The aim of this systematic review is to provide insight into the conceptual and methodological credibility of experimental research designs on the effectiveness of team teaching—a promising instructional strategy wherein two or more professionals collaboratively provide education for a group of students. A total of 31 studies were included. These studies were conceptually and methodologically examined according to two actualized quality-appraisal frameworks. The findings reveal that it remains a challenge to design rigorous experimental studies with clear conceptualizations of key variables related to team teaching. To make convincing claims on the effectiveness of team teaching, there is an urgent need for better-defined quality experimental research. Therefore, we conclude with recommendations for future research, specifically how experimental studies on the effectiveness of team teaching should be conceptually and methodologically implemented to provide policymakers and stakeholders with information for evidence-informed decision-making on educational practices.
AlbrightL.MalloyT. E. (2000). Experimental validity: Brunswik, Campbell, Cronbach, and enduring issues. Review of General Psychology, 4(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.4.337
3.
AlexanderP. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
4.
*AliA.AhmadN.HussainS. (2021). An experimental study of collaborative instructional strategy (CIS) for teaching mathematics at primary level in Pakistan. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 13(1), 94–105.
5.
*AliakbariM.BazyarA. (2012). Exploring the impact of parallel teaching on general language proficiency of EFL learners. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 55–71.
6.
*AliakbariM.NejadA. (2013). On the effectiveness of team teaching in promoting learners’ grammatical proficiency. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(3), 5–22.
7.
*Al-SaaidehM.Al-ZyoudN.-A. (2015). Benefits of teaching interdisciplinary subjects collaboratively in Jordanian pre-vocational education. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(20), 2702–2712. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2461
8.
AltstaedterL.SmithJ.FogartyE. (2016). Co-teaching: Towards a new model for teacher preparation in foreign language teacher education. Hispania, 99(4), 635–649. http://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2016.0108
9.
*AndersenS. C.BeuchertL.NielsenH. S.ThomsenM. K. (2018). The effect of teacher’s aides in the classroom: Evidence from a randomized trial. Journal of the European Economic Association, 18(1), 469–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvy048
10.
AndersonM.MaxwellN. (2021). Baseline equivalence: What it is and why it is needed. Mathematica.
11.
AndersonS. F.KelleyK.MaxwellS. E. (2017). Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1547–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617723724
12.
*AnsariB.WahyuN. (2017). Mathematics understanding and anxiety in collaborative teaching. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 943, 012040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/943/1/012040
13.
BaetenM.SimonsM. (2014). Student teachers’ team teaching: Models, effects, and conditions for implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.010
14.
BaetenM.SimonsM. (2016a). Innovative field experiences in teacher education: Student-teachers and mentors as partners in teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28, 38–51. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55045663
15.
*BaetenM.SimonsM. (2016b). Student teachers’ team teaching: How do learners in the classroom experience team-taught lessons by student teachers?Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1135226
16.
BakkerM.Van DijkA.WichertsJ. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459060
17.
*BardaglioG.MarassoD.MagnoF.RabagliettiE.CiairanoS. (2015). Team-teaching in physical education for promoting coordinative motor skills in children: The more you invest the more you get. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.837434
18.
BartlettM. E.EdmundsC. E. R.BelpaemeT.ThillS. (2022). Have I got the power? Analysing and reporting statistical power in HRI. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3495246
19.
*BesharatiM.MazdayasnaG. (2017). Investigating the effect of team-teaching approach on ESP students’ English proficiency: Evidence from students’ attitudes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(5), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.5p.41
20.
BešićE.PaleczekL.KrammerM.Gasteiger-KlicperaB. (2017). Inclusive practices at the teacher and class level: The experts’ view. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1240339
21.
*BolandD. E.AlkhalifaK. B.Al-MutairiM. A. (2019). Co-teaching in EFL classroom: The promising model. English Language Teaching, 12, 95–98. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n12p95
22.
BouckE. C. (2007). Co-teaching . . . Not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 51(2), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.2.46-51
23.
BouwmeesterS.JongerlingJ. (2020). Power of a randomization test in a single case multiple baseline AB design. PLoS One, 15(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228355
24.
BradleyB. A.ReinkingD. (2011). Enhancing research and practice in early childhood through formative and design experiments. Early Child Development and Care, 181(3), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903357894
25.
BrojčinB.BankovičS.GlumbičN.WeissS. (2012). Effects of cooperative teaching in inclusive education. Didactica Slovenica - Pedagoska Obzorja, 27(5), 66–79.
26.
ChampelyS.EkstromC.DalgaardP.GillJ.WeibelzahlS.AnandkumarA.FordC.VolcicR.de RosarioH. (2020). Pwr: Basic functions for power analysis (Version 1.3-0). https://cran.r-project.org/package=pwr
27.
*Chandler-OlcottK. (2017). Co-teaching to support early adolescents’ writing development in an inclusive summer enrichment program. Middle School Journal, 48(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2017.1243916
28.
ChangH.-J.HuangK.-C.WuC.-H. (2006). Determination of sample size in using central limit theorem for weibull distribution. International Journal of Information and Management Sciences, 17, 31–46.
29.
ChristleyR. M. (2010). Power and error: Increased risk of false positive results in underpowered studies. Open Epidemiology Journal, 3(1), 16–19. http://doi.org/10.2174/1874297101003010016
30.
CohenJ. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(3), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045186
31.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
34.
ConnollyP.KeenanC.UrbanskaK. (2018). The trials of evidence-based practice in education: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in education research 1980–2016. Educational Research, 60(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1493353
CookD. A.BrydgesR.GinsburgS.HatalaR. (2015). A contemporary approach to validity arguments: A practical guide to Kane’s framework. Medical Education, 49(6), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12678
37.
CookL.FriendM. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v28i3.6852
38.
CookS. C.McDuffie-LandrumK. (2020). Integrating effective practices into co-teaching: Increasing outcomes for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(4), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219855739
39.
CorrellJ.MellingerC.McClellandG. H.JuddC. M. (2020). Avoid Cohen’s “small”, “medium”, and “large” for power analysis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(3), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.009
40.
CreemersB.KyriakidesL. (2007). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. Routledge.
41.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
42.
CronbachL. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. Jossey-Bass.
43.
CrutzenR.PetersG.-J. Y. (2017). Targeting next generations to change the common practice of underpowered research [Opinion]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01184
44.
DehnadA.JalaliM.ShahabiS.MojganiP.BigdeliS. (2021). Students’ view on supportive co-teaching in medical sciences: A systematic review. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02958-4
45.
de JongL.MeirinkJ.AdmiraalW. (2019). School-based teacher collaboration: Different learning opportunities across various contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102925
46.
DevecchiC.NevinA. (2010). Leadership for inclusive schools and inclusive school leadership. In NormoreA. H. (Ed.), Global perspectives on educational leadership reform: The development and preparation of leaders of learning and learners of leadership (Vol. 11, pp. 211–241). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3660(2010)0000011014
47.
DietrichsonJ.FilgesT.KlokkerR. H.ViinholtB. C. A.BøgM.JensenU. H. (2020). Targeted school-based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with, or at risk of, academic difficulties in Grades 7–12: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(2), e1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1081
48.
EllisP. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761676
49.
Erceg-HurnD. M.MirosevichV. M. (2008). Modern robust statistical methods: An easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American Psychologist, 63(7), 591–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.591
50.
EsterhazyR.de LangeT.BastiansenS.WittekA. L. (2021). Moving beyond peer review of teaching: A conceptual framework for collegial faculty development. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721
51.
FluijtD.BakkerC.StruyfE. (2016). Team-reflection: The missing link in co-teaching teams. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1125690
52.
FraenkelJ. R.WallenN. E.HyunH. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
53.
FriendM.CookL.Hurley-ChamberlainD.ShambergerC. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535380
54.
FriendM.EmburyD. C.ClarkeL. (2015). Co-teaching versus apprentice teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(2), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414529308
55.
GastI.SchildkampK.Van Der VeenJ. T. (2017). Team-based professional development interventions in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 736–767. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317704306
*Ghanaat PishehE. A.SadeghpourN.NejatyjahromyY.Mir NasabM. M. (2017). The effect of cooperative teaching on the development of reading skills among students with reading disorders. Support for Learning, 32(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12168
58.
GoddardR.GoddardY.Sook KimE.MillerR. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925
59.
GollwitzerM.SchwabeJ. (2022). Context dependency as a predictor of replicability. Review of General Psychology, 26(2), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211015635
60.
GopalanM.RosingerK.AhnJ. B. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: Growth, promise, and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 218–243. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903302
61.
GurgurH.UzunerY. (2011). Examining the implementation of two co-teaching models: Team teaching and station teaching. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(6), 589–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903265032
62.
*HadleyP. A.SimmermanA.LongM.LunaM. (2000). Facilitating language development for inner-city children: Experimental evaluation of a collaborative, classroom-based intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.3103.280
63.
HammersleyM. (2008). Paradigm war revived? On the diagnosis of resistance to randomized controlled trials and systematic review in education. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270801919826
64.
HargreavesA. (2019). Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499
65.
HärkkiT.VartiainenH.Seitamaa-HakkarainenP.HakkarainenK. (2021). Co-teaching in non-linear projects: A contextualised model of co-teaching to support educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103188
66.
HeislerL. A.ThousandJ. S. (2021). A guide to co-teaching for the SLP: A tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 42(2), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740119886310
67.
HessB. J.KvernB. (2021). Using Kane’s framework to build a validity argument supporting (or not) virtual OSCEs. Medical Teacher, 43(9), 999–1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1910641
68.
HoekstraR.KiersH. A.JohnsonA. (2012). Are assumptions of well-known statistical techniques checked, and why (not)?Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00137
69.
HonigsfeldA.DoveM. G. (2019). Preparing teachers for co-teaching and collaboration. In de OliveiraL. C. (Ed.), The handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp. 405–421). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119421702.ch26
70.
HuY.PlonskyL. (2021). Statistical assumptions in L2 research: A systematic review. Second Language Research, 37(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319877433
71.
IaconoT.LandryO.Garcia-MelgarA.SpongJ.HyettN.BagleyK.McKinstryC. (2021). A systematized review of co-teaching efficacy in enhancing inclusive education for students with disability. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(13), 1454–1468. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1900423
*JangS.-J. (2006). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers. Educational Research, 48(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880600732272
74.
JangS.-J. (2010). The impact on incorporating collaborative concept mapping with coteaching techniques in elementary science classes. School Science and Mathematics, 110(2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.00012.x
75.
JohnsonT. M.King-SearsM. E. (2020). Eliciting students’ perspectives about their co-teaching experiences. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(1), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220910732
76.
JortveitM.KovačV. B. (2021). Co-teaching that works: Special and general educators’ perspectives on collaboration. Teaching Education, 33(3), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2021.1895105
77.
KaneM. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
78.
KelchtermansG. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions: A review. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 220–237. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4454
79.
KimJ. (2019). Implementing a co-teaching model in music student teaching: A literature review. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 38(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123319843169
80.
King-SearsM. E.BrawandA. E.JenkinsM. C.Preston-SmithS. (2014). Co-teaching perspectives from secondary science co-teachers and their students with disabilities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(6), 651–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9391-2
81.
King-SearsM. E.StefanidisA.BerkeleyS.StrogilosV. (2021). Does co-teaching improve academic achievement for students with disabilities? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 34, 100405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100405
82.
KyndtE.GijbelsD.GrosemansI.DoncheV. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1111–1150. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627864
83.
LeathermanJ. (2009). Teachers’ voices concerning collaborative teams within an inclusive elementary school. Teaching Education, 20(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210902718104
84.
*LehaneP.SeniorJ. (2020). Collaborative teaching: Exploring the impact of co-teaching practices on the numeracy attainment of pupils with and without special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(3), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1652439
LindstrombergS. (2016). Inferential statistics in language teaching research: A review and ways forward. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 741–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816649979
87.
LiuX. S. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the social and behavioral sciences: Basic and advanced techniques. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203127698
88.
MagieraK.SmithC.ZigmondN.GebauerK. (2005). Benefits of co-teaching in secondary mathematics classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503700303
89.
*MaharaniA.DarhimA.SabandarJ.HermanT. (2019a). Pbl-team teaching: Supporting vocational students logical thinking and creative disposition. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1188, 012026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012026
90.
*MaharaniA.DarhimA.SabandarJ.HermanT. (2019b). Problem based learning-team teaching to improve vocational school students’ mathematical disposition. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(4), 042078. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042078
91.
*McKenzieS.Hains-WessonR.BangayS.BowtellG. (2022). A team-teaching approach for blended learning: An experiment. Studies in Higher Education, 47(4), 860–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1817887
92.
MemonM. A.TingH.CheahJ.-H.ThurasamyR.ChuahF.ChamT. H. (2020). Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2), i–xx. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.4(2)01
93.
*MigdadiA.BaniabdelrahmanA. (2016). The effect of using team teaching on Jordanian EFL eleventh grade students’ reading comprehension and their attitudes towards this strategy. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 3(2), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509/2016.3.2/509.2.38.50
94.
MingN. C.GoldenbergL. B. (2021). Research worth using: (Re)framing research evidence quality for educational policymaking and practice. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 129–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X21990620
95.
MohajeriK.MesgariM.LeeA. S. (2020). When statistical significance is not enough: Investigating relevance, practical significance, and statistical significance. MIS Quarterly, 44(2), 525–559. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/13932
96.
MorganS. L.WinshipC. (2014). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991
97.
MossP. A.HaertelE. H. (2016). Engaging methodological pluralism. In GitomerD.BellC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed, pp. 127–247). AERA.
98.
MuckenthalerM.TillmannT.WeißS.KielE. (2020). Teacher collaboration as a core objective of school development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(3), 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1747501
99.
*MuhammadZ.JahanA. (2019). Co-teaching effectiveness: Students’ achievement in mathematical proficiencies and content strands. Pakistan Journal of Education, 35(3), 39–58. http://doi.org/10.30971/pje.v35i3.772
100.
MuijsD.KyriakidesL.van der WerfG.CreemersB.TimperleyH.EarlL. (2014). State of the art—Teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451
NelsonM. C.CordrayD. S.HullemanC. S.DarrowC. L.SommerE. C. (2012). A procedure for assessing intervention fidelity in experiments testing educational and behavioral interventions. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 39(4), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-012-9295-x
103.
NevinA.ThousandJ.VillaR. (2009). Collaborative teaching for teacher educators—What does the research say?Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.009
104.
NimonK. F. (2012). Statistical assumptions of substantive analyses across the general linear model: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00322
105.
OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 results: Vol. II. Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/23129638
106.
OsbourneJ. W.WatersE. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7275/r222-hv23
107.
Ostovar-NameghiS.SheikhahmadiM. (2016). From teacher isolation to teacher collaboration: Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 197. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n5p197
108.
PageM. J.MoherD.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.. . . McKenzieJ. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
109.
PearlC.DiekerL. A.KirkpatrickR. M. (2012). A five-year retrospective on the Arkansas department of education co-teaching project. Professional Development in Education, 38(4), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.668858
110.
PearlJ. (2009). Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Cambridge University Press.
111.
PolaninJ. R.Tanner-SmithE. E.HennessyE. (2016). Estimating the difference between published and unpublished effect sizes: A meta-review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582067
112.
PrattS. (2014). Achieving symbiosis: Working through challenges found in co-teaching to achieve effective co-teaching relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.006
113.
PrattS. M.ImbodyS. M.WolfL. D.PattersonA. L. (2017). Co-planning in co-teaching. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(4), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659474
114.
*RaoZ.YuH. (2021). Enhancing students’ English proficiency by co-teaching between native and non-native teachers in an EFL context. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 778–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819873937
115.
RaudenbushS. W. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 2(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.2.173
116.
Rexroat-FrazierN.ChamberlinS. (2019). Best practices in co-teaching mathematics with special needs students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19(3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12439
117.
ReynoldsD.SammonsP.De FraineB.Van DammeJ.TownsendT.TeddlieC.StringfieldS. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): A state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885450
118.
*SaeedA. A.MutasharA. M.AldakheelA. (2018). The impact of applying collaborative team teaching method on students’ outcomes. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, 12(4), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.5958/0973-9130.2018.00212.8
119.
SchäferT.SchwarzM. A. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813
120.
SchanzenbachD. W. (2012). Limitations of experiments in education research. Education Finance and Policy, 7(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00063
121.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.McDuffieK. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401
122.
ShadishW. R. (2011). The truth about validity. New Directions for Evaluation, 2011(130), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.369
123.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
124.
*SharmaU.GrovéC.LaletasS.RangarajanR.FinkelsteinS. (2021). Bridging gaps between theory and practice of inclusion through an innovative partnership between university academics and school educators in Australia. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(10), 1102–1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1882052
125.
*SheinP. P.TsaiC.-Y. (2015). Impact of a scientist–teacher collaborative model on students, teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2147–2169. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1068465
126.
*SimonsM.BaetenM. (2016). Student teachers’ team teaching during field experiences: An evaluation by their mentors. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(5), 415–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2016.1271560
127.
SimonsM.BaetenM.VanheesC. (2020). Team teaching during field experiences in teacher education: Investigating student teachers’ experiences with parallel and sequential teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118789064
128.
SimonsM.CoetzeeS.BaetenM.SchmulianA. (2020). Measuring learners’ perceptions of a team-taught learning environment: Development and validation of the Learners’ Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ). Learning Environments Research, 23(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09290-1
129.
SolisM.VaughnS.SwansonE.McCulleyL. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 498–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21606
130.
*StapletonJ.FogartyE.TschidaC.CuthrellK.ChıttumJ. (2021). Impact of coaching, co-teaching, and student characteristics on teacher readiness Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 10(2), 131–155.
131.
SteegerC. M.BuckleyP. R.PampelF. C.GustC. J.HillK. G. (2021). Common methodological problems in randomized controlled trials of preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 22(8), 1159–1172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01263-2
132.
SullivanG. M. (2011). Getting off the “gold standard”: Randomized controlled trials and education research. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3(3), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00147.1
133.
SungY.-T.LeeH.-Y.YangJ.-M.ChangK.-E. (2019). The quality of experimental designs in mobile learning research: A systemic review and self-improvement tool. Educational Research Review, 28, 100279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.001
134.
SweigartC. A.LandrumT. J. (2015). The impact of number of adults on instruction: Implications for co-teaching. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.919139
135.
SzumskiG.SmogorzewskaJ.KarwowskiM. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 21, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004
136.
TiptonE.OlsenR. B. (2018). A review of statistical methods for generalizing from evaluations of educational interventions. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18781522
137.
*TremblayP. (2013). Comparative outcomes of two instructional models for students with learning disabilities: Inclusion with co-teaching and solo-taught special education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(4), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01270.x
138.
*UnaS. (2016). The use of parallel team-teaching: The case of teaching speaking for economics students in the Indonesian context. Asian EFL Journal, 2016(89), 4–22.
139.
van de SchootR.MiočevićM. (2020). Small sample size solutions: A guide for applied researchers and practitioners. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429273872
140.
Van GarderenD.StormontM.GoelN. (2012). Collaboration between general and special educators and student outcomes: A need for more research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21610
VembyeM. H.WeissF.Hamilton BhatB. (2024). The effects of co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction on student achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 94(3), 376–422. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588
143.
VesikiviP.LakkalaM.HolvikiviJ.MuukkonenH. (2019). Team teaching implementation in engineering education: Teacher perceptions and experiences. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(4), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1446910
144.
VeteskaJ.KurschM.SvobodovaZ.TureckiovaM.PaulovcakovaL. (2022). Longitudinal co-teaching projects: Scoping review. In IfenthalerD.IsaíasP.SampsonD. G. (Eds.), Orchestration of learning environments in the digital world (pp. 35–53). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90944-4_3
145.
WalshT. (2020). “Promoted widely but not valued”: Teachers’ perceptions of team teaching as a form of professional development in post-primary schools in Ireland. Professional Development in Education, 48(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1725596
146.
*WangS.-L.ChenH.-P.HuS.-L.LeeC.-D. (2019). Analyzing student satisfaction in the technical and vocational education system through collaborative teaching. Sustainability, 11(18), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184856
147.
WeinbergA. E.SebaldA.StevensonC. A.WakefieldW. (2020). Toward conceptual clarity: A scoping review of coteaching in teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 55(2), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019.1657214
148.
*WelchM. (2000). Descriptive analysis of team teaching in two elementary classrooms: A formative experimental approach. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100606
149.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook (Version 4.1). U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
150.
*YeganehpourP.ZarfsazE. (2020). The effect of co-teaching on advanced EFL learners’ writing ability. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(4), 1833–1853. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.851009
151.
ZachS. (2020). Co-teaching – An approach for enhancing teaching-learning collaboration in physical education teacher education (PETE). Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 20(3), 1402–1407. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2020.03193
152.
ZhangY.WangJ.LuS. (2016). Research into the topic-based inter-curriculum cooperative teaching model of the higher school English major. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics, 19(3), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720502.2016.1196051
153.
ZhangZ.YuanK.-H. (2018). Practical statistical power analysis using Webpower and R. ISDSA Press.
