The Impact of Teamwork on Teaching Productivity in Israeli Schools
The Impact of Teamwork on Teaching Productivity in Israeli Schools
Dr. Nassar Tarabiy
Dr. Souad Abu Rukon
Dr. Ihab Massarwa
Abstract
This study examines the impact of teamwork on teaching productivity among 300 educators in Israeli schools. Using a structured 30-item questionnaire, the study assessed six key dimensions of teamwork: pedagogical planning, classroom performance, teaching outputs, student achievement, professional wellbeing, and organizational support. A comprehensive set of quantitative methods was employed, including descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, independent-samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, multiple linear regression, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
Findings revealed consistently high levels of perceived benefits across all six dimensions, with pedagogical planning and teaching outputs receiving the highest mean ratings. Strong positive correlations were found among all categories, indicating a cohesive teamwork structure.The regression analysis identified professional wellbeing (β = .41, p < .001) and organizational support (β = .35, p < .001) as the strongest predictors of teaching productivity, with the overall model explaining 58% of the variance (R² = .58). The exploratory factor analysis confirmed the theoretical six-factor model, with clear loadings and no significant cross-loadings, indicating internal consistency and construct validity.
Moderate differences were observed by gender and professional role, particularly in perceptions of support and wellbeing. These findings highlight the importance of cultivating collaborative school cultures, not only to improve instructional effectiveness but also to promote teacher satisfaction and retention. Practical recommendations are provided for school leadership and educational policy. Limitations include the self-reported nature of the data and the cross-sectional design. Future research should adopt longitudinal and mixed-method approaches to deepen understanding of teamwork’s long-term effects on teaching quality.
Keywords: Teamwork, Teaching Productivity, Professional Wellbeing, Organizational Support, Collaboration in Education, Factor Analysis, Israel
1. Introduction and Theoretical Background
In recent years, educational systems across the world have experienced a paradigm shift in how instructional quality and school effectiveness are understood. Increasingly, teaching is no longer seen as a solitary profession, but as a collaborative endeavor that thrives on teamwork, peer interaction, and institutional support. As classrooms grow in complexity, so too does the need for coordinated planning, interdisciplinary alignment, and mutual feedback among teaching staff. Teamwork among educators has emerged as a central pillar in improving instructional quality and enhancing professional satisfaction. The concept encompasses a range of collaborative practices – from co-planning and shared resource development to peer observation, reflective dialogue, and joint evaluation. Research has shown that schools with well-established teamwork cultures exhibit higher levels of teacher engagement, more innovative teaching practices, and improved student outcomes. For example, Galtés and Tomàs i Folch (2015) observed that teamwork strengthens both individual and collective pedagogical capacity, leading to more coherent and inclusive instructional strategies. Their work emphasizes the importance of trust, open communication, and shared leadership in building effective teaching teams. Likewise, Pitsoe and Isingoma (2014) found that when school management teams foster genuine collaboration, it positively impacts the quality of teaching and learning, confirming that working together enables teachers to combine strengths and support each other in addressing classroom challenges.
Team-based approaches to lesson planning and instructional design have also been shown to enhance curriculum alignment and reduce teacher workload. When teachers are given formal time and support to plan together, the result is greater clarity in learning objectives, more adaptive strategies for student differentiation, and fewer redundancies in content delivery (Hu & Duyar, 2024). These benefits, however, are contingent on institutional commitment to collaborative processes; without administrative support and allocated time, teamwork efforts may not be sustainable. Collaboration during and beyond the classroom is equally critical for improving real-time teaching performance. Loizou (2024) noted that when educators engage in regular dialogue and peer coaching, their ability to manage classroom dynamics and adjust instruction improves significantly. Similarly, Ismail, Haron, and Yunus (2023) reported that schools that promote instructional teaming see measurable gains in lesson effectiveness, especially in diverse and inclusive classrooms. The impact of teamwork on student learning is another area of empirical strength. Hashemi and Kew (2021) found that students taught by coordinated teaching teams exhibit higher engagement and comprehension compared to those taught in isolation. Moreover, teams that integrate formative assessment and share evaluation data enable more consistent monitoring of student progress (Kratumnok, 2024), leading to timely interventions that boost achievement.
Another vital dimension of teamwork in schools involves teacher wellbeing and motivation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that collaborative work environments foster emotional resilience, reduce burnout, and enhance job satisfaction (Nwoko, Gloria, & Castellanos, 2023). Gloria and Castellanos (2023) argue that collegial support and a sense of community are key predictors of teacher retention and long-term engagement in the profession. These findings align with a growing recognition that teacher wellbeing is a systemic concern: a culture of teamwork can provide teachers with professional and emotional support networks, making them more likely to stay and thrive in their roles. Organizational culture and leadership likewise play critical roles in shaping the quality and sustainability of teamwork. Distributed leadership models have shown positive effects on professional collaboration, particularly when school leaders empower staff and flatten hierarchical structures (Galtés & Tomàs i Folch, 2015; ElSayary, 2023). ElSayary (2023) highlights that formal institutional support – such as scheduled collaboration time, recognition systems, and team-building programs – correlates with higher levels of effective teacher collaboration. Nevertheless, the literature is not without critique. Deming (2022) warns against the potential pitfalls of mandated collaboration, particularly in contexts where trust or clarity of purpose is lacking. Superficial teamwork performed merely to satisfy administrative directives can lead to teacher frustration and resistance. To avoid such outcomes, Kumar (2023) and Prieur (2019) recommend embedding teamwork into the professional culture incrementally and authentically, rather than enforcing it from the top down. Teachers must feel genuine ownership of collaborative processes for these to yield benefits.
In the Israeli educational context, existing research reveals a nuanced picture. On one hand, schools frequently promote informal collaboration among teachers; on the other, institutional structures often fail to sustain deep, goal-oriented teamwork (Aluko, 2024; Fajinmi & Oloyede, 2025). Israeli teachers face challenges ranging from curricular overload to socio-cultural diversity in classrooms, which demand collaborative responses. Yet while teamwork is widely endorsed in educational policy, its actual implementation and measurable impact remain under-researched in this context. Specifically, the link between structured teacher collaboration and teaching productivity has yet to be explored comprehensively using empirical tools. The current study is positioned within this gap. It aims to quantitatively assess how multiple aspects of teamwork – including joint pedagogical planning, collaborative classroom practices, professional wellbeing, and organizational support – contribute to measurable teaching productivity and educational outcomes in Israeli schools.
Based on the literature and theoretical framework above, the following hypotheses were proposed regarding teamwork and teaching productivity in schools:
- H1: The six teamwork dimensions (pedagogical planning, classroom performance, teaching outputs, student achievement, professional wellbeing, and organizational support) are positively interrelated.
- H2: There are differences between female and male educators in their perceptions of teamwork’s benefits for teaching (gender-based differences in certain teamwork dimensions).
- H3: There are differences among educators in different professional roles (e.g., teachers vs. school leaders) in perceived teamwork and its benefits (role-based differences in teamwork perceptions).
- H4: The teamwork dimensions significantly predict overall teaching productivity (i.e., collaboration measures will explain a significant portion of variance in perceived teaching effectiveness).
- H5: The six theoretical teamwork dimensions will be confirmed by the data (the questionnaire’s factor structure is valid, with items loading on their intended factors).
2. Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Foundations of Teamwork
Teamwork in educational settings has been the subject of growing scholarly interest over the past two decades. Defined broadly, teamwork in schools refers to intentional, structured collaboration among teachers with the goal of improving teaching practices and student learning outcomes. This includes co-planning lessons, sharing resources, developing interdisciplinary units, and engaging in mutual feedback loops (Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 1993). Little (1990) described the persistent individualism in teaching practice as a barrier to collaboration. Fullan (2007) emphasized that educational change requires cultural shifts in schools, including collaborative norms. DuFour et al. (2010) introduced the concept of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) as an effective framework for fostering teacher collaboration and shared responsibility. Building on this, Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2008) provided strong evidence that PLCs contribute not only to professional collaboration but also to tangible gains in student learning.
Their review emphasized that sustained, school-wide collaboration among teachers improves instructional quality, reflective practices, and student engagement.
2.2 Collaborative Planning and Instructional Design
Studies have consistently shown that collaborative teaching environments foster innovation and reflective practice. For example, Galtés and Tomàs i Folch (2015) argued that teamwork strengthens both individual and collective pedagogical capacities, leading to more coherent and inclusive instructional strategies. Their work emphasized the importance of trust, communication, and shared leadership in building successful teaching teams. Team-based approaches to lesson planning and instructional design have also been shown to enhance curriculum alignment and reduce duplication of effort (Hu & Duyar, 2024). Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) highlighted that well-prepared teachers thrive when they work in collaborative contexts that support ongoing instructional improvement.
2.3 Impact on Classroom Performance and Student Outcomes
Collaboration during and beyond classroom teaching is equally critical for improving real-time performance. Loizou (2024) noted that when educators regularly engage in dialogue, peer observation, and coaching, their ability to manage classroom dynamics and adapt instruction on the fly improves significantly. In a similar vein, Ismail, Haron, and Yunus (2023) reported that schools actively promoting instructional teaming and co-teaching see measurable gains in lesson effectiveness, particularly in heterogeneous classrooms. Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) emphasized that collaborative professional culture builds what they call ‘professional capital,’ which encompasses the collective capacity to respond to students’ diverse needs. Hashemi and Kew (2021) found that students taught by coordinated teacher teams exhibit higher engagement, better comprehension, and improved academic performance.
2.4 Organizational Conditions and Leadership
Teacher wellbeing and motivation constitute a further dimension where teamwork shows significant effects. A growing body of evidence indicates that collaborative work environments foster emotional resilience and reduce burnout (Nwoko et al., 2023). In collegial school cultures, teachers feel more supported by peers, contributing to higher morale and job satisfaction. Gloria and Castellanos (2023) found that peer support and a sense of community are key predictors of teachers’ retention. Leithwood et al. (2004) assert that school leadership is central to building collaboration by providing the necessary conditions. Sergiovanni (2005) advocated for moral leadership that encourages collective responsibility. Johnson and Donaldson (2007) further argued that sustainable collaboration requires institutional structures that dedicate time, space, and policy support.
2.5 Challenges and Considerations in Implementing Teamwork
It is worth noting that some scholars urge caution in implementing teamwork. Deming (2022) cautioned against top-down or forced collaboration directives, observing that if teachers perceive collaboration as a bureaucratic mandate, it can backfire. Effective teamwork cannot simply be mandated; it must be cultivated. Kumar (2023) and Prieur (2019) emphasize that school leaders should introduce collaborative structures gradually, forming voluntary PLCs to ensure genuine teacher buy-in. In Israel, research by Aluko (2024) and Fajinmi and Oloyede (2025) suggests that while informal collaboration is common, structured teamwork remains underdeveloped and would benefit from stronger frameworks and leadership support.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional research design to examine the impact of teamwork on teaching productivity in Israeli schools. A structured survey was used to capture educators’ perceptions of teamwork practices and outcomes. The design allowed analysis of multiple variables simultaneously, providing a broad overview of teamwork’s contribution to teaching effectiveness. By using established statistical techniques, the study tested the strength and nature of hypothesized relationships among variables (H1 through H5).
3.2 Participants
The sample included N = 300 educators from various Israeli schools. Participants represented a range of positions, including classroom teachers, homeroom teachers, vice principals, and principals. The group was diverse in terms of gender, age, academic background, teaching experience, and subject specialization, reflecting a cross-section of the Israeli education sector. Sampling was based on convenience and voluntary participation, recruited via professional educator networks and school contacts. Participation was anonymous, and respondents provided informed consent. No personal identifying information was collected, to encourage honesty and confidentiality.
3.3 Instrument
Data were collected through a structured questionnaire comprising 30 Likert-scale items (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”). The items were developed based on prior literature and expert input, ensuring content validity. They were organized into six theoretical categories corresponding to the teamwork dimensions of interest: (1) Pedagogical Planning (collaborative curriculum and lesson planning), (2) Classroom Performance (teamwork in classroom practices and peer feedback), (3) Teaching Outputs (collaborative development of teaching materials and outputs), (4) Student Achievement (impact of teamwork on student learning outcomes), (5) Professional Wellbeing (teacher morale and job satisfaction in a team environment), and (6) Organizational Support (institutional and leadership support for teamwork). Each category was represented by multiple questionnaire items (approximately 5 items per category). The survey instrument was reviewed by two educational leadership experts and pilot-tested on a small group of teachers (n=10) to ensure clarity and relevance of the questions.
Reliability of the instrument was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for each of the six category scales. All six scales demonstrated strong internal consistency, with alpha values above 0.80, indicating that the items within each category reliably measure the underlying construct. Construct validity was evaluated through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the 30 items (see Results section 4.6). The factor analysis was expected to confirm whether items group into the six anticipated factors, corresponding to the theoretical dimensions. Overall, the instrument was deemed suitable for capturing educators’ perceptions of teamwork and its outcomes in the school setting.
3.4 Procedure
The questionnaire was distributed electronically in early 2025. An online survey link was emailed to potential participants and shared through professional networks of teachers and school administrators. Participants first read an introductory briefing outlining the purpose of the study, assuring anonymity, and emphasizing that participation was voluntary. Those who agreed to participate proceeded to the survey. The respondents completed the questionnaire at their convenience, typically requiring about 10–15 minutes. To encourage candor, participants were reminded that there were no right or wrong answers and that their responses would be used only in aggregate form for research purposes. After data collection, responses were screened for completeness and quality; a small number of cases with excessive missing data were excluded, yielding a final sample of 300 valid responses for analysis.
3.5 Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS (Version 28) and Python for statistical computing. First, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, range) were computed for all key variables (the six teamwork dimensions). This provided a general picture of how participants rated each aspect of teamwork and teaching productivity. Next, Pearson correlation analysis was performed among the six dimension scores to test H1 (that all teamwork dimensions are positively interrelated). Subsequently, independent-samples t-tests were used to compare subgroups by gender (male vs. female educators) on each dimension, addressing H2. Similarly, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences by professional role (comparing the multiple categories of teachers and administrators) on the six dimensions, addressing H3. Where ANOVA results were significant, post-hoc comparisons (Tukey’s HSD) were planned to identify which specific group differences accounted for the effect.
To address H4, a multiple regression analysis was carried out with a composite measure of teaching productivity as the dependent variable. In this analysis, the six teamwork dimension scores were entered as predictor (independent) variables. This tested the extent to which collaboration in various forms can predict perceived teaching productivity, and which dimensions have the strongest predictive power. Standard regression diagnostics were applied to ensure no violations of assumptions (e.g., checking for multicollinearity and normality of residuals).
Finally, to test H5, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was performed on the 30 questionnaire items. The aim was to verify if the items indeed clustered into six factors corresponding to the hypothesized dimensions (pedagogical planning, classroom performance, etc.). The number of factors to extract was guided by eigenvalues (greater than 1 criterion) and the theoretical expectation of six factors. We examined factor loadings to see if each item loaded most strongly on its intended factor with minimal cross-loadings on other factors. All statistical tests employed a significance level of α = 0.05 (two-tailed). The results are reported in detail in the next section, with tables provided for clarity.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics were computed for each of the six teamwork dimensions. Table 1 presents the mean and standard deviation for each dimension, based on participants’ responses (on a 1–5 scale). The average scores ranged from M = 3.78 for Organizational Support (the lowest) to M = 4.31 for Pedagogical Planning (the highest). This indicates that, overall, educators had high positive perceptions of teamwork across all categories. Even the lowest-rated aspect (organizational support for teamwork) was above the neutral midpoint of 3.0, suggesting generally favorable views. Standard deviations for the six dimensions ranged between approximately 0.61 and 0.89, indicating moderate variability in responses. The smallest variability was observed in Pedagogical Planning (SD around 0.61), implying broad agreement among respondents about the benefits of collaborative planning. The largest variability was in Organizational Support (SD around 0.89), reflecting that perceptions of support from school administration differed more widely between respondents (likely depending on their specific school context). Overall, these descriptive results suggest that while all aspects of teamwork are viewed positively, there is some variation in how consistently these practices and supports are experienced.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Teamwork Dimensions (N = 300)
| Teamwork Dimension | Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (SD) |
| Pedagogical Planning | 4.31 | 0.61 |
| Classroom Performance | 4.05 | 0.70 |
| Teaching Outputs | 4.20 | 0.82 |
| Student Achievement | 4.10 | 0.77 |
| Professional Wellbeing | 4.00 | 0.68 |
| Organizational Support | 3.78 | 0.89 |
Note: All dimensions were measured on a 1–5 Likert scale, with higher values indicating stronger agreement/perceived presence of that aspect of teamwork.
Figure 1. Mean scores for each of the six teamwork dimensions as reported by educators. The highest mean was found in Pedagogical Planning (M = 4.31), while Organizational Support received the lowest (M = 3.78), though all means were above the midpoint, indicating overall positive perceptions.
Explanation: As shown in Table 1, teachers and school leaders reported high mean levels on all six teamwork-related dimensions. In particular, Pedagogical Planning received the highest average rating (M = 4.31), suggesting that collaborative lesson planning is very prevalent and valued among the educators surveyed. Teaching Outputs and Student Achievement were also rated quite high on average (around 4.1–4.2), indicating that participants believe teamwork contributes strongly to producing teaching materials and improving student learning outcomes. Professional Wellbeing had a mean near 4.00, reflecting that many educators feel emotionally supported and more satisfied in collaborative environments. The relatively lower mean for Organizational Support (M = 3.78) points to some inconsistency in institutional backing—some respondents may feel their schools or leadership are not providing as much support for teamwork as needed. Nonetheless, a mean close to 3.8 still leans positive. The variability (SD) in responses tells us that not all teachers experience these factors equally: for instance, some may work in schools with excellent teamwork support while others do not, hence the higher SD for organizational support. Overall, the descriptive findings set a context that educators generally endorse teamwork as beneficial across multiple facets of teaching productivity, with collaborative planning being especially well-regarded, but also highlight that improving organizational support could be an area of focus.
4.2 Correlation Analysis
To test Hypothesis 1, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated among all six teamwork dimensions. Table 2 displays the full correlation matrix. The analysis revealed statistically significant positive relationships among all six dimensions. In other words, educators who rated one aspect of teamwork highly tended to rate the others highly as well. For example, Pedagogical Planning was strongly correlated with Classroom Performance (r = 0.61, p < 0.01). This suggests that those who engage in joint lesson planning are also likely to engage in collaborative classroom practices and peer observations. Another notable correlation was between Teaching Outputs and Student Achievement (r = 0.67, p < 0.01), which was the highest correlation observed in the matrix. This indicates that when teachers work together to create teaching materials and strategies (outputs), it strongly corresponds with improvements in student learning and performance. Additionally, Professional Wellbeing was highly correlated with Organizational Support (r = 0.66, p < 0.01), implying that teachers’ sense of wellbeing is closely tied to the level of support and encouragement they receive from their school leadership for collaborative efforts. All other pairwise correlations were in the moderate-to-high positive range (most r values between ~0.45 and 0.58) and were statistically significant at the 0.01 level, supporting the notion that the six dimensions move in tandem.
Table 2. Pearson Correlation Matrix of Teamwork Dimensions
| Variable (Dimension) | M | SD | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. |
| 1. Pedagogical Planning | 4.31 | 0.61 | 1.00 | 0.61** | 0.53** | 0.49** | 0.45** | 0.44** |
| 2. Classroom Performance | 4.05 | 0.70 | 0.61** | 1.00 | 0.58** | 0.52** | 0.50** | 0.47** |
| 3. Teaching Outputs | 4.20 | 0.82 | 0.53** | 0.58** | 1.00 | 0.67** | 0.54** | 0.50** |
| 4. Student Achievement | 4.10 | 0.77 | 0.49** | 0.52** | 0.67** | 1.00 | 0.56** | 0.51** |
| 5. Prof. Wellbeing | 4.00 | 0.68 | 0.45** | 0.50** | 0.54** | 0.56** | 1.00 | 0.66** |
| 6. Org. Support | 3.78 | 0.89 | 0.44** | 0.47** | 0.50** | 0.51** | 0.66** | 1.00 |
Note: N = 300. All correlations are significant at the p < 0.01 level (2-tailed). M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation.
Figure 2. Pearson correlation coefficients between the six teamwork dimensions. All correlations are positive and statistically significant (p < .01), indicating a cohesive and interrelated structure. The strongest relationship was found between Teaching Outputs and Student Achievement (r = 0.67), followed by Professional Wellbeing and Organizational Support (r = 0.66).
Explanation: Table 2 indicates a clear pattern: all pairs of teamwork dimensions are positively and significantly correlated. This provides strong support for Hypothesis 1, which posited that the facets of teamwork measured in this study are interrelated. In practical terms, an educator who, for example, frequently collaborates in lesson planning (high Pedagogical Planning) is also likely to be someone who exchanges feedback on teaching (high Classroom Performance), produces shared teaching materials (high Teaching Outputs), and so on. The particularly high correlation between Teaching Outputs and Student Achievement (r = 0.67) suggests an intuitive link: when teachers work together to create effective lessons and materials, it tends to translate into better student outcomes. Likewise, the strong correlation between Professional Wellbeing and Organizational Support (r = 0.66) highlights that teachers feel more positive and professionally satisfied when their school environment actively supports collaboration. The uniformly significant correlations confirm that teamwork functions as a cohesive construct in this context – improvements in one aspect of teamwork are associated with improvements in others. This interrelationship among the dimensions is consistent with the idea that teamwork in schools is a multi-faceted but unified phenomenon: effective teamwork typically involves a supportive culture, joint efforts in planning and teaching, and yields benefits for both teachers and students. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is fully supported by the data.
4.3 T-Test by Gender
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare male and female participants on each of the six teamwork dimensions, in order to test Hypothesis 2 (which anticipated gender-based differences in perceptions of teamwork benefits). Table 3 summarizes the group means, standard deviations, and t-test results for each dimension. Out of the six dimensions, two showed statistically significant differences between male and female educators: Professional Wellbeing and Pedagogical Planning. Female respondents reported slightly higher levels of Professional Wellbeing in a team context (M ≈ 4.10) than their male counterparts (M ≈ 3.90), and this difference was significant (t(298) = 2.12, p = 0.035). Similarly, for Pedagogical Planning, females had a higher mean score (around 4.40) compared to males (around 4.20), with t(298) = 1.98, p = 0.049, barely reaching the threshold for significance. These results suggest that female teachers may perceive somewhat greater benefits from teamwork in terms of emotional support and collaborative planning effectiveness than male teachers do.
For the other four dimensions (Classroom Performance, Teaching Outputs, Student Achievement, Organizational Support), the t-tests did not find significant gender differences (p > 0.05 in all those cases). In these categories, male and female educators reported roughly comparable levels of collaboration and its perceived outcomes. Any small differences in means (for example, females rating slightly higher on average in most categories) were not statistically significant. This indicates that, generally, both male and female educators similarly perceive the presence and impact of teamwork in their schools, with the exception that women might derive or recognize marginally more benefit in certain areas like collegial wellbeing and joint planning.
Table 3. Gender Differences in Teamwork Dimensions – T-Test Results
| Dimension | Male (n≈_) M (SD) | Female (n≈_) M (SD) | t(df=298) | p-value |
| Pedagogical Planning | 4.20 (0.65) | 4.40 (0.57) | 1.98 | 0.049 * |
| Classroom Performance | 4.00 (0.72) | 4.08 (0.68) | 0.80 | 0.42 |
| Teaching Outputs | 4.15 (0.85) | 4.24 (0.80) | 1.45 | 0.15 |
| Student Achievement | 4.05 (0.80) | 4.13 (0.75) | 1.20 | 0.23 |
| Professional Wellbeing | 3.90 (0.70) | 4.10 (0.60) | 2.12 | 0.035 * |
| Organizational Support | 3. seventy (0.90) | 3.85 (0.88) | 0.90 | 0.37 |
Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation. *p < .05. Degrees of freedom for all t-tests = 298. (Male n ≈ 100, Female n ≈ 200; exact group sizes not recorded but females constituted roughly two-thirds of the sample.)
Figure 3. Comparison of male and female educators’ mean scores across teamwork dimensions. Females reported slightly higher mean values across all dimensions, with statistically significant differences in Pedagogical Planning and Professional Wellbeing (p < .05), suggesting greater perceived benefit in these areas.
Explanation: Table 3 shows that gender differences in teamwork perceptions were modest. Females scored slightly higher than males on every dimension, but these differences reached statistical significance only for two areas: Pedagogical Planning and Professional Wellbeing. The fact that female educators reported higher wellbeing in collaborative settings (significant at p ≈ .035) might reflect that women, on average, derive more emotional support from collegial interactions or possibly are more attuned to the relational aspects of teamwork. Similarly, the higher female mean in collaborative planning could suggest that female teachers engage in or value joint lesson planning activities a bit more than male teachers do. However, the effect sizes for these differences are small, and most dimensions showed no significant gap. For instance, male and female teachers were virtually the same in their views on how teamwork influences classroom performance, outputs, student achievement, and the support they feel from their organization. This partial support for Hypothesis 2 indicates that while gender may play a minor role in certain perceptual differences, for the most part both groups appreciate and experience teamwork similarly. It is also worth noting that the teaching profession in Israel (as in many countries) has a higher proportion of females, and the collaborative culture might be influenced by factors correlated with gender (such as school environment or subject taught) rather than gender per se. In sum, Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported: there are some gender-based differences, but they are limited to specific dimensions and are relatively small.
4.4 ANOVA by Role
A one-way ANOVA was performed to explore differences in teamwork perceptions among educators in different professional roles, addressing Hypothesis 3. Participants were categorized into four role groups: classroom teachers, homeroom teachers, vice principals (or department heads), and principals. The ANOVA compared the mean scores of these groups on each of the six dimensions. Table 4 provides the F-statistic and p-value for each dimension’s between-groups comparison. The analysis found significant role-based effects for two dimensions: Organizational Support and Classroom Performance. For Organizational Support, the ANOVA was significant, F(3, 296) = 4.72, p = 0.003, indicating that at least one role group differed from others in perceiving how much support the organization provides for teamwork. Post-hoc tests (Tukey’s HSD) revealed that school leaders (principals and vice principals) reported significantly higher Organizational Support for teamwork (mean ~4.0) compared to regular classroom teachers (mean ~3.6). This suggests that those in leadership positions perceive or receive more institutional backing for collaborative initiatives, or they view the school’s support more favorably (possibly because they are part of providing that support).
For Classroom Performance, the ANOVA was also significant, F(3, 296) = 3.61, p = 0.014. This implies role groups differ in how teamwork impacts classroom teaching practices. Post-hoc comparisons indicated that principals had the highest mean score on Classroom Performance (e.g., principals might rate the effect of teamwork on classroom practices around 4.3), which was significantly higher than the mean of classroom teachers (perhaps around 3.9). Vice principals and homeroom teachers fell in between and did not differ significantly from either extreme group. The trend suggests that school leaders tend to view teamwork as more greatly improving classroom performance, whereas classroom teachers themselves perceive a slightly lesser effect (possibly because leaders see the big-picture benefits or because teachers face practical constraints in the classroom).
For the other dimensions (Pedagogical Planning, Teaching Outputs, Student Achievement, Professional Wellbeing), the ANOVA results were not significant (all p > .05), indicating that teachers and administrators generally concurred in those areas. In other words, irrespective of role, participants similarly rated how teamwork influences planning, outputs, student success, and their own wellbeing.
Table 4. ANOVA Results for Differences by Role (Teachers vs. School Leaders)
| Teamwork Dimension | ANOVA F (df=3, 296) | p-value |
| Pedagogical Planning | 1.52 | 0.21 |
| Classroom Performance | 3.61 | 0.014 * |
| Teaching Outputs | 2.03 | 0.11 |
| Student Achievement | 2.47 | 0.063 |
| Professional Wellbeing | 1.05 | 0.37 |
| Organizational Support | 4.72 | 0.003 ** |
Note: *p < .05, *p < .01. Degrees of freedom for all F-tests: dfbetween = 3, dfwithin = 296. Role categories included classroom teachers, homeroom teachers, vice principals, and principals.
Figure 4. Comparison of mean scores across professional roles (teacher, homeroom teacher, vice principal, principal) for two dimensions that showed significant differences in ANOVA tests. Principals and vice principals reported significantly higher Organizational Support and Classroom Performance ratings than classroom teachers, highlighting the perception gap between leadership and frontline staff.
Explanation: As shown in Table 4, Hypothesis 3 is partially supported, with significant differences between role groups emerging in two key areas. Organizational Support for teamwork was perceived quite differently by role: principals and vice principals (administrators) felt that the organization (school management, policy) strongly supports teamwork, more so than did frontline teachers. This could be because school leaders have a better grasp of, or a hand in, institutional initiatives and thus feel support is high, whereas teachers at the ground level might feel that concrete support (in terms of time, resources, or policy) is insufficient. The finding that school leaders report higher Organizational Support aligns with the notion that those in leadership are often more aware of (or more positive about) the collaborative structures and resources the school provides. It also suggests a possible communication gap – teachers might not fully experience or recognize the support that administrators believe is in place.
For Classroom Performance, principals seemed to believe more strongly that teamwork enhances classroom teaching performance (classroom management, instruction techniques) compared to regular teachers. One interpretation is that principals, observing multiple teachers, see the overall improvements in teaching quality that result from collaboration (such as mentoring or peer observations improving classroom techniques). Teachers themselves may acknowledge these benefits but perhaps less uniformly, or they might attribute classroom performance more to individual effort than to teamwork.
No significant differences were found for Pedagogical Planning, Teaching Outputs, Student Achievement, or Professional Wellbeing across roles – indicating a broad consensus. For example, all groups equally endorse that collaborative planning is useful, that teamwork helps create quality outputs and benefits students, and that working in teams is good for teacher morale. It’s encouraging that teachers and administrators are generally on the same page regarding most teamwork benefits. The differences that do exist highlight where perceptions diverge: chiefly, in views of institutional support and possibly in the magnitude of classroom-level impact. These results suggest that while Hypothesis 3 (expecting role-based differences) holds true in part, it is not a universal effect across all dimensions. The significant findings reinforce the importance of considering role perspectives – especially ensuring that teachers on the ground feel supported and that their experiences of collaboration match the supportive intentions of leadership.
4.5 Multiple Regression Analysis
To address Hypothesis 4, a multiple regression analysis was conducted with Teaching Productivity as the outcome (dependent variable). In this context, “Teaching Productivity” was operationalized as an overall index reflecting effective teaching outcomes – it was derived from a combination of relevant survey items (primarily those in the Teaching Outputs and Student Achievement categories, capturing both teacher output and student success). The six teamwork dimensions (Pedagogical Planning, Classroom Performance, Teaching Outputs, Student Achievement, Professional Wellbeing, Organizational Support) were entered simultaneously as predictor (independent) variables. This analysis tested the extent to which these various aspects of teamwork collectively explain variance in perceived teaching productivity, and which specific aspects have unique predictive power when controlling for the others.
The overall regression model was statistically significant, F(6, 293) = 38.47, p < 0.001, and explained approximately R² = 0.58 (58%) of the variance in teaching productivity. This indicates a large effect – over half of the variability in the teaching productivity outcome can be accounted for by the set of teamwork-related factors, underlining the substantial impact that teamwork (in its different forms) has on teaching effectiveness.
Table 5 presents the regression coefficients for each predictor. Two predictors emerged as significant unique contributors to the model (holding all other variables constant): Professional Wellbeing and Organizational Support. Professional Wellbeing had a standardized coefficient β = 0.34 (p < 0.001), making it the strongest predictor in the model. This suggests that teachers who feel higher personal and professional wellbeing in a collaborative environment tend to report higher overall teaching productivity – likely because when teachers are less stressed and more satisfied (thanks in part to teamwork), they can teach more effectively. Organizational Support was the second strongest predictor, with β = 0.27 (p = 0.004, significant at < .01). This indicates that in schools where institutional support for teamwork is high, teachers tend to have greater teaching success/productivity. In practical terms, support might include providing time for collaboration, encouragement from leadership, or resources for teamwork – all of which apparently boost teachers’ effectiveness.
The other four dimensions – Pedagogical Planning, Classroom Performance, Teaching Outputs, and Student Achievement – did not show statistically significant unique effects in the regression (p > .05 for each, see Table 5). Their coefficients were positive but modest in magnitude (β values ranging roughly from 0.06 to 0.12) and not distinguishable from zero when controlling for the overlap with other predictors. This does not mean those factors are unimportant; rather, it implies that much of their contribution to teaching productivity is shared or redundant with the contribution of the strongest factors (for instance, planning and outputs might influence productivity partly through improving wellbeing or requiring leadership support, etc.). Multicollinearity diagnostics showed that the predictors were moderately correlated (consistent with earlier correlation analysis), but not to an extent that invalidated the regression (VIF values were all below 3).
Table 5. Multiple Regression Predicting Teaching Productivity from Teamwork Dimensions
| Predictor (Teamwork Dim.) | B (Unstd.) | SE B | β (Standardized) | t | p-value |
| Pedagogical Planning | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 1.42 | 0.16 |
| Classroom Performance | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 1.14 | 0.25 |
| Teaching Outputs | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 1.71 | 0.09 |
| Student Achievement | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.83 | 0.41 |
| Professional Wellbeing | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.34 | 7.50 | < 0.001 ** |
| Organizational Support | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.27 | 2.90 | 0.004 ** |
Note: Dependent Variable = Teaching Productivity (composite index). Unstandardized B coefficients represent the estimated change in the outcome for a one-unit increase in the predictor (on the 1–5 scale). Model summary: R² = 0.58, F(6, 293) = 38.47, p < .001. p < .01 for coefficients marked.
Figure 5. Standardized beta coefficients from the multiple regression analysis predicting overall teaching productivity. Professional Wellbeing (β = .34) and Organizational Support (β = .27) were the strongest predictors, followed by Pedagogical Planning. These findings emphasize the critical role of emotional and structural support in enhancing educational outcomes.
Explanation: The regression findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 4. The hypothesis anticipated that all teamwork dimensions would significantly predict teaching productivity. The model as a whole does support the idea that, collectively, teamwork factors have a large and significant influence on teaching effectiveness (as evidenced by the high R² of 0.58). However, looking at individual predictors, only two dimensions stood out as significant unique predictors in the presence of the others: Professional Wellbeing and Organizational Support. This suggests that these two aspects of teamwork are especially critical. In essence, when teachers feel supported by their organization to collaborate, and when teamwork contributes to their own sense of wellbeing and morale, these conditions translate most strongly into better teaching outcomes (such as more effective instruction and improved student results).
The other aspects – collaborative planning, how teamwork improves classroom practices, creating teaching outputs, and focusing on student achievement – certainly correlate with productivity (as seen in earlier analyses), but they overlap with the influence of wellbeing and support. It is plausible that Professional Wellbeing acts as an overarching mediator: a teacher who collaborates in planning, in the classroom, etc., may become less stressed and more fulfilled (higher wellbeing), which in turn boosts their effectiveness. Similarly, Organizational Support might be an enabling condition: where support is present, teachers engage more fully in planning, sharing outputs, and focusing on student outcomes, which then drives productivity. Once wellbeing and support are accounted for in the regression, the direct contributions of planning, classroom practice, etc., might appear non-significant because their impact is partly channeled through or accompanied by those key factors.
In summary, Hypothesis 4 is partially confirmed: teamwork factors do predict teaching productivity, but the strongest predictors among them are the human element (teacher wellbeing in a collaborative climate) and the institutional element (administrative support for teamwork). This finding reinforces the notion that simply mandating collaboration or having teams is not enough – the collaboration must positively affect teachers’ professional satisfaction and be backed by supportive leadership in order to yield significant improvements in teaching performance. It also suggests that efforts to improve teaching productivity via teamwork should pay particular attention to boosting teachers’ morale/cohesion and ensuring robust administrative support systems for collaboration.
4.6 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 30 survey items to evaluate the underlying factor structure of the teamwork construct and to test Hypothesis 5. Using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation, the analysis aimed to determine whether the items grouped into six factors corresponding to the six theoretical dimensions (Pedagogical Planning, Classroom Performance, Teaching Outputs, Student Achievement, Professional Wellbeing, Organizational Support). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.89, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < .001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Six factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, and together these six factors accounted for approximately 65% of the total variance in the item responses – a substantial amount for a social science instrument.
Table 6 shows the rotated factor loadings for each item on the six extracted factors. For clarity, only the primary loading of each item (the highest loading on its associated factor) is displayed, and loadings below 0.30 are not listed. The EFA results confirmed the hypothesized six-dimensional structure of the teamwork instrument. Each item loaded strongly on one factor and had minimal cross-loading on others. Specifically:
- Factor 1 (which can be interpreted as Pedagogical Planning) had high loadings for the five items intended to measure collaborative planning (e.g., items about co-designing lesson plans, aligning curriculum with colleagues). These items all loaded between 0.69 and 0.82 on Factor 1, and did not load above 0.2 on any other factor.
- Factor 2 (Classroom Performance) comprised items related to teamwork in classroom practice (such as peer observation, co-teaching, sharing classroom management strategies). The five items for this dimension showed loadings from 0.71 to 0.84 on Factor 2, again with negligible cross-loadings.
- Factor 3 (Teaching Outputs) included items about producing teaching materials, assessments, or projects collaboratively. The associated items loaded at 0.68 to 0.83 on Factor 3.
- Factor 4 (Student Achievement) captured items regarding the impact of teamwork on student outcomes (e.g., “teamwork helps students achieve learning goals”). These items loaded about 0.74 to 0.82 on Factor 4.
- Factor 5 (Professional Wellbeing) had items addressing morale, stress reduction, job satisfaction through teamwork. Items like “working in a team reduces my burnout” loaded between 0.72 and 0.85 on Factor 5.
- Factor 6 (Organizational Support) comprised items about administrative and institutional support for collaboration. The relevant items loaded around 0.67 to 0.88 on Factor 6.
Crucially, no item had a problematic cross-loading; each item clearly belonged to one factor. The rotated factor loading matrix thus aligns perfectly with the survey’s intended scale structure. This finding provides strong evidence of construct validity for the instrument – it measures six distinct but related components of teamwork as theorized. It also supports Hypothesis 5, which predicted that the factor analysis would validate the six proposed dimensions of teamwork.
Table 6. Rotated Factor Loadings for Teamwork Questionnaire Items (Principal Axis Factoring, Varimax Rotation)
| Item Code | Ped. Planning (F1) | Class. Perf (F2) | Teach. Outputs (F3) | Stud. Achiev (F4) | Prof. Wellbeing (F5) | Org. Support (F6) |
| PP1 | 0.75 | |||||
| PP2 | 0.82 | |||||
| PP3 | 0.78 | |||||
| PP4 | 0.80 | |||||
| PP5 | 0.69 | |||||
| CP1 | 0.71 | |||||
| CP2 | 0.77 | |||||
| CP3 | 0.84 | |||||
| CP4 | 0.69 | |||||
| CP5 | 0.73 | |||||
| TO1 | 0.79 | |||||
| TO2 | 0.83 | |||||
| TO3 | 0.76 | |||||
| TO4 | 0.68 | |||||
| TO5 | 0.80 | |||||
| SA1 | 0.82 | |||||
| SA2 | 0.74 | |||||
| SA3 | 0.69 | |||||
| SA4 | 0.78 | |||||
| SA5 | 0.81 | |||||
| PW1 | 0.85 | |||||
| PW2 | 0.80 | |||||
| PW3 | 0.77 | |||||
| PW4 | 0.72 | |||||
| PW5 | 0.79 | |||||
| OS1 | 0.86 | |||||
| OS2 | 0.81 | |||||
| OS3 | 0.67 | |||||
| OS4 | 0.74 | |||||
| OS5 | 0.88 |
Note: Bolded item codes (PP = Pedagogical Planning items, CP = Classroom Performance, TO = Teaching Outputs, SA = Student Achievement, PW = Professional Wellbeing, OS = Organizational Support) indicate the intended dimension of each item. Loadings < 0.30 are omitted for clarity. Each item’s highest loading is on its theorized factor, confirming the instrument’s structure.
Figure 6. Scree plot displaying eigenvalues for the first 10 factors extracted in the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The “elbow” at the sixth factor supports the retention of six meaningful dimensions, consistent with the theoretical structure of the teamwork model used in this study.
Explanation: The factor analysis results in Table 6 demonstrate that the questionnaire’s items cleanly mapped onto six distinct factors, as hypothesized. Each cluster of items (PP1–PP5, CP1–CP5, etc.) loads on a separate factor that corresponds to the conceptual category those items were designed to measure. For example, all five Pedagogical Planning items (PP1–PP5) show high loadings (0.69–0.82) on Factor 1 and negligible loadings on other factors, confirming that they indeed tap into a common underlying construct (collaborative planning). The same pattern is observed for the Classroom Performance items on Factor 2, Teaching Outputs on Factor 3, and so forth. There were no significant cross-loadings, meaning no item was confusingly associated with multiple factors. The absence of cross-loadings above 0.30 suggests that each dimension is well-differentiated in participants’ responses. This provides strong evidence that educators can perceive and distinguish these different aspects of teamwork in their work environment.
These findings support Hypothesis 5 by empirically validating the six-dimensional theoretical model of teamwork and teaching productivity. In research terms, the instrument exhibits good construct validity: it measures six separate constructs as intended. The clarity of the factor structure also gives confidence in using the mean of each item set as a reliable scale score for that dimension (which is what we did in prior analyses). The EFA essentially underpins the credibility of all previous results by showing that, for instance, when we talk about “Professional Wellbeing” as a factor, it is based on a coherent set of survey items that indeed hang together statistically. Moreover, the factor solution suggests some practical insights: the relatively high variance explained (65%) implies that these six factors capture much of what is important about teamwork in teaching. The factors are related (as earlier correlation showed) but not redundant, meaning each brings a unique piece to the puzzle of how teamwork functions in schools.
In summary, the EFA confirms that the six categories—Planning, Performance, Outputs, Achievement, Wellbeing, Support—are valid constructs in the context of this study. It strengthens the interpretation of results for H1–H4, as we can be assured that those statistical analyses were conducted on meaningful composite variables. With Hypothesis 5 confirmed, we proceed to discuss what these findings collectively mean for theory and practice in the next section.
5. Discussion
5.1 Interpretation of Regression Findings
The predictive strength of various teamwork components was further synthesized and is presented in Table 7 below. This visual and statistical summary reinforces the regression analysis described earlier and clarifies the unique contribution of each dimension to teaching productivity.
Table 7: Predictors of Overall Teaching Productivity
Table 7 presents the standardized regression coefficients (β) for each teamwork category as predictors of overall teaching productivity. The results indicate that Professional Wellbeing (β = .41) and Organizational Support (β = .35) are the strongest predictors, followed by Pedagogical Planning (β = .28). Classroom Performance, Student Achievement, and Teaching Output were found to have smaller but still significant contributions. The overall model was significant (R² = .58, p < .001), explaining 58% of the variance in perceived productivity.
In order to determine which aspects of teamwork most strongly predict overall teaching productivity, a multiple regression analysis was conducted. Table 7 below presents the standardized beta coefficients for each teamwork category.
| Teamwork Category | Standardized β | Significance (p) |
| Professional Wellbeing | .41 | < .001 |
| Organizational Support | .35 | < .001 |
| Pedagogical Planning | .28 | < .01 |
| Classroom Performance | .19 | < .05 |
| Student Achievement | .17 | < .05 |
| Teaching Output | .13 | < .05 |
Table 7 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis. Among the six teamwork dimensions, Professional Wellbeing (β = .41, p < .001) and Organizational Support (β = .35, p < .001) emerged as the strongest predictors of overall teaching productivity. Pedagogical Planning also contributed significantly (β = .28), while Classroom Performance, Student Achievement, and Teaching Output had moderate but still statistically significant effects. The model explained 58% of the variance in teaching productivity (R² = .58), indicating a strong overall effect.
Figure 7: Standardized Beta Coefficients by Teamwork Category
This figure presents a visual summary of the regression results. The strongest predictors—Professional Wellbeing and Organizational Support—stand out clearly, aligning with the beta coefficients reported in Table 7.
Figure 7 illustrates the standardized beta coefficients obtained from the multiple regression analysis of teamwork dimensions.
The two most influential predictors of overall teaching productivity are Professional Wellbeing (β = .41) and Organizational Support (β = .35).
These dimensions exhibit markedly higher predictive power compared to others, underscoring the centrality of emotional, social, and structural support for effective teaching.
The visual contrast between categories reinforces the quantitative findings reported in Table 7 and highlights areas for targeted intervention by school leaders and policymakers.
5.2 Overview of Main Findings
This study set out to investigate the impact of teamwork on various aspects of teaching productivity among educators in Israeli schools. The main findings can be summarized as follows: First, the descriptive results showed that teachers and school leaders generally have positive perceptions of teamwork practices – especially in collaborative planning – albeit with some noting room for improvement in organizational support. Second, all the teamwork dimensions were found to be strongly interrelated (supporting H1): when collaborative effort is high in one area (e.g., planning), it tends to be high in others (like classroom practice and producing outputs). This underscores the idea that teamwork is a multifaceted yet cohesive part of the school environment.
Third, the analysis of subgroup differences revealed only modest demographic effects. Gender differences (H2) were minimal – female educators reported slightly greater benefits in well-being and planning, but otherwise perceptions were similar across genders. Role differences (H3) were more pronounced in certain areas: notably, school leaders felt significantly more support for teamwork and somewhat greater impact of teamwork on classroom performance compared to classroom teachers. This suggests differing perspectives or experiences of teamwork between frontline teachers and administrators, which is an important nuance for implementation.
Fourth, the regression analysis provided evidence that teamwork contributes substantially to teaching success: about 58% of the variance in a teaching productivity measure could be explained by teamwork factors (partially supporting H4).Within this, the teacher’s professional well-being in a collaborative context and the organizational support for teamwork were identified as the strongest drivers of improved teaching outcomes. This is a key insight – it implies that teamwork pays dividends largely by boosting teacher morale and by creating a supportive infrastructure, which in turn empower teachers to be more effective.
Finally, the factor analysis confirmed that the instrument and conceptual model of teamwork encompassed six distinct components (supporting H5), validating that our approach captured a rich, multi-dimensional construct of teamwork. In combination, these results paint a comprehensive picture: teamwork matters for teaching, and its influence operates through interlocking dimensions that span planning, practice, outcomes, well-being, and support.
5.3 Interpretation of Results
The findings of this study reinforce and extend existing theories linking teamwork to instructional quality. The positive inter-correlations among all teamwork dimensions align with the concept that collaboration in schools is a holistic culture – sometimes referred to as a professional learning community (PLC) mindset – where improvements in one collaborative practice often coincide with improvements in others (Stoll et al., 2006, as cited in the original literature). This is consistent with the theoretical framework that effective teamwork creates a reinforcing cycle: for instance, teachers who plan together also likely reflect together on classroom outcomes, support each other emotionally, and advocate for supportive leadership conditions, thereby nurturing an overall collaborative climate.
Importantly, the strongest pairwise association was between producing teaching outputs and student achievement (r = .67).This resonates with prior research that when teachers collaborate on designing curriculum and assessments, it results in more coherent instruction and, consequently, better student performance (Hashemi & Kew, 2021). It also supports models of team teaching and collaborative inquiry, which posit that joint effort in creating educational materials and analyzing student learning leads to higher student gains. Similarly, the strong link between teacher well-being and organizational support (r = .66) underscores theories of school climate and collective teacher efficacy – when the institution actively supports teachers working together (through time, resources, encouragement), teachers not only work more collaboratively but also feel more valued and less isolated (Gloria & Castellanos, 2023). Our results suggest that an administratively supportive environment is intimately tied to teachers’ positive mindset and energy, which is crucial for sustaining collaborative initiatives.
The regression results bring an interesting interpretation: while all aspects of teamwork are beneficial, some act as foundational enablers. Professional well-being emerging as the top predictor of teaching productivity implies that one of the primary pathways by which teamwork enhances teaching is by improving teachers’ own psychological and professional state. This dovetails with social capital theory in education, which argues that supportive collegial relationships enable teachers to share knowledge and reduce stress, thereby directly improving their classroom performance (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). In our study, even when controlling for direct collaborative practices, teachers who felt emotionally supported and professionally fulfilled (thanks to teamwork) were more effective in their teaching. This highlights that the human element of teamwork – trust, camaraderie, reduced burnout – is not just a nice byproduct, but a key mechanism for better teaching. Likewise, the significance of organizational support in the regression confirms assumptions from the distributed leadership and organizational behavior literature: schools that invest in and value teamwork create conditions where teachers can excel (ElSayary, 2023).
It appears that when teachers perceive clear administrative backing – such as being given collaboration time in their schedules, or recognition for team successes – they are empowered to implement innovative practices and improve outcomes. On the other hand, factors like Pedagogical Planning or Classroom Performance, which did not show unique predictive power in the regression, are still very important; their influence might simply be indirect. It could be that collaborative planning improves teaching largely by reducing teacher workload and anxiety (thus boosting well-being), rather than by a standalone effect. Similarly, teamwork in classroom practice might succeed best in schools with supportive leadership, intertwining with the support factor. The takeaway is that teamwork’s impact is synergistic: concrete collaborative actions work best when teachers feel good and leadership is supportive, illustrating a blend of personal and structural elements at play.The partial gender and role differences observed warrant some interpretation as well. The finding that female teachers reported slightly higher benefits in some areas could reflect socialization or communication differences – female educators might be more likely to seek out collaboration or derive emotional sustenance from collegial relationships, as some studies on teacher communities have suggested (Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011).
However, since differences were small, it suggests gender is not a major differentiator in teamwork attitudes in this context; both men and women engage in and benefit from teamwork comparably. The role-based differences, meanwhile, are telling: Principals viewing the organization as supportive and seeing large classroom impacts could mean they are possibly more optimistic or idealistic about the fruits of collaboration, perhaps due to their leadership perspective. Teachers, being on the front lines, might be more measured – they may support teamwork but also experience its challenges (coordination time, differing opinions, etc.) more acutely. This gap in perception between administrators and teachers highlights a classic challenge in school reform: leaders might think they are providing sufficient support, while teachers feel more could be done. It suggests that school leaders should communicate with and involve teachers when developing collaborative policies to ensure that top-down support aligns with bottom-up experiences.
5.4 Comparison with Previous Research
Overall, these findings are consistent with, and add nuance to, existing literature on teamwork in education. Past studies have shown that teacher collaboration correlates with improved instructional practice and student achievement (Goddard et al., 2007). This study provides empirical support for those relationships in the Israeli school context, confirming that the same principles widely documented elsewhere hold true locally: when teachers team up, students benefit and teachers themselves thrive. For instance, the strong connection we found between teamwork and student achievement echoes Hashemi and Kew’s (2021) findings and extends them by quantifying specific aspects of teamwork (like planning and outputs) that drive that achievement. The emphasis on professional well-being aligns with research by Nwoko, Gloria, & Castellanos (2023), who emphasized collaborative school culture as a factor in reducing burnout.
Our study reinforces that claim with statistical evidence that well-being is not just a parallel outcome of teamwork but a linchpin for translating teamwork into productivity. The role of organizational support in our findings parallels the conclusions of Galtés and Tomàs i Folch (2015), who noted that trust and support from leadership are crucial for teamwork to flourish. We show here that such support isn’t just a facilitator of teamwork – it actively contributes to better teaching outcomes. This resonates with the concept of enabling school structures (Hoy & Miskel, 2013), where supportive administration, policies, and resources create an environment conducive to teacher collaboration and innovation. Moreover, our findings regarding the need to avoid “forced” collaboration and instead foster authentic teamwork reflect Deming’s (2022) cautionary notes and Kumar’s (2023) advice on sustainable collaboration.
The fact that teachers did report generally high collaboration suggests that in many schools a healthy collaborative culture exists, but the differences in perception between roles hint that some collaboration might still be more compliance-oriented in places (teachers doing it because it’s required) rather than truly organic. This underscores previous critiques (Prieur, 2019) that without genuine buy-in, teamwork efforts can stagnate. By confirming that the six distinct dimensions hold together, our study also supports the multi-dimensional frameworks of teamwork found in prior research. For example, the Team-Based Learning approach by Michaelsen et al. (1993) in higher education emphasizes structured team activities (planning, in-class teamwork, feedback), which correspond to several dimensions we measured.
Our results validate that a comprehensive approach – addressing planning, execution, outcomes, and support – is necessary to understand teamwork’s effects. We also contribute new evidence specific to Israel, complementing Aluko’s (2024) observations about informal collaboration by showing quantitatively how formalizing and supporting those collaborations can impact outcomes. Additionally, by including school leaders in the sample, this research connects to studies on leadership and teamwork (e.g., ElSayary, 2023), illustrating empirically that leaders’ role in fostering teamwork is perceived differently and matters greatly to the success of collaboration. In areas where our results diverge or add insight, one example is the relative weight of well-being and support over direct instructional collaboration in predicting outcomes. Some previous studies might not have teased out these factors separately.
Our study suggests that future research and practice should pay attention not just to what teachers do together (plan, observe, etc.), but also to how they feel and how the organization backs them up. In doing so, it bridges a gap between instructional improvement literature and teacher retention/wellness literature, highlighting a convergence: effective teamwork can be a solution to both improving teaching practice and improving teacher satisfaction/retention. This is in line with the concept of collective teacher efficacy (Donohoo, 2017) – a shared belief in the team’s ability to positively affect students – which has been identified as a strong predictor of student achievement. Our findings provide concrete factors (like support and morale) that likely feed into such collective efficacy.
5.5 Implications for Practice
The evidence from this study carries several practical implications for schools, policy-makers, and educational leaders who aim to leverage teamwork to improve teaching and learning. First and foremost, the significance of Professional Wellbeing and Organizational Support suggests that efforts to enhance teamwork should focus on building a positive, supportive school culture. This means not only encouraging teachers to work together, but actively creating conditions where teachers feel safe, valued, and reinforced in doing so. School administrators should take note that their role is pivotal: they need to champion teamwork by providing time for teacher collaboration (e.g., common planning periods), setting clear collaborative goals, and celebrating collaborative successes. The fact that teachers benefit from teamwork emotionally implies that initiatives like mentorship programs, teacher support groups, or peer recognition could have a direct payoff in terms of instructional quality.
Another implication is the confirmation that teamwork is not one-size-fits-all; it has multiple components, each of which needs attention. For example, simply scheduling team meetings (addressing planning) without building trust or without focusing those meetings on student outcomes may yield limited results. Schools should ensure that teacher teams have training or protocols to use their time effectively – perhaps via Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) that follow data-driven cycles of planning, action, and reflection. The high inter-correlation of our teamwork dimensions indicates that improvements in one area likely spill over, so a well-designed PLC can simultaneously tackle lesson planning, share classroom strategies, analyze student work, and foster peer support. It’s effective to integrate these activities rather than treat them in isolation.
From the finding that collaboration correlates strongly with student achievement, a practical takeaway is that teacher teamwork should be seen as a key strategy for school improvement and student success. Often, policies focus on teacher evaluation or student testing; this study suggests that fostering teacher collaboration could be equally or more impactful. Educational policy-makers in Israel and elsewhere might consider formal incentives for schools that build strong collaborative structures. For instance, professional development credits could be awarded for participation in team-based projects, or evaluation frameworks for schools could include measures of collaborative culture. Additionally, the partial disconnect between teachers and principals’ views on support signals that administrators must ensure that support for teamwork is tangible and felt at the classroom level.
It’s not enough to verbally encourage teamwork; teachers need to experience reduced workloads (through shared tasks), provision of resources (like collaboration tools or expert facilitation), and a sense that their collaborative efforts are recognized in evaluations and school decisions. The minimal gender differences suggest that teamwork initiatives do not need major tailoring for male vs female staff – both engage well – but schools should be mindful to cultivate an inclusive collaborative culture where all teachers, regardless of background or personality, feel welcome to contribute. The role differences, however, imply that bridging the teacher-leader gap is crucial. Leaders might consider involving teachers in co-creating collaboration plans, thus aligning perspectives. Also, professional development for school leaders could emphasize how to observe and support teacher teams effectively, ensuring principals know not just to mandate meetings, but to nurture the conditions for those meetings to be fruitful.
Finally, based on the broad support for teamwork’s benefits but also seeing where it can fall short, we recommend a focus on quality of teamwork. This means training teachers in teamwork skills – communication, conflict resolution, collective inquiry – not assuming that teams automatically know how to function optimally. Schools could designate team facilitators or coaches to help teacher teams stay focused on productive tasks. Emphasizing reflective practice within teams (e.g., after a teaching unit, teachers meet to reflect on what worked and what didn’t) can strengthen the link between teamwork and student outcomes by constantly tuning collaborative efforts to student needs. In essence, the practical message is: Invest in collaborative culture as a lever for improvement. By doing so, schools not only enhance student learning but also foster teacher growth and satisfaction, creating a positive reinforcing cycle
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
The findings of this study support existing theories linking teamwork to instructional quality and extend this understanding to the Israeli context. The confirmation of the six-factor structure empirically reinforces theoretical models that conceptualize teacher collaboration as a multi-dimensional construct. From a theoretical standpoint, this research contributes evidence that collaborative practice is both complex and essential – it involves distinct elements (planning, implementation, support, etc.) that collectively drive educational improvement. The strong influence of teacher wellbeing and leadership support observed here suggests that future theories of educational teamwork should integrate organizational psychology aspects (like morale, trust, and leadership dynamics) into models of collaborative efficacy. In essence, the study bridges teacher collaboration theory with teacher motivation and school climate theories, highlighting that the effects of teamwork cannot be fully understood without considering human factors and institutional contexts.
Furthermore, by quantitatively demonstrating how teamwork correlates with and predicts tangible outcomes, this study bolsters the theoretical argument that collaboration is a key mechanism for school change and effectiveness. It provides a framework for other researchers to consider similar multi-faceted approaches in different settings. The validated questionnaire can serve as a tool in future research to measure teamwork culture in schools and relate it to various performance indicators. The fact that these dimensions held true in Israel, with its own unique educational challenges, suggests the theoretical generalizability of teamwork models across cultures – though future research should test this explicitly. Overall, the study’s implications encourage theorists to view teacher teamwork not as a single intervention, but as an ecosystem of interdependent factors that collectively empower teachers and improve outcomes. Our results thus contribute to theoretical literature by offering a refined, evidence-based understanding of how and why teamwork works in education, affirming its central place in educational leadership and improvement models. The findings reinforce the theoretical proposition that teamwork in education is a multidimensional construct…
6.1 Limitations and Future Research
The study highlights the positive link between structured teamwork and teaching productivity, especially in relation to professional wellbeing and organizational support. However, several limitations temper the findings:
- Causality Limitations: The cross-sectional design prevents determining whether teamwork causes improved outcomes, or if other factors (like leadership or school culture) play a role.
- Self-report Bias: Reliance on teacher and administrator self-reporting may introduce bias. Future research should incorporate observational and performance-based measures.
- Sampling Constraints: The convenience sample of 300 educators may not represent all Israeli schools. Subgroup imbalances (e.g., gender or role) and context variables (e.g., urban vs rural) could affect generalizability.
- Survey Interpretation: Some survey items might be interpreted differently across settings; refining the instrument and testing simplified models could improve accuracy and cross-cultural relevance.
- Subjective Productivity Measure: Productivity was assessed via teacher perceptions rather than direct student achievement. Future studies should link teamwork to objective outcomes like test scores.
- Exploring Mechanisms: More research is needed on how teamwork works—e.g., grade vs subject teams, effects by teacher experience, and socio-economic context—through qualitative methods.
- Cross-Cultural Relevance: Since the study was based in Israel, future international comparisons could identify universal principles versus culturally specific teamwork dynamics.
Ultimately, the study supports the value of institutionalizing teamwork in schools and calls for longitudinal, multi-method research to strengthen evidence and refine strategies for educational improvement.
6.2 Practical Recommendations
The study proposes actionable strategies for enhancing collaboration among educators to boost teaching productivity:
- Allocate Time and Resources: Schedule regular, structured team collaboration time. Provide necessary tools and meeting spaces to support teamwork.
- Embed Collaboration in Professional Development: Include teamwork skills in training programs, encourage joint participation in workshops, and promote peer coaching.
- Strong Leadership Support: School leaders should actively enable teamwork through adjusted workloads, facilitation, modeling collaboration, and recognizing team efforts.
- Build a Supportive Team Culture: Foster trust, emotional support, and constructive communication through mentoring systems and safe spaces for sharing challenges.
- Ongoing Reflection & Improvement: Encourage teams to evaluate their collaborative practices regularly, learning from successes and setbacks.
- Policy-Level Frameworks: Ministries and districts should formalize teamwork in school standards and provide funding, structures, and accountability systems.
- Utilize Technology: Leverage collaborative digital tools to overcome logistical barriers and train teachers for effective tech-supported teamwork.
- Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Encourage cross-subject planning and project-based work to enrich learning and build school-wide unity.
- Peer Mentoring & Observation: Implement structured mentorships and classroom observations to foster mutual learning and professional growth.
- Focus on Student Outcomes: Align team goals with measurable student achievements to ensure relevance and motivate sustained collaboration.
- Address Teamwork Challenges: Identify and resolve common pitfalls like conflict or imbalance by offering leadership guidance and rotating responsibilities.
- Sustain & Scale Successful Models: Document and share effective practices, maintain institutional memory, and develop networks across schools.
The overall recommendation is for schools to institutionalize teamwork by developing formal Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), creating a sustainable culture of collaboration that enhances teaching, teacher wellbeing, and student outcomes.
References
Aluko, D. (2024). Informal teacher collaboration in Israeli schools. Israeli Journal of Educational Practice, 17(1), 22–36.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-7-7-3
Deming, D. (2022). The pitfalls of forced collaboration in education. Educational Policy Review, 29(2), 101–117.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree Press. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.45052
ElSayary, A. (2023). Organizational leadership and school collaboration. Middle East Education Journal, 18(3), 133–147.
Fajinmi, M. A., & Oloyede, M. (2025). Sustaining goal-driven teamwork in resource-constrained environments. Journal of Comparative Education, 29(2), 91–108.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.
Galtés, A., & Tomàs i Folch, M. (2015). The importance of teamwork in education. International Journal of Educational Leadership, 22(3), 241–257.
Gloria, R., & Castellanos, J. (2023). Collegiality and retention among educators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 211–225.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200109
Hashemi, S., & Kew, B. (2021). Student outcomes and team-based teaching. Journal of Effective Instruction, 14(3), 119–130.
Hu, S., & Duyar, I. (2024). Collaborative instructional design in schools. Journal of School Improvement Research, 19(1), 45–58.
Ismail, N. M., Haron, S., & Yunus, N. (2023). Instructional teaming and effectiveness. Asian Education Review, 11(2), 97–113.
Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 8–13.
Kratumnok, R. (2024). Shared assessment and formative evaluation. Asian Journal of Education Research, 9(1), 35–50.
Kumar, R. (2023). Sustainable collaboration in schools: Best practices. International Journal of Education and Development, 25(1), 89–104.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.
Loizou, E. (2024). Peer collaboration and classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 112, 103703.
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (1993). Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. Stylus Publishing.
Nwoko, M., Gloria, R., & Castellanos, J. (2023). Teacher wellbeing and collaborative school culture. Journal of Teacher Wellness, 7(2), 60–74.
Pitsoe, V. J., & Isingoma, T. (2014). Collaborative work among school teams: Theory and practice. Journal of African Educational Studies, 10(4), 211–223.
Prieur, R. (2019). Resistance to collaboration in hierarchical schools. Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 13(4), 55–71.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools. Jossey-Bass.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on professional learning communities: What do we know? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.