Team teachers’ emotions and their antecedents in the classroom

ABSTRACT

Team teaching requires close collaboration and frequent social interactions between two teachers. Within these interactions, it is expected that the teachers experience various emotions. This study aims to investigate team teachers’ emotional lives; in particular, which discrete emotions team teachers experience in working with their team partner and why. We used an appraisal–theoretical understanding of emotions and structuring qualitative content analysis to analyse 30 semi-structured online interviews with Austrian team teachers from lower secondary schools. Our results show that the team-teaching setting, values and goals, the collaboration characteristics (e.g. workload division) and the lesson (e.g. variety of methods) trigger emotions such as joy, gratitude, anger or insecurity within the other teacher. Moreover, additional sources of emotions are the two teachers’ personal characteristics, the team partner’s relationship with students and the relationship in the team. We discuss the practical implications for team teaching.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher emotions
• team teaching
• teacher teams
• teacher collaboration
• qualitative research

Introduction

Collaboration between teachers can enhance teachers’ professional competence, for example through increased emotional relief between the teachers, effective division of labour, enhanced teacher motivation, and deepened reflection about professional teaching behaviour (Muckenthaler et al. 2020; Vangrieken et al. 2015). One form of close teacher collaboration is team teaching. During team-taught lessons, (at least) two teachers are responsible for teaching the same subject to the same class (Krammer et al. 2018). Prerequisites for successful team teaching include effective communication between the two teachers; relationship factors such as trust, support and shared views; and teacher characteristics such as openness, reliability, flexibility and the ability to take criticism (Baeten and Simons 2014; de Zordo, Hagenauer, and Hascher 2017; Waber et al. 2021; all for student teachers in the practicum). However, team teaching can present challenges for teachers, for example incompatible personalities or conceptions of teaching; comparing themselves to their partner teacher; or experiencing extra workload due to inefficient collaboration (Baeten and Simons 2014). Compared to an individually taught classroom, where one teacher takes responsibility for teaching, a second teacher enriches the team-taught classroom and inherent classroom interactions.

Social-psychological theories of emotion propose that emotions are triggered in social situations (Parkinson 1996). The (team-teaching) classroom represents a social sphere in which students and teachers are required to interact. Therefore, it is unsurprising that teachers experience a plethora of emotions while teaching in the classroom. In particular, research has examined teacher emotions triggered by students’ classroom behaviour, i.e. engagement, discipline, motivation and achievement (Hagenauer, Hascher, and Volet 2015; Hargreaves 1998). We propose that interactions in the team-taught classroom are even more diverse than ‘regular’ classrooms because the second teacher adds further potential for interactions and the ensuing teacher emotions. As student-triggered emotions are linked to teachers’ instructional quality (Burić and Frenzel 2023; Chen 2019), the student – teacher relationship (Hagenauer, Hascher, and Volet 2015), teacher well-being (Keller et al. 2014) and teacher burnout (Chang 2009), we assume that emotions triggered by the partner teacher, i.e. emotions experienced in working together with the partner teacher (also referred to as the ‘team partner’), are also likely related to these concepts. In addition, they are possibly linked to the quality of teacher collaboration and the teacher-teacher relationship.

Collaboration in the teaching profession is increasingly considered necessary for school improvement and teacher professionalisation (Vangrieken et al. 2015). However, collaboration can entail challenges for teachers, for example in the form of complex interpersonal interaction situations such as failed communication (de Zordo, Hagenauer, and Hascher 2017; Do and Hascher 2023; Waber et al. 2021). Within these complex interactions, we assume teachers experience a plethora of emotions. The focus of prior research on team teaching has mostly been confined to investigating the advantages, disadvantages and conditions for the success of team teaching for students, student teachers and teachers (Baeten and Simons 2014; de Zordo, Hagenauer, and Hascher 2017). However, we know little about how team teachers affectively experience team teaching; more precisely, what kind of emotions teachers experience during team-teaching with their team partner and the antecedents of these emotions. Knowledge on team teachers’ emotions is important because teacher emotions have been shown to influence several important classroom variables such as instructional quality and also likely influence the quality of team teaching. Therefore, this study investigates team teachers’ emotional lives in the classroom. We examine (1) which emotions team teachers experience in working with their team partner and (2) the respective antecedents.

Theoretical framework

Team teaching

Several terms are used for teacher collaboration in the classroom, such as co-teaching, collaborative teaching, cooperative teaching and team teaching (Krammer et al. 2018). The concept of team teaching originates from co-teaching practices; co-teaching used to describe collaboration between a special needs educator and a teacher in inclusive education (Cook and Friend 1995). Nowadays, the terms are frequently used interchangeably (Krammer et al. 2018). In this article, we use the term team teaching.

Cook and Friend (1995) categorised different forms of team teaching (co-teaching) according to the amount of collaboration: a) one teaching/one assisting,¹ b) station teaching, c) parallel teaching, d) alternative teaching and e) team teaching. Baeten and Simons (2014) used a meta-analysis to further differentiate five different models ranging from lower to stronger collaboration: observation; coaching; assistant teaching; equal status (including sequential teaching, parallel teaching and station teaching) and teaming. During lessons, team teachers can apply variations of these models, each form equally well-suited for different purposes (Baeten and Simons 2014; Cook and Friend 1995).

According to student teachers, the advantages of team teaching include increased emotional and professional support within the team, increased dialogue about learning and teaching, professional growth, and personal growth (Baeten and Simons 2014). However, the disadvantages of team teaching include a lack of compatibility regarding opinions, personalities or conceptions of teaching; low levels of involvement and responsibility; increased workload; less professional growth; more difficulties with classroom management; and an overall sense of unfamiliarity with team teaching (Baeten and Simons 2014).

Research has examined, for example, the benefits and drawbacks of team teaching for (student) teachers and learners (Baeten and Simons 2014; de Zordo, Hagenauer, and Hascher 2017) and the effects of team teaching on student achievement (Carpenter, Crawford, and Walden 2007). However, the literature has yet to examine knowledge of the emotions that teachers experience in the team-taught lessons due to the team partner and their antecedents. It is imperative to gain empirical evidence on this topic as the importance placed on collaboration in the teaching profession is steadily increasing, and teachers’ emotions are considered an important factor that contributes to the quality of team teaching.

Teacher emotions in the team-taught classroom

Emotions are often regarded as multi-dimensional phenomena consisting of affective, expressive, physiological, motivational and cognitive components (Scherer 1984, 2005). Scherer (1984) defined the process of experiencing emotions as dynamic and recursive, i.e. events that are appraised as important by an individual may trigger psychophysical changes within the abovementioned interrelated components of affect, expression, physiology, motivation and cognition (Pekrun et al. 2023; Scherer 1984). Emotions are frequently classified according to their valence and arousal (Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2014; Scherer 2005). Emotions of positive valence are experienced as pleasant (e.g. joy), whereas those of negative valence are experienced as unpleasant (e.g. anger). They can be physiologically activating (high arousal, e.g. excitement, anger) or deactivating (low arousal, e.g. relaxation, boredom). In the school context, achievement emotions can be further categorised via object focus (Pekrun et al. 2023). This means that emotions can be directed at imagined or real and retrospective, prospective or present events (Pekrun et al. 2023). There are a myriad of emotions and emotion expressions. One instrument that reliably and objectively classifies free responses on emotional experiences is Scherer’s 2005 Geneva Affect Label Coder. It lists 36 affective states and semantically related emotion expressions and word stems. This classification of emotions guided us when analysing team teachers’ emotions.

Our understanding of emotions is rooted in social-psychological and appraisal theories of emotions. Social-psychological theories of emotions propose that emotions occur in situations that entail interactions (Parkinson, Fischer, and Manstead 2005; Parkinson 1996). These theories highlight the importance of interpersonal interactions and the role of emotions in social situations. In this context, teaching is a classroom-situated social interaction: usually, teachers and students interact with each other and thereby frequently experience emotions, based on their appraisals of (interpersonal) situations. This leads to our additional understanding of emotions, appraisal theory. Based on appraisal theory (e.g. Ellsworth and Scherer 2003), emotions occur because of cognitive evaluations (i.e. appraisals) of situations. Therefore, it is not the situation per se that evokes emotions but rather a person’s cognitive assessment of it.

Studies have shown that teaching, understood as a situation including social interactions with students, frequently triggers emotions in teachers (Frenzel 2014; Keller et al. 2014). It is mostly students’ relational, achievement-related, socio-emotional and motivational behaviour in the classroom that has been demonstrated as triggering emotions within teachers based on teachers’ appraisals (Becker et al. 2015; Frenzel 2014). These emotions have been shown to be linked to teachers’ instructional quality (Burić and Frenzel 2023; Chen 2019), the student–teacher relationship (Hagenauer, Hascher, and Volet 2015), teacher well-being (Hagenauer and Hascher 2018; Keller et al. 2014) and teacher burnout (Chang 2009). According to Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build theory, positive teacher emotions can positively affect teachers’ thought-action repertoire, meaning they use more student-centred and autonomous teaching styles, which can positively impact students’ learning in addition to teacher and student well-being. Therefore, it is desirable that teachers experience positive emotions in the classroom.

Emotions have been studied extensively in teachers’ work, with a focus on student-triggered emotions (for an overview, see Frenzel, Daniels, and Burić 2021). However, there is scarce empirical research on in-service teachers’ emotions regarding team teaching. Waber et al. (2021) examined the emotions and their antecedents of student teachers who team-taught during their practicum with a fellow student teacher and/or mentor teacher. They found that social interactions within the team-teaching situation triggered over 30 distinct emotions within the student teachers. When student teachers experienced support, successful teaching-related cooperation, special events, positive personal relationships or team spirit, they reported feeling positive emotions. In contrast, failed communication (e.g. confrontation or misunderstanding), imbalanced workload, failure of the team partner, discrepancies in teaching styles, difficulties in joint planning and team partner’s unpredictability elicited negative emotions.

We follow up on the study by Waber et al. (2021) but focus on in-service team teachers. Based on a socio-psychological and appraisal–theoretical understanding of emotions, we propose that one team teacher observes and appraises the partner teacher’s behaviour in class. We assume that the team partner’s behaviour may be conducive to or hindering of team teacher’s goal attainment, thereby creating either predominantly positive emotions and a pleasant atmosphere or negative emotions and tensions. The derived research questions are as follows:

RQ1:

Which positive and negative emotions do team teachers experience in working with their team partner?

RQ2:

Which characteristics of the team partner and the team-teaching collaboration do teachers describe as antecedents of their emotions?

We thereby add to the knowledge on teacher emotions in the classroom by focusing on a specific classroom situation – namely teaching in the team. Furthermore, we extend previous research on teacher collaboration by considering teacher emotions as one crucial factor likely to impact the quality of team teaching.

Method

This study applies an exploratory-qualitative approach via interviews with team teachers. We chose a qualitative approach because, to date, we know little about the emotional lives of team teachers, especially the emotions experienced during teaching together with a team partner. Using semi-structured interviews, we gathered detailed information on team teachers’ emotions. The present study is the first strand of an exploratory sequential mixed methods study (Plano Clark and Ivankova 2016). It will be followed by a quantitative study that will assess team teachers’ emotions via diary longitudinally and link them to quality indicators of team teaching and teacher well-being.

Participants and context

In Austrian middle schools (i.e. lower secondary schools), team teaching is compulsory for German, mathematics and English classes in the first grade (form 5) and optional for forms 6–8 (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research 2022). Thirty team teachers (23 female, 7 male), who taught mathematics (n = 9), language of instruction (i.e. German) (n = 12) and first foreign language (i.e. English) (n = 9) in two federal states in Austria participated in the online interviews, recruited through their school administrations via email, and participation was voluntary. The participants were on average 43 years old (SD = 13.9, range = 24–63) and had on average seven years of experience with team teaching (SD = 5.7, range = 1.2–25.5). Personal data (e.g. names of team partners) were anonymised in the transcripts.

Interviews and procedure

We created a semi-structured interview guide, consisting of four main questions and several prompts (see Online Supplement; Table S1). At the beginning of the interview, the interviewer (first author) established a secure atmosphere. The teachers were instructed to focus on team-teaching situations that occurred within the classroom; preparatory and post-lesson meetings were excluded from the interview focus. After two to three lead-in questions, the relevant questions were posed. The teachers were asked to a) generally name behaviours or characteristics of their team partner and the team-teaching collaboration in the classroom that trigger positive or negative emotions in them and b) specifically describe classroom situations in which they had experienced positive or negative emotions within the collaboration with their team partner and explain the origins thereof. Furthermore, the teachers were always asked to name or describe the emotions that they had experienced.

After two pilot interviews, we conducted 30 eligible interviews between November 2020 and February 2021. The semi-structured interviews were online due to mandatory Austrian COVID-19 social distancing restrictions. We recorded and transcribed all interviews verbatim using the software MAXQDA; they lasted 70 minutes on average (range: 52–91 minutes). The work presented in this paper was conducted per The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for research involving human participants and in accordance with the APA ethical standards. All participants in our study provided their written informed consent per the Declaration of Helsinki, approved the processing of their data in advance, and could terminate the interview at any time without justification. Following the interview, participants answered a short questionnaire about their demographics, which was stored separately from the interview data.

Data analysis

We analysed the interviews using structuring qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2014), applying a deductive–inductive approach. More specifically, we used deductive categories, which we derived from the theoretical background and empirical literature, and inductive categories, which we created directly from the interview material.

Regarding the concept-driven or deductive strategy of developing categories for our coding frame, we first created two broad categories that corresponded to our research questions: a) team teachers’ emotions and b) antecedents of team teachers’ emotions. Second, we divided the first category into the two valence dimensions: positive valence and negative valence. Third, we then already added several emotions based on Scherer’s (2005) Geneva Affect Label Coder, such as anger or pride, to the relevant subcategories of emotions – positive valence (e.g. pride) and emotions – negative valence (e.g. anger). This was because we assumed these emotions are likely to occur during team teaching. Fourth, we began the inductive coding process. Based on the first 15 interviews, we inductively created several categories that described antecedents of emotions and added several new emotions to the categories emotions – positive valence (e.g. admiration) and emotions – negative valence (e.g. impatience). We discovered a wide range of team-teaching characteristics and behaviours of the partner teacher that triggered emotions – especially relating to the antecedents of emotions – and we assigned these a name and coded them as subcategories. Having coded the first half of the interviews, we discussed the draft of the coding scheme with experts from the field and decided which categories to merge based on content-related similarity. We also discussed which antecedents to cluster into meaningful groups and assigned them a super category. We then coded the first 15 interviews again and checked the suitability of the renewed coding scheme. Finally, we coded the second half of the interviews with the final coding scheme.

Overall, we arrived at the subcategories positive valence and negative valence and several emotions under each category for a) team teachers’ emotions. Furthermore, we arrived at eight subcategories for b) antecedents of emotions, which further entailed several sub-subcategories. We present a detailed example of the coding scheme in the online supplement (see Table S2 in the supplementary material).

To test the robustness of the coding (O’Connor and Joffe 2020), we calculated the intercoder reliability with an independent researcher who was not part of the project but is nonetheless an expert in teacher emotions. Based on four randomly selected interviews that were double-coded, the corrected Cohen’s Kappa is .70. This means that intercoder reliability is good, and the coding scheme and its application were transparent and rigorous (Brennan and Prediger 1981).

Results

The interview accounts provided rich data concerning team teachers’ emotional experiences. First, we outline the teachers’ experiences of positive and negative emotions (RQ1). Second, we describe the antecedents of these emotions, i.e. the characteristics of the team-teaching situation with the team partner that act as antecedents of team teachers’ emotions (RQ2).

Teachers’ positive and negative emotions in the team-taught classroom

Regarding research question 1, the teachers named 44 distinct emotions (21 positive and 23 negative emotions; see Table 1) in addition to the general positive and negative feelings also named. The number of coded text segments for positive and negative emotions was equally balanced (n = 344 text segments for negative emotions; n = 350 text segments for positive emotions).

Table 1. Team teachers’ distinct emotions.

positive emotions	number of teachers	number of text segments
positive feeling	29	137
joy	21	49
amusement (incl. [shared] humour)	20	49
happiness	17	18
‘in flow’	9	13
relaxation/serenity	9	11
security	8	11
gratitude	8	11
comfortable feeling/feeling of well-being	7	10
contentment/satisfaction	7	7
positive surprise	6	7
admiration	4	5
appreciation/understanding	3	6
relief	3	4
affection	1	4
enrichment	1	2
pride	1	1
enthusiasm/interest/excitement	1	1
feeling supported	1	1
sympathy	1	1
trust	1	1
amusement (in the sense of ridicule)	1	1
negative emotions	number of teachers	number of text segments
negative feeling	29	100
anger/annoyance/fury	20	63
negative surprise	11	21
discomfort/irritation/unpleasantness	11	17
boredom/feeling redundant	10	31
insecurity	10	21
burden/tension/stress	10	15
helplessness/desperation	7	9
anxiety/timidity/nervousness	7	9
compassion/pity	5	8
disappointment	5	6
dissatisfaction/unhappiness	5	5
shame/embarrassment/intimidation	4	5
frustration	3	9
confusion	3	6
disbelief	3	6
sadness	3	4
guilt	2	2
impatience	2	2
hate	1	1
disgust/aversion	1	1
feeling unaccepted/inadequate/not understood	1	1
feeling aggressive	1	1
apathy	1	1

Regarding positive emotions, team teachers most frequently reported a general feeling of positive emotions, i.e. feeling good, fine or great while teaching together with their team partner. The second most frequently described emotions were joy (also: being glad) and amusement (entailing [shared] humour). Concerning negative emotions, team teachers most frequently mentioned feeling generally negative, i.e. feeling bad, negative or not good. The second most frequently reported emotion was anger.

Antecedents of team teachers’ emotions in the team-taught classroom

In addition to the concrete emotional experiences in the team-teaching setting, we analysed which characteristics of the teams’ classroom work triggered emotions in the second teacher. We grouped the antecedents of team teachers’ emotions into eight major categories: the team-teaching setting (n = 7 coded text segments); attitudes, values and goals (n = 76 text segments); characteristics of the collaboration (n = 172 text segments); characteristics of the lesson (design) and teachers’ professional competence (n = 147 text segments); characteristics of the team partner (n = 34 text segments); characteristics of oneself (n = 6 text segments); characteristics of the team partner’s relationship with students (n = 58 text segments); and characteristics of the team’s relationship (n = 159 text segments). Most of these categories include several sub-categories and distinctions by positive and negative emotions. Overall, we identified 33 antecedents of team teachers’ positive emotions and 34 antecedents of team teachers’ negative emotions in the team-taught class. Figure 1 shows the antecedents of negative emotions and Figure 2 presents the antecedents of positive emotions. The numbers in parentheses express how many team teachers (maximum: 30) named the respective antecedents.

Figure 1. Antecedents of team teachers’ negative emotions.

Figure 2. Antecedents of team teachers’ positive emotions.

In the following sections, we describe the various antecedents of team teachers’ emotions that are displayed and summarised in Figures 1 and 2 in detail. As the antecedents are frequently related to both valences of the emotions (e.g. a fair division of workload can trigger positive emotions, and an unfair division can trigger negative emotions), we describe them jointly. Tables 2 and 3 show the connections between the eight major antecedents of team teachers’ emotions and the emotions triggered by them.

Table 2. Antecedents of negative emotions and their link to the respective experienced negative emotions.

Table 3. Antecedents of positive emotions and their link to the respective experienced positive emotions.

The team-teaching setting

According to some teachers, the team-teaching setting itself, i.e. mandatory team teaching in the classroom, triggers emotions in them. Whereas some teachers outlined that the presence of the partner teacher relaxes them, others said that being in class with their partner teacher makes them anxious or insecure because, for example, they feel observed and judged by them.

Attitudes, values and goals

Teachers frequently highlighted that a shared understanding of attitudes, values and goals in the classroom is important for the team. When the teachers have common goals, they experience, for example, joy and contentment. However, when the team partner has conflicting goals, this can result in feelings of anger or aggression. In a next step, teachers reported that constructive discussions about and a common effort to reach shared goals is essential for them to feel positive or happy. When the team partner counteracts the other’s goals, this can lead to anger or confusion. One German teacher was upset because her team partner undermined her efforts to encourage students to use the standard language in German:

We actually have the task […] to teach German […] with standard language. And that is actually a principle of mine that I have pursued since the beginning. […] But the concrete example is that my colleague […] primarily only speaks in dialect. And that was – has just caused negative emotions in me. […] It’s anger, it’s anger that arises inside. (Interview 07, pos. 125–129)

Last, teachers explained that the team’s success in goal attainment leads them to feel, for example, happy or content.

Characteristics of the collaboration

Regarding the team’s collaboration, we identified eight inherent characteristics that act as antecedents of emotions. Team teachers reported that shared preparation and planning makes them feel secure in the classroom; in contrast, its absence can trigger negative emotions such as insecurity. The teachers also stressed the importance of their team partner’s interest in collaborating. When both team partners collaborate well, it triggers joy or gratitude in them. In contrast, bad collaboration can lead to a feeling of burden. Another relevant aspect of team teachers’ collaborative practices is that their team partner is reliable, trustworthy and keeps agreements. Team teachers expressed feelings of joy, security and relaxation when they are able to count on their team partner and when their team partner abides by agreements. If their team partner acts oppositely, this can cause, for example, disappointment, frustration, shame or negative surprise. One teacher described a negative situation with her team partner, who was unreliable at returning tests to students:

I was partly ashamed of myself in front of the students. Because […] when they [the students] ask you: ‘How well did I do in the test? When will we get the test back?’ And you’re a teacher in this class and you don’t have an answer for that. (Interview 19, pos. 87)

Moreover, the team partner’s support, whether subject-specific (e.g. adding content knowledge during the lesson) or in general (e.g. with classroom management), was reported to elicit positive emotions. However, the partner teachers’ supportive actions make some teachers feel insecure, helpless, uncomfortable or dissatisfied because they think that their team partner’s intervention indicates a lack of their own teaching skills. Positive feelings (e.g. happiness) are triggered when both team partners communicate effectively. Conversely, the teachers were angry, disbelieving, helpless or bored when exchanges between the two team members occurred infrequently or ineffectively. Teachers described fair or unfair division of the workload and the general team spirit or mood within the team as further antecedents of teacher emotions regarding their collaboration.

Characteristics of the lesson (design) and teachers’ professional competence

In addition to the collaboration, characteristics of the team-teaching lesson, lesson design and the team partner’s professional competence were also emotionally relevant. In this regard, we identified eight underlying characteristics as antecedents of emotions. Teachers described that positive or negative emotions were caused by their team partner’s openness (e.g. towards new ideas) and willingness to compromise during the lesson, their variety of methods, implementation of new ideas and creativity, their flexibility and spontaneity when adapting the lesson, and their effort to spread a good mood – or a lack of the aforementioned qualities. Furthermore, the team partner’s organisation or structuring of the lessons and their teaching styles can evoke emotions. For example, some teachers were positively surprised or amused when their team partner organised their lesson well and attempted to include topics on students’ everyday life. However, when the teacher disliked the organisation of the lesson or the team partner’s teaching style, this evoked negative feelings:

We did a unit of some kind, and at the end of the unit we always did a work plan. And then they [the students] worked on that for four or five lessons. […] I didn’t see much sense in it. […] I was really, extremely bored. (Interview 04, pos. 80)

The most frequently mentioned antecedent of team teachers’ negative emotions was being redundant during the lesson or ignored by the team partner or having nothing to do. This meant that team teachers could not share their full potential in class because their team partner did not include them. Therefore, they reported a variety of negative emotions, ranging from (strong) anger and annoyance to boredom, sadness, apathy, confusion and even compassion for the underserved students: ‘I am really annoyed that I am not needed’ (Interview 29, pos. 45). In contrast, when both team members added value for the students’ learning, the teachers reported being, for example, satisfied. In addition, the team partner’s teaching competencies and teaching performance in the classroom frequently triggered emotions. Whereas competent team partners usually elicited joy and admiration from the other, those lacking competence were far more emotionally difficult. When team partners frequently made mistakes, lacked content knowledge, corrected tests wrongly or provided students with incorrect explanations, teachers described feeling a mixture of negative emotions: insecurity; helplessness; anger; frustration; and feelings of burden, dissatisfaction or relief when the lesson was finally over:

My team partner (.) corrected the tests. […] And she returned the tests (3) to them [the students] (.) without any comment, and then an insane number of tests (.) was corrected wrongly. […] Of course, the children completely flipped out, […] and a few were crying […]. Some had a 5 [worst grade], although it was a 3 [medium grade]. […] I was (.) very frustrated, at the same time also (.) upset that someone […] dares to return (3) something like that. (Interview 25, pos. 33–35)

It is not just mistakes themselves but how their team partners react to them (e.g. making fun of themselves or stubbornly denying them) that can be a source of teacher emotions.

Characteristics of the team partner

Another emotionally relevant aspect for teachers was characteristics relating to the team partner. First, the personality of the team partner plays a role in teachers’ emotions. Friendly, calm, non-judgemental and easy-going team partners triggered joy, admiration and security. Dominant, egotistic, impolite, or arrogant colleagues caused frustration or anger. Second, other characteristics of the team partner were mentioned, such as their reluctance to follow official rules (antecedent of negative emotions) or bad body hygiene (antecedent of aversion).

Characteristics of oneself

It is not just the team partner’s characteristics which were mentioned as antecedents of emotions but also the characteristics of the interviewed teacher, relevant within the team-teaching setting. When the teachers had high expectations of themselves which they could not fulfil or when the team partner did something better than them, they experienced anxiety and dissatisfaction in front of their team partner.

Characteristics of the team partner’s relationship with students

The interview accounts also showed that the team partner’s relationship with students is relevant for the second teacher’s emotions. The teachers mentioned that the team partner’s approach to students (e.g. in the form of respect, appreciation and sensitivity) elicited positive emotions:

So really a bit of amazement and um, (3) […] it was then simply great admiration. Because then I thought to myself: wow, [she is] so sensitive. (Interview 19, pos. 45)

Conversely, disrespectful and insensitive behaviour towards students caused anger or helplessness. Frequently, the teachers reported getting angry or stressed and feeling helpless and compassion for students when their team partner (unjustifiably) scolds or demeans them or treats them unfairly:

And suddenly she [the student] was standing there with her poem and […] she had already started to cry. […] And then the girl told me in tears […] that she now had to recite this poem even though it had not been due until tomorrow. […] And the answer from the teacher was just, ‘Yes, if you can’t do it today, then you won’t be able to do it tomorrow anyway […]’. […] I said, ‘Hey, I don’t think so’. And then my colleague more or less interrupted me at that moment saying that she’s been a teacher longer than me, and she knows it better […]. I was simply very taken by surprise […]. I just felt helpless, and I was also angry. (Interview 23, pos. 39)

Positive behaviour, i.e. praising students or trying to motivate them triggered, for example, gratitude and admiration. Lastly, teachers reported that other behaviours, such as breaking agreements or disturbing students while they are concentrating, caused negative emotions.

Characteristics of the teams’ relationship

Lastly, the teachers frequently mentioned that characteristics of the relationship between both team partners lead to emotions in the team-taught classroom. In line with the distinction of Hagenauer and Volet (2014), we differentiated between the team partners’ interpersonal and professional relationship. On the interpersonal level, team partners who get along well frequently reported amusement and joy. On the professional level, several relationship factors contribute to both positive and negative emotions. According to some teachers, relationship characteristics such as loyalty, i.e. having the team partner’s back; honesty, i.e. giving honest work-related feedback; and consideration, i.e. considering the team partner’s issues, lead to feelings of, for example, security and gratitude. Conversely, when team partners are disloyal, dishonest or inconsiderate, this can trigger anger or disbelief. Furthermore, teachers found it important that team partners have an equal status within the relationship, meaning both teachers share equal rights within the collaboration. Some teachers explained that when their team partner acted superior, this made them feel helpless and redundant. Two frequently mentioned characteristics that triggered positive emotions were reassurance and praise and respect and appreciation from their team partner:

It’s extremely important that you appreciate each other, […] that you also show respect. […] I just feel good, […] and you just have the feeling: I like to be there, and I like to do that, so that’s just- you are joyful in the morning when you’re going to school. (Interview 28, pos. 53–55)

Other antecedents included taking responsibility, reflecting in the team, and accepting relational borders (all antecedents of positive emotions), and hypocritical behaviour and crossing relational borders (antecedents of negative emotions). Lastly, the primary antecedent of team teachers’ emotions within this category was team partners’ interruption and exposure of the other in front of students. This category included arguing in front of students, interrupting and disturbing the teacher, questioning the teacher’s competences in front of students, exposing them, or openly showing boredom triggered by the instructing teacher. Many teachers reported that these behaviours caused negative emotions such as shame, sadness, helplessness and frustration.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore team teachers’ discrete emotions experienced within the team-teaching collaboration with their team partner and the antecedents thereof. Our findings show that teaching in a team is highly emotional for the teachers. Team teachers described a myriad of both positive (n = 21) and negative (n = 23) emotions evoked by their partner teacher. In addition to general positive and negative feelings, team teachers most frequently reported experiencing joy and amusement as positive emotions and anger as negative emotions. This prevalence partly aligns with previous findings on teacher emotions (Frenzel 2014; Sutton and Wheatley 2003), which identified joy and anger as the most frequently experienced emotions among teachers. The wide variety of positive emotions in the team-teaching setting is desirable, as, in line with Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build theory, positive emotions can positively influence teachers’ instructional quality. This in turn can positively impact students and teachers in the classroom. In contrast, the large number of negative teacher emotions is potentially worrisome. Student-triggered negative teacher emotions are negatively related to teachers’ instructional quality (Burić and Frenzel 2023; Chen 2019), the teacher–student relationship (Hagenauer, Hascher, and Volet 2015), teacher well-being (Hagenauer and Hascher 2018), and positively to teacher burnout (Chang 2009). Thus we may assume that the negative emotions also likely impact these factors, in addition to the teacher–teacher relationship, and thereby might reduce the collaboration quality. Judging from the large number of reported emotions in this study, we suggest that when examining teacher emotions in other contexts, a wider range of emotions than the ‘classics’ frequently addressed in teacher emotion research – namely teachers’ joy, anger and anxiety – be considered (Frenzel et al. 2016).

Regarding research question 2, we identified eight major antecedents of teacher emotions, ranging from the team-teaching setting itself to attitudes, values and goals; characteristics of the collaboration, lesson and the team partners’ competence; and personal and relational characteristics. Examining the antecedents of team teachers’ emotions is helpful for identifying which personal, interpersonal and contextual factors should be promoted for their ability to cause positive emotions and which factors should be avoided due to the potential to trigger negative emotions in the team-teaching setting. Starting from a socio-psychological and appraisal–theoretical understanding of emotions, we found that numerous characteristics in the team-teaching setting can cause emotions in teachers. Overall, our interview data show that team teaching entails many positive situations as well as challenges for teachers. Our findings support other studies by Baeten and Simons (2014), de Zordo, Hagenauer, and Hascher (2017), and Waber et al. (2021), who found that, for example, effective communication, trust, support, shared views, and openness to criticism are necessary for successful collaborative relationships. Our results extend previous findings by revealing an even wider range of antecedents, such as role allocation or equality within the relationship, and by examining teacher emotions among in-service team teachers.

The results show that most teachers reported experiencing positive emotions when their team partner attempted to spread a comfortable atmosphere in the classroom. Presumably, when the team partner succeeds with their intentions, the other teacher will experience emotions such as joy and cheerfulness because they share a similar understanding of a desirable classroom climate and probably also because of emotional contagion (Frenzel et al. 2018). Half of the teachers reported that a supportive team partner is important for their positive emotional experiences, which demonstrates that teachers wish to utilise a frequently named advantage of team teaching, i.e. support.

According to our data, the most frequent antecedent of team teachers’ negative emotions was the perceived role they fulfil. Having a passive, redundant role during the team-taught lesson from the teachers’ perspective – frequently also connected to team teachers’ experiences of an imbalanced workload – led to teachers experiencing anger, boredom or compassion. In contrast, when team teachers realised their potential, this led to several positive emotions. We therefore assume it is highly important for team teachers to make an active contribution to students’ learning in the team-teaching situation. This is reflected in the general aim of team teaching: supporting students in socio-emotional, developmental and academic terms through enhanced individualisation and differentiation.

A lack of reliability, trust and the breaking of agreements, in addition to interruptions and exposure of the other within the teachers’ relationship in front of students, was the second most frequent factor reported by teachers as triggering strong negative emotions. This finding also supports Waber et al. (2021) in that failed communication, i.e. confrontations, accusations or misunderstandings, within the team was the most frequent antecedent of negative emotions. It appears desirable for team teachers that disagreements within the team are hidden from students and occur outside the classroom (see also Muehlbacher, Hagenauer, and Keller 2022). Nevertheless, it might not only be important why or that team teachers experience emotions due to their team partner but also how team teachers deal with emotions once experienced, especially regarding emotion regulation (Gross 2015; Muehlbacher, Hagenauer, and Keller 2022).

Limitations and implications for future research

This exploratory, qualitative interview study has limitations. First, as participation was voluntary, we must assume a certain selection bias among our team teachers. Second, our interviews were based on retrospective self-reports. Teachers may have remembered situations of particular emotional or high salience at the time of the interview, and thus situations that were less emotionally intensely experienced may have been neglected. Third, the generalisability of the findings is limited. We interviewed a limited number of team teachers (n = 30) from a specific contextual setting (team teachers from lower-secondary schools from Austria, Europe). Therefore, future studies should explore whether these findings can be generalised to team teachers’ emotional experiences in other schools, countries or educational contexts (e.g. higher education).

We therefore suggest not only that these exploratory findings be examined in other contexts but that future studies also rely on longitudinal quantitative designs to capture emotions situationally, also considering their effects.

Conclusion and implications for team teaching

To conclude, the results of our study offer compelling evidence that not only does student behaviour contribute significantly to teachers’ emotions, as shown in previous research (Frenzel 2014), but that the interaction with the team partner is a highly significant source of teachers’ positive and negative emotions in the team-taught classroom. Hence, our findings extend previous research on teacher emotions by illuminating team teachers’ emotional experiences and their antecedents. From these findings, we derive the following implications for team-teaching practice and teacher education.

The findings underscore the importance of team teachers’ compatibility concerning their attitudes, values and goals. A shared understanding was shown to trigger joy, happiness and contentment, whereas a conflicting understanding elicited anger and disappointment. Therefore, involving the teacher in the selection of the team partner could be beneficial to ensuring a team’s compatibility regarding their pedagogical conceptions (see also Krammer et al. 2018). As communication about and the explication of the team’s attitudes, values and goals is also important for team teachers’ emotional lives, it could be helpful to allocate extra time resources to teams for the discussion process (Cook and Friend 1995). Thereby, the team partners can define shared goals, values and attitudes at the beginning of their professional relationship and monitor their progress adhering to and achieving them. Furthermore, the team can agree upon and monitor other teaching- and collaboration-related aspects (e.g. shared planning, lesson design, role allocation, workload division, agreements, classroom management rules) that our results also show influence their emotional lives in the classroom. Enhanced awareness among team teachers about specific team characteristics that trigger their positive and negative emotions is desirable to ensure high-quality team teaching, both for teachers and students. This awareness about the emotional nature of team teaching and how a positive emotional pattern in team teaching could be fostered should already be addressed in teacher education. In addition, team teachers’ social-emotional competencies (Jennings and Greenberg 2009) should be supported, as the quality of social interactions in the team-teaching practice strongly depends on this facet of teachers’ professionalism. Again, these competencies should already be addressed in teacher education programmes and student teachers’ team practica to prepare future teachers for making full use of the advantages of teaching in a team.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2023.2293634

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Franziska Muehlbacher

Franziska Muehlbacher is a research associate and PhD candidate at the Department of Educational Science and the School of Education at the University of Salzburg, Austria. Her research interests focus on emotion research and collaboration among teachers (team teaching).

Gerda Hagenauer

Gerda Hagenauer, Prof., is a Professor of Educational Science in the School of Education and the Department of Educational Science at the University of Salzburg. Her research interests are in emotional, motivational and social factors in school, teacher education and higher education. She is also interested in mixed methods research.

Notes

1. Originally, this form was called ‘one teach, one observe or assist’ (Cook and Friend 1993, 425).