The Pedagogical Value of Co-Teaching: Case Study: Fashion, Business and Textiles

Co-teaching, defined as the collaborative planning and delivery of teaching by two or more educators within the same learning space, is a people centric pedagogic approach than can promote student understanding, a sense of community and inclusion across cohorts as well as increae staff enjoyment of teaching.
In this series of Case Studies we talk to several academic staff who have been practicing Co-Teaching to understand how they approach this and what the benefits and challenges are.

Co-Teaching Case Study – Dr Rachel Parker-Strak, Dr Rachel Studd, Dr Aurelie Le Normand

How long have you been co-delivering for your course units and what was the rationale for taking this approach?

Our co-teaching practice spans between ten and twenty-five years across the team. Co-teaching emerged as a natural response to the pedagogic needs of Fashion Business and Technology (FBT), where team-taught units are already the norm. The rationale developed from recognising that cohesive, joined-up teaching improves learning continuity, ensures all staff understand the entire unit, enhances assessment alignment, and reduces student confusion. The team also found that co-teaching avoids isolation for staff and supports a more consistent student experience. Academia can be lonely… co‑teaching makes you feel part of a family.

Students benefit from clarity, consistency, and increased access to staff — and staff benefit from learning from each other.

Can you explain about how you deliver your sessions, what is the dynamic between the teaching staff, do you adopt different roles?

Sessions are delivered using a flexible model that includes alternating leadership, full joint delivery, and multi-staff workshop facilitation. Each session is planned around the student learning journey: staff select who teaches based on topic needs rather than personal preference. During delivery, roles shift fluidly. One member may lead the presentation while others facilitate discussion, clarify complex ideas, or support students through individual questions. Workshops often include two or three staff in the room, enabling active learning and responsive teaching. This dynamic creates a collaborative environment where students benefit from diverse explanations and staff learn from each other’s approaches.

Once that’s clear, we decide who should lead which parts. Sometimes that means alternating weeks. Sometimes one of us leads the whole session while the others support. Other times — especially in workshops — all three of us are in the room, moving between groups, checking understanding, and responding to questions in real time.

Workshops in particular have become the heart of our co‑teaching approach.

This creates an energy that students really respond to, not least because we can model thinking, clarify misunderstandings, and offer multiple explanations on the spot. Sometimes you go blank when a student asks something… and immediately the other person can step in and say, ‘What she means is…’ and suddenly half the room gets it.

The dynamic between us is genuinely collaborative. We bounce off each other during sessions — sometimes intentionally, sometimes spontaneously. It makes the room feel more human, more relaxed, and far less hierarchical.

What are the benefits/drawbacks to this approach for you as staff and also your students?

Co-teaching delivers significant positive impacts. For staff, it reduces email traffic because students get answers immediately in workshops — from two or three staff at once — we’re not flooded with repetitive questions later. It also reduces feelings of isolation and fosters a sense of team identity. Students benefit from clearer messaging, consistent guidance, and a stronger sense of belonging. They experience more individual support in workshops, where two staff can engage with a larger number of students directly. Drawbacks arise when some staff are less committed to the approach, creating imbalance and potential inconsistency. Co-teaching also requires greater time commitment and organisation, particularly from the unit coordinator.

Students also respond positively to the energy and informality that co‑teaching fosters. Workshops are described as “buzzing” and the shift from passive listening to active doing helps them feel supported and valued.

Co‑teaching also requires time — not necessarily more hours overall, but a willingness to show up even when you’re not leading, Some people might see that as a waste of time… but we see it as a benefit especially with the assessments. Instead of trying to interpret another lecturer’s approach from slides or hearsay, we experience the unit together.

What has been the impact of this approach on your non-teaching time – for example moving from 100% teaching of half a unit to 50% teaching of an entire unit?

While co-teaching increases the amount of scheduled contact time—particularly when multiple staff attend the same session—it dramatically reduces time spent answering emails, clarifying misunderstandings, or resolving confusion caused by inconsistent messaging. We experience far fewer repetitive queries and much quicker marking because they have been present through the conversations, explanations, and learning challenges students encounter. This shift represents a rebalancing of workload rather than an overall increase, with time reclaimed from fragmented administrative tasks and reinvested in meaningful teaching interactions.

One of the most surprising outcomes of co‑teaching has been what it’s done to our non‑teaching time. At first glance, having two or three people in the room sounds like extra work — and technically, yes, it means more contact time. But the reality is that it’s completely transformed how and when we spend the rest of our time.

Has there been any change in Student outcomes since you adopted this approach or any student feedback that relates to Team teaching?

Students consistently report clearer understanding of expectations, greater enjoyment of interactive workshops, and appreciation for the informal, supportive environment created by co-teaching. They value immediate feedback, opportunities for peer conversation, and multi-voiced explanations that deepen comprehension. We see a reduction in misunderstandings and improved alignment across tasks. Over time, the approach has led to more students performing in middle-to-high grade bands and fewer struggling at the lower end, largely due to increased engagement. Students also express a strong sense of being valued and supported, which contributes to positive NSS outcomes.

Students enjoy the format — the interactivity, the flow, the presence of multiple staff. They get immediate feedback, chances to talk with peers, and the sense that the teaching team is genuinely there with them, not just delivering content at them.

This consistency also carries into large‑scale indicators. The coherence and stability offered by co‑teaching are reflected in improved NSS satisfaction:

How do you approach the planning of the sessions? Both plan sessions, take it turns etc.

Planning responsibilities are shared: one staff member may draft slides while others review and contribute. The team uses shared OneDrive folders, collaborative slide decks, and Teams communication spaces to ensure transparency and continuity. This structure allows new staff to quickly learn unit nuances and ensures all teaching materials maintain a coherent voice and structure.

If there’s one thing that defines how we plan our teaching now, it’s this: we plan for the learning journey first, and everything else follows. Rather than carving up a 12‑week unit into who fancies taking which week, we start by asking: What do students need to understand, and in what order? Where are the sticking points? When do they need the most support?

This shapes everything — not only who teaches what, but when co‑delivery is most valuable. Early in the semester, when students are getting to grips with new concepts, we often plan for two or three of us to be in the room. As things progress and students grow more confident, we can shift towards more independent learning or lighter-touch support.

We chunk it up… theory, then workshop, then another short session — and it always loops back.

Any issues with Student queries? Do they favour one over the other? As you are sharing responsibility for the whole course how are you ensuring consistency of messaging to students?

Students typically contact the entire team or copy all staff into emails, which supports transparency and consistency. Co-teaching reduces the likelihood of students favouring one academic because all staff are visible, present, and equally engaged.

One of the biggest cultural shifts we’ve seen through co‑teaching is how students communicate with us — and more importantly, how consistently they hear the same message no matter which of us they speak to.

Before co‑teaching, students naturally gravitated toward whichever lecturer they felt most comfortable with (or who they perceived as “owning” the assessment). That led to uneven query loads, misinterpretations, and the classic “But they told me something different!” headaches. Now, because we co‑deliver and are visibly present as a team, students see us as a collective rather than separate individuals.

Anything about this approach to teaching that you didn’t foresee?

We found that co-teaching generated far more professional learning than anticipated. We all learn from seeing others handle student questions, use technologies, or break down concepts in alternative ways. We also did not foresee how dramatically it would boost student engagement, with co-delivered workshops consistently full and energised. Co-teaching has also shaped broader scholarship and leadership activities, influencing approaches to year management, teaching development, and cross-unit collaboration. The emotional and pedagogic benefits—such as feeling more human in sessions and reducing the stress of solo delivery—were also unexpected but highly valued.

Early on, we realised that co‑teaching exposes you to your colleagues’ thinking in a way no meeting, no documentation, and no observation scheme ever could.

This sense of being supported — rather than performing alone in front of 200 students — made sessions feel more human, more flexible, and more authentic. It also made us more approachable to students, who liked seeing staff think aloud, negotiate meaning, or openly admit uncertainty.

Advice for any staff wanting to adopt this approach?

Start gradually—perhaps by co-delivering key workshops—can help build confidence. Establishing shared communication spaces, agreeing on standards such as slide formats and terminology, and timetabling co-delivery where it has the most impact are essential. Staff should recognise the time commitment involved but also the long-term efficiencies and pedagogic benefits. Regular, brief check-ins help maintain alignment and ensure the approach remains coherent.

If we had to give one piece of advice to colleagues thinking about introducing co‑teaching, it would be this: you need the right mindset and genuine buy‑in. The practicalities matter, of course — slides, timings, roles — but the attitude of the team is what makes or breaks co‑teaching.

Anything else colleagues might benefit from…

One of the things we’ve realised over time is that co‑teaching doesn’t just improve individual sessions — it strengthens the entire programme. Because we’ve now embedded co‑teaching across first, second and final year units, students experience a sense of continuity that goes far beyond any single class.

Co‑teaching has also created unexpected opportunities to shape scholarship and leadership work. It’s influenced how we run year management, how we design teaching workshops, and how we approach wider pedagogic conversations in the faculty.

Thanks to Rachel, Rachel and Aurelie for sharing their experiences

Dr Chris Parlett and Professor Arthur Garforth – Chemical Engineering

Professor Richard Winpenny and Professor Eric McInnes – Chemistry

Professor Steve Pettifer and Professor Sean Bechhofer – Computer Science

Professor Uli Sattler and Professor Sean Bechhofer – Computer Science

Professor Sophie Nixon and Dr Vicky Coker – Earth and Environmental Science