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. 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 Summary – Student Perspective

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. 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 Summary – Instructor Perspective

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, plan…and it takes more time than you think • Open discussions for sharing…means patience for students and instructors…means egos to be set aside…means real sharing among all • Expect and anticipate conflict…and some conflict is good and encouraged…but must resolve for closure at end

21. Lessons Learned (cont’d) • Set tone and be role model…if realistic expectations are adopted at outset, course can be informative and fun • Establish explicit guidelines at outset…deliverables for students, grading process, schedule of topics, specific instructor roles for each phase of the course, grading practices

22. Lessons Learned (cont’d) • Be selective in choosing partner (instructor)…all teachers may not like giving up class control…sharing lectures, workshops…and, personalities may clash • Be careful in assignment of teams, especially for the online environment…be specific about which instructor has which team for what period of time

23. Lessons Learned (cont’d) • Inquire about administration perspective (and rules) on team-teaching, online…teaching load, compensation, extra stipends, other…special preparation time for this venture • Obtain feedback throughout course…conduct many instructor-instructor meetings on progress, changes

24. E-Mail Addresses • Maxine S. Cohen • cohenm@nova.edu • Robert L. DeMichiell • demich@earthlink.net • Richard D. Manning • manningr@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 University’s 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 (cont’d) 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 (cont’d) 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 (cont’d) • 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 isn’t 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.