Tilgangur þessarar rannsóknar var að skoða hvort munur væri á samvinnu, samskiptum
og skólaþróun í bekkjarkennsluskólum og teymiskennsluskólum á grunnskólastigi. Með
bekkjarkennslu er átt við starfshætti þar sem hver kennari er með sinn bekk, námsgrein
eða námsgreinar og undirbýr kennslu einn og kennir einn. Í teymiskennsluskólum
eru tveir eða fleiri kennarar samábyrgir fyrir bekk eða námshópi að einhverju eða
öllu leyti og undirbúa kennslu og kenna saman. Rannsóknin byggðist á gögnum úr
spurningakönnunum meðal nemenda og starfsfólks í sex bekkjarkennsluskólum og níu
teymiskennsluskólum úr rannsókn á starfsháttum í grunnskólum sem gerð var 2009–
2013 (Gerður G. Óskarsdóttir, 2014). Rafrænir spurningalistar voru sendir starfsfólki
skólanna í fjórum áföngum skólaárið 2009–2010, en könnun meðal nemenda var gerð í
skólunum haustið 2010. Niðurstöður sýndu, eins og vænta mátti, að mun meiri áhersla
var lögð á samvinnu í teymiskennsluskólunum og hún var umfangsmeiri og nánari, en í
bekkjarkennsluskólunum. Fleiri kennarar í teymiskennsluskólunum áttu daglegt samstarf
og fleiri unnu saman hlið við hlið; kenndu með öðrum kennara eða kennurum í sama
kennslurými. Jafnframt voru fagleg tengsl teymiskennslukennara betri og þeir töldu sig
fá betri stuðning skólastjórnenda. Samskipti nemenda í teymiskennsluskólunum mældust
betri en samskipti nemenda í bekkjarkennsluskólunum, og átti það hvort tveggja við um
samskipti þeirra innbyrðis og við starfsfólk. Þá gáfu nemendur teymiskennsluskólanna
kennurum sínum betri einkunnir þegar þeir mátu viðhorf þeirra og viðmót í sinn garð,
til dæmis hvort kennarar sýndu skoðunum þeirra áhuga, leiðbeindu þeim og hvöttu þá.
Þróunarstarf var talsvert meira í teymiskennsluskólum en bekkjarkennsluskólum og
þar gekk betur að innleiða breytingar. Þá virtust starfshættir í teymiskennsluskólunum
lýðræðislegri en í bekkjarkennsluskólunum; kennarar fyrrnefndu skólanna komu meira
að ákvörðunum um starfsþróun og breytingastarf. Áríðandi virðist vera að halda áfram
rannsóknum á starfsháttum í teymiskennsluskólum og árangri þeirra.
The purpose of this research was to compare cooperation, communication and school
development in team teaching schools versus schools in which teachers teach alone. In
team teaching schools two or more teachers are responsible for planning and operating
teaching to a larger group of students. The data for this research comes from a multi
method research project conducted in twenty Icelandic compulsory schools in 2009–2013
(Gerður G. Óskarsdóttir, 2014). Four electronic questionnaires were emailed to teachers and other academic school staff in the school year 2009–2010 with a response rate of
80–92%. The analysis presented in this article is based on answers from 15 of the schools,
omitting responses from schools in which both team teaching and teaching where teachers
taught alone was found. The findings reported here are based on responses from 590
teachers and other academic staff; 324 from the team teaching schools and 266 from
schools in which teachers teach alone.
An electronic questionnaire was administered to a sample of 2,119 students in grades
7–10 in 14 of the participating schools; that is, all of the 20 schools offering instruction
in these grades. The sample was randomly selected if there were three or more class
divisions in each year. However, all students participated in smaller schools. The response
rate was 86%. Three of the team teaching schools offered instruction in grades 7–10,
whereas all the schools where teachers teach alone offered teaching in these grades.
Answers were received from 402 students in the team teaching schools and 694 students
in the schools where teachers teach alone.
As could be expected, more emphasis was placed on cooperation in the team teaching
schools where it was both more extensive and closer. Furthermore, teachers in the team
teaching schools considered their professional collaboration better and staff discussions
more open and critical; thus they found it easier to express themselves to colleagues
compared to the teachers in schools where teachers worked alone. The staff in team
teaching schools also felt they received better support from the principals.
Relations between students and teachers can be considered good in the schools overall,
but were significantly better with principals and other staff in the team teaching schools.
Also of interest is the fact that the team teachers showed greater interest towards students’
opinions; they gave more praise and were better at helping students understand how they
could improve their work and learn more.
Finally, school development projects were more common in the team teaching schools and
the implementation of change was considered much smoother, as well as being more often
teacher-initiated. In contrast to teachers who teach alone, a higher number of teachers
in the team teaching schools claim that professional development is an effective part of
school work, that it is organized in cooperation with the staff, and that members of staff are
more actively engaged in decisions that have to do with changes within the school. Teamteaching
teachers also more commonly believe that both internal and external evaluation
measures are important for school development and improvement.
The authors discuss the implications of this research for school development and teacher
education in Iceland. For example, they point out that the findings are so conclusively in
favour of the team teaching approach that the focus is bound to shift toward making team
teaching the general rule, instead of the model in which each teacher faces a class alone
