T EAM - TEACHING

Team-teaching is one variation of co-teaching (Cook & Friend, 1996).

Co-teaching (Cook & Friend, 1996; Walther-Thomas, Brtant, & Land, 1996) is identified by a classroom with two or more teachers who share lesson planning, team-teaching practices, and evaluating responsibilities. Cook and Friend (1996) also described five variations of coteaching: one teaching/one assisting, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team-teaching. Co-teaching offers several important advantages for teachers, including increased support, the opportunity for on-going discussions about teaching, and experiences in learning how to collaborate to enhance technology competence in teaching and in practice (Bullough, Young, Birrell, & Clark, 2003; Jang, 2008; Eick & Dias, 2005). Co-teaching is also socially constructivist in nature, through social interactions in a community of practice (Jang, 2006a). Knowledge is collaboratively constructed between individuals, whence it can be appropriated by each individual (Vygotsky, 1978).

Team-teaching (Sandholtz, 2000; Welch & Sheridan, 1995) involves two or more teachers who share teaching experiences in the classroom, and having reflective dialoguing with each other (Jang, 2006b; Eick & Dias, 2005). Teachers together set goals for a course, design a syllabus, prepare individual lesson plans, teach students, and evaluate the results. They share insights, argue with one another, and perhaps even challenge students to decide which approach is better. Teams can be single-discipline, interdisciplinary, or school-within-a-school teams that meet with a common set of students over an extended period of time. New teachers may be paired with veteran teachers. Innovations are encouraged, and modifications in class size, location, and time are permitted. Different personalities, voices, values, and approaches spark interest, keep attention, and prevent boredom. The team teaching approach provides opportunities for teachers to work as a team, to exchange their knowledge and teaching experiences, and to retain their course domains (Jang, 2002). Team teaching gives teachers the opportunities to act on their ideas and reflect in and on their actions. Additionally, team teaching is increasingly identified as a key facilitator of a teacher’s professional growth (Jang, 2002;

Lieberman, 1995; Little, 1993).

From the perspective of activity, team-teaching provides teachers with a zone of proximal development, the interaction between them, and a new form of societal activity (Wertsch, 1984). The central purpose of dialoguing is to further develop the existing understanding of the teaching situation in order to enhance professional growth (Eick &

Dias, 2005; Roth, Tobin, Zimmermann, Bryant, & Davis, 2002; Tobin, Roth, &

Zimmermann, 2001). Communities of practice in team-teaching consist of practitioners at various levels of competence who identify with the shared practice of teaching (Wenger et al., 2002). This identity grows in practice through peripheral participation and increasing self-confidence and success in implementing their chosen practices (Eick,

Ware, & Williams, 2003; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993). As technical competence grows, they begin to demonstrate the professional knowledge for teaching that can only be learned in the context of authentic practice. Since team teachers teach together, interactions occur continually. Team teachers continually create material and social resources that allow for new forms of agency at subsequent moments. Such resources include physical as well as social spaces and meaning-making entities. Team teachers take advantage of these resources in synchronized and coordinated ways (Roth, Tobin, Carambo, & Dalland, 2005).

The benefits of team-teaching are that it offers multiple viewpoints for learning (Smith, Hornsby, & Kite, 2000), reduces redundancies (Hartenian, Schellenger, &

Frederickson, 2001), builds teamwork and communication (Andrews & Wooten, 2005), offers multiple styles (Helms et al, 2005), and creates interdisciplinary scholarship (Booth et al., 2003). Working as a team, teachers model respect for differences, interdependence, and conflict-resolution skills. Team members together set the course goals and content, select common materials such as texts and films, and develop tests and final examinations for all students. They set the sequence of topics and supplemental materials. They also give their own interpretations of the materials and use their own teaching styles. The greater the agreement on common objectives and interests, the more likely that teaching will be interdependent and coordinated.

Teamwork improves the quality of teaching as various experts approach the same topic from different angles: theory and practice, past and present, different genders or ethnic backgrounds. Teacher strengths are combined and weaknesses are remedied. Poor teachers can be observed, critiqued, and improved by the other team members in a non-threatening, supportive context. The evaluation done by a team of teachers will be more insightful and balanced than the introspection and self-evaluation of an individual

teacher. Working in teams spreads responsibility, encourages creativity, deepens friendships, and builds community among teachers. Teachers complement one another.

They share insights, propose new approaches, and challenge assumptions. They learn new perspectives and insights, and techniques and values from watching one another. The presence of another teacher reduces student-teacher personality problems. In an emergency, one team member can attend to the problem while the class goes on. Sharing in decision-making bolsters self-confidence. As teachers see the quality of teaching and learning improve, their self-esteem and happiness grow.

The negative consequences of team-teaching are content, relationship, identity, and process differences when interdependency sparks tension. Some teachers are rigid personality types or may be wedded to a single method. Some simply dislike the other teachers on the team. Some do not want to risk humiliation and discouragement at possible failures. Others are unwilling to share the spotlight or their pet ideas or to lose total control. Careful listening to team members’ perspectives is certainly a starting point for resolving conflict (Shapiro & Dempsey, 2008).

Although project-based learning is regarded highly as an effective educational innovation in this time of education reform, it is not readily accepted by all teachers in Taiwan. Although student-centered approaches are officially recommended, most teachers still employ teacher-led approaches in their teaching (Tse, Lam, Lam, & Loh, 2005, Saye & Brush, 2004). While the benefits of project-based learning for students remain to be seen, few would argue that a key factor contributing to its successful implementation in the local setting hinges on teacher motivation. Project-based learning will have a better chance to bring about the desired benefits for students if teachers have a strong motivation to experiment with, and improve it in the classroom. Abrami et al.

(2004) point out that an educational innovation often meets with a wide range of teacher

receptivity. Some teachers may apply the innovation with great enthusiasm and persistence until it becomes fully integrated into their teaching. However, some may never try the new teaching strategy or may return to their old teaching practice after only a few initial attempts. Lam, Yim and Lam (2002) also indicated that genuine collaboration among teachers in peer coaching could relieve teachers from psychological pressure because they had a sense of collective responsibility and shared ownership of the lesson. So we propose a team-teaching strategy that involves collaboration between the computer teacher and subject teachers to implement PBL in class (Chang & Lee, 2010).