Bringing Collaborative Teaching into DoctoralPrograms: Faculty and Graduate StudentCo-teaching as Experiential Training

Kyla Walters & Joya Misra

Published online: 25 August 2013# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract We discuss faculty-graduate student collaborative teaching as a model toenhance programmatic graduate teacher training efforts. Co-teaching can improvegraduate training through intensive support and engagement, while also enhancingthe teaching experience of faculty and the learning experience of undergraduates.This form of classroom collaboration between faculty mentors and graduate studentsprovides important hands-on teacher training, emphasizes pedagogical reflexivity,and offers support within a mentorship relationship. Faculty can use co-teaching withgraduate students to explore classroom techniques and reassess their teaching. Weconclude with strategies for implementing effective collaborative teaching models.

Keywords Graduate student development . Apprenticeship teaching . Mentorship

Introduction

Although collaborative teaching between doctoral students and faculty is relativelyrare, we believe graduate departments could make feasible changes to incorporatesuch co-teaching models. We propose that sociology doctoral programs includecollaborative teaching within programmatic teacher training efforts. Co-teachingrequires more hands-on involvement and intensive application than other teachertraining forms, such as course offerings in Teaching Sociology. We argue the potentialbenefits of collaborative teaching for co-teachers and their students outweigh theobstacles involved in creating structures of support for this model.

Our data emerge from our experience co-teaching a course together as a graduatestudent and faculty member. We thought co-teaching might effectively support our

Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301DOI 10.1007/s12108-013-9185-6

K. Walters : J. MisraUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

K. Walters (*)Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USAe-mail: walters@soc.umass.edu

shared research and teaching interests. After collaboratively designing and teaching asmall undergraduate course on “Consumption & Inequality,” we recognized that wehad piloted a model for teacher training that might be of use to others. Here, we drawupon our experiences creating the idea for a newly devised course, developing thesyllabus, and carrying out our plans with a group of undergraduate students enrolledin the course. We also review students’ responses to our co-taught course.

First we discuss graduate student teaching as part of sociology doctoral programs.We then review scholarship on co-teaching models to explore the methods andevaluations of this form of teacher training. Finally, we draw upon our co-teachingexperiences to outline steps for collaboratively designing and teaching a course,approaching student evaluations, and addressing potential challenges. We concludewith implementation strategies to incorporate collaborative teaching in departmentalgraduate training efforts.

Graduate Student Teaching

Doctoral students may oscillate between teaching assistantships, research assistantships,fellowships, or other employment.While the most recent systematic data collected aboutthis topic was twenty years ago, at that time 87 % of 196 U.S. and Canadian sociologydepartments used graduate students as teaching assistants, instructors, or both(Pescosolido and Milkie 1995:345). Across all fields, college teaching has increasinglyrelied on part-time and full-time non-tenure line faculty as well as graduate studentinstructors (AAUP 2012). We suspect that the majority of doctoral-granting sociologydepartments continue to rely on graduate student teaching.

Most academic sociologists spend more time on teaching than any other activity(DeCesare 2003; Eitzen et al. 1999; Satariano 1976). Price and Cotten (2006:8) findthat expectations of teacher competency are consistent “across rank, discipline, andinstitution.” A mastery of teaching is clearly an important skill for academics, andworthy of inclusion in doctoral programs. Indeed, many departments have someprogrammatic support for teacher training to help students develop practical teachingskills and experiences (Backus et al. 1986; Korinek et al. 1999). Yet, we believe thatthere needs to be still greater emphasis on teacher training, including training thatrecognizes how doctoral students’ needs vary as they progress through graduate school.

Based on work by Nyquist and Wulff (1996), Korinek et al. (1999:346) note thatgraduate student teachers move through different developmental stages, suggesting thatdoctoral programs should implement teacher training to support students at each stage:“As they progress [graduate students’] concerns shift from basic survival in the classroom,to enhancing pedagogical methods and skills, to optimizing student outcomes andtheir impact upon students.” Doctoral programs should give graduate student teacherssystematic teacher training from the beginning of the graduate career to ensure continualsupport. For example, graduate program directors could weave teacher support andtraining into the curriculum of a required first year professionalization seminar.

Teaching Sociology courses provide excellent opportunities for students to learn aboutpedagogy. Ideally after taking such a course, doctoral students might first serve asreader/graders, then serve as a teaching assistant with responsibility for teaching discussionsections, then collaboratively teach a course, and finally, instruct independent courses. Such

Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301 293

a progression would give students support at different stages of their development asteachers, while also preparing them for careers that necessitate effective teaching ofstudents. For students in doctoral programs lacking a Teaching Sociology course, co-teaching may be particularly useful in exposing them to the theory and practice ofsociological pedagogy.

We argue that adding a collaborative component to teacher training is an important –and doable – addition to existing graduate teacher training models. Teaching assistantsneed to develop skills in “course design, motivation, teaching and learning theory andstrategies, technology integration, assessment, and communication and delivery”(Hardré and Burris 2012:96). While Teaching Sociology courses and working asteaching assistants help develop discipline-specific approaches to teaching sociologicalcontent (DeCesare 2003; Pescosolido and Milkie 1995), collaborative teaching offersthe opportunity to integrate pedagogical theory and classroom practice into a robustexperience. While not every faculty member may be an ideal teaching mentor (just assome faculty may be better suited to instruct teaching seminars), we believe that manyfaculty are engaged in their teaching and have skills to share, as well as an interest inmentoring new generations of teachers. This collaboration also provides greaterattention to the importance of teaching throughout the academic career. We discusscollaborative models in more detail below.

Learning to Teach Through Collaboration

Successful collaborative models for teaching abound. The majority of research oncollaborative teaching focuses on faculty member collaborations (Bakken et al. 1998;Colwill and Boyd 2008; Preves and Stephenson 2009; Stevenson et al. 2005). Thisscholarship primarily emphasizes the advantages of co-teaching, including morereflexive pedagogy as well as richer and less hierarchical relations between studentsand faculty, but also points to complications, dislocations and challenges in negotiatingthe shared classroom stage (Bakken et al. 1998; Colwill and Boyd 2008; Preves andStephenson 2009; Stevenson et al. 2005).

However, there are also some examples of collaborations between faculty andstudents. Some scholarship about co-teaching explores collaboratively designingcourses with undergraduate students enrolled (Hess 2008) or not currently enrolled inthe course (Mihans et al. 2008). These arrangements illustrate the power of co-teachingmodels to engage with undergraduate students. Collaborative teachers Cordner et al.(2012) recount their approach to graduate students and faculty co-designing and co-teaching a graduate-level ethnography course. Here, a group of students (who had takenthe course the previous year) worked with a faculty member to identify books, develop asyllabus partly based on qualitative methods courses taught at other universities, andteach the course in a workshop style. Not only did students report positive experiencesfrom the co-taught graduate course but this collaboration led another faculty member torepeat the co-designing and co-teaching model in future years (Cordner et al. 2012).

Faculty and doctoral student collaborative teaching of undergraduate coursesis an extension of these models. We see our version of co-teaching as particularly usefulto train doctoral students, most of whom will teach at the undergraduate level,and could benefit from more experience developing and teaching undergraduate courses.

294 Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301

This model also helps departments meet the need to offer a range of undergraduatecourses.

We believe that a broad range of undergraduate courses could be co-taughtbetween faculty and graduate students, including introductory level courses, upper-level courses, as well as courses in writing, theory, and methods. A collaborativeprocess allows graduate students to familiarize themselves with designing andinstructing a course and provides faculty opportunity to reconsider their pedagogicaltools while refreshing their teaching practices. Undergraduate students may alsobenefit from the increased attention and feedback in collaborative courses (Cordneret al. 2012).

Co-teaching ideally constitutes a mutually beneficial relationship. In their articleabout faculty collaborative teaching, Stevenson et al. (2005:32) note, “Faculty oftencommented that working with a faculty partner catalyzed them to learn new things(technology, active/collaborative learning strategies) and to grow and innovate asteachers.” When a graduate student and faculty member co-design and co-teach acourse together, the same synergies should develop, although power differentialsrequire taking a thoughtful approach in implementing this model.

Ideally the graduate student will gain further insight into the process of crafting asyllabus. The faculty member may further develop their teaching through negotiatingpedagogical choices with the graduate student collaborator, incorporating new materials,as well as bringing new technologies into the classroom. Both faculty member andgraduate student should benefit from contemplating and using different pedagogicalstrategies (such as lecturing, discussion leading, and small group work), in addition toconsidering and developing different assessments (such as exams, assignments, rubrics).Co-teachers can receive immediate feedback from one another, offering both collaboratorsa space for pedagogical growth and support.

This co-teaching model should allow doctoral students to ease into the full aspects ofteaching responsibilities. We primarily encourage collaborative teaching for graduatestudents who have already served as teaching assistants and taken (if available) TeachingSociology courses, but before teaching their own independent courses. Our model maybe helpful in training students to apply their pedagogical insights gained from a teachingseminar to a classroom. Collaborative models could also work in departments that do notoffer courses in Teaching Sociology because co-teachers can share in pedagogicaldiscussions. Sharing the workload with a faculty member also gives the graduate studentthe opportunity to balance a teaching load with their other responsibilities, whilealleviating some of the stress that often accompanies the experience of being a first-time instructor.

Planning Collaborative Teaching

How might doctoral programs develop and support collaborative teaching ofundergraduate sociology courses? We suggest that co-teaching begin with course topicselection. Depending on the institution and departmental planning practices, co-teachersmay either apply to teach a specific course, create a new course, or receive a teachingassignment. In some cases the collaborators might decide to co-teach a course assigned tothem as faculty instructor and student teaching assistant. In other cases the collaboratorsmay apply to co-teach a course through a competitive process. Graduate students might

Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301 295

receive course credit for carrying out a teaching “internship” through collaborativeteaching, signaling that this activity is a valuable part of their educational experience.

Our own collaborative course came out of our interest in working more closelytogether and using existing resources to support that collaboration. Although we didnot provide advance notice to students that the course would be co-taught, werecommend including information about the collaborative design in the coursedescription so that students can opt into the different instructional format. Ourstudents did not seem surprised to see a graduate student on the first day of class;when we presented our co-teaching model, no students dropped the class.

Deciding how to design a course and set objectives involves co-teachers comparingboth their pedagogical orientations to sociology and their sociological orientations topedagogy (DeCesare 2003). Such a collaborative process creates space for ongoingconversations as graduate students follow through and teach the course with a facultymember. Since our sociological orientations are constantly changing, these conversationsshould encourage both co-teachers to be mindful and reflexive as instructors.

Collaborators should jointly develop the syllabus once the course topic is determined.In many cases a faculty member may have taught the class previously; yet this is anopportunity for instructors to redesign the course to incorporate the elements that eachco-teacher is eager to cover. Such changes might include readings and assessmentmethods as well as discussion of the principles co-teachers use to determine whichmaterials are most important. These conversations are purposeful spaces for deeper,pedagogical topics to emerge. In our own case, we designed a course that neither of ushad taught, though we both had particular interests that shaped the organization of thecourse, the choice of topics and readings, and the assessments we used. This may have,unexpectedly, made the co-teaching experience simpler for us: neither of us had a strongpresumption about how we should teach the course, since neither of us had taught it inthe past. At the same time, the faculty member in our pair had previously co-taught withcolleagues, and may have entered this collaboration with a presumption about how tocollaborate respectfully with another instructor.

Teaching Collaboratively

As collaborators craft the syllabus, they should consider how to share responsibilitiesfor class discussion. We suggest co-teachers attend each class session, and alternateweeks leading discussion and lecturing based on relative strengths and interests.Alternating responsibility for class sessions may balance co-teachers’ preferencesand class preparation duties. This form of co-teaching may create teachable momentsfor the graduate student to learn from the faculty member teaching topics with whichthe graduate student is less familiar, and vice versa. We made decisions about how todivide the work for the course as we developed the syllabus; this meant that from thefirst day of class we were able to communicate with students what they could expect,who would be assessing their work, and how (Letterman and Dugan 2004). Ourinitial decisions may have limited our flexibility in making changes to the class, butalso meant that we did not need to negotiate our roles in the students’ presence.

Additionally this collaborative model exposes faculty to various pedagogicalapproaches in observing the graduate student’s teaching. For example, the graduatestudent co-teacher may incorporate new readings and approaches or web-based

296 Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301

resources and social media into class discussion, which the faculty member may nothave previously employed. Rotating class session responsibilities may also benefitundergraduate students (if co-teachers thoughtfully connect one class session to thenext) because they experience a variety of teaching techniques throughout the course.We found it very enjoyable to alternate class sessions in this way. While the other co-teacher sometimes raised questions or responded to comments raised by students, weworked to ensure that the primary interactions were between students or students andthe co-teacher leading discussion. During the sessions we did not lead we learnedfrom the others’ teaching style, and embraced the opportunity to observe studentsmore closely, developing new insights into the classroom dynamic.

In addition to sharing responsibility for class time, we suggest co-teachers divideassessment creation and grading responsibilities. The faculty and the graduate studentcould alternate, using the rubric and grading assignments, writing individualizedcomments for each student. Then the co-teacher might read the assignments, review thegrading, and adjust accordingly (discussing any changes made with their colleague). Inour own co-teaching, the faculty member graded weekly journal posts, while the graduatestudent graded three writing assignments; both read the other’s grading and discussedwhat the work told us about the students’ comprehension as well as adjustments weneeded to make to our teaching.

Weekly co-teachermeetings should provide allotted time for discussing discrepanciesaround grades or assignments, reflecting on the tenor of lectures and discussions, andattending to any student matters. While we occasionally diverged in assessmentsof student work or in gauging a given class session’s success, these differenceswere productive rather than problematic. The conversations where we vocalizedour perspectives sparked new ways to consider our roles as teachers and ourassumptions about our goals for students.

Student Responses to Co-Teaching

Student evaluations offer another opportunity for co-teachers to assess what workedwell and what needed improvement. Learning how to incorporate the information andideas contained in student evaluations can be challenging (Gallagher 2000) as manyinstructors focus on the most discouraging comments. Teaching evaluations presentanother occasion to help collaborators learn how to best use student comments. In ourcase, we received evaluations on the course as a whole, where students referred toboth instructors, and then a separate set of responses about their experience in a co-taught course.

Student responses from our co-taught course were relatively good. On a five-point scale,students rated us 4.5 or above on preparation for class, explaining course material well,clearing up points of confusion, using class time well, showing interest in helping studentslearn, inspiring interest in the course material, and providing useful feedback on studentperformance, methods of evaluating student work, stimulating student participation, andoverall rating of instructors’ teaching. Our evaluations were higher than the average forcourses in the department on all measures except stimulating participation and methods ofevaluating work (where they were average).

Each of the nine students (out of eleven enrolled) who provided qualitative responsesexpressed enthusiasm for the class. Therefore we see these positive comments as in

Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301 297

concert with the students’ quantitative course evaluations. They wrote, “I really lookedforward to going to each class,” “I always receive valuable feedback onmy assignments,”and “the learning in this class was very interactive.” Some students referred particularly toone or the other of us, for example: “a wonderful experience, it allowed me to connectwith a faculty member in a way that large classes can’t” and “loved [Grad StudentName]!” No student reported problems or confusion with the co-teaching model in theformal evaluations or during the semester, although previous research suggests thepotential for concerns from students in co-taught courses (Dugan and Letterman 2008).When we solicited additional comments about their experience in our co-taught class,students were encouragingly responsive. For example, one noted, “I was also a very bigfan of the teaching style . . .It was nice to be able to change it up each week andexperience two different styles of teaching. I thought that you both were very successfulat getting the entire class to participate.”

However, we recognize that undergraduate student responses to classes taughtcollaboratively may vary. To prevent potential conflicts, we suggest checking in withstudents mid-semester to inquire how they are doing with the co-taught coursedesign, co-teachers’ individual styles, and overall classroom dynamic. Respondingto these evaluations thoughtfully is important. For example, it may be that studentpreferences develop in ways that will require compensations. For example, studentsmay identify better with the graduate student instructor who is likely more of an agepeer, or may treat the faculty member with greater respect due to status differentials.Co-teachers should discuss whether such preferences undermine the quality of classdiscussion, group dynamics, and general atmosphere of the course, as well as findways to navigate the preferences to best support undergraduate student development.

Sharing responsibilities for leading class sessions, interacting with students, andproviding assessments of the student work helped us to negotiate differences in how“connected” the students felt to us as instructors, based on our age differential. Whilethe undergraduates in our course treated the graduate student with respect, we suspectthat the faculty member’s respectful demeanor in regards to the graduate studentinstructor, and the clear authority the graduate student instructor had over classleading and grading, may have mitigated such responses. If uneven student preferencesnegatively impact the course, we suggest addressing the situation immediately throughclear communication with students.

Implementing Successful Co-Teaching Models

While our own experience suggests that collaborative teaching might be effective morebroadly, it is important to consider the challenges of implementing co-teaching modelsunder other circumstances. It is, of course, possible for departments to implementcollaborative teaching models in ways that would produce unwanted outcomes.Forced pairings between students and faculty with few interests or pedagogical goals incommonmight lead to negative teaching experiences for one or both co-teachers, as wellas for students. We suggest that departments institute a thoughtful process, with graduatestudents and faculty matching up based on substantive sociological interests andperspectives. Faculty should choose to serve as teaching mentors in this way, ratherthan being required to do so; students should have some choice in deciding whom they

298 Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301

teach with, rather than being assigned. Pairs should meet to discuss their classroomapproach and interest in collaborating before finalizing the arrangement.

We suggest that departments establish a teaching committee, which includes Directorsof both the Graduate Program and Undergraduate Program, to coordinate the pairings,and set routine individual and joint check-ins with co-teachers, and consider studentevaluations of co-taught courses, to support and assess the arrangement. This structurewould allow the department to mediate problems that may arise within the collaborativeteaching relationship, and ensure that co-teaching meets the needs of undergraduate andgraduate student learning, as well as faculty professional development.

The committee should also establish methods to fairly incorporate co-taughtcourse responses into individual reviews. We suggest departments create an open-ended form to supplement the more standard student evaluations of instruction. Thisadditional instrument should include questions about each instructor and the class as awhole co-taught experience. By taking part in a co-teaching arrangement, bothgraduate students and faculty should be assessed in relation to the somewhat moreunpredictable nature of collaborations. For example, some departments recognize thatrequired courses, such as very large “general education” courses may receive lowerteaching evaluations than smaller versions of the same course. While our own classreceived relatively high teaching evaluations, co-teachers should not become morevulnerable due to their willingness to focus on teacher training.

Not all faculty members will choose to engage in collaborative models, nor shouldthey. We suspect that faculty who are most interested in such models will be moreeffective collaborators. Successful collaborative models require that faculty be reflexiveabout the power differentials between themselves and students, and responsive whentheir graduate student collaborator raises concerns (Cordner et al. 2012). Successfullyco-teaching with faculty also requires that graduate students feel comfortable claimingexpertise and involvement in decision making. Another challenge may be matchingfaculty and graduate students based on topical interests. Yet most graduate studentsenroll in programs with faculty who share at least some of their research and teachinginterests. By allowing faculty and students to co-teach across a range of courses inthe undergraduate curriculum (from an Introduction to Sociology course to upper-levelcourses), we suspect that it would be possible for students in most areas to findcollaborators.

Various mechanisms exist for implementing collaborative teacher training in doctoralprograms. “Doubling up” on faculty and graduate student effort for the same course willrequire departments to reconsider how to allocate resources. The largest challenge in thismodel is how time intensive it may be. Certainly the design of the course will be moretime-consuming if it is collaborative, even if co-teachers share the grading and preparationof class sessions (Bakken et al. 1998; Stevenson et al. 2005).

Graduate students could be required to co-teach a course before serving as anindependent instructor. Yet this arrangement might be difficult logistically if few faculty(or students) wish to collaborate in the classroom. Transforming regularly assignedteaching assistantships into a collaborative course would be simpler logistically.Providing incentives (extra professional development monies, fewer undergraduatestudents, and/or course credit as a teaching practicum for graduate students) to encouragedevelopment of collaborations may be useful and help develop broader cultural supportfor collaborative teaching.

Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301 299

Departments could also institute competitive funding for co-teaching, awarding alimited number of faculty-student pairs each year the opportunity to collaborate on acourse with recognition or resources to support their collaboration. Limiting collaborativeteaching models to relatively few slots each semester may enable departments to supportco-teaching without overstretching its resources. Alternatively, departments could makethe normally scheduled faculty-teaching assistant pairings more collaborative in approachand tone, without becoming complete co-teaching assignments (Ishiyama et al. 2010). Inthis case, collaborative teaching would serve as an extension of the apprenticeship modelbetween teaching assistants and faculty members (Garland 1983).

Graduate programs should consider possible variations of incorporating collaborativeteaching models with department-wide discussion about how to best enrich graduateteacher training and continual teacher development for faculty (Shostak et al. 2010). Co-teaching for one semester should give graduate students the opportunity to emphasizenecessary and practical teaching skills to better prepare themselves for independentlyinstructing a course. We believe that if doctoral programs embrace collaborativeteaching, graduate students in sociology will be better prepared for a main aspect of theiracademic career, while faculty members and undergraduate students will also benefit.

Acknowledgements The authors presented a previous version of the paper at the Eastern SociologicalSociety’s annual meeting in Boston, MA on March 24, 2013. Our thanks to Dan Clawson, MichaelDeCesare, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Mary Larue Scherer, Mahala Dyer Stewart, Millie Thayer, andThe American Sociologist editor for helpful comments provided on earlier versions of this paper.

References

American Association of University Professors (2012). “AVery Slow Recovery: The Annual Report on theEconomic Status of the Profession, 2011–2012.” Retrieved February 22, 2013 (http://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/2011-12salarysurvey).

Backus, N., Chaichian, M., Ewens, W., & Macheski, G. (1986). Recognizing teacher competence: acertification program in teaching sociology for graduate students. Teaching Sociology, 14(3), 176–180.

Bakken, L., Clark, F. L., & Thompson, J. (1998). Collaborative teaching: many joys, some surprises, and afew worms. College Teaching, 46(4), 154–157.

Colwill, E., & Boyd, R. (2008). Teaching without a mask? collaborative teaching as feminist practice.NWSA Journal, 20(2), 216–246.

Cordner, A., Klein, P. T., & Baiocchi, G. (2012). Co-designing and co-teaching graduate qualitativemethods: an innovative ethnographic workshop model. Teaching Sociology, 40(3), 215–226.

DeCesare, M. (2003). “The Impact of Sociological Orientation on Pedagogy: A Reconsideration of TeacherTraining in Sociology Ph.D. Departments.” The American Sociologist, 34(3), 73–96.

Dugan, K., & Letterman,M. (2008). Student appraisals of collaborative teaching.College Teaching, 56(1), 11–15.Eitzen, D. S., Zinn, M. B., & Gold, S. J. (1999). Integrating professional socialization and training for

sociology graduate students. The American Sociologist, 30(4), 56–63.Gallagher, T. J. (2000). Embracing student evaluations of teaching: a case study. Teaching Sociology, 28,

140–147.Garland, T. (1983). A training program for graduate teaching assistants: the experience of one department.

Teaching Sociology, 10(4), 487–503.Hardré, P. L., & Burris, A. O. (2012). What contributes to teaching assistant development: differential

responses to key design features. Instructional Science, 40(1), 93–118.Hess, G. F. (2008). Collaborative course design: not my course, not their course, but our course. Washburn

Law Journal, 47(2), 367–387.Ishiyama, J., Miles, T., Balarezo, C. (2010). “Training the Next Generation of Teaching Professors: A Compar-

ative Study of Ph.D. Programs in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(3), 515–522.

300 Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301

Korinek, K., Howard, J. A., & Bridges, G. S. (1999). ‘Train the whole scholar:’ a developmentally basedprogram for teaching assistant training in sociology. Teaching Sociology, 27(4), 343–359.

Letterman, M. R., & Dugan, K. B. (2004). Team teaching a cross-disciplinary honors course: preparationand development. College Teaching, 55(2), 76–79.

Mihans, R., Long, D., & Felten, P. (2008). Power and expertise: student-faculty collaboration in coursedesign and the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–9.

Nyquist, J., & Wuff, D. H. (1996). Working Effectively with Graduate Assistants. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Pescosolido, B. A., & Milkie, M. A. (1995). The status of teacher training in U.S. and Canadian sociology

departments. Teaching Sociology, 23(4), 341–352.Preves, S., & Stephenson, D. (2009). The classroom as stage: impression management in collaborative

teaching. Teaching Sociology, 37(3), 245–256.Price, J., & Cotten, S. R. (2006). Teaching, research, and service: expectations of assistant professors. The

American Sociologist, 37(1), 5–21.Satariano, W. A. (1976). Sociologists affiliated with graduate departments: a comparison of the time

devoted to teaching and research. Teaching Sociology, 3(2), 194–197.Shostak, S., Girouard, J., Cunningham, D., & Cadge, W. (2010). Teaching graduate and undergraduate

research methods: a multipronged departmental initiative. Teaching Sociology, 38(2), 93–105.Stevenson, C. B., Duran, R. L., Barrett, K. A., & Colarulli, G. C. (2005). Fostering faculty collaboration in

learning communities. Innovative Higher Education, 30(1), 23–36.

Am Soc (2013) 44:292–301 301