Research focused on teachers

Team teachers, both FETs and LETs, have attracted the most attention from researchers in Taiwan, and the focus of research contains how team teaching projects have contributed to team teachers’ professional development and what issues related to team teachers have emerged from the implementation of the projects. As most studies have suggested, such EFL team teaching has benefited team teachers

tremendously, especially contributing to their professional growth (H. Chen, 2009; W.

Chen, 2008). Five LETs in H. Chen’s (2009) study noted their progress from the experience of working with FETs on the ability to diversify teaching activities,

obtaining of multiple perspectives toward classroom management, self-reflection, and the most important of all, English oral ability. W. Chen (2008) also showed how the process of team teaching benefited not only LETs, but also FETs. After investigating four groups of team teachers in Hsinchu, W. Chen’s finding suggested that the program facilitated the FETs’ teaching skills, classroom management strategies, and their understanding about Taiwanese culture.

Nevertheless, studies have also demonstrated various challenges faced by team teachers, among which different beliefs and problematic communication between team teachers appeared to be the most commonly identified themes in the literature (e.g. Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009; Hsu, 2006; Luo, 2007; Luo, 2013; S. Chen, 2009),

17

as reviewed in the following two sections.

2.1.3.2.3.1 Different beliefs

In terms of different beliefs, team teachers have different opinions about what team teaching program is and what kind of roles FETs and LETs should play. The first type of disagreement from FETs and LETs is their non concordant beliefs and

expectations about “EFL team teaching” or even their own teaching philosophy. S.

Chen (2009) found that FETs and LETs tended to have different opinions on nine items of team teaching beliefs, including definition of team teaching, teacher’s role, preferred classroom dynamics, teaching styles, pedagogy preference, purpose of evaluation, attitudes towards work, speech style, and social preference (see Table 2.3).

Chiang (2006), by interviewing one FET and one LET about their beliefs of team teaching, also found that while the FET treated the team teaching classes simply as jobs to be finished, the LETs intended to bring about more effects out of EFL team teaching. The LET hoped that students could be motivated to learn English, gain an international perspective, respect various cultures, and use English in a more authentic way after receiving instruction from FETs; in addition, the LET also expected their teaching skills, teamwork ability, and English proficiency could be improved as well via participating in the team teaching project. From Chiang’s research, it could be inferred that the LET set higher goals and had a lot more expectations for team teaching than the FET counterpart. When having dissimilar expectations of what they can fulfill of the job, LETs and FETs may be likely to encounter disagreements, if not arguments.

18

Table 2.3

Different views between FETs and LETs on nine team teaching beliefs from S. Chen’s study

Team teaching beliefs FETs LETs

1. Definition of team teaching Actively collaborate with each other

9. Social preference Professional

relationship Personal relationship

In addition to the difference between FETs and LETs in their beliefs for team teaching, another mismatch of thinking is that different team teaching groups in EFL team teaching projects in Taiwan have different perceptions about the roles of FETs and LETs. In other words, there is not yet a reached consensus about the roles of FETs and LETs among the schools conducting EFL team teaching. Unlike the JET Program in Japan which specifically addresses the role of FETs as “Assistant Language

Teachers⁵”, team teaching programs in Taiwan do not specifically prescribe the expected roles of both FETs and LETs yet. Some teams were observed endowing FETs a more important role and let classes be dominated by FETs (e.g. Chiang, 2006;

H. Chen, 2009; Luo, 2007). However, for other teams, LETs were given more power and classes were LET-dominated (e.g. H. Chen, 2009; Hsu, 2006). Thus, uncertain and unsecure feelings were often experienced by the teachers in EFL team teaching

5 The name is used on the official website of JET Program. http://www.jetprogramme.org/index.html

19

projects in Taiwan (H. Chen, 2009).

The different role perceptions between FETs and LETs are also captured in Hsu’s (2006) study, in which twelve roles played by four FETs and four LETs were

identified, i.e., silence, manager, initiator, model, classroom monitor, demonstrator, grammar translator, co-presenter, English instructor, half-group teacher, teacher assistant, and one-on-one tutor. Obvious differences between various teams were found. In some of the teams, the FETs tended to play only demonstrator or teacher assistant and the classes were dominated by the LETs while FETs only demonstrated the pronunciation of vocabulary; in other teams, the FETs played more roles and the classes were more equally dominated by both parties. The fact that the different types of roles these four pairs of teachers had played illustrates their inconsistent

recognitions of the responsibilities and duties of FETs and LETs. In line with this, Chiang’s (2006) study also presented the frustration that the LET had gone through because of the equivocal or unequal status between the team teachers. Similarly, research from H. Chen (2009) pointed out that the five participants in her study from different teams, though all LETs, had dissonant perceptions of the roles they should play in the team teaching program. The five LETs all made a reference to the bewilderment they experienced due to the unclear role and job description of FETs.One thing worth noting is that the above studies have put more emphasis on exploring the perspective of LETs, leaving FETs’ perceptions of team teachers’ roles and responsibilities relatively unexplored.

2.1.3.2.3.2 Problematic communication

The second critical challenge for LETs and FETs is communication between them. Previous studies have shown that effective team teaching usually results from

20

smooth communication between team teachers (Hsu, 2006; S. Chen, 2009).

Nonetheless, the chance of developing satisfying communication is quite scarce.

Research has repeatedly pointed out the scarcity of interaction between FETs and LETs no matter in or after class. Chiang (2006) observed little interaction between the FET and the LET in class from her research. Coupled with this finding, Luo found (2007, 2013) that there was a lack of conversation between co-teachers in class, and the FETs seldom really co-teach with the LETs, for sometimes there could be up to the amount of eighteen Taiwanese teachers for them to collaborate with. In the program, FETs had different Taiwanese partners in various classes, and some of them were even not English teachers but homeroom teachers whose English ability was limited. Hence, it was a burden for the FETs to establish a satisfactory relationship with each partner. Even after class, little communication was discovered. In Chiang’s (2006) study, the FET admitted that he indeed had little interaction with the LET no matter inside or outside of classroom, and from the researcher’s observation, their interaction after class occurred merely during the meeting.

Aside from lacking communication, for team teachers that did interact with each other, their communication was not free of any problems. In Hsu’s (2006) study, two teams could be described by the statement “lack of clear communication between the two team teachers” (pp. 101-102), and sometimes the team teachers could not

successfully get their ideas across to their co-teachers. In addition, some team teachers had frustrating conversations with their partners. Some LETs commented that their opinions were usually not accepted by FETs, and it was a great challenge for them to persuade their foreign fellow teachers, who were often opinionated and refuse to change their views (Luo, 2007; S. Chen, 2009). There were also voices from FETs that the indirect way of communication from their LETs often led them to confusion, while the LETs complained that the direct communication style of the FETs often hurt

21

their feelings (S. Chen, 2009).

Along with the above findings were possible key factors that hinder the

communication among team teachers. The one most frequently mentioned in previous studies was the English proficiency of LETs (e.g. Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009; Hsu, 2006; Luo, 2007; S. Chen, 2006). Furthermore, this factor was usually proposed by LETs themselves, who were less confident because of their non-native speakers’ role, and blamed themselves as the main reason of the communication breakdown. The second factor, also derived from LETs’ point of view, concerned the professional knowledge and experiences of FETs (e.g. Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009; Luo, 2007; S.

Chen, 2009). Not only as a novice in a new culture, but FETs often had no training or teaching experiences regarding foreign language teaching or primary education. Due to this imbalanced background knowledge, LETs and FETs sometimes failed to reach successful communication. The third influential factor was the personality or attitude of team teachers (e.g. Chiang, 2006; Hsu, 2006; Luo, 2007; S. Chen, 2009). Team teachers believed that each individual had his or her own disposition, which in turn will influence their communication. Under this belief, adaptability, flexibility, passion, and open-mindedness all played a role in how successful their communication is.

“Humility,” i.e., being humble and respectful for others, was especially mentioned by many LETs as a key factor that influence the successfulness of team teachers’

communication (S. Chen, 2009). The fourth factor was the opaque and unequal roles for FETs and LETs (Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009), which has been discussed in the last section. The uncertainty of each others’ positions also resulted in

miscommunication between team teachers. The fifth factor was the high attrition rate of FETs in the team teaching programs. Not willing to stay for a longer period of time, FETs usually changed their jobs as soon as their contracts had come to termination.

What it meant for LETs was that they had to adapt to the working style of a new FET

22

partner every school year, or even every month in the worst scenario. It was not easy for them to establish satisfying relationship and communication with FETs under the fact that they did not have enough time to know each other (Chiang, 2006; H. Chen, 2009). The sixth factor was related to culture, either cultural differences between team teachers or team teachers’ intercultural ability (H. Chen, 2009; S. Chen, 2009). The incongruent speech styles, more direct from the cultures of FETs and more indirect from Taiwanese culture, often led to misunderstanding between team teachers. These six factors from literature evidently explain the communication breakdown between FETs and LETs, and the reasons for the miscommunication identified in previous studies.

From the empirical studies reviewed in the preceding sections, it is clear that culture has exerted its influence on both challenges faced by team teachers, i.e., different beliefs and unsuccessful communication. With respect to the former challenge, it can be inferred that FETs and LETs, who were from different cultural backgrounds, tended to have different teaching beliefs and perceive their roles differently. The latter challenge has also shown how different cultural conventions of speech style resulted in the communication breakdown between FETs and LETs.

Although the role of culture was frequently mentioned in previous team teaching studies, only few team teaching studies focused on exploring the role of culture. In fact, only two studies focus on exploring the relationship between culture and

communication in team teaching programs (H. Chen, 2009; S. Chen, 2009). Findings from S. Chen’s study (2009) pointed out the importance of FETs and LETs’

intercultural competence, which would decide the successfulness of a team. S. Chen further renamed the term “EFL team teaching” as “intercultural team teaching” (P.

182), to emphasize how FETs and LETs’ intercultural competence critically

influenced a team teaching program. Another study by H. Chen (2009) explored the

23

cross-cultural communication between FETs and students. Though clear examples of breakdown resulted from cultural differences between FETs and students were not found by the author in this study, this result cannot be generalized to communication between FETs and LETs. Unlike students with limited English ability, LETs should be able to converse with FETs more frequently, and the communication would not be restricted only in class time when conversation is usually dominated by teachers, or FETs. Hence, observations regarding communication between FETs and LETs both in and after class should be able to provide useful data for exploring the role of culture in team teaching program.

Since culture is proved as a source of the challenges for team teachers and since there are few studies exploring the influence of culture on team teaching program, more research efforts should be devoted to exploring the role of culture in

determining the successfulness of cross-cultural communication between FETs and LETs.