Teacher Design Teams are frequently established and investigated in higher education. The advantages of designing curriculum materials in these teams have been shown in various studies. Teacher Design Teams can consequently be convenient for designing curriculum materials in other educational contexts. This research investigates how Teacher Design Teams can be organised within vocational secondary education, with a specific focus on the course Project Integrated General Subjects. This course is taught in Flanders (Belgium) and clusters general subjects such as languages, mathematics, sciences and social education. Thematic and project-based teaching ensure an interdisciplinary approach in this cross-curricular course (Placklé et al., 2014). Teachers experience challenges teaching this course, as teacher training often does not give teachers the necessary preparation for an interdisciplinary approach (Sierens et al., 2017). The difficulties experienced by teachers are also reflected among their vocational students. National assessment research investigated if vocational students in the second year of the third grade met the attainment targets for the course (Van Nijlen et al., 2014). The results were concerning as more than half of the participating students did not meet the basic level for three of the four examined attainment target clusters. Additionally, Project Integrated General Subjects does not score well in terms of motivation. Students perceive the subject matter of Project Integrated General Subjects as useless outside of school (Creten, Lens & Simons, 2001). In addition, a lack of differentiated instructions in this course causes a lack of motivation in the often very heterogeneous vocational classes (Van Praag, Boone, Stevens & Van Houtte, 2015). The cooperation of teachers in Teacher Design Teams could ensure that various expertise, competences and skills are combined (Sierens et al., 2017). In this way, Project Integrated General Subjects can be shaped operationally through cooperation. A Teacher Design Team is described as "a group of at least two teachers, from the same or related subjects, working together on a regular basis, with the goal to (re)design and enact (a part of) their common curriculum" (Handelzalts, 2009, p. 215). To investigate how Teacher Design Teams could be organised within the specific context of vocational education and Project Integrated General Subjects, the ‘Integrated Conceptual Framework for Teacher Design Teams’ by Binkhorst et al. (2015) was taken as a guiding principle. This framework shows the input, process and output of Teacher Design Teams and emphasises how these stages influence each other. The presence of certain input and process characteristics determines the quality of the output, the designed teaching material and the professional development of the participating teachers. A coach has a central role. To determine which characteristics are needed for Teacher Design Teams within Project Integrated General Subjects, focus groups were organised with relevant stakeholders for this research. These stakeholders were education inspectors (n=3), educational counsellors (n=6), teacher educators (n=6) and teachers (n=11). The results were divided into four factors: (1) context, (2) composition, (3) term, frequency and duration, and  (4) guidance and support. A long-term TDT programme was recommended by the stakeholders, where school-based TDTs and a networked TDT enhance each other. Autonomy and voluntary commitment of teachers as well as support and trust from the school principal are deemed central. Finally, registration of progress made and an online platform to share designed materials are desirable.

The main research question in this research is ‘How can Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) be organised to be successful within the context of the vocational education course Project Integrated General Subjects (PGS)?’. Four sub-questions were formulated: (1) What type of TDTs (school-based or networked) is best suited in the context of the vocational education course PGS?, (2) Who should participate in TDTs in the context of the vocational education course PGS?, (3) Over what period, how often and for how long should TDTs meet in the context of the vocational education course PGS?, and (4) By whom should TDTs be guided and supported in the context of the vocational education course PGS?. A qualitative research design was used to answer these research questions. Five focus groups were conducted to collect the data. The questioned stakeholders were education inspectors (n=3), educational counsellors (n=6), teacher educators (n=6) and teachers (n=11). Each focus group questioned a particular stakeholder group, with two focus groups for teachers. Due to COVID-19 regulations, the focus groups were organised online with all participants visible and audible to each other, which offers comparable data as focus groups in a physical space (Abrams et al., 2014). During the focus groups, the concept of TDTs was made clear to avoid an ambiguous understanding of the concept. Afterwards, a brainstorming exercise was presented to the stakeholders. The exercise started with a basic setup of a TDT: two PGS teachers from the same school and a coach, who guides and supports, meet monthly for a full school year in a TDT. The participants were given time to change this basic setup with improvements to ensure an effective and efficient TDT for the course PGS. These improvements were discussed subsequently among the participants. The recorded videos were afterwards transcribed verbatim and were coded according to the Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In vivo codes for TDTs and the course PGS were drawn up in the first round. Afterwards, the codes were related and merged. The resulting summary report of each focus group was revised by the involved participants. This gave the participants the opportunity to give comments or additions and ensured unanimity. Finally, there was a focus on the matching and complementary elements that were raised by the different stakeholders.

Our findings suggest a TDT programme where school-based TDTs and a networked TDT enhance each other. In the school-based TDTs, curriculum materials are designed by teachers of the same school which makes tailor-made materials for the own students possible. Regular, at least monthly, meetings are necessary. To enhance the autonomy of the teachers and the close cooperation, a participating teacher can adopt the role of the coach in school-based TDTs. Good training for this internal coach is important. The composition of school-based TDTs depends on the size of the school and on the PGS teachers who commit themselves. Voluntary participation is important, but the PGS department should be informed and involved to a certain extent. Involvement of vocational teachers at times is also considered desirable. Other subject matter teachers can provide possible missing knowledge during some meetings. The networked TDT can support the school-based TDTs with an external coach. The participation of some teachers from the school-based TDTs in the networked TDT brings different expertise and experiences together and can be shared across schools. This provides new insights for the school-based TDTs. In addition, different external experts could participate in the meetings of the networked TDTs to introduce new knowledge to the teams. Meetings in the networked TDT should take place four times a school year. To guarantee the success of the TDT programme, support, confidence and resources from the school principal are important. Also the high turnover of PGS teachers needs to be considered in this TDT programme. Working project-based with clear interim goals and good documentation of the made progress can respond to this. In this way, the members of the TDTs can be exchangeable. An online platform can facilitate this documentation. Additionally, this online platform can simplify exchanging curriculum materials among the school-based TDTs.

Abrams, K.M., Wang, Z., Song, Y.J., Galindo-Gonzalez, S. (2014). Data richness trade-offs between face-to-face, online audiovisual, and online text-only focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 80-96. Binkhorst, F., Handelzalts, A., Poortman, C. L., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2015). Understanding teacher design teams – A mixed methods approach to developing a descriptive framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 213–224. Creten, H., Lens, W., & Simons, J. (2001). The role of perceived instrumentality in student motivation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 37-45). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in Teacher Design Teams. Dissertation. University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands. Placklé, I., Könings, K. D., Jacquet, W., Struyven, K., Libotton, A., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Engels, N. (2014). Students’ preferred characteristics of learning environments in vocational secondary education. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 1(2), 107-124. Sierens, S., Verbyst, L., Ysenbaert, J., Roose, I., Cochuyt, J., & Vanderstraeten, W. (2017). Onderzoek naar verklaringen voor de peilingsresultaten Project Algemene Vakken (PAV): Eindrapport. Gent: Universiteit Gent, Steunpunt Diversiteit & Leren. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Van Nijlen, D., Willem, L., Crynen, M., Engels, N., & Janssens, R. (2014). Peiling Project Algemene Vakken in de derde graad van het beroepssecundair onderwijs. Eindrapport. Leuven: KU Leuven, Steunpunt Toetsontwikkeling en Peilingen. Van Praag, L., Boone, S., Stevens, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2015). De paradox van het watervalsysteem: wanneer het groeperen van studenten in homogene groepen tot meer heterogeniteit leidt in het beroepsonderwijs. SOCIOLOGOS, 36(2), 82–101.