In the following study the team composition of co-teaching teams will be examined. Co-teaching, which means the cooperative work of two or more professionals in front of one school class, was introduced recently in the Austrian Middle school. According to the relevant literature, the nature of team composition is considered as important for high quality co-teaching, in particular by the involved teachers (Murawski, & Swanson, 2001). In fact, a broad range of literature indicates, that teachers consider it as very important to select the teaching partner by their own to provide high quality co-teaching (Friend, 2008; Scruggs & Mastropieri 2007).

However, the same studies mention as well, that the voluntary team composition is in fact no guaranty for efficiency or for high quality co-teaching. Moreover, it exits a general lack of empirical research which examines this issue (Brinkmann & Twiford, 2012). Therefore, this piece of research aims to investigate the ramifications of different team compositions. In particular it will be interesting what differences exist between teacher teams which were voluntary composited by the teachers themselves and teams which were put together by the school administration. In order to evaluate this issue, three working hypotheses are crucial. Research hypothesis one focuses on the actions co-teachers might take to implement various co-teaching approaches (Cramer & Nevin, 2006). It is assumed, that teachers which could choose their partner by their own, rate the implementation of different co-teaching approaches more positive than their counterparts. Research hypothesis two focuses on the self-effectiveness of the surveyed teachers. Hence, it is assumed that teacher teams which were voluntarily composed show a significant higher self-effectiveness rating than their counterparts who cannot choose their team partners by their own. Finally, the third and last research hypothesis focuses on the job satisfaction. It is assumed, that teachers who can choose their partner by their own show higher rates regarding their job satisfaction than the other group of teachers who cannot choose their team-partners.

Bos, W., Bonsen, M., Gröhlich, C., Guill, K., Scharenberg, K. (2009): KESS 7 - Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente , In: Hanse - Hamburger Schriften zur Qualität im Bildungswesen (4) , Münster: Waxmann Brinkmann, J., & Twiford, T. (2012). Voices from the field: Skill sets needed for effective Collaboration and co-teaching. NCEAP Publications. Received from: http://cnx.org/content/m44961/1.8/ [23.1.2015] Cramer, E. & Nevin, A. (2006). A Mixed Methodology Analysis of Co-Teacher Assessments. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Exceptional Children Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. 29/4. P. 261-274. Friend, M. (2008). Co-teaching: A simple Solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction. 2/2. S. 9-19. Murawski, W. & Swanson, L. (2001). A Meta-analysis of Co-teaching Research. Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education. 22/5. S. 258-267. Schmitz, G. & Schwarzer, R. Individuelle und kollektive Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen von Lehrern. In Jerusalem, M. & Hopf, D. (ed.) Selbstwirksamkeit und Motivationsprozesse in Bildungsinstitutionen. Weinheim: Beltz. Scruggs, E., Mastropieri, A., McDuffie, A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children. 73. S. 392 – 416. Villa, R., Thousand, J. & Nevin, A. (2004). A Guide to Co-teaching. Practical Tips for Facilitating Student Learning. Corwin Press. Thousand Oak, California.