In recent years, “teams” have been increasingly advocated as a means of empowering teachers, improving instruction, and introducing educational change—particularly within the context of the current school reform movement. Nevertheless, few advocates have inquired seriously into the team concept and exactly how it fits with school practice. This lack of conceptualization is particularly serious in light of the failure of the initial team-teaching movement of the 1960s, which has been attributed to a lack of fit between the team concept and the role of the teacher, the organizational structure, and the cultural norms of contemporary schooling. This article examines the relationship between the team concept and school practice on the basis of a case study of a team that designed, developed, and implemented an innovative vocational education program within a secondary school. It argues that the team approach makes sense only if it is accompanied by a shift in thinking about teaching and school practice. This shift involves regarding teams as the primary unit of teaching practice and as a means of linking instructional and structural change within schools. Ultimately a team approach introduces greater uncertainty into teaching and school practice while at the same time providing a means for engaging uncertainty and generating learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArgyrisC., PutnamR., & SmithD. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
BolesK. C. (1992). School restructuring by teachers.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(2), 173–203.
3.
BrandtR. (1994). Helping professional dreams come true.Educational Leadership, 51(7): 1–2.
4.
BurnsT., & StalkerG. M. (1961). The management of innovation.London: Tavistock.
5.
CohenE. G. (1976). Problems and prospects of teaming.Educational Research Quarterly, 1(2), 49–63.
6.
Davis-SacksM. L., DenisonD. R., & EisenstatR. A. (1990). Professional support teams: Providing expert assistance. In HackmanJ. R. (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork (pp. 155–202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
EmeryF. E., & BucklowM. (1978). The emergence of a new paradigm of work.Canberra: Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.
8.
ErbT. O., & DodaN. M. (1989). Team organization: Promises, practices, and possibilities.Washington, DC: National Education Association.
9.
FriedmanV. J. (1991). Creating resources for social mobility: A reflection account of the Mishlav Jaffa Project. (Research report). Jerusalem: Joint Distribution Committee-Israel.
10.
FriedmanV. J. (1994a). Changing schools from within: An account of the implementation of innovation at Mishlav Jaffa. (Research report). Jerusalem: Joint-Distribution Committee-Israel.
11.
FriedmanV. J. (1994b). Living up to their potential: A case study and analysis of the “TEN Plus” project. (Research report). Jerusalem: Joint Distribution Committee-Israel.
12.
FullanM, & MilesM. B. (1992, June). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't.Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 745–752.
13.
FullanM. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
FullanM. G. (1992). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond.Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
15.
GalS. (1994). At the interface: Computers and social design in a team-based organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.
16.
GersickC. G., & Davis-SacksM. L. (1990). Accomplishing one-shot projects. In HackmanJ. R. (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork (pp. 87–154). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
GoodmanP. S. (1986). Impact of task and technology on group performance. In GoodmanP. S. (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 120–167). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
GouldnerA. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy.Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
19.
HackmanJ. R. (Ed). (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
HargreavesD. H. (1980). The occupational culture of teachers. In WoodsP. (Ed.), Teacher strategies: Explorations in the sociology of school (p. 141). London: Croon Helm.
21.
HeifetzR. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers.Cambridge: Bellknap Press of Harvard University Press.
22.
HerbstP. G. (1962). Autonomous group functioning: An exploration in behaviour theory and measurement.London: Tavistock.
23.
HirschhornL. (1990). The workplace within: The psychodynamics of organizational life.Cambridge: MIT Press.
24.
HubermanM. (1993). The model of the independent artisan in teachers' professional relations. In LittleJ. W., & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp 11–50). New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
JanisI. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
26.
JaquesE. (1953). On the dynamics of social structure.Human Relations, 6(1), 3–24.
27.
KetchumL. D., & TristE. (1992). All teams are not created equal: How employee empowerment really works.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
LawrenceP. R., & LorschW. J. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration.Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
29.
MaeroffG. (1993). Team building for school change: Equipping teachers for new roles.New York: Teachers College Press.
30.
ManzC. C., & SimsH. P. (1993). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high performing companies.New York: John Wiley.
31.
McBrideR. E., StuessyC., PetersB., & ShutesB. (1994, April). Setting the stage: The first year of an accelerated middle school undergoing the process of change. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
32.
MillerE. J., & RiceA. K. (1967). Systems of organization.London: Tavistock.
33.
MunceyD. E. (1994, April). Individual and schoolwide change in eight coalition schools: Findings from a longitudinal ethnographic study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
34.
OrsburnJ., MoranL., MusselwhiteE., ZengerJ., & PerrinC. (1990). Self-directed work teams: The new American challenge.Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
35.
PavaC. (1983). Managing new office technology: An organizational strategy.New York: Free Press.
36.
PerkinsA. L., ShawR. B., & SuttonR. I. (1990). Human service teams: Taking care of people. In HackmanJ. R. (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork (pp. 289–358). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
PerrowC. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
38.
PrestineN. A. (1994, April). Sorting it out: A tentative analysis of essential school change efforts in Illinois. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
39.
RiceA. K. (1958). Productivity and social organization: The Admedabad experiment.London: Tavistock.
40.
ScheinE. H. (1967). The mechanisms of change. In BennisW. G., BenneK. D., & ChinR. (Eds.), The planning of change (pp. 98–108). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
41.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner.New York: Basic Books.
42.
SengeP. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York: Doubleday.
SharirM., and FriedmanV. J. (1993). The dissemination of innovative programs: Education environments and the case of Maale Yosef. (Research Report). Jerusalem: Joint Distribution Committee-Israel.
45.
ShirleyJ. R., & AndersonL. W. (1994, April). A study of South Carolina's Project Re: Learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
46.
ShonkJ. H. (1992). Team-based organization: Developing a successful team environment.Homewood, ILL: Business One Irwin.
47.
StaplefordT. A. (1994, April). The power of coalition: A comparative study of two school reform projects. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
48.
SteinB. A., & KanterR. M. (1980). Building the parallel organization: Creating mechanisms for permanent quality of work life.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, 371–388.
49.
StringfieldS., & HermanB. (1994, April). Observations of partial implementation of the Coalition of Essential Schools: The need for higher reliability organizational methods. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
50.
ThomasG. (1992) Effective classroom teamwork: Support or intrusion.London: Routledge.
51.
TristE. (1985). The influence of Wilfred Bion's ideas on groups. In PineM. (Ed.), Bion and group psychotherapy. (pp. 1–46). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
52.
TristE., & BamforthK. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the long wall method of coal-getting.Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38.
