Team Teaching Online: Perspective from the Trenches

1
Team Teaching Online Perspective from the
Trenches

• Maxine S. Cohen, Ph.D.
• Robert L. DeMichiell, Ph.D.
• Richard D. Manning, Ph.D.
• Nova Southeastern University
• Fort Lauderdale, FL

2
Discussion Items

• What are the issues in online team teaching
  environments (faculty and student perspectives)?
• What arrangements and agreements should be
  discussed and arranged?
• How should conflicts be handled?

3
Outline

• Background and our experiences
• Team Teaching
• Student Issues
• Faculty Issues
• Lessons Learned
• Conclusions
• Bios
• References

4
Background

• Extensive teaching experience (all methods)
• Becoming more proficient and experienced with
  teaching online
• Experience with team teaching
• Combine team teaching with online delivery

5
Team Teaching Defined

• All arrangements that include two or more
  faculty in some level of collaboration in the
  planning and delivery of a course
• (Davis, 1995, p. 8)

6
Our Experiences

• Scenario 1
• Two faculty members
• One subject matter expert
• One online experience
• Previous team teaching experience
• Executive MBA program
• One full class day, 6 weeks online
• Scenario 2
• Two faculty members
• Both subject area experts
• Both experienced online
• Some team teaching experience
• Doctoral level course
• Blended format, 20 contact hours over 6 days, 22
  weeks online

7
Approach to Team Teaching

• Scenario 1
• One member led classroom phase
• Other member led online phase
• Both graded each assignment
• Synchronous and asynchronous led by both
• Scenario 2
• True partners
• Grading purposes class split in half
• Synchronous - both involved
• Asynchronous some together, some separate

8
Team Teaching Issues
9
Dynamics of Interaction

• Distance Education (from Moore, 1993)
• Learner-content
• Learner-instructor
• Learner-learner
• Team Environment (adds additional dimension)
• Instructor-instructor

10
Instructor Team How to Divide Work

• 3 Alternatives
• Each with their own group
• Each faculty member works with entire class
• Each their own group and then switch
• Choice dictated by size
• Larger group easier to split
• Choice 3 seems too confusing
• Issues of dissent
• Commitment to choice, unless overwhelming reason
  to change
• Students seem to like to have a person to report
  to

11
Dealing with Conflicts

• Availability of second opinion
• Objectivity
• Awareness of instructor-instructor dynamic
• Issue of respect
• More human approach
• Faculty an integral part of the team
• Someone to relate to
• Students felt they had an ally

12
Assessment

• Need to establish
• Credibility
• Confidence
• Fairness
• Disagreements
• Resolved in favor of student
• Second reader
• Grading rubrics
• After the fact, comparison had consensus

13
Establishment of Community

• In person-time
• Really helped
• Keeping up momentum, non trivial issue
• Photos and Bios
• Around the water cooler
• Sharing expertise
• Synchronous activities
• Keeping connected

14
Summary Student Perspective

• Advantages
• Richness obtained from more than one faculty
  perspective
• Students feel they have an advocate
• If personality conflict with one instructor,
  there is an alternate

• Disadvantages
• Student uncertainty, who do they belong to
• Large team classes can become impersonal

15
Team Collaboration

• Stages
• I. Choosing colleagues or team members
• II. Dividing the labor
• III. Establishing the work guidelines
• IV. Terminating the collaboration
• (Austin and Baldwin, 1991)

16
Course Development Issues

• Collaboration in the online environment
• Skills transferable to teaching mode
• How to divide
• Ownership issues
• Not only among faculty members, but to
  institution as well

17
Faculty Personalities

• Ego
• Put aside for the team
• Forced choices with team members
• Work beyond the conflict
• Introverts versus Extroverts
• Can be problematic

18
Summary Instructor Perspective

• Advantages
• Each instructor has a sounding board to discuss
  class and student matters
• Course grading and development responsibilities
  can be shared
• Instructors can learn from each other

• Disadvantages
• Non-trivial coordination effort required
• Disagreements and conflicts can surface
• Course ownership issues
• Instructors may work to different clocks can
  lead to frustration
• Ego issues

19
Disagreements and Conflicts

• They will happen
• Even with the best laid plans
• Observe team dynamics
• Back to you later, is ok, as long as keep
  promise
• Disagreement resolution can be constructive
• Can enhance team building

20
Lessons Learned

• Plan, plan, planand it takes more time than you
  think
• Open discussions for sharingmeans patience for
  students and instructorsmeans egos to be set
  asidemeans real sharing among all
• Expect and anticipate conflictand some conflict
  is good and encouragedbut must resolve for
  closure at end

21
Lessons Learned (contd)

• Set tone and be role modelif realistic
  expectations are adopted at outset, course can be
  informative and fun
• Establish explicit guidelines at
  outsetdeliverables for students, grading
  process, schedule of topics, specific instructor
  roles for each phase of the course, grading
  practices

22
Lessons Learned (contd)

• Be selective in choosing partner (instructor)all
  teachers may not like giving up class
  controlsharing lectures, workshopsand,
  personalities may clash
• Be careful in assignment of teams, especially for
  the online environmentbe specific about which
  instructor has which team for what period of time

23
Lessons Learned (contd)

• Inquire about administration perspective (and
  rules) on team-teaching, onlineteaching load,
  compensation, extra stipends, otherspecial
  preparation time for this venture
• Obtain feedback throughout courseconduct many
  instructor-instructor meetings on progress,
  changes

24
E-Mail Addresses

• Maxine S. Cohen
• cohenm_at_nova.edu
• Robert L. DeMichiell
• demich_at_earthlink.net
• Richard D. Manning
• manningr_at_nova.edu

25
Conclusions

• Team Teaching Online
• Works
• Challenging, but can be fun
• Be aware of potential pitfalls
• Benefits outweigh the negatives

26
Biographical Sketch

• Dr. Maxine Cohen received a B.A. in
  Mathematics from the University of Vermont, a
  M.S. (specialization Computer Science) and a
  Ph.D. (specialization Systems Science) from the
  State University of New York at Binghamton. She
  joined Nova Southeastern Universitys Graduate
  School of Computer and Information Sciences in
  1996, currently holds the rank of Professor and
  teaches graduate (Masters and Doctoral) courses.
  Her research interests include human-computer
  interaction and distance education. She has
  published in several technical journals and
  presented her research and lead workshops at
  several conferences including ALN 2001 and ACM
  SIGCHI. Before joining NSU, she worked at IBM in
  the User Centered Design department. Prior to
  IBM, she was a faculty member in the Computer
  Science department, in the Watson School of
  Engineering at the State University of New York
  at Binghamton.

27
Biographical Sketch (contd)

• Dr. Robert L. DeMichiell has been active in
  government, business, and higher education for
  over forty years. Dr. DeMichiell was awarded
  Professor Emeritus from the U. S. Coast Guard
  Academy, New London, CT and Fairfield University,
  Fairfield, CT for his scholarly research and
  dedication to the teaching profession.
  Currently, he is Visiting Professor at the H.
  Wayne Huizenga Graduate School of Business and
  Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University,
  Fort Lauderdale, FL and teaches management of
  information technology to doctoral students. He
  has presented/published over one hundred articles
  in the past three decades and has been active in
  international and national professional
  societies. His consulting firm has been active
  for over two decades and focuses on corporate
  strategy for information technology and on
  executive business seminars for that topic.

28
Biographical Sketch (contd)

• Dr. Richard Manning received a B.S. in
  Engineering from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy an
  M.S. in Communications Management, Naval
  Postgraduate School and Ph.D. (Information
  Science) from Nova Southeastern University. He
  served 34 years in the U.S. Coast Guard and
  retired at the rank of Captain. He joined the
  Nova Southeastern University, Graduate School of
  Computer and Information Sciences faculty in 1995
  and is a Visiting Professor. He teaches Human
  Computer Interaction, Legal and Ethical Aspects
  of Computing and Electronic Commerce on the
  Internet in the masters program. Research
  interests include information systems and
  organizational effectiveness, strategic planning,
  leadership, total quality management, and
  distance education.

29
References

• Austin, A. E., Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty
  Collaboration Enhancing the Quality of
  Scholarship and Teaching. Washington, D.C. The
  George Washington University, School of Education
  and Human Development.
• Collins, B. C., Hemmeter, M. L., Schuster, J. W.,
  Stevens, K. B. (1996). Using team teaching to
  deliver coursework via distance learning
  technology. Teacher Education and Special
  Education, 19, 49-58.
• Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary Courses
  and Team Teaching New Arrangements for Learning.
  Phoenix, Arizona American Council on Education
  and The Oryx Press.
• DeMichiell, R. Manning, R. (2002).
  Entrepreneurial Thinking for Case Study
  Application A Self-Assessment Approach. In H.
  Klein (Ed.), Interactive Teaching and Learning in
  a Global Context, WACRA 2002 (pp. 119-126).
  Boston World Association for Case Method
  Research Application.
• Easterby-Smith, Mark, and Nils-Goran Olve.
  (1984). Team Teaching Making Management
  Education More Student-Centered? Management
  Education and Development 15(3) 221-36.

30
References (contd)

• Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. (1998). Collaborative
  learning in asynchronous learning networks
  Building learning communities. WebNet 98 World
  Conference of the WWW, Internet, and Intranet
  Proceedings (3rd, Orlando, FL, November 7-12,
  1998).
• Manning, R., Cohen, M. and DeMichiell, R. (2003).
  Distance learning step by step. Journal of
  Information Technology Education, 2, 115-130.
• McDaniel, Elizabeth A., Colarulli, Guy C.
  (1997, Fall). Collaborative teaching in the face
  of productivity concerns The dispersed team
  model. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 19-36.
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction.
  In K. Harry, M. John, D. Keegan (Eds.),
  Distance education new perspectives. London
  Routledge.
• Schaible, R., Robinson, B. D. (1995).
  Collaborating teachers as models for students.
  Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(1),
  9-16.
• Strohschen, G. Heaney, T. (2000).This isnt
  Kansas anymore, Toto Team teaching online. In
  Team Teaching and Learning in Adult Education
  New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education
  87, edited by Eisen, M. Tisdell, E.
  Jossey-Bass.