7.4 Sharing

Sharing is a broad topic.

• You can share a course by being one of the instructors in a multi-section course.
• You can share a single course delivery in a co-teaching format.
• You can share a course that is taught on multiple terms, you on one term, someone else on another.

• You can share resources such as lab space, other equipment.
• You implicitly share a classroom with others, before you and after you.
• You share a course with whoever might inherit the course when you go on sabbatical or switch off that teaching task; either temporarily or permanently.
• You also share the course with other course instructors if you subscribe to the concepts of vertical and horizontal integration. Lots of potential sharing.
• There is the sharing of students and their time.
• There is sharing of infrastructure elements that either the instructor or students use during the term, associated with the course activities.

There is more sharing, but these can be considered the direct connections. We did say sharing was a broad topic.

Being mindful is important. And, this is applicable to almost all of the sharing points. You have to think beyond your course itself and see it in the whole and connect the dots. What do others do that impact your course? What do you do in your course that impacts others? Indirectly, indirectly.

Here are some of our thoughts about sharing...

• Some of the sharing is a courtesy or simple matter of information sharing and coordination. The information sharing should be done in a timely and professional manner. The sharing should be a habit, for example, what is done at the start and end of a term.
• It is common courtesy to give the previous instructor in the room time to wrap up, clean up, depart without crowding their space, creating 'noise'. It is also common courtesy to wrap up and leave in an orderly fashion. Common sense tells you that each should get 1/2 of the transition time; dealing with the tear down and set up. It is not acceptable for one instructor to leave the classroom in state that is not ready for the next instructor. They are not your assistants or cleaning staff. Teardown and ensuring the classroom is ready for the next instructor is part of the job. Many do this, but there are still those who do not.
• Sharing of students and their 'academic time' implies fair and equitable practices. It is not appropriate for one instructor to be greedy or self-centered at the expense of other courses. The practice not only includes total load for the course, hours required, but also the cognitive load and learning expected across the courses. It is easy to forget about the cognitive load and just focus on time spent on tasks. Cognitive load inbalance can lead to mental stress, fatique, and compromises. Not fair to the students and other instructors. The greed or cobbling up of time/resources might not be intentional, often isn't, but it can happen if you are not self-aware and mindful. In some cases, the greed is a by-product of dismissing other courses as not being as important or not as worthy. We have also heard that x deserves more time because it is a heavy course and should be a heavy course. If that is the case and can be justified from a curriculum/program perspective, it should be given a higher credit rating, say .75 vs .5 and term planning done accordingly. It is not fair or appropriate to have a .75 course and pretend that it is a .5. If it requires more of the student effort, give it more weight. This is a department problem and should not be placed on the students. If it cannot be addressed by an increased credit value, the course HAS to be redesigned and load altered. It cannot be left to the personal discretion of an instructor to create a 'heavy' course simply because they think it should be a heavy course.
• From a pedagogical perspective, a term for a cohort or a program should be designed holistically, taking into account all of the courses that the students are expected to take and avoid the practice where each course is considered an island onto itself. Myopic optimization almost always leads to system wide sub-optimization.

• Sharing should be a proactive activity and in best practice, one asks how one can be a better supplier or receiver or partner; whatever is being shared. How can you help the 'sharer', how can you be a better 'sharee'. This includes considering time, effort, impositions, etc. Sharing is never free and there is always some cost and effort implied. It is best practice to make the sharing a win-win situation. Be a giver, not just a taker.
• When there are shared resources, direct or infrastructure, it is recommended that early in the preceding term, planning sessions take place amongst those sharing to ensure that the sandbox is used wisely and fairly.
• For shared teaching (in all of its different forms), it is recommended that regular meetings are held to discuss the sharing, and possibly involve the department's teaching authority in the discussions to ensure that all makes sense and planned, shared appropriately. Again, the instructor has quite a bit of freedom in executing a course, but the freedom ends when it impacts others. The freedom is a privilege, not a right (in our book).
• When sharing cannot be done at an appropriate level (not because of greed, but because it is not feasible), the issue should be raised to the Chair and Assoc. Chairs. It is not reasonable to expect that 4kg be put into a 2kg bag. It is up to the management team to provide an environment within which the instructor can be successful at the required task. It is not the responsibility of the individual to turn impossible demands into reality at the expense of other work related tasks, or personal non-work related activities. If it cannot be addressed using whatever options exist, the task must be changed.

Further reading

• Hakkola, L, Rubin, M.A., McDonell, C., HeraKova, L.L., Buchanan, R., and K. Robbie (2021). An Equity-Minded Approach to Faculty Development in a Community of Practice. Innovative Higher Education, 46, pp. 393–410.