Collaboration and Shared Responsibility in Team Teaching: A Large-Scale Survey Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While the research goals (RG) are stated, the specific hypotheses that correspond to each research goal are not clearly outlined. To improve the clarity of the research design, it would be beneficial for the authors to explicitly state the specific hypotheses that align with each research goal (RG). This would help readers understand the expected outcomes and the direction of the study more clearly.

It appears that the conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article. The authors have conducted empirical research and have provided clear presentations of their findings, including statistical analyses, data interpretations, and discussions.

The conclusions seem to be coherent and balanced, and they align with the research objectives and theoretical framework. Additionally, the authors have discussed the implications of their findings in the broader context of team teaching and have identified areas for further research.

Overall, the article seems to be adequately referenced, and the conclusions are well-supported by the results presented in the article as well as the referenced secondary literature.

Based on the complete text provided, it is challenging to determine definitively whether the article is entirely original or not, and it is challenging to assess the specific contribution of the article to scholarship. The information provided primarily focuses on the methodology, results, and discussion of the research, but there is no direct mention of the originality of the article in terms of unique contributions or innovative findings.

Quality of Structure and Clarity: The structure of the article is adequate, with clearly defined sections such as introduction, theoretical background, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. However, some sections could benefit from improved clarity by presenting the information in a more organized and concise manner.

Logical Coherence/Strength of Argument: Overall, the article exhibits logical coherence and a strong argument. The research questions are addressed, and the results and analysis support the conclusions. However, some points could benefit from further explanation and justification to strengthen the argument.

Engagement with Sources and Recent Scholarship: The article demonstrates engagement with sources and relevant literature by citing appropriate references and using previous studies to support the theoretical framework and findings. However, there could be more inclusion of recent studies to ensure the article aligns with current advancements in the research field.

In summary, the article presents an adequate structure and logical coherence in its argument. However, the authors could explicitly highlight the originality of the work and consider incorporating more recent studies to further support the conclusions. Additionally, enhancing clarity and organization in some sections would improve the overall readability and comprehension of the article.

The overall merit of the research appears to be moderate to good. The article has several strengths, including a well-defined research design, clear presentation of results, and engagement with relevant sources. However, there are also areas that could be improved, such as the explicit discussion of the article's originality, incorporation of more recent literature, and clarity in certain sections.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: While the research goals (RG) are stated, the specific hypotheses that correspond to each research goal are not clearly outlined. To improve the clarity of the research design, it would be beneficial for the authors to explicitly state the specific hypotheses that align with each research goal (RG). This would help readers understand the expected outcomes and the direction of the study more clearly.

 

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable feedback. Indeed, we did not formulate hypotheses for the three research goals. In response to your feedback, we would like to explain why this is not the case and how we addressed this.

No explicit hypothesis was formulated for the first research goal (RG1: Development of an instrument to capture collaboration and shared responsibility in team teaching), because the nature of this research goal does not lend itself to a hypothesis. Thus, the absence of a hypothesis stems from the inherent impossibility of generating one within the context of this particular research goal. However, to respond to the feedback, we added the following to the revised manuscript: “It is hypothesized that it is possible to develop such an instrument.”

Within the context of the second and third research goal, it is important to emphasize that there is limited empirical evidence that provides insight into the degree of collaboration and shared responsibility within team teaching practices.

However, specifically for the second research goal (RG2: Providing empirical evidence on collaboration and shared responsibility in the practice of team teaching), the following is stated in the revised manuscript: “Presumably, high levels of collaboration and shared responsibility will be assessed, due to the inherent nature of team teaching.”

And also for the third and last research goal (RG3: Investigating whether differences exist between groups of teachers regarding important dimensions of the practice of team teaching) some more context has been provided in our revised manuscript: “Following Author [20], it is assumed that the degree of collaboration and shared responsibility depends on the practice of team teaching. However, there is no empirical research that demonstrates in what ways this occurs. This study aims to fill this research gap and thus contribute to increasing knowledge in this area. In addition, the study provides valuable insights that can inform practice and policy regarding team teaching.”

 

Point 2: It appears that the conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article. The authors have conducted empirical research and have provided clear presentations of their findings, including statistical analyses, data interpretations, and discussions.

 

Response 2: We appreciate your positive feedback on our manuscript. The recognition of the alignment between our conclusions and the results presented are very encouraging. We are pleased that our efforts to conduct empirical research and ensure the clarity of our findings, including statistical analyses, data interpretations, and discussions, have met the standards set for this study.

 

Point 3: The conclusions seem to be coherent and balanced, and they align with the research objectives and theoretical framework. Additionally, the authors have discussed the implications of their findings in the broader context of team teaching and have identified areas for further research.

 

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate your feedback on our manuscript. Your evaluation of our conclusions is greatly appreciated, and we are pleased to hear that you found them to be coherent, balanced, and in line with our research objectives and theoretical framework. Thank you for recognizing the efforts we have put into discussing the implications of our findings within the broader context of team teaching.

 

Point 4: Overall, the article seems to be adequately referenced, and the conclusions are well-supported by the results presented in the article as well as the referenced secondary literature.

 

Response 4: Thank you for this positive feedback.

 

Point 5: Based on the complete text provided, it is challenging to determine definitively whether the article is entirely original or not, and it is challenging to assess the specific contribution of the article to scholarship. The information provided primarily focuses on the methodology, results, and discussion of the research, but there is no direct mention of the originality of the article in terms of unique contributions or innovative findings.

 

Response 5: In response to your comments, we have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript to emphasize the distinctive aspects of this study.

More specifically we have made  more explicit (in bold) in the introduction what the added value is: “However, to date, there exists no appropriate measurement instrument that capturesimportant dimensions of the practice of team teaching. Therefore, this study attempts to contribute to the research base on team teaching by developing an instrument to assess important dimensions of the practice of team teaching (i.e., collaboration and shared responsibility). By pioneering the development of such an instrument, this study aims to fill an existing gap. Additionally, this study aims to investigate whether differences exist between groups of teachers regarding these important dimensions. It thus goes beyond instrument development and also advances research on collaborative learning environments. In this way, it not only fills a gap in research but also reveals valuable insights that can foster more effective team teaching practices.”

Furthermore, we expanded the discussion section (in bold), highlighting the added value of this study: “The CSTT scale makes it therefore possible to assess collaboration and shared responsibility as two important dimensions of the team teaching practice. The development of the CSTT scale represents an advancement in the ability to assess and understand the subtleties of the team teaching practice. This scale serves as a specific tool to systematically assess the multifaceted aspects of collaboration and shared responsibility, two crucial dimensions that define the effectiveness of team teaching. In short, the CSTT scale serves as a lens through which it is possible to identify strengths as well as areas for improvement within the practice of team teaching. Its development enriches the toolkit available to both researchers and teachers. As a result, this study fills a gap in research and also enables teachers to develop more effective practices of team teaching.”

 

Point 6: Quality of Structure and Clarity: The structure of the article is adequate, with clearly defined sections such as introduction, theoretical background, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. However, some sections could benefit from improved clarity by presenting the information in a more organized and concise manner.

 

Response 6: We thank you for your feedback on the structure and clarity of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that the overall structure is up to standards. Furthermore, we acknowledge your comment that there is room for improvement in terms of presenting the information with enhanced organization and conciseness. We revised some of the sections to ensure that the information is presented in a more streamlined and coherent manner, facilitating a smoother understanding of the content (please see revised version of the manuscript).

 

Point 7: Logical Coherence/Strength of Argument: Overall, the article exhibits logical coherence and a strong argument. The research questions are addressed, and the results and analysis support the conclusions. However, some points could benefit from further explanation and justification to strengthen the argument.

 

Response 7: Thank you for this positive comment on the alignment of our research questions with their corresponding discussions of results and conclusions. In response to your feedback, we have revisited some sections and took steps to provide more comprehensive explanations and justifications that enhance the rigor and persuasiveness of our manuscript.

In the discussion section, for example, we have added some further explanation (in bold) of the high results for collaboration and shared responsibility: “The results show that teachers with team teaching experience report a high degree of collaboration, and a high degree of shared responsibility. This means that teachers can count on each other for questions and concerns and give each other emotional and professional support. They mutually trust and respect each other, are open to reflection, and give each other feedback. It also implies that teachers are both responsible for the course or courses, and for their students’ learning outcomes, well-being and motivation.”

Additionally, we added some more justification (in bold) to strengthen this argument in the discussion section: “The models of team teaching represent the ways in which team teaching is established in the classroom (e.g., observation model, parallel model, teaming model). For instance, the observation model would imply a lower level of collaboration and shared responsibility, compared to the teaming model [20]. In the observation model, one teacher observes while the other teacher teaches the course. The focus of the observation is on the students.”

 

Point 8: Engagement with Sources and Recent Scholarship: The article demonstrates engagement with sources and relevant literature by citing appropriate references and using previous studies to support the theoretical framework and findings. However, there could be more inclusion of recent studies to ensure the article aligns with current advancements in the research field.

 

Response 8: Thank you for your positive feedback on our manuscript's engagement with sources and recent scholarship. It is nice to note that our efforts to include appropriate references and draw on prior research to support our theoretical framework and findings have been acknowledged. In response to your feedback, we have thoroughly reassessed the reference selection and integrated recent studies. We have added the following references:

 

• Berry, A.B., Understanding Shared Responsibility Between Special and General Education Teachers in the Rural Classroom. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 2021. 40(2): p. 95-105.
• Honigsfeld, A. and M. Dove, Preparing Teachers for Co-Teaching and Collaboration, in The Handbook of TESOL in K‐12, L. de Oliveira, Editor. 2019, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p. 405-421.
• Jang, J., H. Yoo, and K. Rubadeau, How teacher collaboration profiles connect to literacy instructional practices: evidence from PISA 2018 outcomes for Korea. International Journal of Educational Research, 2022. 114.
• Ó Murchú, F. and P. Conway, (Re)positioning team teaching: The visibility and viability of learning in classrooms. Education Research and Perspectives, 2017. 44: p. 43-69.

 

Point 9: In summary, the article presents an adequate structure and logical coherence in its argument. However, the authors could explicitly highlight the originality of the work and consider incorporating more recent studies to further support the conclusions. Additionally, enhancing clarity and organization in some sections would improve the overall readability and comprehension of the article.

 

Response 9: We thank you for your overall evaluation of our manuscript. We acknowledge your comment on the need to explicitly emphasize the originality of our research. The adjustments made in the revised manuscript are described in detail at point 5.

Furthermore, we appreciate your suggestion to incorporate more recent studies to bolster the foundations of our conclusions. The adjustments made in the revised manuscript are described in detail at point 8.

 

Point 10: The overall merit of the research appears to be moderate to good. The article has several strengths, including a well-defined research design, clear presentation of results, and engagement with relevant sources. However, there are also areas that could be improved, such as the explicit discussion of the article's originality, incorporation of more recent literature, and clarity in certain sections.

 

Response 10: We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. We recognize your points of improvement and have tried to respond to them to the maximum extent possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is a contribution to the field of general education. The authors developed a CSTT scale to measure two essential dimensions of team teaching: collaboration and shared responsibility among teachers.

The paper could be improved in the following areas:

1. Methods: More clarity is needed about how the survey was conducted. Specifically, provide information on participant selection, the response rate, and how the data were cleaned.
2. Validity and Reliability of the CSTT scale: While the authors mention developing the CSTT scale, validating this scale needs to be more detailed. Information on how Reliability was ensured would add value. How can other researchers reuse this scale in different cultures, contexts, and countries?
3. Discussion: The authors should improve this section by comparing findings with previous studies/references, discussing the practical implications, and suggestingg future research directions. Suggest adding and discussing more references from relevant domains, e.g., https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705211015681 and https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020089
4. Language and Style: The paper would benefit from thorough proofreading to correct minor grammatical errors and improve readability.
5. Tables and Graphs: Incorporate more visual data presentations to support the narrative. 

na

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Methods: More clarity is needed about how the survey was conducted. Specifically, provide information on participant selection, the response rate, and how the data were cleaned.

 

Response 1: We thank you for your insightful feedback on the method section. In response to your feedback, we made the necessary revisions to give more information on the highlighted parts (i.e., participation selection, response rate, and data cleaning). With regard to the participation selection we have rewritten it (in bold) as follows:: “A total of 555 participants in 86 Flemish (the Dutch speaking part of Belgium) schools have completed the survey. The survey was conducted from March 2022 to June 2022. Data were collected by a convenience sample procedure. All Flemish schools, encompassing preschool, primary, secondary, and adult education, were contacted by e-mail with information about the purpose and the design of the study and asked to participate. In schools that agreed to participate in the study, the survey was administered to all teachers with team teaching experience. Teachers who indicated that they never engaged in team teaching during a course were not included in this study. The online platform Qualtrics was used and informed consent was obtained from all participants.”

Regarding the response rate, due to the sampling method used (i.e., a nationwide call to schools), it is impossible to calculate the correct response rate. As such, the customary formula for calculating a response rate, which is often derived from more controlled sampling methods, is not directly applicable to our study. Our aim was to reach as much Flemish team teachers as possible. However, this approach introduces complexities in quantifying the exact ratio of responses to invitations. While a traditional response rate is not possible in this context, we want to provide transparent and relevant information about our methodology, and more specifically, about our participants.

In addressing the data cleaning process, a notable enhancement has been incorporated into the revised manuscript to provide a clearer understanding of the steps taken to ensure the quality and integrity of the collected data. Specifically, we have included the following statement: “The data was subjected to a rigorous cleaning process within the R statistical environment. Cases in which participants were missing data for the collaboration dimension (11 items) and the shared responsibility dimension (8 items) were identified and subsequently excluded from the analysis. This resulted in the removal of 101 participants from the analyses.”

 

Point 2: Validity and Reliability of the CSTT scale: While the authors mention developing the CSTT scale, validating this scale needs to be more detailed. Information on how Reliability was ensured would add value. How can other researchers reuse this scale in different cultures, contexts, and countries?

 

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the validity and reliability of the CSTT scale. In the methodology section, we already provided a detailed account of the steps taken to develop the CSTT scale. This includes the initial item generation process for the preliminary version, the expert review (for content validation), the pilot study (for content validation), and the validation (for construct validition) and reliability study (for internal consistency reliability). Indeed, we acknowledge the importance of providing a thorough understanding of the potential cross-cultural applicability. This was touched on briefly in the last paragraph of the discussion section, but we have expanded it (in bold) in the revised version of our manuscript: “Third, although the sample met all criteria required to develop the questionnaire, it solely consists of Flemish schools. This limits our claims to the generalisability of the questionnaire and the results to other contexts. Therefore, future research is encouraged to translate, adapt and validate the CSTT scale in other educational settings. Moreover, the translation of the CSTT scale into different languages and its validation in different contexts will offer opportunities for additional and comparative research on the practice of team teaching in other regions and contexts. To facilitate this, the original Dutch version and an English translation are included as Appendix. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted. To adapt and use this scale in different cultures, contexts, and countries, researchers are advised to adopt a systematic process that takes into account both linguistic and cultural nuances. This procedure requires an extensive reiteration of the previously completed steps of this study, carefully considering linguistic and cultural nuances. Initially, the scale should be translated so that the essence of its constituent items is preserved. Next, pilot and/or expert testing is crucial to uncover possible language or comprehension problems. Finally,

psychometric assessments must be conducted to determine the reliability and validity of the adapted scale.”

 

Point 3: Discussion: The authors should improve this section by comparing findings with previous studies/references, discussing the practical implications, and suggestingg future research directions. Suggest adding and discussing more references from relevant domains, e.g., https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705211015681 and https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020089

 

Response 3: We appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript and your constructive feedback on the discussion section. We fully understand the importance of contextualizing our findings within the existing literature, discussing practical implications, and providing suggestions for future research.

In response to your suggestions, we have expanded the discussion section (in bold), highlighting the added value of this study: “The CSTT scale makes it therefore possible to assess collaboration and shared responsibility as two important dimensions of the team teaching practice. The development of the CSTT scale represents an advancement in the ability to assess and understand the subtleties of the team teaching practice. This scale serves as a specific tool to systematically assess the multifaceted aspects of collaboration and shared responsibility, two crucial dimensions that define the effectiveness of team teaching. In short, the CSTT scale serves as a lens through which it is possible to identify strengths as well as areas for improvement within the practice of team teaching. Its development enriches the toolkit available to both researchers and teachers. As a result, this study fills a gap in research and also enables teachers to develop more effective practices of team teaching.”

Additionally, we have added some further explanation (in bold) to the high results for collaboration and shared responsibility: “The results show that teachers with team teaching experience report a high degree of collaboration, and a high degree of shared responsibility. This means that teachers can rely on each other for questions and concerns and give each other emotional and professional support. They mutually trust and respect each other, are open to reflection, and provide each other feedback. It also implies that teachers are both responsible for the course or courses, and for their students’ learning outcomes, well-being and motivation.”

We further placed the findings in a broader context (in bold). In order to do so, we used the reference you suggested (i.e., https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705211015681). “Next, first empirical insight into the practice of team teaching was provided. The results show that teachers with team teaching experience report a high degree of collaboration, and a high degree of shared responsibility. Previous research agrees that collaboration and shared responsibility can have a major impact on both teachers and students. For instance, the review study of Vangrieken, Dochy [4] shows that although achieving teacher collaboration proves challenging, it has many benefits for teachers and students, but also for the school. A recent study by Berry [78] indicates that a shared sense of responsibility for the education of students with disabilities can have positive effects on both teachers and students.”

We have also thoroughly reassessed the reference selection and integrated recent studies. We have added the following references:

 

• Berry, A.B., Understanding Shared Responsibility Between Special and General Education Teachers in the Rural Classroom. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 2021. 40(2): p. 95-105.
• Honigsfeld, A. and M. Dove, Preparing Teachers for Co-Teaching and Collaboration, in The Handbook of TESOL in K‐12, L. de Oliveira, Editor. 2019, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p. 405-421.
• Jang, J., H. Yoo, and K. Rubadeau, How teacher collaboration profiles connect to literacy instructional practices: evidence from PISA 2018 outcomes for Korea. International Journal of Educational Research, 2022. 114.
• Ó Murchú, F. and P. Conway, (Re)positioning team teaching: The visibility and viability of learning in classrooms. Education Research and Perspectives, 2017. 44: p. 43-69.

 

Point 4: Language and Style: The paper would benefit from thorough proofreading to correct minor grammatical errors and improve readability.

 

Response 4: We appreciate your feedback on the language and style of the paper. We have taken your comments to heart and have revised the manuscript to address the minor grammatical errors and improve readability.

 

Point 5: Tables and Graphs: Incorporate more visual data presentations to support the narrative.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback on the use of visual data presentations in our manuscript. We recognize the importance of incorporating tables and graphs to increase the clarity and impact of our narrative. Since we have already included many tables and figures in our manuscript, we do not clearly see what visual data presentations can still be made. Can you be more specific? Which ones would you still have liked to see?

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article “Collaboration and Shared Responsibility in Team Teaching: A Large-scale Survey Study” has developed a scale of cooperation and shared responsibility in team learning (CSTT).

The scale presented in this research allows us to evaluate two important aspects of the practice of team teaching: cooperation between teachers and the level of responsibility shared by them.

The purpose of this research can be presented in the form of three tasks:

Development of a tool for ensuring cooperation and shared responsibility in team training.

Providing empirical data on cooperation and shared responsibility in the practice of team learning.

Research on whether there are differences between groups of teachers regarding important aspects of the practice of team learning.

The results of the research were empirical data showing generally high scores on both parameters of the study. Further results show that there are no significant differences between the groups based on (a) teaching experience and (b) type of education, both in terms of cooperation and in terms of shared responsibility. However, there are significant differences between groups in terms of (c) the frequency of group learning.

Summing up, we can say that the cost scale presented by the authors is a reliable tool that can be useful as a diagnostic indicator for evaluating teaching practices in a team of teachers.

One of the strengths of this article is scientific originality, which consists in expert evaluation of materials to assess the reliability of the survey content by requesting detailed answers regarding the clarity, relevance and quality of materials.

The relevance of the article is beyond doubt. The practicality and effectiveness of teamwork should not be underestimated, because it almost always allows you to achieve a synergistic effect and realize what cannot be done by an individual specialist. Moreover, when applying this approach, it is necessary to have an understanding of the organization, goal setting, and final result. This work clearly shows the principle of work and the impact of a team approach on learning.

The authors present the results of their experiments in a clear and understandable form, with tables and figures that effectively illustrate the main conclusions.

The purpose and significance of the study are clearly formulated, and the research method is appropriate, since the conclusions drawn on its basis are based on experimental measurements presented in the form of an empirical study and real examples. This is an important aspect of the article, because the examples of experimental data provided by the authors are very interesting. The experimental work is very well explained and contributes a lot to the understanding of the research.

The authors' research is well done, the results are clearly presented. Experimental data confirm the conclusions made by the authors, which makes this work a valuable contribution to this field of education and team training.

There are comments on the design of references. The source of "Authors et al., 2015" is not clear. This is how the products are indicated in references 2,13,15,20 and further down the list. The introduction contains links to articles from references at the end of each sentence. This raises doubts about the correctness. I'm sure the authors will be able to fix it.

I would recommend this article to specialists dealing with this topic, as well as teachers and teachers interested in the effectiveness of student learning.

This article is an original work that can be published in the journal.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: The article “Collaboration and Shared Responsibility in Team Teaching: A Large-scale Survey Study” has developed a scale of cooperation and shared responsibility in team learning (CSTT). The scale presented in this research allows us to evaluate two important aspects of the practice of team teaching: cooperation between teachers and the level of responsibility shared by them. The purpose of this research can be presented in the form of three tasks: (1) Development of a tool for ensuring cooperation and shared responsibility in team training. (2) Providing empirical data on cooperation and shared responsibility in the practice of team learning. (3) Research on whether there are differences between groups of teachers regarding important aspects of the practice of team learning. The results of the research were empirical data showing generally high scores on both parameters of the study. Further results show that there are no significant differences between the groups based on (a) teaching experience and (b) type of education, both in terms of cooperation and in terms of shared responsibility. However, there are significant differences between groups in terms of (c) the frequency of group learning. Summing up, we can say that the cost scale presented by the authors is a reliable tool that can be useful as a diagnostic indicator for evaluating teaching practices in a team of teachers. One of the strengths of this article is scientific originality, which consists in expert evaluation of materials to assess the reliability of the survey content by requesting detailed answers regarding the clarity, relevance and quality of materials. The relevance of the article is beyond doubt. The practicality and effectiveness of teamwork should not be underestimated, because it almost always allows you to achieve a synergistic effect and realize what cannot be done by an individual specialist. Moreover, when applying this approach, it is necessary to have an understanding of the organization, goal setting, and final result. This work clearly shows the principle of work and the impact of a team approach on learning. The authors present the results of their experiments in a clear and understandable form, with tables and figures that effectively illustrate the main conclusions. The purpose and significance of the study are clearly formulated, and the research method is appropriate, since the conclusions drawn on its basis are based on experimental measurements presented in the form of an empirical study and real examples. This is an important aspect of the article, because the examples of experimental data provided by the authors are very interesting. The experimental work is very well explained and contributes a lot to the understanding of the research. The authors' research is well done, the results are clearly presented. Experimental data confirm the conclusions made by the authors, which makes this work a valuable contribution to this field of education and team training. There are comments on the design of references. The source of "Authors et al., 2015" is not clear. This is how the products are indicated in references 2,13,15,20 and further down the list. The introduction contains links to articles from references at the end of each sentence. This raises doubts about the correctness. I'm sure the authors will be able to fix it. I would recommend this article to specialists dealing with this topic, as well as teachers and teachers interested in the effectiveness of student learning. This article is an original work that can be published in the journal.

 

Response 1: We truly appreciate your comprehensive review of our manuscript. We are pleased that as a reviewer you recognize the significance of the CSTT scale, the empirical data on team teaching practices, and its relevance to educational contexts. Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the scientific originality and clarity of presentation of the findings of our empirical research. We appreciate your recommendation of our manuscript to specialists, educators, and those interested in effective student learning.

Finally, thank you for your feedback on the references. We will ensure that they are correct and clear. In response to your feedback we revised all the sources, with a special attention to the source of ‘Authors et al., 2015’. More specifically, we revised this as follows: “Authors [X] recently placed the most common models of team teaching on two con-tinua: collaboration and shared responsibility.”

Additionally, we revised (in bold), as suggested, the introduction section as follows: “Team teaching can be described as two or more teachers in some level of collaboration in the planning, delivery, and/or evaluation of a course or courses [X]. Given its prom-ising character [14], attention for team teaching has increased significantly during the past two decades [15]. This applies to both fundamental research and educational practice [X]. Despite an increased interest in and emphasis on teacher collaboration [16], team teaching has only been studied to a limited extent [17].”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf