In the context of teacher development it is easy to perpetuate the teacher-training top-down model, to see 'teacher development' as thinly-disguised 'teacher training', with an 'expert' 'advising' rather than 'instructing', even if it is a colleague who is upfront rather than an outsider. Without wishing to belittle the usefulness of such an approach, I would like to draw attention to another way in which teachers may develop, namely through working with a colleague in what is generally known as 'team-teaching', that is to say teaching a group in conjunction.

There is, I believe, a great deal to be learnt from planning classes jointly with a colleague - an increased awareness of different priorities, different means of achieving the same end: through different activity types, different approaches to the same activity type and different activity progressions. And in the actual joint teaching we can see a colleague actually do something we might have been afraid to do, or show something that we enjoy doing but which the colleague might feel apprehensive about. We can also compare our perceptions of how lessons went and what we feel the class needs. In short, we can share our professional experience.

I would not wish to pretend that team-teaching is easy or that it always runs smoothly. Some teachers may find it threatening to have someone else prepare lessons with them or watch all they do in a lesson. There is enormous room for disagreement. Clearly, it is not a form of development that should be entered into lightly and at the very least a number of points need to be clarified.

Authority basis

First of all, it has to be clear who is ultimately responsible for the class. Are both teachers equally responsible or is one teacher a host and the other a guest?

Secondly, are both teachers there as equal participants, or is there, in fact, some element of training, where one teacher is acting consistently as a model for the other to try a technique out at a later date.

Another point to bear in mind is the I extent to which only one or both teachers contribute to planning, execution and feedback. For there to be true development of both parties, there has to be equality at all stages.

Absolutely critical is the character of the two teachers involved. If both tend to be dominant, the team-teaching is likely to go badly, especially if this is exacerbated by feelings of possessiveness towards the class. Such a combination can only lead to conflict as each tries to take control. On the other hand, if both teachers are too deferential and polite towards each other, lesson planning becomes indecisive and lessons easily become insipid and lacking in pace. Both teachers need to be sensitive to being alternately dominant and deferent, as appropriate. This is not easy to achieve.

Who does what and when?

The first thing that needs to be clear is the expectations about physical presence in the room. Are both teachers to be present throughout all lessons? Or is the planning joint while some lessons are taught by one and others by the other, in the colleague's absence? In the latter case we are not really dealing with team-teaching but 'sharing a class' and much of the benefit in developmental terms is lost. Consistent physical presence is not only important symbolically, because of what it is telling the students, but is vital for there to be development in a teacher's practice and not just their preparation.

Assuming then, that, as a rule, both teachers will be physically present, how will the teaching actually be divided? Will it be 50/50, or how will the proportions be worked out?

One way of doing it is to alternate lessons, but for many reasons this is not necessarily the best and certainly not the only way. It could be that one of the partners is stronger on teaching grammar, the other on skills work. They might prefer to start with their strengths and with help and encouragement from their partner learn to feel more at ease in what had at first been an area of weakness.

It often happens that something taught in one lesson needs to be followed up the next lesson and it is often preferable for the same teacher to do both.

A good way of functioning is for the planning to be done together and for the execution of each activity to be done by the one who first thought of it, even if suggestions from the partner have been introduced. This is a good way of immediately putting into practice and absorbing ideas that have come from outside.

To my mind, the greatest pedagogic value in team-teaching is the possibility it gives of being able to do certain activities that can only be done when there is more than one teacher in the room. For example, open discussions often work better, in my experience, when the class is divided into two. The reduced number in the group make shyer students much less reticent. If you have two teachers, each teacher can chair a separate discussion.

Another possibility for open discussions with two teachers is for one to act as the chairperson while the other notes down errors for working on later in the class. It is often difficult to do both jobs at once.

Obviously too, it is much easier to set up alternative activities for different groups of students - particularly important in a mixed-ability class - if there are two teachers, each working with a separate group. This is especially valuable for remedial work with weaker students while stronger students go on to more challenging work.

Ideally, of course, there must be room for manoeuvre, for spontaneous changes in lesson plan and corresponding spontaneous switches in who is actually up-front. The members of the team need to be sensitive to what the other may see as suddenly necessary. At the same time care must be taken not to let unscheduled 'interruptions' or unexpected 'changes of direction' be anarchic.

Support

For team teaching to work successfully, there has to be a strong sense of support between the two members. Teachers can give each other support at various points in a class. Haven't we all been in the position of being in class when some item of vocabulary or grammar crops up unexpectedly and we cannot immediately explain it? Our colleague may well be able to help . . . or to emphasise the difficulty in explaining by not knowing either! It is important to be able to admit weaknesses of this kind both to students and to colleagues - and to go away and find out the answer for next lesson, if necessary. At the same time, the colleague must be tactful in providing help and do nothing to make the teacher up-front look foolish.

This last point is one of the keys to making team-teaching work. No matter what a mess one of the teachers might make, the colleague should never intervene unless invited to. Discretion is essential .,. and then after the lesson there can be a frank discussion.

Most important of all, whatever goes on in the class is between the two teachers concerned and the students. Both teachers must have absolute confidence that the other won't talk behind their back. There must be absolute trust.

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Mary Daly and David Hardisty from both of whom I Learnt a great deal about team-teaching when I taught with them. This article is based on one which appeared in the magazine Forum - The São Paula Cultura Inglesa Teachers' Magazine, No. 6 (1986/7), pp. 26-27.