View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teachers' Attitudes toward Team Teaching Explained by Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Perceived Collaboration, and Team Similarity

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teachers' Attitudes toward Team Teaching Explained by Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Perceived Collaboration, and Team Similarity
Language: English
Authors: Dries De Weerdt (ORCID 0000-0001-6903-6587), Mathea Simons (ORCID 0000-0002-9239-9324), Elke Struyf (ORCID 0000-0003-1067-6357)
Source: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal. 2024 27(5):2479-2502.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 24
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Teacher Attitudes, Team Teaching, Self Efficacy, Foreign Countries, Teacher Collaboration, Peer Relationship, Positive Attitudes, Group Dynamics, Educational Practices
Geographic Terms: Belgium
DOI: 10.1007/s11218-024-09916-0
ISSN: 1381-2890
1573-1928
Abstract: Team teaching is a popular and intense form of teacher collaboration with several advantages for both students and teachers. To successfully implement team-based practices such as team teaching, previous studies highlight the pivotal role of teachers' attitudes, which are subject to several personal and interpersonal processes. Stakeholders willing to implement team teaching require a deep understanding of teachers' attitudes toward the practice and their relation to prominent (inter)personal variables in teacher collaboration research. To date, however, little quantitative research exists on teachers' attitudes toward team teaching and even less on factors that may explain these attitudes. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore how teachers value the implementation of team teaching in their teaching practices and to what extent prominent (inter)personal variables such as teachers' self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity are associated with these attitudes. The empirical data were collected through a cross-sectional survey (N = 555) conducted in Flanders (Belgium). The findings showed that teachers had a positive overall attitude toward team teaching, but this was not always strongly expressed. In particular, teachers' attitudes toward enhancing the learning gains of students through team teaching were fairly neutral. Nonetheless, based on structural equation modeling, a proposed hypothetical model wherein self-efficacy beliefs, perceived collaboration, and team similarity were positively associated with teachers' attitudes toward team teaching showed adequate predictive validity. Furthermore, all three of the studied factors had a significant effect on teachers' attitudes, with teachers' self-efficacy exerting the strongest effect.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1444556
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEXTTon5KCCIfZCysq7ZjWnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL_-jgOl1Y3VfqHvLAIBEICBm4dcznh4Abka4DJkMLu9lxSsJiYLQ2bonAwXvF_pJSZMb4pljdtQc30fZlm9cL2eUGh0rWbbnumG55lumEGc1wfbt_s6XzguJ8k_imuW8f8wwaMeRqE4xV49dZEV_9FpER28degyFYvOyNyzkoq4a9l2Ss34A_28N9ePn4wed2-iR0Eus7XtqhlzXfbGMk-0bOx8iyoSw9wDTI-i
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180372540;luo01oct.24;2024Oct22.06:55;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180372540-1">Teachers' attitudes toward team teaching explained by teachers' self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity </title> <p>Team teaching is a popular and intense form of teacher collaboration with several advantages for both students and teachers. To successfully implement team-based practices such as team teaching, previous studies highlight the pivotal role of teachers' attitudes, which are subject to several personal and interpersonal processes. Stakeholders willing to implement team teaching require a deep understanding of teachers' attitudes toward the practice and their relation to prominent (inter)personal variables in teacher collaboration research. To date, however, little quantitative research exists on teachers' attitudes toward team teaching and even less on factors that may explain these attitudes. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore how teachers value the implementation of team teaching in their teaching practices and to what extent prominent (inter)personal variables such as teachers' self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity are associated with these attitudes. The empirical data were collected through a cross-sectional survey (N = 555) conducted in Flanders (Belgium). The findings showed that teachers had a positive overall attitude toward team teaching, but this was not always strongly expressed. In particular, teachers' attitudes toward enhancing the learning gains of students through team teaching were fairly neutral. Nonetheless, based on structural equation modeling, a proposed hypothetical model wherein self-efficacy beliefs, perceived collaboration, and team similarity were positively associated with teachers' attitudes toward team teaching showed adequate predictive validity. Furthermore, all three of the studied factors had a significant effect on teachers' attitudes, with teachers' self-efficacy exerting the strongest effect.</p> <p>Keywords: Team teaching; Teachers' attitudes; Teacher collaboration; Self-efficacy; Team similarity</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Over the last four decades, in the field of educational research, increasing attention has been devoted to team-based educational strategies (Hargreaves, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref1">26</reflink>]). Team-based educational strategies are those that involve interaction between groups of educational practitioners who commit to working collaboratively to achieve a common goal, with mutual accountability (Gast et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]). These common goals can be very diverse, ranging from implementing a specific lesson to improving teaching practices and providing quality education to all students. In general, team-based practices are considered highly beneficial for educational practice and an effective tool for both teaching and learning purposes (García-Martínez et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref3">22</reflink>]; Liu & Benoliel, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref4">40</reflink>]). Teachers who work in a team tend to be more strongly committed to their profession and show less resistance to organizational change (Muckenthaler et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref5">44</reflink>]; Nguyen & Ng, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]). Furthermore, team endeavors in an educational environment lead teachers to share tangible (e.g., teaching materials) and intangible (e.g., knowledge, educational beliefs) resources that may be beneficial for their own teaching performances and students' (non‑)cognitive outcomes (Frank et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]; Lipscombe et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref8">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Among the variety of team-based practices available, such as teacher design teams and collegial visits, one of the most intense implementations of teacher collaboration is team teaching (de Jong et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]; Muckenthaler et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]). In team teaching, two or more teachers commit to the collaborative planning, teaching, and/or evaluation of a lesson to provide quality education to all students (Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref11">60</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref12">65</reflink>]). In doing so, teachers share their expertise and discuss teaching and learning with the aim of strengthening their teaching practices and student performances (Duran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]). This makes team teaching a team-based educational strategy that promotes the individual learning of teachers and the collective learning of teaching teams in an authentic learning environment, with the ultimate goal of optimizing student development (Hackett et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref14">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, team teaching is a complex phenomenon as multiple definitions and synonyms exist (Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref15">60</reflink>]). Especially, the terms 'team teaching' and 'co-teaching' are often used interchangeably. In most literature, co-teaching refers to the collaboration between a (general) teacher and a special-education teacher to help students with special educational needs, whereas team teaching is regarded as a broader concept, referring to a variety of collaborative practices between two or more educational professionals, in all possible subjects, across all different kinds of educational settings (Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref16">60</reflink>]). Further, and to avoid misunderstandings, only the concept of team teaching is used in the remainder of the article.</p> <p>Although team teaching is increasingly gaining attention from both educational practitioners and researchers, to date, little quantitative research is available that focuses on the factors necessary to ensure successful implementation of the practice (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref18">65</reflink>]). However, such factors play a pivotal role in designing rigorous effectiveness research and efficient team teaching in schools (Härkki et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]; Strogilos et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref20">61</reflink>]). This study aims to deepen our understanding of teachers' attitudes toward team teaching as a preliminary predictor of successful team teaching practices. Furthermore, as no prior research about the influence of personal and interpersonal factors on teachers' attitudes toward team teaching exists, the study aims to fill this gap by examining to what extent teachers' self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity are related to these attitudes. In the following, we elaborate on each of the key constructs mentioned above and how each may play a central role in establishing successful team teaching practices.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-3">Teachers' attitudes toward team teaching</hd> <p>Prior studies on team-based practices identify teachers' attitudes as an important predictor of successful team efforts, as attitudes reflect teachers' readiness and their level of commitment to carrying out team efforts in daily educational practices (Bas, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref21">8</reflink>]; Duran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]; Perrin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref23">49</reflink>]; Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref24">57</reflink>]). An attitude is defined as a psychological tendency that entails an individual's feelings about a particular practice, which can be either positive or negative (Gast et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]; Thibaut et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref26">62</reflink>]). If teachers have positive attitudes toward their teaching practices and the educational strategies they use, their performances are better, and their efforts toward strategy implementation are more efficient (Andronache et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]; Bešić et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]; Thibaut et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref29">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous studies in team teaching literature have focused on the advantages and disadvantages of team teaching to gain insight into teachers' attitudes. This research has largely focused on how team teaching benefits teachers (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]). In this context, teachers indicate increased peer support, reflective dialogue, and professional (e.g., reflection) and personal (e.g., self-efficacy) growth (Sasson & Malkinson, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref31">55</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref32">66</reflink>]). Conversely, little research is available that focuses on teachers' attitudes toward team teaching based on its benefits for students, even though the main objective in choosing team teaching over the traditional solo teaching approach is to enhance the likelihood of optimal student outcomes (Anderson & Speck, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]; Cook & McDuffie-Landrum, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]). Therefore, for this study, we conceptualized attitudes toward team teaching as the belief that students would either benefit or suffer from team-taught lessons, and we further operationalized this concept by offering several advantages (i.e., positive attitudes) and disadvantages (i.e., negative attitudes) of team teaching. For this, we followed the insights of the review by Baeten and Simons ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]), in which three advantages (rich and varied lessons, increased support, and learning gains) and one disadvantage (confusion) of team teaching were distinguished. In doing so, our study is one of the first to create the opportunity to gain insight into teachers' attitudes toward team teaching by focusing on the potential benefits and downsides for students based on specific characteristics of team-taught learning environments.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-4">Teachers' self-efficacy</hd> <p>Previous research shows that self-efficacy affects teachers' behavior and instructional quality (e.g., in their choice of teaching methods), as well as students' (non‑)cognitive outcomes (Hettinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]; Holzberger et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]; Künsting et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref38">36</reflink>]). In accordance with Bandura's self-efficacy theory, teacher self-efficacy is often defined as a teacher's belief in their ability to successfully accomplish a particular teaching task within a given context (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]; Charalambous et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]). As this definition highlights, self-efficacy beliefs are considered domain-specific, manifesting themselves in different domains depending on the activity, group of students, and situational characteristics (Zee & Koomen, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref41">70</reflink>]). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref42">63</reflink>]) distinguish three domains: self-efficacy in instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management.</p> <p>Self-efficacy is one of the most commonly examined factors in explaining teachers' willingness to adopt and implement reform efforts (Gast et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref44">63</reflink>]; Wray et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref45">69</reflink>]). Teachers with low self-efficacy underestimate their own ability to organize and implement teaching strategies and are less open to changing their teaching practices based on new ideas and methods. This implies that teachers' beliefs in their own abilities are essential to ensuring quality functioning in a team-oriented educational environment (Pareja Roblin & Margalef, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref46">48</reflink>]). In team teaching research, Sasson and Malkinson ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref47">55</reflink>]) found a higher sense of self-efficacy with regard to the teaching profession among teachers who participated in a team teaching environment. In addition, Johnson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>]) state that greater teacher self-efficacy results in increased active involvement in instructional team-taught practices. However, no prior research in team teaching has viewed self-efficacy as a predictor or explanation of teachers' attitudes toward the benefits of team teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-5">Teachers' perceived collaboration</hd> <p>Essential for team efforts to be successful are the interactions between team members and the willingness and ability of teachers to collaborate with one another (de Jong et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]; García-Martínez et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]; Lipscombe et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref51">39</reflink>]). This makes teacher collaboration an intentional and communicative activity (Bush & Grotjohann, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]; Ning et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref53">46</reflink>]). Previous research suggests that a more positive perception of collaboration with colleagues tends to result in a more positive attitude toward the employment of team-based strategies (Bush & Grotjohann, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>]; Kolleck, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref55">34</reflink>]). A central role is attributed to trust and mutual respect within the team (García-Martínez et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]). Further important elements of successful collaboration include the open exchange of information between team members through practices such as sharing experiences, engaging in joint reflection activities, and providing feedback to each other; these practices, in turn, lead to knowledge transfer and the creation of new knowledge (Forte & Flores, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]; Hargreaves, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>]; Härkki et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>]). Furthermore, teacher collaboration serves as a tool for the emotional and professional support of individual teachers (De Backer et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>]; Wolgast & Fischer, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref61">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the importance of how collaboration takes place in team efforts, the association between how teachers perceive collaboration with their colleagues in a team teaching environment and their attitudes toward the practice of team teaching has not been closely examined.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-6">Team similarity</hd> <p>Team similarity refers to the subjective experience of individual team members of the heterogeneity within their team (Zellmer-Bruhn et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref62">71</reflink>]). Perceived differences in team composition in terms of member characteristics affect team behaviors and outcomes (Mannix & Neale, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]). In heterogeneous teams, for example, knowledge exchange may be more valuable (e.g., student teachers and their mentors may learn more from each other during internships; Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]). In this way, team heterogeneity may enhance the creation of knowledge, as new ideas are most likely to emerge as a result of interactions between individuals who are not similar (Burt, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]). However, a heterogeneous team composition can also be detrimental, as it may impede cohesive team operations (Schuster et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref66">56</reflink>]). Furthermore, connections may be established more smoothly between teachers who are more similar (the homophily effect; McPherson et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref67">43</reflink>]; Schuster et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref68">56</reflink>]). Research shows that teachers often experience similarity in their teaching teams as positive, as it minimizes psychological costs (e.g., rejection) and increases their chances of receiving support relevant to their own needs (Siciliano, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref69">58</reflink>]). Also, similarities in the conception about teaching make it much easier to share responsibility when working together in the same classroom (Krammer et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref70">35</reflink>]). In addition, sustainable teaching partnerships require a professional match between teachers, which is more easily established in teams with overlapping competencies, personalities, and experiences (Pratt, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]). Nonetheless, the question of whether perceived similarity within the teaching team impacts teachers' perceptions of the added value of team teaching remains unanswered.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-7">The present study and hypotheses</hd> <p>For the successful implementation of team teaching, it is of paramount interest to gain insight into teachers' attitudes toward the practice as a preliminary predictor of the successful implementation of team efforts in education practices and into the underlying mechanisms that may explain teachers' attitudes. Prior research has provided some insight into how teachers perceive team teaching based on its advantages for them, but no large-scale quantitative research that we are aware of has surveyed how they perceive team teaching as a(n) (dis)advantageous strategy for their students. Moreover, despite there being evidence to support the assertion that some (inter)personal factors influence teachers' attitudes toward team efforts, there is a lack of research on team teaching that aims to examine the association between such factors and teachers' attitudes.</p> <p>Therefore, the objective of our study was twofold. Our first research objective (RO1) was to explore teachers' attitudes toward the implementation of team teaching in educational practices by ascertaining whether teachers perceived team teaching as positive or negative for their students (Ertesvåg, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref72">19</reflink>]; Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref73">60</reflink>]). Our second research objective (RO2) was to test a hypothetical framework with which to examine the relationship between teachers' attitudes and teachers' self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity. This framework entailed three hypotheses, drawn from the theoretical discussion above:</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-8">Hypothesis 1</hd> <p>Teachers with higher self-efficacy have more positive attitudes toward the practice of team teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-9">Hypothesis 2</hd> <p>Teachers who recognize and experience the benefits of collaboration with colleagues have more positive attitudes toward the practice of team teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-10">Hypothesis 3</hd> <p>Teachers who experience high similarity between team members have more positive attitudes toward the practice of team teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-11">Methodology</hd> <p>A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 555 teachers. Our study thus fills a methodological gap in the field of team teaching and team-based research, as multiple authors have argued the need for more quantitative studies with a large number of participants (e.g., Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]; Gast et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref75">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-12">Sample</hd> <p>Through purposive sampling, a total of 555 Flemish teachers in Belgium participated in this study. Teachers were only included in the study if they had experience with the practice of team teaching. The sample consisted primarily of female teachers (84%) and teachers in full-time employment (70%). Teachers working in primary education were more strongly represented (41%) than teachers of secondary (28%), pre-primary (21%), and adult education (10%). On average, participating teachers had almost 15 years of teaching experience and approximately two years of team teaching experience. This indicates that, in general, team teaching is a relatively recent phenomenon for Flemish team teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-13">Variables and instrumentation</hd> <p>The examined variables in the study were based on the proposed hypotheses. Specifically, the latent predictor variables of self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity were associated with teachers' attitudes toward team teaching. Table 1 presents the measurement instruments used to capture these constructs. Cronbach's alpha (<emph>α</emph>) was calculated to check internal consistency among items that aimed to represent the same latent trait. Appendix 1 provides the complete set of items for each questionnaire.</p> <p>Table 1 Variables and measurement instruments</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Construct</p></th><th align="left"><p>Instrument reference</p></th><th align="left"><p>Items*</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>α</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Attitudes toward team teaching</p></td><td align="left"><p>Simons and De Weerdt, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2022</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>16 (e.g., By engaging in team teaching, I feel that learners receive support faster)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.90</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-efficacy beliefs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2001</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>12 (e.g., I feel confident to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.88</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Perceived collaboration</p></td><td align="left"><p>Decuyper et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2023</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 (e.g., During team teaching classes, my team teaching colleague(s) and I support each other)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.95</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Team similarity</p></td><td align="left"><p>Zellmer-Bruhn et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2008</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6 (e.g., My colleague('s) and I share the same vision of education)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.90</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>*</sups>Items were scored on a Likert scale from 0 (<emph>completely disagree</emph>) to 4 (<emph>completely agree</emph>)</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-14">Preliminary analysis</hd> <p>An initial check of the factor structure underlying the sample covariance matrix of the observed indicator variables was carried out using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblique rotation (i.e., oblimin rotation, which allows different factors to be intercorrelated; Costello & Osborne, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>]; Osborne, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref77">47</reflink>]). Based on the Kaiser criterion and a parallel analysis (Hayton et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref78">28</reflink>]; Kaiser, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref79">33</reflink>]), a four-factor structure was deemed most desirable as it showed a clear theoretical foundation around the four main constructs/factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>) teachers' attitudes (incl. rich and varied lessons [RVL], increased support [IS], learning gains [LG], confusion [CF]), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>) self-efficacy (SE), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>) perceived collaboration (COL), and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref83">4</reflink>) team similarity (SIM). However, based on the approximate simple structure (Worthington & Whittaker, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref84">68</reflink>]), two items (SIM1 and CF3) were removed from further analyses, as they had a strong factor loading (> 0.40) only on a theoretically incompatible factor or an insufficient loading on any of the factors (see Appendix 2). In addition, the remaining items for confusion (CF1 and CF2) were reverse coded to be presented along with the items of rich and varied lessons, increased support, and learning gains as part of the teachers' attitudes scale.</p> <p>Based on the final proposed factor structure, descriptive statistics (correlation, mean, standard deviation) were computed, which provided information on overall attitudes toward team teaching (RO1). The preliminary analyses were conducted in the R software environment using the "psych" package (Revelle, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref85">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-15">Structural equation modeling</hd> <p>To test the hypotheses (RO2), we used structural equation modeling (SEM). The use of SEM allows the inclusion of both the measurement model (i.e., the relation between the indicator variables and the underlying latent construct) and the structural model (i.e., regression between the latent constructs) in the main analyses. By including the measurement model, we account for measurement error associated with the observed indicator variables (Whittaker & Schumacker, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref86">66</reflink>]). The SEM analyses were performed in the R software environment with the aid of the "lavaan" package (Rosseel, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref87">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-16">Model estimation</hd> <p>To rely on the default maximum likelihood (ML) estimation for accurate model fit statistics and parameter estimates, the indicator variables should be from a multivariate normal distribution, which was not the case for the Likert items in our study. Therefore, a robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) was used. It is shown that MLR provides accurate estimates for non-normal Likert scale data (Bandalos, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref88">6</reflink>]; Li, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref89">37</reflink>]; Rhemtulla et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref90">53</reflink>]). Also, an MLR approach allows to deal with missing values in our data (<emph>n</emph> = 14; 3%) and accommodates the presence of outliers (Whittaker & Schumacker, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref91">66</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-17">Model testing</hd> <p>To test the full SEM model, a two-step testing approach was used (Whittaker & Schumacker, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref92">66</reflink>]). First, the measurement model was specified and tested to ensure adequate measurement of the latent variables. Second, if a well-fitting measurement model was found, the structural model was specified to test the relationships between the explanatory variables and teachers' attitudes.</p> <p>For both steps, the model-data fit was evaluated with the aid of several model-fit criteria. Two incremental fit indices and two absolute model fit indices were applied to evaluate the model fit (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref93">31</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) Comparative Fit Index (CFI), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>) Tucker -Lewis Index (TLI), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>) Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref97">4</reflink>) Standardized Root Mean-Square Residual (SRMR). Cutoff criteria for assuming an adequate model-data fit were a CFI and TLI greater or equal to 0.90, and an RMSEA and a SRMR lower or equal to 0.08 (Whittaker & Schumacker, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref98">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on the retrieved parameter estimates, model related problems (e.g., such as model misspecification) could be identified. Particularly, parameters were examined to verify that no correlation between two variables exceeded the value 1 and there were no negative error variances (i.e., Heywood cases; Li, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref99">38</reflink>]; Whittaker & Schumacker, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref100">66</reflink>]). Also, when structural relations between variables were examined, the tolerance value (1 − R<sups>2</sups>) – the variance of a predictor that was not explained by the other predictor variables – and the corresponding variance inflation factor (VIF; 1/tolerance) served as statistics to preclude multicollinearity. A tolerance value lower than 0.10 and a VIF higher than 10 suggest problematic multicollinearity.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-18">Model modification</hd> <p>If, during the model testing phase, a poor fit with the data was found according to the model fit criteria, the original model was modified and retested (Marcoulides & Drezner, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref101">42</reflink>]). Two values were used to guide the modification process: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>) modification index and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref103">2</reflink>) expected parameter change. The modification index indicates the decrease in the Chi-square value (χ2) when a specific connection between two variables is included in the model. The expected parameter change gives the parameter estimate for a connection if it were added to the model. A suggested parameter was evaluated for inclusion when a relatively large modification index and expected parameter change were assumed and the inclusion of the suggested parameter was theoretically justifiable. Modifications were added individually until a good model–data fit was found according to the model fit criteria.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-19">Model comparison</hd> <p>Two alternative models were compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Chi-square value (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>). The model with the lowest AIC and Chi-square value indicates the best predictive validity: This model was therefore retained (Dziak et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref104">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-20">Results</hd> <p>In this section, we first present descriptive statistics that allow us to gain insight into teachers' attitudes toward team teaching based on perceived (dis)advantages for students (RO1). Subsequently, we describe the findings of the SEM with regard to the relationships between teachers' attitudes toward team teaching and their self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity (RO2). Confidence intervals (CI) are reported for the main effects of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-21">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the four latent variables, giving bivariate correlations, mean scores, and standard deviations. Correlation estimates show that the factors correlated positively with each other (<emph>r</emph> =.20–.60). For the latent predictor variables, the correlation matrix and tolerance values do not indicate problems with multicollinearity (<emph>r</emph> <.70, tolerance >.10).</p> <p>Table 2 Correlation matrix, descriptive statistics, and tolerance/VIF values</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1 Teacher attitudes</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2 Self-efficacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3 Collaboration</p></td><td align="left"><p>.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4 Team similarity</p></td><td align="left"><p>.24</p></td><td align="left"><p>.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mean</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.72</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Standard deviation</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.42</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Response range</p></td><td align="left"><p>0–4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0–4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0–4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0–4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tolerance/VIF</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.94/1.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.50/2.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.51/1.96</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In addition, the mean and standard deviation provide insights, relevant to the first research objective (RO1), into the attitudes of teachers toward team teaching. The findings reveal that, on average, teachers perceived team teaching as beneficial to students (<emph>M</emph> = 2.60, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.34, scale from 0 to 4); however, this was not strongly expressed. To consider the teachers' attitudes scale more closely, we found that the biggest advantage teachers indicated was that learners appeared to receive more and quicker support in a team-taught environment (<emph>M</emph> = 3.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.63). On average, moreover, teachers did not indicate that team teaching caused confusion among students (<emph>M</emph> = 1.59, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.75). Creating rich and varied lessons (<emph>M</emph> = 2.47, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.54) and learning gains among students (<emph>M</emph> = 2.45, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.60) were also seen as advantages, but to a lesser extent than the provision of support.</p> <p>In addition, each item of the scale on teachers' attitudes was analyzed separately to gain a more fine-grained understanding on teachers' responses (see Fig. 1). The results indicate that teachers experience that, when they teach in a team teaching arrangement, they notice more quickly which students do not understand lesson activities or contents, and act faster in providing additional support. Also, general aspects such as variation during lessons and a relaxed classroom atmosphere were perceived as more beneficial in team-taught settings. In contrary, almost one-fifth of the teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 100, 18%) did not agree with the statements that students can better concentrate themselves and are less distracted during team-taught lessons.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Item responses</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-22">Structural equation modeling (SEM)</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180372540-23">Model fit</hd> <p>The initial measurement model provided a poor model–data fit (CFI = 0.84, TLI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.06). To improve this model, a total of seven error covariances between items of the same scales were incorporated before an adequate model–data fit was found. These covariances comprised relations between: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>) IS2 and IS3, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref106">2</reflink>) SESE1 and SESE2, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref107">3</reflink>) SECM3 and SECM4, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref108">4</reflink>) COL9 and COL10, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref109">5</reflink>) CF1 and CF2, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref110">6</reflink>) IS3 and IS4, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref111">7</reflink>) IS2 and IS4. For all of these relations, modification indices suggested a relatively large drop in the Chi-square value and a relatively large parameter value. Furthermore, the inclusion of each error covariance was theoretically justifiable and resulted in a better final measurement model compared to the initial model (ΔAIC = 909, Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 423, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). Including the structural equation in which self-efficacy, team similarity, and perceived collaboration affect teachers' attitudes toward team teaching resulted in an adequate model–data fit of the initial structural model (CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.06).</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-24">Parameter estimates</hd> <p>Table 3 presents the parameter estimates at the measurement level. No implausible estimates such as negative error variances were found. The R-square for the indicator variables represents the percentage of the variance in the indicator variable that is explained by the model. The highest variance was associated with items COL5 and COL7 and the lowest variance was associated with item CF2.</p> <p>Table 3 Estimates at the measurement level</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left"><p>Unstandardized factor loading</p></th><th align="left"><p>S.E</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standardized factor loading</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Factor 1: Teacher's attitudes</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p> Rich and varied lessons (RVL)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RVL1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RVL2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.51</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RVL3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.52</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RVL4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RVL5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.51</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RVL6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.51</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RVL7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p> Increased support (IS)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> IS1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.25</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> IS2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> IS3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> IS4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.38</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p> Learning Gains (LG)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> LG1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.39</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> LG2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.54</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p> Confusion (CF)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CF1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.23</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CF2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Factor 2: Self-efficacy</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p> Student engagement (SESE)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SESE1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.21</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SESE2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.49</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SESE3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.52</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.28</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SESE4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p> Instruction (SEI)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SEI1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SEI2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SEI3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SEI4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p> Classroom management (SECM)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SECM1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.58</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SECM2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.39</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SECM3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.55</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.31</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SECM4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.39</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.29</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Factor 3: Collaboration (COL)</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.68</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.72</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.64</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> COL11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Factor 4: Team similarity (SIM)</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SIM2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.65</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SIM3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.72</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SIM4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SIM5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.72</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.52</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SIM6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.79</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4 presents the parameter estimates at the structural level. All of the hypothesized relationships between variables were statistically significant. The standardized estimates show that with an increase of one standard deviation in self-efficacy, teachers' attitudes toward team teaching improved by 0.33 standard deviations (95%CI [0.24, 0.42]) when all other variables remained constant. With an increase of one standard deviation in perceived collaboration, teachers' attitudes improved by 0.17 standard deviations (95%CI [0.04, 0.31]) when all other variables remained constant. With an increase of one standard deviation in perceived team similarity, teachers' attitudes toward team teaching improved by 0.15 standard deviations (95%CI [0.02, 0.27]) when all other variables remained constant. Finally, the full statistical model explained 24% of the variance in teachers' attitudes toward team teaching.</p> <p>Table 4 Estimates at the structural level</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Relationship</p></th><th align="left"><p>Unstandardized estimates</p></th><th align="left"><p>S.E</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standardized estimates</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Studied Factors → Teacher attitudes</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-efficacy → Attitudes</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.33</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collaboration → Attitudes</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Team similarity → attitudes</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All parameter estimates were statistically significant with <emph>p</emph> < 0.05</p> <p>Figure 2 summarizes the final full SEM model with standardized estimates. Based on the fit indices and significant relations between the studied variables, there are grounds to suggest that our proposed model holds predictive value.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Full SEM Model with standardized estimates. All parameter estimates statistically significant with p < 0.05</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-25">Discussion</hd> <p>The implementation of team teaching is generally considered a promising strategy for enhancing both teaching and learning. Nevertheless, little quantitative research exists on factors that contribute to the successful implementation of team teaching. Prior studies in team-based research have, however, identified teachers' attitudes toward team teaching as an important predictor of successful team efforts, as these attitudes represent teachers' sense of preparedness to implement team efforts into their daily educational practices (Bas, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref112">8</reflink>]; Duran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref113">17</reflink>]; Perrin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref114">49</reflink>]; Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref115">57</reflink>]; Thibaut et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref116">62</reflink>]). The first objective of our study was to investigate teachers' attitudes toward team teaching. In addition, previous research on team-based practices has indicated the influential role of personal and interpersonal factors in explaining teachers' attitudes toward team efforts (e.g., Gast et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref117">23</reflink>]; Goddard & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref118">24</reflink>]; Vangrieken et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref119">64</reflink>]). Therefore, the second objective of our study was to examine the extent to which self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity affected teachers' attitudes toward team teaching.</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey was conducted with teachers who had experience with team teaching. The findings revealed that, overall, teachers experienced team teaching as a beneficial educational strategy for students. However, this positive attitude was not strongly expressed across all potential advantages. Teachers especially felt that they could provide more and quicker support to students through team teaching. They were largely neutral on whether team teaching helped them offer rich and varied lessons or achieve higher learning outcomes among students. They did not, however, see team teaching as a teaching strategy that led to student confusion. In addition to these results, SEM was used to test a hypothetical model wherein self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity were associated with teachers' attitudes toward team teaching, which showed adequate predictive validity. All factors significantly predicted teachers' attitudes toward team teaching, especially teachers' self-efficacy. This implies that our three hypotheses were confirmed to some degree, claiming that teachers with higher self-efficacy (hypothesis 1), who recognize and experience the benefits of collaboration with colleagues (hypothesis 2), and who experience high similarity between team members (hypothesis 3) have more positive attitudes toward the practice of team teaching. Based on these findings, we now present several theoretical and practical implications to support future researchers and practitioners in their pursuit of effective team teaching practices.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-26">Theoretical implications</hd> <p>First, the existing research knowledge base on team teaching regards it as a beneficial educational practice for both students and teachers (e.g., Duran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref120">17</reflink>]; Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref121">60</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref122">65</reflink>]). However, the findings of our study reveal that teachers are not always strongly convinced as to the added value of team teaching for their students. The advantage of more and quicker student support seems clear and generally accepted. In contrast, any advantage with regard to student learning gains remains subject to doubt among teachers. Also, a relatively large group of teachers were not convinced about the advantage of team teaching in terms of lesson engagement (e.g., concentration, distraction). This might explain some reluctance to advance team teaching as a teaching strategy to achieve more and higher quality learning among students. In essence, this issue has also been recognized by previous researchers (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref123">4</reflink>]). For decades, scholars have stated the need for more research into the effectiveness of team teaching for student outcomes (e.g., Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref124">4</reflink>]; Rexroat-Frazier & Chamberlin, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref125">52</reflink>]). Although these concerns have been widely expressed, the knowledge gap persists. The findings of our study strengthen the argument for further research by representing the opinions of a large group of teachers. Therefore, we reiterate that research on team teaching should seek to focus more on gathering clear evidence about the effects of team teaching on student outcomes by moving beyond perceptions.</p> <p>Second, our study expands current team teaching research by examining the underlying mechanisms that may explain teachers' attitudes toward team teaching. Although there is evidence to support the idea that several personal and interpersonal factors influence teachers' attitudes, little existing research examines the association between such factors and teachers' attitudes toward team teaching. In conducting such an examination, we found that teachers' individual self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and feelings of team similarity were significant predictors of attitudes toward team teaching. In line with previous research, this implies that teachers who believe they can adequately fulfill teaching tasks in specific contexts, teachers who perceive a higher amount of collaboration with team teaching partners, and teachers who sense that their teaching team consists of similar individuals are more likely to experience team teaching as a beneficial strategy (Kolleck, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref126">34</reflink>]; Pareja Roblin & Margalef, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref127">48</reflink>]; Schuster et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref128">56</reflink>]). For this reason, and because the influence of teachers' attitudes on the effectiveness of teaching practices has been shown (Andronache et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref129">2</reflink>]; Duran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref130">17</reflink>]; Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref131">57</reflink>]), those conducting future effectiveness research in the field of team teaching might consider accounting for these influencing factors (e.g., as extraneous variables or in designing a sampling strategy).</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-27">Practical implications</hd> <p>Previous research indicates the potential of team teaching for improving teaching effectiveness and providing quality education to students (Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref132">60</reflink>]; Vangrieken et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref133">64</reflink>]). Team efforts made in an authentic educational environment, such as team teaching, lead teachers to share various tangible and intangible resources (e.g., teaching materials, knowledge) to enhance teaching and learning activities (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref134">4</reflink>]; Frank et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref135">21</reflink>]; Lipscombe et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref136">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, sustainable implementation of team teaching may not be possible in all educational environments. Teachers, schools, and educational communities should consider carefully how to implement team teaching in a manageable way. A catalyst for effective implementations of given teaching practices in which all teachers involved are committed to the educational strategy is provided by positive teacher attitudes (Bas, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref137">8</reflink>]; Nguyen & Ng, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref138">45</reflink>]). If teachers have a positive attitude toward their teaching practices and educational strategies, their performances are likely to be better, and their efforts in implementing a given strategy are likely to be more efficient (Andronache et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref139">2</reflink>]; Bešić et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref140">10</reflink>]; Thibaut et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref141">62</reflink>]). Therefore, it can be beneficial to invest time in informing teachers about the advantages and disadvantages of team teaching, such as the provision of quick and efficient support to students (e.g., through greater differentiation) and the potential for rich and varied lessons (e.g., through a variety of teaching styles; Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref142">4</reflink>]; Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref143">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, the findings of our study clearly indicate the influence of self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity on ensuring more positive attitudes toward team teaching among teachers (Perrin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref144">49</reflink>]). In our study, the strongest effect was found for teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. It is likely that teachers with low self-efficacy underestimate their own ability to organize and implement teaching strategies and thus are less open to modifying their teaching practices based on new ideas and methods (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref145">63</reflink>]; Wray et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref146">69</reflink>]). Changing these beliefs through coaching, observation, giving feedback, and allowing practice could enhance team teachers' beliefs in their ability to successfully accomplish a particular teaching task for a certain group of students within a given team-taught context (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref147">4</reflink>]; Charalambous et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref148">13</reflink>]; Zee & Koomen, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref149">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, as team teaching is an intentional and communicative activity, increasing teachers' sense of an effective collaborative environment is crucial (Bush & Grotjohann, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref150">12</reflink>]; Ning et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref151">46</reflink>]). Feelings of trust, respect, and open communication are key components of working in a team (García-Martínez et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref152">22</reflink>]; Härkki et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref153">27</reflink>]). Feelings of team similarity must also be taken into account: Although similarity within a team is not necessarily preferable to heterogeneity given the potential of the latter for knowledge creation, teachers often prefer to collaborate with colleagues who are similar (Siciliano, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref154">58</reflink>]). This implies that the composition of a team must be carefully considered and evaluated with the teachers involved.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-28">Limitations and directions for future research</hd> <p>Although our study provides new statistically and practically significant insights into teachers' attitudes toward team teaching, some limitations must be acknowledged. First, only teachers who had experience with team teaching filled out the survey. Despite that we deliberately chose to only involve teachers with experience in our study because a lack of experience makes an in-depth questioning of attitudes difficult, it would be interesting to also study the attitudes toward team teaching of teachers who do not use or stopped using team teaching to better discover disadvantages. Second, our proposed model only included a small selection of important (inter)personal factors. It is more than conceivable that there may be other variables related to teachers' attitudes, such as shared responsibility, collective efficacy, or teachers' well-being. Future studies may include these variables in their models or consider the possibility of mediating variables. Third, we did not account for additional contextual factors, such as teaching frequency, the education level, the constellation and quality of team teaching implementation, or the type of partnership (e.g., teachers working with teacher aides, (un)qualified teachers working cooperatively). Future research may opt to include additional covariates in models to gain more in-depth information on between-group differences. These comparisons may form a next step in team teaching research to expand our understanding of how and when team teaching is more or less beneficial.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-29">Funding</hd> <p>We received funding from Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), the Research Foundation Flanders, as this study is part of the larger ESTAFETT project (<ulink href="http://www.teamteaching-estafett.be/english">www.teamteaching-estafett.be/english</ulink>).</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-30">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180372540-31">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-32">Appendix 1</hd> <p>See Table 5.</p> <p>Table 5 Questionnaire items administered during the study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Instrument 1: Teachers attitudes toward team teaching (Simons & De Weerdt, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2022</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>By engaging in team teaching, I feel that learners...</p><p>1. Dare to ask questions more quickly</p><p>2. Find it more difficult to pay attention</p><p>3. Find the course more interesting</p><p>4. Perceive the atmosphere in the classroom as more relaxed</p><p>5. Can concentrate more easily</p><p>6. Receive more (individual) attention</p><p>7. Receive support faster</p><p>8. Sometimes miss some structure in the lesson</p><p>9. Understand the course contents more quickly</p><p>10. Are noticed more quickly when they do not understand something</p><p>11. Experience that time was unnecessarily lost</p><p>12. Pay more attention during the course</p><p>13. Remember more from the lesson</p><p>14. Experience more varied lessons</p><p>15. Are less distracted</p><p>16. Experience improved lesson quality</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instrument 2: Self-efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2001</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I feel capable of ...</p><p>1. Giving students the confidence to do their schoolwork well</p><p>2. Encouraging students to reflect on the offered material</p><p>3. Motivating students to consider learning as important</p><p>4. Allowing students to discover new things for themselves</p><p>5. Adjusting instruction when students do not understand something</p><p>6. Determining what students have understood from the instruction</p><p>7. Tailoring lessons to the appropriate level of individual students</p><p>8. Providing appropriate challenges to students who are good learners</p><p>9. Reducing disruptive behavior in the classroom</p><p>10. Making students follow classroom rules</p><p>11. Preventing students from negatively affecting the classroom atmosphere</p><p>12. Making clear to students what behavior is expected of them</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instrument 3: Perceived collaboration (Decuyper et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2023</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>During team teaching classes, I feel that my team teaching colleague(s) and I...</p><p>1. Could rely on each other for questions and concerns</p><p>2. Complemented each other very well</p><p>3. Gave each other emotional support</p><p>4. Gave each other professional support</p><p>5. Mutually trust each other</p><p>6. Respect each other</p><p>7. Support each other</p><p>8. Openly discuss experiences</p><p>9. Are open to reflection</p><p>10. Provide each other feedback</p><p>11. Avoid competition</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instrument 4: Team similarity (Zellmer-Bruhn et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2008</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>My team teaching colleague(s) and I have...</p><p>1. The same drive at work</p><p>2. Similar work habits</p><p>3. Similar interaction styles</p><p>4. Similar personalities</p><p>5. The same vision of education</p><p>6. Similar teaching styles</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0180372540-33">Appendix 2</hd> <p>See Table 6.</p> <p>Table 6 EFA four-factor structure</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Four-factor structure</p></th><th align="left" /></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Factor 1</p></th><th align="left"><p>Factor 2</p></th><th align="left"><p>Factor 3</p></th><th align="left"><p>Factor 4</p></th><th align="left"><p>h<sup>2</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>RVL1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.47</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.22</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.30</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RVL2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.43</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RVL3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.75</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.52</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RVL4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.74</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.55</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RVL5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.43</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.25</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RVL6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.68</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>RVL7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.55</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.39</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>LG1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.59</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.40</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>LG2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.62</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.47</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IS1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.44</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.27</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IS2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.70</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.51</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IS3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.70</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.52</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>IS4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.69</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.52</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CF1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− <bold>0.58</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.33</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CF2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− <bold>0.45</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.23</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CF3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− <bold>0.33</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SESE1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.52</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.27</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SESE2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.56</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.30</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SESE3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.58</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.33</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SESE4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.65</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SEI1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.63</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.40</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SEI2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.67</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SEI3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.71</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.51</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SEI4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.65</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SECM1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.56</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SECM2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.67</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SECM3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.57</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.36</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SECM4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.57</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.33</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.86</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.74</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.68</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL3</p></td><td align="char"><p><bold>0.71</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.81</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.71</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.82</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.87</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.88</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.78</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.68</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.78</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.57</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.54</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>COL11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.68</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.42</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SIM1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.52</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.32</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SIM2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.62</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SIM3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.76</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SIM4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.84</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SIM5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.48</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.56</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SIM6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.82</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Items in bold indicate the grouping for each underlying factor</p> <hd id="AN0180372540-34">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0180372540-35"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref33" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson RS, Speck BW. "Oh what a difference a team makes": Why team teaching makes a difference. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1998; 14; 7: 671-686. 10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00021-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andronache D, Bocoş M, Bocoş V, Macri C. Attitude towards teaching profession. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 142: 628-632. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref60" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> De Backer, L, Simons, M, Schelfhout, W, & Vandervieren, E. (2021). Let's team up! Measuring student teachers' perceptions of team teaching experiences. In K. Ulas (Ed.), Teacher Education (pp. 1–22). IntechOpen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" 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="ref64" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baeten M, Simons M. Innovative field experiences in teacher education: Student-teachers and mentors as partners in teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2016; 28; 1: 38-51</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref88" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandalos DL. Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2014; 21; 1: 102-116. 10.1080/10705511.2014.859510</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref39" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist. 1982; 37; 2: 122-147. 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref21" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bas G. Effect of student teachers' teaching beliefs and attitudes towards teaching on motivation to teach: Mediating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2022; 48; 3: 348-363. 10.1080/02607476.2021.2006043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Becuwe H, Tondeur J, Pareja Roblin N, Thys J, Castelein E. Teacher design teams as a strategy for professional development: The role of the facilitator. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2016; 22; 3–4: 141-154. 10.1080/13803611.2016.1247724</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bešić E, Paleczek L, Krammer M, Gasteiger-Klicpera B. Inclusive practices at the teacher and class level: The experts' view. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2017; 32; 3: 329-345. 10.1080/08856257.2016.1240339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt R. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology. 2004; 110; 2: 349-399. 10.1086/421787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bush A, Grotjohann N. Collaboration in teacher education: A cross-sectional study on future teachers' attitudes towards collaboration, their intentions to collaborate and their performance of collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2020; 88: 102968. 10.1016/j.tate.2019.102968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charalambous CY, Philippou GN, Kyriakides L. Tracing the development of preservice teachers' efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics during fieldwork. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2008; 67; 2: 125-142. 10.1007/s10649-007-9084-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook SC, McDuffie-Landrum K. Integrating effective practices into co-teaching: Increasing outcomes for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic. 2020; 55; 4: 221-229. 10.1177/1053451219855739</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costello, A. B, & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Jong L, Meirink J, Admiraal W. School-based teacher collaboration: Different learning opportunities across various contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2019; 86: 102925. 10.1016/j.tate.2019.102925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decuyper A, Tack H, Vanblaere B, Simons M, Vanderlinde R. Collaboration and shared responsibility in team teaching: A large-scale survey study. Education Sciences. 2023; 13; 9: 896. 10.3390/educsci13090896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duran D, Flores M, Ribas T, Ribosa J. Student teachers' perceptions and evidence of peer learning through co-teaching: Improving attitudes and willingness towards co-teaching. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2021; 36; 2: 495-510. 10.1007/s10212-020-00479-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dziak JJ, Coffman DL, Lanza ST, Li R, Jermiin LS. Sensitivity and specificity of information criteria. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2019; 21; 2: 553-565. 10.1093/bib/bbz016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ertesvåg SK. Teachers' collaborative activity in school-wide interventions. Social Psychology of Education. 2014; 17; 4: 565-588. 10.1007/s11218-014-9262-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forte AM, Flores MA. Teacher collaboration and professional development in the workplace: A study of Portuguese teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2014; 37; 1: 91-105. 10.1080/02619768.2013.763791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank KA, Zhao Y, Penuel WR, Ellefson N, Porter S. Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education. 2011; 84; 2: 137-156. 10.1177/0038040711401812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García-Martínez I, Montenegro-Rueda M, Molina-Fernández E, Fernández-Batanero JM. Mapping teacher collaboration for school success. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2021; 32; 4: 631-649. 10.1080/09243453.2021.1925700</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gast I, Schildkamp K, van der Veen JT. Team-based professional development interventions in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research. 2017; 87; 4: 736-767. 10.3102/0034654317704306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard Y, Kim M. Examining connections between teacher perceptions of collaboration, differentiated instruction, and teacher efficacy. Teachers College Record. 2018; 120; 1: 1-24. 10.1177/016146811812000102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hackett J, Bang M, Goulter A, Battista M. Crossing risky boundaries: Learning to authentically and equitably co-teach through design and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2019; 86: 102889. 10.1016/j.tate.2019.102889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves A. Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects. Teachers and Teaching. 2019; 25; 5: 603-621. 10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Härkki T, Vartiainen H, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen P, Hakkarainen K. Co-teaching in non-linear projects: A contextualised model of co-teaching to support educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021; 97: 103188. 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods. 2004; 7; 2: 191-205. 10.1177/1094428104263675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hettinger K, Lazarides R, Rubach C, Schiefele U. Teacher classroom management self-efficacy: Longitudinal relations to perceived teaching behaviors and student enjoyment. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021; 103: 103349. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holzberger D, Philipp A, Kunter M. How teachers' self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 105; 3: 774. 10.1037/a0032198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6; 1: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson TM, King-Sears ME, Miller AD. High school co-teaching partners' self-efficacy, personal compatibility, and active involvement in instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2022; 45; 2: 96-107. 10.1177/0731948720919811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960; 20; 1: 141-151. 10.1177/001316446002000116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolleck N. Motivational aspects of teacher collaboration. Frontiers in Education. 2019; 4: 122. 10.3389/feduc.2019.00122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krammer M, Rossmann P, Gastager A, Gasteiger-Klicpera B. Ways of composing teaching teams and their impact on teachers' perceptions about collaboration. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2018; 41; 4: 463-478. 10.1080/02619768.2018.1462331</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Künsting J, Neuber V, Lipowsky F. Teacher self-efficacy as a long-term predictor of instructional quality in the classroom. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2016; 31; 3: 299-322. 10.1007/s10212-015-0272-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li C-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods. 2016; 48; 3: 936-949. 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li C-H. Statistical estimation of structural equation models with a mixture of continuous and categorical observed variables. Behavior Research Methods. 2021; 53; 5: 2191-2213. 10.3758/s13428-021-01547-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipscombe K, Buckley-Walker K, McNamara P. Understanding collaborative teacher teams as open systems for professional development. Professional Development in Education. 2020; 46; 3: 373-390. 10.1080/19415257.2019.1613256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu Y, Benoliel P. National context, school factors, and individual teacher characteristics: Which matters most for teacher collaboration?. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2022; 120: 103885. 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103885</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mannix E, Neale MA. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2005; 6; 2: 31-55. 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcoulides GA, Drezner Z. Model specification searches using ant colony optimization algorithms. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2003; 10; 1: 154-164. 10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology. 2001; 27; 1: 415-444. 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muckenthaler M, Tillmann T, Weiß S, Kiel E. Teacher collaboration as a core objective of school development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2020; 31; 3: 486-504. 10.1080/09243453.2020.1747501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen D, Ng D. Teacher collaboration for change: Sharing, improving, and spreading. Professional Development in Education. 2020; 46; 4: 638-651. 10.1080/19415257.2020.1787206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ning HK, Lee D, Lee WO. Relationships between teacher value orientations, collegiality, and collaboration in school professional learning communities. Social Psychology of Education. 2015; 18; 2: 337-354. 10.1007/s11218-015-9294-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne JW. What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis?. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2015; 20; 1: 2. 10.7275/hb2g-m060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pareja Roblin N, Margalef L. Learning from dilemmas: Teacher professional development through collaborative action and reflection. Teachers and Teaching. 2013; 19; 1: 18-32. 10.1080/13540602.2013.744196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perrin A-L, Jury M, Desombre C. Are teachers' personal values related to their attitudes toward inclusive education? A correlational study. Social Psychology of Education. 2021; 24; 4: 1085-1104. 10.1007/s11218-021-09646-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pratt SM, Imbody SM, Wolf LD, Patterson AL. Co-planning in coteaching. Intervention in School and Clinic. 2017; 52; 4: 243-249. 10.1177/1053451216659474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Revelle, W. (2023). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.3.3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rexroat-Frazier N, Chamberlin S. Best practices in co-teaching mathematics with special needs students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2019; 19: 173-183. 10.1111/1471-3802.12439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods. 2012; 17; 3: 354. 10.1037/a0029315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012; 48; 2: 1-36. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sasson I, Malkinson N. Co-teaching-based professional development: Self-efficacy, attitudes toward the profession, and pedagogical practices. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. 2021; 18; 6: 82-100. 10.53761/1.18.6.7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuster J, Hartmann U, Kolleck N. Teacher collaboration networks as a function of type of collaboration and schools' structural environment. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021; 103. 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin M, Lee H, McKenna JW. Special education and general education preservice teachers' co-teaching experiences: A comparative synthesis of qualitative research. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2016; 20; 1: 91-107. 10.1080/13603116.2015.1074732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siciliano MD. It's the quality not the quantity of ties that matters: Social networks and self-efficacy beliefs. American Educational Research Journal. 2016; 53; 2: 227-262. 10.3102/0002831216629207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons, M, & De Weerdt, D. (2022). How do learners perceive team teaching? Development and validation of the Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ). In: 15th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville, Spain.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons M, Coetzee S, Baeten M, Schmulian A. Measuring learners' perceptions of a team-taught learning environment: Development and validation of the Learners' Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ). Learning Environments Research. 2020; 23; 1: 45-58. 10.1007/s10984-019-09290-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strogilos V, King-Sears ME, Tragoulia E, Voulagka A, Stefanidis A. A meta-synthesis of co-teaching students with and without disabilities. Educational Research Review. 2023; 38: 100504. 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thibaut L, Knipprath H, Dehaene W, Depaepe F. The influence of teachers' attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2018; 71: 190-205. 10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy AW. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2001; 17; 7: 783-805. 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vangrieken K, Dochy F, Raes E, Kyndt E. Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review. 2015; 15: 17-40. 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh T. 'Promoted widely but not valued': Teachers' perceptions of team teaching as a form of professional development in post-primary schools in Ireland. Professional Development in Education. 2022; 48; 4: 688-704. 10.1080/19415257.2020.1725596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whittaker T, Schumacker R. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 20225; Routledge. 10.4324/9781003044017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolgast A, Fischer N. You are not alone: Colleague support and goal-oriented cooperation as resources to reduce teachers' stress. Social Psychology of Education. 2017; 20; 1: 97-114. 10.1007/s11218-017-9366-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist. 2006; 34; 6: 806-838. 10.1177/0011000006288127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wray E, Sharma U, Subban P. Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education: A systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2022; 117: 103800. 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee M, Koomen HMY. Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86; 4: 981-1015. 10.3102/0034654315626801</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Maloney MM, Bhappu AD, Salvador R. When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2008; 107; 1: 41-59. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.004</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Dries De Weerdt; Mathea Simons and Elke Struyf</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Dries De Weerdt graduated with a master's degree in Training and Education Sciences at the University of Antwerp. He is now a doctoral candidate in Education Sciences at the Antwerp School of Education (University of Antwerp). His current research focuses on the effects of team teaching on student outcomes. An overview of his research can be consulted on https://<ulink href="http://www.uantwerpen.be/en/staff/dries-de-weerdt%5f22955/">www.uantwerpen.be/en/staff/dries-de-weerdt%5f22955/</ulink></p> <p>Mathea Simons is associate professor and teacher trainer at the Antwerp School of Education at the University of Antwerp (Belgium), more specifically in the field of language teaching. She is a member of Didactica, an expertise center for subject-specific and general didactics, and professional development of teachers and student teachers. Team teaching is a central topic in her research agenda; she supervises three ongoing PhD-projects on this topic. A detailed overview of her research projects and publications can be consulted on https://<ulink href="http://www.uantwerpen.be/en/staff/mathea-simons">www.uantwerpen.be/en/staff/mathea-simons</ulink>.</p> <p>Elke Struyf , PhD, is full professor in Education Sciences, at the Antwerp School of Education, at the University of Antwerp (Belgium). Within the research group Didactica she conducts research on teachers' expertise development with regard to student counseling and inclusive education, its relationship with characteristics in the contextual (classroom or school) environment and students' outcomes. A detailed overview of her research projects and publications can be consulted on https://<ulink href="http://www.uantwerpen.be/en/staff/elke-struyf">www.uantwerpen.be/en/staff/elke-struyf</ulink>.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref125"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1444556
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teachers' Attitudes toward Team Teaching Explained by Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Perceived Collaboration, and Team Similarity
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dries+De+Weerdt%22">Dries De Weerdt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6903-6587">0000-0001-6903-6587</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mathea+Simons%22">Mathea Simons</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9239-9324">0000-0002-9239-9324</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elke+Struyf%22">Elke Struyf</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1067-6357">0000-0003-1067-6357</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Psychology+of+Education%3A+An+International+Journal%22"><i>Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal</i></searchLink>. 2024 27(5):2479-2502.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; 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: 24
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Team+Teaching%22">Team Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Dynamics%22">Group Dynamics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Belgium%22">Belgium</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11218-024-09916-0
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1381-2890<br />1573-1928
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Team teaching is a popular and intense form of teacher collaboration with several advantages for both students and teachers. To successfully implement team-based practices such as team teaching, previous studies highlight the pivotal role of teachers' attitudes, which are subject to several personal and interpersonal processes. Stakeholders willing to implement team teaching require a deep understanding of teachers' attitudes toward the practice and their relation to prominent (inter)personal variables in teacher collaboration research. To date, however, little quantitative research exists on teachers' attitudes toward team teaching and even less on factors that may explain these attitudes. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore how teachers value the implementation of team teaching in their teaching practices and to what extent prominent (inter)personal variables such as teachers' self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity are associated with these attitudes. The empirical data were collected through a cross-sectional survey (N = 555) conducted in Flanders (Belgium). The findings showed that teachers had a positive overall attitude toward team teaching, but this was not always strongly expressed. In particular, teachers' attitudes toward enhancing the learning gains of students through team teaching were fairly neutral. Nonetheless, based on structural equation modeling, a proposed hypothetical model wherein self-efficacy beliefs, perceived collaboration, and team similarity were positively associated with teachers' attitudes toward team teaching showed adequate predictive validity. Furthermore, all three of the studied factors had a significant effect on teachers' attitudes, with teachers' self-efficacy exerting the strongest effect.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1444556
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1444556
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11218-024-09916-0
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 24
        StartPage: 2479
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Team Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Dynamics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Belgium
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teachers' Attitudes toward Team Teaching Explained by Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Perceived Collaboration, and Team Similarity
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dries De Weerdt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mathea Simons
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elke Struyf
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1381-2890
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1928
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1