Ways of composing teaching teams and their impact on teachers’ perceptions about collaboration

Figures & data

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and MANCOVA comparison for the three kinds of teacher teams (N = Self-selected 66; Mixed 39; Institutionally composed 187).

Dimension	Team composition	M (SD)	F	p	η ^2
Shared responsibility	Self-selected	4.42 (.59)	5.82	.001	.036
	Mixed	4.08 (.63)
	Institutionally composed	4.02 (.80)
Skills and external resources	Self-selected	3.63 (.77)	2.24	.109	.015
	Mixed	3.57 (.62)
	Institutionally composed	3.38 (.79)
Enjoyment with the Co-teaching process	Self-selected	4.28 (.72)	7.02	.001	.047
	Mixed	4.11 (.67)
	Institutionally composed	3.85 (.84)
Self-efficacy expectations	Self-selected	3.07 (.64)	2.16	.075	.018
	Mixed	3.16 (.68)
	Institutionally composed	2.93 (.51)
Job satisfaction	Self-selected	2.86 (.21)	3.07	.048 ^*	.021
	Mixed	2.87 (.29)
	Institutionally composed	2.79 (.27)

Notes:

df: 2/292; scaling = 1: lowest – 5: highest. For Self-Efficacy Expectations and Job Satisfaction 1: lowest – 4: highest.

^* Please note that a more conservative alpha level of .01 is used instead of .05, to determine significant effects.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the teams of teachers engaged in the mixed group (N = 39).

Dimension	Team composition	M (SD)	Number of teams
Shared responsibility	Self-selected	4.37 (.55)	57
	Institutionally composed	3.84 (.84)	61
Skills and external resources	Self-selected	3.62 (.63)	57
	Institutionally composed	3.27 (.70)	61
Enjoyment with the Co-teaching teaching process	Self-selected	4.38 (.73)	57
	Institutionally composed	3.75 (.72)	61