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.

The purpose of this study is to explore the pivotal role that collective teaching plays in knowledge transfer between new product development teams. This study develops a theoretical model of collective teaching, where team intelligence is its consequence and learning orientation cognitive skills are moderators.

Based on a questionnaire survey of 156 pairs of new product development project teams of information technology firms, the authors used partial least squares to test the study’s hypotheses.

The findings reveal that the use of collective teaching is positively related to team intelligence of recipient teams. In addition, T-shaped skills of source teams exert positive moderating influence on this relationship and so does a learning orientation of recipient teams.

First, the sample firms used in the study are from the IT industry, which is characterized by extremely short product life cycles, thereby limiting the generalizability of the study’s findings. Second, the authors did not examine whether the effect of T-shaped skills is different at various NPD stages; the contributions of each functional expertise may vary depending on the NPD stage (e.g. the idea generation or pre-launch stage). Third, the use of cross-sectional design precludes a causal inference. The role of focal constructs and moderators and their consequent effects would benefit from more stringent, longitudinal research. Finally, the authors controlled for only a limited set of factors of team intelligence because other potential antecedents of this variable still await identification by future studies.

This study suggests that the implementation of collective teaching can enhance the capacity of a project team as a whole to manage and innovate information, namely, team intelligence. The study’s findings also suggest that the management must recognize the significance of teams’ learning orientation and thereby proactively develop teams’ learning culture by redesigning work, reward systems or performance evaluation to promote learning. Additionally, it is prudent for managers to reconsider their recruitment criteria to incorporate T-shaped skills.

This study represents the first step in developing an empirically grounded framework linking collective teaching with team intelligence. Additionally, the authors confirm that team intelligence is a four-dimensional construct.

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.

Team teaching is concerned with interdisciplinary, integrative presentations, e.g. lecture discussions, seminars or case study sessions. It is a method of teaching by two or more tutors of different disciplines in combination (p. 296).

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a study which examined the relationship between status congruence and teacher satisfaction with the team teaching situation. Using the Sampson model of status congruence, the degree of correspondence across two dimensions of status ranking was examined—personal status (as determined by age, sex, education and teaching experience) and leadership status (as determined by one's holding or not holding a position of formal leadership). Since the relationship tested was not found to be significant, this led to further examination into the dimensions of status ranking selected for this study which resulted in the elucidation of unpredicted difficulties encountered when attempting to operationalise the concept of status congruence in non‐laboratory settings.

Chronicles the evolution to an integrated MBA at the University of Tennessee and relates a view of the team teaching experience and integration of technology. The cross‐functional teaching experiences illustrate the issues in working in a team while later sections summarize suggestions for duplication and implementation in other MBA programmes. Explores problems, issues, and barriers are along with grading and evaluation suggestions. Finally, compares student and faculty benefits and stresses the importance of administrative support to facilitate implementation.

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.

Delivery of sustainability-related curriculum to undergraduate students can be problematic due to the traditional “siloing” of curriculum by faculties along disciplinary lines. In addition, while there is often a ready availability of courses focused on sustainability issues in the later years of students’ programs, few early entry-level courses focused on sustainability, broad enough to apply to all disciplines, are available to students in the first year of their program.

In this paper, we describe the development, and preliminary implementation, of an entry-level, interdisciplinary sustainability course. To do so, the authors describe the development of a university-wide initiative designed to bridge units on campus working and teaching in sustainability areas, and to promote and support sustainability curriculum development.

The authors describe the conceptual framework for organising course content and delivery. The authors conclude with an informal assessment of the successes and challenges, and offer learning activities, student assessments and course administration recommendations for consideration when developing courses with similar learning goals.

The positive and negative experiences gained through developing and offering a course of this nature, in a large research-focused university, offers knew insights into potential barriers for implementing first-year cross-cutting sustainability curriculum.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) has caused upheaval in university teaching practices. This paper aims to document how the teaching team on a large third-year undergraduate financial accounting course in an Australian university coped with the impact of the virus. Changes in teaching practices when classes shifted from face-to-face to online instruction during the COVID-19 crisis are described and examined using the crisis management process framework of Pearson and Clair (1998). Teaching team members were asked to write brief reflections on their experiences teaching the course during the period from February to July 2020. These were then thematically analysed and included as outcomes within the Pearson and Clair (1998) framework.

Description of COVID-19 induced changes to teaching a large undergraduate financial accounting course at an Australian university.

Six outcomes emerged: learning new technology; collegiality; the course review; the online delivery experience; redesigning assessments and; time investment; conjectures are offered about the survival of some of the changes made during the year.

The research only covers one teaching team’s experience but that is the purpose of the special issue.

Lessons for the future are explored.

The implications of online teaching are explored.

The paper provides a historical record of how the teaching team on a large undergraduate financial accounting course coped with an unexpected, major event that necessitated rapid and radical changes to teaching methods.