THE NEW ZEALAND LIBRARY & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT JOURNAL NGĀ PŪRONGO

NEW ZEALAND LIBRARY & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT JOURNAL • NGĀ PŪRONGO VOL 56, ISSUE NO. 1 • FEBRUARY/JULY 2016 NEW ZEALAND LIBRARY & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT JOURNAL • NGĀ PŪRONGO VOL 56, ISSUE NO. 1 • FEBRUARY/JULY 2016
Findings & discussion
Findings
The effects
& discussion
(challenges vs benefits) of application of the team teaching pedagogy in DSP IL
workshops at the University of Auckland
Table 4: Data summary—The effects of application of the team teaching
pedagogy in DSP IL workshops at the University of Auckland (April
2014 – April 2015)
• The effects (challenges vs benefits) of application of
the team teaching pedagogy in DSP IL workshops at
the University of Auckland
Table 4: Data summary—The effects of application of the team teaching pedagogy in DSP IL
workshops at the University of Auckland (April 2014 – April 2015)
All DSP IL presenters who completed the online survey
8
and those who participated in the focus group found the
team teaching practice overall beneficial for their professional
development and collaboration (see Table 4). These findings
support the recommendations found in the literature (Wenger
& Hornyak, 1999; Stehlik , 1995; Rytivaara & Kershner, 2012).
Medaille & Shannon (2012) and Jurena & Daniels (1997) also
highlight the importance of developing productive, positive
and comfortable professional relationships among IL presenters
as a key prerequisite of successful team teaching
practice. From eleven Subject Librarians who responded
to the online survey, two were completely new to team
teaching practice as they never before had the opportunity to
co-present, while three of the five presenters who took part
in the focus group did not practice team teaching before they
got involved in DSP IL workshop programme. For them, this
was completely new teaching experience and one of them
commented:
It has changed my approach to teaching, because previously
I only taught as a sole presenter, so it was interesting to start
teaching as a team.” And another one pointed out: “I am a
novice presenter, so I consider myself as “the younger” kind
of presenter. And I look at my co-presenters as at “senior”
level, and they are acting like my mentors.” “Every time you
see someone else teaching, you learn…and also develop
your own teaching style further. When I listen to other presenters,
I always think:”Gosh, they’ve done it so well…I wish
I could do the same, why can’t I do that, etc.”
The presence of the variety of different teaching voices was
also significant for most of the presenters in this study. The
following comment illustrates this:
It was great to combine two different styles of teaching, and
presenting in different ways. I think the sharing and the dialogue
between the presenters, and even the third person
who is helping and roving, especially in a long class—it definitely
feels that one person could be terribly boring talking
for those two hours.
The data also revealed that all presenters felt a strong commitment
towards co-teaching preparation and pre-session
communication, and understood that it was the key to the
overall success of each workshop. However, not much of their
attention was focussed towards actual pre-teaching trial run
practice (‘choreography’) of the team teaching. For example,
the online survey data showed that the DSP IL presenters’
preferred practice (8 out of 11 respondents) was “pre-session
meetings with co-presenter” and “mutual negotiation
of team teaching approach”. The third placed preference was
for “follow up communication” (6 out of 11 respondents) and
end-of-semester meetings with workshop teaching teams to
discuss pedagogical challenges and solutions. Only one presenter
chose the actual “pre-teaching practice with co-presenter”
as their preferred practice. However, the focus group
conversations with students revealed that the nature of the
collaboration and coherent, well-practiced ‘choreography’
between co-presenters influenced significantly the quality of
their learning in each session. One of them commented:
I think that it really depends on the cooperation between
the presenters. Like, when you can see that they’ve done it
together many times—they were very fluent together, and
I think it helps – they support and help each other in their
teaching and it’s quite nice. But I think, when the interaction
is not smooth between presenters, I feel a bit odd about it.
When they have different opinions or one person is better at
teaching than another, which happened in one of the workshops,
then it’s like—“ah, nah, I’d rather just listen to this
person than the other…because they know a bit more…”
The data indicate that, with team teaching practice in
place, the teaching team of IL presenters organically forms
and behaves as a community of learners with its own specific
needs. Most presenters’ comments from the focus group contain
sequences such as: “I am learning…”, or “I have learnt a
great deal from…” The development of the professional team
dynamics, co-teaching relationships and teaching skills is
enhanced by the grassroots formation of peer-learning partnerships.
This can be compared to the findings of Hosier
(2012), Pratt (2014), Eisen (2000a & 2000b) and Eisen &
Tisdell’s (2001) research that highlight the benefits of using
peer-learning partnerships that foster learning through joint
reflection. Eisen (2000a & 2000b) differentiates these partnerships
from the mainstream mentoring practice, where, as in
this case, the individuals are contributing to the professional
partnerships on equal terms and share comparable roles. The
second group of learners with tendency and strong need to
form a ‘community of practice’ identified in our study, is, the
group of DCs attending DSP IL workshops.
The focus group conversation with DCs revealed that,
regardless of the type of content introduced (skills-based
‘how to’ vs topical ‘what is/why’), when situated learning
environment and peer-learning methodology are not fostered
and opportunities for knowledge sharing and (if conditions
allow) peer-teaching are not provided, the level of engagement
among DCs in DSP IL workshops is lesser and the
added value of team teaching pedagogy almost irrelevant.
One example from the DCs focus group discussion is:
After one of the sessions I remember coming away and
thinking: “Well I wish I could have had some time talking to
the people around me, because they would have been able
to put things in different ways that presenters did, that might
have made a better sense to me. And I went out of my way
to talk to the people beside me, and each time we’d make a
little conversation like “How are you going with this and that,
etc…?” I really like that, but it wasn’t encouraged.
To delve further into the learning new skills vs peer-learning
dichotomy, the principal researcher asked DCs the following
sub-questions during our focus group discussion:
• How important is it for you, as doctoral candidates,
when you attend the skills-based workshop, to feel a
part of the group (group of learners) in a classroom,
and to connect with other colleagues in the class, and
have the chance to talk to them?
• How much does that matter in terms of your learning
compared to following the ‘how to’ activity in order to
try out new functionality or learn how to use a particular
tool or software?
The feedback we have received from students confirmed
the notion that the team teaching pedagogy applied in DSP
IL workshops is not effective if it does not accommodate a
reflective, peer-learning environment allowing the time and
space for DCs, as adult learners, to collaborate and learn from
72 73