Pre-teaching collaboration

We always elaborate every part of the lesson in details, in a way that we both expound and explain our ideas and thoughts, and from these we create a consistent whole. (R1)

In the terms outlined above, feedback from the students confirmed an interesting end result in team teaching situations. The students claimed that teachers involved in such collaborative circumstances prepared a lot more for their lessons, which underlined the view that team teaching was special. In fact, the findings also indicated that due to team or individual teaching in the classroom, the two pairs of trainees differed in terms of the extent to which they had cooperated in lesson planning. One pair of student teachers (R1 and R2 who usually conducted the lessons together) reported involvement in the process on a regular basis, whereas the other pair (R3 and R4 who usually conducted lessons individually) showed less consistency in joint lesson planning. In both cases, however, individual teaching did not provide an obstacle for mutual planning. It was equally important for the members of the team to plan together. Additionally, in both cases, collaborative work on both long and short-term planning was considered essential and regularly done to ensure a reasonable degree of integration and coherence. There was also evidence for the development of successful planning and persistent participation in team discussions. Conclusions implied that in-class collaboration could have an impact on preparation with a partner, but was definitely not a prerequisite for it.

Sufficient time and the mode of conducting lessons were regarded essential for achieving a kind of persistence in planning together, but the importance of tasks and the collective responsibility for the group and final goal proved considerably important and determined the degree of cooperation.

In terms of pre-teaching collaboration, it appeared from the data that team teaching was extremely beneficial. In some instances (R3 and R8) participants reported preparation

with a partner particularly helpful and effective. The positive indications in these cases were confirmed by Respondent 3 and Respondent 4 who noted:

We planned separately but after a while we realized that planning together was more effective so we just tried to have time for planning together…at the weekends usually.

(R3)

There was somebody who could help and....it was very, very useful….and if I got stuck with planning, I could always ask her to help and she always had some good ideas. (R4)

In this respect, it was stated that planning together had been especially useful at the beginning of teaching practice when reciprocal help and support had been mostly needed (R6). The last point raised the question that working together might lead to more intensive learning. Regarding learning, Respondent 2 wrote in her diary:

As a sign of successful cooperation, we always manage to plan and debate the lessons before the particular lesson is due. During these discussions we can change ideas and we can learn a lot from each other. (R2)

This trainee identified preparation with a partner as a useful experience related to a more collaborative learning environment, but also discussed the matter of exchanging ideas. In fact, all sources of data, particularly the planning sessions and the student teachers’ diaries, supported the idea that planning together had provided increased opportunities for the exchange of ideas. Further investigation into the participants’

reflections (R3, R4 and R8) pointed at the value of interaction, associated with working together. This important issue, considered as an advantage of team teaching (R1 and R3), was regarded particularly useful for trainees in planning sessions and pre-lesson discussions no matter whether they had been carried out on the telephone, via the Internet or via personal contact. These were regarded as occasions when individuals participated in strong communication interaction in relation to problem solving, making

meaningful decisions and negotiating in order to reach an agreement. All trainees appeared to have proceeded in a similar way, as in the following examples:

Sometimes we do not agree on some aspects of our planning but we always manage to agree on something at the end, and we always take each other’s points into consideration, therefore we always decide together. (R4)

Then we discuss the lessons one by one in more details. One of us tells her ideas, and the other always reflects on these thoughts. In case we don’t agree about something, we discuss it, and we always try to reach an agreement! We never include any ideas/activities in the lesson plan that any of us doesn’t like. (R2)

Obviously, when partners worked together to plan a lesson it was a necessity to tolerate the other person’s ideas in order to come to an agreement. While the scope was open for sharing tasks, ideas and support, which seemed worth the effort, this was also regarded as a problem. On the negative side of team preparations, some participants (R2, R4 and R6) voiced difficulties and concerns. There were three main reasons for these perceptions: (a) the paradox around time, (b) organization of meetings and (c) reaching an agreement. For instance, in relation to the amount of time spend on preparation Respondent 6 noted:

It actually took much longer to prepare for a lesson when we were together because we had to agree on every single point. So, this was…in a way it was a drawback because sometimes for one lesson we prepared …like… for three or four hours together. (R6)

Further it became clear that difficulties around planning a lesson with another person might produce disappointment. Nevertheless, interestingly, as a final point of importance, the student teachers’ reflections tended to mirror a progressive change over a time in their concerns about cooperation before lessons. Respondent 4 expressed this change best:

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.