elementary school teachers’ professional development … · teachers’ professional development...
TRANSCRIPT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT IN COLLABORATIVE TEACHING:
A CASE STUDY OF SOONTHONVITTAYA SCHOOL
BY
DONRUTAI BOONPRASITT
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE SCHOOL, RANGSIT UNIVERSITY
2012
ดษฎนพนธเรอง
การพฒนาครระดบประถมศกษาในดานวธการสอนรวมกน กรณศกษา : โรงเรยนสนทรวทยา
โดย
ดลฤทย บญประสทธ
ไดรบการพจารณาใหเปนสวนหนงของการศกษาตามหลกสตร ปรญญาศกษาศาสตรดษฎบณฑต
มหาวทยาลยรงสต ปการศกษา 2555
---------------------------------------------------- ดร.วนดา พลอยสงวาลย ประธานกรรมการสอบ
----------------------------------------------------
ดร.สพตรา ประดบพงศ กรรมการ
----------------------------------------------------
ผศ.ดร.เพยงจนทร จรงจตร กรรมการ
----------------------------------------------------
ดร.มลวลย ประดษฐธระ กรรมการ
----------------------------------------------------
รศ.ดร.รจา ผลสวสด กรรมการและอาจารยทปรกษา
บณฑตวทยาลยรบรองแลว
(ผศ.ร.ต.หญง ดร.วรรณ ศขสาตร) คณบดบณฑตวทยาลย
29 ตลาคม 2555
Dissertation entitled
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLLABORATIVE TEACHING: A CASE STUDY OF
SOONTHONVITTAYA SCHOOL
by DONRUTAI BOONPRASITT
was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Education
Rangsit University Academic Year 2012
---------------------------------------------------- Wanida Ploysangwal, Ph.D.
Examination Committee Chairperson
----------------------------------------------------
Supatra Pradubponges, Ed.D. Member
----------------------------------------------------
Asst.Prof.Piangchan Jingjitr, Ed.D. Member
----------------------------------------------------
Malivan Praditteera, Ed.D. Member
----------------------------------------------------
Assoc.Prof.Ruja Pholsward, Ph.D. Member and Supervisor
Approved by Graduate School
(Asst.Prof.Plt.Off.Vannee Sooksatra, D.Eng.) Dean of Graduate School
October 29, 2012
DEDICATION
“This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved family, who has supported me all
the way since the beginning of my studies. Thank you for your continued support and
encouragement.”
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to express her deepest appreciation to Associate
Professor Dr.Ruja Pholsward, the supervisor for her never ending support on this
dissertation. Dr.Wanida Ploysangwal, the Examination Committee Chairperson, and
committee members Dr.Supatra Pradubpongse, Dr.Malivan Praditteera, and Assistant
Professor Dr.Piangchan Jingjitr, for their guidance in the dissertation.
Lastly, the researcher would like to thank all the teachers and students at
Soonthonvittaya School and Sana School for their time in the workshops and this
study.
DONRUTAI BOONPRASITT
RESEARCHER
ii
ลายมอชอนกศกษา......................................................ลายมอชออาจารยทปรกษา......................................................
5207438 : สาขาวชาเอก : สาขาวชาการศกษา; ศษ.ด. ค าส าคญ : การสอนแบบรวมมอ, การพฒนาวชาชพคร , การจดการเรยนรทเนนผเรยนเปนส าคญ
ครโรงเรยนประถมศกษา, ครไทย ดลฤทย บญประสทธ : การพฒนาครระดบประถมศกษาในดานวธการสอนรวมกน
กรณศกษา : โรงเรยนสนทรวทยา (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLLABORATIVE TEACHING: A CASE STUDY OF SOONTHONVITTAYA SCHOOL). อาจารยทปรกษา : รศ.ดร.รจา ผลสวสด, 121 หนา.
ดษฎนพนธน เปนรายงานกรณศกษาการพฒนาวชาชพครในการสอนแบบรวมมอของครระดบชนประถมศกษา ของโรงเรยนเอกชนขนาดเลก จงหวดพระนครศรอยธยา ประเทศไทย ครผเขารวมงานวจยทใชในการวจยครงนคอ ครระดบประถมศกษา ปท 1-3 จ านวน 3 คน ซงไดรบการฝกอบรมการปฏบตการสอนแบบรวมมอโดยออกแบบการฝกอบรมใหเหมาะสมกบบรบทของโรงเรยน รวมจ านวน 6 ชวโมง ครผเขารวมงานวจยไดรบการฝกอบรมการปฏบตการสอนแบบรวมมอกบครคทม โดยสลบกนสวมบทบาทผสอนและผน าในการสรางกจกรรมการเรยนร หลงจากการอบรมครผเขารวมการวจยตองน าสงทเรยนรจากการอบรมไปปฏบตจรงในชนเรยนกบครคทม โดยเตรยมบทเรยน 20 บทเรยน และด าเนนการสอนจรงในตารางสอนของโรงเรยน จากนนพฤตกรรมการสอนจะถกประเมนโดยมกรอบการประเมนทชดเจนจากหวหนาคร 2 คน ในการยนยนรปแบบและเครองมอทสรางขนในการวจยครงน ผวจยไดน ากระบวนการเรยนการสอนทงหมด มาท าซ ากบคร 3 คนในโรงเรยนเอกชนขนาดเลกอกหนงโรงเรยน ทมตวแปรและบรบทคลายกน
ผลการวจยจากกรณศกษาพบวา รปแบบการสอนแบบรวมมอสามารถน ามาใชเปนเครองมอชวยเหลอครผเขารวมงานวจยใหท างานดวยกน และมการสงเสรม สนบสนนครคทมในการจดการเรยนการสอนซงกนและกนไดด ผลการประเมนครผเขารวมงานวจยโดยหวหนาครจ านวน 2 คน พบวา ครสามารถน าเทคนควธการสอนแบบรวมมอกบครคทมทไดจากการอบรมมาใชปฏบตไดจรงในชนเรยน จากการฝกอบรมครผเขารวมงานวจยโดยใชวธการสอนแบบรวมมอนน สามารถใหประสบการณในการปรบเปลยนความเชอและทศนคตของครถงวธการสอนแบบรวมมอได และจากขอมลการประเมนพฤตกรรมการสอนของครผเขารวมงานวจย โดยใชวธการสงเกตการเรยนการสอนพบวา ครมความพงพอใจในการน าแผนการสอนทสรางรวมกนกบครคทมไปใชปฏบตไดจรงในชนเรยน
iii
Student’s Signature............................................... Dissertation Supervisor’s Signature............................................
5207438 : MAJOR: EDUCATIONAL STUDIES; Ed.D.
KEYWORDS : COLLABORATIVE TEACHING, TEACHER TRAINING,
LEARNER-CENTERED APPROACH, ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL TEACHERS, THAI TEACHERS
DONRUTAI BOONPRASITT: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN COLLABORATIVE
TEACHING: A CASE STUDY OF SOONTHONVITTAYA SCHOOL.
DISSERTATION SUPERVISOR: ASSOC.PROF.RUJA PHOLSWARD, Ph.D.,
121 p.
This dissertation reports a case study of a professional development program
using collaborative teaching techniques with young learners and elementary school
teachers in a small private school in Ayutthaya, Thailand. Three elementary teachers
of grades 1-3 were trained in a collaborative teaching model using a six-hour
workshop on stages and practices of collaborative team teaching designed for the
school under study. They were trained to work with partners in a team, and take a
teaching-leading role in devising learning activities. After the training period, the
teachers worked in the scheduled classes with their partners and were evaluated by
two head teachers using a classroom observation scheme. In revalidating the
constructed model and instruments in the study, the researcher repeated the entire
elaborate teaching process with three more teachers in another small private school
with similar variables and context
The results of the study (conducted as a case study and a repeated measure)
reveal that the collaborative teaching model can serve as a tool to assist teachers to
work together and bring out their strengths to support their teaching partners. Through
the evaluation of collaborative teaching implementation by the participating teachers
and head teachers, it was determined that the subjects were willing to maintain their
trained teaching techniques. The teachers were receptive to cooperation in teaching
with fellow teachers and enjoyed their shared experience in bringing about the best
possible lesson plan for each team member to implement at the classroom level. Their
experience with the collaborative teaching model can help adjust their beliefs in, and
attitudes towards teaching. In particular, classroom observation records point to the
teachers’ satisfaction with the work procedure in creating lesson plans as well as the
ways in which these created lesson plans being implemented at the classroom level
were affective.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
ABSTRACT (THAI) ii
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) iii
TABLE OF CONTENS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES
viii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1
1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 3
1.4 PROFILE OF THE SCHOOL UNDER STUDY 4
1.5 MAJOR STUDIES AS BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 4
1.5.1 Teacher Development 5
1.5.2 Collaborative Teaching 6
1.5.3 Collaborative Teaching Implementation 6
1.5.4 Evaluation of Implemented Collaborative Teaching 7
1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 8
1.7 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 8
1.8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 9
1.8.1 Subjects 9
1.8.2 Instruments 9
1.9 TERMINOLOGY 9
1.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 10
1.11 CONCLUSION
10
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
11
2.1 INTRODUCTION 11
2.2 TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 11
2.2.1 Professional learning 12
2.2.2 Mediations through facilitation and collaboration 13
2.2.3 Conditions and factors influencing professional
development
15
2.2.4 Effectiveness of professional development
16
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Page
2.3 LEARNER-CENTERED IN TEACHING 17
2.3.1 Constructivist theory 17
2.3.2 Learner-centered practices 18
2.3.3 Research Supporting Student-Centered 20
2.4 COOPERATIVE TEACHING 22
2.5 COLLABORATIVE TEACHING 23
2.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLABORATIVE TEACHING 25
2.7 EVALUATION OF COLLABORATIVE TEACHING 26
2.8 CONCLUSION
27
CHAPTER 3 THE STUDY
28
3.1 INTRODUCTION 28
3.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 28
3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 28
3.3.1 Subjects 28
3.3.2 Instruments 29
3.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 39
3.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 40
3.6 CONCLUSION
41
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
43
4.1 INTRODUCTION 43
4.2 RESULT 1 COLLABORATIVE TEACHING MODEL 44
4.3 RESULT 2 WORKSHOP 48
4.4 RESULT 3 LESSON PLAN 52
4.5 RESULT 4 COLLABORATIVE TEACHING MODEL
IMPLEMENTATION
53
4.6 RESULT 5 COLLABORATIVE TEACHING MODEL
EVALUATION
55
4.7 CONCLUSION
60
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
61
5.1 INTRODUCTION 61
5.2 DISCUSSION OF MAJOR FINDINGS 61
5.2.1 Collaborative teaching model 62
5.2.2 Workshop on the collaborative teaching
model for teachers
62
5.2.3 Collaborative lesson planning
62
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Page
5.2.4 Classroom observation of the implemented
collaborative teaching
63
5.2.5 Evaluation on the implemented collaborative teaching 64
5.3 STUDY LIMITATIONS 65
5.4 PEDAGOGIC IMPLICATIONS 65
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COLLABORATIVE
TEACHING TRAINING SESSIONS
66
5.6 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 66
5.7 CONCLUSION
67
REFERENCE
68
APPENDICES 86
APPENDIX A. WORKSHOP ON THE COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
MODEL FOR TEACHERS
87
APPENDIX B TRAINING EVALUATION FORM 89
APPENDIX C. COLLABORATIVE TEACHING TOOLS 91
APPENDIX D. LESSON PLAN FORMAT 93
APPENDIX E. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION 95
APPENDIX F. EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTED
COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
97
APPENDIX G. EXAMPLES OF STUDENT FEEDBACK 99
APPENDIX H. PICTURES OF COLLABORATIVE TEACHING 111
APPENDIX I. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
117
BIBLOGRAPHY 121
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 Group 1 Teacher Variables 29
Table 3.2 Group 2 Teacher Variables 29
Table 4.1 Group 1 Workshop Evaluation by Teachers 49
Table 4.2 Group 2 Workshop Evaluation by Teachers 50
Table 4.3 Results of Training Workshop Evaluation 51
Table 4.4 Evaluation of the Implemented Collaborative Teaching 56
by Teachers
Table 4.5 Results of the Implemented Collaborative Teaching Evaluation 59
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3.1 A Model of Collaborative Teaching as Professional 33
Development for Teachers
Figure 3.2 Training Workshop Evaluation Form 36
Figure 3.3 Evaluation of the Implemented Collaborative Teaching 38
Figure 4.1 What did the teachers learn from collaborative teaching? 57
Figure 4.2 How did the teachers learn from collaborative teaching? 58
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Teacher development for effective teaching strategies is of prime importance
and has been widely seen as a foundation for continuing school improvement. First of
all, improvement in student learning definitely draws upon new knowledge and
strategies used by classroom teachers. One of great challenges for those who plan
professional development is to design experiences that are engaging and relevant to all
educators, given the diversity of roles of those who are responsible. Many teachers
have been trained for effective teaching techniques in their professional development
program; however, there are some evidences that teachers cannot implement or
maintain in their classroom context what they have been trained. Even experienced
teachers are confronted with changes in the subject contents under their responsibility,
new instructional methods, advances in educational technology, changed laws and
procedures in school administration and quality assurance, and students’ new learning
needs.
Undoubtedly, teaching is the most important thing that teachers do. It is only in
the last decade that studies in teaching moved toward searching and identifying best
practices in designing teaching strategies that are engaging and relevant to elementary
teachers. Collaborative group work of teachers has gained popularity in recent years,
and has attracted a lot of researchers’ interest. Teachers’ use of co-teaching or working as
a group can serve as an alternative to individual teaching. The use of small group
work is put forward as a tool to generate cooperation between teachers and their
colleagues who are willing to work in a team. Teachers can contribute to group work
while developing their social skills in working with their partners and share their
experience and expertise to make their team teaching a success.
1.2 RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The issue on teacher quality and professional development has been recognized
as one of the major concerns in the educational reform scheme in Thailand. This
involves many aspects of the teacher’s role in developing children’s effective learning
process. Teachers focus their attention on how they can facilitate their students’
learning process with a child-centered approach to provide meaningful learning
2
experience. Teacher professional development programs therefore tend to aim at
equipping teachers with effective teaching methods and abilities to create activities
that challenge learning efforts as well as motivate learners to apply what they have
learned in the classroom to the real life context (Office of the National Education
Commission, Thailand, 2002).
Elementary school teachers in particular seem to be in acute needs for varied
teaching methods to handle young learners with a shorter attention span in various
learning activities (Tileston 2005). Erikson (1902-1994) reports that children at age 7-
12 years are characterized by a sense of industry, where the child directs his plentiful
energy to mastering a variety of new tasks and become concerned with how things are
made and how they work (as cited in Smith, 1998). As a result, teachers are to
familiarize themselves with a variety of teaching methods to be able to alternate
different strategies to suit the needs of their young learners.
One of the teaching methods frequently reported in the context of elementary
schools is collaborative instruction or team-teaching (Hudson and Glomb 1997; Lewis
2000, Boyle, Boyle and While, 2004; Fearon 2008; Johnson 2008; Smith 2008).
Collaborative teaching was introduced in schools as early as the 1970s; it served as a
strategy for mainstreaming students who were identified as having a learning disability
(Hudson and Glomb, 1997). Teacher collaboration was later defined as the open
communication between the participants and sharing responsibilities (Johnson 2008).
To quite a few researchers, collaboration will create the opportunity for authentic
cooperation among teachers and effective learning activities in group work for young
learners (Boyle, Boyle and While 2004; Fearon 2008; Johnson 2008; Smith 2008;
Little and Hoel 2011).
Quite a few studies reveal that professional development in collaboration such
as small workshops does foster teachers' awareness and strengthen their knowledge
which primarily changes what teachers teach or how they teacher interest in expanding
their knowledge and skills (Johnson & Johnson 1998, Office of the National Education
Commission 2002; Boyle, Boyle and While 2004; Little and Hoel 2011). Recent
research has shown that professional development activities are now structured in the
collaborative method (Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne 2000; Garderen, Hanuscin, Lee
and Kohn 2012) which is to encourage teacher collaboration, peer coaching and
contribute to lesson plans and the use of resources (Oakes and Lipton, 2003; Davies
and Dunnill 2008). In addition to measurable student impact, teachers need to
collaborate with colleagues who teach the same subject who are responsible for the
3
same outcomes and build common ownership of all students who are taking that
subject together.
Since collaborative teaching has been widely recognized as a tool to provide
teachers with feedback for their teaching practice, those responsible for teacher
development in Thailand are also looking for ways how to implement it effectively
(Khamanee 2007; Ruamkid 2008). Both researchers pointed out that teacher
development should involve teachers in the subjects they teach, and help them develop
communication and problem-solving skills among their colleagues and students
(Office of the National Education Commission, 2002). They put forward that teachers
should not be required to weigh memorizing facts in teaching particular subjects. On
the contrary teacher professional development should focus on understanding subject
matters. In other words, teachers must learn more about the subjects they teach, and
how students learn these subjects (Boyle, Boyle and While 2004; Lewis 2002). All
these points should definitely be included in teacher professional development
programs. In this regard, the researcher with a background in elementary school
education would like to explore the area of collaborative teaching to see how it can
assist elementary school teachers to work as teaching partners in support of each
other.
1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The researcher has witnessed some limitation in the way teachers have
transferred or applied what they have been trained in their professional development
programs. At the school the researcher worked as a teacher trainer and classroom
supervisor, quite a few teachers appeared not willing to try some learner-centered
teaching techniques in the real classroom. From classroom observation and volunteered
information from those teachers who did not bring new knowledge and new teaching
methods to their classroom, the teachers admitted that it was difficult to work alone
without support from their colleagues. To the researcher, it is vitally important to find
ways to assist teachers to maintain and sustain what they have been trained for the
benefit of learners. In this regard, the researcher would like to conduct a study on
collaborative teaching as a means to support teachers to work with partners to enable
them to share experience and expertise in bringing out success in team teaching. It is
expected that collaboration can help teachers maintain and sustain what they have
been trained and make sure that training will not be wasted on them.
4
1.4 PROFILE OF THE SCHOOL UNDER STUDY
The school in the study is a small private school of grades 1 - 9 located in a
city of Ayutthaya, Thailand. The school with an enrolment of 300 students has
envisioned quality teaching delivered by local teachers to facilitate the learning
process in a friendly, enjoyable and supportive manner. It should be noted that some
teachers at this school still use traditional methods emphasizing memory and passive
learning in a teacher-centered mode.
As for professional development programs provided by the school, teachers
have regular training on teaching methodology, learning activities and lesson plan
preparation. However, from the researcher’s observation, teachers seemed not to be
enthusiastic to experiment with new teaching methods or learning tasks as trained in
their professional development programs. Their lack of enthusiasm toward what they
have learned from the provided training program could have stemmed from the fact
that they had to work individually, with limited resources and without the benefit of
feedback and support from their peers. In view of these limitations, the researcher
therefore would like to introduce collaborative teaching to teachers at this school on a
trial basis to see whether this particular teaching mode could support both the teachers
in their current teaching environment as well as their students in a more friendly and
enjoyable learning process.
1.5 MAJOR STUDIES AS BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Teachers’ development is an important process toward students’ improvement.
Teachers who do not experience effective professional development do not improve
their skills of teaching practice (Mizell, 2010). The goal of professional development
is to bring about a transformation of beliefs and attitudes and teachers engage in
professional development activities, and then adjust their classroom instructional
practice to reflect their learning. At this point the teacher’s philosophy and beliefs
transform because they see the effectiveness of the new practice or strategy (Guskey,
2000). Ongoing professional development keeps teachers up-to-date on new research
on how children learn.
As background of the study, the researcher looked at major studies in four
areas: (1) Teacher development, (2) Collaborative teaching, (3) Collaborative teaching
implementation, and (4) Evaluation of implemented collaborative teaching. This is a
collection of selected literature to serve as a platform for the study in the area of
collaborative teaching.
5
1.5.1 Teacher Development
Professional development is important because it shapes how teachers interact
with children and college. Effective professional development enables educators to
develop the knowledge and skills they need to address students’ learning challenges.
Professional development is ongoing experiential, collaborative, and connected to and
derived from working with students and understanding their culture (Smith, 2008).
Teachers in a collaborative teaching experience have been examined over the pass
years with in professional development program. Collaboration has been defined as
an interactive process that brings together people with diverse areas of expertise to
generate solutions to a common problem (Idol, Nevin, and Paolucci-Whitcomb, 2000).
Collaborative teaching is used in many schools programs to foster student enthusiasm
and to promote learning. Some researchers have indicated that the most effective
collaborations are characterized by relationships that are rewarding among teachers in
which there is trust, collective responsibility, and a co-generative dialogue (Jang,
2006; Murata, 2002; Riordan, 1995; Symeonidou, 2006). Friend and Cook (1993)
indicated that collaboration requires teachers are working together for the successful
incorporation of different teaching styles, and be direct interaction between coequal
parties, who are voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a
common goal. Keefe, Moore, and Duff (2004) also agree that collaborative teaching
provides the opportunity for teachers to see their co-workers and students in new ways
and establish positive relationships. Moreover, other researchers have stated that in a
collaborative relationship amongst teachers there is the opportunity for both parties to
share their ideas, lesson plans, and methods which is exemplified by open
communication (Farrell and Little, 2005; Hargreaves and Shirley, 2009). To many
researchers, collaboration will create the opportunity for authentic collaboration
among teachers and effective learning activities in group work for young learners
concluded in the research that their participants’ reflections on regular collaboration
with peers about curriculum objectives, teacher instruction, and information learned
from field experts helped the participants learn new approaches to instructing students
(Cefai, 2008; Howe, 2012).
Teacher development in Thailand’s national framework of education reform,
teachers must be immersed in the subjects they teach, and have the ability both to
communicate basic knowledge and to develop advanced thinking and problem-solving
skills among their colleges and students (Office of the National Education
Commission, Thailand , 2002). Many teachers are required to teach using a model of
teaching and learning that focuses heavily on memorizing facts, without emphasizing
deeper understanding of subject knowledge (Boyle, While, and Boyle, 2004; Smith
2008; Office of the National Education Commission, Thailand 2002; Ruamkid 2008). However, teacher development does not really concentrate on the teaching approaches
available at their training time. Teacher professional development is in fact a more
6
balanced approach to teaching, which places more emphasis on understanding subject
matters; that is teachers must learn more about the subjects they teach, and how
students learn these subjects (Boyle, While, and Boyle, 2004; Lewis, 2002).
Joyce and Showers (2002) explained that professional development training
needs to encourage teachers to learn new knowledge and skills and transfer these into
their practice. As well as, the training needs to help teachers to learn how to become
more effective learners. They also identified four key components of training should
focus on knowledge and theory, modeling, practice and peer coaching. These components
of training has shown that professional development activities are now structured in
the collaborative method (Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne, 2000) which is to encourage
teacher collaboration, peer coaching and contribute to lesson plans and the use of
resources (Oakes and Lipton, 2003; Davies and Dunnill 2008).
1.5.2 Collaborative Teaching
Collaborative teaching involves teachers planning and working together to
maximize learning to more effectively meet learner needs. It also effectively uses
expertise existing in the group.
Jimenez (2006) investigated in his research that collaborative teaching models
could help increase student achievement if the school leader has appropriate support
for the teachers with planned schedules and resources incorporated into the
collaborative structure. The study examined the perceptions of teachers to work on the
five key dimensions of schooling: lesson planning habits, instructional practices,
student achievement, school leadership, and school climate as part of a teacher
collaboration reform model.
1.5.3 Collaborative Teaching Implementation
As for collaborative teaching implementation, Rock and Cathy (2005) and
Lewis (2000) concluded their research that their participants’ reflections on regular
collaboration with peers about curriculum objectives, teacher instruction, and
information learned from field experts helped the participants learn new approaches to
instructing students. In addition, Lewis (2000) explained that Japanese teachers were
able to successfully shift their approach in their professional development which used
collaborative approach. To her, collaborative lesson study was used in a unified effort
to study classroom lessons and initiate positive change for instructional practice and
student learning process.
Quite a number of researchers endorsed the following in implementing
collaborative teaching (Oakes and Lipton, 2003; Krol, Sleegers, Veenman and Voeten
2008; Critical Elements for Collaboration 2008):
7
A common set of principles of collaboration:
Requires that all team members work together towards a common goal.
Is based on a sense that all participants are valued.
Embraces the unique perspectives of all team members.
Is based on a strong sense of purpose.
Requires trust and a sense of shared responsibility.
Key Assumptions:
Teams must value diverse membership and ideas.
Each member has expertise.
Teams must have a common purpose.
Team members need to trust one another.
Trust allows members to share in decision-making and responsibility.
Five Essential Characteristics:
Positive Interdependence
Face-to-Face Interaction
Interpersonal Skills
Monitoring in developing time and methods for regular processing
Individual Accountability
1.5.4 Evaluation of Implemented Collaborative Teaching
Evaluation of the implemented collaborative teaching is generally carried out
by qualitative research to gain insight into the process and corresponding details of the
method used by the teachers in a team, interaction between the teachers and students,
students’ achievements as identified target, and teachers’ and students’ feedback to
collaborative teaching. Their collected data were (a) participant interviews, (b) field
notes/observations, (c) teacher reflection journals, (d) observation checklist (Lewis
2000; Rock and Cathy, 2005; Fearon, 2008; Smith, 2008; Krol, Sleegers, Veenman
and Voeten, 2008).
Panitz and Panitz (1996) also suggest that observation, using a structured
taxonomy based on Bloom, can be helpful. Observation has the big advantage of
looking directly at the processes of group work rather than just at the outcomes, and
will allow the observer to make an assessment of how well the group is functioning
and of each individual’s contribution to the group.
8
Traditional professional development strategies such as one-shot workshops
can be useful for delivering information, but the opportunities they provide for
teachers to translate theoretical knowledge into effective classroom practices are
limited. Effective professional development calls for adequate support structures and
opportunities for teachers to select, plan, carry out, and evaluate the professional
development activities in which they are involved. When teachers have the chance to
participate collegially and collaboratively in the creation and implementation of
professional development activities, they develop ownership over the learning process,
and their learning is more likely to promote student success.
Therefore, in order for professional development to result in meaningful and
lasting, trainings must be modified to the unique needs of adult learners with careful
attention given to transfer of learning and systematic implementation. The effects of
teachers’ collaboration and collaborative teaching can be a powerful teaching and
learning strategy. Many researches show significant data and analysis on the processes,
programs and effects that collaborative teaching and inclusion have on the special
education population. Therefore, this study is being conducted to examine the
collaborative teaching model which impact teaching practice in devising learning
activities at a small private school
1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The study was conducted as a case study in a small private school,
Soonthonvittaya, a school of grade 1 to grade 9 located in the city of Ayutthaya,
Thailand (described earlier in Section 1.4). The study was carried out with the grade 1
to grade 3 teachers of this school. The researcher conducted a collaborative teaching
practice as professional development for the three teachers. The subjects in the study
were trained in a collaborative teaching model by means of a six-hour workshop on
stages and practices of collaborative team teaching designed for this particular
teaching context. The participating teachers were trained to work with partners in a
team, and take a teaching-leading role in devising learning activities. After the training
period, the teachers worked in the scheduled class with their partners, followed by
evaluation by two head teachers using a classroom observation scheme.
1.7 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The study has two objectives:
1.7.1 To develop a collaborative teaching model for elementary school
teachers in order to try it with P 1-3 elementary school teachers at
Soonthonvittaya School.
9
1.7.2 To evaluate implementation of the developed collaborative teaching
model at Soonthonvittaya School by classroom observation.
1.8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.8.1 Subjects
The subjects are three elementary school teachers at Soonthonvittaya School, a
small private school of grades 1 - 9 and an enrolment of 300 students. They are two
female and one male teacher. All three have years of teaching experience raging from
10 to 25 years.
1.8.2 Instruments
There are five instruments in this study: (1) Collaborative teaching model,
(2) Workshop on the collaborative teaching model for teachers, (3) Twenty lesson
plans, (4) Classroom observation of the implemented collaborative teaching, and
(5) Evaluation on the implemented collaborative teaching (see details in Chapter 3).
1.9 TERMINOLOGY
The researcher uses the following terminology with specific meanings unique
to this study as follows:
Professional development: Teacher training in a specific area with a clear
cut purpose.
Elementary school: School providing education at six levels (P 1-9)
Collaboration: Teacher collaboration as the open communication
between the participants and sharing responsibilities
(Johnson 2008).
Collaborative teaching: Teacher collaboration in the classroom that
includes collaborative efforts of teachers in
systematically planning and observing the
teaching of a single lesson within a unit for
evidence that the teaching practices used are
appropriate for helping students learn (Lewis
2000, Nelson 2008, Davies & Dunnill 2008).
10
Collaborative teaching model: Model that incorporates five elements of
collaborative teaching: (1) Positive Interdependence,
(2) Face-to-Face Interaction, (3) Interpersonal
Skills, (4) Monitoring in developing time and
methods for regular processing, and (5) Individual
Accountability.
Team teaching: A teaching team of three members with specific
teaching roles, shared common goal, decision-
making and responsibility.
Cooperative learning: Learning process that requires cooperation from
participating learners.
Collaborative teaching activities: Teaching activities devised for teaching
partners in collaborative teaching.
1.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Professional development in collaborative teaching in different training stages
as shown in this study can be useful for other schools in similar contexts. It is
important that teachers work together as a team to bring about the best outcome from
students’ learning process and subsequent achievement. It is expected that the study
can serve as an example for other schools that might take collaborative teaching as an
alternative approach to quality teaching.
1.11 CONCLUSION
As described in this chapter, teacher professional development greatly
contributes to quality of teachers’ educational practices that directly benefit their
young learners. The researcher has justified why collaborative teaching should be
adapted as a newly developed model for trial in a case study. The model is to provide
for teachers the opportunity to learn from each another in a professional development
setting in which members are valued for their expertise in partnership. In constructing
a new collaborative teaching model for this case study, the researcher reviewed earlier
studies intensively and extensively as a solid platform for research work in teachers’
collaboration. Details of all related literature reviews are given in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to find out whether it would be possible to help
elementary teachers understand and implement principles of a collaborative teaching
model in a workshop format to benefit their teaching. This chapter presents with an
overview of six areas of a collection of selected literature to serve as a platform for the
study in the area of collaborative teaching:
2.2 Teacher Professional Development
2.3 Learner-Centered in Teaching
2.4 Cooperative Teaching
2.5 Collaborative Teaching
2.6 Implementation of Collaborative Teaching
2.7 Evaluation of Collaborative Teaching
2.2 TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The professional development of teachers is studied and presented in the
relevant literature in many different ways. Teachers need a lot of support to translate
research into practice; they are the foundation for influencing student performance,
and therefore professional development should focus on improving teaching quality
(Kuijpers, Houtveen, and Wubbels, 2010). The professional development is in
relation to teachers learning, learning how to learn, and transforming their knowledge
into practice for the benefit of their students’ growth. Teacher professional learning is
a complex process, which requires cognitive and emotional involvement of teachers
individually and collectively, the capacity and willingness to examine where each one
stands in terms of appropriate alternatives for improvement or change. The researcher
found four areas of professional development.
2.2.1 Professional learning
2.2.2 Mediations through facilitation and collaboration
2.2.3 Conditions and factors influencing professional development (learning
and change)
2.2.4 Effectiveness of professional development
12
2.2.1 Professional learning
The main emphasis of these studies is to understand the processes whereby
teachers change. These articles deal in general with how teachers learn and change by
developing theory or applying theory to the discussion of teacher change (Saylor and
Kehrhahn, 2001; Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002; Korthagen, 2004; Penlington, 2008;
Snow-Gerono, 2008; Korthagen, 2010). They examine the personal processes that are
involved in the various formats used for teacher learning, how teacher learning is
researched and propose or discuss models of teacher professional learning (Castle,
2006; James and McCormick, 2009; Mushayikwa and Lubben, 2009; Olson and Craig,
2001). While some are centered on conceptual analysis, others describe the approach
with both qualitative and quantitative research examples. Within this broad area of
professional learning, there are three specific groups that stand out in terms of the
number of articles they contain. Articles that deal with reflection and narratives form
one group. A second one centers on the training transfer theories and a considerable
number focus on beginning teacher learning.
2.2.1.1 Reflection processes
The assumption in articles dealing with teacher reflection is that analysis
of needs, problems, change processes, feelings of efficacy, beliefs are all factors that
contribute to teacher professional development, be it through enhanced cognitions or
new or improved practices. Reflection is discussed and used in research in several
ways. The studies now on reflection as an instrument for change and on the various
ways in which reflection can be developed. Marqua (2010) interviewed in qualitative
methods with 8 middle school teachers on employed the Trio Model of Adult Learning
as a conceptual frame and explored the role that socio-environmental influences. The
finding showed that support climate, the opportunities for informal learning and
teachers’ engagement in collaborative practices each had an important role in
enhancing their learning. The Trio Model of Adult learning, key experiences,
individual attributes and socio-environmental affordances interacted to enhance
teachers learning. A group explicitly considers the contribution to reflection of
narrative methods such as storytelling (for example, about Professional Development
School experiences) and the construction of stories within professional development
activities (Doecke, et al., 2000; Day and Leitch, 2001; Jenlink and Kinnuncan-Welsch,
2001; Shank, 2006; Breault, 2010). Narrative accounts serve also to unveil the role of
emotions in change. Other articles consider the importance for reflection of
involvement in research, and more practically the opportunity offered by self-
assessment tools or reflective school portfolios as triggers for change (Burbank and
Kauchak, 2003; Craig, 2003; Reis-Jorge, 2007; Romano, 2006; Ross and Bruce, 2007;
Runhaar, et al., 2010).
13
2.2.1.2 Training transfer theories
Schools depend on the quality skills and performance of teachers, and
administrators for students’ academic and social growth. Providing training to develop
and enhance skills is critical to the success of the employee, organization, and public
they serve. Several articles stated that skill and knowledge acquisition is of little
importance if the skills and knowledge are not transferred back into the working
environment through improved employee performance (Kozlowski and Salas, 1997;
Milheim, 1994). To ensure this transfer of skills, an effective training design includes
measurable and observable goals before, during, and after training (Graham, 2002).
Three factors have been identified as necessary for training transfer of skills, including
(a) training program design, (b) organizational climate, and (c) employee motivation
(Heath, 2006; Holton, 1996; Yamnill and McLean, 2001).
2.2.1.3 Beginning teachers
Beginning to teach is now well recognized around the world as a
particular and complex stage of teacher learning (OECD, 2005). Thus, a large number
of papers examine various aspects related to mentoring, induction as well as
comparisons between novice and experienced teachers. An extensive review of
international literature on mentoring (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, and Tomlinson,
2009) looks at the process in terms of benefits, costs, needs and suggestions for policy-
makers. Mentoring takes an important place both in terms of what mentors bring to the
induction process, their identity formation during the process, training of mentor
teachers, how they contribute or not to identity formation of beginning teachers,
problems associated with the mentoring process, what are best practices, and the use
of tools such as electronic journals (Devos, 2010; Harrison, et al., 2006; Hennissen, et
al., 2010; Killeavy and Moloney, 2010; Kwan and López-Real, 2010; Sundli, 2007).
Conditions associated with the support and mentoring needed to retain beginning
teachers in the profession and assist them with their teaching difficulties were studied
by Fantilli and McDougall (2009) and Mitchell and Logue (2009), and Oberski and
McNally (2007). Professional judgment and concerns, including those related to
school socialization of beginning teachers, are studied both longitudinally and with
mixed methods (Johnson, et al., 2007; Kelchtermans and Ballet, 2002; Watzke, 2006).
2.2.2 Mediations through facilitation and collaboration
Mediations can be structured processes such as partnerships, collaborative
networks or informal contexts (such as the workplace interactions) that facilitate
learning and stimulate teachers to alter or reinforce teaching and educational practices.
In most, but not all of these instances, people such as external researchers or peers
play key roles. researcher grouped the contributions in this area in three main ones:
school–university partnerships, teacher co-learning and workplace learning.
14
2.2.2.1 School–university partnerships
These articles examine how school–university (or teacher–researcher)
partnerships bridge the gap between their different perspectives of professional
development or highlight the importance of such a space as an area for joint work or
joint contributions (Bartholomew and Sandholtz, 2009; Gravani, 2008). The articles
report longstanding mixed methods studies on multi-site school partnerships assisted
by university professors, improvement of science teaching through links between a
university science centre and schools, and discuss both the valuable opportunities as
well as complexities in these links (Buczynski and Hansen, 2010; Butler, et al., 2004;
Erickson, et al., 2005; Hudson-Ross, 2001; Jewett and Goldstein, 2008; LePage, et al.,
2001; McCotter, 2001; Sandholtz, 2002; Sztajn, et al., 2007).
2.2.2.2 Teacher co-learning
The importance of understanding how teachers work together and share
practices with learning purposes is reflected in articles that look at teacher networks
and teams, communities of practice and communities of learning, as well as peer
coaching. Two studies illustrate the use of different research procedures such as
surveys and ethnography to study conditions for the success of networks as well as
effects of networks on teacher meanings, identity and agency (Hofman and Dijkstra,
2010; Niesz, 2010). Lesson study, the Japanese experience of teacher co-learning
through mutual collaboration and feedback, is examined in three studies that link its
effects to improvement of instruction, efficacy and collaboration and that review
conditions that impact on its effectiveness (Fernández, et al., 2003; Lee, 2008; Puchner
and Taylor, 2006). The productivity of teamwork focused on data collection and
problem solving, case studies on communities of practice, peer-coaching trajectory
and co-construction of situated assessments are the subject of another group of articles
(Baildon and Damico, 2008; Gregory, 2010; Huffman and Kalnin, 2003; Schnellert, et
al., 2008; Zwart, et al., 2008). Finally three studies (Clausen, et al., 2009; Crockett,
2002; Rueda and Monz, 2002) consider the effects of teacher inquiry groups on
changes in beliefs and practices, collaboration in mixed-culture situations of teachers
and assistant teachers as well as the early development of a learning community.
2.2.2.3 Workplace learning
To some extent this is a foundation term for professional development
that takes place formally or informally in schools and that is not assisted by outside
facilitators. Some articles that look at teachers learning in school contexts draw on
situated learning theory and consider this learning to be both individual and
collaborative as well as facilitated or not by a range of factors including, as we shall
see below, different school cultures and traditions (Kwakman, 2003; Sato and
Kleinsasser, 2004; Mawhinney, 2010).
15
2.2.3 Conditions and factors influencing professional development
While several of the articles reviewed deal with factors that affect the quality,
possibilities and success of teacher professional learning, there are some that focus
more closely on macro societal conditions and the micro contexts provided by school
cultures.
2.2.3.1 Macro conditions
Included under this concept are the nature and operation of educational
systems, policy environments and reforms, teacher working conditions as well as
historic factors that determine what is accepted or not as suitable forms for
professional development. For example, a historical approach and a particular
theoretical model for analyzing policy implementation (McIntyre and Kyle, 2006) is
used to explain why an attempt to establish an ungraded primary school system in a
particular USA state education system was not sustainable over time and the effect on
this failure of pressures from the community, politics and the media. With the
exception of those who had better professional development, school support and
whose beliefs were aligned with those of the reform, teachers reverted to old practices
An opposite example is provided in an ethnographic case-book study about seven
South African unqualified teachers (Henning, 2000) who in the last years of the
Apartheid struggled against the odds to form a teachers’ community. In 1991 they
sought assistance to develop professionally from an all-white university. The
willingness and commitment of partners on both sides, allowed for the successful
development of a program that combined contact education, distance education,
school-based training and the systematic assessment of prior learning. All of which
made the teachers’ journey to greater professionalism a successful one. While policy
reform environments may be supportive of teacher development as narrated in another
case (Borko, Elliot, and Uchiyama, 2002), and as evidenced in the learning interaction
of teachers participating in the National Board Certification in USA (Coskie and
Place, 2008; Park, et al., 2007), a more critical stance is taken about the effects on
teacher development of standards-based reforms and accountability environments,
high-stakes assessment, the narrowing of professional development “outcomes” to
teacher test scores and the increased control and regulation over how professional
development operates (Boardman and Woodruff, 2004; Cochrane-Smith, 2001;
Delandshere and Arens, 2001; Sandholtz and Scribner, 2006; Skerrett, 2010).
2.2.3.2 School cultures
Different studies refer to school culture as an indicator of the school’s
character and social environment (traditions, beliefs). The concept covers the
operation of the administrative and organizational structures, and how these interact to
facilitate or constrict teacher workplace learning. Comparative studies of schools in
different geographical locations and their opportunities for teacher learning serve to
16
illustrate how beliefs, traditions, types of institutional arrangements affect the extent of
teachers’ informal engagement in pedagogic exchanges (Jurasaite- Harbison and Rex,
2010; Melville and Wallace, 2007; Muijs and Harris, 2006; Sato and Kleinsasser,
2004; Snow-Gerono, 2005). Professional development that incorporates all-school
inquiry can either be hindered by the school’s organizational context or on the
contrary, under certain conditions, can contribute towards commitment to learning
goals and collaboration in school (King, 2002). Subject departments as forms of
school organization have positive effects on teacher professional growth and active
pedagogic leadership provided they operate as communities that seek to have
influence on the whole school environment (Knight, 2002; Melville and Wallace,
2007).
2.2.4 Effectiveness of professional development
While most of the studies reviewed consider some form of impact of
professional development on teachers’ knowledge and practice, including effects on
pupils, some set out explicitly to explore the effectiveness of programs on personal
changes of teachers’ cognitions, beliefs and practice as well as pupil change and
teacher satisfaction.
2.2.4.1 Teacher changes in cognition, beliefs and practice
Changes in cognition took several forms in the studies reviewed.
Different modalities of professional development improved curricular knowledge and
understanding in areas as diverse as reading comprehension and science, as well as
fostering of student motivation (Cherubini, et al., 2002; Ermeling, 2010; Frey and
Fisher, 2009; Levine and Marcus, 2010; Morais, et al., 2005; Seymour and Osana,
2003). Improvement in teacher knowledge was partially detected in a study of the
effect of Action Research on three areas of teacher cognition: ideological (norms,
values), empirical (connection between phenomena) and technical (methods), Only
technical knowledge was improved (Ponte, Ax, Beijaard, and Wubbels, 2004). Partial
results were also produced on teachers’ conceptions and practices regarding student
self-regulated learning (Hoekstra, Brekelmans, Beijaard, and Korthagen, 2009).
Changes in teacher beliefs or expectations of student achievement in low-income
communities, was an outcome sustained over two years of professional development
(Timperley and Phillips, 2003). The effects of a yearlong experience in developing
literacy instruction skills resulted in high and low implementers. Differences between
them were explained in terms of their levels of general, personal and collective
efficacy (Cantrell and Callaway, 2008).
17
2.2.4.2 Student learning
The effectiveness of communities of learning on the improvement of
teaching practice and student achievement was supported by a review of 11 studies
dealing with the subject (Vescio, Ross, and Adams, 2008). Three articles (Fishman, et
al., 2003; Lovett, et al., 2008; Vogt and Rogalla, 2009) report on the effects of
professional development on student reading outcomes in one case, science learning in
the second, and in the third one, on generally improved student outcomes as teachers
learned to adapt teaching to individual student needs. Comparison of two types of
professional development related to reading comprehension instruction (a year-round
intensive coaching and a short 13-h course) had similar positive effects on student
learning and self-efficacy perceptions, but with increased workload for teachers in the
restricted course (Van Keer and Verhaeghe, 2005). Teacher satisfaction increased in
relation to professional development activities considered to be “close to home” and to
their needs and expectations, and when they contributed to the improvement of
curricular understanding and increased self-efficacy (Lovett, et al., 2008; Nielsen, et
al., 2008; Nir and Bogler, 2008).
2.3 LEARNER-CENTERED IN TEACHING
2.3.1 Constructivist theory
2.3.2 Learner-centered practices
2.3.3 Research Supporting Student-Centered
2.3.1 Constructivist theory
Learner-centered is grounded in constructivist theory. Duffy and Cunningham
(1996) point out that constructivism is used as an umbrella term to represent a wide
range of views. The combined of theories and instructional strategies propounding the
constructivist approach tend to have several common underlying themes: (a) learning
is a constructive process; (b) learning occurs through social negotiation; and (c)
learning is more effective when it is complex and contextualized. Effective learning
from a learner-centered perspective occurs when the learner is actively engaged in the
learning process, constructing knowledge to make sense of his/her world. As such,
learning is organized around the learner and not around the content (Duffy and
Cunningham, 1996).
First, from a constructivist perspective, learning is a constructive process in
which knowledge is individually and/ or socially constructed by learners as they try to
make sense of their environment (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy and Perry, 1992; Spiro,
Feltovich, Jacobson, and Coulson, 1992; Jonassen, 1999). Learning is more than
knowledge acquisition, and learners have to go beyond the given information to
18
construct meaning by resolving discrepancies between learner expectations and what
they encounter (Duffy and Cunningham, 1996). They have to activate prior
knowledge, connect and relate it to the new information at hand to form a complete
(adequate) meaning of the situation (Diaz and Bontenbal, 2001; Spiro, Feltovich,
Jacobson, and Coulson, 1992). How this constructive process actually occurs differs
among various constructivists with some, such as Spiro and others (1992) ascribing to
the nation of flexible use of existing knowledge.
Second, constructivists understand learning as occurring in a group of people
where meaning and purpose are socially negotiated by members of the people (Brown,
Collins and Duguid, 1989). To facilitate this collaborative, social negotiation process,
communication should be transformative (Pea, 1994). Nelson’s (1998) Collaborative
problem Solving theory, for example, provides an important elaborative framework for
using collaboration effectively in learner-centered environments to facilitate such
transformative communication.
Third, learning is more effective when it is complex, contextualized and the
learning context very similar to the context of practice (Gijselaers, 1996). Such
similarities between the learning context and the context of practice are purported to
facilitate transfer (Charlin, Mann and Hansen, 1998). Contextualized learning
provides a platform for effective acquisition of knowledge, and thus represents a
context to help students activate and apply prior knowledge. Learning through
complex contextualized problems is important because education is about “retention,
understanding and active use of knowledge and skills” (Perkins, 1991: 18). Students
need the opportunity to deal with complexity during the learning process so they can
learn critical problem-solving skills and become aware of their own existing models
(Perkins, 1991; Savin-Baden, 2000).
2.3.2 Learner-centered practices
Felder and Brent (1997), suggest that teachers’ beliefs can result and associate
with good student learning. They propose that teachers who hold learner-centered
beliefs generally do a better job of fostering, facilitating, and nurturing student
motivation and achievement (Stage, et al., 1998; McCombs and Whisler, 1997).
Felder and Brent (1996), for example, say the learner-centered approach “enhances
motivation to learn, retention of knowledge, depth of understanding, and appreciation
of the subject being taught” (p. 43), and centered practices than less effective teachers.
Learner-centered practices move the focus from the teacher and instruction to the
student and learning. Learner-centered practices are based on a proposed a set of
principles (APA Task Force on Psychology in Education, 1993) derived from over a
century of previous research on teaching and learning (Alexander and Murphy, 1998).
These principles take into account a variety of psychological factors that are primarily
19
internal to the learner while also recognizing that the environment and other contextual
factors will interact as well (McCombs, 1993). The principles address individual
learning, motivation, and developmental needs and are organized in four dimensions:
cognitive and metacognitive factors; motivational and affective factors; developmental
and social; and individual differences. Learner-centered principles provide a
theoretical foundation for learner-centered instruction drawing on a research base from
a variety of theoretical perspectives (Lambert and McCombs, 1998). Practices based
on these principles have no prescribed format, (McCombs, 1997), although
instructionally, the principles are typically in contrast to teacher-centered practices
(Wagner and McCombs, 1995).
McCombs (1997), and Wagner and McCombs (1995) agree that instruction
based upon learner-centered principles provides opportunities for learners to draw on
their own experiences and interpretations of the learning process. Learner-centered
instruction regards learning as a life-long process rather than a process that takes place
only through young-adulthood (Lambert and McCombs, 1998). The view aligns with
advocates of situated cognition (e.g., Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989) in that school
activities (done by students) are generally not authentic activities that prepare learners
for problem solving outside of school. Foundations of learner-centered instruction
include that learning is a natural, constructive process where learning is most
productive when it is relevant and meaningful to the learner, in positive learning
environments. It is a holistic view of the learner in a complex living-system that
extends well-beyond the classroom walls in both time and space. Learner-centered
practices acknowledge that learners have different perspectives, and that for learners to
be engaged in and take responsibility for their learning, these perspectives need to be
tended to. Further, appropriately supportive learning opportunities that are challenging
for individuals need to be provided (Lambert and McCombs, 1998).
When implementing Learner-centered practices, teachers need to understand
the learner’s world and support capacities already existing in the learner to accomplish
desired learning outcomes. Learning goals are achieved by active collaboration
between the teacher and learners who together determine what learning means and
how it can be enhanced within each individual learner by drawing on the learner’s own
unique talents, capacities, and experiences (McCombs and Whisler, 1997). Although
Cuban (1983) uses the term student-centered, he identifies observable measures that
seem aligned with expectations for learner-centered instruction as well: more or equal
student talk and questions than teacher talk, more individual and medium group
instruction, varied instructional materials, evidence of student choice and organization
of content and classroom rules, and a physical arrangement of the classroom that
allows for working together. Students who perceive their teachers to use LCP exhibit
greater achievement and motivation (McCombs and Whisler, 1997)
20
2.3.3 Research Supporting Student-Centered
In a 1997 study, Johnson and Lawson evaluated 366 students’ reasoning
ability, assessed prior biology knowledge, and recorded the number of previous
science classes that each student had taken. Half the students were taught biology in a
student-centered environment, and the other half were taught the same material, but in
a lecture format. Students were evaluated using the same exams. The test averages in
both classes were consistent. Prior knowledge and the number of previous science
courses that a student had taken were not significant predictors of success (determined
by final grade) in either classroom setting. In both classrooms, prior reasoning ability
was a successful predictor of student performance. The interesting conclusion of this
study was that after the course was over and students had taken a post-class reasoning
assessment, students in the lecture class did not show any changes in reasoning skills,
but students in the inquiry-based class did have significant increases in reasoning
ability, especially for students who scored lowest on the pre-class reasoning ability
test. Since reasoning ability turned out to be a good predictor of class success,
students who have strengthened their reasoning skills are probably more prepared then
they would have been for future problem solving both in other classes and in future
professions. Reasoning ability is a cognitive characteristic wanted by prospective
employers worldwide, and teaching methods that develop reasoning ability should be
emphasized in U.S. schools.
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2004) have been able to substantiate the claim
that student-centered learning is just as effective as teacher-directed learning, and
some researchers have concluded that student-centered instructional methods result in
a higher student performance over teacher-directed learning methods. Some studies
show no major difference in the concept mastery achieved by students in a student-
centered environment and those in a teacher-directed environment, but do claim
alternative benefits to students’ participating in student-centered classrooms.
Oliver-Hoya, Allen, Hunt, Hudson, and Pitts (2004) describe an experiment
where one instructor taught two sections of the same class, but the instructor used a
different instructional method for each class. One class consisted of a conventional
lecture with a separate lab. The experimental class was a hands-on, collaborative,
inquiry-based environment supported by mini-lectures between activities. Both classes
were assessed with similar exams. Despite the large size of the experimental class
(N=99), which limited the amount of direct teacher-student interactions, the bottom
25% of the inquiry class performed better than the bottom 25% of the lecture class on
the last three exams. These data suggest that teaching via inquiry is more beneficial for
the bottom quarter of the class while not being detrimental to the upper three quarters.
The experimental class was not performing significantly better than the traditional
21
class during the first half of the class which suggests that students may need time to
adjust to the inquiry method before they begin to perform better.
House (2006) found a positive correlation between six instructional strategies
and high science scores on the 2003 TIMSS. Frequent in class experiments, working
in pairs or small groups, teacher demonstrations of experiments, copying notes from
the board, working on science projects, and using everyday life situations when
solving science problems were positively correlated with higher science scores. Lower
TIMSS science test scores were related to students who indicated that their teacher
frequently showed them how to do science problems and students who reported
working quietly on worksheets and textbook problems during class time.
Sanger (2007) sought to answer the question: “Do students learning chemistry
using different instructional methodologies (inquiry-based lessons versus traditional
lecture format) develop a comparable chemistry content knowledge?” He taught an
inquiry-based chemistry class to elementary education majors while simultaneously
teaching chemistry by lecture to science majors and compared the students’
achievement at the end of the semester. The inquiry-based class was taught entirely in
a laboratory discussion setting in which students performed experiments, analyzed
data, and applied their learning to new situations. The traditional lecture class used for
comparison consisted of 3 hours of lecture and 3 hours of lab per week. Both classes
developed similar chemistry content comprehension when evaluated with the same
content questions. Although the students taught via inquiry scored higher than the
students taught via lecture on all topics, the difference was statistically insignificant.
While both classes were able to perform similarly on exams, this experiment did not
examine students’ potential to increase, decrease, or remain unchanged in any type of
desirable intellectual characteristic, such as type 1, field-independent behavior.
However, because the testing outcomes were similar, the experiment does alleviate
charges by some who believe that inquiry science classes are watered-down versions
of science for less able students (French, 2005).
Kuhn and Dean (2007) found evidence of the effectiveness of authentic-type
learning in the “long view,” referring over long periods of time and in different
contexts. Kuhn and Dean designed their research in response to the two-day study by
Klahr and Nigam (2004) described in the previous section. Klahr and Nigam
attempted to determine whether direct teaching or discovery learning would be more
effective at prompting students to design uncompounded scientific experiments. The
fact that the Klahn and Nigam study only determined the effect of teaching strategy on
competencies for two days led Kuhn and Dean to ask how student competencies
would be affected by teaching strategy in the long view. They hypothesized that direct
instruction may produce onetime results, but that the students would not likely reap the
long-term benefits of the knowledge. Kuhn and Dean found that there are not
22
significant differences in the grades of students taught directly or via authentic
learning, but that students who engage in authentic learning are more likely to use the
information later and be able to apply it in different contexts.
Tai and Sadler, (2007) structured peer teaching has been shown to be an
effective student-centered learning technique that is also beneficial in the long run. A
study of 3,268 students compared the instructional techniques of students’ high school
teachers with their performance in college chemistry courses. A positive correlation
was found between structured peer teaching and success in college chemistry. A less
significant correlation was found between use of everyday examples and success in
college chemistry. Structured peer teaching gives students control over how they are
learning, but is closely supervised by the instructor so that students keep on the right
track and can ask questions if necessary.
It can be seen from all researchers that student-centered techniques are
correlated to higher scores or students’ achievement. These techniques are based on
experiments, small group work, and science projects. These data suggest that guided,
student-centered classroom techniques are effective in producing higher improvement
in learning.
2.4 COOPERATIVE TEACHING
Cooperative teaching has been described as a joint responsibility between the
special and general teachers, with decisions concerning who will lead instruction in
any particular class period based upon an individual teacher’s strength and skills, and
not on some predetermined hierarchy or even student category of disability (Bauwens,
Hourcade, and Friend, 1989). In this setting, teachers use their unique strengths and
skills to do what they do best. Many times, this means that the teachers may take turn
to lead in teaching.
Bauwens and Hourcade (1991) stressed that teachers should plan lessons
jointly, determining the format and responsibilities for the lesson and who should
assume primary responsibility for each part of the lesson. For example, the teacher
most familiar with the topic could present the lesson and the other monitor students’
reactions and responses. Another time, the teacher most knowledgeable about
identified needs of the students could present the main parts of the lesson, and they
both could rotate and monitor during the guided practice portion of the lesson.
Nowacek (1992) described a cooperative teaching arrangement where the
teachers discussed the curriculum and each volunteered their own particular strengths.
One teacher felt that she had the experience and skills as well as adaptable materials,
23
to teach literature at varying levels. Another was comfortable in teaching the writing
process, and felt that this was an area that could be adapted to any capability.
Together they decided that, even though spelling was not part of the seventh grade
curriculum, their students needed a phonetic approach. Since the special teachers was
familiar with this approach, she took the lead in instruction in that area. The teachers
continually talked about lessons and how they could be improved. They learned from
each other and helped each other, sharing ideas.
Lockledge and Wright (1993) described a cooperative teaching program where
teachers planned lesson jointly and took turns delivering content lessons. The general
teacher was responsible for making sure that all state and local curricular goals were
met, while the special teacher took the responsibility for suggesting modifications.
White and White (1992) suggested ways that lesson presentation could be the
responsibility of both teachers. They stressed that one teacher should not be made to
feel like the aide or helper to the other, but that leadership should be joint. They also
stated that teachers who have already developed relationships in the school may be
paired together. They reported that teachers should have a common interest and
willingness to participate, and share common behavior management strategies.
An approach to interaction, cooperative teaching can only exist when attached
to a process or activities such as problem solving or planning. Each participant’s
contribution is equally valued and participants have equal power in decision-making.
Cooperative teaching occurs in response to a goal, mutual problem, or need that is
jointly shared by the participants. Participants in a cooperative teaching share
responsibility for participating in the planning, decision-making actions, and share
equal accountability for the outcome of the activity.
2.5 COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
What follows is a detailed analysis of the literature describing possible
solutions to the concerns of practitioners, including feeling of isolation from other
professionals and not having accessible strategies from which to choose.
Braaten, Mennes, Brown and Samuels (1992) reported that the Anwatin
Middle school Collaborative Teaching Program identified characteristics for effective
collaborating teachers as strong communication skills, a high level of trust, flexibility,
knowledge of problem-solving techniques and effective behavior management
techniques, good organizational skills and time management, knowledge of due
process issues and a willingness to attend to documentation of details. With all the
variety of duties expected of teachers collaborating, flexibility and ability to manage
time wisely became very important. The administrators of the program found that
24
teachers must be selected carefully for the program, and given prior to
implementation, as clear an explanation of what will be required as possible. The
administrative commitment must include adequate staffing to handle the new roles and
responsibilities, careful selection of teachers and ongoing in-service training aimed at
fostering communication and acquisition of new strategies. The school’s philosophy
was teaming and shared decision-making, but no evaluative data was given, other than
to indicate that an evaluation was done to identify problem areas. Expansion of the
program the second year resulted in proved communication, monitoring and rapport
between the special teacher and general teachers (Braaten, Mennes, Brown and
Samuels, 1992).
According to Friend and Cook (2000), teachers have six models of
collaboration to choose from which allows for the successful incorporation of different
teaching styles. The collaborative methods are varied and flexible. The six models of
collaboration defined by Friend and Cook (2000 : 54) are one teaching, one observing,
one teaching, one drifting, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and
team teaching. They also reported that collaboration is “a style for direct interaction
between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as
they work toward a common goal” (Friend and Cook, 2003 : 5). Advantages of this
model are that “each teacher has an active role, students view both teachers as equals,
both teachers are actively involved in classroom organization and management, risk-
taking is encouraged allowing teachers to try things in pairs they would not normally
try alone”(p. 65). Disadvantages are “preplanning takes a considerable amount of time
and the roles of teachers need to be clearly defined for shared responsibility” (p. 65).
They suggest that team teaching “requires the greatest level of mutual trust and
commitment and ability to mesh their teaching styles” (p. 61). During the study, the
teachers used the team teaching model. The teachers will have planning time one day
per week and discuss the progress of the children to determine how to prepare the
lesson. The differentiation of the lessons will be discussed based on the progress of the
children. Both teachers have an active role in planning, teaching and classroom
management. Characteristics of a Collaborative Relationship Certain characteristic
both contribute to and emerge from effective collaborative relationships.
Spencer & Logan (2003) give example of collaborative group include setting
up peers to work with each other during staff development opportunities to problem
solve the implementation of a strategy. Teacher led study groups, where a group of
teachers pick one specific strategy to implement, and they work on applying this
strategy to practice in a sustained and intensive fashion. It is critical that at least one
teacher has research-based knowledge on how to implement the strategy and can then
work with others to support further implementation.
25
Goddard, Goddard, and Tschannen-Moran (2007) tested the relationship
between a theoretically driven measure of teachers collaboration for school
improvement and student achievements. Successful school practices are teachers who
expect student success and teach both basic skills and strategies for deepening text
comprehension and who collaborate with one another, their students, and students’
families.
It can be seen from all researchers that collaborative teaching can creating a
new product through the combination of different perspectives, talents, and ideas,
which is quite different from what each of the participants could have created on his or
her own.
2.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
The powerful collaboration that characterizes professional learning is a
systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve their
classroom practice. Teachers work in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of
questions that promote deep team learning. This process, in turn, leads to higher
levels of student achievement (Boeckel, 2008).
Becker and Collignon (2002) suggest that educators do more to consider the
learner as a whole person and not only as a student in a particular subject area.
Teachers do more to break out of their isolation from their colleagues. These
recommendations point to an educational process that should involve numerous
players and a degree of information sharing and consultation.
Goddard and others (2007) have an evidence that collaboration may indeed
have a positive effect on student achievement. In a study correlating responses on
teacher surveys with student test scores, it was found that for a fairly large sample of
forty-seven elementary schools, 452 teachers, and 2,536 fourth-grade students, teacher
collaboration helped increase student achievement in mathematics and reading.
Martin (2008) found from the interviews and observation with the teachers that
the form, effect, and success of collaboration are dependent on numerous variables.
The findings have various implications, for teacher educators it concluded that
collaborative practices should be explicitly taught. Modifying instruction through
collaboration and finding commonalities across academic areas ought to be
emphasized. Education programs should also highlight teaching literacy skills on all
grade levels. These also have major implication for administrators to be logistically
feasible, have clear purposes and structures, and fit the priorities of both teachers and
26
school. Finally, the main implication for teachers is the need to recognize the value of
working together and to focus on what they have in common.
Penuel, Riel, Krause, and Frank (2009) reported that school reform emphasized
teacher collaboration as a strategy for instruction improvement. In this study, 67
elementary teachers from two similar schools implemented the same reform; mixed
methods; explanatory case study, questionnaire, interviews, descriptive statistics and
correlations. The researcher found that dynamics of success for school reform is
opportunities to collaborate, access to mentoring and support and access to needed
resources.
From all researchers, they have focused on collaboration allows schools
teachers to break through some of the isolation that has traditionally limited their
perspective and their ultimate effectiveness (Anstrom, 2002; O’Byrne, 2002).
Moreover, how collaborative practices between staff provide teachers with precious
tool for thought in the education of low-achieving students (Gomez, 1993; Houghton,
2001, Ladson-Billings and Gomez, 2001)
2.7 EVALUATION OF COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
Epstein (1995) proposes the concept of external and internal models of
overlapping spheres of influence. According to Epstein, external models include
measures that schools and families undertake separately and that have an impact on
the learner. Internal models, in turn, include instances where support of the student
relies on interpersonal relations between parents and teachers. Epstein notes, however,
that in both cases, it is the student who occupies the central role, representing the point
where the different spheres of the external model come together and the central point
of transmission for the spheres of the internal model.
Martin (2008) examines issues that underlie collaboration among high school
teachers who worked with English as a Second Language students with low literacy
skills. The researcher uses interviews with the teachers explore views on student
needs and insights into their collaboration. Observation notes form collaborative
meetings and classroom instruction is presented to examine each of the three
collaborative pairings. The findings show that the form, effect, and success of
collaboration are dependent on numerous variables. One relationship is seen to be
elaborate and successful, one limited in scope and effect, and one is virtually non-
existent. The more successful the collaboration, the more it focuses on instruction and
involves joint planning. In this case there is a substantial effect on teaching practices.
Logistical factors in the success of collaboration include compatible schedules and
convenient meeting places. Structural factors include overlaps in academic content.
27
According to Sullivan and Glanz (2009), standards-based walkthroughs have
become a topic of discussion as part of an initiative to encourage collaboration among
teachers. These tools can be used to promote a culture of collaborative learning.
Supervisors can use this hands-on supervision model and practical tools such as
exercises, summary sheets, and observation charts to improve teaching and learning
through dialogue and collaboration.
Garderen, Hanuscin, Lee and Kohn (2012) designed a professional development
program to support teachers’ implementation of inquiry-based instruction, formative
assessment and Universal Design for learning as a way to meet the needs of diverse
learners in Kindergarten through six-grade classroom. The results were positive. The
participants have provided positive feedback and rating on rating scale of 3 in terms of
(1) overall level of satisfaction with the program, (2) abilities to use program materials
and activities in the classroom, and (3) confidence that teaching ability has improved.
By drawing on the expertise of faculty in both science education and special
education, the program design is strengthened. Through collaboration, the researcher
has been able to address gaps in teacher preparation and knowledge.
2.8 CONCLUSION
It has been suggested by a large number of researchers that professional
development in collaborative teaching can have a positive impact on educational
practice. It has been found in a number of case studies that teachers working together
are able to better focus on student needs by exchanging views and expertise, as well as
coordinate instruction to target the same areas. Further exploratory research is needed
to describe and examine the factors detrimental or conducive to collaboration in order
to suggest effective measures of implementation. The next chapter will use
Soonthonvittaya School as a case study of collaborative teaching practice as
professional development for elementary school teachers working at a small private
school in Ayutthaya, Thailand.
CHAPTER 3
THE STUDY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Collaboration in teaching as a focus of the study is expected to help elementary
school teachers develop a sense of partnership with their colleagues to make it
possible to work together at the classroom level. In this regard, the researcher set two
research objectives on developing a collaborative teaching model and the
implementation stages of collaborative teaching at the classroom level. In this chapter,
the researcher will describe research methodology in accordance with the two research
objectives, followed by data collection procedure, and data analysis.
3.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of this research were:
3.2.1 To develop a collaborative teaching model for elementary school teachers
in order to try it with elementary school teachers in grades 1-3 at a small
private school [Soonthonvittaya School].
3.2.2 To evaluate implementation of the developed collaborative teaching
model at Soonthonvittaya School.
3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.3.1 Subjects
There were two groups in the study: group 1 as a target case study had three
elementary schools teachers of P1-P3 at Soonthonvittaya School, and group 2 as a
collaborative teaching retrial group had three elementary schools teachers of P1-P3
school with similar subject variables.
29
Table 3.1 Group 1 Teacher Variables
Teachers Gender Highest Degree Years of
Work
Experience
Grades Taught
Experience
Level of teaching
Teacher 1 Female Bachelor’s-
Education
(Administration)
25
7-9 Grade 1(Head
teacher)
Teacher 2 Female Bachelor’s-
Other
(Computer)
12
Kindergarten Grade 2
Teacher 3 Male Bachelor’s-
Other
(Agriculture)
15 5-9 Grade 3
All three teachers have good experiences in teaching at different grade levels.
Only one of the teachers has a degree in education. Teacher 1 has been teaching at the
elementary level for five years and at the secondary level for twenty years. Teacher 2
used to teach at the kindergarten level for a few years before turning to the elementary
level. Teacher 3 has been teaching mathematics and science subjects across
elementary and secondary levels. All three teachers are responsible for grades 1-3 and
voluntarily participated in the study.
Table 3.2 Group 2 Teacher Variables
Teachers Gender Years of Work
experience
Level of teaching
Teacher 1 Female 10 Grade 1
Teacher 2 Female 5 Grade 2
Teacher 3 Female 10 Grade 3
3.3.2 Instruments
There were five instruments in this study: (1) Collaborative teaching model,
(2) Workshop on the collaborative teaching model for teachers, (3) Twenty lesson
plans, (4) Classroom observation of the implemented collaborative teaching, and (5)
Evaluation on the implemented collaborative teaching.
3.3.2.1 Collaborative Teaching Model
The researcher constructed a collaborative teaching model based on the
work of earlier researchers as follows:
Recent research has shown that professional development activities are
now structured in the collaborative method as seen in the work of eight researchers;
30
Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000), Lewis (2000) Oakes and Lipton (2008) and
Davies and Dunnill (2008). They were positive about teachers learning from peers
and field experts, teachers in turn were to learn new approaches to support teaching
collaboration, peer coaching and shared lesson plans and resources. Collaborative
lesson plans in a combined effort could lead to positive change in instructional
practice for student learning process.
As for the significance of workshop, three studies by Johnson & Johnson
(1998), Boyle, Boyle and While (2004), and Little and Hoel (2011) point to its use in
teacher professional development to foster teachers' awareness and strengthen their
knowledge. It can also serves as a tool to change what teachers traditionally teach as
well as stimulate their.
The essentials elements and principles of collaborative teaching were
reported in the work of Johnson and Johnson (1998) and Johnson (2008). These
researchers defined the components of collaboration and cooperative learning as (1)
Positive Interdependence, (2) Face-to-Face Interaction, (3) Interpersonal Skills, (4)
Monitoring in developing time and methods for regular processing, and (5) Individual
Accountability.
Positive Interdependence
Johnson and Johnson (1998) stated that the heart of collaborative
teaching is positive interdependence. Teachers must believe that there
are linked with others in a way that one cannot succeed unless the other
members of the group succeed. Positive interdependence may be
structured by asking group members to (a) agree on an answer for the
group (b) make sure each member can explain the answer (c) fulfill
assigned responsibilities
Face-to-Face Interaction
This essential characteristic is necessary because of the existence of the
first element, positive interaction. It requires teachers to discuss, share
ideas, views and materials, providing and getting feedbacks, encourage
to keep one another highly motivated to complete the collaborative
teaching (Johnson and Johnson, 1998). This may involve peers
coaching, temporary assistance, exchanges of information and material,
challenging of each other’s reasoning, feedback, and encouragement to
keep one another highly motivated (Lewis 2000).
Interpersonal Skills and small group skills
Johnson and Johnson (1998) stated that the success of collaborative
teaching depends on teamwork skill like leadership, decision-making,
trust-building, communication, and conflict-management skills. Many
31
teachers have never worked collaboratively in working situations and
therefore, lake the needed skills for doing teamwork effectively. So,
researcher must often introduce and emphasize teamwork skills through
assigning differentiated roles to each group member.
Monitoring in developing time and methods for regular processing
Teachers need to describe what member actions are helpful and
unhelpful and make decisions about what to continue or change. Focus
on group maintenance, to facilitate the learning of collaborative skills,
to ensure that members receive feedback on participation and to remind
teachers to practice collaborative skills consistently. Researcher can
structure successful processing by allowing sufficient time for it to take
place, maintaining teachers involved in processing, reminding teachers
to use their teamwork skills during processing, and ensuring that clear
expectations as to the purpose of processing have been communicated.
Individual Accountability
Collaborative teaching group make each member a stronger individual
in his or her own right (Johnson and Johnson, 1998). Teachers learn
together so that they can subsequently perform better as individuals. To
ensure that each member is strengthened, teachers are held individually
accountable to do their share of the work. The group needs to know
who needs more assistance in completing the collaborative teaching.
As for the implementation stages of collaborative teaching, seven
researchers (Oakes and Lipton, 2003; Khamanee, 2007; Krol, Sleegers, Veenman and
Voeten, 2008) endorsed basic considerations in implementing collaborative teaching.
Website on Critical Elements for Collaboration (2008) reports important
elements of collaboration.
The researcher has taken the following essentials to construct a
collaborative teaching model for her study as follows:
Principles of collaboration: (1) All team members work together
towards a common goal; (2) A sense that all participants are valued; (3)
Unique perspectives of all team members; (4) A strong sense of
purpose; and (5) Trust and a sense of shared responsibility.
Key Assumptions: (1) Teams must value diverse membership and
ideas; (2) Each member has expertise; (3) Teams must have a common
purpose; (4) Team members need to trust one another; and (5) Trust
allows members to share in decision-making and responsibility.
32
Five Essential Characteristics: (1) Positive Interdependence, (2)
Face-to-Face Interaction; (3) Interpersonal Skills; (4) Monitoring in
Developing time and Methods for Regular Processing; and (5)
Individual Accountability
The researcher developed four stages in the newly constructed collaborative
teaching model for the planned case study as shown in Figure 1 below:
1. Collaborating: Collaboration between teachers is introduced in a
workshop conducted by the researcher to help teachers understand
collaborative teaching and work with their partners in a team.
Teachers are trained to take turn in a teaching-leading role in the
framework of collaborative teaching as well as to devise learning
activities.
2. Teachers’ Planning: Teachers needs to plan for and create lesson
plans for actual practice in the classroom. Teachers are expected to
interact and collaborate with other teachers as partners to plan their
lessons.
3. Implementation: Teachers deliver the created lesson plans with clear-cut instructions and guidelines for students to learn through
activities. During the implementation stage, two head teachers are
to observe the teachers in action.
4. Evaluation: Evaluation is by the head teachers, followed by the teachers who evaluate themselves and reflect on their implemented
collaborative teaching.
33
Observation by
Head Teachers
Interview by
Head Teachers
Figure 3.1 A Model of Collaborative Teaching as Professional Development for Teachers
Collaborating
Teachers collaborating
with each other
Coaching by the
researcher to help
teachers to develop and
work in a team, and take
a teaching-leading role in
the framework of
collaborative teaching in
devising learning
activities.
Teachers’ Planning
1. Interacting and collaborating with peers
2. Selecting a topic for mathematics/
science lesson
3. Identifying learning objectives and
designing activities
4. Preparing and creating lessons
Implementation
5. Delivering instructions and
guidelines for students to
learn through activities
Evaluation
6. Evaluating implemented
collaborative teaching
Applying collaborative
teaching
Supporting peers in
teaching
Teachers reflecting on their
implemented collaborative
teaching
Suggestions on future
development and adjustment
34
3.3.2.2 Collaborative Teaching Workshop
The researcher designed a six-hour workshop for three teachers to
familiarize themselves with the principles, key assumptions and elements of
collaborative teaching. The participating teachers were trained by the researcher on
(1) the constructed collaborative teaching model, (2) how to work with partners in a
team, (3) take a teaching role in the framework of collaborative teaching, lead and
support learners in devised learning activities, (4) provide feedback to teaching
partners, and (5) use results of collaborative teaching evaluation to adjust or improve
their collaborative teaching strategies.
Details of the workshop were:
Introduction
The constructed model shown to subjects
Purpose and expected outcomes of the workshop
Checking teachers’ understanding of collaborative teaching
Giving ground rules (so be flexible and supporting each others)
Ice breaking Game
What makes a team?
What makes an effectiveness collaborative team?
A common set of principles of collaboration:
A sense that all participants are valued.
Embraces the unique perspectives of all team members.
Is based on a strong sense of purpose.
Requires trust and a sense of shared responsibility.
Key Assumptions:
Teams must value diverse membership and ideas.
Each member has expertise.
Teams must have a common purpose.
Team members need to trust one another.
Trust allows members to share in decision-making and responsibility.
Five Essential Characteristics:
Positive Interdependence
Face-to-Face Interaction
Interpersonal Skills
Monitoring in Developing Time and Methods for Regular Processing
Individual Accountability
35
Collaborative Teaching
Some great examples of collaborative teaching and collaborative team
planning on the internet are shown to participants to learn from and bring out
some great ideas.
Clip Videos
Teachers’ collaborative teaching
Students’ collaborative learning
Collaborative team planning
Plan schedule for collaborative meeting time
Plan before the classroom with a specific goal in mind
Bring an open mind to the table. (Share, listen and learn from the group)
“How things are going in particular subject area?”
Find out how others might teach the same topic
Find out different ways to motivate students
For Discussion: Great source of professional development
Assess, plan and stick to the week lesson so everybody is on the same pace
Lesson Plan activities
Teachers make a lesson plan together
Role play teaching of the created lesson plan
Discussion on sharing teaching experience
Closing the workshop: Teachers’ feedback or evaluation
The researcher constructed a satisfaction rating-scale as an evaluation form of 1
(low) to 5 (high) to secure feedback from the participating teachers in four parts:
(1) Content delivery in seven items, (2) Facility in two items, (3) Satisfaction in
four items, and (4) open-ended questions in two items. The evaluation form is
given 3.2 below.
36
Directions: For each statement, please check your perception/ satisfaction with the
given items by using a rating scale from 1(low) to 5 (high).
Specifications
Check your
response
1 Low to 5 High
Content Delivery 1 2 3 4 5
The goals of the workshop were clearly defined.
The topics covered were relevant.
There was sufficient opportunity for team work and interactive
participation.
The workshop allowed me to work with the other participants.
The workshop was too technical and difficult to understand.
The training experience will be useful in my work.
The schedule for the workshop provided enough time to cover all of
the proposed activities.
Facility
The meeting room and facilities provided a comfortable setting for the
workshop.
The location for the workshop was convenient for me.
Satisfaction:
The goals of the workshop have been met.
I am satisfied with learning new things in the workshop.
I was satisfied with the collaborative teaching method.
I was satisfied with the overall training program.
How do you hope to change your practice as a result of this training?_______
What additional training would you like to have in the future? _____________
Figure 3.2 Training Workshop Evaluation Form
37
3.3.2.3 Lesson Plan in Collaborative Teaching Practice in the classroom
In the scheduled class, the teachers worked with partners in a team using
their planned lesson to take a teaching-leading role in the framework of collaborative
teaching and support learners in devised learning activities.
Twenty lesson plans
In the scheduled class, the teachers worked with partners in a team using
their planned lesson to take a teaching-leading role in the framework of
collaborative teaching and support learners in devised learning activities.
The researcher and one head teacher worked with teachers on science and
mathematics subjects to construct twenty lesson plans, ten for each
subject area. The twenty lesson plans prepared were based on
collaborative learning structures. The meetings of planning lesson and
teacher reflection were done every Saturday during the period of study.
Each lesson was designed to incorporate five elements of collaborative
teaching; (1) Positive Interdependence, (2) Face-to-Face Interaction; (3)
Interpersonal Skills; (4) Monitoring in Developing Time and Methods for
Regular Processing; and (5) Individual Accountability
The reason for using two subjects in created lesson plans in this research,
science and mathematics, because both subjects were to generate meaningful learning
activities for learners. Science and mathematics provided the opportunity for teachers
to plan the collaborative teaching and students to work in a group with the use of
problem-solving skills, reasoning, and group communication. It should be noted that
the common learning process of both mathematics and science was planned to cover
skills in observing and problem- solving, classifying, making estimates, testing
hypothesis and understanding statistics and probability.
3.3.2.4 Observation of Collaborative Teaching
After the training period, the teachers worked in the scheduled class with
their partners, followed by evaluation by two head teachers using a classroom
observation scheme. The observation points were teaching role and procedure,
classroom supervision, shared decision-making/ responsibility, positive
interdependence, face-to-face interaction, interpersonal skills, monitoring in
developing time and methods for regular processing, and individual accountability.
3.3.2.5 Evaluation of Collaborative Teaching
Additional data regarding the collaborative teaching training, and
implementing in the classroom were obtained via an informal interview by two head
teachers to secure feedback from teachers regarding their experience with
collaborative teaching. The researcher also constructed a rating-scale evaluation form
38
of 1 (low) to 5 (high) to secure feedback from the participating teachers in four parts:
(1) Checking understanding of the principles of collaborative teaching in five items,
(2) Checking understanding of the key assumptions of collaborative teaching in five
items, (3) Checking understanding of the elements of collaborative teaching in five
items, and (4) Overall satisfaction in one item. The evaluation form is given as Figure
3.3 below
Directions: Teachers please rate perception-based specifications for evaluation of the
implemented collaborative teaching on a rating scale of 1 low to 5 high as follows:
Principles of collaborative teaching:
All team members work together towards a common goal….1 2 3 4 5
A sense that all participants are valued…. 1 2 3 4 5 The teaching method embraces the unique perspectives of all team members. 1 2 3 4 5
A strong sense of purpose….1 2 3 4 5 Trust and a sense of shared responsibility…..1 2 3 4 5
Key assumptions of collaborative teaching:
Team members value diverse membership and ideas….. 1 2 3 4 5
Each member has expertise. … 1 2 3 4 5
Team members have a common purpose….. 1 2 3 4 5
Team members trust one another….. 1 2 3 4 5 Team members share decision-making and responsibility….. 1 2 3 4 5
Elements of collaborative teaching
The degree of positive interdependence….. 1 2 3 4 5
Sufficiency of face-to-face interaction. … 1 2 3 4 5
Competency of interpersonal skills…. 1 2 3 4 5
Monitoring success in developing time and methods for regular processing. 1 2 3 4 5
The degree of individual accountability of each team member…. 1 2 3 4 5
Overall satisfaction
Your overall satisfaction with your performance via collaborative teaching. 1 2 3 4 5
Additional remarks, if any ……………………………………………………..
Figure 3.3 Evaluation of the Implemented Collaborative Teaching
39
3.4 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
Research data for the study were collected from observation, informal
conversations, interviews and evaluation form to provide an in-depth picture of the
subjects professional relationships that existed among collaborating teachers. The
researcher had the data collection procedure in five parts: (1) Use of collaborative
teaching model, (2) Collaborative teaching workshop, (3) Lesson plan in collaborative
teaching practice in the classroom, (4) Observation of collaborative teaching, and (5)
Evaluation of collaborative teaching. Data of group one were collected from three
teachers at Soonthonvittaya School during term 1 of academic year 2011. As for
group 2 as a retrial group, data were collected from three teachers at Sana School
during term 1 of academic year 2012.
Details of data collection procedure were:
Group 1
3.4.1 Use of collaborative teaching model
Various data collection techniques were used including observation,
informal conversations, interviews and evaluation forms. Qualitative
were used rather than Quantitative research techniques so that answers
would not be limited to those that could only be covered and delivered in
a numerical expression. Data will be presented in the form of interview
and feedback from the teachers. Then, evaluation form of the
implemented collaborative teaching was used by the end after the
participants completed the four stages of collaborative teaching model to
secure feedback from the participating teachers in four parts: (1)
Checking understanding of the principles of collaborative teaching in five
items, (2) Checking understanding of the key assumptions of
collaborative teaching in five items, (3) Checking understanding of the
elements of collaborative teaching in five items, and (4) Overall
satisfaction in one item.
3.4.2 Collaborative teaching workshop
In order to support and collect data from the workshop effectively,
techniques such as observation, informal conversations and evaluation
forms were used during and after the workshop. The researcher
constructed a satisfaction rating-scale as an evaluation form of 1 (low) to
5 (high) to secure feedback from the participating teachers in four parts:
(1) Content delivery in seven items, (2) Facility in two items, (3)
Satisfaction in four items, and (4) open-ended questions in two items.
40
3.4.3 Lesson plan in collaborative teaching practice in the classroom
The observation and informal conversations were used to get some
feedback and give some feedback for the teachers about the
implementation and sharing of evidence and practice.
3.4.4 Observation of collaborative teaching
Observation by the researcher and one head teacher was collected during
the practice in the classroom.
3.4.5 Evaluation of collaborative teaching
Teachers’ feedback regarding their experience with collaborative teaching
was collected with informal conversations. Teachers’ assessments of
their own understanding and satisfaction of the model were collected.
The researcher also constructed a rating-scale evaluation form of 1 (low)
to 5 (high) to secure feedback from the participating teachers in four
parts: (1) Checking understanding of the principles of collaborative
teaching in five items, (2) Checking understanding of the key
assumptions of collaborative teaching in five items, (3) Checking
understanding of the elements of collaborative teaching in five items, and
(4) Overall satisfaction in one item.
Group 2
The researcher repeated the same techniques with this group to get an overview
of the retrial of collaborative teaching.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS
This research used reflective analysis for qualitative data. Quantitative and
qualitative data were extracted from the five main focus areas of: (1) Use of
collaborative teaching model (2) Collaborative teaching workshop, (3) Lesson plan in
collaborative teaching practice in the classroom, (4) Observation of collaborative
teaching, and (5) Evaluation of collaborative teaching.
Use of Collaborative Teaching Model
The researcher analyzed the data in three phases. The first phase was the
interaction and reaction during the workshop. The second phase gathered from the
interview and feedback from the participant teachers. Then, after the teachers had
completed the four stages of collaborative teaching model, the third phase, the teachers
were evaluated on what they learned from the collaborative teaching training, and their
implementation of the created lesson plans in the classroom in four parts: (1)
Checking understanding of the principles of collaborative teaching in five items, (2)
41
Checking understanding of the key assumptions of collaborative teaching in five
items, (3) Checking understanding of the elements of collaborative teaching in five
items, and (4) Overall satisfaction in one item. Use of Collaborative Teaching Model
acquired from the use of observation schema, informal conversations, interviews and
evaluation forms presented in appropriate formats, such as tables showing frequency
and percentage, and a list of items or brief descriptions of reported results.
Collaborative Teaching Workshop
The collaborative teaching workshop was analyzed from the data gathered
through the observation and interaction between teachers during the six hour
workshop. The data also was analyzed from the evaluation form of a rating-scale of
1(low) to 5 (high) to present in appropriate formats, such as tables showing frequency
and percentage, and a list of items or brief descriptions of reported results.
Lesson Plan in Collaborative Teaching Practice in the Classroom
On lesson planning with colleagues, the data was analyzed from the data
gathered through the observation, informal conversation and feedback during the
lesson plan period. Qualitative data of brief descriptions were reported as results.
Observation of Collaborative Teaching
After the training period, the teachers worked in the scheduled class with their
partners, followed by evaluation by two head teachers using a classroom observation
scheme observed the teachers in action. The data was analyzed from the data gathered
through the observation of Collaborative Teaching. Qualitative data of brief
descriptions were reported as results.
Evaluation of Collaborative Teaching
Evaluation of Collaborative Teaching obtained from the use of observation
schema, informal conversations, interviews and evaluation forms presented in
appropriate formats, such as tables showing frequency and percentage, and a list of
items or brief descriptions of reported results.
3.6 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the researcher studied the work of earlier researchers on
collaborative teaching to develop a new collaborative teaching model used in this case
study. The instruments used in this study were to provide data in response to the
identified research objectives. These instruments were meant to secure particular data
on whether the constructed collaborative teaching model can assist teachers to practice
the learner-centered approach with the use of lesson plans and learning activities in
mathematics and science collaboratively created by three teachers as teaching partners.
42
Also obtained were data on teachers’ satisfaction with the implementation of
collaborative teaching at the classroom level. The data collection process revealed
good efforts of all participating teachers at work in partnership. Details of these
obtained data will be analyzed and reported as results of the study in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The focus of the study addressed the two research questions concerning the
effects of a collaborative teaching model for the elementary school teachers in the area
of professional development, effective teaching methods and abilities to create
activities that challenge learning efforts as well as motivate learners to apply what they
have learned in the classroom to a real life context. The collaborative teaching model
in this study, where the teachers respect each others’ role in instruction and establish a
relationship with their students, drives the teaching practices in this model. An
important emphasis of the analysis here is the academic success of workshop (on
collaborative teaching), and implementation of the developed collaborative teaching
model currently in practice at the elementary school level at Soonthonvittaya School
and Sana School.
In this chapter, the data sources are presented followed by a descriptive report.
First, the details of: 1) collaborative Teaching Model, 2) Workshop, 3) Lesson Plan, 4)
Collaborative Teaching Model Implementation, and 5) Collaborative Teaching Model
Evaluation
Objective of the Study
4.1.1 To develop a collaborative teaching models for elementary school teachers to implement with P 1-3 elementary school teachers at Soonthonvittaya School.
4.1.2 To evaluate implementation of the developed collaborative teaching model at Soonthonvittaya School by classroom observation.
44
4.2 RESULT 1 COLLABORATIVE TEACHING MODEL
The four stages of collaborative teaching model were completed by the
participants. Initially, in the first three hours of the workshop, the collaborative
teaching model was introduced to three teachers. Second, the researcher worked with
the teachers in the workshop to guide them to work collaboratively on planning their
lessons and using them in classroom practice. A full day workshop allowed the
teachers to share their knowledge by building on what they actually learned in the
workshop. Third, when the teachers returned to their scheduled classes after the
workshop, they delivered the planned instructions and guidelines for students to learn
through activities. In the implementation stage, two head teachers observed the
teachers for some changes that might occur in their teaching (reported in the
observation section). Then, the second and third stages were repeated for teachers to
plan ten lessons of science and ten lessons of mathematic. Finally, the teachers were
evaluated on what they learned from the collaborative teaching training, and their
implementation of the created lesson plans in the classroom.
At the beginning of first stage, the researcher confirmed with both groups of
teachers their understanding of the basic ground rules of the collaborative teaching
model. The key principles are:
1. Teachers must agree to contribute in the collaborative teaching model. The
teaching team must collectively agree to (a) practice or use whatever change
the researcher has decided to implement: (b) support one another in the
change process, including sharing planning of instructional objectives and
developing materials and lessons; and (c) collect data about the
implementation process and the effects on students relative to the research’s
goals.
2. The primary activity of the collaborative teaching model is planning and
developing curriculum and instruction in pursuit of shared goals. Especially
when there are learning and teaching strategies designed for higher
outcomes, teachers need to think through their goals, as well as the specific
objectives leading to them. Collaborative planning is essential if teachers
are to join the effort of developing new lesson and unit sequences and share
one another’s best teaching experiences.
3. The essential elements for the collaborative teaching model are principles of
collaboration, key assumptions and five essential characteristics to improve
teachers’ relationships, success in working as a team, and engagement in
professional discussions about implementation in order to improve the
quality of teaching. Teachers must understand these essential elements of
the collaborative teaching model in order to adjust their beliefs and attitudes
towards teaching and enjoy their shared experience in bringing about the
45
best possible lesson plan for each team member to implement at the
classroom level.
4. The collaborative work of collaborative teaching is much broader than
observations and training. Rather, teachers learn from one another while
planning instruction, developing support materials, watching one another
work with students, and thinking together about the impact of their behavior
on their students’ learning.
Group 1
It appears that the Collaborative Teaching Model provides teachers with the
opportunity to participate both as learners and teachers. The teachers’ responses
revealed the impact of the collaborative teaching model on their attitudes towards
teaching practice and lesson plan preparation. All three teachers tried to interact and
share ideas in planning learning activities together in the training workshop.
What follows is an example from the training workshop in which the teachers
were planning activities related to a science lesson. The example reveals a willingness
to negotiate.
T1: “We should have separate groups for different areas in the school.”
T2: “As a station learning? But, I don’t know how to teach science…”
T1: “I will show you a good science book. We can ask the students to walk
around the school and find out about living things and non-living things.”
T3: “Can we not use the book? I agree with you on station learning. We
should design the same science tasks and integrate measuring skills of
math into the science subject.
From the interviews with all three teachers in an effort to gain a deeper
understanding of their personal impressions about collaborative teaching, statements
were made during the interviews by the participants that reflected on the experiences
of the teachers that were working together in a collaborative teaching model.
Teacher 1 (head teacher) stated:
“I can see that children have been improving on some skills. They were
enthusiastic in working together. From week 1 to week 2, teachers and
students had some times to talk and discuss with one another before
getting to work. One example: One boy of grade 3 - he used to be shy
and not really like to talk to the teacher, but one day during the group
work, I walked past and he just came up to me and showed me his group
project on science. I was surprised but I realized that he was the leader
of the group and his confidence in the group had grown since he was the
big brother for the group”.
46
Teacher 2 stated:
“I can see the benefit of this collaborative teaching model. We bring more
fun into learning and teaching even though we had to spend some times
with planning and preparing what to teach for children. At the first stage
of collaborative teaching, students were not ready to work as a group.
They didn’t know each other that well because they were mixed levels.
But by the second and third stages, they were more willing to share as
they were assigned specific roles in the group. One boy in my group was
special needs. He showed some interests by asking questions and doing
work on his worksheets. You can see the improvement in his work.”
Teacher 3 stated:
“I feel the collaborative teaching is new to me, and is more attractive than
the previous teaching method. I do enjoy it. Children were developing
their group work skills. They gained confidence in sharing, discussing
and presenting in the group and with other groups. Children had some
feedback about their enjoyment on this new way of learning. There were
a few problems such as time - there was not enough time for children to
finish their group work and mix age levels. The problem that I found
was children from grade 1 and 2 couldn’t read and write so that took
sometimes to adjust.
Group 2
The primary focus of the model is developing teachers’ knowledge of
collaborative teaching concepts, as well as their understanding of appropriate
pedagogical techniques that can support their implementation of collaborative
teaching.
The structure of the model provides teachers a way to view this approach
through a “student’s” eyes, as with the opportunity to participate both as learners and
teachers. The afternoon session focused on helping the teachers develop their
pedagogical skills and planning science lessons. All three teachers tried to design and
plan learning activities together in the training workshop. Here is one example record
of their interaction in trying to plan learning activities for a science lesson. It clearly
indicates some interaction and suggestion in the group to plan learning activities
together.
T1: “What are some activities that children enjoy?”
T2: “First, we have to think about the topic. The unit area is distinguishing
living and nonliving things.”
T1: “What I usually do with the kids is classify the pictures of living and non-
living. We can use that again. Children seem to enjoy that.”
47
T3: “They also need to describe different aspects of baby animals which look
like their parents. This is an objective of grade 3.”
The group talked to each other about the schedule of science class. They
agreed to integrating the levels and teaching together at the same time as a team
teaching experience.
The interview steps were taken to develop a deeper understanding of their ideas
about collaborative teaching. Statements were made during the interviews by the
participant teachers.
Teacher 1 stated:
“I think that a lot of support from the team or even from the school can
lead to some improvement for teachers. We need some opportunities to
develop collaboration skills for teachers and children since we always
learn or teach based on individual effort. I have to say that I felt
uncomfortable sometimes when you (researcher) asked me to share or
say something during the workshop. However, I can see some useful
strategies that I can use later on.”
Teacher 2 stated:
“I think the collaborative teaching model can be successful if all teachers
agree to the same thing and have the same goal. From this workshop, we
had to change our schedule to fit with what we planned. This workshop
allowed for opportunities for the school to support the staff through the
use of new teaching strategies.
Teacher 3 stated:
“I agree with the collaborative teaching model since many teachers never
worked in collaborative teaching and we need practice in such skills. I
can see the enjoyment of cooperative learning for children, however if I
do group work all the time, I won’t be able to cover as much material
during the semester as I do when I lecture. And another point is that
parents sometimes they don’t understand. They think that children do
not learn much this way.”
The data demonstrated that the collaborative teaching model can serve as a tool
to assist teachers to work together and to develop skills in how to support their
teaching partners. Each team managed to complete a specific goal by communicating
and actively involving themselves in the workshop.
48
4.3 RESULT 2 WORKSHOP
Group 1
Teachers were introduced to the collaborative teaching model at the beginning
of the workshop so they could understand the goal of training and familiarize
themselves with the principles, key assumptions and elements of collaborative
teaching. From the researcher’s observation, the participants increased their
interaction when watching the video clips and creating lesson plans. The teachers
appeared to hold back a little fearing judgment. For example when the researcher
asked about their experience with collaborative teaching, they hesitated until one
teacher started explaining why it didn’t work for them in the past. She said that all
three of them had been trained to use integrated instruction and co-teaching. They
implemented them in one term only and then decided to stop. However, they would
like to give a second try to collaborative teaching.
The researcher tried to encourage them to think more creatively about
strategies for helping students learn by not using traditional worksheets. On this point,
teachers came up with an idea of a project which would invite students to present their
posters and display them in the public areas of the school. This type of displays can
reflect achievements of the students and teachers alike. The teachers appeared to show
keen interest and enthusiasm in working together on creating lesson plans and sharing
their experience in bringing about the best possible lesson plan for each team member
to try later on. The results of their workshop evaluation at the average level of = 3.56
and 4.10 as overall satisfaction (see Tables 4.1 and 4.4).
There was some disagreement about materials and tasks. One teacher
suggested, they should not use the science workbook and asked the students to do
exercises afterward. He suggested integration between science and math subjects. It
became apparent that disagreements have their role in bringing new ideas into the
group for further evaluation and reflection.
At the end of the workshop, the researcher used a rating-scale as an evaluation
form of 1 (low) to 5 (high) to secure satisfaction feedback from the participating
teachers. As seen in Table 4.1, the overall result from the opinion of the teachers was
positive in satisfaction (average 3.56) for the impact of the collaborative teaching
workshop.
49
Table 4.1 Group 1 Workshop Evaluation by Teachers
Item Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Average
1 4 3 3 3.33
2 4 3 3 3.33
3 4 4 3 3.66
4 4 3 4 3.66
5 4 4 4 4.00
6 3 3 4 3.33
7 4 4 3 3.66
8 3 4 3 3.33
9 4 4 4 4.00
10 4 3 4 3.66
11 3 3 4 3.33
12 3 4 4 3.66
13 3 3 4 3.33
Total 3.62 3.46 3.62 3.56
Note: Level of opinion: (1.00-1.50) Strongly disagree; (1.51-2.50) Disagree; (2.51-
3.50) No opinion; (3.51-4.50) Agree; (4.51-5.00) Strongly agree.
Group 2
The teachers were introduced to the same concepts as group 1. The researcher
made sure that they understood the goal of training and were familiar with the
principles, key assumptions and elements of collaborative teaching. From the
researcher’s observation during the workshop, the participants were showing keen
interest on the collaborative teaching model as I explained to them about the four
stages of the collaborative teaching model. We spent some time discussing the
problems and solutions on collaborative teaching. Teachers were worried about the
short amount of time that they had and they were also concerned with the specific
topics that each level had to cover. The researcher tried to explain to the group that
they could be flexible about the collaborative teaching model in terms of classrooms’
schedules. By doing that, teachers could try once a week depending on the group’s
planning. The researcher tried to tell them that it didn’t have to be one way other
another. The researcher explained that there were evidences showing that students
who work in groups develop an increased ability to solve problems and display greater
understanding of the material. The researcher shared with the group that in the
previous school the solution to this issue was assigning additional homework or
readings to cover what was missed in class. This discussion showed that teachers in
Sana school were having keen interest on how to make the collaborative teaching
model work. During the lesson plan activities, teachers made an effort to plan and
agree on a learning activity that one of the members had successfully used in her
classroom. They planned to start with each group to classifying the pictures of living
and non-living things. Then, they had students reflected and brainstorm as to the
characteristics of living and nonliving things and what made living things different
50
from nonliving things. This type of reflecting and brainstorming can reflect children’s
understanding of the topic.
At the end of the workshop, the researcher used a rating-scale as an evaluation
form of 1 (low) to 5 (high) to secure satisfaction feedback from the participating
teachers. As seen in Table 4.2, the overall result from the opinion of the teachers was
positive in satisfaction (average 3.97) for the impact of the collaborative teaching
workshop.
Table 4.2 Group 1 Workshop Evaluation by Teachers
Item Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Average
1 4 4 4 4.00
2 4 4 4 4.00
3 4 5 4 4.33
4 4 5 4 4.33
5 4 3 4 3.66
6 4 5 4 4.33
7 4 3 4 3.66
8 4 4 3 3.66
9 4 4 3 3.66
10 4 4 4 4.00
11 4 4 4 4.00
12 4 4 4 4.00
13 4 4 4 4.00
Total 4.00 4.08 3.85 3.97
Note: Level of opinion: (1.00-1.50) Strongly disagree; (1.51-2.50) Disagree; (2.51-
3.50) No opinion; (3.51-4.50) Agree; (4.51-5.00) Strongly agree.
As seen in Table 4.3, the overall result from the opinion of the teachers was
positive in satisfaction (mean () of 3.75 and standard deviation 0.46) for the impact
of the collaborative teaching workshop. Moreover, the results of two workshop
evaluations at the level of = 3.75 and = 4.17 as overall satisfaction (see Table 4.3
and 4.5).
51
Table 4.3 Results of training workshop evaluation
Items N=6 Strongly Strongly Indifferent Mean () S.D () Level of
Agree Disagree opinion
to Agree (%) to Disagree (%)
Content Delivery
1. The goals of the training program were clearly defined. 83% - 17% 4.00 0.63 Agree 2. The topics covered were relevant. 66% - 34% 3.67 0.52 Agree
3. There was sufficient opportunity for interactive 83% - 17% 4.00 0.63 Agree
participation.
4. The training program allowed me to get to know 83% - 17% 4.00 0.63 Agree
the other participants.
5. The training program was too technical and 83% - 17% 3.83 0.41 Agree
difficult to understand. 6. The training experience will be useful in my work. 67% - 33% 3.83 0.75 Agree
7. The schedule for the training provided enough time 67% - 33% 3.66 0.52 Agree
to cover all of the proposed activities.
Total 3.86 0.58 Agree
Facility 8. The meeting room and facilities provided a 50% - 50% 3.50 0.55 Agree
comfortable setting for the training program.
9. The location for the training program was convenient 83% - 17% 3.83 0.41 Agree
for me.
Total 3.67 0.48 Agree
Satisfaction
10. The goals of the training program have been met. 83% - 17% 3.83 0.41 Agree
11. I am satisfied with learning new things in the training 66% - 34% 3.67 0.52 Agree
program. 12. I was satisfied with the collaborative teaching method. 83% - 17% 3.83 0.41 Agree
13. I was satisfied with the overall training program. 66% - 34% 3.67 0.52 Agree
Total 3.75 0.46 Agree
Note: Level of opinion on individual items in the questionnaire of the collaborative teaching workshop: (1.00-1.50) Strongly disagree; (1.51-2.50) Disagree; (2.51-3.50) Uncertain; (3.51-4.50) Agree;
(4.51-5.00) Strongly agree.
51
52
4.4 RESULT 3 LESSON PLAN
Group 1
During the school term, teachers participated in weekly team meetings on
lesson planning with colleagues. These meeting were held every Saturday for the
whole term. During the meetings, teachers had the chance to discuss and received
feedback from their peers, head teacher and researcher.
This lesson planning scheme involves writing student learning objectives,
constructing a homework assignment matched to the objectives, planning appropriate
classroom activities to develop the identified concepts, and creating an activity to
begin the lesson. The lesson planning meetings gave teachers a chance to work
together to write new lessons or improve their existing plans. During these meetings,
the researcher distributed a lesson planning template (Appendix 3) that helped teachers
follow the stages of lesson planning. Teachers were free to choose within the two
subjects, science and mathematics - what they would work on and how they would
work together.
The first lesson plans were designed and created during the workshop to
include learning activities with the integration of mathematics and science. The
teachers planned for a mixed level of grades 1-3 students in three groups of 5-6
students. The participating teachers planned for cooperative learning groups in four
stages: (1) creating positive norms of the group, (2) designing learning tasks that
support learning and understanding, (3) modeling appropriate behaviors, and (4)
monitoring group progress. First, teacher 3 gave an introduction to a new way of
learning at the assembly. He explained to the students that they were to work in
groups, introduced two teachers as teaching team members, and then explained the
procedure. After that, the teaching team took all students to watch a short video
before finally breaking up into smaller groups and assigning a different leading teacher
for each group. The teacher in each group explained the principles of cooperative
group learning. The students were assigned roles in the group. Then, the teachers
assigned specific tasks for each group. The tasks were, for example, comparing
differences between living things and non-living things that they could find in the
school and measuring height and weight of the group members to explain
characteristics of external human organs as well as health care. At the end of the
session, each group was assigned to create a poster from what they could find around
the school and then that poster was presented to other groups about what they actually
learned. The students were to present their poster and write their reaction as feedback
to this type of learning.
53
Lesson plans were designed and created by the teachers each week. From the
observations, teachers were likely to wait for others opinions before giving
suggestions or ideas for teaching practices or learning activities. However, they were
building more confidence each week through planning and implementing. Teachers
were willing to share their experiences during the implementation with the group and
find some solutions that might work. One issue that was brought up in the planning
period was that students from grade 1 and 2 couldn’t read and write. The head teacher
was supporting the teachers by suggesting more home work on particular skills that
some children might need to develop. Teachers also showed some good ideas of
activities to use in lesson plans. One example was an enjoyable activity where the
children planned as a group to have a lunch menu created and they had to go to the
local market to buy the ingredients to cook for their lunch. In this lesson plan,
children had to plan the budget to spend at the local market and after that they needed
to cook the food for their meal.
The teachers from Soonthonvittaya School clearly pointed out that the level of
trust amongst their collaborative team members allowed them to come to a shared
understanding of what they wanted their students to learn by the end of their specific
grade level. The teachers felt that they could lean on the other teachers within their
team. One teacher explained that by working in the collaborative teaching team,
teachers did not work in isolation from other classrooms. The teacher stated that
because teachers were no longer working in their classrooms alone, they benefitted
from sharing resources, ideas and materials with one another. The Successful
collaboration required participants to share in the process of knowledge creation.
For group 2 they did not have to repeat the second and third stages for twenty
lesson plans. They just had to implement the one lesson plan that they created in the
workshop.
4.5 RESULT 4 COLLABORATIVE TEACHING MODEL
IMPLEMENTATION
After the training period, the teachers worked in the scheduled class with their
partners, followed by evaluation by two head teachers using a classroom observation
scheme.
Observation 1
The teachers understood their teaching role and the procedure shown in the
process of implementing the lesson when teacher 3 explained the procedure of
learning to the students. After that, teacher 1 told the students to join their group
before walking to the video room. Teacher 2 helped organize the seating arrangement
for the students.
54
As observed in the learning activities, teacher 2 had one special needs child in
her group. Teacher 2 explained the lesson procedure and the activities to the group
members and in particular the special needs child to make sure that all group members
had a clear understanding of what to do in group work. She welcomed and included
the other teachers to participate in her learning group as earlier planned. She showed
good confidence in making decisions involving others or sharing information.
Teacher 1 interacted with her soft voice to keep children doing things in time. She
appeared to spend more time with grade 1 children and reminded them about the
closing time. She also seemed to enjoy encouraging the older children to help the
younger ones.
Observation 2
The researcher observed the teachers’ performance on the essentials of the
collaborative teaching model: (1) role taking and teaching procedure, (2) their
classroom supervision, (3) shared decision-making/ responsibility, (4) positive
interdependence, (5) face-to-face interaction, (6) interpersonal skills, (7) monitoring in
developing time and methods for regular processing and (8) individual accountability.
From the researcher’s observation, the teachers showed some confidence in
taking the leading role when needed. One example was at the morning assembly after
the national anthem. Teacher 3 picked up the microphone to talk to students while the
other two teachers nodded and smiled to encourage his leading role. Teacher 3
showed a good potential for collaborative teaching; he cheerily discussed with all
group members in an attempt to involve all students in group participation. He gave
some key words for the students to prompt idea sharing, taking turns and active
listening. He asked the children to use a question like “what’s your opinion?” At first,
his students were a little shy and avoided eye contact but later on ended up laughing
out loud at the teacher’s using a funny voice to ask one student for his opinion. This
interaction obviously indicated teacher 3’s acceptance of his responsibility for the
teaching role in helping children understand how to work in a group.
In another example, the teachers had a conversation about who should
conclude the lesson after the students’ presentations. Teacher 1 volunteered to
conclude the lesson and reminded the other two colleagues to help collect the feedback
sheets from the students. As for evaluation of their collaborative teaching, teacher 3
provided feedback to the other two teachers that they might consider putting the
students’ posters on one big table for everyone’s viewing after the presentation. These
types of direct suggestions pointed to the teachers’ willingness to use their
interpersonal skills to negotiate or suggest a practical action in face-to-face
interactions.
55
4.6 RESULT 5 COLLABORATIVE TEACHING MODEL
EVALUATION
The researcher conducted an informal interview to secure feedback from the
teachers. All three teachers responded about their collaborative teaching experience at
different times after the implementation of collaborative teaching.
Teacher 1 pointed out that planning and preparing the materials were time-
consuming. It was obvious that teachers could save time if they took turns in taking
the leading role. She thought that all three teachers should have a schedule in a
common office to discuss collaborative teaching and create their shared lesson plans.
She realized that it was beneficial to learn from the other teachers’ expertise in group
work. She particularly identified some students’ difficulties with the beginning stage
of group work when having to deal with peers from different grade levels. To her, it
normally took a little more time to ease them into the process of group work.
Teacher 2 reported that the students would need more time to familiarize
themselves with working in groups. She said that she herself also would need a little
more time to get used to and make collaborative teaching work. At the point of being
interviewed, she felt somewhat confident with her teaching in other subjects with
support from other teachers. She said that she might not be able to share many of her
ideas during group work but she could learn best from listening to the other two
teachers. She could see for herself that the students were positive in helping each
other to understand the lesson and work on learning activities together in their group.
Teacher 3 appeared confident in saying that he would love to have a chance to
work with the other teachers if they were provided with a timeslot for collaborative
teaching work. He learned from his colleagues that often the classroom management
problems he had encountered could easily be handled with support from his co-
teachers. It was important to find effective ways to engage students in learning
activities and challenging them with motivating learning tasks. He became aware of
how important the sense of achievement was to the students when completing their
assigned task like poster presentation and display. He felt well rewarded when seeing
enjoyment of the students when they worked on their learning activities and succeeded
with compliments from their teachers. To him, it was truly gratifying to see his
students being motivated to assist each other to finish their group work.
Student feedback
Informal interviews with the students on the new instructional practices of
teachers led to the conclusion that the implementation of the collaborative teaching
had changed the nature of classroom activities. Cooperative learning involved
students working together in groups to maximize their own learning and one another’s
learning. Students expressed improvement and enjoyment in learning through active
group participation. Students showed that working in group developed their
communication skills, which some lacked earlier. Students also shared that they
56
gained confidence solving problems in groups as they could share their difficulties
with their peers. The primary benefit of collaborative teaching was the enhancement
of the students’ self-esteem which in turn motivated students to participate in the
learning process. Results of the interview suggested that collaborative teaching was
very well received by students, and they expressed willingness to work collaboratively
in groups.
Collaborative teaching, as implemented by the three teachers, was evaluated
with use of a rating scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) in terms of satisfaction with six given
specifications. Table 4.4 shown below indicates that collaboration can bring about
some change in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward teaching. The total average was
4.10 pointing to the teachers’ positive attitudes toward collaborative teaching
implementation. It should be noted that the total evaluation average of each teacher at
4.75, 3.81 and 3.75 for the essential characteristics of collaborative teaching perhaps
suggests that teachers should need more time to internalize the essential characteristics
of collaborative teaching: positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction,
interpersonal skills, monitoring in developing time and methods for regular processing
and individual accountability.
Table 4.4 Evaluation of the Implemented Collaborative Teaching by Teachers
Item Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Average
1 5 4 4 4.33
2 5 4 4 4.33
3 4 4 4 4.00
4 5 4 4 4.33
5 5 4 4 4.33
6 5 4 4 4.33
7 4 4 3 3.66
8 5 4 4 4.33
9 5 4 4 4.33
10 5 4 4 4.33
11 5 4 4 4.33
12 5 3 4 4.00
13 5 3 3 3.66
14 4 3 3 3.33
15 4 4 3 3.66
16 5 4 4 4.33
Total 4.75 3.81 3.75 4.10
Note: Level of opinion: (1.00-1.50) Very low; (1.51-2.50) Low; (2.51-3.50)
Average; (3.51-4.50) High; (4.51-5.00) Very high
Overall, this project challenged the teachers participating in this research
project to work together as partners in a team (see Figure 4.1 and 4.2). They were
guided by the principles and essentials of collaborative teaching developed in the
57
course of this project. The preparatory workshop exemplified to teachers the benefits
of sharing ideas about team-work and lesson plan design, with their roles being clearly
identified at each stage of the team teaching process. The teachers were then
supported in devising learning activities guided by the concern for the possible needs
of their students. Each teacher had his or her part in implementing the collaboratively
created lesson plans and devised learning activities. This involvement definitely led
these teachers to believe that they were of value as team members. In this regard, it
was not surprising to see the positive attitudes to team work in of teachers’ evaluations
of the workshop and team teaching.
Figure 4.1 What did the teachers learn from collaborative teaching?
Personal Development Developing Confidence
Disposition to Keep Updated
Task Performance Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses
Targeting the Focus of Teaching
Role Performance
Art of a Good Teacher
Being a Good Questioner
Becoming a Facilitator
Awareness and
Understanding
Collaborative Teaching
Diversity in Students
58
Figure 4.2 How did the teachers learn about collaborative teaching?
Collaborative teaching as implemented by the six teachers was evaluated with
use of a rating scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) in terms of satisfaction. Table 4.5 shown
below indicates that collaboration can bring about some change in teachers’ beliefs
and attitudes toward teaching. The total mean was 4.17 and the standard deviation
was 0.41 point to the teachers’ positive attitudes toward collaborative teaching
implementation. It should be noted that the mean of 3.60 (SD 0.70) for the essential
characteristics of collaborative teaching suggest that teachers perhaps need more time
to internalize the essential characteristics of collaborative teaching in the areas of:
positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, interpersonal skills, monitoring in
developing time and methods for regular processing, and individual accountability.
From?
Sharing Feedback
Collaborating
Observing
Internal Colleagues
How?
Networking
Self
Receiving Student Feedback
Small Group Teaching
Assessing/ Lesson Plan Students
External Colleagues
Reflecting
Sharing
59
Table 4.5 Results of the implemented collaborative teaching evaluation
Items N=6 Very high Very low Indifferent Mean () S.D () Level of
to high to low opinion
Principles of collaborative teaching:
1. All team members work together towards a common goal. 100% - - 4.33 0.52 High 2. A sense that all participants are valued. 100% - - 4.33 0.52 High
3. The teaching method embraces the unique perspectives 100% - - 4.33 0.52 High
of all team members.
4. A strong sense of purpose. 100% - - 4.17 0.41 High
5. Trust and a sense of shared responsibility. 100% - - 4.17 0.41 High
Total 4.27 0.48 High
Key assumptions of collaborative teaching:
6. Team members value diverse membership and ideas. 100% - - 4.17 0.41 High
7. Each member has expertise. 83% - 17% 4.00 0.63 High
8. Team members have a common purpose. 100% - - 4.17 0.41 High
9. Team members trust one another. 100% - - 4.17 0.41 High
10. Team members share decision-making and responsibility. 100% - - 4.33 0.52 High
Total 4.17 0.57 High
Elements of collaborative teaching
11. The degree of positive interdependence. 67% - 33% 3.83 0.75 High
12. Sufficiency of face-to-face interaction. 33% - 67% 3.50 0.84 High
13. Competency of interpersonal skills. 33% - 67% 3.50 0.84 High
14. Monitoring success in developing time and methods 50% - 50% 3.50 0.55 High
for regular processing.
15. The degree of individual accountability 67% - 33% 3.67 0.52 High
of each team member.
Total 3.60 0.70 High
Overall satisfaction
16. Your overall satisfaction with your performance via 100% - - 4.17 0.41 High
collaborative teaching.
Note: Level of opinion: (1.00-1.50) Very low; (1.51-2.50) Low; (2.51-3.50) Average; (3.51-4.50) High; (4.51-5.00) Very high.
59
60
4.7 CONCLUSION
In this section on Results and Discussion, the researcher reports how the
constructed collaborative teaching model and its corresponding workshop were used
by six elementary teachers to initiate some changes in their teaching beliefs and
attitudes. The model challenged the participating teachers to work together as partners
in a team and was guided by the principles and essentials of collaborative teaching.
The workshop provided an experience for the participating teachers to be actively
involved in different stages of sharing ideas of how to work in a team, and how to
create a good lesson plan with their clearly identified teaching- leading role in turn
taking at the classroom level. The teachers were led through the process of devising
learning activities relevant to their learners’ needs. Each teacher had his or her part in
implementing their created lesson plans and devised learning activities. Such
involvement definitely led these teachers to believe that they were of value as team
members. In this regard, it was not a surprise to see the positive results on the
teachers’ reactions to evaluation of the workshop, the implementation of collaborative
teaching in their classroom, and their general reaction to the collaborative teaching
model at large.
The findings of this study suggest that the collaborative teaching model process
embodies the core features of professional development experiences that have
significant positive effects on increased teacher knowledge and skills and changes to
instructional practice. The sustained, on-going nature of the collaborative teaching
experience, involving the processes of researching, collaborating, active learning,
observation, and focused reflection and discussion, led to professional growth that
these participants believe will have a lasting impact on their instructional practices.
The next chapter will conclude the findings and report on the limitations and
possibilities of future research.
61
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
As seen in the results of the study in developing a collaborative teaching model
for elementary school teachers as reported in Chapter 4, this final chapter presents
major findings of the study in the five areas in congruence with the study objectives.
They are: (1) Collaborative teaching model, (2) Workshop on the collaborative
teaching model for teachers, (3) Collaborative lesson planning, (4) Classroom
observation of the implemented collaborative teaching, and (5) Evaluation on the
implemented collaborative teaching. The overall report on major findings in the five
areas will be briefly discussed with reference to some earlier studies given in Chapters
1 and 2.
Collaborative professional development employs an inquiry approach to
teaching pragmatics, which treats teacher training as a transformative process for them
to adjust their former teaching methods into a learner-center mode. In this perspective,
the final chapter will draw upon major results in projecting practicality of the
collaborative teaching model as applied to the context of a case study—a small private
school named Soonthonvittaya. The overall results point to possibility of integrating
collaboration and partnership among elementary school teachers into their teaching
practices. The study findings will be discussed in conjunction with work of some
earlier researchers in the area of collaborative teaching. Limitations of the study, its
pedagogic implications, followed by recommendations for future research will be
given in closing this dissertation.
5.2 DISCUSSION OF MAJOR FINDINGS
Major findings of this study are in five areas as follows:
62
5.2.1 Collaborative teaching model
The study developed a collaborative teaching model as a tool for teacher
professional development and put it in practice. Three elementary school teachers
who participated in different stages of the collaborative teaching model. In particular,
the session in lesson planning proved beneficial to the participating teachers. This
type of benefit was seen in their twenty created lesson plans. The participating
teachers also learned and discussed how to work as teaching partners in implementing
their lessons at the classroom level.
From the researcher’s observation, the three teachers still found it difficult to
identify techniques to expand children’s interest in learning. However, they became
well aware that little teacher-student interaction would result in a low level of support
for children’s critical thinking and deep understanding of the learning topic. They
tried to encourage each other to reach agreement in specifying the goal of each lesson
plan. These professional development activities provided them with a sense of
collaboration and partnership to work in a team in which each member was to take
turn in the teaching-leading role. The collaborative teaching model clearly served as a
platform and in fact a tool for them to perceive teacher professional development as
essential to their teaching career. The impacts of such training in the created model
were recognized by all three participating teachers, particularly as seen in their
implementation of collaborative teaching in their classroom.
It is evident that the teachers were positive toward the implemented
collaborative teaching method as seen in the overall high-level satisfaction evaluated
at Soonthonvittaya School and Sana School (mean () of 4.17 and standard deviation
() 0.41). The subjects’ collaboration in planning and working to get meaningful
learning outcome in children. The significance of collaboration was acknowledged by
the participating teachers and was reported by earlier researchers that teachers need to
work with peers as peer coaching so each one can give suggestion or comment to each
other to improve their teaching practice (Joyce and Showers 2002). Moreover,
professional development training on teachers’ collaboration should require a clear-cut
evaluation of the training impact on trainees’ teaching practices as shown in this case
study. Guskey (2000) in his work Evaluating Professional Development also pointed
out such significance in emphasizing that the positive impact of professional
development on the teachers will in turn result in positive impact on students.
5.2.2 Workshop on the collaborative teaching model for teachers
In collaborative teaching workshop, teachers built relationship in which
individuals were expected to work together as teaching partners. The researcher’
observed positive interactions between and among teachers. It was apparent that their
relationship was a comfortable one, especially when they negotiated for each person’s
63
role in preparing and delivering instructions to students in designed learning activities.
The teachers also appeared to hold back a little in awareness of how others might react
to their suggestive opinion regarding teaching practices. The evaluation results of the
teachers’ satisfaction with the workshop were positive in support of collaborative
teaching.
From the results on the point of positive relationship between and among
teachers in working as partners in a team, it should be noted that the most productive
teacher relationship involved various forms of collaboration, but centered on sharing
information and expertise and on joint work. Such productive relationship in this case
study appears to support the work of Little (1990) who highlighted collaborative
relationships with different degrees of interdependence. The less dependent ones were
to turn to interactions that helped them minimize a sense of isolation from other
teachers. It proved true in this study that more interdependent collaborations, on the
other hand, could support teachers’ to work together to become more productive with
their peers’ additional expertise. The finding on such positive relationship in this case
study corresponds with research findings reported by Jimenez (2000) who emphasized
teacher support for collaborative teaching in consideration of school climate and
school leadership.
5.2.3 Collaborative lesson planning
In lesson planning sessions, the teachers at first tended to wait for a partner in
the team to suggest an idea for teaching practices or learning activities; this was, from
their interview responses, they were used to working alone which prompted decision-
making without consultation. In the study workshop, they gradually eased themselves
in the consultation process in which each person pitched in new ideas to make
collaborative teaching work best in the classroom. They appeared happy working as a
team and showed their efforts in giving and sharing idea from time to time. It was a
common reaction to collaborative teaching workshop shown by both groups of
teachers in the study. This result on the teachers’ adjusted behavior was in accordance
with research findings of three earlier researchers Krol, Sleegers, Veenman and
Voeten (2008) in that teachers could adjust their behavior through group interactions.
5.2.4 Classroom observation of the implemented collaborative teaching
From the researcher’s observation using the classroom observation schema and
feedback from the participating subjects, all three teachers showed some confidence in
taking the leading role when needed. They were able to apply some basic elements of
collaborative teaching in their classroom. It was apparent that the workshop guided
them well how to implement the created lesson plans, interact with their students and
get them engaged in the learning activities. The students showed enjoyment through
learning activities and group work. They also gradually gained confidence through
group work opportunities. The learners worked in a group in different roles to finish
64
the learning tasks. The teachers’ and learners’ performances were notable in that they
all were engaged in collaboration in teaching and leading/ facilitating learning
activities.
The teachers in the study showed in their implemented collaborative teaching
that they were able to learn from their team members who helped each other bring
more ideas to support the newly trained teaching strategies. Such mutual support
among teaching team members was obviously shown in shared practices in lesson
study session as highlighted for significance by Lewis (2000) who reported Japanese
teachers at work in their lesson study.
At the implementing stage of collaborative teaching, the teachers in the study
showed effective group work; they mentioned when being interviewed five steps in
creating successful group work as reported in the earlier work of Krol, Sleegers,
Veenman and Voeten (2008). The first three steps are: the group members must work
together in order to achieve their goal, each group member is responsible for the work
he/she is assigned to do and for the outcome they achieve as a group, and the group
must sit face to face in order for them to be able to communicate. These are followed
by the last two steps: they must focus on working on a special skill to get better
achievement, and they must know what is important for them to work on in order to
succeed.
5.2.5 Evaluation on the implemented collaborative teaching
The teachers in this study were positive about the opportunities for
collaboration with other teachers in their professional training. They helped each other
in developing new ideas and synthesized different points of view to conclude
strategies to be used in group management for teaching practices. To them, the
collaborative teaching model can serve as a powerful tool for professional learning.
From the evaluation of implemented collaborative teaching, the teachers said that they
would prefer to have more time to internalize the essential characteristics of
collaborative teaching. The teachers’ evaluation of these characteristics like positive
interdependence, face-to-face interaction, interpersonal skills, monitoring in
developing time and methods for regular processing and individual accountability
yielded satisfaction results on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) at a moderate level with
the total mean of 3.60 (SD 0.70) for the essential characteristics of collaborative
teaching.
From the evaluation results of implemented collaborative teaching, the teachers
acknowledged good impacts of the created lessons via teacher collaboration on their
students. Overall collaborative teaching evaluation by six teachers from two schools
with use of a rating scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) in terms of satisfaction with six given
65
specifications was rather high at the total mean of 4.17 (SD 0.41). The results point to
the teachers’ positive attitudes toward collaborative teaching implementation.
The positive result of the evaluated collaborative teaching is in fact not a
surprise. Quite a few researchers reported the use of collaborative teaching that
resulted in good attitudes from teachers, as reported in the work of Patton (2002) and
Creswell (2003). In addition to the use of observations and evaluation forms as shown
in this case study, the two researchers brought in other tools like journal and interview
to secure data for a holistic perspective of teachers in collaboration. In addition,
collaborative teaching with its potential to bring staff closer together was evident in
this case study research. The participating teachers were well aware of collaborative
teaching as capable of providing ample opportunities for reflective dialogue, and
shared common goal of improving teaching and learning within the context of a
culture of trust and mutual respect. Such positive aspects of collaborative teaching
support findings of other earlier researchers, such as Lewis (2000), Rock and Cathy
(2005), Fearon (2008), and Smith (2008), to name but the major ones.
5.3 STUDY LIMITATIONS
The researcher perceived limitations of the study in the small size of subjects.
Though being aware of the fact that training collaborative teaching cannot involve a
large group of teachers when the trainer is only one or the single researcher as in this
case study. However, it should be possible to have a larger size of subjects with the
use of more trainers. Involvement of more trainees certainly requires clear-cut
specifications of the workshop procedure as well. Another limitation seemed to lie in
some time constraint in the regular class schedule. Actual observation in the classroom
is inevitably limited by the schedule as such.
5.4 PEDAGOGIC IMPLICATIONS
The developed collaborative teaching model as applied to science and
mathematics teaching at the lower elementary school level (Prathom 1-3) can be
directly applied to similar school contexts as desired. It should be noted that in
bringing in any change in teaching methodology, the school needs to show support in
training teachers and provide resources for them. Those parties concerned school
administrators, head teachers and classroom teachers should be aware of the fact that it
takes time for trained teachers to be fully receptive to the proposed teaching method
and gain confidence in the newly adopted teaching method. Positive feedback through
systematic evaluation can help teachers travel on the professional road towards
mastery with greater confidence in their teaching career.
66
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
TRAINING SESSIONS
The researcher’s continuing concerns are how to help teachers teach their
students to develop intellectual independence, reasoning and problem-solving
capability. Also important are students’ development in the areas of competence in
handling the explosion of information and data; and, with the help of technology,
their ability to navigate the information age. The researcher believes that staff
developers can assist teachers by in their training sessions as follows:
1. Staff developers can help schools and teams of teachers to redesign their
workplaces by providing time during training to address this issue.
2. Staff developers can assist teachers to form their own collaborative teaching
team. It is important for teachers to have immediate practice in working
together toward shared teaching-learning goals.
3. Staff developers need to plan how they will monitor teachers’
implementation of such a new initiative as collaborative teaching, and how
to evaluate the impact of the newly trained teaching method on their
students.
4. Staff developers as the major vehicle for school improvement are to assist
the school administrators to identify the structures and contents of training,
as well as changes needed in the workplace to make possible the
collaborative planning, decision making, and data collection that are
essential to make training a success.
5. Staff developers are to signify importance of staff training to school
administrators. This is to make sure that training in a small workshop can
help stimulate the teaching staff in the renewal process of any selected
teaching methodology. It is also important for the school to generate a
culture that can support teachers’ initiatives and creativity in devising good
learning activities in a friendly environment.
5.6 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The findings from this study can suggest further research in the following
areas:
1. Further research should be carried out to follow up the effectiveness of
collaborative teaching in mathematics and science in the school under study.
2. Other subjects areas like social studies and languages should deserve
teachers’ consideration for collaborative teaching.
67
3. Collaborative teaching research at the primary level can be extended to
include other schools with similar variables in Ayutthaya Province.
4. The higher school level like the secondary level might include the use of
collaborative teaching model.
5. A qualitative study on collaborative teaching can yield more data on the
learner side.
5.7 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the researcher’s experience in this case study research definitely
proved that it was possible to create a collaborative teaching model suitable for a
particular school context. As seen in the major findings of the study, the participating
teachers were able to be guided through the process of workshop training and actual
collaborative teaching implementation with the support of the researcher and head
teachers. It was evident that collaborative professional development should require
systematic evaluation and feedback on instructional practices from the participating
teachers for further improvements at the classroom level. As shown in this case study,
the teachers were guided into a gradual change in their teaching perception which
means that they should be encouraged to walk out of their comfort zone of their
personal teaching style. They need to be open to new approaches to learner-center
teaching methods in support of an active learning process for their students. This
study after all has shown the possibility of collaborative teaching with the use of team
work and teaching partnership to make collaboration in sharing teaching strategies and
creating effective learning activities to achieve the target learning outcome of their
young learners.
In conducting this case study, the researcher has learned a great deal about
teacher professional development. It is in fact an uphill task to change someone in his
or her perception of particular professional practices the person has been familiar with
over many years of teaching. However, optimistic as the researcher tried to be with
collaborative teacher training, the researcher witnessed good efforts of the teachers in
an attempt at the current state of the art in teaching, which required their attention to
the learning process, not simply their teaching techniques alone. It was truly
gratifying for the researcher to see how the teachers used what they had been trained
in the workshop of the collaborative teaching model at the classroom level. In closing
the study, the researcher still believes that it is possible to assist these trained teachers
to sustain their newly trained method in the long run. It is certain that continuous
training provided by the school administrators can make such a belief possible.
68
REFERENCES
APA Task Force on Psychology in Education. “The Learner-centered psychological
Principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform.” Washington DC:
American Psychological Association and the Mid-Continent Regional
Educational Laboratory, 1993.
Alexander, P.A., and Murphy, P.K. “The research base for APA‟s learner-centered
Psychological principles.” In McCombs, B.L. (Ed.), How students learn:
Reforming Schools through learner-centered education (pp.25-60).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1998.
Anstrom, K. Team teaching between English as a Second Language and content
specialists at the secondary level: A case study of teacher beliefs and
practices. Dissertation Abstracts International, A-63 (01), 2777. (University
Microfilms No. AAT 3062394), 2002.
Bauwens, J., and Hourcade, J. “Making co-teaching a mainstreaming strategy.”
Preventing School Failure. 35 (4) (1991) : 19-24.
Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J., and Friend, M. “Cooperative teaching: A model for general
and special education integration.” Remedial and Special Education. 10
(1989) : 17- 22.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of
Learning.” Educational Researcher. 18 (1), (Jan-Feb 1989) : 32-42.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., and Perry, J. D. “Theory into practice:
How do we link?” In Duffy, T. M., and Jonassen, D. H.
(Eds.) Constructivism and technology of instruction: A conversation,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1998) : 17-35.
Becker, A., and Collignon, F. Community-based organization-school relationships in
urban Southeast Asian communities. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for
Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, 2002.
Butler, H.N., Lauscher, E., Jarvis-Selinger, and Beckingham, B. “Collaboration and
self regulation in teachers‟ professional development.” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 20 (5) (2004) : 435–455.
69
Burbank, M.D., and Kauchak, D. “An alternative model for professional development:
investigations into effective collaboration.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 19 (5) (2003) : 499–514.
Buczynski, S., and Hansen, C.B. “Impact of professional development on teacher
practice: uncovering connections.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (3)
(2010) : 599–607.
Breault, R.A. “Distilling wisdom from practice: finding meaning in PDS stories.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (3) (2010) : 399–407.
Borko, H., Elliot, R., and Uchiyama, K. “Professional development: a key to
Kentucky‟s educational reform effort.” Teaching and Teacher Education.
18 (8) (2002) : 969–987.
Boardman, A.G., and Woodruff, A.L. Teacher change and “high-stakes” assessment:
what happens to professional development?” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 20 (6) (2004) : 545–557.
Bartholomew, S.S., and Sandholtz,J.H. “Competing views of teaching in a school–
university partnership.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 25 (2) (2009) :
155–165.
Baildon, M., and Damico, J. “Negotiating epistemological challenges in thinking and
practice: a case study of a literacy and inquiry tool as a mediator of
professional conversation.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (6) (2008)
: 1645–1657.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. “Situated cognition and the culture of
learning.” Educational Researcher. 18 (1) (1989) : 32-42.
Boeckel, A. L. Effect of Collaborative Teaching Classroom on Reading Achievement
for Speech Impaired Elementary Students. Dissertation. (UMI No.
3330383), from ProQuest LLC, 2008.
Boyle, W. F., Boyle, T., and While, D. “A longitudinal study of teacher change: what
makes professional development effective?” The Curriculum Journal.15 (1)
(2004) : 45-68.
Buzbee Little, P. F. “Peer coaching as a support to collaborative teaching.” Mentoring
and Training. 13 (1) (2005) : 83–94.
70
Braaten, B., Mennes, D., Brown, M., and Samuels, H. “A model of collaborative
service for middle school student.” Preventing School Failur. 36 (3) (1992) :
10-15.
“Critical Elements for Collaboration” University of Vermont and PACER Center, [On
line] available at :
http://www.uvm.edu/~pcl/Module%203%20Critical%20Elements%20of%20
Collaboration.ppt, 2008.
Creswell, J. W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.
Cantrell, S.C., and Callaway, P. „High and low implementers of content literacy:
portraits of teacher efficacy.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (7)
(2008) : 1739–1750.
Castle, K. “Autonomy through pedagogical research.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 22 (8) (2006) : 1094–1103.
Cherubini,G., Zambelli, F., and Boscolo, P. “Student motivation: an experience of in
service education as a context for professional development of teachers.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 18 (3) (2002) : 273–288.
Clarke, D., and Hollingsworth, H. “Elaborating a model of teacher professional
growth.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 18 (8) (2002) : 947–967.
Clausen,K.W., Aquino, A.M., and Wideman, R. “Bridging the real and the ideal: a
comparison between learning community characteristics and a school-based
case study.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 25 (3) (2009) : 444–452.
Cochrane-Smith, M. “The outcomes question in teacher education.” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 17 (5) (2001) : 527–546.
Coskie, T.L., and Place, N.A. “The National Board certification process as
professional development: the potential for changed literacy practice.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (7) (2008) : 1893–1906.
Craig, C.J. “What teachers come to know through school portfolio development.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 19 (8) (2003) : 815–827.
Crockett, M.D. “Inquiry as professional development: creating dilemmas through
teachers‟ work.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 18 (5) (2002) : 609–624.
71
Cefai, C. Promoting resilience in the classroom: A guide to developing pupils’
emotional and cognitive skills. London, UK, and Philadelphia, PA: Jessica
Kingsley, 2008.
Diaz, D. P., and Bontenbal, K. F. Learner preferences: Developing a learner-centered
environment in the online or mediated classroom. Ed at a Distance. 15 (8).
[On line] available at :
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/AUG01_Issue/article03.html, 2001.
Day, C., and Leitch, R. “Teachers and teacher education lives: the role of emotion.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 17 (4) (2001) : 403–415.
Delandshere, G., and Arens, S.A. “Representations of teaching and standards-based
reform: are we closing the debate about teacher education.” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 17 (5) (2001) : 547–566.
Devos, A. “New teachers, mentoring and the discursive formation of professional
identity.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (5) (2010) : 1219–1223.
Doecke,B., Brown, J., and Loughran, J. “Teacher talk: the role of story and anecdote
in constructing professional knowledge for beginning teachers.” Teaching
and Teacher Education. 16 (3) (2000) : 335–348.
Duffy, T. M., and Cunningham, D. J. “Constructivism: Implications for the design
and delivery of instruction. ” In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198).
New York : MacMillan, 1996.
Davies, P., and Dunnill, R. “Learning Study‟ as a Model of Collaborative Practice in
Initial Teacher Education.” Journal of Education for Teaching. 34 (1)
(2008) : 3-16.
Erickson, G., Minnes Brandes, G., Mitchell, I., and Mitchell, J. “Collaborative teacher
learning: finding from two professional development projects.” Teaching
and Teacher Education. 21 (7) (2005) : 787–798.
Ermeling, B.A. “Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (3) (2010) : 377–388.
Epstein, J. L. “School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share.” Phi Delta Kappa, 9 (2) (1995) : 701-712.
72
French, D.P. “Was “inquiry” a mistake?” Journal of College Science Teaching. 35 (1)
(2005) : 60-62. [On line] available at :
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/museumeducation/situated.html
Fishman, B.J., Marx, R.W., Best, S., and Tal, R.T. “Linking teacher and student
learning to improve professional development in systemic reform.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 19 (6) (2003) : 643–658.
Frey, N., and Fisher, D. “Using common formative assessments as a source of
professional development in an urban American elementary school.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 25 (5) (2009) : 674–680.
Fantilli, R.D., and McDougall, D.E. “A study of novice teachers: challenges and
supports in the first years.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 25 (6) (2009)
: 814–825.
Fernández,C., Cannon, J., and Choksi, S. “A US–Japan lesson study collaboration
reveals critical lenses for examining practice.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 19 (2) (2003) : 171–185.
Friend, M., and Cook, L. Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals.
New York Longman Publishing Group, 1993.
Friend, M., and Cook, L. Interaction: Collaboration skills for school professionals (3rd
edition), New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc., 2000.
Fearon, K. A Team Teaching Approach to ESL: An Evaluative case study. Union, NJ:
Kean University, 2008.
Garderen, D.V., Hanuscin, D., Lee, E., and Kohn, P. “Quest: A Collaborative
Professional Development Model to Meet the Needs of Diverse Learners in
K-6 Science.” Psychology in the Schools. 49 (5) (2012) : 429-443.
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., and Tschannen-Moran, M. “A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student
achievement in public elementary schools.” Teachers College Record. 109
(2007) : 877–896.
Guskey, T.R. Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, 2000.
73
Gravani, M.N. “Academics and practitioners: partners in generating knowledge or
citizens of two different worlds?” Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (3)
(2008) : 649-659.
Gregory, A. “Teacher learning on problem-solving teams.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 26 (3) (2010) : 608–615.
Graham, H. D., and Salas, E. Creating, implementing, and managing effective training
and development: State-of-the-art lessons for practice (E. Salas, Ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2002. [online] available at :
database: http://questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107081432, November 21,
2006.
Gijselaers, W. H. “Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory.” In
Wilkerson, L. and Gijselaers, W. H. (Eds.), Bringing problem-based
learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 13-21). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Gomez, M. L. “Prospective teachers‟ perspectives on teaching diverse children: A
review with implications for teacher education and practice.” Journal of
Negro Education. 62 (4) (1993) : 459-474
Houghton, P. “Sustaining teachers‟ health and well-being.” Phi Delta Kappan. 15 (2)
(2001) : 706-711.
House, J.D. “The effects of classroom instructional strategies on science achievement
of elementary-school students in Japan: findings from the Third
international Mathematics and Science Survey.” International Journal of
Instructional Media. 33 (2006) : 217-229
Holton, E. F. III. “The flawed four-level evaluation model.” Human Resource
Development Quarterly. 7 (1) (1996) : 5-25.
Heath, V. “Problem with training transfer. Training transfer: How to promote skill
transfer in your organization? ” Retrieved [On line] available at :
http://www.buzzle .com/editorials/5-16-2006-96237.asp August 7, 2006,
Harrison, J., Dymoke, S., and Pell, T. “Mentoring beginning teachers in secondary
schools: an analysis of practice.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 22 (8)
(2006) : 1055–1067.
74
Henning, E. “Walking with “barefoot” teachers: an ethnographically fashioned
casebook.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 16 (1) (2000) : 3–20.
Hennissen,P., Crasborn, F., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., and Bergen, T. “Uncovering
contents of mentor teachers‟ interactive cognitions during mentoring
dialogue.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (2) (2010) : 207–214.
Hobson, A.J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., and Tomlinson, P.D. “Mentoring beginning
teachers: what we know and what we don‟t.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 25 (1) (2009) : 207–216.
Hoekstra, A., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D., and Korthagen, F. “Experienced teachers‟
informal learning: learning activities and changes in behavior and
cognition.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 25 (5) (2009) : 663–673.
Hofman , R.H., and Dijkstra, B.J. “Effective teacher professionalization in networks?”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (4) (2010) : 1031–1040.
Hudson-Ross, S. “Intertwining opportunities: participants‟ perceptions of professional
growth within a multiple-site teacher education network at the secondary
level.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 17 (4) (2001) : 433–454.
Huffman, D., and Kalnin, J. “Collaborative inquiry to make data-based decisions in
schools.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 19 (6) (2003) : 569–580.
Hargreaves, A., and Shirley, D. The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational
change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2009.
Howe, K. S. “The Impact of Collaborative Literacy Coaching on Middle and High
School Teachers‟ Personal and General Sense of Efficacy for Literacy
Teaching.” Dissertation. (UMI No. 3503979), from ProQuest LLC, 2012.
Hudson, P., and Glomb, N. “If it takes two to tango, then why not teach both partners
to dance? Collaboration instruction for all educators.” Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 30 (4) (1997) : 442-44.
Idol, L., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., and Nevin, A. Collborative Consultation. University
of Michigan. Aspen Publishers, 2000.
Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. Effective staff development in cooperative learning:
Training, transfer, and long-term use. In Brody, C.M. and Davidson, N. ed.
Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches,
(pp. 223-42.) New York: State University of New York, 1998.
75
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Stanne, M. B. “Cooperative learning methods: A
meta-analysis.” [On line] available at : http://www.clcrc.com/pages/c1-
methods.html, 2000.
Johnson, D.F. Fostering the Development of Reciprocal Collaboration between
Mainstream Teachers and Collaborating Teachers. Educational Leadership.
Rowan University. ProQuest LLC, 2008.
Joyce, B., and Showers, B. Designing Training and Peer Coaching: Our needs for
learning, VA, USA, ASCD, 2002.
Jang, S. “Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school
teachers.” Educational Research. 48 (2) (2006, June) : 177-194.
James, M., and McCormick, R. “Teachers learning how to learn.” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 25 (7) (2009) : 973–982.
Jenlink, P.M., and Kinnuncan-Welsch, K. “Case stories of facilitating professional
development.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 17 (6) (2001) : 705–724.
Jewett, P., and Goldstein, N. “Catching sight of talk: glimpses into discourse groups.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (5) (2008) : 1232–1243.
Johnson, L.E., Reiman, A.J., and Richard, W. “Beginning teacher disposition;
examining the moral/ethical domain.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 23
(5) (2007) : 676–687.
Jurasaite-Harbison, E., and Rex, L.A. “School cultures as contexts for informal teacher
learning.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (2) (2010) : 267–277.
Jonassen, D. H. “Designing constructivist learning environments.” In Reigeluth, C. M.
(Ed.) Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. II), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
215-239, 1999.
Jimenez, O. “Educational reform: Teachers‟ perceptions of teacher collaboration as a
reform intervention.” Thesis. (UMI No. 1442654). From ProQuest LLC,
2006.
Kuhn, D., and Dean, D. “Direct instruction vs. discovery learning: The long view.”
Science Education. 91 (3) (2007) : 385-397.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. “Why Minimal Guidance During
Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,
76
Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.”
Educational Psychologist. 41 (2) (2006) : 75-86
Kuijpers, J.M., Houtveen, A.A.M., and Wubbels, Th. “An Integrated Professional
Development Model for Effective Teaching.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 26 (8) (2010) : 1687-1694.
Kelchtermans, G., and Ballet, K. “The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative
biographical study on teacher socialization.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 18 (1) (2002) : 105–120.
Killeavy, M., and Moloney, A. “Reflection in a social space: can blogging support
reflective practice for beginning teachers.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 26 (4) (2010) : 1070–1076.
King, M.B. “Professional development to promote school wide inquiry.” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 18 (3) (2002) : 243–257.
Knight, P. “A systemic approach to professional development.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 18 (3) (2002) : 229–241.
Kwakman, K. “Factors affecting teacher participation in professional learning
activities.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 19 (2) (2003) : 149–170.
Kwan, T., and López-Real, F. “Identity formation of teacher-mentors: an analysis of
contrasting experiences using a Wengerian matrix framework.” Teaching
and Teacher Education. 26 (3) (2010) : 722–731.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., and Salas, E. A Multileval Organizational Systems Approach for
the Implementation and Transfer of Training. 1997. [On line] available at :
http://io.psy.msu.edu/koz/trnsf.html, August 7, 2006.
Keefe, E.B., Moore, V., and Duff, F. “The four “knows” of collaboration teaching.”
Teaching Exceptional Children. 36 (5) (2004) : 36-42.
Khamanee, T. Science of Teaching. Thai Version. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University
Press, 2007.
Krol, K., Sleegers, P., Veenman, S., and Voeten, M. “Creating Cooperative
Classrooms: Effects of a Two-year Staff Development Program. University
of Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Radboud University Nijmegen, The
Netherlands.” Educational Studies. 34 (3) (2008) : 343-360.
77
Lewis, C. “Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development.” Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, 2000.
Lambert, N. M., and McCombs, B. L. “Introduction: Learner-centered schools and
classrooms as a direction for school reform. ” In Lambert, N. M., and
McCombs, B. L. (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through
learner-centered education (pp. 1-22). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, 1998.
Lee, J.F.K. “A Hong Kong case of lesson study – benefits and concerns.” Teaching
and Teacher Education. 24 (5) (2008) : 1115–1124.
LePage, P., Boudreau, S., Maier, S., Robinson, J., and Cox, H. “Exploring the
complexities of the relationship between K–12 and college faculty in a non-
traditional professional development program.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 17 (2) (2001) : 195-211.
Levine, T.H., and Marcus, A.S. “How the structure and focus of teachers‟
collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning.” Teaching
and Teacher Education. 26 (3) (2010) : 389–398.
Lovett, M.W., Lacerenza, L., de Palma, M., Benson, N.J., Steinbach, K.A., and
Frijters, J.C. “Preparing teachers to remediate reading disabilities in high
school: what is needed for effective professional development?” Teaching
and Teacher Education. 24 (4) (2008) : 1083–1097.
Ladson-Billings, G., and Gomez, M. L. “Just Showing Up: Supporting Early Literacy
through Teachers‟ Professional Communities.” Phi Delta Kappan. 82 (9)
(2001) : 675-680.
Little, A., and Hoel, A. “Interdisciplinary Team Teaching: An Effective Method to
Transform Student Attitudes.” The Journal of Effective Teaching. 11 (1)
(2011) : 36-44.
Lockledge, A., and Wright, E. B. Collaborative teaching and the mainstreamed
student. Wilmington, NC: Department of Curricular Studies, University of
North Carolina (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 100),
1993.
78
McCombs, B. L. “Learner-centered psychological principles for enhancing education:
Applications in school settings. ” In Penner, L. A., Batsche, G. M., Knoff,
H. M., and Nelson, D. L. (Eds.), The challenge in mathematics and science
education: Psychology's response. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, 1993.
McCombs, B. L. “Self-assessment and reflection: Tools for promoting teacher
changes toward learner-centered practices.” National Association of
Secondary School Principals Bulletin. 81 (1997) : 1-14.
McCombs, B. L., and Whisler, J. S. The Learner-Centered Classroom and School:
Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and Achievement. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Milheim, W. “A comprehensive model for the transfer of learning.” Performance
Improvement Quarterly. 72 (2) (1994) : 95-105.
Mawhinney, L. “Let‟s lunch and learn: professional knowledge sharing in teachers‟
lounges and other congregational spaces.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 26 (4) (2010) : 972–978.
McCotter, S.S. “Collaborative groups as professional development.” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 17 (6) (2001) : 685–704.
McIntyre, E., and Kyle, D.W. “The success and failure of one mandated reform for
young children.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 22 (8) (2006) : 1130–
1144.
Melville, W., and Wallace, J. “Metaphorical duality: high school departments as both
communities and organizations.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 23 (7)
(2007) : 1193–1205.
Mitchell, S.N., Reilly, R.C., and Logue, M.E. “Benefits of collaborative action
research for the beginning teacher.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 25
(2) (2009) : 344–349.
Morais, A.M., Neves, I.F., and Alfonso, M. “Teacher training processes and teachers‟
competence –a sociological study in the primary school.” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 21 (4) (2005) : 415–437.
Muijs, D., and Harris, A. “Teacher led school improvement: teacher leadership in the
UK.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 22 (8) (2006) : 961–972.
79
Mushayikwa, E., and Lubben, F. “Self-directed professional development – hope for
teachers working in deprived environments.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 25 (3) (2009) : 375–382.
Murata, R. “What does team teaching mean? A case study of interdisciplinary
teaming.” The Journal of Educational Research. 96 (2) (2002) : 67-77.
Marqua, C. E. “Teachers' professional learning: The role of support, informal learning,
and collaboration” (January 1, 2010). Dissertations Collection for
University of Connecticut. Paper AAI3411482. [On line] available at:
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3411482, 2010.
Mizell, H. Why professional development matters. Learning Forward. Oxford, OH.
[On line] available at :
http://www.learningforward.org/advancing/whypdmatters.cfm, 2010.
Martin, P. C. “Collaborative Practices among Teachers to Serve Low-Achieving High
School ESL Students.” Dissertation. (UMI No. 3297009), from ProQuest
LLC, 2008.
Nelson, H.T. “Teachers’ Collaborative Inquiry and Professional Growth: Should We
Be Optimistic?” Wiley InterScience. [On line] available at :
http://www.interscienc.wiley.com, 2008.
Nielsen, D.C., Barry, A.L., and Staab, P.T. “Teachers‟ reflections of professional
change during a literacy-reform initiative.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 24 (5) (2008) : 1288–1303.
Niesz, T. “Chasms and bridges: generativity is the space between educators‟
communities of practice.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (1) (2010) :
37–44.
Nir, A.E., and Bogler, R. “The antecedents of teacher satisfaction with professional
development programs.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (2) (2008) :
377–386.
Nelson, L. M. “Collaborative problem solving.” In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.),
Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional
theory (pp. 241-267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc,
1999.
80
Nowacek, J. E. “Professionals talk about teaching together: interviews with five
collaborating teachers.” Intervention in School and Clinic. 27 (5) (1992) :
262-276
Oliver-Hoyo, M.T., Allen, D., Hunt, W.F., Hutson, J., and Pitts, A. “Effects of an
active learning environment: teaching innovations at a research I
institution.” Journal of Chemical Education. 81 (2004) : 441-448.
O‟Byrne. B. “Needed: A compass to navigate the multilingual English classroom.”
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 44 (5) (2001) : 440-449.
Oberski, I., and McNally, J. “Holism in teacher development: A Goethean
perspective.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 23 (6) (2007) : 935–943.
OECD. Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers,
OECD, Paris, 2005.
Olson, M.R., and Craig, C.J. “Opportunities and challenges in the development of
teachers‟ knowledge: the development of narrative authority through
knowledge communities.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 17 (6) (2001) :
667–684.
Oakes, J., and Lipton, M. Teaching to Change the World. 2nd
ed. 209-261. McGraw-
Hill Companies. Inc, 2003.
Office of the National Education Commission. Teacher Development for Quality
Learning: The Thailand Education Reform Project. Bangkok: Author, 2002.
Office of the National Education Commission. National Education Act of B.E.
Bangkok: Author, 1999.
Patton, M. Q. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2002.
Panitz, T. “Collaborative Versus Cooperative Learning: Comparing the Two
Definitions Helps Understand the nature of Interactive learning.”
Cooperative Learning and College Teaching. 8 (2) (Winter 1997).
Park , S., Steve Oliver, J. , Star Johnson, T., Graham, P., and Oppong, N.K.
“Colleagues‟ roles in the professional development of teachers: results from
a research study of National Board Certification.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 23 (4) (2007) : 368–389.
81
Ponte, P., Ax, J., Beijaard, D., and Wubbels, T. “Teachers‟ development of
professional knowledge through action research and the facilitation of this
by teacher educators” Teaching and Teacher Education. 20 (6) (2004) :
571–588.
Puchner, L.D., and Taylor, A.R. “Lesson study, collaboration and teacher efficacy:
stories from two school-based math lesson study groups” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 22 (7) (2006) : 922–934.
Panitz, T., and Panitz, P. “Assessing Students And Yourself Using The One Minute
Paper And Observing Students Working Cooperatively.” Cooperative
Learning and College Teaching. 6 (3) (1996). [On line] available at :
http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/Assessment.htm Pea, R. D. “Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning
environments for transformative communications.” The Journal of the
Learning Sciences. 3 (3) (1994) : 85-299.
Perkins, D.N. „Educating for insight.” Educational Leadership. 49 (2) (1991) : 4-8.
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Krause, A., and Frank, K. A. “Analyzing teachers‟
professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network
approach.” Teachers College Record. 111 (1) (2009) : 124–163.
Rock, T.C., and Cathy, W. “Improving Teaching through Lesson Study.” Teacher
Education Quarterly. (Winter 2005.) FindArticles.com. [On line] available
at : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200501/ai_n9522068/,
27 September, 2010.
Ruamkid, W. The Development of an Instructional Model Based on Backward Design
Approach and Experiential Learning to Enhance Kindergarten Teachers’
Ability to Design and Organize instructional Activities. Faculty of
Education. Chulalongkorn University, 2008.
Riordan, G.P. “Teachers perceptions of collaboration and clinical supervision.” Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA, 1995.
Reis-Jorge, J. “Teachers‟ conceptions of teacher-research and self-perceptions as
enquiring practitioners – a longitudinal case study.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 23 (4) (2007) : 402–417.
82
Romano, M.E. “ „Bumpy moments‟ in teaching: reflections from practicing teachers”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 22 (8) (2006) : 973–985.
Ross ,J.A., and Bruce, C.D. “Teacher self-assessment: a mechanism for facilitating
professional growth.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 23 (2) (2007) :
146–159.
Rueda, R., and Monz, L.D. “Apprenticeship for teaching: professional development
issues surrounding the collaborative relationship between teachers and par
educators.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 18 (5) (2002) : 503–521.
Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., and Yang, H. “Stimulating teachers‟ reflection and feedback
asking: an interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and
transformational leadership.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (5)
(2010) : 1154–1161.
Spencer, S. S., and Logan, K. R. “Bridging the gap: a school based staff development
model that bridges the gap from research to practice [Electronic version].”
Teacher Education and Special Education. 26 (1) (2003) : 51–62.
Sanger, M.J. “The effects of inquiry-based instruction on elementary teaching major‟s
chemistry content knowledge.” Journal of Chemical Education. 84 (2007) :
1035.
Savin-Banden, M. Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press/SRHE, 2000.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., and Coulson, R. L. “Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced
knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domain.” In Duffy, T., and Jonassen,
D. (Eds.) Constructivist and the technology of instruction, Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawwrence Erlbaum Association Publishers, (pp.57-75) 1992.
Sullivan, S., and Glanz, J. Supervision that improvements teaching and learning:
Strategies and techniques. CA: Corwin A Sage Company, 2009.
Stage, F. K., Muller, P. A., Kinzie, J., and Simmons, A. “Creating Learning Centered
Classrooms: What does learning theory have to say? ” ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report 26 (4) Washington, D.C.: The George Washington
University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, 1998.
83
Sandholtz, J.H. “In service training or professional development: contrasting
opportunities in a school/university partnership.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 18 (7) (2002) : 815–830.
Sandholtz, J.H., and Scribner, S.B. “The paradox of administrative control in fostering
teacher professional development.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 22 (8)
(2006) : 1104–1117.
Sato, K., and Kleinsasser, R.C. “Beliefs, practices and interactions in a Japanese high
school English department.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 20 (8)
(2004) : 797–816.
Schnellert, L.M., Butler, D.L., and Higginson, S.K. “Co-constructors of data, co-
constructors of meaning: teacher professional development in an age of
accountability.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (3) (2008) : 725–750.
Seymour, J.R., and Osana, H.P. “Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: two
teachers‟ developing understanding.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 19
(3) (2003) : 325–344.
Shank, M.J. “Teacher storytelling; a means for creating and learning within a
collaborative space.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 22 (6) (2006) : 711–
721.
Skerrett, A. “There‟s going to be community. There‟s going to be knowledge: design
for learning in a standardized age.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 26 (3)
(2010) : 648–655.
Snow-Gerono, J.L. “Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers
identify the benefits of professional learning communities.” Teaching and
Teacher Education. 21 (3) (2005) : 241–256.
Snow-Gerono, J.L. “Locating supervision. A reflective framework for negotiating
tensions within conceptual and procedural foci for teacher development.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (6) (2008) : 1502–1515.
Sundli, L. “Mentoring – a new mantra for education?” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 23 (2) (2007) : 201–214.
84
Sztajn, P., Hackenberg, A.J., White, D.Y., and Allexsaht-Snider, M. “Mathematics
professional development for elementary teachers: building trust within a
school-based mathematics education community.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 23 (6) (2007) : 970–984.
Symeonidou, S. “The changing role of the support teacher and the case of Cyprus:
The opportunity for a cooperative teaching approach.” European Journal of
Special Needs Education. 17 (2) (2006) : 149-159.
Saylor, P., and Kehrhahn, M. “School wide implementation of technology skills: The
outcomes of a transfer management intervention. ” Paper presented at the
Northeast Educational Research Association Conference: AHRD
Conference Proceedings, Baton Rouge, LA, 2001.
Smith, R.R. Lesson Study: Professional Development for Empowering Teachers and
Improving Classroom Practice. Florida State University College of
Education, Educational Leadership and Policy studies, 2008.
Tileston, D. W. Ten Best Teaching Practices: How Brain Research, Learning Styles,
and Standards Define Teaching Competencies. Corwin Press. ISBN
1412914728, 9781412914727, 2005.
Tomlinson, C.A. “Differentiation of instruct in the Elementary Grades. ERIC Digest.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. ”
August, 2000.
Timperley, H.S., and Phillips, G. “Changing and sustaining teachers‟ expectations
through professional development in literacy.” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 19 (6) (2003) : 627–641.
Tai, R.H., and Sadler, P.M. “High school chemistry instructional practices and their
association with college chemistry grades.” Journal of Chemical Education.
84 (2007) : 1040.
Van Keer, H., and Verhaeghe, J.P. “Comparing the teacher development programs for
innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers‟
experience and student outcomes. ” Teaching and Teacher Education. 21
(5) (2005) : 543–562.
85
Vescio, V., Ross, D., and Adams, A. “A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student
learning. ” Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (1) (2008) : 80–91.
Vogt, F., and Rogalla, M. “Developing adaptive teaching competency through
coaching. ” Teaching and Teacher Education. 25 (8) (2009) : 1051–1060.
Watzke, J.L. “Longitudinal research on beginning teacher development: complexity as
a challenge to concerns-based stage theory. ” Teaching and Teacher
Education. 23 (1) (2006) : 106–122.
Wagner, E. D., and McCombs, B. L. “Learner centered psychological principles in
practice: Designs for distance education. ” Educational Technology. 35 (2)
(1995) : 32-35.
White, A. E., and White, L. L. “A collaborative model students with mild disabilities
in middle schools.” Focus on Exceptional Children. 24 (9) (1992) : 1-10.
Yamnill, S., and McLean, G. N. “Theories supporting transfer of training.” Human
Resource Development Quarterly. 12 (2) (2001) : 195-208.
Zwart, R.C., Wubbels, Th., Bolhuis, S., and Bergen, Th. C.M. “Teacher learning
through reciprocal peer coaching: an analysis of activity sequences.”
Teaching and Teacher Education. 24 (4) (2008) : 982–1002.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
WORKSHOP ON THE COLLABORATIVE TEACHING MODEL
FOR TEACHERS
88
Workshop on the collaborative teaching model for teachers
All selected teachers are to participate in the workshop on collaborative
teaching which covers the following:
Five Principles of Collaboration:
(1) Requires that all team members work together towards a common goal.
(2) Is based on a sense that all participants are valued. (3) Embraces the unique perspectives of all team members.
(4) Is based on a strong sense of purpose. (5) Requires trust and a sense of shared responsibility.
Five Essential Characteristics:
Positive Interdependence
Identify team purposes and goals
Use distributed leadership functions Rotate roles, share tasks and resources
Roles: facilitator, teaching partner, recorder, time keeper
Develop a common understanding of the group’s scope of work and authority
Face-to-Face Interaction
Regular opportunities to meet as convenient to all members
Effective communication systems (decide how communication will occur
before and after meetings (phone, e-mail, minutes, notebook, etc.)
Interpersonal Skills
Develop group norms indicating desired behaviors/types of communication
Examples: arrive on time, respect diverse points of view, no judging during
creative problem-solving
Develop communication and conflict resolution skills
All group members need to practice their best communication and
collaboration skills
Learning to deal with conflict, if any
Monitoring in developing time and methods for regular processing
Develop time and methods for regular processing
Regular processing is key to the growth of the group Individual Accountability
Use agendas
Review agendas at the start of meetings; add items and identify time to be
spent on each item
Use minutes indicating action items and “to do” lists
Minutes need to identify decisions that were made, and tasks to be completed
by individual group members
Identify strategies for building a sense of responsibility
Rotate roles, share tasks, praise group and individual accomplishments
APPENDIX B
TRAINING EVALUATION FORM
90
Training Evaluation Form
Directions: For each statement, please check if you agree or disagree using a
rating scale from 1 to 5. A rating of 1 indicates that you strongly disagree
with the statement and a rating of “5” indicates that you strongly agree and “3”
is the middle level where you neither agree nor disagree.
Specifications
Check your
response
1 Strongly
Disagree to 5
Strongly Agree
Content Delivery 1 2 3 4 5
The goals of the training program were clearly defined.
The topics covered were relevant.
There was sufficient opportunity for interactive participation.
The training program allowed me to get to know the other participants.
The training program was too technical and difficult to understand.
The training experience will be useful in my work.
The schedule for the training provided enough time to cover all of the
proposed activities.
Facility
The meeting room and facilities provided a comfortable setting for the
training program.
The location for the training program was convenient for me.
Satisfaction:
The goals of the training program have been met.
I am satisfied with learning new things in the training program.
I was satisfied with the collaborative teaching method.
I was satisfied with the overall training program.
How do you hope to change your practice as a result of this training? _________________________
What additional training would you like to have in the future? ______________________________
APPENDIX C
COLLABORATIVE TEACHING TOOLS
92
Collaborative Teaching Tools
In implementing collaborative teaching, the teachers participating in the
workshops will be trained in the following areas:
The integration of Collaborative teaching activities in the model of instruction
Curriculum-specific teaching methods to facilitate cooperative activities in the
classroom
Teacher supervision
Encouragement of social and communicative skills
Demonstration and role play practice
Feedback and coaching
Learning outcome
93
APPENDIX D
LESSON PLAN FORMAT
94
Lesson Plan Format
Date and Time:
Team members
Topic:
Objectives:
Activities:
Needed materials:
Teaching role and procedure:
Classroom supervision
Shared decision-making/ responsibility
Positive Interdependence
Face-to-Face Interaction
Interpersonal Skills
Monitoring in developing time and methods for regular processing
Individual Accountability
92
APPENDIX E
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION
96
Classroom Observation
Observation Date and Time:
Team Members:
Subject:
Content:
Classroom seating arrangement Observation Points:
Teaching role and procedure:
Classroom supervision
Shared decision-making/ responsibility
Positive Interdependence
Face-to-Face Interaction
Interpersonal Skills
Monitoring in Developing Time and Methods for Regular Processing
Individual Accountability
Remarks:
94
APPENDIX F
EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTED COLLABORATIVE
TEACHING
98
Evaluation of the implemented collaborative teaching
Directions: Teachers please rate perception-based specifications for evaluation of the
implemented collaborative teaching on a rating scale of 1 low to 5 high as follows:
Principles of collaborative teaching:
All team members work together towards a common goal. 1 2 3 4 5
A sense that all participants are valued. 1 2 3 4 5
The teaching method embraces the unique perspectives of all team members. 1 2 3 4 5
A strong sense of purpose. 1 2 3 4 5
Trust and a sense of shared responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5
Key assumptions of collaborative teaching:
Team members value diverse membership and ideas. 1 2 3 4 5
Each member has expertise. 1 2 3 4 5
Team members have a common purpose. 1 2 3 4 5
Team members trust one another. 1 2 3 4 5
Team members share decision-making and responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5
Elements of collaborative teaching
The degree of positive interdependence. 1 2 3 4 5
Sufficiency of face-to-face interaction. 1 2 3 4 5
Competency of interpersonal skills. 1 2 3 4 5
Monitoring success in developing time and methods for regular processing. 1 2 3 4 5
The degree of individual accountability of each team member. 1 2 3 4 5
Overall satisfaction
Your overall satisfaction with your performance via collaborative teaching. 1 2 3 4 5
Additional remarks, if any ……………………………………………………..
99
APPENDIX G
EXAMPLES OF STUDENT FEEDBACK
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
APPENDIX H
PICTURES OF COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
112
113
114
115
116
117
APPENDIX I
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
118
Comparison of Scores for Grade 1
Academic year 20010-2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mathematics Science
Year 2010
Year 2011
Year 2012
119
Comparison of Scores for Grade 2
Academic year 2010-2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mathematics Science
Year 2010
Year 2011
Year 2012
120
Comparison of Scores for Grade 3
Academic year 2010-2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mathematics Science
Year 2010
Year 2011
Year 2012
121
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Name Donrutai Boonprasitt
Date of Birth October 6, 1980
Place of Birth Bangkok, Thailand
Education Background 1) Bachelor of Teaching and Learning (Early Childhood)
College of Education University of Canterbury,
New Zealand.
2) Master of Bilingual Education
Rangsit University, Thailand
3) Doctor of Education
Rangsit University, Thailand
Address Faculty of Education, Rangsit University
52/347 Phahonyothin Road, Muangake, Pathumthani
12000
Workplace Faculty of Education, Rangsit University
Position Lecturer