Session Information
01 SES 05.5 A, General Poster Session
General Poster Session
Contribution
Although teachers reported participating in professional development experiences, most reported them to be unsatisfactory (Wei et al., 2009). While teachers tend to be dissatisfied with their professional development experiences, there is numerous research indicating criteria for effective teacher development. These features include teacher empowerment via self-improvement, advocating reflective practice, extending learning experiences, and participation in hands-on learning (Butler et al., 2004). There are also other models designed to enhance the professional learning model, such as those inspired by collaborative learning - team teaching learning.
The socio-constructivist theory of learning can conceptually outline the foundations of team teaching. This viewpoint holds that learners actively generate knowledge and that social interactions with others contribute to the development process (Loyens et al., 2007). Teachers learn in team teaching by participating in and engaging in a shared activity. They negotiate to mean and benefit from each other's knowledge and abilities by exchanging ideas, presenting alternative viewpoints, and accepting guidance. Therefore, they accomplish more than if they worked independently (Gardiner, 2010). Furthermore, during a team teaching activity, instructors function in what Vygotsky refers to as each other's zone of proximal growth. Teachers can achieve greater levels of performance by interacting with their peers or getting peer assistance (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). What they do with assistance first, they will be able to accomplish alone later (Gardiner & Robinson, 2010).
Smith et al. (2020) reported that a range of professional learning objectives can be met through team teaching. This can help teachers learn and apply co-teaching practises, cooperate in a Professional Learning Community, jointly teach content-based material, teach across the curriculum, conduct a Lesson Study, and so on. Team teaching can also be applied to support teachers in integrating new curriculum, accomplishing school or district goals, becoming acquainted with new testing rules, or enriching work with Special Education or English Language Learner teachers. Also, team teaching could be employed as an onboarding approach for new instructors while engaging experienced teachers. Team teaching draws on various other excellent, largely improved professional development approaches, such as Lesson Study, learning laboratories, co-teaching, and contextual professional development. Professional cooperation and meaningful learning experiences are at the heart of reform teacher professional learning.
Despite team teaching is not an old concept and was promoted in the late 1950s and 1960s (Joyce, 2004), solo teaching persists as a method of instruction in schools today. It has only been employed in the special education domain (Bacharach et al., 2010). The aim of this review is to offer an overview of research on the subject of team teaching. This review is centred on the research question of different team-teaching models in the literature.
Method
A literature search was carried out in order to address the study questions. The search includes ERIC and Elsevier electronic databases. Keywords searched were "Team teaching," "co-teaching," and "collaborative teaching". Relevant manuscripts were found by reviewing the content of the retrieved manuscripts. Furthermore, the reference lists of these texts were searched for additional related manuscripts.
Expected Outcomes
Different types of team teaching models are reported in the literature. The following is the list of models: 1. The observational model (Goker, 2006): Known as the 'participant observer' model. The observer gathers information on successful teaching behaviour, engagement with learners, etc. 2. The coaching model (Al-Saaideh, 2010): The observer is given additional responsibility in this method. In addition to monitoring, the coach is supposed to offer recommendations, advice, and support. 3. The assistant teaching model (Badiali & Titus, 2010): In the assistant teaching approach, one teacher remains in charge, while the other becomes an assistant. 4. The equal status model (Baeten & Simons, 2014): Instead of a hierarchical approach with a leading and supporting teacher, this model refers to team teaching with equal status for both teachers. 5. The teaming model (Nevin et al., 2009): In this model teachers distribute responsibilities evenly and cooperatively. They're both in front of the entire class and have a lot of interaction and discourse. The teaming method has been termed the most collaborative type of team teaching since it necessitates the most collective responsibility (Nevin et al., 2009). Not only do the teachers have equal status but the responsibility of planning, implementation and evaluation is also shared among them (Badiali & Titus, 2010). Based on the brief overview of the models, it can be seen that they have their characteristics and application. These are extensively discussed by Baeten & Simons (2014). Team teaching can indeed aid in the professional development of teachers and also the students experience, but it has to be implemented with proper measures. Our school Nazarbayev Intellectual School also practices team teaching (the teaming model) and we have seen great benefits. A few examples of such benefits are local teachers managed to improve their English language skills and teaching strategies.
References
Al-Saaideh, M. (2010). A rationale to adopt team teaching in prevocational education in Jordan. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(4), 269-285. Badiali, B., & Titus, N. (2010). Co-teaching: enhancing students learning through mentor intern partnerships. School University Partnerships, 4(2), 74-80. Baeten, M., & Simons, M. (2014). Student teachers’ team teaching: Models, effects, and conditions for implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 92-110. Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 435-455. Gardiner, W. (2010). Mentoring two student teachers: mentors’ perceptions of peer placements. Teaching Education, 21(3), 233-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10476210903342102. Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. (2010). Partnered field placements: collaboration in the “real world”. The Teacher Educator, 45(3), 202-215. Goker, S. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL teacher education. System, 34, 239-254. Loyens, S., Rikers, R., & Schmidt, H. (2007). The impact of students’ conceptions of constructivist assumptions on academic achievement and drop-out. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 581-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 03075070701573765. Nevin, A., Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (2009). Collaborative teaching for teacher educators e what does the research say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 569-574. Smith, R., Ralston, N., Naegele, Z., & Waggoner, J. (2020). Team Teaching and Learning: A Model of Effective Professional Development for Teachers. The Professional Educator, 43(1), 80-90. Walsh, K., & Elmslie, L. (2005). Practicum pairs: an alternative for first field experience in early childhood teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 5-21. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.