Learning Environments Research

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 53–65 | Cite as

Testing the efficacy of team teaching

  • Dick M. CarpenterIIEmail author
  • Lindy Crawford
  • Ron Walden
Original Paper


This study examines differences between team-taught and solo-taught sections of a graduate introductory course on research and statistics in terms of student perceptions and achievement. Factor analysis of survey data confirmed three factors: comfort with research and statistics; the relationship of research and statistics to work; and interest in research and statistics. Pre- and post-survey and achievement data were gathered, as were demographic data. T-test and MANCOVA results indicated: no significant achievement differences based on teaching format; a significant pre-post difference for all students on one factor (comfort with research and statistics); and only one significant difference (relationship between work and research and statistics) based on learning environment.


Collaborative teaching Cooperative teaching Co-teaching Post-secondary teaching Team teaching 


  1. Anderson, R. S., & Speck, B. W. (1998). Oh what a difference a team makes: Why team teaching makes a difference. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bord-Bowman, P. (1973). A comparative study in the teaching of Spanish through team teaching and supervised independent study. Modern Language Journal, 57, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colarulli, G. C., & McDaniel, E. A. (1990). Interdisciplinary general education: Five ways it promotes good freshman teaching and learning. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 2(1), 107–117.Google Scholar
  4. Cornett, J. D. (1970). Effect of a team approach in achieving the objectives of an introductory course in education. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 222–224.Google Scholar
  5. Crow, J., & Smith, L. (2003). Using co-teaching as a means of facilitating interprofessional collaboration in health and social care. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 17(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary and team teaching. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.Google Scholar
  7. Deighton, L. C. (1971). The encyclopedia of education. New York:Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Dupuis, V. L., & Woerdehoff, F. J. (1967). Team teaching in teacher education: A study of the differences in student achievement as determined by single-instructor and team-teaching instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 132–136.Google Scholar
  9. Easterby-Smith, M., & Olve, N. G. (1984). Team teaching: Making management education more student centered. Management Education and Development, 15, 221–236.Google Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald, S. M., & Jurs, S. J. (1996). A model predicting statistics achievement among graduate students. College Student Journal, 30, 361–367.Google Scholar
  11. Fu, G. S., & Chase, M. (1991). Team teaching as a form of staff development: When are two teachers better than one? Guidelines, 13(2), 81–87.Google Scholar
  12. Garner, A. E., & Thillen, C. (1977). Is your school of nursing ready to implement interdisciplinary team teaching? Journal of Nursing Education, 16(7), 27–30.Google Scholar
  13. George, M. A., & Davis-Wiley, P. (2000). Team teaching a graduate course. College Teaching, 48(2), 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gurman, E. B. (1989). The effect of prior test exposure on performance in two instructional settings. Journal of Psychology, 123, 275–278.Google Scholar
  15. Hatcher, T., & Hinton, B. (1996). Graduate students’ perceptions of university team teaching. College Student Journal, 30, 367–377.Google Scholar
  16. Hecht, J. B., Roberts, N. K., & Schoon, P. L. (1996). Teacher teams and computer technology: Do combined strategies maximize student achievement? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 318–328.Google Scholar
  17. Hong, E., & Karstensson, L. (2002). Antecedents of state test anxiety. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes, C. E., & Murwaski, W. A. (2001). Lessons from another field: Applying coteaching strategies to gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jurena, D. P., & Daniels, C. N. (1997, May). Two heads are better than one: Team teaching in the information age. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Nebraska Library Association, Crete, NE.Google Scholar
  20. Luckner, J. L. (1999). An examination of two coteaching classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 144(1), 24–34.Google Scholar
  21. McKinley, B. (1996). An example of team-taught inter-disciplinary classrooms. North Branch, NJ, Raritan Valley Community College.Google Scholar
  22. Morlock, H. C., Gaeddret, W. P., McCormick, N. B., Merens, M. R., Shaffer, L. C., & Zandi, T. (1988). A rotational format for team teaching introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 15, 144–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Needleman, J., & Leland, B. (1973). The team teaching alternative. CEA Forum, 4(2), 2–4.Google Scholar
  24. Norussis, M. J. (1985). SPSS-X advanced statistics guide. New York:McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Nudelman, J., & Schlosser, A. H. (1976). A team teaching strategy for composition. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 2, 167–172.Google Scholar
  26. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000). Attitudes toward statistics assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 321–340.Google Scholar
  27. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., Paterson, F. R. A., Watson, M. H., & Schwartz, R. A. (2000). Factors associated with achievement in educational research courses. Research in the Schools, 7(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  28. Paul, M. L., & McAndrews, L. J. (1991). Team teaching the voices of Central America. College Teaching, 39(1), 8–11.Google Scholar
  29. Pugach, M. C., Johnson, L. J., & Lilly, S. (1995). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools. Denver, CO: Love.Google Scholar
  30. Quinn, S. L. (1984). Team teaching: An alternative to lecture fatigue. Innovative Abstracts, 6(34), npn.Google Scholar
  31. Richardson, A. (1993). School-based teams help improve school learning environments. Schools in the Middle, 2(4), 26–29.Google Scholar
  32. Rinn, F. J., & Weir, S. B. (1984). Yea, team. Improving College and University Teaching, 32(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
  33. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., & Zimmermann, A. (2002). Coteaching/cogenerative dialoguing: Leaning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments Research, 5, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rumsey, D. J. (1999). Cooperative teaching opportunities for introductory statistics teachers. Mathematics Teacher, 92, 734–737.Google Scholar
  35. Schram, C. M. (1996). A meta-analysis of gender differences in applied statistics achievement. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schustereit, R. S. (1980). Team teaching and academic improvement. Improving College and University Teaching, 28(2), 85–89.Google Scholar
  37. Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Winn, J. A., & Messenheimer-Young, T. (1995). Team teaching at the university level: What we have learned. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18, 223–229.Google Scholar
  39. Zitelli, P. A. (1967). An evaluation of a cooperative teaching method in basic physical science as required of non-science majors. Science Education, 51, 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dick M. CarpenterII
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lindy Crawford
    • 1
  • Ron Walden
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Colorado at Colorado SpringsColorado SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations