Indiana Reading Journal Volume 44 Issue 1 Volume 46 Issue 1 | Page 34

support other students who wanted to join the conversation by encouraging them to share their thinking when they seemed tentative about doing so. After sharing their thinking with one of us, they seemed more willing to share with the whole group. It seemed to us, through observation and in the post-interviews, that students were engaging in whole group and small group activities and discussions in ways they had not before. This was evident when one student stated, “He [Mr. Mattingly] pushed us more. He pushed everyone in a way. You had to think more. Think outside the box.”

Sharon and Jenny’s Perspective. In our opinion teachers spend far too little time modeling authentic complex problem-solving for their students. Not so during this collaboration, even though it was not entirely intentional. While co-teaching the three of us would often find ourselves clarifying plans with one another, suggesting new plans (in response to how an activity just went, for example), or even questioning why we had decided to do something the way we had. And yes, all this happened in front of the students. At first I remember thinking, “Oh my gosh. We’re supposed to look like we’ve got everything together, yet here we are making plans, changing plans, and pointing out problems with our plans right in front of the students”. But while this struck us as problematic at first, we soon realized that these were really powerful teaching moments for the students. We noticed that many of them were intrigued by these conversations, which we often had while we stood on different sides of the classroom and thus were not private at all. (“Dr. Daley, should we have them in small groups during this activity? Mr. Mattingly, do you think it would be best to do this part as a large group?”) It occurred to us that modeling for students (albeit, unintentionally) the types of conversations and decision making that go on during collaborative efforts was a powerful outcome of co-teaching. When we teach alone we have these kinds of conversations in our heads (“That didn’t go well. I need to switch gears.”), but since students are not privy to our thoughts, as far as our students know, what happens next is what we had planned all along. In our co-teaching situation these same reflective conversations had to occur in order for responsive teaching to happen, but when thereis more than one teacher they have to happen out loud. Engaging in this kind of authentic, collaborative problem-solving in front of students provides them with a model for skills like turn-taking, good listening, how to disagree respectively, and how to come to a consensus. And, we learned, this is imperative for effective collaboration.

In some ways we communicated better on the spot (i.e., in the classroom while we were teaching) than we did during our planning sessions. As a trio we were very careful about not stepping on one another’s toes during our private planning meetings. We had a great deal of respect for one another, which was wonderful. However, from my perspective, the downside was that I don’t think we spent enough time pushing one another, asking questions, seeking clarification, disagreeing, etc. We wanted so much to respect and honor the ideas and suggestions that were being brought to the table that we did not always (or often enough) clarify larger goals, directions, plans, tactics, etc. However, in the heat of the moment when our primary goal was to meet the needs of each of the students in the room, we were a bit less cautious with one another. While always maintaining our professionalism, it was in the classroom (in front of the students) where we felt like we questioned and challenged one another in the ways that would have also benefited our planning meetings.

34