This study explores how teacher teams (work group enhancement) influence teachersā work characteristics and other work-related variables. The study uses a comparative design to test differences between teamed and nonteamed teachers on work characteristics and work-related variables suggested by Hackman and Oldhamās job characteristics model. The study results suggest that teachers whose jobs have a work group emphasis (interdisciplinary teams) report significantly higher levels of the following: (a) skill variety in their work; (b) knowledge of students (their educational characteristics, history, and personal life circumstances); (c) growth satisfaction; (d) general satisfaction; (e) professional commitment; (f) work group helpfulness and effectiveness; (g) internal work motivation; and (h) teacher efficacy than do their nonteaming counterparts. The study also reports auxiliary survey data on studentsāsatisfaction with various aspects of a team versus a nonteam school.
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: Teachersāsense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
4.
Bacharach, S. B. , Bamberger, P., Conley, S. C., & Bauer, S. (1990). The dimensionality of decision participation in educational organizations: the value of a multi-domain evaluative approach. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 126-167.
5.
Barott, J. E. , & Raybould, R. (1998). Changing schools into collaborative organizations. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 27-42). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
6.
Beane, J. A. (1993). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
7.
Ben-Porat, A. (1980). Job involvement, central life interest and job satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 46, 507-512.
8.
Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper & Row.
9.
Clark, S. N. , & Clark, D. C. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
10.
Conley, S. (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school decision-making. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 17, pp. 225-266). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
11.
Crow, G. , & Pounder, D. G. (1997). Teacher teams: Work group enhancement as a teacher involvement strategy. Paper presented at the 1997 American Education Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
12.
Crow, G. M. (1998). Implications for leadership in collaborative schools. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
13.
Darling-Hammond, L. , & Snyder, J. (1992). Framing accountability: Creating learner-centered schools. In A. Lieberman (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.
14.
Doda, N. M. (1984). Teacher perspectives and practices in two organizationally different middle schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Florida, Gainesville.
15.
Erb, T. O. (1987). What team organization can do for teachers. Middle School Journal, 18(4), 3-6.
16.
Erb, T. O. (1988). Focusing back on the child by liberating the teacher. TEAM: The Early Adolescence Magazine, 2(3), 10-18.
17.
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.
18.
Erb, T. O. , & Doda, N. M. (1989). Team organization: Promiseāpractices and possibilities. Washington, DC: NEA.
19.
Evans-Stout, K. (1998). Implications for collaborative instructional practice. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 121-134). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
20.
Galvin, P. F. (1998). The organizational economics of interagency collaboration. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 43-64). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
21.
George, P. S. , & Oldaker, L. L. (1985). Evidence for the middle school. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
22.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Hackman, J. R. , & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24.
Hart, A. W. (1990). Work redesign: A review of literature for education reform. In S. Bacharach (Ed.), Advances in Research & Theories of School Management and Educational Policy (Vol. 1, pp. 3-69). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
25.
Hart, A. W. (1998). Marshaling forces: Collaboration across educator roles. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 89-120). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
26.
Johnson, B. L. (1998). Organizing for collaboration: A reconsideration of some basic organizing principles. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 9-26). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
27.
Kruse, S. D. (1994). Learning as collaboration in professional communities: An analysis of innovation in progress. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
28.
Kruse, S. D. , & Louis, K. S. (1994). Organizational learning in schools: A framework for analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
29.
Kruse, S. D. , & Louis, K. S. (1997). Teaching teaming in middle schools: Dilemmas for a school-wide community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 261-289.
30.
Lee, V. E. , & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary students. American Journal of Education, 104, 103-147.
31.
Lipsitz, J. S. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
32.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachersā professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
33.
Louis, K. S. (1992). Restructuring and the problem of teachersā work. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Ninety-first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Vol. 1. The changing contexts of teaching (pp. 138-156). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
34.
Louis, K. S. , Marks, H., & Kruse, S. D. (1994). Teachersāprofessional community in restructuring schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
35.
Loup, K., & Ellett, C. (1993). [Teacher Self and Organizational Efficacy Assessment (TSOEA) instrument]. Unpublished survey instrument.
36.
Maeroff, G. I. (1993). Building teams to rebuild schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(7), 512-519.
37.
Malen, B. , Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literatureāa call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Vol. 2: The practice of choice, decentralization, and school restructuring (pp. 289-342). New York: Falmer.
38.
Matthews, J. (1998). Implications for collaborative educator preparation and development: A sample instructional approach. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
39.
Mohrman, S. A. , & Lawler, E. E. III. (1992). Applying employee involvement in schools. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 14(4), 347-360.
40.
Mowday, R. T. , Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
41.
Murphy, J. , & Beck, L. (1995). School-based management as school reform: Taking stock. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
42.
Odden, A. , & Odden, E. (1994). Applying the high involvement framework to local management of schools in Victoria, Australia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
43.
Ogawa, R. T. (1996). Briding and buffering relations between parents and schools. UCEA Review, 27(2), 2-3, 12-13.
44.
Pounder, D. G. (1997). Teacher teams: Promoting teacher involvement and leadership in secondary schools. H.S. Journal, 80(2), 117-124.
45.
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, NY: SUNY Press.
46.
Pounder, D. G. (Ed.). (1998b). Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
47.
Pounder, D. G. (1998c). Teacher teams: Redesigning teachersāwork for collaboration. In D. G. Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 65-88). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
48.
Quinn, G. , & Restine, L. N. (1996). Interdisciplinary teams: Concerns, benefits, and costs. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 494-511.
49.
Restine, L. N. (1996). Perspectives on groups and teams in educational organizations. Journal of School Leadership, 6(4), 644-660.
50.
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.
51.
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horaceās compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
52.
Smylie, J. A. , Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision-making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181-198.
53.
Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision-making: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 53-67.
54.
Smylie, M. A. (1997). Research on teacher leadership: Assessing the state of the art. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 521-592). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
55.
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(4), 404-419.
56.
Troen, V. , & Boles, K. (1993, November 23). Teacher leadership: How to make it more than a catch phrase. Education Week, 13(9), 27-29.
57.
U.S. Department of Education . (1984). Administrator/Teacher Survey (ATS), a subset of the High School and Beyond Study (HS&B). Washington, DC: OERI.
58.
Wohlstetter, P. , Smyer, R., & Mohrman, S. A. (1994). New boundaries for school-based management. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 268-286.
