Processes of Interdisciplinary Team Planning in the Middle School
Laurie E. Hart
James L. Reeves
Louis Warren
University of Georgia
Since the 1970s educational researchers have studied
teachers' thinking and how it is related to what teachers do in
the classroom (e.g., Clark & Peterson, 1986). One component of
the literature on teachers' thinking deals with planning for
instruction. Planning refers to what teachers do when preparing
for instruction and when reflecting on instruction which has
already occurred. Most of the research on teacher planning has
focused on the content and processes of planning by experienced
elementary school teachers working individually. For many years,
middle school theorists have advocated a school organization in
which teachers and students are organized into interdisciplinary
groups with 2-4 teachers who plan together (e.g., Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development, 1989); however, little
research has been conducted about middle school team planning.
There is also increasing interest in team planning at the
elementary and high school levels. Though it is clear that
teacher planning is important, and though many educators see
value in team planning, there is little research which examines
the processes of interdisciplinary team planning. In this paper
we present findings from two qualitative studies of the planning
of middle school teams of teachers. In the research
literature on teacher planning, a number of influences on
planning have been found. Novice and experienced teachers differ
in their planning. Novice teachers tend to plan the way they
were taught to plan in education courses. (Often they plan using
the Tyler model, a model of planning introduced in 1950 in which
behavioral objectives are determined first and the rest of the
preparation for instruction follows from these objectives.) The
planning of experienced teachers involves more reflection on past
lessons, especially the aspects of those lessons which were
successful. Other influences on planning include the interests
and abilities of the students who will participate in learning,
the instructional materials available, and the school schedule.
Both of the studies included in this report were done in the
northern part of Georgia. There are some characteristics
specific to the state educational system in Georgia which are
relevant to this discussion. As part of the Quality Basic
Education Act (QBE), middle schools in Georgia are eligible for
supplementary funds if they meet certain criteria. Two of the
criteria are that the middle school organizes instruction around
an interdisciplinary team structure and that 80 minutes is
allotted during the regular school day for team planning. QBE
has provided clear incentives for team planning in Georgia and
this type of planning is gradually becoming more common. Study
One
This study of team planning was conducted in a large rural
middle school with a student enrollment of approximately 1000
students. The school was in its first year of existence and had
been formed by consolidating four small middle schools. The
school met the criteria for supplemental funding by QBE.
One team of four eighth-grade teachers was observed and
interviewed during winter of 1991. This team was formed in the
fall of 1990 and consisted of one language arts teacher, one
mathematics teacher, one science teacher, and one social studies
teacher; they were responsible for about 100 students. These
four teachers did not know each other well because the principal
had formed the teams by selecting one teacher from each of the
four middle schools which had been consolidated. Each team
member had at least 12 years of teaching experience.
This team was observed during team planning sessions over a
period of three weeks. After these observations, each teacher on
the team was interviewed individually about his or her
perceptions of how the team's planning worked.
There was little evidence of collaboration among the members
of this team. The group was required by the school
administration to plan as a team but perceived little support for
team collaboration. In addition, team planning time was
scheduled immediately after individual planning time. During
team planning, a number of teachers were observed continuing to
work on their individual plans. There was a team leader but this
teacher's role was not clearly defined.
The teachers on this team had little understanding of the
purposes or processes of middle school teaming. There had been
one presentation about team organization to the entire faculty at
the beginning of the school year. This was the extent of this
team's knowledge. The teachers felt overwhelmed with the massive
school changes and did not feel supported in their work.
In summary, this team of teachers had not formed a
relationship in which they planned effectively together. The
leaders of the team and the school did not provide clear support
for effective team collaboration.
Study Two
This study of middle school team planning reports preliminary
findings from the first year of a three year research effort in
another large middle school in a rural town in northeast
Georgia. This is the only middle school in the county and
contains Grades 6 through 8. Smith County Middle School (a
pseudonym) has not received supplemental funding from QBE because
the school has not met the criteria. The socio-economic status
of the students in the school is moderate to low. The ability
level of the students as a group is slightly below average. This
is a multiracial, multiethnic student population. Two of the
four teachers on this team (Alpha Team) and the principal of the
school were involved in 2061, a large science curriculum
development project funded by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science and the National Science Foundation.
The 2061 group in Georgia was one of 6 sites around the United
States, each of which developed a model for a K-12 science
curriculum for the 21st century suitable for their student
population.
In June of 1990, the two 2061 teachers decided to make a
number of changes in the curriculum and instruction for their
students. With the support of the school principal, these two
teachers, a third teacher (married to one of the 2061 teachers),
and a fourth teacher (to be hired) wanted to form a sixth-grade
team of about 100 students which would stay together as a unit
through Grades 6, 7, and 8. In addition, the teachers wanted to
organize the curriculum around thematic interdisciplinary units
and to emphasize cooperative learning in heterogeneous groups.
The team of teachers invited the middle school program at the
University of Georgia to document the changes in curriculum,
instruction, and team organization and the impact of these
changes on students for at least three years. This study of team
planning is one piece of the documentation of the changes in
curriculum, instruction, and team organization which are ongoing
within Alpha Team and the rest of the school. The findings
reported here come from 14 of the daily 50- minute planning
sessions of the team and four meetings of the team members and
researchers held at the university to discuss the progress of the
project. James Reeves attended and audiotaped the team planning
sessions and took field notes. After each session, he
transcribed the audiotape and looked for emerging themes in the
processes of team planning. During the first year, the four
teachers on this team were David, Pat, Angie, and Jean. David
taught mathematics, Pat taught science, Angie taught language
arts, and Jean taught social studies. Pat and Jean were the two
2061 teachers. David and Pat are married to each other. Three
of the four teachers have 5-10 years of teaching experience;
David was in his second year of teaching. He received a
provisional teaching certificate but began teaching before he had
taken any middle school or subject-matter methods courses. Jean
was the official team leader. However, a leadership role was
taken by other teachers during planning. Both Jean and Pat took
strong leadership roles in planning. They were the backbone of
the team. Both Jean and Pat had extensive knowledge of middle
school students and team organization. Angie was often passive
and unsure of her ability as a teacher. She was more of an
observer than a fully participating team member during planning
sessions. Angie did what she was told but was hesitant to take
the lead in most situations. She was not comfortable dealing
with parents unless the situation was without problems or
challenges. David sought suggestions on ways to improve his
teaching. He also wanted to know the rationale behind most of
the procedures the team followed. His questions were not
critical but were intended to give him a better understanding of
the art of teaching. David was somewhat open to suggestions
about teaching style. He was also willing to take on any
responsibility that benefitted the team or the students. Pat and
Jean shared a large classroom that was divided in half with
movable partitions (which did not reach all the way to the
ceiling). David and Jean each had regular classrooms adjacent to
the large classroom.
In preliminary data analyses we have identified four
categories of planning: actual planning, nonplanning time,
unrelated anecdotes, and related anecdotes. Actual planning and
related anecdotes were the two categories which occurred most
often during the 14 recorded team planning sessions. Actual
planning occurred when the team discussed the content to be
covered, the methods used to teach content, individual students,
and tasks to be completed by team members. The team did
integrate the curriculum, though they taught few
interdisciplinary thematic units. During actual planning the
team worked well together. The discussions were not led by any
one individual. Most of the suggestions came from two or three
of the members. Questions that arose during planning helped
answer questions about content, method of instruction, and
curriculum integration. The questions came from all members of
the team. Many planning sessions were spent discussing
specific strategies to be used during instruction. Examples of
the topics were: discipline, methods of evaluating progress,
communication with parents, motivation of students, and
appropriate level of difficulty for curriculum content.
Nonplanning time occurred when the members did things other
than talk specifically about planning of content, methods, and
students. This category has two subcategories. One subcategory
of nonplanning time was rapport building. Talking about the
newborn baby of David and Pat was one example of rapport
building. Other examples of rapport building include discussions
about spouses and children of team members. Though these
discussions had nothing to do with planning for instruction, they
served to strengthen the personal relationships between the team
members. The other subcategory of nonplanning time was
interruptions. This occurred when a student, teacher,
administrator, research team member, or other person entered the
room to talk with the teachers. The time spent on interruptions
was not excessive. The third category of planning was
unrelated anecdotes. These were stories about life at school
which were not about the planning topic under discussion. For
example, during one planning session, one team member decided to
reserve the library for a few days so students could do some
library research. A question was asked about the proper
procedure for reserving the library. The response to this
question consisted to several anecdotes about experiences with
the media specialist. After these anecdotes (expressing
frustration with the media specialist), the original question was
answered and the planning continued.
Another example of an unrelated anecdote was a funny story
about a mixup concerning the lunches for the bus drivers when the
team went on a field trip to a major city. This story was told
while the teachers were planning another field trip. The
fourth category of planning for Alpha Team was related anecdotes.
This was one of the most powerful types of planning for the team.
By telling and retelling these anecdotes, the team evaluated what
they had done in the past. The team also discussed what could be
done to meet the needs of the students and team members in future
activities. Related anecdotes were used during discussions about
the success of Math Mania. (Math Mania was a special approach
instruction and review which was used by the team to prepare
their students for the Georgia Criterion Referenced Test (CRT).
During Math Mania, all four teachers taught mathematics to their
classes for several days.) The team shared anecdotes with James
Reeves to describe Math Mania. As they told the stories, the
team members evaluated the activity and suggested ways the
activity could improved.
Related anecdotes were used as a problem-solving strategy by
the team. When teachers had trouble with inappropriate gum
chewing in class, they told a number of stories. During this
discussion a method of dealing with students who chewed gum was
developed. Later, the method was discussed and evaluated with
other related anecdotes. It was interesting at times to hear
the Alpha Team use related anecdotes to provide several different
perspectives on a set of events. Through the telling and
retelling of stories, team members gained crucial insights about
students and activities. Team members seemed to be learning
about middle schools, teaching, and learning by telling and
hearing these stories.
Related anecdotes were helpful when the team discussed the
needs of a specific student. In one example about student
discipline, a story was told which focused the attention of the
team on the student. As the group planned strategies for working
with the student, other anecdotes were shared about past behavior
of the student. These anecdotes helped team members learn of
events they had not known about before. This team planned
together effectively. They had a strong commitment to their
peers and to the students in the team. These four teachers were
mutually supportive and shared common goals for the students on
the team.
Discussion
Two major themes are helpful in comparing and contrasting the
planning of these two middle school teams: (a) school and
administrative environment and (b) commitment to the team and to
team planning. In addition, the personal relationships among the
team members, their familiarity with middle school team
organization, and the number of years of teaching experience
provide points of contrast between these two teams. In study
one, the teachers did not sense real support from the principal
for team planning. The teachers expressed a feeling of being
overwhelmed by the massive changes which had occurred in the
school. In study two, the school environment was much more
stable. The principal was pleased that the team was planning
together but did not require team planning of any teachers in the
school. Though he was careful not to give the Alpha Team special
advantages, the principal supported the changes they made. The
Alpha Team also had the support of the University of Georgia
middle school staff in their work to change curriculum and
instruction. In addition, this team had a great deal of freedom
to create their own schedule. Other than lunch and exploratory
classes, the team could structure their time in any way they
chose. They changed the schedule from day to day to suit the
needs of the activities they were using.
In study one, it appears that the teachers planned together
because their principal required that they do so. It may have
been that he required team planning in order to meet the QBE
requirements for supplemental funding. Their team planning was
not very effective. In study two, the teachers planned together
because of a strong commitment to the team and the changes they
were making. The Alpha Team had a passion for their work and
spent many hours before and after school planning for
instruction. In study one, the teachers were not well
acquainted with each other. In addition, they had many years of
teaching experience and were not familiar with the literature on
team organization in middle schools. In study two, three of the
four teachers were close friends. Three of these teachers were
familiar with the middle school literature and all were
interested in improving and adapting their teaching. They did
not seem to have been teaching so long that they were set with a
single approach to planning for instruction. It is also
interesting to contrast the findings of these two studies with
the results of earlier research on planning. Previous studies
showed that more experienced teachers tended to be more
sophisticated in planning than less experienced teachers. In
this study, the team in study one planned less effectively than
the team in study two but had more years of teaching experience.
Perhaps the influences on team planning are different from the
influences on individual planning.
These studies provide a number of interesting contrasts
between more and less effective planning. The most striking
patterns are the contrasts in the context in which planning
occurred and the relationship of context to planning. More
analysis of middle school team planning processes will help
expand our understanding. References
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning
points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century.
Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought
processes. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.
255-296). New York: Macmill