Co-teaching a dual content-area methods class: Considering context for evaluating collaborative intensity

Main Article Content

Mindy Kalchman
Richard H. Kozoll


Mathematics and science are often combined in early childhood education programs into a single methods course. This can lead to an integrated view of the two, thus neglecting their conceptual, procedural, and epistemological differences. To promote their foundational integrities, we, one mathematics and one science educator, collaborated on teaching an amalgamated course. Our impetus was the need to develop mutual ability to instruct the course independently. In this paper, we reflect on and discuss the context of our collaboration, from which emerged a conceptualization of co-teaching that emphasizes the importance of context for motivating and understanding its nature.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kalchman, M., & Kozoll, R. H. (2012). Co-teaching a dual content-area methods class: Considering context for evaluating collaborative intensity. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 109–120. Retrieved from


American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999). Why teach primary science? Influences on beginning teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 155-168.

Ball, D.L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T.A. & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458474.

Blake, S. (2009). Engage, investigate, and report: Enhancing the curriculum with scientific inquiry. Young Children, 64(6), 49-53.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brody, C. (1994). Using co-teaching to promote reflective practice. Journal of Staff Development, 15(3), 32-36.

Charlesworth, R. & Lind, K. K. (2007). Math & science for young children, Fifth Ed. Clifton Park, NY: Thomas Delmar Learning.

Crow, J. & Smith, L. (2005). Co-teaching in higher education: Reflective conversation on shared experience as continued professional development for lecturers and health and social care students. Reflective Practice, 6(4), 491-506.

Davis, G. A. & Keller, J. D. (2009). Exploring science and mathematics in a child’s world. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

deGroot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.

Duchardt, B., Marlow, L., Inman, D., Christensen, P., & Reeves, M. (1999). Collaboration and co-teaching: General and special education. The Clearing House, 72(3), 186-190.

Dugan, K., & Letterman, M. (2008). Student appraisals of collaborative teaching. College Teaching, 56(1), 11-15

Ebby, C. (2000). Learning to teach mathematics differently: The interaction between coursework and fieldwork for pre-service teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(1), 69-97.

Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teacher understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 93-105.

Hestenes, L., Laparo, K., Scott-Little, C., Chakravarthi, S., Lower, J., Cranor, A., et al. (2009). Team teaching in an early childhood interdisciplinary program: A decade of lessons learned. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 172-183.

Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2003). Do as we say and as we do: Co-teaching in the university classroom. The Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 228-240.

Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1997). Integrated, interdisciplinary, or thematic instruction? Is this a question or is it questionable semantics? School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), 57-58. Mathematics. (2009). Young Children, 64(3), 10-44.

Meier, S. L., Nicol, M., & Cobbs, G. (1998). Potential benefits and barriers to integration. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 438-447.

Merseth, K., (1993). How Old Is the Shepherd? An Essay About Mathematics Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 548-554.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards of School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Governors Association: Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief of State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards Mathematics. Washington D.C.: Author.

National Research Council. (1999). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC.: National Academies Press.

Palmeri, A., Cole, A., Delisle, S., Erickson, S., & Janes, J. (2008). What’s the matter with teaching about matter? Science and Children, 46(4), 20-23.

Perry, B., & Stewart, T. (2005). Insights into effective partnership in interdisciplinary team teaching. System, 33, 563-573.

Prairie, A. P. (2005). Inquiry into math, science, and technology for teaching young children. Clifton Park, NY: Thomas Delmar Learning.

Science. (2009). Young Children, 64(6), 10-69.

Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(4), 24-28.

Stinson, K., Harkness, S. S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science integration: Models and Characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 153-161.

Zhou, G., Kim, J., & Kerekes, J. (2011). Collaborative teaching of an integrated methods course. International Journal of Elementary Education, 3(2).