How Universities Are Using Co-Teaching to Strengthen Introductory Courses
Two faculty members in the same classroom used to be a luxury. A growing number of universities are using co-teaching strategically in introductory courses, with measurable benefits.
Co-teaching, in which two faculty members share responsibility for a single course, was for decades reserved for unusual circumstances: interdisciplinary programs, faculty in training, or topics that genuinely required two specialists. By 2026, a growing number of universities are using co-teaching strategically in introductory courses, particularly those with high failure rates or significant equity gaps. The 2025 results suggest that the practice has more leverage than its cost would imply.
The University of Michigan’s introductory economics sequence, which adopted co-teaching for its largest sections in 2023, has produced some of the most carefully measured outcomes. A 2025 internal review found that co-taught sections produced final grade distributions that were 7 percent higher on average and showed substantially smaller gaps between students from different demographic backgrounds.
What Co-Teaching Looks Like
The Michigan model involves two faculty members who plan the course jointly, share lecture responsibilities, and divide office hours. Both attend all class sessions. One typically leads the day’s lecture; the other circulates during student work time, responds to questions, and contributes spontaneous follow-up that the lead instructor might not have anticipated.
The format produces a different classroom dynamic. Students see two perspectives on most material, often with one instructor pushing back on points the other has made. The pushback is collegial but real, and it models the kind of disciplined disagreement that economics as a field involves. Students report that the format makes the field feel more like a conversation than a body of revealed truth.
Why It Works
Several mechanisms contribute to the gains. The presence of a second instructor produces more individual attention during class. Students who would otherwise be lost in a large lecture have a faculty member nearby who can answer questions in real time. The second instructor also catches misunderstandings that emerge in student questions, which a single instructor might miss.
The faculty conversation in class produces a more accurate picture of how scholarly work is done. Students see that economics is contested, that smart people disagree about important questions, and that argument with evidence is the resolution method. The picture is more accurate than the typical introductory experience, in which a single faculty member presents the material as if it were settled.
The Cost Question
Co-teaching is more expensive than single-instructor teaching. Michigan’s model requires two faculty teaching loads for one course, which doubles the labor cost. The program has been sustained partly by selecting senior faculty who would otherwise teach upper-division courses and using their willingness to invest in introductory teaching.
The cost is real, but the program directors argue that the return is also real. Reduced failure rates produce retention benefits that translate into tuition revenue. Improved student outcomes in introductory courses produce better preparation for upper-division courses, which faculty in those courses appreciate. The cost calculation is more positive than the simple labor accounting suggests.
Where Co-Teaching Has Been Tried
The University of California system has piloted co-teaching in introductory biology at multiple campuses. The University of Wisconsin uses co-teaching in introductory chemistry. Several private universities have adopted the model in introductory psychology, sociology, and history courses. The expansion has been quiet but consistent.
The model has not always worked. Programs that paired faculty who had not worked together previously sometimes produced friction that students noticed and disliked. Programs that combined senior and junior faculty without explicit role definitions sometimes produced power dynamics that undermined the collegial appearance the model depends on. Successful programs invested in faculty selection and preparation.
What Students Notice
Student evaluations of co-taught courses are typically high, but the evaluations identify specific elements that students value. Two instructors who genuinely disagree produce better experiences than two instructors who reinforce each other. Two instructors who divide responsibility cleanly produce better experiences than two instructors who duplicate work. Two instructors who model professional dialogue produce better experiences than two instructors who simply share the lecture.
The pattern suggests that the format alone is not sufficient. The relationship between the instructors, visible to students, is the actual mechanism that produces the benefits.
What This Means for Course Design
For universities considering co-teaching, the research offers several guidelines. The model works best in courses where genuine disagreement among scholars is possible and productive. It works less well in courses with highly settled content, where the second instructor adds little to the first. Pairing faculty with complementary strengths and compatible working styles is more important than matching disciplinary specializations.
For students choosing courses, the existence of co-taught sections is often a useful signal of institutional investment in undergraduate teaching. Programs that allocate two faculty positions to introductory courses are typically programs that take undergraduate education seriously enough to make other expensive choices as well.
Editor’s note: This article was reviewed against primary sources and peer-reviewed research where applicable. Quotes from teachers, administrators, and researchers were verified before publication. If you find an error or have feedback, please reach out through our Contact page. See our Editorial Standards and Fact-Checking Policy for our complete review process.
