Malaysian teachers express mixed views on co-teaching, citing benefits for classroom management but concerns about workload and training gaps
PETALING JAYA: As Malaysia explores co-teaching, educators are split between calling it either a blessing or a new headache.
While some teachers say squeezing two adults into one classroom sounds like an ideal situation, others say it feels more like a group assignment they never signed up for.
Ikatan Guru Muslim Malaysia president Azizie Hassan said many teachers have mixed feelings about the co-teaching model.
“With two teachers in one classroom, control becomes more effective and learning activities can be carried out in a more organised and engaging manner.
“However, some teachers regard co-teaching as an added burden. They expressed concerns about timetable misalignment, the lack of time for joint lesson planning and differences in teaching styles, which could lead to minor conflicts,” he told theSun.
Azizie said teachers were also worried about increased documentation, such as preparing lesson plans and teaching materials.
He highlighted concerns of teachers over the lack of specialised training, adding that most current training is limited to brief workshops or internal professional learning community sessions.
“Teachers want more structured professional training, including dedicated modules on co-teaching strategies, collaborative classroom management techniques and the pedagogy of moral, Islamic and character education.”
Azizie said teachers generally view classroom sharing positively when there is good mutual understanding.
“Many believe it can enhance teaching and that teachers can take on different roles. For example, one leads core instruction while the other monitors students and maintains discipline.”
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Institute of Inclusive Development and Advancement deputy director Dr Anuar Ahmad said meaningful education reform extends beyond structural changes or introducing new teaching methods.
“Real reform requires shifts in ideas, philosophy and classroom culture. Introducing co-teaching without aligning it with the broader principles of inclusive education is unlikely to succeed.
“Without a holistic plan that addresses philosophy, structure and school culture, even well-intended teaching reforms risk becoming superficial improvements rather than genuine change.”
Anuar said co-teaching is most effective in inclusive classrooms.
He added that it is otherwise simply a waste of human resources, especially when there is already a shortage of subject teachers.
“Co-teaching is different from ‘team teaching’ and should not be confused with the practice of having a teaching assistant. Originally, co-teaching was implemented in inclusive education.
“In this model, a single class has two teachers teaching simultaneously, in which one teacher instructs all students while the other focuses on students who are slower learners or have special needs.”
He pointed out that for large mainstream classes without special-needs students, a teaching assistant model is more suitable while for smaller mainstream classes with fewer than 30 students, team teaching is the preferred approach.
Anuar said proposals for co-teaching, which requires two teachers to simultaneously teach different disciplines in an integrated way, are even more challenging.
“Can it be done? Certainly. But will it be effective? Will it increase workload? Do our schools have enough teachers to make it feasible? In education management, the diversity of challenges requires diverse solutions. A one-size-fits-all approach is unsuitable.”
