‘It is all about this continuous discussion and problem solving’: The implementation of team teaching in twelve Icelandic compulsory schools

Abstract

The paper presents findings from a study focused on the implementation of team teaching in 12 Icelandic schools. The principals of the participating schools had contacted the author of the paper, seeking advice concerning the implementation of team teaching or how to best approach its development in schools where team teaching had already been implemented. As a result, a decision was made to conduct a study alongside the implementation process. The collaboration with the schools lasted between two and four years. Emphasis was placed on involving teachers in decision-making at all stages of the process, including the composition of the teams.

The study is based on over a hundred interviews conducted with team teachers, school administrators and students, framed around the author’s counselling regarding the implementation of team teaching in the 12 schools. The interviews were conducted between 2016 and 2020. Before the interviews, the author visited the schools and observed lessons taught by the interviewees. These lessons were recorded and then transcribed. The following key questions were addressed: What have been the benefits of implementing team teaching? What are the main problems and hindrances that have occurred?

Team teaching is here defined as teaching where two or more teachers are co-responsible for a class, a mixed age-group, an individual subject or several subjects. Teachers prepare the instruction collaboratively and teach together, at least to some extent, as well as working jointly on assessment and evaluation. It is important to emphasize that team teaching is above all based on shared responsibility. Students have, therefore, not one homeroom teacher or a subject teacher, but two or more.

To date, many studies focusing on team teaching have been carried out around the world, and a vast majority of these studies indicate myriad benefits from implementing the approach, despite diverse challenges and obstacles. In the Icelandic context, studies on the implementation of team teaching have been lacking. However, some Icelandic studies have found that schools using team teaching have more diverse teaching methods than schools where teachers work alone, as well as a better school atmosphere, stronger professional development, and more democratic work practices. As a consequence, it is important to further pursue research on the benefits of team teaching, and also to identify possible problems associated with its implementation.

The main findings show that the attitudes of the individuals interviewed for the study, most of whom also had experience of teaching alone, was that the central benefit of team teaching lay in the multiple opportunities for dividing tasks. Moreover, team teaching better utilized the different strengths of the teachers in each team and led to an improved distribution of the workload. The cooperation also allowed teachers more oversight with regard to class discipline and in general made them better equipped to meet the diverse needs of their students. Team teaching was by and large considered a way to facilitate diversity in the classroom and stimulated a growing confidence in implementing alternative teaching methods, such as curriculum integration, projectbased learning, problem-based learning and learning centres. Flexibility was also seen as an advantage of team teaching; that is, in organizing teaching for groups of varying sizes, and offering students increased opportunities to seek guidance and instruction from more than one teacher. Interviewees claimed that the foundation for successful team teaching consisted in mutual trust and respect. The key elements were continuous discussions, shared critical reflection, solution-orientated approaches and peer support.

The main obstacles were seen as situations where the team failed to get along or find time for planning and collaboration. Furthermore, there were problems in coordinating timetables and in some of the schools the facilities were seen as a hindrance.

The findings of this study correspond with findings from international studies on team teaching. It is important to ask why such conclusive findings have not led to comprehensive structural changes in schools in which teachers are more frequently allowed to share responsibilities in the classroom, instead of leaving them alone with the students. The author believes that these findings should have a significant impact on the development of Icelandic school practices, including teacher education, both at the level of basic university education and for teachers’ professional development. The same applies to the education of school administrators. One can further hope that team teaching will become one of the main keys to the provision of successful inclusive education in the 21st century. Also, attention needs to be directed to how the design of school buildings and classroom environments can best support team teaching practices.