teachers and student teachers of English in a Turkish context. The data they obtained from the interviews that they held at the post-teaching meetings, written retrospectives, and the questionnaire revealed that the findings are parallel to each other. They found that cooperating teachers and student teachers in their study were motivated by some different concerns and some shared concerns. While ‘timing’ was a major motive for student teachers to make changes in their plans, time shortage did not always urge cooperating teachers to make instant decisions about changing their plans. Concerning ‘classroom management’, student teachers were found to make instant decisions more often. This finding, they claim, is in line with what Johnson (1992) and Roberts (1998) have pointed out (i.e., novice teachers lack practical classroom management routines to keep pupils on task). Discipline problems were cooperating teachers’ frequent motive to make instant decisions, while student teachers were not active about dealing with disorder or misbehavior in the classroom. One reason for this, they suggest, could be the student teachers’ feeling that within the practice teaching experience the system did not allow them to have equal authority with the cooperating teachers, and what is more, the pupils that they taught were also aware of this fact. Student teachers and cooperating teachers were both concerned about motivating pupils when making instant decisions.
Similarly, developing pupils’ language skill was another motive that urged both groups of teachers equally. Student teachers often had to make instant decisions on the specific advice of the cooperating teacher who supervised them, while cooperating teachers, except for one case, did not really make changes in their lesson plans on their colleague’s advice. ‘Physical conditions’ affected both groups of teachers in their decisions. Similarly, both groups of teachers were frequently motivated by pupil expectations and modified their teaching activity according to pupils’ directions. These findings, they claim, strongly agree with the conclusions of earlier studies on the difficulties that preservice teachers have in general (e.g., Veenman, 1984; Johnson, 1992; Johnston, Rastoy, Holdaway, & Friesen, 1993). They believe that one suggestion to help student teachers get over these difficulties could be designing a language teacher education program with a ‘social constructivist approach’ (Roberts, 1998), where there would be tasks on collaborative awareness raising for student teachers. Also, dilemma-based cases can be used to gain insight into the reasoning ability of student teachers, as discussed in Harrington (1995). The findings also revealed that many instant decisions taken by the student teachers were due to the difficulties in student teacher and cooperating teacher relationships caused by organizational slippage.
Bass (2005) used a qualitative method to conduct a longitudinal case study analysis of faculty who developed and taught an interdepartmental, transdisciplinary, preservice early intervention course in teacher education. Multiple sources of data included student and faculty interviews, journal entries of students, course evaluations, faculty meeting notes, faculty written communications, and the researcher’s notes and reflections. The positive themes overcame the negatives or barriers: opportunity to be creative, positive outcomes, open communications, and a sense of fulfillment. Bass concludes that the strong commitment, even a passion for the course model and content, seems to have generated an internal self-sustaining support system for the team members, both professionally and personally.
Carless (2006) drew on interviews and classroom observations from three schemes in which native and non-native speaking English teachers had worked together as part of efforts to improve English language standards of school children. The three initiatives from which qualitative data were drawn were: the Japan Exchange and Teaching program (JET); the English Program in Korea (EPIK); and the Primary NET scheme in Hong Kong (PNET). Having analyzed the data, he found some challenges and positive outcomes as well. Team teaching between NESTs and non-NESTs carries the potential to draw on the complementary abilities of participants. The literature, however, exemplifies some of the difficulties of this form of intercultural team teaching. These challenges are not altogether surprising when one considers various salient factors: NESTs (native English speaking teachers) in JET and EPIK largely lacked ELT training and experience; partners had different backgrounds and native languages with NESTs often being unfamiliar with the host culture or language; there was not always sufficient training or support for participants related to team teaching; there was little or no flexibilities as to whether to participate in team teaching or in choosing partners; and team teaching was often not integrated effectively with the rest of the curriculum. Some of the positive outcomes of these collaborations are summarized below. Firstly, the student response to team teaching was largely reported to be positive, in terms of lively and enjoyable lessons, students having more opportunities to listen to and speak in English and cultural exposure to different nationalities. Secondly, the presence of two teachers in the classroom can allow co-teachers to provide more support for students and thereby group work becomes more practical. This can be particularly useful when classes are large or when there is a wide variety of abilities within a class. A third reported advantage was that co-teachers can demonstrate dialogues or question and answer routines. Fourthly, the two teachers can play to their strengths; as indicated earlier, the NEST in terms of English pronunciation, fluency or cultural knowledge, the non-NEST in terms of knowing the students’ background, mother tongue and common difficulties as well as familiarity with syllabi and examination systems.
Vasquez-Montilla et al. (2007) showcase a promising method for understanding the lived experiences of university co-teachers. Such qualitative studies can illuminate how collaborating professors work together to teach undergraduate teacher education courses. Their program was specifically designed to integrate concepts and skills from four diverse disciplines: teaching English to speakers of other languages, early childhood education, elementary education, and special education. Each member of the team of twelve, therefore, brought multiple perspectives on philosophy, pedagogy, and content knowledge as well as their individual personal styles of teaching. In addition to explicit modeling of team and co-teaching interactions across the content areas, the professors used other pedagogical strategies such as guided inquiry learning, field experiences, and action research processes. In reporting the impact of the collaborative processes, eleven of twelve faculty collaborators rated their perceptions of the teaming and co-teaching model in four areas: shared planning, teaching satisfaction, team interactions, and teaching effectiveness. These ratings were augmented with written responses to open-ended questions on planning, satisfaction, team interactions, and teaching effectiveness.
2.16. Quantitative studies on co-teaching
Many co-teaching practitioners have paid due attention to the investigation of the effect of different co-teaching models on various aspects of learners’ behaviors experimentally. Nowacek and Blanton (1996), for instance, in a quasi-experimental study analyzed the impact of a collaboratively taught methods course on the attitudes and knowledge of the students in pre-service teacher education programs. Responses to a videotaped vignette of a student with disabilities were collected from 27 pre-service teachers (17 in elementary education and 10 in special education) in the co-taught methods course (the experimental group) and 12 pre-service teachers in the course taught by a single instructor (the control group). Although there was no significant difference on the attitude scale, there were qualitative differences in the nature of responses to the videotaped vignette. Those in the experimental group emphasized lesson planning and instructional processes while those in the control group emphasized classroom management and instructional materials. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of identifying student characteristics (strengths and weaknesses); in fact, both groups emphasized weaknesses.
Collins et al. (1996) compared and contrasted the delivery of 5 courses offered via distance learning technology which showed different content and different configurations of collaborative teaching responsibilities. The models were evaluated by comparing grades between on- and off-campus student achievement and student evaluations of teaching. They found little evidence of discrepancies in grades between on-campus and off-campus students. Except for one single subject design class, there were no sizable discrepancies in the evaluations when comparing team- and single instructor taught distance learning courses. These results indicated that students viewed the courses as comparable in terms of course and teaching quality. Overall, Collins et al. (1996) provided an example of a quantitative study that linked professor behaviors (team vs. individual teaching) and student achievement for meeting course objectives as measured by grades (on- vs. off-campus categories)

دسته‌ها: No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید