In-class collaboration

In the last few weeks I have felt that we have managed to build up a quite good relationship with each other, so I have started feeling safe to turn to my partner if I have some problems or if I am uncertain with my plans. (R4)

The above thoughts illustrate that the two trainees (R3 and R4) whose lack of time and possible initial presupposition about planning together had prevented them from conducting lessons as a team, viewed pre-teaching collaboration in a positive way.

These trainees demonstrated a shift from being individual-oriented to team-oriented.

The participants’ later involvement was obviously motivated by their successful relationship and the benefits they experienced in the process of working with a partner to plan a lesson. On the whole, the findings implied that even though pre-teaching collaboration might take a sufficient amount of time and effort to coordinate arrangements and all the work, based on the gains from cooperation, participants’

attitude could remain positive.

R2) to have involved student teachers in different forms of cooperation. Three basic ways of sharing the work between the two team members were recognized. The first mode of teaching meant that trainees conducted the whole lesson together. This required very strong cooperation before, during and after the lessons. The second choice involved adherence to a set of actions for sharing the lesson but not the particular stages. This form of teaching related to one trainee conducting an activity or a series of activities alone with the other trainee observing. Although turns were taken, this mode of teaching was similar to the previous one in the sense that trainees conducted the lesson together; however, it seemed to need more integrated work both inside and outside the classroom. The third mode referred to student teachers teaching the class alone. Turns were reported to have been taken after each lesson or several lessons. This approach was similar to the traditional way of teaching but it was obviously adapted to the special conditions of team teaching.

It is relevant to note that at CETT the first and the second form of teaching during teaching practice are highly recommended for most of the period and the third alternative teaching mode for the end of it. The idea is to provide additional support to beginner teachers, especially at the initial stage of school practice and eventually allow them to gain more experience in individual teaching as it is necessary in real life. In line with this philosophy, the pre-service teachers in the study were not told what mode of sharing lessons between the two team members to choose. They were allowed to select the way which best suited their personalities and teaching situation, thus they were given a considerable amount of freedom to determine the degree of their collaborative efforts in the classroom. In this respect, it was found that Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 had favoured the collaborative mode of teaching, which meant that both trainees had

conducted the lessons together for the whole period of their teaching practice. However, it appeared that these student teachers had also used the more alternate form of collaboration where lessons were shared in a way that one trainee taught one or several activities alone and one trainee observed them. Several reasons for applying the latter way of teaching were recognized.

The participants’ explanations for experiencing “several modes of sharing the lesson”

(R1) were mainly related to the following: an effort to find the method which best suited them, the students and the teaching situation (R1 and R2); an attempt to achieve equality in the division of work (R2); “personal involvement” or contribution to task design (R1); “personal preferences” for type tasks or skills (R1); an attempt to increase the dynamics of lessons (R2); awareness of the necessity to practise individual teaching (R1) or merely trainees’ actual mood (R1 and R2). As for Respondent 3 and Respondent 4, apart from several shared lessons, throughout their teaching practice, they had used the rather individual approach, that is one trainee teaching lessons alone and one trainee observing. The findings confirmed a single reason for this predetermined choice:

insufficient time for planning together due to job commitments (R3 and R4).

In all forms of in-class collaboration outlined above, no matter what the form of partnership in lessons had been the trainees had been present in each other’s classes regularly, observing and giving feedback to each other. Additionally, mutual work outside the classroom and responsibility proved equally shared. It emerged that all pre-service teachers considered planning and discussions before and after lessons to have been as essential as in-class work. In these terms, Respondent 1 identified the actual lesson as the “product of the work” and regarded it less important than the “process” of

preparations and relationships outside the classroom (R1). Taken together, while giving no priority to one area or another, the results of the present study showed that whatever the teaching mode in the classroom was, cooperation among team members maintained benefits.

As for pre-service teachers’ generally positive impression of in-class cooperation, the following thoughts deserved consideration: lessons were “smoother, more fluent and more energetic” (R2); lessons were “more memorable for the students” (R1); partners could “assist each other” (R4); “there was somebody beside you all the time to support you and observe your lessons and tell her opinion” (R4); confidence and security were promoted (R1); useful information, possible feedback and helpful reinforcement of ideas were typical (R2); there was a sense of trust and confidence (R2) as well as better opportunities for handling discipline problems and difficulties (R2). Another remark (R1) regarding the issue pointed out that shared lessons were of necessary help at the early stage of teaching practice. In addition, the trainees’ responses amounted to saying that shared lessons tended to reduce responsibility and the workload. The important ways of reducing the workload in the lesson, among many others, were seen during classroom observation by the majority of the participants, and I share this view, as follows: designing tasks, marking tests, printing materials, distribution of materials in the classroom, execution of activities, giving instructions, reinforcement of instructions, monitoring, checking homework, decision making, usage of the blackboard, bringing objects from the staffroom and also dealing with the tape recorder. Strong evidence in support of the view that collaborative work reduced the load on teachers was also found in my observation field notes. A further point was related to the pre-service teachers’

view on the ease or difficulty of conducting the lesson with a partner. Two participants

(R2 and R4) felt that it was definitely easier. Two other respondents (R1 and R3) did not refer to this matter in a straightforward way; however, it appeared that for them it was partly easier and partly more difficult.

At the conclusion of the shared experience in the classroom, more effective classroom management was reported (R3). The observation field notes also pointed at numerous cases when trainees imparted a great deal of cooperation in team teaching. For instance, when performing tasks or changing roles, classroom assistance of the partner became evident in such behaviours as eye contact, voice raising and time signalling, to mention a few. In some cases (R1 and R2) such acts were perceived as “hidden cooperation” and were reported to have been regularly planned. Apart from the deliberate strategy to predict actions in order to achieve success, efficiency and balance of roles,

“spontaneous” (R1) or “unconscious” (R2) cooperation, in the sense that it was not planned, was regarded inevitable to occur. From the observation notes it was clear that the student teachers cooperated at those stages of the lesson when it was possible and when collaboration had been planned with logical links between steps. Often judging was done from the teachers’ performance and their ability to join or withdraw in an appropriate way, following the sequence of their plan. In fact the signs of planned cooperation in the lesson reinforced the usefulness of planning collaborative behaviours prior the actual teaching. Based on the findings, the conclusion was drawn that in-class collaboration would require detailed planning. Nevertheless, decision-making in the classroom was reported inevitable and impossible to avoid. A student teacher related as she wrote in her diary:

I did not agree with one of her decisions during a lesson but I did not say anything in front of the class, so that our behaviour stays coherent. (R1)

She gave me total freedom about the lesson, which shows her trust in me. (R1)

In these terms, besides preliminary agreements, mutual trust and respect for the partner’s decisions emerged as important aspects of high level of collaboration.

Surveying trainees’ responses with a view to identify reasons for giving less positive feedback about shared lessons, responses contained important comments. For instance, Respondent 3 showed concerns about the students and the difficulties in relation to paying attention to two teachers simultaneously. While this participant (R3) thought that shared lessons might be “confusing”, another pre-service teacher (R1) felt that such lessons might become “more chaotic” if teachers interrupt learners’ talk or behaviour. It was therefore recognized as an inconceivable necessity for teachers that they paid attention to each other and performed accordingly. These findings raised the basic question that something was clearly more challenging within the frame of shared lessons, which seemed to make certain demands on teachers.

The overall remark to make is that collaboration in the classroom was regarded as an important part of the period. It is of interest to note that although much weight was placed on in-class work, all participants implied that shared lessons were only one area of team teaching. The reasons seemed to fall into four broad categories: (a) sharing responsibility for the same group of learners, (b) participation in regular discussions, (c) constant involvement in observation and (d) sharing the same long-term goals in order to cope with the class. No matter whether both trainees conducted the lesson or not, in a sense, they did share all responsibility. The assumption was based on the fact that even if trainees chose to formally divide responsibility and teach individual activities or lessons, they had to observe their partner and exchange reflections in the course of

pre-and-post lesson discussions. The resulting argument was that whether student teachers team taught lessons or conducted them alone, they certainly remained a team to cooperate “in all possible ways” (R1) and could make the most of it as a learning experience.