Teaching methods

Methods and solutions for teaching together

The added value of co-teaching is on the different expertise and teaching methods that different universities can bring in. One additional possible benefit is that cohorts of students coming from different universities can get in touch, and some form of collaboration between international peers can be experienced also by students.

In the following, you will first find three different models of co-created and co-taught courses that can suit the concept of the unite! Shared educational offer. In different courses, a different degree of collaboration among students and lecturers is provided.

Secondly, you will find a list of “teaching tools” useful to organise and set up a co-created and co-taught course. The tools are organised and categorised in the different phases of the course: (i) creation, (ii) development, (iii) delivering.

Aim of co-teaching Different Types of Course Structure Teaching Methods, Tecniques and Tools Theoretical Background References

Aim of co-teaching

 

Co-created courses by unite! universities are intended to bring together teachers from different universities and are for students enrolled in different unite! universities.

In this picture, the aim of co-teaching can be:

  • To bring together lecturers (from different universities) with different expertise in different topics (something already done and well documented when lecturers come from the same university/nation).
  • To promote the interaction between students (enrolled in different universities) with possibly different cultures/backgrounds (something already done and well documented in a physical setting when students are enrolled in the same university).
  • To allow students to practise the same topic from different perspectives (lecturers from different universities adopt different methods/focus on different perspectives (something similar is done when students experience the same topic by different lecturers (e.g., professor and assistant; professor and professional guest lecturer).

The challenge and novelty are therefore to have, at same time, teachers from different universities and students from different universities on a single course.

This is a challenge, as the aspect of multiculturalism applies both to teachers and to students. To date, the only attempts reported in the literature are those by Wohlgemuth et al. (2019, 2020) and Pears et al. (Runes).

​

Different Types of Course Structure

In order to address the three main aims of co-teaching as described in the previous section, three types of course structure are proposed. It should be remarked that the proposed structures are idealizations to match three specific aims, and variations and blending between different structures are possible. It should also be remarked that the proposed structures are based on the following premises:

  • some “in person” activities may be kept. The preferred in-person activities to be kept are theoretical lectures that can be done in person in one university and broadcast to other participants. It should be remarked that this is not a strict requirement; all theory can be online or even provided as asynchronous material.
  • the sections of group-work that involve active learning and cooperation between students enrolled in different universities are expected to be done online. Also in this case, exceptions may apply. For example, some funding for mobility can be used to allow in-person workshops and labs.

In the following, the exemplifying structure of the three types of possible courses is built for the following case:

  • Three universities (A, B, C) are involved;
  • In each university, a cohort of student will attend the course (Cohort A, Cohort B, Cohort C)
  • Three different topic (TOPIC 1, TOPIC 2, TOPIC 3) are developed during the course

Different numbers of universities, cohorts, and topics can suit the same model-structures reported in the following.

 

The aim of this type of course is to “bring together the expertise in different topics from different partners”.

The goal of this course is for instance to have different modules provided by different partners that are leaders on the corresponding topic. The added value is that -for each topic- a lecturer (that is also a leader on research/application) is involved. The issue of interaction among students is not key, as students’ interaction is not the main element. The active work of students can be achieved by individual work or by group work, with groups made up of students from the same university. Guest speakers can be easily involved. The key issue is coordination of different time, time zones, academic calendars.

Aim

Bring together expertise in different topics from different partners

Added value

For each topic- a lecturer -leader on research or applications- is involved

Active work

Among students of the same university

Issues

Coordination of different time, time zones, academic calendars


Type B courses are intended as an extension of Type A courses, so the aim and the added value of Type A courses are kept here.

In addition to Type A courses, the aim of this type of course is also to “promote the interaction between students of different cultures and backgrounds”.

Different modules are provided by different partners. Within a single module, only one partner is involved. The added value is that -for each module- activities that promote interaction and co-working among students are provided. Active work of students should be pursued by group work. Different partners can use different techniques. Attention should be paid to the construction of groups. Groups should be made up of students from different universities. In addition, each group should be composed of a coherent mixture of students with different prior knowledge. The issue in the coordination of different time zones, academic calendars becomes even more important than in the Type A – sequential courses, because the international work group is the priority.

Aim

Bring together expertise in different topics from different partners

Promote the interaction between students of different cultures and backgrounds

Added value

For each topic- a lecturer -leader on research or applications- is involved

Activities that promote interaction and co-working among students

Active work

Group-work, with groups made up of students from different universities

Different partners can use different techniques

Issues

Coordination of different time, time zones, academic calendars to allow group-working

Set up groups that are uniform in terms of prior knowledge, university enrollment, culture mixture.

 

The aim of this type of course is to “allow students to practise the same topic from different perspectives”. Different modules are provided by different partners. Within a single module, each partner provides lectures to its own students. Different from the Type B courses, students coming from different universities have approached the same topic with different perspectives. The added value is that during activities that promote co-working among students, the different perspectives complement each other, and the students are able to make a synthesis and take advantage of the strengths of different group members. Also in this case, active work of students should be pursued by group work. Attention should be paid to the construction of groups. Groups should be made up of students from different universities. In addition, each group should be composed of a coherent mixture of students with different prior knowledge. The issue in the coordination of different time, time zones, academic calendars is relaxed. Most of the course is done at students’ own university, and only coordination during the international work group is required. In this case, the group work activities should be carefully planned and supervised by lectures from all partner universities.

Aim

Students practice the same topic from different perspectives

Added value

Different perspectives clash, and students are forced to make a synthesis and take advantage of the strengths of different approaches

Active work

Group-work, with groups made up of students from different universities

Issues

Group work activities should be carefully planned and supervised by lectures from all partner universities.


Teaching Methods, Tecniques and Tools


The teaching methods/techniques/tools are here organised and categorised in the different phases of the course: (i) creation, (ii) development, (iii) delivery.

As explained in the section dedicated to the classification of possible types of collaborative courses, a big issue is to find a match between the different academic calendars, timetables and workload for ECTS that different universities have. To overcome this difficulty –or at least to make developers of the course aware– the online toolkit will be equipped by a tool that will render the following actions possible:

–         Select the required effort (in hours) to achieve one ECTS (lectures and personal effort/study) from different universities

–         Select the academic calendar from different universities

–         Select different online platform allowed/in use in different universities

–         Select the typical daily timetable

–       Check the average time required to get approval for a new course/modification of an existing one

–         Check if the intersection is possible

–         Regulation about exams

It should be remarked that the tool must be developed as an online application, and must be constantly maintained and updated with recent information. In the following, some preliminary examples of the interface functions are reported.





You should carefully review the legal statements and other conditions of use of any website which you access through a link from this Website. Your linking to any other off-site pages or other websites is at your own risk.

The content of this section is still under development (12.2.2024)

Moodle

For a description of Moodle and of Unite! Metacampus, please visit the page Digital Learning Environments

Tips

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

Shared cloud folder and website

What is it and why should we use it?

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

Tips

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –



The Five Stage Model

What is it and why should we use it?

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

Tips

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

–         ( https://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html )

 

Ten simple rules for teaching applied science and engineering online

What is it and why should we use it?

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

Tips

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

–         ( https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009184 )




Teams Calendar

What is it and why should we use it?

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

Tips

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

 

Telegram

What is it and why should we use it?

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

Tips

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

 

Slack

What is it and why should we use it?

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –

Tips

–         – TO BE COMPLETED –




What is it and why should we use it?

It is quite common, especially in early semester courses, that the drop rate is relatively high. That is sometimes caused by lack of prerequisites. Especially when attendees have different backgrounds. A possible solution is to equalize the student's level. This can be done by well-defined pre-props, or by equalization at early stage of semester, or even before it. Obviously in order to be able to compensate for gaps in knowledge and skills, these need to be identified first. This can be done by entrance placement test. To see wider landscape it is reasonable to see placement test as a part of whole student assessment.

Nowadays, still many teachers use classical grading the schemes. That is either one final test at the end of the semester, series of smaller tests in every class throuout the semester or a hybrid of both with a few smaller tests in between and one bigger at the end.

Does it work? Actually, it is hard to answer that question without answering beforehand what the purpose of testing and teaching is anyway. The abovementioned schemes assess only the knowledge of the student. Perhaps by attending our class this knowledge was significantly trimmed and lowered in order to fit our requirements. Maybe some topics were widened in the minds of students, but others hardly existed due to the lack of necessary base knowledge? This will remain rhetorical question since there is no way to answer it correctly without prior knowledge about entry level of students. By subtracting prior knowledge from post knowledge we can asses if the class had a positive impact.

Below you will find few solutions, and their shortcomings, so in the end you will be able to decide what kind of model fits you best.

Solutions

There are three steps to deal with placement, and equalization.

1. Define extensively specific knowledge and skills necessary and useful for the best possible understanding of the material covered in the course. Prepare placement tests or tests for students. 

2.     Provide placement test.

a.      Before the semester. It is though important for students to understand the purpose of this test. The first purpose is to tell the student if she/he is ready to attend the course, or what topics need to be rehearsed. The second is for the teacher to see what the entry level might be, and maybe if some topics are hardly present maybe there is a need to introduce them. The placement test can be available online for all the attendees. The final test can be done at last class, therefore no cheating,

PROS: well prepared automated test will provide valuable input for both student and teacher; automatic summary may help the student with making up for the shortcomings.

THREATS: some students may cheat thinking the purpose is to assess them, not help with gap identification. In late semesters students may agree to perform poorly in order to force the teacher to lower the level.

SOLUTION: clearly describe the purpose of the placement test, do not lower the bar too low, but provide the students with self-learning materials.

b. Provide placement test during first class

PROS: no cheating in class (or at least harder), and possibility to talk with students, elaborating on certain topics. If test is automated, the actions can be taken on stance.

CONS: if you decide for placement at first meeting, and final test at last – you lose two meetings.

c. Before each part/topic (I.e. every few classes)

PROS: the material is divided in smaller parts; it is easier for the student to fill in the gaps on an ongoing basis.

CONS: willingness to cheat – you need to make sure these tests are not part of grading, and students understand it.

 

d.     Before each class, the previous solution can be developed into a continuous assessment by introducing pre test for each class. In this case it is important to not overload the students. In the end we want to make them learn, not hate the subject. The questions need to be easy. Asking about the shape of some characteristics will be trivial for somebody who understands the topic, on the other hand will be easy to check for a newbie. This way the student might be guided on what is valuable to learn.

-           What is the best choice? Well there is no one answer. Everything depends on the teacher, students, topic and many others. In perfect world there students do not teach, and are assessed not only by their knowledge but also effort and improvement over semester – the same or very similar placement test and summary test would take place online. The grade would be based on both summary test result, and difference in placement and summary tests. This would need to be online, since committing four classes for assessment would be  

 

3.     After placement test(s) have some relevant feedback about what should be done Especially in big classes (early years, basic subjects) the feedback would be very time-consuming. Thus, automatization using various online platforms should be considered.  

Case study

WroTech “Programming the industry of the future” case study.

In the year 2022 WroTech, had a project named “Programming the industry of the future”. The aim of the project was teaching students PLC programming knowledge and skills. The project was non-compulsory, not included in curriculum, only for the ones who wanted it.

In order to participate in the project, students needed to pass an entrance recruitment test. Based on outcomes, only the best performing students were accepted into the program (more than 50% correct answers). But based on wrong answers they were made (automatically via Moodle) to pass some small test on topics that they failed. For each topic there were prepared some materials (short movie - lecture and reading). Since this project was not compulsory, everything was made as a game (gamification) and for each passed topic, students got a badge. In normal classes, passing the topic at a certain minimum level should be compulsory for the pass.

Although the whole project was not compulsory, and in the end beside knowledge student got only diploma and small gift, passing rate (finishing all tasks) was almost 90% student that started the program. The reason for this was on the one hand topic (attractive), but on the other (based on feedback after) availability of materials for self-development combined with automatic testing heling attendees in identification of topics worth work.

 

Green, Anthony. "Placement testing." The Cambridge guide to language assessment (2012): 164-170.

McFate, Craig, and John Olmsted III. "Assessing student preparation through placement tests." Journal of Chemical Education 76.4 (1999): 562.

 

A curated selection of teaching tecniques and tools suitable for Collaborative Courses is listed in this Catalogue page

Theoretical Background

Higher education institutions are under pressure to innovate due to shifts in the job market and heightened competitiveness on a global and international level. This has resulted in an increasing demand for professional development for teachers. Multidisciplinary education is becoming more and more significant in engineering education, and it has many benefits for both professors and students. Teachers collaborate to create and instruct courses that integrate their areas of expertise and advance interdisciplinary education, as opposed to taking individual responsibility for a course. However, higher education institutions need additional details about their course design procedures in order to support teacher teams and their professional growth more effectively. It is in this context that most of the experiences of  co-teaching in the higher education reported in the literature are set.

In the following, a brief summary of the main results achieved in assessing the effectiveness, pros and cons of co-taught courses are reported.

Gast et al., (2020) compared the course design processes of two teacher teams in the context of a university-wide educational innovation. One team chose to create an interdisciplinary course, whereas the other chose to design a multidisciplinary course. Design conversations of these teams were analysed to study the similarities and differences. Both teams primarily focused on the same three design topics: the teaching practices, course organisation, and their own teamwork. Other important topics such as the specific characteristics of the student population were mostly neglected. When comparing the specific design acts of the two teams, the interdisciplinary team more often engaged in collaborative planning and adaption of the course and also engaged in more collective reflection compared to the multidisciplinary team. In doing so, the interdisciplinary team created more opportunities for professional development of its team members

Kim at al. (2016) report an experience of a lecturers team developed to tackle a key topic: computer control systems in nuclear power plants .A unique team-teaching model utilised with control system professors and nuclear field experts was applied to teach the two diverse subjects: computer safety and nuclear energy. The survey result from the first offering of the course showed a very positive response from the majority of the students about the team-teaching method and the knowledge acquired on the two subjects.

Marzocchi  et al (2016) report on a semester-long co-teaching investigation in which three mathematics teacher educators in the USA enacted a co-plan/co-teach credentialing model in the context of a mathematics content course. The mathematics teacher educators sought to examine the co-planning practices for improving the team teaching co-teaching strategy. Data were collected from the educators over fifteen weeks, including twice-weekly journal entries and classroom observation protocols. Utilising a first-person research study design, the mathematics teacher educators found that a co[1]planning strategy could be used to maximise resources and improve lesson cohesion during team taught lessons. In particular, the educators used co-planning meetings to divide lesson responsibilities by learning goal or by task.

Scribner-MacLean  et al (2011) focused in a co-teaching online environment. They show it has the potential to help more efficiently meet the needs of online learners and provide greater satisfaction for instructors. A well-trained pair of instructors can complement each other, meeting student needs in a timely manner, as well as providing students with the opportunity to view topics from different perspectives, and to gain more in-depth feedback about their work. Specific strategies for a successful online co-teaching experience, including: how to create a successful online learning community; achieve effective course management; provide systematic, in-depth assessment of student learning; and providing timely feedback were addressed.

Keeley et al. (2020) discussed the structure, opportunities, and pedagogical challenges of an interdisciplinary team-taught course on urban sustainability involving seven professors from six departments. The teaching team prioritised presenting and exploring diverse perspectives on urban sustainability, seeing a key learning objective of this course in students (1) learning to make links between disciplines; (2) having opportunities to reflect, disagree, share, and develop their own perspectives; and (3) developing a life-long engagement and openness with ideas and learning. To promote student learning and engagement in the class, active-learning and cooperative discussion techniques were adopted. Place-based pedagogical approaches were also used, to help the class focusing on the case-study A key finding was that large-team interdisciplinary courses require a strong lead instructor for coordination—both conceptually and administratively—and adequate institutional support for the unique and challenging endeavor.

Gono et al. (2023) tackled the issue of team teaching from a student learning perspective. The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and provide a synthesis of the inherent benefits of team teaching and how it positively contributes to students’ critical thinking skills, learning experiences and engagement. The authors show that through motivating students, providing clear communication, and involving students in the learning process, deeper engagement is needed. This is facilitated and enhanced by adopting a team-teaching pedagogical approach.

Vesikivi et al (2019) reported a case study related to Metropolia University of Applied Sciences. In 2014, the university implemented a fundamental change in its curriculum from small single topic into large credits multidisciplinary courses implemented by teacher teams. The paper focuses on how teachers of Information Technology programs experienced the reform. Research data include teacher feedback and opinions that were collected during training sessions and interviews. It was found that team teaching was a substantial change for teachers that raised concerns about time management, getting enough compensation for the work and possible loss of teacher autonomy. However, teacher teams that managed to overcome these challenges saw a variety of benefits in the new approach. Not only was team teaching seen as a means for providing students with the skills they need, but it also was discovered as a way to enhance the teacher’s own professional development.

Minett-Smith et al (2020) focused on the staff collaborating in team-teaching, considering their motivations and approach, to identify key challenges and opportunities. Results indicate that the changing landscape of higher education promotes innovative approaches to using existing team-teaching models rather than proposing new ones. It was found that the leadership dimension of the module leader role is highlighted, suggesting a need to explore and extend debates on developing academic leadership at all levels of academic employment. Consequently, the research contributed to provide additional perspectives on existing work relating to academic leadership, the changing academic role, increasing workloads and professional teacher identity.

Pears at al (2010) described a case-study of collaborative teaching: the Runestone project. It is a collaborative course for third year engineering students from a variety of programs. It allows students to experience the opportunities and challenges that international teamwork involves. Teams composed of students from two countries work intensively over a 10 to 13 week project on a case study. Pears at al explain how teaching and learning findings from engineering education research are used to arrive at an instructional design that aligns learning outcomes, with instruction and assessment to support student's learning outcomes development throughout the course. Interestingly, the evolution of the course over 12 years is reported (from with eight students to a large scale course with eighty students from five universities distributed over three continents and widely different educational and social cultures).

 

Wohlgemuth  et al (2019) and  Wohlgemuth  et al (2020) described a case-study of collaborative teaching: a transnational co-teaching project that partly relies on virtual distance learning across countries. The reported cours focuses on the real-life project of supporting small and medium sized enterprises in their international endeavours with the support of lecturers and student teams from the respective host countries as well as their home countries. The authors discussed advantages and disadvantages of cross-country and cross–HEI co-teaching in comparison to traditional teaching methods. Furthermore, the authors elaborated on the impact of virtual distance learning in comparison to in-class teaching at a single physical location. The paper provides lessons learned from the project that are beneficial for lecturers with and without international components in their teaching.


References


    Gast, I., McKenney, S., & Schildkamp, K. (2020). Collaborative course design in engineering education - a case study of teachers' design process.

    Gono, S., & de Moraes A.J. (2023). Student appraisals of collaborative team teaching: A quest for student engagement. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching.

    Keeley, M.A., & Benton-Short, L. (2020). Holding Complexity: Lessons from Team-Teaching an Interdisciplinary Collegiate Course on Urban Sustainability. Social Sciences.

    Kim, C., Jackson, D.A., & Keiller, P.A. (2016). Interdisciplinary Team-Teaching Experience For A Computer And Nuclear Energy Course For Electrical And Computer Engineering Students.

    Marzocchi, A.S., Druken, B.K., & Brye, M.V. (2021). Careful Co-Planning for Effective Team Teaching in Mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education.

    Minett-Smith, C., & Davis, C.L. (2020). Widening the discourse on team-teaching in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 25, 579 - 594.

    Pears, A., & Daniels, M. (2010). Developing global teamwork skills: The Runestone project. IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference, 1051-1056.

    Scribner-MacLean, M., Miller, H., & Riley, R. (2011). Strategies for Success for Online Co-Teaching.

    Vesikivi, P., Lakkala, M., Holvikivi, J., & Muukkonen, H. (2019). Team teaching implementation in engineering education: teacher perceptions and experiences. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44, 519 - 534.

    Wohlgemuth, V., Saulich, C., & Lehmann, T. (2019). Internationalising education – Cross-country co-teaching among European higher education institutions. 5th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'19).

    Wohlgemuth, V., Lehmann, T., & Ammeraal, A.N. (2020). Challenges in Higher Education Teaching Collaborations – a CAGE distance framework analysis. 6th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'20).