Team Teaching: A Brief Summary

There are a lot of things to consider when teaching a class with another teacher. There are also different ways to go about team teaching. Before you begin a class, or even if you’re in the middle of one, try reading this article for some useful insights into classroom team teaching.

Introduction

Research results on whether team teaching improves student satisfaction and performance are mixed. Nevertheless, evidence suggests a number of tangible and intangible benefits to students, faculty, and institutions that engage in team teaching (Wadkins, Miller, and Wozniak, 2006). Based on a literature review of team teaching literature, this report provides an overview of team teaching, summarizes some of its benefits, identifies some challenges, provides suggestions for best practices, and makes recommendations for supporting and engaging in team teaching.

Definition of Team Teaching

Davis (1995) provides this succinct definition of team teaching: “All arrangements that include two or more faculty in some level of collaboration in the planning and delivery of a course” (p. 8).

Types of Team Teaching

Team teaching includes a number of different approaches. Some of the more common are

Interactive team teaching – two faculty members present in front of the class simultaneously.
Rotational format team teaching – faculty alternate teaching the class. This rotational format has a number of variations depending on the subject matter and the number of faculty involved.
Participant-observer team teaching – all participating faculty are present for all the classes, but only one is “teaching” at a time. Roles that the other teachers could play as participating observer(s) are model learner, observer, panel member, or resource (Klein, 1990).
Team coordination – faculty arrange and integrate a curriculum so as to maximize learning and connections using paired or linked courses, an integrated cluster of independent courses, or freshman interest groups (McDaniels and Colarulli, 1997). Though not necessarily team teaching per se, this curriculum-level approach to interdisciplinarity can help to achieve some of the expected gains of team teaching.

Those Best Suited to Engage in Team Teaching

William Newell suggests that “one needs to consider whether potential [team teaching] participants are open to diverse ways of thinking; wary of absolutism; able to admit that they do not know; good at listening; unconventional; flexible; willing to take risks; self-reflective; and comfortable with ambiguity” (Davis, 1995, p. 47).

Benefits Team Teaching Provides for Faculty

Literature on teaching and learning suggests a number of benefits faculty gain from participating in team teaching (Austin, 2002; Belenky et al., 1986; Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1992; Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993; Focus on Faculty Newsletter, 2002; Freire, 1971; Letterman and Dugan, 2004; McDaniel, 1987; McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993; National Teaching and Learning Forum Newsletter, 2006; Shulman, 1986; Smith, 1994; Speaking of Teaching Newsletter 2007). Specifically, faculty can

Learn about teaching
Improve their own teaching skills
Have opportunities to socialize graduate students into the world of teaching
Step out of their comfort zone
Have opportunities for creative assignments
Become informed and encouraged in interdisciplinary research
See teaching through the learners’ eyes
Avoid the lonely, repetitive, fragmented experience of solo teaching
Gain new insights into their disciplines
Develop clearer perspective on the differences between disciplines
Build collegial relationships
Foster respect
Build bridges of understanding across disciplines

Benefits Team Teaching Provides for Students

Students also appear to benefit from team-taught courses (Benjamin, 2000; Harris and Watson, 1997; Johnson, Johnson, Smith, 2000; Smith, 1994). The literature suggests that team teaching can

Deepen students’ analytical abilities
Help to build bridges of understanding across disciplines for both faculty and students
Build greater curricular coherence for students
Create a greater sense of academic community
Provide explicit structures for academic and social engagement (this is particularly necessary at commuter campuses)
Improve student-teacher relationships
Make classes more interesting and challenging because of the novelty
Improve student learning outcomes, retention rates, interpersonal skills, communication skills, analysis and judgment, and diversity

Challenges that Team Teaching Poses to Faculty

Scholarly discussion on the drawback of team teaching is limited faculty (Klein, 1990; Letterman and Dugan, 2004). The literature does suggest that team teaching can be detrimental to faculty performance when

Lack of sufficient time for collaborative work exists
Lack of training in group dynamics exists
Problems with overlapping roles exist
Territorial and status conflicts exist
One discipline dominates the process
Insufficient funding and inadequate logistics are provided
Individual autonomy is lost

Challenges that Team Teaching Poses to Students

Students report that team teaching is ineffective when

Instructors are not flexible in addressing students’ learning styles
Confusion about learning expectations exists
Disparity in evaluation exists

The team teaching problems cited above can be overcome if faculty implement best practices in planning and execution, and if institutions implement best practices in fostering and supporting team teaching (Focus on Faculty Newsletter, 2002; Harris and Watson, 1997; Helms, Alvis, and Willis, 2005; Letterman and Dugan, 2004; National Teaching and Learning Forum Newsletter, 2006; Speaking of Teaching Newsletter 2006, 2007).

Suggested Best Practices for Faculty

Team teaching works well when faculty

Plan together
Identify sources of information on team teaching
Talk to others with experience
Become acquainted with each others’ styles
Communicate (i.e., clearly define expectations)
Plan alternating, interjecting strategies
Attend each others’ classes
Support each other
Model debate
Participate even if not teaching on a certain occasion
Apply common grading standards
Attend all staff meetings
Let the students speak
Be willing to be surprised
Have an open discussion about power issues. Who is in charge? How will conflict be resolved?
Apply team teaching to case-based courses: the team teaching can model how various perspectives bear on a solution
Ensure sufficient time and resources for success: team teaching often requires more resources — e.g., time and planning — than solo teaching

Suggested Best Practices for Institutions

(Laufgraben and Tompkins, 2004; Quinlan, 1998; Smith, 1994)

Institutions can support team-teaching faculty when they

Create structures to support team teaching
Are aware of costs and time limitations
Clearly articulate expectations for the teaching team
Recognize and reward planning efforts (e.g., planning lunches for teachers, stipends for summer planning time, and professional development funds for travel to conferences)
Are flexible when scheduling team planning events. (A one-time workshop, for example, works only if all members of a team can be present.) Institutional leaders can set aside several dates and times for planning sessions and require teaching teams to participate as a group
Provide examples of successful teamwork in learning communities
Avoid (whenever possible) changes in teaching assignments once a team has formed and started its work
Suggest that teaching teams set meeting schedules well in advance, particularly days and times to meet once the semester begins
Create or suggest space where teaching teams can meet. (Space that is away from individual offices or departments may allow for more focused, less interrupted team planning time.)

Ways to promote faculty collaboration include

Faculty pairings
Discussion around common concerns
Multi-sectioned course seminars
Departmental review

The Fiscal Impact of Team Teaching

Team teaching can be more expensive than solo teaching because it may involve faculty taking more time to teach fewer total credit hours. One viable approach to garner the positive aspects of team teaching while reducing fiscal impact is to use the “dispersed model” of team teaching. For example, a course entitled “Romanticism in the Arts” could be taught by one faculty member from each of the disciplines of history, art, and literature (the course could be cross-listed in each of these disciplines, as well). Each faculty member teaches his or her section of one-third of the students twice a week. Then on the third day of the week, everyone comes together for a class that explores the interlinking of the disciplines on this theme (McDaniels and Colarulli, 1997).

Conclusion

In summary, successful team teaching requires the active institutional and faculty commitment of time, resources, and careful planning. By so doing, team teaching can enhance the teaching and learning experiences of students and faculty and fulfill the purposes of university education by helping participants integrate disparate disciplines and perspectives.

Resources

__________, 2006. National Teaching and Learning Forum Newsletter, 15(4).

Austin, A. E., 2002. “Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty: Graduate School as Socialization to the Academic Career.” Journal of Higher Education 73, 94-122.

Belenky, M. F., B. M. Clinchy, N. R. Goldberger, and J. M. Tarule, 1986. Women’s Ways of Knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Benjamin, J., 2000. “The Scholarship of Teaching in Teams: What Does It Look Like in Practice?” Higher Education Research and Development 19, 191-204.

Cochran-Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle, 1992. “Communities for Teacher Research: Fringe or Forefront?” American Journal of Education 100(3), 298-324.

Cochran-Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle, 1993. Inside/Outside Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Davis, J. R., 1995. Interdisciplinary Courses and Team Teaching: New Arrangements for Learning. Phoenix: ACE/Oryx.

Brigham Young University Faculty Center, 2002. Focus on Faculty Newsletter, 10(1).

Freire, P., 1971. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seaview.

Harris, S. A., and K. J. Watson, 1997. “Small Group Techniques: Selecting and Developing Activities Based on Stages of Group Development.” To Improve the Academy 16, 399-412.

Helms, M. M., J. M. Alvis, and M. Willis, 2005. “Planning and Implementing Shared Teaching: An MBA Team-Teaching Case Study.” Journal of Education for Business 81(1), 29-34.

Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, and K. A. Smith, 2000. “Constructive Controversy.” Change 32, 29-37.

Klein, J. T., 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Laufgraben, J. L., and D. Tompkins, 2004. “Pedagogy that Builds Community.” In Sustaining and Improving Learning Communities, eds. J. L. Laufgraben and N. S. Shapiro. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Letterman, M. R., and K. B. Dugan, 2004. “Team Teaching a Cross-Disciplinary Honors Course: Preparation and Development.” College Teaching 52(2), 76-79.

McDaniel, E. A., 1987. “Faculty Collaboration for Better Teaching: Adult Learning Principles Applied to Teaching Improvement.” In To Improve the Academy: Resources for Student, Faculty and Institutional Development, ed. J. Kurfiss. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

McDaniels, E. A., and G. C Colarulli, 1997. “Collaborative Teaching in the Face of Productivity Concerns: The Dispersed Team Model.” Innovative Higher Education 22(1), 19-36.

McLaughlin, M. W., and J. E. Talbert. 1993. Contexts that Matter for Teaching and Learning: Strategic Opportunities for Meeting the Nation’s Education Goals. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.

Quinlan, K. M., 1998. “Promoting Faculty Learning About Collaborative Teaching.” College Teaching 46(2), 43-48.

Stanford University Center for Teaching and Learning, 2006. Speaking of Teaching Newsletter, 16(1).

Stanford University Center for Teaching and Learning, 2007. Speaking of Teaching Newsletter, 16(2).

Shulman, L. S., 1986. “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Educational Researcher 15(2), 4-14.

Smith, B. L., 1994. “Team-Teaching Methods.” In Handbook of College Teaching: Theory and Applications, eds. Prichard, K. W. and R. Mclaran Sawyer. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Wadkins, T., R. L. Miller, and W. Wozniak, 2006. “Team Teaching: Student Satisfaction and Performance.” Teaching of Psychology 22(2), 118-20.