Team Teaching Studies of Preparing Teacher Candidates

As discussed earlier, team teaching can vary in different forms. In the field of general

education, inter-disciplinary and multicultural education teams are flourishing because they are very effective in fostering “integrative thinking” (McDaniel & Colarulli, 1997, p. 19) and an appreciation of diversity. Having diverse team members who blend their own different disciplinary or cultural perspectives is eye-opening for many learners and for teachers themselves. In the field of TESOL, content-based language teaching and English for Specific Purposes approaches are also being widely adopted. This teaching mode calls for the collaboration between language teachers and colleagues in the subject-area

disciplines. With regard to research conducted in East Asian countries, there has been significant discourse recently on the subject of collaboration which pertains to

“intercultural team teaching” (Carless, 2006), that is, coursework team-taught by in-service local and foreign language teachers at different levels (e.g., Carless, 2002, 2004; Chen,

2008; Lai, 1999; Sturman, 1992; Tajino & Tajino, 2000; Tsai, 2007). This line of study puts more emphasis on investigating the impact of team teaching on in-service teachers’

on-going professional development.

In the current study, however, the participating teachers share the same cultural and language background, pursuing their MA degrees together in one TESOL program.

Specifically, the learning-to-teach experience of the TEFL student teachers involves significant contextual, biographical, academic, and cognitive factors affecting her

development (Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Freeman & Richards, 1996; Richards & Nunan, 1990), which may differ in different team-teaching contexts (e.g., inter-disciplinary and multicultural education). Consequently, several studies undertaken in collaboration among pre-service teachers or student teachers were chosen to be reviewed here because of the similar nature of collaborative relationship (i.e., collaboration among peer teachers) between the reviewed studies and the present.

Over the last two decades, research on teaching has shown that effective practice of collaborative teaching is linked to inquiry, reflection and continuous professional growth and development. Several researchers have studied collaborative teaching in teacher education from varying perspectives including “pair-teaching placements” (Smith, 2004),

“peer mentoring” (Forbes, 2004), “critical partnerships” (Parsons & Stephenson, 2005),

“peer coaching” (Goker, 2006); each study is discussed below.

Collaboration among teachers has long been advocated to the professional

development of prospective teachers. Among the alternative models of field experience being explored, Smith (2004) conducted a three-year action research program that intended to provide trainee teachers with peer support in planning and carrying out class teaching.

Framed along the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and the associated notion of scaffolding, the study created a hierarchy of a lead trainee-teacher and a back-up

trainee-teacher, which formalized turn-taking while teaching, and included provision for each teacher to enact both roles. In this model, the lead teacher planned the lessons and the mentor teacher, rather than the peer teacher, gave feedback. Meanwhile, the back-up teacher functioned as an aide under the assumption that by observing the lead teacher, some benefits would be gained. The results from this study revealed that the pairs were not supposed to engage in discussion of teaching and each desired critical feedback from their peer. Though the model in this study limited opportunities for engagement, trainee-teachers reported favorably on the extra support that the paired placement provided. An unexpected benefit was that the trainee-teachers valued the opportunities to learn from watching their partner teach. Most interestingly, the learning from observing peer-teachers’ teaching was reported as being easier than that from more highly-skilled class-teachers. As Smith (2004) comments, “peer-scaffolding provided by the presence of another trainee-teacher is of a different nature in that it is (a) less intimidating because it is less authoritative and (b) unconnected with the assessment of teaching competence and (c) such support is also of different nature in that, as Martine said, pupils often act differently when the class-teacher is in the room” (p.111).

Another form of peer collaboration is “peer mentoring” which involves pairs of teachers observing one another's teaching, engaging in a reciprocal relationship of sharing observations and feedback, and working cooperatively to confront issues outside the classroom context and address technical aspects of their professional roles (Forbes, 2004, p.220). Grounded in the concept that collaboration must occur in a non-threatening, non-evaluative environment, Forbes (2004) examined the effectiveness of peer mentoring on the professional growth of three early-career science teachers over one academic year.

The data sources include interviews with the participants at the beginning and the end of the academic year as well as the participants’ reflective journals kept for the primary

purpose of reflecting upon the lesson they have taught and insights gained from the observing teachers and lesson they have observed. The results suggested that through collaboration with peers, early-career science teachers report increased proficiency in four domains, especially in respect to issues commonly cited as challenges to new teachers in general, and beginning science teachers particularly. The participants reported gaining insight in the four domains related to curriculum structure, managing the classroom environment and student behavior, instructional strategies, and negotiating relationships with various stakeholders as part of their professional responsibilities. Additionally, when asked whether peer mentoring served as a support and development mechanism, the participants in this study reported a high level of emotional fulfillment in their

collaboration and suggested that the interactions were at no point confrontational or tense.

Participation in the project eased their anxiety associated with working as early-career science teachers and each reported a strong willingness to participate in peer mentoring again (p.234).

Following the same vein, Parsons and Stephenson’s (2005) investigate the

effectiveness of collaborative interactions with peers and experienced colleagues. Based upon the premise that group activities can allow students to share their knowledge about their cognition and the opportunity of seeing experts reflecting on what he/she is doing and how well it has been done, student teachers are placed in a shared practicum in which they work in close collaboration with a crucial partner from their peer group and a member of school staff. Since the aim of the collaboration in this study is to enable deeper thinking about practice in an atmosphere of supportive and constructive but honest feedback, the placement included structured tasks to give focus to the reflection. That is, on completion of the placement, a sample of students and the teachers with whom they had worked completed questionnaires in which they were asked to respond to questions about the

collaborative nature of the placement, the role of the tasks and the nature of the

partnerships(s) which developed. The analysis of the responses showed that the design of the placement had encouraged students to consider a range of aspects of their practice and that the partnership with peers and experienced colleagues had enabled them to gain more understanding of their teaching. Nonetheless, some reservations about the collaborative nature of the placement were also expressed; students were concerned about difficulties in establishing a working relationship with their partner, whilst teachers were concerned about equity within the critical partnership. Also, insufficient data relating to the students’

use of theoretical knowledge in reflection means that no claims can be made in respect to the influence of such knowledge on their practice. According to the results yielded in Parsons and Stephenson’s (2005) investigation, it is noteworthy that placing two students in a collaborative community but structuring interaction through scripted discussion guides may have prevented practicum teachers from entering into honest dialogue about their practice and development. This therefore promoted Parsons and Stephenson (2005) to suggest that future research focus less on structured tasks and more on the collaborative interaction.

In an attempt to test whether TEFL student teachers trained using a peer coaching training program after teaching practicum sessions will demonstrate greater improvement on instructional skills and self-efficacy, Goker (2006) performed an experiment involving 32 student teachers from English language teaching department of a European university who were doing their practicum teaching as part of the teacher education requirement. The participants were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group, randomly placed in two high schools, and assigned cooperating teachers within the schools. During their regular Teaching Practicum course, the experimental group assigned in pairs to the same high school and elementary classroom where they, along with a cooperating teacher,

observed each other teaching for the experimental condition. The peer coach maintained notes that included entries for demonstrations of clarity skills. Peers used the notes in the post-conferences that were held immediately after each lesson. On the other hand, the control group was assigned to classroom individually, rather than in pairs. Using Bandura's (1995) General Self-Efficacy Scale, Goker found that although pretest mean score

differences for the two groups were not statistically significant for any of the variables, post-treatment results showed statistical significance in favor of the experimental group for all variables. These variables measured include self-efficacy items in relation to, for

instance, the ability to deal with unforeseen situations, to remain clam when facing teaching difficulties, to resolve problems, and to accomplish one’s teaching goals (p.248).

In regard to instructional (clarity) skills variables, between-group mean score comparisons at post-assessment indicated statistical significance in favor of the experimental group (F(1, 30) = 255.40, p<.001).

2.2.5 Interim Summary

This section has reviewed literature related to a general description of team teaching in general education as well as in foreign and second language education. It also provides an overview of the advantages of team teaching which can be combined together to

promote the improvement of student teachers' practice. Following the benefits identified in collaborative teaching, several crucial issues which may undermine the effectiveness of team teaching are discussed. Finally, the four studies associated with the student teachers’

team-teaching experience are also reviewed.

To summarize, it is clear that teaching partnership can function in different ways based upon the studies discussed above. For many years now, collaboration among teachers in the field of TESOL has been trumpeted, but few actually do it (Stewart et al.,

2005). Framed in the constructivist view on language teachers’ education, the current study intends to investigate how TEFL student teachers grow through their team teaching

experience in one national university located in western Taiwan. It is hoped that such investigation will lead a better understanding of how student teachers of team teaching cope with the demands in their learning-to-teach process, and will elucidate their

professional growth, if any, in a collaborative partnership. For the objectives to be achieved, research methodology is presented next.

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY

This chapter is devoted to a description of the research design and methods of the current study. The first section focuses on rationale of the research design. After which descriptions of teaching setting and participants is presented, followed by data collection methods and procedures with descriptions of the implementation of each method. Finally, data analysis, role of the researcher, and trustworthiness of the study are elaborated.

3.1 Rationale of the Research Design

The primary goals, as introduced at the outset, are (1) to explore the team-teaching experiences of TEFL student teachers in Taiwan and (2) to illuminate team teachers’

professional growth, if any, in a collaborative-teaching relationship. To address the two main questions, the researcher employs a qualitative approach because the aim of this study is to discuss and understand the meaning TEFL student teachers have constructed from the team-teaching experiences. The purpose fits the philosophical assumption of qualitative research, “…the view that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds” (Merriam, 1998, p.6). Additionally, given the great complexity

involved in the process of TEFL student teachers’ learning to teach, qualitative methods have recently gained wider acceptance in L2 research as they “allow for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and second language teachers’ lived experiences”

(Vélez-Rendón, 2002, p.457).

Aiming to provide more valid and convincing evidence, the study adopts a qualitative case study design. The reasons for adopting a case study design are as follows. The first

lies within its usefulness for allowing the researcher to focus on individuals in a way that is hardly possible in group research (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.172). In order to more clearly understand how and why student teachers’ professional lives evolve in a collaborative -teaching relationship, this study aims to provide careful and detailed descriptions of specific student teachers within their particular teaching setting in as much detail as possible. This approach is opposed to quantitative studies which use a large group of participants with the goal of generalization to a larger population. Secondly, as Mackey and Gass (2005) report, “case studies can be conducted with more than one individual learner or more than one existing group of learners for the purpose of comparing and contrasting their behaviors within their particular context” (p.172). Consequently, employing a case study design has the potential for rich contextualization that can shed light on the potential similarities and differences of each student teacher’s interpretation of particular phenomena and lived experiences gained from team teaching. Finally,

determining when to use case studies depends upon the nature of the research problem and the questions being proposed, particularly when a study aims to investigate complex social units consisting of multiple variables of potential importance in order to understand a phenomenon (Merriam, 1998, p.41). Because of the rich data it is capable of providing (Yin, 2003), a case study design is the best candidate for learning about complicated teaching contexts where numerous factors come into play during personal teaching practices.

Given the merits outlined above, this research utilizes a qualitative case study approach and a variety of qualitative research methods in order to portray TEFL student teachers’ collaborative experiences and understand whether engaging in team teaching influences TEFL student teachers’ professional growth. Prior to a detailed description of each method, teaching site and participant selection will be presented next.

3.2 Research Sites and Participants

3.2.1 Team-Teaching Contexts

The teaching contexts under the current investigation are two GEPT classes: one Speaking Class and one Writing Class. Each class will be conducted collaboratively by two team teachers. Determined by the TESOL graduate institute, the maximum student number of each class is thirty. According to the description of previous GEPT teachers, the

majority of the students who took part in GEPT courses come from different disciplines.

For example, many of them are from the field of Electronical and Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Biological Science and Technology, as well as Management. Students’

motivations of attending GEPT classes generally include preparing for GEPT and improving English communication ability.

3.2.2 Participant Selection

After September 2008, the researcher started to seek potential participants who plan to teach GEPT Class with a partner in the following spring semester. After passing a notice (see Appendix A), for the purpose of informing the potential participants about the research project, to all the 1^st-year graduate students via e-mail on November 11^th , the researcher received responses from the two potential participants (Lynn and Irene ) who plan to form a teaching team the following term and are interested in participating in the current study.

The researcher then began to contact Lynn and Irene via e-mail and in person in the following three months, providing full information about the research and answering any concerns they might have. The following three months flew by, and soon the new semester began. In that semester, the researcher took a course offered in this MA program together with her classmates and all the 1^st-year schoolmates. In mid-March of 2009, occasionally

the researcher received the news from Lynn and Irene that another two 1^st-year students were also planning to conduct GEPT classes. Two days later, when the researcher attended the regular class meeting, she approached to her potential participants (Andrea and Nadya), sincerely inquiring their willingness to participate in this study. To the researcher’s surprise, Andrea and Nadya kindly agreed to participate in this project. Having received their

permission and commitment, the researcher started to explain the research project, asking all the participants to carefully read through and sign the informed consent (Appendix B) before the investigation began.

The MA program in TESOL under investigation was first established in 2003 as a division of Graduate Institute of Linguistics and Cultural Studies. Two years later, in 2005, it became one of the few TESOL graduate institutes in Taiwan. With regard to the

requirements for the MA degree in TESOL, MA thesis and a minimum coursework of 29 credits are required. Of the 29 credits, 4 required courses (11 credits) and at least 6 optional electives (18 credits) (see Appendix C for the courses offered in this TESOL graduate institute). In the first year of studying in the graduate program, student teachers took courses including TESOL Methodology, Sociolinguistics, Research Methodology, CALL, Teaching Speaking & Listening: Theory & Practice, and Thesis Writing.

In addition to course requirements, minimum 100 score on TOEFL iBT is also required as a threshold of graduation. It is worthy to note that this MA program in TESOL does not require any graduate’s practice teaching as part of its program requirements.

Student teachers studying in this TESOL graduate institute are encouraged to practice teaching GEPT courses on a voluntary basis, but not a partial fulfillment of an MA degree in TESOL. Students who graduate from the program can choose to become English teachers in elementary schools or high schools in the future, if they also complete the Teacher Education requirements and have a teaching certificate. Aiming to become

certified EFL teachers at the secondary level, all the participants have started to take courses offered in Teacher Education Center since the first year of their graduate study in order to fulfill the secondary English teacher certificate requirements. Requirements for the secondary English teacher certificate include a total of 26 degrees in courses related to the foundation of education, for instance, Educational Psychology, Educational Sociology, Testing and Assessment, Classroom Management, Instructional Media and Operations, and Subject-related Teaching Materials and Methods (English). In addition to a wide variety of classroom-based courses, teacher candidates need to fulfill their practicum requirement in the field after completing all the course degrees on campus (see Appendix D for more details).

The participating teachers and the researcher were acquainted with each other at the outset, having taken several on-campus courses together, both in the TESOL graduate institute and in the Teacher Education Center. To provide readers with a grasp of

participants’ personal profiles, student teachers’ background information noted above was briefly summarize in Table 2 (see page 44). For the sake of research ethics, pseudonyms will be used to maintain anonymity throughout the thesis.

3.3 Data Collection Methods and Procedures

Data collection was 5 weeks in duration. General description of data collection procedures is presented in Table 3 (see page 45). This study employed triangulation of different methods, in which multiple sources of data are gathered to investigate same issue.

The data were collected from (1) a background information interview, (2) open-ended questionnaire, (3) semi-structured follow-up interviews after the open-ended questionnaire, (4) teacher’s reflective logs, (5) classroom observations, (6) informal interviews, (7) field

notes and researcher journal, and (8) relevant documents. Each is separately elaborated

notes and researcher journal, and (8) relevant documents. Each is separately elaborated