Give each phase two named actions, one shared objective, and an explicit handover. Distinguish preparation ownership from classroom responsibility, and agree what the observing teacher will look for. This original 30-minute plan makes that coordination visible without inventing learner results.
NYU's overview describes co-teaching around a common instructional goal, shared planning, and flexible leading, supporting, or observing roles. The example below adopts role coordination rather than claiming an effect on learning or compliance with a particular program. NYU's co-teaching overview
Keep one instruction sequence for both teachers
The shared learner objective is: “I can follow three written instructions in order and point to the step I used.” The original activity uses these instructions:
- Place a square token in the tray.
- Put a circle token beside the tray.
- Draw a star on the card.
Prepare a tray, square and circle tokens, a card, and writing materials. Agree on the object descriptions and what “beside” means in the activity setup before teaching. This task does not introduce a compass direction, code, or debugging target; learners refer back to the written steps.
The separate expected-placement key is square token in the tray, circle token beside the tray, and star on the card. It is teacher guidance, not an observation of student work. Do not fill the observation log from that key.
Assign preparation before classroom roles
In the proposed preparation split, Teacher A prepares the shared task text and model materials. Teacher B checks three sample learner copies against that text and checks the tray, token, and card descriptions. Three sample copies are a preparation check, not the actual class quantity. Both teachers confirm how many copies and material sets the class needs.
Agree the actual role split together before using the plan. Record any learner needs and approved supports supplied by the teaching team; do not infer a diagnosis or accommodation from this example. Keep those decisions separate from the neutral role labels A and B.
Map the same phases to both teachers
| Phase | Minutes | Teacher A | Teacher B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint preview | 5 | Read the shared task and identify model materials | Check sample learner copies and object descriptions with A |
| Model | 6 | Read and model each step in order | Observe whether the token/card action matches the written instruction |
| Pair practice | 10 | Facilitate practice using the unchanged instructions | Record actual step-reference questions in a blank observation log |
| Lead handover and review | 6 | Observe the agreed step-reference focus | Lead a review of the same sequence |
| Joint exit and readback | 3 | Ask the exit question and read back the evidence | Check the readback and agree what still needs explanation |
The five phases total 30 minutes. Calling a teacher “support” is not enough; each row states what that teacher does. The model observer looks for correspondence with the written step, not a performance score. During practice, the log captures what learners actually ask or point to, without assuming that every pair has completed the sequence correctly.
Make the handover audible and specific
At the start of the six-minute review, Teacher A says: “Teacher B will now lead the sequence review. I will observe which written step learners refer to.” Teacher B takes the lead using the same three instructions. Teacher A begins the stated observation task rather than continuing a competing explanation.
The companion’s teacher view keeps both actions visible beside the shared phase and time. Highlighting B as lead should not hide A's observation focus or change the learner task. The review asks, “Which written step did you use?” and follows the same text instead of adding a new placement rule during the transition.
Debrief with evidence rather than a completed answer key
Use a blank observation log with phase, written step referenced, actual learner question or explanation, observer, and question for joint follow-up. The exit prompt is “Which written step did you use?” Actual answers stay blank in the advance plan.
In the final readback, distinguish an observed action from a teacher interpretation. If the team has no evidence about whether a learner used the written instruction, record that gap. Agree the next teaching step from actual notes. The plan does not automatically grade either teacher or prove a learner's mastery.
Copy this prompt for the two-teacher responsibility map
Create one complete, self-contained US-English HTML companion for “Two teachers • one instruction sequence”. Return the full HTML document, with inline CSS and any JavaScript needed for the local interactions. Use the original scenario, named records, numbers and expected cases below.
Design the page for this task: use clearly labeled input or source records, a readable result or worked example, and an adjacent explanation of the evidence. Use a restrained visual hierarchy, left-aligned text, readable tables or stacked records, and a responsive layout at 720px and 360px. Provide meaningful labeled controls for Open sequence practice; 1 · Joint preview; 2 · Model; 3 · Pair practice; 4 · Lead handover and review; 5 · Joint exit and readback; Highlight A; Highlight B; Both roles; Prepare text; Select text; 1 · Place square. Use keyboard-accessible native controls and visible focus. Keep the complete content readable without an external dependency.
The following brief supplies the substantive content and constraints. Native-format requests describe the material to represent or copy manually; this HTML must not pretend to create DOCX, XLSX, PDF, PPTX, H5P or another native file, run Python/Flask/Django/Snowflake/Power BI, connect a live service, send messages, or perform an authorized real-world action. Where the task requires a native source, actual observation or separate approval, retain that requirement and leave unsupplied evidence blank.
Create a complete US English 30-minute co-teaching lesson plan with shared objective, preparation ownership, phase-by-phase Teacher A/Teacher B actions, exact handover cue, blank observation log and separate expected-placement key. Shared objective: follow three written instructions in order and point to the step used. Preserve this original sequence in both teacher views:
1. Place a square token in the tray.
2. Put a circle token beside the tray.
3. Draw a star on the card. Expected placement is square in tray, circle beside tray, star on card. Teacher key is not actual learner evidence. No compass/code/debugging target. Preparation: A prepares shared text/model materials; B checks three sample learner copies and tray/token/card descriptions. Actual class copies/material sets and approved learner supports TO CONFIRM jointly; no diagnosis or invented individual accommodation. Role split proposed until teachers agree. Phases:5 minutes joint preview (A reads task/materials,B checks copies/descriptions);6 model (A reads/models,B observes action-versus-written-step);10 pair practice (A facilitates,B records actual step-reference questions);6 handover/review (B leads same sequence,A observes focus);3 joint exit/readback. Handover cue: Teacher B will now lead the sequence review. I will observe which written step learners refer to. Keep both teachers' next actions visible and task unchanged. Exit question: Which written step did you use? Blank log fields:phase,step referenced,actual question/explanation,observer,joint follow-up question. Actual answers/observations/next step stay blank. No teacher-performance grading,student scoring,record collection or standards-compliance claim. Proposed HTML A/B views require construction/testing and retain both roles,phase,time and task; native teaching records remain outside the review copy.
COMPLETE AUTHORED SCENARIO AND EXPECTED CASES
The following is the supplied reading/teaching/calculation record to represent in the companion. Preserve its particular content, examples, source references and unknowns. Wording about a future native implementation refers to that native task, not permission to omit this HTML companion.
# A Co-Teaching Lesson Plan Template with a Clear Action for Both Teachers
One teacher begins explaining while the other waits to find out how to help. Later, both give instructions at once. The activity may be simple, but the plan has left the coordination to chance.
Give each phase two named actions, one shared objective, and an explicit handover. Distinguish preparation ownership from classroom responsibility, and agree what the observing teacher will look for. This original 30-minute plan makes that coordination visible without inventing learner results.
NYU's overview describes co-teaching around a common instructional goal, shared planning, and flexible leading, supporting, or observing roles. The example below adopts role coordination rather than claiming an effect on learning or compliance with a particular program. [NYU's co-teaching overview](https://teachereducation.steinhardt.nyu.edu/what-is-co-teaching/)
## Keep one instruction sequence for both teachers
The shared learner objective is: “I can follow three written instructions in order and point to the step I used.” The original activity uses these instructions:
1. Place a square token in the tray.
2. Put a circle token beside the tray.
3. Draw a star on the card.
Prepare a tray, square and circle tokens, a card, and writing materials. Agree on the object descriptions and what “beside” means in the activity setup before teaching. This task does not introduce a compass direction, code, or debugging target; learners refer back to the written steps.
The separate expected-placement key is square token in the tray, circle token beside the tray, and star on the card. It is teacher guidance, not an observation of student work. Do not fill the observation log from that key.
## Assign preparation before classroom roles
In the proposed preparation split, Teacher A prepares the shared task text and model materials. Teacher B checks three sample learner copies against that text and checks the tray, token, and card descriptions. Three sample copies are a preparation check, not the actual class quantity. Both teachers confirm how many copies and material sets the class needs.
Agree the actual role split together before using the plan. Record any learner needs and approved supports supplied by the teaching team; do not infer a diagnosis or accommodation from this example. Keep those decisions separate from the neutral role labels A and B.
## Map the same phases to both teachers
| Phase | Minutes | Teacher A | Teacher B |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Joint preview | 5 | Read the shared task and identify model materials | Check sample learner copies and object descriptions with A |
| Model | 6 | Read and model each step in order | Observe whether the token/card action matches the written instruction |
| Pair practice | 10 | Facilitate practice using the unchanged instructions | Record actual step-reference questions in a blank observation log |
| Lead handover and review | 6 | Observe the agreed step-reference focus | Lead a review of the same sequence |
| Joint exit and readback | 3 | Ask the exit question and read back the evidence | Check the readback and agree what still needs explanation |
The five phases total 30 minutes. Calling a teacher “support” is not enough; each row states what that teacher does. The model observer looks for correspondence with the written step, not a performance score. During practice, the log captures what learners actually ask or point to, without assuming that every pair has completed the sequence correctly.
## Make the handover audible and specific
At the start of the six-minute review, Teacher A says: “Teacher B will now lead the sequence review. I will observe which written step learners refer to.” Teacher B takes the lead using the same three instructions. Teacher A begins the stated observation task rather than continuing a competing explanation.
The companion’s teacher view keeps both actions visible beside the shared phase and time. Highlighting B as lead should not hide A's observation focus or change the learner task. The review asks, “Which written step did you use?” and follows the same text instead of adding a new placement rule during the transition.
## Debrief with evidence rather than a completed answer key
Use a blank observation log with phase, written step referenced, actual learner question or explanation, observer, and question for joint follow-up. The exit prompt is “Which written step did you use?” Actual answers stay blank in the advance plan.
In the final readback, distinguish an observed action from a teacher interpretation. If the team has no evidence about whether a learner used the written instruction, record that gap. Agree the next teaching step from actual notes. The plan does not automatically grade either teacher or prove a learner's mastery.
Implement the local companion rather than returning a text-only plan. Preserve every numerical fixture and the distinction between illustrative expectations and actual evidence. Any native-runtime or classroom tests mentioned above remain tests to perform in the proper environment; do not mark them passed. Keep edits and practice responses in this open page only, without claiming persistent storage. Provide invalid/missing-input feedback and reset behavior that agree with this specific brief. Do not claim accessibility certification, learning gains, real approvals or test results that were not observed.
Review the coordination
Use the HTML companion to check that every phase gives both teachers an action and that the handover preserves the instructions. The companion provides local review controls; the copy does not collect classroom observations.
Before teaching, have both teachers read the handover and name their next action; afterward, use their joint evidence readback to decide which instruction needs another explanation.