How structured team-teaching supports curriculum resilience, and programme coherence.
Our challenge
As part of exploring how colleagues are implementing team teaching in practice, discussions with Dr Gareth Powells, Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) in Geography, highlighted how the subject has developed a structured model over recent years. Although team teaching is now a key expectation within the Leading Edge Curriculum Framework (LEC), Geography’s approach evolved earlier, particularly from the COVID period onwards, in response to curriculum, staffing and workload pressures. Their model provides an example of how team teaching can operate at programme level.
Geography teaches around 750 undergraduates, with large cohorts at each stage. Elements of the curriculum, particularly at Stage 3, had historically been organised around individually led modules. While this supported specialist teaching, it created structural vulnerabilities. When colleagues secured research funding and were therefore on sabbatical or fieldwork, took leave, or moved roles, modules could not always run as planned. Workloads were uneven, and parts of the curriculum depended heavily on specific individuals.
Variation in optional modules and class sizes also created inefficiencies, while curriculum discussions often focused on individual modules rather than the programme as a whole. The key issue was therefore organisational as well as pedagogic: how to design a structure that was sustainable at scale and less dependent on single academics.
Our approach
Geography moved towards a model based on Teaching Hubs – groups of colleagues organised around broad sub-disciplinary areas. These Hubs broadly align with existing research clusters, helping staff see them as grounded in disciplinary communities rather than purely administrative structures. Colleagues are positioned as members of a teaching community contributing across stages, rather than as sole owners of individual modules.
Each Hub is led by a Hub Director , a recognised and workloaded role that rotates. Hubs meet regularly to look across the curriculum, considering what can realistically be offered, where staffing pressures lie, and how subject areas connect from Stage 1 through to Stage 3. Hubs contribute to Stage 1 core teaching through thematic blocks, anchor substantial sub-disciplinary modules at Stage 2, and offer specialist options at Stage 3. This structure creates clearer vertical connections and progression through the degree.
Hub Directors are part of a teaching advisory group chaired by the Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS), with the Head of Unit involved. This group provides a representative overview of teaching across the programme and advises on the overall curriculum shape. Final decisions remain with the Head of Unit, but are informed by a structured understanding of staffing, student numbers and subject balance.
Module design has also shifted. New or revised modules are developed by small module leadership teams rather than a single academic, bringing together colleagues with different levels of experience. Responsibility for design, delivery and review is shared, and modules are expected to be able to run even if one individual is unavailable. Specialist expertise remains central but is situated within a collective framework.
The Director of Undergraduate Studies works in close partnership with the Degree Programme Director whose focus is on the student facing aspects of the degree programme. The DPD supports students to navigate the degree programme and handles casework. Sharing normal DPD responsibilities between these two roles works well given the scale of the UG Geography programme and size of the teaching team.
The impact
The model has strengthened curriculum resilience. Modules no longer rely on one person being present, and planning can adapt more readily to leave, research activity and staffing changes. It has also supported a stronger programme identity, as Hubs consider how themes develop across stages.
Workload distribution has also changed. Larger shared modules mean less teaching and teaching preparation in aggregate, and Hubs can operate as marking communities, with colleagues sharing marking where needed to manage peaks in assessment and reduce pressure on individuals teaching high-enrolment modules.
The model also brings challenges. Some colleagues experience reduced individual control over modules they previously led alone, and in smaller or niche areas it can be harder to form viable teams. From a student perspective, larger cohorts and teaching delivered in blocks by multiple staff can reduce continuity of contact with individual lecturers. These trade-offs are recognised and are part of the ongoing conversation in Geography, where the transition is described as ongoing cultural work, rather than a completed change.
Lessons learned
- Team teaching is most effective when supported by clear structures rather than informal arrangements.
- Aligning teaching groupings with disciplinary communities helps build staff engagement.
- Programme-level forums enable decisions based on a whole-curriculum perspective.
- Shared module leadership improves resilience and supports fairer workload distribution.
- Moving from individually held modules to collective responsibility is a cultural shift that takes time.
In Geography, team teaching grew out of real operational pressures but has become a foundation for thinking about the programme as a collective endeavour. It offers one model for how colleagues can move from individually held modules towards a more sustainable, shared approach to curriculum delivery.
Education for Life Strategy
Team teaching is emphasised in our Leading Edge Curriculum.
Further resources
- Team Teaching (Learning and Teaching website)
- Enabling Policy for the LEC | Education Policy and Governance Service | Newcastle University
Authors
LTDS in conversation with Dr Gareth Powells, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Geography