Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.81.1.29-34
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Planning and Implementing Shared Teaching: An
MBA Team-Teaching Case Study
Marilyn M. Helms , John M. Alvis & Marilyn Willis
To cite this article: Marilyn M. Helms , John M. Alvis & Marilyn Willis (2005) Planning and
Implementing Shared Teaching: An MBA Team-Teaching Case Study, Journal of Education for
Business, 81:1, 29-34, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.81.1.29-34
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.1.29-34
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 75
View related articles
Citing articles: 10 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 17:49
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
Planning and Implementing
Shared Teaching: An MBA
Team-Teaching Case Study
MARILYN M. HELMS
DALTON STATE COLLEGE
DALTON, GEORGIA
JOHN M. ALVIS
MARILYN WILLIS
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
ABSTRACT. Team teaching is a
T
popular trend in business education. In
an attempt to integrate seemingly disparate functional disciplines, a number
of business programs have combined
courses. Regardless of the courses
combined (marketing and finance,
management and accounting, economics and strategy, or production and cost
accounting), the teaching pedagogy
shares a number of challenges in both
planning and implementation. In this
article, the authors review the experiences gained from team teaching in an
MBA program and offer suggestions
for adoption, improvement, and implementation in other business programs.
he Manufacturing Applications
course that served as the basis for
this case study used a team-teaching
methodology to combine material from
two diverse topic areas. In this case, we
combined production and operations
processes and manufacturing strategy
from a management perspective with
product-costing techniques from an
accounting viewpoint. Regardless of the
functional business courses combined
or the location within the undergraduate
or graduate business curriculum, the
implementation of team teaching offers
a number of challenges and benefits.
Combining Business Courses for
Team Teaching
A review of the existing business
education literature reveals a dearth of
current research on combining business
functions into one course even though
arguments for its use have been supported in the past. For example, Mason
(1992) agreed business schools have
long been criticized for not addressing
the needs of the business environment
and suggested cross-discipline team
teaching provides key areas for implementation. Geary and Rooney (1993)
called for the accounting profession to
complement the emphasis on sensate
thinking with a strong emphasis on the
development of intuitive thinking. The
authors agreed that working on actual
case studies combining several disciplines would be an effective way to
advance students’ intuitive thinking. In
support for team teaching, Heinfeldt
and Wolf (1998) found that the stakeholder approach to business education
must apply the perspectives of multiple
constituencies to functional areas,
including accounting and management.
In a study of accounting team teaching,
Steadman (2000) found that accounting
should be team taught and suggested the
inclusion of health-care–related topics
to address the increased national attention on health care issues. In their study
of the work and communication needs
of new auditors, Goby and Lewis (1999)
found that accountancy graduates entering the profession lack some important
communication abilities, including
interpersonal, oral, and written skills.
Their solution to the communication
problems calls for the use of more case
studies as well as the introduction of
cross-disciplinary team teaching.
Researchers considering the effectiveness of graduate business programs
stress that the most effective schools
combine interpersonal communication
in managerial skill-building or professional development. Team teaching is a
way to integrate the core of many
MBA programs and blend separate
functional courses to show how the
different disciplines interact (“Do You
Speak MBA?”, 1996).
September/October 2005
29
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
Dumas, Blodgett, Carlson, Pant, and
Venka (2000) as well as Hancock
(1998) supported team teaching as a
way to revitalize the business curriculum. Because business problems are
cross-disciplinary, complex, and even
“messy,” the team-teaching approach is
important and supported by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB International), the
premier accrediting agency of undergraduate and graduate business programs (“The Boom in Entrepreneurial
Studies,” 1996). Watkins (1996) outlined the changed MBA core in his
case study of an MBA program that
evolved from functional area courses to
a much-needed integration through
team-teaching combinations.
Team-Teaching Approaches
When considering team teaching,
three distinct models are presented in
the literature in addition to being
observed in practice. They are the interactive, the participant–observer, and
the rotational models (Nead, 1995;
White, Henley, & Brabston, 1998).
In the interactive team-teaching
approach, used by the authors in the present case study, two professors are in
front of the class simultaneously. This
model is the definition one traditionally
considers as true team teaching. Both
professors actively participate by commenting on most or all of the scheduled
discussion topics, with lively interactive
dialogue and debate (Galley & Carroll,
1993; Nead, 1995). The participant–
observer team-teaching model requires
both professors to be present for all classes; however, one professor presents independently with little or no dialogue from
the observer partner (the professors alternate the observer and teacher roles).
Alternate views are not actively given but
are available if students ask questions or
if the observer professor offers a viewpoint (Flanagan & Ralston, 1983).
Under the rotational team-teaching
model, the individual professors teach
classes separately and will attend class
only when teaching their specific areas
of the course (Morlock, 1988; Nead,
1995). This approach requires less time
but may require the senior professor or
class coordinator to develop the syl30
Journal of Education for Business
labus, schedule the team’s rotation, and
manage testing, grading, and evaluations.
Benefits of Interactive Team
Teaching
Offers Multiple Viewpoints for
Learning
In team teaching, the professors
involved contribute their unique backgrounds, areas of strength, and expertise
to the course. The combination of varied
expertise and viewpoints can produce a
synergy in the classroom that is not possible when only one professor is present. Multiple professors can have a positive impact on student learning—the
students have access to more faculty
resources outside the classroom and are
exposed to more knowledge within the
classroom. This is important because
each professor has the opportunity to
present a personal perspective on new
and controversial issues. Presenting students with contrasting views on a topic
can promote creative thinking and
allows students to explore alternative
positions. With simultaneous coverage
in team teaching, students begin to see
how both views interrelate when making business decisions. In their study of
a team-taught cultural diversity class,
Smith, Hornsby, and Kite (2000) found
that interdisciplinary classroom interventions do have a positive effect on
students’ attitudes. This finding was
also supported by Nead (1995), who
determined that students in team-taught
business courses felt better prepared for
future business courses than their counterparts in traditional courses.
Ayadi and Crawford (1996) agreed
that the traditional method of instruction focuses on individual courses and
does not stress the interconnectedness
of subject matter and future implementation. In fact, researchers agree many
interdisciplinary courses should be
team-taught (Galley & Carroll, 1993;
Slater, McCubbrey, & Scudder, 1995).
Nixon, Helms, and Fletcher (1997) discussed the challenges of integrating
team teaching in a business setting yet
stressed the benefit of such activities.
Fish (1994) also agreed that integration
is challenging, but important.
Reduces Redundancies
The use of team teaching stresses the
links between functional areas, production and accounting in this case, and
reduces the “silo effect” of learning
within business disciplines. Many business schools are shifting their focus to
interdisciplinary business education to
reduce this functional nature (Boyer,
1987; Drucker, 1992; Hartenian, Schellenger, & Frederickson, 2001; and
Slater et al., 1995). This integration better reflects the decision-making process
in industry and reduces redundancies
that occur in many business programs.
Business students often complain that
some topics are presented time and
again in different courses (including
Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunitiesand-Threats [SWOT] analysis, breakeven analysis, leadership theories, ratio
analysis, and learning curves). By combining courses, instructors can eliminate
redundancy of topics and coverage and
devote more time to introducing new
material.
Builds Teamwork and Communication
Students at business schools need
more emphasis on building communication and collaboration skills in order to
better integrate the material they are
presented (Reeve, 1992; Slater et al.,
1995). The teaching partnership represents an opportunity for students to
observe a team approach to decisionmaking firsthand. The National Association of Colleges and Employers
(NACE) found that employers consistently rank communication and teamwork skills near the top of most desirable skills in prospective employees
(Andrews & Wooten, 2005). Kagan
(1994) agreed that it is difficult to imagine a job that does not include cooperation or interaction with others. Thus,
replication and practice of teams and
teamwork in the classroom are worthy
objectives (Seitz, 2002).
When asked to comment on the success of General Electric, a multibusiness company with operations around
the globe that has been successful for
120 years, former Chairman and CEO
Jack Welch attributed much of the company’s progress to teamwork (Welch &
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
Welch, 2005). Welch agreed that the
ability of employees to work in teams
remains increasingly important as global trade grows and companies continue
to adopt new technologies and business
practices. Feedback from such employers of business school graduates is causing this change in business education
(Ahmadi & Brabston, 1998; Porter &
McKibbin, 1998).
Offers Multiple Styles
Another benefit of team teaching is
combining a mix of teaching skills and
styles. Each professor brings to the class
a unique combination of knowledge,
skills, abilities, and examples honed
over a career. The professors have different sets of presentation skills they
prefer: multimedia, statistical interpretation, or computer applications, for
example. This variety has many advantages, particularly because students
have a variety of learning styles and presentation preferences.
Text and Cases
The first issue for the new teams was
locating appropriate textbooks and
course materials. Because the courses
covered at least two subject areas, it was
difficult to find a single, appropriate
textbook. This is a familiar challenge in
team-taught classes. Often it is
addressed through combining relevant
portions of a functional area textbook in
custom publishing or by gathering cases
and readings and other materials in lieu
of a textbook. Students, however, complain when custom textbooks differ
greatly in print size and writing style
and pages are not numbered consecutively, since it makes referring to materials a challenging task. In some courses, professors used two textbooks, but a
caution here is not to combine two
three-credit hour courses into one threecredit hour course without considering
the workload on the students. In some
cases, covering two textbooks in one
course was too aggressive for both the
students and faculty.
Creates Interdisciplinary Scholarship
Syllabus
Finally, team teaching can lead to the
creation of a more collegial and robust
faculty. Inter- and intradepartmental
team building can be a positive benefit.
There is also the possibility of crossdisciplinary research and enhanced publication opportunities, as well as the
opportunity to help newer and younger
faculty hone their skills. Booth, DixonBrown, and Kohut (2003), for example,
found shared or team teaching as a way to
balance teaching and research and found
the approach also offers professors more
concentrated time for their research.
Learning from the Team-Teaching
Experience
The impetus for the team-teaching
efforts outlined here was a result of the
College of Business’ MBA program
revitalization at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. In this process,
the curriculum committee reviewed the
program in detail and recommended
several courses for combination and
team teaching. The graduate faculty was
then asked to volunteer to teach in the
combined courses.
Crafting the syllabus required each
team member to relinquish ownership in
order to develop a course that served the
students best. Timing of class assignment, readings, exams, class presentations, and reports, within the confines of
the travels of each professor, proved to
be a difficult, yet possible task. Once the
class schedule was developed, the two
professors met to establish the point distribution and weighting for the various
components of the course. Given the
learning curve experienced in team
teaching, the syllabus and course content changed each semester. In particular, the professors adjusted the workload
to better reflect the course combination.
Quizzes, Exams, and Evaluation
Quizzes and exams should reflect the
team-taught nature of the course and
should consist of questions from both
functional areas rather than having two
separate tests. When possible, questions
or cases that address all of the combined
functional areas should be included and
graded by both professors. This supports
the view of Gopinath (2004) who found
that, while graders had areas of disagreement as a result of varied interpretation
of answers, students benefited from a
process that involved multiple graders,
particularly on analyses of cases.
The instructors included class contribution as a significant component of this
graduate-level course. Interestingly,
class participation and contribution was
easier to accurately assess with the additional professor available to record participation points. The instructors also
used seating charts to facilitate the
recording. With the proliferation of digital cameras, having a photo seating chart
of students with their names, majors or
concentrations, and current work experience noted is helpful in calling on students, recording points, and learning
their names more quickly. Because communication and teamwork were goals of
the course, the class included a final
team project and presentation. Students
were allowed to choose their own team
members as well as their company to
study. Team members completed team
evaluation forms to rate the performance
of their own contributions as well as
those of the other team members. In
addition, the student audience also completed a presentation evaluation form.
Preclass Planning and Grading
Both professors met in planning sessions numerous times prior to teaching
the first class, finalizing material, content, and teaching and learning assessment mechanisms and discussing the
respective weights of each activity. Both
further agreed that interrupting each
other during the class time to present
ideas and views from the other functional area would be both necessary and
encouraged in this team-teaching partnership. The interruptions would also
reflect how business meetings are conducted with multiple viewpoints jockeying for position and consideration. Handling back-and-forth discussion and
debate is a positive feature of team
teaching as are the asides or interruptions, particularly when they are managed and presented in an appropriate
location in the lecture material.
The instructors also facilitated the
distribution of effort by weekly meetSeptember/October 2005
31
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
ings prior to class. The professors often
had dinner together before the evening
class to review the materials and discussion outline. These meetings helped to
leverage the skills of the two professors
to enhance the students’ learning experience. At the end of each semester and
before the beginning of the next semester, the professors reviewed the materials, the student evaluations, and made
adjustments to the course, further
streamlining the process.
From the beginning, the instructors
created single quizzes and tests, representing a combination of accounting
and manufacturing issues. Each professor graded the relevant part of the quiz
or exam and transferred the entire test to
the counterpart in a timely manner so
grading could be completed and recorded before the next class meeting. The
final presentation report was graded by
both professors and assigned one grade.
This supports the research of Goinpath
(2004), who found that multiple graders
lead to improved student satisfaction.
Teaching Evaluations
Teaching evaluations were adapted to
the team-teaching environment. Because
the professors were making joint presentations at each class meeting, students
could either view the separate teachers
as an inseparable unit or evaluate them
as single professors. It is possible, however, to separate the comments into a
course evaluation to rate the content,
materials, books, testing, and delivery
and have two additional evaluations for
each of the two instructors in the team.
Students can be directed only to focus
on issues related to the teaching style
and presentation of the faculty, as separate from the course, in the individual
evaluations. This allows each team
member to have individualized, constructive feedback. For this reason we
chose the separate evaluations.
Administrators must note that often
team-teaching courses are experiments
or works-in-progress and may have
lower initial teaching evaluations than
traditional course formats. Any new
teaching model is an experiment and
involves taking risks and trying new
approaches and should be rewarded and
encouraged even if the student comments
32
Journal of Education for Business
are not at the same level as for individual
instructors in non-team-taught courses.
Power Struggles
Handling disagreements was not a
problem in our team of tenured, full
professors because each worked in separate departments (accounting and management), neither was part of the other’s
promotion and tenure committee, we
did not differ in rank or title, and, until
the combined class, we had previously
not interacted on more than a personal
basis. However, in teams structured
with faculty from the same department
or with a mix of senior and junior faculty, disagreements may present more of a
problem and may require assistance
from the department chair(s) to resolve.
Gender and Diversity
In our case study, the production professor was female and the accounting
professor was male. This mixed gender
team teaching supports the model proposed by Reha (1979) as a way to prepare women for management roles by
introducing them to team teaching with
male and female instructors. Her
research found this method would provide a more objective view of business
as well as serve as an example of teaching men and women to relate to each
other as business equals.
While both professors in this case
study came from similar cultural backgrounds and shared similar teaching
philosophies, researchers have noted that
team teaching with someone from a different culture presents other challenges
in styles and teaching format (Napier,
Hang, Mai, Thang, & Tuan, 2002).
Joint Research
At the beginning of the course, neither professor was proficient in the
other’s discipline and made few add-on
discussion comments. However, during
the subsequent offerings of the course,
more interdisciplinary comments and
observations were possible. As learning
improved, the professors began to be
able to address students’ questions in
each subject area and not just their own.
The combination also led to joint
research ideas combining the disciplines. The professors developed several research projects leading to presentation and publication as a result of the
shared teaching experience.
Student Feedback and
Assessment
The team-taught class was delivered
to on-site MBA students and MBA students in a distance-learning environment linked by two-way audio and
video in two remote sites 100 miles
away, in a weekend (Friday afternoon
and Saturday) executive-MBA (EMBA)
format, and in a distance-learning
EMBA format. The same syllabus was
used in all formats. Professors alternated sites each week in the distance-learning environments but always taught in
the same location together.
The EMBA class, which met at the
employment location of the student
cohort, was complimentary of the
unique, fresh approach offered by the
team model. These students tended to
form very effective teams and enjoyed
common company time and resources
when preparing their presentations. In
particular, they rated the team project
and presentation as the most effective
part of the course.
Traditional MBA students rated the
course as too difficult and stated it
required about the same effort as the two
separate courses. This supports the findings of Lilyestrom (1999), who agrees
students feel more time is required to be
successful in a team-taught class and
often cite more homework and difficulty
adjusting to different teaching styles in
team-taught classes. The MBA students
worked for a number of different area
companies and teamwork was more difficult for them outside of the scheduled
classroom time. Because the MBA
classes were evening classes and the
majority of students worked full time,
many did not like focusing on two major
business disciplines (accounting and
manufacturing) in the same course in the
same semester.
Quantitative and qualitative assessments were conducted every semester.
Students completed a computer-scored
form assessing a series of 6-point Likerttype scale questions about the teaching
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
effectiveness, class content, class format,
suitability of the textbook, and use of
class time. In general, team-taught courses averaged about one rating point lower
than sole-professor led classes (4.5 from
a traditional mean of 5.5) for the statement “This was an effective course.” For
the team-taught classes in the graduate
MBA program, the accounting and manufacturing combination received quantitative student satisfaction ratings ranging
from 25% to 50% higher than the other
team-taught course combinations over
the 4-year period under study. This team
stayed together while other teams varied
the faculty combinations so the learning
curve difference may account for the
evaluations.
The students’ specific qualitative
comments, noted on the back of the
evaluation form, mentioned the larger
than expected workload and time constraints, particularly in the first year of
the team-taught course. The graduate
students also commented on the desire
for the team to teach the class less like a
seminar and to include more lecturing,
even though the format of the class was
discussed in the syllabus. The students
seemed to feel the structure was more of
a facilitating role and they were used to
a lecture–testing format in the past.
Overall, the students were favorable
about the class content, class structure,
and each professor’s effectiveness.
The students particularly liked the
real-world discussion of manufacturing applications. They appreciated the
team’s growing knowledge of subject
matter, the case study format, and the
lively exchange and interaction during
discussions. The comments on the
textbooks and the cases as well as the
one visit early in the semester to a
manufacturing facility were also positive. In addition, the students reacted
favorably to the group project, a study
of an external small manufacturing
company’s production and accounting
processes.
Earlier in the team-teaching life
cycle, the students felt the instructors
did not present an equal amount of time
and saw the initial attempts to integrate
the material as interruptions. The dean
and the two department chairs involved
supported the team-teaching experiment
and realized the transition and learning
would take time and did not focus on
the student evaluations.
Conclusion
The combined course was deemed a
success by both students and the business
faculty. As business schools work to
cover more material, make room in the
curriculum for electives and emerging
special topics courses (including ethics
and international business), and streamline duplicated material, the team-teaching concept makes both practical and
intuitive sense. It is a way to replicate
business processes in practice and supports the move to participative management and team decisionmaking. The need
to consider the qualitative and quantitative implications of all business decisions
supports the combination of courses.
Further study is needed on team teaching in a business school environment.
Other case studies of colleges and universities’ successes and failures with team
teaching and course combinations are
needed, particularly articles that detail the
specifics of the course delivery and the
various course combinations used. A
comprehensive survey of undergraduate
and graduate business programs using
course combinations and team teaching
on a longitudinal basis is also needed. In
addition, we suggest study of the use of
such combinations in the noncredit environment for continuing education courses
for professional development.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi, M., & Brabston, M. (1998). MIS education: Differences in academic practice and business managers’ expectations. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38(2), 18–26.
Andrews, K., & Wooten, B. (2005). Closing the
gap: Helping students identify the skills
employers want. NACE Journal, 64(4), 41.
Ayadi, O. F., & Crawford, E. M. (1996). Achieving integrating experience in business programs
through team teaching. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 23, 153–175.
The boom in entrepreneurial studies. (1996). Inc.,
18(14), 48.
Booth, R., Dixon-Brown, M., & Kohut, G. (2003).
Shared teaching models for business communication in a research environment. Business
Communication Quarterly, 66(3), 23.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate
experience in America. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New
York: Harper and Row.
Do you speak MBA? (1996). Canadian Business,
69(12), 56–57.
Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the future: The
1990s and beyond. New York: Truman Talley
Books/Dutton.
Dumas, C., Blodgett, M., Carlson, P., Pant, L., &
Venka, M. (2000). Revitalizing the MBA for
the new millennium: A collaborative action
research approach. International Journal of
Value-Based Management, 13, 229–253.
Fish, S. (1994). Being interdisciplinary is so very
hard to do. In S. Fish (Ed.), There is no such thing
as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too (pp.
231–242). New York: Oxford University Press.
Flanagan, M. F., & Ralston, D. A. (1983). Intracoordinated team teaching: Benefits for both
students and instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 116–117.
Galley, J. D., & Carroll, V. S. (1993). Toward a
collaborative model for interdisciplinary teaching: Business and literature. Journal of Education for Business, 69, 36–39.
Geary, W. T., & Rooney, C. J. (1993). Designing
accounting education to achieve balanced intellectual development. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(1), 60.
Goby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (1999). Auditors’ communication requirements: A study of five
NNCS in Singapore. Business Communication
Quarterly, 62(4), 41–52.
Goinpath, C. (2004) Exploring effects of criteria
and multiple graders on case grading. Journal
of Education for Business, 79, 317–322.
Hancock, T. (1998). The new MBA: Flies in the
paradigm. Business Horizons, 41(4), 41–44.
Hartenian, L. S., Schellenger, M., & Frederickson,
P. (2001). Creation and assessment of an integrated business course: One college’s experience. Journal of Education for Business, 76,
149–160.
Heinfeldt, J., & Wolf, F. (1998). Re-engineering
the business curriculum: A stakeholder paradigm. Journal of Education for Business, 73,
198–201.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San
Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Lilyestrom, B. (1999, May 5). Team-teaching program receives mixed grades. Telegram &
Gazette, p. B3.
Mason, J. C. (1992) Business schools: Striving to
meet customer demand. Management Review,
81(9), 10–15.
Morlock, H. C. (1988). A rotational form for team
teaching in introductory psychology. Teaching
of Psychology, 15, 144–145.
Napier, N. K., Hang, N. M., Mai, N. T. T., &
Thang, N. V., & Tuan, V. V. (2002). Bicultural
team teaching: Experiences from an emerging
business school. Journal of Management Education, 26, 429–449.
Nead, M. J. (1995). A team-taught business
course: A case study of its effectiveness at a
comprehensive community college. Business
Education Forum, 49(3), 33–35.
Nixon, J. C., Helms, M. M., & Fletcher, L. P.
(1997). Integrating team teaching, technology,
and distance learning in MBA programs: A case
study. Industrial and Commercial Training,
27(7), 218–225.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1998). Management education and development: Drift or
thrust into the 21st century? New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Reeve, S. (1992). Graduate management education
in transition. Survey of Business, 28(1), 3–19.
Reha, R. K. (1979). Preparing women for management roles. Business Horizons, 22(2), 68.
Seitz, P. (2002, May 22). Firms find teams can
bring top talent together on projects. Investor’s
Business Daily, p. A4.
September/October 2005
33
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
Slater, J. S., McCubbrey, D. J., & Scudder, R. A.
(1995). Inside an integrated MBA: Art information systems view. MIS Quarterly, 19,
391–410.
Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Kite, M. (2000).
Broadening the business curriculum via a crossdisciplinary approach: A mobile unit on cultur-
al diversity. Education, 120, 713–722.
Steadman, M. E. (2000). An interdisciplinary
health care accounting class: Content, student
response, and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 267–270.
Watkins, T. L. (1996). Stage 1: Creating a new
MBA core with team teaching. Journal of Man-
United States Postal Service
agement Education, 20, 411–420.
Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2005). Winning. New
York: HarperCollins.
White, C. S., Henley, J. A., & Brabston, M. E.
(1998). To team teach or not to team teach–that
is the question: A faculty perspective. Marketing Education Review, 8(3) 13–23.
13. Publication Title
1. Publication Title
2. Publication Number
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
ISSN: 0883-2323
2 7 8
4. Issue Frequency
_
3. Filing Date
5
8 0
5. Number of Issues Published Annually
6
Bi-monthly
15.
a.
Total Number of Copies (Net press run)
6. Annual Subscription Price
Institutions $97
Individuals $54
Contact Person
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Telephone
Fred Huber
202-296-6267
(1)
Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on
Form 3541. (Include advertiser's proof and exchange copies)
Paid In-County Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541
b. Paid and/or (2) (Include advertiser's proof and exchange copies)
Requested
Circulation (3) Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors,
Counter Sales, and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution
(4) Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS
8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (Not printer)
c. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation
[Sum of 15b. (1), (2),(3),and (4)]
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor (Do not leave blank)
Publisher (Name and complete mailing address)
Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Editor (Name and complete mailing address)
d.
Free
Distribution
by Mail
(Samples,
compliment
ary, and
other free)
f.
Managing Editor (Name and complete mailing address)
g.
Jamie Kunkle
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
h.
10. Owner (Do not leave blank. If the publication is owned by a corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followed by the
names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the
names and addresses of the individual owners. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of
each individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.)
Complete Mailing Address
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
i.
No. Copies of Single Issue
Published Nearest to Filing Date
979
922
601
608
0
0
64
60
0
0
665
668
20
0
(2) In-County as Stated on Form 3541
0
0
(3) Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS
0
0
2
2
(1) Outside-County as Stated on Form 3541
e. Free Distribution Outside the Mail
(Carriers or other means)
Board of Executive Editors
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Full Name
July/August 2005
Average No. Copies Each Issue
During Preceding 12 Months
Extent and Nature of Circulation
October 1, 2005
7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication (Not printer) (Street, city, county, state, and ZIP+4)
Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation
14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation
22
2
Total Distribution (Sum of 15c. and 15f)
687
670
Copies not Distributed
292
252
Total (Sum of 15g. and h.)
979
922
Total Free Distribution (Sum of 15d. and 15e.)
j. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation
(15c. divided by 15g. times 100)
97
16. Publication of Statement of Ownership
XX Publication required. Will be printed in the ________________________
issue of this publication.
Sept/Oct 2005
17. Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner
100
Publication not required.
Date
September 29, 2005
Executive Director
I certify that all information furnished on this form is true and complete. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form
or who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonme nt) and/or civil sanctions
(including civil penalties).
Instructions to Publishers
11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or
Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or
Other Securities. If none, check box
Full Name
XXNone
Complete Mailing Address
12. Tax Status (For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at nonprofit rates) (Check one)
The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes:
XX Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months
Has Changed During Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must submit explanation of change with this statement)
PS Form 3526, October 1999
34
(See Instructions on Reverse)
Journal of Education for Business
1.
Complete and file one copy of this form with your postmaster annually on or before October 1. Keep a copy of the completed form
for your records.
2.
In cases where the stockholder or security holder is a trustee, include in items 10 and 11 the name of the person or corporation for
whom the trustee is acting. Also include the names and addresses of individuals who are stockholders who own or hold 1 percent
or more of the total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities of the publishing corporation. In item 11, if none, check the
box. Use blank sheets if more space is required.
3.
Be sure to furnish all circulation information called for in item 15. Free circulation must be shown in items 15d, e, and f.
4.
Item 15h., Copies not Distributed, must include (1) newsstand copies originally stated on Form 3541, and returned to the publisher,
(2) estimated returns from news agents, and (3), copies for office use, leftovers, spoiled, and all other copies not distributed.
5.
If the publication had Periodicals authorization as a general or requester publication, this Statement of Ownership, Management,
and Circulation must be published; it must be printed in any issue in October or, if the publication is not published during October,
the first issue printed after October.
6.
In item 16, indicate the date of the issue in which this Statement of Ownership will be published.
7.
Item 17 must be signed.
Failure to file or publish a statement of ownership may lead to suspension of Periodicals authorization.
PS Form 3526, October 1999 (Reverse)
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Planning and Implementing Shared Teaching: An
MBA Team-Teaching Case Study
Marilyn M. Helms , John M. Alvis & Marilyn Willis
To cite this article: Marilyn M. Helms , John M. Alvis & Marilyn Willis (2005) Planning and
Implementing Shared Teaching: An MBA Team-Teaching Case Study, Journal of Education for
Business, 81:1, 29-34, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.81.1.29-34
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.1.29-34
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 75
View related articles
Citing articles: 10 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 17:49
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
Planning and Implementing
Shared Teaching: An MBA
Team-Teaching Case Study
MARILYN M. HELMS
DALTON STATE COLLEGE
DALTON, GEORGIA
JOHN M. ALVIS
MARILYN WILLIS
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
ABSTRACT. Team teaching is a
T
popular trend in business education. In
an attempt to integrate seemingly disparate functional disciplines, a number
of business programs have combined
courses. Regardless of the courses
combined (marketing and finance,
management and accounting, economics and strategy, or production and cost
accounting), the teaching pedagogy
shares a number of challenges in both
planning and implementation. In this
article, the authors review the experiences gained from team teaching in an
MBA program and offer suggestions
for adoption, improvement, and implementation in other business programs.
he Manufacturing Applications
course that served as the basis for
this case study used a team-teaching
methodology to combine material from
two diverse topic areas. In this case, we
combined production and operations
processes and manufacturing strategy
from a management perspective with
product-costing techniques from an
accounting viewpoint. Regardless of the
functional business courses combined
or the location within the undergraduate
or graduate business curriculum, the
implementation of team teaching offers
a number of challenges and benefits.
Combining Business Courses for
Team Teaching
A review of the existing business
education literature reveals a dearth of
current research on combining business
functions into one course even though
arguments for its use have been supported in the past. For example, Mason
(1992) agreed business schools have
long been criticized for not addressing
the needs of the business environment
and suggested cross-discipline team
teaching provides key areas for implementation. Geary and Rooney (1993)
called for the accounting profession to
complement the emphasis on sensate
thinking with a strong emphasis on the
development of intuitive thinking. The
authors agreed that working on actual
case studies combining several disciplines would be an effective way to
advance students’ intuitive thinking. In
support for team teaching, Heinfeldt
and Wolf (1998) found that the stakeholder approach to business education
must apply the perspectives of multiple
constituencies to functional areas,
including accounting and management.
In a study of accounting team teaching,
Steadman (2000) found that accounting
should be team taught and suggested the
inclusion of health-care–related topics
to address the increased national attention on health care issues. In their study
of the work and communication needs
of new auditors, Goby and Lewis (1999)
found that accountancy graduates entering the profession lack some important
communication abilities, including
interpersonal, oral, and written skills.
Their solution to the communication
problems calls for the use of more case
studies as well as the introduction of
cross-disciplinary team teaching.
Researchers considering the effectiveness of graduate business programs
stress that the most effective schools
combine interpersonal communication
in managerial skill-building or professional development. Team teaching is a
way to integrate the core of many
MBA programs and blend separate
functional courses to show how the
different disciplines interact (“Do You
Speak MBA?”, 1996).
September/October 2005
29
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
Dumas, Blodgett, Carlson, Pant, and
Venka (2000) as well as Hancock
(1998) supported team teaching as a
way to revitalize the business curriculum. Because business problems are
cross-disciplinary, complex, and even
“messy,” the team-teaching approach is
important and supported by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB International), the
premier accrediting agency of undergraduate and graduate business programs (“The Boom in Entrepreneurial
Studies,” 1996). Watkins (1996) outlined the changed MBA core in his
case study of an MBA program that
evolved from functional area courses to
a much-needed integration through
team-teaching combinations.
Team-Teaching Approaches
When considering team teaching,
three distinct models are presented in
the literature in addition to being
observed in practice. They are the interactive, the participant–observer, and
the rotational models (Nead, 1995;
White, Henley, & Brabston, 1998).
In the interactive team-teaching
approach, used by the authors in the present case study, two professors are in
front of the class simultaneously. This
model is the definition one traditionally
considers as true team teaching. Both
professors actively participate by commenting on most or all of the scheduled
discussion topics, with lively interactive
dialogue and debate (Galley & Carroll,
1993; Nead, 1995). The participant–
observer team-teaching model requires
both professors to be present for all classes; however, one professor presents independently with little or no dialogue from
the observer partner (the professors alternate the observer and teacher roles).
Alternate views are not actively given but
are available if students ask questions or
if the observer professor offers a viewpoint (Flanagan & Ralston, 1983).
Under the rotational team-teaching
model, the individual professors teach
classes separately and will attend class
only when teaching their specific areas
of the course (Morlock, 1988; Nead,
1995). This approach requires less time
but may require the senior professor or
class coordinator to develop the syl30
Journal of Education for Business
labus, schedule the team’s rotation, and
manage testing, grading, and evaluations.
Benefits of Interactive Team
Teaching
Offers Multiple Viewpoints for
Learning
In team teaching, the professors
involved contribute their unique backgrounds, areas of strength, and expertise
to the course. The combination of varied
expertise and viewpoints can produce a
synergy in the classroom that is not possible when only one professor is present. Multiple professors can have a positive impact on student learning—the
students have access to more faculty
resources outside the classroom and are
exposed to more knowledge within the
classroom. This is important because
each professor has the opportunity to
present a personal perspective on new
and controversial issues. Presenting students with contrasting views on a topic
can promote creative thinking and
allows students to explore alternative
positions. With simultaneous coverage
in team teaching, students begin to see
how both views interrelate when making business decisions. In their study of
a team-taught cultural diversity class,
Smith, Hornsby, and Kite (2000) found
that interdisciplinary classroom interventions do have a positive effect on
students’ attitudes. This finding was
also supported by Nead (1995), who
determined that students in team-taught
business courses felt better prepared for
future business courses than their counterparts in traditional courses.
Ayadi and Crawford (1996) agreed
that the traditional method of instruction focuses on individual courses and
does not stress the interconnectedness
of subject matter and future implementation. In fact, researchers agree many
interdisciplinary courses should be
team-taught (Galley & Carroll, 1993;
Slater, McCubbrey, & Scudder, 1995).
Nixon, Helms, and Fletcher (1997) discussed the challenges of integrating
team teaching in a business setting yet
stressed the benefit of such activities.
Fish (1994) also agreed that integration
is challenging, but important.
Reduces Redundancies
The use of team teaching stresses the
links between functional areas, production and accounting in this case, and
reduces the “silo effect” of learning
within business disciplines. Many business schools are shifting their focus to
interdisciplinary business education to
reduce this functional nature (Boyer,
1987; Drucker, 1992; Hartenian, Schellenger, & Frederickson, 2001; and
Slater et al., 1995). This integration better reflects the decision-making process
in industry and reduces redundancies
that occur in many business programs.
Business students often complain that
some topics are presented time and
again in different courses (including
Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunitiesand-Threats [SWOT] analysis, breakeven analysis, leadership theories, ratio
analysis, and learning curves). By combining courses, instructors can eliminate
redundancy of topics and coverage and
devote more time to introducing new
material.
Builds Teamwork and Communication
Students at business schools need
more emphasis on building communication and collaboration skills in order to
better integrate the material they are
presented (Reeve, 1992; Slater et al.,
1995). The teaching partnership represents an opportunity for students to
observe a team approach to decisionmaking firsthand. The National Association of Colleges and Employers
(NACE) found that employers consistently rank communication and teamwork skills near the top of most desirable skills in prospective employees
(Andrews & Wooten, 2005). Kagan
(1994) agreed that it is difficult to imagine a job that does not include cooperation or interaction with others. Thus,
replication and practice of teams and
teamwork in the classroom are worthy
objectives (Seitz, 2002).
When asked to comment on the success of General Electric, a multibusiness company with operations around
the globe that has been successful for
120 years, former Chairman and CEO
Jack Welch attributed much of the company’s progress to teamwork (Welch &
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
Welch, 2005). Welch agreed that the
ability of employees to work in teams
remains increasingly important as global trade grows and companies continue
to adopt new technologies and business
practices. Feedback from such employers of business school graduates is causing this change in business education
(Ahmadi & Brabston, 1998; Porter &
McKibbin, 1998).
Offers Multiple Styles
Another benefit of team teaching is
combining a mix of teaching skills and
styles. Each professor brings to the class
a unique combination of knowledge,
skills, abilities, and examples honed
over a career. The professors have different sets of presentation skills they
prefer: multimedia, statistical interpretation, or computer applications, for
example. This variety has many advantages, particularly because students
have a variety of learning styles and presentation preferences.
Text and Cases
The first issue for the new teams was
locating appropriate textbooks and
course materials. Because the courses
covered at least two subject areas, it was
difficult to find a single, appropriate
textbook. This is a familiar challenge in
team-taught classes. Often it is
addressed through combining relevant
portions of a functional area textbook in
custom publishing or by gathering cases
and readings and other materials in lieu
of a textbook. Students, however, complain when custom textbooks differ
greatly in print size and writing style
and pages are not numbered consecutively, since it makes referring to materials a challenging task. In some courses, professors used two textbooks, but a
caution here is not to combine two
three-credit hour courses into one threecredit hour course without considering
the workload on the students. In some
cases, covering two textbooks in one
course was too aggressive for both the
students and faculty.
Creates Interdisciplinary Scholarship
Syllabus
Finally, team teaching can lead to the
creation of a more collegial and robust
faculty. Inter- and intradepartmental
team building can be a positive benefit.
There is also the possibility of crossdisciplinary research and enhanced publication opportunities, as well as the
opportunity to help newer and younger
faculty hone their skills. Booth, DixonBrown, and Kohut (2003), for example,
found shared or team teaching as a way to
balance teaching and research and found
the approach also offers professors more
concentrated time for their research.
Learning from the Team-Teaching
Experience
The impetus for the team-teaching
efforts outlined here was a result of the
College of Business’ MBA program
revitalization at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. In this process,
the curriculum committee reviewed the
program in detail and recommended
several courses for combination and
team teaching. The graduate faculty was
then asked to volunteer to teach in the
combined courses.
Crafting the syllabus required each
team member to relinquish ownership in
order to develop a course that served the
students best. Timing of class assignment, readings, exams, class presentations, and reports, within the confines of
the travels of each professor, proved to
be a difficult, yet possible task. Once the
class schedule was developed, the two
professors met to establish the point distribution and weighting for the various
components of the course. Given the
learning curve experienced in team
teaching, the syllabus and course content changed each semester. In particular, the professors adjusted the workload
to better reflect the course combination.
Quizzes, Exams, and Evaluation
Quizzes and exams should reflect the
team-taught nature of the course and
should consist of questions from both
functional areas rather than having two
separate tests. When possible, questions
or cases that address all of the combined
functional areas should be included and
graded by both professors. This supports
the view of Gopinath (2004) who found
that, while graders had areas of disagreement as a result of varied interpretation
of answers, students benefited from a
process that involved multiple graders,
particularly on analyses of cases.
The instructors included class contribution as a significant component of this
graduate-level course. Interestingly,
class participation and contribution was
easier to accurately assess with the additional professor available to record participation points. The instructors also
used seating charts to facilitate the
recording. With the proliferation of digital cameras, having a photo seating chart
of students with their names, majors or
concentrations, and current work experience noted is helpful in calling on students, recording points, and learning
their names more quickly. Because communication and teamwork were goals of
the course, the class included a final
team project and presentation. Students
were allowed to choose their own team
members as well as their company to
study. Team members completed team
evaluation forms to rate the performance
of their own contributions as well as
those of the other team members. In
addition, the student audience also completed a presentation evaluation form.
Preclass Planning and Grading
Both professors met in planning sessions numerous times prior to teaching
the first class, finalizing material, content, and teaching and learning assessment mechanisms and discussing the
respective weights of each activity. Both
further agreed that interrupting each
other during the class time to present
ideas and views from the other functional area would be both necessary and
encouraged in this team-teaching partnership. The interruptions would also
reflect how business meetings are conducted with multiple viewpoints jockeying for position and consideration. Handling back-and-forth discussion and
debate is a positive feature of team
teaching as are the asides or interruptions, particularly when they are managed and presented in an appropriate
location in the lecture material.
The instructors also facilitated the
distribution of effort by weekly meetSeptember/October 2005
31
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
ings prior to class. The professors often
had dinner together before the evening
class to review the materials and discussion outline. These meetings helped to
leverage the skills of the two professors
to enhance the students’ learning experience. At the end of each semester and
before the beginning of the next semester, the professors reviewed the materials, the student evaluations, and made
adjustments to the course, further
streamlining the process.
From the beginning, the instructors
created single quizzes and tests, representing a combination of accounting
and manufacturing issues. Each professor graded the relevant part of the quiz
or exam and transferred the entire test to
the counterpart in a timely manner so
grading could be completed and recorded before the next class meeting. The
final presentation report was graded by
both professors and assigned one grade.
This supports the research of Goinpath
(2004), who found that multiple graders
lead to improved student satisfaction.
Teaching Evaluations
Teaching evaluations were adapted to
the team-teaching environment. Because
the professors were making joint presentations at each class meeting, students
could either view the separate teachers
as an inseparable unit or evaluate them
as single professors. It is possible, however, to separate the comments into a
course evaluation to rate the content,
materials, books, testing, and delivery
and have two additional evaluations for
each of the two instructors in the team.
Students can be directed only to focus
on issues related to the teaching style
and presentation of the faculty, as separate from the course, in the individual
evaluations. This allows each team
member to have individualized, constructive feedback. For this reason we
chose the separate evaluations.
Administrators must note that often
team-teaching courses are experiments
or works-in-progress and may have
lower initial teaching evaluations than
traditional course formats. Any new
teaching model is an experiment and
involves taking risks and trying new
approaches and should be rewarded and
encouraged even if the student comments
32
Journal of Education for Business
are not at the same level as for individual
instructors in non-team-taught courses.
Power Struggles
Handling disagreements was not a
problem in our team of tenured, full
professors because each worked in separate departments (accounting and management), neither was part of the other’s
promotion and tenure committee, we
did not differ in rank or title, and, until
the combined class, we had previously
not interacted on more than a personal
basis. However, in teams structured
with faculty from the same department
or with a mix of senior and junior faculty, disagreements may present more of a
problem and may require assistance
from the department chair(s) to resolve.
Gender and Diversity
In our case study, the production professor was female and the accounting
professor was male. This mixed gender
team teaching supports the model proposed by Reha (1979) as a way to prepare women for management roles by
introducing them to team teaching with
male and female instructors. Her
research found this method would provide a more objective view of business
as well as serve as an example of teaching men and women to relate to each
other as business equals.
While both professors in this case
study came from similar cultural backgrounds and shared similar teaching
philosophies, researchers have noted that
team teaching with someone from a different culture presents other challenges
in styles and teaching format (Napier,
Hang, Mai, Thang, & Tuan, 2002).
Joint Research
At the beginning of the course, neither professor was proficient in the
other’s discipline and made few add-on
discussion comments. However, during
the subsequent offerings of the course,
more interdisciplinary comments and
observations were possible. As learning
improved, the professors began to be
able to address students’ questions in
each subject area and not just their own.
The combination also led to joint
research ideas combining the disciplines. The professors developed several research projects leading to presentation and publication as a result of the
shared teaching experience.
Student Feedback and
Assessment
The team-taught class was delivered
to on-site MBA students and MBA students in a distance-learning environment linked by two-way audio and
video in two remote sites 100 miles
away, in a weekend (Friday afternoon
and Saturday) executive-MBA (EMBA)
format, and in a distance-learning
EMBA format. The same syllabus was
used in all formats. Professors alternated sites each week in the distance-learning environments but always taught in
the same location together.
The EMBA class, which met at the
employment location of the student
cohort, was complimentary of the
unique, fresh approach offered by the
team model. These students tended to
form very effective teams and enjoyed
common company time and resources
when preparing their presentations. In
particular, they rated the team project
and presentation as the most effective
part of the course.
Traditional MBA students rated the
course as too difficult and stated it
required about the same effort as the two
separate courses. This supports the findings of Lilyestrom (1999), who agrees
students feel more time is required to be
successful in a team-taught class and
often cite more homework and difficulty
adjusting to different teaching styles in
team-taught classes. The MBA students
worked for a number of different area
companies and teamwork was more difficult for them outside of the scheduled
classroom time. Because the MBA
classes were evening classes and the
majority of students worked full time,
many did not like focusing on two major
business disciplines (accounting and
manufacturing) in the same course in the
same semester.
Quantitative and qualitative assessments were conducted every semester.
Students completed a computer-scored
form assessing a series of 6-point Likerttype scale questions about the teaching
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
effectiveness, class content, class format,
suitability of the textbook, and use of
class time. In general, team-taught courses averaged about one rating point lower
than sole-professor led classes (4.5 from
a traditional mean of 5.5) for the statement “This was an effective course.” For
the team-taught classes in the graduate
MBA program, the accounting and manufacturing combination received quantitative student satisfaction ratings ranging
from 25% to 50% higher than the other
team-taught course combinations over
the 4-year period under study. This team
stayed together while other teams varied
the faculty combinations so the learning
curve difference may account for the
evaluations.
The students’ specific qualitative
comments, noted on the back of the
evaluation form, mentioned the larger
than expected workload and time constraints, particularly in the first year of
the team-taught course. The graduate
students also commented on the desire
for the team to teach the class less like a
seminar and to include more lecturing,
even though the format of the class was
discussed in the syllabus. The students
seemed to feel the structure was more of
a facilitating role and they were used to
a lecture–testing format in the past.
Overall, the students were favorable
about the class content, class structure,
and each professor’s effectiveness.
The students particularly liked the
real-world discussion of manufacturing applications. They appreciated the
team’s growing knowledge of subject
matter, the case study format, and the
lively exchange and interaction during
discussions. The comments on the
textbooks and the cases as well as the
one visit early in the semester to a
manufacturing facility were also positive. In addition, the students reacted
favorably to the group project, a study
of an external small manufacturing
company’s production and accounting
processes.
Earlier in the team-teaching life
cycle, the students felt the instructors
did not present an equal amount of time
and saw the initial attempts to integrate
the material as interruptions. The dean
and the two department chairs involved
supported the team-teaching experiment
and realized the transition and learning
would take time and did not focus on
the student evaluations.
Conclusion
The combined course was deemed a
success by both students and the business
faculty. As business schools work to
cover more material, make room in the
curriculum for electives and emerging
special topics courses (including ethics
and international business), and streamline duplicated material, the team-teaching concept makes both practical and
intuitive sense. It is a way to replicate
business processes in practice and supports the move to participative management and team decisionmaking. The need
to consider the qualitative and quantitative implications of all business decisions
supports the combination of courses.
Further study is needed on team teaching in a business school environment.
Other case studies of colleges and universities’ successes and failures with team
teaching and course combinations are
needed, particularly articles that detail the
specifics of the course delivery and the
various course combinations used. A
comprehensive survey of undergraduate
and graduate business programs using
course combinations and team teaching
on a longitudinal basis is also needed. In
addition, we suggest study of the use of
such combinations in the noncredit environment for continuing education courses
for professional development.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi, M., & Brabston, M. (1998). MIS education: Differences in academic practice and business managers’ expectations. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38(2), 18–26.
Andrews, K., & Wooten, B. (2005). Closing the
gap: Helping students identify the skills
employers want. NACE Journal, 64(4), 41.
Ayadi, O. F., & Crawford, E. M. (1996). Achieving integrating experience in business programs
through team teaching. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 23, 153–175.
The boom in entrepreneurial studies. (1996). Inc.,
18(14), 48.
Booth, R., Dixon-Brown, M., & Kohut, G. (2003).
Shared teaching models for business communication in a research environment. Business
Communication Quarterly, 66(3), 23.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate
experience in America. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New
York: Harper and Row.
Do you speak MBA? (1996). Canadian Business,
69(12), 56–57.
Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the future: The
1990s and beyond. New York: Truman Talley
Books/Dutton.
Dumas, C., Blodgett, M., Carlson, P., Pant, L., &
Venka, M. (2000). Revitalizing the MBA for
the new millennium: A collaborative action
research approach. International Journal of
Value-Based Management, 13, 229–253.
Fish, S. (1994). Being interdisciplinary is so very
hard to do. In S. Fish (Ed.), There is no such thing
as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too (pp.
231–242). New York: Oxford University Press.
Flanagan, M. F., & Ralston, D. A. (1983). Intracoordinated team teaching: Benefits for both
students and instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 116–117.
Galley, J. D., & Carroll, V. S. (1993). Toward a
collaborative model for interdisciplinary teaching: Business and literature. Journal of Education for Business, 69, 36–39.
Geary, W. T., & Rooney, C. J. (1993). Designing
accounting education to achieve balanced intellectual development. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(1), 60.
Goby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (1999). Auditors’ communication requirements: A study of five
NNCS in Singapore. Business Communication
Quarterly, 62(4), 41–52.
Goinpath, C. (2004) Exploring effects of criteria
and multiple graders on case grading. Journal
of Education for Business, 79, 317–322.
Hancock, T. (1998). The new MBA: Flies in the
paradigm. Business Horizons, 41(4), 41–44.
Hartenian, L. S., Schellenger, M., & Frederickson,
P. (2001). Creation and assessment of an integrated business course: One college’s experience. Journal of Education for Business, 76,
149–160.
Heinfeldt, J., & Wolf, F. (1998). Re-engineering
the business curriculum: A stakeholder paradigm. Journal of Education for Business, 73,
198–201.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San
Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Lilyestrom, B. (1999, May 5). Team-teaching program receives mixed grades. Telegram &
Gazette, p. B3.
Mason, J. C. (1992) Business schools: Striving to
meet customer demand. Management Review,
81(9), 10–15.
Morlock, H. C. (1988). A rotational form for team
teaching in introductory psychology. Teaching
of Psychology, 15, 144–145.
Napier, N. K., Hang, N. M., Mai, N. T. T., &
Thang, N. V., & Tuan, V. V. (2002). Bicultural
team teaching: Experiences from an emerging
business school. Journal of Management Education, 26, 429–449.
Nead, M. J. (1995). A team-taught business
course: A case study of its effectiveness at a
comprehensive community college. Business
Education Forum, 49(3), 33–35.
Nixon, J. C., Helms, M. M., & Fletcher, L. P.
(1997). Integrating team teaching, technology,
and distance learning in MBA programs: A case
study. Industrial and Commercial Training,
27(7), 218–225.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1998). Management education and development: Drift or
thrust into the 21st century? New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Reeve, S. (1992). Graduate management education
in transition. Survey of Business, 28(1), 3–19.
Reha, R. K. (1979). Preparing women for management roles. Business Horizons, 22(2), 68.
Seitz, P. (2002, May 22). Firms find teams can
bring top talent together on projects. Investor’s
Business Daily, p. A4.
September/October 2005
33
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:49 12 January 2016
Slater, J. S., McCubbrey, D. J., & Scudder, R. A.
(1995). Inside an integrated MBA: Art information systems view. MIS Quarterly, 19,
391–410.
Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Kite, M. (2000).
Broadening the business curriculum via a crossdisciplinary approach: A mobile unit on cultur-
al diversity. Education, 120, 713–722.
Steadman, M. E. (2000). An interdisciplinary
health care accounting class: Content, student
response, and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 267–270.
Watkins, T. L. (1996). Stage 1: Creating a new
MBA core with team teaching. Journal of Man-
United States Postal Service
agement Education, 20, 411–420.
Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2005). Winning. New
York: HarperCollins.
White, C. S., Henley, J. A., & Brabston, M. E.
(1998). To team teach or not to team teach–that
is the question: A faculty perspective. Marketing Education Review, 8(3) 13–23.
13. Publication Title
1. Publication Title
2. Publication Number
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
ISSN: 0883-2323
2 7 8
4. Issue Frequency
_
3. Filing Date
5
8 0
5. Number of Issues Published Annually
6
Bi-monthly
15.
a.
Total Number of Copies (Net press run)
6. Annual Subscription Price
Institutions $97
Individuals $54
Contact Person
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Telephone
Fred Huber
202-296-6267
(1)
Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on
Form 3541. (Include advertiser's proof and exchange copies)
Paid In-County Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541
b. Paid and/or (2) (Include advertiser's proof and exchange copies)
Requested
Circulation (3) Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors,
Counter Sales, and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution
(4) Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS
8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (Not printer)
c. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation
[Sum of 15b. (1), (2),(3),and (4)]
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor (Do not leave blank)
Publisher (Name and complete mailing address)
Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Editor (Name and complete mailing address)
d.
Free
Distribution
by Mail
(Samples,
compliment
ary, and
other free)
f.
Managing Editor (Name and complete mailing address)
g.
Jamie Kunkle
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
h.
10. Owner (Do not leave blank. If the publication is owned by a corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followed by the
names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the
names and addresses of the individual owners. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of
each individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.)
Complete Mailing Address
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
i.
No. Copies of Single Issue
Published Nearest to Filing Date
979
922
601
608
0
0
64
60
0
0
665
668
20
0
(2) In-County as Stated on Form 3541
0
0
(3) Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS
0
0
2
2
(1) Outside-County as Stated on Form 3541
e. Free Distribution Outside the Mail
(Carriers or other means)
Board of Executive Editors
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Full Name
July/August 2005
Average No. Copies Each Issue
During Preceding 12 Months
Extent and Nature of Circulation
October 1, 2005
7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication (Not printer) (Street, city, county, state, and ZIP+4)
Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation
14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation
22
2
Total Distribution (Sum of 15c. and 15f)
687
670
Copies not Distributed
292
252
Total (Sum of 15g. and h.)
979
922
Total Free Distribution (Sum of 15d. and 15e.)
j. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation
(15c. divided by 15g. times 100)
97
16. Publication of Statement of Ownership
XX Publication required. Will be printed in the ________________________
issue of this publication.
Sept/Oct 2005
17. Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner
100
Publication not required.
Date
September 29, 2005
Executive Director
I certify that all information furnished on this form is true and complete. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form
or who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonme nt) and/or civil sanctions
(including civil penalties).
Instructions to Publishers
11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or
Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or
Other Securities. If none, check box
Full Name
XXNone
Complete Mailing Address
12. Tax Status (For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at nonprofit rates) (Check one)
The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes:
XX Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months
Has Changed During Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must submit explanation of change with this statement)
PS Form 3526, October 1999
34
(See Instructions on Reverse)
Journal of Education for Business
1.
Complete and file one copy of this form with your postmaster annually on or before October 1. Keep a copy of the completed form
for your records.
2.
In cases where the stockholder or security holder is a trustee, include in items 10 and 11 the name of the person or corporation for
whom the trustee is acting. Also include the names and addresses of individuals who are stockholders who own or hold 1 percent
or more of the total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities of the publishing corporation. In item 11, if none, check the
box. Use blank sheets if more space is required.
3.
Be sure to furnish all circulation information called for in item 15. Free circulation must be shown in items 15d, e, and f.
4.
Item 15h., Copies not Distributed, must include (1) newsstand copies originally stated on Form 3541, and returned to the publisher,
(2) estimated returns from news agents, and (3), copies for office use, leftovers, spoiled, and all other copies not distributed.
5.
If the publication had Periodicals authorization as a general or requester publication, this Statement of Ownership, Management,
and Circulation must be published; it must be printed in any issue in October or, if the publication is not published during October,
the first issue printed after October.
6.
In item 16, indicate the date of the issue in which this Statement of Ownership will be published.
7.
Item 17 must be signed.
Failure to file or publish a statement of ownership may lead to suspension of Periodicals authorization.
PS Form 3526, October 1999 (Reverse)