Gatliff & Wendel (1998)...Inter-Instititional Collaboration and Team Teaching

8/13/2019 Gatliff & Wendel (1998)...Inter-Instititional Collaboration and Team Teaching

1/14

This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University]On: 12 June 2013, At: 10:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

American Journal of Distance

EducationPublication details, including instructions for

authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Inter

institutionalcollaboration and team

teachingBee Gatliff

a& Frederick C. Wendel

b

aProgram Specialist in the Department of

Academic Telecommunications, University of

NebraskaLincoln, 334 Nebraska Center for

Continuing Education, Lincoln, NE, 685889805 E-mail:bProfessor in the Department of Educational

Administration, University of NebraskaLincoln,

1215 Seaton Hall, Lincoln, NE, 685880638 E-mail:

Published online: 24 Sep 2009.

To cite this article:Bee Gatliff & Frederick C. Wendel (1998): Interinstitutional

collaboration and team teaching, American Journal of Distance Education, 12:1,26-37

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649809526981

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649809526981http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649809526981http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20


2/14

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs ordamages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloa

dedby[MichiganStateUniversity]at10:3812June

2013


3/14

THE AMERICAN JOURNA L OF DISTANCE EDU CATIONVol. 12 No. 1 1998

Inter institutional Collaborationand Team Teaching

Bee Gatliff and Frederick C. WendelAbstract

Inter-institutional collaboration and team teaching can enhance dis-tance education. Limited human and financial resources and thequality of teaching, learning, research, and course offerings can allbe maximized by the collaborative sharing of resources. Collabora-tive relationships can be difficult to start and keep on track;however, the potential benefits to institutions of higher education,students, and faculty warrant thorough investigation. The triad ofinter-institutional collaboration, team teaching, and distance educa-tion presents a multiplicity of issues that must be considered andplanned for before initiating prog rams. W ithin each element exists aset of inhibitors that could undermine a valuable program if not rec-ognized and dealt with in advance. Of particular interest to thosewho are new to distance education or collaborative relationships,this paper discusses several issues that should be considered in theplanning process to avoid potential roadblocks and to maximizereturns.IntroductionAdvances in telecommunications are rapidly making possible, in waysthat were unavailable just a few years ago, an expansion of educationalofferings beyond the traditional campus. As decision-makers at institu-t ions weigh the advantages , disadvantages , costs , and benef i ts ofdistance education, they m ay want to think inter-institutionally as w ell asintra-institutionally. Through a review of the literature, this paper exam-ines the benefits and complexities of inter-institutional collaboration andteam teaching as they relate to distance education. Specific attention ispaid to essential considerations and planning necessary prior to the com -mencement of a distance education project, including inter-institutionalcollaboration and faculty teaming across institutional lines. Resourcesavailable on the World Wide Web are listed at the end of this article,especially for the benefit of those new to distance education or thosewho may be considering inter-institutional collaboration.

26

Downloadedby

[MichiganStateUniver

sity]at10:3812June20

13


4/14

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

Inter institutional CollaborationInstitutional Benefits. Collaboration between institutions of highereducation can have positive effects on teaching and learning (McIntoshand Shipman 1996; Miller 1995). Institutional sharing can maximizelimited resources, course offerings, teaching, learning, and research.Institutional administration and regulatory boards have espoused thebenefits of inter-institutional collaboration in response to the concerns ofreducing duplication, maximizing the use of limited hum an and financialresources, and increasing enrollments in under-enrolled courses. Olcott

(1992) also cited positive benefits for institutions which include learneraccess, program articulation, and integration of alternative instructionaldelivery systems through inter-institutional sharing.Essential Considerations.Prior to the initiation of a collaborative pro-ject, two essential issues should be considered at the institutional level.First, institutions should have a solid distance education foundationestablished, which includes a supportive infrastructure for faculty and

students. Support and leadership at the institutional level are critical ifdistance education is to be integrated into the mainstream academic cul-ture. Gellman-Buzin (1987) stated that telecommunications will notsucceed in any organization without top level support. Administrators atthis level must have a vision for distance education. The breadth anddepth of their vision w ill guide decision mak ing for programs.A supportive infrastructure for faculty should include a review pro-cess to reward participation in distance education, financial resources for

on-going technological program development, and administrative sup-port (Sherry 1994). Olcott and Wright (1995, 15) further discussed theneed for faculty support, focusing on the issue of faculty compensation:The integration of distance education into mainstream higher educa-tion compels postsecondary institutions to reduce existing barriers tofaculty participation by compensating, rewarding, and training facultyat levels commensurate with those of traditional instructional activi-ties and to provide instructional and administrative support servicesdesigned to ensure student access to high-quality instructional pro-grams.Institutions must be committed to the collaborative ideal and providefinancial support that includes stipends or load credit for faculty mem-bers. Administrators must realize that to persuade faculty members to

7

Downloadedby

[MichiganStateUniversity]at10:3812June20

13


5/14


6/14

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

whole (Olcott 1992). The member institutions must lay the groundworkat the beginning of a collaborative project, which will set the stage forthe effective collaboration of teaching tea m s. Th is foundation shouldinclude:

Identifying the stakeholders, and including them in the planningprocess; Identifying the political dynamics; Establishing good communication; and Estab lishing leadersh ip (Nation al Ne two rk for Co llaboration

1995).Technology at the Institutional Level. An understanding of how tech-nology fits into the mission of the institution and into distance educa tionmust be nurtured (Farmer 1995). Prior to entering into a collaborativeagreement, each institution should be committed to technological pro-gramming that reflects quality and effectiveness. Technology is an

integral part of distance education; however, the focus must be on theinstructional needs of the students rather than on the technology itself.Availability and compatibility of delivery systems between institutionsmust be examined thoroughly at the outset. Further, faculty experienceand technical support are critical components to be considered. The tech-nology chosen must be readily available to and understandable bylearners, and also facilitate interaction among students and instructors(The Institute for Academic Technology 1996).Inter institutional Team Teaching

Benefits. Inter-institutional teaming offers many advantages. Teachersshare plans, creative ideas, experiences, materials, methods, and insightin the planning, delivery, and evaluation of their courses (Sybouts 1967;Gay and Ross 1994; Hawkes 1996). By combining efforts, faculty fromdifferent institutions can expand course offerings and provide thosecourses to a greater number of students, thus becoming less dependentupon the limitations of on-campus registration. Team members benefitfrom the experience of working with peers, as instruction is improvedthrough capitalizing on the respective strengths of each member and bydeveloping new knowledge and skills. Students also enjoy benefits, asseen in expanded course offerings, stimulation from technologies used indistance education, the expertise of team teachers, and the opportunity to

29

Downloadedby


13


7/14

THE AM ERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

receive instruction that may only be available through distance educa-tion.Essential Considerations. While team teaching provides benefits toinstitutions, faculty, and students, junior and senior faculty membersmay view participation differently. The extent to which faculty are sup-ported will determine their willingness to be involved. The personalteaching load of faculty members preparing distance education coursesexceeds the typical teaching load of those preparing on-campus courses.If team teaching is added, the amount of time spent working with one ormore instructors adds significantly to preparation time. Learning to workwith technology and selecting an appropriate delivery system to producea seamless interface increases the time com mitment. Austin and Baldwin(1992,2) noted that,

At present, many informal traditions and explicit policies (criteria fortenure and promotion, policies for merit pay, standards for facultyevaluation, for example) inhibit collaboration by faculty. If the highereducation community wishes to encourage more faculty teamwork,some significant reforms w ill be needed. . . . By implementing sup-portive policies and creating organizational structures to facilitatecollaboration across disciplinary and institutional boundaries, highereducation could better reap the range of benefits that faculty collabo-ration promises.Currently, involvement in distance teaching and instructional technol-

ogy does hold a degree of risk for junior-leve l faculty. On the other hiind,early adopter senior faculty find that involvement in distance educationand instructional technology prov ides new vistas, and they are more ableto enjoy the intrinsic rewards it holds (Dillon and Walsh 1992). Is it real-istic to think, however, that intrinsic reward will sustain involvement insuch activities? A great deal has been written regarding the issues of fac-ulty participation in distance education (Austin and Baldwin 1992;Dillon and Walsh 1992; Olcott and Wright 1995). Olcott and Wright(1995) identified several positive steps that can be taken to increase fac-ulty participation: Define the scope of distance education in meeting the extendedmission of the institution; Establish a policy task force to define the applicability of distanceteaching towards promotion and tenure;

3

Downloadedby



13


8/14

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

Establish training, released-time, faculty assignm ent, and compen-sation models with departmental chairpersons and with deans; and Develop a discipline-based research agenda for faculty teachingvia educational telecommunications technology (p. 12).Planning for Inter-institutional Team ing. One of the most appealingfactors of inter-institutional teaming is the opportunity for faculty fromdiverse backgrounds and environments to come together and be creative.M ake no m istake, collaboration is not for the faint of heart. Team teach-ing is a dynamic process that involves the art of negotiation, building

finely tuned communication networks, identifying and building commu-nity, and establishing leadership (National Network for Collaboration1995)all of which enhance professional growth. Planning is an inte-gral part of distance education, and it is critical when contemplatingcollaboration. For team teaching to be effective, members of teachingteams must understand and commit to important factors that lead to suc-cess (McIntosh and Johnson 1994; Xu and Z idon 1995). In the beg inningstages, success is highly dependent on commitment to planning andcommunication. This is especially true when team members cross insti-tu t ional l ines , a re geographica l ly separa ted , and the fac tors ofcommunity and connectedness are not immediately present. Team mem-bers then need time not only for academ ic planning, but also to establishgood lines of communication and collegiality. Moran (1990) listed thefollowing conditions as necessary for effective collaboration: M utual trust and esteem among partners, Effective com munication systems, and Com mitment and control over the project by relevant individualsand groups.An agreement must be reached regarding content, individual responsi-bility, preparation of materials, expectations of student work, student

feedback, and technical issues. A few questions that should be consid-ered include: W hat is to be taught? W ho is to teach? W ho is prepared to teach with existing technologies? W hich technologies should be used? How can studen ts' needs best be accomm odated?

31

Downloadedby


13


9/14

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

W hich institution will coordinate technology and delivery? W hat instructional resources are available to aid in course deve l-opment and faculty use of technology?Dodge (1993,1) added that,The most successful projects have been those in which both partiesplanned and prepared themselves well before starting the partnership,adequate resources were allocated to develop and maintain the activi-ties, and mutual respect between the partners was consciously andsystematically nurtured.Go als and objec t ives m ust be jo in t ly con ceived and accep ted(Knapczyk 199 1; Allum 1991). Faculty m ust develop an appreciation forthe contribution of others (Wiske 1989), and unilateral decisions by leammembers should be avoided. The combined efforts of teachers in teamscan add new dimensions to the preparation and delivery of lessons,enhancing learning through the join t instructional skills of team mem-bers. Balajthy (1991) suggested that leadership should rotate amongpartners as appropriate to their skills. The excitement of team teachinglies in bringing together the creativity and rich resources of diverse fac-ulty.Geographic separation adds yet another dimension to the planningprocess. A limited am ount of time , individual work priorities, home cam -pus schedules, and distance are just a few of the factors that must be

considered in the planning stages of collaborative effort. W ith these fac-tors in mind, the development of a timeline will keep team membersfocused and on track, helping to ensure seamless course developmentand delivery. The good news is that if we walk the technology talkgeographical distances can be diminished, costs cut, and time saved byutilizing such conveniences as e-mail, facsimiles, and video conferenc-ing. In each instance, faculty members must have access to and skill inthe use of the respective technology (Kimmel and Deek 1995). With theexcept ion of v ideoconferencing, however , these are fa i r ly bas icresources available to most faculty.Support Services for Inter-institutional Team ing. Experts in instruc-tional and technical resources must be available to help faculty preparecourse materials and manipulate and interact with technology. Theyshould understand, up front, the outcomes that the technology is intend-ed to support. Veteran instructors may need to acquire new skills for

3

Downloadedby


13


10/14

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

distance education and additional ones for team teaching (Mitra 1994).Asking even the most experienced instructors to teach courses in a dif-f e re n t me d i um a nd w i t h i n a ne w in s t r uc t i ona l f o r m a t t e a mteachingfar exceeds normal expectations (McMahon, Gantz, andGreenberg 1995). Faculty must be able to help students understand thebasics of the technology introduced in their courses and resolve techno-logical problems that students at a distance may face (Krendl 1994).Distance education may require the transformation of teaching materi-alsold and newinto different formats. Furthermore, the teachingteam must have access to appropriate resources for planning the curricu-lum, including: preparing unit and lesson plans; locating and assemblingresources for course materials; preparing handouts, instructional pack-ages, and tests; arranging for technical services; and designing specialmaterials, for example, home pages for the World Wide Web. As thecapabilities of faculty expand, they will need guidance on the effectiveuse of multimedia, as well as on-going techn ical assistance. Faculty needto be able to use new delivery formats and m ultimedia platforms withoutspending an inordinate amount of time learning to manipulate new soft-ware and develop graphics. It is crucial that faculty not becom e boggeddow n with technology and that their primary energy remains focusedon teaching.

Administrative and technical support services should also be availablefor students. In the planning stages, along with pedagogical considera-tions, attention should be given to student technological support needs.What knowledge and skills must students have as pre-requisites, andhow much support must be built into the course or otherwise plannedfor? For example, in a course with heavy computer involvement, doesthe institution provide help after 5:00 p.m. when most adult students willbe in need? Or, in a course utilizing e-mail, in addition to academ ic m at-ters,students may need to:

Access the Internet; Engag e in online discussions, course conferences, forums, andlive-chat sessions; Access resources from the World W ide Web from their respectivecam pus, other college campuses, hom e, office, o r dorm; Store and maintain files on disk, online, or on hard copy of coursematerials generated during the term; Submit assignm ents online, using a word-processing program orvia e-mail;

33

Downloadedby


13


11/14

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDU CATION

Upload and download files; and Work effectively and collaboratively on tasks and exerc ises withpeers in small, online groups.Students who have few or undeveloped technological skills may befaced with learning these in addition to academic content and interper-sonal skills in new forms of group dynamics. The learning curve fortechnology-limited students is much steeper than for those who areskilled in computer technology, placing the former students at a disad-vantage. Furthermore, students may be unwilling to admit their need for

assistance. Consequently, numerous ways and means must be used toencourage students to voice their concerns and seek out assistance. Teammembers must be alert to signs of potential trouble, for example, a lackof responses within specified time periods.As the Information Age has contributed to the explosion of knowl-edge, students have been transformed from consumers of information toprocessors of knowledge. Students' needs can be met through mediatedinstruction, but their learning must also be linked with concrete, tangi-ble, hands-on resources and experiences. The most important shift thatinstructors, including team teachers, must make is toward integrated, stu-dent-centered instruction.

ConclusionsThe triad of inter-institutional collaboration, team teaching, and dis-

tance education presents a multiplicity of issues that must be consideredand planned for prior to the initiation of a collaborative project. Institu-tions must carefully investigate policies, accreditation standards, and thecapability to support faculty involvement in inter-institutional teaming.In any collaborative effort, a considerable number of potential inhibitorsmust be addressed. The issues will not be resolved quickly, for many ofthem are deeply ingrained in the traditional academic cu lture. How aver,as Olcott and W right (1995, 14) have pointed out, . . . there is no substi-tute for patience. Distance education is still in its infancy in many w ays.Each institution must weigh the inhibitors and advantages as they con-sider involvement in inter-institutional collaboration.Inter-institutional collaboration and faculty teaming hold positive con-sequences for both teaching and learning. When institutions and facultycome together in the spirit of collegiality, by respecting diversity ofopinions and capitalizing on faculty strengths and diverse cultural and

34

Downloadedby


13


12/14

GATLIFF AND W ENDEL

geographic backgrounds, the quality of teaching is enhanced and learn-ing is stimulated. The benefits of collaboration across disciplinary andins t i tu t ional boundar ies are numerous : communicat ion increasesbetween faculty and students, and among student groups; shared view-points between and among students from diverse geographical locationsand cultures lead to increased appreciation and valuing of diversity; fac-ulty creativity and the quality of education are enhanced; and technicalskills for both faculty and students increase.ReferencesAlabama. 1996. .A llum, K. F. 19 91 . Partners in innovation: Sch ool-college collabo ra-tions.EDUCOM Review26 (34):29-33.Austin, A. E., and R. G. Baldwin. 1992.Faculty collaboration: Enhanc-ing the quality of scholarship and teaching. ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, ED 347 958.Balajthy, E. 1991 . A school college consu ltation model for integration oftechnology and who le language in elementary science instruction.ER IC Docum ent Reproduction Service, ED 332 155.Dillon, C. L., and S. M. W alsh. 1992. Facu lty: The neglected resource indistance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 6(3):15-19.Dodg e, B . J. 1993. School-university partnerships and educational tech-nology.ERIC D ocument Reproduction Service, ED 358 840.Farmer, L. S. J. 1995. M ultimedia: M ulti-learning tool.Technology Con-nection2 (3): 30-31 .Gay, D. A., and J. R. Ross. 1994. Supportive relationships. The Journalof Physical Education Recreation and Dance65 (7): 27 -30 .Gellman-Buzin, B. 1987. Telecommunications as an element of competi-tive strategy. In Com petitive strategies for continuing educa tion ed.C. Baden,71-83.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Hawkes, M. L. 1996. Evaluating school-based distance education pro-grams: Some thoughts about methods. NASSP Bulletin 80 (582):26-33.Hillman, S. J., and A. K. Colker. 1987. The collaborative design inadvancing the school/college interface. ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service, ED 284 496 .Th e Ins t i tu te for A cade m ic Techn ology. 1996. .

35

Downloadedby


13


13/14

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

Kimm el, H., and F. P. Deek. 1995. Instructional technology: A tool or apanacea? Journal of Science Education and Technology4:327-33 2.Knapczyk, K. D. 1991.Improving staff development in rural comm uni-ties.ERIC D ocument Reproduction S ervice, ED 345 890.Knowles, M. S. 1984. The adult learner: A neglected species. 3d. ed.Houston: Gulf Publishing.Krendl, K. 1994. The impact of computers on learning: Research on in-school and out-of-school settings.Journal of Com puting in H igherEducation 5:85-112.McGill , M. A., and S. M. Johnstone. 1994. Distance education: Anopportunity for cooperation and resource sharing. In Distance educa-tion strategies and tools ed. B. Willis, 265-275. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Educational Technology Pub lications.McIntosh, B., and H. Shipman. 1996. The power of collaboration: Peercollaborationa powerful mechanism for effecting change in scienceteaching.Journal of College Science Teaching25 (5): 36 4-3 65.M cIntosh, M . E., and D . L. Johnson. 1994. An instrument to facilitate

communication between prospective team teachers. The ClearingHouse67 (3): 152-154.M cM ahon, T., W. Gan tz, and B . S. Greenberg. 1995. Interactive technol-ogy and in te r -univers i ty t eam teaching . Journalism and M assComm unication Educator50 (4):62-71 .Miller, J. 1995. Battle hymn of American studies. English Journal 84(1):88-92.Mitra, A. 1994. Instructor effect in determining effectiveness and atti-tude towards technology-assisted teaching. Journal of InstructionDelivery Systems 8 (3): 15-21.Moran, L. 1990. Inter-institutional collaboration: The case of an Aus-tralian inter-university women's studies major. Journal of DistanceEducation 5 (2): 32 -48.National Network for Collaboration. 1995.Collaboration framework:Addressing community capacity .Olcott, D., Jr. 1992. Policy issues in statewide delivery of university pro-grams by telecommunications. The American Journal of D istanceEducation6 (1): 14-26.Olcott, D ., Jr., and S . W right. 1995. An institutional support frameworkfor increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance educa-tion.The Am erican Journa l of Distance Educa tion9 (3): 5-17 .

36

Downloadedby



13


14/14

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

Sherry, L. 1994. Issues in distance education. International Journal ofDistance Education1:337 365.Sybouts, W. 1967. Supervision and team teaching. EducationalLeadership25 (2): 158-159 , 163, 165.Wiske, M. S. 1989. A cultural perspective on school-university collabo-rative research.ERIC D ocument R eproduction Service, ED 342 051 .Xu, D., and M. Zidon. 1995. Two heads are better than one: Students'evaluation of team teaching in a teacher education classroom. Teach-ing and Learning9 (2): 11-23.Resources

1. Learning on the Web:http://cnetAinb.ca/lotw/2. Teaching and Learning on the World W ide W eb:http://ww w.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/tl/3. The Comprehensive Distance Education List of Resources:

http://ww w.dacc.cc.il.us/~ramage/disted.html4. Resources for Distance Education:http://webster.com mnet.edu/HP/pages/darling/distance.htm5. Journals for Distance Education:http://webster.commnet.edu/HP/pages/darling/journals.htm6. Association for Educational Communications and Technology:http://www.aect.org/ or gopher://sunbird.usd.edu:721/l7. Distance Education Links:http://www.algonquinc.on.ca/pilot/index.html8. New Media Centers:http://www.csulb.edu/gc/nmc/index.html9. Virtual Classroom:http://www.enmu.edu/compserv/virtual.htm10. College and University Home Pages:http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/cdemello/univ.html

11. Distance Education Clearinghouse:http://www.uwex.edu/disted.home.html12. AskERIC:http://ericir.syr.edu13. World Wide Web Course Tools:http://homebrewl.cs.ubc.ca/webct14. Distance Education at a Glance:http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/distglan.html

Downloadedby


13

Gatliff & Wendel (1998)...Inter-Instititional Collaboration and Team Teaching

Documents

Transcript of Gatliff & Wendel (1998)...Inter-Instititional Collaboration and Team Teaching