Team Teaching Psychology of the Internet
Abstract
This article reviews the development and delivery of an interdisciplinary, team–taught course, Psychology of the Internet. The article highlights some of the barriers faced during the development and teaching of the course as well as the challenges unique to team– teaching. We will also discuss the structure of the course, including specific course activities. We conclude by offering an assessment of the course from the perspective of the students and professors.
Team Teaching Psychology of the Internet
The motivation to team teach an interdisciplinary course was based on the belief that students benefit from an interdisciplinary perspective. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that students benefit from viewing a topic from multiple perspectives because it encourages them to ask questions from different points of view (Orr 1996). Further, interdisciplinary learning will prepare students for the types of collaboration that they will engage in outside of academics (Gesiakowska and LoSardo 1991). We were similarly motivated by a desire to challenge ourselves and our own teaching perspectives. Evidence suggests that challenges in the classroom can lead to better teaching (Palmer, 1993).
On the basis of these motivations, we developed, designed, and taught a course titled Psychology of the Internet. The topic of psychology of the Internet is both timely and interesting. As people rely more and more on the Internet for various aspects of their daily lives (Stoll 1995), it seems important to explore the psychological aspects of behavior on the Internet. Further, the study of the Internet by both a computer scientist and a psychologist created an ideal environment for this particular content. Additionally, both professors have somewhat similar organization styles and philosophies toward student learning. Nonetheless, it was the first time either professor had taught in a team environment and several unanticipated challenges developed. This paper briefly describes the development and the delivery of the course. We then discuss some issues unique to team–teaching and conclude with both the students’ and professors’ evaluation of the course.
Initiation of the Course
The initial idea for the course began as an e–mail. To gain a better understanding of how our ideas about the course evolved, segments from an e–mail message describing our initial ideas for the course our shown below.
(Initial 8/4/00) What do you think about you and I team teaching a course loosely titled Perspectives on Internet Behavior? I imagine it to be set up much like a graduate seminar, where we all read a few readings and have discussions. Assessment might take the form of thought papers and a project requiring students to analyze some sort of Internet behavior. Prep time should be really short. I thought about this as I read The Culture of the Internet and The Psychology of the Internet, both of which I intended to lend you when I was finished. I was thinking of going with a SAN/PSY 200 number, which has several advantages: 1. It would make it an interdisciplinary course, and 2. We can get a onetime course approval if we number it 200. I am thinking about this for the year you come back (2001–2002).
(Response 8/4/00) I love the idea of team teaching a course on the Internet . . . however, my department would NEVER allow that kind of course to be a SAN course so it would have to be listed as a PSY course or some other alternative. I really like the idea . . . an honors course is another idea . . . I taught one of those once.
The authors discussed ideas for the course, began to identify books and topics, and started talking with the appropriate administrators about offering the course. A small ($3,000) internal grant was secured for the summer of 2001 which was used to help develop the course. Although it is beyond the scope of the paper to get into the details of the development of the course, it is worth noting that actually getting the course on the books required substantial effort from both authors. The computer science department’s curriculum committee initially did not approve of the course. The course numberings for psychology courses were different than the course numberings for computer science courses. The administration of the campus was uncertain about how to count a team taught course into the respective faculty members’ course loads. Administrative barriers such as those we encountered have been reported previously (Barkley, Clifton, deCourcy, and Kloos 1998).
Delivery of the Course
The course was offered during the fall of 2001. The final topics identified were based on our summary of the sources we reviewed and organized based on the textbook selected (Wallace 1999). They are shown in Table 1.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Graded components of the course included two exams, eight quizzes, discussion board entries, and a final project. The two exams consisted of a midterm and a final. A short quiz was given before the activity or discussion for each class session, thereby helping to insure that students reviewed the material prior to class. For almost every class session, students were required to post a discussion board entry (which was graded) that tied their classroom experience with their reading. Finally, each student individually researched and presented a topic related to the course. Actual class sessions followed several different formats, including lectures, hands–on computer activities, small group discussions, and large group discussions.
Lecture: Early in the class we devoted a few class sessions to lectures. We spent several sessions learning about the basic hardware and software structure of computers and the Internet. Likewise, we spent several class sessions discussing theories and findings in psychology that were most relevant to Psychology of the Internet issues.
Hands–on Computer Activity: The majority of class sessions included hands–on activities that were typically followed by a small group discussion. In a class session related to on–line personas and deception, for example, students were asked to participate in a newsgroup discussion prior to the class which focused on “getting to know Steve.” Their only requirement was that they get to know the person they were communicating with electronically. Steve was asked to answer all questions honestly. During class time, students used the on–line chat facility to get to know “Dr. Fisher.” Dr. Fisher (in real life a woman) was asked to say she was a male. After discussing their impressions of both people, we brought in both Steve and Dr. Fisher. The class was very surprised to learn Dr. Fisher was a woman and Steve was a quadriplegic. The exercise was a powerful illustration of the assumptions we make when forming on–line impressions. Many of our class sessions were organized in this manner.
Small Group Discussion: As illustrated above, most in–class activities were followed by discussions. Many of these discussions were done in small groups. Students were frequently divided into groups of three or four and asked to discuss the issue at hand. For example, in the illustration above involving Dr. Fisher and Steve, students first met in small groups and discussed their perceptions of Dr. Fisher and Steve. They discussed what they perceived their physical traits to be, their personalities, their likeability, their political orientation, and so forth. Small groups have the advantage of allowing virtually all students to participate (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 1998).
Large Group Discussion: As the class continued we had more and more large group discussions; that is, the entire class discussed or debated an issue. Some of these discussions were quite structured. For example, during one large group discussion, students were asked to formally present to the class an article they had found about the Internet and psychology. The presentations were followed by a short discussion. Similarly, when discussing pornography on the Internet, students were assigned to either a pro–pornography or an antipornography group and were asked to research their position prior to class. The students subsequently had a formal debate during class time. Other discussions were less structured, such as when the class sat in a circle and discussed in seminar–format the topic at hand.
Team Teaching Barriers and Issues
Although we had planned and prepared extensively for the course, we did not anticipate several administrative issues. For example, approximately one week into the course, several students wanted to add the course. The psychology professor did not allow students to add the course. The computer science professor did want to add students to the course. Approximately one week into the semester there were three students wanting to add the course; they were standing in front of us, and we realized that this was an issue that we had not discussed. We were forced to make a quick and impromptu decision. The confusion was not just on the part of the professors. Students were not sure who to see when they had a grade dispute. Similarly, when students missed class they were uncertain who to call.
More challenging than the administrative issues were the issues related to effectively using two professors in the classroom. We began the course by dividing topics so that each of us had responsibility for about half of the topics. While we both attended each and every session, one of us was primarily responsible for the class that particular day. About five weeks into the course, we decided we were not effective as a team. The following segments of an e–mail illustrate the issue.
(11/25/01) We have been teaching the course for five weeks now. I do not like the way it is going. First, it seems disorganized, as though we are flying by the seat of our pants. There are a lot of issues that we never thought about and consequently never discussed, so we have to make things up on the spot. . . . With regard to team teaching, this does not feel like team teaching to me. . . . During class time, one of us is in charge, the other helps to facilitate. On days when I am the teacher, I feel as though it is MY class and I have all the responsibility to conduct it. On days when the topic is not mine, I feel that I have the class off. I do not feel like we are a team or that students are benefiting from having two of us in the classroom.
At this point, we made major changes in the way we taught the class. We no longer divided class sessions. In fact, we did not even decide who would begin individual class sessions until moments before class started. Since we both are very organized and planned, this created a very uncomfortable state. We planned many more large–group discussions where we both led the discussion but where the agenda was not pre– planned. We became far less structured in our discussions and we made efforts to provide multiple perspectives on issues.
After this change (and it was more of a change in philosophy than form) the course began to take a different form. Students became far more engaged in the class and discussions included virtually everyone in the room. Students seemed to be part of a genuine community. They helped one another during class and organized out–of–class study sessions.
Although there were several unexpected challenges in team teaching the course, we agree that one of the best aspects of the course was that it provided students with an opportunity to see psychology of the Internet issues from two very different perspectives. At times during class discussions, we deliberately took different positions on a current topic. For example, during discussions on addiction on the Internet, one professor maintained that the Internet was taking from real experiences like touching, feeling, and playing ball with a child. The other professor maintained that even if this were the case, it was not problematic and those activities were replaced by other meaningful activities. Students were very engaged with this kind of debate and eagerly joined in the discussion. They enjoyed and learned from the two different positions each professor took.
We informed discussions through the knowledge of our disciplines. During one class session, we were investigating a Web site which was an on–line game. The on–line game was used to illustrate group dynamics. While the psychologist on the team explained the psychological implications of this on–line game, the computer scientist explained the algorithm behind the game. She discussed the software and the logic behind the software. Likewise, at one point we discussed Internet hacking. From the perspective of computer science, hacking can be seen as a way for the field to progress—new algorithms are created and holes in existing software applications are exposed, hence leading to improvement. From a psychological perspective, hacking can be viewed as a form of aggressive behavior which ought to be reduced or eliminated. Whenever possible, we brought our disciplines’ specific contents to the students’ attention. These activities were powerful illustrations of what we know is truly informed by how we know.
Assessment
The Table 2. below shows select items from final student evaluations. A total of 10 students completed the evaluation. Students were asked to provide ratings (0 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) for various aspects of the course.
|
||||||||||||||
On the basis of this quantitative data, it is evident that students believed that they benefited from having two professors from different disciplines teach the course. They reported that the course went well and that they learned from it. These quantitative data are consistent with student opinions expressed in a focus group conducted by one of our colleagues:
1) “You really have the opportunity to get the best of two different disciplines. It’s very fun to see two instructors challenge one another and help spark further debate.”
2) “Different perspectives make you look at a topic from different angles.”
3) “I really think it benefits to have two instructors. You are able to see two different viewpoints from two different people.”
Conclusion
Psychology of the Internet was an innovative team–taught course taught on a branch campus of Miami University. The topic was timely and one that students found interesting. The course was team–taught, leading to some very rewarding experiences for both students and the professors. The professors both reported that the course was an enriching experience. Although neither was especially fond of some of the administrative obstacles, both report that they genuinely learned from the experience. Finally, both professors believe that their motivations for teaching the course were fulfilled; students seemed to learn more deeply and benefit from being exposed to multiple perspectives, and the professors grew as teachers as a consequence of the collaborative environment.
On the basis of our experience teaching this cross–disciplinary course, we can offer the following as observations:
1. It is important to get administrative support for cross– disciplinary team teaching prior to a large investment of time in the course. Of particular importance is gaining a commitment from administrators that both instructors will receive credit for the course. Cross–disciplinary team teaching, or any team teaching for that matter, is far more time– consuming than being the sole instructor.
2. As much as possible, the instructors should discuss the mundane aspects of and classroom management well in advance of teaching the course. To the extent that instructors can agree on administrative and policies issues prior to the start of class, the course will run more smoothly.
3. It is vitally important that both instructors be able to communicate effectively and often with one another. Both instructors for this course were, for the most part, able to be honest with each other about aspects of the course and its administration of which they disapproved. Communications of this sort go far toward making the course successful. Open communication between instructors and students can also be valuable for improving the course.
4. It is important to assess the course as the course progresses. As we discussed, this particular course changed dramatically in the way it was taught early in the term. This change was motivated by one of the instructor’s reflecting on and being discontented with the classroom and its activities.
5. It is useful to be very deliberate in attempts to show how a discipline informs a particular topic. As instructors, we often fail to even recognize how often our discipline specific knowledge impacts the way we think. A team–taught course allows for us to be sensitive to such issues and bring them to the student’s attention.
6. We found that it was very helpful to have a topic that was timely and interesting. Virtually all students have had some access and experience with the Internet. In this particular case, the topic itself helped create exciting and interesting dialogues.
References
Barkley, E. B., Clifton, A. K., deCourcy, A., and Kloos, M. (1998). “A Declaration of Independence: Philosophy and Practice of Interdisciplinary Team Teaching.” Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 9, 87–103.
Gesiakowska, J. and LoSardo, B. (1991). “Team Teaching and Interdisciplinary Couses.” In S. Reithlingshoefer (Ed.), Developing Effective Interdisciplinary Instruction: Selected Papers from the Ninth Annual Conference on Non–Traditional and Interdisciplinary Programs (36–41). Virginia Beach, VA: George Mason University.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Orr, D. (1996). Environmental Education: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Administrator, 15, 1–3.
Palmer, P. (1993). To Know as We Are Known: Education as Spiritual Journey. New York: Harper Collins.
Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway. Anchor Books.
Wallace, P. (1999). The Psychology of the Internet. Cambridge University Press.
Biographies
Cathy Bishop–Clark is an associate professor of Computer Science and Systems Analysis at Miami University, Middletown. She holds a B.S. in Computer Science from the University of Dayton, an M.S. in Quantitative Analysis, and an Ed.D. in Educational Foundations from the University of Cincinnati. She primarily teaches courses in software development. She is active in the development of new courses and programs on the Middletown campus. Her research and publications have been in the areas of computer science education and software psychology. She can be reached at bishopcu@muohio.edu.
Beth Dietz–Uhler is an associate professor of psychology at Miami University, Middletown. She obtained her B.S. in Psychology at the University of Delaware and her Ph.D. in Social Psychology and Personality at the University of Pittsburgh. Her research interests include intergroup relations, sport fans and spectators, and computer–mediated communication. She regularly teaches introduction to psychology, social psychology, statistics, and research methods. She can be reached at uhlerbd@muohio.edu.