Teacher involvement strategies have become an important part of educational reform. Work group enhancement, although less used than individual approaches, is gaining attention in reform efforts and research investigations. Hackman and Oldham’s model on work group effectiveness provides a useful conceptual framework for understanding the nature of interdisciplinary teacher teams. This article reports on a study of interdisciplinary teacher teams during the 2nd year of implementation of teaming in a middle school. Based on observational and interview data, the study identifies the major context, design (structure), and process features of each of the four teams in the school. The article also provides a discussion of implications for practice and research in the area of collaborative teaching reforms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arhar, J. M. (1990). Interdisciplinary teaming as a school intervention to increase the social bonding of middle level students. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), Research in middle level education: Selected studies 1990 (pp. 139-161). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
2.
Arhar, J. M. , Johnston, J. H., & Markle, G. C. (1988). The effects of teaming and other collaborative arrangements. Middle School Journal, 19(4), 22-25.
3.
Ashton, P. T. , & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’sense of efficacy and student achievement. White Plains, NY: Longman.
4.
Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
5.
Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row.
6.
Clark, S. N. , & Clark, D. C. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany: State University of New York Press.
7.
Crow, G. (1998). Implications for leadership in collaborative schools. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 135-154). Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
Darling-Hammond, L. , & Snyder, J. (1992). Framing accountability: Creating learner centered schools. In A. Liberman (Ed.), Ninety-first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Vol. 1. The changing contexts of teaching (pp. 11-36). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
9.
Doda, N. M. (1984). Teacher perspectives and practices in two organizationally different middle schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
10.
Erb, T. O. (1987). What team organization can do for teachers. Middle School Journal, 18(4), 3-6.
11.
Erb, T. O. (1988). Focusing back on the child by liberating the teacher. TEAM: The Early Adolescence Magazine, 2(3), 10-18.
12.
Erb, T. O. (1995). Teamwork in middle school education. In H. G. Garner (Ed.), Teamwork models and experience in education (pp. 175-198). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
Erb, T. O. , & Doda, N. M. (1989). Team organization: Promise—practices and possibilities. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
14.
Felner, R. D. , Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997, March). The impact of school reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning Points based comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 528-532, 541-550.
15.
Garner, H. G. (1995). Teamwork models and experience in education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
George, P. S. (1982). Interdisciplinary team organization: Four operational phases. Middle School Journal, 13(3), 10-13.
17.
George, P. S. , & Oldaker, L. L. (1985). Evidence for the middle school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
18.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Hackman, J. R. (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Hackman, J. R. , & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
21.
Haimes, R. (1995). Planning for change. In H. G. Garner (Ed.), Teamwork models and experience in education (pp. 73-84). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
Hart, A. W. (1990). Work redesign: A review of literature for education reform. In S. Bacharach (Ed.), Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 1, pp. 3-69). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
23.
Hawkins, M. , & Graham, D. (1994). Curriculum architecture: Creating a place of our own. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
24.
Kruse, S. D. , & Louis, K. S. (1997). Teaching teaming in middle schools: Dilemmas for a school-wide community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 261-289.
25.
Larson, C. E. , & LaFasto, F. J. (1989). Team work: What must be right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Lee, V. E. , & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104, 103-147.
27.
Lifton, W. M. (1972). Groups: Facilitating individual growth and societal change. New York: John Wiley.
28.
Lipsitz, J. S. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
29.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509-536.
30.
Louis, K. S. , Marks, H., & Kruse, S. D. (1994, April). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
31.
MacIver, D. (1990). Meeting the needs of young adolescents: Advisory groups, interdisciplinary teams, and school transition programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 458-464.
32.
Maeroff, G. (1993). Building teams to rebuild schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 512-519.
33.
Mohrman, S. A. , & Lawler, E. E. (1992). Applying employee involvement in schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 347-360.
34.
National Middle School Association . (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.
35.
Pickler, G. (1987). The evolutionary development of interdisciplinary teams. Middle School Journal, 18(2), 6-7.
36.
Pounder, D. G. (1997). Teacher teams: Promoting teacher involvement and leadership in secondary schools. High School Journal, 80, 117-124.
37.
Pounder, D. G. (1998a). Promises and pitfalls of collaboration: Synthesizing dilemmas. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 173-180). Albany: State University of New York Press.
38.
Pounder, D. G. (Ed.). (1998b). Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls. Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
Pounder, D. G. (1998c). Teacher teams: Redesigning teachers’work for collaboration. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 65-88). Albany: State University of New York Press.
40.
Pounder, D. G. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work related outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 317-348.
41.
Quinn, G. , & Restine, L. N. (1996). Interdisciplinary teams: Concerns, benefits, and costs. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 494-511.
42.
Restine, L. N. (1996). Perspectives on groups and teams in educational organizations. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 644-660.
43.
Rowan, B. (1990). Applying conceptions of teaching to organizational reform. In R. F. Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 31-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
44.
Seamon, D. F. (1981). Working effectively with task oriented groups. New York: McGraw-Hill.
45.
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
46.
Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision making: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 53-67.
47.
Smylie, M. A. , Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 181-198.
48.
Stefanich, G. P. , Wills, F. A., & Buss, R. R. (1991). The use of interdisciplinary teaming and its influence on student self-concept in the middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 404-419.
49.
Stout, K. E. (1998). Implications for collaborative instructional practice. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 121-134). Albany: State University of New York Press.
50.
Troen, V. , & Boles, K. (1993, November 3). Teacher leadership: How to make it more than a catch phrase. Education Week, 13(9), 27-29.
51.
Wilkinson, A. M. , & Smith, M. (1995). Team recruitment, team building, and skill development. In H. G. Garner (Ed.), Teamwork models and experience in education (pp. 103-124). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
