View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Measuring Learners' Perceptions of a Team-Taught Learning Environment: Development and Validation of the Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ)

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Measuring Learners' Perceptions of a Team-Taught Learning Environment: Development and Validation of the Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ)
Language: English
Authors: Simons, Mathea (ORCID 0000-0002-9239-9324), Coetzee, Stephen, Baeten, Marlies, Schmulian, Astrid
Source: Learning Environments Research. Apr 2020 23(1):45-58.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Team Teaching, Teacher Collaboration, Test Construction, Student Attitudes, Program Effectiveness, Secondary School Students, College Students, Test Validity, Test Reliability, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: South Africa, Belgium
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-019-09290-1
ISSN: 1387-1579
Abstract: Team teaching is a teaching model in which teachers work collaboratively in the preparation, teaching and evaluation of a course. Literature suggests that team teaching potentially provides rich and varied lessons, increased support and learning gains. However, team teaching possibly also could cause some confusion. To support the implementation of team teaching, stakeholders (teachers and policy makers) require an instrument that offers insights to support their decision making. The present study describes the development and validation of an easy-to-use questionnaire to explore learners' perceptions of team teaching. The questionnaire was developed and validated in four stages: an extensive literature review (1) resulted in a preliminary version of the questionnaire (2) containing advantages and disadvantages for learners of team teaching. Next, a pilot study (3) was conducted, followed by a validation study (4) based on confirmatory factor analysis in two different learning environments of secondary education (Belgium, n = 229 pupils) and higher education (South Africa, n = 350 students). The final questionnaire comprises 16 items and four factors and appears to be valid, internally consistent and reliable.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1247864
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHLY7My82w6Rbd3bT-wcVqNAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGreViG_K70TtEmfdgIBEICBm9ez_wY-_4bhX87kMFE8ZoBKpn5DzyIqg2ErvSU3nWN9OC2VdDL6Ac0Z6vnLP1BMjVm9PqflCZZqOBfoIgfR3bs5ljCapT134hkYvxnLDQIVaaPkm5XcidlOBYDZ6dys0KV95ja_3dxt8BY0sSdrpFePnElVNSd-FqNGvUyMg4liESagT03sij6LavOkc6tL0HsuGt8GwHZW6QiH
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0142316702;oje01apr.20;2020Mar20.05:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0142316702-1">Measuring learners' perceptions of a team-taught learning environment: development and validation of the Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ) </title> <p>Team teaching is a teaching model in which teachers work collaboratively in the preparation, teaching and evaluation of a course. Literature suggests that team teaching potentially provides rich and varied lessons, increased support and learning gains. However, team teaching possibly also could cause some confusion. To support the implementation of team teaching, stakeholders (teachers and policy makers) require an instrument that offers insights to support their decision making. The present study describes the development and validation of an easy-to-use questionnaire to explore learners' perceptions of team teaching. The questionnaire was developed and validated in four stages: an extensive literature review (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) resulted in a preliminary version of the questionnaire (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) containing advantages and disadvantages for learners of team teaching. Next, a pilot study (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) was conducted, followed by a validation study (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) based on confirmatory factor analysis in two different learning environments of secondary education (Belgium, n = 229 pupils) and higher education (South Africa, n = 350 students). The final questionnaire comprises 16 items and four factors and appears to be valid, internally consistent and reliable.</p> <p>Keywords: Learners' perceptions; Questionnaire development; Questionnaire validation; Team teaching</p> <hd id="AN0142316702-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Education continues to be characterised by learning environments where individual teachers take sole responsibility for their classes (Deneire et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref5">16</reflink>]; Struyf et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref6">42</reflink>]; Vanblaere and Devos [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref7">46</reflink>]) with little or no cooperation with other teachers. This isolation of teachers could impair learning opportunities for both teachers and their learners (i.e. pupils, students or trainee teachers) (Deneire et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]). Education institutions, including schools (both primary and secondary) and higher-education institutions, therefore, are seeking teaching models in which teachers are more committed to collaborating, sharing expertise and experiences, supporting each other, learning collaboratively and enhancing their own competencies (Millis [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref9">32</reflink>]; Musanti and Pence [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]; Solis et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]). These collaborative models can enhance the learning environment by assisting teachers in responding better to learners' needs through, for example, differentiated instruction, and potentially result in improved learning outcomes (Sorensen [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Team teaching is a collaborative teaching model that refers to two or more teachers working together in some level of collaboration in the planning, delivery and/or evaluation of a course (Baeten and Simons [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]; Carpenter et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]; Dugan and Letterman [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]; Welch [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref16">47</reflink>]). Co-teaching, collaborative teaching and cooperative teaching are sometimes used synonymously with team teaching. Team teaching, however, refers to collaboration between teachers in order to provide good education to <emph>all</emph> learners, while the other concepts (e.g. co-teaching) in some instances might be more narrowly defined to refer to collaboration of a (general) teacher with a special education teacher in order to help specific learners with specific educational needs (Cook and Friend [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]; Kamens [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]; Mastropieri and Scruggs [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]). Team teaching, as a broader concept, refers to collaboration by two or more teachers, in all possible subjects, from one specific grade or between several grades and can include collaboration, such as that between a (general) teacher and a special education teacher, a clinical teacher and a student teacher, two student teachers, a student teacher and a teacher trainer, etc.</p> <p>Globally, five models, which differ from one another in the extent of collaboration between the teachers, can be distinguished (Baeten and Simons [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>) the observation model, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>) the coaching model, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>) the assistant teaching model, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>) the equal status model and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>) the teaming model (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Team teaching models</p> <p>In the observation and coaching models, collaboration is limited because one teacher has full responsibility while the other teacher observes (Badiali and Titus [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]; Graziano and Navarette [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref27">26</reflink>]) or coaches (Austin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>]; Nevin et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref29">35</reflink>]). A higher level of collaboration is evident in the assistant teaching model, in which one teacher has the main responsibility, but is assisted by another teacher who provides support to the learners, uses media, etc. (Badiali and Titus [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]; Thousand et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref31">43</reflink>]). Several teaching formats are possible in the equal status model: teachers split up the class group (parallel teaching) (Thousand et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]), they divide the learning content or activities (sequential teaching) (Dugan and Letterman [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]; Helms et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]) or they split up the learning content or activities as well as the class group, so that both teachers, with the same status and responsibilities, teach specific content or activities to a subgroup of learners (station teaching) (Akerson and Montgomery [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>]; Cook and Friend [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]; Badiali and Titus [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>]). Finally, in the teaming model, both teachers fully work together during the preparation, the delivery and the evaluation of the lessons. The learning environment is characterized by both teachers being present in class and actively involved in teaching, with extensive interaction and dialogue between them (Badiali and Titus [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>]; Helms et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref39">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research on team teaching shows that it offers several benefits to both teachers and learners. Teachers share and strengthen their own and each other's expertise (Bronson and Dentith [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>]; Carless [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]); they work in a less isolated way (Chanmugan and Gerlach [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]; Murata [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]); and they are presented with more learning opportunities and can grow on a professional and personal level (Baeten and Simons [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>]; Chanmugan and Gerlach [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]). Additionally, together they are more able to facilitate learning in bigger class groups (Bronson and Dentith [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]; Graue et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref47">25</reflink>]). Team teaching, however, can have some possible disadvantages for teachers, such as a higher workload and incompatibility between colleagues (Gardiner and Robinson [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]; Nokes et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref49">36</reflink>]; Tobin et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref50">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a team teaching environment, learners learn by interacting and collaborating with their teachers and each other and by observing their teacher team's interactions (Topping [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref51">45</reflink>]). The learning experience becomes richer when they are confronted by multiple teaching styles and perspectives on the course material (Nokes et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref52">36</reflink>]; Tobin et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref53">44</reflink>]). Moreover, when an additional teacher is present in class, learners receive quicker assistance (Gardiner [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>]) support, and more individual attention (Birrell and Bullough [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>]). However, learners can become confused when faced with more than one teacher in class, particularly when they give differing instructions and responses to the same question (Baeten and Simons [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]). Confusion is the most reported disadvantage in the literature (Bullough et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref57">9</reflink>]; Goodnough et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref58">24</reflink>]; Kamens [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]; Nokes et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref60">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>When implementing new teaching models, it is important to consider the perspective of all actors involved, including the learners, not only to provide insight into approaches to learning but also into learning outcomes. To date, the literature on team teaching has primarily focused on the teacher's perspective rather than the learners' perspective. When the latter perspective is considered, it is usually measured indirectly, via the teachers' perceptions (e.g. Smith [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref61">39</reflink>]; Sorensen [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref62">41</reflink>]). While it is important to gain an understanding of the potential advantages and disadvantages of team teaching from the teacher's perspective, an instrument is needed that can be used to monitor the team teaching process from the perspective of the learners as key actors in the learning environment. If learners perceive team teaching as being negative, this might function as a filter (Pajares [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref63">37</reflink>]) and complicate their acceptance of the teaching model (Keefe et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref64">30</reflink>]), which could impair their learning and their learning outcomes (Entwistle [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]; Zeegers [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref66">48</reflink>]). An instrument to evaluate team teaching can provide teachers and policy makers with valuable insights to support their decision about whether to adopt or continue team teaching. Further, it could be a useful tool for teachers to evaluate learning experiences facilitated by team teaching in class. Teachers who experiment with different models of team teaching (observation model, coaching model, etc.) can use the instrument to determine which model is most suitable for their learners and for the specific topic.</p> <p>Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an easy-to-use instrument to measure learners' perceptions in a team-taught learning environment. The instrument is likely to be suitable for use in various learning settings (primary, secondary, higher and adult education; regular and special education) and, therefore, was validated in different learning environments. In the present study, we focused on secondary and higher education and validated the instruments in two countries (Belgium and South Africa). Future researchers could consider other learning environments. An additional objective of this study was to further explore the advantages and disadvantages perceived by learners in order to provide further illumination of the possible benefits and challenges of team teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0142316702-3">Methods</hd> <p>The development of the instrument is firstly discussed before considering its validation in two different learning environments (secondary and higher education), with different subjects, in two different countries (Belgium and South-Africa).</p> <hd id="AN0142316702-4">Development of the instrument</hd> <p>The Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ) was developed and validated in four stages. During the first stage, an extensive literature review was carried out in order to make an inventory of all relevant advantages and disadvantages of team teaching for learners (Baeten and Simons [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref67">4</reflink>]). Five electronic databases (ERIC, FRANCIS, PsychInfo, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched with the following terms: "team teaching", "co-teaching", "cooperative teaching", "collaborative teaching" and "paired placement". By reading the abstracts of the retrieved manuscripts, relevant manuscripts were identified. In addition, the reference lists of those manuscripts were explored in order to search for other relevant manuscripts. Two criteria for inclusion were applied. First, the literature search was limited to the years 2000–2013. One publication before this period (Cook and Friend [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>]) was included because of its significant value to the literature on team teaching (Baeten and Simons [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>]). Second, in order to ensure the quality of the review study, manuscripts had to be peer reviewed.</p> <p>The literature review resulted in a corpus of 33 peer-reviewed manuscripts (Baeten and Simons [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]) which were read thoroughly in order to search for advantages and disadvantages of team teaching, which were coded into themes. The coding process was data-driven, based on the reading of the literature (Baeten and Simons [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>]). Table 1 offers an overview of the advantages and disadvantages that team teaching can have for learners, as well as the main references for each advantage and disadvantage that was retrieved from the literature.</p> <p>Advantages and disadvantages of team teaching for learners retrieved from the literature</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Advantages/disadvantages</p></th><th align="left"><p>Main references</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>Advantages</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Rich and varied lessons (i.e. variety of teaching styles, multiple perspectives on topics)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bullough et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2002</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2003</xref>), Gardiner (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2010</xref>), Goodnough et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2009</xref>), Nokes et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2008</xref>), Smith (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2002</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2004</xref>), Tobin et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">2001</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Increased support (i.e. individual attention, less waiting time for assistance, more differentiation, additional observation information on learning problems)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Birrell and Bullough (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2005</xref>), Bullough et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2003</xref>), Dee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2012</xref>), Gardiner (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2010</xref>), Goodnough et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2009</xref>), Kamens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2007</xref>), Nokes et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2008</xref>), Smith (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2002</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2004</xref>), Sorensen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2004</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Learning gains (i.e. higher test scores, higher quality of school work, better understanding)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nokes et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2008</xref>), Sorensen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2004</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>Disadvantages</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Confusion (e.g. different responses to same question, different expectations)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bullough et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2003</xref>), Goodnough et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2009</xref>), Kamens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2007</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In the second stage, the inventory was refined through peer debriefing (i.e. two teacher educators) and transformed into a preliminary questionnaire to measure learners' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages that they experienced in a team-taught course. The items in the questionnaire were based on the underlying themes for advantages and disadvantages retrieved from the literature (see Table 1) (i.e. rich and varied lessons, increased support, learning gains and confusion). Items, retrieved from the literature, were created for each theme (e.g. an item "I dared to ask questions more quickly" was created for the theme of 'increased support').</p> <p>To confirm the link between the items and the underlying themes, six teacher educators were invited to code the items on the basis of these possible underlying themes.</p> <p>The inventory (in Dutch) was then submitted to a group of 14 student teachers of the University of Antwerp (Belgium), who applied team teaching during their field experiences. They were invited to assess the preliminary questionnaire and to check that the items were clearly formulated (are all items open to one interpretation only?), relevant (are all items related to team teaching and the underlying themes?), unique (are all items distinct from the others?) and universal (are all items understandable in all contexts?). This resulted in only minor amendments.</p> <p>During the third stage, two learners (two 16-year-old girls) were asked to complete the questionnaire and provide feedback on clarity and length, which also resulted in only minor changes. The pre-validation questionnaire consisted of 18 items, arranged in random order. To measure the learners' agreement with each statement, a five-point Likert scale, with response categories ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree), was provided. Table 2 gives an overview of the items included in the questionnaire as well as of the underlying themes. The items, initially in Dutch (in italics in Table 2), were translated by a sworn translator and controlled by our English-speaking South African colleagues, who are also fluent in Afrikaans, a language derived from Dutch.</p> <p>Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left"><p>Underlying theme</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? (1 = Completely disagree; 5 = Completely agree)</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Because we got lessons from two teachers simultaneously... (in secondary education)/ Because we got lessons from two lecturers simultaneously... (in higher education) </p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Door de les te krijgen van twee leerkrachten...</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1. I dared to ask questions more quickly</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Increased support</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>durfde ik sneller vragen te stellen</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. It was more difficult for me to pay attention</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Confusion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>vond ik het moeilijker om op te letten</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. The course was/the lectures were more interesting</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Rich and varied lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>was de les interessanter.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. The atmosphere in the classroom was more relaxed</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Rich and varied lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>was de sfeer in de klas meer ontspannen</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. It was easier for me to concentrate</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Rich and varied lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>kon ik me makkelijker concentreren</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. I received more (individual) attention</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Increased support</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>kreeg ik meer (individuele) aandacht</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. I received support faster</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Increased support</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>werd ik sneller geholpen</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. I sometimes missed some structure in the lesson/lecture</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Confusion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>miste ik soms wat structuur in de les</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. I understood the course contents more quickly</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Learning gains</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>begreep ik de leerstof sneller</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. It was noticed more quickly that I did not understand something</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Increased support</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>werd sneller opgemerkt dat ik iets niet begreep</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Time was unnecessarily lost</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Confusion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>ging er soms onnodig tijd verloren</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. I paid more attention during the course/lecture</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Rich and varied lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>had ik meer aandacht voor de les</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13. Learners chatted more among each other</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Confusion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>werd er onderling meer gebabbeld door de leerlingen</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14. I remembered more from the lesson/lecture</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Learning gains</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>heb ik meer van de les onthouden.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15. Lessons were more varied</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Rich and varied lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>was er veel afwisseling in de les</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16. I was less distracted</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Rich and varied lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>was ik minder afgeleid</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>17. I fear that one teacher will give higher scores than the other</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Confusion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>vrees ik dat de ene leerkracht meer punten zou geven op een toets dan de andere</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>18. The quality of the lessons improved</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Rich and varied lessons</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>kreeg ik beter les</italic></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In addition to the items, three open-ended questions were posed to the learners: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>) Would you like to be taught in this way in the future? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>) Give at least one advantage and one disadvantage of this teaching format; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref74">3</reflink>) Do you have any remarks about the lesson(s)/lecture(s)? These questions were intended not to form part of the final LTTPQ but for gaining qualitative insights from the learners to validate of the quantitative items to be included in the final LTTPQ, as well as to further explore the possible benefits and challenges of team teaching and their relative importance.</p> <hd id="AN0142316702-5">Validation study of the LTTPQ</hd> <p>In the fourth and final stages, with the aim of validating, the questionnaire, it was completed by two samples of students in two different learning environments (secondary and higher education), in two different countries (Belgium and South Africa) and in different subjects, in order to reflect the variety of learning environments in which team teaching is applied.</p> <p>In learning environment 1, the questionnaire was completed by 229 learners: 150 girls (65.5%) and 79 boys (34.5%) from different schools for secondary education in Flanders (Belgium). Their average age was 17.1 years (SD = 1.17). In each participating school, Master degree students, from a 1-year academic teacher education program, team taught several lessons as part of their initial field experience, in three different subjects (see Table 3). Team teaching was applied either with the sequential (<emph>n</emph> = 121) or the parallel teaching model (<emph>n</emph> = 108) during four lessons.</p> <p>Overview of the validation learning environments</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Learning environment</p></th><th align="left"><p>Country</p></th><th align="left"><p>Education level</p></th><th align="left"><p>Subjects</p></th><th align="left"><p>N<sub>Learners</sub></p></th><th align="left"><p>N<sub>Team taught lessons</sub></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Environment 1</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Belgium</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Secondary</p></td><td align="left"><p>Human sciences</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Languages</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Biology</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>68</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p>229</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Environment 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>South Africa</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Accounting</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>350</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In learning environment 2, the questionnaire was completed by 350 students, of which 209 (59.7%) were female and 141 male (40.3%), enrolled for Accounting at the University of Pretoria (South Africa). Their average age was 20 years (SD = 0.84). The course contained 38 team-taught lectures based on the teaming model.</p> <p>In both learning environments, the participants received the questionnaire after the final team-taught lesson or lecture. All secondary school learners involved (<emph>n</emph> = 229) completed the questionnaire and no missing answers were registered. The response rate for the university students was 71% (n = 350 of 491 enrolled students). To explore possible non-response bias, a comparative analysis of the profile of the respondent group and the targeted population revealed no significant differences in terms of the respondent gender and age (untabulated). Despite this, the potential for non-response bias should be considered when interpreting the results. Within the responses of the participating 350 students, no missing answers were registered.</p> <hd id="AN0142316702-6">Data analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0142316702-7">Analysis of the questionnaire</hd> <p>In order to investigate the underlying data structure of the items, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted separately for each learning environment, given the important differences between these learning environments (different socio-cultural contexts, educational levels and teachers). CFAs were conducted by means of the R project, a free software environment for statistical computing and graphics (https://<ulink href="http://www.r-project.org/">www.r-project.org/</ulink>).</p> <p>Firstly, CFA was conducted on the basis of the theoretically expected model (i.e. a model with 18 items and four underlying themes) (see Table 2). Next, fit indices, correlations between factors, and low factor loadings of individual items were evaluated, searching for models with the best fit (less items or less factors).</p> <p>Both in the Belgian and South African contexts, a model including four factors showed the best fit indices. Table 4 gives an overview of the fit indices of this final model. In both contexts, two items (i.e. Item 13 "Learners chatted more among each other" and Item 17 "I fear that one teacher will give higher scores than the other") showed low factor loadings of 0.352 and 0.208 in the Belgian data and 0.319 and 0.322 in the South-African data. Therefore, these items were left out of the final model.</p> <p>Characteristics and fit indices of the final model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Characteristic</p></th><th align="left"><p>Learning environment 1 (Belgium)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Learning environment 2 (South Africa)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of items</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of factors</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RMSEA</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.068</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.061</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CFI</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.951</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.953</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Low item loadings</p></td><td align="left"><p>Item 10 = 0.254</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Correlations</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Rich and varied lessons–learning gains</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.941</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.959</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>One item (i.e. Item 10 "It was noticed more quickly that I did not understand something", see Table 6) showed a low factor loading in the Belgian data (0.254), but an adequate loading in the South African data (0.573); therefore this item was kept in the final model.</p> <p>In both contexts, the adjustments produced a 4-factor model with adequate fit. Bollen ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref75">7</reflink>]) suggests a value of less than 0.08 for the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), while Hooper et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref76">28</reflink>]) state that a cut-off value close to 0.06 or a stringent upper limit of 0.07 seems to be the general consensus. As far as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is concerned, values between 0.0 and 1.0, with values closer to 1.0, indicate good fit. Hooper et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref77">28</reflink>]) state that a value of CFI ≥ 0.95 is recognised as indicative of good fit. Based on these indices, the model shows adequate fit for both learning contexts.</p> <p>As shown in the Table 4, high correlations between the factor 'rich and varied lessons' and the factor 'learning quality' (0.941 and 0.959) were observed. Despite these high correlations, a three-factor solution merging these factors did not result in better model fit.</p> <hd id="AN0142316702-8">Analysis of open-ended questions</hd> <p>The open-ended questions at the end of the questionnaire were analysed using NVivo software. All answers were captured in the program and coded through a coding scheme informed by literature (theory driven) and subsequently expanded, based on the answers (data driven). Table 5 offers an overview of the codes. Data-driven codes are in italics.</p> <p>Coding scheme applied to responses to the open-ended questions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Codes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Subcategories</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>Advantages</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p> - Rich and varied lessons</p></td><td align="left"><p>- <italic>Different perspectives</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- <italic>More variation</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- <italic>More interaction</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Increased support</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Learning gains</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - <italic>Other advantages</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Disadvantages</bold></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p> - Confusion</p></td><td align="left"><p>- <italic>Distraction, less concentration</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- <italic>Different teaching style</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- <italic>Lack of clarity of responsibilities</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- <italic>Lack of structure</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - <italic>Less personal relationship</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - <italic>Inefficiency</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - <italic>Mismatch with the preferred teaching style</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - <italic>Decreased well-being</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - <italic>Other disadvantages</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0142316702-9">Results</hd> <p>Table 6 shows the results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and the factor loadings of the items in both contexts. Further, it shows Cronbach's alpha coefficient for each factor.</p> <p>CFA results and item loadings</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Factor loadings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Learning environment 1 (Belgium)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Learning environment 2 (South Africa)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Factor 1 - Rich and varied lessons</p></td><td align="left"><p>(α = 0.625)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(α = 0.897)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. The course was/the lectures were more interesting.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. The atmosphere in the classroom was more relaxed.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.58</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.72</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. It was easier for me to concentrate.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>.079</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. I paid more attention during the course/lecture.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.80</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15. Lessons were more varied.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.62</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16. I was less distracted.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>18. The quality of the lessons improved.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Factor 2 - Increased support</p></td><td align="left"><p>(α = 0.580)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(α = 0.771)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1. I dared to ask questions more quickly.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.57</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. I received more (individual) attention.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. I received support faster.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.71</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.86</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. It was noticed more quickly that I did not understand something.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.57</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Factor 3 - Learning gains</p></td><td align="left"><p>(α = 0.738)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(α = 0.797)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. I understood the course contents more quickly.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14. I remembered more from the lesson/lecture.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Factor 4 - Confusion</p></td><td align="left"><p>(α = 0.658)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(α = 0.753)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. It was more difficult for me to pay attention.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.58</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.80</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. I sometimes missed some structure in the lesson/lecture.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.71</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Time was unnecessarily lost.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.61</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In both learning environments, the item loadings on the factors were clear. As previously mentioned, Item 10 "It was noticed more quickly that I did not understand something" showed a low loading for the factor 'increased support' in the Belgian data. Nevertheless the fit indices of the model did not improve when this item was removed. The item was retained in the questionnaire, given the adequate item loading in the South African data. Table 6 shows that the questionnaire resulted in four factors, comprised of 16 items in total. The first factor, 'rich and varied lessons', comprises seven items, while the other factors are comprised of two to four items. Given that the advantage of 'rich and varied lessons' is most reported in the literature, this is not of concern. Initially, factor 4 ('confusion') comprised 5 items, but the results of the CFA suggested item loadings for items 13 and 17 that were too low, and so they were omitted from the final questionnaire.</p> <p>In terms of reliability, the factors showed sufficient to good overall internal consistency (Field [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref78">20</reflink>]; George and Mallery [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]). The reliability coefficients of the factors in the South African data ranged from good (> 0.750) to almost excellent (> 0.900). The coefficients in the Belgian data were less positive, with a rather poor but acceptable Cronbach's alpha (> 0.500) for factor 2 ('increased support').</p> <p>The responses to the open question "Would you like to be taught in this way (team taught) in the future?" suggested that the learners were (very) positive about team teaching. 79.7% of learners answered the question positively, while 17.1% adopted a more negative attitude and 3.1% were neutral: "<emph>I am very neutral about this way of being taught.</emph>" (L64). "<emph>To me it doesn't matter. The number of teachers doesn't make a difference of how much I understand."</emph> (L76).</p> <p>Next, the learners were asked to give at least one advantage and one disadvantage of team teaching. A total of 929 responses were received. Table 7 provides an overview of the main categories (advantages and disadvantages) and their subcategories (themes), and an indication of the importance of each advantage and disadvantage based on the number of learners mentioning it.</p> <p>Advantages and disadvantages of team teaching named by the learners (<emph>n</emph> = 929)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Advantages/disadvantages</p></th><th align="left"><p>Subcategories</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>Advantages</bold> (<italic>n</italic> = 633)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p> - Rich and varied lessons (<italic>n</italic> = 443)</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Different perspectives (<italic>n</italic> = 313)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- More variation (<italic>n</italic> = 62)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- More interaction (<italic>n</italic> = 28)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- Without further specification (<italic>n</italic> = 40)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Increased support (<italic>n</italic> = 122)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Learning gains (<italic>n</italic> = 22)</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Other advantages (<italic>n</italic> = 43)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>Disadvantages</bold> (<italic>n</italic> = 296)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p> - Confusion (<italic>n</italic> = 206)</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Different teaching styles (<italic>n</italic> = 67)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- Distraction, less concentration (<italic>n</italic> = 56)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- Lack of structure (<italic>n</italic> = 10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- Lack of clarity of responsibilities (<italic>n</italic> = 7)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>- Without further specification (<italic>n</italic> = 66)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Inefficiency (<italic>n</italic> = 35)</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Decreased well-being (<italic>n</italic> = 16)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Mismatch with the preferred teaching style (<italic>n</italic> = 9)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Less personal relationship (<italic>n</italic> = 8)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> - Other disadvantages (<italic>n</italic> = 22)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Learners mentioned more than twice as many advantages than disadvantages. Based on Table 7, learners' responses appear to confirm and expand the literature. The main advantages and disadvantage identified in literature ('rich and varied lessons'; 'increased support'; 'learning gains and confusion') were mentioned by most learners in their perceptions of team teaching. 'Rich and varied lessons' was the advantage most often perceived by learners in team teaching. Almost all students mentioned it explicitly. Learners valued the different perspectives on the learning content and the different teaching methods: "<emph>Different perspectives equals better understanding."</emph> (L232); "<emph>It gives multiple insights into the same topic; better understanding through different ways of explaining</emph>." (L12). Further, the learners appreciated the variation created as a consequence of team teaching: "<emph>I don't get tired so fast because there are two.</emph>" (L41); "<emph>It is less monotonous</emph>" (L301); and team teaching results in more interaction between the teacher(s) and the learners: ("<emph>There was more teacher</emph>-<emph>learner interaction,"</emph> L301).</p> <p>Although to a lesser extent, learners also recognised the advantage of 'increased support' during team-taught lessons: "<emph>I could be helped quicker."</emph> (L310); "<emph>If you don't understand, one teacher can help you without disrupting the class</emph>." (L50). A small group of learners mentioned perceiving greater learning gains as a consequence team teaching: "<emph>For me, it was much more beneficial</emph>." (L220); "<emph>I think it is more effective</emph>". (L309). Other advantages were mentioned as well but could not be categorised in broader categories (e.g. "<emph>I like it because I can choose who to consult with.</emph>" L37). "<emph>As a student you can clearly see the experience and the knowledge of each teacher</emph>", L69).</p> <p>Based on Table 7, 'confusion' is the disadvantage most often perceived by learners. Many learners simply stated that team teaching confuses them, without expanding on why (e.g. "<emph>Sometimes confusing"</emph> (L2); "<emph>Tends to get confusing"</emph> (L324)). Nevertheless, confusion can be caused by various elements of the teaching format. Most of the learners reported the 'difference in teaching styles' as confusing: "<emph>You get used to one way of being taught and then have to adjust to another teaching style</emph>." (L232); "<emph>It gets confusing as each teacher has a different approach</emph>."(L312).</p> <p>A second group of learners attributed confusion to 'distraction' or to not being able to concentrate: "<emph>It's distracting when they walk around while switching</emph>." (L28); "<emph>I sometimes concentrate on what the one who isn't teaching is doing</emph>." (L52). A smaller group of learners thought that confusion was due to a 'lack of structure': "<emph>There is less structure, which confuses me</emph>. (<reflink idref="bib196" id="ref80">196</reflink>)"; "<emph>The structure of the topic could at times be lost</emph>." (L266); or lack of clarity of responsibilities: "<emph>Not always sure on who is leading the class</emph>." (L209); "<emph>Sometimes they don't agree and you don't know who is right.</emph>" (L54).</p> <p>Next to 'confusion', a (small) group of learners perceived team-taught classes as 'less efficient': "<emph>At times, it is counterproductive</emph>." (L276); "<emph>Sometimes repetition costs time</emph>. (L95). Another small group of learners experienced a decreased sense of well-being: "<emph>I feel like the other teacher sits there to judge us.</emph>" (L346); "<emph>It is slightly intimidating</emph>." (L123). They sometimes regret a less personal relationship with the teacher: "<emph>I feel the relationship is not that personal</emph>." (L23); "<emph>It takes away from the familiarity/relationship that is built between the teacher and the student.</emph> (L46)". A small number of learners said that they prefer individual teaching above team teaching, which causes a mismatch with their preferred teaching style: "<emph>I prefer to have one teacher</emph>." (L181); "<emph>I just don't like it</emph>." (L172).</p> <p>The advantages and disadvantages mentioned by the learners did not only confirm the findings of the literature, but they also corroborated the advantages and disadvantage used as underlying themes for the development of the questionnaire ('rich and varied lessons', 'increased support', 'learning gains, confusion'). They also supported the choice of including more items for the factor 'rich and varied lessons' in the questionnaire; 47.6% (<emph>n </emph>= 443) of the advantages mentioned by learners refer to this factor. These qualitative data also support the inclusion of less items for 'increased support' and the least for 'learning gains'. The questionnaire includes three items for the disadvantage 'confusion'. Given the learners' answers, the number of items for this theme could be increased. Future researchers could consider including (a limited number) of items for the disadvantage 'inefficiency'. In the current version of the questionnaire, this aspect was included in the factor 'confusion', but the qualitative data suggest that future research could explore this factor as a separate theme.</p> <hd id="AN0142316702-10">Conclusions and recommendations for future research</hd> <p>Team teaching offers teacher possibilities for enhancing the learning environment to achieve better learning outcomes through collaboration, sharing expertise and enhancing their own competencies and responding better to learners' needs. In deciding to adopt team teaching or when monitoring team teaching in a particular learning environment, teachers and policy makers search for tools offering valuable insights to support their decision making. In the present study, we investigated the development and validation of an easy-to-use questionnaire. To inform decisions by teachers and policy makers, which have energy, finance and infrastructure implications, and to transition to team teaching, the questionnaire allows these stakeholders to assess the advantages and disadvantages of team-taught learning environments from the perspective of learners. The questionnaire makes it possible to evaluate whether team-taught lessons add value from the perspective of the learners. The questionnaire also can be useful in the context of quality assurance processes and could prove helpful for optimising team-taught lessons. An alternative to a questionnaire, for example, could be a focus group, although this method of data collection excludes many learners' perceptions. A questionnaire efficiently gathers the perceptions of all learners. The questionnaire was developed and validated in four stages. During stage one through three, an extensive literature review was carried out and a preliminary version of the questionnaire was developed and pilot tested by several respondents (learners and teacher educators). In the fourth stage, the questionnaire was validated with two samples of learners in two different learning environments (secondary and higher education), in two different countries (Belgium and South-Africa) and in different subjects. The results of both respondent groups suggested that one global model could be applied. The theoretical model, based on the four underlying themes identified in the literature ('rich and varied lessons', 'increased support', 'learning gains' and 'confusion') could be applied to the datasets of both learning environments and showed adequate fit indices.</p> <p>The final questionnaire comprises 16 items and four factors and appears to be valid and generalisable, internally consistent and reliable. Responses to the open questions that were included at the end of the questionnaire confirmed the four underlying themes and also supported that the 'rich and varied lessons' factor comprised more items than the other factors. Further, the qualitative data suggest the possible inclusion of some additional items in the disadvantage 'inefficiency'.</p> <p>Notwithstanding this result, the present study has some limitations. First, the number of respondents in stages two (eight teacher educators and 14 student teachers) and three (two high school students) of the development of the questionnaire was rather limited, although adequate. A larger group of respondents would have strengthened the development of the initial items.</p> <p>Second, the number of learners in the validation learning environments (229 in learning environment 1; 350 in learning environment 2), as well as the number, of team taught lessons (4 in learning environment 1; 38 in learning environment 2) were different and, consequently, the design was unbalanced. Third, although the initial aim of the study was to develop an easy-to-use instrument without limitations as far as the target learner population is concerned, the choice of the test populations was rather arbitrary. Fourth, in both learning environments, the learners experienced team-taught lessons, but the models applied were not the same (in learning environment 1: equal status model; in learning environment 2: teaming model). Replicating this study with a balanced design and including other models of team teaching (e.g. the observation model, coaching model and/or assistant teaching model) would strengthen the results. The aim of the study was the development of a questionnaire which can be applied in various learning settings. In the current study, we investigated the perceptions of learners of team-taught lessons applied in secondary and in higher education. Therefore, future researchers are encouraged to apply the same confirmatory factor analysis on datasets for other educational settings (e.g. primary education, adult education, special education) to further verify the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.</p> <hd id="AN0142316702-11">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0142316702-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akerson A, Montgomery MS. Peer-to-peer co-teaching: Idea to implementation. SRATE Journal. 2017; 26; 2: 1-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Austin VL. Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education. 2001; 22; 4: 2045-2255. 10.1177/074193250102200408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Badiali B, Titus N. Co-teaching: Enhancing students learning through mentor-intern partnerships. School–University Partnerships. 2010; 4; 2: 74-80</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baeten M, Simons M. Student teachers' team teaching: Models, effects and conditions for implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2014; 41: 92-110. 10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref25" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baeten M, Simons M. Student teachers' team teaching: How do learners in the classroom experience team-taught lessons by student teachers?. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2016; 42; 1: 93-105. 10.1080/02607476.2015.1135226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref55" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Birrell J, Bullough R. Teaching with a peer: A follow-up study of the first year of teaching. Action in Teacher Education. 2005; 27; 1: 72-81. 10.1080/01626620.2005.10463375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref75" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bollen K. Structural equations with latent variables. 1989: New York; Wiley</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref40" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bronson CE, Dentith AM. Partner teaching: A promising model. Education. 2014; 134; 4: 504-520</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref57" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bullough R, Young J, Birrell J, Clark D, Egan M, Erickson L, Frankovich M, Brunetti J, Welling M. Teaching with a peer: A comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2003; 19: 57-73. 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00094-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bullough RV, Young J, Erickson L, Birrell JR, Clark DC, Egan MW, Berrie CF, Hales V, Smith G. Rethinking field experiences: Partnership teaching vs. single-placement teaching. The Journal of Teacher Education. 2002; 53; 1: 68-80. 10.1177/0022487102053001007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carless D. Collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools. ELT Journal. 2016; 60; 4: 328-335. 10.1093/elt/ccl023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter D, Crawford L, Walden R. Testing the efficacy of team teaching. Learning Environments Research. 2007; 10: 53-65. 10.1007/s10984-007-9019-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chanmugan A, Gerlach B. A co-teaching model for developing future educators' teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2013; 25; 1: 110-117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook L, Friend M. Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children. 1995; 28; 3: 1-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dee A. Collaborative clinical practice: An alternate field experience. Issues in Teacher Education. 2012; 21; 2: 147-163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deneire, A, Gijbels, D, Vanhoof, J, & Van Petegem, P. (2012). (Wanneer) draagt het beoordelen van leerkrachten bij tot jobtevredenheid? Lessen uit het TALIS-onderzoek. Leerrijk.be, 1–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deneire, A, Vanhoof, J, Faddar, J, & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Denken, handelen en professionele ontwikkeling van Vlaamse leraren en schoolleiders. Eerste resultaten van de Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Vlaamse Overheid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dugan K, Letterman M. Student appraisals of collaborative teaching. College Teaching. 2008; 56; 1: 11-15. 10.3200/CTCH.56.1.11-16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entwistle NJ. Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education. 1991; 22: 201-204. 10.1007/BF00132287</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 20134: London; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardiner W. Mentoring two student teachers: Mentors' perceptions of peer placements. Teaching Education. 2010; 21; 3: 233-246. 10.1080/10476210903342102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardiner, W, & Robinson, K. (2011). Peer field placements with preservice teachers: Negotiating the challenges of professional collaboration. The Professional Educator,35(2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 20034: Boston; Allyn & Bacon</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodnough K, Osmond P, Dibbon D, Glassman M, Stevens K. Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009; 25: 285-296. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graue E, Hatch K, Rao K, Oen D. The wisdom of class-size reduction. American Educational Research Journal. 2007; 44; 3: 670-700. 10.3102/0002831207306755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graziano K, Navarette L. Co-teaching in a teacher education classroom: Collaboration, comprise, and creativity. Issues in Teacher Education. 2012; 21; 1: 109-126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helms M, Alvis J, Willis M. Planning and implementing shared teaching: An MBA team-teaching case study. Journal of Education for Business. 2005; 8: 29-34. 10.3200/JOEB.81.1.29-34</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008; 6; 1: 53-60</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamens M. Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching experience for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education. 2007; 30; 3: 155-166. 10.1177/088840640703000304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keefe EB, Moore V, Duff F. The four "knows" of collaborative teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children. 2004; 36; 5: 36-42. 10.1177/004005990403600505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mastropieri MA, Scruggs TE. The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. 20145: Cranbury, NJ; Pearson Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Millis BJMillis B. Why faculty should adopt cooperative learning approaches. Cooperative learning in higher education: Across the disciplines, across the academy. 2012: Sterling, VA; Stylus Publishing LLC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murata R. What does team teaching mean? A case study of interdisciplinary teaming. The Journal of Educational Research. 2002; 96; 2: 67-77. 10.1080/00220670209598794</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Musanti S, Pence L. Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance, constructing knowledge and navigating identities. Teacher Education Quarterly. 2010; 37; 1: 73-89</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nevin A, Thousand J, Villa R. Collaborative teaching for teacher educators: What does the research say?. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009; 25: 569-574. 10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nokes J, Bullough R, Egan W, Birrell J, Hansen J. The paired-placement of student teachers: An alternative to traditional placements in secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2008; 24: 2168-2177. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares F. Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research. 1992; 62: 307-332. 10.3102/00346543062003307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith J. The development of tandem teaching placements. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. 2002; 10; 3: 253-274. 10.1080/1361126022000022507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith J. Developing paired teaching placements. Educational Action Research. 2004; 12; 1: 99-125. 10.1080/09650790400200241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solis M, Vaughn S, Swanson E, Mcculley L. Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools. 2012; 49; 5: 498-510. 10.1002/pits.21606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorensen, P. (2004). Learning to teach collaboratively: The use of subject pairs in the school practicum. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy. Available at: <ulink href="http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/pdf%20files/sorensen.pdf">http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/pdf%20files/sorensen.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Struyf, E, Adriaensens, S, & Verschueren, K. (2012). De meerwaarde van zorgverantwoordelijken in het schoolteam. Leerrijk.be. 1–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thousand J, Villa N, Nevin A. The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory into Practice. 2006; 45; 3: 239-248. 10.1207/s15430421tip4503_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tobin K, Roth W, Zimmermann A. Learning to teach science in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2001; 38; 8: 941-964. 10.1002/tea.1040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping KJ. Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology. 2005; 25; 6: 631-645. 10.1080/01443410500345172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vanblaere B, Devos G. Exploring the link between experienced teachers' learning outcomes and individual and professional learning community characteristics. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2016; 27; 2: 205-227. 10.1080/09243453.2015.1064455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Welch M. Descriptive analysis of team teaching in two elementary classrooms: A formative experimental approach. Remedial and Special Education. 2002; 21; 6: 366-376. 10.1177/074193250002100606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeegers P. Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2001; 71: 115-132. 10.1348/000709901158424</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mathea Simons; Stephen Coetzee; Marlies Baeten and Astrid Schmulian</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib196" firstref="ref80"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1247864
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Measuring Learners' Perceptions of a Team-Taught Learning Environment: Development and Validation of the Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ)
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simons%2C+Mathea%22">Simons, Mathea</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9239-9324">0000-0002-9239-9324</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Coetzee%2C+Stephen%22">Coetzee, Stephen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Baeten%2C+Marlies%22">Baeten, Marlies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schmulian%2C+Astrid%22">Schmulian, Astrid</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Environments+Research%22"><i>Learning Environments Research</i></searchLink>. Apr 2020 23(1):45-58.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Team+Teaching%22">Team Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22South+Africa%22">South Africa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Belgium%22">Belgium</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10984-019-09290-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1387-1579
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Team teaching is a teaching model in which teachers work collaboratively in the preparation, teaching and evaluation of a course. Literature suggests that team teaching potentially provides rich and varied lessons, increased support and learning gains. However, team teaching possibly also could cause some confusion. To support the implementation of team teaching, stakeholders (teachers and policy makers) require an instrument that offers insights to support their decision making. The present study describes the development and validation of an easy-to-use questionnaire to explore learners' perceptions of team teaching. The questionnaire was developed and validated in four stages: an extensive literature review (1) resulted in a preliminary version of the questionnaire (2) containing advantages and disadvantages for learners of team teaching. Next, a pilot study (3) was conducted, followed by a validation study (4) based on confirmatory factor analysis in two different learning environments of secondary education (Belgium, n = 229 pupils) and higher education (South Africa, n = 350 students). The final questionnaire comprises 16 items and four factors and appears to be valid, internally consistent and reliable.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1247864
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1247864
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10984-019-09290-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 45
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Team Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: South Africa
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Belgium
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Measuring Learners' Perceptions of a Team-Taught Learning Environment: Development and Validation of the Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ)
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Simons, Mathea
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Coetzee, Stephen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Baeten, Marlies
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schmulian, Astrid
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1387-1579
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 23
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Environments Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1