Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine how interdisciplinary teaching teams were used in a newly opened Midwestern middle school to produce a work environment different from the one found in most traditionally organized schools. Five salient features of the work environment are described: organization around interdisciplinary teams, shared leadership, focus on children, the influence of the principal, and integrated programming for children. The article includes an analysis of how interdisciplinary teaching teams at this school affected some traditionally problematic aspects of teachers' work. Interdisciplinary teams are discussed as one illustration of self-managing work groups in school organizations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, W., and George, P. (1981).The Exemplary Middle School. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.
Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research.Review of Educational Research 52: 368–420.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1988).Teacher Involvement in Decision-making: A State-by-State Profile. Author.
Corcoran, T. B., Walker, L. J., and White, J. L. (1988).Working in Urban Schools. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A sociotechnical synthesis.Academy of Management Review 3: 625–634.
Farber, B. A., and Miller, J. (1981). Teacher burnout: A psychoeducational perspective.Teachers College Record 83: 235–245.
Gatewood, T. E., and Dilg, C. A. (1975).The Middle School We Need. Report from the ASCD Working Group on the Emerging Adolescent. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
George, P. S. (1973). The middle school in Florida: Where are we now?Educational Leadership 31: 217–220.
Grooms, A. (1967).Perspectives on the Middle School. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. S. Pollack and R. O. Perloff (eds.),Psychology and Work: Productivity Change and Employment pp. 85–136. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1980).Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hatton, E. J. (1985). Team teaching and teacher orientation to work: Implications for the preservice and inservice preparation of teachers.Journal of Education for Teaching 11: 228–244.
Johnston, J. H., Markle, G. C., and Arhar, J. M. (1988). Cooperation, collaboration, and the professional development of teachers.Middle School Journal 19(3): 28–32.
Kasten, K. L. (1986). Redesigning teachers' work.Issues in Education 4: 272–286.
Lawler, E. E., III (1986).High-Involvement Management: Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lieberman, A., and Miller, L. (1984).Teachers, Their World and Their Work: Implications for School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success.American Educational Research Journal 19: 325–340.
Lortie, D. C. (1975).Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Manz, C. C., and Angle, H. (1987). Can group self-management mean a loss of personal control: Triangulating a paradox.Group and Organizational Studies 11: 309–334.
Manz, C. C., and Sims, H. P., Jr. (1984). Searching for the “unleader”: Organizational member views on leading self-managed groups.Human Relations 37: 409–424.
Manz, C. C., and Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams.Administrative Science Quarterly 32: 106–128.
Merenbloom, E. Y. (1986).The Team Process in the Middle School: A Handbook for Teachers. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Metz, M. H. (1983). Sources of constructive social relationships in an urban magnet school.American Journal of Education 91: 202–245.
Olson, L. (1988). The “restructuring” puzzle: Ideas for revamping “egg-crate” schools abound, but to what ends?Education Week 8(9): 7–8, 11.
Poza, E. J., and Markus, M. L. (1980). Success story: The team approach to work restructuring.Organizational Dynamics 8(3): 3–25.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Political myths about education reform: Lessons from research on teaching.Phi Delta Kappan 66: 349–355.
Sykes, G. (1983). Contradictions, ironies, and promises unfulfilled: A contemporary account of the status of teaching.Phi Delta Kappan 65: 87–93.
Whitford, B. L., and Kyle, D. W. (1984). Interdisciplinary teaming: Initiating change in the middle school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984.
Wise, A. E. (1979).Legislated Learning: The Bureaucratization of the American Classroom. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wise, A. E. (1987). Two conflicting trends on school reform: Legislated learning revisited.Phi Delta Kappan 69: 328–333.
Zielinski, A. E., and Hoy, W. L. (1983). Isolation and alienation in elementary schools.Educational Administration Quarterly 19(2): 27–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kasten, K.L., Short, P.M. & Jarmin, H. Self-managing groups and the professional lives of teachers: A case study. Urban Rev 21, 63–80 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108495
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108495