Successful Team Teaching Requirements
A Literature Review: Prepared by Deakin University February, 2016.
Nierengarten (2013) proposed 20 ways in which team teaching could be promoted and enhanced in schools. The suggestions included adequate administrative support and understanding; flexibility and cooperation between the two teachers; formal training for both members of the team in collaborative practice; common planning time; teams to be properly protected and respected; co-construction of individual education plans (IEPs) for students; adequate evaluation time; peer coaching and observation; student feedback; reflection time; continuity of teams across a number of academic years, and ongoing professional development.
Researchers for sometime have suggested an effective teaching team have the following attributes: cooperativeness; emotional stability; aggressiveness; enthusiasm, and conscientiousness (Borg, 1967). The notion of aggressiveness mentioned by Borg is best explained as engaging in pedagogical (teaching and learning philosophies, theories, experience) debates.
Team teaching becomes problematic when the distribution of instructional teaching has not been carefully considered. This consideration needs to be based on how and what could/will optimise learning outcomes for students, and further increase effectiveness for teachers.
The Effects of Team Teaching
There has been in the US substantial evidence regarding team teaching effects. The evidence came from an evaluation of a 5-year project and was conducted by the Department of Education in Arkansas, USA(Pearl, Dieker & Kirkpatrick, 2012). The report outlined that changes to teaching and learning were generated, supported and sustained at a large-scale, systemic level, and included improved performances by students with disabilities in co-taught classrooms. This evaluation report identified various models of co-teaching that were more established, including parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and station teaching.
A further USAstudy found that various models of team teaching were valuable as forms of induction for both general and special education teachers (Pugach and Winn 2011). A more recent US study also reported that ream teaching was beneficial for students with disabilities/special needs (Rivera, McMahon & Keys, 2014).
There are a number of arguments that suggest that team teaching not only benefits students development, but enhances teachers professional capital (human, social and decision) and adds to a positive school climate overall. These arguments have had longevity in the field of education.
Part of the success of team teaching in classes has been attributed tohow “the dialogue involves everyone as a learner and everyone as a teacher” (p.46).
Hiratsuka (2014), researching team teaching English language identified the value of reflection as a source for deepening understanding and appreciation for team teaching. In this study reflective practices were constructively facilitated by using focus groups discussing video clips of teachers involved in team teaching English in a foreign language classroom.
Jang (2006) reported on a controlled study of two 8th grade mathematics teachers involved in a co-teaching project in Taiyuan County, Taiwan. Academically, students who had been allocated to team teaching classrooms were found to out perform students being taught in the traditional classroom in the final examinations. More than half of the ‘experimental’ students said they preferred team teaching. More specifically, students reported that the team “taught in different ways that were helpful in solving maths problems, and providing them with opportunities to learn and think differently” (Jang, 2006, p.191).
Martin and Williams (2012) report on a cohort of middle years (grades 7-8) students in an intermediate ‘school in New Zealand. A team of three teachers was established to meet students’ core curriculum learning needs. There were approximately 100 students who were engaged in team teaching classroom over a pre-determined 2-year period. Three separate classes, each with a respective teacher, remained identifiable for administrative purposes but otherwise; the teachers worked collaboratively through the planning, delivery and assessment components of their teaching. The teachers sought to establish a community of learners which prior research (Dinham & Rowe, 2009) had found to be “a powerful means of improving learning outcomes for children” (p.3) Martin and Williams (2012) found team teaching permitted each of the three teachers to teach to their strengths, while students could be organised flexibly according to their different academic and social needs. Teachers also noted benefits of learning from each other. Students also had a larger pool of “potential friends”, as well as demonstrating increased “confidence” and “independence” (p.10).
White, Henley and Brabston (1998) identified 10 advantages of Team Teaching for teachers:
- Instructor synergies;
- Functional integration; and
- Team building (p.14).
The ten advantages identified were:
- Alternative viewpoints on same topic;
- A mix of teaching methodologies;
- Promotion of creativity;
- More brainpower in classroom;
- Integration of disciplines;
- Less doubling up of subjects/topics;
- Increased mix of skills;
- Improved teacher/student ratios;
- Team building within and across discipline boundaries; and
- Role modelling and mentoring for students around team-work.
Studying ESL teachers, Carless and Walker (2006) found that teachers benefitted from:
a)Being able to demonstrate dialogue with each other;
b)Being more available to support students;
c)Being able to better monitor group activities within the larger class; and
d)Diversity, balanced by respect for different approaches to teaching.
The literature in general supports the notion that the best form of team teaching -
Involves two or more educators working collaboratively to deliver instruction to a heterogeneous group of students in a shared instructional space. In this environment, teachers blend their expertise, share materials, and develop common instructional goals. (Conderman 2011, p. 1)
When creative strategies for arranging common planning time, building understanding and collaboration between co-teachers, planning and delivering instruction, and enlisting principal and other administrative supports are implemented, potential for co-teaching to improve student outcomes is significant (Friend, 2008, p. 9)
Defining Team Teaching Practices
Team teaching as a practice is not always articulated, so it’s not always apparent how teachers are team teaching. Buckley (2000, p.4) is one author who clearly defines the purpose and the acts associated with team teaching.
A team, of instructors working purposefully, regularly, and cooperatively to help a group of students learn. As a team, the teachers work together in setting goals for a course, designing a syllabus, preparing individual lesson plans, actually teaching students together, and evaluating the results. They share insights, arguing with one another. And perhaps even challenging students to decide which approach is correct. This experience is exciting. Everybody wins!
Friend 92008) confers with Buckley’s explanation and considers team teaching as an act of co-teaching between two professionals who jointly delivering the learning instruction. She argues it “presumes that both educators actively participate in the delivery of instruction, share responsibility for all their students, assume accountability for student learning and acquire instructional resources and space” (Friend, 2008, p. 9).
Team teaching is also articulated as an act that occurs in a single physical space in order to deliver instruction and that the team of teachers have joint responsibilities for planning, teaching, assessing and evaluation (NT Department of Education and Training, 2004; Hattie, 2012; Jensen, 2014).
Models of Team teaching:advantages and disadvantages
Team teaching is not recognised for having“ one single model or template” (Buckley, 2000, p.4). Friend and Cook (2003) present 6 different models they are:
- One Teach, One Observe;
- One Teach, One Assist;
- Station or Rotational Teaching;
- Parallel Teaching;
- Alternative Teaching; and
- Tag Team (which is closest to the more traditional model of co-teaching).
Model One:One Teach, One Observe
Description: One teacher leads the teaching while a second teacher carries out targeted observation.
This model is also known as the ‘Participant-Observer Model’ (White, Henley & Brabston, 1998). Observation takes the teacher up close to the ways in which teaching is impacting on individual learning. Observations can later be matched with the active teacher’s experiences to facilitate “collaboration on the learning of individual students and how best to teach to their learning needs” (p.22). With this model, teachers can alternate between teaching and observing; responding to feedback; “continuously improve teaching practices”; and further develop their professional learning (p.22).
- A field example
a US study that involved a pair of grade 7 maths teachers who teamed to utilise a this model, teach/observe and reflect together on each other’s weekly classes. This team worked towards an identified goal of improving students’ higher order mathematical thinking skills, while the researcher sought to track the patterns and benefits of this model.
- Advantages
An advantage of this model is that there is time allocated to more detailed observation of students engaged during the learning process.With this approach, for example, teachers decide in advance what types of specific observational information to gather during instruction and agree on a system for gathering data.Afterward, the teachers analyse the information together. The teachers’ take turns in teaching and gathering data.
A recent Australian report (Jensen, Hunter & Sonnermann, 2014) highlighted the value of classroom observation for “directly improving teaching” (p.22) and hence having “a substantial impact on learning” (p.22).
There is also international evidence (e.g. from Japan) that highlights the value of teachers using observation as a tool to improve their teaching, and hence, student learning (Hattie, 2012).
- Disadvantages
One of the disadvantages of this model is that the observations are not being visually recorded. Visual recording allows both teachers to act as observers, this is particularly important as each may see something differently or see something the other has not.For students an observer may be a distraction from the learning.
A slightly different iteration of this model can occur when one teacheris perceived to have more in-depth content knowledge and becomes responsible for all instruction, while the other teacher continually observes the class.
Thedisadvantages of this approach are that it doesn't recognise that the deliver of that content is equally as vital to student learning. The delivery of the content is what successfully engages student learning so that it can be absorbed and the learning sustained. Also the instructing teacher could be perceived as having more control than the other, this has led students to relate to one person as the teacher and the other as a teacher’s aide.
Model Two:One Teach, One Assist
Description: One teacher instructs the class while the other teacher manages behaviour or assists individual students as required.
In this model, one person takes primary responsibility for teaching while the other professional circulates through the room providing unobtrusive assistance to students as needed.
- A field example
King-Sears and others (2014) reported on a US study involving science teachers co-teaching with special educators, the latter employed to attend to students with disabilities.
- Advantages
Students surveyed for the above project all agreed that they learned better with two teachers; most disagreed that having two teachers was confusing (p.672).Nierengarten (2013) also reported on the uptake of this model in the UShas become a popular way to make education more inclusive of students with disabilities
- Disadvantage
The teacher assisting can be perceived by students as being of secondary importance to the instructing teacher. This model if rigidly adhered to would not provide equal opportunities for teachers to further develop their professional capital. Parity could be achieved when both teachers are allocated equal time for designing, planning, delivering and assisting.
Model Three: Station Teaching (Rotational Teaching)
Description: Teachers divide content and students.
Each teacher plans and is responsible for a different aspect of the lesson, or for a different lesson entirely. Independent work may also be provided for the students. Students are divided into two or more groups, depending on how many 'stations' are available. Students either proceed from station to station; or stay at one, and a teacher moves between the stations.
To be effective, this approach requires a good deal of pre-planning and materials prepared and organised in advance.
- Advantages
This model does not require students to be seated for lengthy periods of time. It is interactive and provides students with multiple learning opportunities.
- Disadvantages
Moving between stations could be noisy and disruptive for some students. Students might find themselves always being positioned through ability grouping and therefore they may not be provided with the intellectual stimulation of mixed ability peers.
Model Four:Parallel Teaching
Description: The class is split in half and each teacher takes a half of the class to teach the same lesson.
In this approach students all receive the same material and information at the same time.
Advantages
If the class ratio is 26 students to 2 teachers the advantage is the student groups would be smaller allowing more intensive teaching and learning. Both teachers are proficient in the content and ways to engage student learning matter
- Disadvantages
This model relies on traditional models of teaching (1 teacher 25+ students). The separation of the students could again be based on ability grouping, problem behaviours which place more responsibility on one teacher if they were to always teach a particular group. This model also relies there being space to comfortably accommodate two groups.
Model Five:Alternative Teaching
Description: One teacher teaches the main lesson to a larger group of students, while the other teacher works with the smaller group of students on an entirely different lesson.
In this model, the small group does not have to integrate with the current lesson. Indeed it could, for example, be working with an individual student or small group to catch up on work, or for assessment purposes etc.
- Advantages
The argument for this model is that it supports students who have been absent or who need skill enrichment, extended challenges or remediation (Conderman, 2011).
- Disadvantages
This model is reliant on space and student numbers. Again there is the potential if the purpose and composition of the group are not varied students/parents can feel labelled/stigmatized.
Model Six:Tag Team (Traditional Co-Teaching)
Description: Both teachers plan and deliver instruction together, with each teacher equally responsible for the material in the lesson. This can be scripted or spontaneous.
This model is sometimes also known as the Interactive Model (White, Henley & Brabston, 1998).
- Advantages
This model has be found to assisting in the inclusion of children with hearing impairments (Gurgur & Uzumer, 2011. Students benefit for the teachers working together as the learning opportunities are more likely to recognised and responded to in real time (reflection in action).
- Disadvantages
This model relies on teachers having sufficient planning time and adequate resources (Gurgur & Uzumer, 2011).
It is also dependent on good working relationships where teachers have a sense of synergy between them. Otherwise one teacher may feel like they are doing most to the teaching/learning, or being overridden especially if this occurs in front of the students.
OverallknownImpact of Team Teaching on Student Outcomes
Australian schools,
Some of the evidence of improved student-learning outcomes pertained to “general improvements in literacy and numeracy, whole classes of students achieving higher scores for specific skills than comparable classes from previous years, and student self-reports about achieving more in-depth understanding of concepts” (Owen, 2015, p.64-5). Other specific evidence pointed to “more active and creative materials were being used in the classroom” from co-planning and team teaching (Owen, 2015, p.65). From the accompanying survey, “100% of students indicated their preference for team teaching rather than single-class approaches in some discipline-specific situations” (Owen, 2015, p.65). All teachers surveyed reported “improved student engagement” (Owen 2015, p.65). Other teachers noted growth in some students social skills; emotional and self-confidence; independence and personal management skills, and creative capacities.
Hong Kong and Slovenia
Carless and Walker (2006) findings led them to endorse an earlier report (Buckley, 2000) that having two teachers in a classroom affords more opportunities for individual and/or small group support. Students also reported feeling more motivated when being team taught due to the greater variety of input from the two teachers; and the higher degree of authenticity being modelled by the two teachers in dialogue.
Taiwan
Chang and Lee (2010) reported improved Year 10 student learning outcomes for those involved in a team of interdisciplinary teachers who were engaging students in a problem-based learning (PBL) programme. The skills learnt were deemed to be transferrable,with communication, organisation and presentation highly valued. The computer teachers developed new respect from their subject-based colleagues, while the latter gained some trust and confidence in a less conventional pedagogy.
Jang (2006) reported on improved final exam maths score for students who had been in a team teaching classroom, compared to a control group of students taught in a traditional classroom.
USA
Wallace (2007) established positive and measurable correlations of improved social bonding (to peers, school and teachers) amongst students taught through a interdisciplinary team of teachers.
Conderman (2011), reported an increased uptake of team teaching in certain school districts in the US, as teachers had attributed co-planning, co-instructing and co-assessing to improved teaching and learning.
Canada
Jao and McDougall (2015) reported how team teaching“energised teams of teachers within schools to activate and guide the teacher improvement process, thereby sustaining the learning” (p. 16).
Denmark
Frederiksen and Beck (2013) found that teamwork had become a mandatory component of meaningful and successful school reform. The team teaching they found emphasised “interpersonal and social relations” (p.459).