Discussion

As discussed in Chapter One, previous study has shown a growing interest in depicting cooperative teaching between native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) and non-NESTs (see for example, Chen, 2008; Cheng, 2004; Chou, 2005; Liou, 2002; Lou, 2005; Pan, 2004; Tsai, 2007; Wang, 2006). In this study, the researcher aims to provide more holistic and detailed descriptions of four TEFL student teachers’ team teaching experiences in order to uncover the crucial issues and phenomena found within the complicated process of learning to teach.

The findings of the present study echo the previous literature on the positive effect of team teaching on teachers’ professional development (Anderson & Speck, 1998;

Buckley, 2000; Richards & Farrell, 2005). As revealed in Chapter Two, team teaching provides student teachers with good peer support during the transition from the role of student to the role of teacher. By comparing the current study with the former studies on the same topic — team teaching, it is found that a community of peers is also as a crucial source of ideas and constructive comments.

Because the current study is based on the view of social constructivism, and team teaching is a kind of social activity which is contributory for learning to take place, the following section aims to discuss the concept of zone of proximal development. On top of that, individual and interpersonal factors which involve in the professional collaboration are also discussed. Lastly, how peer-based collaboration could facilitate the participants’

teaching skills is also presented.

5.2.1 Zone of Proximal Development

Guided by the spirit of the social constructivism, the current study aimed to shed some light on TEFL student teachers’ development involved in the collaborative teaching.

According to Vygotsky (1978), social interaction is a prerequisite to learning and cognitive development. As discussed in Chapter Two, within the ZPD (i.e., each individual’s zone of potential learning), more capable students can provide peers with new information and new ways of thinking so that all parties can create new means of understanding. In addition, from the growing body of literature on social constructivism, it seems clear that the focus of Vygotsky’s social constructivism is on how an individual’s learning and understanding grow out of social encounters. In a social constructivist view, a crucial question to ask is what kinds of social activities are contributory for learning to take place. In other words, the context in which the learning occurs is central to the learning itself (McMahon, 1997).

Findings of this study suggested that when team teachers were both intimately and equally involved in all aspects of teaching, the team-teaching mechanism was able to bring the benefits to the team teachers. This kind of collaboration seems probable to lead to student teachers’ learning when they are equal partners who share equal degree of responsibility to carry out a lesson. Analysis of the findings indicated that the participants, being new and inexperienced in the field of teaching profession, were observed, critiqued, and improved by the other team member in a nonthreatening, supportive context. Although teacher development can occur through a teacher’s own personal initiative, the findings in this study indicated that collaboration with others could cause individual learning and encourage greater peer-based learning through sharing and finding solutions to their teaching problems.

5.2.2 Collegiality vs. Individualism

Another issue emerging from the data is related to individual and interpersonal factors which involve in the professional collaboration. It is important to note that it takes a lot more than simply equally engaging in the team-teaching process for collaboration to bring positive effects to teachers. Findings of this study suggested that numerous individual and interpersonal factors were dependent upon a pleasant team-teaching experience. For example, individual factors, such as team members’ personalities, were found to cause the other member different degree of stress in a collaborative-teaching relationship. Not knowing whom to co-teach in the future, Andrea indicated that when looking for a

potential teaching partner, she would in a way evaluate his/her personality as a significant element whether to team up with him/her.

The results from this study seem to lend some support to the view that the negative impact of working collaboratively was the need to meet more frequently with colleagues to discuss and plan, which placed an added work burden on teachers (Buckley, 2000; Johnson, 2003). Despite the fact that the four participants endorsed the positive effects of team teaching, they also identified their dislikes about team teaching. For example, in the case of the writing teachers, both of Andrea and Nadya considered learning from each other’s different ideas when planning lessons to be their dislike as well as their like. This means chances for expressing and examining teaching ideas could improve their teaching practices, and all of the participants came to recognize and appreciate each teacher’s different ideas on how to teach. However, the process of lesson planning required successive communication and negotiation which usually took a lot of time for the participants to negotiate, and sometimes they just could not get their own way. As seen in the case of Andrea, Nadya and Irene, they stated that team teaching made more demands on time and energy than teaching alone. What’s more, rethinking the courses and

explaining them to the other co-teacher did cause inevitable inconvenience to the

participants and discussions were sometimes exhausting from the constant interaction with their peers.

Several researchers (Buckley, 2000; Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000) also proposed the concept that the tension between being an effective team member and retaining one’s

autonomy is what team teachers need to tackle with every day. The healthy balance between teachers’ internal freedom and external collaboration cannot be created by enforcing collegiality (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000; Sawyer, 2002). According to Nadya, the way of thinking between two parties should be similar so that every member knows and follows similar teaching styles. Here, the results supported the previous studies (Avalos, 1998; Sawyer, 2002) for the point that the diversity among team teachers may not bring positive effects on teachers’ professional development, and collaboration is better when it is not planned by a third party. In addition, as discussed earlier, team teachers fitting into the team type of “Blind date” strangers who are matched by someone else, such as an administrator— could lead to either committing to working closely over time or a one-night stand (Eisen, 2000, p.13). Therefore, the findings underscore the importance of recognizing team teachers’ individualism and lend support to the idea that the diversity among team teachers might be a potential challenge embedded in a collaborative

relationship. Thus, it may suggest that perhaps team teachers are not necessary mutually compatible, so it might not be a fruitful way for school administrators or government officials to team up teaching members.

5.2.3 Emotional Support from Peers

This study depicted TEFL student teachers’ feelings and thoughts when they carried out a team-taught class. The findings of the present study show that at the phase of turning their imagination into a reality, every participant in the current study reported a high level

of anxiety. Carrying out a lesson with a co-teacher, every participant acknowledged the significance of peer support during the transition from the role of a graduate student to the role of a GEPT teacher. They felt more secured and confident when there was a team member to back them up and to reduce their workload, particularly in the aspects of lesson planning and teaching.

In Fuller’s (1969) research in teacher professional development, he theorized that teacher concerns can be classified into three distinct categories, including “self concerns,”

“task concerns,” and “impact concerns” and teacher concerns will develop in sequence.

Although the duration of the current study only lasted for five week, analysis of the data indicated that at the outset the participants did care about what their students might think of them as teachers. Before team teaching began, Lynn and Nadya expressed that their

students might lose confidence in them due to their identity, that is, a graduate with little teaching experience; their nervousness was found to affect their emotion at the outset.

However, their perceived anxiety gradually relieved as the teaching process went on. The findings of this study echo Fuller’s (1969) research since Lynn and Nadya laid much value on what their students thought of them and they felt insecure about their ability to teach. It is of importance for teacher educators to have an understanding of preservice and novice teachers’ concerns in order to decrease the rates of attrition of teacher candidates within their progress (O’Connor & Taylor, 1992). In addition, it is worth noting that isolation is a challenge that can inhibit teachers’ learning if peers are not accessible to assist (Little, 1982) or inexperienced teachers are less active to seek professional advice (Tsai, 2010).

5.2.4 The Nature of Team Teaching in the Current Study

Analysis of the data indicated that team teaching can serve as a means of student teachers’ professional development. As discussed in Chapter Four, when Irene was leading the task of picture description, Lynn’s advice served as a cure which saved Irene as well as

the students from being in an embarrassing silence. Although Irene showed agreement in getting the students to talk at least for one and a half minutes at the outset, the further

implementation demonstrated that some of the students simply could not meet the criterion, that is, the time requirement of 1.5 minutes. The real situation and Irene’s reflection of the situation enabled Irene to develop deeper understanding of teaching. Analysis of the data showed that most of the participants’ learning was triggered under team teachers’

continuous communication and the socially mediated activities. Since their peer teachers did not impose great tension or provide judgmental feedback, the participants’ teaching skills and knowledge of language teaching did not improve greatly.

Near the end of the research, the researcher conducted two separate interviews. One of them aims to elicit skills and knowledge, if any, the participants gain from team teaching (Appendix I). In addition to the question like what they gained most by working with a partner, the participants were also asked to talk about whether the experience was helpful in developing their lesson planning skills, instructional strategies, classroom management skills, language learning strategies and skills, and professional knowledge. However, after team teaching, the participants revealed that their teaching techniques and their knowledge as a foreign language teacher did not improve significantly. These results may be explained by considering the purpose of the GEPT courses under investigation. Take Andrea for example. When she was a college student in an educational college, she used to take some courses aiming to prepare prospective teachers to become a certified teacher at the primary level. With an eye to polish a prospective teacher’s teaching techniques, a mentor teacher would provide constructive comments on a student teacher’s teaching performance. At that time, she also had many chances to observe other classmates’ teaching demonstration and to exchange feedback as a complete observer. Almost every student was interested in knowing more about how he or she gave instructions during class, and the observer usually

had checklists to focus on how instructions were given throughout the lesson. Nonetheless, the majority of the students who took part in the GEPT courses under investigation were college students that were not students in elementary or senior high schools. What’s more, the courses were offered by the MA program and aimed to help undergraduates, graduates, or Ph.D candidates pass the GEPT. The purpose of the GEPT courses under investigation differed from that of the courses offered in Teacher Education Centers that intend to prepare certified teachers. As a result, the participants got used to having an observer in class but they rarely evaluated each other’s teaching skills or lesson plans.

5.2.5 Learning Goes Beyond the Team Unit

Results of the present study depicted the team teaching experiences as a confluence of partnership and individual ownership. Specifically speaking, there appeared to be a sense of collectivist perspective that occurred in collaborative teaching yet with personal gains and understanding. The preservice teachers were given opportunities to co-plan, co-teach and take equal responsibility. They remarked that their model of collaboration was a shared unit, not like the one implemented by their senior schoolmates as mentioned earlier. When lessons were planned or implemented, they offered and accepted each other’s feedback.

However, the ownership was nested in a co-teach relationship with their teaching partner.

Much to the researcher’s surprise, the inter-team sharing and communication expanded the idea of a team unit. This is also found to influence their professional development. For example, all the participants acknowledged the other group of team teachers as another significant source of their emotional and cognitive support. The four preservice teachers exchanged their opinions and ideas during their meetings and lunch breaks, and they worked as one tight-knit community. Teaching in the similar contexts, two groups of team teachers provided each other feedback which served as the dialogue

between individuals for assistance that might lead to internalized self-regulation. This

finding confirmed Vygotskian theory — in order for learning to become internalized, mediations must occur during the actual problem-solving and joint activity or shared task definition with other (Vygotsky, 1981).

However, the people who have impact on student teachers’ development were not restricted to those who were GEPT teachers. All the student teachers acknowledged participating in this study to be helpful in their professional growth because the process of writing reflective logs and answering interviews questions involved deep reflection and critical thinking of the team-teaching process. The present study supports the notion of reflective practice (Gomez & Tabachnick, 1992; Schön, 1982) since writing reflective logs was found to encourage the participants to reflect critically on their teaching. Analysis of the data also showed that participants benefited from the process of having the interviews in this study. In order to provide the researcher with more thorough responses, if the questions were not fully answered, they usually kept the questions in mind and found chances to keep the researcher informed. The process of contemplating on the interview questions helped the participants do more critical thinking in several aspects of their collaborative teaching.