Evaluation of team teaching in an English course at Faculty of Tourism, Hanoi Open University = Đánh giá việc giảng dạy theo nhóm trong một khóa học tiếng Anh t20150227

6
Table of Contents
Declaration…………………………………………………………………………
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………….
List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
vii
PART 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………
1
1. Rationale…………………………………………………………………………
1
2. Aims of the study………………………………………………………………….
2
3. Research questions………………………………………………………………
2
4. Scope of the study…………………………………………………………………
2
5. Methods of the study……………………………………………………………
3
6. Significance of the study………………………………………………………….
3
7. Organization of the remainder of the thesis……………………………………….
3

PART 2. DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………….
4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………….
4
1.1. Key terms and key concepts…………………………………………………….
4
1.1.1. Defining team teaching………………………………………………………
4
1.1.2. Defining NEST and non-NEST……………………………………………….
5
1.1.3. Teaching evaluation…………………………………………………………
5
1.1.4. Characteristics of effective team teaching…………………………………….
7
1.2. Studies on evaluation of team teaching of NESTs and non-NESTs……………
8
1.2.1. The JET……………………………………………………………………….
9
1.2.2. The EPIK……………………………………………………………………
10
1.2.3. The PSED……………………………………………………………………
11
CHAPTER 2: THE METHODOLOGY…………………………………………….
14
2.1. Setting of the study
14
2.2. The participants of the study……………………………………………………
14
2.2.1. Teachers………………………………………………………………………
14

2.2.2. Students……………………………………………………………………….
15

7
2.3. Data collection instruments…………………………………………………….
16
2.3.1. Questionnaire…………………………………………………………………
16
2.3.2. Teaching diary………………………………………………………………
17
2.3.3. Informal interview……………………………………………………………
17
2.4. Data collection procedure……………………………………………………
17
2.4.1. Before the pilot team teaching……………………………………………….
17
2.4.2. During the pilot team teaching……………………………………………….
18
2.4.3. After the pilot team teaching…………………………………………………
18
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS………………………………….
20
3.1. Findings and discussions……………………………………………………….
20
3.1.1. Research question 1: What are the strengths of the team teaching in the pilot
team-taught lessons according to the reflections of the teachers and the
learners?
20
3.1.1.1. The effectiveness of the team-taught lessons……………………………….
20

3.1.1.2. The teachers‟ professional development…………………………………
27
3.1.2. Research question 2: What are the drawbacks of the team teaching in the
pilot team-taught lessons according to the reflections of the teachers and the
learners?
30
3.2. Pedagogical suggestions……………………………………………………….
33
3.2.1. Selecting team members……………………………………………………
33
3.2.2. Planning……………………………………………………………………
34
3.2.3. Leadership……………………………………………………………………
34
PART 3. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………
36
1. Summary of findings and discussions…………………………………………
36
2. Limitations of the study………………………………………………………….
37
3. Recommendations for further studies……………………………………………
37
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………
38
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………
I

8


List of Abbreviations

CLT: Communicative language teaching
NEST: Native English-speaking teacher
EFL: English as a foreign language
FOT: Faculty of Tourism, Hanoi Open University
Non-NEST: Non-native English-speaking teacher
TEFL: Teaching English as a foreign language
VTE: Vietnamese teacher of English














9

List of Tables

Table 1: Students‟ involvement in team-taught lessons
Table 2: Students‟ reflections on team-taught lessons
Table 3: Students‟ reflections on their educational progress in team-taught lessons
Table 4: Students‟ reflections on the collaboration of the NEST and the VTE
Table 5: Team teaching‟s negative impacts on students‟ learning





















10

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
English is the lingua franca used by people all over the world. Not until Vietnam‟s
government started its international integration in the mid-1990s, was English considered
essential for the country‟s integration and development. Being aware of the fact that
higher-paying jobs are often offered to those who can use English in their work, more and
more Vietnamese people, especially university undergraduates and graduates, are learning
English from a variety of sources. Sadly, a great number of university graduates are
estimated unable to use English in their work by employers. As mentioned in the article
„Vietnamese students bad in English, why?‟ (Vietnamnet, 2008) and in many other articles
and studies, both the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and universities have
recognized this sad reality. MOET blamed the problem on universities for their low quality
in English training or the inefficiency of English teaching.
With the attempt to improve the qualifications of Vietnamese teachers of English
(VTEs) and to upgrade the English proficiency of Vietnamese learners, many measures
have been discussed and implemented. Among those, to attract more native English-
speaking teachers (NESTs) is becoming a trend with the hope that they can help create the
communicative environment, improve learners‟ English proficiency, and advance VTEs‟
teaching qualifications. However, there are debates over whether who, NESTs or VTEs,
are better English teachers. Both teachers have their own strengths and weaknesses; hence,
their team teaching is believed to be the best teaching model, combining their strengths
together (Buckley, 2000). Team teaching in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL)
has been dominating, especially in many countries in East Asia like Japan and Korea.
However, this model seems unfamiliar in Vietnam‟s TEFL because team teaching has
exposed not only a wide range of strengths but also a number of drawbacks.
With the belief that the strengths of team teaching overshadow its drawbacks and
team teaching of NESTs and non-NESTs is the best choice for Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT), the researcher decided to organize pilot team-taught lessons at her work
place. The pilot team teaching was evaluated for withdrawing both its strengths and

drawbacks in order to prove the hypothesis of the researcher. Consequently, „Evaluation of

11
Team Teaching in an English Course at Faculty of Tourism, Hanoi Open University‟ is the
title of her master thesis.
2. Aims of the study
The study was aimed to evaluate the pilot team teaching of a NEST and a VTE in
four team-taught lessons of one English course at Faculty of Tourism, Hanoi Open
University (FOT). The evaluation was generalized based on the reflections of the
participants including two teaming teachers and their students. Both the strengths and the
limitations of the pilot team teaching related to the effectiveness of the lessons and the
teachers‟ professional development were explored. It was hoped that the study could
provide the researcher and her colleagues with insights of the effectiveness of team
teaching of NESTs and VTEs in English courses at the faculty, and then call for further
experiments and full practice.
3. Research questions
The following research questions guided the study for achieving the above-
mentioned research aims:
1. What are the strengths of the team teaching in the pilot team-taught lessons
according to the reflections of the teachers and the students?
2. What are the drawbacks of the team teaching in the pilot team-taught lessons
according to the reflections of the teachers and the students?
4. Scope of the study
In the volume of this minor thesis, the evaluation of team teaching was aimed to
explore its strengths and drawbacks referring to its impacts on the effectiveness of the
lessons and the teachers‟ professional development. Therefore, all matters not supporting
the researcher‟s objectives were put aside.
In addition, this is a small-scale research with the data collected through the
reflections of limited participants – 2 teachers and 30 students of one English class – about
four team-taught lessons via „questionnaire‟, ‘teaching diary‟, and „informal interview‟.

Hence, no generalization of the findings derived from the study was intended; whereas, the
localization of research was proposed.

12
5. Methods of the study
In order to gain a wealth of data for evaluating the team teaching, mixed-methods
approach was chosen for the research. The questionnaire was used to achieve quantitative
data from the students‟ feedbacks, and the teaching diary to achieve qualitative data from
the teachers‟ self-reflections. Informal interviews with both the teachers and the students
were also conducted to clarify the findings from the questionnaire and the teaching diary.
6. Significance of the study
This study is important to the researcher and her colleagues at FOT since it serves
as the first study on team teaching of NESTs and VTEs at the faculty. Its success may
inspire further in-depth studies on this controversial model of teaching. Because team
teaching is costly, complicated, and time-consuming, a full, large-scale practice is
plausible only when its benefits far overweigh its drawbacks and successful application is
ensured. Pilot studies like this are vital in the experimenting process. In fact, the study
answered the call for innovations in teaching at FOT. Besides, thanks to the study, the
teachers and the students involved had chances to experience a new form of TEFL.
7. Organization of the remainder of the thesis
The study was developed into three chapters: Literature Review, the Methodology,
and Findings and Discussions. The first chapter presents the theoretical background of the
study as well as reviews the literature in the research area. In the second chapter, there are
descriptions of the research method, participants and the data collection procedures. The
findings and discussions, as well as some pedagogical suggestions are mentioned in the
third chapter. After all, a summary of findings and discussions, limitations of the study,
and suggestions for further studies are presented to conclude the thesis. The list of
references and appendices are also displayed.

13
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
The chapter contains two main sections. The first section presents the theoretical
background for the study with the definitions of team teaching, NEST and non-NEST, and
basic knowledge about teaching evaluation and characteristics of effective team teaching.
The second reviews the literature on the evaluation of team teaching between NESTs and
non-NESTs. After that, some considerations are presented to stress the significance of the
study.
1.1. Key terms and key concepts
1.1.1. Defining team teaching
Team teaching is achieved by two or more teachers sharing the responsibility and
instruction to the same students at the same time (Vaughn, Schumm, & Arguelles, 1997).
The heart of team teaching is not in details of the structure and organization but more in
the essential spirit of cooperative planning, constant collaboration, close unity,
unrestrained communication, and sincere sharing. Bailey, Curtis and Nunan (2001) pointed
out that team teaching is not only teaching together. They identified three phases of team
teaching: pre-instructional planning, instructional in-class teamwork, and post-instructional
follow-up work. The term „team teaching’ should not be mistaken for „co-teaching‟. Co-
teaching occurs when two or more educators co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess a group of
students with diverse needs in the same general education. Team teaching is just one model
of co-teaching, exactly the highest level of co-teaching.
There are six main models of team teaching as follows: traditional team teaching,
collaborative teaching, complimentary or supportive team teaching, parallel instruction,
differentiated split class, and monitoring teacher (Robinson & Schaible, 1995). By chance,
the team teaching in the study was the combination of the first three models. In traditional
team teaching, the teaming teachers actively share the instruction of contents and skills to

all students. In collaborative teaching, the teachers work together in designing the course
and teach the materials not by the usual monologue, but rather by exchanging and
discussing ideas and theories in front of the learners who often work in pairs or groups.

14
The complimentary or supportive team teaching occurs when one teacher is responsible for
teaching the content to the students and the other is in charge of providing follow-up
activities.
1.1.2. Defining NEST and non-NEST
As the concept of native and non-native speakers has not yet reached an agreement
(Kachru, 1985; Kramsch, 1999; Medgyes, 2001), this research adopted one of the latest
definitions by Medgyes (2001).
A NEST (Native English-speaking teacher) is a teacher who speaks English as a
native language, works in an environment with English language as a foreign language
(EFL); whose students are monolingual; and does not speak the same native language as
his or her students. The teaming teacher of the study, a New Zealander, is a NEST.
A Non-NEST (Non-native English-speaking teacher) is a teacher who speaks
English as a second or foreign language, works in an EFL environment; whose students are
monolingual, and speaks the same native language as his or her students. The non-NEST of
the study is a VTE.
1.1.3. Teaching evaluation
According to Fleischman and Williams (1996), the process of teaching evaluation
involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information about teaching and learning in
order to measure the effectiveness of teaching. The evaluation can focus on different
aspects of teaching and learning to motivate modification in teaching through reflective
practice.
The principles of teaching evaluation recently suggested by the Center for Research
on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan are useful references. Firstly, the use of
multiple methods involving multiple sources of data is highly recommended. Next, the
criteria for effective teaching should be determined before the criteria for teaching

evaluation. The teachers should be involved in the process of making evaluation criteria.
Finally, teaching evaluation systems should be flexible to accommodate diversity in
instructional methods. Effective teaching evaluation must be individualized or localized.
This principle was supported by Naoki Fujimoto, Tokyo University of Science, Suwa, in
his journal „Localizing Team-Teaching Research’ for Asian EFL Journal.

15
In the study „Improving College Teaching’ for Instructional Development Program,
University of Oklahoma in 1999, Peter Seldin suggested popular sources of data for
teaching evaluation including students, teacher‟s self-reflection, observers, and videos.
Students, the best source for understanding the immediate effects of teaching, can provide
informal assessment via questionnaires or interviews - two distinct ways of obtaining
information from students. However, Sedin warned that although they know better than
anyone what their own reactions are, they may be biased and limited in their own
perspectives in teaching evaluation. Besides, teachers‟ self-reflections are informative; the
teachers do have their own sense of what happens since they directly participate in the
situation – they themselves create the situation. However, the lack of objectivity and
misreading students‟ responses are potential drawbacks. Data obtained from observations
of a third party, bringing both an outsider‟s perspective and professional expertise to the
evaluation, are also valuable. Teaching can be evaluated by colleagues (peer-evaluation),
or by instructional specialists through discussions based on observations as well as the
review of course materials, syllabus, instructional contributions, and student performance.
Seldin also highly recommended the use of video recordings of the lessons for evaluating
teaching thanks to its characteristic of giving evaluators totally objective information.
There is not a standard system for teaching evaluation under all circumstances.
Therefore, evaluators develop their own evaluation criteria based on their own purposes of
evaluation and specific setting of EFL teaching and learning. Generally, the assessment of
the quality of classroom instruction and learners‟ achievement are the central elements of
teaching evaluation. The classroom performance can be assessed based on the following
criteria applied at FOT:

1. Clear explanation of the objectives for the lesson;
2. Good instruction for group interaction and individual student interaction, and
encouragement of class discussions;
3. Good relations with students;
4. Reasonable board presentation, clear handwriting, and suitable voice projection;
5. Appropriate use of teaching equipments to the lesson;
6. Precise, systematic, and adequate contents and content presentation;
7. Good combination of teaching methods.


16
1.1.4. Characteristics of effective team teaching
An effective team teaching identifies a range of characteristics related to
effectiveness of the lesson and the teachers‟ professional development.
Here are the criteria for lesson evaluation generalized by Ur (1996) after consulting
a number of EFL teachers:
1. The learners were active all the time.
2. The learners were attentive all the time.
3. The learners enjoyed the lesson, were motivated.
4. The class seemed to be learning the material well.
5. The lesson went according to plan.
6. The language was used communicatively throughout.
7. The learners were engaging with the foreign language throughout.
In the other words, an effective lesson often involves the above features. Moreover,
there must be the recognition of learners‟ educational progress since the most important
objective of teaching is always to improve learners‟ competences.
In addition, distinctively, effectiveness of a team-taught lesson relies on the
collaboration of teaming teachers in not only presenting but also planning, processing, and
problem solving (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1993; Smylie, 1995; Knezevic & Scholl, 1996).
Goetz (2000) reinforced the decisive contribution of planning, which involves teaming

teachers‟ discussions over goals of the course, learners‟ needs, roles of each teacher,
modifications of teaching materials and teaching contents, to the success of team-taught
lessons. In terms of leadership, there must be the parity among participants, which makes
team teaching different from the other kinds of co-teaching. Furthermore, teaming teachers
have to cooperate in classroom management – one of key components of team teaching
(Gatelys, 1999). With different philosophies and beliefs, they need to establish a set of
guidelines and strictly follow them; which is sensitive, easily causing the breakup of the
team or trouble in the student-teacher relations. With the sense of trust and collegiality,
they help each other to expose the individual strengths and limit each other‟s weaknesses.
Actually, team teaching between two teachers with different characteristics is more
beneficial when the differences are harmoniously combined.

17
The collaboration of teachers can be measured by both their verbal and non-verbal
communication, especially in the classroom (Goetz, 2000). A good team often has its set of
signals or post signs for quick communication without distracting learners. With the team
of a NEST and a non-NEST, this factor is important since it is not only the essential factor
for smoothness of the lesson, but also the model of international interactions between
native English speakers and non-native English speakers.
Effective team teaching requires teachers to be flexible, reflective, and active. They
move in and out, facilitatng groups of students. They have a range of different experiences
and strategies available to support their diverse learners.
Benoit and Haugh (2001) attached effective team teaching with the teaming
teachers‟ professional development before, during, and after class – that is during the
processes of planning, teaching, and evaluating (Head & Taylor, 1997; McLaughlin, 1997;
King & Newmann, 2000; Kwakman, 2003). The professional competence of each teacher
is developed because teachers‟ collaborative work includes exchanges of new ideas and
information, also promotes supportive dialogues and interactions among colleagues. Team
teaching is meaningful for not only experienced teachers to change their norms of practice
and pedagogy but also inexperienced ones to upgrade their teaching competence,

contacting different teachers with different views of teaching or similar experiences of
difficulties. In TEFL setting, the ensured professional development for teaming teachers is
the factor mostly considered for conducting team-taught lessons.
1.2. Studies on evaluation of team teaching of NESTs and non-NESTs
The spread of team teaching in East Asia‟s TEFL context has called for the
researchers‟ attention and consideration (Benoit & Haugh, 2001). Experience of the
countries with the similar EFL contexts with Vietnam is valuable. Therefore, the researcher
of this study focused on reviewing studies related to the evaluation of team teaching
between NESTs and non-NESTs in Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong, which scored the high
points with the model of team teaching, in order to provide the solid background for her
study. The literature reports the debates around three big schemes including the Japan
Exchange and Teaching program (JET); the English Program in Korea (EPIK); and
Primary School English Development (PSED) in Hong Kong.

18
1.2.1. The JET
In the context of East Asia‟s TEFL, team teaching in Japan has the longest history
and the largest scope with the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) scheme established in
1987. In the JET, team teaching jointly by a Japanese teacher of English (JTE) and a NEST
as an assistant English teacher (AET) is offered in English classes with the aim of
improving foreign language education and promoting international exchange. For over
fifteen years of implementation, the JET program – its outcomes and efficiency – has been
evaluated in order to generate pedagogical suggestions for improving the quality of the
team teaching process and its end -products.
Based on a large-scale questionnaire survey about various aspects of team teaching
in Japan, Browne & Wada (1998) reported that the overall response to team teaching was
highly favorable: „the program has clearly had an impact on the JTEs themselves as well
as their confidence level in working together with native speakers – AETs‟. McConnell
(2000) also described the overwhelmingly positive reaction of students to team taught
classes related to the development of conversational English and the break from traditional

teacher-centered instruction. In Koji Igawa‟s survey in 2009, the participants including 74
JTEs and 31 AETs found team teaching positively influential to students‟ cross-cultural
understanding and learning motivation as well as teachers‟ professional expertise.
According to the findings, both JTEs and AETs recognized the importance of planning and
preparation for team teaching. Although a significant number of the participating JTEs and
AETs thought they shared the initiative in team-taught classes, some AETs reported that
they generally took more initiative in team teaching. Regarding student management, JTEs
assumed more responsibility than AETs; about half of the AETs said that their JTE peers
carried more responsibility in class management. About the language use, the JTEs used
both English and Japanese in the lessons; both agreed that students understood only half of
what they said in English. In this study, the JTE‟s proficiency in English is not highly
ranked by either the AET or the JTE group. The comments from the participants
underscore the necessity for language improvement within the realm of professional
development of non-NESTs. Gorsuch (2002) argued that the JET scheme provided JTEs
with a professional development opportunity, helping diversify their instructional practices
and stretching their abilities to communicate in English.

19
Although team-teaching shows many advantages in Japanese English classrooms,
many difficulties have been pointed out in this partnership between a JTL and an AET
(Scholefield, 1996; Gorsuch, 2002). Some the weaknesses of the JET scheme were
explored as follows:
 The scheme is not really about improving English language teaching which reduced
its impact at that level;
 The fact that AETs are largely untrained fresh graduates also reduced the impact of
the program in terms of foreign language education;
 The regulations assigning NESTs as AETS reduced their role in the class and
affected the ensuing impact and effectiveness of the scheme. Also, a limited role for
some AETs created the feeling that they were just a „human tape recorder‟.
In the International TEYL Journal, Basil Tonks (2006) confirmed the fact many

JTEs disliked team teaching. This was because of a lack of team spirit and poor
communication between teaming teachers. In addition, JTEs and AETs seemed to
experience stress because of significant differences in their expectations of each other.
1.2.2. The EPIK
The EPIK (English Program in Korea) scheme was aimed to improve the English
speaking abilities of Korean students and teachers, to develop cultural exchanges, and to
reform methodologies in teaching English through the collaboration between NESTs and
Korean teachers of English. The duties of a NEST in the EPIK are:
 conducting conversational English classes for Korean teachers and students;
 preparing and helping develop teaching materials;
 assisting with activities related to English language education and other extra-
curricular activities;
 assisting and/or jointly conducting English classes with a Korean teacher;
 performing other duties specified by the host provincial officers of education.
(EPIK Orientation – Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education)
Some scholars have questioned the value of the EPIK Scheme. In his research in
2002, David R. Carless noticed a rise of many tensions including cultural conflicts between
NESTs and Korean teachers because of difficulties in co-operation related to time
arrangement, Korean teachers‟ willingness to work with NESTs, or lack of understanding

20
of the rationale and practice of team-teaching. A common reported scenario was that the
NEST planned the lesson independently and taught most of it whilst the Korean teacher
was present to help out with classroom management or communication problems.
On the contrary, when Carless continued his study in 2006, he explored the case of
successful team teaching in the EPIK in Gangwon Province. In this case, the two teachers
met once per week to plan the next week‟s lesson, taking it in turns to bring suitable
materials and trying to integrate the materials with the students‟ regular English lessons.
In class, they tried to share roles equally. The Korean teacher stated that she might
sometimes repeat the NEST‟s instructions in English to support her students, but would not

use Korean during the team-taught lessons. She saw three main advantages of team-
teaching:
 Korean teachers know their students‟ standard so can support NEST in preparing
suitable materials.
 The Korean teacher can develop teaching methods and improve her English
communication skills.
 The presence of the Korean teacher can help maintain disciplines and encourage the
students to take the team-taught lesson seriously.
On the basis of her 6-year experience in the EPIK, she also emphasised the need for
continuity since she was able to learn from her earlier less successful experiences with
team teaching and develop an enhanced understanding of how to co-operate productively
with her NEST counterpart.
1.2.3. The PSED
Primary School English Development (PSED) began in HongKong in 2000. This
governmental project emphasized the idea of partnership between NESTs and local
English teachers (LETs). It involved 40 primary schools in Hong Kong with a team of 20
NESTs and 20 LETs, team teaching in classrooms and working in school-based
professional development activities. According to Mr Trevor Higginbottom, PSED Project
Manager, the PSED‟s aims are threefold:
 to develop innovative models of good practice in the teaching and learning of
English;
 to develop students‟ interest and confidence in learning English;

21
 to promote the professional development of all participants.
Carless (2006) explored the following positive features of the project:
 healthy collaboration through genuine team teaching between NESTs and local
English teachers;
 development of greater motivation, confidence and risk-taking amongst primary
pupils;

 professional development amongst all participants.
In the interview with Carless in 2006, the PSED Project Manager said, „all parties
have to feel that they are working in an atmosphere of mutual professional trust and
respect … the NEST can’t operate successfully without the support of the LETs.‟
The studies about three schemes involving team teaching of NESTs and non-
NESTs in Asia show that this model has useful potentials in harnessing teaming teachers‟
strengths, but is challenging in view of the sensitivity and personal qualities required.
Consequently, despite the long and widespread experience with team teaching, many
teaming teachers, both NESTs and non-NESTs, have viewed team teaching in a negative
light. In general, the collaboration between NESTs and non-NESTs gave more benefits
than drawbacks. Moreover, the factors causing its limitations can be controlled with the
appropriate attention and management.
The evaluation of team teaching of NESTs and non-NESTs in the previous or
existing programs are persuasive and reliable. Those studies, both qualitative and
quantitative ones, gave the researcher a thorough look into the literature of her research
area.
The present study was hypothesized to get the similar results. However, because
there are many factors affecting the process of team teaching, the distinguishing context of
the faculty - most of the previous studies were about team teaching at school, not at
university like in the context of the study - certainly resulted in different findings to some
extent. In addition, the previous researchers either used large-scale quantitative surveys or
generally reported the interaction between the NEST and the non-NEST of a pair, making
it difficult to understand localized problems that are often best revealed through small-
scale, qualitative studies. Next, the data were collected mostly via teachers or observers.
Teachers or experts, who have sufficient knowledge and qualifications to judge whether a

22
lesson is good or bad, used to be considered the appropriate source of information. This
belief has been objected because the learners must have right to make the assessment.
Teaching and learning are united processes and the most important objective of teaching is

to support the learning. Definitely, the learners have solid rights to give their opinions on
teachers‟ teaching. Nowadays, along with the development of Learner-centered Approach
and Communicative Approach, the learners are more active in their learning; they concern
and have good awareness of what related to their study. Filling in the gap in the literature,
the study was based on a small-scale research about team teaching of a NEST and a non-
NEST at a faculty of a university and the evaluations were from both teachers and learners.

23
CHAPTER 2: THE METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, there is the investigation into the setting of the study and its
participants, also the description of research tools and data collection procedure. Mix-
methods approach of the study is shown in details.
2.1. Setting of the study
The study was conducted in the English course 2B, the fourth basic English course
of the first-year students at FOT. The course was aimed to develop students‟ language
competence in speaking, listening, reading, and writing; also to improve students‟
pronunciation and vocabulary for tourism field at the basic level so that they can
communicate fluently in everyday situations and some simple professional ones. There is a
particular emphasis on speaking and listening to help students develop their
communication skills. The course covered five last units of the course book Book 2
compiled by FOT‟s English Department for ten days of study – four 55-minute periods per
day. In addition, teacher‟s supplements are given to provide authentic materials and a
variety of interesting and enjoyable activities in order to motivate students in study as well
as help them approach English in real life.
2.2. The participants of the study
The research was aimed to evaluate the pilot team teaching of a NEST and a VTE
based on the reflections of both the teachers and the learners; hence, there were two groups
of participants. Both groups showed their high spirit of cooperation during the study.
2.2.1. Teachers
The first group included one female New Zealander teacher of English (NEST) and
one female Vietnamese teacher of English (non-NEST or VTE).

Even though she majored in physical education, the NEST has her certificate and
10-year experience of teaching English in New Zealand. She has been working at FOT for
two years, teaching English, making lesson plans, participating in the professional
meetings and social gatherings of English Department. She still looks young and dynamic
in her early sixties and remains good relationship with her colleagues at FOT. Being a
responsible and caring teacher with good knowledge about English language and teaching

24
methodology, she is loved by most students at FOT. The only problem is her dialect, which
students find difficult to understand, sometimes, with her pronouncing /i/ instead /e/.
Actually, it is FOT‟s policy in English training that students should contact different
teachers of different teaching styles, personalities, and English dialects so that they can
deal with different kinds of customers in their future job.
The VTE, in her twenties, is an enthusiastic teacher of 3-year experience. The
graduate from English Faculty, Hanoi National University of Education manages quite
good language competences, communication skills, and pedagogical theories. However,
her pronunciation needs improving with some sounds like /z/ or /dʒ/ and intonation.
Lacking teaching experience and professional knowledge for tourism field, she often
observes the classes of her senior colleagues as well as takes part in the workshops and
training courses of tourism and English for tourism. She also helps her senior colleagues
with English courses 1A, 1B, and 2A at FOT, mostly contacting first year students;
therefore, she has close relationships with the second group of the study. In addition, she
has good relationships with foreign teachers at FOT since she is assigned to support their
teaching at FOT.
The teachers were selected for the study because of not only their availability but
also their regular interactions and rapport. They have good personal and professional
relationship. They often discussed over the teaching and learning at the faculty and helped
each other with problems. In fact, they have been working as co-teachers outside the
classroom.
2.2.2. Students

The second group of participants is one English class of 30 first year students
majoring in tour guiding and management, aging from 18 – 20. That class was selected
randomly at the end of the first school year – that is they had finished three basic English
courses with both NESTs and VTEs separately. Even though the students all passed the
university entrance exam with English as one of three exam subjects, they have different
personal and educational backgrounds. Their English levels rank from pre-intermediate to
upper-intermediate. After three English courses, they are used to ways of learning English
at FOT and gradually developing their self-study habit. In general, the students have good

25
learning attitude according to the feedbacks of the previous teachers and are highly
motivated in learning English with the awareness of the importance of English in their
future career. They expected to improve their communication skills, speaking, and
listening skills as well as pronunciation with the English lessons. They all had no
experience of team-taught lessons of NESTs and non-NESTs.
2.3. Data collection instruments
As mentioned in the literature review, the sources of data for teaching evaluation
are often amongst students, teacher‟s self-reflection, observers, and videos. All these data
sources were exploited with appropriate modification in the study via three main
instruments including questionnaire, teaching diary, and informal interview.
2.3.1. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was used for collecting students‟ reflections on the pilot team
teaching because this is the best way to get the responses from the whole class. The
questionnaire was composed of six parts. In details, the first 5 parts were about students‟
involvement in the four team-taught lessons (Part 1), their evaluation of team-taught
lessons (Part 2), their reflections on the collaboration of the NEST and the VTE (Part 3),
their educational progresses during team-taught lessons (Part 4), and their feedbacks on
team teaching‟s negative impacts (Part 5). The first five parts‟ items were designed in a
selected-response format where respondents were asked to select one response from a five-
point Likert scale: “strongly disagree (SD) (1)”, “disagree (DA) (2)”, “neither disagree or

agree (NDA) (3)”, “agree (A) (4)”, and “strongly agree (SA) (5)”. The items using 5-point
Likert scale were favorable because it was easier and more convenient for the students,
who may be aware of team teaching, but still confused about giving their opinions to
evaluate team teaching without background knowledge about teaching evaluation. The
students gave their extra ideas related to all the contents of Part 1 to Part 5 with an open-
ended question in Part 6, which also included a multiple-choice question about students‟
preferable model of teaching.
The contents of the question items were designed based on the theoretical
knowledge about teaching evaluation, characteristics of effective team teaching, then
modified during the period of four pilot lessons to suit the objectives of research. The

26
video records of the team-taught lessons were offered to students as the supplements for
their responses to the questionnaire.
2.3.2. Teaching diary
The second instrument, teaching diary, required much cooperation from the
teaming teachers. The teachers were asked to remain a teaching diary, in which they noted
down all information related to their team teaching including the preparation, lesson
instruction, assessment, and teaching evaluation. The teachers both self- reflected their
work and that of their partner. They were there together, teaching and observing each
other. References related to team teaching and teaching evaluation were supplied to guide
the teachers‟ reflections.
2.3.3. Informal interview
This research instrument supported two above data collection instruments. In the
other words, the researcher used this tool to clarify her findings with the questionnaire and
teaching diaries. The interviews with both teachers and students before, during, and after
the pilot study were conducted without fixed questions. When collecting and analyzing the
data, the researcher contacted the participants through emails, yahoo chats, or discussions
in person for clarifications. This offered participants the chance to expand their responses,
making the information from the questionnaire and teaching diaries more reliable and

profound. The researcher found this source much useful to complete the study.
2.4. Data collection procedure
The study were carried out in the following steps: before, during, and after the pilot
team teaching.
2.4.1. Before the pilot team teaching
Although the data was collected based on the reflections of both teachers and
students on the pilot team teaching in four last lessons of the English course 2B, the
arrangement was done at the beginning of the 10-day course. To create the setting for the
contrastive comparisons of the students and the teachers between the lessons with a NEST
or a VTE separately and their team-taught lessons, two teaming teachers were arranged to

27
teach the class in the course. As assigned, the NEST covered the first three lessons, the
VTE next three lessons, and they team taught the rest – four lessons.
Before the pilot team teaching, two teachers met to discuss the purpose of the pilot
mini-course, teaching contents, learners, and classroom management; and to prepare the
first team-taught lesson. They beforehand got the information related to the study like the
purpose of the study, research questions, and requirements of teaching diaries as well as
references about both team teaching of NESTs and non-NESTs and teaching evaluation.
They were asked to start their diaries early, right at that step of preparation.
The students were explained about the purpose of the study, how the pilot team-
taught lessons would be conducted, also informed about the questionnaire at the end of the
pilot study. They learnt the basic concept of team teaching from the researcher and got
further explanations from their teachers.
2.4.2. During the pilot team teaching
During the pilot team teaching, two teachers arranged their time for planning,
instructing and evaluating each lesson. Generally, they met before each lesson to evaluate
the previous lesson and to discuss teaching contents and their responsibilities in the
following one. The researcher sometimes joined their meeting beside attending all their
team-taught lessons. In the first team-taught lesson, she asked her friend to attend the class,

recording the lesson. However, noticing the influence of this person‟s presence on
students‟ involvement in the lesson, she decided to set the video recorders automatic in
some convenient positions in the classroom. The researcher‟s presence was assumed not to
affect students since they got used to her presence in all lessons from the beginning of the
course, even considered her one member of the class. The researcher continued modifying
the question items for the questionnaire.
2.4.3. After the pilot team teaching
After four lessons, the students were asked to complete the questionnaire. The
students were distributed the questionnaire paper in English and got the researcher‟s
explanations in Vietnamese for ensuring their understanding. They spent 45 minutes on
completing the question items. The students were also informed of the video recordings of
the team-taught lessons available for their considering in their forum. All the further

28
information were also welcome. The researcher and the participants might contact in
person at school or via the forum of the faculty and other ways.
The teacher handed in their diaries one day after. The video recordings of the team-
taught lessons were also available for them. They kept in touch with the researcher for
further discussions on the content of the research. Most of the informal interviews occurred
afterward.

29
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The chapter presents findings from questionnaire, teaching diaries, and informal
interviews, which serve as answers to the research questions of this study. In addition, the
pedagogical suggestions for further team teaching were offered.
3.1. Findings and discussions
3.1.1. Research question 1: What are the strengths of the team teaching in the pilot
team-taught lessons according to the reflections of the teachers and the learners?
3.1.1.1. The effectiveness of the team-taught lessons
In general, the team-taught lessons were considered effective by the participants as
shown in student questionnaires and teaching diaries as well as personal interviews.
According to the findings from the questionnaire, most of the students were
positively involved in the team-taught lessons.
Table 1: Students’ involvement in team-taught lessons
Degree of agreement
Statements
(Part 1)
SD

DA
NDA
A
SA
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
1. I was active all the time.
0
0
7
23
0
0
22
73
1
4
2. I was attentive all the time.
0
0
5
17

0
0
24
80
1
3
3. I enjoyed the lessons and was motivated.
0
0
2
7
0
0
18
60
10
33
4. I used English to communicate in the
classroom.
1
3
8
27
2
7
16
53
3
10
5. I interacted with classmates and the teachers

naturally.
1
3
3
10
3
10
14
47
9
30
Table 1 shows that 83 % of the class were attentive during the lessons. The students
admitted that it was normally so difficult for them to remain their concentration during four
55-minute periods each day of English study. During the pilot study, they felt interested in
the lessons; actively participating in the activities „prevent[ed] us from falling asleep or
out of mind’. Most of the students (93%) were motivated. In their teaching diaries, both the
NEST and the VTE presented their surprise at students‟ reactions.

30
„When I teach alone, even though I always try my best to motivate them, some of
them lose their focus on the lesson in the third period, then most fall down in the
last period. What happened this morning? They were really full of energy.‟ (The
NEST)
‘I felt so happy today. My students were wonderful; they were like little kids eager
to learn. Great!’ (The VTE)
The students (63 %) used English for classroom communication. Commonly,
Vietnamese learners tend to use Vietnamese or the combination of English and Vietnamese
in English lessons, even with NESTs only, and of course more often with VTEs in their
classroom. Amazingly, the presence of the VTE in the pilot team-taught lessons did not
encourage the use of the mother tongue. In fact, the VTE mostly used only English in the

communication with her students.
‘They made a lot of mistakes. No problem! They tried to use English. Loc is the
best example for this attitude. Once, [VTE] used Vietnamese to explain the rule of
a game; he responded in English. I appreciated that; how embarrassed whenever
Vietnamese is used. The feeling of a stranger in your classroom! Terrible!’ (The
NEST)
Confidently, the students (77%) kept natural interactions with their classmates and
teachers, mostly in English. Some further shared in Part 6 of the questionnaire:
„I don’t think my English is good. Bad. But when I talk to teachers in English and
they always understand me. So I go ahead. My friends can’t be better than
teachers. I don’t afraid of them’
‘Both teachers used English. Guys around used English. I did, too. At first, it’s
difficult. It was a bit silly for Vietnamese people to talk to each other in English.
Then it became natural. Step by step. With time. Anyway, it’s great when I can use
English.’
Students‟ positive attitudes toward the lessons are explained in details in Table 2.
All the students agreed that the classroom was livelier with the presence of both the NEST
and the VTE. Two teachers with their difference in personalities, cultures, and teaching