TOWARD A BRIEF SCALE TO INDEX THE IMPACT OF TEAM-TEACHING AT THE COLLEGIATE LEVEL

The lecture format has persisted in college teaching because it is the easiest thing to do; it is the accepted thing; it is the safest (2, p. 4 2 ) . Fortunately, according to Eble, lecturing frequently shifts to other forms of interacting discoutse (or conversation). The team-teaching format in higher education has emerged to stimulate discourse and hzs been described as a "post-Sputnik" innovation in teaching alternatives ( 4 ) . While validation is still forthcoming, the advocates of the team-teaching format base their support on rwo premises: ( a ) students participating in team-taught courses may learn better (and, presumably, score higher o n examinations) than srudents in "traditionally" taught lecture courses, and ( b ) srudents' attitudes toward ream-teaching methods will be positive (6 , p. 1030) . The purpose of the study was to develop a brief and reliable rating instrument applicable to the team-teaching format, to be used by students. Subjrcts were 587 males and females enrolled in 1 1 team-taught courses, which tepresentcd a broad cross-section of curriculum. The evaluation instrument, five 5-point rating scales and based on faculty consensus of item appropriateness,' was administered at the end of the Spring 1976 semester. Scores for each subject were intercorrelated, and the Pearsonian r matrix analyzed through iterative principal axis solution ( 5 ) . An inspection of the 5 X 5 matrix indicated one large eigenvalue ("latent toot of one" criterion). Squared multiple Rs were inserted in the principal d~agonal as communality ( h 2 ) estimates and one factor extracted in the final solution. The range of first factor loadings was .71 to .83 for the five team-teaching evaluation statements. Ordered by magnitude of factor loading: ( a ) over-all quality of the educational experience as taught by this team instructor ( . 8 3 ) , ( b ) considering everything how would you rate this part of the coutse ( .go) , ( c ) evaluation of your intellectual development in this section of the course ( .77), ( d ) evaluation of your personal growth and development in this part of the coutse ( .73) , and ( e ) considering everything how would you rate this team instructor ( .71) . The split-half reliability was .92 ( p < .01) with Spearman-Brown correction for length. This finding compares favorably with reliabiliry for eight statements designed to measure impact of a seminar ( 3 ) . Supporters of team teaching point to the ( a ) "value-added" expertise of two or mote instructors in facilitating communication (Eble's concept of "discoutse") and (b) costbenefit implications. Wi th respect to the latter, Bowen and Douglass (1 , p. 1 0 2 ) opt for an eclectic plan in higher education: "We believe there is ample opportunity within prevailing economic constraints for bold educational experimentation . . . the cutriculum, the mode of instruction, and the teaching load do make a difference in costs. They may not spell the difference between institutional solvency and bankruptcy, but they may differentiate beween institutional progress and stagnation." The present scale may be used as a "quick" measure of impact of team teaching or part of a test battery aimed at measuring educational outcomes.