The Pedagogical Value of Co-Teaching: Case Study – Computer Science 2

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.

Professor Sean Bechhofer and Professor Uli Sattler

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

Sean: The unit has been running in Semester 2 since AY20-21. The unit was designed using a particular approach (see below) which had co-delivery built in.

Uli: I’ve been co-teaching for 20 years, the rationale for it is shared load and responsibility, more flexibility in case of illness/absence, combined expertise

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

Sean: The unit is delivered using a blended approach. The key synchronous activity is a fortnightly two-hour workshop where students explore topics using group tasks. These sessions are facilitated by the unit staff. In the first few years, this involved three academics (Sean, Uli and Andrea) plus GTA support with at least two of us in the room. In the last two, we have had two academic staff on the unit, and we both attend the workshops along with GTA support.

There is also a weekly synchronous Q&A session which again is run with both academics. These sessions are relatively informal and intended to be discussion based and driven by questions from students. When there are no questions (too often sadly), we tend to use the session for a discussion and dialogue between us – a key learning outcome for the unit is the ability to scrutinise and critique other’s work and this can provide examples of this.

Uli: We sometimes deliver face-fo-face session or record videos as a team of 2, sometimes we simply share them across (‘you do Mondays, I do Wednesdays’). We co-delivering, I think it’s very helpful to have 1 ‘leader’ (who’s prepped and has a plan) and a ‘follower’ who basically plays the role of a very engaged student, asking questions, making suggestions, answering questions – this can help to get discussions starting

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

Sean: The workshop style is key to the delivery of the material, and promotes active learning. Co-teaching provides opportunities to demonstrate dialogue, the existence of alternative viewpoints, and the processes that we follow when thinking about things. It makes the sessions more dynamic and, dare we say it, fun, and also gives us some resilience in the case of sickness or clashing commitments.

Uli: Benefits are the sharing good practice, peer learning, shared responsibility, better student experience since students get broader view/more varied, drawbacks.. a bit more time when pair-teaching (but 1 doesn’t need prep, so that’s negligible), students sometimes regard us as ‘fighting with each other and not understanding what we’re talking about’ when we’re discussing pros and cons of different approaches

Sean: The first year was delivered online. The workshop sessions really didn’t work very well in that setting. This isn’t particularly surprising – they rely on group interactions plus interventions from staff. In Semester 1 2021 we didn’t really have the experience of working in such a way on an online platform.

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?

Sean: As we’ve adopted this approach from the start, it’s difficult to compare. We don’t think this requires any additional time to deliver/prep, and the nature of the sessions means that a lot of the work was front-loaded in designing the activities. So delivery year on year is relatively low cost. The workshop style is high intensity on the day.

Uli: I have never taught a unit solo

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

Sean: As we’ve adopted this approach from the start, it’s again difficult to compare. One interesting comment that we did receive on a UEQ was that “the lecturers can’t even seem to agree on things as they’re always arguing.” Following that we have tried to make it clear that this is a feature.

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

Sean: The sessions and activities were planned and developed collaboratively. Assignment of leader/supporter roles are pretty much done on the fly – it all works out over the semester.

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?

Sean: Queries are directed to Discussion boards, with all staff picking them up. With communication in the open, maintain consistency is relatively straightforward. If/when we do have point to point communication, we will typically consult or discuss to ensure consistency.

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

Uli: As I said before, that discussions are sometimes perceived as ‘fights’ and thus bad. But I think this is a useful thing for students to witness: many problems have many different solutions with different problems, and teasing them out is a skill that our students need

Advice for any staff wanting to adopt this approach?

Uli: Go for It!

Sean: Do it…. Careful choice of staff is a factor though – it’s important to have a good rapport between the staff on the unit, particularly if you’re doing the kind of two-hander live discussion. We’d all been colleagues with experience of working together in various roles which meant that we already had a good working relationship and dynamic.

Thanks for Sean and Uli for sharing their experiences

Professor Sean Bechhofer and Professor Steve Pettifer – Computer Science

Dr Chris Parlett and Professor Arthur Garforth – Chemical Engineering

Professor Richard Winpenny and Professor Eric McInness – Department of Chemistry

Dr Rachel Parker-Strak, Dr Rachel Studd and Dr Aurelie Le Normand – Fashion Business and Textiles

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