Pot luck for students: tutor A or tutor B?

In her paper Lisa Cherkassky (University of Bradford) explored the avenues law schools and lecturers can take when faced with team teaching.

The session was blogged on Zeugma.

How do students really feel when faced with two lecturers in one module? A lecturer team teaching on the LLB, the presenter noticed that while most students tend to pick their ‘favourite’ lecturer and settle into their own pattern of tutorials and lectures, a handful feel they lack the attention and dedication they deserve.

Concerned with the number of student complaints the presenter asked her cohort how they felt about sharing two very different lecturers who interpreted the law in a different way. The results were interesting – many students appreciated the different forms of feedback, but some felt they were being cheated out of a fair mark. In addition, the lecturers’ different approach to the law led to a level of confusion.

With the growing number of students taking law and the increasing number of staff employed in law schools to teach them, how do we deal with this matter? Do we simply have to work more closely with each other, or will this always be a problem? What is really in the student’s best interests when it comes to the quality and method of teaching? Does quality remain the same when two lecturers share a module?

Sefton Bloxham (University of Cumbria) reports:

Lisa identified some of the difficulties inherent in team teaching and provoked some earnest discussion on how these might be addressed. Based on a case study of a course which had produced some significant student dissatisfaction with certain aspects of its delivery, Lisa had issued a follow up questionnaire to obtain feedback on specific issues raised that were assumed to be related to team teaching – differing interpretations of the subject matter, contrasting pedagogic approaches to classroom activity and divergence in interpretation and application of assessment criteria.
 
Some participants at the session were concerned that the questions were overly directive, but the underlying issues are all too real, and, as Paul Maharg commented, the responses were unsurprising. It was generally agreed, as Chris Hull noted (see below), that regular and effective communication (possibly lacking in this case?) between tutors is essential in ensuring that team teaching is effective.
 
My own experience suggests that effective collaboration between tutors is capable of producing a richer learning environment for students. For example, a classroom session in which two tutors present explicitly differing interpretations of the law can be illuminating for students if it illustrates that there is not always a ‘right answer’, and that the important element is developing the skills of presenting an argument based on appropriate evidence. Of course, students who want to know the ‘right answer’ will be, rightly, challenged by this.
 
On the issue of assessment and formative feedback, communication between tutors is essential if mixed messages are to be avoided. As the conference panel session on collaboration had indicated, assessment in the social sciences can be notoriously unreliable. What seems crucial here is that the tacit knowledge of experienced practitioners needs to be shared with less experienced colleagues. Again, my own experience suggests that focused discussions which engage all members of the teaching team can be highly beneficial for tutors, while at the same time ensuring greater consistency in the messages that are conveyed to students through feedback. There are of course resource implications to take into account, but that discussion is for another occasion!
 
To conclude, this was a thought provoking session which certainly engaged the participants and produced some robust discussion.

Chris Hull (St Mary’s University College) comments:

This was an interesting and controversial paper reflecting on the author’s reflections of team teaching. Although generally positive, the paper focused on a module where team teaching was considered ineffective. The position put forward was that lecturers inherently follow their instincts. Where there is a great diversity in experience within the team, inconsistencies can be apparent in marking, feedback and support. Individuals will have different interpretations on the law and its application.
 
The concluding view conveyed by the author was that “inconsistencies in team teaching cannot be harmonised”. Surely this cannot be true. There appears to be a complete lack of communication in this particular situation. Wouldn’t a clear channel of communication with regular team meetings and resources which are developed jointly assist? And having clear policies regarding how to deal with student support and providing feedback in the module, although probably prescriptive, would also benefit the team.

About Lisa

---

Lisa Cherkassky is a lecturer in legal skills and also teaches criminal law, business law and tort at Bradford University Law School. She has PGCEs in both post-compulsory education and higher education practice.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010