Search results

Team teaching in higher education requires a great deal of coordination and commitment from both the professors teaching together, as well as administrators coordinating courses. Given the difficulties in logistics, it is not surprising that many teams give up on team teaching after only one or two semesters. The literature and lived experience by the authors verify the benefits that come from team teaching: multiple perspectives on the course material, more than one-course delivery method, greater attention from students used to just one instructor, and a greater level of energy in the room and on-line when more than one presenter shares the lecture time. Team teaching (or co-teaching as it is also referred to), in the Service Management Specialization at the Gustavson School of Business in Victoria, Canada, is sharing a cohort of students across three classes, and while each professor is responsible for separate course topics, each makes the time to integrate topics and share time in the classroom together multiple times during the semester.

The authors have been part of a team delivering curriculum this way for over 20 years, and this chapter examines how the material is organized and delivered to team teaching success. Critical elements include funding to support team teaching, commitment from professors to coordinate together, willingness to share materials, and building bridges from class to class to enable students to follow and integrate learnings. Team teaching has resulted in greater cohesiveness among faculty teaching in the program, higher teaching evaluations than professors experienced in solo teaching, and students who feel better prepared to tackle complex business problems that cross the interdisciplinary boundaries of marketing, operations, and talent management.

This chapter reports on the results from several extended qualitative investigations of co-teaching in science and social studies content area classes, on both elementary and secondary levels. In these investigations, co-teaching partners were studied and interviewed over several years, with the view of uncovering attitudes and procedures closely associated with successful collaborative partnerships. In some cases, these investigations took place in the context of implementation of research-based instructional strategies. Analysis of data from these investigations revealed that there was considerable variability in the way co-teaching practices were implemented, the attitudes toward co-teaching expressed by teachers, and the success of the co-teaching partnerships. It was thought that several variables, including content expertise, concerns for high-stakes testing, and the personal compatibility of co-teachers played an important role in the success of the co-teaching relationship.

This chapter explores the benefits of reflective practice in learning environments and discusses the conditions that can impede and facilitate reflection for teachers and teaching assistants. Various strategies and tools to support teaching teams to reflect collaboratively are discussed and recommendations about how to introduce reflective practice are outlined.

The contemporary life of an Australian academic has changed in almost every way imaginable in response to the challenges and opportunities emerging from global and national policy agendas. In this context, the subject coordinator11A subject coordinator may also be referred to as a Unit Chair, Unit Coordinator or Course Coordinator at different universities. represents the frontline of a move towards increasingly distributed forms of leading and learning. The knowledge that managing teaching responsibilities does not provide a clear route to promotion (with active research status providing a more well established path) means that academics may proactively minimise the time they spend on the discretionary tasks of leading and managing teaching well. Tasks that include adopting a proactive longer term of curriculum development, team building and teaching innovation, in addition to the more immediate needs for compliance and measurable outcomes. Research from an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) project provides evidence that despite lack of formal recognition for many of the discretionary responsibilities of subject coordination, coordinators believe they are executing their job well. This chapter discusses factors that impede discretionary academic leadership behaviours in Australian higher education and suggests strategies to empower leadership and thus improve engagement with discretionary teaching and learning responsibilities.

After an overview of the literature on challenges facing library instructors and their coordinators, the chapter describes how the communities of practice model relates to professional development in librarianship, specifically in the area of instructional development. A case study of a community of practice fostered by an instruction coordinator at an academic library is detailed. Academic librarians may encounter several challenges when entering the classroom as library instructors, and instruction coordinators seek to address these and other challenges as they build library instruction programs. By developing a community of practice, instruction coordinators can enable library instructors to learn together. The case study describes how the Instruction Coordinator cultivates library instructor development for members of the Teaching and Learning Team at Loyola University New Orleans’ Monroe Library through a community of practice model. The practical implications for this chapter are that instruction coordinators can establish instructional development opportunities that allow library instructors to enhance their teaching abilities and ultimately further library instruction programs. Communities of practice are well known in several fields and have been discussed in the library literature. This chapter provides additional value to researchers and practitioners through the discussion and application of the concept in the context of library instruction at academic institutions. The case study provides specific examples of how instruction coordinators at other academic libraries can apply the community of practice model and instructional development opportunities to a library instruction program in order to build and sustain a learning culture that supports library instructor development.

This naturalistic observation study sought to identify the activities undertaken by the special education co-teacher in co-taught high school content subject classes in urban, rural, and suburban high schools, and to understand the contributions of the special education teacher, the value-added, to the educational experiences of the students in the class. The work focused on what is accomplished when ordinary special education teachers go about doing their assigned co-teaching jobs. We found that, as a group and across subject areas, special education co-teachers spent more time in contact with students than not, and most of their contact time helping individual students or small groups of students through an assigned task. There were substantial differences in the distribution of co-teacher activities across subject areas.

Thirty-two qualitative research reports on co-teaching in inclusive classrooms, identified through a comprehensive literature search, are reviewed. Studies have included significant diversity in grade level, geographical location, setting, and took place in three different countries. Overall, teachers and administrators reported a high degree of satisfaction with co-teaching. However, a number of needs were also addressed, including administrative support, appropriate caseloads, planning time, student skill level, and co-teacher compatibility. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

L. Dee Fink proposes that different and more significant kinds of learning should be created in higher education to transition student outcomes from simply “learning” to “significant learning,” and these new types of learning should be situated within significant learning experiences (Fink, 2003). Fink also identified a taxonomy of significant learning that included six components: integration, foundational knowledge, application, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn. Using Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning as a framework, the authors will share the development of a course on navigating the US Healthcare System that resulted in significant learning outcomes for students completing the first semester of a four-year Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum. Each learning experience will link to a component of the taxonomy and will serve as the mechanism for the authors to share the development and implementation associated with each aspect of the semester-long course. The assessment structure of the course is described in detail. The authors present one or more learning experiences to illustrate each component of Fink’s Taxonomy. Finally, lessons learned from the development and implementation of the course are presented to guide programs considering implementation of a similar significant learning experience.

We have witnessed, over the past century, an evolution in the manner in which students with disabilities are educated. Indeed, the quality of education students with special needs receive, in many ways, may be more aptly termed a revolution – from a legal and pedagogical perspective. The tremendous strides special education has made during this period of time has resulted in the current situation in which students with special needs are placed in the least restrictive environment, which often is an inclusive classroom in which general education and special education teachers work together in a collaborative, co-teaching environment. This chapter traces the events, legislation, and court cases that provide the historical context for this situation. In addition, models and essential components of co-teaching are examined, as well as the roles and requisite skills of general education and special education co-teachers. Of critical importance, in the success of co-teaching, is the need for special education and general education teachers to approach the curriculum planning and instructional processes in a collaborative and cooperative manner in order to achieve optimum results from the resulting co-teaching partnership. Finally, the assessment of special education and general education co-teaching efficacy is discussed, specifically through the use of three assessment rubrics used to evaluate co-teaching, co-planning, and co-assessment.

The teaching profession calls for professionals who are theoretical, pedagogical and critical as they influence teaching, learning and the reconstruction of schools. One of the “myths and legends” about teachers is that they are mostly interested to hear about practical ideas for their teaching and often resist theories behind their practice or theoretical analysis. If they do not take a stance towards education or are not aware of where they stand, their behavior or actions can manifest in ‘excessive teacher entitlement’ as a response to unreasonable demands or pressure. In this chapter focus will be centered on how teachers and educators inquire into practice and professional capacities in order to recognize their identities, roles, and pedagogical and theoretical background. This chapter's purpose is to understand the complexity of supporting teachers to create their agency and to find ways to support them in their transition.