a collaborative model. Even if you’re not team teaching within
your classroom.a school community is still very much the
philosophy of the way a school works.the philosophy of being
a community of learners. (Deneen, Final interview)
The cooperating teachers indicated that the pre-service
teachers were not the only ones who benefited from the increased
collaboration. All four expressed that their learning was enri-
cheddthey were exposed to many new ideas and different ways of
doing things. One teacher commented, ‘‘I would ask for their input
about what I was doing the next day, not just to get them involved,
but because I enjoyed being able to talk through what I was doing
and take some of their ideas’’ (Kate, Final interview). Similarly,
another teacher commented, ‘‘We helped each other through the
partnership and toward the end, they seemed to be able to offer me
advice as well. It was ongoing, advising each other and motivating
each other.we did learn a lot from each other’’ (Sue, Final
interview).
4.2.2.2. Outcomes for children. All of the cooperating teachers
reported that their students had benefited, in multiple ways, from
having the additional support of two pre-service teachers. The
teachers made reference to how the pre-service teachers eased the
burden and alleviated some of the pressure of being needed by so
many students simultaneously. According to one teacher:
When I would take the class to the computer room, and having
the pre-service teacher support, I found that I was able to do
things that I probably would not have been able to do until later
in the year.because there were three of us there, working with
the children on the computer if they ran into trouble. (Kate, Final
interview)
Another teacher commented, ‘‘Sometimes a day might go by
and, in a class of 38, you think, did I speak to that child today? With
the pre-service teachers, you can take the time. To see how they
[the pre-service teachers] are with the children is really huge’’
(Marina, Final interview).
One teacher commented on the benefit in terms of student
assessment, citing the contribution from the two pre-service
teachers as being very valuable to her when she was completing
running records and report cards:
I had so much more data.about who was listening and who
was taking part in things.all the notes and checklists that the
three of us had gathered. They did a lot of assessing when they
started off because they were observing and I got to do a lot
more observing and note-taking on the children when they
were teaching. (Kate, Focus group)
She felt that the additional observation of the children allowed
for more authentic assessment and allowed them to more easily
identify students who were in need of additional support.
4.2.2.3. Confidence. Like the pre-service teachers, three of the four
cooperating teachers stated that working in the triad had assisted
the pre-service teachers in developing confidence in their abilities
and in becoming better prepared to deal with the presence of other
professionals in their classroom. One teacher commented:
I’ve been afraid for years to have another adult in my class. I
don’t think that will be a problem for these pre-service teachers.
They enjoy collaborating and they see how you can work
together; they are not intimidated by each other. That’s very
important because of how the education system is structured
now with student assistants and specialists. There are a lot of
times when there are other adults in your classroom. (Marina,
Focus group)
Likewise, another teacher commented, ‘‘By experiencing the triad,
the pre-service teachers will be more comfortable in the future
having other adults in the classroom.getting used to the idea of
adults listening to you and being there. I think this model really
helped with that’’ (Sue, Final interview).
4.3. Challenges and limitations of the model
While both pre-service teachers and cooperating teachers
identified advantages and potential benefits of the triad model,
several challenges and limitations were acknowledged by the
participants at various stages throughout the study. The following
sections will examine the main challenges and limitations as
identified by both the pre-service teachers and the cooperating
teachers.
4.3.1. Perceptions of pre-service teachers
Some of the concerns voiced by the pre-service teachers were
typical of any field experience placement in general and were not
directly related to the triad model. They may have arisen regardless
of the model adopted in the field experience. For example, one pre-
service teacher felt restricted and ‘‘would have liked to have had
more freedom with lessons’’ (Tina, Journal entry). Another pair
expressed disappointment that their cooperating teacher found it
difficult to relinquish control of the classroom to the pre-service
teachers. For example, one pre-service teacher commented:
A lot of times we would come up with some different ideas for
whatever we wanted to teach, but when we would bring them
to discuss with Mrs. Smith, she would kind of say, well, I think
maybe we should stick with this because it works well. You
never really had much freedom to do the things you wanted to
do and to try new things. (Audrey, Final interview)
Two other pre-service teacher pairs talked about how they did
not always act the way they might have if they were alone in their
own classroom. They were conscious of the fact that another adult
was watching them and felt that sometimes they were not being
themselves, but rather they were conducting themselves in a way
to impress their cooperating teacher. As one pre-service teacher
commented, ‘‘You can’t be yourself all the time, especially when it
comes to discipline and things of that nature. You’re not always
 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
going to do the things you would do if you were in a classroom by
yourself’’ (Laura, Final interview).
The subsequent section will focus on challenges and limitations,
as identified by the pre-service teachers, related to the triad model,
including (a) dependency and time, (b) confusion with classroom
management issues, (c) loss of individuality, and (d) competition
between the pre-service teachers.
4.3.1.1. Dependency and time. At different points in the field expe-
rience, six of the eight pre-service teachers voiced concerns over
the amount of teaching time they would receive. For some of the
pre-service teachers, as the field experience progressed, these
concerns were alleviated through the use of full collaborative
teaching. This was particularly the case for Jean and Todd who used
full collaborative teaching for most of their field experience, thus
allowing them to increase their teaching time and their exposure to
all subjects. However, in one of the other triads, where full
collaborative teaching did not emerge, the concerns about teaching
time persisted. One of the pre-service teachers stated, ‘‘I feel that
we are only getting half the teaching time of other pre-service
teachers’’ (Tina, Journal entry). The other pre-service teacher
commented, ‘‘I have discovered in this past week or so how difficult
it is for both Tina and myself to increase the amount of time we
teach’’ (Audrey, Journal entry).
Integrally related to issues of overall teaching time was the fear,
held by the pre-service teachers, of not being prepared to handle
a classroom on their own. On the other hand, for Jean and Todd,
these issues were not a concern as both stated that they had no
reservations about going into their own classrooms after working
in the triad. It should be noted that these two students were very
confident in their abilities and worked together in a highly
collaborative manner, through team planning and teaching, that is
often not achieved by even seasoned teachers. These factors may
have impacted their perceptions regarding individual teaching
time. However, for four of the pre-service teachers, who experi-
enced varying levels of shared and full collaborative teaching, these
concerns were very real. They expressed, on more than one occa-
sion, the fear that they may have become too dependent on the
other pre-service teacher in terms of planning and conducting their
daily teaching activities: ‘‘I feel like you don’t get the same amount
of independence that you would get if you are just there by your-
self. If there were any questions that I had I would just go right to
Tina and say, do you think that would work.instead of just doing it
myself’’ (Audrey, Final interview).
These pre-service teachers also indicated that they would have
liked to have had more individual teaching time and four of the pre-
service teachers recommended that the field experience be broken
into two parts; one as a triad and the other as the traditional model
(one cooperating teacher and one pre-service teacher). ‘‘If you had it
[the field experience] split up into two different terms, then at least
then you’re doing it by yourself for a few weeks as well, so then
you’re developing more independence’’ (Tina, Final interview).
4.3.1.2. Confusion with classroom management issues. All of the
triad groups used some form of full collaborative teaching at
various points in the field experience. While one of the groups
found this to be very beneficial for the students, six of the pre-
service teachers sometimes found their full collaborative teaching
approaches to be confusing for both the children and themselves.
This was particularly the case with younger students or in dyads
that did not employ full collaborative teaching:
Having three people telling the students what is expected of
them can sometimes be confusing for the students. Different
students may come to all three of us with a question and receive
three different responses.especially when they ask questions
293
about work which was assigned by one of the other teachers.
(Audrey, Journal entry)
In Grade one, [because] their attention span is so short, if there’s
two of us up in front of the classroom, it’s hard for [them] to
know who they’re supposed to focus on. (Mary, Focus group)
I wasn’t listening to her all the time when she was teaching and
she wasn’t listening to me, but the kids would still come back to
us and ask us questions and we weren’t really sure what the
other one had taught and that caused a lot of confusion. (Tina,
Focus group)
As a result of this confusion, three of the four dyads opted out of
full collaborative teaching for most of their field experiences.
4.3.1.3. Loss of individuality. All the triads were based in schools
that were hosting other pre-service teachers in the traditional style
of field experience. Pre-service teachers in two of the four triads felt
that the pre-service teachers in the traditional model were viewed
as being individuals, whereas they themselves were seen as part of
a duo.
There are a few [teachers] that saw a lot of us together
constantly and referred to us almost if we are one person. This
can sometimes be a little demeaning and frustrating as we are
trying to present ourselves as separate individuals with different
ideas, personalities, and talents. (Todd, Journal entry)
Furthermore, one of the participants felt that this might give the
single pre-service teacher an advantage in securing work once their
degrees were completed and is reflected in her final interview
comments: ‘‘The other pre-service teacher in this school, if we
applied for substituting here, I think, would get it over me. Not that
I’m insecure about my teaching, I just feel they know him better’’
(Tina, Final interview).
4.3.1.4. Competition between the pre-service teachers. Although
members in all triad groups collaborated well together, half of the
pre-service teachers, at some point in the study, expressed concerns
about being compared to the other pre-service teacher. They com-
mented that, at times, there could be the feeling of ‘‘trying to outdo
each other and trying to always take on more than the other person’’
(Laura, Final interview). All pre-service teachers wanted to do well in
their placements and with another pre-service teacher working
with the same teacher, they worried that the cooperating teacher
might not perceive both pre-service teachers as working equally as
hard. One of the pre-service teachers, for example, had a part-time
job and could not always stay as late in the evening as the other pre-
service teacher. She feared she might be perceived as not being as
dedicated or conscientious as the other pre-service teacher:
I went to my cooperating teacher and asked her if my job would
be a problem. She said no, but now, in the back of my mind, I’m
wondering could I have been penalized because I wasn’t there as
much as my colleague. (Diane, Final interview)
Another pre-service teacher experienced an illness during the
placement and missed a few days of school. He commented, ‘‘Upon
returning I felt a lot of pressure because Jean had been there for
a week and I hadn’t. I was trying to take on everything for the next
little while to kind of try and catch up’’ (Todd, Final interview). The
pre-service teachers expressed that the competitiveness was ‘‘not
aggressive competition, but more so on the sidelines’’ (Diane, Final
interview). Thus, it did not appear to be a major problem for most
groups, but some element of competition was present nonetheless.
4.3.2. Perceptions of cooperating teachers
Cooperating teachers identified several challenges and limita-
tions associated with the triad model. Some of these were also
294 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
identified by the pre-service teachers, while others were unique to
the cooperating teachers. Their concerns are grouped into four
categories: (a) dependency and context, (b) connectedness to the
pre-service teachers, (c) differences in pre-service teacher abilities,
and (d) confusion with classroom management issues.
4.3.2.1. Dependency and context. All cooperating teachers felt that
a triad model, at times, prevented the pre-service teachers from not
being as independent as they might have been if they were on their
own. As one teacher commented, ‘‘If you didn’t have everything
quite prepared, somebody else could do that for you. When you go
into [your own] classroom, you have to have everything ready
before the day starts’’ (Sue, Final interview). One teacher worried
whether ‘‘the students were gaining the sense of independence
that they may need to have to function in the actual classroom
setting’’ (Deneen, Journal entry) and, like the pre-service teachers,
three of the four cooperating teachers recommended that the field
experience includes a triad as well as a traditional field experience
component. It was felt that the traditional model of student
teaching would allow pre-service teachers to gain more autonomy
and ‘‘learn to function as an individual teacher. and an indepen-
dent thinker’’ (Deneen, Final interview).
Three of the cooperating teachers commented that they felt the
triad model presented a situation that was not viable. One teacher
commented that, given the realities of the current educational
system, it is ‘‘unrealistic to think that you’re going to have collab-
orative teaching in a lot of classrooms’’ (Marina, Focus group).
Another teacher commented that while student assistants may be
in your classroom sometimes, ‘‘it is not the same as having another
teacher helping the children or supporting in that way. When
you’re alone in the classroom, it will be different’’ (Kate, Final
interview). It should be noted, however, that while the triad model
was viewed as being somewhat unrealistic, both teachers and pre-
service teachers recognized that the traditional dyad model does
not provide a totally realistic situation for pre-service teachers
either. As one of the pre-service teachers stated, ‘‘The triad model is
no more real or unreal than any other field experience’’ (Todd, Final
interview).
4.3.2.2. Connectedness to the pre-service teachers. Three of the
participating teachers felt they were not able to develop as strong
a relationship with the pre-service teachers as they might have if
they were only supervising one student. They reported that having
two pre-service teachers limited the personal connection that they
were able to establish. As one teacher commented, ‘‘you don’t get to
see as much of the individual. I don’t feel like I know them much;
not them as teachers, but them as people’’ (Marina, Final inter-
view). One teacher recognized that having the other pre-service
teacher to assist in planning was a huge collaborative benefit, but
also acknowledged that it resulted in less collaboration with the
cooperating teacher. As she commented; ‘‘they come to me less for
ideas I guess, because they’re talking it through themselves more’’
(Kate, Final interview). Three teachers thought that it was an
advantage that the pre-service teachers knew each other prior to
the field experience. One teacher, however, did express some
disappointment that the two pre-service teachers were already
friends. She commented that in the beginning, ‘‘because they were
buddies, there was not a lot of collaboration happening between
the three of us. It’s more of a collaboration between them and then,
later, coming back to me, as opposed to a true triad’’ (Deneen, Final
interview).
4.3.2.3. Differences in pre-service teacher abilities. While three of
the four cooperating teachers worked with pre-service teachers
who they felt were equal in terms of ability, they all expressed
concerns about the potential problems that might arise if the two
pre-service teachers were not comparable. For one teacher in
particular, this fear was a reality. She reported that one of the pre-
service teachers in her triad was noticeably weaker than the other.
As she stated, the discrepancy in their abilities ‘‘complicated the
burden because I was trying to do the same for both of them, and
there’s the expectation from them that they’re both doing the same
thing; that they’re both working equally hard; that they’re both at
the same level’’ (Deneen, Final interview).
This posed both a practical and an ethical dilemma for Deneen
as she struggled with the resulting differences in their assessments:
‘‘Every time you wrote anything for either one of them, they would
compare notes. You didn’t want to make one feel that they weren’t
doing quite as well as the other one’’ (Deneen, Focus group). This
was a dilemma for Deneen that she did not resolve.
4.3.2.4. Confusion with classroom management issues. Like the pre-
service teachers who raised concerns about the confusion arising
from having multiple teachers delivering lessons, two of the
cooperating teachers also mentioned that it was sometimes
confusing having three people to deal with issues of regular
classroom management. As one teacher commented, ‘‘There were
three of us to give permission to the children for things [such as
going to the bathroom]. I must know where the children are at all
times, for safety reasons. We had to come up with an agreement
about how that would be handled’’ (Sue, Final interview). As well,
another teacher discussed her management issues regarding an
autistic student who was following a behavior plan. Having three
teachers working with her at different times in the same room was
sometimes challenging. ‘‘It was confusing because she was on
a behavior plan, which had to be followed through very carefully. It
is important for her not to have too many people giving her
directions, so we worked it out between us’’ (Kate, Final interview).
5. Discussion/implications
As mentioned previously, the researchers did not offer the triads
a prescriptive approach to how to engage in teaching and learning
within the field experience. They deliberately allowed co-teaching
models to emerge or evolve ‘‘in response to needs, difficulties, and
contradictions’’ (Tobin & Roth, 2005, p. 316). For example, in their
work with co-teaching models, these authors have also supported
various co-teaching configurations (e.g. supervisors, three or more
pre-service teachers, and one cooperating teacher). In this study, as
anticipated by the researchers, four different co-teaching
approaches emerged. While all pre-service teacher pairs engaged in
team planning (which also involved their cooperating teachers to
varying degrees), the implementation aspect varied. Triad A did
some individual teaching, but engaged in mainly shared teaching.
In Triad B, individual teaching was more dominant, while there was
shared teaching to a lesser degree. Triad C engaged in primarily
individual teaching, while Triad D was the only pair that engaged in
full collaborative teaching. The development of full collaborative
teaching in the latter triad may be attributed to the high level of
trust and friendship that already existed between the pre-service
teachers prior to starting the field experience. As well, the power
relations among this triad were very evenly distributed and may be
attributed to the mentoring style of the cooperating teacher.
These varying configurations of the co-teaching model reflected
the needs of the triads’ classroom students, as well as the comfort
levels of the pre-service teachers themselves. For example, Triad A
tried full collaborative teaching, but found it challenging to imple-
ment in a coherent, smooth manner. Triad B had also attempted full
collaborative teaching, but noted the children became too confused
and were unsure about who they should focus on during direct
teaching episodes. Thus, when adopting a new model in the context
 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
of teacher preparation, flexibility needs to be paramount, if the
needs of students, teachers, and schools are to be met.
It is important to note that the researchers envisioned
a balanced approach within the triads, where all, including the
researchers, would become co-learners. The use of co-generative
dialogue was encouraged and supported; however, it cannot be
assumed that shared planning and decision-making about what
should occur or be changed in a classroom will always occur. For the
notion of co-teaching to be enacted in practice, those involved need
to recognize the potential of everyone within a co-teaching model
to contribute to the learning of all involved.
During the field experience, peer coaching naturally arose
within the pre-service teachers pairs. They would preplan together,
observe implementation of the lessons of the partner, and later
offer feedback and engage in discussion. Although this wasn’t
structured as a formal aspect of the triad experience, it may be
a valuable strategy that could become incorporated into the triad
model. In only one case (Triad B), the planning extended beyond
the immediate triad. They worked with other teachers at their
grade level, thus broadening the mentoring and collaborative
learning to ‘‘the elbows of many’’ (Roth & Tobin, 2002).
This raises the issue of whether or not triad dynamics should
emerge naturally based on context and the individuals involved or
be prescribed. Conversely, those participating in triad models, prior
to a field experience, may be introduced to a range of options to
consider within a triad model (e.g. Campbell-Evans & Maloney,
1997; Wynn & Kromrey, 1999). For example, incorporating peer
coaching experiences as a formal learning activity within a triad
model would allow for enhanced and focused opportunities to
discuss particular aspects of teaching and learning. Another issue
worthy of consideration is the experiences of the mentoring
teacher and her approach to mentoring. Three of the four cooper-
ating teachers did not have prior mentoring experience; thus,
incorporating a program component that would allow cooperating
teachers (experienced and novice) and their pre-service teachers to
explore and discuss the nature of a triad partnership and the roles
of each within a mentoring relationship would be beneficial. For
pre-service teachers, this might be done within the context of their
university-based courses prior to starting a field experience. This
could also be linked to opportunities for both cooperating teachers
and their pre-service students to explicitly consider, through
guided sessions, topics such as the nature of mentoring, expecta-
tions of mentors and pre-service students, peer teaching, fostering
communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), and co-teaching
approaches (Roth & Tobin, 2002).
Overall, the pre-service teachers and the cooperating teachers in
this study perceived the triad model as having many benefits in
several areasdpre-service teacher confidence in their teaching abil-
ities, creative lesson planning, emotional and professional support,
increased support for K-12 students, alleviation of feelings of isola-
tion, collaborative learning and collaborative skill development, and
professional feedback. The pre-service teachers naturally compared
their experiences to their understanding of the traditional model, and
felt the triad model offered enhanced opportunities in the afore-
mentioned areas. Likewise, the cooperating teachers reported that
this was a two-way learning processdthey learned and enhanced
their own teaching through this mentoring model. In addition to the
perceived benefits, the pre-service teachers and cooperating teachers
raised concernsdpre-service teachers’ lack of development of
professional independence, competition between the pre-service
teachers, and confusion among students during classroom teaching
sessions. Furthermore, the cooperating teachers identified challenges
related to their role as cooperating teachersddiffering abilities of the
pre-service teachers, not feeling as connected to two pre-service
teachers as they might to one, and the lack of authenticity associated
with a triad model (teachers usually teach solo). Despite the concerns
295
raised by both groups, the pre-service teachers and cooperative
teachers strongly endorsed the model, but a few suggested that this
be one of at least two extended field experiences, with opportunities
for a second one to be a solo experience.
This study raises the broader issue of how to best prepare pre-
service teachers for their beginning years of teaching. Many ‘‘stage’’
theories have been proposed to describe the trajectory of teachers’
development and the nature of their professional knowledge
(Hammerness et al., 2005). These theories and this knowledge
provide a basis for understanding how we might support pre-
service teachers in developing the knowledge, skills, and disposi-
tions to become effective teachers.
In this study, the pre-service teachers and their cooperating
teachers reported many advantages of the triad model, all of which
were premised on the notion of collaboration and working closely
with an experienced teacher and another pre-service teacher ‘‘in
the same boat.’’ Interns benefited by becoming more comfortable
and confident in their own abilities, obtaining more and varied
feedback, and developing more creative and varied lessons. In
addition, the participants reported that students benefited from
having more attention and individual instruction. If the goals of
field-based experiences are to support collaborative learning and
the development of collaborative skills, and to foster an apprecia-
tion for working and learning with many professionals in a school
context, then the triad model can be adopted to promote these
goals. This particular approach to the field experience recognizes
the importance of situated learning (Brown et al., 1989), learning
that occurs through participation with others in social contexts.
Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to the ways in which newcomers
become part of communities of practice as legitimate peripheral
participation. This is a dynamic concept that suggests a ‘‘way of
gaining access to sources for understanding through growing
involvement’’ (p. 37). This notion may guide teacher preparation as
student teachers experience gradual transition from the periphery
of a community to full participation. As part of new communities of
practice, pre-service teachers need to be supported, through both
formal and informal structures, in negotiating meaning and
learning with all members of a community of practice, in devel-
oping an understanding of the goals of the community, and in
adopting and contributing to the shared repertoire of teaching. The
triad model of student teaching has the potential to foster learning
that is situated and collaborative.
Of course, the triad model has limitations as well. In this study,
issues around pre-service teacher autonomy and independence,
pre-field experience matching of pre-service teachers, and the
nature of the co-teaching model arose. The first issue, the challenge
to develop professional autonomy and independence within the
triad, created tension for several of the pre-service teachers within
their respective co-teaching models. With the exception of one
triad, the others struggled to ensure they had opportunities to plan
and teach independently, as well as within a team. This relates
directly to the nature of the co-teaching model. In this study, the
models evolved and were negotiated among triad members over
time. However, providing guidelines that would encourage
a balanced approach (using a combination of approaches) to
planning and implementing lessons could be helpful.
The issue of matching between the pre-service teachers prior to
the field experience needs to be given serious consideration. The
pre-service teachers in this study felt that the triad approach would
work better if the dyad partners knew each other prior to the field
experience. Although random assignment may occur, some
assigned pairs may not be well-matched. For example, if pre-
service teachers are not open to constructive criticism and feed-
back, problems may arise. Likewise, careful attention needs to be
given to the assignment of schools and mentoring teachers in any
student teaching experience.
296 K. Goodnough et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 285–296
While four academics were involved in this research, this would
not be the norm in a regular 12-week field experience, even if
a triad model were adopted. This research team was formed
because of a shared interest in exploring the research questions
reported earlier in this paper. Thus, from a resource perspective,
having students work within a triad arrangement would require
fewer cooperating teachers in a program overall, when compared
to the traditional model.
6. Final comments
While the intent of the study was not to document how the
specific knowledge, skills, abilities, and dispositions of the triad
participants changed during the field experience, it was evident,
through participant self-reporting and the outcomes reported
previously, that considerable learning occurred for all participants.
It should also be recognized that many aspects of teacher learning
are tacit, considering the complexity of teaching, and may not be
articulated by teachers or captured through research methods.
Teacher understanding has to be developed over time, in praxis.
Although this is a limitation of this study (using teacher talk and
self-report as a proxy for teaching), insight into the nature of the
triad model and its potential for preparing pre-service teachers was
developed. Within teacher preparation programs, pre-service
teachers need to be offered a variety of structured learning expe-
riences that will allow a gradual transition from being on the
periphery of the teaching community to becoming full members of
that community. It has long been recognized that novices can
benefit from the tutelage of experienced teachers in a field;
however, in the triad model described, there is a recognition of and
evidence to support the notion that novices may learn from each
other and from experienced teachers. This learning is also recip-
rocal; experienced teachers may benefit and learn from both the
feedback of novices and the mentoring process itself. However,
‘‘different strategies [and approaches] bring with them different
benefits and limitations.whatever the design of student teaching
chosen, it is important that prospective teachers’ clinical experi-
ences are constructed with careful consideration of what the
experiences should be like and why’’ (Darling-Hammond, Ham-
merness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005, p. 410). This is of
utmost importance if we are to ensure that beginning teachers have
a sound foundation for their future development as teachers.
References
Bowen, G. M., Roth, W. M. (2003). Student teachers’ perceptions of their paired
placement experiences. Paper presented at the Canadian Society for Studies in
Education, Halifax, Canada.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated learning and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 40–57.
Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Birrell, J. D., Clark, C. D., Egan, M. W., Erickson, L., et al.
(2003). Teaching with a peer: a comparison of two models of student teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 57–73.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., et al.
(2002). Rethinking field experience: partnership teaching versus single-place-
ment teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68–80.
Campbell-Evans, G., & Maloney, C. (1997). An alternative practicum curriculum:
exploring roles and relationships. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25(1),
35–52.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. London: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005).
The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, &
J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers learn
and should be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Eick, C. J., Ware, F. N., & Williams, P. G. (2003). Coteaching in a science methods
course: a situated learning model of becoming a teacher. Journal of Teacher
Education, 54(1), 74–85.
Faculty of Education. (2007). Handbook for interns, cooperating teachers, school
administrators, and online supervisors. http://www.mun.ca/educ/undergrad/
internship-/Handbook_Fall_2007.pdf. Accessed 17.12.07.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In E. G. Guba, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 191–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-
Smith, M., Morva, M., et al. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In
L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing
world: What teachers learn and should be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Fran-
cisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Hasbrouck, J. E. (1997). Mediated peer coaching for training preservice teachers.
Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 251–271.
Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1999). Pervasive problems and issues in teacher
education. In G. A. Griffen (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth year-
book of National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 279–305). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Jenkins, J. M., Garn, A., & Jenkins, P. (2005). Preservice teacher observations in peer
coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24(1), 2–23.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching as learning in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 149–
164.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London:
Sage Publications.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source
book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morgan, R. L., Menlove, R., Salzberg, C. L., & Hudson, P. (1994). Effects of peer
coaching on the acquisition of direct instruction skills by low-performing
preservice teachers. Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 59–76.
North Dakota Center for Persons with Disabilities. (2000). Interactive peer coaching/
mentoring project for preparing teachers of students with severe behavioral
disorders. Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED459545).
Pierce, T., & Miller, S. P. (1994). Using peer coaching in preservice practica. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 17(4), 215–223.
Robbins, P. (1991). How to plan and implement a peer coaching program. http://
www.acsd.org/portal/site/ascd/template.chapter/-menuitem.b71d101a2f7c208
cdeb3ffdb62108a0c/?chapterMgmtId¼f4e8b2cc2fcaff00VgnVCM1000003d01a
8c0RCRD. Accessed 23.01.07.
Roth, W. M. (1998). Science teaching as knowledgability: a case study of knowing
and learning during coteaching. Science Education, 82(3), 357–377.
Roth, W. M. (2001). Becoming-in-the-classroom: learning to teach in/as praxis. In
D. R. Lavoie, & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Models for science teacher preparation: Bridging
the gap between research and practice (pp. 11–30). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. G. (2002). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach in
coteaching. New York: Peter Lang.
Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching together, learning together. New York:
Peter Lang.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tobin, K., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative
dialoguing in urban science education. School Science & Mathematics, 105(6),
313–322.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Wynn, M. J., & Kromrey, J. (1999). Paired peer placement with peer coaching in early
field experiences: results of a four-year study. Teacher Education Quarterly,
26(1), 21–38.
Wynn, M., & Kromrey, J. (2000). Paired peer placement with peer coaching to
enhance prospective teachers’ professional growth in early field experience.
Action in Teacher Education, 22(2A), 73–83.