Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dugan & Letterman, 2008
Dugan & Letterman, 2008
Dugan & Letterman, 2008
College Teaching
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20
To cite this article: Kimberly Dugan & Margaret Letterman (2008) Student Appraisals of Collaborative Teaching, College Teaching, 56:1,
11-15, DOI: 10.3200/CTCH.56.1.11-16
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by
Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary
sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,
in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
STUDENT APPRAISALS OF
COLLABORATIVE TEACHING
Kimberly Dugan and Margaret Letterman
Downloaded by [Andrews University] at 13:43 26 October 2014
Abstract. Scholars have argued that team teaching For instance, Helms et al. (2005) reported
on graduate students who were lacking
promises great benefits for students. However, little communication abilities such as “inter-
systematic research exists to show how such benefits personal, oral, and written skills,” con-
tending that these students may benefit
occur. Team teaching takes various forms including from team-teaching methods as a way of
the simultaneously taught two-person course (coteach- addressing these problems.
Team teaching can be achieved with
ing), the alternating two-person course (alternate), and different approaches. Two or more faculty
the panel of three or more faculty (panel). The authors members can work together teaching one
course, or faculty can work together plan-
analyze and compare student appraisals of these three ning several classes as “cluster courses.”
different models of team-taught classes to a norm of Vogler and Long (2003) presented diverse
models of team teaching such as faculty
traditional, solo-instructed courses. Team-taught stu- from various departments presenting a
dent assessment data were compared with a baseline of cross-disciplinary class, several faculty
who are teaching a particular section
student evaluations of individually instructed courses (for example, introductory psychology)
nationwide. Results indicate that there are no real dif- teaching one course together, or each
member of a team of faculty teaching
ferences in student attitudes toward team-taught and tra- one special area of a course (with several
ditional classes. However, there were some significant sections). For example, in an introduc-
tory psychology class, a behavioral ana-
differences between the types of team-taught courses. lyst might teaching the chapter on learn-
ing, a biopsychologist would teach brain
and behavior, and a clinical psycholo-
Keywords: assessment, collaborative teaching, coteaching, educa- gist could teach the chapter on abnormal
tional assessment, student learning, student perceptions, team teaching behavior. Each professor would then give
a lecture to all sections of that particular
course, based on his or her experience
U
and expertise (Vogler and Long 2003).
niversities and colleges encour- team teaching (also known as coteaching,
age faculty to try new and innova- collaborative teaching, or cooperative
Kimberly Dugan is an associate professor of
tive techniques to spark student interest, teaching [Murawski 2005]) for a variety
sociology at Eastern Connecticut State University.
inquiry, and learning outcomes. Team of reasons. Coteaching has been used as Margaret Letterman is an associate professor of
teaching has surfaced as one mechanism a tool for integrating material from differ- psychology at Eastern Connecticut State University.
for such innovation. Educators have used ent disciplines and remedying problems. Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications
Vol. 56/No. 1 11
Other styles suggested were faculty mem- plinary instruction (Otzinger and Kallgren of students and faculty participants in
bers teaching their own sections (of a 2004, 64) and feel more prepared for future team-taught courses at three New England
particular course) as usual (once or twice courses in their field than students in tra- universities. Surveys were administered in
weekly) and combining the sections for ditional courses (Nead 1995). Johnson et the classrooms at three state universities
a team-taught session once a week; or al. (2000) found higher achievement lev- in eleven different team-taught courses.
faculty members team teaching with their els, greater retention rates, and improved Instructors were identified through each
graduate assistants or public school teach- interpersonal skills for students in collab- university’s registrar and by examining
ers (Vogler and Long 2003). oratively taught classes. Other researchers course schedules and classroom bulletins.
Helms et al. (2005) describe three team- found improvement in developing skills of These instructors were contacted through
teaching styles as the “interactive, the par- analysis and judgment (Harris and Watson e-mail with an invitation to participate in
ticipant-observer, and the rotational mod- 1997). Furthermore, studies show that col- the study. Those who agreed to participate
els” (30). The interactive model requires laboratively taught classes can promote were then contacted to arrange the dis-
two professors in the classroom together. diversity by including team members with tribution of the survey to the students in
Both participate in the lecture or activities, different ethnic, racial, and/or cultural their team-taught classes.
with a great deal of interaction and dialogue backgrounds and from academically var- In the classroom, we informed students
between them and their students. In the ied disciplines (Hinton and Downing 1998; about the nature and purpose of the study
participant-observer model, both profes- Wilson and Martin 1998). and that their participation was strictly
sors would be present, but only one would Indeed, some researchers suggest that voluntary. Furthermore, in all but one of
be actively engaged with the students while the presence of multiple teachers in the the classes we were unknown to the stu-
Downloaded by [Andrews University] at 13:43 26 October 2014
the other observes. The observing pro- classroom fosters the development of dents. We provided confidentiality assur-
fessor holds a passive role and interacts student communication skills (Helms et ances to the participants, emphasizing to
only when asked questions. The rotation- al. 2005) and improved student-teacher each group that it would be impossible to
al model finds each professor teaching relationships (Wilson and Martin 1998). identify individuals who had completed
specific areas of the course (turn-taking However, little has been done to examine the survey. Students placed their com-
style of teaching). This model requires less students own perception of the value of pleted instrument into an envelope with
interaction, time, and communication for team-taught courses compared to tradition- the others.
the teachers and less involvement with the al, individually instructed classes. Given Prior to data collection, we submitted our
integration of course material (Helms et al. the numerous configurations of collabora- proposal and subsequently gained approval
2005). One individual often will coordi- tively taught courses, our inquiry focuses and exemption by the Human Subjects
nate syllabus material, teaching schedules, on student perception of the different mod- Review Committee at Eastern Connecticut
and other administrative duties. Typically, els of team-taught courses when compared State University in October 2004. At the
team teachers develop a common syllabus, to individually instructed courses. urging of a few of the universities we con-
integrate their various perspectives, select As previously mentioned, collaborative tacted, we also filed our proposal with their
topics, and share teaching activities and classes can be taught with two team mem- respective institutional research boards
lectures (Davis 1995). Studies show that bers or a panel of teachers and members. (IRB). We proceeded with data collection
students benefit from these collaborative Two team members can either coteach only at those universities that approved our
teaching methods. throughout the entire course or may choose research through their IRB.
to divide duties by teaching on different
Student Benefits days or on particular subjects in the course. Instrument
When experts from different perspec- A panel of members (three or more) may Our student survey instrument was a
tives pool their resources in a scholarly teach from different perspectives (such as standard form developed by the Indi-
presentation, students can be exposed to psychology, sociology, or biology) or as vidual Development and Educational
the strengths of varied viewpoints (see guest lecturers for a course. Although col- Assessment Center (IDEA) in Manhattan,
Letterman and Dugan 2004). Students laborative teaching is presented positively, Kansas. It has measured student learning
can develop critical-thinking skills by there is little evidence for which style of outcomes nationwide in courses taught by
synthesizing multiple perspectives and team teaching is most beneficial. one instructor (see http://www.idea.ksu
relating the information to a larger con- In what follows, we examine student .edu). We expanded on the form’s origi-
ceptual framework (Davis 1995). Wilson self-reported appraisals of the excellence nal purpose by administering it to stu-
and Martin (1998) found that students of the particular course and instruction, dents in team-taught classes. The IDEA
who participated in team-taught classes and teacher appraisals in various team- instrument and the collection practice
reported improved teacher-student rela- taught settings. Further, we explore these allowed for students to freely rate various
tionships. Likewise, Benjamin’s (2000) appraisals against comparable courses aspects of instruction. The instrument is
research reveals improved student learning taught by one instructor. composed of forty-three questions that
outcomes when teaching is reflective and include student ratings of overall out-
collaborative. Students were found to be Data Collection comes of the course, progress toward
more “likely to integrate disciplines suc- Data for this study are primarily quan- objectives, methods and styles, and self
cessfully” with collaborative cross-disci- titative. Data were derived from a survey and course characteristics.
In addition, we also examined the quali- collaboratively instructed sample yielded ing responsibility for one course.
tative data for common themes that would comparable student perceptions. That
round out the picture of student perceptions is, there are no significant differences Open-ended Comments by Students on
of collaboratively taught courses compared between any of the items on the instru- Collaboratively Instructed Courses
to those taught by one instructor. ment comparing the team-taught sample to We also collected and analyzed stu-
IDEA’s national baseline. Student percep- dents’ qualitative comments, looking for
Results tions in team-taught courses about progress possible trends. The open-ended respons-
Two hundred and eleven students in on course objectives, improved attitudes, es were overwhelmingly positive. How-
eleven different classes returned complet- and course excellence are no different ever, some critiques of the team-taught
ed surveys. Of those, just twenty-five, or than student attitudes in courses taught by class emerged from the data as well. The
about 12 percent, provided open-ended one instructor. Given these findings, the main negative theme concerned commu-
remarks about the classes. Three different answer to the question “What are the dif- nication and organizational problems that
team-teaching models were represented ferences between team-taught courses and could translate into problems with the fac-
in the data; coteaching dyad, alternate- solo-instructed courses?” is none. We now ulty evaluations of student performance.
teaching dyad, and collaborative pan- turn our attention to an examination of the That is, students mentioned problems
els. First, we compare team teaching to differences between the various styles or with student-professor communication,
courses taught by one instructor. Second, methods of team teaching. instructor-to-instructor communication,
we perform within-group comparisons of and course organization. For instance,
the different teaching models. Finally, we A Comparison of Different Models of one student commented that the course
present a discussion and conclusions. Team Teaching “does not allow you to form a personal
Although the data indicate no statisti- relationship with the professors (most
Team- versus Solo-Instructed Courses cally significant differences between tra- didn’t even know our names).” Another
We expected to find that team-taught ditional and team-taught classes, we did clearly articulated that there was simply a
classes would receive higher ratings from find differences between the three main “lack of communication between profes-
students in terms of their perception of models we examined—the coteaching sors.” Students expressed some concern
overall course excellence, effort put into dyad (simultaneously teaching), alternate- that communication and/or organizational
the course, feelings toward the field of teaching dyad (sequential teaching), and problems would translate into difficulties
study, and attitude toward the course. In collaborative panel (classes with three or for them in trying to achieve good grades.
fact, previous research in collaboratively more instructors). To assess differences One student advised that it is “important
taught courses yielded comparable find- between the teaching models we used con- that the professors have good commu-
ings (Benjamin 2000; Harris and Watson verted averages (see IDEA 2005). Using nication and keep the same standards.
1997; Johnson et al. 2000). However, the the standardized scores, a one-way analy- [Because] at times I felt like the profes-
data show a quite different picture. The sis of variance (ANOVA) was performed sors used different evaluation standards.”
team-taught courses received ratings that to compare three styles of team teach- Another remarked that the “teachers need
were similar across the board to courses ing (coteaching dyad, alternate-teaching to all be on the same page and be orga-
taught by one instructor. dyad, and collaborative panel) and result- nized, otherwise this can be a problem.”
Using a five-point scale representing the ed in significant differences between In one panel-instructed course, a stu-
degree of true or false, students were asked groups (F(2, 10) = 16.665, p = .001). Post dent remarked that “if too many teachers
Vol. 56/No. 1 13
are team teaching, there is a clear lack of team-taught courses rated lower (4.5 class meetings. The second favored style
communication.” Another articulated that average) than the traditional class taught of team teaching involved two instruc-
the course “was disorganized and lacked by one instructor (5.5 average). tors who alternated teaching times in the
proper communication. The class had Our research found no differences classroom (either by a set time frame
much difficulty pleasing all teachers.” One between students’ ratings of team-taught or particular area of study). The least
noted that this disorganization was a source classes compared to the traditional style favored team-teaching method was the
of “a significant amount of frustration.” of classes taught by one instructor. How- collaborative panel.
Clearly, the lack of communication with ever, an examination of overall outcome
and between instructors and the difficulty measures on three styles of collabora- NOTE
with organization of the course presented a tive teaching—coteaching (two members This is a coauthored paper. Authors are
challenge to the students who commented. teaching together), alternate team-teach- listed alphabetically.
In sum, a small percentage (12 percent) ing dyad (sequential two-member team),
of those who completed surveys offered and a panel of teachers (three or more REFERENCES
Benjamin, Joan. 2000. The scholarship of
teaching in teams: What does it look like in
practice? Higher Education Research and
WHEREAS STUDENT EVALUATIONS WERE SIMILAR IN TRADITIONAL Development 19:191–204.
Coffland, Jack A., Charles Hannemann, and
CLASSES TAUGHT BY ONE INSTRUCTOR VERSUS TEAM-TAUGHT FORMATS, Rosemary Lee Potter. 1974. Hassles and
hopes in college team teaching. Journal of
Downloaded by [Andrews University] at 13:43 26 October 2014
Vol. 56/No. 1 15
How can you help your
students improve their
writing skills With practice and
feedback from ETS’s
Criterion service.
SM
Downloaded by [Andrews University] at 13:43 26 October 2014
• an easy way to administer and score the essay portion Sherri Davis, Dean of Liberal Arts and Science
of placement tests, basic skills classes, exit tests or other Lawson State Community College
writing assessments
Call: 1-800-745-0269
Copyright © 2007 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING.
LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). CRITERION is a service mark of ETS. 7145 E-mail: highered@ets.org