Key elements of team teaching
Updated May 28, 2026
Team teaching can give students access to more expertise, more perspectives and better continuity across a module. It can also confuse students if staff appear disconnected from one another. Minett-Smith and Davis's work is helpful because it treats team teaching as a deliberate pedagogical choice, not just a staffing arrangement.
The practical question is simple: are students experiencing a joined-up course, or a sequence of separate staff contributions?
What the paper shows
The authors describe three common models. In interactive or co-teaching, two or more lecturers share the same teaching space and actively contribute during sessions. In the participant-observer model, staff share the same space but intervene less often. In the parallel or sequential model, staff teach separate sessions based on expertise or availability.
No model is automatically best. A sequential model can work well if the module is carefully coordinated. A co-teaching model can work poorly if roles are unclear. What matters is whether the team has agreed how planning, delivery, student support and assessment will work.
The paper also highlights the importance of stability. Teams that work together over time can learn one another's strengths, develop shared expectations and respond more consistently to students. Teams assembled only around availability may struggle to build that trust.
Planning is another central issue. Dividing the module into sections may look efficient, but it can leave staff unaware of how their part connects to the rest. Shared discussion of materials takes time, but it helps staff align messages, avoid duplication and cover for one another when needed.
The module leader has a difficult role. They need to coordinate the team and make decisions, while still recognising the expertise of colleagues. That balance needs support and training. Leadership in team teaching is not just administration; it shapes the quality of the student experience.
What universities can do with this
Teams should choose the teaching model before the module starts. Students do not need to know every internal detail, but they should understand who is responsible for what, where to ask questions and how different parts of the course fit together.
Shared planning time should be treated as part of the teaching work. Without it, staff may deliver good individual sessions that do not form a coherent module. Planning should cover learning outcomes, assessment expectations, student support, handover points and communication norms.
Recognition matters too. If team teaching is valued only as workload cover, staff may not invest in the collaboration. Institutions should recognise planning, coordination and peer learning as real teaching work.
Student voice data can show where team teaching is working. Useful signals include comments about consistency, clarity, staff availability, mixed messages and whether students benefit from multiple perspectives. Those comments can guide team development more effectively than a generic satisfaction score.
Limits of the evidence
Team teaching is highly context dependent. The right model will vary by discipline, class size, timetable and staff expertise. The transferable lesson is that team teaching needs intentional design. Students notice when the staff team has not planned as a team.
FAQ
Q: Is team teaching mainly a way to manage workload?
A: It can help distribute work, but it should not be reduced to workload management. The strongest case is pedagogical: students benefit from coordinated expertise and multiple perspectives.
Q: Which model is best?
A: There is no universal best model. Co-teaching, participant-observer and sequential models can all work if roles, planning and communication are clear.
Q: What should students be told?
A: Students should know who leads the module, who teaches which elements, where to ask questions and how the parts of the course connect.
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