team-teaching the hbse curriculum

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 16 October 2014, At: 13:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Teaching in SocialWorkPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20

Team-Teaching the HBSECurriculumShawn Damon Ginther MSW, PhD a , Amy PhillipsMSSW a & Steve Grineski EdD ba Department of Social Work , Lomman Hall 83, 11047th Avenue South, Moorhead, MN, 56563, USAb Lomman Hall 214H, Department of Education ,1104 7th Avenue South, Moorhead, MN, 56563, USAPublished online: 07 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Shawn Damon Ginther MSW, PhD , Amy Phillips MSSW & SteveGrineski EdD (2007) Team-Teaching the HBSE Curriculum, Journal of Teaching in SocialWork, 27:1-2, 199-211, DOI: 10.1300/J067v27n01_13

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J067v27n01_13

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J067v27n01_13

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J067v27n01_13

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Team-Teaching the HBSE Curriculum:Considerations and Advice

Shawn Damon GintherAmy Phillips

Steve Grineski

ABSTRACT. Minimal social work literature exists concerning team-teaching, and even less exists on its impact on student learning. This articlepresents qualitative findings from a study that examined the team-teachingof core human behavior in the social environment (HBSE) curriculumbytwo social work faculty in a CSWE-accredited baccalaureate social workdepartment during a single semester. Data suggest that while team-teachinga university course such as HBSE can be beneficial for both students andparticipating faculty, problems may emerge if precautions are not taken.Benefits and challenges are discussed, and recommendations are madeas to how prospective team instructors should proceed in this endeavor.doi:10.1300/J067v27n01_13 [Article copies available for a fee from The HaworthDocument Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by TheHaworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Team-teaching, HBSE, co-teaching, social work

INTRODUCTION

Team-teaching continues to be used by many primary and secondaryeducators, but post-secondary professoriate, especially social work faculty,

Shawn Damon Ginther, MSW, PhD (E-mail: [email protected]), is Professor, andAmy Phillips, MSSW (E-mail: [email protected]), are both affiliated with the Depart-ment of Social Work, Lomman Hall 83, 1104 7th Avenue South, Moorhead, MN 56563.

Steve Grineski, EdD, is Professor, Lomman Hall 214H, Department of Education,1104 7th Avenue South, Moorhead, MN 56563 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Teaching in Social Work, Vol. 27(1/2) 2007Available online at http://jtsw.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J067v27n01_13 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

has yet to focus on this energizing alternative to the typically solo in-struction format. This paper presents benefits, challenges, and recom-mendations that emerged from a semester-long action research projectwhere two faculty team-taught the human behavior in the social envi-ronment (HBSE) curriculum in a CSWE-accredited baccalaureate so-cial work program. Findings reported here come from the first part of alarger research effort to evaluate formatively the development and im-plementation of one team-teaching model. Future research will exploreresultant student outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Education’s continuing inclusion movement has prompted K-12 pro-fessionals to develop various collaborative instructional methods like“consultation,” “teaming,” “peer coaching,” and “cooperative teaching”in order to meet the special needs of an increasingly diverse studentbody (Austin, 2001; Daack, 1999; Bauwens & Hourcade, 1997; Salend,Johansen et al., 1997; Walther-Thomas, 1997). Although education re-search has furthered understanding and implementation of team-teachingstrategies at the K-12 level, post-secondary “team-teaching” is consider-ably less well developed and has generally meant “taking turns with facultymembers teaching separate class periods” (Winn & Messenheimer-Young, 1995, p. 223).

Social work education literature indicates that social work faculty seekpedagogical diversity through the use of technology (Frey, Yankelov, &Faul, 2003; Harrington, 1999; Kreuger & Stretch, 2000; Randolph &Krause, 2002; Sandell & Hayes, 2002), cooperative learning (Steiner,Stromwall, Bruzy, & Gerder, 1999), and service learning (Knee, 2002;Williams, King, & Koob, 2002; Rocha, 2000); but only a limited numberof articles (Crudden, Bryant, & Southward, 1999; Lazzari, Banman, &Jackson, 1996) have appeared related to team-teaching in social workeducation.

METHODS

Prior to gathering any formal student learning outcomes, which willbe the second phase of this project, participating faculty used action re-search methodology to study their team-teaching implementation pro-cess. As Gay and Airasian (2000) indicate, educators use this research

200 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

method to improve instruction, an aim shared by this study whichexplored the team-teaching implementation process in order to enhancethe dialogic and critical presentation of traditional and alternative HBSEtheories.

In preparation, authors first adopted Martin’s definition of team-teaching as “two or more teachers who share the responsibilities andfunctions of instructing a given group of students in one or more definedcontent areas . . .” (1975, p. 203). This definition reflected both instruc-tors’ commitment to mutual and equal responsibility for the planning, im-plementation, and evaluation of the course. Next, each instructor wasassigned as faculty-of-record for a separate HBSE class during the studysemester, each class meeting at the same time. The two faculty then com-bined their individual sections into one, totaling approximately 40 students.This composite class met for 75 minutes twice weekly.

In the first four-class sessions, faculty presented a metatheoreticaloverview of social systems and ecological theories with a summarycritical reading. For the remaining class meetings, faculty dialectically/dialogically presented and then discussed theories pertaining to varioussystemic levels (e.g., individuals, families, groups, organizations, andcommunities). The faculty alternated class sessions with one instructor(referred to as instructor A; and who typically taught HBSE, research,and policy courses) examining “traditional” theories specific to a givensystemic level on one day, and the other (referred to as instructor B; andwho typically taught direct practice courses and electives in social justiceelective) presenting “alternative” theories (e.g., theories with a multi-cultural and/or feminist content) the next. An open classroom dialoguebetween team-teachers and students was always encouraged. In thisprocess, the two faculty openly, intentionally, and good-naturedly chal-lenged each other theoretically, and prompted students to participate byeither asking clarifying questions or challenging one or both position(s).Team instructors conceded to the opposite perspective when moved,but always ended by verbalizing a synthesis of the diverse frameworkspresented during that week. They hoped that this interactive pedagogywould motivate, invigorate, model, and reinforce the basic dialectic pro-cess used in professional generalist social work.

Action research also uses spontaneous and post hoc reflection (Gay andAirasian, 2000). While the former is tacit and fleeting, the latter is moredeliberate and methodical, and was heavily used in this project. Authorsmet bi-weekly to reflect on their experience and student comments. Fromtheir meetings emerged the following significant considerations that bothreflected and influenced their team-teaching experience.

Ginther, Phillips, and Grineski 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

FINDINGS

Benefits and Challenges

Deliberate planning and intentional study of its benefits and chal-lenges are key to implementing a successful team-teaching project thatenhances rather than distracts from student learning (Benoit & Haugh,2001; Crudden, Bryant, & Southward, 1999; Walther-Thomas, 1999;Doebler & Smith, 1996; Winn & Messenheimer-Young, 1995). As thisresearch focused exclusively on planning consideration, Table 1 presentsfour domains identified salient to successful team-teaching. Withineach are perceived benefits and challenges.

Continuous Unstructured Feedback

Post hoc pedagogical feedback is that given after teaching experi-ence. Post hoc feedback is crucial to action research, and comes in twotypes: Structured and unstructured. Structured feedback is typicallygathered through mid-term and end-of-course evaluations using a pre-determined format (e.g., surveys). Although defining, measuring, andvalidating effective social work instruction is still emerging and contro-versial (Wolfer & Johnson, 2003; Jirovec, Ramanathan, & Alvarez,1998), structured feedback is sporadic (usually administered once ortwice each semester), and negative structured feedback may be threat-ening and ignored.

Alternatively, unstructured feedback is that given by colleagues andstudents during informal, post hoc conversations about classroom expe-riences. This commentary is more fluid, spontaneous, contextually in-formed, and perhaps more accurate, genuine, and useful. As such, thismay be more useful for team-teachers.

The authors found that unstructured feedback generated during theirongoing bi-weekly debriefing sessions provided more helpful informa-tion since it strengthened the collegial bond, fostered mutual trust, andprovided meaningful pedagogical commentary.

Faculty found that pedagogical improvement was maximized by con-tinuous, contextually informed feedback on classroom performance. Asshown in Table 1, these instructors noted inherent benefits and challengesto providing unstructured feedback, and team-teachers are wise to con-sider each. By maximizing benefits and attending to challenges, teammembers may increase teaching competency and enrich student learning.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

One major benefit of team-teaching is routine contact between instruc-tors. Team members used regular pre- and post-hoc meetings to coordinateand deliver the curriculum, and to share thoughts about their mutualexperiences and suggestions for improvement. Interestingly, the facultyfound that the regular meeting ideal posed the challenge of meeting reg-ularly. The two faculty were frequently tempted to play hooky because ofother demands, but regular meetings helped the course unfold logically,uniformly, and smoothly.


TABLE 1. Team-Teaching: Benefits and Challenges

Benefits Challenges

Continuous unstructured feedback

Regular meetings ideal Keeping regular meetings

Two faculty in one class Temptation to play hooky

Unstructured feedback Continuous unstructured feedback

Fair sample for evaluation Drawing many samples over time

Framed feedback Thoughtful framing of feedback

Honest communication Temptation to contrive and please

Reaffirming Threatening and intimidating

Emotional support Balancing faculty/student emotion

Collegial emotional connection Emotive connection W/class

Collaborative curricular choices

Blending two curriculums Consuming preparation

Inherent logic Manifest disorganization

Two curricula Giving up part of one

Fun academic arguments Complexity confuse students

Rich selection of materials Different and divergent interests

Delivery equity

Equality among players One member dominates

Distributive justice Authoritarian trap

Cooperating throughout Maintaining cooperation

Sharing control/independence Losing control/independence

Alternative pedagogies

Alternative pedagogical style Competing pedagogical styles

Seamless curricular flow Disjointed curricular flow

Two instructors manage class Big class limits interaction

Students select instructor Students ally with one

Complaints become excuses

Playing one against another

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

These routine discussions promoted trust among team memberswhich encouraged both parties to reveal their true classroom self (i.e.,mannerisms, habits, strengths, weaknesses, knowledge, and ignorance).In one conversation, Instructor B admitted to a tendency to stay glued tothe podium in large classes. Instructor A responded with some ideas forhow to move around the front of the room without losing track of thelecture outline. Instructor B began experimenting with these tips in boththe HBSE class and other courses. From these conversations emerged amutual awareness that one’s evaluator was also one’s caring pedagogicalcompanion. And these mutual sentiments counterbalanced any threat orintimidation felt by the presence of others in one’s classroom. Thus,from these genuine observations, colleagues could truly assess genuineclassroom performance. During one end-of-semester discussion, theauthors revealed their initial intimidation; but, through ongoing discus-sion trust, mutual support, honest, open, and immensely helpful feed-back grew in intensity and duration. By the end of the semester, the twofaculty were easily discussing the type of student each found most in-timidating, the course content area in which they felt least knowl-edgeable, and the teaching strategies with which they were the leastcomfortable.

Blau (1964) aptly noted that ongoing social exchanges go through pre-dictable transformations, and indeed as the authors’ relationship evolvedcomplimentary interactions became normative, and more useful and heart-felt feedback remains even today. From this experience, the authors respecteven more each other’s knowledge, opinions, judgments, and humansensitivities because of their team membership awareness!

Also strengthening trust is the knowledge that each team member iscritiquing the other from a fairly generated sample of classroom experi-ences over time. The importance of critiquing classroom teaching in or-der to gain an insider’s perspective was never more evident when the thirdauthor of this paper served in the role of interim dean of the college. Theaccepted procedure was for the dean to make a single classroom obser-vation when any faculty member was applying for retention, promotion,or tenure. This minimal sampling not only increased anxiety among thefaculty member in question, but also placed undue stress on the deanwhen making important decisions based on this one-timeobservation.Needless to say, this procedure many times de- contextualized and over-simplified the teaching and learning episode and did little to promoteproductive and meaningful conversations about teaching and learning.In this team-teaching model, however, the awareness that “my teachingcompanion (now evaluator/supporter) better understands me in context


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

from repeated sampling, and can more effectively shape feedback for meas an individual because she/he knows who I am” may help one hear whatis being said, internalize the message, and formulate and implement strat-egies to strengthen her/his work. Additionally, this colleague-now-eval-uator can better provide sound feedback because she/he has observedone’s pedagogy as well as students’ reactions, which is a holistic viewof the teacher and student social exchange, something that solo teachersmiss. But this requires both team members to regularly attend class to-gether, and embrace effective teaching and self-improvement.

However, mutual support between instructors also risks playing tothe wrong audience. Ideally, instructors connect with their students topromote student learning. But team-teachers may overly focus on the“other instructor” and forget students’ needs. Here, one team memberactively plays to the other to make a “good impression.” Or, teachersmight be so engaged dialogically that they forget the students!

Post hoc discussions enabled authors to enhance their self-awarenessand knowledge. As mentioned, one professor had strengths in traditionalHBSE theories and research and social policy, and the other in alterna-tive, contemporary theoretical paradigms, and direct social work practice.But together, both grew from their pre-study preparation, actual class-room dialectic/dialogic experience, and ongoing post hoc discussions.The constant observation and mutual reflection created inner confidencethat inoculated them against insecurities. Routine meetings providedconstant synergistic support from which innovations grew. Because ofthe team-teaching experience, the research faculty decided to volunteerfor departmental field liaison duty in order to get more practice expo-sure, and the practice instructor found she was better able to integratesystems theory into her practice course discussions.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the synergy from the teach-teachingexperience spilled over into other shared departmental tasks.

Collaborative Curricular Choices

Each instructor brought to the team a unique history and emphasissince both had taught HBSE individually. In addition to a backgroundin social systems and traditional HBSE theories, instructor A had lessdirect practice but more research experience and a policy orientation.Instructor B had a more diverse grounding in contemporary HBSE theo-ries and more direct practice experience. Because of this diversity, eachhad different ideas about teaching HBSE. While this could have beendisastrous, it could also provide students with a rich learning experi-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

ence. Therefore, when experiential, disciplinary, and/or philosophicaldiversity exists, team members should balance self-interest and priorexperience with collaboration when making curricular decisions.

Blending two different curricula was difficult and time consuming,and attention was paid to several challenges. Indeed, curricular selec-tions should occur at least three months prior to implementation to al-low for ample processing of curricular and pedagogical choices. Theresearchers are currently planning to team-teach a course that will blendtwo courses, Generalist Practice with Communities and Social Policy,and plan to allocate an entire semester for their development.

Another important consideration is that these pre-implementationmeetings marked the beginning of the professional team-teaching rela-tionship. The authors were eager to plan the class together, but also carefulnot to offend the other because to do so would have long-term conse-quences. They understood that these sensitive preliminary negotiationswould influence future feedback!

The next consideration was the need for a common logical threadthroughout the class, and materials selected had to reflect continuity.Several polarities existed between these professors that could havecaused curricular discontinuity. As mentioned earlier, instructor A hada passion for traditional and instructor B for contemporary HBSE para-digms. Instructor A had limited direct practice experience and gravitatedtoward indirect practice (e.g., social work research and policy analysis),and Instructor B had rich direct practice experience and gravitated towardgroup work, community organizing, and policy practice. Finally, instruc-tor A was well grounded in quantitative while Instructor B was rooted inqualitative social research methods. But with ample planning, any extremediversity among team members would provide students an unprecedenteddepth and breadth of knowledge and perspective.

The key to balancing curricular choices was for each instructor tochoose select parts of her/his standard curriculum and concede the rest.Healthy arguments may (and should) arise about options presentedby each member and their relative import to a blended curriculum; butarguments should not become so emotionally charged that they becomeearly roadblocks to a healthy co-existence and stymie group maturation.Therefore, this collaborative compromise is important to the team’scurrent and future steady state, and constitutes a major hurdle the teamwill face together.

Given choices, subsequent planning must identify common threads thatlink the curricular amalgamation. Indeed, since both instructors shareda common profession, despite their diverse backgrounds and current


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

interests they shared similar philosophies, politics, worldviews, etc. Inter-professorate teaming may be more challenging and a common thread maybe unclear. This may challenge functional team relationships and nega-tively affect student learning. But if team members regularly highlightthroughout the semester the blended curriculum’s inherent logic, thenstudents’ experience will be substantially rich.

In short, with adequate planning curricular choices will enable richdiscussions that make classes engaging and lively. But herein lies addi-tional challenges: (1) Managing discussion intensity so as not to in-timidate or distract students; (2) empowering students with requisiteknowledge so they can participate; and (3) inviting them into the debate.Even with thoughtful engagement and reframing, instructors’ publicdisagreements may confuse students. While such interactions may cre-ate synergies, their intensity may befuddle baccalaureate participants.

Delivery Equity

Team-teaching requires considerable course planning and thoughtfulimplementation, both of which require a balanced exchange amongmembers. As mentioned earlier, time together can foster mutual trustand learning. But collaboration should be equitable to avoid an unfair dis-tribution of tasks among team members, which may foster resentment.

If a hierarchy emerges, both should quickly equalize the relationshipby recognizing their highly individualized strengths and weaknesses,role, and status equality, and then act accordingly. One should not dom-inate since dominance destabilizes relationship equity which might en-courage students to align with the perceived dominant faculty againstthe subordinate, or vice versa. The authors call this the authoritarian trapand believe that undoing the harm created from this unhealthy relation-ship alignment would prove difficult during a semester.

Thus, team members should immediately agree to role equity anddelineate responsibilities accordingly. They should also announce thisagreement to students to safeguard against the authoritarian trap andensure commitment to mutual accountability throughout the semester.Needless to say, the lurking authoritarian trap to pull rank and assigntasks to reduce individual workload or impose one’s worldview or pedago-gical preferences may tempt team members and could be deleterious toany feedback process and mutual trust.

Another area related to the authoritarian trap is the temptation to con-trol team dynamics. Positioning oneself as the teaching authority to in-sulate herself/himself from negative criticism can negatively influence


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

collegial and students’ experiences. If team members see themselves asequals, and role and task equity prevails, then the experience may bemore satisfying and feedback more effective. This requires a willing-ness to share control over the class and accept less academic indepen-dence. In this study, faculty had to decide which elements of their usualcurricula they would each reduce or eliminate and not push for moreclassroom time for their preferred material. They were able to negotiatethis process successfully. But some may be threatened by control shar-ing, or wish to shirk responsibilities. In short, equitable delivery shouldalways occur if the team subsystem is to be harmonious and functional.

Alternative Pedagogies

Team members should consider pedagogical styles early during theteam formation stage. When assembling teaching teams, one should besupportive of diverse teaching styles. Some professors choose to enter-tain, others prefer to be free flowing, while still others practice strict scriptadherence. Some lecture while others encourage faculty/student and intra-student interaction. And some engage in storytelling, use cooperativestudy groups, and require service learning! While the teaching toolboxmay overflow with pedagogical preferences, if not used thoughtfully andcollaboratively, they can befuddle students. But if used strategically, theywill surely benefit students. If not, student learning may suffer. Thus,team members should constantly guard against disjointed curricular flowdue to deliberate or accidental pedagogical shifts, and work hard to pro-vide clear and logical transition between performances.

But having a vast selection of stylistic abilities represented on theteam presents a major benefit: Faculty will learn alternative teachingstyles! Many faculty may have had no formal training in professionalinstruction, and teaching may have been learned independently or throughgraduate instruction appointments. Although there is a burgeoning edu-cational literature that reflects years of study of alternative teaching stylesand tools, few can routinely consult such resources given growth in ourown professional literatures, as well as performing non-instructional ac-tivities (e.g., committee work, student advising, and community service).While this is an inherent problem in higher education that is beyond thescope of this paper, its impact is clear: team-teaching allows professorsto learn by modeling the behaviors of their peers! Thus, team-teachingcan be an invaluable cross-training opportunity where each team membercan learn alternative styles from her/his colleague. This of course will re-quire faculty and university commitment.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Teams should also consider that students may choose the instructorwith whom she/he feels most comfort and compatibility. While the im-pact of choice may be minimal, negative repercussions may abound ifstudents gravitate toward the preferred professor and ignore the otherteam member. While having instruction alternatives can have benefits,they may be problematic if students use the lack of connection with oneteam member to explain their poor performance. Thus, a non-disjointed,seamless curricular flow, clear transition between pedagogical approaches,and delivery equity are paramount to student learning.

SUMMARY

This study has explored the benefits and challenges of team-teachingas perceived by two instructors who team-taught an HBSE course in ac-credited undergraduate social work program. Action research findingssuggest that team-teaching can provide faculty participants with manyopportunities to learn more about their own strengths and weaknesses inthe classroom, as well as colleagues’ alternative teaching styles. But team-teaching success requires deliberate attention to several areas.

Four key domains emerged from this research: Continuous unstructuredfeedback, collaborative curricular choices, delivery equity, and alternativepedagogies. Though each has inherent benefits, they also pose specialchallenges.

This research also suggests that team-teaching is itself a dialecticmethod with benefits and drawbacks. Although it offered a collaborative,equitable, stimulating, and comprehensive approach to teaching whereinstructors cross-trained and students valued the critical engagement;course evaluations suggested that the student experience was sometimesoverwhelming and confusing. In general, course evaluations indicated anappreciation for the dynamic theoretical debate, but some may have gotlost in the process.

In addition, instructors considered it worthwhile because it reinfor-ced the targeted content and enhanced their skills. Thus, the authors be-lieve that instructors should consider team-teaching since it potentiallyfosters/reinforces pedagogical growth and healthy collegiality. But teaminstruction is difficult because of the continuing time commitment.Teams should be ready for ample work; and successful collaboration re-quires equity and temporary role transcendence that may be difficult.Finally, it requires a commitment to a thorough assessment of all as-pects of the team-teaching process, something that future research could


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

address (i.e., student outcomes assessment). Regardless of the work in-volved, when undertaken, the richness of the team-teaching experienceis truly unsurpassed, or at least it was for this team!

Because the academy is now held to higher levels of scrutiny and ac-countability (Nicolas & Nicolas, 2001), faculty might be well advisedto develop more cooperative and nurturing intra-systemic supportsby fostering constructive, unstructured feedback mechanisms betweencolleagues. Indeed, team-teaching is one way programs can fulfill CSWErequirement to engage in creative activities within the professional andteaching communities (CSWE Accreditation Standard 7.1 & 7.2) (CSWE,2001).

REFERENCES

Austin, V. L. (2001). Teacher’s beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Edu-cation, 22, 245-255.

Bauwens, J. & Hourcade, J. J. (1997). Cooperative teaching: Pictures of possibilities.Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 81-85.

Benoit, R. & Haugh, B. (2001). Team-teaching tips for foreign language teachers. TheInternet TESL Journal, 7, Online Journal, No. 10, October 2001, Retrieved 10/03/02.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley &Sons.

Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) (2001). Educational policy and accredita-tion standards. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Council on Social Work Education (2002). Educational policy and accreditation stan-dards. Alexandra, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Crudden, A., Bryant, C. J., & Southward, L. H. (1999). Team-teaching in social workeducation: Forging a new allegiance within the social work program. The Journal ofBaccalaureate Social Work, 5(1), 61-72.

Daack, E. E. (1999). Inclusion models for a building level. Preparing for Inclusion.Children that Learn Together, Learn to Live Together. www.uni.edu/coe/inclusion/preparing/building_levels.html

Doebler, L. & Smith, C. (1996). Enriching a survey course in educational psychologythrough a team-teaching format. Education, 117, 85-88.

Frey, A., Yankelov, P., & Faul, A. (2003). Student perceptions of Web-assisted teach-ing strategies. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(3), 443-457.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysisand application (6th ed., pp. 593-604). Upper Saddel River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Harrington, D. (1999). Teaching Statistics: A comparison of traditional classroom andprogrammed instruction/distance learning approaches. Journal of Social WorkEducation, 35(2), 343-352.

Jirovec, R. L., Ramanathan, C. S., & Alvarez, A. R. (1998). Course evaluations: Whatare social work students telling us about teaching effectiveness? Journal of SocialWork Education, 34, 229-236.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Knee, R. Tolleson (2002). Can service learning enhance student understanding ofsocial work research? Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(1/2), 213-225.

Kreuger, L. W., & Stretch, J. J. (2000). How hypermodern technology in Social workeducation bites back. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(1), 103-114.

Lazzari, M. M., Banman, N. A., & Jackson, R. L. (1996). Students and faculty asco-teachers: Processes of self-efficacy and educational empowerment. The Journalof Baccalaureate Social Work, 2(1), 133-150.

Martin, W. B. W. (1975). The negotiated order of teachers in team teaching situations.Sociology of Education, 48, 202-222.

Nichols, K. W., & Nichols, J. O. (2000). The department head’s guide to assessmentimplementation in administrative and educational support units. New York: AgathonPress.

Randolph, K. A., & Krause, D. J. (2002). Mutual aid in the classroom: An instructionaltechnology application. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(2), 259-271.

Rocha, C. J. (2000). Evaluating experiential teaching methods in a policy practicecourse: The case for service learning to increase political participation. Journal ofSocial Work Education, 36(1), 53-63.

Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative teachingteams. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 195-200.

Salend, S. J., Johansen, M., & Mumper, J. et al. (1997). Cooperative teaching. Thevoices of two teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 3-11.

Sandell, K. S., & Hayes, S. (2002). The Web’s impact on social work education:Opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Journal of Social Work Education,38(1), 85-99.

Steiner, S., Stromwall, L. K., Bruzy, S., & Gerdes, K. (1999). Using cooperative learn-ing strategies in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(2),253-264.

Williams, N. R., King, M., & Koob, J. J. (2002). Social work students go to camp: Theeffects of service learning on perceived self efficacy. Journal of Teaching in SocialWork, 22(3/4), 55-70.

Winn, J. A. & Messenheimer-Young, T. (1995). Team teaching at the university level:What we have learned. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18, 223-229.

Wolfer, T. A., & Johnson, M. M. (2003). Re-evaluating student evaluations of teaching:The teaching evaluation form. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), 111-121.

doi:10.1300/J067v27n01_13


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

17 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

team-teaching the hbse curriculum

Documents