ESTAFETT stands for ‘Exploring, STudying And Fostering Effects of Team Teaching on students and teachers’. This project focused on the implementation of team teaching in primary and secondary education in Flanders and examined its impact on both students and teachers. The project was carried out University of Antwerp, Ghent University, Artevelde University of Applied Sciences, and AP University of Applied Sciences and Arts in 2021-2025.

The project pursued three objectives, in which research and valorization were closely intertwined:

  • Conceptual: Gaining a deeper understanding of how team teaching works
    ESTAFETT examined how team teaching is implemented in classroom practice and its influence on teaching, teachers’ professional identity and development, as well as students’ experiences and learning outcomes.

  • Methodological: Developing new measurement instruments
    To study team teaching effectively, ESTAFETT developed innovative tools that go beyond teacher self-reporting. These included student surveys, video observations, and an experimental research design.

  • Development-oriented: Providing practice-based support
    Based on the research findings, ESTAFETT designed a research-informed professional development program for teachers. In addition, a knowledge platform was established to consolidate project results and support schools and teachers in implementing and strengthening their team teaching practices.

Learn about the ESTAFETT methodology

  • In spring 2022, ESTAFETT conducted a large-scale survey to map team teaching practices and teachers’ perceptions in Flemish education. 479 teachers from 72 schools (preschool, primary, and secondary) participated.

    The survey explored:

    • Motivations and models for team teaching

    • Collaboration and role distribution

    • Teaching practices (individual vs. team teaching)

    • Perceived effects on students and teacher self-efficacy

    To capture these aspects, ESTAFETT developed new instruments and adapted existing ones, including student surveys and video observations. Analyses included descriptive statistics, cluster analysis (patterns in teaching behavior), SEM (links between self-efficacy and student outcomes), and ANOVA (differences between practices).

  • In spring and autumn 2023, 27 teachers from 12 team teaching teams (6 in primary and 6 in secondary education) were observed during authentic team-taught lessons in Dutch, mathematics, or PAV (Project General Subjects). These lessons reflected the teachers’ regular classroom practice.

    Following each observation, a semi-structured team interview was conducted to identify key conditions for successful team teaching, and teachers completed a short questionnaire. All lessons were video-recorded and coded based on observed team teaching practices and the ICALT instrument for effective teaching behavior.

  • In spring 2023, ESTAFETT conducted an experimental study comparing learning outcomes and non-cognitive factors between team-taught and solo-taught lessons. The study involved 267 pupils from grade 5 and 6 in four primary schools and 16 teachers.

    Each teacher delivered two consecutive science lessons—one in team teaching and one individually—while maintaining the same student-teacher ratio. Lesson order was counterbalanced across groups. Both lessons were carefully prepared in collaboration with researchers, and teachers received coaching during preparation.

    To assess short- and long-term learning, knowledge tests were administered before, immediately after, and one week after the lessons. Non-cognitive outcomes—such as psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence) and engagement—were measured through pupil questionnaires at the end of each lesson. Finally, pupils reflected on the experiment in focus groups.

  • The intervention study was based on the professional development program “Start to Team Teach” for novice team teachers and implemented in three conditions:

    • Control: no support

    • LIGHT: group sessions for team teachers

    • MAXI: group sessions plus tailored coaching for core school teams

    The study had two components:

    1. Longitudinal case study of 32 novice team teachers from 16 teams in primary education (2022–2023). Their experiences were tracked throughout the school year via interviews, short questionnaires, video observations, and student feedback (surveys and focus groups).

    2. Program monitoring and evaluation involving all participants from 2022–2023 (LIGHT and MAXI) and 2023–2024 (MAXI). In total, 92 team teachers and core team members from preschool, primary, and secondary education completed an extensive end-of-program survey, complemented by smaller monitoring and evaluation activities. Coaches also documented their process and content-related insights, including key conditions for success.

ESTAFETT results

Team teaching practices

Team teaching takes many forms. The way it is implemented varies greatly across Flemish schools.

  • The survey revealed a wide variation in how team teaching is implemented in Flemish classrooms. While team teaching is a relatively recent practice, it is now used regularly—typically at least once a week, often with one or two consistent partners. Teachers frequently combine different team teaching models.

    Clear differences emerged across educational levels:

    • Preschool: the learning stations model is most common

    • Primary and secondary: the support model predominates

    There is also a link between model choice and teacher self-efficacy: the sequential model correlates with lower self-efficacy, whereas the learning stations, parallel, and observation models are associated with higher confidence.

    Most teachers adopt team teaching to better support students and combine expertise. It typically occurs in classes of fewer than 25 pupils, indicating a preference for small to medium-sized groups. Teachers report high collaboration and shared responsibility, regardless of the model used—though substantial variation exists between individuals and educational levels.

Effects on teachers: Effective teaching behavior

Teachers report more effective teaching behavior (van de Grift, 2007) in team teaching than in solo teaching, particularly in differentiation and active learning (perceived benefits vary by educational level). Observations show high effectiveness in creating a safe, stimulating climate, classroom management, and clear instruction, but greater variation in complex dimensions, with standout, complementary, and struggling teams.

Patterns of development among novice teams differ: some show growth, others stagnation, decline, fluctuation, or struggle—especially in complex teaching dimensions. Discrepancies exist between self-reported effectiveness and observed practices, highlighting the need for multi-method evaluation.

  • Survey results show that teachers report significantly more effective teaching in team teaching than in solo teaching for four of six dimensions of observable behavior (van de Grift, 2007):

    • Clear and structured instruction

    • Active learning

    • Teaching learning strategies

    • Differentiation (largest perceived benefit)

    Differences are most pronounced in primary and secondary education, and increase with frequency of team teaching.

    Interviews with novice team teachers confirm these findings: the greatest added value is seen in differentiation and active learning, both complex dimensions of effective teaching. Teachers also cite benefits in other areas, often linked to specific models (e.g., support model, interactive model) and enabling conditions such as joint lesson planning.

  • Teachers report that team teaching enables them to create a safe and stimulating learning environment, with other dimensions of effective teaching also well achieved. Teaching learning strategies scores lowest, though still reasonably well according to self-reports. Two teacher profiles emerge: about half report moderate effectiveness, while the other half report high effectiveness. High effectiveness is linked to greater experience, more frequent use, collaboration with multiple colleagues, and stronger shared responsibility.

    Video observations confirm high levels of effective teaching during team-taught lessons, especially in classroom climate, management, and clear instruction—less complex dimensions. Greater variation appears in complex dimensions such as differentiation, teaching strategies, and active learning. Novice teams consistently score higher on simpler dimensions and lower on complex ones.

    Student feedback reflects similar patterns: pupils most often experience clear, structured instruction, while other dimensions appear in surveys (e.g., high scores for classroom climate) or focus groups (e.g., examples of differentiation). Students express nuanced views, noting both benefits and drawbacks, and report lower scores in multi-grade classes.

  • Video observations show that experienced teams can be grouped into three categories based on effective teaching behavior:

    • Outstanding teams: consistently high levels across all teachers

    • Complementary teams: one teacher high, the other lower, but strong overall

    • Struggling teams: low to moderate levels across the team

    Most teams observed were either outstanding or complementary. For novice teams in primary education, five development patterns emerged: improving, fluctuating, stagnating, declining, and persistently struggling. Challenges mainly occur in complex dimensions such as active learning, differentiation, and teaching strategies, while improvements are more common in simpler dimensions like classroom management and clear instruction.

    Results also reveal discrepancies between observed teaching behavior and self-reports, especially for complex dimensions, where effectiveness is often overestimated. Team interviews highlight key conditions for success: strong collaboration, clear roles and task division, reflective practice, and adequate infrastructure.

Professional development (PDP) “Start to team teach”

Effective teaching in team teaching improves when teachers receive structured support. Without guidance, teams are more likely to struggle or regress, especially in complex dimensions such as differentiation and active learning—though some teachers in the control group still demonstrate strong effectiveness.

Participation in the professional development program strengthens professional identity, leading to improvements in engagement, job satisfaction, and autonomous motivation. Tailored coaching (MAXI condition) proves particularly beneficial, while lack of support is associated with lower motivation and increased conflict.

Teams with intensive coaching for both team teachers and core team members give higher ratings for usefulness, learning impact, school-wide influence, and ownership. Demand-driven coaching helps participants address challenges effectively and fosters shared responsibility across the school team.

  • The program plays a key role in shaping the professional identity of novice team teachers. Teachers in the LIGHT and MAXI conditions report higher engagement, job satisfaction, and autonomous motivation throughout the school year compared to those in the control group, who started team teaching without support. Participants emphasize the value of guidance that provides theoretical insights, peer exchange, good practices, and a positive approach. The MAXI condition shows the most significant and lasting improvements across all indicators, with tailored coaching boosting self-efficacy, although the presence of school leaders sometimes increases pressure and controlled motivation. In contrast, teachers in the control group experience declines in engagement, satisfaction, and motivation, often due to lack of preparation time, autonomy, resources, and strategies to manage challenges.

    The program also influences effective teaching behavior. Teachers in the MAXI and LIGHT conditions show stronger improvements in clear and structured instruction than those in the control group. By the end of the year, MAXI participants demonstrate clear progress in differentiation and perform highly across most dimensions, underscoring the importance of intensive support. While some control group teachers teach effectively without the program, they more often exhibit regression or persistent struggles, particularly in complex dimensions.

  • Participants express high overall satisfaction with both the MAXI and LIGHT conditions. The program is seen as practical, insightful, and supportive of team teaching implementation, earning an average score of 7.77/10. Design principles such as a strength-based approach, modeling by team-teaching coaches, and a cyclical, iterative process were consistently recognized and valued. Coach’s support was rated as particularly beneficial.

    In both conditions, teachers participated with their team-teaching colleagues, while the MAXI condition also included core team members from the broader school context, resulting in very high scores for collective participation and shared ownership. Core team members reported strong satisfaction as well.

    Participants in the MAXI condition scored systematically higher than those in LIGHT, especially on practical usefulness, skill development, professional attitudes, school-wide impact, and ownership of process and content. Tailored coaching was highlighted as a major strength, with demand-driven support aligning closely with participants’ needs and fostering deeper professional growth.

    The program also provided coaches with valuable insights into conditions for successful team teaching, including a clear vision and school-wide commitment, continuity, structured collaboration and open communication, and practical factors such as aligned timetables and infrastructure.

Effects on teachers: Professional identity

[Only studied for novice team teachers in primary education] Novice team teachers maintain high engagement and autonomous motivation, but initially experience uncertainty about their teaching practice. Over the school year, self-efficacy increases, while controlled motivation rises due to external pressures. Job satisfaction fluctuates, dipping mid-year and recovering toward the end. From the outset, teachers view team teaching as a valuable strategy for professional growth and instructional improvement.

  • The intervention study shows that novice team teachers in primary education maintain high engagement and intrinsic motivation throughout their first year, while controlled motivation increases under external pressure. Early in the year, teachers feel uncertain about their teaching, linked to the greater visibility and shared responsibility of team teaching. As confidence in joint practice grows, self-efficacy rises, and job satisfaction improves over time.

    Several factors shape professional identity development: trust, pedagogical comfort, learning opportunities, task division, talent use, and shared responsibility. Negative influences include role ambiguity, increased workload, and interpersonal conflicts. From the start, teachers view team teaching as a valuable form of informal professional development, enabling both novice and experienced teachers to learn from each other, refine their practice, and improve classroom organization.

Prerequisites for effective team teaching behavior: Successful and effective team teaching requires, among other things, strong collaboration, clear role distribution, and ongoing reflection.

Prerequisites for professional identity: Trust, pedagogical comfort, learning opportunities, and successful collaboration strengthen the professional identity of beginning team teachers. Conversely, role ambiguity, workload, and interpersonal conflicts act as barriers.

Professional development: Through coaching in the Start to team teach program, coaches gain valuable insights into prerequisites essential for embedding team teaching sustainably. These include a clear vision, school-wide commitment, continuity, structured planning and consultation moments, and practical conditions such as infrastructure and aligned timetables.

Prerequisites: enabler or barrier in team teaching

Effects on students

Team teaching offers greater support and learning benefits, but also presents challenges. Teachers and students appreciate the extra help and richer lessons, yet some pupils experience confusion due to inconsistent explanations or rules. Larger classes can lead to more noise, especially in multi-grade settings.

Experimental results (primary education only) show slightly better learning outcomes in team-taught lessons compared to solo teaching, particularly when the student-teacher ratio is lower. Both teachers and students perceive greater learning gains as an advantage of team teaching. Team teaching also has a positive effect on students’ sense of competence, while other non-cognitive outcomes—autonomy, relatedness, and engagement—were not significantly affected.

  • Both teachers and students see clear advantages of team teaching, with enhanced support for learners as the most prominent benefit. Teachers report that team teaching helps them identify struggling students more quickly and provide immediate assistance, while also enabling richer, more varied lessons—though opinions on learning gains are mixed. Confusion among students is reported only occasionally. Positive effects are perceived more strongly when teachers rate their own self-efficacy, team collaboration, and sense of equality higher.

    Students in primary education confirm this picture. In the experimental study, a slight majority preferred team teaching over solo teaching, mainly due to easier access to help. Pupils taught by novice teams also highlight learning gains and varied explanations, which enrich understanding. They value shorter waiting times and more personal attention, though some mention challenges such as conflicting explanations or rules—issues seen as minor compared to the benefits.

    Class size matters: larger groups (≈40 pupils for two teachers) were perceived as noisier and more distracting, while smaller groups (≈30 pupils for two teachers, typical in Flanders) were associated with more advantages. Interestingly, pupils in larger classes scored higher on classroom management, clear instruction, and active learning. Multi-grade classes raised additional concerns, such as noise and less individual support.

  • Effects on Learning Outcomes

    The experimental study in primary education shows that pupils taught through team teaching scored significantly higher on a knowledge test one week after the lesson compared to those taught individually. Although the effect is small, it suggests a learning advantage for team teaching. Immediately after the lesson, scores were also higher in the team teaching condition, but not significantly. The effect applies to all pupils, regardless of skill level, gender, or age, and is stronger when the student-teacher ratio is lower. Larger classes (≈40 pupils for two teachers) were perceived as noisier and more distracting.

    Effects on Other Student Outcomes

    Team teaching positively impacts pupils’ sense of competence: they feel more capable, achieve lesson goals more easily, and experience greater mastery compared to solo teaching. This explains part of the learning effect—one-third of the improvement in test scores is linked to increased competence. For other non-cognitive outcomes—autonomy, relatedness, and engagement—no significant differences were found, suggesting both teaching formats contribute equally to these dimensions.

ESTAFETT recommendations

  1. Consider team teaching as a purposeful collaborative approach to promote high-quality education for all learners

2. Strengthen team teaching through learning at individual, team, and school levels

3. Use Team Teaching as a Lever to Strengthen HR Policy

Team teaching is a collaborative practice in which two or more teachers share responsibility for jointly planning, delivering, and evaluating lessons or lesson sequences. It creates opportunities to strengthen effective teaching behaviors, provided that a deliberate focus is placed on a variety of models, roles, and grouping strategies aligned with the goals and needs of both students and teachers.

Although team teaching holds significant potential, it requires a purposeful design across the three phases involved—planning, implementation, and evaluation. Team teaching takes many forms, and there are considerable differences between teams applying it. Strong collaboration, effective teaching practices, and positive student outcomes do not automatically occur by simply placing two or more teachers in the same classroom. When strategically and thoughtfully implemented, team teaching offers opportunities to organize high-quality education and can contribute to a powerful learning environment for both students and teachers. Schools have a responsibility in ensuring the prerequisites for successful implementation, such as strong collaboration, school-wide engagement of all relevant stakeholders, and practical conditions.

Team teaching offers additional opportunities for the professional development of teachers and school teams (see Recommendation 3). For successful and sustainable implementation, learning must occur at multiple levels:

  • Individual Level
    Teachers develop a personal vision and new skills for team teaching. Key questions: What is my view on team teaching? Which models exist? How can I use my strengths for our students?

  • Team Level
    In well-functioning teams, teachers learn together and from one another. They pool individual knowledge and experience to create a (new) shared vision and practice in which they complement each other’s strengths. Key questions: What are our team’s needs? How do we work effectively across planning, implementation, and evaluation?

  • School Level

    • School-wide learning: This ensures consistency and sustainability. Leadership takes the lead in developing a vision, aligning practices, and creating conditions for success. Key questions: What are our reasons as a school for implementing team teaching? How do we align team teaching practices across the school to ensure coherence? How do we foster an open feedback culture?

    • Leadership Learning: School leaders need knowledge of models and skills to embed team teaching structurally. Key questions: Do we understand team teaching? What organizational changes are needed in timetables or infrastructure? How do we sustain it long term?

Schools must provide time, space, and resources for professional development and collaboration, supported by adequate budgets and, where needed, external expertise. This enables research-informed, context-sensitive implementation.

Team teaching creates opportunities to enhance school-level HR practices in induction, professional development, talent-based work, job satisfaction, and well-being. These opportunities should be made explicit and developed further, without implying that team teaching is a prerequisite for sound HR policy. Implementing team teaching can inspire shared responsibility for educational challenges, foster complementarity among team members, and promote mutual learning—key elements of a strong HR strategy.

  • Induction
    Team teaching offers a supportive context for new teachers by enabling joint lesson planning, delivery, and evaluation. Starters learn through observation, modeling, and feedback, while experienced teachers benefit from fresh perspectives—creating reciprocal growth.

  • Professional Development
    Working and reflecting together in team teaching provides deep, ongoing learning for all teachers, strengthening collective expertise and fostering a culture of shared responsibility.

  • Talent-Based Roles
    Team teaching allows teachers to take on roles aligned with their strengths and interests, such as subject expertise across grades or bridging transitions between educational stages—supporting talent-driven career paths.

  • Job Satisfaction and Workload
    Under the right conditions, team teaching can reduce stress and workload by sharing responsibilities and leveraging individual talents, contributing to higher job satisfaction and retention. Essential prerequisites include time for team growth, continuity, and support to mitigate stress factors like staff turnover.

ESTAFETT publications

A selection of academic English ESTAFETT-output:

  • Decuyper, A., Tack, H., Vanblaere, B., Simons, M., & Vanderlinde, R. (2023). Collaboration and shared responsibility in team teaching : a large-scale survey study. EDUCATION SCIENCES, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090896

  • Decuyper, A., Tack, H., Vanblaere, B., Simons, M., & Vanderlinde, R. (2024). The complexity of team teaching models: the relationship with collaboration and shared responsibility. Educational Studies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2024.2416106

  • Decuyper, A., Simons, M., & Vanderlinde, R. (2025). Teachers’ effective teaching behaviour during team teaching : a video-based observation study. STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2025.101494

  • Decuyper, A., Buseyne, S., Simons, M., & Vanderlinde, R. (2025). Teachers’ self-efficacy in team teaching practices. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-025-10110-z

  • De Weerdt, D., Simons, M., Struyf, E., & Tack, H. (2024). Studying the Effectiveness of Team Teaching: A Systematic Review on the Conceptual and Methodological Credibility of Experimental Studies. Review of Educational Research, 1-46. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241262807

  • De Weerdt, D., Simons, M., & Struyf, E.. (2024). Teachers’ attitudes toward team teaching explained by teachers’ self-efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity. Social Psychology of Education, 27(5), 2479–2502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09916-0

  • De Weerdt, D., Simons, M., & Struyf, E. (2024). Measuring Student Engagement in Lessons Using an Experience Sampling Methodology: The Development and Validation of the Dynamic Engagement With Learning Questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 42(5), 527-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829241240901

  • De Weerdt, D., Simons, M., & Struyf, E. (2025). Team teaching or solo teaching? A qualitative evaluation by primary education students. The Journal of Educational Research, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.2566708

  • Mariën, D., Vanderlinde, R., & Struyf, E. (2023). Teaching in a Shared Classroom: Unveiling the Effective Teaching Behavior of Beginning Team Teaching Teams Using a Qualitative Approach. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111075

Contact

Questions about or interested in ESTAFETT?

Here you can fill out the contactform. We will get back to you soon!

dr. Hanne Tack & dr. Mieke Meirsschaut (ESTAFETT coordination team)