EDuCATInG The CReATIVE
MaVERICKs |
|
|
|
High School Teacher Collaboration: Does a Review of the
Literature Show It Helps with Teacher and Student Success?
Submitted
by:
Deborah Wachtel Addison
EDCI 6303
Questions arise concerning where
teacher collaboration goes once the student progresses out of
elementary into the secondary level of education, especially at the
high school level. What effect, if any, does it have on student
achievement? Secondary teachers are often isolated from not only
teachers in other subject areas, but also from teachers in the same
subject areas. Class sizes are big and classes only last forty-five
to fifty minutes. With teachers isolated from each other, will they
be less effective on overall student success rates, as well as less
effective in developing teacher support systems? If collaboration
could be implemented into the secondary system, will it impact
student success? Will it impact teacher success as well? What do the
studies show?
High School Teacher Collaboration: Does a Review of the
Literature Show It Helps With Teacher and Student Success?
Elementary school gives a warm invitation to all students who enter
the halls. Teachers and administrators work hard to ease the fears
of each kindergartener and build him/her up through each year so
that all can be ready to jump into the secondary level experience.
The hope for a smooth transition is universal for elementary
teachers as they see their charges leave this warm environment.
Through the six years of work and guidance, teachers find time in
their schedules to talk with each other and work with one another to
better the learning experience each day. This collaborative effort
helps with each student who needs the extra help to succeed. Time is
set aside for these teachers to get with parents to plan ways for
them to assist their children when the school day has ended.
Alternate music and physical education time is put into a student's
schedule so that teachers can get together to plan, share ideas, and
improve the success of each student.
In the high school, there is no opportunity for collaboration in the
typical setting. Teachers teach five or six classes out of six or
seven respectively. Each class is forty-five to fifty minutes long
with class size twenty-five to thirty students each. The one
conference period that teachers do have is spent grading papers,
calling parents, meeting with administrators, running off papers or
preparing for the next day. Not every teacher has only one class
preparation either. Most teachers have two, three, or even four
different preparations for each day. Time before school is spent on
tutorials for students who will voluntarily come in for assistance.
After school, if teachers don't have extra-curricular activities to
sponsor or children of their own to pick up, they are preparing for
the next day. It can be a problem trying to change the typical
setting in a high school. All teachers have the mentality that they
are confined within four walls and that is the way it will always
be. (Slater & Simmons, 2001) There was in the 1960's an effort
to propose team teaching as a way to help gain better control of
large groups of students as well as a way to prescribe teacher
actions. (as cited in Murata, 2002)
Teacher teaming in large high schools helps to create smaller
learning communities. Many schools have been looking into this
topic. (Spraker, 2003) There are several different types of teacher
teaming tried and used in today's schools, some of which include
interdisciplinary teaming, teacher collaboration, and partnering.
Interdisciplinary teams are the most common type found. Three to
five teachers from different subject areas put their talents
together to provide an integrated curriculum or instruction, mostly
in the form of large cross-curricular projects. These teachers share
the same planning time and the same group of students. School-wide
block scheduling is common in this type of teaming. In teacher
collaboration, teachers come together and focus on learning together
as colleagues so that student achievement and instruction improve.
Partnering is when two staff members are working together to
collaborate instruction only. (pg. 6-8)
Interdisciplinary teaming has shown a positive effect on teacher
self-efficacy which in turn raised students' achievement test
scores. P. Ashton and R. Webb conducted this study in a
south-eastern university community in 1986. (p. 32) D.J. Daniels
conducted a study in 2002 on the same type of teaming with ninth
graders. His study found that not only did student instruction
improve, but also professional development was provided for teachers
at the same time. (p. 43)
Also in 2002, K.A. Kerr
conducted a study to see if interdisciplinary teaming could help
ninth graders in the transition from junior high to high school.
Drop out rates were reduced, classroom experiences for teachers and
students had positive effects as did teacher collaboration on
student behavior. Positive effects were also seen on student-teacher
relationships. (p. 67)
When Indiana requirements made science a two year mandate rather
than one year mandate in 1987, administrators became concerned with
lower-ability students. Science teachers and special education
teachers were paired to help those students become more successful.
The result was an increase in the students' mean grade in the teamed
science classes by a significant number. Their mean grade became
higher than the mean grade for all science classes. (p. 40)
Teacher collaboration was investigated in 1996 by V.E. Lee and J.B.
Smith. They used teacher questionnaires given in 1988. Composite
scores were calculated for more than 800 high schools on three
constructs: collective responsibility for student learning, staff
cooperation, and control over classroom and school conditions. It
was found that schools with large levels of collective
responsibility had significantly higher achievement gains for
students in core academic subjects. The other two constructs had no
effect on student achievement. (p. 70)
Procedures for grouping are not easy and can be quite challenging in
certain situations. Inclusive classrooms have special needs students
included in the regular classroom setting performing regular
classroom activities. This proves to be very difficult to use a
partnering type of collaboration. There is a greater emphasis on
content area knowledge, a need for independent study skills that
special needs students don't have, and instruction is faster paced
than in a special education class. Other factors that make it
difficult are that high skills testing has more pull in the regular
classroom, and lower-ability students must successfully complete
competency exams when involved in a regular classroom. Regular
classroom teachers have a less than positive attitude toward working
with the special needs students, adding one more item for which they
are responsible. Even having the special education teacher present
to help does not give a perception to the regular classroom teacher
that the situation is improved. Also seen in this situation,
strategies that are successful at the elementary level with
partnering of a special education teacher and a regular classroom
teacher are not consistently successful in the secondary level. The
process won't work if the two teachers cannot get along and agree
with the instruction. Special education teachers felt that there was
not enough time for them to meet for these students. They definitely
would not have enough time to meet with regular teachers. (Keefe
& Moor, 2004)
While schools-within-schools, another form of interdisciplinary
teaming, works to improve student achievement, teachers found it
difficult to split their time between the smaller school and the
host schools. In spite of the difficulty, it is shown that strong
professional communities promote student achievement and show
positive student outcomes. Data also showed that student behavior
also improved as a result of strong professional communities.
(Holland, 2002)
In Canada, one high school was
studied for its success with students with a variety of educational
needs. As a result, many of the students who could not be successful
became high school graduates, successful in college and in chosen
careers. The study began in the classrooms, student lounges, and the
everyday actions of the school's community members. The leaders of
the school were completely involved in the running of the school and
the community involvement. Grading was holistic and on a
project-based curriculum. All parts of the students' lives were
involved- intellectual, emotional, social, moral, imaginative,
aesthetic, as well as spiritual. Collaborative work was emphasized
in culture, connectedness between school learning and life
experience, development of commitment to the learning community as
well as the wider global community. Students who are enrolled in
this school come from all over the city. Most have dropped out of
other schools before coming here. Parents say there is a high rate
of success because everyone shows respect for young people, there is
a deep understanding of individual needs and ways of meeting those
needs, there is a strong emphasis in teaching the students to think
independently, and there is a deep understanding in the creative
process and its role in teaching. (Beattie, 2002)
A high school in Maine was created from the ground up to use teacher
collaboration for high student achievement. One team studied
contained a social studies teacher, science teacher, English teacher
and special education teacher. This team like all the teams had a
common workplace. They shared an office space and took what they
needed to each class room. In their office they could work together
to solve problems and help each other through whatever arose in the
classroom that hindered student learning. They also had a common
time, the same conference period, to work on issues their students
were having. All the teams in this school were allotted thirteen
hours a week during school time to plan together. The teachers not
only collaborated with each other, but they also collaborated with
students, parents, and community members. At the same time each
teacher advises a group of ten to twelve students throughout those
students' high school years. Teachers have support and students are
successful. (Shank, 2005)
Implications from review of these studies show that teacher
collaboration in its various forms makes for successful improvement
of student achievement. The change and upkeep of the programs is
very detailed and involves the backing from administration,
teachers, staff, and community. The programs cannot work effectively
without that support and teachers cannot keep up with the load of
work involved without that outside support. The result is positive
and shows in each case that students improve in their grades and
achievement. The work is hard, but the success is evident.
Several questions arise during this study of literature on teacher
collaboration. Can more high schools adopt this change when shown
the results of the research? Can colleges and universities adapt
their teacher instruction to help those going out to the workplace
to become strong for this change? How can researchers get the
message out concerning the success that these schools are having?
Therefore, where and how in our current state of educational
discourse can we as educators promote and incorporate these changes
in our schools to make student achievement higher?
The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory calls this teacher
collaboration Professional Learning Teams. (Sather, 2005) They have
shown through the study of research that teacher collaboration or
creating professional learning teams benefits teacher, student, and
community. They have materials to help schools through the
transition of the old style of high school set-up to the new
collaborative style. A final question would be why haven't the
powers that be, the government, been shown these schools and why
hasn't there been a push to help other high schools accomplish the
same successes? The world is evolving rapidly and the educational
field needs to be able to evolve with it. Instead of being given
mandates with no real solutions for their success, schools need the
support to take these solutions and successfully accommodate
students and teachers to a successful conclusion. J.W. Little
conducted an analysis in 2003 to challenge as well as build on the
research of the past ten years which claim that strong professional
communities are important contributors to school reform. (Little,
2003) The need and desire are there; more successful studies need to
follow to improve the transition from the old style of teaching to a
more modern and successful form of education.
References
Beattie, M. (2002). Educational
leadership: Modeling, mentoring, making and remaking a learning
community. European Journal of Teacher Education. 25(2 &
3), 199- 221.
Holland, N.E. (2002). Small
schools make big changes: The importance of professional
communities in school reform. Presented at 2002 Monograph Series An
Imperfect World: Resonance from the Nation's Violence, Houston, TX.
Keefe, E.B., Moor, V. (2004). The challenge of
co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What
the teachers tell us. American Secondary Education, 32(3),
77-88.
Little, J.W. (2003). Inside teacher community:
Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College
Record, 105(6), 913-945.
Murata, R. (2002). What does team teaching mean? A case study of
interdisciplinary teaming.
Journal of Educational Research.
96(2), 67-77.
Sather, S.E. (2005).
Improving
instruction through professional learning teams: A guide for school
leaders. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Shank, M. (2005). Common space, common time, and common work.
Educational Leadership, 62(8), 16-19.
Spraker,
J. (2003).
Teacher teaming in relation to student
performance: Findings from the literature. Portland OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved February 6, 2006.
The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory provides
articles and links for teacher research on educational issues. (
http://nwrel.org)