Filetype PDF | Posted on 18 Jan 2023 | 2 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
166x Filetype PDF File size 0.51 MB Source: www.aup.edu
Fall 2006
NEWSLETTER
Vol.16, No.1
Speaking of
Teaching
THE CENTER FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Team Teaching: Beneàts and Challenges
n recent years, team-taught courses tive approach. effort will result in a far more success-
Ihave become an important part Professors Lanier Anderson (Phi- ful intellectual experience. As Cowan,
of the Stanford curriculum. Long an losophy) and Joshua Landy (French Ewell, and McConnell (1995), a teach-
integral aspect of the Introduction and Italian), who have team-taught ing team at City College of Loyola
to the Humanities (IHUM) program, several courses together, summed up University in New Orleans, write, “Our
team teaching has now found a place some of the lessons taken from their joint planning sessions became inter-
in many different departments, pro- experience in an Award-Winning disciplinary conversations into which
Teachers on Teaching presentation we subsequently invited our students.
during Winter Quarter 2005-2006. In These conversations were among the
the following, their suggestions for highlights of our teaching together
team-teaching, presented as a mock (par. 5).”
Decalogue, are interspersed with results
from recent research on team teaching. Thou shalt attend thy neighbor’s lec-
tures.
Thou shalt plan everything with thy One of the most important rules of team
neighbor. teaching, Landy says, is to “attend all
Team teaching requires different prep- meetings of the class. Never miss a
aration than traditional, single-instruc- colleague’s lecture.” Anderson and
Professor Lanier Anderson tor courses, particularly concerning Landy use what is typically called
the organizational aspects of course
grams, and disciplines, at levels ranging management. Careful and extensive
from undergraduate lectures to graduate planning can help instructors prevent
seminars. Team teaching boasts many disagreements down the line regarding
pedagogical and intellectual advan- assignments, grading procedures, and
tages: it can help create a dynamic and teaching strategies (Letterman and
interactive learning environment, pro- Dugan, 2004; Wentworth and Davis,
vide instructors with a useful way 2002). Planning meetings also allow
of modeling thinking within or across instructors to familiarize themselves
disciplines, and also inspire new with their partner’s material, helping
research ideas and intellectual partner- make the class a true team effort from Professor Joshua Landy
ships among faculty. To experience the the start. According to Landy, “Every-
full benefits of team teaching, however, one on the team has to be behind every an interactive teaching model, where
instructors must adjust their course element of the course.” While reaching all members of the teaching team are
planning and classroom management this consensus may take a lot of time present during each course meeting.
strategies to accommodate a collabora- and compromise, in the end the extra This model provides the most oppor-
Fall 2006 Vol. 16, No.1 Speaking of Teaching
tunity for the integration of different and presentations (Minnis and John- other courses and assignments. “If you’re
subjects and disciplines. However, when Steiner, 2005). Anderson and Landy trying to prepare students for interdisci-
scheduling or budget constraints make integrate their different disciplinary plinary work themselves, then you really
this level of interaction unfeasible, there approaches by referring to each other need to pay attention to modeling for the
are different formats that can give stu- in lectures and presentations. By show- students what the disciplinary approa-
dents and instructors the experience of ing respect for each other’s ideas, even ches are,” Anderson says.
a team-taught course. For instance, in a when they may disagree, they are able
rotational model, only one instructor
is present at a time, but a series of
instructors rotate throughout the course, “Have somebody sitting in the middle,” Landy
teaching only the course topics that suggests. “It really encourages a kind of cross-
fall within their specialty. While the fire, and the sense that people are all equal
rotational model allows students to learn
each aspect of the course material participants in the process.”
from an expert in the field, it has the
disadvantage of forcing students to
adjust to a new teacher’s style several to keep students interested and engaged Thou shalt have something to say, even
times over the course of a quarter in all aspects of the course material. when thou art not in charge.
(Morlock, 1988). In a dispersed team Some teaching teams take a more Although Anderson and Landy urge each
model, the course meets two or three direct approach, and assign one instruc- member of the teaching team to be pres-
times a week, once with all faculty tor during each class meeting the task ent during each course meeting, often
members present, and once or twice of making connections among different only one instructor has the primary
more in sections with one faculty course topics (Corcos, Durchslag, Mor- responsibility for presenting material on
member present. This model “provides riss et al., 1997). Whichever method a certain day. What to do when you’re
opportunities for integration and inter- instructors choose, giving students the not the one in charge? The instructor
action” when the instructors teach opportunity to observe integration in who is not presenting still has an oppor-
together, but also provides “a small class action helps them better understand tunity to help students better understand
environment” in a single-instructor sce- instructors’ expectations, as well as the material by acting as an exemplary
nario (McDaniels and Colarulli, 1997, improve their own learning outcomes. “student” (Hammer and Giordano,
p. 32). However, this model can limit 2001). In Anderson and Landy’s courses,
the opportunity for students to hear mul- Thou shalt model debate with thy the instructor who is not leading the
tiple perspectives on the same topic, one neighbor. class meeting often plays the role of a
of the core learning advantages of team Team-teaching allows students to “kibitzer,” sitting in the middle of the
teaching. observe high-level intellectual debate class and offering commentary on the
among colleagues. Anderson and Speck other’s presentation or lecture. “Have
Thou shalt refer to thy neighbor’s describe this respectful debate as “pro- somebody sitting in the middle,” Landy
ideas. fessional disagreement” that is both suggests. “It really encourages a kind
The purpose of a team-taught course, “expert and collegial” (1998, p. 681). of crossfire, and the sense that people
from an educational standpoint, is to When such debates are successful, stu- are all equal participants in the process.”
push students to achieve higher levels of dents learn to disagree without hostility. Wentworth and Davis offer several sug-
synthesis and integration in their study They also learn how to encounter new gestions for different roles the non-
of new material. It is, therefore, vitally material through a variety of perspec- presenting teacher can play. Among
important for instructors to model tives, and gain a practical knowledge of them are: “model learner,” in which the
the process of integration by interweav- different academic disciplines. Watching instructor asks questions and otherwise
ing teaching partners’ perspectives into instructors debate using different meth- contributes to discussion; “observer,” in
each presentation. Often students are odological approaches allows students which the instructor takes notes and
assigned projects that require them to to discover the advantages of different gauges student response to the presenta-
integrate the material individual instruc- disciplines, and to understand which tion; “discussion leader,” in which the
tors have presented. Consequently, stu- methodology best suits a particular line instructor facilitates or leads break-out
dents have expressed a desire for of inquiry. In addition, interdisciplinary groups; or “devil’s advocate,” in which
teachers to demonstrate the same prac- debate encourages students to apply the the instructor raises provocative or chal-
tice of integration in their own lectures skills of integration and collaboration to lenging questions in an effort to stim-
2
Fall 2006 Vol. 16, No.1 Speaking of Teaching
ulate class creativity (Wentworth and the sort of dialogic instruction they pres- figure out the key points of a lesson
Davis, 2002, p. 27). ent in class. Meetings allow instructors when faculty choose to present many
time to plan upcoming courses, but also possible solutions to a problem (McDan-
Thou shalt apply common grading to reflect upon their progress thus far, iels and Colarulli, 1997). In some cases,
standards. and to compare their impressions regard- faculty must work hard to overcome
One of the benefits that team teaching ing student response and engagement students’ resistance to the non-lecture
offers students is an increase in the (George and Davis-Wiley, 2000). Ander- format; a good first step is to be clear
amount of feedback they receive from son and Landy use meetings to “test about the format of the course right
instructors (Wadkins, Miller, and Woz- the pulse of the course.” It is important from the start (Helms, Alvis, and Willis,
niak, 2006). Yet, students often worry to have regular class meetings, Landy 2005).
whether instructors will apply consistent urges, because in a team-teaching envi-
grading standards. Conflicts can emerge ronment, “you have everyone pulling in Thou shalt let thy students speak.
regarding the standards for evaluating different directions, and you need to Team teaching can have a highly positive
student work, and instructors sometimes keep a coherence in the course.” impact on student learning outcomes,
struggle to bridge their differences largely due to the increased opportunity
regarding evaluation procedures or Thou shalt ask open questions. for student participation that team teach-
criteria. Landy recommends, “You’d Students in team-taught courses learn ing provides. The presence of more than
better find some way of having mutually new material by approaching it from one instructor in the classroom increases
agreed-upon standards. It’s best to be as many different perspectives. The dialogic the occasions for student-teacher inter-
explicit as you can about how you want structure of class meetings often stands action (Wadkins, Miller, and Wozniak,
to grade.” To ensure fairness in grading, in stark contrast to the lecture format to 2006). More importantly, a collaborative
some instructors design a specific which many students and instructors are teaching environment invites students to
grading rubric, tailored to the needs of accustomed. Instructors must, therefore, take a more active role in the learning
a team-taught course. For instance, one adjust their teaching practices to invite process. Because team teaching encour-
teaching partnership devised the follow- many different responses to a particular ages a variety of perspectives on a topic,
ing system: “Papers that clearly met our question or issue. As Landy suggests, students are more likely to feel they can
expectations were read, responded to, asking a question that is susceptible to make valuable contributions to class dis-
and evaluated by just one teacher; others multiple answers is very powerful, and cussions (Anderson and Speck, 1998).
that the first reader deemed as not meet- also extremely hard to do. Yet he advises “It’s good, in the first few meetings, to
ing expectations or ‘marginal’ were read instructors to try to “ask some questions set up a pattern in which people do inter-
by both teachers. Together, we would to which you really have no idea of vene in the discussion from all kinds of
make suggestions and assign a point the answer.” Doing so is a risk, but, as angles,” Anderson notes. He and Landy
value for that section of the paper” Anderson notes, it “takes students out make a conscious effort from the begin-
(George and Davis-Wiley, 2000, p. 77).
Like most aspects of team teaching, the “...ask some questions to which you really have
extra time and attention devoted to grad-
ing strengthens instructors’ pedagogical no idea of the answer.” Doing so is a risk, but,
practices, in this case by encouraging as Anderson notes, it “takes students out to the
them to better understand the philosophy leading edge of knowledge” and shows them
behind their grading procedures. For
example, collaborative grading allowed “what the production of knowledge is really like.”
Anderson to “understand much more
explicitly what the grading standards are
that I think are important and why.” to the leading edge of knowledge” and ning of the quarter to create a learning
shows them “what the production of environment in which “student contribu-
Thou shalt attend all staff meetings. knowledge is really like.” Likewise, to tions are going to be valued and indeed
In addition to increased preparation time, gain the benefits of this mode of inquiry, expected.”
successful team teaching also requires students must stop searching for the “one
ongoing meetings among instructors to right answer” to problems. Although Thou shalt be willing to be surprised.
review and reassess their goals for many students enjoy the diversity of Part of the challenge of team teaching is
the course. For many team teachers, voices and viewpoints that emerge in the putting yourself in a position where your
meetings become the testing ground for team-taught classroom, others struggle to own authority and expertise on a certain
3
Fall 2006 Vol. 16, No.1 Speaking of Teaching
topic may have to take a backseat. sional approach to subject matter. returning time and again to the chal-
Faculty must make the shift from being Ultimately, the advantages of team lenges, and the rewards, of team teach-
“experts” to being “expert learners,” for teaching far outweigh the time and ing. ♦
in the collaborative classroom, teachers energy it requires. Anderson and Landy
and students join in a shared process of describe themselves as “recidivists,” —Melissa C. Leavitt, Ph.D.
intellectual discovery (Wentworth and
Davis 2002, p. 23). Instructors gener-
ally agree that being prompted to look Bibliography
at a topic from a different angle can Anderson, Rebecca S. and Bruce W. Speck. “Oh What a Difference a Team Makes: Why Team
be one of the most rewarding expe- Teaching Makes a Difference.” Teaching and Teacher Education 14, no. 7 (1998): 671-86.
riences of participating in a teaching
team. Teachers can “get out of their Corcos, Christine A., Melvyn R. Durchslag, and Andrew P. Morriss, et. al. “Teaching a Mega-
own conceptual boxes” and learn new course: Adventures in Environmental Policy, Team Teaching, and Group Grading.” Journal of
Legal Education 47, no. 2 (1997): 224-39.
approaches that will enhance their Cowan, Michael A., Barbara C. Ewell, and Peggy McConnell. “Creating Conversations: an
own research and writing (Corcos, Experiment in Interdisciplinary Team Teaching” [Electronic version]. College Teaching 43,
Durchslag, and Morriss, 1995, p. 235). no. 4 (1995): 127-31.
Anderson and Landy, for instance, have George, Marshall A. and Patricia Davis-Wiley. “Team Teaching a Graduate Course. Case study:
co-authored a paper that was inspired a Clinical Research Study.” College Teaching 48, no. 2 (2000): 75-80.
by the topics covered in the courses
they have taught together. In addition Hammer, Elizabeth Yost and Peter J. Giordano. “Dual-Gender Team-Teaching Human Sexual-
to creating new research opportunities, ity: Pedagogical and Practical Issues.” Teaching of Psychology 28, no. 2 (2001): 132-33.
team teaching can also encourage Helms, Marilyn M., John M. Alvis, and Marilyn Willis. ”Planning and Implementing Shared
instructors to hone their pedagogical Teaching: an MBA Team-Teaching Case Study.” Journal of Education for Business 81, no.
1 (2005): 29-34.
skills. Anderson remarks, team teach- Letterman, Margaret R. and Kimberly B. Dugan. “Team Teaching a Cross-Disciplinary Honors
ing “does raise your game, and some- Course: Preparation and Development.” College Teaching 55, no. 2 (2004): 76-79.
times quite dramatically so.” McDaniels, Elizabeth A. and Guy C. Colarulli. “Collaborative Teaching in the Face of Produc-
As Landy says, team teaching gives tivity Concerns: the Dispersed Team Mode.” Innovative Higher Education 22, no. 1 (1997):
professors the opportunity “to teach 19-36.
in a different way, and to learn in a Minnis, Michele and Vera John-Steiner. “The Challenge of Interdisciplinary Education.” In
different way.” It allows instructors Elizabeth G. Creamer and Lisa R. Lattuca, eds. Advancing Faculty Collaboration Through
to hone their pedagogical skills and Interdisciplinary Collaboration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. 44-61.
develop new topics for research and Morlock, Henry C. et al. “A Rotational Format for Team Teaching Introductory Psychology.”
scholarship. The benefits of team Teaching of Psychology 15, no. 3, (1988): 144-45.
teaching extend to students as well, Wadkins, Theresa, Richard L. Miller, and William Wozniak. “Team Teaching: Student Satisfac-
improving learning outcomes by tion and Performance.” Teaching of Psychology 22, no. 2, (2006): 118-20.
offering increased student-teacher Wentworth, Jay and James R. Davis. “Enhancing Interdisciplinarity Through Team Teaching.”
interaction, as well as a multi-dimen- In Carolyn Hayes, ed. Innovations in Interdisciplinary Teaching. Westport, CT: The Oryx Press,
VHS and DVD copies of Professors 2002. 16-37.
Anderson’s and Landy’s presentation are
available at the CTL library and online at Photos: Rod Searcey
http://ctl.stanford.edu/AWT.
The Center for Teaching and Learning
Fourth Floor, Sweet Hall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-3087
http://ctl.stanford.edu
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
