Multiple-Perspective Teaching for Professionals:
A Look at Mid- and Senior-Level Leaders in the Classroom
Katie E. Matthew
This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program, a 2-year
faculty professional development program conducted by the Center for Teaching Excellence, United
States Military Academy, West Point, NY, 2011.
Introduction
While attending graduate school, I was exposed to the concept of Teaching/Graduate Assistants working
under a PhD professor for the first time. It sparked my interest to watch my peers in the classroom and
how their behavior would shift from mildly attentive with a TA on the platform to frantic note-taking
when the senior professor was teaching, particularly if the professor had a professional pedigree. Most
business schools have a healthy mix of instructors from academic and practical backgrounds to provide a
sense of direct application of theory. Most professions, including engineering, teaching, business, and
law employ this blended technique to provide students with a chance to hear “from the horse’s mouth”
why these concepts matter throughout their degree program. With multiple-perspective teaching a
norm from the academic arena (TAs and PhDs), the idea of using the same technique from the
professional arena should warrant unique results, based on the perspectives of mid-level and seniorlevel professionals operating in the same classroom.
Background
Using multiple-perspective teaching at the university level is a standard practice at most universities.
Professors needing more time for research and graduate students seeking funding opportunities are a
natural fit to achieve mutual goals. However, in most of these cases, Teaching Assistants (TAs) teach to
a syllabus outlined by the professor, in which they may have had little to no input in the design. TA's, as
a general rule, conduct the “grunt work” administrative duties for the class, from grading to attendance
and basic lecture. Though useful for some courses that lead to a degree for those occupations deemed
professions, having a practicing professional on the platform is not only more validating for the course
itself, but can also ensure the profession is managing its own theoretical education as well as its
practice.
This variation on team teaching is not new. The concept of apprenticeship for guilds is essentially a
multiple-perspective learning environment. Apprentices learn under a series of masters, many working
side-by-side. Vocational schools will also use a tiered teaching environment to demonstrate skills at all
levels to new students. Goetz (2000) and Anderson and Speck (1998) describes team teaching as taking
many forms and that success is as much about design of the program as it is about selecting partners.
Multiple-perspective teaching falls into the category of collaborative teaching, defined as not only
working together with the same students in the same classroom, but also working together on class
design. Teaching pairs who complement each other make the best collaborative partners and bringing
in complimentary perspectives fits this description (Robinson & Schaible , 1995).
While benefits for the students can include variety of presentation, keeping the students engaged, and
encouraging debate, the benefits for the instructors themselves can also be worthwhile (Beavers and
DeTurck, 2007). Wilson and Martin (1998) commented on some of these benefits including mentoring,
role modeling, improved standards, and better teaching skills. Teachers working collaboratively have the
benefit of still learning while they are teaching. While already working in a small group as a team, team
teachers are also more likely to engage in group activities for the students as well (Paulsen and Feldman,
1995). There is a seemingly endless list of benefits to team teaching for both the students and teachers
(Troen and Boles, 1988).
Far less literature discusses the structure of collaborative teaching when the two instructors come from
different levels of seniority in the profession. Many looked at interdisciplinary teams, teams of different
sizes, but the literature appears thin in the realm of multiple-perspective teaching. It is this particular
dynamic that I wanted to investigate for merit. Can two professionals at different levels of their
vocation team teach students of that vocation with success?
The Approach
PL300: Military Leadership is required core curriculum at the United States Military Academy for cadets
in their junior year. The intent of the course is that each student has had at least one extended (four
weeks or more) leadership experience on which to reflect and analyze using current theory and practice.
The course is taught by active duty military officers, the majority of which are mid-level officers in the
rank of Captain and Major. These instructors have a master’s degree and their professional experience
is relied heavily upon to demonstrate the application of theory. A few sections are taught by seniorlevel officers in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel, most of whom have a completed or “all but
dissertation” PhD. These officers also rely heavily on their professional experience, but their perspective
is at a higher level of command and their view of what makes a good junior officer may be different
from that of a mid-level instructor. Though students are exposed to both of these views throughout the
day in a variety of subjects, they do not see both of these perspectives on the same subject with any
regularity.
During the fall semester of 2011, I asked a senior officer (Colonel) with past experience teaching in the
department to consider team teaching with me for some or all of my three sections. Assigned to the
Admissions Department, he welcomed the opportunity to gain a fresh perspective of the classroom to
augment his current duties. Aligning the schedules, the senior-level instructor (SLI) sat in and taught for
two of the three sections, allowing one section to serve as a control group. As the mid-level instructor
(MLI), I taught all three sections on the same day, beginning with the control group. Students in the two
sections with both instructors were briefed at the beginning of the semester about the unique dynamic
and that as both instructors were members of the military profession, they would contribute to the
discussions as needed.
To expose the students to both instructors, lesson plans were laid out ahead of time with a primary
instructor assigned and a facilitator. Both the SLI and MLI served in each role in both hours to have the
benefit of both perspectives for each topic discussed. To alleviate confusion for the students, they were
informed that the MLI would handle the administrative portions of the class, to include grading and
counseling. Students were surveyed throughout the semester regarding their opinions on the structure
of the class, the different styles of instruction, and the benefits/detriments of having two officers in the
discussions. The control group also received periodic surveys regarding the same questions, except they
focused only on the MLI. There was no change to the class requirements, including quizzes, papers, and
group presentations. Overall, all three sections ran the same administratively.
Assessment
Classroom Environment
Throughout the early part of the semester, students were asked informally for their feedback. As one
might expect, this method yielded answers such as “today was good” and “I liked it.” Though students
may appreciate the opportunity for feedback, this method would yield little result. One comment
spoken in class while the SLI was leading did stand out enough to warrant clear survey questions later in
the semester. When the SLI mentioned the class seemed a little quieter, one student remarked, “well
Sir, you are a Colonel.” The SLI and MLI had both been present for the sessions leading up to this lesson,
but this was the first one with the SLI as primary instructor. Taking this early result down, the periodic
surveys asked a variety of questions about the course, teaching style, and classroom environment.
The nature of the course is based on discussion generated by both the instructors and the students
themselves. When asked a question, the expectation is that all members will share freely and without
fear. In order to do so, a rapport is required between the teacher(s) and the students. To tap into this,
the students were asked a series of questions in two anonymous surveys. The first, conducted midway
through the course, provided a quick look at the student’s perceptions. The second provided a more
qualitative opportunity for students to write openly. For example, question A below is from the midcourse survey, while question B is from the end of course survey.
QA. Having two instructors in the same class was:
- Worthwhile-it provides two different perspectives
- Fun-they distract each other from time to time.
- Distracting as a student.
- I don’t like it; makes me wonder who is really in charge.
QB. What was your expectation this semester as far as multiple instructors? Were you looking forward
to having multiple instructors? How could the experience have been better?
By asking about the same experience in two different formats, the students were able to fully explain
after the entire experience what their perceptions were. In survey A, students overwhelmingly (90% of
surveys for the two sections with multiple instructors) selected “worthwhile-it provides two different
perspectives.” This positive response led to little change for the structure in the class and seemed to
support the use of substitute team teaching later in the semester. However, the general consensus for
survey B included answers such as:
“did not enjoy having to learn two different instructors’ styles”
“hard to adjust to different expectations”
“prefer having one style for the whole course”
Of the 30 respondents to survey B, over half (56%) mentioned the need to adapt in the classroom to
different styles. The remainder (40%) mentioned positives such as:
“…it is good for the purpose of hearing different viewpoints on key concepts of
leadership from different officers. This is because every officer has a different
background and being able to learn from each of them is just more tools for us to use
or emulate in the future as we see applicable.”
“I think it was good, while one instructor was lecturing the other one was giving more
individual attention.”
“…It was nice to have the different views and different teaching styles.”
Overall, the students rated the experience as a learning opportunity, but many argued they struggled
with understanding the impact on their grades with multiple instructors involved.
Student Performance
To judge student performance, semester grades by section were compared to see if there was any
significant change. All assignments were kept the same across the three sections. Comparisons were
made on overall average and averages on three key assignments: the leader reflective essay, the
leadership philosophy paper and the final exam. As shown in the figure below, very little difference in
performance was shown between the control section (G) and the two sections with both instructors.
The slightly higher grades shown for the third section (I) are consistent with the course as a whole for
sections taught second or third in a row. Instructors tend to improve issues brought up in the first
section for follow-on classes. It is typical for a single instructor in this course to have approximately 12% higher averages in their final sections.
Section
Section G – MLI
Section H - MLI/SLI
Section I – MLI/SLI
Overall Average
858/1000
852/1000
860/1000
Reflective Essay
121.2/150
121.3/150
122.3/150
Philosophy Paper
212.6/250
211.1/250
222.6/250
Final Exam
164.7/200
161.9/200
164.9/200
These three key assignments assess two main areas. The reflective essay and philosophy paper assess
the student’s ability to apply the course material to their own experiences and values while the final
exam assesses understanding of the basic concepts and ability to apply them to a standard case. Adding
an additional perspective to the class does not appear to have an effect on performance in regards to
application.
Observed Behavior
In addition to surveys and performance on graded requirements, observations were taken by both the
MLI and SLI during lessons to note any significant change. These observations were taken primarily to
assess teaching styles and provide feedback to the officer in the instructor role. As expected, the first
time the SLI took the instructor role, the students were a little timid about commenting. One student
was bold enough to comment, saying “well sir, you are a colonel.” Also as anticipated, as the students
became accustomed to multiple faces in the classroom, little to no difference was noted in their level of
participation in regards to which officer was instructing.
Though participation did not change, a depth of discussion did. In three of the four lessons observed in
which both the MLI and SLI were present, the students solicited viewpoints from both officers and
followed up on the differences. In the control section, the students did not ask for further details or
examples during those same lessons. This observation, especially with only three data points, may not
be significant enough to validate having both perspectives, but may warrant further study.
Follow-Up Survey
In order to capture the open opinion regarding team teaching styles in the classroom, I queried current
students enrolled in PL300 for the spring semester. While conducting the mid-course survey, I asked the
students if given the choice, would they prefer:
-
To have a steady team of 2-3 instructors throughout the course to gain multiple perspectives (25%)
To have lesson discussions led by classmates (7%)
To have one instructor throughout all lessons (65%)
To move in a round-robin fashion throughout modules taught by subject matter experts (3%)
The students, as a whole preferred the one instructor method, while a steady team represented 25% of
the students’ choice. Both of these answers indicate that the students are less choosy about team
versus individual as they are about consistency. This is more likely indicative of their focus on the
administrative tasks, such as grading and class assignments, than about the experience itself.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Multiple Perspective teaching is not a new concept in the classroom. College campuses across the
country employ a version of this with the use of Teaching Assistants (TA) in larger, core curriculum
courses to assist researching professors. The problem with this common use is that in most cases TA’s
do not have the professional background yet to bring that perspective into the classroom. Thus,
students really receive the text, an explanation, and maybe some graded feedback. When the professor
is in the room, students are exposed to the single perspective of this professional in that field. Using
multiple perspectives from practicing professionals has the potential to provide variety of opinion on the
course theory and its application.
Multiple Perspective teaching, especially for practicing professions (law, medicine, business,
government, teaching) has the potential to have all the benefits of the common method (TA/PhD
combination) while still bringing in perspective. This can be a great solution for business schools that
want to have active corporate executives in the classroom and yet need to still provide some academic
structure. Pairing a “fresh from the trenches” senior professional with a practicing academic
professional would allow for multiple perspectives of application and still ensure the theoretical
underpinnings were addressed.
The research into this topic was limited and warrants further review, particularly in civilian institutions.
The military structure of the United States Military Academy made it easy to select a mid-level and
senior-level professional, but also provided some limits for the students with two officers in the room.
Conducting similar tests within the classroom at varying programs and schools would allow for a more
concrete conclusion as to the benefit of this method. The payoff for universities could be value-added in
the courses themselves and the ability to recruit fresh practitioners into programs. The ability to teamteach is less daunting to a time-strapped executive and may allow for more participation.
The real value of multiple perspective teaching is found in the results of the student surveys. The
multiple viewpoints allowed for deeper understanding for individuals and the group as a whole because
of the difference of discussion when there are two “experts” in the room. Open debate, questions, and
general participation increases with this addition and can create deeper learning opportunities when
used in the right contexts. Not every subject is suited for this method, but for practicing professionals,
there is no such thing as too many viewpoints to learn from.
References
Anderson, R. and Speck, B. (1998). Oh what a difference a team makes: Why team teaching makes a
difference. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 14 (7), 671-686.
Beavers, H., DeTurck, D. (2007) Shall We Dance? Team Teaching and the Harmony of Collaboration.
Almanac (http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v46/n30/tatBeavers-DeTurck.html).
Goetz, Karin (2000), “Perspectives on Team Teaching.” EGallery. Vol. 1, No. 4, August.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~egallery/goetz.html
Paulsen, M. and Feldman, K. (1995), “Taking Teaching Seriously: Meeting the Challenge of Instructional
Improvement,” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 24-2.
Robinson & Schaible , (1995). Collaborative teaching: Reaping the benefits. College Teaching, 43 (2), 5760.
Troen, V. & Boles, K. (1988). The teaching project: A model for teacher empowerment. Language Arts,
65 (7), 688-92.
Wilson, V.A. and Martin, K.M. (1998), “Practicing What We Preach: Team Teaching at the College Level,”
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators (Dallas, TX, February 1317, 1998).