View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Do Teachers Self-Report Teaching More Effectively during Team Teaching? A Large-Scale Survey Study with Multilevel Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Do Teachers Self-Report Teaching More Effectively during Team Teaching? A Large-Scale Survey Study with Multilevel Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Aron Decuyper (ORCID 0000-0003-4219-7174), Hanne Tack, Ridwan Maulana, Mathea Simons, Ruben Vanderlinde
Source: Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2025 53(4):761-785.
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: 25
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Teacher Behavior, Self Disclosure (Individuals), Team Teaching, Teacher Effectiveness, Compulsory Education, Teaching Experience
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-025-09713-y
ISSN: 0020-4277
1573-1952
Abstract: In the literature, there is a general assumption that teachers teach more effectively during team teaching compared with solo teaching. Although effective teaching behaviour is imperative for students' academic outcomes, only scarce research exists on this difference. Therefore, it remains mainly unknown whether teachers teach more effectively during team teaching compared with solo teaching. This study aims to address this gap by providing a general picture of the differences in teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching. To achieve this, a large-scale cross-sectional survey study was performed among teachers (n = 453) in compulsory education. The SET questionnaire was administered to teachers who team teach. Overall, results show that teachers reported to be more capable of displaying effective teaching behaviour during team teaching compared with solo teaching. Furthermore, results show a positive relationship between teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour and education type, teaching experience, and with team teaching percentage.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1487798
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG7L45gRSqjLr9Ndv3RNfN8AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCBHb7pCMlagaPGrjQIBEICBm7nCxYKabp3tnxgY47H3xlDhKY925v5atWCR3VWnE52la29iv-frgDOzcJzq5-1SWPWhOr1ih6zf4SvOsIWg4y818MxbKybw4Z9zWioGZCUXm59r5sLQxJpn4fqxY9VlU_HuVmW9P1i9n0lZqeYx3W4Fg2CEifWLX8--4IlkmXeWfl9IHdGSAnln5jkF5asy2QeEv228CfQ6ZAWZ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186780124;isl01aug.25;2025Jul24.01:16;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186780124-1">Do teachers self-report teaching more effectively during team teaching? A large-scale survey study with multilevel analysis </title> <p>In the literature, there is a general assumption that teachers teach more effectively during team teaching compared with solo teaching. Although effective teaching behaviour is imperative for students' academic outcomes, only scarce research exists on this difference. Therefore, it remains mainly unknown whether teachers teach more effectively during team teaching compared with solo teaching. This study aims to address this gap by providing a general picture of the differences in teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching. To achieve this, a large-scale cross-sectional survey study was performed among teachers (n = 453) in compulsory education. The SET questionnaire was administered to teachers who team teach. Overall, results show that teachers reported to be more capable of displaying effective teaching behaviour during team teaching compared with solo teaching. Furthermore, results show a positive relationship between teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour and education type, teaching experience, and with team teaching percentage.</p> <p>Keywords: Teacher collaboration; Team teaching; Effective teaching behaviour; Survey study; Multilevel analysis; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</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="AN0186780124-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Solo teaching, where an individual teacher takes responsibility for a course or courses, is the norm in most schools around the world (Ó Murchú & Conway, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref1">41</reflink>]). However, team teaching, which is defined as two or more teachers working together at some level to plan, deliver, and/or evaluate a course or courses (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]), is increasingly encouraged by policy, research and practice (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref3">69</reflink>]). This is due, inter alia, to a growing knowledge base on collaboration in general (Vangrieken et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref4">66</reflink>]) and team teaching in particular (De Weerdt et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]). Teacher collaboration is assumed to lead to positive outcomes for both teachers and students (Vangrieken et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref6">65</reflink>]). For instance, teachers who collaborate with other teachers are more effective in their teaching (Sehgal et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref7">51</reflink>]). Building further on this positive assumption in the literature, one should assume that teachers teach more effectively during team teaching compared to solo teaching. Despite this assumption, existing studies on the effectiveness of team teaching remain limited (De Weerdt et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]). While initial research regarding team teaching suggests potential benefits such as increased effective teaching of teachers, much of the evidence is qualitative and based on small-scale studies (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]; De Weerdt et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]; Vembye et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref11">67</reflink>]). In this regard, Friend et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref12">13</reflink>]) argue that there is much more literature describing and recommending team teaching than empirical research on its effectiveness. Although interest in team teaching is growing in both educational practice and research (Drescher & Chang, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Rickard & Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref14">46</reflink>]; Rytivaara, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref15">48</reflink>]), the actual impact on teaching effectiveness remains unclear.</p> <p>To fully understand its implications for effective teaching practices, further research is needed, particularly research that explores its impact on teaching effectiveness (De Weerdt et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; Vembye et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref17">67</reflink>]). The current study attempts to address this gap by investigating teachers' effective teaching behaviour in the context of solo teaching and team teaching. Effective teaching behaviour can be conceptualised as the behaviour of teachers that influences students' academic outcomes (Creemers, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]). For over 50 years, scholars in the field of teacher effectiveness research have consistently documented the significant role of teachers' effective teaching behaviour on the academic outcomes of students (for literature reviews see: Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]; Marzano, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref20">28</reflink>]; Muijs & Reynolds, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>]; Scheerens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref22">49</reflink>]). Many studies (for a comprehensive overview see Tas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref23">56</reflink>]) and meta-analyses have identified specific teaching behaviour that influence students' academic outcomes (e.g., Kyriakides et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]; Seidel & Shavelson, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref25">52</reflink>]). Although research, in general, has acknowledged the important role of effective teaching behaviour for students' academic outcomes, to date there exists, to the best of our knowledge, only a little research in the context of team teaching (Decuyper et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]). While there is extensive research on effective teaching behaviour in the context of solo teaching (Muijs & Reynolds, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]), relatively little is known about how such effective teaching behaviour manifests during team teaching (Forbes & Billet, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]), and which dimensions of effective teaching behaviour are particularly fostered by team teaching. This study measures perceptions of effective teaching behaviour using a teacher questionnaire through a large-scale cross-sectional survey study among teachers (n = 453) in compulsory education. The overall aim of this study is to provide a general picture of differences in self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo and team teaching. Furthermore, no prior research linking effective teaching behaviour to teacher and teaching characteristics is known to the authors. The exploratory nature of this study investigates a subset of the possible characteristics and should be seen as a starting point in unravelling these influences. Specifically, the effects of teacher gender, age, academic degree, education type, employment, teaching experience, team teaching experience, team teaching percentage, students and colleagues will be examined.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-3">Conceptual framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186780124-4">Team teaching</hd> <p>Team teaching is in the literature seen as a growing knowledge base, however, it remains under-researched (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref29">69</reflink>]). There are some studies in higher education and teacher education (Gast et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]; Minett-Smith & Davis, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]), but empirical evidence in the context of pre-primary, primary and secondary education is currently lacking (De Weerdt et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref32">6</reflink>]). Furthermore, the existing research tends to be mostly small-scale and qualitative (Sweigart & Landrum, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref33">55</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref34">69</reflink>]). As the existing research is often small-scale and qualitative, it may not be generalizable to other contexts. This suggests a need for further research on team teaching (Vembye et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref35">67</reflink>]), especially studies that are larger in scale and more rigorous. In doing so, a more complete understanding of team teaching can be obtained.</p> <p>Although only limited research is available, team teaching is seen as a teaching model with several benefits for both teachers and students (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref37">69</reflink>]). Through team teaching, teachers indicate increased professional as well as personal support, more reflective dialogue, professional and personal development, reduced workload, and learning benefits (McTigue et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref38">34</reflink>]). Moreover, students who attend team taught lessons report more diverse learning possibilities, faster help, and more personalized attention (Meirsschaut & Ruys, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref39">35</reflink>]). However, concerns and conditions for successful implementation have also been found (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]). For instance, teachers using team teaching indicate that the workload increases compared to individual teaching (Carless, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>]; York-Barr et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref42">72</reflink>]). Moreover, they feel the need to compare between colleagues and that this could even lead to competition (Goodnough et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-5">Effective teaching behaviour</hd> <p>In general, effective teaching behaviour can be described as the behaviour of teachers affecting students' academic outcomes (Creemers, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>]). Effective teaching behaviour, following van de Grift ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref45">58</reflink>]), is defined as teachers' behaviour that has been shown to have an impact on student's academic outcomes. In this regard, effective teaching behaviour is described as effective if it has a significant and positive impact on the academic outcomes of students.</p> <p>The plethora of literature on teaching effectiveness (i.e., effective teaching behaviour) has consistently demonstrated teachers' effective teaching behaviour as an important predictor for students' academic outcomes (e.g., Kyriakides & Creemers, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]; Muijs et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref47">37</reflink>]; Seidel & Shavelson, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref48">52</reflink>]; van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref49">58</reflink>]). In many of these studies, dimensions of effective teaching behaviour, which have a pivotal impact on students' academic outcomes, have been extensively investigated (Scheerens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref50">49</reflink>]). Student engagement is an important predictor, as engagement mediates the relationship between teaching behaviour and students' academic outcomes (Virtanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref51">68</reflink>]). Previous research, using teacher and student surveys, shows that effective teaching behaviour is related to students' academic engagement (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]; Roorda et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref53">47</reflink>]). As effective teaching behaviour is complex and multidimensional in nature (Kyriakides et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref54">27</reflink>]), various scholars have identified various effective teaching behaviour dimensions showing distinct but overlapping concepts and definitions, depending on the theoretical basis and research traditions (Schneider & Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref55">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the literature, several frameworks exist to capture the various dimensions of effective teaching behaviour (Opdenakker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref56">42</reflink>]). Maulana et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>]) describe some commonly used frameworks of effective teaching: the dynamic system model (Kyriakides & Creemers, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>]), the Framework for Teaching (FfT; Danielson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref59">5</reflink>]), the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta & Hamre, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref60">45</reflink>]), the three instructional dimensions model (Klieme et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref61">22</reflink>]), the International System for Teacher Observation and Feedback (ISTOF; Muijs et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref62">39</reflink>]), and the International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching (ICALT; van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref63">58</reflink>]). These frameworks differ in their degree of structure, underlying models, and conceptualisations (Noben et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>]; Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref65">32</reflink>]). However, the aforementioned frameworks contain several overarching concepts and characteristics which are recognised as effective teaching behaviour in teacher effectiveness research (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref66">30</reflink>]; Panayiotou et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref67">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the current study, it is opted to use the ICALT framework by van de Grift ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref68">58</reflink>]) as the theoretical lens for studying effective teaching behaviour. The ICALT framework is chosen because it is strongly grounded in evidence-based teacher effectiveness research (for literature reviews and meta-analyses see: Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref69">18</reflink>]; Marzano, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref70">28</reflink>]; Muijs & Reynolds, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref71">38</reflink>]; Scheerens, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref72">49</reflink>]; Seidel & Shavelson, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref73">52</reflink>]). Moreover, it is also a widely used framework in research within compulsory education (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref74">32</reflink>]). Furthermore, the framework is reliable and valid for measuring effective teaching behaviour, across several European countries including Belgium (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref75">30</reflink>]). The ICALT framework consists of nine dimensions of effective teaching behaviour that have been shown to influence the academic outcomes of students (van de Grift & Lam, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref76">61</reflink>]; van de Grift et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref77">62</reflink>]; van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref78">59</reflink>]). These dimensions are: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) creating a safe and stimulating learning climate, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>) organising an efficient classroom management, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>) giving a clear and structured instruction, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>) providing an intensive and interactive lesson, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>) teaching learning strategies, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref84">6</reflink>) adapting lesson to educational needs, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref85">7</reflink>) setting minimum goals, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref86">8</reflink>) providing sufficient learning and instruction time, and (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref87">9</reflink>) monitoring students' learning process (for conceptualisation see van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref88">58</reflink>]). The last three dimensions are not directly observable dimensions, which means that measuring these effective teaching behaviour dimensions requires other better-suited methods beyond student surveys and direct observations (Maulana & Helms- Lorenz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref89">30</reflink>]). The six observable dimensions are consistent with the findings from previous empirical research on effective teaching behaviour (e.g., Danielson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref90">5</reflink>]; Klieme et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref91">22</reflink>]; Muijs et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref92">39</reflink>]; Pianta & Hamre, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref93">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, clear evidence has been found for associations between the six observable dimensions of effective teaching behaviour. van de Grift and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref94">62</reflink>]) report high correlations, with the first and sixth dimension, respectively 'creating a safe and stimulating learning climate' and 'adapting lesson to educational needs', having the lowest average correlation with the other dimensions. The correlations between these six dimensions are notably high, which is expected because the six dimensions of ICALT are theoretically assumed to be interrelated forming a higher construct of effective teaching behaviour, but each dimension is theoretically and empirically distinguishable from each other (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref95">30</reflink>]). There is also evidence that the six dimensions can empirically be seen as unidimensional and follow a systematic order of difficulty level, suggesting that mastery of more basic dimensions is a prerequisite for mastery of more complex dimensions (van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref96">59</reflink>]). In this regard, the one-dimensionality of the six observable dimensions of the ICALT framework has been confirmed in several studies (e.g., van de Grift et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref97">62</reflink>]; van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref98">59</reflink>]; Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref99">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Past studies (van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref100">59</reflink>]; van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref101">63</reflink>]) have shown that the six observable dimensions of teachers' effective teaching behaviour can be ranked hierarchically (see Table 1). More specifically, they place the six dimensions on a continuum from the least complex dimension to the most complex dimension of effective teaching behaviour. The least complex dimension (i.e., creating a safe and stimulating learning climate) corresponds to the acquisition characteristic of the novice teacher (van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref102">63</reflink>]). Next, the moderately complex dimensions (i.e., organising an efficient classroom management, and giving a clear and structured instruction) are in line with moderately experienced teacher (van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref103">63</reflink>]). Finally, the acquisition characteristic of the experienced teacher aligns with the most complex dimensions (i.e., providing an intensive and interactive lesson, teaching learning strategies, and adapting lesson to educational needs) (van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref104">63</reflink>]). These findings align with theories of teaching development, which suggest that teaching evolves through stages: initially focusing on oneself as a teacher, then on the task, and finally on student outcomes (Fuller, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref105">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1 Dimensions of Effective teaching behaviour, complexity, and correspondence with fuller's stage theory</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Dimensions of effective teaching behaviour</p></th><th align="left"><p>Complexity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Fuller's stage theory</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Creating a safe and stimulating learning climate</p></td><td align="left"><p>Least complex</p></td><td align="left"><p>Self-related concern</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Organising an efficient classroom management</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderately complex</p></td><td align="left"><p>Task-related concern</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Giving a clear and structured instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderately complex</p></td><td align="left"><p>Task-related concern</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Providing an intensive and interactive lesson</p></td><td align="left"><p>Most complex</p></td><td align="left"><p>Student-related concern</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teaching learning strategies</p></td><td align="left"><p>Most complex</p></td><td align="left"><p>Student-related concern</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Adapting lesson to educational needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Most complex</p></td><td align="left"><p>Student-related concern</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Moreover, Maulana et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref106">31</reflink>]) and van der Lans et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref107">63</reflink>]) have shown that the three stages within the 'Theory of teacher concerns' (Fuller, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref108">14</reflink>]) correspond to the six observable dimensions within the ICALT framework (see Table 1). Fuller's stage theory suggests that teachers' focus evolves from self-related, to task-related, and then to student-related concerns (Tas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref109">56</reflink>]). For example, Maulana et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref110">31</reflink>]) substantiated that a teacher must first be able to create a safe and stimulating learning environment (i.e., self-related concerns) before being able to demonstrate classroom management skills and provide clear and structured instructions (i.e., task-related concerns). Once teachers master these dimensions of effective teaching behaviour, they should be competent enough to demonstrate more complex behaviour, such as providing an intensive and interactive lesson, teaching learning strategies, and adapting the lesson to the educational needs (i.e., student-related concerns) (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref111">31</reflink>]; Tas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref112">56</reflink>]; van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref113">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-6">Teacher and teaching characteristics influencing effective teaching behaviour</hd> <p>Several teacher and teaching characteristics have been found to influence effective teaching behaviour in general (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref114">30</reflink>]; Opdenakker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref115">42</reflink>]). Although not in the context of team teaching, previous research indicates that several teacher (i.e., gender, teaching experience) and teaching characteristics (i.e., class size) explain differences in effective teacher behaviour (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref116">29</reflink>]; van de Grift et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref117">60</reflink>]). van de Grift et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref118">62</reflink>]) showed that female teachers exhibit more effective teaching behaviour in primary education. Furthermore, they demonstrated that effective teaching behaviour is related to teaching experience (van de Grift et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref119">62</reflink>]). More specifically, the effective teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers was found to be relatively low, followed by senior teachers (i.e., over 20 years of teaching experience). The most effective teaching behaviour was seen among teachers with 15 to 20 years of teaching experience (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref120">31</reflink>]). Maulana and Helms-Lorenz et al., ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref121">30</reflink>]) and van de Grift et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref122">60</reflink>]) conclude that, in general, many years of experience seem to be needed for teachers to master highly effective teaching behaviour. Moreover, Noben et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref123">40</reflink>]) found that the quality of effective teaching behaviour is higher in small classes than in large classes. These previous findings suggest that certain teacher and teaching characteristics can play a role in determining the effectiveness of a teacher's teaching behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-7">Research questions</hd> <p>This study addresses the earlier described gap in the literature, by providing a general picture of the difference in teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching. First, it will investigate whether there are differences between teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo lessons and team taught lessons. If differences are found, further analysis will be conducted.</p> <p>The following research questions (RQ) are addressed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1: What differences exist between teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ2: How are teacher and teaching characteristics related to the differences in teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching?</item> </ulist> <p>In line with the research findings presented in the theoretical framework, the following hypothesis is formulated for RQ1:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Teachers self-report more effective teaching behaviour during team teaching compared with solo teaching.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186780124-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186780124-9">Sample procedure and participants</hd> <p>All Flemish (i.e., the Dutch speaking part of Belgium) schools in the context of compulsory education (i.e., pre-primary, primary, and secondary education) were contacted by e-mail with information about the purpose and the design of the study and asked to participate. In schools willing to participate in the study, a survey was administered to all teachers with team teaching experience. Data were collected in 71 Flemish schools. A total of 453 participants filled in the survey.</p> <p>Of the 453 participants, the vast majority are women (84.51%) (see Table 2). The mean age of the participating teachers is 38.64 years (standard deviation (SD) = 10.27), ranging from 22 to 62 years. Most participants hold a secondary education or bachelor's degree (88.08%), but a significant number also hold a master or doctor degree (11.92%). Participants' average teaching experience ranges between 0 and 41 years, with a mean of 14.73 years (SD = 10.83). Most teachers are employed in primary education (46.80%), followed by secondary (32.23%) and pre-primary education (20.97%). Three quarters of the participants are employed full-time in education.</p> <p>Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the participants (n = 453)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>N (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean (SD)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>72 (15.93)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>380 (84.51)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="(" align="char"><p>38.64 (10.27)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic degree</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Secondary education + Bachelor</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>399 (88.08)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Master + Doctorate</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>54 (11.92)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teaching experience</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="(" align="char"><p>14.73 (10.83)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Employment</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Full-time</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>333 (73.51)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Part-time</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>120 (27.49)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Education type</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Pre-primary</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>95 (20.97)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Primary</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>212 (46.80)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Secondary</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>146 (32.23)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Team teaching experience</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="(" align="char"><p>2.28 (02.95)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Team teaching percentage</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="(" align="char"><p>51.28 (31.41)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of students in team taught classes</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Less than 15</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>22 (04.86)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Between 15 and 25</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>230 (50.77)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Between 26 and 35</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>92 (20.31)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Between 36 and 45</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>74 (16.34)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> More than 45</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>35 (07.73)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of team teaching colleagues</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 1</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>150 (33.11)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 2</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>159 (35.10)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 3</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>64 (14.13)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 4</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>36 (07.95)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 5</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>15 (03.31)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> More than 5</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>29 (06.40)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The mean team teaching experience of the participating teachers is 2.28 years (SD = 2.95), ranging from a few months to 25 years. Furthermore, the mean team teaching percentage is 51.28 (SD = 31.41), meaning that the teachers teach half of the time alone and half of the time in team teaching. During team teaching lessons, classes are taught mainly to a group of between 15 and 25 students. Moreover, almost 70 percent of the teachers report engaging in team teaching with one or two team teaching colleagues.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-10">Measure and data collection</hd> <p>To assess the difference in teachers' effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching, a survey was carried out: the Self-reported Effective teaching behaviour during Team teaching (SET) questionnaire. The SET questionnaire is based on the ICALT framework (van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref124">58</reflink>]). While most research focuses on observable effective teaching behaviour through direct classroom observations (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref125">32</reflink>]), this study focusses on self-reported effective teaching behaviour by teachers. As this study uses a self-reporting instrument (i.e., survey), it is possible to also include the three indirectly observable dimensions of effective teaching behaviour (see van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref126">58</reflink>]) that might be overlooked in observational studies (Wubbels et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref127">71</reflink>]). Hence, the teacher survey may deliver complementary and richer information about effective teaching behaviour that cannot be captured by observations.</p> <p>The SET questionnaire consists of nine items corresponding to the nine dimensions of the ICALT framework (van de Grift, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref128">58</reflink>]) (see Table 3). Each item is rated on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (I totally disagree) to 4 (I totally agree), with increments of 0.5 (e.g., 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, etc.). Although technically ordinal, Likert scales with five or more categories are often treated as continuous variables without affecting analysis (Sullivan & Artino, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref129">54</reflink>]; Zumbo & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref130">73</reflink>]). For each dimension, the participant is asked to give a score for both solo teaching and team teaching. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for both solo teaching and team teaching. The results of the CFA for solo teaching showed that the single factor model fit the data well for solo teaching (X<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref131">27</reflink>) = 143.32, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.937; TLI = 0.916; RMSEA = 0.098; SRMR = 0.044), with a good internal consistency (α = 0.896). The results of the CFA for team teaching showed a good fit (X<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref132">27</reflink>) = 95.45, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.964; TLI = 0.952; RMSEA = 0.075; SRMR = 0.034), with also a good internal consistency (α = 0.901). All fit indices met the generally accepted norms for CFA (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref133">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 3 The SET questionnaire</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve creating a safe and stimulating learning climate, where mutual trust and respect are central?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve organising a lesson efficiently, with room for clear procedures, routines and rules about where and how learning takes place?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve giving a clear and structured instruction, where you can check whether students understand the assignment and there is a good variation between instruction and assignments?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve providing an intensive and interactive lesson, in which questioning the student(s), working together, explaining things to each other and thinking out loud are central?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve teaching learning strategies, whereby you as a teacher support the student(s) in the use of metacognitive skills (e.g., planning, evaluating, reflecting, setting goals, ...)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve adapting the lesson to the specific educational needs of the student(s)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve setting minimum goals?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve providing sufficient learning and instruction time?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>To what extent do you achieve monitoring the learning process of the students?</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186780124-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>To address the first research question, descriptive statistics were used. More specifically, the mean scores were calculated for respectively solo teaching (M<subs>ST</subs>) and team teaching (M<subs>TT</subs>). Moreover, to assess whether there are significant differences between the scores for solo teaching and team teaching, paired sample t-tests were performed. The assumptions of normality, independence, and equal variances were met for the paired sample t-tests. Furthermore, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> effect size index was calculated to determine the magnitude of the mean differences (0.20 = small, 0.50 = medium, 0.80 = large) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref134">3</reflink>]). There was no missing data, as all participants had fully completed the SET questionnaire.</p> <p>To address the second research question, a multilevel analysis was performed (Hox et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref135">19</reflink>]) to account for the nested data structure (i.e., teachers nested in team teaching teams, which are nested within schools). Each team consists of multiple teachers, implying that teachers' effective teaching behaviour is influenced by the team and school context in which they work. Therefore, a three-level model (i.e., teachers nested within teams, and further nested within schools) was considered to capture all potential influences of nesting across levels (McNeish, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref136">33</reflink>]). Three levels were thus considered: the teacher level, the team teaching team level, and the school level.</p> <p>Model 0 (i.e., the intercept-only model), an unconditional null-model without including independent variables, was run to estimate how much variance in self-reported effective teaching behaviour is attributed to the teacher level, the team teaching team level, and the school level. This indicates whether multilevel analysis is needed to analyse the data. The intraclass correlation (ICC) at the team teaching teams level (i.e., level 2) indicates that 20.67% of the total variance of the difference in teachers' effective teaching behaviour during solo and team teaching can be explained by the variance between team teaching teams within schools. Furthermore, 25.48% of the total variance in the dependent variable can be attributed to differences between schools (i.e., level 3). The remaining variance lies at the individual level, within teams within schools. Based on these results, it can be concluded that next to differences between teachers, the variability in the difference can be attributed to differences between team teaching teams and between schools. To put it differently, teams differ from each other. Consequently, these results justify the use of a three-level model multilevel analysis as appropriate for this hierarchical nested data.</p> <p>After testing the unconditional null-model, two subsequent multilevel models were run to examine the relationship between teacher and teaching characteristics on the difference in teachers' effective teaching behaviour during solo and team teaching. The dependent variable is the difference between the mean scores of the nine items, each measured on a five-point Likert scale, for solo and team teaching, resulting in a composite difference score. This score reflects the overall difference in teachers' perceptions of their effective teaching behaviour across the two teaching contexts. While the Likert scale is ordinal, it is common practice in research to treat scales with five or more categories as continuous variables for analysis, as this approach has been shown to have no adverse effects (Sullivan & Artino, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref137">54</reflink>]; Zumbo & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref138">73</reflink>]). All continuous variables (i.e., age, teaching experience, team teaching experience, and team teaching percentage) were grand-mean centred improving the interpretability of the intercept and examining effects at the population level (Enders & Tofighi, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref139">11</reflink>]; Hox et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref140">19</reflink>]). Centring ensures that the model focuses on within-group variation while controlling for between-group differences (Hox et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref141">19</reflink>]). Although the random intercept model captures group-level variability, centring allows for the examination of the continuous predictors' effects at the individual level, where they may still show non-zero variance despite higher-level effects (Hox et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref142">19</reflink>]). The variables gender, academic degree, employment, the number of students in team taught classes (i.e., less than 26 and 26 or more), and the number of team teaching colleagues (i.e., 1 colleague and more than 1 colleague) are contrast coded (respectively −0.5 and 0.5). The variable education type (i.e., pre-primary, primary, and secondary education) is dummy coded with pre-primary as the reference category.</p> <p>Additional analyses were conducted to assess multicollinearity among predictor variables. Variables with a VIF above 5 (James et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref143">21</reflink>]) were sequentially excluded. This led to the exclusion of one variable, i.e., age, which is closely related to the variable experience. After excluding this variable, the VIF values ranged from 1.08 to 1.39, indicating only low levels of multicollinearity. Furthermore, visual inspections of the residuals did not provide indications of violations of the normality assumptions. The histogram closely conforms to a normal distribution line, indicating that the assumptions are adequately met. In Model 1 teacher characteristics, and in Model 2 teaching characteristics were added to the model. Furthermore, the influence of significant characteristics was examined using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post-hoc tests, boxplots, descriptive statistics, and paired sample t-tests with Cohen's d effect size index. In this analysis, missing values on any of the predictor variables were addressed through imputation (Peugh & Mara, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref144">44</reflink>]). For multilevel variables (i.e., team and school), a mode-based imputation is used, assigning missing values to the most frequent category in each variable. This ensured that all participants were assigned to a valid team and school. For other missing variables, Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) (Van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref145">57</reflink>]) is used. Specifically, for continuous variables (e.g., teaching experience, team teaching experience, and team teaching percentage), a method that predicts missing values based on existing data patterns (Norm Predict), and for categorical variables (e.g., gender) Predictive Mean Matching (PMM), a method that finds the most likely value by comparing similar cases, is used. Multilevel models were estimated using maximum likelihood estimation. All multilevel analyses were conducted in R using the statistics software lmerTest package (Kuznetsova et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref146">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186780124-13">What differences exist between teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during so...</hd> <p>Teachers report significantly higher scores for seven out of nine dimensions of effective teaching behaviour for team teaching compared to solo teaching: giving a clear and structured instruction (M<subs>ST</subs> = 3.08 (0.65); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.19 (0.66); p = 0.002; <emph>d</emph> = −0.18), providing an intensive and interactive lesson (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.87 (0.69); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.09 (0.72); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.31), teaching learning strategies (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.67 (0.76); M<subs>TT</subs> = 2.92 (0.78); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.33), adapting lesson to educational needs (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.60 (0.80); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.19 (0.70); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.78), setting minimum goals (M<subs>ST</subs> = 3.01 (0.65); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.12 (0.68); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.17), providing sufficient learning and instruction time (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.93 (0.69); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.13 (0.68); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.29), and monitoring students' learning process (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.68 (0.70); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.04 (0.69); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.51) (see Fig. 1). This means that teachers feel more able to exhibit these dimensions of effective teaching behaviour during team teaching than during solo teaching. No significant difference can be identified for the dimensions: creating a safe and stimulating learning climate (M<subs>ST</subs> = 3.15 (0.63); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.23 (0.64); p = 0.056) and organising an efficient classroom management (M<subs>ST</subs> = 3.10 (0.61); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.13 (0.69); p = 0.401). Hence, teachers report feeling to an equal extent able to perform these dimensions of effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Differences in Self-reported Effective Teaching Behaviour among teachers in Pre-primary, Primary and Secondary Education (n = 453)</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-14">How are teacher and teaching characteristics related to the differences in teachers' self-rep...</hd> <p>In Model 0, the intercept-only model, the estimated intercept is 0.165 (SE = 0.060) in the fixed part representing the overall mean difference across all teachers in all team teaching teams (see Table 4). This means that teachers overall report a higher score on effective teaching behaviour for team teaching in comparison with solo teaching. Thus, they perceive the successfulness of displaying effective teaching behaviour in the context of team teaching rather than in the context of solo teaching. In Model 1, results reveal that education type (primary: b = 0.238, SE = 0.088, p < 0.01) and teaching experience (b = −0.008, SE = 0.003, p < 0.01) is significantly related to the difference. Further, there are no significant differences for gender, academic degree, or employment.</p> <p>Table 4 Results of multilevel analysis on the differences in self-reported effective teaching behaviour</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Model 0</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 1</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 2</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 453</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 453</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 453</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teams</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 205</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 205</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 205</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schools</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 71</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 71</p></td><td align="left"><p>N = 71</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Coefficient</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coefficient</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coefficient</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>Fixed effect</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.165*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.060</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.047</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.109</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.022</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.104</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Gender</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.065</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.078</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.021</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.075</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Academic degree</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>−0.067</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.096</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.101</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.091</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Education type (primary)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.238**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.088</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.275***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.082</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Education type (secondary)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.219</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.128</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.283**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.105</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Employment</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.067</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.063</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.048</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.062</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Teaching experience</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>−0.008**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.005*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Team teaching experience</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.017</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.009</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Team teaching percentage</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.008***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Students</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>−0.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.069</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Colleagues</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>−0.029</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.060</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>Random effect</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Variance of school level</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.123</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.351</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.116</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.341</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.289</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Variance of team level</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.100</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.316</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.099</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.315</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.084</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.160</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Variance of individual level</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.260</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.510</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.248</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.498</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.238</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.488</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> ICC school</p></td><td align="left"><p>25.48%</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>25.05%</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>07.35%</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> ICC team</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.67%</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>21.40%</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>24.08%</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001</p> <p>The results for Model 2 show that education type (primary: b = 0.275, SE = 0.082, p < 0.001; secondary: b = 283, SE = 0.105; p < 0.01), teaching experience (b = −0.005, SE = 0.003, p < 0.05), and team teaching percentage (b = 0.008, SE = 0.001, p < 0.001) have a positive significant impact on perceived effective teaching behaviour. The other variables do not have a significant impact. Hence, only the education type (i.e., pre-primary, primary, and secondary education), teachers' teaching experience, and the extent to which the teacher engages in team teaching determine whether teachers report achieving more effective teaching behaviour during team teaching. These variables are explored in more detail. Education type (secondary education) is not significantly related to the difference in model 1 but is significant in model 2. This could suggest the possibility of an interaction effect with other teacher variables. However, supplementary analyses revealed that there were no significant interaction effects between education level and other teacher variables.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-15">Differences based on education type</hd> <p>As the multilevel analysis results show, the education type in which a teacher teaches determines whether he believes he can assert more effective teaching behaviour in the context of team teaching compared to solo teaching. Each group (i.e., pre-primary, primary, and secondary education) indicates a mean score of respectively 0.06 (SD = 0.72), 0.26 (SD = 0.62), and 0.25 (SD = 0.51). Subsequently, the mean scores per education type were compared with each other, using one-way analyses of variance with Bonferroni post-hoc tests. Results of the Welch analysis of variance tests indicate significant differences among the education types (F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref147">2</reflink>, 245.83) = 3.656, p = 0.027) (see Fig. 2). The Bonferroni post-hoc test reveals a significant difference between pre-primary and primary education (p = 0.040), but there is no significant difference between pre-primary and secondary education (p = 0.071), and primary and secondary education (p = 1.000). This means that primary and secondary teachers report significantly higher scores for team teaching compared with pre-primary teachers. This indicates that teachers from primary and secondary education perceive more success in displaying effective teaching behaviour in the context of team teaching than in the context of solo teaching.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Differences in Self-reported Effective Teaching Behaviour per Education Type (n = 453)</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-16">Differences in pre-primary education</hd> <p>Furthermore, the scores on the dimensions of effective teaching behaviour per education type were explored. Pre-primary teachers report significantly higher scores for two out of nine dimensions for team teaching compared to solo teaching: adapting lesson to educational needs (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.80 (0.73); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.14 (0.71); p < 0.001;<emph> d</emph> = −0.47) and monitoring students' learning process (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.80 (0.59); M<subs>TT</subs> = 2.98 (0.70); p = 0.027; <emph>d</emph> = −0.28) (see Fig. 3). This means that teachers feel more able to exhibit these effective teaching behaviours during team teaching than during solo teaching. No significant difference can be identified for the other dimensions. Hence, teachers report feeling to an equal extent able to perform these dimensions of effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching. This is also reflected in Cohen's d effect size index which indicates only a small difference for adapting lesson to educational needs (<emph>d</emph> = −0.47) and monitoring students' learning process (<emph>d</emph> = −0.28).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Differences in Pre-primary Education (n = 95)</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-17">Differences in primary education</hd> <p>The mean scores for each dimension of effective teaching behaviour indicate that primary teachers report significantly higher scores for eight out of nine dimensions for team teaching compared to solo teaching: creating a safe and stimulating learning climate (M<subs>ST</subs> = 3.12 (0.70); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.25 (0.66); p = 0.042; <emph>d</emph> = −0.18), giving a clear and structured instruction (M<subs>ST</subs> = 3.08 (0.70); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.27 (0.66); p = 0.002; <emph>d</emph> = −0.28), providing an intensive and interactive lesson (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.83 (0.72); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.09 (0.77); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.34), teaching learning strategies (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.73 (0.79); M<subs>TT</subs> = 2.99 (0.80); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.33), adapting lesson to educational needs (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.71 (0.78); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.29 (0.67); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.80), setting minimum goals (M<subs>ST</subs> = 3.00 (0.67); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.19 (0.67); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.28), providing sufficient learning and instruction time (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.97 (0.71); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.20 (0.68); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.32), and monitoring students' learning process (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.66 (0.80); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.08 (0.67); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.57) (see Fig. 4). This means that teachers feel more able to exhibit these effective teaching behaviours during team teaching than during solo teaching. Moreover, Cohen's d effect size index indicates a large difference between solo teaching and team teaching for adapting lesson to educational needs (<emph>d</emph> = −0.80). Primary teachers thus report to be better able to adapt their lessons to the education needs of their students. No significant difference could be identified for organising an efficient classroom management (M<subs>ST</subs> = 3.11 (0.66); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.19 (0.68); p = 0.221). Hence, teachers report feeling to an equal extent able to perform classroom management during solo teaching and team teaching.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Differences in Primary Education (n = 212)</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-18">Differences in secondary education</hd> <p>The mean scores for each dimension of effective teaching behaviour indicate that secondary teachers report significant higher scores for five out of nine dimensions for team teaching compared to solo teaching: providing an intensive and interactive lesson (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.80 (0.72); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.10 (0.66); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.42), teaching learning strategies (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.52 (0.78); M<subs>TT</subs> = 2.90 (0.80); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.48), adapting lesson to educational needs (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.31 (0.81); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.08 (0.73); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −1.00), providing sufficient learning and instruction time (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.94 (0.65); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.14 (0.64); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.30), and monitoring students' learning process (M<subs>ST</subs> = 2.64 (0.57); M<subs>TT</subs> = 3.00 (0.71); p < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = −0.56) (see Fig. 5). This means that teachers in secondary education feel more able to exhibit these effective teaching behaviours during team teaching than during solo teaching. Moreover, Cohen's d effect size index indicates a large difference between solo teaching and team teaching for adapting lesson to educational needs (<emph>d</emph> = −1.00). No significant differences could be identified for the other dimensions.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Differences in Secondary Education (n = 146)</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-19">Differences based on percentage of team teaching</hd> <p>Multilevel analysis results show that the score difference between solo teaching and team teaching could be explained by education type (pre-primary, primary, and secondary education), but also by percentage of team teaching, to be understood as the percentage of the lesson assignment performed in team teaching. To explore these differences in more detail, one-way analyses of variance with Bonferroni post-hoc tests are applied, comparing the mean scores per team teaching percentage. Results of the Welch analysis of variance tests indicate significant differences among the team teaching percentages (F(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref148">9</reflink>, 162.64) = 8.294, p < 0.001). According to the Bonferroni post-hoc test, there is a statistically significant difference in effective teaching behaviour between teachers who use team teaching for more than 40% of their teaching assignments and those who use it for only 10% of their assignments (see Fig. 6). Further, teachers who exclusively team teach differ show a significantly higher difference score, compared with all other teachers.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6 Differences in Self-reported Effective Teaching Behaviour per Team Teaching Percentage (n = 453)</p> <p>In general, it can be stated that the score difference between solo teaching and team teaching is less pronounced when teachers apply team teaching in a small part of their teaching assignment. Teachers who apply it frequently (c.q., in a high or higher percentage of their teaching assignment), report greater differences in terms of effective teaching behaviour between solo and team teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-20">Discussion and conclusion</hd> <p>In the literature, there is a general assumption that teachers who collaborate with other teachers manage to teach more effectively than teachers who teach individually (e.g., Sehgal et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref149">51</reflink>]). Despite this positive assumption, no empirical research exists on effective teaching behaviour between solo and team teaching. Therefore it remains unclear whether this assumption is true in the context of team teaching. This study addresses this gap, by providing a general picture of the differences in teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching. To assess these differences in teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching, a large-scale cross-sectional survey study was performed among team teachers (n = 453) in compulsory education. This study provides an important added value by offering a systematic comparison of teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour between solo and team teaching. By focusing on the teachers' perceptions of effective teaching behaviour, the study highlights how team teaching can enhance more effective teaching behaviour across nine dimensions. A key finding is that teachers reported greater effectiveness in seven out of nine dimensions of effective teaching behaviour when engaged in team teaching compared to solo teaching. This finding underscores the assumption that teachers who collaborate with other teachers feel to teach more effectively than teachers who teach individually (e.g., Sehgal et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref150">51</reflink>]) within the context of team teaching. A possible explanation for this finding could be that the professional support inherent in team teaching aligns with the investigated effective teaching behaviour (McTigue et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref151">34</reflink>]) as experienced by the teachers in the present study. When teachers collaborate (e.g., during team teaching), they can provide mutual feedback (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref152">69</reflink>]), which can improve their teaching practices. The presence of a colleague during teaching can also offer emotional support, thereby reducing stress and increasing self-confidence (Wolgast & Fischer, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref153">70</reflink>]) caused by teaching workloads.</p> <p>In this, two dimensions stand out: adapting lesson to educational needs and monitoring student learning. Teachers report that team teaching has the biggest impact on these two dimensions of effective teaching behaviour. The impact is clearest for adaptive teaching. Teachers find it difficult to achieve this dimension in solo teaching (i.e., a student-related concern) (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref154">31</reflink>]; Tas et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref155">56</reflink>]; van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref156">63</reflink>]) but argue they can realize this dimension in the context of team teaching. This may be because team teaching allows teachers to share the workload and bring a wider range of expertise and perspectives to the classroom (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref157">1</reflink>]), which can make it easier to adapt lessons to the needs of students and to monitor their progress. A practical implication of these findings is that teachers could prioritise team teaching for complex tasks that require adaptive teaching to meet diverse student needs and closely monitor their progress (e.g., Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref158">32</reflink>]). In team teaching, teachers can divide responsibilities, with one teacher focusing on providing individualised support while the other challenges more advanced students. Additionally, by collaborating, teachers can more effectively monitor student progress, because they can share insights, observe different aspects of student performance, and quickly identify areas that need intervention. Adaptive teaching is regarded as the most complex dimension of effective teaching behaviour (van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref159">63</reflink>]). It is therefore remarkable that teachers indicate that they perceive team teaching has a positive impact, particularly on this complex dimension. Furthermore, adaptive teaching corresponds with teachers' concerns related to their impact on students of Fuller's stage theory (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref160">31</reflink>]). This indicates that, in general, team teaching mainly affects teachers' concerns related to students, and to a lesser extent teachers' concerns related to themselves and tasks. These results confirm previous research, showing that students feel better supported in the context of team teaching (Gardiner & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref161">15</reflink>]). Simons et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref162">53</reflink>]) found more support through individual attention, less waiting time for assistance, more differentiation, and additional observational information on learning problems.</p> <p>Furthermore, it is one of the first times a positive impact of team teaching has been underpinned using a quantitative method and with a large sample size. This empirical finding offers tangible evidence of its benefits for teaching effectiveness, moving beyond anecdotal and smaller-scale (qualitative) studies (Sweigart & Landrum, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref163">55</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref164">69</reflink>]). By offering more objective measurements, these findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how team teaching enhances classroom instructional practices. Previous qualitative research by Maulana and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref165">32</reflink>]) indicated that the more complex dimensions of effective teaching behaviour (i.e., adaptive teaching and activating learning; van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref166">63</reflink>]) were perceived as a clear added value in the early stages of team teaching practices. In line with these findings, the current results suggest that team teaching is worth investing in. Equally, these results indicate that team teaching relates more closely to certain dimensions of effective teaching behaviour, whereas its impact is not uniform across all dimensions. This distinction underscores the importance of strategic implementation. Rather than adopting team teaching indiscriminately, schools and teachers should consider when and where it can provide the greatest added value (De Weerdt et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref167">6</reflink>]). Specifically, teachers report that team teaching is particularly beneficial for fostering adaptive teaching practices and effectively monitoring students' learning progress. By leveraging team teaching in these behaviours, teachers can create more responsive, student-centered learning environments that support differentiated instruction and continuous assessment.</p> <p>Since significant differences were found a multilevel analysis of the differences in self-reported effective teaching behaviour was carried out. This three-level analysis (i.e., teachers nested in team teaching teams, which are nested within schools) revealed a significant influence of three variables: education type, teaching experience, and percentage of team teaching. As for education type, results show that mainly primary and secondary teachers seem to experience a higher impact of team teaching on their effective teaching behaviour. More specifically, pre-primary teachers state team teaching allows them to teach more adaptive and monitor students' learning process better. While teachers in primary and secondary education report an impact on a higher number of dimensions (i.e., eight dimensions in primary and five in secondary education). These results could be explained by the regular presence of several teachers and/or several support staff in the pre-school classroom, reducing their sense of the differences in effective teaching behaviour between solo teaching and team teaching. Thus, pre-primary teachers perceive the rather limited added value of two or more teachers in the classroom. In this regard, the use of team teaching in pre-primary education can be questioned, as there are also concerns and conditions for successful implementation (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref168">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, primary teachers state that they succeed better in eight of the nine dimensions of effective teaching behaviour when engaging in team teaching. Adaptive teaching and monitoring learning processes are the two dimensions of effective teaching behaviour where team teaching has the most significant impact. Compared to the other education levels, team teaching appears to make the greatest difference in primary education, at least in terms of effective teaching behaviour. It could therefore be argued that team teaching is particularly well-suited for this education level. In primary education, students often exhibit varying levels of cognitive, social, and emotional development, leading to more diverse learning needs than in other education stages. Team teaching enables a more flexible and responsive approach, allowing teachers to differentiate more to meet the wide-ranging needs. Additionally, primary education typically covers a broad range of subjects, which can be challenging for a single teacher to teach effectively. Team teaching allows teachers to leverage their specialised knowledge across different subject areas. For instance, one teacher may focus primarily on teaching a specific language (e.g., French), while the other teacher takes responsibility for subjects like music education, depending on their expertise. This division not only ensures that students receive high-quality teaching in all subjects but also allows each teacher to concentrate on areas where they are most skilled. By emphasising each teacher's strengths and complementarity, team teaching can foster more effective learning outcomes for students. For secondary teachers, five dimensions stand out. Team teaching can for them be exceptionally influential in achieving adaptive teaching. Overall, across the three education types, adaptive teaching consistently emerges as the dimension in which teachers notice the most difference when team teaching. Further research into this dimension could provide more insight into how this emerges. For instance, longitudinal research on adaptive teaching within team teaching is needed to develop a deeper understanding of its long-term impacts and mechanisms. Such research would help determine not only whether the effects of team teaching on adaptive teaching practices persist over time, but also how these effects evolve. These findings could then be used in designing professional development initiatives so that the long-term benefits of team teaching are maintained and possibly enhanced.</p> <p>Next to education type, also teaching experience and team teaching percentage has a significant influence on the difference in self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching. Specifically, the results for teaching experience show that teachers with more years of teaching experience report perceiving less added value from team teaching in terms of achieving effective teaching behaviour. This can be explained by the fact that more experienced teachers might have developed their own effective teaching practices, which they feel are sufficient without the need for collaboration. As a result, they may not perceive team teaching as offering significant improvements in their teaching effectiveness. Results show that the more frequently teachers apply team teaching in their teaching assignments, the more effective they feel. This means that teachers who often team teach indicate more effective teaching. So, when team teaching is employed, it is better to apply it frequently, rather than occasionally (Decuyper et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref169">8</reflink>]). As a practical recommendation, team teachers should be encouraged to teach together as frequently as possible to maximise the benefits of collaboration. When practised regularly, team teaching enables teachers to share insights, collaboratively develop teaching strategies, and respond more effectively to the diverse needs of students (e.g., Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref170">53</reflink>]). To support this, schools could actively promote and facilitate regular team teaching. This could involve integrating team teaching into the school's schedule, ensuring that teachers have also designated time for planning, collaboration, and effective evaluation (Baeten & Simons, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref171">1</reflink>]). Collaboration time is essential for effective teamwork, as it allows teachers to align their teaching methods, address challenges, and ensure consistency in their approach. Additionally, teachers would benefit from structured opportunities to evaluate the impact of their joint teaching, enabling them to monitor student progress and make necessary adjustments to their strategies. By prioritising these aspects, schools can foster a more effective teaching environment.</p> <p>Although significant differences were found for education type and team teaching percentage, other characteristics such as gender, teaching experience, and class size have no significant influence. These results are not consistent with previous research in the context of solo teaching. For instance, van de Grift et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref172">62</reflink>]) showed that female teachers exhibit more effective teaching behaviour in the classroom in the primary school context. Furthermore, they demonstrated that more effective teaching behaviour is associated with teaching experience (van de Grift et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref173">62</reflink>]). Moreover, Noben et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref174">40</reflink>]) found that the quality of effective teaching behaviour in small classes is better compared to large classes. This shows that the results of research in the context of solo teaching should not be simply adopted in the context of team teaching. These results indicate that other characteristics matter, such as education type and team teaching percentage. More research on effective teaching behaviour in the context of team teaching is thus needed. Further research could investigate why and how team teaching impacts specific dimensions of effective teaching behaviour, such as adaptive teaching and monitoring student progress. By dissecting these dimensions in more depth, researchers can identify why and how these dimensions benefit the most from team teaching.</p> <p>These findings challenge the practice of solo teaching. While education continues to be characterised by individual teachers taking sole responsibility for their classes (Ó Murchú & Conway, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref175">41</reflink>]; Vanblaere & Devos, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref176">64</reflink>]) with little or no collaboration between these individual teachers, this study provides evidence that team teaching offers important benefits, particularly in teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour. Notably, team teaching enhances key dimensions such as adaptive teaching and monitoring student progress, which are often difficult to achieve in solo settings. This complex skill has been advocated in the literature on differentiation and differentiated instruction as a teacher skill that is important for fostering quality and equity in educational outcomes (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref177">32</reflink>]). There is evidence that many teachers in various countries struggle to master and implement adaptive teaching and monitoring students' progress in traditional solo teaching settings (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref178">32</reflink>]). The current study contributes to providing a potential solution to this challenge by recommending team teaching to foster teachers' adaptive teaching skills in classroom teaching. Given these benefits, schools can create more effective teaching environments by recognising the potential of team teaching, actively encouraging its use, and providing sufficient support for its implementation.</p> <p>Despite some strong aspects of the methodology of this study, there are some limitations. First, it is possible that teachers completed the SET questionnaire in a socially desirable way (i.e., social desirability effect; Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref179">10</reflink>]). Teachers may give answers they think are expected or favourable. This bias can compromise the validity of the data, as the responses might not accurately reflect the teachers' actual practices. Additionally, the SET questionnaire relies heavily on teachers' ability to accurately recall and assess their behaviour. Human memory is fallible and self-assessment can be influenced by various cognitive biases. In this way, there could be a discrepancy between the responses and the effective practice (Opdenakker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref180">42</reflink>]). Such discrepancies can lead to misrepresentation of teachers' effective teaching behaviour in both solo and team teaching contexts, given the time discrepancy between the event and the survey. Although self-reporting is a strength of this study, as it allows for the inclusion of indirectly observable dimensions of effective teaching behaviour by the key actor, the results should be interpreted with caution and not be overly generalized or extrapolated too strongly. Further research should investigate whether teachers also achieve more effective teaching during team teaching in practice. An observational or experimental study of teachers' effective teaching behaviour could address this. Compared with surveys, using observation instruments is more expensive and also more challenging (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref181">30</reflink>]; van der Lans et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref182">63</reflink>]). However, it is considered a more objective means of describing what happens in the classroom, tackling the biases inherent in self-reporting measures.</p> <p>Second, despite including several characteristics of both teacher and teaching, there may be other characteristics which could have an impact on the difference in effective teaching behaviour. Previous research in the context of solo teaching indicates that contextual characteristics, such as the subject taught and lesson structure, also explain differences in effective teacher behaviour (Maulana et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref183">29</reflink>]; van de Grift et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref184">60</reflink>]). Further research with attention to these contextual characteristics should provide more insight.</p> <p>A third limitation of this study concerns the characteristics of the sample. The data were collected exclusively from Flemish schools, which may limit the generalisability of the findings to other educational contexts. Differences in educational systems, cultural norms, and teacher demographics across countries or regions could influence the applicability of the results. Additionally, the sample was predominantly female (84.5%). While this accurately reflects the gender distribution within the teaching profession in Flemish compulsory education, this imbalance may introduce bias. Future research in other demographic and educational contexts is needed to validate these findings. This study adds to the literature by making significant theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions. Theoretically, it advances the field of teaching effectiveness, classroom instruction, and inclusive education by providing valuable insights into teacher collaboration, specifically team teaching, and its impact on teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour. Methodologically, the study employs a less common approach by using a teacher self-report measurement instrument (i.e., the SET questionnaire) to assess teaching effectiveness. Empirically, the study draws on a large-scale survey of 453 teachers in the context of team teaching. The findings reveal that teachers report higher levels of effective teaching during team teaching compared to solo teaching. Furthermore, the study uncovers significant positive relationships between teachers' effective teaching behaviour and both teacher characteristics (i.e., education type) and teaching characteristics (i.e., team teaching percentage).</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-21">Author contributions</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis was performed by Aron Decuyper. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Aron Decuyper and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-22">Funding</hd> <p>This work was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) under Grant number S007322N.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-23">Data availability</hd> <p>No data available.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-24">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186780124-25">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-26">Ethical approval</hd> <p>The current study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the University of Antwerp (SHW_22_051).</p> <hd id="AN0186780124-27">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0186780124-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</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="bib2" idref="ref41" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Carless DR. Good practices in team teaching in Japan. South Korea and Hong Kong. System. 2006; 34; 3: 341-351. 10.1016/j.system.2006.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref81" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988; Erlbaum</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Creemers B. The effective classroom. 1994; Cassell</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref59" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Danielson C. The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument. 2013; The Danielson Group</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> De Weerdt, D, Simons, M, & Struyf, E. (2024). Teachers' attitudes toward team teaching explained by teachers' self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity. Social Psychology of Education,27, 2479–2502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09916-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <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. 10.3390/educsci13090896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref86" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Decuyper A, Tack H, Vanblaere B, Simons M, Vanderlinde R. The complexity of team teaching models: The relationship with collaboration and shared responsibility. Educational Studies. 2024. 10.1080/03055698.2024.2416106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Drescher T, Chang Y-C. Benefits of collaborative teaching models in teacher education programs: Sharing disability knowledge and promoting inclusion. Teacher Development. 2022; 26; 2: 151-165. 10.1080/13664530.2022.2032299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards AL. The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. 1957; Dryden Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders CK, Tofighi D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods. 2007; 12; 2: 121-138. 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forbes L, Billet S. Succesful co-teaching in the science classroom. Science Scope. 2012; 36; 1: 61-64</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friend M, Cook L, Hurley-Chamberlain D, Shamberger C. Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. 2010; 20; 1: 9-27. 10.1080/10474410903535380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuller F. Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal. 1969; 6; 2: 207-226. 10.3102/00028312006002207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardiner W, Robinson K. Paired field placements: A means for collaboration. The New Educator. 2009; 5; 1: 81-94. 10.1080/1547688X.2009.10399565</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> Goodnough K, Osmond P, Dibbon D, Glassman M, Stevens K. Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009; 25; 2: 285-296. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie J. Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. 2012; Routledge. 10.4324/9780203181522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hox J, Moerbeek M, Van De Schoot R. Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. 2018; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315650982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu LT, 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> James, G, Witten, D, Hastie, T, & Tibshirani, R. (2013). Linear Regression (Vol. 103, pp. 59–126). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klieme E, Pauli C, Reusser KJanik T, Seidel T. The Pythagoras study. Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom. 2009; Waxmann: 137-160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff P, Christensen R. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2017; 82; 13: 1-26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides L, Christoforou C, Charalambous C. What matters for student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2013; 36: 143-152. 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides L, Creemers BPM. A longitudinal study on the stability over time of school and teacher effects on student outcomes. Oxford Review of Education. 2008; 34; 5: 521-545. 10.1080/03054980701782064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides L, Creemers BPM. Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom-level factors upon student achievement: A study testing the validity of the dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2008; 19; 2: 183-205. 10.1080/09243450802047873</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides L, Creemers BPM, Antoniou P. Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: Suggestions for research on teacher training and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009; 25; 1: 12-23. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marzano R. What works in schools: Translating research into action. 2003; ASCD</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maulana, R, Opdenakker, M.-C, Stroet, K, & Bosker, R. (2012). Observed lesson structure during the first year of secondary education: Exploration of change and link with academic engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education,28(6), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maulana R, Helms-Lorenz M. Observations and student perceptions of the quality of preservice teachers' teaching behaviour: Construct representation and predictive quality. Learning Environments Research. 2016; 19; 3: 335-357. 10.1007/s10984-016-9215-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maulana, R, Helms-Lorenz, M, & van de Grift, W. (2014). Development and evaluation of a questionnaire measuring pre-service teachers' teaching behaviour: A Rasch modelling approach. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,26(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.939198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maulana, R, André, S, Helms-Lorenz, M, Ko, J, Chun, S, Shahzad, A, Irnidayanti, Y, Lee, O, de Jager, T, Coetzee, T, & Fadhilah, N. (2021). Observed teaching behaviour in secondary education across six countries: Measurement invariance and indication of cross-national variations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,32(1), 64–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1777170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeish D. A practical guide to selecting and blending approaches for clustered data: Clustered errors, multilevel models, and fixed-effect models. Psychological Methods. 2023. 10.1037/met0000620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McTigue E, Gourvennec A, Solheim O, Jensen M. Co-teaching implementation: How do school leaders support teachers?. Education Sciences. 2023; 13; 12: 1197. 10.3390/educsci13121197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meirsschaut, M, & Ruys, I. (2017). Team teaching: Wat, waarom, hoe en met welke resultaten? Een verkenning van de literatuur.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minett-Smith C, Davis CL. Widening the discourse on team-teaching in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. 2019; 25; 5: 579-594. 10.1080/13562517.2019.1577814</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muijs D, Kyriakides L, Van Der Werf G, Creemers B, Timperley H, Earl L. State of the art – teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2014; 25; 2: 231-256. 10.1080/09243453.2014.885451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muijs D, Reynolds D. Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. 2018; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muijs D, Reynolds D, Sammons P, Kyriakides L, Creemers BPM, Teddlie C. Assessing individual lessons using a generic teacher observation instrument: How useful is the International System for Teacher Observation and Feedback (ISTOF)?. ZDM. 2018; 50; 3: 395-406. 10.1007/s11858-018-0921-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noben I, Deinum JF, Hofman WHA. Quality of teaching in higher education: Reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations. International Journal for Academic Development. 2020; 27; 1: 31-44. 10.1080/1360144x.2020.1830776</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ó Murchú F, Conway P. (Re)positioning team teaching: The visibility and viability of learning in classrooms. Education Research and Perspectives. 2017; 44: 43-69</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Opdenakker, M.-C. (2023). Teacher behaviour and student motivational outcomes: Critical reflections on the knowledge base and on future research. In R. Maulana, M. Helms-Lorenz, & R. Klassen (Eds.), Effective teaching around the world: Theoretical, empirical, methodological and practical insights (pp. 29–83). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panayiotou A, Herbert B, Sammons P, Kyriakides L. Conceptualizing and exploring the quality of teaching using generic frameworks: A way forward. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2021. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peugh, J, & Mara, C. (2024). Handling missing data in longitudinal clinical trials: Three examples from the pediatric psychology literature. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsae070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta R, Hamre B. Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher. 2009; 38; 2: 109-119. 10.3102/0013189x09332374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rickard A, Walsh T. Policy, practice and process in team teaching: A pilot project with co-operating teachers and student teachers on school placement. Irish Educational Studies. 2019; 38; 3: 309-326. 10.1080/03323315.2019.1625798</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roorda, D, Koomen, H, Spilt, J, & Oort, F. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement. Review of Educational Research,81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rytivaara A. Collaborative classroom management in a co-taught primary school classroom. International Journal of Educational Research. 2012; 53: 182-191. 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.03.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheerens J. Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness: A critical review of the knowledge base. 2016; Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider M, Preckel F. Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin. 2017; 143; 6: 565-600. 10.1037/bul0000098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sehgal P, Nambudiri R, Mishra SK. Teacher effectiveness through self-efficacy, collaboration and principal leadership. International Journal of Educational Management. 2017; 31; 4: 505-517. 10.1108/ijem-05-2016-0090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidel T, Shavelson R. Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research. 2007; 77; 4: 454-499. 10.3102/0034654307310317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons, M, Coetzee, S, Baeten, M, & Schmulian, A. (2019). Measuring learners' perceptions on a team taught learning environment Development and validation of the LTTPQ. Learning Environments Research,23, 45–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan GM, Artino AR Jr. Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2013; 5; 4: 541-542. 10.4300/JGME-5-4-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweigart C, Landrum T. The impact of number of adults on instruction: Implications for co-teaching. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 2015; 59; 1: 22-29. 10.1080/1045988x.2014.919139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tas T, Houtveen T, van de Grift W, Willemsen M. Learning to teach: Effects of classroom observation, assignment of appropriate lesson preparation templates and stage focused feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2018; 58: 8-16. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.05.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software. 2011; 45; 3: 1-67. 10.18637/jss.v045.i03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Grift W. Quality of teaching in four European countries: A review of the literature and application of an assessment instrument. Educational Research. 2007; 49; 2: 127-152. 10.1080/00131880701369651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Grift WJCM. Measuring teaching quality in several European countries. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2014; 25; 3: 295-311. 10.1080/09243453.2013.794845</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Grift W, Houtveen T, van den Hurk H, Terpstra O. Measuring teaching skills in elementary education using the Rasch model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2019; 30; 4: 455-486. 10.1080/09243453.2019.1577743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Grift W, Lam J. Het didactisch handelen in het basisonderwijs. Tijdschrift Voor Onderwijsresearch. 1998; 23; 3: 224-241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Grift W, van der Wal M, Torenbeek M. Ontwikkeling in de pedagogisch didactische vaardigheid van leraren in het basisonderwijs. Pedagogische Studiën. 2011; 88; 6: 416-432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Lans RM, van de Grift WJCM, van Veen K. Developing an instrument for teacher feedback: Using the Rasch model to explore teachers' development of effective teaching strategies and behaviors. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2018; 86; 2: 247-264. 10.1080/00220973.2016.1268086</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vanblaere B, Devos G. Exploring the link between experienced teachers' learning outcomes and individual and professional learning community characteristics. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2016; 27; 2: 205-227. 10.1080/09243453.2015.1064455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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> Vangrieken K, Grosemans I, Dochy F, Kyndt E. Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers' autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2017; 67: 302-315. 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vembye M, Weiss F, Hamilton Bhat B. The effects of co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction on student achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2023. 10.3102/00346543231186588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Virtanen T, Vaaland G, Ertesvåg S. Associations between observed patterns of classroom interactions and teacher wellbeing in lower secondary school. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2015; 77: 240-252. 10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.013</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. 2020; 48; 4: 688-704. 10.1080/19415257.2020.1725596</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: 97-114. 10.1007/s11218-017-9366-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wubbels T, Den Brok P, Veldman I, Van Tartwijk J. Teacher interpersonal competence for Dutch secondary multicultural classrooms. Teachers and Teaching. 2006; 12; 4: 407-433. 10.1080/13450600600644269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> York-Barr J, Ghere G, Sommerness J. Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR). 2007; 12; 3: 301-335. 10.1080/10824660701601290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zumbo B, Zimmerman D. Is the selection of statistical methods governed by level of measurement?. Canadian Psychology. 1993; 34; 4: 390-400. 10.1037/h0078865</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Aron Decuyper; Hanne Tack; Ridwan Maulana; Mathea Simons and Ruben Vanderlinde</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref179"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1487798
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Do Teachers Self-Report Teaching More Effectively during Team Teaching? A Large-Scale Survey Study with Multilevel Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aron+Decuyper%22">Aron Decuyper</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4219-7174">0000-0003-4219-7174</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hanne+Tack%22">Hanne Tack</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ridwan+Maulana%22">Ridwan Maulana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mathea+Simons%22">Mathea Simons</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruben+Vanderlinde%22">Ruben Vanderlinde</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Instructional+Science%3A+An+International+Journal+of+the+Learning+Sciences%22"><i>Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(4):761-785.
– 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: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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+Behavior%22">Teacher Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Disclosure+%28Individuals%29%22">Self Disclosure (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Team+Teaching%22">Team Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Compulsory+Education%22">Compulsory Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11251-025-09713-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0020-4277<br />1573-1952
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In the literature, there is a general assumption that teachers teach more effectively during team teaching compared with solo teaching. Although effective teaching behaviour is imperative for students' academic outcomes, only scarce research exists on this difference. Therefore, it remains mainly unknown whether teachers teach more effectively during team teaching compared with solo teaching. This study aims to address this gap by providing a general picture of the differences in teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour during solo teaching and team teaching. To achieve this, a large-scale cross-sectional survey study was performed among teachers (n = 453) in compulsory education. The SET questionnaire was administered to teachers who team teach. Overall, results show that teachers reported to be more capable of displaying effective teaching behaviour during team teaching compared with solo teaching. Furthermore, results show a positive relationship between teachers' self-reported effective teaching behaviour and education type, teaching experience, and with team teaching percentage.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1487798
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1487798
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11251-025-09713-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 761
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Disclosure (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Team Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Compulsory Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Do Teachers Self-Report Teaching More Effectively during Team Teaching? A Large-Scale Survey Study with Multilevel Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aron Decuyper
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hanne Tack
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ridwan Maulana
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mathea Simons
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruben Vanderlinde
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0020-4277
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1952
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences
              Type: main
ResultId 1