In Colleges and Schools of Education across the United States, many preservice teachers learn to teach through a traditional process of student teaching in which one gradually assumes all classroom responsibilities from an experienced classroom teacher. However, within the last decade, coteaching has emerged as an alternative to the traditional student teaching model. Unlike traditional models, those who participate in coteaching share responsibility for all aspects of teaching, such as planning, classroom management, instruction, assessment and other professional duties with a cooperating, inservice teacher or another student teacher. These beginning teachers learn to teach “at the elbow” of one another and “have shared teaching experiences (including planning, enacting and reflecting on curriculum); these experiences then provide the groundwork for meaningful professional conversations” (Roth and Tobin 2002, pp. 1–2). Although a significant amount of literature has emerged describing the coteaching experience, we know little about what happens to individuals after student teaching, during their first few years in the field. Are these individuals fully prepared to face the challenges of teaching by themselves? What does coteaching offer that ultimately benefits them as individual teachers? Are there any drawbacks to coteaching during the preservice experience?

In this paper, we describe the experiences of Jen and Ian, two individuals who took part in coteaching for their student teaching experience. We explore their transitions between coteaching during student teaching and their beginning years as classroom teachers. In order to focus the analysis, we consider the extent to which the practices that they developed while teaching with others during student teaching transferred to their practices as individual beginning teachers. Through the lens of Sewell (1992), we focus on how these practices were supported or challenged when they began teaching alone. We also provide extensive discussion of the teachers’ involvement as collaborators in our research and describe how Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) authenticity criteria framed our research. The overarching research questions that guided the study are: (1) How does coteaching shape two beginning teachers’ practices during the induction period? (2) Which practices that were developed during coteaching carried over to their inservice teaching?

Coteaching as an alternative to traditional student teaching

Coteaching has emerged in recent years as an alternative to the traditional student teaching model. As described in this paper, coteaching is defined generally as teaching at the elbow of another and occurs when student teachers share responsibility for all aspects of teaching, such as planning, classroom management, instruction, assessment and other professional duties with a cooperating, inservice teacher or another student teacher. Prior studies on coteaching have explored its impact on different aspects of learning to teach and its effects on student learning. Several benefits for the model as an alternative student teaching or practicum experience within teacher education programs have been documented. For example, Eick et al. (2003) argue that coteaching provides shared experiences for student teaching supervisors, methods instructors, cooperating teachers and preservice teachers to engage in theoretical discussions and apply methods in the classroom. Therefore, participants are able to connect theory and practice. Additionally, coteaching enables beginning urban teachers to consider and counteract disconnects or borders that divide students and teachers across the lines of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic status (Roth et al. 2000).

Although coteaching has clearly benefited teachers during their preservice learning experiences, limited work has been done to explore what happens to those who have participated in coteaching when they transition into their first few years of inservice teaching. As a way to frame the study, we explore the structures that both facilitated and constrained Ian’s and Jen’s agencies as beginning, inservice teachers. Further, we illustrate Ian’s and Jen’s agencies by describing how the practices they developed during their coteaching experiences transferred to their first year of teaching, even though the structures of their new schools and classrooms were different. We draw on Bourdieu’s (1984) concept of field to organize the different teaching experiences in which Jen and Ian participated. According to Bourdieu, a field is a system of social and material relations that functions according to specific rules and resources. Therefore, in Jen’s and Ian’s cases, their time coteaching as student teachers and their first year as inservice teaching serve as separate fields. Within each field, culture gets reproduced as participants interact in the social space. We define culture as a system of schema and practices that interact in a dialectical relation with each other, material resources, and agency, or the power to conduct social life and appropriate resources to meet one’s goals.

Sewell’s (1992) theory of duality also informed our theoretical framework in this study. In this, structures, which are mutually sustaining schemas and resources, exist dialectically with agency. Specific attention was given to Ian’s and Jen’s schemas, which we define as beliefs and implicit rules that may or may not be observable in practice. For instance, the teachers’ schemas might illuminate their beliefs about teaching and the roles of students. Additionally, we identify the actual resources—human, material, and symbolic—that were available to them in each field. Through the analysis we explored the structures that resonated with Ian and Jen from their coteaching experiences, and how these structures fostered or constrained their agency, or their power to act during the induction period.

Ian and Jen: beginning teachers and researchers

While enrolled in a graduate level teacher preparation program at an urban university in the Northeast, Ian and Jen both cotaught during their 10-month student teaching experience. Prior to the program, Ian, a 23-year old White male, had graduated with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering; however, during his internship as an engineer, he decided that he wanted to teach. Jen, a 26-year old White female, had graduated with a bachelor’s degree in biology and had spent 4 years as a laboratory researcher. Similar to Ian, Jen felt drawn toward teaching. Ian and Jen both took a two-semester science methods course during their coteaching experience. Jen sought certification in biology, while Ian sought certification in physics and mathematics. Although they went through the program at different times, they both experienced coteaching at City High School (CHS), a large, comprehensive high school in the inner city.

After graduating, Jen and Ian accepted positions in the same city. Jen took a teaching position at a small charter high school (Charter High), while Ian began working at a non-competitive magnet high school (Leach High). Although both of the schools were smaller, Leach High and Charter High exhibited many of the same challenges as City High, such as teacher turnover, minimal resources, and low standardized test scores. Additionally, the schools served students whose educational, social, cultural and economic backgrounds were similar to those at City High.

The structures and culture of City High School

City High School is considered a neighborhood, comprehensive high school, which any student in the district can attend. Just east and southeast of the school are two large universities, both of which provide resources for the school in terms of technology, college student volunteers, and preservice teachers. Many of the students that attend City High come from neighborhoods situated to the west of the school. Although some areas close to the university have recently been redeveloped and revitalized, many areas face challenges with regard to poverty, drugs, violence and community isolation.

Some students, teachers, and researchers describe the school building’s appearance as “prison-like.” The extensive security measures, including metal detectors and guards who roam the hallways, add to the uncomfortable and institutional atmosphere within the school. In addition, at the time of the study, students were restricted to specific floors of the building depending on the small learning community, or school within a school, in which they were enrolled. They were not permitted to leave their particular area of the school.

In 2003, when the study began, the school’s total enrollment was 1,862 and about 99% of the students were African American. The average SAT scores were at the lower end of the ranking system according to the local newspaper’s School Report Card with an average verbal score of 348 and math score of 355. However, of the total enrollment, only 51% of students took the SAT exam. The average class size was 20 and the student to guidance counselor ratio was 466:1.

The director of the teacher education program at the university that Ian and Jen attended had a strong commitment to preparing preservice teachers to work in urban schools—schools that critically needed excellent science teachers. To him, this was more important than training students to work in suburban schools, which, in this area of the country, had few problems attracting qualified teachers. He felt that City High would be an opportune site for training his students to teach with confidence in urban settings. As a result, he initiated a partnership with the principal at the school to arrange coteaching assignments between preservice teachers from the science education program and current inservice teachers at the school. The arrangement turned out to be mutually beneficial, since the school often struggled to find competent, certified teachers for its science classes.

What was coteaching like for Ian and Jen?

In practice, coteaching can take on many forms and may involve a variety of participants, such as student teachers, cooperating teachers, student teaching supervisors, methods instructors and researchers. For Ian and Jen, coteaching involved sharing all teaching duties, including planning, executing lessons, taking care of administrative elements of the classroom, among other responsibilities, with another individual, or at some points, with more than one individual. In this study, Ian cotaught with Evan, a fellow preservice physics teacher, while Jen cotaught with both an experienced chemistry teacher (Cristobal) and a fellow preservice chemistry teacher (Jared). To clarify the structural differences and the dynamics of these coteaching experiences, below we present Jen’s and Ian’s descriptions of their day-to-day enactments of coteaching.

Typically, [we] discussed our plans for the week and determined who would take the lead role for a particular lesson or activity. When I was taking that role for a lesson, I was responsible for organizing the lesson plan and appropriate activities. Jared and Cristobal took a peripheral position by dealing with classroom management issues, keeping the students on-task and assisting those students who were having difficulty with a concept or activity. If Jared or Cristobal felt they had something to add to the lesson or wanted to present some information, then I would take a step back and create the space for their participation in the front of the classroom. (Jen, written narrative, 6/04)

Evan and I worked together very closely and discussed almost every aspect of the class regularly. Because we didn’t work directly with an [in-service] cooperating teacher, Evan and I constantly negotiated the best procedures for most actions in the class. We spent an hour before the class and usually more than an hour after the class working on everything from grading to designing lessons to discussing class policies. During class Evan and I usually performed different roles. During lectures Evan usually led the discussion with my input. Often I would pose questions and then Evan would redirect them to the class. (Ian, written narrative, 2/05)

Although their coteaching arrangements were slightly different, several common aspects emerged in Jen’s and Ian’s experiences that illuminate the structure of the coteaching model. First, the coteachers took part in collaborative planning and decision-making sessions. As illustrated in both statements above, these activities included discussing lesson “plans for the week,” determining “who would take the lead role” for different parts of lessons, and analyzing “almost every aspect of the class.” Even when Jen and Ian held the role of lead teacher, they discussed their ideas and teaching plans, as well as “negotiated the best [pedagogical] procedures” with their coteachers.

Second, the coteachers shared responsibility for the managerial aspects of the classroom, such as taking attendance, grading student work, and making copies. Third, both Ian and Jen engaged in debriefing sessions with their coteachers at the end of each lesson. Although Jen’s and Ian’s debriefing sessions differed based on the types of discussions held, the number of coteachers present, and the length of time needed for the discussion, these sessions provided participants with opportunities to reflect on their instruction and to discuss student learning.

Fourth, as part of their coteaching experience, Ian and Jen held cogenerative dialogues with students, coteachers, student teaching supervisors, and other stakeholders. Cogenerative dialogues were small group meetings in which individuals come together to critically reflect on events that have occurred within the classroom. These were different than debriefing sessions in that they involved others, beyond the teachers themselves, in the discussion about events in the classroom. Within these dialogues, participants resolved to collectively generate and enact an outcome or a solution. In the space of a cogenerative dialogue, no voice was privileged; therefore, the voices of students were equally important as those of teachers, administrators or researchers. During these dialogues, which were typically held after school or during lunch, Jen, Ian, their students, and other stakeholders critically examined and reflected on shared events and activities in the classroom, as well as the unconscious practices of the teachers and students.

In the sections that follow, we consider the extent to which Ian and Jen reutilized the practices that they developed during coteaching. Prior to this, we describe Ian and Jen’s involvement as collaborators in our research. We also illustrate how the authenticity criteria provided a collaborative and transformative framework for our research.

Reconceptualizing classroom research as collaborative and transformative

Although the research described in this paper is a collective case study that focuses on two beginning teachers, both cases were situated within a larger critical ethnography that explored science teaching and learning in urban high schools. As part of this larger ethnographic project, we studied the cultures within Ian’s and Jen’s inner city high schools and focused not only on the teachers themselves, but also on the students they taught. Specifically we investigated the practices of a select group of science teachers (Ian and Jen along with their coteachers and other individuals with whom they worked) and students. In this section we describe the way in which our research is framed by critical ethnography and by the authenticity criteria. We also explain how these frameworks enabled us to examine the highly politicized interactions between students, teachers and administrators at each school. In addition to describing the participants, research setting, data sources and means of analysis, we provide extensive detail about the nontraditional roles taken on by us as researchers and by Ian and Jen as beginning teachers.

Using the authenticity criteria to guide the research

Traditionally, research related to science education has been conceived in a positivist light, viewed as a construction of true, objective knowledge, and based mainly on the scientific method. According to this paradigm, data and facts are indisputable indications of reality and truth and are thus used to make conclusions and generalizations about the social world. However, as this research sought to examine interactions of teachers and students from differing cultural and social backgrounds and attempted to transform their classrooms, it was essential that ontological and epistemological perspectives be pervasively accounted for and examined throughout all facets of the research. Consistent with the constructivist paradigm that undergirds the methodology of this body of research, we utilized Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) authenticity criteria not only to evaluate our work, but also to frame the way that we carried out the research. According to Guba and Lincoln, in order for a study to be authentic and trustworthy, it should meet five criteria: fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity.

Fairness

The fairness criterion assesses the extent to which the participants’ constructions of reality are sought after and respected. From a theoretical standpoint, we believe that research and schooling are highly political activities. Culture mediates the interactions of individuals and thus, teaching and learning. Therefore, a vital aspect to the research was that the perspectives of Ian, Jen, and the students be articulated impartially throughout each phase of our work. Critical ethnographic and cogenerative dialogue methodological frameworks were particularly important in helping us account for fairness throughout the research.

By nature, critical ethnography enables one to examine and account for the cultural, historical and political nature of research. Through multiple and overlapping data resources and rich description, a critical ethnographic framework allowed us to account for participants’ diverse perspectives and balance their cultural baggage. Data included the following resources: approximately 40 h of videotape of classroom activity, cogenerative dialogues and other teaching activities; field notes and classroom observations; artifacts from classrooms and the schools; semi-structured interviews with Jen, Ian, their students, and other individuals involved in their teacher preparation; personal communication between Jen or Ian and the researchers; and written narratives from teachers and students. Within their research teams, Beth collected the data sources that emerged from Ian’s classroom and Sarah-Kate collected data from Jen’s classroom. Both of us collected additional ethnographic data in connection with the schools at large, in attempts to discern further insights about their cultures.

Critical ethnography also appealed to us, as this framework calls for a transformation of roles in which researchers are actively engaged with students in the process and all participants serve as collaborators in the research. With this frame as a foundation, our work in Ian’s and Jen’s classrooms was not approached in traditional manner of “let us do research on you.” Rather, Ian and Jen organically became collaborators and researchers of their own practice. As illustrated in Sarah-Kate’s following reflection, the collaborative teaching and research relationship between Jen and Sarah-Kate was negotiated and established through many conversations such as the one described below.

Today, Jen invited me to her class to get a feel for some of the struggles she, as a second year teacher, was facing in teaching students who differed greatly from her. After class, Jen and I sat down at a table in the teacher’s lounge to debrief our recent experiences with her ‘toughest’ ninth grade Earth Science class. As we sat, Jen proclaimed, “See, something’s not working. I know something’s not working. I’m not teaching. The students aren’t learning. I don’t know what to do. What can we do?” In recounting the classroom activity, Jen relayed the frustrations she faced on a daily basis relating to students and at the same time meeting the standards of the school. Many times throughout our conversation, she repeated the phrases “something’s wrong” and “I don’t know how to fix it.” Each time she did this, I could feel my heart sinking lower and lower because I too knew that something was not quite right, yet I did not know what was missing or how to help. (Sarah-Kate, personal reflection, 2/03)

Further, for us to be effective collaborators, we had to be willing to adapt and change according to the evolving nature of the research. For instance, at times Jen and Ian needed to change classroom plans, curriculum, and practices. Among the many aspects to which Beth and Sarah-Kate needed to respond were the unfolding classroom structures, Ian’s and Jen’s growth over time, and students’ perspectives and ways of being. This altered researcher-participant relationship and newly found flexibility enabled Jen and Ian to elevate their roles as participants from that of one who simply member checks to an equal collaborator. According to Ian:

This study has penetrated my teaching at all fronts, from assessment techniques to my incorporation of student voice. When we began I could not see what my role in all this was. It was strange to talk to someone about my teaching and work with him or her to understand why some of what you do is effective while other things are not. But those initial feelings quickly turned to appreciation and commitment. I appreciated [Beth’s] commitment to my students’ opinions and my own opinions. I appreciated talking to another teacher about effective practices and educational theory. And I became committed to the research in my own way. I realized the importance of trying new things in my class and evaluating the process. I also realized that as a teacher, I could not simply do my job in isolation; I must incorporate my students and peers to improve my own teaching. (Metalogue, 2/05)

It was through this alteration of the research methodology that a research group was formed. This research group became instrumental in allowing Jen, Ian, Beth, Sarah-Kate, and the students to share central roles in the research. These research groups included a variety of stakeholders, including a university-based researcher (Sarah-Kate or Beth), Jen and Ian, coteachers in the classroom, and student researchers from Ian’s and Jen’s classrooms. Researchers within each research group carried out a variety of tasks, including gathering multiple and varied data resources, discussing the direction or goals of the research, and choosing, reviewing and examining videotape vignettes.

Ian and Jen were involved in various ways throughout the data collection, analysis and writing phases. For instance, in writing drafts of this paper, we encouraged Ian and Jen to critically read the draft and challenge any of the constructions with which they disagreed. At all times we encouraged an active negotiation between ourselves as researchers and the participants with the hopes that the project would be based on our collective endeavors.

Just as Jen and Ian were central to gathering resources in the study, so too were the students. At the beginning of the study, students at each research site were involved as student researchers to lend voice and direction to the research through a variety of means. Selection of student researchers was based on a hermeneutic-dialectical process. The student researchers chosen differed in most respects including ethnic and family background, socioeconomic status, attitudes toward school, previous science and school achievement, and the social and symbolic capital they had built with Jen or Ian. For example, since the setting for Jen’s research involved one of the first science courses taken by students at Charter High, many of the students enacted cultural practices (habitual and intentional) and schema (beliefs, values and ideas) that Jen did not value or consider valuable to classroom learning. Many students became frustrated in their endeavors to learn science and acquired a preference to not participate in the class. Other students seemed to adjust and managed to align their practices with Jen’s expectations. Therefore, in selecting student researchers, it was imperative for us to choose students from a wide range of cultural, social, economic, and science backgrounds in order to incorporate varying voices and perspectives into the research.

The evolving nature of ethnographic research allowed for additional student-researchers to become involved in the study as more students from the class became interested in participating. As the study progressed and more students from Jen’s or Ian’s classes became interested in the research and changing classroom structures, additional students became student researchers, participated in cogenerative dialogues, or gave their perspectives about classroom activities or through videotape analysis.

Cogenerative dialogue enabled us to promote the goals of critical ethnographic research, and thus fairness, across all stages of this research. Evolved from the participatory action research and the coteaching studies of Roth and Tobin (2001), cogenerative dialogue is a discussion between stakeholders that has at its core, the goal of collectively generating understandings and future action about a shared event or experience.

A central theoretical underpinning of cogenerative dialogues is the belief that each participant brings unique understandings and experiences to the field of activity while experiencing and interacting with the field in different ways. For these reasons, when evaluating classroom activity and attempting to restructure the classroom structures, it was crucial not only to consider the perspectives of all stakeholders and examine the relationships between the individual and the collective, but also to understand that differing perspectives could not be brought into one overall understanding or experience about the classroom activities or structures. Thus, cogenerative dialogue was an extremely useful tool as it brought to the forefront diverse perspectives, promoted solidarity and cohesiveness around shared schema and practices, and valued difference.

Ontological authenticity

Ontological authenticity considers the degree to which participants’ emic (one’s own, inside) constructions are developed, enhanced or expanded. Through our discussions and cogenerative dialogues, we, as researchers, along with Ian, Jen and the student researchers that were also involved in the study, were able to identify ways that learning experiences could be structured to increase the students’ and teachers’ agency. One example of the involvement of student researchers in helping Jen gain understanding about teaching and learning is illustrated in the following vignette in which Ace (a student researcher) explained to Jen that the genetics examples she presented in the biology class were not “good ones because they weren’t appropriate for us and didn’t help us understand what you were talkin’ about.”

As a way to introduce genetics, Jen asked the students to record their traits on a sheet. For example, students needed to record how tall they were, whether they had attached or unattached earlobes, eye color, and whether they had curly or straight hair. Jen then used a few examples to explain the genetics behind eye and hair color and texture characteristics. Some of the students were uncharacteristically disruptive during this class period. At the end of the period, Ace talked to Jen about the types of examples she used in class. Ace explained that since all of the students were of African or Afro-Caribbean descent, the students all exhibited the same traits: curly hair, dark hair, and dark eyes. He felt that this was why class wasn’t interesting; the students couldn’t relate to the examples and they weren’t interesting examples. (Sarah-Kate, field notes, 3/05)

It was from this experience that Jen began to think about the types of examples she provided in the class and how students reacted during classroom learning experiences. As a result of Ace’s comments, Jen began to solicit student input about examples she provided in class and also encouraged students to come up with their own examples as a way to connect the science to the students’ backgrounds and experiences.

In addition, we encouraged Ian and Jen to continually question their development through our research. This facet of our work led to Jen and Ian becoming strong teacher researchers in each of their school communities. In taking this stance of inquiry, both Ian and Jen were better able to understand and question their decisions and the implications for their students’ success.

Educative authenticity

The educative criterion, which evaluates the participants’ understanding of and appreciation for others’ constructions of reality, also became salient in cogenerative dialogues for us as researchers and for the participants. Through the students’ rich description of other teachers they had experienced, we began to re-assemble our notions of teaching efficacy. Rather than categorizing experiences in teaching as either good or bad, we began to use Sewell’s theoretical framework to recognize how teachers structured their classrooms to afford or truncate agency for the collective endeavors of the class. The educative criteria were also validated when we recognized the extent to which the student researchers and those involved in cogenerative dialogues had reconsidered their own constructions of the teacher’s role and began to consider Ian and Jen as resources for their own learning, as well as individuals whom they could trust with issues outside of the realm of classroom activity. In cogenerative dialogues, as the participants shared understandings and worked together, they gained a new appreciation of the events, people, and culture within the field.

Catalytic and tactical authenticity

“For a study that is concerned with social transformation and student agency, a research process that encourages action and change or catalytic authenticity is extremely important” (Elmesky 2001, p. 75). Inherent in the constitution of critical ethnography and cogenerative dialogue are catalytic and tactical authenticities; they seek to assess the extent to which action is motivated and participants are empowered to act, respectively. As mentioned above, although cogenerative dialogues can take many forms and serve a range of purposes, these dialogues have at the core, the intention to examine events, articulate underlying issues that are grounded socially, historically and politically, and use current understandings to collectively make positive transformation for teaching and learning. Consequently, a cogenerative dialogue is a field that allows all participants to be involved proactively in theorizing about and catalyzing change, rather than waiting for rules, policies and recommendations from educators, policy makers, and researchers.

The students’ receptiveness to cogenerative dialogue and their involvement in restructuring the classroom environment demonstrated how this research fostered their own agency. A clear indicator of the catalytic and tactical nature of this study was the students’ desire to spread some of the practices that emerged in Jen’s and Ian’s classrooms, specifically those discussed in cogenerative dialogue, to other teachers and other classes. In both cases, students emerged who wanted to have a cogenerative dialogue with the principal regarding issues that needed to be discussed throughout the school.

The university researcher: no longer just a participant observer

As researchers, we also took on nontraditional roles in this study. First, we approached the role of researcher as that of a bricoleur (Levi-Strauss 1966), or one who pieces together various means and methods and relies on emergent constructions of all participants. As a result, we have continually advocated for the implementation of multiple methods, perspectives and processes to shape the research. Further, over the course of the study we were involved in Jen’s and Ian’s classroom lives in other non-traditional ways. Sarah-Kate co-taught lessons and met with Jen before and after class as well as during her lunch period to reflect on classroom events, practices, and the curriculum. Beth often helped students individually or in small groups during Ian’s classes. Both of us sat with students for tutoring sessions, gave students pep talks during lunch, and talked frequently with individual students to learn more about their experiences with schooling and science. We also held somewhat of a facilitator role for accessing and analyzing data as we attempted to involve Ian, Jen, and their students.

Data analysis: emergent research and ongoing interpretation

The potential for research to unveil social constructs, catalyze change, and transform structures depends to a large degree on whether the research processes and goals match those of the participants and the structures being examined. For example, it would be difficult for Sarah-Kate and Beth as researchers to examine and transform the unproductive teacher–student relations in Jen’s or Ian’s classroom if they were to strictly adhere to a rigid protocol like that of traditional research; they would be unable to respond to evolving structures manifest in different fields. Therefore, having a model that was emergent in nature was a critical foundation for this research. For this reason, critical ethnography was the pathway that allowed the research to be “reflexive, dynamic, spiraling, organic and responsive” at every stage of the project (Calabrese Barton 2001).

Although traditional ethnographic research emphasizes determining recurrent patterns, we looked for both patterns of coherence and contradictions throughout the analysis. Our analysis was informed by Roth’s (2005) use of individual interpretive methods and collaborative analysis. Throughout the process, we cross-referenced our interpretations of the video data with what we gleaned from observations and participant interviews. Member checks continually informed our emergent understandings.

To generate interpretations and patterns within and across Jen’s and Ian’s cases, data sources were analyzed both individually and collectively. Individually, we analyzed the textual data, such as interview transcripts, and produced codes that highlighted each teacher’s experiences moving from coteaching to the induction period. Then, we explored the selected data collectively and looked for connections among the codes and across their cases more broadly. In reviewing the interview data, artifacts and reflective journals, we were able to gain understandings about their cases at the meso-scopic level, or phenomena that occur in real time.

The video and transcript data enabled us to explore phenomena at the micro-scopic level and analyze elements of the classroom or the teachers’ practices not easily identified in real time, such as subtle movements, non-verbal communication, and peripheral events. To analyze data at the micro-level, we clipped segments of videotape that illustrated patterns of coherence or contradictions between the teachers’ practices across the two fields of analysis: the coteaching experience and their beginning years of inservice teaching. For instance, we clipped examples of Ian or Jen interacting with students, accessing different spaces in the classroom, and utilizing materials or resources. We then cross-referenced these clips against the patterns that emerged from the other data resources.

Although microanalysis in this research was extremely important in that it provided a sense of minute aspects of interactions and actions, it was the examination of macroscopic level findings that allowed the authors to extend across social time and/or space. The large scale claims become more significant and pronounced over periods of time and locale, such as by examining data over the 3 years of the study and spanning different high schools. Thus, since we were concerned with the transference of practices from coteaching to independent teaching, the macro level was an important aspect of this research.

The analysis elucidated two major findings: the importance of shared reflection and responsibility and the benefits of building relationships with students and using them as a resource to inform practice. In order to discuss the significance of these findings, we describe how these patterns were manifest in each of the individual cases. We discuss each pattern first in terms of Ian’s and Jen’s coteaching experiences and then move across fields to each teacher’s first years of inservice teaching. Although several pieces of data illustrated each pattern, we chose specific vignettes that would best exemplify each in the section that follows.

Shared reflection and responsibility

In coteaching, beginning teachers share responsibility for all areas of their work in the classroom. “[T]hese experiences then provide the groundwork for meaningful professional conversations” as they engage in ongoing reflection together about their practice (Roth and Tobin 2002, pp. 1–2). Those who coteach miss the structures that facilitate shared reflection—primarily the constant presence of someone with whom they share teaching experiences—when they move into their own, independent teaching scenarios. However, as we illustrate below, beginning teachers can attempt to recreate these structures in different ways.

In the cases of Ian and Jen, both experienced the advantages of teaching and reflection associated with being-in/with others. In this, individuals learn through social interaction and by being with others in a given field. In Jen’s and Ian’s cases, the multiple adults in the classroom created a mix of resources and schemas that shaped the coteachers’ agency. Both were able to access their coteachers as resources while lessons unfolded.

According to Ian, “It was like we were able to do what we wanted because we always had someone there” (Ian, interview, 1/04). Ian felt that he was able to meet his personal goals partly because of Evan, his coteacher. He attributed his own agency to Evan’s presence—he felt that Evan acted as a human resource. This was evident in other instances throughout the data. The video footage showed that Ian and Evan would often step in to help one another during the course of a lesson, for instance, by elaborating on an explanation in a lecture or by helping a group of students during a lab activity. Having Evan by his side made Ian feel as though he could try things in the classroom that he may not have attempted by himself. According to Ian:

I wanted to do certain things, and Evan wanted to do certain things, but since we were both there, it was easier for us to do those because the other person was always handling the other things. (Ian, interview, 1/04)

Evan, Ian’s coteacher, agreed that coteaching was a great opportunity to build routines that enabled the class to run smoothly; elements of the class such as checking homework and transitioning between activities were easier to accomplish with the presence of Ian (Evan, interview, 2/04).

For Jen, the shared responsibility during coteaching served as a resource for her to work with others on specific emerging challenges, such as classroom management issues and gaps in her content knowledge.

[C]oteaching provided the opportunity for others to help fill in the gaps with regard to my content knowledge and the more practical aspects of teaching science. We would collectively think about the content and classroom management issues. Having a group of people to talk to who were experiencing similar things really helped me get my head around the issues I was facing as an individual teacher. (Jen, interview, 2/05)

As illustrated above, coteaching allowed Jen to draw on the expertise of her colleagues (both veteran teachers and new teachers) to increase her content knowledge in biology, as well as her pedagogical knowledge. Additionally, Jen relied on her fellow coteachers as resources in “collectively think[ing] about … classroom management issues.” Since Jen’s coteachers were generally in the classroom with her when issues arose, they were able to discuss problems with full understanding of the context and the individuals involved. This aspect of teaching was important for Jen, as her background and experiences differed greatly from those of her students at City High.

In their first year of inservice teaching, Ian and Jen struggled with the absence of their partners in different ways. Although their experiences varied, patterns in the data emerged with respect to their agency or their ability to access and appropriate resources. The data illustrated that Ian missed reflecting with his coteacher, whereas Jen worried about maintaining order in the classroom while taking pedagogical risks.

Ian’s case: missing productive reflection

While working with Evan, Ian often reflected on his teaching practices as they occurred in the moment or immediately after the class. During these quick, in-class conversations or longer, post-lesson debriefing sessions, Ian and Evan discussed changes they could make to improve their instruction. For instance, after a laboratory activity on Hooke’s Law, the following conversation ensued:

  • Evan: I think they got it, theory versus actuality.

  • Ian: [No,] they had problems with that. Derek [a student] said the numbers weren’t working out [for the Hooke’s Law lab].

  • Evan: The scale isn’t that accurate. I don’t think we do a good enough job of pointing out sources of error. Was [Derek] frustrated today?

  • Ian: No, it was my fault—I wasn’t explaining it well. (Video transcription, 3/03)

This transcript demonstrates a typical post-class debriefing session in which Ian and Evan negotiated understanding and shared responsibility for student learning. As evidenced by statements claiming responsibility (e.g., “I don’t think we do a good enough job of…”), both Ian and Evan shared responsibility for student frustration and inability to fully grasp the topic. The conversation was also an opportunity for Ian and Evan to elucidate specific aspects of the lesson that could be changed in the future, such as their explanation of the “sources of error.” As a result, they realized that they needed to re-teach the concepts in a different way.

Throughout coteaching, Ian and Evan engaged in conversations such as this after every lesson they taught together. Sometimes they even stopped in the middle of class while the students were working to quickly discuss what transpired in the moment. During coteaching, they always had extensive opportunities to discuss strategies for teaching the physics material and to reflect on the impact of their lessons. This collaborative reflection was powerful for each of them as they developed their pedagogy as beginning science teachers.

During Ian’s second month of inservice teaching, he described the challenges of teaching alone:

I miss Evan often when I am doing work by myself with no one to bounce ideas off of. I don’t feel uncomfortable teaching without him here, but when it is prep time or after school it is boring. It is true that teaching is lonely. It’s good to discuss the class as it ends with a peer. (Ian, journal entry, 10/03)

In this quote, Ian described the loneliness he felt without Evan. As stated above, this loneliness was felt particularly because he could no longer engage in shared reflection or coplanning with Evan. Ian had grown accustomed to the collaborative nature of planning, teaching and reflection during coteaching. During his first year of teaching, he found these elements to be absent in his day-to-day teaching practice.

At the beginning of the school year, Ian had been paired with a school district mentor. The mentor was an experienced teacher who met monthly with Ian and a group of other beginning science and math teachers from several schools. Even with this support, Ian felt isolated and missed the opportunities for collaboration and reflection he had with Evan. Unlike Evan, Ian’s mentor understood little about the context-specific structures within Ian’s classroom. For instance, the mentor had minimal knowledge of the resources available to Ian specifically at Leach High or the ideologies that permeated the school community. However, such resources and schemas at Leach High were important structures that impacted Ian’s capacity to access and appropriate resources to teach his 11th grade integrated mathematics class.

Ian also found it difficult to reflect in a meaningful and productive manner with his new colleagues at Leach High. Since it was impossible for them to be in the classroom while he was teaching, Ian found it challenging to see their perspectives as valuable.

Other teachers that come in just to watch, they don’t know what I’m trying to do. Whereas Evan and I were like, we want to get them to do such and such, and then we would say, hold on, maybe we need to change that. (Ian, interview, 1/04)

With Evan, Ian continually had opportunities to refine his practice because of the insights he had gained from his reflection with Evan. Because Evan was physically with him during planning and teaching, he understood exactly what the objectives were for each lesson. As a result, Ian felt that Evan’s feedback was valuable. However, the colleagues that “came in just to watch” at Leach High did not have the same background knowledge about his lessons that Evan had and could not provide the same level of feedback. Thus, although Ian had access to other individuals at Leach High, he was unable to collaborate and reflect with them as he had with Evan during coteaching.

Jen’s case: missing opportunities for reflection in the moment

Similar to Ian, Jen’s experiences during coteaching enabled her to utilize her coteachers as resources while learning to teach. Whereas Ian’s coteacher served as a resource through collaborative planning and reflection, Jen’s coteachers provided her with the support she needed to develop her classroom management skills and to increase her content and pedagogical knowledge. In the narrative below, Jen acknowledged the impact her coteachers had on her development.

In many respects, my knowledge of physical science was limited by my experiences as a classically trained biologist. Creating a space where the other teachers in the classroom could participate in my lessons provided me with the opportunity to learn how another teacher would present the same content. If I struggled or stumbled over how to handle a particular event in the classroom, Jared and Cristobal were always there to provide me with the support necessary to become a successful teacher. (Jen, written narrative, 10/04)

As illustrated in the comments above, coteaching allowed Jen a window into other teachers’ practices, in which she could see “how another teacher would present the same content.” This was particularly important for Jen, since she was learning to teach out of field.

In addition to experiencing dissonance associated with teaching out of her science content area (in a physical science class rather than a biology class), Jen faced several classroom management challenges. Although she held strong beliefs about getting to know her students and incorporating their interests into the curriculum, she tended to use more teacher-centered activities to avoid scenarios in which students could easily get “out of control.” For instance, Jen’s students often expressed an interest in dissecting organisms. However, she was reluctant to include this activity since she had never done dissection with students. She knew that facilitating a dissection required significant trust in the students, yet she already struggled with maintaining control within the class. After discussing the topic with her coteachers, they collectively “decided to take a risk and draw on the students’ interests” (Jen, written narrative, 10/04).

During the activity, all three coteachers were amazed to observe the focus students demonstrated. The students followed directions closely and worked together to accomplish tasks. During the dissection, Jen and the other coteachers were able to circulate and help students as needed. The positive outcomes of the dissection lab allowed Jen to build new schemas regarding shared responsibility for teaching and learning. As noted below in her narrative, Jen attributed her risk taking, success of the lesson, and creation of a learning community to the shared reflection and decision-making with her coteachers.

Without the ability to reflect with [my coteachers] about key decisions like whether to perform the lab, we wouldn’t have seen what the students were capable of doing. The level of student involvement and the kinds of questions raised by the students indicated to me that everyone in the class co-created an atmosphere of science, which promoted critical thinking and meaningful inquiry. (Jen, written narrative, 10/04)

Jen carried her beliefs and practices about shared responsibility for teaching and for creating a classroom community into her first year of teaching at Charter High. While Jen took advantage of the collaborative atmosphere that already existed at the school by coplanning and talking with her colleagues, she still experienced a sense of isolation in the classroom. Without coteachers, Jen was left on her own to make many key curricular and pedagogical decisions that would greatly impact her students’ learning. Jen claimed that during this period she “was still making mistakes and still in need of the dialogue that results from the shared experiences in the classroom” (Jen, written narrative, 10/04).

Building relationships and sharing responsibility for learning with students

Coteaching also enables teachers to build relationships and gain new understandings about the students in their classrooms. Over time, these new understandings allow them to see students as resources for teaching and learning. This practice has the potential to transfer to a field in which individual teaching occurs, even though the structures within the new classroom or school may be different than those of the coteaching setting.

In the cases of Ian and Jen, the video data illustrated that they developed relationships primarily through one-on-one interactions in the classroom and during cogenerative dialogues at lunchtime or after school. One-on-one interactions were initially promoted during coteaching; when one coteacher was in front of the class directing an activity or giving an explanation, the other coteacher(s) could move around the room to check for student understanding and interact with students. Due to this altered division of labor, Jen and Ian used some of this time to talk with their students about personal experiences, their lives outside of the classroom, and content understanding.

Similar to one-on-one interactions, cogenerative dialogues held throughout their coteaching experiences allowed Jen and Ian the opportunity to talk with students in an arena that was removed from the classroom field. The structure of these conversations allowed students, teachers, student teaching supervisors and other stakeholders to modify their roles so that everyone became involved in transforming the classroom. During this time, Ian and Jen gained new understandings about their students and learned to draw on this new information as a resource to inform their planning and instruction.

Additionally, through cogenerative dialogues and one-on-one interactions Ian and Jen built relationships with students across borders, and thus fostered students’ assent to learn in the classroom (Davidson 1999). LaSondra, a student from Jen’s class, articulated the impact that student–teacher relationships have on learning.

If a student feels like they know and can trust the teacher, the student is going to be more willing to sit down and have a discussion and learn. And if a student feels that there is no connection or trust, it’s not very likely that the student will want to be in the classroom and learn. (LaSondra, interview, 2/05)

LaSondra described her willingness to engage in learning when she feels a connection with the teacher. Her trust in Jen enabled her to be a more active participant in her classroom.

Videotape, field notes and student input illustrated that Ian and Jen continued to draw on these practices during their first few years of inservice teaching. These relationships led to shared responsibility between each teacher and his or her students for maintaining and improving the learning environment.

Jen’s case: shared responsibility through cogenerative dialogue

In the absence of a coteacher, beginning teachers can initiate shared responsibility for teaching and learning with their students and with other individuals in the school community. Initially during coteaching, Jen found it difficult to gain a genuine understanding of students’ lives and to teach in ways that allowed students to take responsibility for constructing their own understanding of the science content. However, the presence of the other coteachers afforded Jen opportunities to talk to the students more informally and to get to know them through one-on-one interactions. Cogenerative dialogues, which were held away from the classroom, also became a way for Jen to gain understanding about her students’ cultural dispositions and backgrounds, and how these aspects could enhance classroom teaching and learning.

Jen carried these experiences with her to inservice teaching. Although Jen’s coteachers were absent from this setting, Jen continued to hold cogenerative dialogues at lunchtime. During these dialogues, Jen and the students discussed the classroom structures that impacted the students’ learning as well as other issues, such as the students’ relationships with peers and teachers and school structures that impacted their success. The intimate nature of the dialogues allowed Jen and the students time to get to know one another, understand different perspectives and build trust as they discussed topics that were pertinent to everyone.

The structure of the dialogues encouraged participants to speak openly and assume shared responsibility for the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. Over time, the roles that students took on in the dialogues transferred to the classroom and encouraged collective sharing of responsibility for teaching and learning. The following transcript illustrates the complex and varied interactions that emerged when Jen and the students shared responsibility for teaching and learning. In this vignette, the class was reviewing the previous day’s laboratory activity in which they examined how density affects the movement of particles in space.

  • Jen: Okay. So let’s talk about the lab and make sense of the questions.

  • Aleesha: The ones you gave us yesterday?

  • Jen: Yes. So we popped the balloon right? And what happened?

  • Aleesha: =It exploded.

  • Kenyon: =Stuff came out.

  • Jen: Stuff came out. Did the stuff just come out and [land

  • Kenyon: [directly in one place? No it spread out all over the place.

  • Jen: Okay, so it spreads out. And when it spread out, did it spread out in a pattern? If so can you explain this? Can you come show us at the board?

  • Kenyon: Okay so yesterday we saw that when the balloon popped, the pieces of paper spread out all over the place. But the ones that were denser, stayed in the middle and the paper that were lighter, less dense moved spread out. I think that since the paper nearer the edge of the circle that we drew made it all the way out there, they were probably lighter and the paper near where we popped the balloon in the center were heavier.

Ten additional minutes of discussion ensued during which two other students shared explanations of the concepts at the board and from their seats. Noticing that some students did not completely understand the explanations, Jen reminded the class about the importance of shared responsibility in learning science and encouraged them to continue their exploration of the concept.

  • Jen: Okay. So someone needs to help Sophia understand this. Because the whole class has to understand this.

  • Brandon: Okay. Say it again. Say it again.

  • Jen: Which pieces of paper are the most dense? And how do you know?

  • Ashley: =Because it didn’t go as far as the rest of them did. Because they were closer to the middle.

  • Jen: Okay, so which colors?

  • Ashley: =Blue and black.

  • Jen: =Blue and black. So okay ready Sophia? You are? So Ashley just said the blue and the black are the most dense and she knows that because they didn’t travel as far when we popped the balloon. Okay? Right?

  • Sophia: Uh huh. So it’s the same kind of idea when we look at the planets? The closer the planets are to the sun, the denser they are?

  • Ashley: =Yes that’s correct. The closer the denser because they can’t have moved that far. It’s like if you’re a planet and you’re big and heavy you can’t move that far. (Transcription, 10/03)

In this lesson, shared responsibility and the co-construction of understanding is illustrated in a number of ways. Jen’s beliefs about the importance of students co-constructing science understandings are clearly communicated to the students at the beginning of the lesson. Instead of explaining the lab or answering the questions for the students, Jen began by saying, “let’s talk about the lab and make sense of the questions.” Further, Jen’s prompts for the students to “help Sophia understand this” and “come show us at the board,” as well as the proportionate teacher–student turns, illustrate Jen’s further acceptance of sharing the construction of knowledge with students. This is evidenced by the number of times each participant spoke, as well as the quality of the talk. In this short vignette, Jen spoke eight times, as compared to the ten times the students spoke. Further, six of the eight comments by Jen were in the form of questions to prompt the students to explain the lab and their thinking. For instance, in the vignette above, Jen asked the students to explain their understandings in a variety of forms (e.g., “what happened,” “let’s talk about the lab and make sense of the questions” and “can you come to the board and show us?”).

Students’ overlapping speech with Jen (e.g., Kenyon: [directly in one place?) and their immediate responses to Jen’s comments and questions (denoted by the equal sign) indicated that students were comfortable with their roles and helping Jen construct understandings. Students’ substantive explanations and their speech directed at each other rather than at Jen further indicated their comfort and regular enactment of this practice. This is clearly indicated in the section of the vignette in which Ashley answered Sophia’s question (without hesitation or prompting) and began to relate the activity of the lab to the actual science phenomenon. In trying to answer Jen’s question, Sophia got stuck. Before Jen could answer the question, Ashley jumped in (noted by the equal sign). Ashley not only answered Sophia’s questions, she also provided an explanation of the phenomenon and related it back to their lab (e.g., “Yes that’s correct. The closer the denser because they can’t have moved that far. It’s like if you’re a planet and you’re big and heavy you can’t move that far.”).

Jen’s reflection on this transcript as well as other vignettes revealed that she began to recognize and appreciate her role as being “more like a facilitator than a ‘teacher’ teacher.” She also found that students could proxy some of the roles her coteaching had taken (Jen, video transcription, 10/04). As one student commented, “Ms. Beers doesn’t always just tell us what we need to know anymore. We have real conversations about what we think about the topics” (Tanya, video transcription 2005). Although Jen no longer had coteachers to work with, the reframed roles adopted by Jen and her students contributed to the sense of shared responsibility for teaching and learning that became apparent in her classroom.

Ian’s case: building relationships across borders

The structure of the coteaching relationship affords teachers enhanced opportunities to make connections with their students. Because there are multiple teachers in the classroom and one person is not solely responsible for all aspects of teaching, coteachers have more time to interact with students individually during the class period. However, once teachers move to independently taught classrooms and experience a change in structure, they can continue to build relationships with students by connecting this objective to other classroom practices, such as the use of small group instruction and interaction during cooperative learning activities.

During coteaching, Ian also focused on building trusting relationships with students and utilizing their interests and ways of being as a foundation for his teaching. In viewing the video of Ian’s coteaching longitudinally, it was evident that the students in his engineering physics class (which he cotaught with Evan) became increasingly comfortable asking him physics-related questions over the course of the semester. On a more personal level, the students also became friendlier with Ian since he would often talk to them informally about topics unrelated to class. According to Ian, getting to know the students was one of his top priorities. Because of the structure of the coteaching arrangement, he was generally able to accomplish this goal.

[During coteaching, if] Evan’s doing something at the board, and then I want to talk to some of the kids, I want to try and build personal relationships with the kids, right, that’s one of my goals, so I have that time to talk to all the kids while he’s doing something, right, and the rest of them are all doing it with him, and I can [talk] specifically to someone, whatever. So, he’s affording me time to do that. (Ian, interview, 10/04)

In this quote, Ian acknowledged his goal of “build[ing] personal relationships” with the students. Rather than spending extensive time outside of class working toward this goal, Ian attempted to get to know his students during class time, while they were working. According to Ian, this occurred sometimes when Evan was teaching “at the board,” and while he was walking around helping students individually. Ian had the impression that Evan was “affording him time” to accomplish his goal by allowing him to take the role of “circulator” during many of their planned lessons.

Throughout his coteaching experience, Ian’s attempt to forge personal relationships with the students by helping them during class time was also evident in the video data. During one lesson in which the students worked cooperatively, he spent 11 min working with a particular group. During another lesson, Ian spent approximately 8 min helping a student work through a problem at the board. Rather than inviting the entire class to get involved in a teaching moment, Ian focused solely on Maya’s concerns and helped her work through the problem.

In his first year of inservice at Leach High, Ian’s manner of getting to know students and building relationships with them became tied to his instructional practices in the classroom. He established a student-centered classroom in which he typically posed problems at the beginning of class and then circulated to work with students one-on-one or in small groups. Some of Ian’s students described his class as follows:

He teaches openly, he gives us a lesson, and while we’re doing the lesson, he comes around individually and asks us what we need help on from the work we’re doing right now, or the work from before. (Malik, interview, 10/03)

Every time I turn around, I see Mr. Stith at a different desk. He is always helping someone. Even if people don’t ask for help, he will go around and ask if they are okay and if they understand. If everyone finishes the worksheet, he may go over the answers. (Jacinta, interview, 2/04)

Both students described Ian’s act of “com[ing] around” or “go[ing] around”—his physical movement around the classroom. For Malik and Jacinta, this offered them the opportunity to seek Ian for help. They both also mentioned Ian’s tendency to ask the students how they needed help, even if they had not requested it. This gave students who might not typically ask questions the opportunity to share their concerns. He could also formatively assess student learning during his informal circulation of the classroom.

Ian’s classroom routine, which also supported his goal of building relationships with students, became apparent after viewing the video data over multiple class periods. Each day a warm-up problem was written on the board that the students were to begin working on upon entering the room. His use of a warm-up activity was similar to his work with Evan in the engineering physics class; it was clear that this was one of the practices that had transferred over to Ian’s work at Leach High, despite the changes in structure. Rather than checking homework or performing other administrative tasks during the warm-up assignment, Ian took the opportunity to work with students individually or in small groups. He also reviewed student work as it was being performed, rather than after, when input would be of less interest to the students. Even though first period was a class of 27, most students grew accustomed to Ian’s highly individualized attention. According to one of the students in the first period class, every student was a target for Ian’s individual help:

And the people are interested he go to [sic], and the people that’s not interested—he still go to anyway. He doesn’t take them out of his “circle of learning” (laughs). He gets involved with students who want to learn, he also gets involved with students who don’t want to get involved. (Malik, interview, 10/03)

In this quote, Malik described Ian’s classroom as a community, a “circle of learning” that was built by Ian’s interest in assuring that all students were on-task and felt comfortable with the content. Malik observed that Ian worked consistently with both motivated students and non-motivated students. Attempting to engage non-motivated students is a challenge for many new teachers, but according to Malik, Ian continually sought to help all the students in his class fully understand the material.

The students also grew to respect Ian because of his interest in asking about their lives outside of the classroom before class or after school when they came for extra help. One student described it as follows:

Sometimes, students don’t be stable or in their right mind. Mr. Stith will be like “what’s wrong?” and stuff… If students be stressed, sometimes they be about to kill somebody. And some other teachers’ be like, “I don’t care, get to work.” (Daunte, video transcription, 2/04)

In this interaction, Daunte described Ian’s practice (the action of asking a troubled student “What’s wrong?”) in contrast to other teachers who might not want students’ personal lives to distract from instructional time. This was particularly important, according to Daunte, for students who were having a bad day. The fact that Ian could recognize that his students were not “stable or in their right mind” shows the level of knowledge he had about his students’ individual personalities and affects. According to Daunte, most teachers preferred that the focus remain on the content, rather than the students’ well-being.

In general, whether students had a question about a concept from class, the process of applying for college, or something more personal, the video data, field notes and students’ feedback confirmed that they felt comfortable talking to Ian. However, Ian complained about one structural difference from City High to Leach High that challenged his ability to build strong relationships with his students. He felt that he had little time to get to know his students due to shorter class periods (50 min rather than the 96 min block periods at City High). However, in order to increase his contact time with the students, Ian decided to implement cogenerative dialogues during lunch periods or after school, similar to those he had held with Evan during coteaching. Through Ian’s classroom routine and by incorporating cogenerative dialogues, Ian was able to build relationships with students as he had during his coteaching experience.

Cultivating reflectivity and shared responsibility through coteaching

Our findings suggest that coteaching shaped the beginning teachers’ practices in two specific ways: by enabling them to appropriate particular resources to enhance their agency and by shaping their beliefs about roles and shared responsibility in the classroom. In this section we revisit the findings and connect the empirical evidence to our theoretical framework. Additionally, we relate these new understandings back to some important implications for teacher education.

First, coteaching enabled the beginning teachers we studied to appropriate additional resources during the student teaching experience. The added resources in the classroom made it possible for them to spend additional time working with students one-on-one or in small groups. They could also take risks in planning and enacting curriculum by incorporating activities they might have otherwise avoided for fear of losing control of the class. In doing so, these beginning teachers came to understand, value and draw on students’ dispositions, interests, and experiences in order build trusting relationships with them and make the content more comprehensible. Moreover, the additional teacher(s) in the classroom during coteaching provided structures that enhanced the teachers’ agency, as they were able to access and appropriate different resources than if they had student taught independently.

Once they moved into their first year of teaching, which entailed a different field insofar as time, the participants involved, the physical space, and the underlying tacit ideologies and rules, both found that they missed their coteachers’ knowledge, collaboration and reflection. Both had learned to value collective responsibility and shared reflection and carried these practices with them into their initial years of inservice teaching. For instance, cogenerative dialogues, either during lunch or after school, were used as a means to ascertain student input and transform classroom structures without the constraints of using class time. Unfortunately, Ian and Jen found they were unable to fully utilize their colleagues at their respective schools in the same ways that they had used their coteachers. However, both discussed the benefits of our presence as researchers to lend a helping hand during demanding classroom activities or to collectively reflect on the ways in which their instruction could be improved. Eventually, this led to the collaborative research structures that emerged which enabled them to become teacher researchers and to reflect critically on their work in the classroom. Their agency was also represented in their ability to use student relationships as a means to think about and continually refine their teaching.

Second, coteaching played a significant role in shaping Jen’s and Ian’s beliefs and values, which became schemas that structured the subsequent fields—specifically, those of their first-year classrooms. In coteaching, they came to understand the importance of shared reflection and responsibility for teaching and learning. The multiple adults present during coteaching allowed Jen and Ian enhanced opportunities to collaborate and productively reflect on their practices in and out of the classroom. This increased reflection enabled the teachers to support one another’s pedagogical growth by sharing key classroom decisions and by taking pedagogical risks. Additionally, through reflection, the teachers collectively transformed classroom structures (e.g., the collective decision to dissect in Jen’s classroom or the decision to revisit the physics topic in Ian’s classroom), which made it possible for participants to take on new roles and responsibilities throughout their student teaching experiences.

Despite being the only adults in the classroom during their first years of their inservice teaching assignments, the ideas of shared responsibility and reflection remained important goals for them. At times, Jen and Ian were able to successfully access other human resources such as colleagues, mentors, administrators, and us as researchers to accomplish their goals, whereas other times they were unsuccessful. However, Ian and Jen encouraged students to take responsibility in their classrooms through their cogenerative dialogues and one-on-one interactions. Jen’s and Ian’s schemas regarding the importance of reflection and shared responsibility became connected to the interactions they had with students during their coteaching and inservice teaching experiences. For both teachers, cogenerative dialogues served as a field for participants to collectively review unconscious and conscious schemas and practices and to talk across age, race, gender, and socio-economic borders. The structures of these dialogues promoted trusting relationships and a shared sense of responsibility among stakeholders as they actively worked toward making structures more conducive to individual and collective goals. Cogenerative dialogue became a tool that they could use to replicate the structures of coteaching and access the benefits that came from them without the presence of a coteacher.

What actually shaped Ian’s and Jen’s practices within the coteaching field? The schemas, or sets of beliefs that each of them embodied were shaped by countless other fields, such their science methods class and the Discovering Urban Science (DUS) research group,Footnote 1 where they discussed teaching methods and other ideas related to teaching and learning. Both Ian and Jen developed schema by studying sociocultural theory and by applying it to their classroom experiences. On a practical level, they applied the theory by considering ways to build relationships with their students that encouraged a classroom community that fostered mutual respect. Thus, at the beginning of coteaching, their schemas were shaped by multiple other fields.

Ian and Jen also developed practices in relation to the others with whom they worked. According to Tobin et al. (2003),

The practices of Cristobal and Regina [coteachers in their particular study; an experienced teacher and a student teacher, respectively] also are part of the structure of the science classroom in which Regina [the student teacher] teaches and learns to teach. So, too, are the practices of the students and the material resources available for appropriation. (p. 57)

Practices are not necessarily developed linearly, but are shaped by one’s schema and the resources (both tangible and intangible) that are available in a given field. Thus, even in the field of coteaching, Ian’s and Jen’s practices were shaped by their beliefs about teaching and learning and the understandings they had gained from their teacher education program, among other things. By the time Ian and Jen entered their first year of teaching, some of their practices had become less conscious and more habitual.

By looking at the data longitudinally over fields, the characteristic of agency as transposable becomes apparent. According to Sewell,

this seems to me inherent in a definition of agency as the capacity to transpose and extend schemas to new contexts. Agency, to put it differently, is the actors’ capacity to reinterpret and mobilize an array of resources in terms of cultural schemas other than those that initially constituted the array. (1992, p. 19)

As Ian and Jen moved from one field to another, their agency was obvious even in contexts where they had access to different resources. For instance, although Ian was teaching a math class at Leach High (where he taught his first year), he was able to reinterpret and mobilize the resources he had utilized while teaching Engineering Physics at City High. Some of the structures at Leach High may have resonated with those he had accessed either consciously or consciously at City High. The practices that Ian and Jen displayed during coteaching were indeed transposable into their first years as independent teachers. Thus, this case provides evidence that beginning teachers can continue to reinterpret and mobilize structures that they had successfully used during coteaching while teaching by themselves.

Implications for teacher education and beginning teacher induction

Jen’s and Ian’s cases have implications for several aspects of teacher preparation: developing a pedagogy that is responsive to students’ needs, encouraging reflective practice, and promoting shared responsibility for teaching and learning in the classroom. First, coteaching and cogenerative dialogue became structures in which these new teachers could build practices around shared reflection and responsibility. As a result, the teachers began to see their students as resources that could readily inform their teaching. Throughout coteaching, they considered ways in which they could draw on students’ interests and cultures to inform their pedagogy. They also listened to students, and by building community in their classrooms, were able to plan and enact lessons that were congruent with their needs. The practices established in coteaching transferred over to their first year of inservice teaching as they continued to search for ways to make their instruction and interactions more responsive to their students’ needs. As we search for ways to foster culturally responsive teaching in preservice teachers, future studies might explore how coteaching and cogenerative dialogue can cultivate pedagogy that is transformative and empowering for students.

Second, teacher educators must strive to support the development of reflective practice in future teachers. Our cases show that teachers can develop reflective practices in coteaching that transfer to their subsequent inservice experiences. The participants continued to reflect in productive ways that promoted shared responsibility and change in the classroom. In the absence of their coteachers, they reflected with students (especially during cogenerative dialogues) or the university researchers who were present. Nevertheless, further research on the structures that enable teachers to reflect with others on shared instructional experiences is needed, especially in the context of induction and mentorship experiences. This is also an important implication for administrators, directors of curriculum and others interested in inservice teacher learning since coteaching and cogenerative dialogue can be used to help beginning teachers develop deeper understandings of students and the curriculum.

Third, through their coteaching experiences, Jen and Ian began to value shared responsibility for the classroom community. By initiating and participating in cogenerative dialogues, they were able to involve the entire classroom community in decision-making. Even without the presence of their coteachers, Jen and Ian continued to utilize students as resources, which further contributed to an ethos of shared responsibility for teaching and learning. In addition, Jen and Ian continually incorporated activities in which students constructed their own knowledge of science and mathematics by learning collaboratively with others. Thus, Jen’s and Ian’s participation in coteaching shaped their beliefs about the power of shared responsibility and enabled them to begin to create communities in their inservice classrooms. However, we contend that additional research that documents the implications of shared responsibility on K-12 student learning is needed.

In conclusion, although Jen’s and Ian’s cases were quite different, together they show that coteaching promoted several key practices that transferred into the first year of teaching. Coteaching shaped Ian’s and Jen’s use of reflection, their use of students as resources, and their embodiment of shared responsibility—all of which became important goals within their work as beginning urban educators. Although the structures had changed between their coteaching settings and their first year classrooms, Jen and Ian were still able to access resources to accomplish these goals. At times, their transitions from coteaching to inservice teaching were challenging and lonely. However, the practices they developed through coteaching enabled them to facilitate student learning. Their cases show that coteaching was beneficial for their development as beginning teachers. Nevertheless, further research that explores the transitions between coteaching and inservice teaching is critical, especially longitudinal studies that document beginning teachers’ practices, beliefs and dispositions through the induction period and beyond.