A case study of team teaching and team teachers in Korean primary schools
Team teaching has become widespread in Korean EFL classrooms through the
nationwide implementation of the EPIK scheme, the government-sponsored ELT
programme. Despite an ongoing process of policy changes in the EPIK scheme and
English education, there has been little empirical research with a focus on team
teachers and a lack of empirical data regarding classroom interaction where there is
a ‘two teachers in one class’ model and this has not helped in the development of
understanding or supporting team teaching.
This thesis reports on a case study in relation to the team teaching practised by four
pairs of team teachers in four different South Korean primary schools. It provides a
sophisticated data-led understanding of team teaching implementation and insights
into its complexity through descriptive, narrative, reflective and discursive
approaches to representation of the data. The full range of diverse interactions
between team teachers makes it possible to explore the complex features of team
teaching classrooms and to understand the multifaceted nature of the teamteaching
relationships. In particular, the emphasis is put on the actual classroom
discourse spoken by the team teachers, which fills gaps methodologically in terms
of developing understanding of classroom interaction with a two-teachers-oneclass
model. The four pairs of team teachers have varying team teaching styles with
different levels of collaboration and experiences in their contexts. The distinctive
characteristics of their interactional relationships are documented through six
themes: delivering collaborative presentation in team instruction; taking charge of
different skills and content roles; using L1 and L2; providing complementary
support; making decisions and intervention; and partnership talk. In addition, the
interactional relationship between team teachers has multidimensional features in
terms of power, equality, complementarity, interdependence, and collaboration in
contrived collegiality. In addition, the key factors underlying their interactional
relationships are identified as professional (personal), pedagogic (team), and
interpersonal factors.