Richard Steiner and Michael Lesiecki University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 841 12
Team Teaching Chemistry
I
When plannina a Liberal Education chemistw course it was decided that no;-traditional teaching techniques were necessary to teach non-traditional science students. We approached this course with two clear objectives: t o lay a foundation of scientific knowledge and to apply this knowledge to today's problems and issues. A course with such a clearly delineated dual purpose was, we felt, ideally suited to a teamteaching appr&ch. A teaching team couldalternate lecturing on the concepts and the npplications and engags in dialogw on important points. Since assigning two instrudors to the same course places a financial and manpower burden on a department, we sought to document advantages of the technique. Arguments in favor of team teaching a basic science course have heen made previously hy Davis ( I ) . He lists improved academic climate (greater possibility for individual attention and encouraging greater student participation in discussions) and improved teacher morale (a colleague with whom to share the frustrations that are nart of dealine with these non-traditional science students) as two major gains made by team teaching. Although the results are mixed as to whether this technique increases understanding of the subject matter (2, 3), most studies indicate that team teaching helps develop a more favorable attitude toward the subject matter (36,3c, 4 ) . This aspect was of great significance to us because we felt an increased appreciation for chemistry among these non-science students more important than the retention of specific facts. The literature also supported some ofour other proposed advantaees of team teachine. We thoueht that with one in~ t r u c t o r s i t t i nin~the class zewing the presentation, a better feel for whether students were com~rehendinethe material rould he obtained. Often what is ckar to the speaker is not dear to the listener and this could be percei5,ed and corrected by the non-lecturing member of theieam. Also, an error on the board or an inadvertent slip during a lecture would be very detrimental in a Liberal Education class because of the lack of scientific sophistication of the students and these errors could be picked up by the other team member. Prescott and Anger (5)found this to be a very important advantage in their team teaching. Our contention that classroom discussions would he eucouraeed .. bv. dialoeue between team members and hv aueslions and s ~ ~ p p l e ~ e npoints t o l by the "off' membe; of the ceam a h rrccived support from the literature (5, fij. One of the pruhlrrns with teaching a class of this type is maintaining s t ~ ~ d rinterest nt and attention. Kerwan and Willis (fij found that alternating instructors pro\.ided a change of pace thnt lengthened the attcntiun span ulstudents. M'e also helieved that two instructors, witb two distinct personalities, would he able to reach more students on an individual basis. Often students who need helo do not seek i t from an instructor because of a difference in personality. We, therefore, anticipated that each team member would he a~nroached nreferentiallv .. by certain students. In order to achieve the classroom atmosphere we desired. we fell it was important that the students pekeive us as equal; (7).Surh an arrangement would avoid the vrol~lemof studrnts 'ignoring, or less attention to, the subordinate teacher and would create a better atmosphere for discussion, questions, disagreement, and clarification. In organizing the course, we, therefore, divided primary responsibility for certain sec-
tions of the course. This division was in part determined hv the fact that one instructor was an organir chemist and thk other a physical chemist. We emphasized this difference in expertise in the classroom (3) in order to convey the idea that scientists are not experts in all fields. Kven though cach instructor had primary respunsihility for only one-half of the course, we both had to he knowledgeahle ahnut all the macerial, and we found (as have ntheri who used this method (5, 6,91) that wam teaching is not a time-saving device. In pracrice we were.wtisfied that themethod lived up toour expectations. We did ha\,e some initial difficulty creating a free-flowingexchance between the instructors. This diftirults arose fromiwo reasons: an initial hesitancy on the part of thk non-lecturing member to interrupt the speaker in order to modify an explanation or disagree with a statement on an issue and a failure uf planned dinloyue cn materialize in the classroom as smoothly as it did inour offices. As the instructors developed a closer classroom rapport, interruptions became smoother. We s t o n ~ e dnlannine the dialoeues and iust let them happen spon&eously as tce situationkose. ~ h f closer s rapwort resulted in more in-depth discussions because in order to-interject comments spont~neouslya much more detailed knowledge of the material was required. Our perception was that the team-teaching experiment was a success. As predicted, we found that individual teaching styles improved dramatically over the term. We attribute this to after-class discussions of our presentations and to the natural inrlination to impress our colleagur with our teaching skills. Also ni anticipated, each instructor had a small f& lowine of students. allowine us to reach more students than eithrr-instrucwr could ha; done individually. Particularly aratifvine . .. was the fart that half of the class indicated on the university evaluation that their interest in the subject matter increased. Sirnificantlv. .. the maioritv - .of these studenu initiallv had a low interest. Although the above factors certainly are positive, we realized that in order to claim success for the team-teaching experiment a positive evaluation from the students was as important as our own perceptions. Students might view a course witb two instructors as twice as difficult and the positive aspects of team teachine diminished if the interruntions and discussions proved disconcerting to students trying to follow a train of thought. In order to monitor student reaction we aimed at teamgave an evaluation ~~~~~.stionnairesperifically Leaching issues. Significant results of the survey are that 32 :1f 37 students indicated they liked all olthe following: the idea that two viewpoints were given; that between us more questions were answered (the lecturing member often referred questions to the non-lecturing member, especially those pertaining to our major disciplines), and that the discussions livened up the class. The other 5 responses chose only one or two of the above but were positive. There were no negative responses to the concept of two instructors. Responses to the question on the effect of the verbal interaction were also positive. Students shared our view that such interaction reinforced important material (31 responses); was beneficial because a hroader perspective was given (27 responses); and encouraged students to make comments (21 responses). Eight students thought that the introduction of a broader perspective was distracting. In response to aquestion on the nature of interr~~ptiuns, oily one student indicated a preference for fewer comments; 12 students thought more comments
-
Volume 57, Number 5,May 1980 1 353
would he beneficial; 6 wanted to restrict the non-lecturing member to remarks on nresented material: and 18 liked the idea of supplemental material being introduced during the dialoeue. Several students commented that the course was one that ';hey had dreaded taking, hut it turned out to he their favorite class. They attrihuted this directly to the discussions generated by the team-teaching technique. Two students commented that a team of an organicand a physicalchemist was especially effective a t conveying the scientific principles. The survey indicated that the students perceived team teaching as being beneficial to the classroom presentations. ~oweve;. armed that the investment of m a m w e r --. . - - it miehi be ~~~" is worthwhile only if overall learning of, and appreciation for, the suhiect matter is increased. These are difficult narameters to measure, and our task is even harder because &is was the first time the course was offered. Any com~arisonswe make must, therefore, be with another similar course offered for non-science students. Comparative data only exists for the appreciation aspect mentioned above. On the standaid course evaluation forms which students complete there is a question concerning interest in the subject matter before and after the course. In our team-taught course, 53% responded that interest went up, 3% that interest went down, and 44% remained the same. In the individually taught class only 40% indicated
arise in interest while 8%lost interest and 52%remained the same. This comoarison areues favorablv for team teaching- this type ofcourse. In summary, the students viewed the team taught classroom experience as positive, and this attitude led to an increased a~oreciation for the suhiect matter. The instructors also .. benefitted from the experience and will be ahle tn teach better individuailv a s a result uf oartici~atinz . - in the team effort. We can thus endorse the rnet'hod as very worthwhile.
-
Literature cited
.-~-~~-
354 I Journal of Chemical Education
. .
M., Dirrerlotion Absfmcts, 32, (Nou. 1971).
..
...
,
(4) (a) Hunt, John w..DlaaertorionAbatmcfn, 31,2254A (Nw. 1970).ib) Glmn,Eernard A., Dissertation Ab$Lroels. 30, 1466A ( O n 1969). (el Pierson. Jeanne. Coliiornia J o u r n o l o l E d u r o f i o n o l R ~ ~ 22.156 ~ ~ ~ ~ h(Sept. , 1971). (5) Preacolt, J. R..Anger, C. D.. A m a ~ i a n Jourml oiPhvsica, 40,311 (1972). ( 6 ) Kerwsn. Donald F., and Willis. Jack,American JovrnoloJPhy$iii, 44.651 (1976). (7) Armstrong, David, Rouieu, oiEdueofionolRs~rorch.47.65 (Winbr 19771. (8) Belts, D. S., and Wa1fon.A. J., Phyaica Edurolion, 5,321 (Nov. 1970). (9) Kugler, Edgar M.. Improving Collegeand University Teoehing, 18, MO (1970).
