www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

Original scientific paper

Received: December 23, 2023.

Revised: March 05, 2024.

Accepted: March 21, 2024.

UDC:

37.018.43

37.011.2

10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-1-31-40

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Corresponding author: martin.kursch@pedf.cuni.cz

Martin Kursch

, Jaroslav Kříž

, Jaroslav Veteška

Effectiveness of Virtual Co-Teaching: A New Perspective on

Teaching

Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, Department of Andragogy and Educational Management,

Czech Republic e-mail: martin.kursch@pedf.cuni.cz; jaroslav.kriz@pedf.cuni.cz; jaroslav.veteska@pedf.cuni.cz

Abstract: The teaching method of virtual co-teaching helps the mutual sharing of new experiences and methods of

pedagogues in teaching in formal education, through digital technologies. It also facilitates the involvement of practitioners in

teaching, which can be a key mechanism for ensuring quality education. This article focused on comparing the effectiveness of

co-teaching in two environments, face-to-face and virtual. In terms of methodology, an experiment was used, which was implemented

in three independently selected schools, from which eight groups of thirty students were formed. The phenomenon measured was

the level of understanding of the material taught during these lessons of history, mathematics and a foreign language. The test

results of the individual groups were subsequently analyzed. From the results, we can confirm the null hypothesis based on the

independent samples t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test, which indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between

the test results of the two groups. However, it is essential to emphasize the added value in virtual co-teaching, which is primarily

in the economic aspect and flexibility. Specifically, it is a reduction in the cost of commuting, reduced time and easy availability of

experts. These results form the basis for follow-up research that can focus on improving the quality of teaching using this method.

Keywords: co-teaching, digital technology, teaching effectiveness, virtual co-teaching, experiment.

Introduction and theoretical framework

In many countries, co-teaching is seen as a useful educational method that benefits students with

and without individual learning needs. It is thus widely used in primary, secondary and higher education

(Friend et al., 2003; Fluijt et al., 2016). Defining joint teaching is not clear-cut in pedagogical practice. In

professional literature, we often come across terms such as co-teaching (Fluijt et al., 2016), collaborative

(Beninghof, 2012) or team teaching (Wobaka and Schnelzera, 2015). Currently, in the world context,

the term co-teaching is often associated with the concept of inclusion, i.e. with the assumption that the

traditional classroom environment is the most suitable environment for the majority of students, and

therefore it is necessary to provide the greatest possible support here (Wilson and Blednick, 2011). The

very definition of co-teaching is then usually understood as the cooperation of a general pedagogue with

a special pedagogue within the framework of inclusive practice, which contributes to meeting the needs

of different groups of pupils (Rytivaara et al., 2021; Fluijt, 2016). Another perspective on co-teaching is

provided by Bacharach et al. (2010), who defines it as the joint planning and teaching of two or more

teachers. A specific form of co-teaching can then be a model where the lesson is basically managed by

one teacher or uses the opportunity given by the double occupation of the lesson to divide students into

groups that teach either in the same class or even in separate rooms (for details see Beninghof, 2012;

Murawski, 2017; Dove et al., 2018; Veteška et al., 2022; Kursch, 2022). Friend et al., (2010) and Murawski

(2009) divide co-teaching into a total of six types:

1. Traditional interactive pair teaching - both teachers participate equally in teaching, design teaching

and teach together in a synchronous environment.

2. Complementary pair teaching – one teacher explains the material while the other provides

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

supplementary instruction.

3. Station teaching – pupils are divided into smaller groups between which the teachers alternate.

4. Parallel co-teaching – pupils are divided into two equal-sized groups and each teacher teaches one

group.

5. Alternative pair teaching – pupils are divided into groups according to their learning needs.

6. Pair teaching in the style of one teaching and one assisting (Friend et al., 2010).

From the above definitions and an overview of the types of co-teaching, it is possible to deduce

that the practice of co-teaching does not have to be limited only to the cooperation of general and special

pedagogues and that co-teaching can be included in various forms and types of education (Wilson and

Blednick, 2011). In the context of the wide use of co-teaching in various educational systems and its

connection with inclusive educational practice, our study brings a new perspective on the virtual form

of co-teaching. Although concepts such as co-teaching, collaborative and team-based learning are well

established in pedagogical theory and practice, our work focuses on the innovative application of these

principles in an online environment. It thus expands the discussion on the possibilities and challenges

associated with the adaptation of traditional methods of joint teaching to the conditions of the virtual

classroom, which represents a significant contribution to the current discourse on the effectiveness of

educational methods. Virtual co-teaching is based on standard methods of joint teaching and expands it

with a virtual component. It is therefore a collaboration between two pedagogues, where one of them is

always virtually connected (Svobodová, 2021; Svobodová et al., 2022).

The development and expansion of virtual co-teaching into formal education is currently important

and topical with regard to global social changes (e.g. wars in the world, natural disasters, growing political

tension, increased migration and refugee crisis, economic inequalities, etc.), but above all also due to the

technical progress associated with the concept of Industry 4.0 and, more recently, Industry 5.0, which

indicates a new global industrial transformation (Leng et al., 2022). This is primarily the advent of robotics,

automation of artificial intelligence and new technologies that significantly interfere with educational

processes and influence their direction (Veteška and Kursch, 2019; Malik et al., 2018; Leng et al., 2022).

Last but not least, the Covid-19 pandemic fundamentally changed the perspective of traditional

education, as education systems across the world faced an unprecedented situation of mass school

closures. In response to this challenge, educators have been forced to turn to new, innovative approaches

and didactic methods in order to maintain an uninterrupted educational process through digital tools and

platforms (Pokhrel and Chhetri, 2021). This period also caused the need to carry out research studies that

would prove what real impacts this non-standard period had on the education of pupils. A negative influence

on student learning has been proven (e.g. Spiteri et al., 2022), but also the need to introduce completely

new methods of education and fundamentally innovate teachers’ approaches to the pedagogical process

in changed social and educational conditions. Emphasis on greater use of digital technologies is one of

the keys to effective (Berry, 2020; Iivari et al., 2020; Pokhrel et al., 2021). The pandemic brought with it

the necessity to focus teaching on the development of didactic competences, human relationships and

values (Sakalli et al., 2021).The possibilities of using co-teaching mentioned in this text can of course also

be used in other situations, outside of the framework of the ordered isolation of pedagogues, whether due

to epidemics or other individually justified absence of a pedagogue from teaching (e.g. in the context of

further professional education, foreign internships, etc.). In addition, the use of virtual co-teaching can

also bring benefits in the professional development of teachers, when cooperation can stimulate the

mutual sharing of experiences and new methods. All these aspects highlight the potential and flexibility of

virtual co-teaching, which reduces the cost of commuting, lost time, the easy availability of teachers and

the involvement of practitioners (for example, the involvement of a native speaker in foreign language

teaching). In this context, virtual co-teaching becomes a key mechanism for ensuring quality education

(Kursch et al., 2022).

Effectiveness of co-teaching and virtual co-teaching – literature review

Our research tries to bring a new perspective to the question of the effectiveness of co-teaching.

The very definition and forms of this method are defined in different ways, but they are all united by the

question of the effectiveness of joint teaching, which can be characterized as a central and cross-cutting

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

topic that includes the teacher’s view of effectiveness (Wilson and VanBerschot, 2014, Jurkowski and

Müller, 2018, Neifeald and Nissim, 2019, Rabin, 2020) and students (Puttonen, 2014, Strogilos and King-

Sears, 2019). Current research focused on the use of co-teaching mainly focuses on the effectiveness of

joint teaching in inclusive classes.

Iacono et al. (2021) conducted a review of research that used a quantitative approach, six qualitative

and one with a mixed design. The results of this analysis revealed that there is little rigorous research to

inform how two teachers with complementary skills can best work together to meet the diverse learning

needs of students. According to the authors of Iacono et al. (2021), therefore, more research is needed on

how co-teaching can be used to optimize outcomes for students based on the nature and extent of their

problems. For example, some interventions, according to the analysis, may improve academic outcomes,

while others may benefit social or behavioral goals.

An interesting starting point for our research was the comprehensive meta-analysis by Vembye

et al. (2023) who examined the effectiveness of co-teaching models and related collaborative teaching

on student achievement. These authors included a total of 76 studies from 1984 to 2020 in their meta-

analysis. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence of the effectiveness

of cooperative learning models in improving student academic achievement. This is independent of the

specific model of cooperation in the classroom between teachers, the taught subject and the year of

study. Additionally, in this meta-study, research on co-teaching often had a small sample size and was

based on non-randomized research designs. Following the recommendations of Vembye et al. (2023) for

future research, we use randomized controlled designs in our study. This approach allows us to better

assess the real effect of co-teaching and brings an important added value to the discussion about the

effectiveness of the researched learning model.

In terms of monitoring the effectiveness of virtual co-teaching, Svobodová et al. (2022) from the

results of a qualitative study point to co-teaching as a method of expanding the pedagogical space into

an environment where schools cannot normally reach. However, it is also a method that places high

demands both on other teachers and on their cooperation and preparedness. Ensuring the necessary

time for the preparation of teachers is essential in terms of the effectiveness of co-teaching, which is

also confirmed by the results of several studies in which the lack of time for planning was identified

as a barrier to the actual implementation of co-teaching (Mofield, 2020). In addition to sufficient time

for teaching preparation, technical equipment is a significant determinant of the success of virtual co-

teaching (Veteška and Kursch, 2019).

At the same time, the results of the study by Svobodová et al. (2022) mention that, through

virtual co-teaching, it is also possible to target the attractiveness of the entire taught subject through

the involvement of experts who would otherwise be unavailable to students and physically unable to

get to school. Virtual co-teaching thus opens new doors to make teaching and various subjects (e.g.

technical subjects, chemistry, physics, foreign languages, etc.) more attractive. From the point of view of

measuring the effectiveness of virtual co-teaching through quantitative research, a study by Kursch et al.

(2022), where the maximum effort was made to eliminate variables and all possible disturbing factors (e.g.

selection of students with the same average results in the last two years of study, the same educational

program, homogeneous course of the entire experiment, etc.). The results show that virtual co-teaching

is as effective as classic co-teaching. This finding was interpreted with statistical significance. As the

value of “p” does not approach the limit where errors of the first or second type can be considered, we

can say with certainty that the differences between classical and virtual co-teaching do not show either a

significantly positive or a significantly negative effect.

From the point of view of the effectiveness of virtual co-teaching, the area of technical equipment

and readiness is essential, which stands on the borderline between effectiveness and a barrier in the

preparation and implementation of teaching using this method. In addition to the mentioned technical

readiness, the human readiness (cooperation) of pedagogues is also important for students in the virtual

form of joint teaching, enabling students to get a good orientation in teaching.

For the effectiveness of joint teaching (including virtual joint teaching), it is important to deal with its

entire process (planning, implementation, reflection, including the choice of the type of joint teaching and

its specific variant of virtual joint teaching). Other contextual conditions that influence the effectiveness

of (virtual) joint teaching and are elaborated in sub-topics in this study include technical readiness, the

time factor for considering the specific educational needs of pupils (Kursch et al., 2022; Svobodová et al.,

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

2023; Veteška et al., 2022).

Our study builds upon the existing literature by empirically investigating the effectiveness of virtual

co-teaching. In our exploration, we emphasized the importance of technical equipment, readiness, and

collaboration among educators, which enables effective navigation of the teaching process in a virtual

environment.

Materials and Methods

The purpose of our study was to compare the effectiveness of learning in classic co-teaching

versus virtual co-teaching. A simple research question asks whether virtual co-teaching is more effective

in absorbing learning than traditional co-teaching. Due to the purpose of our research, we chose an

experiment as a research method. Our research therefore took the form of a simple experiment. For the

purposes of the experiment, we selected 3 independent schools in Czech Republic, from which 8 groups

of 30 students each. The teaching subjects were history, mathematics, and English. The phenomenon

measured was the learning of the subject matter in these lessons. Then the result of the test of individual

groups is a sign. The groups were selected as homogeneous independent, randomized selection. Both

control and experimental groups were selected by random selection. For all groups, we checked the

students’ previous performance in the tested subjects in order to verify the normal distribution of the

students’ performance. Therefore, we did not change the groups, as they all had the same average score

of the previous year’s achievement assessment. The research sample is therefore a total of 240 pupils

from 3 faculty schools in the Czech Republic. The benefit of all pupils is subject to a normal distribution.

The benefit was determined based on the students’ report cards from the previous year of study. The age of

the pupils was in the range of 12-14 years. The experimental and control groups were randomly selected,

and their descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. It can be seen from the table that the groups do not

differ and are homogeneous in the parameters of the descriptive statistics of the studied counterparts. The

sample is a representative sample of elementary school students in the Czech Republic.

The control groups had an hour of classic co-teaching with two teachers, the experimental groups

were subjected to virtual co-teaching, i.e., one teacher physically present and the other who was present

only virtually with the help of a 150 cm television screen. For the experiment to be valid, we had to

separate out any confounding influences and ensure that other variables were the same for all groups.

Table 1 lists the influences we eliminated. The test took place within two hours after the lesson, in order to

eliminate the possible self-teaching of pupils or the individual influence of forgetting.

Table 1. Disturbing variables in the experiment and their elimination

Undesirable phenomenon Applied elimination

Equipment outage

Secure WiFi access to a dedicated router, connect UPS to TV and PC, turn off

automatic hardware shutdown.

High-quality sound

Installation of special microphones with the requirement for the quality of speech

acquisition and noise reduction using CVC technology.

Quality visuals We used full HD resolution for a 150 cm TV.

Sensing the space of the whole

class

The virtual teacher had an HD image of the entire class on his laptop to ensure a

holistic perception similar to that of a person in the classroom.

Same spatial layout

In both cases of teaching, the teachers stood in the same places so that we

did not introduce an element of movement that could be a difference factor. In

classical co-teaching , the teacher stood in the same place as the television was

placed in the virtual co-teaching.

Same teaching content In preparation, both teachers prepared the same curriculum content.

Same behaviour of teachers

For both cases, an sript was created, according to which the teachers taught

and thus evoked virtually identical situations throughout the lesson. Including

questions and timings of individual teaching sections.

Same teachers Both teachers were identical in both lessons.

Teaching time

The lessons were always in the morning at the same hour, so as not to affect the

changes by fatigue of pupils in the afternoon.

Testing within 2 hours after lessons

To eliminate the effects of forgetting, which differs individually more with increas-

ing time, both groupswere tested within two hours of teaching.

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

The only variable that changes in the experiment remains the virtuality of one of the teachers. The

experiments took place from September 2022 to November 2023 (extended research of our previous

researches in this area) and were supervised by us to check that all criteria for a valid experiment were

met by ensuring the removal of all confounding influences that could bias the results. The description of

experiment is showed on Figure 1. For the purposes of the experiment, we established the alternative

hypothesis Ha:

Ha: The test results of students who completed a virtual co-teaching class will be better than the

test results of students who had a classic co-teaching class.

The verification statistical methods were the T-test and, as a supplement, the Mann-Whitney U test.

Randomized

selection

Base

Group

N=30

Experiment

Group

N=30

Normal

Co-teaching

Virtual

Co-teaching

Standardized TEST

Results

Evaluation

Figure 1. Description of experiment.

Results

After the experiment, we evaluated the results using appropriate statistical methods. Descriptive

statistics are shown in Table 2. All groups are based on the normal distribution of the performance of the

basic set of pupils. We used the t-test for independent groups as a test statistic. As our sample was very

small, we also performed a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Table 3 shows the results of the t-test,

which was processed using the Statistica program.

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of research samples

Group Valid N Mean Median Minimum Maximum Variance Std.Dev. Standard

G1B 30.0 14.8 15.0 9.0 19.0 7.0 2.6 0.5

G1E 30.0 14.8 15.0 8.0 19.0 5.4 2.3 0.4

G2B 30.0 13.2 12.0 3.0 25.0 32.1 5.7 1.0

G2E 30.0 13.6 12.0 5.0 25.0 22.9 4.8 0.9

G3B 30.0 20.3 20.0 11.0 28.0 19.0 4.4 0.8

G3E 30.0 20.9 21.0 13.0 28.0 11.6 3.4 0.6

G4B 30.0 17.1 18.0 3.0 25.0 20.4 4.5 0.8

G4E 30.0 17.2 18.5 2.0 23.0 24.9 5.0 0.9

Table 3. T-test for Independent Samples

G1 vs G2 Mean Mean t-value df p N N Std.Dev. Std.Dev. F-ratio p

G1B vs. G1E 14.77 14.80 -0.05 58.00 0.96 30 30 2.65 2.33 1.30 0.49

G2B vs. G2E 13.17 13.63 -0.34 58.00 0.73 30 30 5.66 4.78 1.40 0.37

G3B vs. G3E 20.30 20.92 -0.61 58.00 0.54 30 30 4.36 3.41 1.64 0.19

G4B vs. G4E 17.10 17.23 -0.11 58.00 0.91 30 30 4.52 4.99 1.22 0.60

From the results in the table, it can be seen that we reject the alternative hypothesis and confirm the

null hypothesis, i.e., that the test results of both groups do not differ statistically significantly at the level of

significance a= 0.05, p>0.05. So, we conclude that the results are almost the same. Figure 2 shows the

differences in both groups.

Box & Whisker Plot

Mean

Mean±SD

Mean±1,96*SD

G1B G1E G2B G2E G3B G3E G4B G4E

Figure 2. Summary statistics – comparison of all groups test results.

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

We also performed an additional non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the results of which are in

Table 4. We came to confirm our results using this test as well.

Table 4. Mann-Whitney U Test (w/ continuity correction)

Rank Sum Rank Sum U Z p-value Z p-value N N 2*1sided

910.50 919.50 445.50 -0.06 0.95 -0.06 0.95 30 30 0.95

879.00 951.00 414.00 -0.52 0.60 -0.53 0.59 30 30 0.60

845.50 984.50 380.50 -1.02 0.31 -1.03 0.30 30 30 0.31

886.50 943.50 421.50 -0.41 0.68 -0.42 0.68 30 30 0.68

Our findings show that co-teaching could be a full-fledged alternative to classic co-teaching in

terms of the impact on learning represented by ex post test results. However, from the point of view of

effectiveness, if we define it as the achievement of results in the test including all the costs of co-teaching,

virtual co-teaching appears to be more effective than classic co-teaching. This conclusion can easily

be reached when calculating the costs of commuting, time lost, the ease of availability of teachers (for

example, a native speaker, a production expert, a foreign expert, etc.), provided that the costs of the

equipment are also used for other purposes and are therefore not only purchased for the purpose of co-

teaching.

Discussions

IIn our study, we tried to separate the variables in order to avoid side effects. That is why we have

selected groups of pupils with the same average results in the last two years of study. These pupils were

selected randomly, from a reference group provided to us by the principals of the schools where the

research was carried out. These were pupils of the same educational program, the same and previous

academic results. As far as other independent variables are concerned (apart from the homogeneity

of the control and experimental groups), we paid attention to the homogeneous course of the entire

experiment. We focused on ensuring the sameness of virtual vs traditional teaching. As an example, we

can mention the same location in the space of the teacher implementing frontal teaching and co-teaching.

Furthermore, we tried to establish the same situations throughout the entire lesson in terms of content and

form. We have eliminated all risks related to the failure of the technical background for virtual teaching.

We have always prepared the infrastructure for this teaching in advance.

Limitations of our study include primarily the limited sample size, which may affect the generalizability

of the findings. Minor individual differences between participants, which could not be fully compensated

for, represent another limitation, as well as the impossibility of achieving complete uniformity throughout

the teaching units. Although we found virtual co-teaching to be comparably effective to the traditional form,

these findings should be interpreted with these limitations in mind and with caution given the potential

influence of these factors on outcomes. Since the “p” value does not indicate a statistically significant

difference, we can state that the effectiveness between the classic and virtual form of co-teaching is not

statistically distinguishable, which indicates that neither method is significantly more effective than the other.

This finding underscores the need for further research in this area, taking into account the aforementioned

limitations of our study. Our study was methodologically elaborated so that it can be accurately replicated

by other research teams. Complementary to our study was further qualitative research, which brought

the observations of teachers and pupils, secondary externalities of both a positive and negative nature,

and suitably complements our quantitative research. A qualitative study is presented by Svobodová et al.

(2023).

From the point of view of the use of virtual co-teaching, which was examined in the presented study

(i.e. one teacher in person and the other online), we will not meet in the research. In current empirical

studies, teaching is mainly investigated only in an online environment, not in a combined form (face-to-

face and online). At the same time, this model has been investigated in more detail during the COVID-19

pandemic, which has initiated a number of studies focusing on online platforms, student motivation,

teaching effectiveness and social interaction, with most current studies limited to fully online learning

environments. (Kim and Pratt, 2023; Chizhik and Brandon, 2020; Barron et al., 2022; Coy and Miller,

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

2023). Our work thus contributes to expanding knowledge about the potential and challenges associated

with this hybrid model of teaching.

Both approaches are of significant importance for the development of virtual education and the

involvement of digital technologies to optimize them in teaching at primary and secondary schools. The

virtual co-teachnig we explored opens the door for innovation in the educational space. This hybrid

model may be particularly relevant in situations where flexibility, adaptability, and the involvement of

practitioners in teaching are needed. These technologies give students and teachers access to information,

communication, and collaboration on new levels. This creates modern and interactive educational

environments that can be adapted to the individual needs of different groups of students (e.g. talented

students, students with special educational needs, etc.).

The results of this study confirm that virtual learning and modern technology have a key role in

the education of the 21st century. Their importance and potential will continue to grow, requiring constant

research and innovation. Some other lines of research that could be based on this study could focus on

evaluating the long-term effects of virtual co-teaching on the development of students’ communication

skills, cooperation, and critical thinking. The results of this study represent an important step towards a

better understanding and use of the potential of virtual co-teaching in primary and secondary schools.

Conclusions

The aim of this study was to conduct an experiment aimed at comparing the effectiveness of co-

teaching in two environments – face-to-face (classical) and virtual. The main phenomenon measured

was the effectiveness of virtual co-teaching on learning the subject matter in three different subjects:

history, mathematics, and English. Based on the independent samples t-test and the Mann-Whitney

U test, we were able to confirm the null hypothesis, indicating that there is no statistically significant

difference between the t-test results of the two groups. However, it is necessary to emphasize the added

value of virtual joint teaching, which is mainly in the economic aspect and flexibility. Specifically, it is about

reducing commuting costs, reducing time and easy availability of experts.

Based on our findings, we suggest that further studies focus on in-depth exploration of student-

teacher interactions in virtual co-teaching and examine how these interactions affect learning outcomes.

Particular attention should be paid to how pedagogical methods and the use of technology can improve

student engagement and motivation. It is also recommended to conduct longitudinal studies that would

assess the effect of virtual co-teaching on the academic development of students over time.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Cooperatio Program (Faculty of Education, Charles University, Czech

Republic, 2022-2026), research area General Education and Pedagogy.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K. and J.K.; Resources, J.V. and J.K.; Methodology, M.K..; Investigation, J.K.

and J.V.; Data curation, M.K.; Formal Analysis, J.V.; Writing – original draft, M.K. and J.K.; Writing – review

& editing, J.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References

Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the Face of Student Teaching through Coteaching. Action in

Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14. https://doi:10.1080/01626620.2010.1046353

Barron, T., Friend, M., Dieker, L., & Kohnke, S. (2022). Co-Teaching in Uncertain Times: Using Technology to Improve Student

Learning and Manage Today’s Complex Educational Landscape. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(3), 439-

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

446. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211033579

Berry, B. (2020). Teaching, learning, and caring in the post-COVID era. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(1), 14-17. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0031721720956840

Beninghof, A. (2012). Co-Teching That Works: Structures and Strategies for Maximizing Student Learning. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Coy, K., & Miller, L. R. (2023). Co-Teaching in a Digital World: It’s Not Teaching by Title, It’s Teaching by Talent. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 52(2), 203-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395231197675

Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2018). Co-Teaching for English Learners: A Guide to Collaborative Planning, Instruction,

Assessment, and Reection. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin A SAGE Company.

Fluijt, D., Bakker, C., & Struyf, E. (2016). Team-reection: the missing link in co-teaching teams. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, 31(2), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1125690

Fontana K. C. (2005). The effects of co-teaching on the achievement of eighth grade students with learning disabilities. Journal

of At-Risk Issues, 11(2), 17-23.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of

collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9-27. https://doi.

org/10.1080/10474410903535380

Harbort, G., Gunter, P. L., Hull, K., Brown, Q., Venn, M. L., Wiley, L. P., & Wiley, E. W. (2007). Behaviors of Teachers in

Co-taught Classes in a Secondary School. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher

Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 30(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406407030001

Chizhik, E. W. & Bradon, R. (2020). Making Virtual Co-Teaching Work in a Covid-19 Environment. Issues in Teacher

Education. 29(12), 142-148. https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1281987.pdf

Iacono, T., Landry, O., Garcia-Melgar, A., Spong, J., Hyett, N., Bagley, K., & McKinstry, C. (2021). A systematized review of

co-teaching efcacy in enhancing inclusive education for students with disability. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1900423

Iivari, N., Sharma, S. & Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital transformation of everyday life – How COVID-19 pandemic transformed

the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? International

Journal of Information Management, 55, 102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401220310264

Jang, S. (2006). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers. Educational research, 48(2),

177-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880600732272

Jurkowski, S., & Müller, B. (2018). Co-teaching in inclusive classes: The development of multi-professional cooperation in

teaching dyads. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 224-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.017

Kim, E. & Pratt, S. (2023). Co-Teaching Goes Online: The Impact of Virtual Co-Teaching on the Practices of a Co-Teaching

Partnership During COVID, Studying Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2023.2250361

Kursch, M., Liška, R., Tureckiová, M., & Kříž, J. (2022). Efciency of virtual co-teaching. In Pitula, B., & Kowalski, M. (eds.). Co-

Teaching – Everyday Life or Terra Incognita of Contemporary Education? Göttingen: V&R unipress,145-159.

Leng, J., Sha, W., Wang, B., Zheng, P., Zhuang, C., Liu, Q., Wuest, T., Mourtzis, D., & Wang, L. (2022). Industry 5.0: Prospect

and retrospect. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 65, 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.09.017

Malik, G., Tayal, D. K., & Vij, S. (2018). An Analysis of the Role of Articial Intelligence in Education and Teaching. Recent

Findings in Intelligent Computing Techniques, In Kacprzyk, J. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 407–

417. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8639-7_42

Moeld, E. L. (2020). Benets and Barriers to Collaboration and Co-Teaching: Examining Perspectives of Gifted Education

Teachers and General Education Teachers. Gifted Child Today, 43(1), 20-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519880588

Murawski W. W., Swanson H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special

Education, 22(2), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200501

Murawski W. W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary english classes: How can we improve? Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 22(3), 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560500455703

Murawski, M. W. (2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools. Thousand Oaks: Cowin Press.

Murawski, W. W. (2017). Beyond Co-Teaching Basics: A Data-Driven, No-Fail Model for Continuous Improvement. Virginia:

ASCD.

Neifeald, E., & Nissim, Y. (2019). Co-Teaching in the „Academia Class“: Evaluation of Advantages and Frequency of Practices.

International Education Studies. 12(5), 86-98. https:// /doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n5p86

Othman, O. N. (2020). Incorporating Collaborative Teaching in Student – Teacher Education. Journal of Education, Society and

Behavioral Science, 33 (8), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2020/v33i830246

Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning. Higher

Education for the Future, 8(1), 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481

Puttonen, K. (2014). Information Specialist and ICT Lecturer Co-Teach an Online Course: A New Way and What Students

www.ijcrsee.com

Kursch M., Kříž J., & Veteška J. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual co-teaching: A new perspective on teaching, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 12(1), 31-40.

Think About It. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 6, (1). 52-64. https://doi.org/10.15845/noril.

v6i1.217

Rabin, C. (2020). Co-Teaching: Collaborative and Caring Teacher Preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 135-

147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119872696

Rytivaara, A., Pulkkinen, J., & Palmu, I. (2021). Learning about students in co-teaching teams. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 1–16. https://doi:10.1080/13603116.2021.1878299

Sakalli, Ö. et al. (2021). How Primary School Children Perceive Tolerance by Technology Supported Instruction in Digital

Transformation During Covid 19. Frontiers in psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752243

Spiteri, J. et al. (2023). The impact of COVID-19 on children’s learning: a rapid review. Educational and developmental

psychologist, 40(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2021.2024759

Strogilos, V., & King-Sears, M. E. (2018). Co-teaching is extra help and fun: perspectives on co-teaching from middle school

students and co-teachers. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12427

Svobodová, Z., Kursch, M., & Veteška, J. (2023). Virtual co-teaching and future teachers. In Veteška, J. & Kříž, J. (eds.). Adult

Education 2022 - Balance in the Context of Strategic Changes: proceedings of the 12th International Adult Education

Conference: 22-23 November 2022 Prague, Czech Republic. Prague: Czech Andragogy Society. 222-228.

Svobodová, Z., Veteška, J., & Dvořáková, D. (2022). Virtual co-teaching through the eyes of primary and secondary school

students. In Pitula, B. a M. Kowalski (eds.). Co-Teaching – 228 Everyday Life or Terra Incognita of Contemporary

Education? Göttingen: V&R unipress, 125-143.

Svobodová, Z., Kursch, M. & Veteška, J. (2021). Problems and obstacles of distance learning in the point of view of primary

school teachers in the “Covid period”. In Proceedings of the International Conferences Mobile Learning 2021 (ML 2021)

and Educational Technologies 2021, Lisboa: IADIS, 83-90.

Vembye, M. H., Weiss, F., & Hamilton Bhat, B. (2023). The Effects of Co-Teaching and Related Collaborative Models of

Instruction on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://

doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588

Veteska, J., Kursch, M., Svobodova, Z. (2022). Longitudinal Co-teaching Projects: Scoping Review. In: Ifenthaler, D., Isaías, P.,

Sampson, D.G. (eds) Orchestration of Learning Environments in the Digital World. Cognition and Exploratory Learning

in the Digital Age. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90944-4_3

Veteška, J., & Kursch, M. (2019). Paradigma „Vzdělávání 4.0“ v éře digitalizace a globalizace. In Veteška, J. (ed.) Vzdělávání

dospělých 2018 – transformace v éře digitalizace a umělé inteligence = Adult Education 2018 – transformation in

the era of digitization and articial intelligence: proceedings of the 8th International Adult Education Conference, 11-

12th December 2018 Prague. Praha: Česká andragogická společnost, 15-23.

Wilson, B. G., & VanBerschot, J. L. (2014). Co-Teaching an Online Action Research Class / Co-enseignement et classe de

recherche-action en ligne. Canadian Journal of Learning and Teaching, 40(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2KW20

Wobak, M., & Schnelzer, W. (2015). Teamteaching: Kollegiale Kooperation für gelingendes Lehren und Lernen. Innsbruck:

School of Education, Universität Innsbruck.