Along with some colleagues at Miami University, we developed and team-taught a new course, Women, Gender and Business. This course was designed as an interdisciplinary course for women's studies and business school students. The goal of the course is to teach topics that may not be covered (or not covered in much detail) in the typical business curriculum, but students (especially female students) will face as they enter the workforce. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the course, the course was developed from the beginning to be team-taught. We will describe the process used in developing the course, as well as the costs and benefits of team teaching in general.
Course Content Development
Work began on developing the course content and pedagogy
approximately one year prior to the time it would first be offered.
Faculty members from each department in the business school, as well as
affiliates of the women's studies program met several times to discuss
course objectives and content. During this developmental phase, two
members of this faculty group wrote a successful research grant to fund
speakers and other expenses (books, slides, etc.) of the course.
Collectively, the design team identified a set of necessary, but not
sufficient, content areas. Among those core content areas were topics
from several business and social science disciplines: wage gap and
comparable worth from the economics field, employment law and sexual
harassment law from the business law field, representations of women in
advertising from the marketing field, and work related role bias and
leadership behaviors of men and women from the organizational behavior
field.
Course Delivery
The course development team recognized that the delivery of the
content called for a more creative pedagogical model beyond the typical
lecture format common in many business courses. Based on the goals of
engaging student learners from several disciplines, integrating the
expertise of professors in business and non-business fields, and creating
a learning environment where diverse viewpoints would be exchanged and
considered in a respectful manner, the developmental team proposed a team
teaching model. With the support of the original course development team,
the business school dean, and the chairs of economics and management, the
authors' request to team teach was approved.
Of particular value in endorsing the team teaching model was an agreement by the two department chairs that both faculty receive full course load credit, despite the team teaching model. The authors consider this "full pay" for team teaching a breakthrough in how many universities fund team teaching. Historically, one of the disadvantages of team teaching is the generally accepted practice of each part of the team only receiving part of the course credit. The authors argued successfully that effective team teaching of the type we designed required far more preparation and grading time than teaching a class individually.
To enhance the team teaching model, faculty members from the original course development team who were not officially designated course instructors, committed to attending the portion of the course where they had specific expertise. As a result, during most class periods, there would typically be three faculty members present - the two instructors as well as a guest who had done research in the specific topic being addressed. The instructional team (composed of the authors) facilitated the final syllabus design, the additional topics beyond the core topics, the readings assignments, the invitation of guests beyond the core team, and the "nuts and bolts" of the class - exam format, grading policy, paper assignments, etc.
During each class, both instructors participated in the facilitation, often with the additional involvement of a guest speaker. Rather than take turns in leading class, the instructors believed that modeling teamwork in front of students by speaking and listening respectfully with each other generated a classroom climate for open exchange and contributed to students' willingness to hear and present diverse opinions. When guest speakers were the focus of a class, the instructors positioned themselves as students, sitting among the class and engaging in learning in the same manner as students. Many students indicated that the learning process was better because the professors were clearly learning too.
Student Reaction
Student evaluations were sought both at mid-semester and the
conclusion of the course to learn students' perceptions of the quality of
learning in the course. Student comments indicated overall positive learning
experiences. Summary statements listed the following as specific course
factors which contributed to effective learning:
A sample of the open-ended responses of students further demonstrates support for both the course content and the pedagogy:
Students also offered suggestions for improving the course, most of which involved the burden of some lengthy reading assignments, types and number of papers written, and the possibility of offering the course more often during the week. The general reaction from students was that such a course should be a regular part of the business curriculum and that both men and women students would benefit by such education. Though the majority of students were women both sexes endorsed the quality of the course.
Team Teaching-Benefits and Costs
As is clear from the above discussion, there were, in fact, two
distinct team components of the course. The first team consisted of the
faculty from women's studies and the business school who worked on
developing the course and writing the research grant, while the second
team consisted of the authors actually teaching the course. In discussing
the costs and benefits of team teaching, we will focus on the case of two
individuals team teaching, since that is a more common experience. In
general, however, the costs and benefits of these two teams are similar.
One of the biggest advantages of working in teams is the value gained from another perspective. For an interdisciplinary course, like the one we were developing, these perspectives, as well as the knowledge gained about our colleagues' teaching and research expertise, are invaluable. We would argue, however, that the benefits can accrue even when colleagues in the same discipline teach relatively established content. An example practiced by the first author uses a model of team teaching introductory economics classes. In this case, the first author and a colleague in her economics department routinely "team teach" their individual sections of Principles of Microeconomics. Students are assigned to one of the instructors and are in class with solely that instructor. However, the expertise of both instructors is regularly available to students in both classes. The students are informed that the two instructors work as a team and that they will be receiving common assignments, problem sets, quizzes and exams.
A second advantage to teaching in teams is that, by its very nature, the instructors are forced to discuss teaching styles, habits, and students' methods of learning, factors which individual instructors often don't address because of time constraints, personal habits, and lack of feedback. For example, early in the course and on more than one occasion, one of us assumed we would be doing things in a certain way while the other assumed it would be done differently. In these cases, our assumptions were based on our individual teaching habits or styles. Teaching in teams forced us to think about the underlying philosophies behind our teaching methods, as well as expose us to alternative methodologies. As a result of working together inside and outside class the perspectives and tools for implementing class learning expanded for both instructors. We picked up tips from each other and from guests, and these tips have improved our teaching in all courses.
A third gain from team teaching directly affects how students look at teamwork. Increasingly, students are being asked to work in teams - both in their courses at college as well as at their jobs when they leave college. Having courses taught by faculty teams allows professors to model the work environment businesses often rely upon to increase productivity and understanding across functional areas. In addition, it allows students to directly observe effective (hopefully) teamwork up-close, particularly to observe respect for the diversity of other disciplines by thinking outside of functional boxes or silos. Furthermore, working in teams reminds professors of some of the issues students face when managing multiple team projects in different courses.
In the classroom, a faculty member may typically be the only "expert" on a subject in the course. However, with team teaching, there are two opinions that can be brought to the material. Not only did students like getting more than one perspective, it was informative for students to see that there is more than one "truth." Finally, if done well, team-teaching can be a much more enjoyable way to teach a course. While not always agreeing with each other, the authors both learned additional methods of teaching and enjoyed the experience of working together.
Having outlined the benefits of team teaching, fairness requires that we also discuss the costs of such a set-up. One major cost is that team teaching requires more time than teaching a traditional class. For example, not only did the authors meet prior to the course in developing the outline, but we also met at least twice a week outside of class, a considerable time commitment for a class that met once weekly. In addition, both of us graded every paper assignment individually and then met to get a consensus on student grading (While both faculty need not grade every paper, we found that in a new course, this practice was a good reliability check). A second cost is that team teachers must be willing to compromise. A team, by definition, does not represent any one person's methods, but rather an integration of different viewpoints and understandings. In some cases, you will inevitably both be convinced that your way is the best way - in these cases, something must give. With the large degree of autonomy most academics are used to, this flexibility may be one of the hardest aspects of team teaching. Learning to overcome occasional roadblocks, however, is also one of the advantages.
One final cost is (perhaps) the misperception of students and colleagues. We found that students would try to find the "weak link" in the chain or try to play one of us against the other. Students once tried to convince one of us to change the assignment, arguing that maybe the other one could be worked on. In fact, they had gotten it completely backward - coming to the one who was not sympathetic to their request, instead of the one who might have been much more sympathetic. In general, it is important to anticipate such potential problems and talk them through before they happen. Having a few mutually established, strict ground rules can help avoid these situations. Faculty may also have false perceptions about team teaching. Seeing two faculty members in a class where there is typically only one instructor, may generate an ill-conceived assumption that someone is "getting away" with something. In addition, faculty members may not truly understand the concept of team teaching - for example, more than one faculty member assumed that we were splitting the grading of student assignments.
Conclusions
So, is team teaching something you should try? Certainly it is
not for everyone. Without tenure, you should be cautious about taking on
an assignment which requires more work than a typical course and which may
be perceived as requiring less work. In addition, given the large amount
of time required for successful team teaching, professors should be
cautious whenever offered half the course credit for team teaching.
However, if you have tenure, enjoy discussing teaching, are open to new
experiences, and are willing to compromise, team teaching is definitely
worth a try - two heads are better than one.