Key elements of team teaching
Published Jul 12, 2021 · Updated Feb 23, 2026
Team teaching can make a module stronger, for students and staff, but only when roles and expectations are clear. Drawing on staff experiences, Minett-Smith and Davis explore team teaching as a response to a changing environment in higher education (HE) in their article “Widening the discourse on team-teaching in higher education”. They also note that, while some drivers are circumstantial and contextual, others relate to subject specialisation, expertise, and deliberate pedagogical choices.
There are three main well-recognised strategies by which team teaching can be carried out:
Interactive or co-teaching model, where two or more lecturers share space and time during the course, actively participating and debating while presenting the content;
Participant-observer model, where two or more lecturers share space and time during the course, but interventions in one another’s presentations are rare; and
Parallel or sequential model, where lecturers teach only the sessions assigned to them, based on expertise or availability.
Although the latter is the most common, none should be considered superior to the others. The rewards and challenges are still comparable when team teaching is done well. The key is to be explicit about how you will plan, teach, and make decisions as a team.
Based on participants’ experiences and perspectives, some elements are highlighted to make team teaching a rewarding experience that supports students’ learning and fosters professional growth:
Instead of viewing team teaching as a way to cope with student-to-staff ratios and workload, it should also be considered a pedagogical choice. It not only helps distribute work, but staff have to be aware of the strategy to follow and share responsibility for students’ learning experiences, which helps avoid mixed messages.
A team grows through learning from one another and getting to know each other. For that reason, stability in teams should be considered, rather than selecting team members solely on availability, which can lead to short-lived groups and weaker collaboration.
While splitting the course into sections and allocating them to different members of staff can look like a fair distribution, it is worth discussing materials within the group, even if it takes longer. It can bring two positive outcomes: reflecting on your work with your peers and learning from other views; and knowing that, if unforeseen circumstances happen, there is backup to keep students’ learning progressing.
This does not mean that different roles cannot be played by different team members. Some may be responsible for planning, others for teaching and evaluation, and others for supporting students’ learning in a closer manner. That could be a great blend among the three strategies.
Every team has a captain and, in the case discussed here, the module leader has an important role to play. Although this role is frequently needed for organisational purposes in the institution, the module leader still has to be another team player. Being able to balance being in charge with shared responsibilities, and acknowledging everybody’s contribution while also leading a team with authority, requires training. It is also important that each member of the team is recognised for their individual contributions, so everybody feels aligned and paddling in the same direction.
Communication has to be clear, and it is best supported by established teams with enough time for planning, including consistency guidance for courses taught by multiple instructors. This means that issues can be discussed and, instead of direction being given to the group, it can be found by the group. This comes back to stability in the group and leadership as key factors.
Having clear channels of communication, recognising everybody’s contribution, finding the appropriate strategy, group stability, and sharing the motivation and rewards of team teaching are key elements for a satisfying team-teaching experience for everyone involved.
FAQ
Q: How is the effectiveness of team-teaching measured in higher education?
A: In higher education, the effectiveness of team-teaching is usually assessed using a mix of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Student surveys and feedback can capture satisfaction, engagement, and perceived learning, which helps institutions understand the student voice. Academic outcomes (for example, grades and completion rates) can also be reviewed, alongside peer observations of teaching behaviours and reflective self-assessment among staff. Using multiple sources helps build a more balanced view of how well team teaching is working.
Q: What specific challenges have faculty faced when transitioning to team-teaching models, and how were they addressed?
A: Faculty members transitioning to team-teaching models often face challenges such as aligning teaching methods, managing workload distribution, and maintaining effective communication. To address these issues, institutions may set aside structured planning time and regular team meetings to support open dialogue and collaboration. Clear agreements on roles, responsibilities, and teaching styles can help reduce friction and keep the team aligned towards common goals. Incorporating the student voice through feedback mechanisms also allows educators to adjust their approaches based on student needs and preferences.
Q: How does team-teaching impact students' learning experiences and outcomes compared to traditional teaching methods?
A: Team-teaching can create a richer learning environment by bringing multiple perspectives and areas of expertise into the classroom. It can also foster a more interactive atmosphere, which may increase student motivation and participation. When staff collaborate well, students may benefit from clearer support and stronger continuity across sessions, and they can see productive professional collaboration modelled in practice. Incorporating the student voice through feedback can help teams refine their approach and improve the overall learning experience.
References
[Source Paper] Catherine Minett-Smith & Carole L. Davis (2020) Widening the discourse on team-teaching in higher education, Teaching in Higher Education, 25:5, 579-594,
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1577814
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround
Related Entries
- Reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations
- The use of blended learning from the perspective of students
- Student voices in evaluation - motivations and perceptions