Impact of Team Teaching on Student Teachers’ Professional Identity: A Bayesian Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting study to better understand the impact of team teaching (with two models) on the student teacher’s professional identity, composed by six components: teachers’ learning and regulation activities, reflective thinking, teacher efficacy, beliefs about learning and teaching, motivation, and collaborative activities. Finding new forms of taking advantage of internship or professional practices in student teachers and studying ways to create a strong professional identity that recognises teachers as collaborative professionals is extremely interesting.

Just a couple of suggestions from the reader that can help authors improve their manuscript.

In line 39, it is said “team teaching, which includes co-teaching,”. In the literature, it is very common to understand team teaching (sometimes called collaborative teaching) as one of the six forms of co-teaching. Maybe a clarification between both concepts is necessary here. Perhaps, there needs to be some more explanation in the third section, where authors present four models of co-teaching based on Chang’s study, one of them the so-called Teaming model, and the fact that Observation and Assistant teaching models are not always organised in the basis of team teaching (both teachers do not always plan, teach, and evaluate together).

In the first part of the Introduction section, a short explanation about what exactly team teaching with and without support means is needed. In section 3.2 Team teaching with extended support, the need to provide support and feedback is well justified, but they do not explain what exactly it means enough: which actions does it involve and when.

Thanks for your interesting work.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is a very worthwhile project aimed at illuminating the impact of team-teaching on aspects of teacher identity, using an experimental design and sophisticated statistical analysis articulated in fine detail. The authors well explain the gap that the research fills and indeed, the study was well motivated, ultimately yielding useful implications for practice. I appreciated the balance brought to the paper by the thoughtful articulation of multiple limitations.  

Aspects of literature review that could be enhanced:

1) Be a bit more explicit about why teacher identity is an important frame for exploring the professional learning of teachers.

2) Mention an additional study that bolsters the literature that identified non-functional team-teaching, functional team-teaching, and highly functional team-teaching. In fact, I think it would also be helpful to explain the defining qualities or characteristics of each of these types of team-teaching.

3) I would recommend addressing, backed by some literature, "support" or "extended support" as constructs in workplace learning and in teacher education, in particular. I say this because assumedly, in the two conditions explored in the paper, where the focal intervention of "support" was not a feature, one could still argue that support of some kind existed albeit qualitatively distinct and perhaps sub-optimal.

Methodology:

1) Can you say a bit more about the rationale for the choice of team  -teaching sequential model, in addition to your indication that it was yielded from dialogue with the College of Education?

2) Can you explain the support model in terms of why a single two-hour duration was chosen for the intervention and why the intervention was located at the particular point in the team-teaching timeline? Also, is there literature you can reference on that supports the size of the support groups?

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf