Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teamwork — teach me, teach me not: A case study of three Australian preservice teachers

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Explicit training in teaming skills (both preservice and inservice) has been identified as a key means of facilitating the effective functioning of teaching teams (Main, 2007). This case study explored how groupwork tasks within university coursework can prepare preservice education students to work effectively in teaching teams. Three students in their final year of study were primed to the skills that have been identified as necessary for successful team practices. The students then participated in a semi-structured interview about their groupwork experiences at university. Results from this study of preservice teacher education students reflected findings from studies of students’ groupwork experiences in other disciplines (i.e., business). Students reported opportunities to practise teamwork. However, they were not explicitly taught “how” to work effectively together. It was also found that the assessment focus was entirely on the final “product” and not on the group “process”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berge, Z. L. (1998). Differences in teamwork between post-secondary classrooms and the workplace.Education + Training, 40(5), 194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. M. (2002). Get the big picture of teaming. In V. A. Anfara, Jnr (Ed.),The handbook of research in middle level education (pp. 35–72). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callanan, G. A., & Perri, D. F. (2006). Teaching conflict management. Using a scenario-based approach.Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadbourne, R. (2004). A typology of teacher collaboration in middle schools.Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 4(1), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. T. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. A., Blancero, D., Luce, C., & Marron, G. (2001). Teaching work group-task congruence: The fit for performance exercise.Journal of Management Education, 25(5), 531–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice.Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eby, L.T. (1999). The development of an individual-level teamwork expectations measure and the application of a within-group agreement statistic to assess shared expectations for teamwork.Organizational Research Methods, 2, 366–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erb, T. O. (1997). Thirty years of attempting to fathom teaming: Battling potholes and hairpin curves along the way. In T. S. Dickinson & T. O. Erb (Eds.),We gain more than we give. Teaming in middle schools (pp. 19–60). Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erb, T. O., & Dickinson, T. S. (1997). The future of teaming. In T. S. Dickinson & T. O. Erb (Eds.),We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools (pp. 525–540). Columbus, OK: National Middle School Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erb, T. O., & Doda, N. M. (1989).Team organization: Promises-practices and possibilities. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettington, D. R., & Camp, R. R. (2002). Facilitating transfer of skills between group projects and work teams.Journal of Management Education, 26(4), 356–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ference, R., & McDowell, J. (2005). Essential elements of specialized middle level teacher preparation programs.Middle School Journal, 36(3), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowers, N., Mertens, S., & Mulhall, P. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes of teaming.Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000). What makes interdisciplinary teams effective?Middle School Journal, 31(4), 53–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2003).A handbook for teacher and learning in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, J. S. (1995).Innovations in higher education: Collaborative learning and the adult learner. Paper presented at the National University Research Institute, Lifelong Learning Conference, Innovations in Higher Education, Technology and Workplace Literacy.

  • Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teaches’ relations with colleagues.International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 503–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2003).Joining together: Group theory and group skills (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kain, D. L. (1997). Critical incidents in teacher collaboration on interdisciplinary teams.Research in Middle Level Education, 21(1), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kain, D. L. (1999). We all fall down: Boundary relations for teams.Middle School Journal, 30(3), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kain, D. L. (2001). Our turn? Teaming and the professional development of teachers. In T. S. Dickinson (Ed.),Reinventing the middle school (pp. 201–217). New York, N.Y.: Routledge Farmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning.Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984).Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, C. E. & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989).Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development.Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C. (1998). Identifying competencies with behavioural-event interviews.Psychological Science, 9(5), 331–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to become teams.Journal of Education for Business, 75(5), 277–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Main, K. (2007). A year long study of the formation and development of middle school teaching teams. Unpublished PhD thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane.

  • Matthews, J. (1998). Implications for collaborative education preparation and development: A sample instructional approach. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.),Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 115–172). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutch, A. (1998). Employability or group learning? Groupwork in higher education.Education and Training, 40(2/3), 50–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napier, N., & Johnson, R. D. (2007). Technical projects: understanding teamwork satisfaction in an introductory IS course.Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(1), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pounder, D. G. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work-related outcomes of work group enhancement.Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 317–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queensland College of Teachers. (2006).Professional standards for Queensland teachers. Brisbane: Queensland College of Teachers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative teaching teams.Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spry, V. G., Sultmann, W. F., & Ralston, F. M. (1992).Image-ing: Shared meaning for curriculum renewal and school development. Brisbane, Queensland: Consultative Council on Curriculum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. W., & Bailey, J. (2007). Team conflict self-efficacy and outome expectancy of business students.Journal of Education for Business, 1, 258–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 396–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vik, G. N. (2001). Doing more to teach teamwork that telling students to sink or swim.Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willcoxson, L. E. (2006). “It’s not fair!” Assessing the dynamics and resourcing of teamwork.Journal of Management Education, 30(6), 798–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith University, Australia

    Katherine Main

Authors
  1. Katherine Main
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Main, K. Teamwork — teach me, teach me not: A case study of three Australian preservice teachers. Aust. Educ. Res. 37, 77–93 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216931

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216931

Keywords

Search

Navigation