Team Teaching

This article explores various team-teaching models, benefits for both teaching and learning, and the conditions necessary for successful teacher partnerships. Team-teaching is the practice of including two or more teachers of equal status in a classroom to provide instruction to one group of students. Models discussed include special education/regular education teacher partnerships, middle school teacher teams, and interdisciplinary teams in the high school setting. All models positively influence both professional growth for teachers and learning outcomes for students. Conditions necessary for successful partnerships are explored including common planning time, communication, definition of roles, accommodating schedules, symbiotic relationships, and teacher willingness.

Keywords Alternative Teaching; Co-Teaching; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); Interdisciplinary Teams; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Parallel Teaching; Station-Teaching; Team -Teaching

Overview

Dieker & Murawski (2003) define team-teaching as two or more teachers of equal status in the classroom providing instruction to one group of students at the same time. A variety of team-teaching models exist, each with a different purpose. However, the overarching benefits of each model are the same. Team-teaching provides opportunities for teachers to break free from isolation, collaborate on meaningful curriculum development projects, share teaching philosophies, better assess student learning outcomes, and grow professionally. Furthermore, successful team-teaching provides a model for students with regard to cooperation, teamwork, positive interaction, and the results of collaborative efforts.

One team-teaching model involves partnerships between special education teachers and regular education teachers. This model has gained popularity in the past decade mostly due to an emphasis on inclusive education strategies as mandated by laws such as the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This practice places a burden on the general educator who is often inadequately trained to meet the needs of such a diverse classroom. Co-teaching has been one of the support strategies used to address the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities for learners with special needs in the general education classroom (Nierengarten, 2013). In fact, the majority of co-teaching scenarios involve specialist teachers partnered with regular education teachers.

By the year 2000, approximately 80% of the nation's middle schools reported using teacher teams as a mode of instruction (Hackmann, Petzko, Valentine, Clark, Nori & Lucas, 2002). Middle schools use the method extensively primarily because of the social and emotional needs of adolescent students. Teams generally consist of two teachers, each teaching separate disciplines (i.e. math and science together and language arts and social studies together). Teaching-teams are responsible for one team of students and meet regularly to discuss teaching philosophies, management systems, assessment, etc.

Interdisciplinary teams, primarily at the high school level, are yet another form of team-teaching that encourages connections across disciplines and creates opportunities for increased applications to real-world settings (Murata, 2002). Interdisciplinary teams involve two or more teachers from different disciplines partnering to develop a course that combines different areas of expertise and bridges the gap between otherwise seemingly unrelated fields of study.

Co-Teaching: Special Education & Regular Education Teachers

Warwick (1971) was the first to propose co-teaching as a way to reach all students with learning disabilities. During the 1980's the movement gained momentum and became more commonplace compared to the traditional pull-out programs where students with learning disabilities were removed from the regular education class to receive one-on-one instruction. At the time, the central motivating factor behind co-teaching scenarios was the fact that partnerships within the classroom dramatically reduced the student-teacher ratio, thus benefiting students who needed extra support and individualized instruction (Friend, 2007). The co-teaching model differs from teacher partnerships where two regular education teachers combine, for example, two classes of twenty students for instructional purposes. Rather than two teachers for forty students, the co-teaching model creates student-teacher ratios of two teachers for twenty students.

Friend (2007) asserts that one strong benefit of the co-teaching model is that both teachers bring unique qualities and characteristics to the classroom. Regular education teachers often focus on the content and curriculum while special education teachers focus on the actual learning process and assisting students with demonstration of skills and understandings. This type of partnership, if developed with careful consideration and nurtured throughout, can have an impact on student performance and achievement outcomes. Friend (2007) does make explicit, however, that co-teachers need extensive professional development to understand the philosophy behind co-teaching, expectations for performance, ways to develop a positive working relationship and strategies to maximize contributions to teaching and learning.

Cook & Friend (2000) describe five models of co-teaching that are used primarily in situations where special education teachers are partnered with regular education teachers in the homeroom setting. The first model includes one teacher and one assistant. In this model, one teacher is primarily responsible for delivering instruction. The station-teaching model integrates both teachers into the delivery of instruction. However, both teachers work with different stations of students on activities and assignments. Parallel teaching scenarios are created when both teachers plan together, but deliver instruction separately to different groups and alternative teaching scenarios involve one teacher working with small groups to pre-teach, re-teach, or supplement regular instruction. Cook and Friend (1995) suggest that the most effective co-teaching model involves team-teaching where two or more teachers share responsibility for instruction for the entire class at the same time.

Teacher Teams in Middle Schools

According to Hackmann et al. (2002), teacher teams are a common middle school organizational structure. As noted, approximately 80% of middle schools in the nation report using teaching teams. Middle school teams usually include two teachers responsible for separate areas of the curriculum, but highly integrated in terms of teaching philosophy, assessment, management policies, etc. These teams often provide students with a greater sense of security and stability. As Picucci et al. (2002) indicate, teacher teams in middle school provide the structure necessary to maintain closer social and emotional connections between teachers and students. Although middle school teacher teams may not frequently include opportunities for two teachers to work collaboratively in the same classroom at the same time, other models of team-teaching such as co-teaching, as described above, can be integrated with teacher teams to influence student achievement outcomes.

Interdisciplinary Team Teaching

Interdisciplinary team-teaching occurs mostly in high schools as teachers with different areas of expertise collaborate to develop courses that integrate curriculum and fields of study. According to Murata (2002), in 1997 the National Association of Secondary School Principals called for greater personalization, integrated and engaging curriculum, and opportunities for connections to the real world. Murata (2002) asserts that effective team-teaching is a practice with broad appeal and potential for improving teaching. She believes these calls by secondary school principals can be answered to a great degree by creating more opportunities for interdisciplinary team-teaching.

Davis (1995) indicates that in order for interdisciplinary team-teaching to be successful, teachers need to collaborate on planning, content integration, teaching and evaluation. Wenger and Hornyak (1999) further highlight that teachers need to develop lesson objectives together, discuss "turn taking" within the teaching partnership, and create time to discuss the overall quality of an effective lesson.

Murata (2002) sheds light on a possible reason interdisciplinary team-teaching is not as common as it could be in many high schools. Although team-teaching is often seen as innovative and empowering for teachers, the philosophy itself is contrary to many schools’ already established cultures. Often team-teaching is considered a direct challenge to the status quo and change is not easy for many individuals (Murata, 2002).

Benefits of Team Teaching

Many documented benefits exist with regard to team-teaching. First and foremost, team-teaching provides an opportunity for teachers to model positive interactions, collaboration and lifelong learning for students (Sandholtz, 2000). When teachers interact with each other in the classroom, students see firsthand what it is like to collaborate well with another individual and how teamwork can lead to better results. Furthermore, Fullan (1991) asserts that successful team teaching leads to mutual support for growth. In turn, this leads to increased effectiveness and innovation in teaching. When teachers have an opportunity to work out of isolation, generate ideas with another teacher and spark engaging curriculum development, they are motivated to become better teachers and to improve instructional practice. The right partnership can lead to the conditions necessary to rejuvenate veteran teachers and provide a forum for the exchange of fresh perspectives of novice teachers.

Moreover, Sandholtz (2000) indicates that team-teaching often serves as the means to motivate teachers' professional development. Murata (2002) claims that team-teaching provides a dynamic way for teachers to learn from each other and grow. Through team-teaching scenarios, teachers have many opportunities to share instructional methodologies, ideas for curriculum development, and best practices that reach all learners.

Brenan & Witte (2003) state that more accurate and concise diagnostic observations can be made when two teachers work collaboratively in one classroom. As opposed to one teacher collecting assessment data and documenting anecdotal observations and evidence of learning, two teachers with different perspectives collect more meaningful assessment data to help inform instruction.

Applications

Whether regular education teachers are paired with other regular education teachers or with special education teachers, research consistently demonstrates that a variety of factors must be considered in order to create ideal conditions for successful partnerships (Bouck, 2007, Friend, 2007, Kohler-Evans, 2006, Murata, 2002, Shibley, 2006). Without careful consideration of these factors, teaching-teams may fail and even worse, present negative images to students regarding cooperation, teamwork and collegiality.

The conditions necessary include common planning time, clear expectations and roles, symbiotic relationships, consistent communication, accommodating schedules and a genuine willingness to work collaboratively with a partner.

Common Planning Time

In a majority of studies exploring the team-teaching experience, researchers have uncovered that common planning time is the number one determining factor for success (Arguelles, Hughes, & Schumm, 2000, Bouck, 2007, Friend, 2007). Teachers need time to discuss curriculum objectives, student work, discipline, assessment results, student concerns and a myriad of other topics related to the everyday classroom experience. Murata (2002) further asserts that many teachers go so far as to voice strong opinions for common planning time as opposed to actual co-teaching time in the classroom. One of the main issues teachers face when attempting to implement a team-teaching model is the lack of time in a traditional school schedule for such meetings to occur. The effectiveness of the team model hinges on school administrators' abilities to create the time necessary for communication.

Communication

Brenan & Witte (2003) assert that consistent communication is another extremely important condition for successful team-teaching. Teachers need to communicate honestly about everything ranging from teaching philosophies and classroom management policies to assessment methodologies and physical classroom organization systems. In separate, unrelated studies, Arguelles, Hughes, & Schumm (2000) uncovered the critical importance of flexibility and compatibility with regard to teaching philosophies and styles, Shibley (2006) noted the compelling need for unified assessment philosophies, and Bouck (2007) articulated the need for both teachers to be clear on behavior management policies and how physical space is divided in the classroom to maximize instructional opportunities. Both partners must discuss virtually every aspect of teaching and learning and fully disclose individual beliefs and practices to ensure a successful team. Kohler-Evans (2006) further asserts that communication must be consistent and frequent.

Definition of Roles

Bouck (2007) concluded that in order for team-teaching situations to be successful, teachers need to be clear with regard to their role in the classroom. Partners should outline expectations for curriculum development and instruction and be willing to redefine roles as necessary. Murata (2002) asserts the incredible importance of sharing core beliefs about teachers' roles and attitudes as the foundation for strong working relationships. When considering the partnership between regular education and special education teachers, Bouck (2007) claims that teachers should not resort to the comfortable roles of regular education teachers leading large groups discussions while special education teachers work with individual students or small groups in need of extra support. Rather, in a true team-teaching model, both teachers should assume responsibility for all types of instructional delivery within clearly defined roles mutually agreed upon throughout the experience.

Scheduling

From a systems perspective, schedules are often the one obstacle impeding the implementation of team-teaching models. Successful partnerships hinge on available times in the schedule for teachers to meet to collaborate, engage in discussion and grapple with questions related to teaching and learning. With a myriad of competing interests, scheduling large blocks of time for teachers to engage in these critical conversations is often nearly impossible for some school administrators. Murata (2002) discusses the impact scheduling can have, specifically in high schools, on a teacher's willingness to participate in a team-teaching model, indicating that restrictions of most high school schedules often discourage teachers who might otherwise be interested in collaborative work. If a school is serious about the implementation of a team-teaching model, administrators need to manipulate the scheduling puzzle to ensure that times are available and students who would most benefit from a team-teaching experience have the opportunity to participate (Friend, 2007).

Willingness to Team Teach

Shibley (2006) indicates that potential collaborators should be chosen according to their willingness to invest the time necessary for success. No teacher should ever be forced into a team-teaching situation. Murata (2002) discusses the critical importance of allowing teachers, at the high school level, to choose their partners and their curriculum. Encouraging a willingness among high school teachers to participate in a team-teaching experience can be quite difficult as they need to be willing to diverge from the common high school norms of subject and teacher autonomy (Murata, 2002). No matter what educational level, teachers who engage in team-teaching need to be willing, open to change, and motivated by the possibilities for improved instructional practice and student achievement.

Symbiotic Relationships

The team-teaching relationship often joins two individuals with different perspectives on teaching and varied strengths and weaknesses. The partnership creates ample opportunities for teachers to grow professionally but only if they are willing to embrace the symbiotic nature of the relationship. Bouck (2007) asserts that teachers need to take advantage of the benefits of the partnership, but also need to be aware of the constraints. Team-teaching offers an opportunity for new roles in a classroom and more freedom in terms of instructional methodologies and curriculum development. At the same time, however, team-teaching can limit autonomy, constrain pre-existing roles and even possibly devalue one partner's contributions at certain times (Bouck, 2007). Murata (2002) found that the most positive partnerships demonstrate respect for each other's differences and support diverse philosophies and approaches to education. When one partner views the other's strengths as enhancements to his/her weaknesses, the opportunity for professional growth dramatically increases.

Initial Strategies for Implementing Team-Teaching Models

Kohler-Evans (2006) recommends that schools planning on implementing team-teaching models start small and ask for volunteers that want to team-teach. Teachers should never be forced into teaching partnerships if they are not comfortable with or don't understand the philosophy behind team-teaching. Administrators should look for teachers who are motivated to try new approaches and who are willing to spend the time, energy, and effort necessary to achieve success. Walther-Thomas et al. (1996) further recommend that teachers and administrators work to create balanced heterogeneous classes to ensure a mix of students with different abilities, learning styles and interests. Kohler-Evans (2006) emphasizes that school administrators need to set the foundation for success by ensuring that time is set aside for teachers to communicate clearly and often by sharing perspectives on everything related to teaching and learning. Most importantly, special care must be given to ensure that teaching partners are of equal status and can never rely on seniority to devalue a partner's contributions. Team-teaching involves many intricacies and nuances of human behavior and interaction. Careful consideration must be given to many different factors to create successful partnerships that flourish and provide role models for young students.

Alternative Perspectives

One of the worst-case scenarios that can occur when implementing a team-teaching model is when two teachers are paired arbitrarily without consideration of the factors discussed above and provided little or no support for successful growth of the partnership. Team-teaching can be a daunting process for many educators as it directly challenges the norm of teaching as an isolating profession. In order for team-teaching to be successful, teachers need to trust each other and be honest throughout the partnership. If teachers are arbitrarily placed together, more often than not the relationship fails and sometimes can even create negative learning environments for students.

Some educators claim that certain team-teaching relationships, such as the special and regular education teacher combination, are developed not for sound educational reasons, but rather to address the law, specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Kohler-Evans, 2006). Under constant pressure to ensure that the needs of all students are met through inclusive strategies, school administrators may create team-teaching situations with the expectation that two teachers and a smaller student-teacher ratio will address student needs. According to some teachers, administrators sometimes fail to recognize the many factors that must be considered when developing partnerships in order for team-teaching situations to have a positive impact on student achievement. In Kamens,Susko & Elliott’s study of administrator knowledge and practices related to the supervision and evaluation of co-teachers in inclusive classroom settings, themes that emerged were related to professional preparation and training; expectations and perspectives of co-teaching and inclusive practice; and supporting, supervising, and evaluating co-teachers. The data indicated that there is considerable inconsistency in administrator knowledge and practices and that professional development for administrators is warranted (Kamens, Susko & Elliott, 2013).

Kohler-Evans (2006) emphasizes possible issues that arise when special and regular education teachers are paired in co-teaching situations without careful consideration of the match between teaching philosophies, personalities, etc. Regular education teachers sometimes do not understand the need for an additional teacher in the classroom and therefore are not invested in creating the conditions necessary for a successful partnership. Regular education teachers might feel they are capable of meeting the needs of their students without assistance and may even be insulted by the notion that an additional teacher is necessary. Kohler-Evans (2006) claims an undesired outcome of such partnerships is a relationship that breaks down in front of students due to a lack of understanding, nurturing, and mutual investment.

Although on the surface, team teaching seems as simple as placing two equally qualified teachers in a classroom with one group of students, the model is quite complex and involves many different factors that must be considered before actively pursuing implementation. Brenan & Witte (2003) indicate that simply placing two teachers into a team-teaching situation runs the risk of combining incompatible teaching styles, personalities, and priorities. They illuminate the particularly acute problem that occurs when a novice teacher is paired with a veteran teacher in a team teaching situation without careful consideration. Similar to Kohler-Evans (2006), Brenan & Witte (2003) assert that such team situations can create unhealthy and unproductive teaching and learning environments.

Terms & Concepts

Alternative Teaching Alternative teaching scenarios involve one teacher working with small groups to pre-teach, re-teach, or supplement regular instruction.

Co-Teaching A team teaching method used primarily in situations where special education teachers are partnered with regular education teachers in the homeroom setting, reducing the student-teacher ratio.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) A federal law that provides for special education and related services for children aged 3-21. It was reauthorized in 1997 and 2004 and ensures free and appropriate access to public education for children with disabilities.

Interdisciplinary Teams: Interdisciplinary teams involve two or more teachers from different disciplines partnering to develop a course that combines different areas of expertise and bridges the gap between otherwise seemingly unrelated fields of study.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): A broad bi-partisan education reform that addresses the issue of performance in American elementary and secondary schools. The act focuses on accountability for schools and districts, choice for parents regarding low performing schools, and requirements for use of federal education dollars. In 2012, the administration of President Barack Obama distributed waivers to the act, which exempted states from certain aspects of the educational standards (Klein, 2013).

Parallel Teaching: Parallel teaching scenarios are created when both teachers plan together, but deliver instruction separately to different groups.

Station-Teaching: The station-teaching model integrates both teachers into the delivery of instruction. However, both teachers work with different stations of students on activities and assignments.

Team-Teaching: Team-teaching involves two or more teachers of equal status in the classroom providing instruction to one group of students at the same time. A variety of team-teaching models exist, each with a different purpose.

Bibliography

Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). Co-teaching: A different approach to inclusion. Principal, 79 ; pp. 50-51.

Brenan, C., & Witte, R. (2003). Team teaching in the secondary instrumental music classroom. Music Educators Journal, 89 ; pp. 31-35. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=8957373&site=ehost-live

Bouck, E. (2007). Co-teaching…Not just a textbook term: Implication for practice. Preventing School Failure, 51 ; pp. 46-51. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24238659&site=ehost-live

Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28; pp. 1-16. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9602192589&site=ehost-live

Cook, L. & Friend, M. (2000). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.

Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. M. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, 86; pp. 1-13. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online

database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9659613&site=ehost-live

Friend, M. (2007). The co-teaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64; pp. 48- 52. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23996913&site=ehost-live

Fullan, M. G. (with S. Stiegelbauer) (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hackmann, D. G., Petzko, V.N., Valentine, J. W., Clark, D.C., Nori, J.R., & Lucas, S. E. (2002). Beyond interdisciplinary teaming: Findings and implications of the NASSP National Middle Level Study. NASSP Bulletin, 86 ; pp. 33-47. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9985089&site=ehost-live

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997. Pub. L. 105-17. 4 Jun. 1997. 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.

Kamens, M., Susko, J. P., & Elliott, J. S. (2013). Evaluation and supervision of co-teaching: A study of administrator practices in New Jersey. NASSP Bulletin, 97, 166-190. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87560462&site=ehost-live

Klein, A. (2013). As NCLB waivers take hold, revision of law remains up in air. Education Week, 32, 25. Retrieved December 14, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85766993&site=ehost-live

Kohler-Evans, P. (2006). Co-teaching: How to make this marriage work in front of the kids. Education, 127 ; pp. 260-264. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23761150&site=ehost-live

Murata (2002). What does team teaching mean? A case study of interdisciplinary teaming. Journal of Educational Research, 96 ; pp. 67-77. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=8557868&site=ehost-live

Nierengarten, G. (2013). Supporting co-teaching teams in high schools: Twenty research-based practices. American Secondary Education, 42, 73-83. Retrieved December 16, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92045050&site=ehost-live

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. 107-110. 8 Jan. 2002. Stat. 115. 1426.

Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R. & Sobel, A. (2002). Driven to succeed: High- performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Volume 1: Cross-case analysis of high-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

Sandholtz, J. H. (2000). Interdisciplinary team teaching as a form of professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27 ; pp. 39-54.

Shibley, I. A. (2006). Interdisciplinary team teaching: Negotiating pedagogical differences. College Teaching, 54 ; pp. 271-274. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21851590&site=ehost-live

Walter-Thomas, C., Bryant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17; pp. 255- 263.

Warwick (1971). Team Teaching. London: University of London.

Wenger, M. S., & Hornyak, M. J. (1999). Team teaching for higher level learning: A framework of professional collaboration. Journal of Management Education, 23 ; pp. 311-327. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2010319&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Barth, R. (2006). Improving relationships within the school house. Educational Leadership, 63 ; pp. 8-13.

Boudah, D., Schumacher, J., & Deshler, D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20; pp. 293-316.

Crow, G. M., & Pounder, D. G. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36; pp. 216-254. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3035970&site=ehost-live

Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pounder, D. G. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work-related outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35; pp. 317-348. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2131421&site=ehost-live

Weiss, M. D., & Lloyd, J. (2003). Conditions for co-teaching: Lessons from a case study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26; pp. 27-41.