Overcoming Current Challenges in Higher Education through Team Teaching

Abstract

Team teaching in online higher education courses provides an innovative approach to meeting the needs of students and enhancing the teaching experiences of instructors. In this study, two instructors collaborated to team teach a course in an online doctoral program; this article shares their experiences. A multi-method qualitative approach was utilized to explore the benefits and challenges of team teaching. Data included questionnaire responses from students, journal entries written by instructors, and interviews with program administrators. The findings offer possible solutions to common challenges in higher education today such as increasing costs, a need for professional development, and the necessity for instructors to support a diverse population of students. The study found that team teaching reduces isolation of instructors in online courses, increases content knowledge, and develops instructors’ teaching skills, providing meaningful professional development by combining classes without additional cost. Collaboration between instructors yielded benefits for students such as feelings of community and overall support. It energized the instructors and increased their pedagogical knowledge.

Keywords: team teaching, collaboration, community building, higher education, online learning, diversity, professional development

Introduction

Team teaching in higher education can take various forms, but at its core, it is a collaboration between two or more instructors who design course curriculum, deliver content, and assess student outcomes together. Multiple instructors provide varied expertise, specific skills, and diverse perspectives that enhance the teaching/learning experience through community building, increased attention to an array of student needs, and individualized support for learners. Team teaching “can offer unique benefits to students and teachers alike. Instructors say a collaborative model can deepen students’ critical-thinking abilities and make classes more interesting and engaging. Professors can also improve their teaching skills and gain new insights” (Abramson, 2023, para. 5) as it also offers opportunities for professional growth and increases instructor motivation and engagement.

The experiences of both the instructors and the students who participated in team teaching in an online doctoral class during this study reveal that it is a beneficial practice that increases instructor content knowledge, teaching skills, and collaboration with colleagues. While one goal of educator professional development (PD) is for administrators and institutions to receive a return on the investment in PD, team teaching can assist teachers in improving their teaching skills without the additional costs incurred by PD programs but rather produces significant gains following the method explored in the study of combining classes. Team teaching provides a natural environment for educators to learn from each other as the participants in this study did.

Despite the increase in online teaching during the pandemic, research on the topic is limited. This study highlights the online dimensions of team teaching in both synchronous and asynchronous delivery, thus adding to the scholarship on team teaching in a unique way. Educators comfortable and experienced in face-to-face teaching were forced to move to online classrooms when educational institutions closed due to COVID-19. They quickly learned that there was not a one-size-fits-all method of online teaching and learning; merely shifting the setting and applying technological resources was not enough. Educators had to undertake an epistemological change in their thinking and reorient how they decided what the essential knowledge of their courses would be, how students would access that knowledge, and the ways students would express their understanding of that knowledge (Gordon et al., 2016; Rogers-Shaw et al., 2018).

Martin et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review of research on online teaching and learning and revealed that studies on online collaboration focused on group learning rather than team teaching. Compounding the challenges educators new to online learning faced was the isolation imposed by the pandemic, a sense of isolation that this study shows can be mitigated in a team teaching situation. Hofer et al. (2021) did find the presence of Communities of Practice (CoP); however, Peimani and Kamalipor (2021) noted that in online settings, it was more difficult for educators to develop effective communication and interpersonal skills that engage students, although this study offers team teaching as one way to address communication issues.

The purpose of this study was fourfold: 1) to understand the experiences of students taking an online doctoral class that was planned and taught by two instructors; 2) to comprehend the instructors’ experience with team-teaching in an online classroom; 3) to provide recommendations to leaders of higher education interested in improving the diversity of perspectives, content, and design of online courses, while building community and professional growth through collaboration; and 4) to examine financially responsible strategies for good stewardship of resources; “whereas the benefits of team teaching have been widely researched, so far few findings exist regarding its value for doctoral education” (Thielsch, 2021). As online education continues to become more and more popular, instructors need to find effective ways to apply face-to-face instructional models to increase student learning (Williams et al., 2010). Unfortunately, to date there is a limited number of studies that examine the benefits of team teaching in online programs generally and even less post-COVID-19 in online doctoral programs. This study fills these gaps.

Online Team Teaching Study Background

The two instructors involved in this study decided to team teach a dissertation writing course when a class that was to be taught by the full time faculty member was canceled due to low enrollment. The cancellation was last minute, and she needed an additional class to teach. The other instructor was an adjunct who had taught the dissertation writing course several times over the past few years and agreed to team-teach the course. She had previous experience with team teaching during her earlier PK-12 career. The two instructors had worked together on dissertation committees and research projects. They had published articles together and were familiar with each other’s styles, temperaments, and methods.

The course was a required class in an online doctoral program in education at a mid-sized private university with a religious affiliation. It is located in the midwestern United States, but students attend virtually with both synchronous and asynchronous elements. The program highlights its attention to collaboration and social justice through its connections between research and practice that focus on developing leaders who will positively influence their organizations.

Although team teaching had never been done in the department, when the two instructors approached the director of the education doctoral program and the department chair, these leaders agreed to their experimenting with a team teaching model. The online course had been designed by the program to assist students who were beginning the dissertation process, and the materials were in the course management system. The adjunct professor had been involved since the inception of the course and participated in revising the curriculum over time. The course provided a unique opportunity for students as while the synchronous portion of the class was larger in size, the two instructors were able to increase student support and feedback through the optional writing sessions offered and the one-on-one tutoring options. Students were also connected with an expanded peer group with whom they could collaborate. A thorough literature review revealed the lack of substantial research on team teaching in online graduate education.

Literature Review

The literature related to two instructors working together on the same course revealed varied definitions and labels for team teaching with several formats in different settings, including online. The research on team teaching in higher education is limited, yet it supports diverse learners, creates community through collaboration, presents different perspectives, and offers professional growth opportunities. There are significant challenges with team teaching, yet there are also opportunities for achieving success in unique ways.

There is evidence that online team teaching is being explored, prompted by the need during the pandemic to question traditional pedagogical assumptions and teaching practices. Although there is still a dearth of studies on the topic, research has begun on online teaching across disciplines including in environmental public policy (Finley & Holt, 2022), chemistry (Kim et al., 2022), informational technology in a hybrid class (McKenzie et al., 2022), and education (Dennen et al., 2022). The lessons learned through research on team teaching in online courses can support the development of distance and hybrid graduate education that can be applied to the increasing number of online masters and doctoral programs for part-time students in professional fields.

Defining Team Teaching

Teacher collaboration in the classroom has been referred to by several names such as co-teaching, cooperative teaching, collaborative teaching, and team teaching (Krammer et al., 2018; Muehlbacher & Hagenauer, 2023). Thielsch (2021) provided a thorough definition of team teaching:

The term team teaching refers to teaching constellations in which two or more experts collaborate to provide substantial elements of the design, content, and assessment of a course for students, whilst sharing one (physical or virtual) teaching space. Thus, team teaching involves regular discussions about a specific course, desirable learning outcomes, and possible ways of instruction. It provides a space for academics to share ideas, discuss expectations, and review student behaviour. To do all this, members of a teaching team need to position themselves as experts in their discipline and as knowledgeable in the higher education context. (p. 474)

The term co-teaching is often used interchangeably with team teaching. Co-teaching occurs when two educators collaborate to create a learning community through shared planning, instruction, and assessment (Villa et al., 2013). Team teaching is a broader term that refers to the collaboration of teachers while co-teaching has a more specific definition that may refer to the collaboration between a teacher and a special education teacher or an expert teacher and an assistant or novice (Cook & Friend, 1995; Simons et al., 2020).

In contrast to PK-12 settings, the available literature on collegiate team teaching is limited in quantity and approach, focusing primarily on case studies, author experiences, and the disadvantages and advantages of team teaching (Morelock et al., 2017). Most of the studies regarding team teaching in higher education are limited in generalizability due to their small size of perspectives resulting from small sample sizes (Clark et al., 2021; Lock et al., 2018; López-Hernández et al., 2023; Thielsch, 2021). Co-teaching is more common in PK-12 than in higher education. Rooks et al. (2022) attributed the low rate of team teaching in higher education in North America to the expense of two instructor salaries and a professional culture that emphasizes individual expertise and control. However, groups can be merged in team teaching, and this can help prevent additional costs (López-Hernández et al., 2023). Despite these barriers, there has been an increase in team teaching at the collegiate level, which may be attributed to attempts to manage larger class sizes, workload requirements, the complexity of courses, and the desire to maintain a balanced course portfolio (Dang et al., 2022).

Team teaching is often seen as the most ideal form of co-teaching because of the equality in roles between teachers (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017), and it can be especially useful in the virtual classroom (Chizhik & Brandon, 2020). Due to the complexity of team teaching in an online environment, instructors need to be aware these courses require extensive planning, coordination, and support from those involved (Rajamma & Sciandra, 2020). A recent study by Coy and Miller (2023) revealed the importance of effective planning, sustained professional development, flexible environments, and redefining traditional teaching roles to succeed in the virtual classroom.

For this study, we have chosen to use the term “team teaching” rather than co-teaching because of the equal status of the two instructors in designing synchronous sessions, delivering the course content, and providing support and feedback to students. Throughout the term, instructors were “both in front of the entire class group and there [was] a lot of inter-action and dialogue between them” (Baeten & Simons, 2014). While truly effective team teaching requires the team members to learn the teaching style of their partner and develop delivery practices that capitalize on each member’s strengths and enhance the learning process for students, our past experiences as research partners enabled us to immediately meld our styles and share responsibilities (Baeten & Simons, 2014).

Online Team Teaching

Online team teaching in graduate education offers an innovative approach to collaborative pedagogy, enabling instructors from diverse disciplines or geographic locations to co-deliver courses. This method leverages the strengths of multiple educators, fostering interdisciplinary perspectives and enhancing the learning experience for students (Baeten & Simons, 2016). Effective online team teaching requires intentional planning, clear communication, and shared responsibilities to ensure a cohesive learning environment. Tools such as synchronous video sessions, collaborative platforms, and shared content repositories support seamless coordination among instructors. Team teaching promotes richer discussions and critical thinking, as students benefit from the varied expertise of their instructors (Baeten & Simons, 2016). However, challenges such as workload distribution, technological barriers, and alignment of teaching styles can arise, underscoring the need for structured collaboration and institutional support.

Online team teaching in higher education gained significant momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic, transforming instructional practices and collaboration among educators. The abrupt shift to remote learning highlighted the need for innovative teaching strategies that could address diverse student needs and ensure continuity in education (Hodges et al., 2020). Team teaching, facilitated by digital platforms, allowed instructors to pool their expertise, providing students with multidimensional perspectives and richer learning experiences. Post-pandemic, this approach has evolved further, becoming a vital part of hybrid and online course designs as institutions adopt more flexible models of instruction. The pandemic underscored the importance of adaptability, and team teaching now often incorporates asynchronous modules, co-facilitated discussions, and diverse assessment strategies. This shift not only promotes deeper learning but also prepares students for a collaborative and interdisciplinary workforce, reflecting the broader changes in higher education after COVID-19 (Hodges et al., 2020).

There is a considerable lack of research surrounding online team teaching. The impact of online team teaching on student engagement remains relatively unclear as previous studies have focused primarily on in-person learning (Ling & Naidu, 2023). But in their own experience, Ling and Naidu (2023) found that during online co-taught lessons, students were engaged behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally. Since online courses are structured differently than in-person classes, students need to learn how to adjust to the course load and cannot depend on the live meetings to structure their time (Wilson & Vanberschot, 2014). Both students and instructors need to adapt to the new learning environment. Effective online team teaching requires collaboration such as the exchange of content knowledge as well as the sharing of teaching methods and instructional beliefs (Clancy, 2022). Online teaching can be isolating for instructors, but introducing team teaching can provide opportunities for collaboration, such as sharing viewpoints or instructional strategies (Williams et al., 2010).

Some of the current issues in online learning include diversity in designed educational experiences, the need for more community and learner engagement, and equity considerations (Greenhow et al., 2022). As enrollment in higher education increases, there is a growing demand to support all learners (Fan et al., 2024). Online higher learning also continues to grow rapidly and calls for pedagogical considerations to make the learning experience more inclusive (Altowairiki, 2023). Students in online education need to feel like they belong to their institutions and that their instructors are responsive to their needs (Salama & Hinton, 2023). Instructors need to be able to adapt to the ever-changing modalities and platforms of online higher education to make connections with their students, which also means that they need to be experienced in different pedagogical approaches (Stojanovic & Biniecki, 2023).

Collaboration and Community Building

There need to be opportunities for students to learn collaborative skills as well as observe models of collaborative teaching (Lock et al., 2018). In the team-taught classroom, team teachers are required to collaborate through instructional responsibilities and decision-making (Chitiyo, 2017). Collaboration allows instructors to create innovative options for diverse learners (Cook & Friend, 2010). When instructors partake in successful conflict resolution, it improves their collaboration (Da Fonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017). When an instructor is motivated to be part of a cooperative team, it leads to successful teaching (Chanmugam & Gerlach, 2013). The team teaching approach can be used to give students a variety of learning experiences as they interact with multiple instructors who possess different expertise on the same subject matter (Salifu, 2021).

Having two collaborative minds in the classroom allows for multiple perspectives, teaching styles, and levels of experience (Anderson & Speck, 1998; Bacharach et al., 2008; Plank, 2013; Steele et al., 2021; Simons et al., 2020). At the same time, differing opinions and teaching pedagogies among instructors can become confusing obstacles to students (Baeten & Simons, 2014; Minett-Smith & Davis, 2020; Morelock et al., 2017; Simons et al., 2020). Clear communication between instructors can help alleviate disagreements. These diverging perspectives are an important asset to teaching teams (Steele et al., 2021). Disagreements can also be used as an opportunity to strengthen the teaching relationship if the instructors openly discuss and negotiate the tension (Lock et al., 2016). Having different teaching pedagogies can create contradictions and tension between instructors (Dang et al., 2022; Steele et al., 2021). These challenges can be overcome in the planning stage, so that they do not emerge later in class, during office hours, or through other interactions with students (Meizlish & Anderson, 2018).

The Benefits and Challenges of Team Teaching

While there can be drawbacks associated with team teaching, students agree that the benefits outweigh any drawbacks (Campbell et al., 2018). Team teaching is rewarding for students and instructors alike (Meizlish & Anderson, 2018). It can be satisfying for instructors to learn from the experience of a colleague (Thielsch, 2021). Examples of benefits include learning new instructional strategies and expanding their knowledge base on a subject (Bacharach et al., 2008). Team teaching has also been found to remedy burnout and cure teacher boredom (Buckley, 2000). Effective co-planning and the quality of the relationship increase the instructor’s perceived benefits of team teaching (Stefanidis et al., 2019). Team teaching can also be an opportunity for personal growth and change.

If students are going to benefit from the collaboration of team teaching, then they need to understand its purpose and effectiveness (Plank, 2013). Students who are unfamiliar with the concept of team teaching may be confused about course expectations (Morelock et al., 2017) like who they should approach to ask questions or who will be grading their work (Bacharach et al., 2008; Baeten & Simons, 2014; Plank, 2013). To avoid confusion, collaborating teachers should maintain constancy (Morelock et al., 2017) and clearly define their roles to their students (Money & Coughlan, 2016). Another benefit to team teaching is the increased availability of instructors to students (Bacharach et al., 2008; Dennen et al., 2022; Gono & Moraes, 2023), which allows students to get help when needed (Bacharach et al., 2010). Universities can reap benefits such as increased instructor and student satisfaction and staff retention, but to see these benefits, universities need to support the implementation of team teaching (Minett-Smith & Davis, 2020).

Not all teachers are on board with team teaching. Some teachers have felt that they needed to defend the team teaching models to their coworkers (Steele et al., 2021), but this lack of support may be due to the limited available research (Chitiyo, 2017). The participation of instructors in team taught classes is ultimately determined by institutional support and whether or not team teaching is presented as a valuable asset to higher education (Damiani & Drelick, 2024). Team teaching generates administrative challenges, but these can be avoided if institutions give proper support and outline practices to instructors (Cruz & Geist, 2019).

Methodology & Methods

The study was conducted using multiple qualitative methods, and the theoretical lens reflects sociocultural learning theory.

The Theoretical Framework of Sociocultural Learning Theory

While the focus of the work of Lev Vygotsky (1934/1986) was on child development, we apply his ideas on the sociocultural nature of learning to higher education and adult learning as our team teaching took place in an online doctoral program and offered unique learning opportunities not only to students but also to the instructors, who feel less isolated and learn effectively together in a developed social milieu. Vygotsky’s (1934/1986) sociocultural theory of human learning posited that learning is a social process within a community where social interaction leads to greater intellectual and social understanding, and “social context and social interaction with others serve as fundamental tenets of adult learners’ engagement with knowledge construction” (Rosser-Mims et al., 2017, p. 424), in this case, both the students and the instructors. The elements of team teaching that reflect Vygotsky’s (1934/1986) theory include the collaborative nature of learning where two instructors share knowledge and practice. Their dialogue about the course design, implementation of teaching practices, and support for students expands what they know and how their knowledge can be applied in the classroom. Instructors learn from one another as they each model their own best practices that then support the intellectual growth of their partner in building an effective skill set.

There are significant aspects of Vygotsky’s (1934/1986) concepts that can be applied to higher education learners, particularly the acknowledgement that these learners bring accumulated knowledge and life experience to the classroom where instructors facilitate learning rather than merely deliver information (Rosser-Mims et al., 2017). Vygotsky’s (1934/1986) Zone of Proximal Development and the idea of an expert guiding a novice also reflect the team teaching study as the instructor team worked collaboratively to move from “what I can’t do” to “what I can do with help” (ZPD) to “what I can do” where one instructor was an expert in the course while the other was teaching it for the first time. In the social collaboration of team teaching, team members start with their own understanding of their level of competence, recognition of their responsibility for their own learning, and a desire to learn through the collaboration. In this way, Vygotsky’s (1934/1986) ideas illustrate self-directed learning in adults.

Additionally, the collaborative framework of team teaching mitigates the isolation often associated with online education, particularly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, which exacerbated feelings of disconnection among both students and instructors (Hodges et al., 2020). Through consistent interaction and shared responsibilities, team teaching fosters a sense of community and professional camaraderie among instructors, providing emotional and intellectual support. For higher education learners, the sociocultural aspects of this approach are equally vital. Instructors model the benefits of collaboration, which not only align with Vygotsky’s (1934/1986) Zone of Proximal Development but also demonstrate the value of mutual learning. By engaging in a dynamic exchange of expertise, both novice and experienced instructors co-construct knowledge, emphasizing the importance of relational and social contexts in adult learning.

In team teaching, instructors feel less isolated as they collaborate on decisions about content, class management, curriculum delivery, and assessments. They become a community of two as they review each class in preparation before class and in self-evaluation after class. Working together leads to more socialization. As Rosser-Mims et al. (2017) argued, “Learning is enhanced when collaborative relationships are built between a novice learner and a more skilled peer” (p. 430). Vygotsky’s theory underscores the potential of team teaching to transform isolation into connection, making it particularly suited to the evolving landscape of higher education in a post-pandemic world.

Qualitative Research Using Multiple Methods

This study employed multi-method qualitative processes to collect and analyze data; “implementing a multi-method approach within a qualitative study requires the consideration of the study’s overall planning, theory, design, and results” (Vivek & Nanthagopan, 2021). As “well-designed and well-executed multi-method research has inferential advantages over research relying on a single method” (Seawright, 2016, p. 1), we decided to use autoethnographic journals, student surveys, and program leader interviews for data collection. The data was analyzed through a phenomenological lens that focused on the lived experiences of the instructors and the students.

Collaborative autoethnography is the study of a social phenomenon through the investigation of the researchers’ own experiences where “two or more researchers engage in a dialogue on their disparate histories in a given phenomenon” (Sawyer & Norris, 2012, p. 1). The phenomenon can relate to social interactions within a specific community, identity development as influenced by culture, or societal issues that may be political in nature (Bochner & Ellis, 2016; Ellis et al., 2011; Poulos, 2021).

Storytelling is an important piece of collaborative autoethnography, and it is also important for capturing the lived experiences of participants. Significantly, “data collection (storytelling) and analysis (discussion) overlap in form and content. Stories are shared around specific themes that provide dialogic framing” (Sawyer & Norris, 2012, p. 42); the dialogue between the two instructors was paramount to this study as a mode of learning and a data collection point through individual narratives relayed in journals. Student responses to open-ended survey questions and interviews with the Program Director and the Department Chair offered a means to expand data collection.

Setting

The study took place in an online course on dissertation writing in a Doctorate in Education (EdD) program on leadership at a mid-sized university in the midwestern United States. The program partners with 2U, an American education technology company that supports colleges and universities in creating, delivering, and supporting online programs.

The Learning Management System (LMS) the university employs is Canvas, a web-based program.

The course was designed with both synchronous and asynchronous elements. The synchronous learning involved a scheduled weekly 90-minute class on Zoom that all students attended. These synchronous sessions were led by the professors and included lectures, small group work, class discussions, interactive activities, and writing workshops with individualized support from the professors. The synchronous class session eliminated the feelings of isolation that both students and professors can feel in completely asynchronous courses. The professors often divided the lecture section of class and worked with small groups in breakout rooms. By sharing the delivery of the lectures and responses to student questions, the professors learned from each other as they listened to their partner describe the materials in words that may have been different from their own. Before each class, students were required to complete coursework asynchronously. These assignments included completing readings, responding to peers about the course materials in discussion forums, and working on various writing assignments.

Data Collection

Data collection included three online surveys created through Google Forms and distributed to all students in the course by an email with the survey link, one at the beginning of the term, one midway through the semester, and one at the conclusion of the course. The questionnaires contained consent materials and six to eight open-ended questions about their knowledge of team teaching, previous encounters with team teaching, feedback on their experiences in the course as it was taught by a team of instructors, and their evaluation of the successes and challenges of team teaching as they lived through it during the course. The questions included in the surveys are:

Questionnaire #1

1. Have you ever taken a course that was team-taught? When and where and in which program? Did you like it? Why and why not?
2. What do you think of team-teaching in general? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
3. How do you feel about taking a course that is team-taught?
4. What are your concerns, if any?
5. What are your hopes, if any?
6. What are your suggestions, if any?
7. If you are an educator, do you have experience team-teaching a course? Tell us about that experience.
8. If you are not an educator, do you have experience working with a partner to conduct a workshop or a training session? Tell us about that experience.

Questionnaire #2

1. Tell us about your experience so far in this course.
2. How has the team teaching aspect of the course affected your experience?
3. How, if at all, has the course met your expectations?
4. What, if any, are the weaknesses of the team-taught approach thus far?
5. What, if any, are the strengths of the team-taught approach thus far?
6. What are your suggestions for the rest of the semester?

Questionnaire #3

1. To what extent do you feel that team-teaching enhances your understanding of course content and concepts? Why?
2. In comparison to single-instructor courses, how would you rate your overall experience with team-taught online doctoral courses? Why?
3. In your opinion, does team-teaching provide a variety of perspectives and teaching styles that benefit your learning experience? Why?
4. Would you recommend team-teaching as an effective approach in online doctoral programs to other students? Why?
5. What suggestions do you have for improving the course as a team teaching model? Or do you think the course should not be taught by a team of facilitators in the future? Why?
6. Additional comments.

Out of forty-two surveys distributed to sixteen students, twenty-seven were completed and returned, meaning there was a 64% return rate.

Additionally, the two instructors kept journals throughout the term. The journals included meeting and collaboration agendas and notes, relevant course email, narratives from class sessions, individual thoughts on the processes, the challenges, and the successes, and responses to the following prompts:

1. What is team teaching? What was your understanding and definition of team teaching as you engaged with this research?
2. How, if at all, was the definition you used informed by previous experiences, by this team teaching process, by anecdotes you have heard about team teaching, or by the literature? What past teaching practices have you employed as a team teacher and why do you think they work well for both individual and team teaching situations?
3. What is your experience in this team teaching approach? What works and what does not, academically, personally, logistically? What has been the greatest benefit you have received from team teaching and what has been the greatest struggle?
4. Overall, how would you rate the experience as a team teacher?
5. What recommendations do you have? How is team teaching a potentially good model for online doctoral classes? What have you found to be the most different in your student interactions under team teaching rather than a typical class and what has been the most similar?
6. What are you doing differently each week as you plan for the team teaching class as opposed to what you did for a typical class where you are the sole instructor? What are you doing that is the same?
7. What are the stories from this class that you will continue to share in the future and how do these stories compare to your stories from individually taught classes?

The journals were created on shared Google Documents and totaled forty-two pages. Additionally, two interviews were completed with the doctoral program director and department chair where the survey findings were discussed, and the interviewees were asked four semi-structured questions including:

1. Our findings found that 100% of students who completed the questionnaire indicated that the team teaching style was beneficial in some way. More specifically, students enjoyed having multiple perspectives from two instructors. How can this idea of multiple perspectives be incorporated into the program?
2. Team teaching instructors can utilize their different levels of expertise to learn from one another as well as to model collaborative teaching to students. How, if at all, is collaborative teaching being utilized in the program? Are there opportunities for faculty to learn from each other? What methods are currently available to instructors for opportunities of professional development and growth?
3. Typical graduate courses rely on one instructor, rather than the team teaching approach. Students in the team-taught course felt like there was more accessibility and availability of instructors, which led to increased feelings of support. Do you think having a sole instructor leaves gaps in accessibility and student support? How can this be mediated in the best interest of students? How can the program utilize multiple forms of support?
4. One student cited a feeling of community within the classroom as a result of having a second professor. How can the program increase community between students in graduate-level courses?

The interviews were designed to relate the survey results of individual students from one class to the broader program.

Data Analysis

Data analysis included several steps. Survey results were tabulated and shared through an Excel spreadsheet. For comparison purposes, they were placed in categories based on emergent themes including the benefits of different perspectives, strengths of team teaching, weaknesses, concerns, effectiveness, suggestions for improvement, levels of support, visual collaboration of instructors, and comparisons to other courses.

The journals were analyzed inductively using the themes that emerged from the surveys. Overarching ideas included diversity and choice, access and support, collaboration, community, benefits for students and instructors, challenges for students and instructors, logistics and technical issues, and team teaching preparation. Each instructor first analyzed their own journal and then explored their partner’s journal. The team then discussed their individual findings and reached conclusions. The limitations of this study included the small sample size and the specificity of the population that prevents generalized conclusions.

Findings & Discussion

Several themes emerged from the data analysis revealing the benefits of team teaching in an online doctoral class. As higher education faces increasing demands on instructors, growing diversity in the student population, and funding challenges, it is clear that team teaching can provide some solutions. The return on investment (ROI) of team teaching in higher education can be evaluated across several dimensions: faculty development, student learning outcomes, institutional efficiency, and overall educational quality. While team teaching may initially require greater investment in terms of time and resources for planning and coordination, its long-term benefits often outweigh these costs.

Faculty Development

For instructors, team teaching provides opportunities for professional growth through exposure to new teaching strategies, feedback from peers, and collaborative problem-solving. This continuous learning enhances teaching efficacy and satisfaction, contributing to a more skilled and motivated faculty body.

Benefits of Instructor Collaboration

Collaboration through team teaching reinvigorates educators, creates community, offers professional growth opportunities and presents diverse perspectives. Collaboration is a social process; team teachers learning from each other within the class community and students learning from a team of teachers modeling collaboration increases knowledge acquisition through social interaction (Vygotsky, 1934/1986).

Increasing Energy through Collaboration.

Burnout is becoming an increasingly prevalent problem for instructors in higher education. Team teaching has been found to remedy burnout and cure teacher boredom (Buckley, 2000). Both instructors in the study mentioned feeling a sense of burnout prior to team teaching. Working with another instructor allowed for collaboration and an increase in motivation. The adjunct instructor wrote in her journal before the course began, “It’s a good thing that I’m team-teaching with the full-time instructor because I will be more motivated as a partner than if […] I was by myself.”

The instructors who collaborated together on this course maintained a strong relationship prior to implementing team teaching. When reflecting on our professional relationship, the full-time instructor reported “we know each other very well, we care about each other, and we are good friends. Because our friendship is important to us, I think we avoid conflicts.” The adjunct instructor echoed a similar statement, “I think the camaraderie is what was so important there […] we really got along well. We liked each other. We joked, complained, talked honestly, and supported each other.”

We had a basic understanding that maintaining our positive relationship was necessary for effective team teaching. The full-time instructor’s journal reflected, “What’s important to recognize, I think, is that team teaching is not just about the teaching part; it’s about the relationship between us too […] Two teachers supporting each other in the process of teaching is what is so valuable to the teachers, but it is also valuable to the students.” Continuing on, the full-time instructor reflected, “I think this is awesome to work that way, it is supportive, healing, and also interesting and creative and I feel that we all need that, including our students.” In an email after class, one student wrote, “The energy of our Monday class with you and (the full time instructor) is very helpful and comforting!” Team teaching provided a new, energizing experience for both students and instructors that was different from typical courses in the graduate program.

Team Teaching Enhances Creativity Among Educators.

In our case, team teaching fostered a sense of curiosity and creativity in both of us, reviving our love of teaching and learning. We both had years of experience teaching our classes, but we had not participated in team teaching in our higher education career. The adjunct expressed this sentiment when she said: “The greatest benefit has been the opportunity to try something new. I get bored rather easily, so I always like a new challenge. This was something I had never thought about before, and I liked the idea of trying it out.”

The full time instructor felt similarly after being on the tenure track and feeling burnt out. Team teaching allowed her to learn from her colleague while being creative and innovative, all qualities that she needed to keep going post tenure. She felt excited again about her job and her future in higher education. She summarized the idea of rejuvenation and renewed passion for teaching in her journal when she discussed the change in her attitude as she overcame her weariness that had resulted from the intense tenure process.

Team Teaching Benefits Scholarship

For both instructors, team teaching not only fostered creativity and rejuvenated us as educators, but also allowed us to learn a great deal from each other, and our scholarship benefited from our teaching collaboration. In our many conversations about the class, we often reviewed literature to suggest to students. As a result, the adjunct learned about an article the full time instructor uses when speaking about asset mindsets versus deficit mindsets. Yosso’s (2005) work “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth” intrigued the adjunct and after studying it, she decided to include Yosso’s ideas in her upcoming article on ableism, promoting an asset mindset for working, teaching, and interacting with people with a disability. The team teaching experience itself provided us with an opportunity to write and explain to others the benefits of team teaching in higher education. The adjunct stated: “I enjoyed the term and the team teaching experience. I always enjoy working with the full time instructor and I think we work together well so this seemed like an interesting opportunity to expand our collaboration. I like that it has given us a really interesting, publishable, contributing research project.” An additional benefit of team teaching was the different perspectives this approach presented for students.

Student Learning Outcomes

Team teaching enhances the depth and breadth of instruction by bringing together varied expertise and perspectives. This not only enriches the curriculum but also fosters critical thinking and interdisciplinary understanding among students, leading to improved academic performance and higher engagement levels. Studies have shown that collaborative teaching models can lead to better retention of knowledge and more meaningful learning experiences (Baeten & Simons, 2016).

Collaboration Creates Community

It can be difficult to create community in the online classroom. Team teaching can create a sense of community for both instructors and students. We found that our collaboration increased community in the classroom. The adjunct wrote, “It’s a significant value added for the students when we say something and the other teacher jumps in to clarify, add an example, and offer support.” Instructors built off of one another during the class sessions, which increased the feeling of community.

A common theme found throughout student feedback was an overall feeling of support as a result of having two instructors. One student explained, “I like how it makes the course feel more supportive. Having another person that is available to help answer questions, or assist is huge right now.” Since the course combined two sections, there was a larger cohort of students. Having an extra instructor allowed the course to maintain a low student-teacher ratio. One student mentioned that having a second instructor contributed to a sense of greater community, “I really like having a more community feel to the class – a [second] professor and a bigger group I think is helping to create that support network we need as we’re venturing into the writing of our dissertations.”

Instructors also felt a sense of community. Adding a second instructor to a course can decrease feelings of isolation in the online classroom. After finishing the course, the adjunct wrote in her journal “I also am grateful for the chance to work so closely with a friend and see how she does things and learn from her. I felt good that I could be a supportive friend.” Once again, the prior relationship between instructors proved beneficial for collaboration. When discussing creating community in the classroom, the department chair commented, “to help people enjoy each other and to enjoy the content is going to help everyone learn better.”

Multiple Sources of Instructor/Student Interaction

Students expressed their satisfaction with having two teachers “to go to with questions;” when students were dispersed to Zoom breakout rooms, we both consciously attended all small group discussions so that we could develop relationships with all students and emphasize that students could approach either teacher with questions and ask for feedback from either or both of us. As the full-time instructor said, “I like the idea of random breakouts, so not so much about my students and the adjunct instructor’s group because they are ours…. yes we will grade our own student papers, but still, I think the richness for them is to have the option to hear and ask both of us.”

While both instructors had experience in the dissertation writing process, the team teaching format was able to enhance the student experience. When a question arose that we did not have the expertise to provide an in-depth response, rather than suggest the student seek answers outside of class, through the literature for example, our team partner was often able to provide the answers. Student survey responses highlighted the importance of multiple perspectives to increase comprehension, stating that seeing “multiple perspectives is very helpful when having specific questions that your assigned teacher may not be able to answer.”

The choice of instructor to contact was highlighted as an important feature of team teaching as students who are working full time, managing family responsibilities, and studying for their doctorate at the same time valued options afforded them with two instructors; “if one professor doesn’t fit your need, then you can go to the other professor for support. [Choice] has been helpful to creating the best work possible.” Although one student pointed out the importance of consistency as well, saying, “I also preferred that, while there were two professors, having one designated to you and being the one doing the grading was also good because it kept a level of consistency.” Otherwise, “it can feel too hands-on with a greater teacher presence.”

Because this was a dissertation writing class, students found that besides the instructor feedback they received in class, the chair and members of their committee also offered feedback and sometimes it could all be overwhelming and stressful. We frequently mentioned that committee chair comments were the most significant, particularly when there was a difference of opinion, but this is an element of our team teaching experience that could use refining. However, it can also be the nature of the dissertation committee experience even without this course. In some cases, a lack of response from committee members left students struggling and managing feedback from the course instructors not only helped with their writing, but it offered students a model for dealing with future disagreements of committee members. One student said that two instructors were particularly helpful in sharing twice as many resources as students were figuring out the research process and trying to develop their own research identity. A combination of resources was also worthwhile for the instructors as we introduced each other to important materials of which we had not been previously aware, but which improved instruction.

Institutional Efficiency, Educational Quality, and Reputation

Institutions that adopt innovative teaching practices, such as team teaching, demonstrate a commitment to collaborative and inclusive education. This can enhance their reputation, attract high-quality students and faculty, and improve retention rates. While team teaching may require an upfront investment in scheduling and training, it can lead to efficiencies over time. For example, co-taught courses can serve larger and more diverse student cohorts while maintaining high educational standards. Moreover, team teaching prepares institutions for flexible delivery models, such as hybrid or fully online formats, which are increasingly in demand in a post-pandemic education landscape, particularly for working professionals (Hodges et al., 2020).

Collaboration Offers Professional Growth Opportunities

In the current world of higher education, there is a growing need for professional development. Adjunct faculty especially are often left out of these opportunities. Team teaching provides an opportunity for both new and veteran educators to learn from one another (Chizhik & Brandon, 2020). As team teachers participate in a dialogue about the teaching practices they will use in the course, they learn from one another and construct new knowledge and skills (Vygotsky, 1934/1986). In a study on team teaching in a doctoral program, Clark et al. (2021) found that implementing team teaching as a professional development exercise proved to be effective for both instructors and doctoral students. While team teaching can be an expensive form of professional development when two instructors with two salaries are assigned to one class, it provides the benefit of adding more innovation than a typical course (Wilson & Vanberschot, 2014). The cost can be reduced by combining classes. While it cannot replace other forms of professional development, research shows that one of the most significant benefits of team teaching is its impact on teacher learning (Buckingham et al., 2021). In our experience, the collaboration in team teaching enhanced our creativity as educators, provided professional learning opportunities, and even indirectly benefited our scholarship.

Team Teaching Provides Overt and Covert Professional Development

Unlike in PK-12 schools where professional development (PD) is expected, mandated and organized, PD is rarely offered to educators in higher education institutions. When PD is offered, instructors have to navigate conflicting schedules with classes, committee meetings, and scholarship forums. As a result, instructors, particularly adjuncts and junior faculty, are seldom learning about teaching and learning with their peers within PD events and activities. With the national drop of enrollment in higher education institutions and resulting increased budget constraints, PD offerings and conference travel are likely to be less available to educators. In our team teaching experience, we were both looking forward to learning from each other implicitly and explicitly. The full time instructor learned from the adjunct by listening to her in class, by asking questions during weekly preparation time, and by observing her as a facilitator. In other words, she learned both content and teaching skills. In terms of the content, she recalled asking the adjunct to teach about the difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks so she could hear and see how to give a clear explanation with examples while also adding new literature to her toolbox to support her learning and the students’ education.

Team Teaching Presents Multiple Perspectives

There are several ways that team teaching provides students with different perspectives including: instructor expertise and personality, teaching styles that affect content delivery and course design, and access to and substance of feedback. Thielsch (2021) pointed out there are a “variety of perspectives that may enter a course when more than one person teaches. Whether adding interdisciplinary perceptions or differing academic views, team teaching can enrich discussions on a topic and support the learning processes of students” (p. 474). In the surveys, students responded positively to the presence of multiple perspectives throughout the course stating:

“We were able to receive insight and direction from two scholarly perspectives.”

“I believe it can be beneficial to have multiple perspectives or teaching styles.”

“It is nice to have multiple experts to talk with and hear different perspectives.”

“I was glad to have multiple perspectives as part of the learning process and experience.”

The results of this study support the argument that team teaching has positive benefits.

Varying Personalities and Compounded Expertise

One student commented mid-term that a strength of the course was “having multiple perspectives, more professors to learn from.” Students recognized in real time that instructors have different strengths and unique backgrounds, but their “collective skills met student learning needs.” While in our case, we could share research examples from different fields (such as cultural competency and disability), varied research theories we have used (such as learning transfer and critical feminist theory), and multiple methods for data collection and analysis, we could not cover the entire range of research learning. Students suggested ways to improve the team matching in the future; one student said “look at team-teaching pairs that are more different in style and research background. Having both facilitators being qualitative researchers made it more difficult for me as I was conducting quantitative research.”

While this is an excellent point, often teams are developed through personal friendships, teaching availability and previous knowledge, or program needs. As “the relationship between both teachers can have an impact on the advantages in team teaching constellations. It may amplify or reduce a teams’ teaching success …. support or impede professional development for its members” (Thielsch, 2021, p. 474–475), the fact that we had a previous working relationship and friendship was critical.

To address the gaps, it was important for us to be conscious of sharing where we had expertise and where we did not. Our success in this area was clear in the student statement: “They were transparent about what they knew best and what areas they could support best. Either way, you can get what you need from both of them.” Different teachers also provided flexibility given different student learning styles and schedules. A student said, “I like the team approach better. I feel that you can get access to them for ideas and direction on your assignments. I feel that there is more flexibility provided.” Another student commented, “I liked the team teaching model more due to the flexibility offered.” Flexibility is especially important for doctoral students who are working full time and managing family and work responsibilities.

Differences in Delivery and Design

The surveys revealed that “splitting up the ‘lecture’ during the live sessions” was advantageous as students found it more engaging than a traditional lecture format. This reflected the design of our team teaching approach where we divided the lecture into segments intentionally based on our own strengths and each presented in areas of expertise. Research on collaborative teaching has shown “that teachers in higher education appreciate the plurality of educational approaches which become visible when working in a teaching team” (Thielsch, 2021, p. 474) where new teaching styles and ways to motivate and engage students spark self-evaluation of teaching practices as “shared teaching experiences offer reflective impulses that may enhance one’s teaching competencies through learning from and with each other” (Thielsch, 2021, p. 475). We found that being able to hear two different sets of words, our own and our partner’s, to explain difficult concepts in itself was positive. We were more reflective of our own teaching as we offered a response to student questions and realized when our team partner followed up that we had not explained the ideas in a way that all students understood clearly. It provided us with the opportunity to reflect and change.

Curriculum content and design reflects another need for varied approaches to teaching and learning. The Program Director commented that originally, “our courses were developed … more as a single course lead approach, so one person did the majority of the course development and recordings … it does kind of limit the perspective that students get.” In the recent curriculum work the program is completing, there is now a group based approach that they hope will offer diverse perspectives. While the course at the center of our study had been designed by one person, the adjunct instructor had taught it for several years and revisions were made over time. Since the full-time instructor had not taught the course previously, the design followed was generally the original format, but we concentrated on varying the content materials and delivery methods to include diverse perspectives. This could be built upon in future reiterations of the course.

Conclusion

There are several implications for practice and opportunities for future research stemming from this study. The arrival of the pandemic and its effects on instruction in higher education brought challenges and forced change; however, it also encouraged an examination of traditional assumptions about teaching and learning. It offered new opportunities for rethinking what has always been done and increased strategic decision-making (Rapanta et al., 2021). Exploring how team teaching can assist in managing current difficulties in higher education is an area that offers those opportunities, particularly in an online setting. Team teaching provides instructors with the chance for reimagining their roles, employing different methods of content delivery, and using varied techniques for supporting diverse students (Rapanta et al., 2021). Team teaching experiences enhance creativity that can improve teaching and learning. In collaborative situations when team partners with different expertise take varying positions of both novice and skilled peers, learning increases (Vygotsky, 1934/1986).

This study is limited due to the small sample size and the particularity of the setting in an online doctoral program. Future research can expand on the foundation of this article to examine leadership roles in a team teaching partnerships, study how team teaching can prepare novice instructors to teach effectively and contribute more purposefully to higher education programming, and to establish more inclusive learning environments through the presentation of multiple perspectives. An examination of what pedagogies and instructional styles are most effective in team teaching and how they can be replicated in single instructor classrooms to improve student learning is another area for future study. While today “many of the dramatic changes in society are fueling faculty burnout, high turnover, and political attacks on academic freedom” (APA, 2024), innovative uses of team teaching may help to alleviate these problems and should be explored.

In conclusion, team teaching in online doctoral programs emerges as a powerful strategy to address many of the current challenges facing higher education. By fostering collaboration between instructors, this approach enriches the learning experience for students while simultaneously offering valuable opportunities for faculty professional development. This study highlights that team teaching can combat isolation among instructors, deepen content expertise, and provide meaningful pedagogical growth without incurring additional costs if classes are combined. For students, the presence of multiple instructors leads to a more dynamic and supportive learning environment, promotes engagement, enhances critical thinking, and creates a stronger sense of community. Furthermore, team teaching offers a financially sustainable model if classes are combined that can enhance educational quality, institutional efficiency, and adaptability, making it a compelling choice for higher education institutions striving to meet the evolving demands of both students and faculty. As online education continues to expand, particularly in graduate programs for working professionals, further research into team teaching’s impact on education, particularly in post-pandemic contexts, will provide valuable insights for refining and scaling this innovative model in the future.

References

Abramson, A. (2023, October 1). Best practices in team teaching. Monitor on Psychology, 54(7), 71. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/10/team-teaching-best-practices

Altowairiki, N. F. (2023). Universal Design for learning infusion in online higher education. Online Learning, 27(1), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3080

American Psychological Association (APA). (2024, January 1). Higher education is struggling: Psychologists are navigating its uncertain future. Monitor on Psychology, 55(1), 48. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/01/trends-higher-education-challenges

Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v5i3.1298

Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through co-teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538

Baeten, M., & Simons, M. (2014). Student teachers’ team teaching: Models, effects, and conditions for implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.010

Baeten, M., & Simons, M. (2016). Student teachers’ team teaching: how do learners in the classroom experience team-taught lessons by student teachers? Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1135226

Bochner, A., & Ellis, C. (2016). Evocative autoethnography: Writing lives and telling stories. Routledge.

Buckingham, L. R., López-Hernández, A., & Strotmann, B. (2021). Learning by comparison: The benefits of co-teaching for university professors’ professional development. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 776991. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.776991

Buckley, F. J. (2000). Team teaching: What, why, and how? Sage.

Campbell, E. L., Reedy, A. R., Baird, M. J., & Baird, D. M. (2018). Better together: Co-teaching in undergraduate applied psychology courses. Psychology Teaching Review, 24(2), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsptr.2018.24.2.3

Chanmugam, A., & Gerlach, B. (2013). A co-teaching model for developing future educators’ teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(1), 110–117. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016491

Chitiyo, J. (2017). Challenges to the use of co-teaching by teachers. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(3), 55–66. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1163186.pdf

Chizhik, E. W., & Brandon, R. R. (2020). Making virtual co-teaching work in a Covid-19 environment. Issues in Teacher Education, 29(1–2), 142–148. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1281987

Clancy, E. (2022). An investigation into the relationship between co-teaching and student statements [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland]. DRUM. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/28986

Clark, C. M., Olson, K., Hacıfazlıoğlu, O., & Carlson, D. L. (2021). Community of practice among faculty team-teaching education doctorate (Ed.D.) students: A reflective study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16, 379–393. https://doi.org/10.28945/4775

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching mentor lines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v28i3.6852

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2010). [See Cook & Friend, 1995 — verify year with author if cited as 2010 in text.]

Coy, K., & Miller, L. R. (2023). Co-Teaching in a digital world: It’s not teaching by title, it’s teaching by talent. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 52(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395231197675

Cruz, L., & Geist, M. J. (2019). A team teaching matrix: Asking new questions about how we teach together. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 12(1), 1–15. https://www.researchgate.net/

Da Fonte, M. A., & Barton-Arwood, S. M. (2017). Collaboration of general and special education teachers: Perspectives and strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693370

Damiani, M., & Drelick, A. (2024). Co-teaching in teacher preparation: Programmatic priorities, promising practices, and potential pitfalls. Journal of Special Education Preparation, 4(3), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.33043/9fn8gca2

Dang, T. K. A., Carbone, A., Ye, J., & Vu, T. T. P. (2022). How academics manage individual differences to team teach in higher education: A sociocultural activity theory perspective. Higher Education, 84(2), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00777-6

Dennen, V. P., Bagdy, L. M., Arslan, Ö., Choi, H., & Liu, Z. (2022). Supporting new online instructors and engaging remote learners during COVID-19: A distributed team teaching approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54, S182–S202. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1924093

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 273–290. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23032294

Fan, S., Trimble, A., Kember, D., Muir, T., Douglas, T., Wang, Y., Masters, J., & Mainsbridge, C. (2024). Supporting engagement and retention of online and blended-learning students: A qualitative study from an Australian university. Australian Educational Researcher, 51(1), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00605-5

Finley, J. B., & Holt, K. (2022). From dinosaur to bears ears: Engaging Utah’s public lands via interdisciplinary inquiry and experiential learning. In Ecopedagogies (pp. 106–117). Routledge.

Gono, S., & de Moraes, A. J. (2023). Student appraisals of collaborative team teaching: A quest for student engagement. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6, 222–233. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.26

Gordon, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2016). Universal design for learning. CAST Professional Publishing.

Greenhow, C., Graham, C. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2022). Foundations of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2090364

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Hofer, S. I., Nistor, N., & Scheibenzuber, C. (2021). Online teaching and learning in higher education: Lessons learned in crisis situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 121, 106789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106789

Kim, Y., Han, J. Y., & Fung, F. M. (2021, December). Does team teaching improve student engagement in an age of digital learning. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology & Education (TALE) (pp. 910–914). IEEE.

Krammer, M., Rossmann, P., Gastager, A., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2018). Ways of composing teaching teams and their impact on teachers’ perceptions about collaboration. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1462331

Ling, L. Y., & Munusamy Naidu, K. B. (2023). Online co-teaching in higher education: Prospects, drawbacks, and the way forward. Journal of Institutional Research Southeast Asia, 21(1), 25–49. http://www.seaairweb.info/journal/articles/JIRSEA_v21_n01/JIRSEA_v21_n01_All.pdf

Lock, J., Rainsbury, J., Clancy, T., Rosenau, P., & Ferreira, C. (2018). Influence of co-teaching on undergraduate student learning: A mixed-methods study in nursing. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 6(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.6.1.5

López-Hernández, A., Buckingham, L. R., & Strotmann, B. (2023). Enhancing learning-oriented assessment through co-teaching in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 79, 101307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101307

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009

McKenzie, S., Hains-Wesson, R., Bangay, S., & Bowtell, G. (2022). A team-teaching approach for blended learning: An experiment. Studies in Higher Education, 47(4), 860–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1817887

Meizlish, D., & Anderson, C. (2018). Teaching in teams: A planning guide for successful collaborators. CRLT Occasional Paper No. 37. University of Michigan: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED586355.pdf

Minett-Smith, C., & Davis, C. L. (2020). Widening the discourse on team-teaching in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(5), 579–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1577814

Money, A., & Coughlan, J. (2016). Team-taught versus individually taught undergraduate education: A qualitative study of student experiences and preferences. Higher Education, 72(6), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9976-5

Morelock, J. R., Lester, M. M., Klopfer, M. D., Jardon, A. M., Mullins, R. D., Nicholas, E. L., & Alfaydi, A. S. (2017). Power, perceptions, and relationships: A model of co-teaching in higher education. College Teaching, 65(4), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2017.1336610

Muehlbacher, F., & Hagenauer, G. (2023). Team teachers’ emotions and their antecedents in the classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 49(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2023.2293634

Peimani, N., & Kamalipour, H. (2021). Online education and the COVID-19 outbreak: A case study of online teaching during lockdown. Education Sciences, 11(2), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020072

Plank, K. M. (2013). Team teaching. IDEA Paper No. 55. IDEA Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565283.pdf

Poulos, C. N. (2021). Conceptual foundations of autoethnography. In C. N. Poulos, Essentials of autoethnography (pp. 3–17). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000222-001

Rajamma, R. K., & Sciandra, M. R. (2020). Planning and implementing a graduate online team-taught marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(2), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318786336

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2021). Balancing technology, pedagogy and the new normal: Post-pandemic challenges for higher education. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 715–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1

Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellman, D. J., & Choi, J. (2017). Universal Design for Learning: Guidelines for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning, 29(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159517735530

Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellman, D., Kroth, M., & Choi, J. (2022). Profound learning through universal design. eLearn 2022(11). https://doi.org/10.1145/3576936.3569094

Rooks, R. N., Scandlyn, J., Pelowich, K., & Lor, S. (2022). Co-teaching two interdisciplinary courses in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 16(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2022.160208

Rosser-Mims, D., Dawson, G., & Saltiel, I. M. (2017). Vygotsky’s influence on adult and higher education. In V. Wang (Ed.), Theory and practice of adult and higher education (pp. 423–438). Information Age Publishing.

Salama, R., & Hinton, T. (2023). Online higher education: Current landscape and future trends. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(7), 913–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2200136

Salifu, I. (2021). Exploring co-teaching as a trend in higher education. College Teaching, 69(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2020.1838426

Sawyer, R. D., & Norris, J. (2012). Duoethnography: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford University Press.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2017). Making inclusion work with co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916685065

Seawright, J. (2016). Multi-method social science: Combining qualitative and quantitative tools. Cambridge University Press.

Simons, M., Coetzee, S., Baeten, M., & Schmulian, A. (2020). Measuring learners’ perceptions of a team-taught learning environment: Development and validation of the Learners’ Team Teaching Perceptions Questionnaire (LTTPQ). Learning Environments Research, 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09290-1

Steele, J. S., Cook, L., & Ok, M. W. (2021). What makes co-teaching work in higher education? Perspectives from a merged teacher preparation program. Issues in Teacher Education, 30(1/2), 4–31. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1337912.pdf

Stefanidis, A., King-Sears, M. E., & Brawand, A. (2019). Benefits for co-teachers of students with disabilities: Do contextual factors matter? Psychology in the Schools, 56(4), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22207

Stojanovic, M., & Biniecki, S. M. Y. (2023). Training adult education researchers in a remote doctoral program: Experiences, reflections, and suggestions for moving forward. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society.

Thielsch, A. (2021). Team teaching in doctoral education: Guidance for academic identities on the threshold. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(3), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1899158

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2013). A guide to co-teaching: New lessons and strategies to facilitate student learning (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.

Vivek, R., & Nanthagopan, Y. (2021). Review and comparison of multi-method and mixed method application in research studies. European Journal of Management Issues, 29(4), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.15421/192119

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)

Williams, J. B., Evans, C., & Metcalf, D. (2010). Team teaching: A collaborative approach to effective online instruction. National Teacher Education Journal, 3(3), 33–38.

Wilson, B. G., & VanBerschot, J. L. (2014). Co-teaching an online action research class. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 40(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2KW20