This article presents a description and analysis of four middle school interdisciplinary teams, their focus of concern, and teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and costs of teaming for themselves and for students. Findings reveal that successful progression toward interdisciplinary teaming tasks is influenced by the interrelationships of group composition, operating variables, and structural variables in particular environments over time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerL. G., and BeauchampM. Z.1972. A Study of Selected Variables in a Change from a Junior High School to a Middle School. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, NY.
2.
CartwrightD., and ZanderA.1968. Group Dynamics: Research and Theory.New York, NY: Harper and Row.
3.
CottonK.1982. Effects of Interdisciplinary Team Teaching: Research Synthesis.Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
4.
DenzinN. K.1970. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods.Chicago, IL: Aldine.
5.
ErbT., and DodaN.1989. Team Organization: Promises, Practices and Possibilities.Washington, DC: National Education Association.
6.
EpsteinJ., and MacIverD.1990. Education in the Middle Grades: National Practices and Trends.Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
7.
ErlandsonD., HarrisE., SkipperB., and AllenS.1993. Doing Naturalistic Inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
8.
GeorgeP.1982. “Interdisciplinary Team Organization: Four Operational Phases,”Middle School Journal, 13(3): 10–13.
9.
GeorgeP., and AlexanderW.1981. The Exemplary Middle School.New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
10.
GoodladJ.1983. “A Study of Schooling: Some Implications for School Improvement,”Phi Delta Kappan, 64(8): 555.
HallG.1979. “The Concerns-Based Approach for Facilitating Change,”Educational Horizons, 57(1): 202–208.
13.
JohnsonS.1990. Teachers at Work: Achieving Success in our Schools.New York: Basic Books.
14.
LincolnY., and GubaE.1985. Naturalistic Inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
15.
LittleJ.1987. “Teachers as Colleagues.” in Educators’ Handbook: A Research Perspective, Richardson-KoehlerV., ed., New York: Longman, pp. 493–494.
16.
LortieD.1975. School-Teacher: A Sociological Study.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
McCrackenG.1988. The Long Interview.London: Sage Publications, Inc.
18.
MerriamS.1988. Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
National Middle School Association.1982. This We Believe.Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
20.
PicklerG.1987. “The Evolutionary Development of Interdisciplinary Teams,”Middle School Journal, 18(2): 6–7.
21.
RosenfeldL.1973. Human Interaction in the Small Group Setting.Columbus, OH: C. E. Merrill Publishing Company.
22.
RosenholtzS.1985. “Effective Schools: Interpreting the Evidence,”American Journal of Education, 93(3): 365.
23.
SmithJ.1975. A Comparison of Middle School Instructional and Conventional Instruction with Respect to the Academic Achievement and Self Concept in Pre and Early Adolescents.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Akron, OH: University of Akron.
24.
TuckmanB. W.1965. “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,”Psychological Bulletin, 63(6): 384–389.
25.
YinR.1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
