teaching and teacher education - slo...

lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 41 (2014) 92e110

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Review

Student teachers’ team teaching: Models, effects, and conditionsfor implementation

Marlies Baeten a,b,*,1, Mathea Simons a,2

a Institute of Education and Information Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgiumb Expertisenetwerk Lerarenopleidingen Antwerpen, Belgium

h i g h l i g h t s

� Team teaching models differ in the amount of collaboration expected from teachers.� Student teachers’ team teaching has several benefits for all actors involved.� When implementing team teaching, several conditions should be taken into account.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 November 2013Received in revised form7 March 2014Accepted 26 March 2014Available online 18 April 2014

Keywords:Team teachingCo-teachingStudent teachersField experiencesInternship

* Corresponding author. Institute of Education anversity of Antwerp, Gratiekapelstraat 10, 2000 Antwe265 48 85.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M1 Marlies Baeten is educational researcher. She ob

learning and teaching in teacher education. In her PhDinstructional methods on student teachers’ approacheachievement. Her current research interests lie in teamteaching. She supports teacher education institutes inimplementation of team teaching and the developmensecond-career teachers.

2 Mathea Simons is assistant professor at the Univerworking as a teacher trainer for more than 15 years, mlanguage teaching. She is also vice-chair of the acagramme. Within this context, she contributed to tteaching more than five years ago. Team teaching nowthe teacher training programme. Her research intereand foreign language teaching.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.0100742-051X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

In an attempt to provide alternative models of field experience in teacher education, this study elaboratesthe concept of team teaching. A literature review was conducted, which resulted into a narrative review.Five models of team teaching were distinguished: the observation, coaching, assistant teaching, equalstatus and teaming model. Several benefits of team teaching for student teachers (e.g., increased support,professional growth), their mentors (e.g., decreased workload, learning gains), and the learners in theirclassroom (e.g., increased support, rich lessons) were found. However, disadvantages were recognised aswell. Further, several conditions for the successful implementation of team teaching were listed.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

d Information Sciences, Uni-rpen, Belgium. Tel.: þ32 (0)3

. Baeten).tained a PhD in the field of, she focused on the effects ofs to learning, motivation andteaching and second-careerAntwerp (Belgium) with thet of training programmes for

sity of Antwerp. She has beenore specifically in the field ofdemic teacher training pro-he implementation of teamadays is an essential part ofsts are in teacher education

1. Introduction

Traditionally, field experiences in teacher education have beencharacterised by student teachers observing lessons beforereceiving the responsibility to teach individually (Bacharach, Heck,& Dahlberg, 2010; Henderson, Beach, & Famiano, 2009). Nowadays,there is a growing need to develop alternative models of fieldexperience (Bullough et al., 2003; Nokes, Bullough, Egan, Birrell, &Hansen, 2008), for instance models inspired by collaborativelearning (Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Nokes et al., 2008) such asteam teaching.

The roots of team teaching can be theoretically framed by thesocio-constructivist view on learning. According to this view,learners actively construct knowledge and social interactions withothers (teachers, students, .) contribute to the knowledge con-struction process (Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2007; Tynjälä, 1999).During team teaching, teachers learn through participating andengaging in a joint activity. By sharing ideas, providing alternativeperspectives and receiving advice, they negotiate meaning and

mailto:[email protected]://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.010&domain=pdfwww.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0742051Xwww.elsevier.com/locate/tatehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.010

M. Baeten, M. Simons / Teaching and Teacher Education 41 (2014) 92e110 93

learn from each other’s knowledge and skills. In this way, theyachieve more than in case they would work individually (Gardiner,2010; Wenger, 1998). Moreover, during a team teaching activity,teachers operate in e what has been called by Vygotsky e eachother’s zone of proximal development. By collaborating with theirpeers or by receiving peer support, teachers can come to higherlevels of performance (Smith, 2004; Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). Whatthey manage to do with support first, they will be able to do indi-vidually later on (Gardiner & Robinson, 2010).

Implementing team teaching of student teachers during fieldexperiences may provide an answer to the difficulty of findingschool placements (Bullough et al., 2002; Nokes et al., 2008), but,more importantly, it may help student teachers to be better pre-pared for the transition to practice, which is often experienced as areality shock (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Murphy, Carlisle, &Beggs, 2009). Two main reasons for teachers leaving the profes-sion are a lack of support and feelings of isolation (Kurtts & Levin,2000). Therefore, it seems necessary to provide sufficient supportto teachers (Casey, Dunlap, Brister, Davidson, & Starrett, 2011),already during teacher education, since beginning teachers’ expe-riences influence their retention in the profession (Anthony & Ord,2008). This support can be provided by a mentor (Carter & Francis,2001) or a peer (Kurtts & Levin, 2000). In this respect, the researchof Hsu (2005) shows that student teachers seek more frequentlyhelp from their peers than from their mentor. They seek help fromtheir peers with regard to lesson planning and teaching, evaluationand job preparation, and personal issues. Hence, it is considered tobe worthwhile to implement team teaching of peers (i.e., studentteachers) during field experiences.

In the literature, many definitions of team teaching can befound. As Anderson and Speck (1998, p. 672) state: “The disparatedefinitions of team teaching are a cacophony of voices.” Common tothese definitions is that team teaching refers to two or moreteachers in some level of collaboration in the planning, delivery,and/or evaluation of a course (Carpenter, Crawford, & Walden,2007; Crow & Smith, 2005; Davis, 1995; Hatcher, Hinton, &Swartz, 1996; Murata, 2002; Sandholtz, 2000). Central to teamteaching is the sharing of teaching expertise and reflectivedialoguing (Chang & Lee, 2010; Jang, 2008). According to Wasselland LaVan (2009), it is by sharing field experiences and throughsocial interaction that student teachers have the opportunity tolook critically at their own practices and learn to teach.

Synonyms of team teaching are co-teaching, cooperativeteaching and collaborative teaching (Carpenter et al., 2007; Dugan& Letterman, 2008; Welch, 2002). For clarity reasons, we consis-tently use the term ‘team teaching’ in this paper.

While team teaching already has been advocated in the late1950s and 1960s (Joyce, 2004), individual teaching is still the mainteaching practice in schools nowadays. Only in the special educa-tion domain, it has been regularly applied (Bacharach et al., 2010).Also the practice of student teachers’ team teaching is in its infancy(Bacharach et al., 2010; Stairs et al., 2009). The present review studyaims to provide an overview of the recent research on this topic.First, the literature will be explored in order to search for teamteaching models that can be used during field experiences inteacher education. Next, empirical research assessing studentteachers’ team teaching will be studied in order to look for ad-vantages and disadvantages, and for guidelines to implement it.Three research questions are central to this review study:

RQ1: Which models of team teaching can be found in theliterature?RQ2: What are the advantages and disadvantages of studentteachers’ team teaching?

RQ3:What are the conditions for a successful implementation ofstudent teachers’ team teaching?

Before answering these research questions, the methodologyused to search the literature will be presented.

2. Methodology

In order to answer the research questions, a literature searchwas conducted. Five electronic databases were included in thesearch: ERIC, FRANCIS, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. Thesearch terms were “team teaching”, “co-teaching”, “cooperativeteaching”, “collaborative teaching” and “paired placement” com-bined with “teacher education”, “teacher training”, “pre-serviceteacher” and “student teacher”. By reading the abstracts of theretrieved manuscripts, relevant manuscripts were identified. Inaddition, the reference lists of these manuscripts were explored inorder to search for other relevant manuscripts. Criteria for inclusionof manuscripts were threefold:

(1) In order to grasp an overview of the recent literature, theliterature search was limited to the years 2000e2013. Toanswer RQ1, one publication before the period 2000e2013,i.e. Cook and Friend (1995), was included because of its sig-nificant value to the literature on team teaching. This sig-nificant value became clear since several manuscriptsincluded in this review study referred to Cook and Friend(1995).

(2) In order to ensure the quality of the review study, manu-scripts had to be peer reviewed.

(3) With respect to RQ2 and RQ3, manuscripts had to addressteam teaching of student teachers during school placements.Regarding RQ1, this limitation was not present since manu-scripts about team teaching in other contexts (e.g., inclusiveeducation) could be helpful to answer this question.

As a result, 50 manuscripts were included in the review study:18 to answer RQ1, 33 to answer RQ2, and 22 to answer RQ3. Thesemanuscripts were read thoroughly in order to search for patterns inthe results. Information on team teaching models, (dis)advantagesof team teaching and conditions for implementation were codedinto themes. This coding process was data-driven, based on ourreading of the literature. The themes were further explored in themanuscripts and incorporated into a narrative review providing“qualitative descriptions of the findings from literature” (Dochy,Segers, & Buehl, 1999, p. 150).

The results of RQ1 (Section 3.1.) are applicable to teachers ingeneral. Therefore, we use the term ‘teacher’ to describe these ac-tors in the team teaching models. To answer RQ2 and RQ3, studieshad to focus on student teachers’ team teaching. Subsequently, inSections 3.2. and 3.3., we use the term ‘student teacher’ to describethe actors in team teaching.

3. Results

3.1. Models of team teaching

In the literature, different models of team teaching can be found.Several of them have been retrieved from the literature on inclusiveeducation, in which general educators co-teach with special educa-tors (e.g., Austin, 2001; Cook & Friend,1995). However, thesemodelscan also be applied to team teaching between general educators,betweenmentor and student teacher, and between student teachers(Murphy et al., 2009). The latter is central to this review study.

M. Baeten, M. Simons / Teaching and Teacher Education 41 (2014) 92e11094

In exploring the literature, many differently labelled teamteaching models have been found. Investigating the characteristicsof these models indicates similarities and differences, which makesa categorisation along a continuum from low to high levels ofcollaboration possible. Based on the literature study, we distin-guished five team teachingmodels and labelled them as follows, i.e.the observation model, the coaching model, the assistant teachingmodel, the equal status model and the teaming model.

3.1.1. The observation modelThe observation model has also been referred to as the ‘one

teaching, one observing’model (Graziano & Navarette, 2012) or the‘participanteobserver’ model (Helms, Alvis, & Willis, 2005). Oneteacher watches the other teacher at work. In this way, the observercollects information on effective teaching behaviour, interactionwith learners, etc. (Badiali & Titus, 2010). Generally, the observerholds a passive position and does not interact actively during thecourse, only when asked questions (Dugan & Letterman, 2008;Helms et al., 2005). Regularly, both teachers agree in advancewhat types of observational information to collect (Graziano &Navarette, 2012). Important in this model is that the teachersanalyse and discuss this information afterwards (Badiali & Titus,2010; Graziano & Navarette, 2012).

3.1.2. The coaching modelIn the coaching model, the observer gets more responsibility.

Besides observing, the coach is expected to provide suggestions,assistance and support (Austin, 2001; Bowman & McCormick,2000; Goker, 2006), for instance, proposing alternative solutionsto experienced problems (Wynn & Kromrey, 2000). Teachers cancoach or mentor one another (Nokes et al., 2008) or the coach canbe a teacher with a particular expertise (e.g., content knowledge,pedagogical knowledge), who serves as a consultant to the otherteacher. In this respect, the coaching model has been referred to as‘consultant’ model (Austin, 2001) or ‘collaborative consultation’(Nevin, Thousand, & Villa, 2009).

3.1.3. The assistant teaching modelIn the observation and coaching model, one teacher has full

responsibility for the delivery of the course. In the assistantteaching model, one teacher still takes the lead, while the otherteacher becomes an assistant who, for instance, circulates throughthe classroom providing support to learners when necessary (Al-Saaideh, 2010; Badiali & Titus, 2010; Cook & Friend, 1995; Nevinet al., 2009). This model may require some collaborative planningin advance so that the assistant teacher can anticipate on potentialdifficulties experienced by the learners (Badiali & Titus, 2010).Instead of ‘assistant’, Smith (2004) talks about ‘back-up’ teacher.Tasks of the ‘back-up’ teacher are assisting learners with their workand keeping them attentive, assisting with in-class marking ofwork, helping to manage resources, etc.

Synonyms of the assistant teachingmodel are ‘one teaching, oneassisting’ (Cook & Friend, 1995), ‘one teach, one guide’ (Badiali &Titus, 2010), ‘tandem model’ (Smith, 2004), ‘monitoring teacher’(Al-Saaideh, 2010), and ‘supportive (co-)teaching’ (Nevin et al.,2009; Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2006). ‘Complementary co-teach-ing’ (Nevin et al., 2009) is closely related to the assistant teachingmodel. In complementary co-teaching, the assistant teacher sup-plements or complements the instruction of the leading teacher inorder to enhance the instruction, for instance, the assistant teacherparaphrases the leading teacher’s statement or models note taking.Al-Saaideh (2010), on the other hand, uses the terms ‘comple-mentary’ and ‘supportive team teaching’ to refer to a situation inwhich one teacher teaches the content, whereas the other providesfollow-up activities on related topics or study skills.

In the observation, coaching and assistant teaching model, oneteacher takes primary responsibility for the course, while the otherteacher has an observing, coaching or assisting role. Therefore, it isimportant to alternate roles so that both teachers can experiencethe different roles and learn from both (Helms et al., 2005; Smith,2004).

3.1.4. The equal status modelInstead of a hierarchical model consisting of a leading and

assisting teacher, this model refers to team teaching in which bothteachers have an equal status. Within the equal status model, adistinction is made into three groups: (a) sequential teaching, (b)parallel teaching, and (c) station teaching.

3.1.4.1. Sequential teaching. In sequential teaching, teachers dividethe learning contents or activities. They teach the same lesson/course to the same group of learners, but each teacher takes re-sponsibility for different phases of the lesson/course (Carpenteret al., 2007; Dugan & Letterman, 2008). When one teacher isteaching, the other teacher is not necessarily present in the class-room (Helms et al., 2005). Synonyms of sequential teaching are‘alternate teaching’ (Dugan & Letterman, 2008), ‘serial arrange-ment’ (Carpenter et al., 2007), and the ‘rotational team-teachingmodel’ (Helms et al., 2005).

3.1.4.2. Parallel teaching. In parallel teaching, teachers divide theclass group into subgroups and each teacher teaches the same in-formation to a subgroup (Al-Saaideh, 2010; Cook & Friend, 1995;Graziano & Navarette, 2012; Nevin et al., 2009) in order to adaptto the learners’ pace, learning style, or prior achievement (Al-Saaideh, 2010; Badiali & Titus, 2010). The instruction is generallyplanned by both teachers (Cook & Friend,1995) and theymay rotatebetween the subgroups (Thousand et al., 2006).

Closely related to parallel teaching, is ‘alternative teaching’. Inalternative teaching, the class group is divided into subgroups, butone large group, who receives the main instruction, and one smallgroup, who receives instruction adapted to their learning needs(Badiali & Titus, 2010; Cook & Friend, 1995). Instruction in the smallgroup allows for re-teaching and tutoring (Badiali & Titus, 2010).Parallel teaching and alternative teaching are sometimes called‘split class’ teaching (Al-Saaideh, 2010).

3.1.4.3. Station teaching. In station teaching, teachers divide thelearning contents or activities, and the class group, with eachteacher working on a specific learning content or activity with asubgroup of learners (Cook & Friend, 1995). The learners (orteachers) move alternately to the different stations in the classroom(Gurgur & Uzuner, 2011). All stations are generally centred around atheme (Badiali & Titus, 2010). As with parallel teaching, the in-struction is generally planned by both teachers (Cook & Friend,1995).

3.1.5. The teaming modelIn the equal status model, the teachers cooperate, but there is no

full collaboration on the three domains listed up above, i.e. theplanning, delivery, and evaluation of the course. In the teamingmodel, however, both teachers share these tasks equitably (Austin,2001; Carpenter et al., 2007; Goodnough, Osmond, Dibbon,Glassman, & Stevens, 2009; Nevin et al., 2009; Thousand et al.,2006) and work collaboratively (Carpenter et al., 2007). They areboth in front of the entire class group and there is a lot of inter-action and dialogue between them (Al-Saaideh, 2010; Helms et al.,2005). For instance, they exchange and discuss ideas and theories infront of the learners (Al-Saaideh, 2010), take turns leading a dis-cussion, speak while the other demonstrates a concept or models


note taking (Cook & Friend, 1995). This model is often implementedin the later stages of team teaching because it takes time to learnabout each other’s teaching styles (Badiali & Titus, 2010).

The teaming model has been referred to as the most collabo-rative model of team teaching (Nevin et al., 2009) as it demands thegreatest amount of shared responsibility (Badiali & Titus, 2010). It isconsidered as true team teaching (Helms et al., 2005). Synonymsare ‘synchronous team teaching’ (Badiali & Titus, 2010), the‘simultaneously taught two-person course’ (Dugan & Letterman,2008) and the ‘interactive team-teaching approach’ (Helms et al.,2005).

In conclusion, this overview shows that there exist a wide va-riety of team teaching models. We have categorised these into fivemodels, which are visualised in Fig. 1. In practice, however, varia-tions on these models may be present, for instance, the combina-tion of the observation model with shared planning.

3.2. Advantages and disadvantages of student teachers’ teamteaching

23 out of 33 studies retrieved to answer RQ2 took place in the US(Appendix A). Since 2000, the US e in contrast to other countries eseem to have a tradition in implementing, investigating and pub-lishing about student teachers’ team teaching. Other studiesincluded in this review are from Europe (North Cyprus and UK),Asia (Israel, Taiwan, Vietnam) and Canada.

Most studies investigate student teachers’ team teaching bymeans of self-report measures (e.g., questionnaires, interviews,reflective journals), which have been analysed qualitatively(Appendix A). The focus is on the perceptions of student teachers,mentors (i.e. the classroom teachers in whose classes the studentteachers conduct their internship) and learners in the classroom(i.e. the pupils who are taught by the student teachers). The studiesshow that these three actors are generally positive about studentteachers’ team teaching. However, besides advantages, some dis-advantages have been acknowledged as well. Below, both advan-tages and disadvantages are listed for each of the three actors. Ofthe retrieved manuscripts, eleven focus on the coaching model, sixon the assistant teaching model, and eight on the teaming model,with no manuscripts explicitly focussing on the observation andequal status model. Thirteen manuscripts do not specify the teamteaching model they focused on (Appendix A). In some of thesemanuscripts, student teachers and mentors were given freedom in

Low levels of collaboration (1) Observation mo

(2) Coaching mode

(3) Assistant teachi

(4) Equal status mo

- Sequential teach- Parallel teachin- Station teaching

High levels of collaboration (5) Teaming model

Fig. 1. Different team

how they handled the team teaching situation (e.g., coaching,assisting, teaming).

3.2.1. Student teachers

3.2.1.1. Advantages. The advantages of implementing team teach-ing during student teachers’ placement are fourfold: (1) increasedsupport, (2) increased dialogue about learning and teaching, (3)professional growth (in teaching, collaboration, and reflection), and(4) personal growth.

As stated in the Introduction, it was expected that team teachingwould provide support to student teachers. The results of empiricalstudies confirm this hypothesis. Team teaching of student teachersprovides increased support for them. During team teaching, theyexperience both emotional and professional support from theirpeer (Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Dee, 2012; Gardiner, 2010;Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Goodnough et al., 2009; Jang, 2008;Kamens, 2007; King, 2006; Smith, 2002, 2004; Tobin, Roth, &Zimmermann, 2001). The great support can be explained by thefact that the team teaching partner, a peer, is at the same level(Shin, Wilkins, & Ainsworth, 2007). This makes it easier to share‘ups and downs’: successes, questions, fears, and frustrations(Goodnough et al., 2009; Kamens, 2007; Stairs et al., 2009). Sincethere is always someone to back up, the teaching experience is lessstressful (Birrell & Bullough, 2005; Dee, 2012). Moreover, the peer isa source of information, from who the student teacher receivesinput, for instance, during planning or teaching a lesson (Birrell &Bullough, 2005; Kamens, 2007).

Because student teachers are in the same situation and shareexperiences, they feel a sense of togetherness and shared re-sponsibility (King, 2006; Kurtts & Levin, 2000; Roth & Tobin, 2001;Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007). Different backgrounds and teachingexperiences, on the other hand, allow them to complement eachother’s strengths and weaknesses (Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007).Since student teachers get support from their peer, the formalrelationship with the mentor was perceived less troubling(Bullough et al., 2002). Moreover, team teaching may enhancefriendship and deepen the relationship among student teachers(Dee, 2012; Gardiner & Robinson, 2010; Jang, 2008). By experi-encing team teaching, they recognise the importance of buildingcollegiality (Kurtts & Levin, 2000).

In team teaching, there is frequent dialogue between studentteachers, for instance, talking about successes and failures orsharing ideas, sources, and knowledge (Birrell & Bullough, 2005;

del Teacher (full responsibility) &Observer

l Teacher (full responsibility) &Coach

ng model Teacher (primary responsibility) &Assistant

del

ingg

Teachers (status-equals)

Teachers (status-equals)Shared planningShared implementationShared evaluation

teaching models.


Dee, 2012; Jenkins & Veal, 2002; King, 2006; Parsons & Stephenson,2005; Tobin et al., 2001). Through dialoguing, student teachers getto know each other’s perspectives and broaden their own point ofview (Bullough et al., 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Nokeset al., 2008; Roth & Tobin, 2001). Between student teachers inteam teaching, there is more dialogue about learning and teachingthan between a student teacher and amentor in a traditional schoolplacement. It seems to be much safer for student teachers to ask forthe opinion or advice of a peer e a professional equal e instead of amentor, who is considered to be more intimidating (Nokes et al.,2008; Stairs et al., 2009). For instance, in case there are differ-ences in opinion between a student teacher and a mentor, thestudent teacher is inclined to disengage from the dialogue and yieldto the qualified mentor (Nokes et al., 2008). Moreover, it seems tobemore justified to question a peer’s approach to a lesson than thatof an experienced mentor. With a peer, who makes mistakes him-/herself, student teachers are morewilling to analyse their approachand discuss alternatives (Smith, 2002, 2004). In contrast todialoguing with a mentor, peer dialogue is considered to be lessdirective, richer and more open-ended, with a focus on brain-storming and problem solving instead of on pragmatic tasks (e.g.,which lesson to teach, what to do differently next time) (Gardiner &Robinson, 2009).

Through team teaching, student teachers obtain learning gainsat the professional and personal level. The professional growth isestablished in the domains of teaching, collaboration, and reflec-tion. With regard to teaching, it was found that student teachers’didactical, pedagogical, and classroom management skillsincreased through peer observation, peer feedback, and teachingtogether with peers (Anderson & Radencich, 2001; Anderson,Barksdale, & Hite, 2005; Bashan & Holsblat, 2012; Birrell &Bullough, 2005; Bullough et al., 2002; Goodnough et al., 2009;Jang, 2008; Jenkins & Veal, 2002; King, 2006; Kurtts & Levin, 2000;Nguyen & Baldauf, 2010; Shin et al., 2007; Stairs et al., 2009;Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007).

Through observing different teaching styles, student teacherslearn much from their peers (Anderson et al., 2005; Tobin et al.,2001), either by imitating or modifying their teaching (Stairset al., 2009). They function as a model for each other (Birrell &Bullough, 2005). They consider it to be easier to observe a peerand learn from his/her mistakes than to observe an experiencedteacher (Jenkins & Veal, 2002; Smith, 2002, 2004), who feelscomfortable in front of the class and possesses a repertoire ofstrategies (Stairs et al., 2009).

Peer feedback is considered valuable (Dee, 2012) since peersprovide another perspective than mentors (Shin et al., 2007) andgive feedback that is more specific (Gardiner & Robinson, 2009;Jenkins & Veal, 2002), candid, straightforward and honest(Goodnough et al., 2009; Shin et al., 2007). In addition, peer feed-back is experienced as stress-free (Britton & Anderson, 2010) andless threatening than the feedback of a mentor and teachereducator (Sorensen, 2004). In the relationships with peers, studentteachers feel free to ask questions and express personal opinions(Goker, 2006). They value their peers’ compliments and accepttheir constructive criticism (Shin et al., 2007). Permitting others toprovide criticism and assess their teaching practice helps them toimprove teaching (Tobin et al., 2001). Moreover, through peerfeedback, they feel better prepared for meetings with the mentorand teacher educator (Sorensen, 2004). However, in the study ofAnderson and Radencich (2001), student teachers considered thefeedback of the mentor and teacher educator as more valuable thanthat of their peer because of the greater expertise of thementor andteacher educator.

In planning and teaching a lesson with a peer, peers learn fromeach other (Goodnough et al., 2009). They exchange a large number

of ideas (Kamens, 2007; Kurtts & Levin, 2000; Vacilotto &Cummings, 2007), which come faster in case of team teaching(Birrell & Bullough, 2005; Gardiner, 2010), and bring them into theclassroom (Stairs et al., 2009). In this respect, Bullough et al. (2002)concluded that partnered teachers were more engaged in planningthan did solo teachers because they spent 30% more time forplanning. Within the classroom, partnered teachers learnt to adopta greater variety of roles than solo teachers, i.e. direct instruction infront of the whole classroom, working with small groups of stu-dents, and assisting individual students (Bullough et al., 2002).

Through the presence of a peer in the classroom, studentteachers feel more comfortable and confident, and, as a conse-quence, they are more likely to take pedagogical risks, for instance,experimenting with unfamiliar or innovative teaching approaches,knowing that their peer is close at hand to provide support andintervene when needed (Birrell & Bullough, 2005; Dee, 2012;Gardiner, 2010; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009; Nokes et al., 2008;Smith, 2002, 2004; Sorensen, 2004; Vacilotto & Cummings,2007). As a result, the lessons are richer, more varied and ofhigher quality than in case of individual teaching (Bullough et al.,2002; Gardiner & Robinson, 2010).

The abovementioned benefits were mainly found through self-report research. Research of Bowman and McCormick (2000) andGoker (2006) using direct measures, i.e. analyses of video- and/oraudiotaped material, and a control group confirmed these results.They found that student teachers that had been peer coacheddeveloped more clarity skills (e.g., stating objectives, repeatingpoints, and using examples) (Bowman & McCormick, 2000; Goker,2006) and scored higher on pedagogical reasoning and actions (e.g.,comprehension, instruction, and evaluation) (Bowman &McCormick, 2000) than student teachers that had been coachedexclusively by a mentor and teacher educator.

As far as the development of collaboration skills is concerned,fewer studies have been conducted. Nevertheless, these studiesshow that student teachers learn to collaborate during teamteaching (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bashan & Holsblat, 2012; Bulloughet al., 2003; Dee, 2012; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009, 2011;Goodnough et al., 2009; Jang, 2008; Nokes et al. 2008), for instance,learning to compromise and adjust to different work andcommunication styles (Gardiner & Robinson, 2011). Through teamteaching, they become aware of the benefits of working as a team toimprove the quality of the lessons (Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007).Moreover, student teachers who experienced team teaching showan increased ability to build relationships with peers, parents,learners and colleagues (Birrell & Bullough, 2005).

Besides growth in teaching and collaboration skills, teamteaching enhances reflection, for instance, reflecting onwhat worksand does notwork, and reflecting on alternatives and consequences(Anderson et al., 2005; Bullough et al., 2002; Gardiner, 2010;Kamens, 2007; Kurtts & Levin, 2000; Vacilotto & Cummings,2007). Through reflection, student teachers gain deeper under-standing of their professional development (Parsons & Stephenson,2005). While observing a peer, they are inclined to reflect on whatthey observe (e.g., specific didactic methods) (Anderson et al.,2005; Shin et al., 2007) and, as a consequence, may makechanges to their teaching behaviour (Anderson et al., 2005). Also,providing and receiving peer feedback can increase reflection (Shinet al., 2007). Furthermore, having a peer in the classroom generatesquestions and discussions more frequently as compared to beingalone in the classroom. These informal dialogues encouragereflection on their teaching practice (Birrell & Bullough, 2005;Stairs et al., 2009). Not only do team teaching student teacherslearn from each other but they also report to learn more from theirmentors than student teachers in a single placement (Baker &Milner, 2006).


Personal growth becomes apparent through the increased self-confidence (Birrell & Bullough, 2005; Bullough et al., 2002;Kamens, 2007; King, 2006; Kurtts & Levin, 2000; Smith, 2002,2004) and self-efficacy (Gardiner, 2010; Goker, 2006) of studentteachers in team teaching. They feel more self-confident in teach-ing, trying new approaches (Tobin et al., 2001) and presenting ideasto their mentor (Goodnough et al., 2009). Moreover, they feel lessintimidated when being observed (Kurtts & Levin, 2000). Theincreased self-confidence and self-efficacy has been made possiblethrough the fact that they experience not to be the only one who isfeeling afraid and unsure (Kamens, 2007; Kurtts & Levin, 2000) orwho has difficulties with teaching (Gardiner, 2010). As a result oftheir increased self-confidence, they are more open to criticism andsuggestions (Tobin et al., 2001; Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007). Be-sides self-confidence, student teachers show an increase in theirlevel of responsibility (Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007). They experi-ence a greater control over how and what to teach as compared tosolo teachers, who feel that they have to fit into the mentor’sprogramme with minimal disruption (Bullough et al., 2002). Assuch, team teaching helps them to assume greater classroom re-sponsibility (Gardiner & Robinson, 2011).

3.2.1.2. Disadvantages. Despite advantages, student teachers’ teamteaching has some disadvantages for student teachers as well, i.e.(1) the lack of compatibility of the peers, (2) the comparison be-tween peers, (3) the difficulty of providing constructive feedback,(4) increased workload, and (5) less individual teaching.

One disadvantage is the lack of compatibility of the peers. If thereare fundamental differences between peers, this can interrupt theeffectiveness of team teaching (Stairs et al., 2009) or limit the peersin their freedom to design a course (Tobin et al., 2001). For instance,conflicting personalities (Bashan & Holsblat, 2012; Sorensen, 2004),differences in opinions (Bashan & Holsblat, 2012), differences inconceptions of teaching (Bullough et al., 2002), a weaker peerrelying too much on his partner (Parsons & Stephenson, 2005), alack of parity and mutual accountability (Gardiner & Robinson,2011) and an unfair workload division (Parsons & Stephenson,2005) may hinder effective team work. Especially during the startof team teaching, fundamental differences between peers may leadto poor lessons (Gardiner, 2010). For many student teachers, whoare used to work alone, collaborating with a peer is an unfamiliarsituation and it may be fearful or difficult (Bashan & Holsblat, 2012).

When student teachers are assigned in pair or small group to amentor or school, a second disadvantage is the comparison betweenpeers, for instance, student teachers being nervous that one wouldoutperform the other (Kamens, 2007) or the mentor having afavourite student teacher who receives more attention than theother (Bashan & Holsblat, 2012; King, 2006). Such a comparisoninduces competition and anxiety (Baker&Milner, 2006;Goodnoughet al., 2009; Stairs et al., 2009). Sometimes, student teacherscompetewith each other for the approval of thementor, the teachereducatoror the learners. In thisway, there are feweropportunities tocollaborate and reflect with each other (Stairs et al., 2009). More-over, by comparing themselves with a peer, student teachers maydiscover personal weaknesses (Anderson & Radencich, 2001).

As indicated above, student teachers value peer feedback.However, it is difficult for them to provide constructive peer feed-back. While Goodnough et al. (2009) and Shin et al. (2007) indicatethat peer feedback is candid, straightforward and honest, Parsonsand Stephenson (2005) show that it is difficult for student teach-ers to be honest with their peer, for instance, in case they do notknow their partner well and do not have the time to build upmutual respect and trust. They are afraid of offending their peer(Sorensen, 2004). Therefore, they often give positive feedback,which strengthens the confidence in teaching, instead of feedback

on weaknesses (Shin et al., 2007). Moreover, student teachersexperience a lack of knowledge to give constructive feedback(Kurtts & Levin, 2000). The feedback mainly focuses on what ishappening instead of why it is happening. The latter wouldencourage reflection (Shin et al., 2007).

Another disadvantage is the increased workload experiencedduring team teaching as the lesson planning and reflection with apeer is time-intensive (Gardiner & Robinson, 2011; Nokes et al.,2008; Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007). However, this is mainly dueto the increased dialogue among the peers, which is essential forteam teaching (Jang, 2008).

Finally, due to team teaching, student teachers argue that theyhave lessexperiencewith thepracticeof individual teaching (Gardiner& Robinson, 2009). Therefore, they, but also their mentors, doubtwhether team teaching is a good preparation for their future job ofindividual teaching (Bullough et al., 2002; Gardiner & Robinson,2011; Kamens, 2007) because it does not let them know whetherthey could teach independently (Gardiner & Robinson, 2011).Through teamteaching, they fear that theybecome toodependentontheir peer, which may hinder their professional growth (Gardiner &Robinson, 2011; Goodnough et al., 2009). As opposite to individualteaching, in team teaching there is always someone who may helpwhen necessary (Goodnough et al., 2009). The study of Birrell andBullough (2005), on the other hand, indicates that team teachingprepares student teachers well for the role of solo teacher.

3.2.2. Mentors3.2.2.1. Advantages. Student teachers’ team teaching does not onlyhave advantages for the student teachers, but also for their men-tors, i.e. (1) decreased workload, (2) learning gains, and (3)increased collaboration at school.

First of all, mentors experience decreased workload in the su-pervision of team teaching. Mentoring two student teachersinstead of one does not double the workload (Dee, 2012) becausestudent teachers support each other and, therefore, rely less ontheir mentor (King, 2006; Sorensen, 2004). Since they help eachother in case of difficulties, the mentor has to adopt a less directiverole (Bullough et al., 2002). Moreover, through frequent dialoguewith peers, student teachers are better prepared for meetings withthe mentor, which makes the mentor’s job easier (Sorensen, 2004).In addition, the presence of multiple student teachers encouragesthe mentors to distribute responsibilities in order to have moreindividual time for feedback and coaching. For instance, one stu-dent teacher can teach a lesson while the mentor has individualtime with the other (Gardiner, 2010).

Secondly, mentors report learning gains from supervising two ormore student teachers. For instance, student teachers bring newideas and alternative approaches into the classroom (Goodnoughet al., 2009), have more recent knowledge about topics, and aremore technically equipped (Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox, & Wassell,2008). However, some of these learning gains may also arise duringsingle placements. Nevertheless, the fact that there are two studentteachers makes that mentors also learn from the feedback thatstudent teachers give each other (Dee, 2012).

Finally, the collaboration between student teachers may pro-duce increased collaboration between teachers at the placementschool (Sorensen, 2004). Mentors see themselves as members of astudent teachers’ team and as advisors rather than as supervisors(Bullough et al., 2002).

3.2.2.2. Disadvantages. The disadvantages for mentors are twofold:(1) increased workload and (2) weaker relationships with studentteachers. Although decreased workload for mentors is identified asan advantage (King, 2006; Sorensen, 2004), other studies find anincreased workload for mentors in supervising team teaching (Baker


& Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002; Gardiner, 2010; Scantleburyet al., 2008) as mentors have to supervise more student teachers(more planning, observing, reflecting,.) (Scantlebury et al., 2008).In addition to group feedback, mentors have to conduct individualfeedback moments as well, certainly in case of sensitive feedback(Baker & Milner, 2006; Scantlebury et al., 2008). They consider it tobe difficult and time-intensive to give individual instead of generalfeedback to each student teacher separately (Bullough et al., 2002).Despite increased workload, several mentors argue that all theworkload is worth it (Baker & Milner, 2006; Gardiner, 2010).

Another disadvantage is the development of weaker relation-ships between mentors and student teachers. This can be explainedby the fact that student teachers, as they collaborate with theirpeer, rely primarily on their peer and less on their mentor(Goodnough et al., 2009). Baker and Milner (2006), on the otherhand, indicate that, although paired student teachers receive lessresponses from their mentor compared to single placed students,paired student teachers develop a more intense professional rela-tionship with their mentor. They talk more about importantteaching and pedagogical matters rather than about school policyand personal matters.

3.2.3. Learners3.2.3.1. Advantages. The presence of multiple student teachers hasseveral advantages for the learners in the classroom, i.e. (1)increased support, (2) rich and varied lessons and (3) learninggains.

When there is an additional student teacher in the classroom,learners receive increased support and individual attention (Birrell& Bullough, 2005; Dee, 2012; Kamens, 2007) and there is lesswaiting time for assistance (Gardiner, 2010). The additional teachercan help learners with difficulties or can create opportunities fordifferentiation (Bullough et al., 2003; Gardiner, 2010; Goodnoughet al., 2009; Nokes et al., 2008; Smith, 2002, 2004; Sorensen,2004). The presence of multiple teachers in the classroom alsoprovides additional observational information (e.g., on learningproblems), which is helpful for assessment (Gardiner, 2010;Goodnough et al., 2009; Jenkins & Veal, 2002) and class manage-ment (Birrell & Bullough, 2005; Bullough et al., 2002).

As student teachers are more likely to take pedagogical risks,knowing that their peer is close at hand to provide support, thelessons become richer and more varied (Bullough et al., 2002, 2003;Gardiner, 2010; Goodnough et al., 2009; Nokes et al., 2008; Smith,2002, 2004). Moreover, the learners are confrontedwith a variety ofteaching styles (Tobin et al., 2001) and appreciate hearing multipleperspectives on the topics presented (Nokes et al., 2008).

Not only was team teaching valued positively by the learners butit also resulted in learning gains. Learners reported obtaining highertest scores (Nokes et al., 2008). Also, student teachers and mentorsreported a higher quality of the learners’ school work (Sorensen,2004).

3.2.3.2. Disadvantages. One disadvantage for learners was recog-nised. It can be confusing when being confronted with multipleteachers in the classroom. For instance, multiple teachers tellingwhat to do and giving different responses to the same questionmayconfuse the learners, or learners may be confused about who to gowith questions (Bullough et al., 2003; Goodnough et al., 2009;Kamens, 2007).

3.3. Conditions for the successful implementation of studentteachers’ team teaching

Several of the studies retrieved to answer RQ2 contain guide-lines for the implementation of student teachers’ team teaching,

which is the focus of RQ3. Furthermore, additional studies areretrieved to answer RQ3. The conditions for implementation aregrouped around four themes: (1) combining team teaching andindividual teaching, (2) preparing for the new roles, (3) composingteam teaching groups, and (4) conditions for successfulcollaboration.

3.3.1. Combining team teaching and individual teachingTo encounter disadvantages of student teachers’ team teaching,

it has been advised to combine team teaching with individualteaching (Goodnough et al., 2009). Some studies included in 3.2.make use of such combination, e.g. Gardiner and Robinson (2010)and Nokes et al. (2008).

Team teaching seems especially appropriate in early field ex-periences. In later phases, individual teaching seems more suitableto prepare teachers for their future job of individual teaching(Gardiner & Robinson, 2010; King, 2006). Regularly, teachers startwith team teaching models that involve less structured coordina-tion among the teammembers (Thousand et al., 2006), for instance,the coaching or assistant teaching model. As the team teachingskills and relationships among the team members strengthen,models that require more time, coordination, and trust can beimplemented (Thousand et al., 2006), for instance, the teamingmodel. Also, in case student teachers have specific learning needs,individual teaching may be more appropriate than team teaching(Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007). In order to allow the studentteachers to experiment together, it has been advised to not assessteam teaching, only individual teaching (Murphy et al., 2009).

Most studies included in this review assign pairs of studentteachers to a mentor. However, Shin et al. (2007) suggest to placestudent teachers in groups of three in a placement school. In thisway, there are more opportunities for peer observation.

3.3.2. Preparing for the new rolesIn order to implement team teaching successfully, student

teachers and mentors should be prepared for their new roles(Sorensen, 2004; Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). With respect to studentteachers, a training in observation, coaching, and collaborationskills seems advisable (Britton & Anderson, 2010). As they have tocollaborate to some extent, a clear division of their roles and ac-tivities is indispensable (Sorensen, 2004).

Moreover, student teachers should alreadymeet before the startof the field experience in order to build a good professional rela-tionship (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). Furthermore, it is important thatthey know in advance that conflicts may arise, but that this isnormal and valued (Nokes et al., 2008). Therefore, it may beadvisable that mentors or teacher educators provide a demon-stration of a team-taught lesson to the student teachers and tellthem about their own difficulties. In this way, student teachersunderstand how a team-taught lesson could be and learn thatdifferences in opinion are legitimate (Bashan & Holsblat, 2012).Based on the roles modelled by mentors or teacher educators,student teachers will create their own patterns of interaction asthey get to know their team member (Kamens, 2007).

In order to avoid competition and comparison, which is aconcern expressed by student teachers (see 3.2.1.), they should starttheir internship together at the same moment. Consequently, theymay feel treated more equally and they can collaborate from thestart so that they may have positive shared teaching experiencesearly in the partnership (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005).

Besides the student teacher, the mentor has to be prepared forhis new role (Britton & Anderson, 2010; Nokes et al., 2008). Forinstance, encouraging good professional relationships between thestudent teachers, emphasising differences in their teaching ap-proaches, and offering personalised tasks with individual learning


goals (King, 2006). Preparing student teachers and mentors cantake place through organising workshops or delivering informationdocuments (about roles, responsibilities, requirements, assess-ment, .) (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). Furthermore, they shouldreceive a rationale for team teaching in order to convince them ofthe added value (Gardiner & Robinson, 2010).

3.3.3. Composing team teaching groupsOften, team teaching groups are composed randomly (Parsons &

Stephenson, 2005) or based on geographical proximity (Walsh &Elmslie, 2005). Nevertheless, considerable attention should bepaid to group composition since a certain amount of compatibilityconcerning knowledge, skills, attitude, ability, academic achieve-ment, personality, experience, age, and domicile is desirable(Kamens, 2007; Smith, 2002, 2004; Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). In thisway, student teachers would not feel intimidated or frustrated.

Oneway to form compatible groups is by taking into account theteam teaching partner they would like to team up with (Shin et al.,2007). Brouwer and Korthagen (2005) investigate the effects ofindicating these preferences using a non-public (a discrete ballotprocedure) versus a public procedure (discussing preferencespublicly with each other). However, no significant effects of pro-cedure are found on how positively/negatively student teachersvalue the procedure and cooperation, the amount of cooperationbenefits they experience in preparing lessons, and their startingcompetence at the end of the pre-service programme (Brouwer &Korthagen, 2005). By taking into account their preferences, stu-dent teachers will face fewer challenges developing a good rela-tionship because they have a choice in the group composition.When groups are composed randomly, student teachers areinitially less involved in the partnership since they have no choicein composing it. Nevertheless, composing groups randomly is moreclosely related to a real professional setting and could thereforeenrich the team teaching experience (Stairs et al., 2009).

Besides similarities between the teaching partners, differencesshould be valued too. In this way, student teachers can learn fromeach other. In addition, differences add richness to the supervisionbecause the mentor has to take into account individual strengthsand weaknesses and has to adapt his supervision to these indi-vidual needs (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005).

3.3.4. Conditions for successful collaborationThere are conditions for successful collaboration inherent to the

team teaching group (i.e., a strong relationship and a co-generativedialogue between the peers), whereas others are external to theteam teaching group (i.e., supervision, school culture, and location).

While team teaching provides a model for collaboration,implementing this model does not guarantee a successful collab-oration (Gardiner & Robinson, 2011). In order for a team teachingexperience to be successful, there should be mutual trust, respectand support between the team members (Copping, 2012) and ahigh level of care and personal investment in each other (Vacilotto& Cummings, 2007). If this is not the case, time should be spent torelationship-building activities (Britton & Anderson, 2010). Further,among the team members, a co-generative dialogue should bestimulated. A co-generative dialogue is an open discussion amongthe team members based on shared experiences (e.g., a lesson, anassessment) with the aim of changing and improving teaching andlearning (Copping, 2012; Scantlebury et al., 2008). The strength of aco-generative dialogue is that all members (team teachers butregularly also a selection of learners) reflect on common objects,often replayed using videotapes of the lesson, and that the views ofall participants are valued. In this respect, ideas for improvement(what worked and what did not work) are co-generated (Tobin &Roth, 2005).

As to supervision, it seems advisable to limit the number ofmentors per student teacher (Scantlebury et al., 2008) and toprovide individual besides common feedback sessions with bothstudent teachers, for instance, to provide sensitive feedback andavoid competition (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). Further, it is importantthat mentors have positive dispositions towards collaboration(Gardiner, 2010).When team teaching takes place in a school with acollaborative culture, its implementation becomes easier. In acollaborative school culture, concerns such as offending each otherand the belief that they learn more on their own disappear(Sorensen, 2004). Finally, the classrooms should be large enough togive room to multiple student teachers (Walsh & Elmslie, 2005).

4. Conclusions and discussion

In an attempt to provide alternative models of field experiencein teacher education, this review study elaborates team teaching.The study categorises the wide variety of team teaching modelsinto five models, which differ in the degree of collaboration, i.e. theobservation, coaching, assistant teaching, equal status, and teamingmodel. These models can act as a guide when implementing stu-dent teachers’ team teaching during field experiences.

Empirical research on student teachers’ team teaching shows itsadvantages and disadvantages for the student teachers, theirmentors and the learners in their classroom. An overview of these(dis)advantages is provided in Fig. 2.

The results of the empirical studies generally lie in line witheach other. For student teachers, team teaching encouragesemotional and professional support, dialogue about learning andteaching and professional and personal growth. A lack of compat-ibility between student teachers may limit the benefits of teamteaching. Therefore, it may be advisable to use peer assessment(e.g., on effort and ability to work together). Nevertheless, collab-orating with peers with different personalities, abilities, etc. canalso be perceived as a learning opportunity. It may allow studentteachers to complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses(Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007). Moreover, in their future job,teachers have to collaborate with colleagues with different per-sonalities, experiences, etc. as well. Similar to the lack of compat-ibility, the disadvantage of comparing student teachers can beconsidered a learning opportunity. Discovering professional andpersonal weaknesses through the comparison with a peer may beperceived as a starting point for change and growth.

Concerning the value of peer feedback, research mainly is pos-itive (e.g., Goodnough et al., 2009). In general, student teachersvalue peer feedback because it is specific, candid, straightforward,honest and less threatening than the feedback of the mentor andteacher educator. However, in the study of Anderson and Radencich(2001), student teachers considered the feedback of the mentorand teacher educator as more valuable because of their greaterexpertise. Despite the value of peer feedback, several studies indi-cated the difficulty for student teachers to provide honest andconstructive peer feedback (e.g., Kurtts & Levin, 2000). Guidingthem in providing constructive feedback, for instance through aworkshop, may help them to develop these skills.

With respect to mentors, the supervision of team teachingstudents brings along learning gains for them and may lead toincreased collaboration at school. Regarding workload, studiesshow diverging results. Whereas several aspects of student teach-ers’ team teaching increase the mentor’s workload (e.g., moreplanning andmore observation), other aspects have the potential todecrease the workload (e.g., little reliance on thementor because ofpeer support). Despite these contrasting findings, mentors gener-ally are in favour of team teaching, certainly if it is combined withindividual teaching later on.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGESStudent teachers

- Increased emotional and professional support- Increased dialogue - Professional growth- Personal growth

Mentors- Decreased workload- Learning gains- Increased collaboration at school

Learners- Increased support- Rich and varied lessons- Learning gains

Student teachers - Lack of compatibility - Comparison - Difficulty of providing constructive feedback- Increased workload- Less individual teaching

Mentors- Increased workload- Weaker relationships with student teachers

Learners- Confusion

Fig. 2. Overview of (dis)advantages of student teachers’ team teaching.


Also concerning the relationships built between mentors andteam teaching students, contrasting findings have been reported.Goodnough et al. (2009) show that mentors develop weaker re-lationships with team teaching students. Baker and Milner (2006)support this finding to a certain amount. They state that pairedstudent teachers receive less responses from their mentorcompared to single placed students, but the quality of the re-sponses differ. Paired student teachers develop an intense profes-sional relationship with their mentor since they talk more aboutimportant teaching and pedagogical matters.

Next to student teachers and mentors, team teaching has ben-efits for learners, i.e. increased support and individual attention,rich and varied lesson, and learning gains. Yet, several studies (e.g.,Bullough et al., 2003; Kamens, 2007) indicate that multiple studentteachers in the classroom may confuse the learners.

While team teaching provides a model for collaboration,implementing this model does not guarantee a successful collab-oration (Gardiner & Robinson, 2011). In order to anticipate thedisadvantages, the review study formulates several conditions forimplementation. An important condition, mentioned in severalstudies, is the combination of team teaching with individualteaching in order to prepare student teachers for their future job ofindividual teaching. Nevertheless, it can be questioned whetherthis individualistic view on a teacher’s job is still desirable. Shouldthere be a movement towards more collaborative teaching inschools? Currently, collaboration within schools gains importance,e.g. collaborating in subject specific communities. Moreover,teacher shortages may urge teachers to team teach. In this way, theexperience of isolation in education can be transcended (Tobin &Roth, 2005). In addition, the lack of mentors for beginning teach-ers may be solved by implementing student teachers’ team teach-ing. Given the various benefits of team teaching as presented in thisreview study, this seems a considered step to take.

By offering a framework of team teaching models, indicating(dis)advantages and synthesise research-supported guidelines forthe placement, preparation, mentoring, and evaluation of pair-placed student teachers, the present review study contributes tothe literature on student teachers’ team teaching and may inspireteacher educators to implement team teaching during field expe-riences in teacher education.

Despite the added value of this study to the team teaching liter-ature, some limitations can be acknowledged. Firstly, the effects ofstudent teachers’ team teaching have been studied in general, andnot for each of the five models separately, because in the retrievedempirical studies, researchers regularly did not clarify the model

being used. Based on the descriptions provided by the researchers,we tried to label these team teaching models (Appendix A). How-ever, this was not always possible. Secondly, the perspective of theteacher educator has been neglected since the empirical studiesmainly focused on student teachers,mentors and learners. Thismaybe explained by the fact that the teacher educators are not directlyimplicated in student teachers’ team teaching. Thirdly, only full textmanuscripts were included in the review. Therefore, it could be thatour literature search omitted some studies because there was noaccess to the full textmanuscripts. Finally, since a narrative review isbased on the reviewers’ intuitive process, it is possible that our ownviews may have influenced our interpretations of the literature.Nevertheless, a narrative review makes it possible to give in-depthinformation about a topic (Dochy et al., 1999).

Based on the results of this review study, several directions forfurther research can be formulated. The research on team teachinghas beenmainly qualitative in nature and focusedon theperceptionsof student teachers, mentors and learners by means of self-reportmeasures. Although self-report measures are of significant value ineducation, these measures should be complemented with directmeasures which go into the classroom and observe team teachers atwork during instruction or planning. In this way, we learn whatactually happens during team teaching. Further, the researchmainlytook place on a small scale. Conducting a large-scale study couldstrengthen ourfindings.Moreover, the studies generally focus on theimplementation of team teaching, without comparingwith a controlgroup. Consequently, there is a need for more quasi-experimentalresearch on the effectiveness of team teaching (Carpenter et al.,2007; Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Welch, Brownell, & Sheridan,1999), for instance, comparing team teaching and individual teach-ing or comparing team teaching models. In this respect, the modelspresented in this study may be compared (e.g., the equal statusmodels, which are under-represented in empirical research), or,different group compositions may be compared (e.g., teaming aweaker and stronger peer versus teaming two stronger peers, orteaming peers with different teaching styles) (Wynn & Kromrey,2000). Furthermore, there is a need for research focussing on thecollaboration process during student teachers’ team teaching (Dang,2013) and on the conditions that influence the learning process ofstudent teachers during team teaching (Dang, 2013; Gardiner &Robinson, 2009). In addition, longitudinal research investigatingthe effects of team teaching on the future teaching career (Nokeset al., 2008) may be interesting. Finally, while the present studyfocusedon student teachers’ team teaching, itmight be interesting toexplore team teaching between mentor and student teacher.

Appendix A. Empirical studies included in the review study in order to answer RQ2.

Author Modela Aim/research questions Subjects Data collection Data analysis Controlgroup?

Anderson et al.(2005)

US

Coaching model - What was the value ofobserving cooperat-ing teachers in theearly fieldexperience?

- What was the value ofobserving peers in theearly fieldexperience?

- What behaviours didpre-service teachersask their peerobservers to target?

- What was the natureof pre-serviceteachers’ reflectionson the experience ofobservingcooperating teachersand peers?

- 34 final-year studentteachers (university)

- Pairs- Primary education

- Dialogue journals- Peer coaching dataforms

Qualitative No

Anderson andRadencich(2001)

US

Coaching model - Investigating the valueof feedback to pre-service teachers in anearly field experience



- Dialogue journals- Peer coaching dataforms

- Questionnaires

Qualitative &quantitative

No

Baker and Milner(2006)

US

No modelspecified

- Do teacher candidateswho work in pairedplacements learn asmuch from theirmentors as do thosein single placements?

- 9 student teachers(university) and theirmentors

- Pairs- Secondary education

- Questionnaires(student teachersand mentors)

- Observations (stu-dent teachers andmentors)

- Interviews (studentteachers andmentors)


Yes

Bashan andHolsblat (2012)

Israel

Teaming model - Evaluating the teachertraining program andobtain insights fromthe process that thestudents experienced

- 48 third-year studentteachers (college) andtheir mentors

- Pairs: one general edu-cation, one specialeducation

- Primary education

- Pedagogical-reflect-ing journals of stu-dent teachers

- Journals of mentors

Qualitative No

Qualitative No

(continued on next page)

M.Baeten,M

.Simons

/Teaching

andTeacher

Education41

(2014)92

e110

101

(continued )


Birrell and Bullough(2005)

US

No modelspecified

- During their 1st yearof teaching were thestudent teachers whoparticipated in thepeer-teaching modelin any wayadvantaged ordisadvantaged by theexperience of havingstudent taught with apartner?

- 8 first-year studentteachers, mentors andprincipals


- Interviews (studentteachers, mentors,principals)

- Observations

Bowman andMcCormick(2000)

US

Coaching model - Investigating theeffectiveness of thesupervision modelson the developmentof clarity skills, peda-gogical reasoning andactions, and attitudestowards the fieldexperience

- 32 junior and senioryears’ student teachers(university)

- Pairs vs. traditionalsupervision

- Primary education

- Videotaping oflessons

- Audiotaping of post-conferences

- Questionnaires

Quantitative Yes

Britton andAnderson (2010)

US

Coaching model - Exploring the effectsof peer coaching onthe classroom prac-tices of pre-serviceteachers

- 4 student teachers(university)


- Interviews Qualitative No

Bullough et al.(2002)

US

No modelspecified

- Experiences on apartnership and asingle-placementmodel of early fieldexperience

- 21 student teachers(university), 18mentors


- Interviews (mentorand studentteachers)

- Student teachers’time logs

- Transcripts of plan-ning sessions


Yes

Bullough et al.(2003)

US

No modelspecified

- What are the benefitsand possible short-comings of partneredstudent teaching asan alternative modelof practice teaching?



- Interviews (mentorand studentteachers)

- Student teachers’time logs

- Transcripts of plan-ning sessions

- Focus group in-terviews withlearners


Yes

M.Baeten,M

.Simons

/Teaching

andTeacher

Education41

(2014)92

e110

102

Dee (2012)US

Coaching model,assistant teachingmodel, teamingmodel

- How does a collabo-rative paired place-ment during theclinical practicecomponent of a pre-service teacher edu-cation program affectcandidate learningand development?

- 12 student teachers(university), theirmentors and teachereducators

- Pairs- Primary (8 studentteachers) and second-ary education (4 stu-dent teachers)

- Discussions andinformal interviews

- Digital file withnotes and com-ments (researcher)

- Questionnaire (stu-dent teachers, men-tors, teachereducators)

Qualitative &Quantitative

No

Gardiner (2010)US

No modelspecified

- How do mentorsperceive and experi-ence the benefits anddrawbacks of peerplacements?

- 7 mentors- Primary education

- Individual and focusgroup interviewswith mentors

- Observations- Field notes- Document review

Qualitative No

Gardiner andRobinson (2009)

US

Assistantteaching model,teaming model

- Would pre-serviceteachers collaboratein ways thatcontributed to theirprofessionaldevelopment and if sowhy, how, and towhat end?

- 8 junior-year studentteachers (college)

- Pairs- Preschool and primaryeducation

- Observations- Interviews- Questionnaires- Field notes- Journal entries- Work samples

Qualitative No


US


- How six preserviceteachers (pairedtogether in a pre-student teachingplacement)experience andperceive the value ofcollaboration with apeer and cooperatingteacher?

- What facilitates orinhibitscollaboration?

- 6 student teachers andtheir mentors

- Pairs- Preschool education

- Observations- Field notes- Reflective journals,lesson plans, andunit plans (studentteachers)

- Surveys- Individual in-terviews with stu-dent teachers

- Informal interviewswith mentors

Qualitative No


US


- The purpose of thisqualitative study is toextend the extantresearch by under-standing and identi-fying the challengesthat student teachers

- 24 student teachers(college) and theirmentors

- Pairs- Preschool education

- Observations- Documents (lessonplans, journal en-tries, units of study,mentors’ evalua-tions of student

Qualitative No


M.Baeten,M

.Simons

/Teaching

andTeacher

Education41

(2014)92

e110

103

(continued )


encountered as theycollaborated with apeer in a fieldplacement.

teacher’sperformance)

- Interviews (studentteachers andmentors)

Goker (2006)North Cyprus

Coaching model - To what extent canpeer coachingdevelop self-efficacyof peer-coachedstudent teachers?

- Which supervisionmodel is more effec-tive in increasingdemonstrations andinstructional skills?

- What are the levels ofsatisfaction with thepeer coaching pro-gram implementedamong studentteachers in eachgroup as compared tothose of a traditionalsupervision model?



- Questionnaires- Videotaping oflessons

- Audiotaping of post-conferences


Yes

Goodnough et al.(2009)

Canada

No modelspecified

- What types of co-teaching models willemerge during thetriad fieldexperience?

- What are the advan-tages for pre-serviceteachers andcooperating teacherswho participate in atriad model?

- What are the disad-vantages for pre-service teachers andcooperating teacherswho participate in atriad model?

- 8 student teachers(university), 4 mentors


- Interviews (studentteachers & mentors)

- Observations- Electronic journalentries (studentteachers & mentors)

- Videotaping ofplanning sessions

Qualitative No

Jang (2008)Taiwan

Teaming model - Exploring the effectsof an integration oftechnology and team-


- Triads and quartets

- Questionnaires- Online data- Interviews


Yes

M.Baeten,M

.Simons

/Teaching

andTeacher

Education41

(2014)92

e110

104

teaching techniquesinto science teachereducation

- Secondary education

Jenkins and Veal(2002)

US

Coaching model - Describing the kindsof teacher knowledgeexhibited by studentteachers during peercoaching activities,and how the roles ofteacher and coach inthe peer coachingexperience contributeto the development ofteacher knowledgeduring an elementaryphysical educationfield-based methodscourse


- Pairs- Pre-school and primaryeducation

- The coach’s audio-taped commentsduring observation

- Audiotaped post-lesson conferences

- Daily writtenreports

- Individual andgroup interviews

- Interview with thecourse professor

- The researcher’sjournal

- Course related doc-uments such ascourse syllabus,assessment forms,etc.

Qualitative No

Kamens (2007)US

No modelspecified

- What did the pre-service teachers learnfrom participating ina co-taught studentteaching experience?

- What are the per-spectives of theircooperating teachersabout the co-taughtstudent teachingexperience?

- What are the chal-lenges and benefits ofimplementing thistype of experienceduring studentteaching?

- 4 student teachers andtheir mentors


- Student teacherjournals

- Interviews withstudent teachersand mentors

- Student teachingobservation notes(of mentors anduniversitysupervisors)

- E-mail communica-tion betweenparticipants

Qualitative No

King (2006)UK

Teaming model - Identifying key bene-fits and issuesregarding pairedplacements

- Providing guidanceon how paired place-ments can be made towork more effectively

- 76/35/50 studentteachers (university)and their mentors


- Questionnaires(student teachers)


Qualitative No


M.Baeten,M

.Simons

/Teaching

andTeacher

Education41

(2014)92

e110

105

(continued )


Kurtts and Levin(2000)

US

Coaching model - Does structured peercoaching aid in thedevelopment ofreflective practicesamong pre-serviceteachers?

- Does structured peercoaching enhancepre-service teachers’perceptions ofsupport?



- PQP forms- Reflectivesummaries

- Open-ended ques-tionnaires (studentteachers andmentors)

- Audiotaping ofdebriefingconferences


No

Nguyen andBaldauf (2010)

Vietnam

Coaching model - Investigatingwhether participationin a formal peermentoring interven-tion had an effect onthe participants‘ in-struction practice inthe classroom duringtheir practicum

- 65 fourth-year studentteachers (university),their mentors andteacher educators


- Questionnaires(student teachers,mentors, teachereducators)

Quantitative Yes

Nokes et al. (2008)US

No modelspecified

- In what ways doesthe secondary settingopen or close oppor-tunities for beginningteacher learningthrough the pairedteaching model?

- Given the chance todevelop their ownstyles of collabora-tion, what patternswould develop be-tween student teach-ing teams?

- What are the costsand benefits of thepaired-placement ofstudent teachers insecondary settings?

- 23 fourth-year studentteachers (university), 7mentors and 29learners


- Interviews (studentteachers, mentors)

- Focus group in-terviews (learners)

Qualitative No

Parsons andStephenson(2005)

UK

No modelspecified

- Does collaboration,with both peers andmore experiencedcolleagues, help

- 22 student teachers(university), 22mentors

- Questionnaires(student teachers,mentors)

- Interviews

Qualitative No

M.Baeten,M

.Simons

/Teaching

andTeacher

Education41

(2014)92

e110

106

students to learn tothink reflectivelyabout their practice?

- Does the provision ofa structure help stu-dent teachers todevelop abilities inthis area?

- Pairs

- Pre-school and primaryeducation

Roth and Tobin(2001)

US

No modelspecified

- Developing co-teaching as praxisand conceptualframework

- Student teachers (uni-versity) and theirmentors

- Pairs & triads- Secondary education

- Vignettes Qualitative No

Scantlebury et al.(2008) US

Teaming model - What were themodel’s characteris-tics that afforded orhindered co-teaching?

- Are these character-istics aligned? If so,what are their re-lationships inpractice?

- How can teacher ed-ucators support thesuccessful imple-mentation of the co-teaching model?

- 6/9 senior-year studentteachers (university),mentors, teachereducators

- Co-teaching a combi-nation of at least two oftheir peers and twocooperating teachers

- Secondary education

- Interviews (studentteachers, mentors,teacher educators)

- Observations

Qualitative No

Shin et al. (2007)US

Coaching model - Identifying not onlywhether peers wereproviding qualityfeedback but alsowhether that feed-back was considereduseful and appro-priate in helpingthem improve theirinstruction, becomemore reflective whenusing the clinical su-pervision model, andbetter meet theirdevelopmental needs

- 64 first-semesterstudent teachers(university)


- Peer review reports- Interviews- Questionnaires


No


M.Baeten,M

.Simons

/Teaching

andTeacher

Education41

(2014)92

e110

107

(continued )


Smith (2002, 2004)UK

Assistantteaching model

- Could pair-scaffoldingsuccessfully transferto secondarymathematicsteaching?

- 14/8 student teachers(university) and theirmentors


- Questionnaires(student teachers &mentors)


- Observations

Qualitative No

Sorensen (2004)UK

No modelspecified. Thismanuscriptreports on aseries of researchprojects.

- Evaluation of peerlearning throughpaired placements

- Student teachers, men-tors, teacher educators


- Questionnaires(student teachers &mentors)

- Interviews (studentteachers, mentors &teacher educators)

- Focus group in-terviews (mentors &teacher educators)

- Case studies- Video work


No

Stairs et al. (2009)US

No modelspecified

- Experiences of apartnered studentteaching placement

- 5 junior-year studentteachers

- Pairs or triads- Secondary education

- Enquiry sessions(talking about theirexperiences)

Qualitative No

Tobin et al. (2001)US

No modelspecified

- Experiences of a newteacher who had beenassigned to an urbanhigh school as fieldexperience

- 2 student teachers andco-teachers (mentors,university supervisors,high school students)

- Pairs, triads, quartet- Secondary education

- Video-taping of theanalysis session/verbal interactions/cogenerativedialogues

- Recordingdebriefings

- Reflections injournals

- Face-to-face and e-mail interactions

Qualitative No

Vacilotto andCummings(2007) US

Coaching model - Does peer coachingfacilitate the ex-change of teachingmethods and mate-rials? If so, how?

- Does peer coachingfoster the develop-ment of teachingskills? If so, how?

- Does peer coachingmake participants


- Pairs or triads- Secondary education

- Questionnaires- Audio recording oflesson plan meet-ings and debriefingsessions

- Reflective teachingjournals

- Interviews

Qualitative No

M.Baeten,M

.Simons

/Teaching

andTeacher

Education41

(2014)92

e110

108

rethinkan

yof

their

ownteaching

method

sor

styles?If

so,h

ow?

-W

hat

are

the

most

effectivebe

hav

iours

that

participan

tsthinksu

pportasu

c-cessfulrelationsh

ipbe

twee

npee

rsin

apee

rco

aching

program

me?

aBased

onthedescription

sof

team

teachingprovided

bytheau

thorsof

each

study,

wetriedto

labe

ltheseteam

teachingmod

elsba

sedon

thecatego

risation

inRQ1.

How

ever,this

was

not

alway

spossible.


References

Al-Saaideh, M. (2010). A rationale to adopt team teaching in prevocational educa-tion in Jordan. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(4), 269e285.

Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., & Hite, C. E. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ obser-vations of cooperating teachers and peers while participating in an early fieldexperience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(4), 97e117.

Anderson, N. A., & Radencich, M. C. (2001). The value of feedback in an early fieldexperience: peer, teacher, and supervisor coaching. Action in Teacher Education,23, 66e74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2001.10463076.

Anderson, R., & Speck, B. (1998). “Oh what a difference a team makes”: why teamteaching makes a difference. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 671e686.

Anthony, G., & Ord, K. (2008). Change-of-career secondary teachers: motivations,expectations and intentions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4),359e376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598660802395865.

Austin, V. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 22(4), 245e255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200408.

Bacharach, N., Heck, T., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teachingthrough coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538.

Badiali, B., & Titus, N. (2010). Co-teaching: enhancing students learning throughmentoreintern partnerships. SchooleUniversity Partnerships, 4(2), 74e80.

Baker, S., & Milner, J. (2006). Complexities of collaboration: intensity of mentors’responses to paired and single student teachers. Action in Teacher Education,28(3), 61e72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2006.10463420.

Bashan, B., & Holsblat, R. (2012). Co-teaching through modeling processes: pro-fessional development of students and instructors in a teacher training pro-gram. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 207e226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.678972.

Birrell, J., & Bullough, R. (2005). Teaching with a peer: a follow-up study of the firstyear of teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 27(l), 72e81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2005.10463375.

Bowman, C. L., & McCormick, S. (2000). Comparison of peer coaching versustraditional supervision effects. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 256e261.

Britton, L., & Anderson, K. (2010). Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: exam-ining an underutilised concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 306e314.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.008.

Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference?American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153e224. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001153.

Bullough, R., Young, J., Birrell, J., Clark, D., Egan, M., Erickson, L., et al. (2003).Teaching with a peer: a comparison of two models of student teaching. Teachingand Teacher Education, 19, 57e73.

Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., et al.(2002). Rethinking field experiences: partnership teaching vs. single-placementteaching. The Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68e80.

Carpenter, D., Crawford, L., & Walden, R. (2007). Testing the efficacy of teamteaching. Learning Environments Research, 10, 53e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-007-9019-y.

Carter, M., & Francis, R. (2001). Mentoring and beginning teachers’ workplacelearning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 249e262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598660120091856.

Casey, P., Dunlap, K., Brister, H., Davidson, M., & Starrett, T. (2011). Sink or swim?Throw us a life jacket! Novice alternatively certified bilingual and special ed-ucation teachers deserve options. Education and Urban Society, 45(3), 287e306.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124511408075.

Chang, L., & Lee, G. (2010). A team-teaching model for practicing project-basedlearning in high school: collaboration between computer and subject teach-ers. Computers & Education, 55, 961e969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.007.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: guidelines for creating effective practices.Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1e16.

Copping, A. (2012). A case study evaluating the experience of a tutor co-teachingwith students on a teacher education placement. Practitioner Research inHigher Education, 6(2), 69e82.

Crow, J., & Smith, L. (2005). Co-teaching in higher education: reflective conversationon shared experience as continued professional development for lecturers andhealth and social care students. Reflective Practice: International and Multidis-ciplinary Perspectives, 6(4), 491e506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940500300582.

Dang, T. (2013). Identity in activity: examining teacher professional identity for-mation in the paired-placement of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Ed-ucation, 30, 47e59.

Davis, J. (1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching. New arrangements forlearning. Phoenix: American Council on Education & Oryx.

Dee, A. (2012). Collaborative clinical practice: an alternate field experience. Issues inTeacher Education, 21(2), 147e163.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). The relation between assessment practicesand outcomes of studies: the case of research on prior knowledge. Review ofEducational Research, 69(2), 145e186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543069002145.

Dugan, K., & Letterman, M. (2008). Student appraisals of collaborative teaching.College Teaching, 56(1), 11e15.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref2http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2001.10463076http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref4http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598660802395865http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200408http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref8http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2006.10463420http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.678972http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.678972http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2005.10463375http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2005.10463375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(14)00042-0/sref12http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.008http: