The Pedagogical Value of Co-Teaching: Case Study – Earth and Environmental Sciences
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 Sophie Nixon and Dr Vicky Coker
How long have you been co-delivering for your course units and what was the rationale for taking this approach?
We are now in our second year of co-delivering the unit. Vicky previously co-delivered the unit with another academic and prior to that, the unit was shared between colleagues, but not in a fully collaborative sense: each member of staff delivered approximately 50% of the lectures independently, with no involvement in the other’s sessions. Co-teaching has changed the course beyond simply dividing lectures and instead involves joint planning, shared responsibility for curriculum development, and active engagement in each other’s teaching. The rationale for adopting this model was a natural progression towards enhancing coherence across the unit, giving clearer alignment between learning outcomes and assessment. It has allowed for complementary disciplinary perspectives, as we each represent a different sub-discipline, and teaching styles to be integrated more intentionally, (hopefully) enriching the learning experience.
Can you explain about how you deliver your sessions, what is the dynamic between the teaching staff, do you adopt different roles?
Our approach to delivery varies depending on the structure and focus of the week. In four sessions, we joint lead (team-teach), where both of us are at the front and share delivery on a slide-by-slide basis. In these sessions we build on one another’s contributions in real time and make explicit connections between concepts as they emerge. This format is particularly valuable for synthesising our perspectives on a complex subject.In the remaining weeks, we divide leadership of sessions more formally and these sessions are equally split. One of us takes the lead in delivering the core material, while the other adopts a facilitative role. The facilitating colleague supports interactive components, engages students in discussion and is able to interject where there are useful conceptual links or complementary insights to add. This flexible structure allows us to maintain coherence while also capitalising on our different areas of expertise.
What are the benefits/drawbacks to this approach for you as staff and also your students?
For us, the benefits are sharing responsibility for curriculum design helps distribute the workload and improves the quality of the unit. Planning together allows us to test ideas, challenge each other’s thinking, and refine sessions so they are more coherent and better aligned with the learning outcomes.For students, the main benefit is coherence. Rather than experiencing two separate five-credit strands from different sub-disciplines, they encounter a more integrated framework where our perspectives are intentionally connected. This helps them see links across complex concepts and approaches.The main drawback is probably the additional time required as making this model work effectively depends on communication and ongoing collaboration. We can not identify a clear disadvantage for the students, although however, without clear dialogue between the two of us team-teaching could potentially lead to confusion.
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?
The course always had two academics assigned to it, but each was previously responsible for half the sessions, rather than both being co-responsible for all the sessions so impact has been some increase teaching load, but not double.
How do you approach the planning of the sessions? Both plan sessions, take it turns etc
Shared online documents for the sessions that we co-lead, with a meeting before term starts to discuss improvements/changes to be made to the course. Extra short meetings if needed to finish off the sessions.
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?
Not that we have found. They seem to approach either and emails have tended to go to both of us.
Anything about this approach to teaching that you didn’t foresee?
Anything with a short turn around is difficult as we need time to communicate as we are both busy outside of this course. Therefore planning ahead to e.g. get the exam paper ready in time is important.
Advice for any staff wanting to adopt this approach?
Take time to agree a shared vision for the unit. Be clear about the learning outcomes, structure, and expectations/roles makes everything else much easier. Good communication is key. You have to be comfortable sharing the classroom, being flexible in the moment, and genuinely planning together rather than just splitting up the slides. Co-teaching is really enjoyable. It spreads the creative load and has given us someone to bounce ideas off.
Thanks to Sophie and Vicky for sharing their experiences.
Read more about the benefits of co-teaching
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
Dr Rachel Parker-Strak, Dr Rachel Studd and Dr Aurelie Le Normand – Fashion Business and Textiles
