Prevocational education (PVE) in Jordan is a multi-disciplinary subject. It is known that it is difficult to prepare one teacher to teach all its fields. This study investigated the possibility to teach prevocational education by a team of teachers. Through questionnaires addressed to PVE teachers and teachers of other subjects, the study discussed the context that makes it necessary to adopt team teaching in PVE, identified the teachers who might participate in the teams, and their levels of ability to collaborate in teaching each of the PVE subjects. It also identified the difficulties and the required managerial and curricular changes. Among difficulties that would face team teaching in PVE were the increase in the teaching loads of the teachers who would participate in the team, and the interference in their timetables. However, teachers showed positive perceptions towards the usefulness of team teaching, and they expressed good affinity to participate in the teams.
Key words: Team teaching, Pre-vocational education.
Prevocational education (PVE) in Jordan is a practical form of provision that is taught at all grades of basic education. It is delivered as modularized training packages in agriculture, industry, home economics, economics, and health and safety. The provision of PVE in Jordan is intended to achieve a variety of general objectives, such as: inculcating positive attitudes towards manual work and workers, enabling students to acquire practical and applicable skills with economic and social benefits, providing the students with an opportunity to discover their affinities and aptitudes in order to facilitate their selection of prospective careers based on informed and realistic experience s. In addition, PVE aims at acquainting students with the practical application of knowledge obtained from other subjects, improving students' problem-solving and values-commitment abilities, enhancing their abilities to deal with modem technology, improving their consciousness of domestic life requirements, improving their "sense of responsibility" towards the environment, and enabling them to communicate through drawings and symbols (MoE, 1990).
It is obvious that PVE is intended to contribute to the overall role of the school in building the student's personality, and helping him/her to cope with the social requirements of human relations, inculcating ethics and values in addition to practical needs. This requires the teacher to teach the subject in an integrated way that does not confine learning to only practical skills and theoretical knowledge neglecting behavior, ethics and values (Al-saydeh, 2002).
Because of the wide spectrum of objectives, and teacher's tasks, the curriculum of PVE is distinguished from the academic curriculum in that it includes not only theoretical knowledge and basic subject skills, but also practical ability in real-life situations. Prevocational education does not take the form of a linear curriculum, and thus the interaction of all relative components will continuously occur (Doghlos, 2004).
To achieve the PVE objectives, the PVE teacher should have special abilities other than that of training on practical skills and transferring theoretical information and their sub-abilities. Al-saydeh (2002) identified these abilities as perceived by teachers, supervisors and curriculum developers. These abilities included undertaking vocational guidance and counseling, relating the subjects to students' life, using technology relating to the curriculum, utilizing and serving the local environment, in addition to undertaking maintenance to the PVE workshop and, sometimes, to school facilities, and doing other administrative tasks in the school.
This preview of the nature of PVE in Jordan, its objectives, and teachers' roles, reveals the difficulty of the PVE teachers' job. This difficulty results from the variety of the subject matter fields, the big variety of objectives intended to be achieved, and the low level of quality of teacher preparation and training, (Al-kiswani, 2005). This problem usually emerges in provisions of similar subjects that have a variety of the included subject matter fields, because initial teacher-training programs do not produce well-equipped teachers of the required skills. As an example, in England and Wales, Evans (1998) called teachers graduated of initial teacher education courses for Technology Education as "jack of all trades, master of none".
Having in mind the multi-dimensional difficulty in teaching PVE by one teacher and the difficulty to prepare or to train one single teacherto deliver such a subject, collaboration between teachers in the school could help to reduce this difficulty. In team teaching, a group of two or more teachers work together to plan, conduct and evaluate the learning activities for a group of students (Murata, 2002). Goetz (2000) identified two broad categories of team teaching: in category (A) two or more teachers are teaching the same students at the same time within the same classroom, this category includes:
* Traditional Team Teaching: In this case, the teachers actively share the instruction of content and skills to all students
* Collaborative Teaching: This academic experience describes a traditional team teaching situation in which the team teachers work together in designing the course and teach the material not by the usual monologue, but rather by exchanging and discussing ideas and theories in front of the learners. Not only do the team teachers work together, but the course itself uses group learning techniques for the learners, such as small-group work, student-led discussion and joint test-taking.
In the collaborative teaching, two teachers work together preparing for the same lesson but then deliver their material to the students in two-way discussion forum. Berensten (2006) mentioned a possible drawback of collaborative team teaching is that it has the potential to confuse students if two teachers present differing viewpoints on a particular subject.
Complimentary/Supportive Team Teaching: This situation occurs when one teacher is responsible for teaching the content to the students, while the other teacher takes charge of providing follow-up activities on related topics or on study skills.
Parallel Instruction: In this setting, the class is divided into two groups and each teacher is responsible for teaching the same material to her/his smaller group. This model is usually used in conjunction with other forms of team teaching, and is ideally suited to the situation when students are involved in projects or problem-solving activities, as the instructor can roam and give students individualized support.
Differentiated Split Class: This type of teaching involves dividing the class into smaller groups according to learning needs. Each educator provides the respective group with the instruction required to meet their learning needs.
Monitoring Teacher: This situation occurs when one teacher assumes the responsibility for instructing the entire class, while the other teacher circulates the room and monitors student understanding and behavior.
The first four styles are similar in that they each share or divide responsibilities for teaching the same material to the same class during the same period (Maroney, 1995, Schaible, 1995). However, in category (B) teachers do not necessarily teach the same group nor necessarily at the time. This category of team teaching can take many forms:
* Team members meet to share ideas and resources but function independently.
* Teams of teachers sharing a common resource center. In this form, teachers instruct classes independently, but share resource materials such as lesson plans, supplementary textbooks and exercise problems.
* A team in which members share a common group of students, share the planning for instruction but teach different sub-groups within the whole group.
* One individual plans the instructional activities for the entire team. This model does not take full advantage of the team concept as only one individual's ideas are incorporated. Sometimes, due to time or financial constraints, there may be no alternative to one person designing the entire program.
* The team members share planning, but each instructor teaches his/her own specialized skills area to the whole group of students.
Taking into account that PVE teachers are appointed in schools to teach its subjects, but they have difficulties due to different reasons, the suitable styles could be those of category (A) team teaching forms, particularly the first four forms in which two teachers share the responsibilities for teaching in the same class. These forms provide the PVE teachers with partners of relevant subject- matter knowledge, a factor that could help to bridge the gap in the PVE teachers' knowledge.
Also, the partners change dynamically, as curriculum-units change according to the specialty of the partner teacher. Among these forms, the most suitable and possible form is the traditional team teaching. This form provides another teacher in the classroom with the PVE teacher at the same time, a factor that can help provide better observation for students' practical performance and behavior (Sparker, 2003).
Team teaching has a multitude of advantages for participating teachers. It gives them a supportive environment, allows for development of new teaching approaches, aids in overcoming academic isolation, and increases the likelihood of sounder solutions for disciplinary problems (The Regional Educational Laboratories (REL) Network, 2003; Goetz, 2000). Robinson and Schaible (1995) stated that when team teaching involves interdisciplinary subjects, each member can gain enlightenment about lesser-known fields, and therefore grow intellectually.
Because PVE has multi- and inter-disciplinary subjects, and PVE teachers are specialized in one of these disciplines, it is expected that team teaching will contribute to the overcoming of the shortage of subject matter ability of teachers. Also it may allow PVE teachers to experience instructional approaches new for them (Scantlebury, 2008). Additionally, motivation of PVE teachers may improve because each team members will play the role of a sounding board for sharing the joys and the disappointments of teaching the specific curriculum units. Team teaching will also contribute to overcome disciplinary problems, because PVE is mostly a practical subject delivered either in the workshop or in outdoor sites where discipline is a major problem.
Although the aforementioned advantages were categorized as (teachers' advantages) they contribute to students' benefits in making better teaching/learning activities. Moreover, team teaching can allow students to discuss more than one opinion and to work cooperatively with others. Sparker (2003) stated that "team teaching can make learning a cooperative and growing process for both students and teachers". Team teaching also provides educational benefits such as increasing the level of students' understanding and retention, in addition to enabling students to obtain better achievement. Also the variety of teaching approaches used by the team of teachers can reach a greater variety of learning styles (Brandenburg, 1997).
Because PVE faces the problem of negative students' attitudes and shortage of training on practical skills (Al-saydeh, 2002, Ahmed & Al-Saaideh, 2007, 2009, Doghlos, 2004), it is expected that team teaching may contribute to changing the traditional image of PVE as an isolated non-academic subject, and team teaching may allow students to be exposed to blurred views, and be exposed to teaching that could satisfy their various learning styles. More importantly, it may create better opportunities for teachers to teach practical skills rather than confronting their teaching to only theoretical bases, the advantage reported by Auman & Jonathan (2008) in a media convergence curriculum taught by different team teaching models.
Despite the advantages for teachers and students, team teaching has some disadvantages and requirements. Among these are the (lengthy) time required for planning, the conflict that might take place in teachers' timetables, the compatibility of team members, the degree of interest of members to connect curriculum content to real life, the debate between making team teaching voluntary or imposed, and the need for training of the team of teachers. Additionally, there might be some disadvantages for students, like unwillingness to try out new learning techniques implied by teams, and the frustration and discontentment about having more than one teacher in the class (Sparker, 2003).
Having mentioned the situation of the delivery of PVE in Jordan and the advantages and shortcomings of team teaching in situations similar to that of PVE, the researcher found it worth doing to study the rationale of adopting one of the techniques to deliver PVE in the Jordanian schools,
Problem of the Study
The introduction stated that team teaching forms have advantages in obtaining quality learning, particularly in multi- and interdisciplinary subjects. Among these advantages are the resulting integration of knowledge, better connecting to real life, satisfying learning styles of students, exposing them to different ideas about subjects, and, to some degree, better students' achievement (Berentsen, 2006; Goetz, 2000; Sparker, 2003; Auman and Jonathan, 2008; Eisman et al., 2003; Bondos and Philips, 2008). As PVE is an interdisciplinary practical-oriented subject, the status of teaching of PVE in Jordan is not satisfying in terms of attitudes of students towards the subject, the students' interest in the delivered activities, the practical abilities of students, and the level of enrollment in vocational education at the end of the basic education (Al-saydeh, 2002; Doghlos, 2004; Ahmed and Al-saydeh, 2007). This non-satisfying situation is referred in most studies to teachers' willingness and ability, the large numbers of students in classes, the quality of teaching activities, and the shortage of the time allocated for PVE, and other reasons (Tweisat, 1998, Doghlos, 2004).
Team teaching is rarely used in Jordan except using of common syllabus and textbooks by different teachers. However, team teaching could contribute to enhancement of PVE delivery as it was tried out for similar subjects resulting in good benefits either for teachers and students. Despite of this proposition, implementation of team teaching to PVE delivery might face some difficulties and requires some managerial actions.
This study investigated the factors of the status of PVE delivery that could make the use of team teaching necessary. Also the study identified the expected difficulties that it might face, the teachers who might participate in the team, and which subjects each of them can teach.
Questions of the Study
The study answered the following questions:
* What are the factors of the status delivery that make team teaching necessary to PVE?
* What are the expected difficulties facing PVE team teaching in Jordan as perceived by teachers?
* Who are the teachers of the other school subjects who are able to participate in the team to teach PVE, and which subjects in the PVE curriculum they can teach?
* Do teachers of the other subjects perceive team teaching useful to PVE, and do they wish to participate in the teams to teach PVE?
Importance of the Study
This study may serve to establish a rationale for using team teaching in multi- and interdisciplinary subjects, particularly vocational, because team teaching is rarely used in Jordan .Additionally, the study results might contribute to better delivery of PVE on both short and long term levels. Some of the team teaching forms require neither formal managerial nor curricular changes. These could be adopted voluntarily by teachers, simply by collaboration with the PVE teacher in the sessions of delivery of subjects relevant to their specialties. Also, there are complex forms of team teaching that require changes in the curriculum of subjects of participating teachers. If such forms were found suitable to PVE, curriculum developers can make the required changes in the future developments of the curriculum.
In summary, teachers of PVE, teachers of other subjects and supervisors will gain advantage from results of the study. This will serve for better students' learning in PVE and other subjects, as team teaching could contribute to better curriculum integration, better connecting with real life, and better achievement. In addition PVE teachers in Jordan might find it a good chance to practice a new non-isolated teaching in their classes.
Limitations of the Study
The study depended on the perceptions of teachers. Therefore, validity of results depended on the validity of the questionnaires used to collect data. Also, perceptions of teachers of the practical oriented subjects were collected only because PVE subjects are dominantly practical.
The study adopted the descriptive methodology. Two close-ended questionnaires were addressed to teachers in order to elucidate their perceptions concerning rationale, difficulties, and teachers able to participate in team teaching for PVE.
Population of the Study
The study involved two populations:
1. All teachers of PVE in Jordan: Because PVE is taught by specialized teachers after grade (4), basic education schools with grades (4) and above were the population of the study. They counted (1260) schools having 1260 teachers.
2. All teachers of (science, math, arts education, and physical education) at the schools who have classes of grade (4) and above in Jordan. They counted (6280 teachers).
Teachers of PVE in (126) schools were selected randomly (10% of the schools), while teachers of other subjects (science, math, arts education, and physical education) from (63) schools were selected (5% of the schools). These schools were selected from the middle region of Jordan randomly to respond to the questionnaires. Table (1) shows the distribution of the sample of the study.
Instruments of the Study
Two questionnaires were designed to collect data: one of them was for the PVE teachers, while the other for the teacher of other subjects (science, math, arts education, and physical education).
1) The PVE teachers' questionnaire: It aimed at collecting data about:
a) The factors that make it difficult to teach PVE by one teacher. Suggested factors were listed, and the teacher was asked to determine his/her degree of agreement to each factor.
b) The expected difficulties to team teaching in PVE. A list of difficulties provided, and the teacher was asked to determine whether each item represent a difficulty by a scale of three degrees (represents a difficulty, can't decide, does not represent a difficulty). In addition, teachers were asked to identify their agreement to adopt team teaching in PVE on a four degree Likert scale (from 'strongly support' to 'strongly object').
c) The required technical arrangements: Teachers of PVE were also asked to identify their agreement to the required technical arrangements of this approach on a five-degree Likert scale. Teachers were asked to specify who (among the teachers of other subjects) are able to teach the subjects included in each field of the curriculum.
2) The questionnaire of the teachers of other subjects: This questionnaire simply included a list of the fields of the curriculum and their sub-topics. The teacher was asked to determine his/her perceived ability to teach each sub-topic, on a four-degree Likert scale (from 'very high' to 'weak'). Teachers were also asked to identify their opinions whether team teaching is beneficiary to PVE or not, and whether they have the affinity to collaborate with PVE teachers to form teams for teaching. All the items of the questionnaires will appear in the findings of the study.
It is worth mentioning that a complete description of the competencies included in all the PVE fields were attached to the questionnaire in order for teachers of the other subjects to have a clear idea about the subjects before the determination of their ability to teach any of them.
Validity & Reliability of the Questionnaires
Validity of both questionnaires was ensured through moderators, who were asked to judge the suitability of the items and the whole instruments of the study, and to omit or add any item they find necessary. They were also consulted about the scales used for each part of the questionnaires.
Reliability of the questionnaires was also tested through test-retest method. Each questionnaire, was addressed twice to a sample of (30) teachers (outside the study sample). There was a period of the two weeks between each time of addressing. Pearson factor was used to calculate the reliability of the questionnaires. The reliability factors calculated (0.89) for the questionnaire of PVE teachers, and (0.93) for the questionnaire of the teachers of the other subjects.
Data Collection and Analysis
Questionnaires were addressed to teachers through the school administrator. The researcher used to give a period of three days to collect the questionnaires from the administrator after (3) days. If any of the teachers did not respond to the questionnaire, two more days were given to respond and then the questionnaire was collected.
Response were coded and interred to the SPSS package, and the following statistics were calculated to answer the study questions: To identify the contexts that make it necessary to adopt team teaching, means and standard deviations of the PVE teachers' perceptions were used. As originally presented on 5-degree Likert scale of agreement (strongly agree was given (5), agree (4), neutral (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (4). In order to deal with means in three categories (high, moderate, and low), the overall range of means (5-1 =4) was re-divided into (3) giving (1.33) as the length of the interval. Therefore means ranging from (1) which is the lowest value of expected means up to (2.33) were considered low, while (2.34) to (3.67) were considered moderate and (3.68) to (5) were considered high.
To identify the difficulties that might face team teaching in PVE, frequencies and percentages of PVE teachers who considered each listed item (in the questionnaire) were calculated. Difficulties were tabulated in an order according to the percentage of teachers who considered it a (difficulty).
To identify teachers who can participate in team teaching of PVE, frequencies and percentages of the perceptions of PVE teachers were utilized only to specify the name of the teachers' subject who can participate in teaching of each sub-topic in the curriculum fields. The estimated ability of the teachers of the other subjects was also used to identify who can participate in addition to the level at which they can participate to teaching of each sub-topic. Because the teachers' estimated ability was expressed on a four-degree Likert scale (very high (4), high (3), acceptable (2), and weak (1)), the total interval of the response (4-1=3) was divided into 3 categories, so the level (1) to less than (2) was considered as a weak level of ability, the level (2) to less than (3) acceptable, and (3) to (4) was considered high.
Findings and Discussion
In the following sections findings will be presented according to the study questions. Findings will include first: the contexts that make team teaching necessary to PVE, second: the expected difficulties, third: the teachers who can participate in the team to teach PVE, and fourth: the teachers' perceptions about usefulness and affinity to participate.
First: The Contexts that Make Team Teaching Necessary to PVE
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the PVE teachers' responses concerning the contexts that make team teaching necessary for PVE.
As shown in Table 2, all contexts contribute to the necessity of team teaching in either "high" or "moderate" levels. These context and their contributions for the difficulty for the PVE teacher to deliver the PVE subjects are 11 items. In the discussion, these contexts are summarized in 1) the shortage of time, 2) the difficulty of subjects for teachers to deliver some subjects, and 3) the school system that does not encourage PVE teachers to get help from other teachers to cooperate in the delivery of some subjects.
1) Shortage of time
Pre-vocational education is allocated two lessons per week (45 minutes each lesson); taking into consideration the necessity of documenting the student's individual progress
in his/her records, in addition to teaching and administrative tasks of the teacher; it becomes difficult to follow-up these records and to document the students detailed progress in the different subject fields, attitudes, inclinations. This makes it highly necessary to adopt team teaching. Additionally, time shortage prevents teachers from using activities outside schools to deliver some PVE subjects has a "high" level of contribution of the necessity to use team teaching. More dangerously, shortage of time forces teachers to abridge the PVE delivery to only theoretical rather than practical, a factor that contributes to the necessity of team teaching of a "moderate" level. This is due to the big difference in the required time between theoretical and practical subjects, particularly when teachers allow students to practice skills either individually or in groups.
Team teaching in any of its forms could save the time of the PVE teachers by allowing other teachers to share the responsibility, either during classes when teaching cooperatively or generally by teaching some PVE subjects by other teachers. This is hoped, to give PVE teachers time allowance to do their tasks.
2) Difficulty to deliver some subjects
The second main context that contributes to necessity of team teaching for PVE is the difficulty that faces some teachers to deliver subjects of the PVE curriculum. In this regard, PVE teachers expressed their inability to deliver subjects with high variety, a factor that demands the adoption of team teaching of a "moderate" level, because some of teachers are specialized in one subject only. Teachers expressed this fact in item (ranked-8) that stated "the difference between my specialty and the curriculum subjects makes me unable to deliver these subjects".
Also PVE teachers face difficulty (sometimes) even in units relevant to their specialties (ranked- 11). This may be because some of them are only diploma holders and they teach PVE for higher basic grades,the curriculum at this stage is composed of specialized training units in different subjects. Generally, difficulty-related factors contribute "moderately" to the necessity of team teaching.
Some of the PVE subjects can be delivered co-operatively with other teachers. Although this will be discussed later, the teachers gave the base for this trend by stating that some of the PVE subjects are more relevant to other subjects than PVE (e.g. math, science, arts education, and physical education) (ranked-3) with a high level of contribution to the necessity of team teaching. Teachers of PVE also stated that teacher of other subjects "maybe" more able to teach some PVE subject, a factor of "moderate" level of contribution to the necessity of team teaching.
3) The school system
The other main factor that contributes to the necessity of team teaching for PVE delivery is the school system. Because PVE is delivered at the basic stage of education, it has a role in guiding students towards the right decision of future careers. Therefore, it is necessary to invite specialists in career guidance to visit schools. Teachers find difficulties in doing so. This may be because of the routine procedures and correspondences required. This factor generates a "moderate" level of necessity to team teaching.
Schools have counselors in addition to teachers of various subjects. These teachers can play the role of career guidance; a good experience that was reported in (Clarke and DeNuzzo, 2003). Back to the issue of difficulty of subjects to PVE teachers, one of the solutions could be the "visitor specialists". Teachers of PVE find it difficult to invite such specialists, a factor that makes with a "moderate" level of necessity of team teaching. In this, teachers of other subjects can help deliver the subjects that are found difficult for PVE teachers. However, they stated that the school system does not allow to get help of other teachers to attend classes and to in the teaching activities of colleagues, a factor of moderate contribution to the necessity of team teaching. Therefore, despite of previous studies that stated that voluntary team teaching is recommended, legislation for co-teaching is one of the vital steps that could be taken towards the encouragement of team teaching.
Second: The Expected Difficulties that Will Face Team Teaching in PVE
Table 3 shows the PVE teachers' perceptions about the list of expected difficulties that could face team teaching in PVE delivery.
Teachers expected that using team teaching in the delivery of PVE would face some difficulties. The main difficulty that was agreed among 73.0% of the PVE teachers was the need for the teachers of other subjects for training. This training is required to address not only practical tasks, but also the issues of the nature of PVE and its objectives, particularly in the students' careers guidance.A factor that could help understanding the content of this required training is to analyze the aims of the PVE curriculum in the different stages of basic education in Jordan.
Another difficulty that will be faced intuitively in any team teaching approach is the increase in teaching loads that occurs for teachers who participate (68.3% of the teachers considered it a difficulty). This difficulty is also strongly relevant to the interference that occurs in the different teachers' timetables, an issue that was considered a difficulty by 65.9% of the teachers. The increase in the teaching loads implies the need for flexibility or some way of extension of the school day like (for example) to use the credit-hours systems that might produce some time space for the teachers of other subjects to share lessons with PVE teachers.
Another approach to overcome the difficulties relating to teaching loads and timetables interference is to remove the relevant parts to the different subjects from the PVE textbooks and to infuse these parts in the curriculum of the relevant subjects. This requires some kind of redesigning of the curricula of these subjects, keeping in mind that the infusion of these parts should be well-integrated to achieve the goals of PVE. The difficulty to undertake the required redesigning of the curricula was recognized by 48.4% of the teachers.
Team teaching is undertaken by more than one teacher. This raises the issue of the need for a coordinator to organize the activities and to provide the requirements of the teaching of subjects. This was considered a difficulty by 41.3% of teachers. It is also relevant to the agreement among 48.4% of teachers about the need for a clear administrative system to govern the practice of team teaching.
Team teaching to deliver PVE will also face some technical difficulties. These could be summarized in the need for organizing the out-school activities like, visits and exhibitions that usually required for PVE. Also teaching practical tasks by (academic) teachers may face problems of reluctance of teachers themselves. This was recognized as a difficulty by 48.4% of PVE teachers. However effective cooperation, co-ordination and communication between the PVE teacher who is supposed to be the coordinator and the other teachers will resolve such problems.
Relevant literature mentioned difficulties similar to what could happen in the case of team teaching in PVE, like the need for curriculum modification, effective planning, different instructional approaches, longer required time, teachers' belief in the idea of team teaching (Felder et al., 1996; Austin, 2001 ; Bakken, 1998; Buckley, 2000). Based on the experience of team teaching, literature mentioned factors contributed to overcome difficulties and to achieve effective delivery of subjects; among these factors were incentives, administration support, continuous communication, patience, flexibility and compatibility in the teachers' personalities (Wilson, 2008; Gray, 1998). Therefore, teachers' aptitudes towards participation in teams should be ensured in addition to the financial and administrative requirements of the successful team teaching
Third: Teachers who Can Participate in the Team to Teach PVE Subjects
Perceptions of both (PVE teachers, and teachers of other subjects: math, sciences, Arts education, and physical education) were elucidated to investigate the perceived ability of each one of the teachers of these subjects to teach every PVE subjects: agricultural, industrial, economic, home economics, and health and safety. Table 4 shows these perceptions.
Results in Table 4 show that PVE teachers can find at least one of the teachers of the other subjects to collaborate with them to teach PVE subjects in teams. In the following sections each subject will be discussed in terms of the teachers who can collaborate with the PVE teacher and the perceived ability of each of them to teach the subject. This will include all the PVE curriculum fields (agricultural, industrial, economic, home-economics in addition to the health and safety) and their sub-topics.
1--The Agricultural Subjects
High percentages of PVE teachers perceived science teachers as the most suitable for team teaching of the agricultural subjects. Also science teachers perceived themselves able at a "high level" to teach the agricultural subjects. Moreover, teachers of other subject (math, arts, physical education) perceived themselves able to teach the agricultural subjects at an acceptable level.
Results also showed that the overall levels of ability of teachers of other subjects to teach the agricultural subjects in teams with PVE teachers were found acceptable ranging (from 2.52 to 2.88). This is because the agricultural subjects in the curriculum are mostly practical and contend house-related skills. Therefore, most teachers in the school can participate in teaching of such subjects.
2--The Industrial Subjects
Teachers of PVE perceived the teachers of arts education the most able to collaborate in teaching of some of the industrial subjects (using of simple manual tools (42.4%), painting & carpentry (56.9%), and metal works &simple structures (34%). They also perceived science teachers the most able to teach the "electricity" subjects, and the math teachers for the industrial drawing.
Teachers of the other subjects perceived themselves able to teach the different industrial subjects at "acceptable" levels. Teachers of arts education were the most able to teach these subjects at acceptable levels. Also teachers of other subjects perceived themselves able to teach the industrial subjects at acceptable levels except those of physical education who perceived themselves "weak" in "metal works". This may be because the industrial subjects contend specialized knowledge and skills that can be taught only by teachers who have relevant subject specialties.
3--The Economic Subjects
Prevocational Education teachers perceived the math teachers the most able to teach these subjects cooperatively with them: with (73.89%) for the financial affairs and (49.2%) for the administrative affairs. However (44.2%) of the PVE teachers perceived no teachers able to teach the administrative subjects.
Teachers of the other subjects perceived themselves able to teach the economic subjects at overall "acceptable" levels. Math teachers perceived themselves the most able to teach the financial subjects (2.97) while arts-education teachers perceived themselves the most able to teach the administrative subjects (2.77) with difference of only (0.01) higher than math teachers.
The economic subjects are more relevant to the accounting and mathematical abilities, therefore the math teachers are the most able to participate in their teaching
4--The Home-Economics Subjects
Prevocational education teachers find different teachers, able to collaborate with them in teaching the "home economics" subjects. According to PVE teachers, science teachers are the most able to teach the subjects relating to "nutrition and feeding" (70.69%), but both science and arts-education teachers for subjects of house management (23.8% and 20.6% respectively). At the same time (53.2%) of the PVE teachers perceived that no teachers were able to teach house management. For subjects of (clothes and dressmaking) (46.0%) of PVE teachers perceived science teachers able to teach these subjects on the contrast, (42.4%) perceived no teachers able to collaborate in teaching dressmaking subjects.
Teachers of other subjects perceived themselves able to teach the home--economics subjects with over all "acceptable" levels. Science teachers perceived themselves able to teach subjects relating to nutrition and feeding at a "high level" (3.33), while math teachers perceived themselves the most able to teach the "house management" subjects at a "high level" (3.08), and arts-education teachers for clothes & dress-making at an "acceptable" level.
The home-economics subjects can be taught co-operatively by most of the teachers of the other subjects may be because the included skills are general and life related for all people.
5--Health and Safety Subjects
In health and safety subjects "personal health and home nursing" issues were perceived suitable to be taught collaboratively with science teachers by (61.1%) of the PVE teachers, while first aid to be taught by science teachers (73.8%) and pedestrian awareness to be taught by the math teachers (19%), science teachers (29.5%), and arts-education teachers (19.8%).
Teachers of the other subjects perceived themselves able to teach health and safety subjects at"acceptable" level for the personal health, and "high" level for the first aid and pedestrian awareness. Physical education teachers perceived themselves the most able to teach all these subjects at "high" level. Science-education teachers also perceived themselves able to teach personal health and first aid at "high" levels, while arts-education teachers perceived themselves able to teach the pedestrian awareness at a "high" level.
Finally, there is no subject in all fields of the PVE curriculum with no common basics or relationship with the other subjects taught in schools. This encouraged the teachers of these (other subjects) to express their abilities to teach the PVE subjects collaboratively with PVE teachers. What makes this conclusion real, is that teachers did not express their abilities of teaching these subjects blindly, they were asked to read the sub-titles and details of these subjects that were attached with the questionnaire.
Perceptions of PVE teachers that mostly specified one subject teacher as able to collaborate in teaching PVE subject reflects that they do not adequately trust teachers of the other subjects to form teams to teach these subjects. Moreover, percentages of PVE teachers who perceived no teachers of the other subjects able to teach PVE subjects (that sometimes exceeds 50% of the sample) could reflect a degree of reluctance to such an experiment to teach PVE subjects by a team of teachers, a factor that is usually considered as one of the difficulties of team teaching (Goetz, 2000; Quinlan, 1998).
Fourth: Teachers Perceptions about Usefulness and Affinity to Participate
Literature emphasized the importance of satisfaction of and motivation towards team teaching as key factors for success (Clarke and DeNuzzo, 2003). In the case of PVE in Jordan, Table 5 shows the perceptions of teachers of other subjects towards the "usefulness" and their motivation towards participation in team teaching.
In the results shown in Table 5, more than a half of the teachers in schools perceived team teaching useful for PVE delivery, but around 30% perceived it (un-useful).
The percentage of teachers who wished to participate in the team is 8.5% less than those who perceived it useful. Also some of those who perceived it useful, and some of the neural people concerning usefulness were found to be reluctant to participation in team teaching. This implies a need for some guidance activities about advantages of team teaching for teacher, and to provide solid success factors to team teaching before commencing any experiment. These factors are adequate incentives and support for the program, assigning compatible teachers to work together, and allowing them to select each other voluntarily, effective preparation, and continuous coordination with adequate understanding of the philosophy of the program, patience and flexibility, particularly during the initial program development (Felder et al., 1996).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Because PVE in Jordan is a multi-disciplinary subject, it is difficult to prepare or to train one specialized teacher who can teach all the subjects included in the curriculum. Also, because of the special nature of PVE that intends to produce a learner with special abilities that enable him/her to make a reasonable decision concerning future careers, and aspect that implies various extra activities other than class (or workshop) teaching, there is a need to adopt an approach of team teaching to PVE delivery in order for teachers of other subjects who work at school to help PVE teachers teach the subject effectively.
It was found that in PVE curriculum, teachers can find colleagues from those who teach other subjects to collaborate with them to teach subjects included in all fields of the PVE curriculum. These teachers are namely the math, science, arts and physical education teachers. The results specified at what level each one of them can contribute to teach each subject of PVE. In most of the subjects, levels of the perceived ability to participate in teaching were between "high" and "acceptable".
Despite the advantages of team teaching, it will face some anticipated difficulties to adopt in PVE, like the demand for training of the teachers of other subjects, the interference in teachers' timetables, the increase in teaching loads, the required content modification, the required material ordering, and other administrative issues.
There is a need for procedures to be clear through a coordinator and/or through a clear teachers' manual to undertake team teaching. Also, as the level of satisfaction and motivation of the teachers of the other subjects was found low, and as some PVE teachers showed some reluctance to adopt PVE teaching, there is a need for guidance activities and other actions to be taken before commencing team teaching in PVE delivery in Jordan.
Based on these conclusions, the researcher recommends the following:
* to adopt an approach to team teaching that implies slight changes in the school system and curriculum changes (for short term).
* to focus on team teaching, as an instructional approach, in the publications issued by the Ministry of Education (MoE), and by teacher education and training institutes in Jordan, in order to produce better initial acceptance to this approach.
* to put a plan for adoption of team teaching within the future curriculum development not only for PVE, but also for all relating subjects.
* to establish an effective incentive system for teachers who participate in team teaching in order to stimulate their satisfaction, * to continuously evaluate the initial implementation of team teaching in order to specify difficulties and to plan solutions.
* to establish better social interaction among teacher in schools because compatibility between teachers is a must for team teaching success.
This study was sponsored by the Deanship of Academic Research at the University of Jordan; the researcher is very grateful to this sponsorship.
Ahmed, E. & A1-Saaideh, M. (2007). Contexts that force pre-vocational Education teachers to teach in theoretically in Jordan. Journal of the Faculty of Education (Ain Shams University), 31(4), 38-62.
Ahmed, E. & A1-Saaideh, M. (Forthcoming). The degree of focus on practical skills in teaching pre-vocational education at Schools of AIBalqa'a governorate. Journal of Damascus University for Educational Sciences (accepted for publishing).
Al-Kisswani, A. (2005). Building a model for curriculum development for home-economics in the comprehensive secondary education that satisfies the requirements of knowledge economy and Jordanian labor market, unpublished ph.D dissertation, Amman Arab university, Amman, Jordan.
Al-Saydeh, M. (2002) Pre-vocational education in Jordan: implications for teacher education and in-service training. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Huddersfield, UK.
Auman, A. & Jonathan, L. (2008). An Evaluation of Team- Teaching Models in a Media Convergence Curriculum. Journalism& Mass Communication Educator, 62 (4), 360-375.
Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' Beliefs a bout Co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22 (4), 245-255.
Bakken, L., Clark, F. L. & Thompson, J. (1998). Collaborative Teaching: Many Joys, some Surprises, and Few Worms. College Teaching, 46 (4), 154-158.
Brandenburg, R. (1997). Cooperative teaching opportunities for introductory statistics teachers. Mathematics Teacher, 92(8), 734-737
Batarseh, M. (1992). Attitudes of Higher Basic-stage female students towards pre-vocational of Education. unpublished M.Ed thesis, University of Jordan Amman.
Berentsen, L. (2006). Team Teaching with Academic Core Curricula Teachers: Using Aviation Concepts. Journal of lndustrial Teacher Education, 43 (2), 7-19
Bondos, S. & Philips, D. (2008). Team teaching a current events-Based Biology course for nonmajors. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(1), 22-27.
Buckley, F. J. (2000). Team Teaching: what, why, and How? London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Clarke, A. & DeNuzzo, D. (2003).Co-teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: Practical Practice. International Conference on Inclusion, The Netherlands, November 2003. (on Line). Available: http://www. School vooriedereen.nl/co-teaching%20in%20inclusive%20classrooms.
Dughlos, A. (2004). The Situation of the Curriculum Implementation of Pre-vocational Education in the Higher Basic Stage in Jordan. Unpublished Ph.d Dissertation, the University of Jordan, Amman.
Eisman, L., Hill, D., Bailey, R. & Dickion, C. (2003). The Beauty of Teacher Collaboration to integrate Curricula: Professional Development and Student Learning Opportunities. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 28 (1). (on Line). Available: http://scholar.libvt.edu/ejoumals/JVER/V28nl/eisman.htm 1.
Evans, L. (1998). Jack of All-trades, Master of None? An examination of subject skills provision on Technology (secondary) Initial Teacher Education Courses in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8,15-35.
Feider, R. M., Bemold, L. M., Bumiston, E., E., Dail, D. R. & Gastineau, J. E. (1996). Team Teaching in An Integrated Freshman Engineering Curriculum. 1996 ASEE Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (on Line) Available: http://www2.ncus.edu/ncsu pams/physics/PCEP/impec/ASEE-p1.htm.
Goetz, K. (2000). Perspectives on Team Teaching, (on Line). Available: http://www.ucalgary.Ca/~egallary/goetz.html.
Gray, T.& Halbert, S. (1998). Team Teach with a student: New approach to collaborative teaching. College Teaching, 4 (4), 150-154.
Hughes, K., Bailey, T. & Mechur, M. (2001). Making a Difference in Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, Institute on Education and the Economy.
Maroney, S. (1995). Team Teaching (on-Line). Available:http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfsam//TeamTchg.html.
Ministry of Education (MoE) (1990). Prevocational Educating Curriculum and its guidelines in Basic Education. General Directorate of curriculum and Education Technology, The Ministry of Education, Amman, Jordan.
Murata, R. (2002). What Does Team Teaching Mean? A case study of Interdisciplinary Teaming. The Journal of Educational Research, 96 (2), 67-79.
Quinlan, K. (1998). Promoting Faculty Learning about Collaborative Teaching. College Teaching, 46 (2), 43-48.
Robinson, B. & schaible, R. (1995). Collaborative Teaching: Reaping the Benefits. College Teaching, 43 (2), 57-60.
Scantlebury, K., Gallo-Fox, J. & Wasseil, B. (2008). Coteaching as a Model for Preservice Secondary Science Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (4), 967-981.
Sparker, J. (2003). Teacher Teaming In Relation to Student Performance: Findings from the Literature. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland.
Stasz, C., Kaganoff, T. & Eden, R. (1994). Integrating academic and vocational education: A review of the literature, 1987-1992. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 19, 25-77.
Stern, D., Finkelestein, N., Stone, J., Lating, J. & Dornsife, C. (1994). Research on school-to-work transition programs in the United States. Berkeley: University of California, National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Syh-Jong, J. (2008). Innovations in Science Teacher Education: Effects of Integrating Technology and Team- Teaching Strategies Computers & Education, 51 (2), 646-659.
The Regional Educational Laboratories (REL) Network. (2003). Team Teaching and Student Achievement: New Report Examines Studies (on Line).Available:http://www.relnetwork.org/news/septo3/02-NWPEL.html.
Tweisat, A. (1998). The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Jordanian Pre-vocational education Provision. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Huddersfield, UK.
Wilson, G. L. (2008). 20 ways To Be an Active co-teacher. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43 (4), 240-243.
Dr. Monim A. A1-Saaideh, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Jordan.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Monim A. Al-Saaideh at email@example.com
Table 1 Distribution of the Study Sample Subject population sample percentage PVE 1260 126 10% Other Math 1500 75 5% subjects Science 1700 85 5% Arts 860 43 5% Physical 1060 53 5% Total 5120 256 5% Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of PVE Teachers' Responses Concerning the Contexts Contribution to Necessity of Team Teaching. Rank The item Mean S.D * Level of Contribution 1 I don't have enough 3.70 1.03 High time to follow records of students' progress and their. 2 Shortage of time 3.69 1.15 High allocated for PVE Prevents me from using teaching activities outside the school. 3 Some PVE subjects 3.68 1.06 High are more relevant to other topics than to PVE (e.g. math, science, Arts education). 4 I find difficulty in 3.62 1.14 Moderate inviting vocational guidance specialists to school. 5 I find it difficult 3.59 1.10 Moderate to invite specialists in topics that I can't deliver 6 I can't teach the 3.49 1.23 Moderate high variety of PVE subjects 7 The school system 3.22 1.29 Moderate does not allow me to get help from other teachers in the school to teach some curriculum subjects. 8 The difference 3.17 1.22 Moderate between my specialty and the curriculum subjects makes me unable to deliver the subjects. 9 Some other teachers 3.07 1.16 Moderate of (science, math arts education, physical education) are more able than me to teach some PVE subjects. 10 Shortage of time 3.04 1.24 Moderate allocated for PVE forces me to teach it theoretically rather than practically. 11 There are some 2.86 1.28 Moderate difficult subjects even in units relevant to my specialty. I can't deliver them effectively. * S.D is the standard deviation Table 3 Teachers' Estimations of Difficulties that will Face the Implementation of Team Teaching in PVE Not Rank Item difficulty No decision difficulty No. % No. % No. % 1 The need of other 92 73.0 20 15.9 14 11.1 subjects' teachers for training 2 The increase in 86 68.3 24 19.1 16 17.7 teachers' loads by team teaching 3 The interference 83 65.9 22 17.5 21 16.7 between teachers' time tables 4 The need of curricula 61 48.4 36 28.7 29 23.0 of other subjects relevant to PVE for redesigning to infuse PVE subjects 5 The need for clear 61 48.4 30 23.6 35 27.8 administrative system to insure achievement of objectives when PVE taught by team teaching 6 The need for 61 48.4 24 19.1 41 32.5 facilities for out-school activities to be managed by the school administration 7 Students' teaching 53 42.1 22 17.5 51 40.4 practical skills by academic teachers. 8 The need for 52 41.3 20 15.9 55 43.7 coordination to help teachers deal with vocational subjects Table 4 Teachers Able to Teach PVE Subjects and Their Perceived Degree of Ability to Teach These Subjects Perception of PVE teachers Field subjects Math Science No. % No. % Agriculture Plant service 0 0.0 96 76.2 Harvesting of crops and 0 0.0 80 63.5 flowers Animals' 0 0.0 73 57.9 bringing Industrial Using 8 6.4 9 7.1 simple Metal works 3 2.4 15 11.9 simple structures Painting 3 2.4 9 7.1 & carpentry Industrial 39 31.0 8 6.4 drawing Electricity 4 3.2 63 50.0 Economics Financial 93 73.8 2 1.6 affairs Administra- tive 62 49.2 5 3.97 affairs Home Nutrition 0 0.0 89 70.6 Economics & Feeding House 3 2.4 30 23.2 management Clothes & 7 5.6 58 46.0 Dress-Making Perception of PVE teachers Field subjects Arts None No. % No. % Agriculture Plant service 5 3.97 25 19.8 Harvesting of crops and 9 7.1 36 28.6 flowers Animals' 0 0.0 53 42.1 bringing Industrial Using 61 48.4 65 51.6 simple Metal works 34 27.0 74 58.7 simple structures Painting 56 44.4 58 46.0 & carpentry Industrial 33 26.2 45 35.7 drawing Electricity 8 6.4 51 40.5 Economics Financial 1 0.08 30 23.8 affairs Administra- tive 3 2.4 56 44.4 affairs Home Nutrition 8 6.4 29 23.0 Economics & Feeding House 26 20.6 67 53.2 management Clothes & 0 0.0 61 48.4 Dress-Making Perception of teachers of other subjects Field subjects Math Science mean Level mean Level Agriculture Plant service 2.5 Ace 3.13 H Harvesting of crops and 2.77 Ace 3.0 H flowers Animals' 2.2 Ace 2.8 Ace bringing Industrial Using 2.67 Ace 2.53 Ace simple Metal works 2.15 Ace 2.07 Ace simple structures Painting 2.25 Ace 2.09 Ace & carpentry Industrial 2.43 Ace 2.15 Ace drawing Electricity 2.32 Ace 2.78 Ace Economics Financial 2.97 Ace 2.51 Ace affairs Administra- tive 2.76 Ace 2.58 Ace affairs Home Nutrition 2.64 Ace 3.33 H Economics & Feeding House 3.08 H 2.86 Ace management Clothes & 2.45 Ace 2.24 Ace Dress-Making Perception of teachers of other subjects Field subjects Arts RE mean Level mean Level Agriculture Plant service 2.67 Ace 2.57 Ace Harvesting of crops and 2.86 Ace 2.85 Ace flowers Animals' 2.56 Ace 2.51 Ace bringing Industrial Using 2.84 Ace 2.66 Ace simple Metal works 2.35 Ace 1.85 W simple structures Painting 2.26 Ace 2.09 Ace & carpentry Industrial 2.49 Ace 2.00 Ace drawing Electricity 2.07 Ace 1.96 W Economics Financial 2.56 Ace 2.54 Ace affairs Administra- tive 2.77 Ace 2.67 Ace affairs Home Nutrition 2.95 Ace 2.90 Ace Economics & Feeding House 7.86 Ace 2.87 Ace management Clothes & 2.89 Ace 2.49 Ace Dress-Making Perception of teachers of other subjects Field subjects overall mean Level Agriculture Plant service 2.79 Ace Harvesting of crops and 2.88 Ace flowers Animals' 2.52 Ace bringing Industrial Using 2.65 Ace simple Metal works 2.09 Ace simple structures Painting 2.17 Ace & carpentry Industrial 2.26 Ace drawing Electricity 2.30 Ace Economics Financial 2.66 Ace affairs Administra- tive 2.69 Ace affairs Home Nutrition 2.98 Ace Economics & Feeding House 2.93 Ace management Clothes & 2.46 Ace Dress-Making * H = High, M = Medium, Acc = Acceptable, W = Weak Table 5 Perception of Teachers of Other Subjects Towards Usefulness and Motivation to Participate in Team Teaching Perceptions yes neutral The question No. % No. % Do you perceive it useful to teach PVE 131 51.1 48 18.8 subject by a team of teachers Do you find in yourself the affinity 109 42.6 35 13.7 to participate in team teaching for PVE Perceptions no. The question No. % Do you perceive it useful to teach PVE 77 30.1 subject by a team of teachers Do you find in yourself the affinity 112 43.7 to participate in team teaching for PVE…