İngilizce Öğretim Görevlileri için Bir Mesleki Gelişim Modeli Olarak Takım Öğretimi: Bir Karma Yöntem Çalışması A Mixed Method Study on Team Teaching as a Professional Development Model for EFL Lecturers

This mixed method study aims to report how team teaching as a continuing professional development (CPD) practice is viewed by in-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) lecturers working at a non-profit private university in Turkey. The study took place in the academic year of 2017-2018 with the voluntary participation of 39 lecturers. Data for the study were obtained from a questionnaire and focus group inter-views. Results of the study showed that trust and respect be-tween partners were regarded as essential, and lesson plan-ning constituted the most valuable part of a successful team teaching. The findings also indicated that team teaching ena-bled lecturers to gain different perspectives from each other, providing more opportunities to use new instructional tech-niques as well as improving their problem-solving skills. It was further found that students became more engaged in team-taught lessons and lecturers ended up the process with en-hanced feelings of achievement. With respect to the drawbacks of team teaching, differences in personalities and teaching styles of the lecturers besides lack of time for team teaching meetings were suggested to pose challenges to the participants. Keywords


INTRODUCTION
Teacher collaboration is largely grounded in Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory (1978) which describes social interaction as the basis for the development of human cognition. The basic premise of sociocultural theory is that learning is mediated through social interaction between individuals and their environment (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995). Similar to the way children learn from their families and social contexts, teachers can learn from their colleagues and the environment where they teach (Whipp, Eckmann & Kieboom, 2005). Regarding teacher development through social interaction, Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995, p.116) have stated that "individuals, none of whom qualifies as an expert, can often come together in a collaborative posture and jointly construct a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in which each person contributes something to, and takes something away from, the interaction". Working as a group, in Vygotsky's view, provides collective scaffold to peers who can resolve instructional problems together through collaborative research and discussions (Shabani, 2016).
Over the past decades, teacher collaboration has been given more emphasis in the literature on professional development. It is widely accepted that collaborative professional settings offer teachers opportunities for professional learning and provide students with higher quality education (Pugach & Johnson, 2002;Cordingley, Bell, Rundell & Evans, 2003;Schmoker, 2005;Meirink, Meijer & Verloop, 2007;Williams, 2010). As noted by Rose and Reynolds (2009), teachers might get continuous peer support, attempt new teaching and learning strategies and feel more pleasant by learning from peers through collaboration. Similarly, Yoshida (2016) has highlighted teacher collaboration as an important method by which interaction in the classroom becomes more complex, teachers understand each other and opportunities for student learning are enhanced. Despite this, Burns and Darling-Hammond (2014, p.19-20) state that "in many countries, a significant proportion of teachers still teach largely in isolation and may be missing out on valuable opportunities to collaborate, receive feedback, and learn from their colleagues." As a form of collaborative practice, team teaching is defined as "all arrangements that include two or more faculties in some level of collaboration in the planning and delivery of a course" (Davis, 1995, p.8). The term team teaching is also referred as "coteaching, co-enrollment, collaborative teaching, or cooperative teaching" (Carpenter et al. cited in Hanusch, Obijofor & Volcic, 2009, p. 68). Krammer, Rosman, Gastager and Gastaiger (2018) underline that there is no precise terminological and conceptual difference between these terms, and they are often used interchangeably by scholars. In this article, team teaching will be used to refer to the process below; "Team teaching (sometimes called pair teaching) is a process in which two or more teachers share the respon-sibility for teaching a class. The teachers share responsibility for planning the class or course, for teaching it, and for any follow-up work associated with the class such as evaluation and assessment. It thus involves a cycle of team planning, team teaching, and team follow-up." (Richards & Farrell, 2005, p. 159) Described as "the most difficult, most powerful and least practiced form of teacher collaboration" (Chadbourne, 2004, p.5), team teaching has been suggested as a model of professional development (Cook & Friend, 1995). Villa, Thousand, and Nevin (2008) proposed that in team teaching two or more teachers share the responsibility for planning, instruction, and evaluation of a lesson. More specifically, in foreign language teaching, team teaching is generally implemented by a native speaker of the language and a more experienced non-native speaker (Benoit & Haugh, 2001). Teachers may be specialized in either the same field or different fields and their roles may show variation. Since each educational environment has its own unique needs, it might not be right to suggest a single approach to the use of the model. However, Bailey, Dale, and Squire (1992) underline that the most important factor in all team teaching models is how team partners share power and responsibility and whether they are voluntarily involved in team teaching and free to choose their partners.
As to the advantages of the model, Davis (1997) proposes that team teaching allows partners to bring together all their endeavor, strengths and capabilities for a lesson. White, Henley and Brabston (1998, p.14) highlight the advantages of team teaching as "alternative viewpoints on the same topic, a mix of teaching methodologies, promotion of creativity, more brain power in the classroom, integration of disciplines, less doubling up of subjects/topics, increased mix of skills, improved teacher/student ratios, team building within and across discipline boundaries, and role modeling and mentoring for students around team-work". Goetz (2000) states that team teaching has the potential to provide a supportive environment for team teachers by reducing teacher isolation, leading to the emergence of new approaches in teaching, offering solutions for problematic students and paving the way for intellectual development. According to Chadbourne (2004), the number of teachers who could improve through team teaching cannot be underestimated providing these programs are "self-determined and collegially-based" (p.10).
On the other hand, team teaching involves some drawbacks to consider before implementation. First of all, it might be discomforting if teachers feel they could lose their individual decision-making power and instructional authority in class. Secondly, since it necessitates a lot of coordination for planning, implementation and evaluation, arranging time for these responsibilities might be challenging for teachers within their daily schedule (Bailey et al, 1992). Thirdly, if instructional distribution and workload between team partners are not considered in advance, it might lead to conflicting results. Thus, it might be helpful to offer some teacher training on team teaching prior to team formation; otherwise, teachers' efforts might not yield satisfactory outcomes (Benoit & Haugh, 2001;Horwich, 1999). Chadbourne (2004) also points to the fact that team teaching or similar models of joint work will accomplish only if they are administered effectively. Accordingly, successful team teaching depends on the coordination between teachers so that students will not feel lessons are disconnected. Team teachers must know each other's teaching style very well, and they should be able to alter and make transitions between different teaching styles properly. The success of team teaching relies on the skills of the 1841 teachers and their clear understanding of their roles within the team. To do this, teams must be set up appropriately and each team member must know and follow previously agreed roles. Moreover, the goals of the program, and teacher and administration roles should also be made clear for team teaching to be success-ful. Bailey et al. (1992) state that team teaching offers benefits not only to teachers but also to learners. According to Anderson and Speck (1998), students who are team-taught can benefit from teachers' guidance through a number of methods and materials and the chance for more class participation. When taught by two teachers, students are provided with greater opportunities in terms of individual and/or small group support. They feel more motivated due to exposure to varied and more authentic input from two teachers (Carless & Walker, 2006). Owen (2015, p.65) reports that team teaching could lead to "improved student engagement, in some students improved social skills; emotional and self-confidence; independence and personal management skills, and creative capacities".
Although the review of literature has suggested that team teaching can offer several advantages to teachers and learners, it is not a widely performed practice in schools. Solo-teaching still seems to prevail at all levels of education. As a result, the number of research studies on team teaching is not many in both EFL and higher education context. Most contemporary studies on team teaching generally underline its benefits as well as referring to its drawbacks. Conducting a case study with native and non-native English language teachers in Hong Kong, Carless and Walker (2006) found that collaboration between teachers impacted both teachers and their students in positive ways although the teachers had problems of finding adequate time for lesson planning in team teaching. Reporting on a two-year study on teacher collaboration in Ireland, Walsh (2020, p.13) concluded that despite being promoted much but valued little, team teaching could provide teachers with ample opportunities for professional development thanks to its capacity "to be experiential, collaborative, sustained, personalised, holistic, contextualised, socially situated, enquirybased and related to classroom practice". In Turkey, Özsoy (2017) conducted a qualitative study and investigated 5 Turkish EFL teachers' engagement in reflection via team teaching. The findings of the study indicated that team teaching contributed to reflective practice for teacher professional development, but it could achieve this only when it was based on voluntary participation and periodical implementation with some flexibility. Another research study on team teaching was conducted by Sobolev and Güven (2009) with 11 in-service trainee English language teachers. The findings of the research indicated that all the teachers with a teaching experience of 0-5 years thought that team teaching was beneficial and helpful for the training of new teachers. On the other hand, the findings revealed that compatibility of teachers' knowledge, personality and teaching philosophies was a must for successful team teaching.
As earlier noted, team teaching is a highly valued but a rarely practiced teacher professional development model. This is also confirmed by the OECD TALIS report (2009) indicating that Turkish teachers do not frequently involve in collaborative practices in their profession. The present study aims to reveal how team teaching as a CPD practice is viewed by English as a foreign language (EFL) lecturers working at a non-profit private university in Turkey. With this aim, this study has sought to answer the following research questions: 1. How do EFL lecturers view team teaching as a CPD model? 2. What advantages and challenges do EFL lecturers think team teaching has as a CPD model?

METHOD
In this study, a mixed methods research approach was employed to gain a deeper understanding of the research problem. More specifically, convergent parallel design was chosen where two strands of data were simultaneously collected, analyzed and merged for the better interpretation of the findings (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). While quantitative data were gathered through a questionnaire, qualitative data were collected through focus group meetings with the participants. The design of the study is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research design Participants and Setting
The study was conducted in 2018-2019 academic year at the Department of Foreign Languages (DFL) of a non-profit private university in Ankara, Turkey. At the time of the study, there were 48 EFL lecturers working at the DFL where team teaching has been practiced as a CPD model with the participation of volunteer lecturers. Out of 48 lecturers, 39 had practiced the model before. Table 1 and Table 2 present the profile of the research participants: As displayed in Table 1, of all the research participants, 28 participants were female while 11 participants were male.  Table 2 presents information regarding the teaching experience of the participants. As shown in Table 2, 8 participants had a teaching experience of 1-3 years, 21 participants had an experience of 4-7 years in the teaching profession. The number of the participants who had been teaching English for 8-11 years was 6, while only 4 participants had more than 12 years of teaching experience.

Team Teaching Implementation
The DFL has a teacher-led CPD program facilitated by teacher leaders. Action research, reflective teaching and learning, team teaching, lesson study, peer coaching are the main CPD practices implemented with the aim of increasing teaching and learning quality. Team teaching has been implemented since 2016.
In the team teaching model employed at the DFL, lecturers who volunteer to try out the model get together in groups of three and go through the following phases under the guidance of a facilitator; 1. Preparation: This phase is devoted to lecturers' getting to know each other, discussing their teaching philosophies and writing a professional development plan. 2. Research: In this phase, lecturers choose a learning goal for their students and develop a research question. 3. Planning and implementation: In this phase, lecturers prepare a lesson plan collectively to shed light on their research question. Two of them teach the lesson while one lecturer observes and takes detailed notes. The lesson is videotaped for future reflection and analysis. 4. Evaluation: In the evaluation phase, lecturers review and revise their lessons based on the observer's comments and students' reactions. They make adjustments in their lesson plan and reteach it.

Dissemination:
In this last phase, lecturers report their findings and experiences regarding their research question and they present their results to their colleagues in an informal CPD session.

Data Collection
There were two instruments used for data collection; questionnaire and focus group interviews. Informed consent was obtained from each lecturer prior to data collection.
Questionnaire: With the aim of exploring lecturers' opinions on team teaching, the researchers adopted the questionnaire formerly designed and conducted by Bailey, Dale and Squire (1992). The questionnaire titled teachers' reactions to statements about team teaching included 27 items. It was noted by Bailey, Dale and Squire (1992) that the reliability and validity of the instrument had not been established. None of the items in the questionnaire have been changed or omitted by the researchers. Before administering the questionnaire at the DFL, the authors' permission was received by corresponding with the first author via e-mail. The link of the questionnaire (google forms) was sent to all the lecturers with prior team teaching experience and responses were collected on a 5-point scale (1. Strongly Disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neutral, 4. Agree, 5. Disagree).

Focus Group Interviews:
For the collection of qualitative data, all 39 lecturers were invited for focus group interviews, and the interviews were held with 10 lecturers who volunteered. The interviews were held in 2 sessions with 5 lecturers in each so that possible drawbacks due to the number of the people in the group could be avoided. The interviews were held in Turkish as per the lecturers' preference. They lasted about 90 minutes and were audio recorded.
The questions for focus group interviews were prepared by the researchers based on the items in the questionnaire. They were also checked by an expert in the field of English Language Teaching. During the interviews, the lecturers were asked to define team teaching, discuss its advantages, and disadvantages both for lecturers and students.

Data Analysis
To analyze the quantitative data, descriptive statistics were used to calculate mean scores and standard deviations of the survey questions on SPSS version 22. For the analysis of the qualitative data, all data coming from focus group interviews underwent thematic coding and content analysis. With the aim of increasing the validity of the study, the researchers first worked individually. The recordings of meetings were listened to several times and the parts that would best indicate the perceptions of the lecturers were transcribed. The data were coded separately, then it was checked to see whether the codes assigned to the patterns bore resemblance. Finally, the data were reorganized and common categories were created from the data set (Creswell, 2013). The extracts that would be used in the findings section of the report were translated into English by the researchers and sent back to the lecturers to ensure that their ideas would be truly reflected in the report.

FINDINGS
In this section, findings obtained from quantitative and qualitative data will be presented respectively to display what views the participants hold about team teaching and what advantages and disadvantages team teaching has as a CPD model for EFL lecturers.

Findings from Quantitative Data
The first research question sought to explore the lecturers' views about team teaching. Table 3 illustrates the mean scores and standard deviations for the responses received: According to the results displayed in Table 3, item 23 received the highest mean score in the questionnaire (M = 4.33, SD = .73) indicating that trust and respect among partners were regarded essential to succeed in team teaching. The second highest mean score was obtained from item 2 (M = 4.13, SD = .83) on which the lecturers showed agreement as to lesson planning being the most important part of team teaching. In addition, the findings from item 10 showed that when working with a partner, the lecturers could see their teaching practice from a different angle (M = 4.08, SD = .83) and learn from each other. There was also consensus on item 15 revealing that team teaching could provide more than one perspective for the evaluation of the team work (M = 4.05, SD = .72). Moreover, in item 17 (M = 4.03, SD = .93) most lecturers acknowledged that working with a partner could help raise teachers' self-awareness. As we can see in item 24, the lecturers agreed with the idea that the goals of the team should precede power struggles, which might occur due to personality clash among partners.
Further, the lecturers almost agreed with item 4 (M = 3.95, SD = .99) accepting that working together in class was the most valuable part of team teaching. For item 16, the lecturers seemed to agree that collaboration could add to self-evaluation of one's individual work (M = 3.92, SD = .87). Similar results were found in item 26 (M = 3.90, SD = .82), indicating that lesson planning and its aftermath might become simpler when alternative ways of solving problems were realized together by colleagues. On the other hand, the results from item 9 (M = 3.90, SD = .64) showed that before performing team teaching, all participants should accept difference of ideas, but this shouldn't cause any arguments in the team. In addition, most of the lecturers almost agreed with item 13 (M=3.85, SD=.77) and item 19 (M = 3.85, SD = .77). It seemed that they appreciated teaching the same class with a partner because this could support a teacher in giving examples or making explanations to students. Likewise, they seemed to agree that team teaching was effective for teacher development. However, they believed that they must freely decide whether to perform or not to perform team teaching as reflected in item 1(M = 3.82, SD = 1.04).
As suggested by the findings, the lecturers were not quite sure whether team teaching was useful for the evaluation of students as shown in item 11 (M = 3.79, SD =.86) and whether their students really liked team teaching or not as indicated in item 5 (M = 3.74, SD =.91). Likewise, the findings obtained from item 6 (M = 3.72, SD = .79) revealed that lecturers did not quite agree that team teaching was an effective strategy to teach languages. Another statement about which the participants were undecided was item 22 (M = 3.59, SD =1.09). They could not decide whether they should be the only decision-makers for the selection of their team mates.
Similarly, the lecturers' views were found to be neutral regarding item 8 (M = 3.49, SD = .97), whether different teaching styles of partners could cause problematic situations in team teaching or not. In addition, lecturers seemed to be undecided about item 14, whether the students liked to have two teachers in class to help them (M = 3.49, SD = .82). Also, the findings in item 18 showed that lecturers could not decide whether time and effort for identifying goals and planning lessons in team teaching was really worth it. Moreover, item 7 (M = 3.26, SD = 1.09) showed there were some doubts about the effectiveness of sharing responsibilities among team members, which might result in no one taking full responsibility. Finally, item 27 showed that the lecturers were unsure whether there were more benefits of team teaching than the efforts put into it (M = 3.13, SD = .92). The lowest mean score in the questionnaire was obtained from item 3 (M = 2.95, SD = 1.25). Lecturers disagreed with the idea that team teaching would succeed more if partners had similar teaching styles.
The questionnaire also included statements which are negatively worded such as items 12 and 25. The results revealed the participants' disagreement with item 12 (M = 2.36, SD =.90) regarding the ineffectiveness of team teaching for students. What's more, feedback given by the partners to each other was perceived to be helpful as the results showed that the lecturers disagreed with item 25 (M = 2.05, SD = .68). In addition, the lecturers did not agree with item 21 (M = 2.74, SD = .99). They seemed to believe that efforts put into team teaching would ultimately pay off.

Findings from Qualitative Data
Qualitative data analysis confirmed the findings from the questionnaire. Emerging themes showed the advantages and drawbacks of team teaching from the lecturers' perspectives which are displayed in Table 4 below: Providing a non-threatening working environment

Advantages of Team Teaching
Data analysis revealed that team teaching could provide lecturers with several advantages that will be explained in the next subsection.

Gaining new perspectives
Analysis of qualitative data were in line with the findings from the questionnaire regarding lecturers' earning new perspectives from each other through team teaching. Lecturers stated that engaging in team teaching, they were able to hear each other's opinions, talk about their classroom practice, share problems; in other words, they learned many novel ideas from each other. Continuously interacting with their colleagues, the lecturers were able to look at teaching and learning from a different angle. The lecturers stated: "It (team teaching) can help us see teaching from different angles or perspectives." (L2)

Experimenting with new instructional techniques
In line with the findings from the questionnaire, analysis of the interviews revealed that the lecturers noticed alternative ways to plan lessons and solve problems. This seemed to lead them to try new teaching techniques. They attributed this to sharing ideas and observing their peers while they were teaching. The lecturers expressed:

"When you work with a colleague to plan a lesson, you brainstorm what to do together and hear about some new ways of teaching that you have not thought before. Then, you bring this new learning to your own class." (L3)
"In team teaching, you get the chance to observe your partner because you teach together. So, you can notice and learn some different teaching styles and practice them in your lessons." (L6)

Increasing sense of achievement
Another theme obtained from data analysis was that team teaching helped to increase the lecturers' sense of achievement and gave them the feeling of accomplishment after teaching together, which they thought wouldn't have happened if they were on their own. Similarly, the questionnaire results indicated that the lecturers were happy with the support of a peer giving examples and making explanations during the lesson. They expressed that this created more effective and successful lessons. They stated:

"The most important thing I have learned from team teaching is we can support each other during class as teachers and conduct a more effective and pleasant lesson that we cannot actually do on our own." (L1)
"I agree that if team teaching lessons go well, the partners will feel successful and motivated to go on with the next problem." (L6) "In one of the lessons, one of the team teachers played a famous inventor's role, and in another one, we did roleplay and shot a special video. From the students' feedback, I can say that the lessons were successful and we helped learning occur." (L7)

Improving problem solving skills
The lecturers also mentioned that through team teaching, they focused more on solving problems than talking about them. This was mainly attributed to the phase in team teaching where they revised lessons together for evaluation. It appeared that when faced with difficulties, the lecturers did not get demotivated; instead, being together seemed to encourage them to resolve problems.
"I saw that team teaching could be helpful to solve problems quicker and more effectively than we could do on our own. Together I feel stronger to think about a problem." (L3)

Motivating students
In the questionnaire, the lecturers almost agreed that the students seemed to like team teaching and it worked well with their students. They expressed the same view during the interviews and stated that while teaching with a colleague, they were able to observe their students better and noticed that in team taught lessons, students became more energetic and motivated. They also commented that what matters in all teaching was to prepare more student-centered lessons that could engage learners better and longer. They expressed: "I believe team teaching experience worked well. Having two teachers in a class makes students more engaged during the lesson and provides opportunities to increase motivation and participation." (L1) "I used to think that my students were demotivated and did not participate in lessons. Then I noticed that the same students were full of energy and motivation when we designed and implemented lessons in team teaching with a focus on their learning." (L7) "Since I had the opportunity to observe students while my partners were teaching, it (team teaching) helped me have a better understanding of students. I understood that it is not the students but the teachers and the lesson plan that keep the lesson going well." (L10)

Providing a non-threatening working environment
The last theme regarding the advantages of team teaching was that team teaching created a non-threatening working environment. It was a harmonious atmosphere where the lecturers could plan and teach together with the feeling of trust among them. Likewise, the highest score in the questionnaire was given to the atmosphere of trust and respect between lecturers for successful team teaching. The results showed that if respect and trust could be built among team members, they would not feel threatened in the workplace. The lecturers commented on this as follows: "We saw that being in a class with another teacher was not so disturbing. It turned out to be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Most of the time, while planning lessons, I felt safer when my colleagues were next to me suggesting ideas." (L1) "The harmony between me and the other teachers was good enough. Thanks to this, having a team teaching experience for the first time was positive for me. I did not feel like there were two different teachers in the class. Instead of this, I felt like there was one team in the classroom." (L3) "When we had a problem, we were there to solve it together, so it gave the feeling of trust and relaxation. However, it might be the opposite if I don't get along with my partners." (L5) "It is not easy to work as a team. I was lucky. My teammates were all understanding and respectful teachers. What if they weren't so? Then I wouldn't feel comfortable and express myself as openly as possible." (L10)

Drawbacks of Team Teaching
Regarding the drawbacks of team teaching, it was found that both quantitative and qualitative data analyses mostly yielded parallel results. The questionnaire results indicated that the participants should focus on the goals of the team instead of their personalities. In addition, time needed for goal setting and lesson planning was revealed as a point that worried most of the lecturers. Similarly, qualitative data analysis indicated that lecturers' having different personalities, different teaching styles and lack of adequate time for meetings were considered as the drawbacks of team teaching.

Causing personality clash
The lecturers agreed that differences in teachers' personalities would cause problems in team teaching arrangements. They expressed that conflict among team members might occur if the teams were formed without taking the personality factor into consideration. They said: "I can't imagine myself planning a lesson with a person whom I don't get on well. Ok, being professional requires respectful attitudes and I would try to be as professional as possible but different personalities would result in conflict, perhaps bigger problems in the end." (L1) "In my experience, we didn't have any personality problems with my partners. However, it might have happened unless all the team members agreed to disagree. For an introvert, team teaching cannot be the right strategy to try with two other talkative partners who are not in the habit of listening to others." (L2) "Every person is different. Some are dominant while some are submissive. I think this is one of the biggest problems in team teaching. If your personality type with your teammates do not match, and if one always insists on making her opinion being accepted, that will not make it a team." (L5) "I prefer performing team teaching with a person I know well. If I am paired with a teacher with whom I do not get along, then I will not be able to show my real potential. I believe our personalities will always hinder rather than help team work." (L6)

Different teaching styles
Not only personalities but also different teaching styles were believed to pose problems for successful implementation of team teaching. Although the questionnaire results indicated teaching styles may not really matter for team teaching to work best, during the interviews, the lecturers expressed that they would prefer working with partners with similar philosophies and teaching styles to theirs. However, it also appeared that by different teaching styles, the lecturers meant that they did not like to work with a senior partner. On the other hand, they seemed to agree that differences in teaching styles might also turn to benefits for the participants. They said:

"I can't teach a class with a person with outdated practices. I don't want to spend my energy explaining to him or her the new techniques and their benefits." (L4)
"In team teaching, teachers can choose their teaching partner. My preference would be someone to whom I feel closer in terms of teaching experience and style. A partner with more experience could dominate the team and convince us to use his or her techniques." (L10) "Two teachers mean two different styles. It might be advantageous as well as disadvantageous. It is the teachers' responsibility to turn differences into a benefit. If they can't achieve it, their lesson plan and teach-ing would not produce good results. People should get rid of their egos and be open to learning new techniques." (L6)

Inadequate time for team teaching
The last disadvantage of team teaching was revealed as lecturers' lacking available time during working hours for team teaching meetings. As team teaching requires partners to gather very often, it was found that the lecturers had difficulty arranging their schedules for the meetings.
"Actually in our experience, the most difficult thing was to find time to come together. In weekdays, everybody was busy doing his/her daily work and we did not see each other very often due to different programs. Sometimes

DISCUSSION
This study sought to reveal EFL lecturers' perceptions of team teaching with particular reference to its benefits and drawbacks as a CPD model. The results point to the significance of respect and trust between team partners and the formation of a nonthreatening working atmosphere with little conflict in teachers' personalities during the process. Similarly, literature on team teaching and other collaborative practices has placed emphasis on respect and trust as highly important elements of team work (Luckner, 1999;Gately & Gately, 2001;Richards & Farrell, 2005). Furthermore, in the questionnaire, lesson planning was perceived as the most valuable part of team teaching. The lecturers believed that despite their concerns about finding available time for meetings, planning lessons as a team during these meetings produced more student-centered and effective lessons where students became more motivated and energetic. This finding goes parallel with the views of Friend (2008) who proposes that particularly in the early phases of collaborative arrangements, teachers' periodical gatherings for lesson planning is essential where they will discuss and make decisions on critical issues, which can bring about achieving results. Another finding on which most lecturers agreed was that team teaching could provide participants with varied perspectives on their instruction. This result is consistent with what Richards and Farrell (2005) and Buckley (2000) suggest stating that team teaching can add to teachers' knowledge, skills and experience while different perspectives are combined to design effective lesson plans. Almost all the lecturers in this study articulated positive views on team teaching and its provision of various perspectives. Furthermore, the findings underlining the power of team teaching to enhance lecturers' self-awareness as well as the opportunities for selfevaluation are similar to those found by Shannon and Meath-Lang (1992) who conducted a research with 25 language teachers on co-teaching and suggested that 19 participants acknowledged collaborative practices could encourage self-awareness, evaluation and reflection due to the fact that they offered teachers the opportunity to look at their teaching with new and different eyes.
Additionally, increased student motivation in team teaching lessons was identified as an important finding of the study. Likewise, the related literature suggests that team teaching can enhance students' curiosity, interest and motivation in class through the opportunities provided by the presence of two or more teachers (Anderson & Speck, 1989;Carless &Walker, 2006;Owen, 2015). Both quantitative and qualitative data in our study evidenced that students seemed to like having team taught lessons. The results also indicated that the lecturers completed the team teaching process with enhanced sense of achievement. They expressed that support from a colleague during both lesson planning and teaching produced more successful lessons which, they believed, might not be achievable if performed alone. Similarly, Harland and Kinder (1997) pointed out the emotional outcomes that teachers would feel by participating in collaborative practices. Furthermore, most of the lecturers agreed that a partner in class would be very much supportive by giving examples and making further explanations. This is also supported by Richards and Farrell (2005), and Bailey et al. (2001) suggesting that through team teaching teachers can benefit from each other's strengths not only in lesson planning but also in teaching because they could handle difficult situations together, manage lessons and design activities more effectively. We could also infer from the findings that lesson planning could become less challenging once partners have realized possible benefits to be gained through team work. As suggested by Gately and Gately (2001), there 1848 are some developmental stages teachers go through during collaboration. After the beginning stage characterized by discomfort and dissatisfaction, teachers can enjoy the merits of team teaching like having more professional interaction and communication.
The findings also showed that there was consensus by most lecturers regarding the contribution of team teaching to their professional development as reported by several scholars in the literature (Buckley, 2000;Bailey et al. 2001;Richards & Farrell, 2005;McKeon, 2006). When the advantages of team teaching in this particular study are considered, it is possible to claim that team teaching can support lecturers with their professional development by offering them new perspectives, encouraging them to practice new teaching techniques, improving their problem solving skills and creating a good working atmosphere.
This study further suggests that it should only be the lecturers themselves who would freely decide whether or not to join team teaching. This is consistent with what Cook and Friend (2004, p.32) pointed out about the voluntary participation in collaborative practices suggesting that "even experienced co-teachers indicate that co-teaching should only occur if both individuals participate willingly". Similarly, Richards and Farrell (2005) emphasize the importance of the teachers' own decision making to practice team teaching and to choose their partners in overcoming future problems.
Both quantitative and qualitative data indicated that the lecturers were worried about experiencing a personality conflict with their partners and believed it should only be the goals rather than power struggles that everybody must consider during team teaching. This finding is in line with Krammer et. al (2018) who propose that differences both in teaching styles and personalities can cause conflict in team teaching and these have to be handled if quality outcomes are expected in the end. It can also be inferred that team teaching enabled the lecturers to resolve problem together. When working with a partner, the lecturers were able to suggest alternative solutions to problems, and they liked the times when they focused more on possible solutions than problems. As suggested by Hawley and Valli (1999) effective CPD programs are those which place emphasis on collaboration and problem solving. To examine this under sociocultural perspective, it is suggested that socioculturally-driven professional development programs should guide teachers to seek feasible solutions to problems as well as approaching outcomes with greater confidence (Raphael, 2014 as cited in Özsoy, 2017, p.20).
Finally, quantitative data analysis revealed that the lecturers disagreed with the idea that team teaching could be more effective if partners had similar teaching styles. Qualitative data analysis, however, yielded that varied teaching styles of teachers could be a hindering element in successful team teaching. The literature confirms that it could be better to work individually if teachers have distinct teaching styles; otherwise, an approach which can combine the teaching style of teachers could be preferred (Cook & Friend, 2004) Similarly, Scruggs et al. (2007, cited in Friend et. al, 2010 presented the results of a qualitative study on coteaching and found that the teams which were formed of teachers with different teaching styles ended up with conflict. As another finding of the study, engaging in team teaching within the lecturers' tight schedules and responsibilities was reported to be demanding since they could not find sufficient time to gather for meetings. According to Rabb (2009), teachers need a lot of time and energy for planning, arranging meetings and evaluation in team teaching. Similarly, Al Nassir (2017) agreed that one of the disadvantages of team teaching was the need for teachers to find time to plan and define roles.
The findings in this study revealed that the lecturers were mostly undecided whether team teaching was really worth practicing given the amount of work, time and energy spent for goal setting and lesson planning. Hannover Research Report (2012, p.13) on co-teaching might confirm this finding stating that "while there are many resources available to tell practitioners how to co-teach, there are virtually no convincing data that tell the practitioners that is worth doing it." It can also be suggested that despite several advantages proposed in the literature, team teaching might hinder teachers from participating in it due to its drawbacks. Or it might be attributed to the fact that Turkish teachers are not very accustomed to conducting collaborative practices in their profession as reported by the OECD TALIS report (2009).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We have presented the findings from a mixed methods study on EFL lecturers' views on team teaching as a CPD model. The evidence from the study suggests that team teaching has the potential to encourage teacher professional development despite putting up some barriers that might discourage teachers from taking part in it. There is satisfactory agreement between quantitative and qualitative findings, which, we believe, is promising to perform further research on team teaching and other collaborative CPD practices in EFL settings.
Considering several benefits team teaching can bring to the teaching and learning environment besides its contribution to teacher professional development, schools should present their teachers with more opportunities for collaboration. It should be noted that team teaching when implemented with compatible partners who have matching teaching styles and attitudes, might produce favorable outcomes for teachers, and learners. Thus, teachers with keen interest and motivation to team teach need to be supported by the school administration and allowed to disseminate their experience with other professionals to share good practice.
Our work clearly has some limitations; however, we believe it could provide a starting point for those seeking collaborative opportunities for teacher professional development. First of all, this study was conducted with a small group of participants working at a non-profit private university, thus, it would be inaccurate to generalize the findings to wider populations and other educational contexts. A survey with a bigger sample size might better portray the general view held by Turkish English language lecturers about collaborative practices such as team teaching, action research, and lesson study, etc.