Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Team teaching practices in selected elementary schools of british columbia and the united states Kallus, I. Barbara 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 K34.pdf [ 24.34MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093319.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093319-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093319-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093319-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093319-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093319-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093319-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093319-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093319.ris

Full Text

TEAM TEACHING PRACTICES IN SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE UNITED STATES by I. BARBARA KALLUS B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF E&Ue-A-T-JQN ^ -&~^> i n the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1971 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v l i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f y^A^s^^aAk, /d&A^ilu^ ^  j£»l<^^tu-*^ T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a D a t e ^ A 4 ^ « ^ ° ? 7 ; ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study i s t o review the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o team t e a c h i n g developments i n Canada and the United S t a t e s , and t o examine c u r r e n t team t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia elementary s c h o o l s i n order t o : ( i ) a s c e r t a i n the e x t e n t , d e f i n i t i o n , o b j e c t i v e s , v a r i o u s methods, problems and d i f f i c u l t i e s o f team t e a c h i n g at the elementary s c h o o l l e v e l ; ( i i ) attempt to draw warranted g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from these f i n d i n g s about the p r a c t i c e s of team t e a c h i n g ; and ( i i i ) a s s e ss the p o t e n t i a l v alue of team t e a c h i n g with r e f e r e n c e t o commonly accepted p r i n c i p l e s of elemen-t a r y e d u c a t i o n . The t h e s i s r e s t s on both secondary and primary sources l i m i t e d t o the years 1960-1971. The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed i n -cluded books, j o u r n a l s , magazines and newspapers. The b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n on B r i t i s h Columbia elementary s c h o o l s was taken from a survey conducted by the author. I n i t i a l response from d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t hat 45 d i s t r i c t s had some sc h o o l s t h a t were u s i n g the team t e a c h i n g approach, the t o t a l number of s c h o o l s being 110. Permission to conduct the study was g i v e n by a l l d i s t r i c t s . Survey instruments were d i s t r i -buted i n A p r i l , 1971, t o p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h i n g teams i n a l l 110 s c h o o l s . Returns were r e c e i v e d from 85 p r i n c i p a l s and 301 t e a c h e r s i n 85 s c h o o l s , 77.73 percent of the sample. The p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s r e p r e s e n t e d 142 t e a c h i n g teams and r e t u r n e d between them 228 (85 + 143) q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Annual r e p o r t s , t i m e t a b l e s , e v a l u a t i o n s and f l o o r plans from 8 other team t e a c h i n g elementary s c h o o l s were a l s o obtained. A l l the t e a c h i n g teams i n one Lower Mainland s c h o o l d i s t r i c t were v i s i t e d and i n t e r v i e w e d . The study i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r c h a p t e r s . The f i r s t attempts t o c l a r i f y the d e f i n i t i o n s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of team t e a c h i n g . The most commonly accepted d e f i n i t i o n s were found to be: a c o o p e r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e i n which s e v e r a l t e a c h e r s p l a n and c a r r y out the i n s t r u c t i o n a l programme with no s p e c i f i c ranks des i g n a t e d t o s t a f f members; two or. more t e a c h e r s exchanging c l a s s e s on an i n f o r m a l v o l u n t a r y b a s i s ; and, a f o r m a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e of t e a c h i n g peers with l e a d e r -s h i p d e s i g n a t e d on a r o t a t i n g b a s i s . The g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n c l u d e d : c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g , i n s t r u c t i o n , and e v a l u a t i o n ; f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l i n g ; f l e x i b l e arrangements p r o v i d i n g f o r l a r g e group, s m a l l group, and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d study; maximum use of t e a c h e r s ' s t r e n g t h s , s k i l l s , and i n t e r e s t s ; p r o f e s s i o n a l and p a r a - p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f ; some c u r r i c u l u m a l t e r a t i o n s ; e x t e n s i v e use of audio-v i s u a l and o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l media; and, students a s s i g n e d t o a team, not t o a p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h e r . The second chapter o u t l i n e s the d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a -t i o n a l p a t t e r n s , t e a c h e r r o l e s , groupings and f a c i l i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with team t e a c h i n g . Informal o r g a n i z a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n c l u d e : a simple v o l u n t a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n without s t r u c t u r e or assumption of permanence; d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y t o s i m p l i f y workload p r e p a r a t i o n ; interchange of p u p i l s f o r s p e c i f i c grouping purposes; combination of c l a s s e s f o r s p e c i f i c experiences; and, an experienced t e a c h e r working with an a p p r e n t i c e or younger t e a c h e r on a temporary b a s i s . Formal o r g a n i z a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d i n c l u d e : a f o r m a l i z e d team s t r u c t u r e with l e a d e r s h i p d e s i g n a t e d on a c o n t i n u i n g or r o t a t i n g b a s i s and peer s t a t u s emphasized; t e a c h e r s a s s i s t e d by t e a c h e r a i d e s on a c o n t i n u i n g b a s i s ; a f o r m a l i z e d team s t r u c t u r e on a h i e r a r c h i c a l b a s i s , with the l e a d e r assuming a permanent r o l e ; and, a f o r m a l i z e d h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e with s e v e r a l l e v e l s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y above t h a t of teacher. Concepts of the r o l e s of team members vary somewhat from s c h o o l t o s c h o o l but g e n e r a l l y i n c l u d e a team l e a d e r , p r o f e s s i o n a l t e a c h e r s , r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s , t e a c h e r i n t e r n s , t e a c h e r s p e c i a l i s t s , c l e r i c a l a i d e s , t e a c h e r a i d e s , resource and support p e r s o n n e l . V a r y i n g group s i z e s ranging from s m a l l groups of 12 t o 15 p u p i l s , working groups of 3 t o 8 p u p i l s , and l a r g e groups of 40, 75, 100 or 150 p u p i l s are a c e n t r a l aspect of most teams. J o i n t p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s , around which the team's a c t i v i t i e s g e n e r a l l y c e n t r e , tend to f o c u s on making o v e r a l l c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s , on s c h e d u l i n g , on d i s c u s s i n g the s p e c i a l problems of s t u d e n t s , and on a s s e s s i n g and r e p o r t i n g student p r o g r e s s . D e t a i l e d p l a n n i n g of i n d i v i d u a l l e s s o n s i s u s u a l l y done by one or two members who s p e c i a l i z e i n each area. Planning s e s s i o n s i n most teams are very time consuming and f r e q u e n t l y overwhelm te a c h e r s by the i n c r e a s e d work l o a d . Most of the teams operate i n open area s c h o o l s . A few are housed i n double-s i z e d or l a r g e classrooms and a s m a l l m i n o r i t y f u n c t i o n i n t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l s . On the whole, the f a c i l i t i e s f o r l a r g e group a c t i v i t i e s are adequate but many teams f i n d t h a t s m a l l group or i n d i v i d u a l study f a c i l i t i e s are poor or non-e x i s t e n t . The t h i r d chapter g i v e s the r e s u l t s of r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s completed to date i n the area of elementary s c h o o l team t e a c h i n g . Most s t u d i e s , however, have been d e s c r i p t i v e r a t h e r than e v a l u a t i v e and any r e s e a r c h done i s g e n e r a l l y of poor q u a l i t y . The summary of f i n d i n g s i s , t h e r e f o r e , some-what h y p o t h e t i c a l and r e p r e s e n t s o n l y a crude s t a r t i n g a i n -i n g an understanding of team t e a c h i n g and i t s v a l i d i t y . Almost without e x c e p t i o n , p u p i l achievement, as shown on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s , has been found t o be about the same i n team t e a c h i n g programmes as i n s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms. F i n d i n g s on student adjustment are a l l h i g h l y s i m i l a r w i t h most p u p i l s f a v o r i n g the team approach. Team t e a c h i n g , as any o t h e r p l a n of o r g a n i z a t i o n , seems to improve the a d j u s t -ment of some students and l e s s e n the adjustment of o t h e r s . As f a r as p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s are concerned, r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s c o n s i s t e n t l y show t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e m a j o r i t y of parents h o l d f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward team t e a c h i n g . The f i n d i n g s a r e , however, g e n e r a l l y not s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c or d e t a i l e d t o i n d i c a t e what f e a t u r e s of team t e a c h i n g were c h i e f l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these a t t i t u d e s . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , because most are v o l u n t e e r s , the m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s who have worked on teams express f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s . These t e a c h e r s a l s o , however, a p p a r e n t l y undergo a r a t h e r s t r e s s f u l p e r i o d i n a d j u s t i n g t o the demands team t e a c h i n g makes on them. Even i n s c h o o l s that have been engaged i n team t e a c h i n g f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d of time, t h e r e i s no c o n c l u s i v e evidence to i n d i c a t e t h a t g r e a t e r t e a c h e r competency or e f f i c i e n c y r e s u l t s from t h i s type of o r g a n i z a t i o n . W r i t e r s i n the f i e l d of team t e a c h i n g g i v e c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n t o team p l a n n i n g . Most r e p o r t s agree t h a t t h i s area poses many problems. There i s u s u a l l y a l a c k of time f o r p l a n n i n g and i t takes much l o n g e r to make plans as a team. F r e q u e n t l y p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s are hampered by p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s and disagreements over ide a s or b a s i c p h i l o s o p h y . Teachers, however, g e n e r a l l y f e e l t h a t the r e s u l t s are worth p u t t i n g up w i t h such d i f f i c u l t i e s . Research on f l e x i b l e grouping w i t h i n team o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s l i m i t e d and when a v a i l a b l e remains i n c o n c l u s i v e as to the r e l a t i v e merit of l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n , s m a l l group a c t i v i t i e s and independent study. C o n v i c t i o n does seem t o be b u i l d i n g up, however, t h a t the s i z e of group i s best determined by the nature o f what i s taught, the a b i l i t y of those being taught and the competence of those doing the t e a c h i n g . Claims f o r enormously i n c r e a s e d f l e x i b i l i t y o f p u p i l grouping and t e a c h e r assignment i n teams are o f t e n exaggerated. The b a s i c r e s t r a i n t s are the amount of s c h o o l time, the number of p u p i l s , and the number of t e a c h e r s . These f a c t o r s u s u a l l y remain unchanged i n team o r g a n i z a t i o n s as compared with t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l arrangements. In g e n e r a l , the new pat-t e r n s of team t e a c h i n g i n themselves do not r e q u i r e g r e a t e r o u t l a y of funds, nor do they e f f e c t g r e a t s a v i n g s . In-creased c o s t s may a r i s e through the purchase of needed equipment and m a t e r i a l s when team t e a c h i n g i s i n i t i a t e d , but once e s t a b l i s h e d c o s t s are the same as s e l f - c o n t a i n e d c l a s s -room o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Many educators b e l i e v e t h a t one of the g r e a t e s t b e n e f i t s a s c h o o l d e r i v e s from i n t r o d u c i n g team t e a c h i n g , i s t h a t such a p l a n i s a c a t a l y s t f o r needed changes. I n s t a l l i n g team t e a c h i n g i s apt t o expose needs f o r improving c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s , f o r purchasing i n s t r u c -t i o n a l equipment, and f o r developing b e t t e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l t echniques through i n - s e r v i c e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n . F r e q u e n t l y , team t e a c h i n g has s t i m u l a t e d f r e s h t h i n k i n g about c l a s s s i z e and o r g a n i z a t i o n , grouping p r a c t i c e s , b a s i c c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s , d i v i s i o n of the workload among t e a c h e r s , and the bases of p u p i l w e l f a r e . School a r c h i t e c t u r e appears t o be c o n s i d e r a b l y i n f l u e n c e d by the demand f o r f l e x i b l e and v a r y -i n g space. The d e c i s i o n as t o whether team t e a c h i n g should be continued, d i s c o n t i n u e d or even propagated i s not d i c t a t e d by these f i n d i n g s . The f i n a l chapter p o i n t s out t h a t team t e a c h i n g i s one approach t o the search f o r new ways of o r g a n i z i n g per-sonnel f o r the t e a c h i n g f u n c t i o n . I f team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t s are undertaken, i t should be with the f u l l understanding of what can be achieved and what shortcomings are i n h e r e n t i n the s t r u c t u r e . As an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p l a n , i t o f f e r s op-p o r t u n i t i e s f o r conducting i n s t r u c t i o n but does not, i n i t s e l f , guarantee any i n s t r u c t i o n a l outcomes. I t i s encour-a g i n g , however, t o note t h a t most s c h o o l s i n v o l v e d i n team t e a c h i n g have expressed a p p r o v a l of i t . They are g e n e r a l l y a l s o the s c h o o l s which are p i o n e e r i n g with the problems of f a c i l i t i e s , s c h e d u l i n g and grouping. I f a c a t a l y s t i s needed t o accomplish changes i n an attempt t o provide b e t t e r c o n d i -t i o n s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n and l e a r n i n g , team t e a c h i n g c o u l d be the agent. CHAPTER PAGE I. DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TEAM TEACHING 1 D e f i n i t i o n of Team Teaching 2 Emergence of Team Teaching 7 T h e o r e t i c a l R a t i o n a l of Team Teaching 11 I I . TEACHING TEAMS 17 Or g a n i z a t i o n a l Patterns 17 Team Teaching Roles 52 Grouping and F l e x i b l e Scheduling 63 Team Planning 88 School F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment 95 I I I . RESEARCH ON TEAM TEACHING 133 Examples of Research Studies 137 Student Achievement 142 Student Adjustment 149 Pa r e n t a l A t t i t u d e s 158 Teacher A t t i t u d e s 162 Teacher Competence and E f f i c i e n c y . 170 Team Planning 178 P u p i l Redeployment 185 Team Costs 192 Team Teaching as a C a t a l y s t f o r Change 196 Team Teaching Implementation 199 CHAPTER PAGE IV. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20S BIBLIOGRAPHY 217 APPENDIX A.' SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE SURVEY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY TEAM TEACHING SCHOOLS 234 APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL FLOOR PLANS OF ELEMENTARY TEAM TEACHING SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES AND BRITISH COLUMBIA 291 APPENDIX C. QUESTIONNAIRE A 321 APPENDIX D. QUESTIONNAIRE B 327 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. The Growth of Team Teaching i n 85 B r i t i s h Columbia Elementary Schools, 1965-1971 12 2. Team Structure with Voluntary Membership 18 3. Formalized Team Structure with Leadership on a Rotating Basis 19 4. Formalized Team Structure on a Hiera r c h i c a l Basis 19 5. Coordinate Team Type of Organization 21 6. Hiera r c h i c a l Team Structure 22 7. Cooperative Team Structure 22 8. Team Teaching with Various Categories of Personnel 24 9. Organization of Team Teaching i n the Franklin School, 1959-1960 . . . . . . . 27 10. Organization f o r Team Teaching i n the Franklin School, 1963-1964 28 11. Organization f o r Team Teaching i n the Norwalk Plan, 1960-1961 29 12. Organization f o r Team Teaching i n the Dundee School, 1962-1963 30 13. Team Teaching Plan f o r a Third Grade Class of 144 Pupils i n the Pittsburgh Schools, 1960-1961 . . 31 14* Organization f o r Team Teaching i n Wisconsin, 1960-1961 . . . . . 33 15. O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n the Baldwin Summer Elementary S c h o o l , 1964-1965 34 16. O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n the Wisconsin Elementary Schools, 1967-1968 37 17. The Number of Teams per School According t o School P o p u l a t i o n 40 18. The Number of Teams According t o Range of School Years 42 19. O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n John Tod Elementary School 44 20. Team Teaching O r g a n i z a t i o n i n Gordon Park S c h o o l , 1969-1970 45 21. Team Teaching O r g a n i z a t i o n . i n MacCorkindale School, 1970-1971 . . . . 47 22. S o c i a l S t u d i e s and Language A r t s Teams at Highlands S c h o o l , 1969-1970 48 23. Team Roles i n a H i e r a r c h y o f Personnel 55 24. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and I n s t r u c t i o n a l Cabinet 59 25. The D i r e c t I n s t r u c t i o n a l Team and Resource Centres 60 26. F l e x i b l e Grouping as a C e n t r a l Aspect of Team Teaching 65 27. V a r i o u s Groupings f o r S p e c i f i c Purposes 67 28. V a r i o u s Group Assignments f o r One Student . . . . . . 69 29. The P i t t s b u r g h P l a n of Types of M a t e r i a l s and A c t i v i t i e s A p p r o p r i a t e E i t h e r f o r Large or Small Groups 71 3 0 . V a r i e t y and F l e x i b i l i t y o f Grouping f o r V a r i o u s S u b j e c t s at the Baldwin Elementary Summer School 74 31. A Team Schedule at Estabrook School 75 3 2 . The Percentage of Time Devoted t o V a r i o u s Groupings at Eagle Harbour School 79 33- Team Timetable at C l e v e l a n d School, 1967-1968 . 81 34* Timetable f o r Team E at Gordon Park Elementary School, 1970-1971 96 3 5 . F l e x i b l e Teaching Areas 99 3 6 . Area f o r Large Group I n s t r u c t i o n at West D i s t r i c t S chool, Farmington, Connecticut . . . 100 3 7 . Flowing Wells Elementary School, Tucson, A r i z o n a 101 3 8 . C h a r t w e l l Elementary S c h o o l , West Vancouver, B.C 102 3 9 . F l o o r P l a n of Naramake Elementary School, Norwalk, Connecticut N 103 4 0 . I n s t r u c t i o n a l C l u s t e r s at Naramake Elementary School, Norwalk, Connecticut 104 4 1 . F l o o r Plan of Joseph Estabrook Elementary S c h o o l , Lexington, Massachusettes 106 4 2 . F l o o r Plan of Dundee Elementary School, Greenwich, Connecticut 107 43. F l o o r Plan of D i l w o r t h Elementary School, San Jose, C a l i f o r n i a 109 44. The Nucleus and F l o o r P l a n of Parkway Elementary S c h o o l , Parkway, Montana 110 45. F l o o r Plan of West D i s t r i c t Elementary S c h o o l , Farmington, Connecticut I l l 46. E a g l e Harbour Elementary School, West Vancouver, B.C., F l o o r Plan A 115 47. Eagle Harbour Elementary S c h o o l , West Vancouver, B.C., F l o o r Plan B 116 48. F l o o r P l a n of MacCorkindale Elementary S c h o o l , Vancouver, B.C 118 49. F l o o r Plan of the Open Area at C l e v e l a n d Elementary School, North Vancouver, B.C. . . . 121 50. F l o o r Plan of the Open Area at F r a s e r Lake Sch o o l , F r a s e r Lake, B.C 122 51. F l o o r P l a n of Kent Elementary School, A g a s s i z , B.C 123 52. Brooksbank Elementary S c h o o l , North Vancouver, B.C. , F l o o r Plan A 125 53. Brooksbank Elementary School, North Vancouver, B.C., F l o o r P l a n B 126 54. Open Area at P a r k s v i l l e Elementary School, P a r k s v i l l e , B.C 127 5 5 . Open Area at Lord Selkirk Annex B, Vancouver, B.C 1 2 8 56. A Comparison of Costs at Walnut H i l l Elementary School and a Conventional School 1 9 5 5 7 . Urban and Rural School Districts in British Columbia by Regions 2 3 6 58. Bushey Drive Elementary School, Montgomery County, Maryland 292 59« Floor Plan of Bushey Drive Elementary School, Second Floor 293 6 0 . Floor Plan of Bushey Drive Elementary School, Third Floor 2 9 4 61. Queens College Elementary School, New York . . . 2 9 5 62. Floor Plan of Lessinger Elementary School, Lemphere, Michigan 2 9 6 6 3 . Floor Plan of Victorine Klein Elementary School, Mountain View, California 298 6 4 . Floor Plan of Carson City Open Cluster 2 9 9 6 5 . Floor Plan of Cupertino Elementary School, Cupertino, California 3 0 0 6 6 . Large Group Instruction Area at Estabrook Elementary School, Lexington, Massachusettes . 3©1 6 7 . Floor Plan of an Elementary School at Findlay . . 302 6 8 . Floor Plan of Sylvania Whiteford Elementary School, Sylvania, Ohio 303 69. F l o o r Plan of C r e s t l i n e Middle School 304 70. F l o o r P l a n of Chalmers Elementary School, D e l t a , B.C 305 71. F l o o r Plan of General George P e a r k e s Elementary School, Portage Mountain, B.C 306 72. F l o o r P l a n of Cormorant Elementary School, K i t i m a t , B.C 307 73. F l o o r Plan of Open Area at Rochester Elementary S c h o o l , Coquitlam, B.C 308 74. F l o o r Plan of Puntledge Park Elementary School, Courtenay B.C 309 75. F l o o r P l a n of Mary-Jane Shannon Elementary S c h o o l , Surrey, B.C 310 76. F l o o r P l a n of Walnut Park Elementary School, Smithers, B.C 311 77. F l o o r Plan of Sidney Elementary School, Sidney, B.C 312 78. F l o o r P l a n of Godson Elementary School, Abbotsford, B.C 313 79. F l o o r Plan of C h i e f Maquinna Elementary School, Vancouver, B.C 314 80. F l o o r Plan of the Open Area at Margaret S t e r n e r s e n Elementary School, Abbotsford, B.C.. 315 81. Open Area at Quigley Elementary S c h o o l , Kelowna, B.C 316 82. Open Area at O l i v e r Elementary School, O l i v e r , B.C 317 83. Open Area at Winlaw Elementary School, Nelson, B.C. 316 84. Open Area at Hans Helgesen Elementary School, Sooke, B.C 319 85. Open Area at Royston Elementary School, Courtenay, B.C. 320 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Frequency and Percent of Team Teaching Elementary Schools by S i z e , Grades, Number of Teams, General F a c i l i t i e s and Years of Team Teaching 2 3 7 I I . Frequency and Percent of Elementary School Teams According t o Type, S i z e , School P o p u l a t i o n and Range of Grade L e v e l 2 3 9 I I I . Frequency and Percent of P r i n c i p a l s Responding t o D e f i n i t i o n s and O b j e c t i v e s o f Team Teaching 2 4 1 IV. Frequency and Percent of P r i n c i p a l s Responding t o E v a l u a t i o n Items 2 4 6 V. Frequency and Percent o f P r i n c i p a l s Responding t o P h y s i c a l F a c i l i t i e s , S c h e d u l i n g , S t a f f Changes, Money Grants, Innovations and Implementation Items . . . . 2 4 9 VI. Frequency of P r i n c i p a l s Responding t o Best and Worst Features o f Team Teaching Items . . 2 5 1 V I I . Frequency of P r i n c i p a l s Responding t o Success i n Team Teaching Items 253 V I I I . Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o D e f i n i t i o n s and O b j e c t i v e s of Team Teaching Items 254 TABLE PAGE IX. Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o Team O r g a n i z a t i o n Items . . . . 259 X. Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o Procedure Items 262 XI. Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o Methods Items 264 X I I . Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o Scheduling Items 266 X I I I . Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o Planning Items 268 XIV. Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o Grouping Items 273 XV. Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o I n s t r u c t i o n a l Media Items . . . 276 XVI. Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o F a c i l i t y Items 279 XVII. Frequency and Percent of Team Teachers Responding t o Adjustment and A t t i t u d e Items . 282 XVIII. Frequency of Team Teachers Responding t o Advantages of Team Teaching Items 284 XIX. Frequency and Percent of P r i n c i p a l s and Team Teachers Responding t o D e f i n i t i o n and O b j e c t i v e s Items 285 TABLE PAGE XX. Frequency and Percent o f P r i n c i p a l s and Team Teachers Responding t o Adjustment and A t t i t u d e s Items 290 The author wishes t o thank the d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n -dents, p r i n c i p a l s , and t e a c h e r s who generously a f f o r d e d t h e i r time i n t h i s endeavour. For the wise and f r i e n d l y a d v i c e o f Dr. F.H. Johnson and Dr. R. Gray, members of the t h e s i s com-m i t t e e , the w r i t e r i s deeply a p p r e c i a t i v e . To Dr. J . Katz and P r o f e s s o r G. Pennington f o r t h e i r past guidance i n pra c -t i c a l r e s e a r c h e x p e r i e n c e s , thanks are extended. Acknowledg-ment i s a l s o g i v e n t o my f a m i l y f o r t h e i r h e l p and under-s t a n d i n g . Without the support of these people t h i s study would have been i m p o s s i b l e t o w r i t e . DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TEAM TEACHING In recent years an i n c r e a s i n g number of s c h o o l s have been experimenting with o r g a n i z i n g personnel f o r the t e a c h i n g f u n c t i o n . Much of the i n n o v a t i o n i n the use of personnel has been i n the fo r m a t i o n of t e a c h i n g teams. The s t i m u l i f o r t h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n appear t o be v a r i e d . Some sc h o o l s are s e r i o u s l y concerned with improvement of i n s t r u c t i o n , other s c h o o l s are f o r c e d i n t o changes because of enrollment p r e s -sures or f o r the sake of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e convenience, and s t i l l o t h e r s launch i n t o p r o j e c t s because of the p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s v a l u e o f innovation." 1" At any r a t e , the appearance of the team t e a c h i n g concept has caused c o n s i d e r a b l e s t i r i n educa-t i o n a l c i r c l e s i n Canada and the United S t a t e s . R a r e l y can one p i c k up an e d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l today without f i n d i n g some r e f e r e n c e t o team t e a c h i n g . The w r i t i n g s about t h i s concept make up s u f f i c i e n t c a t e g o r i e s t o c r e a t e a volume d e a l i n g e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h i t . Team t e a c h i n g appears t o have been accepted r a t h e r u n c r i t i c a l l y by a number of s c h o o l s and has a l r e a d y been abandoned by many. In B r i t i s h Columbia, however, because "'"Luvern L. Cunningham, "Team Teaching. Where Do We Stand?" A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Notebook, V I I . ( A p r i l , I960), 1. team t e a c h i n g seems t o have a c q u i r e d widespread a p p e a l , many-e n t e r p r i s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are pushing t o persuade s c h o o l s t o organize themselves i n t o t e a c h i n g teams. Of the 85 team t e a c h i n g elementary s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia surveyed i n t h i s study, 22 s t a t e d t h a t team t e a c h i n g began as a r e s u l t of open area c o n s t r u c t i o n , o f t e n without t h e i r p r i o r knowledge or consent. Team t e a c h i n g was i n i t i a t e d i n 25 o t h e r s c h o o l s by the p r i n c i p a l or the s c h o o l board. Teachers were r e p o r t e d as r e q u e s t i n g to form teams i n 30 s c h o o l s . Robert Anderson i n speaking of the i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t i n and a d o p t i o n of team t e a c h i n g o u t s i d e the United S t a t e s says: One regards such development with mixed emotions, however, s i n c e the American experience with team t e a c h -i n g has thus f a r s u f f e r e d from inadequate d e s i g n , im-p e r f e c t and incomplete development, i n s u f f i c i e n t r e -s e a r c h , and an almost t o t a l n e g l e c t of the optimum procedures f o r d i s s e m i n a t i o n . DEFINITION OF TEAM TEACHING As with other conceptions i n education t h e r e i s no g e n e r a l agreement as t o the meaning of team t e a c h i n g . In t h e i r eagerness to get on the team t e a c h i n g bandwagon many educators are lumping v i r t u a l l y any departure from the con-v e n t i o n a l s c h o o l p a t t e r n under the term "team t e a c h i n g . " One educator r e c e n t l y suggested t h a t t h e r e are as many 2 Robert H. Anderson, Teaching i n a World of Change (New York: Harcourt, 1966) , 96. d e f i n i t i o n s f o r team t e a c h i n g as t h e r e are people w r i t i n g 3 about i t . The f o l l o w i n g are seven d e f i n i t i o n s i n c u r r e n t use: Team t e a c h i n g i s a type of i n s t r u c t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n v o l v i n g t e a c h i n g personnel and students a s s i g n e d t o them, i n which two or more t e a c h e r s are g i v e n respon-s i b i l i t y , working t o g e t h e r , f o r a l l or a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t o f the i n s t r u c t i o n o f the same group o f students.^" Team t e a c h i n g i s a method of o r g a n i z i n g t e a c h e r s , c h i l d r e n , space and c u r r i c u l u m which r e q u i r e s s e v e r a l t e a c h e r s , as a group, t o p l a n , conduct, and eva l u a t e the e d u c a t i o n a l programme f o r a l l the c h i l d r e n a s s i g n e d t o them.5 Team t e a c h i n g , a l s o c a l l e d c o - o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g , occurs when two or more t e a c h e r s share i n pl a n n i n g and conducting i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a group of s t u d e n t s .6 I p r e f e r a r e l a t i v e l y broad d e f i n i t i o n o f team t e a c h -i n g . The term might apply t o an arrangement whereby two or more t e a c h e r s and t h e i r a i d e s , i n order t o take advantage of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e competencies, p l a n , i n -s t r u c t , and e v a l u a t e , i n one or more s u b j e c t a r e a s , a group of elementary or secondary students e q u i v a l e n t i n s i z e t o two or more c o n v e n t i o n a l c l a s s e s , making use of a v a r i e t y of t e c h n i c a l a i d s t o t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g i n large-group i n s t r u c t i o n , small-group d i s -c u s s i o n , and independent study.' 3 I b i d . , 8 3 . ^"Judson J . S h a p l i n and Henry F. Olds ( e d s . ) , Team  Teaching (New York: Harper and Row P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 5 . ^ L e s l i e J . Chamberlin, Team Teaching: O r g a n i z a t i o n  and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Pub-l i s h i n g Co., 1909 ) , 1 6 . ^Robert L e b e l ( e d . ) , E n c y c l o p e d i a o f E d u c a t i o n a l  Research (Toronto: C o l l i e r - M a c m i l l a n Canada L t d . , 1969), 5 6 3 . 7 ' J . L l o y d Trump, "What I s Team Teaching?", Educa-t i o n LXXXV (February, 1 9 6 5 ) , 3 2 7 Team t e a c h i n g i s a f o r m a l type o f c o - o p e r a t i v e s t a f f o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which a group of t e a c h e r s accepts the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p l a n n i n g , c a r r y i n g out, and e v a l u -a t i n g an e d u c a t i o n a l program, or some major p o r t i o n o f a program, f o r an aggregate of p u p i l s . A team r e l a t i o n s h i p occurs when a group of te a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s , as an o r g a n i z e d u n i t , accept and c a r r y out decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a set of i n s t r u c -t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s such as time, space, group s i z e , group composition, t e a c h e r assignment, and re s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n . Team t e a c h i n g i m p l i e s an o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which two or more t e a c h e r s are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r more than f i f t y per-cent of the i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t a g i v e n group of p u p i l s w i l l r e c e i v e d u r i n g the course o f a s c h o o l day. u C r i t i c s of team t e a c h i n g have p o i n t e d out t h a t the l a c k of s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n has r e s u l t e d i n the term being a p p l i e d r a t h e r l o o s e l y t o a wide v a r i e t y o f arrangements i n v o l v i n g c o - o p e r a t i o n and c o l l a b o r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s . C a r l Olson s t a t e s : The l a b e l "team t e a c h i n g " i s being improperly and i n d i s -c r i m i n a t e l y a p p l i e d t o a wide v a r i e t y of p r a c t i c e s , few of which are a c t u a l l y team t e a c h i n g . T h i s m i s l a b e l i n g , i f allowed t o co n t i n u e , c o u l d u l t i m a t e l y undermine the team t e a c h i n g movement and d e p r i v e s o c i e t y o f i t s p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s . ! ! Of the 228 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d by p r i n c i p a l s and team t e a c h e r s 116 or 51 percent f e l t t h a t t h e i r ' s was a co-o p e r a t i v e team s t r u c t u r e i n which s e v e r a l t e a c h e r s p l a n and Anderson, op. c i t . 9 7Robert E. Ohm, "Toward a R a t i o n a l e f o r Team Teach-i n g , " A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Notebook, IX (March, 1961), 1. 1 0Abraham S. F i s c h l e r , "The Use of Team Teaching i n the Elementary S c h o o l , " School Science and Mathematics, LXII ( A p r i l , 1961), 281. i : L C a r l 0. Olson, "We C a l l I t Team T e a c h i n g — B u t Is I t R e a l l y That?" Grade Teacher, LXXXIII (October, 1965), 8. c a r r y out the team's i n s t r u c t i o n a l programme with no s p e c i f i c ranks d e s i g n a t e d t o s t a f f members. Two or more t e a c h e r s ex-changing c l a s s e s on an i n f o r m a l v o l u n t a r y b a s i s , was the d e f i n i t i o n accepted by 6 4 or 28 percent o f the respondents. Twenty-one or 9 percent s a i d a f o r m a l i z e d team s t r u c t u r e of t e a c h i n g peers, w i t h l e a d e r s h i p d e s i g n a t e d on a r o t a t i n g b a s i s was the best d e f i n i t i o n f o r t h e i r team. The remainder of the te a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s , 18 or 8 pe r c e n t , i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r team was a h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h a t e a c h e r i n charge and s e v e r a l l e v e l s of p r o f e s s i o n a l s and non-p r o f e s s i o n a l s working w i t h him. T h i s shows t h a t most of the elementary s c h o o l teams i n B r i t i s h Columbia are r e l a t i v e l y simple i n s t r u c t u r e and i n f o r m a l . Goodlad has suggested t h a t team t e a c h i n g i s character-i z e d by t h r e e t h i n g s : a h i e r a r c h y o f p e r s o n n e l , d i f f e r e n t i a l 12 s t a f f f u n c t i o n s , and f l e x i b l e k i n d s of grouping. Anderson agrees t h a t a h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r i n g of personnel i s essen-t i a l and adds, t h a t a minimum of t h r e e or more t e a c h e r s i s r e q u i r e d t o develop a team with s u f f i c i e n t m a n e o u v e r a b i l i t y 14 13 t o make a d i f f e r e n c e . B a i r and Woodward a l s o q u e s t i o n whether two t e a c h e r s , working t o g e t h e r can be c a l l e d a team.' 12 John I . Goodlad, Planning and Or g a n i z i n g f o r Teaching (Washington, D.C.: N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1963), 81-6*2. 13 Robert H. Anderson, "Team Teaching " N a t i o n a l  E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , L (March, 1961), 52. ^ M e d i l l B a i r and Ri c h a r d G. Woodward, Team Teach-i n g i n A c t i o n (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1964), 22. Witherspoon which s t r e s s e s : the e s s e n t i a l s p i r i t of c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g , constant c o l l a b o r a t i o n , c l o s e u n i t y , u n r e s t r a i n e d communication and s i n c e r e s h a r i n g . . . ( r a t h e r than) d e t a i l s o f s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n . 1 5 Woodring suggests t h a t , s i n c e the term "team t e a c h i n g " i s ambiguous, a b e t t e r term might be "team o r g a n i z a t i o n and p l a n n i n g " because the t e a c h i n g , at any g i v e n moment, i s done by an i n d i v i d u a l r a t h e r than a team."^ The terra " c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g " was suggested by some as a g e n e r a l frame of r e f e r -ence w i t h i n which team t e a c h i n g i s perhaps the most f o r m a l l y s t r u c t u r e d a l t e r n a t i v e . The g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f team t e a c h i n g are summarized by Chamberlin 17 as f o l l o w s : - Cooperative p l a n n i n g , i n s t r u c t i o n , and e v a l u a t i o n - E x t e n s i v e use of a u d i o - v i s u a l and other i n s t r u c t i o n -a l media - F l e x i b l e s c h e d u l i n g p r o v i d i n g time f o r group p l a n n i n g and study - Grouping: f l e x i b l e arrangements p r o v i d i n g f o r l a r g e group, s m a l l group, and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . Grouping i s based on t e a c h e r s ' purposes and all o w s c h i l d r e n t o work a c r o s s grade l i n e s 1 5 I b i d . Robert H. Anderson, " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Character of Ed u c a t i o n : S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n and Deployment," Review o f  E d u c a t i o n a l Research, XXXIV (October, 1969), kW. Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 20. - O r g a n i z a t i o n : H i e r a r c h y — t h e team may i n c l u d e a team l e a d e r , s e v e r a l s p e c i a l i s t s , r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s and ai d e s both c l e r i c a l and t e c h n i c a l . C o o p e r a t i v e — a group of s p e c i a l or co o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r s . Cooperative c o o r d i n a t i o n o f team member a c t i v i t i e s - Some c u r r i c u l u m a l t e r a t i o n s - Maximum use of i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r s t r e n g t h s , s k i l l s , and i n t e r e s t s - S t a f f : p r o f e s s i o n a l and n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l - Students assi g n e d t o a team, not t o a p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h e r . EMERGENCE OF TEAM TEACHING Team t e a c h i n g , as d e f i n e d above, i s a recent innova-t i o n . However, f o r at l e a s t a q u a r t e r of a century t e a c h e r s have been engaging i n a v a r i e t y o f e f f o r t s at fo r m a l and i n f o r m a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n . These e f f o r t s i n c l u d e d the combining of c l a s s e s f o r s p e c i f i c purposes, the exchange of f u n c t i o n s among t e a c h e r s w i t h d i f f e r e n t i n t e r e s t s and s t r e n g t h s , v a r i o u s means of s u b d i v i d i n g the t o t a l work l o a d , and p o o l i n g c l a s s e s p r i o r t o temporary regrouping f o r some purpose. Cooperative t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e s , of course, have long been f a m i l i a r i n nurse r y s c h o o l t e a c h i n g and k i n d e r g a r t e n programmes. The L a n c a s t e r i a n or M o n i t o r i a l System, the B a t a v i a P l a n , the Gary Pla t o o n P l a n , and the Winnetka P l a n and the Dalton Plan em-bodied many of the concepts and procedures t h a t team t e a c h -i n g now employs. The p l a n t h a t was, perhaps, the r e a l f o r e -runner o f team t e a c h i n g was the Cooperative Group Plan formulated i n the 1930's by J.F. H o s i c . T h i s p l a n c a l l e d f o r groups of t h r e e t o s i x t e a c h e r s t o organize t o g e t h e r the work f o r a group of c h i l d r e n w i t h i n a range of not more than t h r e e grades. Each group or "team" had a chairman who a l s o served i n a s u p e r v i s o r y c a p a c i t y . ^ There seems l i t t l e doubt t h a t whatever predecessors team t e a c h i n g may have had i n Canada, the present i n t e r e s t i n i t and i d e a s f o r i t s implementation o r i g i n a t e d i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n the l a t e 1950's w i t h the term f i r s t appearing i n the E d u c a t i o n Index 1957-1959 volume. During t h a t p e r i o d p r o f e s s i o n a l educators, the q u a l i t y of the supply and prepara-t i o n of t e a c h e r s , methods of i n s t r u c t i o n , the content of the c u r r i c u l u m and textbooks, and the major g o a l s of e d u c a t i o n a l l came under a t t a c k . Many changes t h a t took p l a c e d u r i n g t h i s time i n f l u e n c e d the development of team t e a c h i n g . J . 19 S h a p l i n i d e n t i f i e s the f o l l o w i n g i n f l u e n c e : 7 new methods of r e c r u i t m e n t , t r a i n i n g and c a r e e r prospects of t e a c h e r s ( s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , job d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , i n t e r n s h i p s ) ; o r g a n i z a -t i o n of s c h o o l s i n t o l a r g e r u n i t s ( l a r g e s t a f f , groups of p u p i l s , new space); fundamental r e v i s i o n s of the c u r r i c u l u m under new a u s p i c e s (packaged courses, f i l m s , l a b o r a t o r i e s ) ; new groupings o f students f o r i n s t r u c t i o n (Dual Progress P l a n , Continuous Progress P l a n , L e v e l s System); and dramatic advances i n technology. -id S t u a r t E. Dean, "Team Teaching: A Review," School  L i f e , XLIV (September, 1961), 5-• ^ S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 27-54. The years 1955-1957 were a time o f s h a r p l y i n c r e a s e d c o l l a b o r a t i o n between p u b l i c s c h o o l systems and c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s engaged i n t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n . In the summer of 1955 Harvard U n i v e r s i t y launched an i n t e r n s h i p p l a n t h a t c a l l e d f o r f o u r or f i v e a p p r e n t i c e s t o work s i m u l t a n e o u s l y under a g i f t e d master t e a c h e r . I n s i g h t gained from the programme l e d e v e n t u a l l y t o the Teaching Team P r o j e c t i n L e x i n g t o n , Massachusetts 1957-1964. The team t e a c h i n g con-cept developed t h e r e , became the prototype f o r s e v e r a l other team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t s . The u n i v e r s i t i e s of Chicago, S t a n f o r d , Wisconsin, Maine and the Claremont Graduate School a l l began team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t s . Some of these experimenta-t i o n s w i t h team o r g a n i z a t i o n were the Norwalk Plan developed by Superintendent Harry Becker i n Norwalk, C o n n e c t i c u t ; the Wisconsin School Improvement Programme, under the l e a d e r s h i p of John Guy Fowekes and P h i l i p Lambert; the Claremont Gradu-ate School t e a c h i n g team programme developed i n C a l i f o r n i a by H a r r i s T a y l o r and h i s a s s o c i a t e s ; and the Englewood School Programme i n Sara s o t a County, F l o r i d a i n which John I. Goodlad helped t o develop team t e a c h i n g i n the context of the nongraded elementary s c h o o l . J . L l o y d Trump, d i r e c t o r of the Commission on the Experimental Study of the U t i l i z a t i o n of S t a f f , a l s o made powerful c o n t r i b u t i o n s . With funds from the Ford Foundation and the Fund f o r the Advancement of E d u c a t i o n , experiments w i t h d i f f e r i n g ways of a s s i g n i n g t e a c h e r s t o student groups were conducted. One of the experiments that attracted attention was team teaching. The Bay C i t y , Michigan Study and the Y a l e - F a i r f i e l d , New Haven, Connecticut Study involv-ing the use of teachers' aides were important. They opened the way to a fresh understanding of the multitude of routine but time consuming tasks f o r which a teacher i s responsible and new insights into ways pupils can be grouped for i n s t r u c t i o n . Although t h i s outline does not include a l l the pioneer projects i n team teaching, i t suggests the f a i r l y broad geographical base and d i v e r s i t y of the team teaching movement even at the outset. It also confirms the fact that no one person or organization a c t u a l l y founded the movement. A recent study shows that team teaching i s increasing rapidly i n the elementary schools of the United States: 5 percent of the schools i n the study were using the plan i n 1955-1956; 15 percent were using i t i n 1960-1961; and 30 percent were 20 using i t i n 1965-1966. Dr. Robert Anderson predicts that approximately h a l f of the elementary schools i n the United States w i l l be using the team concept i n i n s t r u c t i o n within 21 the next decade. The author found a s i m i l a r trend i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 20 "Project on the Instructional Programme of the Public Schools." In William B. Ragan, Modern Elementary  Curriculum (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 146. 21 Keith Lowell, Paul Blake and Sidney Tiedt, Contem- porary Curriculum i n the Elementary School (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), 139. Of the 85 s c h o o l s surveyed: none were u s i n g team t e a c h i n g i n 1 9 6 4 - 1 9 6 5 ; 1 s c h o o l or 2 percent of the sample were u s i n g the p l a n i n 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 6 6 ; 3 s c h o o l s or 4 percent were u s i n g i t i n 1 9 6 6 - 1 9 6 7 ; 9 s c h o o l s or 11 percent were u s i n g i t i n 1 9 6 7 -1 9 6 8 ; 25 s c h o o l s or 3 0 percent were u s i n g i t i n 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 6 9 ; 51 s c h o o l s or 61 percent were u s i n g i t i n 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 7 0 ; and 7 9 s c h o o l s or 94 percent were u s i n g i t i n 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 . S i x s c h o o l s r e p o r t e d t h a t d u r i n g the p e r i o d 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 7 0 they used team t e a c h i n g but d i s c o n t i n u e d i t . Furthermore, 21 s c h o o l s or 25 percent i n d i c a t e d t h a t team t e a c h i n g w i l l be expanded 1 9 7 1 - 1 9 7 2 , 50 s c h o o l s or 59 percent s t a t e d the number of teams would remain the same, and o n l y 5 s c h o o l s or 6 percent s a i d team t e a c h i n g w i l l be e l i m i n a t e d 1 9 7 1 - 1 9 7 2 . In l i g h t of these f a c t s i t seems l i k e l y t h a t team t e a c h i n g w i l l continue t o expand i n B r i t i s h Columbia elementary s c h o o l s d u r i n g the next y e a r s . THEORETICAL RATIONALE FOR TEAM TEACHING Those who promote the concept of team t e a c h i n g be-l i e v e t h a t t e a c h e r s are more e f f e c t i v e when working as group members. Lobb s t a t e s t h a t the keystone i n a r a t i o n a l e f o r team t e a c h i n g n i s the b e l i e f t h a t the t o t a l accomplishments of a group can be g r e a t e r than the sum of the t a l e n t s of the 22 i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r s . " The b e l i e f i s a l s o h e l d t h a t t e a c h -i n g i s more e f f i c i e n t e d u c a t i o n a l l y . The h y p o t h e t i c a l — D e l b e r t M. Lobb, P r a c t i c a l Aspects of Team Teach- i n g (San F r a n c i s c o : Fearon P u b l i s h e r , 1964), 8 . O O t O ON O r H \o \Q vo \o o-0> ON ON O ON ON <H r—I r—I H r—I r H I I I I I I UA o^ O - to O \0 vO \0 \0 \0 ON ON ON ON ON ON r-f r H r H r H r H 80 70 60 50 co O 5 40 o CO 30 20 10 o C Z Z J I I I II I I I _ F i g u r e 1 The Growth of Team Teaching i n 85 B r i t i s h Columbia Elementary Schools 1965-1971 23 Chamberlin summarizes them as f o l l o w s : Planning Stage - o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e d e f i n e g o a l s - o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n - s e r v i c e i n s t r u c t i o n - o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e o r g a n i z e i n s t r u c t i o n a l p a t t e r n s - o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t i m u l a t e community i n t e r e s t The Student - p u p i l s become more independent under team t e a c h i n g - the team concept can h e l p b u i l d a sense o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the student - the team approach p r o v i d e s f l e x i b i l i t y t o meet the v a r y i n g needs of the s e v e r a l s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n s - p u p i l s can be grouped i n areas of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t t o them - s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r p e r s o n a l i t y problems can be reduced - s u p e r i o r t e a c h e r s are shared by a l l students - the team approach permits g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l students - team t e a c h i n g can provide f o r improved guidance S t a f f - d i f f e r e n t i a t e s but does not d e t r a c t from t e a c h e r r o l e - encourages a b l e t e a c h e r s t o remain i n the classroom - i n c r e a s e s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p e r s o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n - makes more e f f e c t i v e use of the p r o f e s s i o n a l t a l e n t s and i n t e r e s t of s t a f f members - r e l i e v e s t e a c h e r s of r o u t i n e t a s k s through the use of a i d e s - enables t e a c h e r s t o share i n f o r m a t i o n and i d e a s which h e l p s o l v e problems and improve t h e i r p r o f e s -s i o n a l background - encourages each member t o do h i s very best - r e s u l t s i n lower p u p i l - s t a f f r a t i o - reduces the adverse r e s u l t s of t e a c h e r absence - n e u t r a l i z e s the e f f e c t of the poor t e a c h e r - p r o v i d e s i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s Teacher-Learning S i t u a t i o n - a l l o w s students t o work a c r o s s grade l i n e s with s u b j e c t matter s p e c i a l i s t s - a l l o w s b e t t e r c o n t r o l of p u p i l - s t a f f r a t i o through use of l a r g e , medium and s m a l l groupings - p r o v i d e s c h i l d r e n w i t h s e v e r a l a d u l t images t o study - improves c o r r e l a t i o n of s c h o o l work, homework, and f i e l d experiences - makes f o r a more balanced c u r r i c u l u m Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 7-10. - p r o v i d e s f o r f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l i n g - p r o v i d e s a wider range of grouping p o s s i b i l i t i e s - p r o v i d e s a wider resource o f t a l e n t , knowledge, s k i l l s and experience from which t o d e r i v e new educative experiences - g i v e s t e a c h e r s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o set examples of co-o p e r a t i o n and s h a r i n g F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment _ s c h o o l f a c i l i t i e s can be used more e f f i c i e n t l y - team i n s t r u c t i o n encourages f u l l e r u t i l i z a t i o n of a u d i o - v i s u a l and other i n s t r u c t i o n a l media - team t e a c h i n g p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r classroom experimentation i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l media. Of the 2 2 8 responses r e c e i v e d from t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s u s i n g team t e a c h i n g at the elementary s c h o o l l e v e l i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 7 7 or 78 percent f e l t t h a t the most important o b j e c t i v e o f team t e a c h i n g was t o provide f l e x i b i l i t y t o meet the v a r y i n g needs of students. Ninety-one s c h o o l s or 40 per-cent f e l t t h a t the most important o b j e c t i v e was to make the f u l l e s t use of t e a c h e r s ' s t r e n g t h s , s k i l l s and i n t e r e s t s . To p r o v i d e f l e x i b l e arrangements f o r l a r g e group, sma l l group and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n was f e l t t o be the most im-portant o b j e c t i v e by 84 s c h o o l s or 37 percent. The most important o b j e c t i v e of 59 s c h o o l s or 26 percent was t o improve the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n . S i x t e e n schools or 7 percent f e l t t h a t i t was the most important o b j e c t i v e t o pr o v i d e f o r c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g , i n s t r u c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . To make ex t e n s i v e use of a u d i o - v i s u a l and other i n s t r u c t i o n a l media was f e l t t o be the most important o b j e c t i v e by 14 s c h o o l s or 6 p e r c e n t . To pro v i d e f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l i n g was the most important o b j e c t i v e f o r 11 s c h o o l s or 5 percent of the sample. The l e a s t important o b j e c t i v e s were t o help beginning t e a c h e r s a c q u i r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l through a s s o c i -a t i o n with experienced t e a c h e r s and t o pr o v i d e f o r e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n through use of p a r a - p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n l i e u o f or t o supplement the s e r v i c e s o f c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s . When asked t o s t a t e what they c o n s i d e r e d t o be the best f e a t u r e s of team t e a c h i n g the 85 p r i n c i p a l s responded as f o l l o w s : Cooperative p l a n n i n g and s h a r i n g o f ideas (11); b e t t e r q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n (12); e a s i e r and more use of f l e x i b l e grouping (15); f u l l e s t use of t e a c h e r s ' s t r e n g t h s and i n t e r e s t s (20); p o s i t i v e l e a r n i n g atmos-phere (13); more use of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n (13); good i n s e r v i c e experience f o r te a c h e r s (11); b e t t e r t e a c h e r morale ( 9 ) ; b e t t e r p u p i l - t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s (8); b e t t e r e v a l u a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n (11); b e t t e r evalua-t i o n of programme (5); i n c r e a s e d s o c i a l awareness of c h i l d r e n (6); more e f f i c i e n t use of f a c i l i t i e s (4); more e f f i c i e n t use of i n s t r u c t i o n a l time (2); more v e r s a t i l i t y and i n n o v a t i o n ( 3 ) ; more use of f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l i n g (2); more use of non-grading (1). The 143 team t e a c h e r s surveyed s t a t e d t h a t the g r e a t e s t advantages of team t e a c h i n g were: Cooperative e v a l u a t i o n (28); e a s i e r and more use of f l e x i b l e grouping (25); more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n (22); c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g and s h a r i n g o f idea s (41); best use of t e a c h e r s ' s k i l l s and i n t e r e s t s (40); b e t t e r s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s (18); more e f f i c i e n t use of equipment (12); b e t t e r q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n (14); b e t t e r student achievement (4); good i n s e r v i c e oppor-t u n i t i e s (12); s t i m u l a t i n g and i n t e r e s t i n g s c h o o l atmos-phere (11); g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p u p i l s t o l e a r n from each other (5); l e s s d u p l i c a t i o n (4); t e a c h e r s more open t o change (4); g r e a t e r student s o c i a l awareness (13); more time f o r plan n i n g (8); more s p e c i f i c know-ledge of students (3); moral support (3); more use of p a r a - p r o f e s s i o n a l s ( 2 ) . No simple means e x i s t f o r c o n f i r m i n g these hypotheses. Most of the team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t s t o date have pr o v i d e d f o r a minimal e v a l u a t i o n programme. Rather than f o r m a l r e s e a r c h , experiences d e r i v e d from f i e l d t r i a l s have been deemed s u f f i c i e n t l y s a t i s f a c t o r y t o i n d i c a t e success or f a i l u r e . TEACHING TEAMS O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P a t t e r n s I t must be r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e are almost i n f i n i t e p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r the s t r u c t u r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of s m a l l work-ing groups i n t e a c h i n g . I t i s t h e r e f o r e hard f o r anyone t o draw with f i r m l i n e s a p i c t u r e of how, p r e c i s e l y , a team works. There are s i m i l a r teams but few are o r g a n i z e d on the same b a s i s . That they are not i s a reinforcement f o r the p o i n t of view t h a t team t e a c h i n g i s more of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i d e a than a set of procedures and p r a c t i c e s . From the very simple type of t e a c h i n g by teams i n which two or more t e a c h e r s exchange c l a s s e s on an i n f o r m a l v o l u n t a r y b a s i s , t o the more s t r u c t u r a l type of c o o p e r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which a group of t e a c h e r s p l a n , i n s t r u c t , and e v a l u a t e a programme f o r a group of p u p i l s , t h e r e i s a wide range of conceptions about t e a c h i n g teams. Types of Teaching Teams A v a r i e t y of formal and i n f o r m a l p a t t e r n s of team o r g a n i z a t i o n have been i d e n t i f i e d by v a r i o u s authors. Anderson i d e n t i f i e s s i x i n f o r m a l and f o u r formal team arrange-2 5 ments. Informal o r g a n i z a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n c l u d e : (a) a 25 Robert H. Anderson, Teaching i n a World of Change, 84-88. 6 — simple v o l u n t a r y c o l l a b o r a t i o n without s t r u c t u r e or assump-t i o n of permanence; (b) d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o s i m p l i f y workload p r e p a r a t i o n ; (c) interchange of p u p i l s f o r s p e c i f i c grouping purposes; (d) combining of c l a s s e s f o r s p e c i f i c e xperiences; (e) i n f o r m a l team s t r u c t u r e w i t h v o l u n t a r y memberships and r e l a t i v e ease of withdrawal; and ( f ) an o l d e r t e a c h e r working with an a p p r e n t i c e or younger t e a c h e r on a temporary b a s i s . Formal o r g a n i z a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n c l u d e : (a) f o r m a l i z e d team s t r u c t u r e with l e a d e r s h i p d e s i g n a t e d on a c o n t i n u i n g or r o t a t i n g b a s i s with the l e a d e r p r i m a r i l y a chairman and peer s t a t u s emphasized; (b) t e a c h e r or t e a c h e r s a s s i s t e d by t e a c h e r aides on a c o n t i n u i n g b a s i s ; (c) f o r m a l i z e d team s t r u c t u r e on a h i e r a r c h i c a l b a s i s , with F i g u r e 2 26 Team S t r u c t u r e with V o l u n t a r y Membership I b i d . , 84. F i g u r e 3 27 F o r m a l i z e d Team S t r u c t u r e w i t h Leadership on a Continuing or R o t a t i n g B a s i s the l e a d e r assuming a permanent r o l e and with s a l a r y supple-ment or e q u i v a l e n t remuneration; (d) f o r m a l i z e d h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e with s e v e r a l l e v e l s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y above t h a t of t e a c h e r . T L = T e a m L e a d e r ST = Senior T e a c h e r (or Specialist Teacher) T = T e a c h e r / ST ST \ T T T F i g u r e 4 2^ Form a l i z e d Team S t r u c t u r e on a H i e r a r c h i c a l B a s i s In an a r t i c l e p u b l i s h e d i n I960 Cunningham claims t h a t t e a c h i n g teams can be d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r c a t e g o r i e s : 2 7 I b i d . , 85. 28. 'Ibid. team-leader t y p e , a s s o c i a t e t y p e , master te a c h e r - b e g i n n e r 29 t y p e , and c o o r d i n a t e d team type. The team-leader type has a h i e r a r c h i c a l a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e w i t h a designated l e a d e r and the p o s s i b i l i t y of other r o l e s i n the c h a i n of command. The a s s o c i a t e type has no designated l e a d e r s h i p and i s g e n e r a l l y s m a l l e r i n order t o be manageable. The master t e a c h e r - b e g i n n i n g t e a c h e r type embraces a t r a i n i n g f u n c t i o n . The coordinated-team type j o i n s t o g e t h e r f o r p l a n n i n g and l a r g e - g r o u p p r e s e n t a t i o n s but with each team member r e t a i n -i n g p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s i n g l e c l a s s of normal s i z e . W i l l Hemeyer and Jean B. McGrew make another impor-t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n between two types of t e a c h i n g teams. One type of team does c o o r d i n a t e t e a c h i n g and the other does a s s o c i a t e t e a c h i n g . In the former, the t y p i c a l classroom u n i t i s preserved but c l a s s e s are rescheduled so t h a t they may be combined at c e r t a i n times f o r c e r t a i n purposes. A s s o c i a t e t e a c h i n g , on the other hand, assumes as i t s b a s i c u n i t the t o t a l group a s s i g n e d t o them. Each t e a c h e r must t h i n k of h i m s e l f as one of a number of t e a c h e r s of a l a r g e group. When the group i s s u b d i v i d e d i t i s done on the b a s i s of needs w i t h i n the l a r g e group f o r p a r t i c u l a r types of subgroups. 29 Luvern L. Cunningham, "Team Teaching. Where Do We Stand?" A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Notebook, VII ( A p r i l , I960), 2-3. 30 Judson J . S h a p l i n and Henry F. Olds ( e d s . ) , Team  Teaching, 101. S S S S S. : S S S S Students 'Phase II —^-Individual Teacher Control s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s Teachers fj Communicate Plan Cooperote Together Colloborote r j r F i g u r e 5' Coordinate Team Type Chamberlin s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e are t h r e e b a s i c models 32 i n team t e a c h i n g . The f i r s t i s a h i e r a r c h y o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h a t e a c h e r i n charge of the u n i t and s e v e r a l l e v e l s of p r o f e s s i o n a l s and n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l s working with him. The second arrangement i s l e s s f o r m a l . I t i s a c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n i n which s e v e r a l t e a c h e r s p l a n and c a r r y out the team's i n s t r u c t i o n a l programme on a c o o p e r a t i v e b a s i s w i t h no s p e c i f i c ranks s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n a t e d f o r the s t a f f members. However, a c o o p e r a t i v e u n i t may e l e c t a team c o o r d i n a t o r t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s c h e d u l i n g team meetings, maintain-i n g c e r t a i n r e c o r d s , f a c i l i t a t i n g communication, and main-31 L e s l i e J . Chamberlin, Team Teaching: O r g a n i z a t i o n  and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 40. 3 2 I b i d . , 21-22. One Teacher In-Charge Several levels of Professionals and Nonprofessionals S=Senior Teacher P= P r o f e s s i o n a l Tea'cher C = C e r t i f i e d Teacher C A = C l e r i c a l Aide TA=Teacher Aide F i g u r e 6' H i e r a r c h i c a l Team S t r u c t u r e t a i n i n g contact with the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The t h i r d type of team t e a c h i n g arrangement i s the Research and I n s t r u c t i o n U n i t . T h i s i s a h i e r a r c h i c a l or c o o p e r a t i v e team arrangement F i g u r e 7 Cooperative Team S t r u c t u r e I b i d . , 21. I b i d . , 22. i n which a l o c a l c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y p r o v i d e s r e s e a r c h , e v a l u a t i o n , and c o n s u l t a t i v e a i d . Teams may work " v e r t i c a l l y " through the sch o o l at a l l grade l e v e l s i n a s i n g l e s u b j e c t or c l o s e l y r e l a t e d s u b j e c t s ; or they may work " h o r i z o n t a l l y " at one grade l e v e l but i n s e v e r a l s u b j e c t s . The most comprehensive summary of the v a r i o u s team combinations i s g i v e n by Brownell and 35 S i x p o s s i b l e models are o u t l i n e d by them as T a y l o r , f o l l o w s Model I At one end of the continuum, a team c o n s i s t s o f a l l c l a s s e s of a p a r t i -c u l a r grade l e v e l . Such a team can be formed f o r each grade. In a very l a r g e s c h o o l , more than one team per grade c o u l d be orga n i z e d . Model I I At the other extreme, a team com-p r i s e s one c l a s s from a l l grade l e v e l s . As many teams can be formed as t h e r e are v e r t i c a l arrangements of c l a s s e s . Model I I I In a middle p o s i t i o n , a team con*' t a i n s c l a s s e s from two grade l e v e l s . In a s i x - g r a d e s c h o o l , more than one team per p a i r of grades c o u l d be o r g a n i z e d . Model Ic At one extreme, a team c o n s i s t s of one content area and p u p i l s from one grade l e v e l . As many grades" classes 5 team 1 5 team 1 •A-5 team 1 j ; . • classes 1 te am | grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 classes team i grades classes A B C D E lang. arts team science team , l_-3 5 ^ J o h n A. Brownell and H a r r i s A. T a y l o r , " T h e o r e t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s o f Teaching Teams," Phi D e l t a Kappan, XLV (January, 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 . grades ' 1 2 3 4' 5 6 science team lang. arts team grades .. i. teams can be fo rmed as t h e r e a r e ma jo r c o n t e n t a r e a s i n t h e c u r r i c u l u m . Mode l l i e In a m i d d l e p o s i t i o n , a team | c o m p r i s e s one c o n t e n t a r e a and ' p u p i l s f r om two o r t h r e e g r ade j l e v e l s . A team can be fo rmed j f o r each ma jor s u b j e c t a r e a . Mode l I I I c At t h e o t h e r e x t r e m e , a team c o m p r i s e s one c o n t e n t a r e a and p u p i l s f r o m a l l g r ade l e v e l s . As many teams can be fo rmed as t h e r e a r e s i m i l a r c o n t e n t a r e a s a t a l l g rade l e v e l s . The a u t h o r s a l s o p o i n t out t h a t s i m p l e v a r i a t i o n s o f Mode l s I and I I m igh t be two t e a c h e r s i n any g rade w i t h complementary t a l e n t s f o r m i n g a t eam. F u r t h e r m o r e any one o f t h e teams d e s c r i b e d above c o u l d be m o d i f i e d by t h e i n c l u s i o n o r e x c l u -s i o n o f c e r t a i n c a t e g o r i e s o f t e a c h e r s and a u x i l i a r y p e r s o n n e l . These migh t i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g examples w h i c h a r e a m o d i -f i c a t i o n o f Mode l I. lang. arts team social stud. team mathematics team TEAM TEACHER TEAM TEACHER TEAM LEADER auxiliary (meher Itachcr iid« T E A M TEACHRR INTERN TEACHKR TEAM LEADER j miliary teacher teacher aide MASTER TEACHER STUDENT TEACHER INTERN TEACHER TEAM LEADER •miliary leacher leather aide community F i g u r e 8 3 6 T e a c h i n g Teams w i t h V a r i o u s C a t e g o r i e s o f P e r s o n n e l I b i d . , 153. teams i l l u s t r a t e some of the numerous v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h team t e a c h i n g . Olds has made a s t a r t i n the a n a l y s i s of the s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s which can be chosen i n d e v e l o p i n g 37 team o r g a n i z a t i o n . He p o i n t s out t h a t the team, as a s m a l l group, i s l o c a t e d s t r u c t u r a l l y w i t h i n a l a r g e r content i n c l u d -i n g such f a c t o r s as gradedness, d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n , and a v a i l a b l e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s . The amount of autonomy g i v e n t o the team f o r the c o n t r o l of p u p i l and t e a c h e r assignments o f time, tasks§ and space l o c a t i o n s vary. Teams are a l s o o r g a n i z e d on d i f f e r e n t p r i n c i p l e s of a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e , some emphasizing a h i e r a r c h i c a l system of a u t h o r i t y based on e i t h e r d e c i s i o n making processes or on s u b s t a n t i v e s p e c i a l -i z a t i o n and others m a i n t a i n i n g e q u a l i t a r i a n or c o l l e g i a l p r i n c i p l e s . Other important v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d by Olds i n c l u d e the type and extent of p r o c e d u r a l and s u b s t a n t i v e c o o r d i n a t i o n b u i l t i n t o team o r g a n i z a t i o n . One may, t h e r e -f o r e , conclude w i t h another author, Robert Ohm, t h a t "a team can be c a t e g o r i z e d along a simple t o complex continuum depending on the nature and scope of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i -38 a b l e s f o r which i t i s r e s p o n s i b l e , " Examples of Teaching Teams i n the United S t a t e s With the v a r i o u s types of teams, as d e s c r i b e d above, 37 S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , Chapter 4, "A Taxonomy of Team Teaching." 3 g I b i d . , 103. i n mind i t i s of value t o examine some a c t u a l t e a c h i n g teams i n a c t i o n . The F r a n k l i n School: The f i r s t comprehensive and perhaps best known elementary s c h o o l team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t i n v o l v i n g an e n t i r e s c h o o l was one e s t a b l i s h e d i n c o o p e r a t i o n with Harvard U n i v e r s i t y at the F r a n k l i n School i n Lexin g t o n , Massachusettes, i n 1957-1958. Through the ye a r s 1958-1963 v a r i o u s changes were made i n the t o t a l team o r g a n i z a t i o n so t h a t the teams i n use today are the r e s u l t of past e x p e r i -mentation. In the year 1959-1960 the s c h o o l was d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e teams. Two of the teams were l a r g e , composed of s i x or e i g h t t e a c h e r s and one was s m a l l , composed of f o u r t e a c h e r s . The t i t l e s o f team l e a d e r and s e n i o r t e a c h e r were used t o desig n a t e t e a c h e r s who had r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r l e a d e r s h i p i n the teams. The r o s t e r of the team a l s o i n c l u d e d t h r e e s p e c i a l i s t t e a c h e r s i n a r t , music and p h y s i c a l education who pr o v i d e i n s t r u c t i o n f o r p u p i l s i n a l l the groups. Each team was a s s i g n e d a pa r t time c l e r i c a l a i d e , and the two l a r g e r teams were a s s i g n e d a q u a r t e r time a s s i s t a n t . Today, the s c h o o l has t h r e e teams of approximately equal s i z e . Each team i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 150 t o 180 p u p i l s on two adjacent grade l e v e l s . There are t h r e e t e a c h e r s , two s e n i o r t e a c h e r s and a team l e a d e r on each team. Part time t e a c h e r s have been r e p l a c e d by t e a c h e r a i d e s . Each team has a c l e r i c a l a i d e . A l s o t h e r e are two s p e c i a l i s t s , one i n a r t and music and the other i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n . I n t e r n s are a part o f F i g u r e 9 O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n the F r a n k l i n School 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 0 some of the teams. The design o f the teams i s a h i e r a r c h i c a l one and team l e a d e r s and s e n i o r t e a c h e r s r e c e i v e a s a l a r y supplement. The Norwalk P l a n : In 1958^-1959 another e x p l o r a t o r y p r o j e c t was begun i n Norwalk, C o n n e c t i c u t . Each of the o r i g i n a l f o u r teams i n v o l v e d a team l e a d e r , a c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r and a t e a c h e r a i d e working with about 69-85 p u p i l s at a s i n g l e grade l e v e l i n classroom spaces equal t o t h r e e r e g u l a r rooms. The team l e a d e r r e c e i v e d a s a l a r y supplement. In 30 -^Robert H. Anderson, E l l i s A. Hagstrom and Wade M. Robinson, "Team Teaching i n an Elementary S c h o o l , " School  Review, LXVIII ( S p r i n g , i 9 6 0 ) , 8. In Maurice H i l l s o n , Change  and Innovation i n Elementary E d u c a t i o n (New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1965) , 1 7 9 SPECIALIST PHY5. CDU. SPECIALIST ART SPECIALIST MUSIC T L ST T T«» I T A T C A TL S T T T TA 5 T T TOR I C A •TL 5T T T A 5T TOR I T C A FIGURE 3. The Lexington Team Structure. P: Principal ; T L : Team Leader; S T : Senior Teacher; T : Teacher; I: Intern; T A : Teacher Aide; C A : Clerical Aide. F i g u r e 1 0 4° O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n the F r a n k l i n School 1963-1964 S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 195. 1960-1961 the Norwalk team approach was expanded t o i n c l u d e teams of v a r y i n g s i z e s . Seven of the teams were five-member teams wi t h a team l e a d e r , t h r e e c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r s , and a te a c h e r a i d e working with approximately 135 c h i l d r e n . S e v e r a l were four-member teams wi t h about 105-110 p u p i l s . Two s c h o o l s were org a n i z e d e n t i r e l y on a team t e a c h i n g b a s i s but most teams worked wi t h c h i l d r e n from adjacent grades. T E A M 1 T E A C H E R [ C O O P E R A T I N G , L C A D EL R j A I D E : ! T E A C W C Q P U PI us (fc'9-85) •' F i g u r e l l 4 " O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n the Norwalk Plan 1960-1961 The Dundee Elementary S c h o o l : The Dundee Elementary School, Greenwich, C o n n e c t i c u t , e s t a b l i s h e d another v e r s i o n of the scheme of team t e a c h i n g i n 1962. There.are t h r e e major t e a c h i n g teams, each of which has taken the name of a S c o t t i s h c l a n . About 240 students are i n the Stewart Clan (K-2), the F r a s e r Clan has 140 students (Grades 3-4), and 4 1 I b i d . , 199. Stewart Clan (K-2) 240 ra @[3 IS ft! F r a s e r Clan (3-4) 140 TL i ST III MacKenzie C l a n (5-6) 140 ra ST 010 [PTj |TA| |_PT C l a i i ^ - ; ^ • • • ( S p e c i a l i s t s K-6) 520 4 F i g u r e 12 O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n the Dundee School 1962-1963 140 students are i n the MacKenzie C l a n (Grades 5-6). -There i s a f o u r t h c l a n , the B a r c l a y C l a n , which c o n s i s t s of t e a c h i n g s p e c i a l i s t s i n music, a r t , f o r e i g n languages, and p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n , p l u s s p e c i a l i s t s i n speech therapy and psychology. The i n s t r u c t i o n a l team has f o u r t o s i x t e a c h e r s and uses the team h i e r a r c h y of a team l e a d e r and a s e n i o r t e a c h e r ; both are compensated f o r t h e i r s p e c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i -t i e s . The team a l s o has a p r a c t i c e t e a c h e r and a t e a c h e r a i d e as i n t e g r a l p a r t s of the team. The P i t t s b u r g h P l a n : The P i t t s b u r g h p u b l i c s c h o o l s began t h e i r team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t i n I960. The programme was T h e Teach ing Team"-1 team leader -— a master teacher 4 regular teachers 1 teacher intern — a student from the school of education of a local university or college team mother — a resident of the com-m u n i t y w h o h a s many of the quali-t i e s o f a g o o d teacher Large group for language arts using audio-visual j aids (filmstrips, overhead | projector, opaque projec-| tor, slides, etc.) t T h e team leader i 1 regular teacher I A team mother operates the projector I 107 pupils S m a l l g r o u p f o r p h o n i c s w o r k in phonetic analysis t ...teacher 5 pupils Small group for .creat ive writing 1 teacher • . 11 pupils • Small group for oral ex-pression 1 teacher intern 13 pupils Small group for sentence structure 1 teacher 8. pupils * Gifted / \ Ab le college-going o average | | below average slow | | team leader J Teacher ^ Teacher Interne F i g u r e 1 3 4 2 Team Teaching Plan f o r a T h i r d Grade C l a s s o f 144 P u p i l s i n the P i t t s b u r g h P u b l i c Schools, 1960-1961 " P u p i l s , P a t t e r n s and P o s s i b i l i t i e s : A D e s c r i p t i o n o f Team Teaching i n P i t t s b u r g h , " 1961 Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools, Board or E d u c a t i o n , P i t t s b u r g h , Pa., p. 15. In H i l l s o n , Change and Innovation . . ., 193. i n i t i a t e d i n a c l u s t e r of f i v e elementary s c h o o l s . Three k i n d s of t e a c h i n g teams were org a n i z e d i n each s c h o o l : p r i -mary, i n t e r m e d i a t e and s p e c i a l s u b j e c t . In the primary department teams are o r g a n i z e d on a g r a d e - l e v e l b a s i s . There i s a k i n d e r g a r t e n - f i r s t grade team, a second grade team, and a t h i r d grade team. In the i n t e r m e d i a t e s e c t i o n t h e r e i s a v e r t i c a l type of o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which f o u r t h , f i f t h and s i x t h grades are combined i n t o two teams of p u p i l s w i t h one team of t e a c h e r s . The team of t e a c h e r s u s u a l l y c o n s i s t s of the language a r t s , s o c i a l s t u d i e s , s c i e n c e , a r i t h m e t i c and l i b r a r y t e a c h e r s . S p e c i a l s u b j e c t teams are formed f o r a r t , music and p h y s i c a l education. T y p i c a l l y t h e r e are f i v e t e a c h e r s on each team. One t e a c h e r i s appointed team l e a d e r and i s g i v e n a s a l a r y i n c r e a s e . On each team i s a l s o a team mother (teacher aide) and a student i n t e r n . The Wisconsin P l a n : The U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin launched a team t e a c h i n g programme i n I960 based upon the premise t h a t t h i s type of o r g a n i z a t i o n o f f e r s an e s p e c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e framework f o r the t r a i n i n g and i n d u c t i o n of beginning t e a c h e r s . Each team c o n s i s t s of two experienced t e a c h e r s and two t e a c h e r i n t e r n s each semester, p l u s some c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n c e . Each team serve s a group of p u p i l s approximately t h r e e times the s i z e o f a t y p i c a l c l a s s . Some of the teams are organized on a simple h i e r a r c h i c a l b a s i s w i t h one of the experienced t e a c h e r s d e s i g n a t e d as team l e a d e r . In ot h e r cases the two E X P E R I E N C E D T E A C H E R ' • I • I ! EXPERIENCED I J^JCRNS J 2 ) _ F A L L _ ' TEACI^ltR • [ INTERNS (2) SPRING PUPILS 6 5 - 90 PART-TIME A I D C F i g u r e 14 43 O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n Wisconsin 1960-1961 experienced t e a c h e r s share the l e a d e r s h i p f u n c t i o n e q u a l l y . Baldwin Summer Elementary S c h o o l : The Baldwin Summer Element-a r y School i n New York s t a t e , began i t s team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t i n I960. However, i t was not f u l l y r e f i n e d u n t i l 1964. The t e a c h i n g teams are or g a n i z e d on a h i e r a r c h i c a l b a s i s , author-i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f l o w i n g down from the s u p e r v i s i n g p r i n c i p a l t o t e a c h e r - i n - c h a r g e t o team l e a d e r t o s e n i o r t e a c h e r t o i n t e r n t o p u p i l . The f a c u l t y o f the s c h o o l i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r teams; two f o r readi n g and two f o r mathe-matic s . One team teaches the hig h a c h i e v e r s and the ot h e r the low a c h i e v e r s . Each team i s composed of a re a d i n g team l e a d e r or a mathematics team l e a d e r plus two s e n i o r t e a c h e r s . An i n t e r n t e a c h e r i s u s u a l l y a s s i g n e d t o the lower a c h i e v e r s , 4 3 S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 202. M A T H E M A T I C S L o w e r A c h i e v e r s R e a d i n g T e a m L e a d e r M T L . M a t h . T e a m L e a d e r S T £s<\ S e n i o r T e a c h e r s W I N T . l~ ) I n t e r n e s P r i n c i p a l P s y c h o l o g i s t , C l e r i c a l A i d e F i g u r e 1 5 4 4 O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n the Baldwin Summer Elementary School 1964-1965 R i c h a r d M i l l e r ( e d . ) , P e r s p e c t i v e s on E d u c a t i o n a l  Change (New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 19b7), 19b. but o c c a s i o n a l l y he works with the other teams. P a r a p r o f e s -s i o n a l s a re not employed. The s e r v i c e o f a c l e r i c a l a i d e i s a v a i l a b l e t o each team but she i s not a s s i g n e d t o a p a r t i c u -l a r team. Other examples: Elmcrest Elementary S c h o o l , L i v e r p o o l , New 45 York, i s the s i t e o f another team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t . Here the whole s c h o o l was organized on a team t e a c h i n g b a s i s i n 1964. The s t a f f c o n s i s t s of 33 t e a c h e r s who are d i v i d e d i n t o seven teams: Leadership T e a m — p r i n c i p a l , p u p i l personnel c o n s u l t a n t , and i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o n s u l t a n t ; Resource Team— te a c h e r s of a r t , l i b r a r y , music, p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n , r e a d i n g , d e n t a l h y g i e n i s t and nurse; K i n d e r g a r t e n Team; Teams I and I I f o r s i x and seven-year-olds; Team I I I f o r e i g h t and n i n e -y e a r - o l d s ; and Team IV f o r 10 and 11-year-olds. A s e c r e t a r y , two h a l f - t i m e t e a c h e r a i d e s , and a l i b r a r y a i d e are a l s o on the s t a f f . T h i s i s mainly a c o o p e r a t i v e type of team o r g a n i z a t i o n (Teams I-IV) wit h l e a d e r s h i p being p r o v i d e d by the Leadership Team. Another programme i s found i n Englewood, F l o r i d a . ^ The primary emphasis i s on nongradedness. The teams are u s u a l l y multiage i n make-up, and an u n u s u a l l y f l e x i b l e ^Arthur Haas, " F i r s t - y e a r O r g a n i z a t i o n i n Elmcrest Elementary S c h o o l , " American School Board J o u r n a l , GLI (October, 1965), 22. ^ R o b e r t H. Anderson, "Three Examples of Team Teach-i n g i n A c t i o n , " The Nation's S c h o o l s , LXV (May, I960), 102-b u i l d i n g makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r v a r i o u s c l a s s e s and teams t o merge and separate with r e l a t i v e ease. Team o r g a n i z a t i o n i s q u i t e i n f o r m a l . The Hamilton Elementary School and the Horace Mann Elementary School i n Newton, Massachusettes, also.have i n -f o r m a l t e a c h i n g teams. In each s c h o o l teams act as a group of peers with the p r i n c i p a l as l e a d e r . Garden Springs Elementary School, F e y e t t e County, 4 $ Kentucky, began team t e a c h i n g i n 1 9 6 3 . The s c h o o l i s d i v i d e d i n t o a Primary s e c t i o n ( 6 - 9 year o l d s ) and an Intermediate s e c t i o n ( 9 - 1 2 year o l d s ) . The c u r r i c u l u m i s d i v i d e d i n t o l e v e l s . In the primary l e v e l s ( 1 - 6 ) , the t e a c h e r s are d i v i d e d i n t o team p a i r s . They work t o g e t h e r i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e d i v i d i n g the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r l e c t u r i n g , d i s c u s s i o n and demonstration a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and s k i l l s . In r e a d i n g and mathematics each t e a c h e r has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r 2 or 3 l e v e l s . In the i n t e r -mediate l e v e l s , 4 t e a c h e r s work t o g e t h e r c o o p e r a t i v e l y each t e a c h i n g h i s s p e c i a l t y . One of the l a r g e r team t e a c h i n g programmes i s under the a u s p i c e s of the Claremont Graduate School i n C a l i f o r n i a . ^ 4 7 M i l l e r , op. c i t . , 2 7 8 . ^ I b i d . , 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 . 4 9 'Malcolm P. Douglas, "Team Teaching: Fundamental Change or Passing Fancy?" CTA J o u r n a l . LIX (March, 1 9 6 3 ) , 2 8 - 2 9 . "* Consultants from Central Staff Consul tar*-3 ; from R & D Center, State Departrieht, etc. INSTRUCTIONAL DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEE . Building Principal 2. c e r t i f i e d teachers 1 Instructional secretary 1 teacher aide Kindergarten A.M. and P.M. 120-175 students Unit Leader B 3 certified teachers 1 instructional secretary 1 teacher aide Grades 1-2 100-150 students Unit Leader 3 ce r t i f i e d teachers 1 instructional secretary 1 teacher aide Grades 3-4 100-150 students Unit Leader. D 3 certified;. teachers 1 instructional secretary 1 teacher aide Grades 5-6 100-150 students F i g u r e 1 6 ^ O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n Wisconsin Elementary Schools 1967-196S ^ H e r b e r t J . Klausmeir and D o r i s M. Cook, " P r o j e c t Models: A F a c i l i t a t i v e Environment f o r I n c r e a s i n g E f f i c i e n c y i n P u p i l Learning and f o r Conducting E d u c a t i o n -a l Research and Development," Wisconsin U n i v e r s i t y , 1967 (ERIC ED016004), 3. In g e n e r a l terms, the t e a c h i n g teams a s s o c i a t e d with t h i s p r o j e c t are comprised of from 120 t o 180 p u p i l s with from f o u r t o s i x t e a c h e r s . Each team e l e c t s or has chosen f o r i t by i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a team l e a d e r . Other team members are the t e a c h e r a i d e and a u x i l i a r y t e a c h e r as w e l l as o c c a s i o n a l t a l e n t e d c i t i z e n s . Some teams i n c l u d e i n t e r n t e a c h e r s as w e l l . In c o n c l u s i o n t h r e e recent team o r g a n i z a t i o n s might be mentioned. In 1968 Wisconsin U n i v e r s i t y implemented f o r -mal t e a c h i n g teams i n s e v e r a l elementary s c h o o l s . Schools were d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r u n i t s : K i n d e r g a r t e n , Grades 1-2, Grades 3-4, and Grades 5-6. Each team had a u n i t l e a d e r , two or t h r e e c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s , one i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e c r e t a r y and a t e a c h e r a i d e . In 1967 the K l e i n School, Mountain View, 51 C a l i f o r n i a a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d team t e a c h i n g . The s c h o o l formed a nongraded primary team and a t e a c h i n g team f o r Grades 4-6. Each team i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a t h r e e year programme f o r the e n t i r e group of students i n the team. Teachers have j o i n t a u t h o r i t y and mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y i n Canada began elementary education-teams 52 i n the same yea r . In some s c h o o l s i n t e r n s worked with 51 "The K l e i n Concept f o r Team Teaching and Continuous P r o g r e s s , " Mountain View School D i s t r i c t , C a l i f o r n i a , 1967. (ERIC ED027713) • 52 J M. Horowitz, " P r o j e c t Meet: M c G i l l Elementary E d u c a t i o n Teaching Teams," M c G i l l J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , I I ( F a l l , 1967), 183. two experienced t e a c h e r s at one grade l e v e l and i n other s c h o o l s i n t e r n s worked on a team i n c l u d i n g a team l e a d e r and t e a c h e r s from a number of grades. The d e s c r i p t i o n s of team t e a c h i n g i n the American l i t e r a t u r e do not make c l e a r which type of team i s most f r e q u e n t l y used. Examples of Teaching Teams i n B r i t i s h Columbia Of the 142 teams surveyed i n B r i t i s h Columbia 84 or 59 percent were c o o p e r a t i v e teams wi t h no l e a d e r . Forty-one teams or 28 percent were teams of two or more t e a c h e r s exchanging c l a s s e s on an i n f o r m a l b a s i s . S i x teams or 4 percent r e p o r t e d having a f o r m a l i z e d team s t r u c t u r e of t e a c h -i n g peers with l e a d e r s h i p on a r o t a t i n g b a s i s . Twelve teams or 8 percent s a i d t h a t they had a h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e w i t h a t e a c h e r i n charge and s e v e r a l l e v e l s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s and n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l s working with him. The m a j o r i t y of teams,.108 or 77 p e r c e n t , were i n s c h o o l s with a student p o p u l a t i o n of up t o 400 or 600. Twenty-one teams or 15 percent were i n s c h o o l s w i t h up t o 800 p u p i l s and 13 teams or 10 percent were i n s c h o o l s w i t h up t o 200 p u p i l s . Types of teams v a r i e d . The 142 teams i n c l u d e d 64 (45 percent) i n t e r m e d i a t e teams, 57 (41 percent) primary teams, 10 (8 percent) s u b j e c t teams such as Science Teams or S o c i a l S t u d i e s Teams, 8 (6percent) s p l i t p r i m a r y - i n t e r m e d i a t e 50 45 40 35 3 0 to e to 0 H 25 20 15 10 5 0< I 1 ! 1 200 400 600 800 School P o p u l a t i o n F i g u r e 17 The Number of Teams per School a c c o r d i n g t o School P o p u l a t i o n teams with grades 3-4 or 3-5, 2 (2 percent) complete element-a r y s c h o o l teams wi t h grades 1-7, and 1 (1 percent) k i n d e r -g a r t e n team. The range of grade l e v e l s i n each team t h e r e f o r e v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y . T h i r t y - s e v e n teams or 26 percent of the sample had a range of 4 y e a r s . T h i r t y - o n e teams or 22 percent had a range of 3 y e a r s . Twenty-eight teams or 20 percent had a range of 2 y e a r s . A range of 1 year was r e p o r t e d by 20 teams or 14 percent. Two teams or 2 percent r e p o r t e d a range of 7 y e a r s . There was a l s o c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n the s i z e o f teams. The t o t a l number of team members i n c l u d i n g non-p r o f e s s i o n a l s ranged from 2 t o 16. The 142 teams surveyed had: 42 teams or 29 percent of the sample wi t h 2 team members, 52 teams or 36 percent w i t h 3 t o 4 team members, 25 teams or 17 percent w i t h 5 t o 6 members, 6 teams or 4 percent w i t h 7 t o 8 members, 2 teams or 2 percent w i t h 9 t o 10 members, 6 teams or 4 percent with 11 t o 12 members, and 1 team wi t h 16 members. The t o t a l number of c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s per team ranged from 2 t o 6. The 142 teams surveyed had: 70 teams or 50 percent w i t h 2 t e a c h e r s , 39 teams or 28 percent with 3 t e a c h e r s , 30 teams or 22 percent with 4 t e a c h e r s , 2 teams wit h 5 t e a c h e r s and 1 team wi t h 6 t e a c h e r s . The number of p u p i l s i n each team v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o the number of c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s , w i t h about 25-30 p u p i l s per t e a c h e r on the team. 35 30 25 W a CO CB I 1 E-i 20 ; 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years Figure 18 The Number of Teams according to Range of School Years Subject areas taught by the team were reported as follows. Sixty-three percent or 91 of the teams taught a l l subjects. Fourteen teams or 10 percent taught 5 to 6 subjects. Only 4 teams taught two subjects and 8 teams or 5 percent sp e c i a l i z e d i n one subject. With these f a c t s i n mind, the f o l l o w i n g team o r g a n i -z a t i o n s are described. John Tod Elementary School: John Tod Elementary School, Kamloops, began team teaching i n 1968. I t s school p o p u l a t i o n i s 5 0 0 and i t has Grades 1 t o 7 . The e n t i r e school i s team taught. There are f o u r cooperative teams of teaching peers who designate l e a d e r s h i p on a r o t a t i n g b a s i s . The school employs a "group of teachers" concept with a chairman f o r each group. Group A i n c l u d e s 3 teachers and 76 p u p i l s at the f i r s t and second year l e v e l . Group B has 4 teachers and 141 students at the second and t h i r d year l e v e l . Group C has 4 teachers and 135 students at the f o u r t h and f i f t h year l e v e l . Group D in c l u d e s 5 teachers and 155 students at the s i x t h and seventh year l e v e l . There i s a Primary Coordinator and an Intermediate Coordinator appointed by the p r i n c i p a l from the s t a f f of 16. A school s e c r e t a r y , l i b r a r i a n and c o n s u l t i n g teacher work c l o s e l y w i t h each group. Gordon Park School: Gordon Park School, Powell R i v e r , i n i t i a t e d team teaching i n 1 9 6 9 . I t has a school population of 386 and in c l u d e s Grades 1 t o 7 . The e n t i r e school i s team taught. There are f o u r teams with a f o r m a l i z e d s t r u c -t u r e of teaching peers who designate l e a d e r s h i p on a r o t a t i n g b a s i s . One "team," Team A, i s a s i n g l e c l a s s of 38 Grade 7 p u p i l s . Team B in c l u d e s 3 teachers and 97 students at the f i f t h and s i x t h year l e v e l . Team C has 2 teachers and 91 Group A 3 teachers 76 students 1s t and 2nd year. Group C I|. teachers 135 students ' ' ij.th. and' '5>th year Primary .Coordinator Intermediate C oordinator Group B I4. teachers I I L I students 2nd and 3rd year Group D 5 teachers :V' 1-55 students ,6th and 7th year, -Librarian . . ' M . ' . i ^ v - , ill g T e a c h e r Supervising: P r i n c i p a l -F i g u r e 19 O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Team Teaching i n John Tod School 1970-1971 p u p i l s i n year f o u r . Team D has 3 t e a c h e r s and 94 p u p i l s a t the second and t h i r d y e a r l e v e l . Team E has 3 t e a c h e r s and 66 p u p i l s i n k i n d e r g a r t e n and f i r s t y ear. A l l the teams, except Team A, have one or two t e a c h e r a i d e s . There are a l s o two remedial t e a c h e r s , one f o r the primary grades and one f o r the i n t e r m e d i a t e grades. There i s one s c h o o l s e c r e t a r y . A l l t e a c h e r s t e a c h language a r t s , a r i t h m e t i c , (Whole School K-7) (Team A)* Year 7 1 t e a c h e r 3 8 p u p i l s (Intermediate) — I (Team B) Years 5 and 6 3 t e a c h e r s 97 p u p i l s (Team C) Year 4 2 t e a c h e r s 91 p u p i l s 1 Remedial Teacher (Primary) (Team D) Years 2 and 3 t e a c h e r s 94 p u p i l s (Team E) Years K and 1 3 t e a c h e r s 6 6 p u p i l s 1 Remedial Teacher F i g u r e 20 Team Teaching O r g a n i z a t i o n i n Gordon Park School 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 7 0 s o c i a l s t u d i e s , s c i e n c e and a r t . Some t e a c h e r s have s p e c i a l -i z e d i n p h y s i c a l education and music. Kent Elementary School: Kent S c h o o l , A g a s s i z , commenced team t e a c h i n g i n 1 9 6 9 . I t has a s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n of 3 3 0 and i n c l u d e s K i n d e r g a r t e n t o Grade 6 . The s t a f f i s composed of 12 t e a c h e r s , 2 c o u n s e l l o r s , 1 l i b r a r i a n , \ and 1 d i s t r i c t music t e a c h e r . A f u l l time s e c r e t a r y , a p a r t time cook f o r the lunch supplement, parent helpers, and student teachers complement the teaching s t a f f . The school i s organized into 4 cooperative teams i n which several teachers plan and carry out the teams' i n s t r u c t i o n a l programme with no s p e c i f i c ranks designated. There i s a 4 teacher Open Area Team, a 3 teacher Intermediate Team, a 3 teacher Primary Team, and a 2 teacher Beginners Team. The counsellors, l i b r a r i a n and music teacher work closely with a l l teams. MacCorkindale Elementary School: This open area school i s located i n Vancouver. It has a school population of 450 and includes years K to 7. Team teaching was begun i n 1967 and includes the entire school except the kindergarten. There are 4 formalized teams of teaching peers who change leadership every three or four months. Team A has 3 teachers, 90-100 pupils i n years 1 and 2, 1 paid teacher aide, and 10 parent aides. Team B has 5 teachers, 115-130 pupils i n years 2 and 3,4 interns, 1 professional aide and 5 volunteer aides. Team C consists of 3 teachers, 90-100 pupils i n years 4 and 5, 1 i n t e r n , 1 teacher aide, and 1 c l e r i c a l assistant. Team D has 4 teachers, 115-130 pupils i n years 6 and 7, and 2 part time teacher aides. In teams A, B and C i n s t r u c t i o n i s p r i n c i p a l l y i n teams, with one teacher being the leader fo r h i s area of strength. So one teacher would lead the teams f o r science, another f o r arithmetic, another f o r language a r t s , and another f o r s o c i a l studies. Team D has developed a platooning system with each teacher s p e c i a l i z i n g Team A 90-100 (Yearl-2) 3 teachers 11 aides P r i n c i p a l (K - 7) 115-130 (Year 2-3) 5 teachers 4 i n t e r n s 6 aides 90-100 (Year 4-5) 3 teachers 1 i n t e r n 1 aide 1 c l e r i c a l s a s s i s t a n t 115-130 (Year 6-7) 4 teachers 2 part time aides S p e c i a l Counsellor' Figure 21 Team Teaching Organization i n MacCorkindale School 1970-1971 i n a subject area. So one teacher w i l l teach a r i t h m e t i c , another s c i e n c e , and another s o c i a l s t u d i e s . Highlands Elementary School: Highlands Elementary School, North Vancouver, began team teaching i n 1966. The school has a student p o p u l a t i o n of 507 and i n c l u d e s Grades 1 t o 7. Teams i n t h i s school have formed i n two subject areas, s o c i a l s t u d i e s and language a r t s . There were 4 S o c i a l Studies Teams i n the year 1969-1970. The teams were cooperative i n s t r u c t u r e w i t h no s p e c i f i c ranks designated. Team A in c l u d e d 4 teachers and 98 Grade 7 p u p i l s . Team B had 3 teachers and Team 98 (Gr. 7) 4 t e a c h e r s S o c i a l S t u d i e s Teams 90 (Gr. 6) 3 t e a c h e r s 65 (Gr. 5) 2 t e a c h e r s Language A r t s 110 (Gr. 4-7) 4 t e a c h e r s 1 l i b r a r i a n 1 t e a c h e r a i d e 90 (Gr. 3 and 4) 3 t e a c h e r s F i g u r e 22 S o c i a l S t u d i e s and Language A r t s Teams at Highlands School 1969-1970 90 Grade 6 p u p i l s . Team C had 2 t e a c h e r s and 65 Grade 5 stu d e n t s . Team D had 3 t e a c h e r s and 90 Grade 3 stu d e n t s . A l l t e a c h e r s i n a team p l a n t o g e t h e r and te a c h s o c i a l s t u d i e s t o t h e i r p u p i l s . The p r i n c i p a l i s at a l l important meetings and a c t s as a resource person and l e a d e r when necessary. There was one Language A r t s Team. I t i n c l u d e d 4 t e a c h e r s , 1 l i b r a r i a n , 1 a i d e and a l l p u p i l s i n Grades 4 t o 7. The team s t r u c t u r e was f o r m a l i z e d with l e a d e r s h i p on a r o t a t i n g b a s i s . Most of the team i n s t r u c t i o n was devoted t o r e a d i n g . Westview Elementary School: This elementary school i n North Vancouver began team teaching i n 1966. During the year 1969-1970 i t had a cooperative team at the Grade 7 l e v e l . The team i n c l u d e d 3 teachers, 86 c h i l d r e n and 1 i n t e r n . Teacher A acted as leader i n a r i t h m e t i c and science. Teacher B l e d i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s . Teacher C l e d i n language a r t s . A l l teachers taught every subject. Puntledge Park School: Puntledge Park School, Courtenay, began team teaching i n 1967. The school population i s 600 and i n c l u d e s Grades 1 t o 7 plus a kindergarten. The school has 3 cooperative teams i n which s e v e r a l teachers plan and ca r r y out the teams' i n s t r u c t i o n a l programme w i t h no s p e c i f i c ranks designated. Team A i s i n the open area and i n c l u d e s 6 f u l l time teachers, 4 part time teachers, 180 p u p i l s i n Grades 5-7, 1 i n t e r n and 1 part time teacher aide. A l l teachers teach language a r t s , 2 teachers teach Grade 7 s o c i a l s t u d i e s and a r i t h m e t i c , 2 teachers teach Grade 5-7 science and Grade 5-6 a r i t h m e t i c , and 2 teachers teach Grade 5-6 s o c i a l s t u d i e s and a l l the a r t . Team B i s a S o c i a l Studies Team. I t i n c l u d e s 2 teachers, 65 c h i l d r e n at the Grade 4 l e v e l , and 1 teacher aide. Team C i s a Kindergarten Team which has 2 teachers, 50-60 c h i l d r e n , and 2 teacher ai d e s . Alexander Elementary School: Alexander School i s i n K i t i m a t . I t began team teaching i n 1970. The school population i s 309 and in c l u d e s Grades 1 t o 7. The e n t i r e school i s team taught. There are 3 cooperative teams i n which no s p e c i f i c ranks are designated. Team A i n c l u d e s 4 teachers, 101 p u p i l s i n Grades 1-2, and 5 teacher a i d e s . Team B has 3 teachers and 104 p u p i l s i n Grades 3-4. Team C has 3 teachers, 104 p u p i l s i n Grades 5-7, 1 teacher aide and 1 c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n t . Other Examples: Eagle Harbour Primary School, West Vancouver, began team teaching i n 1967. I t has a school population of 165 i n c l u d i n g Grades 1-4 and a kindergarten. There are two cooperative teams of 2 teachers w i t h 60 p u p i l s i n each. The school s e c r e t a r y , a h a l f time aide and a t r a v e l l i n g remedial teacher supplement the s t a f f . Another i n t e r e s t i n g team operated i n Cleveland Elementary School, North Vancouver, i n the year 1967-1968. This school has a population of 663 and in c l u d e s Grades 1-7. The team i n 1967-1968 c o n s i s t e d of 92 Grade 7 students, 3 teachers at a l l times, and the p r i n c i p a l part time. The team was a cooperative one i n which each teacher taught i n h i s area of str e n g t h . Teacher A taught s c i e n c e , Teacher B taught s o c i a l s t u d i e s , Teacher C taught language a r t s and the p r i n c i p a l taught a r i t h m e t i c . Lonsdale Elementary School, North Vancouver, began team teaching i n 1970. I t has a school population of 400 and teaches Grades 1-7. The team i s a Language A r t s Team at the Grade 4 and 5 l e v e l . I t i s h i e r a r c h i c a l i n s t r u c t u r e and i n c l u d e s 2 teachers, 70 p u p i l s , 1 l i b r a r i a n , 1 remedial r e a d i n g t e a c h e r , and 8 t e a c h e r a i d e s . The v i c e - p r i n c i p a l a l s o works c l o s e l y with the team. Seymour Elementary S c h o o l , Vancouver, began team t e a c h i n g i n 1 9 6 8 . The team duri n g the y e a r I 9 6 8 - I 9 6 9 was an i n f o r m a l c o o p e r a t i v e one. There was a l e a d e r f o r a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e purposes. However, she f u n c t i o n e d as a r e g u l a r member of the team as w e l l . The team c o n s i s t e d of 3 t e a c h e r s and 91 Grade 3 p u p i l s . A r e a d i n g s p e c i a l i s t , a l i b r a r i a n and a p a r t time s u p e r v i s o r y a i d e a s s i s t e d w i t h the language a r t s programme. Teacher A, the l e a d e r f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes, l e d the language a r t s programme and taught music. Teacher B l e d the s o c i a l s t u d i e s programme and taught a r t . Teacher C l e d the team i n s c i e n c e and mathematics. She a l s o taught p h y s i c a l education. The i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p of t e a c h e r s B and C r o t a t e d f r e q u e n t l y a c c o r d i n g t o s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e . Brooksbank Elementary School i n North Vancouver, be-gan team t e a c h i n g i n 1 9 6 7 . I t has a s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n of 400 and i n c l u d e s Grades 1 t o 6 . The teams i n t h i s s c h o o l a r e , perhaps, the l a r g e s t anywhere. Team A i n c l u d e s 6 t e a c h e r s and 200 p u p i l s i n years 1-3. Team B i n c l u d e s 6 t e a c h e r s and 200 p u p i l s i n years 4 - 6 . Teachers s p e c i a l i z e i n s u b j e c t a r e a s . Alwin H o l l a n d Elementary S c h o o l , F o r t St. John, began team t e a c h i n g i n 1 9 6 7 . In i t s f i r s t year i t had two c o o p e r a t i v e teams. The Primarium e n r o l l e d 150 p u p i l s i n Grades 1 and 2. It had 6 teachers, 2 interns and 1 teacher aide. The Appropriate Placement Division (APD) enrolled 60 pupils i n Grades 6 and 7. It had 2 teachers and 1 intern. Muheim Memorial School, Smithers, reported a teach-ing team i n 1968-1969. The team was informal and consisted of 3 teachers, the p r i n c i p a l and 120 Grade 7 pupils. Teacher A was the leader i n s o c i a l studies assisted by the other two teachers. Teacher B taught language a r t s , Teacher C taught science and Teacher D taught mathematics. H i l l c r e s t Elementary School, Coquitlam, experimented with a "Big Room" type of team teaching i n 1967-1968. The team was cooperative and included 2 teachers, 1 intern and 73 pupils at the Grade 5 l e v e l . The following year the team / was expanded to 150 pupils i n Grades 5 and 6. P a r k s v i l l e Elementary School, P a r k s v i l l e , had i t s f i r s t teaching team i n 1970-1971. The team was cooperative with no leader. It consisted of 4 f u l l time teachers, 1 part time teacher, and 130 pupils i n Grades 4-6. In the morning there were 5 teachers. Three of these taught language arts and 2 taught arithmetic. In the afternoon there were 4 teachers. During t h i s time, science, a r t , music and physical education were taught. 53 Team Teaching Roles-^ As seen i n the team teaching examples l i s t e d , teacher 53 ^ F o r a comprehensive outline see Chamberlin (pp. 25-31), Lobb (pp. 16-21), Bair and Woodward (pp. 61-83), Johnson and Hunt (pp. 2-6). assignments w i t h i n teams rep r e s e n t a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of r o l e s and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s . F r a n k l i n School i n t r o d u c e d the team l e a d e r and s e n i o r t e a c h e r . The Dundee School i d e n t i -f i e d p r a c t i c e t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r a i d e s . P i t t s b u r g h s c h o o l s employed team mothers. The Claremont programme used a u x i l i -ary t e a c h e r s . One must have some i d e a of what these t i t l e s mean i f one i s t o understand the team s t r u c t u r e i n which they f u n c t i o n . Lobb, f o r example, s t a t e s t h a t team personnel can be c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o the f o l l o w i n g groups: p r o f e s s i o n a l s — t r a i n e d , c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s ; a u x i l i a r y p e r s o n n e l — n o n -t e a c h e r s a c t u a l l y a s s i g n e d t o the team; and resource personnel —non-team members a s s o c i a t e d with the team f o r s p e c i a l pur-poses and o c c a s i o n s . ^ 4 Concepts of the r o l e s of team members vary somewhat from s c h o o l t o s c h o o l but i n g e n e r a l they i n -clude the f o l l o w i n g d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . P r o f e s s i o n a l s Team Leader: The terms team l e a d e r or e x e c u t i v e t e a c h e r r e f e r t o the person r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a c t i v i t i e s of the i n s t r u c -t i o n a l team. He i s i n charge and i s a key f i g u r e i n a l l p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s and approves the d a i l y working assignment of the team's s t a f f . He i s c o n s i d e r e d a master t e a c h e r and conducts some o f the large-group c l a s s e s . He i s expected t o be an e d u c a t i o n a l l e a d e r capable of a s s e s s i n g i n d i v i d u a l and ^ D e l b e r t M. Lobb, P r a c t i c a l Aspects of Team Teach-i n g (San F r a n c i s c o : Fearon P u b l i s h e r , 1964), l b . group needs, p l a n n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l and c u r r i c u l u m g o a l s , and o r g a n i z i n g and d i r e c t i n g the e f f o r t s of both h i s f e l l o w t e a c h e r s and s p e c i a l i s t s i n c a r r y i n g forward the t o t a l programme. Chamberlin summarizes h i s s e l e c t e d d u t i e s as f o l l o w s : a p p r a i s e s progress of program; c o o r d i n a t e s , d i r e c t s , and schedules team a c t i v i t i e s ; communicates a l l i n -f o r m a t i o n t o and from the team; makes d e c i s i o n s i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s ; g e n e r a l resource person f o r team; encourages and implements r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t y ; models f o r h i s f e l l o w team members; r e p r e s e n t s the team t o a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and community; s t i m u l a t e s thought and a c t i o n ; promotes a r t i c u l a t i o n of team program wi t h other programs throughout the s c h o o l ; o r i e n t s and a s s i s t s t e a c h e r s needing h e l p , e s p e c i a l l y those new t o the team; serves as chairman f o r meetings; c o o r d i n a t e s with the p r i n c i p a l , a program d e a l i n g with p u p i l d i s c i p l i n e and behavior; keeps abreast of the l i t e r a -t u r e of the p r o f e s s i o n ; s e r v e s as a member of the s c h o o l ' s A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l ; teaches, e s p e c i a l l y l a r g e -group i n s t r u c t i o n and m a t e r i a l s meant t o i n t r o d u c e a u n i t . 5 ? P r o f e s s i o n a l Teacher: The terms s e n i o r t e a c h e r , master t e a c h e r , l e a d t e a c h e r and p r o f e s s i o n a l t e a c h e r r e f e r t o a person who has completed a r e c o g n i z e d master's l e v e l educa-t i o n programme, i s f u l l y c e r t i f i e d , and has c o n s i d e r a b l e s u c c e s s f u l classroom t e a c h i n g experience. He has breadth and depth i n h i s s u b j e c t f i e l d as w e l l as knowledge and competence i n r e l a t e d f i e l d s of study. T h i s person should be q u a l i f i e d and expected t o teach some of the large-group c l a s s e s i n the area of h i s p r e p a r a t i o n or i n t e r e s t . He i s expected t o l e a d the other s t a f f members and make academic p r e p a r a t i o n f o r c l a s s e s . His s e l e c t e d d u t i e s i n c l u d e the Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 28. PRINCIPAL Team Leader Senior .Teacher Specialist for Art & Music Teacher Team Leader I—!—I Team Leader Senior Senior Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Senior Senior Teacher Teacher Senior Teacher/ Specialist for Physical Education I r Teacher Teaching Teacher Intern Teacher Teacher i Teaching Aide Clerical Aide Teaching. Clerical " ' Teaching Aide Aide Aide I; t Clerical " Aide A L P H A B E T A O M E G A F i g u r e 2 3 5 6 Team Roles i n a H i e r a r c h y o f Personnel f o l l o w i n g : Serves as a model f o r h i s f e l l o w team members; stimu-l a t e s thought and a c t i o n ; g i v e s p l a n n i n g l e a d e r s h i p f o r s u b j e c t area s p e c i a l i t y ; a d v i s e s team l e a d e r o f s p e c i a l needs; keeps abreast of p r o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a -t u r e i n h i s s u b j e c t area s p e c i a l i t y ; serves as a reso u r c e person f o r subSject area w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g and c u r r i c u l u m development; J W i l l i a m C. Wolf and Bradley M. Loomer, The  Elementary School: A P e r s p e c t i v e (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966), 120. develops a c u r r i c u l u m resource f i l e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t area and teaches most large-group c l a s s e s i n th a t a r e a ; keeps parents informed through conferences, comments on r e p o r t s ; serves as a t e a c h i n g member of a team.57 Regular Teacher: The terms r e g u l a r t e a c h e r , beginning t e a c h e r , p r o v i s i o n a l t e a c h e r or t e a c h e r r e f e r t o a s t a f f member who has completed h i s t e a c h e r education and i s c e r t i f i e d but l a c k s t e a c h i n g experience. Some of h i s d u t i e s i n c l u d e : shares i n c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g of l e s s o n s and plans l e s s o n s i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r some groups of c h i l d r e n ; s t u d i e s cumulative r e c o r d s of a l l c h i l d r e n a s s i g n e d t o the team t o determine s p e c i a l needs; keeps parents informed through conferences, comments on r e p o r t s ; works with f e l l o w team members t o improve i n s t r u c t i o n -a l p r a c t i c e s and provide f o r needs of students a s s i g n e d t o the team; teaches most s u b j e c t s t o c h i l d r e n i n groups of v a r y i n g s i z e s ; d i r e c t s the work of as s i g n e d i n t e r n g and a i d e s ; s e r v e s as a t e a c h i n g member of a team.5o Teacher I n t e r n : The terms t e a c h e r a s s i s t a n t , t e a c h e r i n t e r n and cadet t e a c h e r r e f e r t o a s t a f f member who has not com-p l e t e d a t e a c h e r education programme and does not yet q u a l i f y f o r a t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e . U s u a l l y t h i s person has had l i t t l e t e a c h i n g experience. The i n t e r n may be e n r o l l e d at a c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y . The i n - s e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s pro-v i d e d by the team t e a c h i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n should be u t i l i z e d t o the f u l l e s t extent on h i s b e h a l f . Some of the s e r v i c e s t h a t he c o u l d perform a r e : Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 29 I b i d . , 30. under s u p e r v i s i o n , work wit h p u p i l s i n l a r g e , medium, and s m a l l groups, and i n d i v i d u a l l y t o provide appro-p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , e x p l a i n the purpose of m a t e r i a l s , p r o v i d e meaningful p r a c t i c e t o develop mastery, provide i n d i v i d u a l and s m a l l group r e m e d i a l i n s t r u c t i o n or a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n t o p u p i l s with s p e c i a l needs, meet t h e i r s p e c i a l needs f o r i n f o r m a t i o n and s t i m u l a t e t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and development, super-v i s e c h i l d r e n when scheduled, i n t e r p r e t the s c h o o l ' s program t o the s t u d e n t s : beyond these s e r v i c e s the i n t e r n w i l l — s u p e r v i s e the work of the a i d e s , design and prepare i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , be an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t i n a l l meetings, keep abreast of p r o f e s s i o n -a l l i t e r a t u r e , a s s i s t f e l l o w s t a f f members with t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l d u t i e s . 5 " Teacher S p e c i a l i s t : The t e a c h e r s p e c i a l i s t i s a c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r who has a high l e v e l of s k i l l i n a s e l e c t e d area of the c u r r i c u l u m such as a r t , music, remedial r e a d i n g , guidance or p h y s i c a l education. He may or may not be a f u l l time member of the team. N o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l s : The term f r e q u e n t l y used t o d e s c r i b e n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l s are c l e r i c a l a i d e , a u x i l i a r y p e r s o n n e l , p a r a - p r o f e s s i o n a l s , p a r e n t - a i d e , and t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n t . Many s c h o o l s o f f e r a p a i d a i d e programme wh i l e others e n l i s t v o l u n t a r y h e l p . O r d i n a r i l y no c o l l e g e education i s r e q u i r e d but most have completed h i g h s c h o o l . C l e r i c a l Aide: The c l e r i c a l a i d e , a c t i n g as a s e c r e t a r y t o the team performs such d u t i e s as t y p i n g , f i l i n g , and pro-v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e with r o u t i n e matters of attendance, i n v e n -t o r y , and c o l l e c t i o n s , and keeping r e c o r d s of team meetings. Much of the c l e r i c a l a i d e ' s time i s spent i n a s s i s t i n g I b i d . , 31. t e a c h e r s i n p r e p a r i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n and e v a l u a t -i n g p u p i l s . T e c h n i c a l Aide: The t e c h n i c a l a i d e ' s c h i e f f u n c t i o n s are t o a s s i s t i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the s c h o o l ' s I n s t r u c t i o n a l Media Center, t o maintain a u d i o - v i s u a l equipment and other i n s t r u c t i o n a l media, and t o a s s i s t the s t a f f when u s i n g t h i s equipment and m a t e r i a l . Teacher Aide: Teacher a i d e d u t i e s range from the simple t a s k of l i s t e n i n g , t o p r o v i d i n g t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e . A t y p i c a l l i s t of d u t i e s i n c l u d e s : A s s i s t i n g c h i l d r e n with t h e i r c l o t h e s ; a s s i s t i n g h a n d i -capped c h i l d r e n ; a s s i s t i n g on f i e l d t r i p s ; a s s i s t i n g i n g e n e r a l classroom r o u t i n e s ; a s s i s t i n g with the milk program; developing b i b l i o g r a p h i e s and doing l i b r a r y r e s e a r c h ; c o n d u c t i n g d a i l y h e a l t h surveys; h e l p i n g with classroom housekeeping; m a i n t a i n i n g r e c o r d s and inve n -t o r i e s ; o r i e n t i n g new students; r e a d i n g aloud and s t o r y t e l l i n g ; s e c u r i n g , s e t t i n g up, and o p e r a t i n g audio-v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s and other i n s t r u c t i o n a l media; super-v i s i n g areas o u t s i d e the classroom; t y p i n g , d u p l i c a t i n g , and p r e p a r i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l and e v a l u a t i v e m a t e r i a l s and correspondence; working w i t h c l u b s or other student a c t i v i t i e s . Resource and Support Personnel Resource and support personnel i n c l u d e a l l others who are used on any o c c a s i o n t o e n r i c h the l e a r n i n g e x p e r i -ence of the students. These may i n c l u d e l a y and p r o f e s -s i o n a l members w i t h i n the s c h o o l or the community. Community C o n s u l t a n t : The community c o n s u l t a n t i s not a 6 0 I b i d . , 36. r Team Leader Principal Team Leader Team Leader Language A.-is Mathe-matics.'-Social Studies | (inside broken line: the administrative cabinet) Senior Teacher Senior Teacher Senior Teacher Science Art and Music Language Arts (inside solid outer line: the instructional cabinet) F i g u r e 2 4 6 1 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and I n s t r u c t i o n a l Cabinet p r o f e s s i o n a l team member but i s a l a y person whose knowledge of the community and i t s r e s o u r c e s can prove t o be v a l u a b l e t o the team i n i t s endeavours t o pr o v i d e an e n r i c h e d educa-t i o n a l programme. Student Resources: These i n c l u d e any and a l l c o n t r i b u t i o n s which members of the student body can make t o the c l a s s f u n c t i o n . I t i s o f t e n a gr e a t untapped source of i n s t r u c -t i o n a l power. ^"*-Anderson, Hagstrom and Robinson, op. c i t . , 78. Harvey - Team Leader Marge - Assistant Team Leader George - Teacher Tommy - Teacher Aide Florence - Teacher Maureen - Intern Joan - Intern Mary - Teacher Aide .62 Figure 25 The Direct Instruction Team and Support Centres Bruce Joyce, The Teacher and His Staff: Man, Media  and Machines (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Educa-tion and Welfare, 1967), 15. Community Resource Persons: T h i s means anyone who has a s p e c i a l knowledge, s k i l l or competence t h a t can be u t i l i z e d t o add depth t o the r o u t i n e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programme. Support Personnel: Support personnel are non-team s c h o o l employees who o f f e r support t o the t e a c h i n g process. These persons may be c e r t i f i e d as i n the case of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , or n o n - c e r t i f i e d as i n the case of s c h o o l s e c r e t a r i a l and c l e r i -c a l s t a f f . Included are such persons as the l i b r a r i a n , s c h o o l nurse, p s y c h o l o g i s t and p r i n c i p a l , s u p e r v i s o r s and c o n s u l t a n t s . The r o l e of p r i n c i p a l under the t e a c h i n g team o r g a n i z a t i o n becomes somewhat a k i n t o the present r o l e of d i r e c t o r of i n s t r u c t i o n . Since team l e a d e r s and t h e i r sub-o r d i n a t e s are able t o a t t e n d t o many r o u t i n e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and management d e t a i l s , the p r i n c i p a l has more time and o p p o r t u n i t y f o r l e a d e r s h i p i n c u r r i c u l u m development, i n s t r u c -t i o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n , and guidance. In a sense he becomes the c o o r d i n a t o r of the a c t i v i t i e s of s e v e r a l teams t o ensure an o r d e r l y , balanced s e q u e n t i a l programme f o r the e n t i r e s c h o o l . Team Teaching Roles i n B r i t i s h Columbia The d e s c r i p t i o n s of team t e a c h i n g i n American l i t e r a -t u r e do not i n d i c a t e which team t e a c h i n g r o l e s are most f r e q u e n t l y used. I t i s of i n t e r e s t , t h e r e f o r e , t o note the f i n d i n g s o f the author's survey of #5 team t e a c h i n g s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Team Leaders: Of the 143 team t e a c h e r s responding, 107 or 75 percent s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r team had no l e a d e r . Only 35 t e a c h e r s or 24 percent s a i d t h a t t h e r e was a team l e a d e r . L e a d e r s h i p , however, was mainly on an i n f o r m a l or r o t a t i n g b a s i s . Of the 35 l e a d e r s , 22 were chosen by the a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n and 13 by the team members. Twelve l e a d e r s had some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n s e l e c t i n g other members of the team but 22 d i d not. I n t e r n s : The t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t 131 or 92 percent were on teams with no i n t e r n s . F i v e t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r team had one i n t e r n . Three t e a c h e r s s a i d t h a t t h e i r team had t h r e e i n t e r n s . L i b r a r i a n : Ten t e a c h e r s , or 7 percent of the sample, s a i d t h a t the l i b r a r i a n was a team member. Another 28 or 20 per-cent of the t e a c h e r s s t a t e d he was i n t i m a t e l y connected with the team. Seventy-nine or 56 percent of the t e a c h e r s , how-ever, r e p o r t e d t h a t the l i b r a r i a n had no s p e c i a l f u n c t i o n r e l a t i v e t o the team. Teacher A i d e s : No a i d e s were used on the teams of 82 or 58 percent o f the t e a c h e r s . Of the other t e a c h e r s , 29 or 21 percent r e p o r t e d the use of 1 a i d e per team, 11 or 8 percent used 2 a i d e s per team, 13 or 9 percent used 3 a i d e s per team, 2 t e a c h e r s used 4 a i d e s per team, 4 t e a c h e r s used 5 a i d e s per team, 1 t e a c h e r had 8 a i d e s i n the team and another had 10 a i d e s . Approximately h a l f of these a i d e s were v o l u n t a r y and h a l f were p a i d . Most of the v o l u n t e e r s were parents. Teacher a i d e s were mainly used t o prepare m a t e r i a l s f o r r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s and t o mark. About 13 percent d i d c l e r i c a l work and 12 percent helped slower l e a r n e r s . C l e r i c a l A ides: About 50 percent of the t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n c e c o u l d be obtained when necessary. One t e a c h e r had a c l e r i c a l a i d e two hours a day and s i x t e a c h e r s had one c l e r i c a l a i d e two days a week. Resource Personnel: Resource personnel were not used by 55 or 39 percent of the team t e a c h e r s . E i g h t y - s i x t e a c h e r s or 60 p e r c e n t , however, used resource people at some p o i n t d u r i n g the year. The amount of time t h a t r e s o u r c e people were used was a f o l l o w s : 13 t e a c h e r s used resource people 1 percent of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l time; 10 t e a c h e r s used them 2-3 percent of the time; 14 t e a c h e r s used them 5 percent of the time; 14 other t e a c h e r s used them 10-15 percent of the time; and 20 t e a c h e r s made use of resource people 20-25 percent of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l time. Grouping and F l e x i b l e Scheduling Types of Grouping A c e n t r a l aspect of most team plans i s f l e x i b l e g rouping. The plans c a l l f o r v a r y i n g group s i z e from s m a l l seminar groups of 12 t o 15 p u p i l s , working groups of 3 t o 8 p u p i l s , t o l a r g e groups of 40, 75, 100, 150 or more p u p i l s . experiences w i t h the r i g h t t e a c h e r s at the r i g h t time. When c o n s i d e r i n g grouping t e a c h e r s should begin by t h i n k i n g of the t o t a l group of st u d e n t s , a s s i g n e d t o the team. T h i s p o i n t i s emphasized by Goodlad: In c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g , s t a f f members begin by t h i n k -in g about grouping by examining an i n i t i a l s e l f -c o ntained c l u s t e r o f , f o r example, 9 0 , 1 5 0 , or 2 0 0 s t u d e n t s — a l l those t o be taught by an i d e n t i f i e d c l u s t e r of p e r s o n n e l . They do not begin by s p i n n i n g o f f i n t h e i r minds, or i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e , t h r e e or f i v e or seven c l a s s groups of 3 0 each. I t i s t h i s i n i t i a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g t h a t i s so c r u c i a l and, f r e q u e n t l y , so d i f f i c u l t t o grasp.6 3 The author goes on t o p o i n t out i n another a r t i c l e t h a t t h e r e i s no need t o pre-determine group s t r u c t u r e f o r more than s h o r t p e r i o d s of time. Group s t r u c t u r e should s h i f t a c c o r d i n g t o need and p u r p o s e . ^ Here we f i n d the concept of f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l i n g wedded t o team t e a c h i n g . Team t e a c h i n g c a l l s f o r b l o c k s of time f a s h i o n e d t o s u i t the needs of the t e a c h e r , the p u p i l , and the c u r r i c u l u m . P u p i l s o f v a r y i n g a b i l i t i e s may be grouped w i t h p u p i l s who have s i m i l a r needs and i n t e r e s t s ; or wit h p u p i l s who experience s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s or successes. There can a l s o be c o n s i d e r a b l e N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , P r o j e c t on  I n s t r u c t i o n : P lanning and O r g a n i z i n g f o r Teaching (Washing-t o n , D.G.: the A s s o c i a t i o n , 1963), 08. ^ J o h n I. Goodlad, "Cooperative Teaching i n Educa-t i o n a l Reform," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (Janu-a r y , 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 2 . " © © o o o o © o © o o © © o o S m a l l - G r o u p I n s t r u c t i o n s ooo©© 1 S p e c i a l N e e d s Group o e o o 1 -a- 1 S i n g l e T u t o r i a l e o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 I n s t r u c t i o n o o 0 o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 o 0 o o o o o o o 0 o o o o e o 0 0 o o o o o 0 o o o 0 4 o o o o o o L a r g e G r o u p I n s t r u c t i o n s 1 1 5 T o t a l G r o u p I n s t r u c t i o n s • •'••I-. * * o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o • P u p i l s • f r T e a c h e r s o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ^ o o o o o O 0 O 0 O 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~& -k -k * Figure 2 6 6 5 F l e x i b l e Grouping as a Central Aspect of Team Teaching 6 5 Change, 198. Richard M i l l e r (ed.), Perspectives on Educational heterogeneous grouping t o g i v e p u p i l s a chance t o work with others r e g a r d l e s s of a b i l i t y or achievement. S h a p l i n i n w r i t i n g about grouping p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n team t e a c h i n g s t a t e s : Team t e a c h i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y at the elementary l e v e l , makes i t p o s s i b l e t o d i v i d e students i n t o d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t y groups f o r each separate s u b j e c t , and t o develop the k i n d of f l e x i b l e groupings, e a s i l y changed as c h i l d r e n change, t h a t may improve the c o n d i t i o n s of i n s t r u c t i o n without the r i g i d , o f t e n c r u e l and a r b i -t r a r y s e p a r a t i o n s brought about by more common systems of a b i l i t y grouping. Under team t e a c h i n g i t i s pos-s i b l e t o d i v i d e a group of students i n t o subgroups of any d e s i r e d s i z e , or t o make use of t u t o r i a l or independent study. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t o vary the time l i m i t s of c l a s s e s . 0 0 One of the b a s i c premises u n d e r l y i n g team t e a c h i n g i s t h a t some m a t e r i a l s i n the elementary c u r r i c u l u m can be taught as w e l l t o 50, 9 0 , or 150 p u p i l s at one time as t o the t r a d i t i o n a l groups of 3 0 . Once the g e n e r a l concept on a g i v e n t o p i c has been presented i n the l a r g e r g e n e r a l assembly, the c h i l d r e n can break i n t o s m a l l e r groups on the b a s i s of needs f o r d r i l l and mastery or extended l e a r n i n g s . I t i s understood t h a t groups change from time t o time. A c h i l d may be i n one group f o r r e a d i n g and i n an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t one f o r a r i t h m e t i c , depending on h i s progress i n these areas. Or a c h i l d may work independently f o r s e v e r a l p e r i o d s and then group with some others f o r work on a s p e c i a l problem. Team t e a c h e r s must p l a n which purposes are served Judson T. S h a p l i n , "Team Teaching," Saturday  Review, XLIV (May 2 0 , 1 9 6 1 ) , 54. Various Groupings of Students Phase II 4 Phase I — t Large Group Instruction by Team - i — \ — T s s s s s s s s s s i 5. S S S S S S S S S S / S s \ s s s s s s ' s s s s ' s L s s s s s /s s Teachers Plan Together Cooperative Model Hierorchy Model ,67 F i g u r e 27 V a r i o u s Groupings f o r S p e c i f i c Purposes best by large-group i n s t r u c t i o n , small-group d i s c u s s i o n and independent study. In g e n e r a l i t i s agreed t h a t l a r g e -group i n s t r u c t i o n i s most a p p r o p r i a t e when: Plans c a l l f o r m a t e r i a l t h a t students l e a r n best when ex p l a i n e d by o t h e r s ; m a t e r i a l t o be presented i s v i s u a l r a t h e r than v e r b a l ; the major o b j e c t i v e i s o r i e n t a t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n , or enrichment; c o n s i d e r a b l e t e c h n i c a l Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 41• equipment i s e s s e n t i a l f o r r e a c h i n g the e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s ; t e a c h e r time i s an important f a c t o r ; and c h i l d r e n are being taught t o l i s t e n , take notes, and develop s e l f - c o n t r o l under c e r t a i n conditions.°° Small groups of students are u s u a l l y formed when the m a t e r i a l s t u d i e d i s best l e a r n e d through student i n t e r a c t i o n : i d e a s are t o be exchanged or d i s c u s s e d , and the g o a l i s t o improve p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s between c e r t a i n students and groups, or between c e r t a i n students and s t a f f members. An i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n s i t u a t i o n lends i t s e l f t o s i t u a t i o n s where the m a t e r i a l t o be covered can best be l e a r n e d by the students working alone and where the emphasis i s on r e s e a r c h or i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Although the i n d i v i d u a l ' s need should be the b a s i c u n i t f o r d e c i d i n g group assignments, i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e c h i l d r e n are mostly a s s i g n e d t o the team on the 69 b a s i s of grade. I t i s of v a l u e , t h e r e f o r e , t o examine grouping procedures i n a few r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c h o o l s . Examples of Grouping and Scheduling i n Un i t e d S t a t e s Team Teaching Schools 70 F r a n k l i n S c hool: The team t r e a t s i t s e n t i r e p u p i l comple-ment as a u n i t . But both c l a s s s i z e and bases of group 68 I b i d . , 66. A l s o see David W. Beggs (ed.), Team  Teaching: Bold New Venture ( I n d i a n a p o l i s : U n i f i e d C o l l e g e Press Inc., 1964), 169-174. 6 9 I b i d . , 64. Anderson, Hagstrom and Robinson, op. c i t . , 7#-F i g u r e ztf1 V a r i o u s Grouping Assignments of One Student composition may vary from c l a s s p e r i o d t o c l a s s p e r i o d . The g o a l i s f l e x i b l e grouping based on s p e c i f i c needs. Thus the team may regroup and s u b d i v i d e the pupils, i n much the same way t h a t the te a c h e r of the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom groups and regroups the p u p i l s under her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The e n t i r e group of from 75 t o 250 p u p i l s may meet as a s i n g l e l a r g e group t o hear a l e c t u r e or s t o r y , t o see a demonstration, or t o view a movie. Or from the l a r g e group the extremes ( r e t a r d e d and a c c e l e r a t e d ) or a s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l or group Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 64. may withdraw. The p u p i l s may be redeployed i n t o i n t e r e s t or a b i l i t y groups of standard s i z e f o r fo l l o w - u p a c t i v i t i e s a f t e r a l e s s o n f o r a l a r g e group. The p u p i l s may be grouped on the b a s i s of one c r i -t e r i o n f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n a r i t h m e t i c and on the b a s i s of another c r i t e r i o n f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n language a r t s or any other s u b j e c t . Some p u p i l s w i l l have the same t e a c h e r f o r much of t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n . Other p u p i l s may meet a d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r f o r n e a r l y every s u b j e c t . S p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s and d i s a b i l i t i e s , such as a t a l e n t i n music, p r o f i c i e n c y i n French, or the need f o r remedial treatment i n r e a d i n g or speech, are a l s o accommodated i n the scheme f o r grouping. Groups of 75 have met r o u t i n e l y i n the F r a n k l i n S c h o o l , and groups of 11+0 or 215 are not uncommon at a l l grade l e v e l s . Small groups of 10 or 12 are a l s o used f o r r e c i t i n g , d i s c u s s i o n and those a c t i v i t i e s t h a t r e q u i r e a hi g h r a t e of i n t e r a c t i o n between p u p i l s or p u p i l s and t e a c h e r . 72 P i t t s b u r g h P l a n : The groups vary i n s i z e a c c o r d i n g t o the nature of the s u b j e c t and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p u p i l s . P u p i l s are a s s i g n e d i n l a r g e groups of 70 t o 120 f o r s u b j e c t s i n which they can make normal p r o g r e s s , and i n s m a l l groups of 5 t o 15 f o r concentrated i n s t r u c t i o n i n s u b j e c t s i n which they need s p e c i a l h e l p or have o u t s t a n d i n g a b i l i t y . A p u p i l 72 " P u p i l s , P a t t e r n s and P o s s i b i l i t i e s : A D e s c r i p t i o n of Team Teaching i n P i t t s b u r g h , " 1961 Annual Report of the Superintendent o f Schools, P i t t s b u r g h Board of P u b l i c Educa-t i o n . In H i l l s o n , Change and Innovation . . . ., 193-197. Reading English Spelling Handwriting Social Studies Science Arithmetic Library Large Extension of vocabulary Dramatization Choral speaking Testing Introduction of new skills Presentation' of oral reports Reinforcement of skills Testing Introduction of new words Written practice Testing Introduction of letter form Improvement of common er-rors Practice Introduction to units of study Clarification of concepts . Concluding activities of unit Testing ' Introduction to unit of study Demonstration of experiment Concluding activity of unit Testing Introduction of new skills Clarification of concepts Testing Story telling by teacher Presentation of book talks by children Appreciation of poetry Introduction of library skills Small Phonics .• ; Oral reading • . '' Building of vocabulary '•" (Vocabulary development). Testing Remedial instruction Creative writing "Preparation of oral reports Preparation of school news-paper . Testing,: Clarifying .'the • meaning of 'words. Analysis of words Extension of vocabulary for able r. .• Reduction of vocabulary for slow • Testing ' . ' ' Remedial instruction Study skills Preparation of project' Research Simplification of material Testing Experimentation Recording of experiment Research for reports Reinforcement of basic skills Testing ' * Extension of skills for able Simplification of terms and concepts for slow Remedial instruction 1 Testing Individual research Refinement of skills 's Deepening of appreciation Training of pupils as aides Physical Education Art Music Special subject teams are not teams in the technical sense : but they collaborate in planning activities involving all children in a team. 73 F i g u r e 2 9 The P i t t s b u r g h Plan of Types of M a t e r i a l s and A c t i v i t i e s A p p r o p r i a t e E i t h e r t o Large Groups or t o Small Groups 7 3 H a a s , op. c i t . , 1 9 0 - 1 9 1 may be a s s i g n e d t o one k i n d of group f o r one s u b j e c t and t o a d i f f e r e n t k i n d or s i z e of group f o r another s u b j e c t . He i s always taught by the member of the team most competent i n t h a t s u b j e c t and he i s c o n t i n u a l l y encouraged t o move along at h i s own optimum r a t e . In the primary grades c h i l d r e n are a s s i g n e d t o a home-room on the b a s i s of r e a d i n g a b i l i t y , and r e c e i v e most of t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n from the same home-room t e a c h e r . They may, however, be a s s i g n e d t o other t e a c h e r s f o r large-group i n s t r u c t i o n , s p e c i a l r e m e d i a l h e l p , or advanced work. In the i n t e r m e d i a t e grades the i n s t r u c t i o n a l team meets the p u p i l s on the f o u r t h grade l e v e l and slower f i f t h grade l e v e l f o r language a r t s i n the morning and the s i x t h grade l e v e l and upper f i f t h grade l e v e l i n the a f t e r n o o n . When students are not meeting w i t h the i n s t r u c t i o n a l team they are grouped f o r s c i e n c e , a r i t h m e t i c , l i b r a r y , music, a r t or p h y s i c a l education. Teams t r y to p l a n schedules so t h a t every c h i l d i s i n a s m a l l group at l e a s t once a day. Dundee S c h o o l T h e team uses l a r g e and s m a l l group i n s t r u c -t i o n . Only the language a r t s , r e a d i n g and mathematics have homogeneous grouping. The remainder of the s u b j e c t s have heterogeneous grouping. The p u p i l s are d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r a b i l i t y and the t e a c h e r s teach a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r s t r e n g t h s . '^Nicholas D. P o l a s , The Dynamics of Team Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: W i l l i a m C. Brown Company, 1965), 31-32. Elmcrest School : The s c h o o l uses d i a g n o s t i c grouping f o r i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h i n s u b j e c t u n i t s , i n t e r e s t - a c t i v i t y grouping i n which p u p i l s r e c e i v e l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n and then are grouped on the b a s i s of i n t e r e s t w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r u n i t , and heterogeneous home-room grouping w i t h a broad spectrum of a b i l i t i e s . 76 Washington School: In the Washington School c h i l d r e n are grouped by a b i l i t y , need, grade and i n t e r e s t , as w e l l as by random sample. At one time, f o r example, grouping may be by a b i l i t y i n a r i t h m e t i c and r e a d i n g , by need i n s p e l l i n g and language, by grade i n penmanship and s o c i a l s t u d i e s , and by both grade and i n t e r e s t i n s c i e n c e . 77 Englewood P l a n : ' ' In Englewood, F l o r i d a , i n i t i a l c l a s s groupings are q u i t e heterogeneous but c h i l d r e n of s e v e r a l c l a s s e s t o g e t h e r are regarded as a l a r g e " f a m i l y " i n a f a m i l y " n e s t " o f rooms. Regroupings w i t h i n the nest occur d a i l y , depending upon the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y being planned j o i n t l y by a l l c l a s s e s comprising the l a r g e r f a m i l y . ^ H a a s , op. c i t . , 2 2 . 7 ^ P h i l i p Lambert, "Team Teaching i n Today's World," Teaching C o l l e g e Record, LXIV (March, 19&3), 481. 77 ''John I . Goodland and Robert H. Anderson, The Non- graded Elementary School (Revised E d i t i o n ) (New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace and World Inc., 1963), 97-96. I Small Reading Groups 90 Students CC Large Reading Group (Lower Achievers) 90 Students CC Large Reading Group (Higher Achievers) Small Math. Groups CC — Counsel Corner 1 ® — Flexible Special Needs Group 3 : 3 0 -SI40 3 - 4 0 - ; MO '< F i g u r e 3078 V a r i e t y and f l e x i b i l i t y of Grouping f o r V a r i o u s S u b j e c t s i n the Baldwin Summer Elementary School 78 Richard M i l l e r ( e d . ) , P e r s p e c t i v e on E d u c a t i o n a l  Change, 192. Estabrook School: Grouping i n the school i s by need, a b i l -i t y , and in t e r e s t . Large, small, and medium sized groups are a l l used. The following figure shows the variety of groupings i n which two pupils B i l l (B) and Mary (M) are involved. The groups are taught by various members of the team including the team leader (TL), senior teacher (ST), teacher (T), teacher assistant (TA), remedial reading teacher (RRT) and aides (Aides). DELTA TEAM PUPIL SCHEDULE, MAY 7 Time 20 40 100 120 160 Home Room 8:45 • 9:00 • ST1 (26) TL (30) Language Arts TL I (9)4-Handwriting Recess Mathematics Lunch Social Studies Science •10:00-•10:30-•10:55' • 11:15-•11:45 • •12:15 • • 1:15 • •1:45 -2:15 • • 2:35 •2:55 - 3:10 3:15 ST1 -(16) i (25) B T3 (35) TL (16)- -(19) T3 (28) | Ti (25) Ti (25) ,(30) Spelling (19) I To (10) To (31) ST2 (30) ST2 (61) M ST2 (116) M sn „ TL Ti Ti (18) B (12) (10) (9) B Aides (170) M TZ (34) M Ti (31) -Trih (32) ST2 (105) B / ,sn n V (29) TL (20) \ ST2 _ (18) B B Aides (170) Wl Ti (29) STl (80) rs (30) — s ; — sn (2i) ST2 T£ (27) (30) T3 (33) M STl (26) E M TL (30) B TO (170) M TZ- (28) Ti (^25) T5 (170) M ' 7" 5T5 (31) ST2 (30) B M Figure 31^° A Team Schedule at Estabrook School 79 'Medill Bair and Richard G. Woodward, Team Teach-ing i n Action (Boston: Houghton, M i f f l i n Company, 1964), 155-178. °Ibid.,156. Examples of Grouping and Scheduling i n B r i t i s h Columbia Team Teaching Schools Most of the s c h o o l s surveyed by the author employed team t e a c h i n g f o r the e n t i r e day. S e v e n t y - f i v e t e a c h e r s or 53 percent of the sample r e p o r t e d t h i s t o be the case. S i x t e a c h e r s or 4 percent s a i d t h a t they used team t e a c h i n g o n l y i n the a f t e r n o o n . The morning was devoted t o team t e a c h i n g i n the teams of 12 or 9 percent of the t e a c h e r s . Nineteen t e a c h e r s or 14 percent s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r team taught f o r approximately two p e r i o d s per day. One p e r i o d d a i l y was devoted t o team t e a c h i n g by 14 or 10 percent of the t e a c h e r s . The b a s i c reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g team students v a r i e d . The m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s , 80 or 56 p e r c e n t , i n d i c a t e d t h a t p u p i l s were as s i g n e d t o the teams on the b a s i s of grade l e v e l . Other bases f o r team assignment were r e p o r t e d as f o l l o w s : 37 or 26 percent of the t e a c h e r s s a i d the b a s i c f a c t o r was the g e n e r a l achievement l e v e l of the p u p i l ; 32 t e a c h e r s or 23 percent s t a t e d i t t o be the p u p i l s ' r e a d i n g l e v e l ; 20 t e a c h e r s or 14 percent s a i d i t was a b i l i t y ; 20 other t e a c h e r s s a i d i t was age; 16 t e a c h e r s or 12 percent s a i d i t was random s e l e c t i o n ; and 15 t e a c h e r s or 11 percent r e p o r t e d i t t o be on the b a s i s of t e s t measured a b i l i t y . F l e x i b l e grouping was used by most teams. Large group i n s t r u c t i o n was mainly used i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s , s c i e n c e , music and a r t . Some t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t they used i t i n language a r t s , p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n , a r i t h m e t i c , c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g , h e a l t h and French. D a i l y meetings of the l a r g e group were h e l d by the teams of 73 or 51 percent of the t e a c h e r s . T h i r t y - s e v e n t e a c h e r s or 2 6 percent h e l d unsched-u l e d meetings. S i x t e e n t e a c h e r s or 12 percent s a i d t h e i r l a r g e groups met twice a week. Seven t e a c h e r s or 5 percent had l a r g e groups t h a t met t h r e e times a week and 5 t e a c h e r s or 4 percent met with l a r g e groups once a week. Small group i n s t r u c t i o n was mainly used i n language a r t s and a r i t h m e t i c . Some t e a c h e r s , however, a l s o used i t i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s , s c i e n c e , h e a l t h , French, a r t , music and p h y s i c a l education. The m a j o r i t y of team t e a c h e r s , 57 or 4 0 p e r c e n t , s a i d t h a t they used s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n 50 percent of the time. F o r t y - f o u r t e a c h e r s or 31 percent s a i d they used i t 25 per-cent of the time. Seventeen t e a c h e r s or 12 percent r e p o r t e d s m a l l groups t o be used 75 percent o f the time. Students were mainly a s s i g n e d t o s m a l l groups on the b a s i s of l e a r n i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s , a b i l i t y , and need. Other groupings used grade l e v e l , random s e l e c t i o n and i n t e r e s t as the b a s i s f o r a s s i g n -ment. Most t e a c h e r s s a i d t h a t s m a l l groups were changed f r e q u e n t l y or when necessary. I n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n was used mainly i n language a r t s , a r i t h m e t i c , s o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e . Some t e a c h e r s a l s o used i t i n a r t , h e a l t h , music and p h y s i c a l education. F o r t y - s i x t e a c h e r s or 33 percent r e p o r t e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l i z e d study was used a p p r o x i -mately 50 percent of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l time. F o r t y - f i v e t e a c h e r s or 32 percent s a i d i t was used 25 percent o f the time. The same number of t e a c h e r s s t a t e d i t was used 75 percent of the time. Only 6 t e a c h e r s or 5 percent r e p o r t e d no use of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . With these f a c t s i n mind, i t i s of i n t e r e s t t o examine a few of the grouping p r a c t i c e s i n s p e c i f i c s c h o o l s . Eagle Harbour Elementary School: Eagle Harbour School, West Vancouver, wi t h i t s k i n d e r g a r t e n and Grades 1 - 4 . emphasizes continuous progress and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . C h i l d -r en are grouped mainly a c c o r d i n g t o i n t e r e s t and need. I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , which began i n language a r t s , has spread and many of the d i v i s i o n s between s u b j e c t s have been e l i m i -nated. C h i l d r e n i n Grades 2 and 3 p l a n t h e i r own programme each morning. On some days they i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c t e a c h e r assignments or p l a n t o work on needed s k i l l s . Some of the more immature p u p i l s p l a n under the d i r e c t i o n of a t e a c h e r but some choice of a c t i v i t y i s always allowed. During the "work time " c h i l d r e n read, prepare o r a l or w r i t t e n r e p o r t s , u s i n g a v a r i e t y of equipment and m a t e r i a l s . These a c t i v i t i e s are c a r r i e d out i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n s m a l l groups. The r e s t of the day i s spent i n l a r g e or s m a l l groups f o r language e x p e r i e n c e s , experimental s c i e n c e u n i t s , c r e a t i v e drama, o r a l French or p h y s i c a l education. A student's day at Eagle Harbour may be summarized as f o l l o w s : 1. Small Group A c t i v i t i e s (2-10 students) (a) Teacher d i r e c t e d (b) P u p i l o r g a n i z e d - common i n t e r e s t s - r e s e a r c h - s t r e n g t h e n i n g s k i l l s - p r e p a r a t i o n of r e p o r t s - expanding concepts - improving study h a b i t s - l i t e r a r y a p p r e c i a t i o n 2. Large Group A c t i v i t i e s (a) Up t o 30 students - d i s c u s s i o n s - s h a r i n g time - o r a l French - music and a r t a c t i v i t i e s - p h y s i c a l education - e x c u r s i o n s - experimentation - l e a r n i n g games - p r e p a r a t i o n of p l a y s (b) Up t o 90 students - opening e x e r c i s e s - PE a c t i v i t i e s - music - f i l m s t r i p or movies - resource speakers from the community - e x c u r s i o n s 3 . Independent A c t i v i t i e s - r e a d i n g f o r enjoyment - r e s e a r c h i n g - p r e p a r i n g o r a l or w r i t t e n r e p o r t s - viewing f i l m s t r i p s - u s i n g programmed m a t e r i a l s - c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g - experimenting - s t r e n g t h e n i n g s k i l l s .= Teacher and 1 p u p i l F i g u r e 32 The Percentage of Time Devoted t o V a r i o u s Groupings at Eagle Harbour School so Cleveland Elementary School: Cleveland School, North Vancou-ver , evolved an unusual grouping scheme f o r i t s team of 92 Grade 7 students. During the year 1967-1968 the students were d i v i d e d heterogeneously i n t o 9 teams of approximately 10 each. Each team had 1 leader of top a b i l i t y . Each team had i t s own time t a b l e f o r the week and the student leader helped t o guide h i s group through each p e r i o d . The teachers were f u l l y departmentalized so that at a l l times 9 a c t i v i t i e s proceeded simultaneously. Each group met w i t h a teacher 4 t o 6 times per week. The time t a b l e allowed f o r the teaching of 10, 20, 30 or 90 p u p i l s by one teacher. Small groups were most f r e q u e n t l y used. Superior students g e n e r a l l y worked on contracted assignments w i t h help when needed. Study c a r r e l s were used f o r independent work. Time t a b l e s were r e v i s e d each week. An example of t h i s team's scheduling i s given on the next page. Alwin Holland School: Alwin Holland School, Fort St. John, reported a v a r i e t y of groupings being used i n 1967-1968. In the open area Premarium Team,where 150 Grade 1 and 2 p u p i l s were e n r o l l e d , i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n was emphasized. P u p i l s mainly worked i n small groups of 2 t o 6 w i t h t h e i r desks c l u s t e r e d together. There were great v a r i a t i o n s i n the a c t i v i t i e s proceeding at one time. The l e a r n i n g tasks of each group, however, were seen as common o b j e c t i v e s . In the ADP (Appropriate Placement D i v i s i o n ) Team, p u p i l s were s e l e c t e d mainly on the b a s i s of r e t a r d a t i o n i n reading. A MONDAY OPENING EXERCISES 1. Spell(A) Spell(A) LA(E) LA Spell(A) Spell(A) Spell(A) Spell(A) Spell(A) 2. SS(E) SS(F) LA Spell(A) SS Sc(F) LA(C) Sc(Sr) LA(C) LA( A) 3. Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Math •rt 4. M CD Sc(E) Sc(Sr) Sc(B) Sc SS(A) LA(E) LA(C) SS(E) LA(C) 5. Art LA(E) Art LA(C) LA(C) SS Art LA( A) Sc(Sr) 6. Art LA(B) Art LA(E) LA( A) Sc(F) Art Sc(Sr) SS(F) 7. Art PE Music PE Music PE Music Music Music 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pupil Teams A - Study Area D - Class Area (11) G - Eight Study Carrels B - Work Area E - Listening Centre H - Resource Centre C - Class Area (22) F - Film St r i p Projector Figure 33 oa Team Time Table at Cleveland School M m i n o r i t y were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e f i c i e n t i n a r i t h m e t i c . Groups were, t h e r e f o r e , formed on the b a s i s of achievement i n a r i t h m e t i c and r e a d i n g . Some p u p i l s were on i n d i v i d u a l -i z e d programmes. Alexander Elementary School: The Intermediate Team at Alexander School, K i t i m a t , t r i e s t o use a v a r i e t y of group-i n g s . In the year 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 the team had 95 year 4 s t u d e n t s . S o c i a l grouping was used t o d i v i d e the p u p i l s among t h r e e home-rooms. The c h i l d r e n were d i v i d e d i n t o 5 a b i l i t y groups f o r language a r t s and 3 a b i l i t y groups f o r a r i t h m e t i c . For a r t , music and p h y s i c a l education p u p i l s were grouped by sex. S o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e were taught t o the home-room groups w i t h each t e a c h e r t e a c h i n g o n e - t h i r d of the m a t e r i a l t h r e e times. The aim of the team was t o achieve s m a l l f l e x -i b l e groups. In language a r t s , f o r example, two t e a c h e r s were each r e s p o n s i b l e f o r two groups, while the t h i r d t e a c h e r had a remedial group o n l y . F r e q u e n t l y one of the two groups would work independently i n the l i b r a r y . Large group i n -s t r u c t i o n was found t o be most u n s u c c e s s f u l except f o r the showing of f i l m s . The t e a c h e r s estimated that they used 75 percent of the time f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d study, 25 percent of the time f o r s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n and 5 percent of the time f o r l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n . Gordon Park Elementary School: Gordon Park School, Powell R i v e r , r e p o r t e d the f o l l o w i n g types of grouping i n 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 . The 3 8 6 p u p i l s i n the school were assigned t o one of f i v e teams mainly on the b a s i s of age and grade l e v e l . A l l teams use i n d i v i d u a l i z e d study f o r language a r t s . When small grouping i s done i n t h i s subject i t i s on the b a s i s of "independence." The school b u l l e t i n makes the f o l l o w i n g recommendations: 1. Recommend that you group according to independence i n language a r t s r a t h e r than a b i l i t y . 2. C a p i t a l i z e on those who do not work independently. 3. Group so that you have some independent workers, semi-independent workers and dependent workers i n each team. Large group i n s t r u c t i o n i n a l l teams i s mainly used f o r music, p h y s i c a l education, a r t , science and s o c i a l s t u d i e s . A r i t h m e t i c i s taught i n small groups. Small groups are changed f r e q u e n t l y according t o need and i n t e r e s t . They vary i n s i z e from 5-20 p u p i l s . Teachers reported that l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n was used about 10 percent of the time, small group i n s t r u c t i o n 60 percent of the time, and i n d i v i d u a l -i z e d study 3 0 percent of the time. Arthur Stevenson Elementary School: The grouping and scheduling of the t h i r d and f o u r t h year team at Arthur Stevenson School, Westsyde, was very f l e x i b l e . During the year 1969-1970, 135 students were assigned t o the 4 teacher team on the b a s i s of age and reading a b i l i t y . I n d i v i d u a l i z e d study was used about 60 percent of the time. Small group i n s t r u c t i o n was used f o r about 20 percent of the time. These groups v a r i e d i n s i z e from 5-10 p u p i l s and were used i n r e a d i n g , a r i t h m e t i c and c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g . Large group i n s t r u c t i o n was used f o r 2 0 percent of the time wi t h about 5 0 - 6 5 p u p i l s i n the group. The team found t h i s type of grouping u s e f u l f o r music, p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n , h e a l t h , phonics, c u r s i v e w r i t i n g , a r t and a r i t h m e t i c . Groups were changed f o r each s u b j e c t d a i l y . W i t h i n s u b j e c t groups, changes were made on the b a s i s of t e s t r e s u l t s , s o c i a l needs or i n t e r e s t . A p u p i l c o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , be i n a d i f f e r e n t group f o r a r i t h m e t i c , s c i e n c e and r e a d i n g . I t was a l s o l i k e l y t h a t he would be with another group of c h i l d r e n the next day. The time t a b l e used by the team i s shown below. I t was a l t e r e d from day t o day as the t e a c h e r s changed t h e i r programme. S p i r i t d u p l i c a t e d c o p i e s , t h a t c o u l d e a s i l y be f i l l e d i n , were run o f f . The person named at the top of the time t a b l e s u p e r v i s e d entrance and e x i t of the c h i l d r e n , conducted opening e x e r c i s e s , made announcements and conducted p e r i o d i c movements f o r one week. A t y p i c a l time t a b l e f o r one day i s o u t l i n e d . Monday, Date: S u p e r v i s i o n , Name: 9 : 0 0 Opening E x e r c i s e s (1 t e a c h e r , r e s t f r e e ) 9 : 1 0 O r a l F r e n c h — L a r g e Group (1 t e a c h e r , r e s t f r e e ) 9 : 2 0 Language A r t s — L a r g e Group (2 t e a c h e r s , 2 f r e e ) 9 : 3 0 Language A r t s — S m a l l Groups t e a c h e r s D a r e n t a i d p s — I n d i v i d u a l Work 1 4 t e a c h e r s , parent a i d e s s u p e r v i s e groups, or read with c h i l d r e n or mark). Some p u p i l s go t o the remedial c o n s u l t a n t . 1 0 : 3 0 Recess 1 0 : 4 5 A r i t h m e t i c — L a r g e Groups (2 t e a c h e r s , r e s t f r e e ) 1 1 : 0 0 A r i t h m e t i c — S m a l l Groups t e a c h e r s D a r e n t a i d e s ] — I n d i v i d u a l Work 1 4 t e a c n e r s , parent a i d e s ; 1 1 : 3 0 P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n — G i r l s (1 t e a c h e r ) M u s i c — B o y s (1 t e a c h e r , 2 f r e e ) 1 2 : 0 0 Lunch 1 : 0 0 S o c i a l S t u d i e s — L a r g e Groups (1 t e a c h e r ) — S m a l l Groups (3 t e a c h e r s and a i d e s ) 2 : 0 0 A r t — W h o l e c l a s s (3 t e a c h e r s , 1 f r e e ) 2 : 5 0 M u s i c — G i r l s (1 t e a c h e r ) P h y s i c a l Education--Boys (1 t e a c h e r , 2 f r e e ) F r a s e r Lake Elementary Junior-Secondary School: F r a s e r Lake School r e p o r t e d a team of 100 second and t h i r d year students i n 1968-1969. I t i n c l u d e d t h r e e t e a c h e r s , a Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y student and one t e a c h e r a i d e . Large groups, s m a l l groups and i n d i v i d u a l study were used. The students were d i v i d e d i n t o t e n groups of 10-12 students. Groups v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o s u b j e c t area, need, i n t e r e s t and a b i l i t y . A t y p i c a l day's schedule i s shown below. Teacher X Teacher Y Teacher Z I n t e r n Teacher Aide 9 - 9 : 0 5 R o l l C a l l 9 : 0 5 - 9 : 2 5 Group A Reading 9 : 2 5 - 9 : 4 5 Group D,E S t o r y Ap-p r e c i a t i o n I n t r o d u c -t i o n t o S i l e n t Reading R o l l C a l l R o l l C a l l R o l l C a l l R o l l C a l l Group B Reading Gr. H ; I , J C r e a t i v e W r i t i n g Gr. D,E,F C r e a t i v e W r i t i n g Group F Reading Group C Reading Group G Reading Gr. G,H,I Independent Work (Supervise) Gr. A,B,C Independent Study 9:45-10:05 Group H Reading 10:05-10:20 Group I Reading Group J Reading Gr. A,B,C C r e a t i v e W r i t i n g W r i t i n g P r i n t i n g T h i r d Year Second Primary Year Primary I n d i v i d u a l Observing I n s t r u c -t i o n Gr. D,E,F,E Independent Study Organize m a t e r i a l f o r A r i t h m e t i c 10:20-10:30 A l l t e a c h e r s mark and h e l p students complete r e a d i n g work 1 0 : 4 5 - 1 H 0 5 11:05-11:25 Large group P r e p a r a t i o n T h i r d Year Primary l e s s o n on Time i n t r o d u c -t i o n t o number sentence Guided a c t i v i t y p e r i o d 11:25-12 Large group f o r music i n music room 1:00-1:20 Group I , J work on no v e l Group A,F t o l i b r a r y t o r e s e a r c h s t o r y A s s i s t i n guided a c t i v i t y A r i t h m e t i c work at r o t a t i n g s t a t i o n s 10:45-11:25 Planning p e r i o d . I n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n on some days Set up SRA Set up NPR Group G,H Group D,E Phonics l e s s o n Group C Set out mater-i a l f o r A r i t h m e t i c a c t i v i t y p e r i o d Set up new b u l l e t i n board A s s i s t w i t h s t u d i e s and m a t e r i a l s Supervise Group on l i s t e n i n g c e n t r e Group 1:20-1:40 1:00-34.0 1:40-2:00 I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c -t i o n (Remedial) Planning P e r i o d I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c -t i o n (Remedial) Phonics Group B Introduce and show f i l m Group C Set up p r o j e c t Prepare Art m a t e r i a l s 2-2:20, 2:20-2:40, 2:40-3:00 Group A Group D Art p r o j e c t Seminar A s s i s t with Seminar Seminar r e l a t e d t o on F i l m Art on f i l m on f i l m f i l m Group G m a t e r i a l Group B Group E Group H Group C Group F Group I H i l l c r e s t Elementary School: In 1967-1968, H i l l c r e s t S chool, Coquitlam, had a team of 73 Grade 5 students and 2 t e a c h e r s . At the beginning of the term a S t a n f o r d Achievement Test was a d m i n i s t e r e d f o r the purpose of d i v i d i n g the p u p i l s i n t o groups. On the b a s i s of t e s t r e s u l t s , the team was d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e major groups. Language a r t s and a r i t h m e t i c were taught u s i n g these s m a l l groups. The l a r g e s t o f the groups was the b r i g h t e s t . These p u p i l s d i d not need as much i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n , they c o u l d work f a s t e r and do more i n a g i v e n l e n g t h of time. Membership i n the groups v a r i e d throughout the year. A l l other s u b j e c t s were taught t o the team as a whole. While one t e a c h e r was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the l e s s o n p r e s e n t a t i o n , a l l t e a c h e r s were i n v o l v e d i n the f o l l o w - u p a c t i v i t i e s . At times the whole c l a s s d i d the same fol l o w - u p a c t i v i t y , w h i le at other times the a c t i v i t i e s v a r i e d t o meet the needs of p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d r e n . Lonsdale Elementary School: Lonsdale School, North Vancouver, had, i n 1970-1971, a Language A r t s Team i n c l u d i n g 70 Grade 4 and 5 p u p i l s , 2 t e a c h e r s and 8 a i d e s . The e n t i r e group of c h i l d r e n was t e s t e d at the beginning of the year and d i v i d e d i n t o 7 groups a c c o r d i n g t o r e a d i n g grade sco r e . These groups were r a r e l y changed. The groups of 8-12 students worked at 7 d i f f e r e n t s t a t i o n s and r o t a t e d every Monday and Wednesday. The f o l l o w i n g s t a t i o n s were used: 1. L i s t e n i n g Post 2. Phonics 3. Reading Comprehension 4. Free Reading 5. L i b r a r y Research 6. C r e a t i v e W r i t i n g 7. S.R.A. Diiring the year the s t a t i o n s were changed so t h a t at some time they i n c l u d e d n o v e l d i s c u s s i o n s and r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s . Team Planning To be s u c c e s s f u l , a t e a c h i n g team must c o l l a b o r a t e , communicate and cooperate. Reports from s c h o o l s u s i n g the c e n t r e around j o i n t p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s . Such s e s s i o n s p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r open communication and o p e r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s which are mutually a c c e p t a b l e t o the p a r t i c i p a t i n g s t a f f . A l l team members should p a r t i c i p a t e i n p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s r e g a r d l e s s of the nature of t h e i r d u t i e s f o r "the s t r e n g t h of the programme l i e s l a r g e l y i n the endeavour of 8 l a l l f o r e x c e l l e n c e . " Planning f o r team t e a c h i n g i s no d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of any other t e a c h i n g as f a r as the b a s i c elements are concerned, but i s more complex. Inglow p o i n t s out t h a t team t e a c h e r s , of n e c e s s i t y , have t o operate a c r o s s a more ex t e n s i v e range of c u r r i c u l u m decision-making than do t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n more c o n v e n t i o n a l o r g a n i -z a t i o n a l arrangements. In v a r i o u s degrees they have to d i s c o v e r the u n d e r l y i n g r a t i o n a l e of the c u r r i c u l u m . . . and, because of the s o c i a l - p r o f e s s i o n a l nature of a team group, s e l f - j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a g i v e n p l a n of c u r r i c u l u m a c t i o n i s u s u a l l y not enough; the p l a n more o f t e n than not, has t o meet the c o l l e c t i v e a p p r o v a l of the group.°2 Short-term and long-term p l a n n i n g a r e , t h e r e f o r e , e s s e n t i a l . I n t e g r a t i o n of separate p r e s e n t a t i o n s , o f t e n c r o s s i n g sub-j e c t area l i n e s , i s a must f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n . The team has t o decide the what, how and when of p r e s e n t a t i o n s as w e l l as who w i l l a c t u a l l y perform the v a r i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e s . Furthermore, the e f f o r t s of a p a r t i c u l a r team must complement 81 Lobb, op. c i t . , 24. 82 G a i l M. Inglow, The Emergent i n C u r r i c u l u m (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., i 9 6 0 ) , 290. and supplement the i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f o r t s of other teams i n the s c h o o l . G e n e r a l l y team plan n i n g tends t o focus on making o v e r a l l c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s , on s c h e d u l i n g , on d i s c u s s i n g s p e c i a l problems of s t u d e n t s , and on a s s e s s i n g and r e p o r t -i n g student p r o g r e s s . D e t a i l e d p l a n n i n g of i n d i v i d u a l l e s s o n s i s done by one or two members who s p e c i a l i z e i n each area. Whenever p o s s i b l e time i s set a s i d e d u r i n g s c h o o l hours f o r team p l a n n i n g . S h a p l i n p o i n t s out, however, t h a t j o i n t p l a n n i n g and the development of new t e a c h i n g techniques and d e v i c e s i s very time-consuming. As a r e s u l t , t e a c h e r s 83 o f t e n become overwhelmed by the i n c r e a s e d work l o a d . J Examples of Team Pla n n i n g i n the United S t a t e s In the F r a n k l i n School the p r i n c i p a l and the t h r e e team l e a d e r s c o n s t i t u t e the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c a b i n e t which c o o r d i n a t e s s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s . The s e n i o r t e a c h e r s j o i n t h i s group i n an i n s t r u c t i o n a l c a b i n e t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r school-wide c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n i n g . Classroom work i n each team i s planned j o i n t l y by a l l team members under the l e a d e r -s h i p of the team l e a d e r and s e n i o r t e a c h e r . ."'Time i s found f o r p l a n n i n g by t a k i n g advantage of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s p r o v i d e d through the presence of s p e c i a l i s t s and c l e r i c a l ^ S h a p l i n , "Team Teaching." op. c i t . , 70. g 4 S e e F i g u r e 24-of l a r g e group l e s s o n s and the c r e a t i o n of fewer groups 85 than t e a c h e r s . v In the K l e i n School each t e a c h e r i s f r e e d from r e g u l a r classroom duty d a i l y , d u r i n g the time t h a t p u p i l s are i n l a r g e groups. " T h i s time i s u t i l i z e d t o p l a n team a c t i v i t i e s such as s e t t i n g up the s c i e n c e demonstrations, p r e p a r i n g a r t m a t e r i a l s , d u p l i c a t i n g m a t e r i a l s , or o b s e r v i n g the team i n a c t i o n f o r e v a l u a t i o n of s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y i n 86 p r o g r e s s . " Estabrook School has long range and weekly t o t a l - t e a m p l a n n i n g as w e l l as sub-team plan n i n g and 87 i n d i v i d u a l p l a n n i n g . Wheatley School, New York, meets on a formal b a s i s t h r e e p e r i o d s a week f o r "organized p l a n n i n g of the t e a c h i n g procedures, a r r a n g i n g f o r l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i -ences, f i l m showings and previewing, p l a n n i n g l a r g e group l e c t u r e s , p r e p a r i n g t e s t i n g programmes, e v a l u a t i n g and a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c i n g of p u p i l s , and s t u d y i n g new c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s . " ^ Examples of Team Planning i n B r i t i s h Columbia Team plann i n g i s an i n t e g r a l part of almost a l l teams surveyed i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Of the 143 t e a c h e r s 85 Anderson, Hagstrom and Robinson, op. c i t . , 80. 86 "The K l e i n Concept f o r Team Teaching and Continuous Progress i n E d u c a t i o n , " op. c i t . , 5. 87 B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . , 84-104. 88 E l i z a b e t h A. Simendinger, "Team Teaching i n S c i e n c e , " S c i e n c e Teacher, XXXIV (October, 1967), 50. responding, 75 or 55 percent s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r team met d a i l y f o r p l a n n i n g . Twenty-three t e a c h e r s or 16 percent s a i d meetings were h e l d once a week. Bi-weekly meetings were r e p o r t e d by 8 or 6 percent of the t e a c h e r s . Seven t e a c h e r s or 5 percent s a i d t h e i r team met t h r e e times a week. T h i r t y -two t e a c h e r s or 23 percent s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r teams met f o r p l a n n i n g when necessary. A m a j o r i t y of the t e a c h e r s , 94 or 6 6 p e r c e n t , had t o h o l d t h e i r p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s o u t s i d e s c h o o l hours. Sixty-one t e a c h e r s or 43 p e r c e n t , however, i n d i c a t e d t h a t they were able t o schedule meetings d u r i n g s c h o o l time. A combination of long-range and weekly p l a n -ning was used by most of the teams. One hundred and f o u r t e a c h e r s or 73 percent s t a t e d t h i s t o be so. The other main types of p l a n n i n g used were: weekly p l a n n i n g , monthly p l a n -n i n g , d a i l y p l a n n i n g , and p l a n n i n g by u n i t s . E i g h t y - t h r e e t e a c h e r s or 5& percent r e p o r t e d t h a t classroom work was planned j o i n t l y by a l l team members. S i x t y t e a c h e r s or 42 p e r c e n t , on the other hand, s a i d t h a t t h e i r team d i d not p l a n a l l classroom work j o i n t l y . Only 2 0 t e a c h e r s or 14 percent i n d i c a t e d t h a t students p a r t i c i p a t e d f r e q u e n t l y i n team p l a n n i n g . G e n e r a l l y each t e a c h e r planned h i s s u b j e c t s p e c i a l t y . Only 3 0 t e a c h e r s or 21 percent of the sample s t a t e d t h i s not t o be the case. In j u s t over h a l f of the teams the p r i n c i p a l attended p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s "sometimes." In the teams of 25 percent of the t e a c h e r s he always attended and i n 1 9 percent of the r e p o r t s he never attended. Most of the team p l a n n i n g time was r e p o r t e d as being devoted t o d i s -c u s s i n g the s p e c i a l problems of students. T h i s was closely-f o l l o w e d by the amount of time devoted t o o v e r a l l c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s and p u p i l e v a l u a t i o n . The s m a l l e s t percentage of time was devoted t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e concerns. At John Tod School, Kamloops, planning meetings were h e l d i n the e a r l y morning before s c h o o l , at r e c e s s , at noon, a f t e r s c h o o l and on the weekends. Of the f o u r teams at t h i s s c h o o l , one team worked i n a t o t a l - t e a m p l a n n i n g s i t u a t i o n a l l y ear w i t h great success. Another team worked q u i t e c l o s e l y t o g e t h e r i n team p l a n n i n g but worked i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y i n more i s o l a t i o n . The t h i r d team d i d some team plan n i n g but i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y worked i n i s o l a t i o n except f o r d a i l y r e -grouping i n language a r t s . The f o u r t h team had great d i f -f i c u l t y i n plan n i n g t o g e t h e r and v i r t u a l l y e x i s t e d as a s e l f -c o n t ained classroom a l l year. W i t h i n each team some coopera-t i v e p l a n n i n g e x i s t e d between some of the t e a c h e r s of the team but not a l l of them. The team chairmen and the primary and i n t e r m e d i a t e c o o r d i n a t o r s were ab l e t o meet d u r i n g s c h o o l time through the use of a r e l i e f t e a c h e r . Groups of t e a c h e r s were a l s o r e l i e v e d o f t e a c h i n g d u t i e s p e r i o d i c a l l y so t h a t they c o u l d p l a n t o g e t h e r . Kent Elementary School, A g a s s i z , had i t s f o u r teams meet r e g u l a r l y i n sc h o o l time at l e a s t once a month wit h the p r i n c i p a l . During these meetings t e a c h e r s were i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n making process t h a t a f f e c t e d t h e i r teams. D e c i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t e d the whole s c h o o l had a forum at the s t a f f t e a h e l d once a month. Puntledge Park School, Courtenay, r e p o r t e d t h a t team pl a n n i n g s e s s i o n s took a great d e a l of the Intermediate Team's time. Each t e a c h e r i n the open area had f r e e p e r i o d s i n the week f o r planning or p r e p a r a t i o n . As o f t e n as p o s s i b l e , these p e r i o d s were backed o f f w i t h the " t e a c h i n g p a r t n e r " so t h a t day-to-day p l a n n i n g and checking c o u l d be c a r r i e d on. Teachers s t a t e d t h a t these s e s s i o n s added great f l e x i b i l i t y t o the programmes because the p a r t n e r s had time t o evaluate the assignments t o g e t h e r and decide whether the programme was s u c c e s s f u l or i f changes were necessary. Often times when the work l o a d became too heavy i t was necessary f o r the t e a c h i n g p a r t n e r s t o meet i n the evening or on weekends. In planning, the uni>t approach was g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w e d i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e . In language a r t s and a r i t h m e t i c students worked at t h e i r own r a t e so t h e r e was l i t t l e ' co-o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g although t e a c h e r s c o n s t a n t l y d i s c u s s e d the development of each p u p i l . Throughout the year the nine t e a c h e r s on the team met each F r i d a y a f t e r n o o n from 2 - 4 p.m. .to r e f l e c t on the week's work, look at s p e c i f i c problems, hear s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h i n g techniques and plan f u t u r e team ventures. Large-group a c t i v i t i e s were s u p e r v i s e d by an i n t e r n and a t e a c h e r aide during t h i s time. The e n t i r e team or some team members a l s o met as needed at one another's home i n the evening throughout the year t o d i s c u s s more important plans or problems encountered. U s u a l l y these meetings were at l e a s t two hours l o n g . Seymour Elementary School, Vancouver, i n d i c a t e d t h a t p l a n n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n s e s s i o n s took p l a c e f r e q u e n t l y . There was d a i l y c o n s u l t a t i o n and at l e a s t one lengthy meeting a week. At Gordon Park School, Powell R i v e r , the whole sc h o o l meets f o r twenty minutes every two weeks t o c o o r d i n a t e programmes throughout the s c h o o l . The two primary teams and the t h r e e i n t e r m e d i a t e teams meet s e p a r a t e l y with t h e i r co-o r d i n a t o r s once a week t o p l a n programmes f o r t h e i r pod. Teams meet d a i l y t o c o o r d i n a t e the next day's a c t i v i t i e s . A l l p u p i l s i n a team u s u a l l y take s o c i a l s t u d i e s , s c i e n c e and a r t at the same time. A l l t e a c h e r s t e a c h these l e s s o n s but one team member plans them. I n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r s u s u a l l y p l a n and teach music and p h y s i c a l education. The suggested aim f o r the s c h o o l i s : "No one programme can be s u i t a b l e f o r every c h i l d . " Since s p e c i f i c schedules are prepared d a i l y only g e n e r a l l e s s o n o u t l i n e s are time t a b l e d . An example of the Team E time t a b l e f o r p u p i l s i n year one i s g i v e n on the next page. School F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment Space Requirement f o r Team Teaching Any p l a n t h a t a f f e c t s the p u p i l - t e a c h e r r a t i o and the c u r r i c u l u m as team t e a c h i n g does i s very much dependent Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday F r i d a y 9 : 0 0 -9:15 Opening E x e r c i s e s 9:15 10:30 LANGUAGE ARTS RECESS 10:45 11:05 SCIENCE ARITHMETIC 11:05-11:20 PRINTING 11:20-12:00 MUSIC NOON HOUR 1 :00-1:20 STORY AND SHARING TIME 1:20-1:45 LANGUAGE ARTS ART 1:45-2:30 3:00 P.E. Art Science and . , . ^*-~A S o c i a l r e l a t e d c*. a c t i v i t i e s S t u d i e s P.E. Art P.E. F i g u r e 34 Time Table f o r Team E Gordon Park Elementary School, 1970-1971 designed t o meet the requirements of team t e a c h i n g . In f a c t , some educators b e l i e v e i t i s best t o postpone e n t r y i n t o a team t e a c h i n g programme u n t i l adequate f a c i l i t i e s are a v a i l a b l e . M i t c h e l l s t a t e s t h a t "schools which wish to use e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s f o r c o o p e r a t i v e programmes of i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l have some d i f f i c u l t y modifying them. The r e s u l t s w i l l not be as good as a b u i l d i n g designed from s c r a t c h , but i t 89 i s p o s s i b l e t o operate such programmes." Lobb adds t h a t "although an unfavourable environment does not prevent s c h o o l s from becoming i n v o l v e d i n team t e a c h i n g i t can l e a d on t o s e r i o u s f r u s t r a t i o n . " When c o n s t r u c t i n g or a l t e r i n g a b u i l d i n g f o r team t e a c h i n g two d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s of t h i s type of o r g a n i z a -91 t i o n must be r e c o g n i z e d . F i r s t , the need t o group and r e -group p u p i l s f r e q u e n t l y must be c o n s i d e r e d . Second, the emphasis on more e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n of personnel neces-s i t a t e s space f o r the i n d i v i d u a l and the team t o c o n f e r , p l a n and study. Furthermore, i f the programme i s t o shape the b u i l d i n g r a t h e r than v i c e v e r s a , space must be f l e x i b l e — e x p a n s i b l e , c o n v e r t i b l e , v e r s a t i l e and m a l l e a b l e . B a i r and Woodward s t a t e t h a t team t e a c h i n g w i l l be f a c i l i t a t e d i f 89 ^Donald P. M i t c h e l l , "Housing Cooperative Teaching Programs," The N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 52. 90 Lobb, op. c i t . , 12. 91 , B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . , 36. - accommodate groups of v a r i o u s s i z e s , from one or two p u p i l s t o s e v e r a l hundred; - permit frequent change of group s i z e with minimum l o s s of time between i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ; - p r o v i d e a "home base" f o r each p u p i l t o study, f o r storage of p e r s o n a l s u p p l i e s and books; - p r o v i d e a "home base" f o r each t e a c h e r where he can study, p l a n , c o n f e r , and develop i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s alone, i n s m a l l groups, and with t o t a l t earns; - make immediately a v a i l a b l e whatever t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g a i d s may be r e q u i r e d i n any space by t e a c h e r s or p u p i l s ; - p r o v i d e an i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e source centre f o r te a c h e r s and p u p i l s , i n c l u d i n g the l a t e s t technology and developments f a c i l i t a t i n g independent and smal l group study; - a l l o w f o r the proper a c c o u s t i c a l s o l u t i o n of the problems of s e p a r a t i o n of sound and of adequate sound d i s t r i b u t i o n and i n t e n s i t y . 9 2 These concepts are summarized by Chamberlin i n the f o l l o w i n g f i g u r e . S p e c i a l i z e d team t e a c h i n g space has c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s . Large group i n s t r u c t i o n areas have c a p a c i t i e s rang-i n g from s e v e r a l classrooms of p u p i l s t o the t o t a l team or whole s c h o o l . They may have t i e r e d f l o o r s or f l a t f l o o r s ; some are d i v i s i b l e and some are not. P r o v i s i o n s are u s u a l l y made f o r proper s i g h t l i n e s and c o r r e c t a c o u s t i c a l and v e n t i l a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s f o r a l l types of p r o j e c t i o n , t e l e -v i s i o n , l e c t u r e s , demonstrations and panel d i s c u s s i o n s . Classrooms of c o n v e n t i o n a l s i z e serve 25 t o 35 p u p i l s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes and i n some cases as home base. They I b i d . , 38-39- Als o see C y r i l G. Sargent, "The O r g a n i z a t i o n of Space," i n S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t , , 216-222. Flexible Teoching Areos F i g u r e 3 5 ^ F l e x i b l e Teaching Areas are f r e q u e n t l y equipped with movable d i v i d e r s t o permit t h e i r use f o r sm a l l group seminar a c t i v i t i e s . They u s u a l l y have movable f u r n i t u r e and blackboards. Most recent team t e a c h i n g s c h o o l s have c r e a t e d permanent seminar rooms. These range i n s i z e 200 t o 400 square f e e t and serve such s p e c i a l i z e d f u n c t i o n s as a r t , s c i e n c e , c o u n s e l l i n g , t e s t i n g , music r e h e a r s a l s and remedial i n s t r u c t i o n . Often seminar space i s obtained by d i v i d i n g other space. Space p r o v i d i n g f o r i n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l l i n g and independent study has been achieved through e f f e c t i v e use of l a r g e space, movable __ f u r n i t u r e and c a r r e l s . I t u s u a l l y i n c l u d e s the p o s s i b i l i t y of both i n d i v i d u a l and s m a l l group l i s t e n i n g and viewing of tapes, r e c o r d s , f i l m s t r i p s , c a r t r i d g e f i l m s and programmed m a t e r i a l s . The i n s t r u c t i o n a l media centre of the s c h o o l contains a l l a u d i o - v i s u a l a i d s and a good s c h o o l l i b r a r y . I t a l s o i n c l u d e s i n d i v i d u a l study spaces; i n d i v i d u a l and group l i s t e n i n g , r e c o r d i n g and previewing s t a t i o n s ; s m a l l group conference space; storage space; and c e n t r a l c o n t r o l 95 room f o r mechanical and e l e c t r o n i c equipment. The team o f f i c e p r o v i d e s a home base f o r t e a c h e r s . I t i n c l u d e s desks, storage space, s u p p l i e s , m a t e r i a l s , b u l l e t i n boards B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . , . 95 "Tor and e x c e l l e n t d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l media centre see Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 83-91. F i g u r e 37 Flowing Wells Elementary School, Tucson, A r i z o n a and f i l e s . Here t e a c h e r s , as i n d i v i d u a l s , i n s m a l l groups, or as a t o t a l team, c a r r y on p l a n n i n g , p r e p a r a t i o n o f mater-i a l s , e v a l u a t i o n , c o n f e r r i n g with t e a c h e r s , parents and p u p i l s . In the Flowing Wells Elementary School the team planning centre forms the hub. 96 Arthur W. Lalime, "Elementary School Designed f o r Team Teaching," A u d i o v i s u a l I n s t r u c t i o n , VII (October, 1962), 541. F i g u r e 3 8 9 7 C h a r t w e l l Elementary School, West Vancouver "'"Fashioned f o r Freedom: C h a r t w e l l S c h o o l , " The  B r i t i s h Columbia School T r u s t e e , XXIV, No. 4 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 7 3 -98 Naramake S c h o o l : 7 Naramake School i n Norwalk, C o n n e c t i c u t , i s a s i n g l e l e v e l b u i l d i n g with t h r e e i n s t r u c t i o n a l c l u s t e r s a l o n g one s i d e of a c o r r i d o r . On the opposite s i d e are the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s u i t e , the l i b r a r y and auditorium-gymnasium-c a f e t e r i a , and the u s u a l s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s . At one end are INSTRUCTIONAL AREA B r-Teacherl Speciall , Prep 1 Instr tr|l 1 1 1 II 1 T m LIBRARY RESOURCE CENTER Inst -Sto AUDITORIUM GYMNASIUM CAFETERIA 4 F i g u r e 3 9 "99 F l o o r Plan of Naramake Elementary School, Norwalk, Connecticut 98 Arthur Lalime, op. c i t . , a l s o see B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . , 52. two k i n d e r g a r t e n rooms. The c l u s t e r arrangement p r o v i d e s each with s i x i r r e g u l a r shaped classrooms, a s m a l l t e a c h e r -p r e p a r a t i o n a r e a , and a s m a l l s p e c i a l - i n s t r u c t i o n a r ea. One of the r e g u l a r classrooms i s equipped at one end with s p e c i a l f a c i l i t i e s f o r a r t , while another i s equipped f o r s c i e n c e . Between each p a i r of rooms i s a movable p a r t i t i o n . Each classroom has one overhead p r o j e c t o r and one pull-down s c r e e n . F i v e - f o o t r e a r screen s u r f a c e s i n two of the classrooms house behind them a motion p i c t u r e p r o j e c t o r , s l i d e p r o j e c t o r and F i g u r e 40 .100 I n s t r u c t i o n a l C l u s t e r at Naramake Elementary School, Norwalk, Connecticut B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . f i l m s t r i p p r o j e c t o r . Each c l u s t e r a l s o has 72 audio t e a c h i n g booths t h a t can be converted i n t o r e g u l a r classroom desks. A s c i e n c e demonstration t a b l e i n each c l u s t e r can be moved from room t o room. Estabrook S c h o o l : 1 ^ The Estabrook School i n Lexington, Massachusettes, i s a o n e - l e v e l , s l a n t e d T-shaped b u i l d i n g . The base of the T c o n t a i n s the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a r e a , team o f f i c e s and work area, a resource c e n t r e , a l a r g e playroom w i t h a stage, t h r e e double classrooms, two of which have movable d i v i d e r s , and a k i t c h e n . At the apex of the T i s a t i e r e d l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n room. To i t s r e a r are l o c a t e d s i x s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n rooms. Two r e g u l a r classrooms on each s i d e of the l a r g e group area can be d i v i d e d i n t h i r d s by p a r t i t i o n s which provide only v i s u a l i s o l a t i o n . Beyond these rooms are eight r e g u l a r s i z e d classrooms. Other types of p r o v i s i o n s are e x t r a c o n d u i t s , multi-purpose spaces, equipment and f u r n i t u r e t o permit maximum use by d i f f e r e n t - s i z e d p u p i l s . 102 Dundee School: The Dundee School i n Greenwich, C o n n e c t i c u t , i s a t h r e e - l e v e l s t r u c t u r e . The i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l houses the spaces f o r large-group a c t i v i t i e s as w e l l as the l i b r a r y , the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s u i t e , and the g y m - c a f e t e r i a . The lower l e v e l i s devoted t o r a t h e r c o n v e n t i o n a l spaces f o r k i n d e r -1 0 1 B a i r and Woodward, o p . c i t . , 5 1 - 5 2 . A l s o see S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 234-237. B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . , 5 0 - 5 1 . F i g u r e 4 1 1 0 3 F l o o r Plan of Joseph Estabrook Elementary School Lexington, Massachusettes F i g u r e 42 * F l o o r Plan of Dundee Elementary School, Greenwich, Connecticut g a r t e n and f i r s t - g r a d e c h i l d r e n , with the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r g r a d u a l i n t r o d u c t i o n . o f simple grouping. The upper l e v e l houses the team headquarters and f o u r adjacent s m a l l group rooms, two of them equipped w i t h c a r r e l s . Located on e i t h e r s i d e of t h i s area are room f o r seven medium-sized groups, two of which can be d i v i d e d i n h a l f , and s i x of which have movable w a l l s p e r m i t t i n g them t o be combined t o form t h r e e l a r g e r a r e a s . The a u d i o - v i s u a l f a c i l i t i e s i n c l u d e f a c i l i -t i e s f o r viewing o p en—and c l o s e d — c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n i n Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 102. every a r e a . F u r n i t u r e design and wall-hung chalkboards, t a c k b o a r d s , and pegboards f a c i l i t a t e maximum u t i l i t y . 105 Nelson S. Dilworth School: y The Di l w o r t h Elementary School i n San Jose, C a l i f o r n i a , comprehends f i v e separate u n i t s . They a r e : k i n d e r g a r t e n s u i t e , two classroom wings, the m u l t i -use a r e a , and the combination a d m i n i s t r a t i o n - l i b r a r y - B i g Room. Open covered walkways accommodate p u p i l c i r c u l a t i o n between the v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s . Space throughout the b u i l d i n g s i s c o n v e r t i b l e . Of the 20 classrooms, e i g h t can be changed i n t o f o u r t e a c h i n g spaces f o r from 50 t o 80 p u p i l s by r e -t r a c t i n g l i g h t w e i g h t movable p a r t i t i o n s . Various l a r g e r rooms at the centre of the b u i l d i n g have a d j o i n i n g s m a l l e r rooms wit h which they may be j o i n e d . Examples are the l i b r a r y and the mul t i - u s e area. The B i g Room i s a t e a c h i n g arena t h a t i s the space e q u i v a l e n t of f o u r r e g u l a r - s i z e d rooms. I t has no p a r t i t i o n s or other v i s u a l sound b a r r i e r s , and i s f u l l y c arpeted. The s c h o o l ' s resource c e n t r e , l o c a t e d adjacent t o the l i b r a r y , a u d i o - v i s u a l room, and i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s t o r a g e , i s used f o r s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l space i s a v a i l a b l e i n the sunken a c t i v i t y a r e a of the covered c o u r t . T h i s i s a l s o the s c h o o l ' s s o c i a l c e n t r e . 105 " C a l i f o r n i a Elementary School Drops out Non-t e a c h i n g Space," The Nation's Schools, LXXII (November, 1963), 52-55. : classroom < classroom classroom • c adj. remed • covered corridors CON.Jl'kin S- I adj. 1 rem.' study court 1 inst. • matrl. n. o sml. | grp. I _i N. S T_J' .. • -a t.% ... library..' v I V •• learning arena (the big room) b.id e r a planter I I I I •• planter | | M J . classroom n kindergarten F. kindergarten 1^ / J - J L , F i g u r e 43 106 F l o o r Plan of D i l w o r t h Elementary School, San Jose, C a l i f o r n i a 107 Parkway Elementary School: Parkway Elementary School i n Parkway, Montana, i s b u i l t with t h r e e u n i t s each c o n t a i n i n g f o u r classrooms around a "n u c l e u s . " The nucleus i n v i t e s t r a f f i c from the f o u r rooms and i s a common space f o r t e a c h e r s and st u d e n t s . Large c l a s s e s are taught i n a double classroom, normal-sized c l a s s e s i n the remaining classrooms, and s m a l l groups i n the nucleus. The nucleus i s used f o r s t o r a g e , t e a c h e r p l a n n i n g and conferences. 106 T, . . c. I b i d . , 54. 107 L e s t e r C. Haekel, " F a c i l i t i e s f o r Elementary Team Teaching," American School Board J o u r n a l , CXLVI (January, 1963), 27-2W. IDS F i g u r e 44 The Nucleus and F l o o r P l a n of Parkway Elementary School, Parkway, Montana 1 0 8 i b i d . West D i s t r i c t School .109 West D i s t r i c t Elementary School, Farmington, C o n n e c t i c u t , has a c a p a c i t y of 640 students from k i n d e r g a r t e n t o grade s i x . The b u i l d i n g i s not planned f o r expansion. Each of the f o u r rooms i n a c l u s t e r can be used s e p a r a t e l y f o r groups of 25 t o 30 students. Double rooms w i t h the p a r t i t i o n f o l d e d , accommodate l a r g e groups of 100 t o 120 p u p i l s . C o r r i d o r space doubles as a c e n t r a l p r o j e c t COURT 2 c 3 I ^ 1 JAN. BOYS n n n c CLASSROOM PROJECT AREA ' ~ r o - 1 F i g u r e 45 110 F l o o r Plan of West D i s t r i c t Elementary S c h o o l , Farmington, Connecticut area w i t h c o u n t e r s , s i n k s , e a s e l s , chalkboard, storage and 109 " A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Guide t o Team Teaching," E d u c a t i o n D i g e s t , XXIX (September, 1963), 32-33. ^ " ^ B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . d i s p l a y space. There are s m a l l rooms adjacent t o a c e n t r a l c o u r t . Classrooms have t i l t screens and o u t l e t s f o r open-or c l o s e d - t e l e v i s i o n . Examples of Team Teaching F a c i l i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia American l i t e r a t u r e does not i n d i c a t e how many teams operate i n such adequate f a c i l i t i e s as those d e s c r i b e d . In B r i t i s h Columbia, however, the author's survey f i n d i n g s r e v e a l t h a t 65 or 77 percent of the s c h o o l s t h a t responded c a r r i e d on t h e i r team t e a c h i n g i n open areas. Double or l a r g e classrooms were used by 12 or 15 percent of the s c h o o l s . Regular classrooms were used by 8 or 10 percent of the s c h o o l s . In g e n e r a l , p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s were r e p o r t e d t o be adequate by 65 or 46 percent of the team t e a c h e r s s u r -veyed. Nine t e a c h e r s or 7 percent s t a t e d t h a t they were more than adequate. T h i r t y - s i x t e a c h e r s or 26 percent s a i d t h a t p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s f o r t h e i r team were b a r e l y adequate. Inadequate f a c i l i t i e s were r e p o r t e d by 33 or 23 percent of the t e a c h e r s . The m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s s a i d t h a t l a r g e group f a c i l i t i e s were adequate. Approximately 33 percent of the t e a c h e r s , however, i n d i c a t e d t h a t they were inadequate or b a r e l y adequate. Open a r e a s , a c t i v i t y rooms, lunchrooms and r e g u l a r classrooms were used f o r l a r g e group a c t i v i t i e s . F a c i l i t i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l study were r e p o r t e d t o be inade-quate or b a r e l y adequate by about 70 percent of the t e a c h e r s . Only 27 percent s a i d t h a t they had adequate or good f a c i l i t i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l study. Planning areas f o r team t e a c h i n g were adequate i n the teams of 71 or 50 percent o f the t e a c h e r s . F o r t y - f i v e t e a c h e r s or 32 percent r e p o r t e d t h a t these areas were inadequate. F a c i l i t i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r or p a r e n t - t e a c h e r conferences were adequate i n the case of 54 t e a c h e r s or 3 8 percent of the sample. F i f t y - t w o t e a c h e r s or 37 percent, on the other hand, s t a t e d t h a t they were inadequate. O p p o r t u n i t i e s t o vary the s i z e of l e a r n i n g areas were found t o be non e x i s t e n t i n the case of 4 9 or 35 percent of the t e a c h e r s . Moreover, 67 or 47 percent of the t e a c h e r s s a i d they had very few such o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Only 27 t e a c h e r s or 19 percent r e p o r t e d t h a t they had many o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o vary the s i z e o f l e a r n i n g areas by the use of movable p a r t i t i o n s , c u r t a i n s or f u r n i t u r e . When asked t o s t a t e what the g r e a t e s t need of the s c h o o l was, 62 t e a c h e r s or 44 percent s a i d s m a l l group areas and 69 t e a c h e r s or 4 9 percent s a i d f a c i l i t i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l study. Some team t e a c h e r s s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r t e a c h i n g was a i d e d by open areas, movable d i v i d e r s , easy access t o back-up a r e a s , easy access t o the res o u r c e cen t r e and good a c o u s t i c s . Others f e l t t h a t they were ham-pered by crowded f a c i l i t i e s , l a c k of open areas, l a c k of p o r t a b l e d i v i d e r s , l a c k of a resource c e n t r e , poor a c o u s t i c s , and l a c k of m a t e r i a l s and equipment. With these f a c t s i n mind, i t i s of value t o examine the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s o f a few r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Eagle Harbour Elementary School: Eagle Harbour School, West Vancouver, i s an open area s c h o o l composed of one l a r g e octagonal-shaped t e a c h i n g a r e a , an a c t i v i t y room wi t h a stage, a l i b r a r y , k i n d e r g a r t e n , s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n room or team p l a n n i n g a r e a , and an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e area. In the t e a c h i n g area t h e r e are two teams. The k i n d e r g a r t e n i s s e l f -c o n t a i n e d . Both areas are f u l l y carpeted. L i g h t , p o r t a b l e c h a i r s and t a b l e s a l l o w p u p i l s t o gather i n c l u s t e r s f o r d i s c u s s i o n . There are t e l e v i s i o n o u t l e t s i n the t e a c h i n g area. MacCorkindale Elementary School: MacCorkindale S c h o o l , Vancouver, has t h r e e open t e a c h i n g a r e a s , each h a n d l i n g f o u r " c l a s s e s " ; a c e n t r a l l y l o c a t e d l i b r a r y , p r o v i d i n g spaces f o r l e i s u r e r e a d i n g , group study and i n d i v i d u a l study; and a gymnasium-activity-lunchroom. Multi-purpose rooms f o r p u p i l s ' use i n c l u d e p r o j e c t o r s , tape r e c o r d e r s , l i s t e n i n g equipment and r e c o r d p l a y e r s . Areas f o r c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h e r p l a n n i n g and l e s s o n p r e p a r a t i o n are a l s o p r o v i d e d . There i s a "wet a r e a " w i t h a t i l e f l o o r and s i n k i n each of the t h r e e t e a c h -i n g u n i t s . Tote t r a y s , mobile t a b l e s and b l a c k b o a r d s , and c a r p e t s p r o v i d e f o r f l e x i b l e grouping. Science and a r t m a t e r i a l s can e a s i l y be t r a n s p o r t e d from the wet area t o any p a r t of the t e a c h i n g a r e a . Each c h i l d has a home base f o r books and p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s . One part of the l i b r a r y i s equipped w i t h t r a p e z o i d a l t a b l e s and p l a s t i c contour c h a i r s f o r f o r m a l t e a c h i n g . Another part of the l i b r a r y i s FLOOR P L A N »»«.» ' — , i t 111 Figure 46J Eagle Harbour Elementary School, West Vancouver, Floor Plan A "Eagle Harbour Primary School," The B r i t i s h  Columbia School Trustee, XXIII (Winter, 1967), 17. And" "Educational Trends and School Design," Kitimat Times, I I I , No. 1 (March 1, 1968). F i g u r e 4 7 " L X t Eagle Harbour Elementary School, West Vancouver, F l o o r Plan B 112 John C o l l i n s , "A Report t o the Langley-Maple Ridge Teachers' Convention," H a r r i s o n H o t e l , February 9, 196S. f u r n i s h e d w i t h low t a b l e s f o r independent r e a d i n g . W i t h i n the l i b r a r y , i s a completely enclosed room h o l d i n g audio-v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s and equipment. T h i s room i s a l s o used f o r conferences, s t a f f meetings and s m a l l group work. A s p e c i a l conference room a d j o i n s the main o f f i c e . Teachers i n t h i s s c h o o l r e p o r t e d t h a t the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s were adequate f o r team t e a c h i n g with the exc e p t i o n of those f o r i n d i v i d u a l study. They f e l t t h a t more " q u i e t " areas and study c a r r e l s were needed. The areas i n the diagram on the f o l l o w i n g page are numbered as f o l l o w s : 1. t e a c h i n g areas 2. u t i l i t y or wet areas 3 . l i b r a r y 4. multi-purpose room 5. k i n d e r g a r t e n 6. gymnasium-auditorium-lunchroom 7. main stage and music room 8. p u l l - o u t stage u n i t 9. c o u r t y a r d areas 10. outdoor stage 11. conference room 12. p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e 13. medical room 14. covered b l a c k t o p p l a y areas 15. open b l a c k t o p p l a y areas. Vancouver Board of School T r u s t e e s , T h i s i s MacCorkindale. Cypress Park Primary School: T h i s k i n d e r g a r t e n t o Grade 3 s c h o o l with 140 p u p i l s i s l o c a t e d i n West Vancouver. I t has f o u r hexagonal areas or pods opening i n t o a l a r g e c e n t r a l pod w i t h a l a r g e r a i s e d , c i r c u l a r p l a t f o r m e n c l o s e d by s h e l v i n g . T h i s area doubles as a l i b r a r y and t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n area. The c e n t r a l space a l s o c o n t a i n s a l a r g e hexagonal s c h o o l assembly and stage area. T h i s i s t h r e e f e e t lower than the classrooms thereby c r e a t i n g the e f f e c t o f a m i n i a t u r e t h e a t r e . Each classroom has an o u t s i d e door l e a d i n g d i r e c t l y t o the p l a y area. The ground i s hard-s u r f a c e d and can be used on f i n e days as e x t e r i o r i n s t r u c -t i o n a l space. Large mobile coat racks can be used t o shut o f f any pod from the o t h e r s . A l l f u r n i t u r e i s movable t o a l l o w any s i z e of grouping. Gold R i v e r Elementary School : ^ ^ T h i s elementary s c h o o l i n Gold R i v e r c o n s i s t s of f o u r hexagonal c l u s t e r s , each contain-i n g s i x classrooms. The classroom areas can be i n c r e a s e d by f o l d i n g back the w a l l s d i v i d i n g each room. Each classroom c l u s t e r c o n t a i n s i t s own r e s o u r c e c e n t r e , i n c l u d i n g a r e f e r -ence l i b r a r y , a u d i o - v i s u a l equipment, s u p p l i e s and team p l a n n i n g area. Classrooms are approached by o u t s i d e covered walkways. In a d d i t i o n t o the classrooms, one c l u s t e r 115 ^"How t o Break w i t h the P a s t , " School Progress (August, 1967), 30-32. " ^ " F o l d i n g Walls Used i n Newest S c h o o l , " Vancouver  Times (May 5, 1967), 7. : c o n t a i n s the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n area which i n c l u d e s a l i b r a r y , o f f i c e s , s t a f f room and medical room. C l e v e l a n d School Open Area: C l e v e l a n d Elementary School, North Vancouver, was b u i l t as a t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l , but a new wing was added i n 1967 f o r 90 t o 110 Grade 7 stu d e n t s . I t i s a l a r g e open area of about 6,000 square f e e t . The Science Room i s enc l o s e d , the l i b r a r y i s open t o the r e s t of the are a , but surrounded by low stands o f s h e l v e s . Some of the l i b r a r y s h e l v i n g u n i t s are p o r t a b l e . The a r e a , except f o r the Science Room and a smal l area near the entrance, i s carpeted. C o n s t r u c t i o n i s post and beam, and the space i s a i r y , with e x c e l l e n t l i g h t i n g . Three arms of the c r o s s shape are set up as c l a s s -rooms with chalkboards, overhead p r o j e c t i o n screens and t a c k -board. Students s i t on c h a i r s at f l a t - t o p p e d desks. Other equipment i n c l u d e s movable chalkboards and tackboards, movable r e a r p r o j e c t i o n movie u n i t , and a tape l e a r n i n g c e n t r e where students can s i t and l i s t e n t o tapes over earphones. T h i s tape u n i t can accommodate up t o 16 c h i l d r e n . I t i s a l s o used when s m a l l groups wish*.-a t o view a movie. They can hear the audio over the earphones, and have the screen so t h a t the f i l m w i l l not d i s t r a c t o t h ers i n the open ar e a . When movies are shown t o c l a s s - s i z e groups the Science Room i s used. A sketch p l a n o f the area f o l l o w s . I t i n c l u d e s these i n s t r u c t i o n a l a r e a s : O D O Pr?o jeers • ? V S c i e n c e fb ( 2 . « 3 - 3 L vU» twrs y * cf 3 w Hi I r 9 •3C. Bessie eoom F l o o r F i g u r e 49 Plan of the Open Area at C l e v e l a n d Elementary School, North Vancouver A. Study area (92 desks) B. Work area ( l a r g e t a b l e s ) C. C l a s s area (22 desks) D. C l a s s area (11 desks) E. L i s t e n i n g centre F. F i l m s t r i p p r o j e c t o r G. Study c a r r e l s (8) H. Resource centre F r a s e r Lake Elementary-Junior-Secondary School: T h i s i s a t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l w i t h one open area f o r a hundred second and t h i r d year students. T h i s area i n c l u d e s a d o u b l e - s i z e d classroom space, two seminar rooms, and a t e a c h e r ' s work room. The l a r g e area can be d i v i d e d by a f o l d i n g p a r t i t i o n . Small Group Z Small Group I n s t r u c t i o n ^ I n s t r u c t i o n Large Group I n s t r u c t i o n Seminar Teachers' Room Work Room Seminar Room F i g u r e 50 F l o o r Plan o f the Open Area at F r a s e r Lake School Kent Elementary School: Kent Elementary School, A g a s s i z , comprises f o u r t e e n t e a c h i n g s t a t i o n s . F i v e of these are i n the open area and nine are t r a d i t i o n a l classrooms. A l i b r a r y r e s o u r c e c e n t r e , an a u d i o - v i s u a l room and a gymnasium serve both types o f t e a c h i n g area. The open area i s adjacent t o the resource c e n t r e and a u d i o - v i s u a l room. A wide v a r i e t y of tape r e c o r d e r s , l i s t e n i n g p o s t s , r e c o r d p l a y e r s , f i l m s t r i p and s l i d e p r o j e c t o r s , opaque p r o j e c t o r , overhead pro-j e c t o r s and t e l e v i s i o n are a v a i l a b l e t o both s t a f f and students. Team t e a c h i n g i s c a r r i e d on i n both the open area and the CO CO £ CP 8 ~3 <t oj W <3£ I 3-. - 4. srtu CO a. d 15 tf GJ V a. oj I A. U 3. 4. s, 7. 8. 9. JO. il. U . 13. 14. I X U . 17. 18. 19... as. s. w. r. K. • Miss ! Hes Hi ss Miss Mi?. Co ehrsyie Guthnie. Woo Mi" tfGS. Gel.I I HR. Goebett j He. Peefcy . ! Hi S S Sid 11 ns ; Mes. Srti.th ! Mes. p f n i a y Libigfli?.y tPoelfisoo^ j Teacheic Pltxrm l a g A tea Aocif.o-VisuflL Vii.fi wins £OC<T> Off i <L£ j Stage | Gene-nal O f f i c e j S t a f f £ocm ; Macule R-1 : PeincipF»l*s O f f i c e - He. ' Furnace ! Ki tchen Figure 51 F l o o r Plan of Kent Elementary School, Agassiz t r a d i t i o n a l classrooms. Teachers i n t h i s s c h o o l f e l t t h a t the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s , with the e x c e p t i o n of storage space and s m a l l group areas, were adequate. Westview Elementary School: T h i s t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l i n North Vancouver c a r r i e d on team t e a c h i n g u s i n g the e x i s t i n g f a c i l -i t i e s . The team of t h r e e t e a c h e r s and 86 Grade 6-7 s t u d e n t s , used the a c t i v i t y room f o r l a r g e group meetings and t h r e e r e g u l a r classrooms f o r s m a l l e r group a c t i v i t i e s . P o r t a b l e c h a i r s and s m a l l t a b l e s were kept on the a c t i v i t y room stage when not i n use. Since the t h r e e classrooms and the a c t i v i t y room a d j o i n e d , movement from one room t o the other was q u i t e easy. Brooksbank Elementary School: T h i s open area s c h o o l i s l o c a t e d i n North Vancouver. I t began as a primary s c h o o l w i t h an e i g h t - s i d e d "pod" of 5 classrooms with washrooms i n the c e n t r e . In 1967 and 1968 two more pods were added. In these the centre of the pod remained empty f o r group a c t i v i t i e s and as an e x t e n s i o n of the l i b r a r y . A l l pods i n c l u d e a conference room and a t e a c h e r s ' resource c e n t r e . In one pod t h e r e i s a s c i e n c e and a l i b r a r y room. Another pod i n c l u d e s the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n area and the a c t i v i t y room. There are two s e l f - c o n t a i n e d c l a s s e s f o r the p u p i l s i n years 1 and 2. Much p o r t a b l e equipment such as s h e l v e s , tackboard and coat ra c k s i s i n evidence. F i g u r e 52 Brooksbank Elementary School, North Vancouver, F l o o r Plan A F i g u r e 53 Brooksbank Elementary School F l o o r Plan B P a r k s v i l l e Elementary School: T h i s elementary s c h o o l has one i n t e r m e d i a t e team of f i v e t e a c h e r s o p e r a t i n g i n a m o d i f i e d open area. The area i s overcrowded with 120 p u p i l s and f l e x i b i l i t y i s hampered because of l a c k of f a c i l i t i e s and c a r p e t s . The open area i n c l u d e s f o u r t e a c h i n g c e n t r e s only one of which i s c a r p e t e d . The other t h r e e c e n t r e s are t i l e d . Two of the t e a c h i n g areas are of average classroom s i z e and can be separated with a moving p a r t i t i o n . Teachers i n t h i s s c h o o l Carpet Area Washrooms Storage c CO crj 3s P a r t i t i o n —K crj co F i g u r e 54 Open Area at P a r k s v i l l e Elementary School, P a r k s v i l l e f e l t t h a t p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s were very inadequate. T h e i r g r e a t e s t need was f o r more space, i n g e n e r a l , t o r e l i e v e overcrowding. Small group areas and areas f o r i n d i v i d u a l study were a l s o needed. Lord S e l k i r k Annex B: .Lord S e l k i r k Annex B i s l o c a t e d i n Vancouver and e n r o l l s Grades 1 t o 3 and a k i n d e r g a r t e n . I t i s a t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l w i t h an open area and two s e l f -c o n t a i n e d classrooms on the second f l o o r . One team of f o u r Open Area 4 c l a s s e s (2nd & 3rd year) Wet Area \ L i b r a r y f \ H a l l S e l f - S e l f -c o n tained t N contained Classroom Classroom t \ F i r s t Year F i r s t Year 1 2 F i g u r e 5 5 Open Area at Lord S e l k i r k Annex B, Vancouver c l a s s e s i n years two and t h r e e use the open area. Another team of two c l a s s e s of f i r s t year students use the s e l f -c o n t ained classrooms. In the open area t h e r e i s a l i b r a r y and a wet area. Teachers s t a t e d t h a t f a c i l i t i e s f o r l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n were adequate. Back-up rooms and movable p a r t i t i o n s t o a i d s m a l l group and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n were, however, l a c k i n g . I t was a l s o f e l t t h a t the wet area was much too s m a l l . Another hindrance was the f a c t t h a t students had t o enter and e x i t , u s i n g t h r e e f l i g h t s of s t a i r s . Teachers i n t h i s area would very much l i k e i n d i v i d u a l or separate entrances. Team Teaching Hardware and Software In a d d i t i o n t o "space" team t e a c h i n g r e q u i r e s adequate equipment. Large group i n s t r u c t i o n areas should be equipped w i t h the necessary i n s t r u c t i o n a l media, such as overhead p r o j e c t o r s , blackout c u r t a i n s and so on. General r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s and s p e c i a l equipment and m a t e r i a l s are needed f o r independent study and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . However, these d e v i c e s are c o n s t r u c t i v e t e a c h i n g a i d s , not s u b s t i t u t e s f o r good t e a c h i n g . Chamberlin i n c l u d e s the 118 f o l l o w i n g items of hardware and software i n h i s summary. Hardware: p o r t a b l e chalkboards, computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n equipment; p o r t a b l e d i s p l a y boards; d u p l i c a t i n g and copying equipment; p o r t a b l e f l a n n e l boards; m i c r o f i l m and m i c r o f i c h e r e a d e r s ; previewer equipment, f i l m , f i & m s t r i p , s l i d e , p r o d u c t i o n equip-ment f o r both a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s ; p r o j e c t i o n screens; p o r t a b l e p u b l i c address system; r a d i o ; r e a d i n g equipment; r e m e d i a l , speed; r e c o r d p l a y e r ; tape r e c o r d e r s ; t e l e v i s i o n and kinescope. Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 103. I b i d . , 87-88. Software: charts, drawings, pictures, posters, study p r i n t s , cartoons; fil m s ; f i l m s t r i p s ; gaming a c t i v i t y materials; globes; i n s t r u c t i o n a l tapes; maps; micro-f i l m and microfiche i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials; pre-pared exhibits; records; reference and l i b r a r y materials; resource f i l e ; simulation a c t i v i t y materials; s l i d e s ; transparencies. Most of the schools described i n American l i t e r a t u r e were very well equipped with hardware and software. Of the 143 team teachers surveyed i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 75 or 53 percent stated that they had adequate l i b r a r y f a c i l i t i e s . F i f t e e n teachers said that these f a c i l i t i e s were more than adequate. The remainder of the teachers, 53 or 38 percent, reported inadequate or barely adequate l i b r a r y f a c i l i t i e s . Television was not used i n connection with team teaching by 6 l or 43 percent of the respondents. It was used by 71 teachers or 53 percent of the sample. Of those who used t e l e v i s i o n most used i t from 1 to 5 percent of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l time. The overhead projector was not used by 28 or 20 percent of the teachers. Seventy-three teachers or 51 percent, however, reported that they used i t f o r both large and small group i n s t r u c t i o n . Twenty-two or 16 percent of the teachers used i t only f o r large group i n s t r u c t i o n and 19 or 14 percent of them used i t only with small groups. Of those teachers who used the overhead projector, the majority stated that they employed i t approximately 10 to 35 percent of the i n s t r u c -t i o n a l time. The tape recorder was used for both large and small group i n s t r u c t i o n by 53 or 37 percent of the teachers. Seventy-two teachers or 51 percent used i t only f o r small group i n s t r u c t i o n . S i x t e a c h e r s or 5 percent used i t only f o r l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n . Only 12 te a c h e r s or 9 percent i n d i c a t e d t h a t they never made use of a tape r e c o r d e r . The m a j o r i t y of respondents used the tape r e c o r d e r 10 t o 25 percent of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l time. Movies were used f r e q u e n t l y by the teams of 57 percent of the t e a c h e r s . T h i r t y - e i g h t percent of the te a c h e r s s a i d movies were seldom used. F i v e percent s t a t e d they were never used. Teaching machines or programmed i n s t r u c t i o n were not used by 69 or 49 percent o f the t e a c h e r s . Twenty-nine t e a c h e r s or 21 percent, however, used these media i n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d study. Twenty-seven or 19 percent used them i n s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n and 16 or 12 percent used them i n both l a r g e and s m a l l group i n s t r u c -t i o n . The m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s who responded used t e a c h i n g machines or programmed i n s t r u c t i o n 15 t o 25 percent of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l time. T y p i c a l comments made by t e a c h e r s i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : - More programmed m a t e r i a l s are needed. - We are a t t a i n i n g more and more m a t e r i a l s a i d s so students may develop t h e i r i n t e r e s t s but too many e d u c a t i o n a l a i d s are d r a s t i c a l l y o v e r - p r i c e d . - As t h i s i s a f a i r l y new s c h o o l , commercial m a t e r i a l s were almost n i l and most m a t e r i a l s used had t o be made by the t e a c h e r s . - We need a l i s t e n i n g s t a t i o n f o r our room alone not t o be shared with other c l a s s e s i n the s c h o o l . - There are not n e a r l y enough m a t e r i a l a i d s . - We need e n c y c l o p e d i a s , n o v e l s and r e f e r e n c e books. - We have very few a u d i o - v i s u a l a i d s and those we have are shared with 18 other t e a c h e r s . - Our s c h o o l has been very f o r t u n a t e i n t h a t we have almost u n l i m i t e d access t o m a t e r i a l a i d s . - We have many p i c t u r e s , r e a d i n e s s games and c h a r t s . - We need c a s s e t t e s , f i l m s t r i p s , l e a r n i n g packages, games, f i l m loops and r e c o r d s . - We are f o r t u n a t e t o have an e x c e l l e n t resource c e n t r e w i t h f i l m s t r i p s t o r i e s , movies, tapes and r e c o r d s . The c h i l d r e n and s t a f f are ab l e t o use these. - We have the reso u r c e s but we are badly overcrowded. - We need many more of a l l the a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s . - More commercially made m a t e r i a l s would save v a l u a b l e t e a c h e r time. We c o u l d use s e l f - l e a r n i n g machines, f l a s h c a r d s , phonics games and other such a i d s . - We c o u l d use many more books f o r our abl e r e a d e r s . - Nearly a l l our t h i r d and f o u r t h year p u p i l s c o u l d run a movie p r o j e c t o r , and every c h i l d c o u l d operate a tape r e c o r d e r or f i l m s t r i p p r o j e c t o r . We had a s i x t e e n earphone study c e n t r e so t h a t p u p i l s could l i s t e n t o these t h i n g s , as w e l l as programmed l e a r n -i n g t apes. From these f a c t s and comments i t can be seen t h a t the a v a i l -a b i l i t y , as w e l l as the use of m a t e r i a l a i d s , v a r i e d g r e a t l y throughout the teams i n B r i t i s h Columbia. RESEARCH ON TEAM TEACHING The y e a r s of i n n o v a t i o n i n team t e a c h i n g have l e f t us w i t h almost no r e s e a r c h evidence. Most s t u d i e s have been d e s c r i p t i v e r a t h e r than e v a l u a t i v e . Proponents of the system l i s t the m e r i t s while oponents merely expose the weaknesses. A r t i c l e s i n p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s seem t o be almost unanimously d e s c r i p t i o n s of how t e a c h e r s and students who experienced team t e a c h i n g l i k e d i t , or d e s c r i p t i o n s of p i t f a l l s t o a v o i d before embarking on such a venture. As u s u a l , the e d u c a t i o n a l e n t e r p r i s e has been more i n t e r e s t e d i n demonstrating and defending the f e a s i b i l i t y o f team s t r u c t u r e s than i n r e s e a r c h -i n g the e s s e n t i a l a s p e c t s . Claimed advantages and d i s -advantages of team t e a c h i n g are g e n e r a l l y p e r c e p t i o n s born i n the heat of change, and r a r e l y a p p l i c a b l e t o the t o t a l i t y of the e d u c a t i o n a l movement. K e l l y ( 1 9 7 0 ) w r i t i n g about the mythology of change s t a t e s : New programs of i n n o v a t i o n are proclaimed w i t h exuberant enthusiasm accompanied by f a n f a r e s of r h e t o r i c . The claims of i n n o v a t i o n are loaded with hyperbole and seem completely b l i n d t o the s l i g h t e s t p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e i r testaments of f a i t h may be unfounded i n f a c t . Much of what i s c a s u a l l y observable as f a c t proves t o be e r r o n e o u s l y so i n the l i g h t of s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 1 1 9 E r i c K e l l y , "The Mythology of Change," The B.C.  Teacher (February, 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 0 2 . A review o f the American l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s t h a t the re s e a r c h t h a t has been done on team t e a c h i n g i s g e n e r a l l y of poor q u a l i t y . Most of the s t u d i e s have r e l i e d on q u e s t i o n -n a i r e and t e s t i m o n i a l evidence from t e a c h e r s , p u p i l s and pare n t s . Researchers have a l s o looked at the r e s u l t s of s t a n d a r d i z e d achievement t e s t s of the s o r t t h a t are used c u s t o m a r i l y anyway. Only a few have a p p l i e d o t h e r r e s e a r c h d e s i g n s . One or two r e p o r t s present s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s but these u s u a l l y do not g i v e s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l s about r e s e a r c h methods t o permit adequate a p p r a i s a l . V a r i a b l e s such as s u p e r i o r f a c i l i t i e s , more s k i l l e d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s t a f f , b e t t e r morale i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f , t e a c h i n g methods and student background are not adequately c o n t r o l l e d . Kaya p o i n t e d out t h a t educators o f t e n f a i l t o d e f i n e v a r i a b l e s 120 o p e r a t i o n a l l y . They speak of a team t e a c h i n g p l a n or a s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom plan as though i t were an e n t i t y r a t h e r than s p e c i f y i n g i t s f e a t u r e s i n ways t h a t can l e a d t o acc u r a t e measurement. Thus c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o l e a r n i n g out-comes made by any g i v e n f e a t u r e such as team l e a d e r s h i p , t e a c h e r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , f l e x i b l e grouping, f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l -i n g , team p l a n n i n g , or the use of teacher a i d e s i s not measured. Often the judgment t h a t a programme i s s u c c e s s f u l i s based mainly on whether students r e a c t with i n t e r e s t and enthusiasm. The Hawthorne e f f e c t must a l s o be co n s i d e r e d f o r many outcomes of team t e a c h i n g probably r e s u l t from i t being d i f f e r e n t from e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e s and from the f a c t t h a t i t a t t r a c t s s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n . V a r i o u s educators have g i v e n t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o the problem of team t e a c h i n g r e s e a r c h . Lambert s t a t e d t h a t no s c i e n t i f i c a l l y v a l i d study of team t e a c h i n g as a whole had 121 y e t been p u b l i s h e d . He a l s o p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h e r e would be no such study i n the next t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a r s . Heathers found no w e l l - c o n t r o l l e d s t u d i e s t h a t measured the outcomes 122 of team t e a c h i n g . He suggested t h a t team t e a c h i n g i s in c o m p l e t e l y designed, i n a d e q u a t e l y implemented and improperly e v a l u a t e d . S h a p l i n and Olds d e s c r i b e team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t s as demonstrations of p r e f e r a b l e e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s without 123 r e s e a r c h d e s i g n . J B a i r and Woodward add t o t h i s t h a t measuring instruments i n the f i e l d of education are s t i l l so inadequate t h a t i t i s next t o im p o s s i b l e t o determine pre-c i s e l y how s u c c e s s f u l l y a programme's o b j e c t i v e s are being 1 2/J. met. H i l l s o n s t a t e s t h a t r e s e a r c h designs of the many experiments set up t o measure team t e a c h i n g do not a l l o w f o r q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of data which would stand up under the 125 s c r u t i n y of s c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s . y Inglow b e l i e v e s t h a t 1 21 P h i l l i p Lambert, "Team Teaching i n Today's World," Teachers C o l l e g e Record, 485. 122 Glen Heathers, "Research on Team Teaching," i n S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 306-344. 123 ^ S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . 1 2 L . B a i r and Woodward, Team Teaching i n A c t i o n , 188. 125 H i l l s o n , Change and Innovation i n Elementary  School O r g a n i z a t i o n , 164. the v a r i a b l e s of team t e a c h i n g are too m u l t i t u d i n o u s t o be 1 2 6 c o n t r o l l e d p r o p e r l y i n any c o n c l u s i v e r e s e a r c h attempt. Joyce i n h i s review of s t a f f u t i l i z a t i o n p o i n t s out t h a t the l o c a l s c h o o l s e t t i n g i s o f t e n h i g h l y r e s i s t e n t t o change, a f f e c t i n g a d v e r s e l y the conduct of r e s e a r c h i n any area which 127 has t o be c a r r i e d out i n the s c h o o l s e t t i n g . A l s o , w i t h -out s u b s t a n t i a l f i n a n c i a l support i t i s o f t e n i m p o s s i b l e to c r e a t e the d e s i r e d experimental c o n d i t i o n s i n the f i r s t p l a c e , or t o keep them going u n t i l the t e a c h e r s have had time t o l e a r n the new r o l e s t h a t are to be s t u d i e d . B e i g h l e y says t h a t attempts t o study and evaluate team t e a c h -i n g have been hampered by the l a c k of d e f i n i t i o n s of the 128 concept. Countless s o - c a l l e d team t e a c h i n g arrangements prove on c l o s e examination t o be l i t t l e more than token 129 changes of the c o n v e n t i o n a l . Anderson i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s more team t e a c h i n g at the elementary s c h o o l l e v e l , yet most r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s have been c a r r i e d out at the second-a r y l e v e l . Borg p o i n t s out t h a t most t e a c h i n g teams were 1 2 6 Inglow, The Emergent i n C u r r i c u l u m , 3 0 4 . 127 'Bruce R. Joyce, " S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n , " Review of  E d u c a t i o n a l Research, XXXVII (June, 1 9 6 7 ) , 3 2 3 . 1 2 8 A r c h i e Fay B e i g h l e y , "The O r i g i n and Development of Elementary Team Teaching i n Lewiston Idaho," U n i v e r s i t y of Idaho, 1 9 6 8 , D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXXIX, No. 5-6 (November, I 9 6 8 ) , 166S-A. 129 'Anderson, Teaching i n a World of Change, op. c i t . , 71-108. e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1963 or a f t e r . In view of t h i s , r e s e a r c h on team t e a c h i n g has s c a r c e l y moved beyond the stage of p r e l i m i n a r y e x p l o r a t i o n . Examples of Research S t u d i e s Research S t u d i e s i n the United S t a t e s In order t o a p p r e c i a t e the c r i t i c i s m s of r e s e a r c h i n team t e a c h i n g , i t i s of value t o examine a few s e l e c t e d s t u d i e s . One of the b e t t e r s t u d i e s was done by Lambert, 131 Goodwin and Wiersma. Although i t examined the o p e r a t i o n s of only two teams, i t was c o n s t r u c t e d to y i e l d much informa-t i o n about the process of team o p e r a t i o n s and f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g e f f i c i e n c y of o p e r a t i o n . The dynamics of h i e r a r c h i c a l team s t r u c t u r e were i n v e s t i g a t e d i n terms of content of i n s t r u c t i o n , p u p i l i n t e r a c t i o n , adjustment and achievement. A number of sound r e s e a r c h techniques were used; p u p i l s were randomly a s s i g n e d to team and s e l f -130 Walter Borg, "Study of Human I n t e r a c t i o n V a r i a b l e s i n S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Teacher Teams," Utah U n i v e r s i t y , 1966. (ERIC ED010001) 131 P h i l l i p Lambert et a l , "A Study of the Elementary Teaching Team," Elementary School J o u r n a l , LXVI (October, 1965), 28 - 3 4 . A l s o see "A Comparison of P u p i l Achievement i n Team and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d O r g a n i z a t i o n s , " J o u r n a l of E x p e r i -mental E d u c a t i o n , XXXIII ( S p r i n g , 1 9 6 5 ) , 217-224- A l s o see "A Comparison of P u p i l Adjustment i n Team and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d O r g a n i z a t i o n s , " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, LVII (March, 1 9 6 5 ) , 211-314. c o n t a i n e d s e t t i n g s ; observers were t r a i n e d ; the i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s technique was employed t o permit a study of such i s s u e s as the e f f e c t of team s t a b i l i t y on the i n t e r a c t i o n of c h i l d r e n ; and t o counteract p o s s i b l e Hawthorne e f f e c t s , a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s were s t i m u l a t e d by u n i v e r s i t y c o n s u l t a n t s and new t e a c h i n g a i d s . L i m i t a t i o n s of the study are t h a t many v a r i a b l e s , although i d e n t i f i e d , were not c o n t r o l l e d . Furthermore the study does not s p e c i f y the f e a t u r e s of team t e a c h i n g and the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom plans employed and does not o f f e r measures of how the f e a t u r e s are a c t u a l l y implemented d u r i n g the study. As a r e s u l t , one cannot be sure j u s t what programme of c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g was compared with what programme i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. Jackson c a r r i e d out a study comparing a team t e a c h -132 i n g and s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom i n Grades f i v e and s i x . J  Iowa T e s t s of B a s i c S k i l l s and the C a l i f o r n i a T e s t s i n  S o c i a l and R e l a t e d Sciences were g i v e n . A random sampling of parents was g i v e n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and was i n t e r v i e w e d by the Department of P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e s . A n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e was a p p l i e d . There was a q u e s t i o n n a i r e follow-up study i n Grade seven. P u p i l s f o r the team t e a c h i n g group and s e l f - c o n t a i n e d group re p r e s e n t e d a " s c a t t e r " of p u p i l s 132 Joseph Jackson, " A n a l y s i s of a Team Teaching and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d Homeroom Experiment i n Grade F i v e and S i x , " J o u r n a l of Experimental Research, XXXII (Summer, 1964), 317-3 2 2 • throughout the grades. While r e s u l t s favoured the team taught group, t h e r e was not adequate c o n t r o l over such v a r i a b l e s as t e a c h e r a b i l i t y and methods, f a c i l i t i e s , c l a s s s i z e or age of p u p i l s . A study at the Grade two l e v e l was done by Knox over 133 a one-year p e r i o d . > y Both experimental and c o n t r o l groups were s e l e c t e d at random and c o n s i d e r a t i o n was g i v e n t o the t e a c h e r v a r i a b l e when assignments were made. Data was c o l l e c t e d u s i n g the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental M a t u r i t y , the C a l i f o r n i a Achievement T e s t , Sarason's General Anxiety  S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n and the R u s s e l l Sage S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Test. A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was used. As i n other s t u d i e s the team s t r u c t u r e was not d e f i n e d and numerous v a r i a b l e s were not c o n t r o l l e d . No f o l l o w - u p study was conducted. Hagen and Jacobs used the q u e s t i o n n a i r e method t o study the a t t i t u d e s of t e a c h e r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n 133 Donald M. Knox, "An Experimental Study of the E f f e c t of Team Teaching Program Upon C e r t a i n S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s , " Western Reserve U n i v e r s i t y , 1965, D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l XXVII, No. 1 (June, 1966), 416-A. 1 T I A r n o l d 0. Hagen, "Pe r c e p t i o n s of Team Teaching as Expressed by Teachers i n a S p e c i f i c Team Teaching S i t u a t i o n , " Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1966, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r -n a t i o n a l , XXVII, No. 3 (September, 1966), 992-A. 13 5 G.M. Jacobs, "A Comparison of A t t i t u d e s of Team and Non-Team Teachers Towards V a r i o u s Aspects of Teaching," N o r t h e r n . I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1968, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 5-6 (November, 1968), 1479-A. team t e a c h i n g . Although the l a t t e r r e s e a r c h e r compared h i s f i n d i n g s t o t e a c h e r s who had no team t e a c h i n g experience and analyzed them by the use of a c h i square t e s t , r e s u l t s are s t i l l s u b j e c t i v e . C o n t r o l l e d experimental s t u d i e s to compare the achievement of team taught and s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom p u p i l s were c a r r i e d out by Burningham," 1" 3^ Sterns 7 S o u c y , 1 ^ C r a n d e l l " ^ 9 and B o r e n f ^ Only one of these s t u d i e s a s s i g n e d students by random sample. Only one study compared students of low, average and hig h a b i l i t y . A l l of the s t u d i e s used s t a n d a r d i z e d achievement t e s t s . The i n f o r m a t i o n from George L. Burningham, "A Study and E v a l u a t i o n of the Team Teaching of the Fourth Grade at Woodstock Elementary S c h o o l , " U n i v e r s i t y of Utah, 1968, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l . XXIX, No. 3-4 (September, 1968), 770-A. 137 Harvey M. S t e r n s , "Student Adjustment and Achieve-ment i n a Team O r g a n i z a t i o n , " U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1968, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l XXX, No. 1 ( J u l y , I 9 6 9 ) , 116-A. 1 3 8 J L.A. Soucy ? "A Study t o Determine the E f f e c t s of Team Teaching Upon Achievement, S o c i a l Adjustment and Mental Health o f Grade One P u p i l s , " Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , 1966, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXVII, No. 11 (May, 196?), 4175-A. 139 ^7E.W. C r a n d e l l , "An Experimental Study: Team Teach-i n g Compared w i t h the S e l f - C o n t a i n e d Classroom O r g a n i z a t i o n i n Upper Elementary School Grades," Wayne St a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1966, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 9-10 (January, 1967), 2308-A. "^^Donald Boren, MA Comparative Study of Team and T r a d i t i o n a l Teaching Methodologies," U n i v e r s i t y of Utah, 1969, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 9-10 (March, 1968), 2293-A. these s t u d i e s i s of l i t t l e v a lue because v a r i a b l e s were not c o n t r o l l e d and f e a t u r e s of team t e a c h i n g or s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms were not s p e c i f i e d . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o g e n e r a l i z e from the f i n d i n g s because samples were not s e l e c t e d adequately. A n a l y s i s of data was very l i m i t e d . Research S t u d i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia The l i t e r a t u r e d e s c r i b i n g team t e a c h i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia, gave no evidence of r e s e a r c h having been done or being done at the present time. In the author's survey of 85 elementary team t e a c h i n g s c h o o l s , 83 s c h o o l s or 98 percent of the sample s t a t e d t h a t they had done no formal r e s e a r c h . One s c h o o l r e p o r t e d t h a t i t set up a r e s e a r c h study w i t h a c o n t r o l group but d i d not complete i t . Another s c h o o l t e s t e d the p u p i l s p r i o r t o team t e a c h i n g and then a d m i n i s t e r e d f o l l o w - u p t e s t s . S e v e r a l s c h o o l s t e s t e d t h e i r team p u p i l s on the Canadian Lorge Thorndike Test of Basic S k i l l s i n 1970-1971 and p l a n t o compare the r e s u l t s with f u t u r e t e s t s . Some of the comments made by p r i n c i p a l s r e g a r d i n g r e s e a r c h f o l l o w . - The u s u a l s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s were g i v e n but I don't know i f any c o n c l u s i o n s were drawn. - No r e s e a r c h has been done. - No r e s e a r c h has been done but t e a c h e r s of l a s t year's team f e l t t h a t the c h i l d r e n were g e t t i n g a more a l l -round education. - In my o p i n i o n , f a c t o r s such as t e a c h e r p e r s o n a l i t y would vary t o such an extent as t o make r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s i n v a l i d . - No r e s e a r c h has been done y e t . - I n f o r m a l l y t e a c h e r s f e e l t h a t t h i s approach works b e t t e r with i n t e r m e d i a t e p u p i l s . - No r e s e a r c h has been done y e t , but I am d e f i n i t e l y t o y i n g with the i d e a . - A survey done i n our s c h o o l r e v e a l e d t h a t primary students p r e f e r t h e i r own classroom. - Research i s not p o s s i b l e . - R e s u l t s of the d i s t r i c t Grade 7 and 4 p u p i l s on the Canadian Lorge Thorndike Test of B a s i c S k i l l s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t team taught p u p i l s are comparatively h i g h . These r e s u l t s were a n t i c i p a t e d , however, s i n c e p u p i l s come from middle c l a s s backgrounds. - Previous t e s t i n g i n the s t a n d a r d i z e d achievement t e s t s f o l l o w e d by t e s t i n g i n team t e a c h i n g , has shown a more r a p i d p r o g r e s s i o n i n l e a r n i n g b a s i c f a c t s and a much more mature approach to s c h o o l work. - No s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e s e a r c h has been c a r r i e d out. - One excuse f o r r e s e a r c h was c a r r i e d out by the s c h o o l board to prove team taught p u p i l s c o u l d not read. They proved i t . H a l f of our c l a s s , when they went t o Grade 8 , were "matched" wi t h 3 4 p u p i l s from 4 other s c h o o l s and whizzo proved them i n f e r i o r . ' - No formal r e s e a r c h has been set up y e t . However, the members of the present teams can e a s i l y compare the t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n t o the s i t u a t i o n when each had h i s own c l a s s . The team t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n i s p r o v i n g much b e t t e r . - To date s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t i n g has not i n d i c a t e d t h a t team t e a c h i n g has improved the progress of c h i l d r e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y . From these examples, i t can be seen t h a t the value of team t e a c h i n g remains t o be measured. Far more s u i t a b l e r e s e a r c h procedures are needed. The f o l l o w i n g summary of f i n d i n g s i s t h e r e f o r e somewhat h y p o t h e t i c a l and r e p r e s e n t s only a crude s t a r t i n a c h i e v i n g an understanding of team t e a c h i n g and i t s v a l i d i t y . Student Achievement F i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s Almost without e x c e p t i o n , p u p i l achievement as shown on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s has been found to be about the same i n team t e a c h i n g programmes as i n s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms. Where d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n comparisons of the two types of o r g a n i z a t i o n , they were s l i g h t and i n c o n s i s t e n t . Heathers p o i n t s out t h a t the f a i l u r e of programmes t o improve a c h i e v e -ment t e s t scores may be due t o weaknesses of the t e s t s . I t may be due to f a u l t y implementation of c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g . Probably the most important reason f o r the r e s u l t s o b tained i s t h a t team t e a c h i n g , as such, bears only l i m i t e d and i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s t o p u p i l achievement.^ 4^" Anderson adds t o t h i s the f a c t t h a t a v a i l a b l e t e s t s d e a l c h i e f l y w i t h the contents and s k i l l s t h a t are l e a s t l i k e l y t o undergo important changes i n the e a r l y stages of team experimentation. ^ The content areas i n which l i v e l i e r o f f e r i n g s and d i f f e r e n t p e d a g o g i c a l arrangements are more l i k e l y t o be developed are r a r e l y measured by s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s i n use, nor are p u p i l enthusiasm, p u p i l - t o - p u p i l working r e l a t i o n s h i p s , p u p i l -c a p a c i t y f o r s e l f - d i r e c t i o n , e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of time, s k i l l i n l o c a t i n g and a n a l y z i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , and other f a c t o r s with long-range i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p u p i l growth and achievement. Furthermore, many r e s u l t s are m i s l e a d i n g be-cause s t u d i e s r e p o r t achievement under team t e a c h i n g i n terms of g r a d e - l e v e l g a i n s made during the year, without i n d i c a t i n g "'"^Glen Heathers, "Research on Implementing and E v a l u a t i n g Cooperative Teaching," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i -p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 30. 1L.2 Robert H. Anderson, Teaching i n a World of Change, op. c i t . , 100. what would have been the expected g a i n s f o r the p u p i l popu-l a t i o n i n v o l v e d i n the study. None of the r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s were designed t o answer qu e s t i o n s about the c o n t r i b u t i o n s t h a t separate f e a t u r e s of team t e a c h i n g p l a n s make toward l e a r n i n g outcomes. Reviewers of team t e a c h i n g experiments have come t o s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s . Drummond i n h i s assessment s t a t e d t h a t students do as w e l l or perhaps a l i t t l e b e t t e r on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s when taught by t e a c h i n g teams. He adds, u s u a l l y the obtained d i f f e r e n c e s are not s i g n i f i c a n t when f a i r l y s o p h i s -t i c a t e d s t a t i s t i c a l measures are employed t o analyse d a t a . 1 4 ^ The I n s t r u c t o r i n a c r i t i c a l look at team t e a c h i n g came t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t performance i s equal t o t h a t r e s u l t i n g from good i n s t r u c t i o n with the g r e a t e s t g a i n s o c c u r r i n g at high and low a b i l i t y l e v e l s . 1 4 4 Wigderson a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e i s no r e s e a r c h evidence t h a t team t e a c h i n g i n c r e a s e s p u p i l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . 1 4 ' ' S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s are r e p o r t e d by P o l o s 1 4 6 and L o v e l l . 1 4 7 The author's f i n d i n g s i n review of team t e a c h i n g experiments d e s c r i b e d i n American l i t e r a t u r e were a l s o s i m i l a r . 1 I T ^Harold Drummond, "Team Teaching: An Assessment," E d u c a t i o n a l D i g e s t , XXVII (February, 1962), 7. 1 4 4 " A C r i t i c a l Look at Team Teaching," The I n s t r u c t o r , LXII (October, 1961) , 40. 1 4 ^ H a r r y I. Wigderson, Team Teaching (Washington, D .C: U.S. Department of H e a l t h ) , (ERIC EDOT1469). 1 4 6 P o l o s , op. c i t . , 72. l/j.7 K. L o v e l l , Team Teaching (Leeds, England: Univer-s i t y of Leeds, 1967) , 9. 148 One of the earliest reports is that of the Norwalk Plan. For the team teaching groups progress was reported for 1958-1960. No control groups were employed and grade equivalent gains in Stanford Achievement Tests were compared with gains according to national norms. Out of 48 instances of compar-ing team teaching results with national norms, gains with team teaching equalled or exceeded norms in 38 instances. Norwalk, however, should have been expected to exceed the national norms under any plan of organization because the community is well above the national average in socio-economic level, education of parents, and provisions for schooling. When, in 1960-1961, achievement tests results were evaluated with the use of control groups no consistent superiority was found for either team teaching or self-contained classrooms. Out of 194 comparisons 90 favored team teaching while 114 favored the self-contained classroom. Few of the comparisons yielded s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences. Bair and Woodward reported that the academic achievement of team taught schools in the Lexington Plan, 149 as measured by achievement tests, was excellent. Also, team teaching pupils who had gone on to junior high school did slightly better scholastically than those from conven-tional schools. Wall and Reasoner stated that with regard to most aspects surveyed there was no significant difference 1 Z^Shaplin and Olds, op. c i t . , 327-328. "^^Bair and Woodward, op. c i t . , 198. between the c o n t r o l and experimental groups. The c h i l d r e n exposed t o team t e a c h i n g were not a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d , n e i t h e r were they s t i m u l a t e d t o a g r e a t e r degree. ^ ""^ Lambert r e p o r t s t h a t the primary grade team surpassed t h e i r s e l f - c o n t a i n e d c o u n t e r p a r t s i n achievement, while the p u p i l s i n the i n t e r -151 mediate grades d i d not. C r a n d e l l found t h a t c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the team t e a c h i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n e x c e l l e d i n the language a r t s areas of grammar, c a p i t a l i z a t i o n and p u n c t u a t i o n . C h i l d r e n a s s i g n e d t o s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms achieved b e t t e r i n areas of s o c i a l s t u d i e s and a r i t h m e t i c . Academic achievement i n the areas of s c i e n c e , r e a d i n g com-prehension, r e a d i n g vocabulary, and s p e l l i n g demonstrated no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the team te a c h i n g and s e l f -c o n t a i n e d classroom o r g a n i z a t i o n . "*"^  Ross,'*"''3 Bradley,-^4 155 156 Knox, " and Sterns y a l s o found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between team t e a c h i n g and s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom groups. 150 H.R. Wall and R.W. Reasoner, "Team Teaching: A D e s c r i p t i v e and E v a l u a t i v e Study of a Programme i n the Primary Grades," Mount D i a b l o United School D i s t r i c t , Concord, C a l i f o r n i a , 1963, 94 (ERIC ED027083). 151 Lambert et a l , "A Comparison of P u p i l Achieve-ment i n Team Teaching and S e l f - C o n t a i n e d O r g a n i z a t i o n s , " op. c i t . 152 C r a n d e l l , op. c i t . 153 C L . Ross, "An Experiment i n the R e o r g a n i z a t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n i n the F i r s t Grade," U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee, 1963, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIV (August, I963) "^^P.A. Bra d l e y , " I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n Through Cooperative Teaching," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , CLII (May, 1964), 46-49. 155 Knox, op. c i t . "^  ^ S t e r n s , op. c i t . 157 158 159 On the other hand, Jackson, Soucy, and Burningharn found t h a t p u p i l s i n the team t e a c h i n g experiments achieved s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r . In s t u d y i n g v a r i o u s a b i l i t y groups, Klausmeir and Wiersma found t h a t high a b i l i t y groups were not a f f e c t e d , low a b i l i t y p u p i l s d i d b e t t e r i n E n g l i s h under team t e a c h i n g , and t h a t average a b i l i t y groups d i d b e t t e r i n E n g l i s h and s o c i a l s t u d i e s under team t e a c h i n g . K e l l y r e p o r t e d t h a t average a b i l i t y p u p i l s d i d b e t t e r under team t e a c h i n g , but t h a t p u p i l s of high mental a b i l i t y , low mental a b i l i t y , as w e l l as those designated o v e r a c h i e v e r s and under-161 a c h i e v e r s were not a f f e c t e d by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a t t e r n . Boren found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the achievement of low a b i l i t y groups but s t a t e d t h a t average and high a b i l i t y p u p i l s d i d b e t t e r i n some s u b j e c t s . In the one study t h a t compared c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g , B i s c h o f f and Enns, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between c o n t r o l and experimental 163 groups. J 157 > f J a c k s o n , op. c i t . 158 Soucy, op. c i t . 159 Burningharn, op. c i t . l 6 ^ H e r b e r t J . Klausmeir and W i l l i a m Wiersma, "Team Teaching and Achievement," Ed u c a t i o n , LXXV (December, 1965) , 238-242. 1 6 1 J o h n W. K e l l y , "An A n a l y s i s and E v a l u a t i o n of a C oordinated Master-Teacher Programme i n S o c i a l S t u d i e s and Science at the F i f t h Grade L e v e l , " Fordham U n i v e r s i t y , 1967, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXVII, No. 9-10 ( A p r i l , 1968), 3560-A. 162 Boren, op. c i t . l £>3 — F.H. B i s c h o f f and F. Enns "A Team Teaching P r o j e c t , " Canadian A d m i n i s t r a t o r , VII (October, 1967) , 1-4. In the author's survey of team t e a c h i n g i n the elementary s c h o o l s of B r i t i s h Columbia the number of r e p l i e s concerning achievement of students was s m a l l . In most cases t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t p u p i l s being team taught d i d at l e a s t as w e l l as those taught i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. Some of the comments made by t e a c h e r s , p r i n c i p a l s and p u p i l s i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g . - Achievement seems h i g h but s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s have not yet been g i v e n ( t e a c h e r ) . - A high standard of work can be maintained even with c h i l d r e n moving from t e a c h e r t o t e a c h e r and group t o group ( t e a c h e r ) . - I f e e l I am l e a r n i n g as much as I am supposed to i n t h i s team but not as much as the other Grade Sevens are ( p u p i l ) . - P u p i l s who were team taught u n s u c c e s s f u l l y two years ago have not yet recovered and do not achieve as w e l l as others ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - We f e e l c h i l d r e n are g e t t i n g a more a l l - r o u n d educa-t i o n ( t e a c h e r s ) . - There tends t o be a l o s s of i n t e r e s t on the part of p u p i l s when i n a l a r g e group s i t u a t i o n ( t e a c h e r ) . - Measured o b j e c t i v e l y , the p u p i l s have made s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n s i n achievement ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - T e s t i n g has shown t h a t team taught p u p i l s show a more r a p i d p r o g r e s s i o n i n l e a r n i n g b a s i c f a c t s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - In language a r t s I t h i n k I am doing b e t t e r than i n a normal classroom ( p u p i l ) . - The s c o r e s of team taught p u p i l s are comparatively h i g h ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - One study c a r r i e d out i n t h i s s c h o o l has shown t h a t team taught p u p i l s do not do as w e l l i n r e a d i n g ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - T e s t i n g has not shown t h a t team t e a c h i n g has improved the progress of the c h i l d r e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - There i s some concern about the academic progress of some p u p i l s , but we have no way of knowing whether they would have done b e t t e r i n a r e g u l a r classroom s i t u a t i o n ( t e a c h e r ) . - Remedial p u p i l s are p r o g r e s s i n g with d i f f i c u l t y i n the team s i t u a t i o n and would be b e t t e r i n a r e g u l a r c l a s s -room ( t e a c h e r ) . Because of the v a r i e t y o f f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n e v a l u a t i n g how team t e a c h i n g has a f f e c t e d the achievement of p u p i l s , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o g i v e any c o n c l u s i v e answer. How-ever, i f one of the major purposes of t h i s approach i s t o improve the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n , these f i n d i n g s would appear t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s purpose has not yet been achieved. Student Adjustment F i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s Of concern t o education i s the e f f e c t team t e a c h i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n may have on p u p i l s ' p e r s o n a l - s o c i a l adjustment. To date, r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s have i n no i n s t a n c e obtained evidence t h a t c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g i s harmful t o p u p i l s ' adjustment. In f a c t some s t u d i e s have found team t e a c h i n g t o h o l d advantages over the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom i n promoting p e r s o n a l - s o c i a l development. The r e s e a r c h approaches t h a t have been used i n e v a l u a t i n g student adjustment have most of the same weaknesses t h a t were t r u e of r e s e a r c h on student achievement. The common method used i s t o simply ask the p u p i l s i f they enjoyed being taught by a team. There i s a l a c k of o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of adjustment and a f a i l u r e t o use a p p r o p r i a t e instruments t o measure i t . A l s o , when experimental and c o n t r o l groups are used, c o n t r o l s are u s u a l l y inadequate. F i n d i n g s from the s t u d i e s are probably i n f l u e n c e d by the f a c t t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n per se i s r e a l l y not a c a u s a l f a c t o r i n p u p i l adjustment at a l l , but t h a t many elements must be taken i n t o account when we examine why c h i l d r e n are or are not happy i n s c h o o l . Reviewers of team t e a c h i n g have come t o s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s . Heathers s t a t e s t h a t probably team t e a c h i n g , or any other p l a n of o r g a n i z a t i o n , improves the adjustment of some students and l e s s e n s the adjustment of o t h e r s . L o v e l l found no evidence whatever t o suggest t h a t team t e a c h -i n g had any adverse e f f e c t on p u p i l s ' s o c i a l and emotional 165 development. J Goodlad p o i n t s out t h a t team t e a c h i n g experiments c h a l l e n g e c e r t a i n w i d e l y h e l d t h e o r i e s about the b a s i s of p u p i l s e c u r i t y and the ways c h i l d r e n a d j u s t t o 166 d i f f e r e n t a d u l t p e r s o n a l i t i e s . Anderson says t h a t i t seems w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t team o r g a n i z a t i o n i s capable of o f f e r i n g an atmosphere w i t h i n which p u p i l s are l i k e l y t o f e e l at l e a s t as comfortable and as happy as do p u p i l s i n more l i m i t e d s e t t i n g s . " ^ 7 F i n d i n g s on student adjustment are a l l h i g h l y s i m i -l a r with most p u p i l s f a v o r i n g the team approach. Drummond r e p o r t s t h a t students g e n e r a l l y f a v o r what has been t r i e d . "LO^Glen leathers-, "Research on Team Teaching." In S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 334. 165 y L 0 v e l l , op. c i t . , 33. 166 John I. Goodlad and Robert H. Anderson, The Non-graded Elementary School, op. c i t . "^^Robert H. Anderson, Teaching i n a World of Change, op. c i t . , 101. ^"^Drummond, op. c i t . , 7. Anderson i n r e p o r t i n g on the F r a n k l i n P r o j e c t s t a t e d t h a t the new c o n d i t i o n s of team t e a c h i n g had themselves c r e a t e d no 169 problems of p u p i l adjustment or morale. He added i n another r e p o r t t h a t t h e r e were s i g n s t h a t c e r t a i n c h i l d r e n 17 f i n d g r e a t e r s t i m u l a t i o n and s e c u r i t y w i t h i n t e a c h i n g teams. Anderson, Hagstrom and Robinson conclude t h e i r r e p o r t on team t e a c h i n g by s t a t i n g t h a t the overwhelming weight of o p i n i o n as expressed by both c h i l d r e n and t h e i r parents i s 171 e n t h u s i a s t i c f o r team t e a c h i n g . A r e p o r t on the Norwalk Plan compares scores on the C a l i f o r n i a Aspects of P e r s o n a l i t y 172 Test f o r students under team t e a c h i n g . S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n s were made i n P e r s o n a l Adjustment and T o t a l Adjustment but not i n S o c i a l Adjustment. Since no c o n t r o l groups were used and s i n c e d i f f e r e n t forms of the t e s t were used, the v a l i d i t y of f i n d i n g s i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . Students' a t t i t u d e s were a l s o summarized. O v e r - a l l , approximately f o u r p u p i l s out of f i v e expressed f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward having more than one t e a c h e r , s t u d y i n g i n more than one room, and being a member of a group l a r g e r than a r e g u l a r c l a s s . About f o u r out of f i v e f e l t t h a t they had g o t t e n t o know one t e a c h e r as w e l l as i n a r e g u l a r c l a s s . About nine out of t e n 169 Robert H. Anderson, "Three Examples of Team Teach-i n g i n A c t i o n , " op. c i t . , 65. 170 Robert H. Anderson, "Team Teaching," op. c i t . , 53-171 Anderson, Hagstrom and Robinson, op. c i t . , 1 - 3 . ^ ^ H e a t h e r s , op. c i t . , 332. f e l t t h a t they made as many or more f r i e n d s under team t e a c h -i n g as when they were i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. Data i s g i v e n on the adjustment of p u p i l s with s p e c i a l problems. F i n d i n g s suggest t h a t team t e a c h i n g i s at l e a s t as apt t o c o n t r i b u t e t o the adjustment of withdrawn or a g g r e s s i v e 173 c h i l d r e n as i s the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. The r e p o r t a l s o s t a t e s t h a t p u p i l s who experienced team t e a c h i n g i n the elementary s c h o o l a d j u s t e d more r e a d i l y t o j u n i o r h i g h s c h o o l . S e v e n t y - s i x percent of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n a survey by W a l l and Reasoner r e p o r t e d t h a t p u p i l r e a c t i o n t o the s h i f t t o 17A. d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s had been e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or e n t h u s i a s t i c . Moreover, a n x i e t y as measured by p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s showed no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r i s e . The C a l i f o r n i a Test of P e r s o n a l i t y showed a g a i n i n confidence but not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . In the area of attendance t h e r e were s l i g h t l y l e s s dropouts i n the team taught s c h o o l . Lambert found t h a t c h i l d r e n "seem to a d j u s t q u i c k l y t o the i d e a of having s e v e r a l t e a c h e r s i n s t e a d of one. They make more f r i e n d s and j o i n more a c t i v i t i e s ; most of a l l , they f i n d s c h o o l more 175 i n t e r e s t i n g than p r e v i o u s l y . " ^ On the other hand, Jackson r e p o r t e d p a r e n t a l o p i n i o n s d i v i d e d i n t h a t : the c h i l d ' s adjustment was about the same as under a s i n g l e t e a c h e r p l a n , l 7 3 I b i d . , 333-191 Wall and Reasoner, op. c i t . 175 P. Lambert, "Team Teaching f o r the Elementary S c h o o l , " E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , XVII (November, I960), SS. the c h i l d r e c e i v e d about as much a t t e n t i o n as he ever d i d , perhaps even l e s s . ^ 7 ^ S o c i o m e t r i c t e s t s a l s o r e v e a l e d t h a t the i n c r e a s e i n number of students and the m o b i l i t y of f r i e n d s h i p s appear t o o f f e r l e s s s o c i a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y than experienced i n the i n t e g r a t e d homeroom environment. The maladjusted and i s o l a t e d seem to f a c e i n c r e a s e d s o c i a l d i s e q u i l i b r i u m under the team program. J a r v i s and Fleming r e p o r t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n i n the s i x t h grade f e l t p o s i t i v e about team t e a c h i n g , though some were not e n t h u s i a s t i c . When asked which o r g a n i z a t i o n they would p r e f e r next year the 177 p u p i l s chose team t e a c h i n g over the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. Lambertand others i n a c o n t r o l l e d study r e p o r t e d t h a t both the primary and i n t e r m e d i a t e teams had minimal problems 1 7 8 a d j u s t i n g to the team o r g a n i z a t i o n . S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s are 179 180 r e p o r t e d by Knox and K e l l y . Knox adds, t h a t although no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found to e x i s t between groups, i t was observed t h a t team taught p u p i l s worked much more q u i e t l y and e f f i c i e n t l y . T h i s statement i s supported by the "^^Jackson, op. c i t . 177 ''Galen M. J a r v i s and Roy C. Fleming, "Team Teach-i n g as S i x t h Graders See I t , " Elementary School J o u r n a l , LXVI (October, 1965). 1 7 8 Lambert et a l , "A Study of the Elementary Teach-i n g Team," op. c i t . 179 Knox, op. c i t . " ^ ^ " P u p i l s , P a t t e r n s and P o s s i b i l i t i e s : A D e s c r i p -t i o n of Team Teaching i n P i t t s b u r g h , " op. c i t . , 198. Pittsburgh Report which said that students manifested a greater desire to learn and did more serious work and study. In contrast, Crandell reported that children i n the team teaching classrooms were found to express more concern over t e s t s , a need to f e e l more academically able, and a desire fo r teacher recognition, much more frequently than children i n self-contained classrooms. Sterns also found s i g n i f i -cant differences i n the school r e l a t i o n s h i p of students 1 do which favored the self-contained control groups. Only two researchers reported increased d i s c i p l i n e problems. Adams indicated d i s c i p l i n e problems occurred i n the second grade but not the fourth and s i x t h grades. ^ Lambert and others stated that interns had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i s c i p l i n e 185 problems than experienced teachers on the team. Findings i n B r i t i s h Columbia In general, team teaching, i n the schools surveyed by the author, received very favourable response from the students. Of the 228 p r i n c i p a l s and teachers replying, 180 or 79 percent stated that the pupils' reaction to team teach-1 d-i A O X K e l l y , op. c i t . "'"^Crandell, op. c i t . 1 83 Qf Sterns, op. c i t . 1 8/J_ Andres S. Adams, "Operation Co-Teaching Dateline." Oceano, C a l i f o r n i a , The Elementary School Journal, LXII (January, 1962), 203^2l2T 185 ^Lambert et a l , op. c i t . i n g was f a v o u r a b l e . Only 8 or 4 percent s a i d t h a t i t was unfavourable and 30 or 13 percent s a i d t h a t the p u p i l s ' r e a c t i o n was i n d i f f e r e n t . Seven or 3 percent of the p r i n c i -p a l s and t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t the c h i l d r e n had mixed f e e l i n g s about team t e a c h i n g . Of the 143 t e a c h e r s asked i f p u p i l s had d i f f i c u l t y i n a d j u s t i n g t o team t e a c h i n g 41 or 29 percent i n d i c a t e d t h a t they had no d i f f i c u l t y . N i n e t y - f o u r or 66 percent of the t e a c h e r s s a i d the p u p i l s had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n a d j u s t i n g . Only 8 or 6 percent of the t e a c h e r s s t a t e d t h a t p u p i l s had great adjustment d i f f i c u l t i e s . In responding t o ques t i o n s about d i s c i p l i n e i n the team t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n , the r e p l i e s of p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s d i f f e r e d . About 54 percent of the p r i n c i p a l s f e l t the s i t u a t i o n was about the same as i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. Only 2 percent of the t e a c h e r s f e l t t h i s t o be the case. F i f t y -t h r e e percent of the t e a c h e r s f e l t the d i s c i p l i n e s i t u a t i o n was worse i n comparison t o only 15 percent of the p r i n c i p a l s who f e l t t h i s t o be so. More t e a c h e r s than p r i n c i p a l s , how-ever, a l s o s a i d t h a t they f e l t the d i s c i p l i n e was b e t t e r ; 39 percent of the t e a c h e r s as compared t o 25 percent of the p r i n c i p a l s . Furthermore, about 36 percent of the t e a c h e r s f e l t they knew each p u p i l b e t t e r ; 33 percent f e l t they d i d not know each p u p i l as w e l l ; and 33 percent f e l t they knew each p u p i l about the same i n team t e a c h i n g as i n the s e l f -c o n t a i n e d classroom. Comments made by t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s r e g a r d i n g p u p i l adjustment i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g . Some p u p i l s found r e l a t i n g t o t h r e e t e a c h e r s a f r u s t r a t i n g experience. We f i n a l l y a s s i g n e d them t o one t e a c h e r and f o r t h r e e or f o u r months they remained only with her. For some, t h i s should have continued a l l year. Some students f i n d the s i z e of the room r a t h e r than team t e a c h i n g was d i f f i c u l t . In the f i r s t year we had some problems w i t h c h i l d r e n ' s d i s t r a c t i b i l i t y . T h i s seems t o c o r r e c t i t s e l f w ith most p u p i l s . Some c h i l d r e n cannot a d j u s t t o the amount of movement i n an open area and are h a p p i e r i n a r e g u l a r classroom. When a s c h o o l i s not designed f o r team t e a c h i n g i t can p l a c e a g r e a t e r demand f o r s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e on every student. T h i s makes many unhappy duri n g the p e r i o d of adjustment. Team t e a c h i n g has reduced the number of c h i l d r e n being r e f e r r e d because of behavior problems. Teachers seem t o get a l i t t l e c l o s e r t o the c h i l d r e n and thus reduce the problems of the c h i l d who i s l o o k i n g f o r a t t e n t i o n . The more t e a c h e r s a c h i l d has the more adaptable he seems t o become. Next year a c l o s e d room w i l l be i n c o r p o r a t e d f o r students who cannot f u n c t i o n a hundred percent i n the open area. The a t t i t u d e s of p u p i l s towards work seem t o have improved but t h e i r work h a b i t s have d e t e r i o r a t e d . Team t e a c h i n g u s i n g a v a r i e t y of groupings i s no panacea. Many c h i l d r e n , at a l l l e v e l s , are unable t o cope wi t h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r own achievement. In observing 90 c h i l d r e n over a 3 year p e r i o d , about one t h i r d have problems. Adjustment problems have o c c u r r e d t o some of the o l d e s t p u p i l s , p a r t l y because they have a l r e a d y had s i x or seven years i n a t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l , but mostly because the parents have been r e l u c t a n t t o a d j u s t . Team t e a c h i n g may be good f o r some c h i l d r e n but others tend to get l o s t at times i n l a r g e group s e s s i o n s . C h i l d r e n mostly r e a c t e d h a p p i l y t o team t e a c h i n g and l o v e d the f r e e movement. P u p i l s have become much more s e l f - r e l i a n t . There has been much l e s s p u p i l - t e a c h e r c o n f l i c t be-cause c h i l d r e n can i d e n t i f y with more than one person. T h i s i s an e x c i t i n g p l a c e t o l e a r n and the students are "tunned on." C h i l d r e n seem t o enjoy having more than one r e g u l a r t e a c h e r . A survey i n the s c h o o l showed t h a t primary c h i l d r e n p r e f e r r e d t h e i r own classroom with "my" t e a c h e r . The t e a c h e r s and t h e i r c h i l d r e n were ab l e t o go a long way toward developing a r a p p o r t , concern and concept of s h a r i n g which cro s s e d the u s u a l c l a s s l i n e s . - The c h i l d r e n appear happy and w e l l - a d j u s t e d . They l i k e s c h o o l , classroom d i s c i p l i n e problems seem to have decreased and playground behaviour has improved, com-pared w i t h o f f i c e d i s c i p l i n e r e c o rds of these c h i l d r e n l a s t year. L e a d e r s h i p , independence and s e l f - c o n t r o l appear t o be growing. Parents seem s a t i s f i e d and no " s c h o o l t e n s i o n " problems have been r e p o r t e d . Many of the s c h o o l s who cooperated i n the survey had t h e i r team p u p i l s w r i t e l e t t e r s t o the author g i v i n g t h e i r r e a c t i o n t o team t e a c h i n g . In g e n e r a l c h i l d r e n l i k e d having more than one t e a c h e r and working i n groups. They s a i d they made more f r i e n d s and had more people t o work wi t h . They enjoyed being a b l e t o work on t h e i r own and s a i d l e s s time was wasted. They f e l t t h a t t e a c h e r s had more idea s working t o g e t h e r and t h a t i t was n i c e they c o u l d h e l p each other when i n d i f -f i c u l t y . The only t h i n g s the c h i l d r e n d i d not l i k e were the f a c t s t h a t o f t e n too many bodies were moving around at one time and t h a t t e a c h e r s sometimes q u a r r e l l e d . The comments of some of the p u p i l s are most i n t e r e s t i n g and r e v e a l i n g . - I l i k e team t e a c h i n g because i n many ways I l e a r n more. Both t e a c h e r s have d i f f e r e n t i d e a s . They put t h e i r i d e a s t o g e t h e r and teach them t o us so we l e a r n more i n one p e r i o d . - I have a l o t more f r i e n d s t h i s year. - I l i k e team t e a c h i n g because when one t e a c h e r i s s i c k the other t e a c h e r cqn t e l l the s u b s t i t u t e what t o do. - In September I d i d n ' t l i k e team t e a c h i n g because I wasn't used t o i t . - I t h i n k team t e a c h i n g i s a good i d e a because we have l e a r n e d more t h i s year than a l l l a s t year put t o g e t h e r . - I am not very impressed w i t h team t e a c h i n g . - Team t e a c h i n g i s not the b e s t , but i t ' s f a i r l y good. I t ' s q u i t e hard t o f o l l o w . - The f i r s t day of s c h o o l I thought team t e a c h i n g was going t o be a drag, but a f t e r a w h i l e I got used t o i t . - I l i k e two t e a c h e r s because i f one i s mad t h e r e i s s t i l l the one t h a t ' s n i c e . But I hate having l i t t l e b r a t s running a l l over. I would r a t h e r have few than seventy. - I t h i n k team t e a c h i n g i s p r e t t y good. The t e a c h e r s get more work and so do we but i t ' s p r e t t y good anyway. - I l i k e i t because i t seems e a s i e r but r e a l l y i s n ' t . - I l i k e i t b e t t e r than l a s t year. - I l i k e i t but I don't l i k e w r i t i n g on my knee. - Team t e a c h i n g seems to be working a l l r i g h t but I keep g e t t i n g mixed up. - We don't waste so much time s i t t i n g around. While one t e a c h e r i s s e t t i n g up the f i l m p r o j e c t o r , the others take care of our groups. - I l i k e team t e a c h i n g because i f I f o r g e t how t o do something I can ask the other t e a c h e r . - When one t e a c h e r says t o do work and one says t o do a fun t h i n g , we always do a fun t h i n g . - In Saskatoon we had f o u r w a l l s around us but here we have room t o have fun. - T h i s year the t e a c h e r s seem more l i k e f r i e n d s than t e a c h e r s . - I would r a t h e r be back i n our o l d set up surrounded by b a r r i e r s . T h i s new area i s too p u b l i c , though i t does cut down t a l k i n g among us. - I t h i n k I am g a i n i n g the a r t of being r e s p o n s i b l e . - I t i s b e t t e r t o have a few at one t a b l e than a l o t so they won't t a l k . - There i s n ' t as much f o o l i n g around t h i s year. - I don't t h i n k t h a t i t makes any d i f f e r e n c e i f t h e r e ' s team t e a c h i n g or not because you o n l y t h i n k of one t e a c h e r as "your" t e a c h e r . F i n d i n g s thus i n d i c a t e t h a t p u p i l s , on the whole, are very much i n favour of team t e a c h i n g . How much of t h i s i s due t o the n o v e l aspect of team t e a c h i n g , and how much of i t i s due to the a c t u a l team method remains t o be measured. P a r e n t a l A t t i t u d e s F i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s Research s t u d i e s c o n s i s t e n t l y show t h a t a c o n s i d e r -a b l e m a j o r i t y of parents h o l d f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward team t e a c h i n g . The f i n d i n g s a r e , however, g e n e r a l l y not s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c or d e t a i l e d t o i n d i c a t e what f e a t u r e s of team t e a c h i n g were c h i e f l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these a t t i t u d e s . I t i s u n c e r t a i n t o what extent the p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s r e f l e c t such h a l o f a c t o r s as c o o p e r a t i o n with the s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n or g r a t i f i c a t i o n f o r having c h i l d r e n i n a new programme. Jackson r e p o r t e d t h a t p a r e n t a l o p i n i o n s were overwhelming acceptance of team t e a c h i n g i n t h a t : the c h i l d r e n b e n e f i t t e d i n some a d d i t i o n a l way, experiences were as complete as i n c o n v e n t i o n a l t e a c h i n g , the c h i l d r e n enjoyed the team te a c h -i n g approach. P a r e n t a l o p i n i o n s were d i v i d e d i n t h a t : the par e n t - t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s remained the same. A h i g h e r degree of i n t e r e s t and of p u p i l m o t i v a t i o n was i d e n t i f i e d . 1 ^ 6 B e i g h l e y a l s o r e v e a l e d overwhelming acceptance of the programme. Parents gave c r e d i t f o r the programme's success t o f a c t o r s made p o s s i b l e by each p u p i l having more than one t e a c h e r , i n c l u d i n g t e a c h e r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , more v a r i e d t e a c h i n g methods, more o b j e c t i v i t y concerning p u p i l s and 1 $7 l e s s o n s . The P i t t s b u r g h p r o j e c t , which was conducted p r i m a r i l y i n neighbourhoods s u f f e r i n g from d e p r e s s i n g c u l t u r a l and socioeconomic c o n d i t i o n s , r e p o r t e d not only f a v o u r a b l e p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s but important g a i n s i n the school-community p a r t n e r s h i p . E d u c a t i o n a l l y s u p p o r t i v e 186 T , Jackson, op. c i t . 1 do 'Archie Fay B e i g h l e y , "The O r i g i n and Development o f Elementary Team Teaching i n Lewiston, Idaho, U n i v e r s i t y of Idaho, 1968, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 5-6 (November, 1968), 1668-A. : agencies and groups w i t h i n the community made g r e a t e r c o n t r i -b u t i o n s t o the s c h o o l s and t o the t o t a l development of the c h i l d r e n than p r e v i o u s l y , t h e r e was b e t t e r communication between the parents and the s c h o o l s , and t h e r e seemed t o be 188 h i g h e r morale i n the s c h o o l communities. The Norwalk Plan r e p o r t e d t h a t i n Grades Two and F i v e 63 percent of the parents favoured team t e a c h i n g , 19 percent were u n c e r t a i n , and 18 189 percent were opposed. B a i r and Woodward r e p o r t i n g on the Lexington Plan found t h a t over 80 percent of the parents f e l t t h a t team t e a c h i n g met t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s needs i n the academic, emotional, p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l a reas. Nine out of t e n , or b e t t e r , favoured moving from room t o room, working wi t h s e v e r a l t e a c h e r s , working i n s m a l l groups and working at a p p r o p r i a t e achievement l e v e l s . Only s i x out of ten were 190 f a v o u r a b l e toward l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n . 7 In the San Jose p r o j e c t 76 percent of the respondents s a i d they would l i k e t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o continue i n the p l a n , 20 percent were u n c e r t a i n , and 13 percent p r e f e r r e d the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d c l a s s -room. Three out of f o u r were s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s academic pr o g r e s s . Four out of t e n f e l t t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s a t t i t u d e s toward s c h o o l were b e t t e r , w h i l e one i n 10 f e l t 191 these a t t i t u d e s were not as good. S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s are l88 " P u p i l s , P a t e r n s and P o s s i b i l i t i e s . A D e s c i p -t i o n of Team Teaching i n P i t t s b u r g h , " op. c i t . , 198. 189 S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 336. 190 Baipi.and Woodward, op. c i t . , 211. S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 335. r e p o r t e d by Adams, 192 Soucy 193 and Burningharn. 194 C r a n d e l l , however, s t a t e s t h a t "parent a t t i t u d e was not found t o fav o u r e i t h e r the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d or the team t e a c h i n g pat-195 t e r n as a means of conducting elementary e d u c a t i o n . " F i n d i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia author, 172 or 75 percent s a i d t h a t the r e a c t i o n of parents to team t e a c h i n g was f a v o u r a b l e . Only 19 or 8 percent of the respondents s a i d i t was unfavourable. Parents were i n d i c a t e d as being i n d i f f e r e n t by 49 or 22 percent of the te a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s . E i g h t e e n or 8 percent s a i d t h a t parents had mixed f e e l i n g s about t h i s approach. Where parents showed an unfavourable or i n d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e the adjustment of p u p i l s was a f f e c t e d . Teachers and p r i n c i p a l s both f e l t t h a t where parents were f a v o u r a b l y i n c l i n e d towards team t e a c h i n g , the p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s h i p and g e n e r a l tone of the s c h o o l improved. Many parents who had a f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e towards team t e a c h i n g , helped the team by becoming t e a c h e r a i d e s . Of 228 p r i n c i p a l s nd te a c h e r s surveyed by the 192 Adams, op. c i t . 193 Soucy, op. c i t . 194 Burningharn, op. c i t . C r a n d e l l , op. c i t . F i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s I t i s evident t h a t the a t t i t u d e s of t e a c h e r s toward team t e a c h i n g are d e c i s i v e f a c t o r s i n i t s success and i t s f u t u r e use. In the l i g h t of t h i s f a c t , i t i s remarkable how few of the r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s have obtained s p e c i f i c informa-t i o n about t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s . They do not d e s c r i b e the t e a c h e r s whose a t t i t u d e s are r e p o r t e d i n terms of such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as t h e i r age, l e n g t h of s e r v i c e , e d u c a t i o n a l background, area of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , r o l e s i n t e a c h i n g teams, or i n - s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e i r r o l e s . No i n d i c a t i o n i s g i v e n of the a t t i t u d e s of n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l members of teams. Very l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n has been assembled t o show the e f f e c t of team t e a c h i n g on the r e c r u i t m e n t and r e t e n t i o n of out-s t a n d i n g t e a c h e r s . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , because most are v o l u n t e e r s , the m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s who have worked on teams express f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s and e l e c t t o remain i n teams. Even these v o l u n t e e r s , however, a p p a r e n t l y undergo a r a t h e r severe and s t r e s s f u l p e r i o d i n a d j u s t i n g to the demands team t e a c h -i n g makes on them. Nearly a l l t e a c h e r s admit i n i t i a l r e s e r -v a t i o n s about s h a r i n g p u p i l s with other t e a c h e r s but these r e s e r v a t i o n s appear t o melt a f t e r f o u r or f i v e months. Shoresman r e p o r t e d t h a t t e a c h e r p r e s t i g e , morale and a d a p t a b i l i t y were enhanced by r e l i e v i n g t e a c h e r s of r o u t i n e chores and by i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r s t a t u s . Davis, on the o t h e r hand, i n d i c a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n c a t e g o r i e s of t e a c h e r s 197 r e a c t n e g a t i v e l y t o t h e i r r o l e s as team members. A d m i n i s t r a t o r s are the most a c t i v e proponents of team t e a c h i n g a c c o r d i n g t o the N a t i o n a l Education P r o j e c t on the 198 I n s t i t u t i o n a l Programme of the P u b l i c Schools. The P i t t s b u r g h P r o j e c t s t a t e d t h a t with t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l t a l e n t s r e c o g n i z e d , t e a c h e r s were showing more enthusiasm f o r t h e i r work and were making f a r g r e a t e r use of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l 199 c r e a t i v e t a l e n t s . 7 J A r e p o r t from the p r o j e c t i n San Jose g i v e n a f t e r the f i r s t year of o p e r a t i o n s t a t e d t h a t s i x out of t e n t e a c h e r s were much happ i e r i n team t e a c h i n g . E i g h t f e l t they were working much harder than they worked i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. In response t o a q u e s t i o n about the e f f e c t of team t e a c h i n g on t h e i r freedom to take i n i t i a t i v e i n making d e c i s i o n s , t h r e e f e l t they had more freedom, f i v e f e l t t h e r e was no change i n t h i s r e s p e c t , and two f e l t thay had l e s s freedom. Seven f e l t t h e i r students were l e a r n i n g more than i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. A l l t e n f e l t they were meeting s t u d e n t s ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs 196 Robert H. Anderson, " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Character of E d u c a t i o n : S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n and Deployment," Review of  E d u c a t i o n a l Research, XXXIV (October, 1964), 457. 1 9 7 I b i d . 19&\ 'Ibid. , 258. ' " P u p i l s , Pa t i o n of Team-Teaching i n P i t t s b u r g h , " op. c i t . , 19#. 199 y 7 " P u p i l s , P a t t e r n s and P o s s i b i l i t i e s : A Descrip---as w e l l or b e t t e r than they had met these needs i n the s e l f -c o n t a i n e d classroom, d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t f o u r f e l t they d i d not know t h e i r students as w e l l . According to nine t e a c h e r s , s t u d e n t s ' classroom behavior was about the same as b e f o r e . Seven t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t communication with parents was as good as b e f o r e , and t h r e e f e l t i t was b e t t e r . B a i r and Woodward r e p o r t i n g on the Lexington programme found r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e evidence t o support or r e f u t e the conten-t i o n t h a t team t e a c h i n g promoted b e t t e r morale or g r e a t e r 201 i n c e n t i v e t o s u p e r i o r performance. I t was d i s c o v e r e d , however, t h a t elementary s c h o o l t e a c h e r s and s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s had a g r e a t e r c a p a c i t y t o t o l e r a t e and adapt t o a v a r i e t y of environmental and working c o n d i t i o n s than c u s t o m a r i l y 202 assumed. Other claims made by B a i r and Woodward about t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s a r e : t e a c h e r s f e e l t h a t , as a team, they know p u p i l s b e t t e r and can p r o v i d e b e t t e r f o r r e s o l v i n g p e r s o n a l i t y con-f l i c t s ; they enjoy working i n groups of v a r i o u s s i z e s and u s i n g a v a r i e t y of techniques; they f e e l they improve t h e i r t e a c h i n g through teamwork; they b e l i e v e team t e a c h i n g h e l p s i n meeting i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p u p i l s ; they l i k e having t e a c h e r a i d e s — t h e y r e c o g n i z e t h a t c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g p l a c e s e x c e p t i o n a l demands on them but w i l l i n g l y work l o n g e r hours. They l i k e the c a r e e r advantages a s s o c i a t e d with team t e a c h -i n g such as o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r promotion, f o r s a l a r y increments, and f o r the s p e c i a l s t a t u s of team l e a d e r -s h i p . However, some t e a c h e r s are not i n c l i n e d t o or s u i t e d t o , teamwork and p r e f e r the r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n and autonomy of the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom.2 0 3 200 S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 337-338. B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . , 192. I b i d . , 183. 201 202 I b i d . , 213-214. Douglass found t h a t g e n e r a l l y those who had p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n the team t e a c h i n g programme supported the concept e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y but t e a c h e r s who had only observed i t were not at a l l sure they wished t o i n v o l v e themselves. C r a n d e l l a l s o found that t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s g e n e r a l l y favoured the team t e a c h i n g concept over the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d 205 classroom. ^ Hagen, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note, found t h a t the g e n e r a l optimum of the team s t a f f decreased i n the course of the two-year i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Most s i g n i f i c a n t are the f i n d i n g s of Jacobs. He s t a t e s t h a t the expressed a t t i t u d e s of both team and non-team t e a c h i n g toward c h i l d r e n , c u r r i c u l u m , and the r o l e of the t e a c h e r tended t o be s i m i l a r . Few s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found even when team and non-team t e a c h e r s were separated i n t o sub-groups a c c o r d i n g to e d u c a t i o n a l background and experience. "In view of a t t i t u d i -n a l response d i f f e r e n c e s found among other groups of t e a c h e r s the h i g h degree of agreement of response of the t e a c h e r s i n 207 t h i s study, r a t h e r than any d i f f e r e n c e , i s of s i g n i f i c a n c e . " Chamberlin r e p o r t e d t h a t the most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned prob-lem was t h a t of t e a c h e r s being unable t o work t o g e t h e r 208 harmoniously. Bunyan p o i n t s out, however, t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s Malcolm P. Douglass, "Team Teaching Fundamental Change or Passing Fancy?" op. c i t . , 29. 205 ^ C r a n d e l l , op. c i t . 206 u Hagen, op. c i t . 207 T u Jacobs, op. c i t . Cham erlin, op. c i t . , 138. between team t e a c h e r s are d e s i r a b l e and t h a t c o n f o r m i t y , w h i l e i t does not cause c o n f l i c t , i s a d e b i l i t a t i n g f a c t o r 209 i n the team approach t o an o b j e c t i v e g o a l . T h i s view i s supported by E l l i s o n and others who s t a t e t h a t a b s o l u t e 210 team c o m p a t i b i l i t y i s not e s s e n t i a l t o team t e a c h i n g . F i n d i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia In g e n e r a l , the t e a c h e r s i n the 85 elementary s c h o o l s surveyed by the author were e n t h u s i a s t i c about team t e a c h i n g . Seventy p r i n c i p a l s or 83 percent of the sample s a i d t h a t the team t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h i s approach was f a v o u r a b l e . Only 6 or 8 percent of the p r i n c i p a l s s a i d t h a t the a t t i t u d e of some of t h e i r team t e a c h e r s was un-f a v o u r a b l e toward the approach. Four or 5 percent s t a t e d t h a t the team's a t t i t u d e toward team t e a c h i n g was i n d i f f e r e n t . P r i n c i p a l s f e l t t h a t the m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s who were d i s -s a t i s f i e d with team t e a c h i n g were o l d e r t e a c h e r s or those weak i n t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y . Some t e a c h e r s of ou t s t a n d i n g a b i l i t y , however, have f e l t d i s s a t i s f i e d because they are hampered by weaker members. Teachers new t o the team approach who do not understand i t , t e a c h e r s u n w i l l i n g to spend e x t r a time on planning and t e a c h e r s of independent temperament were a l s o i n d i c a t e d as f r e q u e n t l y having 20^L.W. Bunyan, Team Teaching: A Report (Calgary Burnand P r i n t i n g Company, 1965), 64. E l l i s o n et a l , op. c i t . unfavourable a t t i t u d e s toward team t e a c h i n g . T r a d i t i o n a l t e a c h e r s were found t o be r e s i s t a n t t o team t e a c h i n g . P r i n c i p a l s a l s o p o i n t e d out t h a t i n f l e x i b l e t e a c h e r s or those t h a t had d i f f i c u l t y i n t e r a c t i n g with other a d u l t s d i d not l a s t long i n the team approach. P e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s w i t h -i n teams were r e p o r t e d by 28 or 34 percent of the p r i n c i p a l s . F i f t y - o n e or 61 percent, however, s a i d t h a t t h e r e were no c o n f l i c t s i n evidence. Teachers i n the sc h o o l who were not i n v o l v e d i n team t e a c h i n g g e n e r a l l y approved of i t . F o r t y - t h r e e p r i n -c i p a l s or 51 percent of the sample s t a t e d t h i s t o be the case. Only 7 or 9 percent s a i d t h a t other t e a c h e r s h e l d an unfavourable a t t i t u d e . Twenty-five p r i n c i p a l s or 30 percent s a i d t h a t t e a c h e r s i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms were i n d i f f e r e n t toward team t e a c h i n g . The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were almost a l l i n favour of team t e a c h i n g . Seventy-two or 85 percent s a i d t h a t they were. Two only r e a c t e d unfavourably and f i v e s t a t e d they were i n d i f f e r e n t . The m a j o r i t y of team t e a c h e r s , 90 or 63 p e r c e n t , f e l t t h a t they worked a l o t harder i n team t e a c h i n g than i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. Most f e l t the r e s u l t s were worth i t . Only f i v e t e a c h e r s or 4 percent s t a t e d t h a t they worked l e s s hard. T h i r t y - e i g h t t e a c h e r s or 27 percent f e l t the work l o a d t o be about the same. Teachers' f e e l i n g s were mixed as to whether or not they knew each p u p i l b e t t e r . F i f t y - o n e t e a c h e r s or 36 per-cent s a i d they knew each p u p i l on the team b e t t e r than t h e i r p u p i l s i n the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. F o r t y - s i x t e a c h e r s or 33 percent f e l t they d i d not know them as w e l l and the same number f e l t t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e between the amount of knowledge you had of each p u p i l on the team or i n the r e g u l a r classroom. Opinions were q u i t e c l e a r , however, with regards to how w e l l they met each p u p i l ' s needs. Most team t e a c h e r s , 102 or 72 percent, s t a t e d t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l needs of p u p i l s were b e t t e r met i n the team t e a c h i n g s i t u a t i o n as compared t o the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom. Despite the f a c t t h a t most team t e a c h e r s are enthus-i a s t i c about t h i s approach, annual s t a f f changes c r e a t e a c o n s i d e r a b l e problem. F o r t y - f o u r p r i n c i p a l s or 52 percent s t a t e d t h i s t o be the case. Twenty-six p r i n c i p a l s or 31 percent s a i d t h a t annual s t a f f changes were not a problem. Comments i n d i c a t i n g t t e a c h e r s ' and p r i n c i p a l s ' a t t i t u d e s i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : - Team t e a c h i n g has been a s t i m u l a t i n g and rewarding experience i n view of the many e x c e l l e n t programmes we developed ( t e a c h e r ) . - Team t e a c h i n g has been a novel e x p e r i e n c e , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e I'm a f i r s t year t e a c h e r ( t e a c h e r ) . - I enjoy team t e a c h i n g . The more I do i t the b e t t e r I l i k e i t ( t e a c h e r ) . - A l l t e a c h e r s i n v o l v e d were w i l l i n g t o teach i n such a s i t u a t i o n again ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Team t e a c h i n g means more work, lo n g e r hours and a g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n and accomplishment i n t e a c h i n g ( t e a c h e r ) . - I am very p l e a s e d w i t h the a t t i t u d e t e a c h e r s take toward team t e a c h i n g . Some of them do a very good job of a task t h a t , at times, i s most d i f f i c u l t and f r u s t r a t i n g ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Most enjoyable year yet ( t e a c h e r ) . - T h i s i s a very s u c c e s s f u l team. They are competent, happy and very demanding of the p r i n c i p a l ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Team t e a c h i n g has not been too s u c c e s s f u l i n t h i s d i s t r i c t . Since 1969 no one i n t h i s s c h o o l has been i n t e r e s t e d , p o s s i b l y because i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d anyone i n t h i s d i s t r i c t who has worked i n a team or open area s i t u a t i o n who a f t e r one year wants any part of i t ( p r i n c i p a l ) . P r i n c i p a l s ' comments about annual s t a f f changes h e l p t o c l a r i f y what the present s i t u a t i o n i s i n the team t e a c h i n g elementary s c h o o l s of B r i t i s h Columbia. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t o note t h a t although most team t e a c h e r s s a i d they enjoyed team t e a c h i n g , not many stayed with t h e i r team l o n g e r than one year. Statements made i n the author's survey i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g : - Next year w i l l l i k e l y be the f i r s t time we've ever had the same team f o r two s u c c e s s i v e y e a r s . - S t a f f changes c r e a t e a c o n s i d e r a b l e problem. In 196S-1969 teams were s h a t t e r e d 5 out of 6. In 1969-1970 h a l f of the teams were new t o the open area and two members were new t o t e a c h i n g . The s i t u a t i o n 1970-1971 was the same as 1969-1970. - Annual s t a f f changes were a problem i n the past but not now. - Enough " c o r e " t e a c h e r s were l e f t from l a s t year t o continue without i n t e r r u p t i o n . - T h i s has been a b i g problem. L i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y i s g i v e n t o b u i l d teams and s e l e c t replacements. - S t a f f changes has been no b i g problem the present two teams are anxious to combine next year. - Teachers new t o the s c h o o l have adapted t o our pro-cedures very w e l l . - T h i s problem i s not g r e a t but c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n must be made when a vacancy a r i s e s . - Annual s t a f f changes have c r e a t e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e problem. The team has changed because of r e t i r e m e n t and r e l e a s e of s t a f f . I t has s e t t l e d down now and has the makings f o r reasonable permanency. - The s t a f f has remained f a i r l y constant although changes have sometimes been requested. - There were vast s t a f f changes every year. Over f o u r years only t h r e e of f o u r t e e n team t e a c h e r s have stayed on the second year. None have stayed on f o r a t h i r d year. - So f a r t h i s has not been a problem. The team has remained the same f o r two y e a r s . - We have had c o n t i n u i t y . Only one member out of t h r e e changed each year. - S t a f f changes c r e a t e a c o n s i d e r a b l e problem. We would have l i k e d t o e s t a b l i s h a team of f o u r t e a c h e r s i n -stead of two. S t a f f changes f o r September 1971 w i l l a g a i n c u r t a i l team work. - S t a f f changes are a very g r e a t problem. One member l e a v i n g from a team of f o u r d e s t r o y s what has been developed over the year. The only p l u s i s the experience of the t e a c h e r s t h a t continue. Teacher Competence and E f f i c i e n c y F i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s Even i n s c h o o l s t h a t have been engaged i n team teach-i n g f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e time t h e r e i s no c o n c l u s i v e evidence t o i n d i c a t e t h a t g r e a t e r t e a c h e r competency or e f f i c i e n c y r e s u l t s from t h i s type of o r g a n i z a t i o n . Claims, such as the one made by S h a p l i n , t h a t team t e a c h i n g p r o v i d e s a n a t u r a l v e h i c l e f o r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n t e a c h i n g and t h a t such s p e c i a l -i z a t i o n l e a d s t o improvement of i n s t r u c t i o n as w e l l as more 211 e f f e c t i v e use of t a l e n t , have not yet been proven. Most r e s e a r c h on p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l s on teams has been d e f e n s i v e r e s e a r c h aimed at working out minimal r o l e s f o r such personnel and proving t h a t they do not harm c h i l d r e n who are exposed t o them. Furthermore, r e s e a r c h evidence at hand does not c l a r i f y t o what extent team e f f e c t i v e n e s s depends on the on the combination of persons making up the team or on the s t r u c t u r e of the team. Educators sometimes f a i l t o r e a l i z e t h a t i t i s e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e t o have a team composed of happy s o c i a l l y compatible people who are accomplishing very l i t t l e . Success of the team t e a c h i n g venture, i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , can be judged only on the b a s i s of the amount of l e a r n i n g i t produces. Some sc h o o l s have r e p o r t e d a r i s e i n the q u a l i t y of both experienced and i n e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s on teams. The P i t t s b u r g h p r o j e c t s t a t e s t h a t : r e l i e v e d o f many n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l chores, they have more time t o t e a c h , t o t h i n k through and p l a n t o g e t h e r what they are going to t e a c h , t o develop new and e f f e c t i v e ways of t e a c h i n g , and t o know and h e l p the c h i l d r e n they t e a c h . By working t o g e t h e r i n teams they are developing p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t n e r s h i p s of r e a l v a l u e . E d u c a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p i s l i k e w i s e becoming more dynamic, and l i n e s of communication between a d m i n i s t r a -t o r s and s t a f f are being strengthened. i 2 Wall and Reasoner found t h a t the most they c o u l d s t a t e was t h a t t e a c h e r s working i n a team s e t t i n g can provide an i n s t r u c t i o n a l programme t h a t compares f a v o u r a b l y with t h a t 213 of a c o n v e n t i o n a l s c h o o l . E l l i s o n and others r e p o r t t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n p r e s e n t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n between the team taught and S e l f -pi L c o n t a i n e d classroom groups. Yet one of the major claimed 212 " P u p i l s , P a t t e r n s and P o s s i b i l i t i e s : A D e s c r i p -t i o n of Team Teaching i n P i t t s b u r g h , " op. c i t . , 19S. 2 1 ^ W a l l and Reasoner, op. c i t . , 94-95. teaching procedures. E l l i s o n concludes his study by saying: It i s evident that the differences between the two schools did not appear greatly to affe c t the practices within them. Putting several teachers i n charge of a large group of students i n a large open area did not appear to have major consequences f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y there. Team teaching i s based on the idea that talent i s wasted, the teacher f r u s t r a t e d , and education watered down when a l l teachers, regardless of background and a b i l i t y , are treated a l i k e . Team teaching should, therefore, provide a hierarchy of teachers with d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s and competences. It i s of interest to note that Polos states that many team teaching projects avoid t h i s phase of team teaching "going 215 on the f a l s e premise that a l l teachers are a l i k e . " Borg had s i m i l a r findings and reports that the vast majority of teams have either no o f f i c i a l leader or have a chairman who conducts meetings but has l i t t l e or no administrative 216 authority. L o v e l l stated that l i t t l e was heard of the view that team teaching provided a form of organization i n which experienced and competent teachers could be rewarded by being designated as master teacher and given extra f i n a n c i a l remuneration. "In the schools v i s i t e d team teachers were often of equal status, and even i f there was a team leader or senior teacher he did not always get extra payment 2 1 5 P o l o s , op. c i t . , 11. p r o j e c t s employing h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e s t h a t i t i s d i f -f i c u l t t o r e c r u i t , i d e n t i f y , and provide t r a i n i n g f o r the persons needed i n l e a d e r s h i p and s p e c i a l i s t r o l e s . F i s c h l e r s t a t e d t h a t : To date, a f t e r f i v e years of one p r o j e c t , i t i s s t i l l i m p o s s i b l e t o f i n d p ersonnel to f i l l adequately the r o l e s of S e n i o r Teacher and Team Leader. The major-i t y of t e a c h e r s do not have the degree of competence needed i n two a r e a s , and, i n f a c t some not e v e n ' i n one. They l a c k knowledge of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d as w e l l as knowledge of the way c h i l d r e n l e a r n . In some cases, i t i s a l s o d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d a l e a d e r with the a b i l i t y t o work with others and develop harmonious r e l a t i o n -s h i p s . Most c r i t i c a l of a l l i s the i n a b i l i t y of a team l e a d e r , s e n i o r t e a c h e r , or team i n ^ i t s e n t i r e t y t o be-come a n a l y t i c a l i n i t s a p p r o a c h . 2 1 8 These data suggest t h a t most teams p r e f e r t o operate as a group of peers r a t h e r than having a d e f i n i t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h i e r a r c h y w i t h i n the team. The t e a c h e r team may not, t h e r e -f o r e , be a b l e t o serve the f u n c t i o n of p r o v i d i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l s of r e c o g n i t i o n or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y as was attempted by e a r l i e r teams. w i l l improve i n team t e a c h i n g because of peer s u p e r v i s i o n . Dr. D. L o r t i e found, however, t h a t t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are not t r a i n e d i n t h i s way of working and, o f t e n unable to cope with the new l i f e , seek t o s t r u c t u r e t h e i r work back i n t o 219 a more t r a d i t i o n a l s e t t i n g . 7 Some educators b e l i e v e t h a t the q u a l i t y of t e a c h i n g 217 L o v e l l , op. c i t . , 21. F i s c h l e r and Shoresman, op. c i t Bunyan, op. c i t . , 3-4. 218 S u b j e c t i v e evidence, on the whole, supports the c o n v i c t i o n t h a t a p p r e n t i c e t e a c h e r s o b t a i n a b e t t e r i n t r o -d u c t i o n t o the p r o f e s s i o n by s e r v i n g on teams as j u n i o r members than by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the c o n v e n t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s of p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g . C a r l i n s t a t e d t h a t t e a c h e r education and i n - s e r v i c e education seemed t o be c o n s i d e r a b l y enhanced 220 by the team o r g a n i z a t i o n . Altman added to t h i s t h a t students on teams appeared to get i n v o l v e d i n t e a c h i n g sooner than the c o n v e n t i o n a l programme and appeared t o overcome 221 sooner merely p l a y i n g the r o l e of t e a c h e r . F i n d i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia In B r i t i s h Columbia the f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g g r e a t e r t e a c h e r competency and e f f i c i e n c y as a r e s u l t of team t e a c h -i n g are very s u b j e c t i v e . None of the claims made by t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s have yet been proven. On the whole, both t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s f e l t t h a t t h e r e was an improvement i n the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n . They s t a t e d t h a t the i n s t r u c t i o n was more p u r p o s e f u l , the p r e s e n t -a t i o n b e t t e r , the c u r r i c u l u m more c o o r d i n a t e d , i n s t r u c t i o n a l time more e f f i c i e n t l y used and the q u a l i t y of seat work h i g h e r . Teachers seemed t o be more w i l l i n g t o admit t o d i f f i c u l t y and would ask other team members f o r a d v i c e . I t 220 * u P h i l i p M. C a r l i n , "A Current A p p r a i s a l of Team Teaching," E d u c a t i o n , LXXXV (February, 1 9 6 5 ) , 3 1 9 . 221 Burton E. Altman, "Micro Team Teaching," Wisconsin S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 6 S (ERIC E D Q 2 3 6 3 2 ) . was, t h e r e f o r e , f e l t t h a t the team approach b u i l t on success and e l i m i n a t e d f a i l u r e more q u i c k l y . I t a l s o seemed t h a t a more co m p e t i t i v e standard was set up when each t e a c h e r i s conscious of the e f f o r t s of o t h e r s . Of the 228 t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s surveyed, 115 or 50 percent f e l t t h a t the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n i n team t e a c h i n g , as compared t o the r e g u l a r classroom, was improved. Only 18 or 8 percent of the sample f e l t t h i s not t o be the case. The g r e a t e s t detriment t o improved i n s t r u c t i o n was f e l t t o be the extremely heavy work l o a d , p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s and the s h i r k i n g of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by some t e a c h e r s . I t was a l s o f e l t by those surveyed t h a t team t e a c h i n g f o s t e r e d g r e a t e r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m . B e t t e r use of t e a c h e r s ' s k i l l s and t a l e n t s was made. Of the 228 p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s surveyed, 152 or 66 percent i n d i c a t e d t h a t teams i n t h e i r s c h o o l were able t o make the f u l l e s t use of t e a c h e r s ' s t r e n g t h s , s k i l l s and i n t e r e s t s . T h i s a p p l i e d not only t o team t e a c h e r s but a l s o t o t e a c h e r s o u t s i d e the team used as resource people. Many i n d i c a t e d t h a t team t e a c h i n g b r i n g s out the best q u a l i t i e s i n t e a c h e r s and t h a t these can be shared w i t h a g r e a t e r number of p u p i l s . Frequent c o n s u l t a -t i o n with other team members seemed t o provide many i n s i g h t s not otherwise found. Complementary s t a f f members helped t o make the sc h o o l programme more complete. I t was f e l t by most t e a c h e r s t h a t they l e a r n e d a great d e a l from each other. There was a l s o a growth and improvement i n weaker team members. Furthermore, i f a t e a c h e r had a d e f i c i e n c y i n some ar e a , the s k i l l s of another member could f i l l the gap. P r i n c i p a l s s a i d t h at through the s h a r i n g of idea s and t e c h -niques teams tended t o be more a g g r e s s i v e , i n i t i a t i v e o r i e n t e d and v e r s a t i l e than the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom t e a c h e r s . Although only 66 or 28 percent of the respondents f e l t t h a t team t e a c h i n g i n t h e i r s c h o o l was a b l e t o h e l p beginning t e a c h e r s a c q u i r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l , many f e l t t h a t i t co u l d be an e x c e l l e n t i n - s e r v i c e experience. Team t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t they were much more cognizant of p u p i l s ' i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and met t h e i r needs b e t t e r . One hundred and two te a c h e r s or 72 percent of the sample i n -d i c a t e d t h i s t o be so. Only 10 t e a c h e r s or 7 percent s a i d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l needs were met l e s s e f f e c t i v e l y i n team t e a c h i n g as compared t o the r e g u l a r classroom. Since 112 or 79 percent of the t e a c h e r s planned t h e i r s u b j e c t s p e c i a l t y i t i s t o be expected t h a t both p r i n c i p a l s and te a c h e r s f e l t t h a t s p e c i a l s u b j e c t s were b e t t e r taught. One p r i n c i p a l , however, p o i n t e d out t h a t s p e c i a l i z a t i o n at times weakens the team concept when only one t e a c h e r teaches the s u b j e c t i n s t e a d of a l l t e a c h e r s i n s t r u c t i n g and e v a l u -a t i n g the s u b j e c t under the guidance of the s p e c i a l i s t . Many t e a c h e r s s a i d t h a t e v a l u a t i o n was improved and much more v a l i d when conducted by a team r a t h e r than an i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r . Team t e a c h i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia elementary s c h o o l s , i n most cases, d i d not provide a form of o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which experienced and competent t e a c h e r s were rewarded. In only two s c h o o l s was d i f f e r e n t i a l s t a f f i n g with a s a l a r y i n c r e a s e f o r l e a d e r s r e p o r t e d . In f a c t , as p o i n t e d out e a r l i e r , only 6 of the 85 s c h o o l s had teams wi t h a h i e r a r c h -i c a l s t r u c t u r e . S i x t y - f o u r s c h o o l s or 75 percent of the sample had no l e a d e r on t h e i r teams. In s c h o o l s where t h e r e were l e a d e r s they mainly had the r o l e of chairman. Because teams seem t o be unable t o provide i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l s of r e c o g n i t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y , one complaint i s t h a t very e n t h u s i a s t i c and competent t e a c h e r s are f r e q u e n t l y l o s t t o teams when they are promoted. Comments made by those surveyed about t e a c h e r com-petence and e f f i c i e n c y i n c l u d e d those t h a t f o l l o w : - A l l t e a c h e r s agreed t h a t the team experience had e n r i c h e d t h e i r t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y and t h a t they would never teach i n the same way again i f they r e t u r n e d t o a s i n g l e classroom ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - A more competent standard of work was set up i n the team s i t u a t i o n where each t e a c h e r i s conscious of the e f f o r t s of the others ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Many novel a c t i v i t i e s have been c a r r i e d on t h a t boost the experience of t e a c h e r s ( t e a c h e r ) . - Team t e a c h i n g enables t e a c h e r s who have a s p e c i a l t y t o make the best use of t h e i r t a l e n t s ( t e a c h e r ) . - We f e e l we are much b e t t e r t e a c h e r s and human beings because of team t e a c h i n g ( t e a c h e r ) . - Language a r t s i s much r i c h e r because of the s h a r i n g of areas of experience ( t e a c h e r ) . - The best f e a t u r e of team t e a c h i n g i s the s h a r i n g of i d e a s which h e l p s t o improve p r e s e n t a t i o n , the q u a l i t y of seatwork and the p u r p o s e f u l n e s s of i n s t r u c t i o n ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Team t e a c h i n g a l l o w s the a b i l i t i e s and s k i l l s of each t e a c h e r to be shared with more c h i l d r e n ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - The c h i l d r e n b e n e f i t from working w i t h and among top t a l e n t e d people ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Team t e a c h i n g i s an e x c e l l e n t i n s e r v i c e experience f o r beginning t e a c h e r s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Each team member seems t o strengthen the other by simply being t h e r e t o back her up ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Team t e a c h e r s have a much b e t t e r knowledge of the needs of the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d ( p r i n c i p a l ) -- Teachers l e a r n from the s t r e n g t h s of other members ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - E v a l u a t i o n and parent conferences are improved be-cause t h r e e t e a c h e r s are i n v o l v e d with each c h i l d ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Team t e a c h i n g p r o v i d e s a new avenue f o r t e a c h e r s t o assess t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r approach t o t e a c h i n g . Close s c r u t i n y through one's own and another's eyes can improve t e a c h e r s ' p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - The q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n has improved and t e a c h e r s are more w i l l i n g t o experiment ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Complimentary s t a f f members a s s i s t t o make the programme more complete ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - There can be a tendency f o r one t e a c h e r t o expect o t h e r s t o do what she ought t o be doing ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Team t e a c h i n g r e i n f o r c e s the p o s i t i v e approach of t e a c h e r s and h e l p s t o negate the weaknesses of team members ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - The o u t s t a n d i n g , e n t h u s i a s t i c team members get pro-moted and we l o s e them ( p r i n c i p a l ) . I t i s obvious from these statements t h a t most t e a c h e r s f e e l they are doing a b e t t e r t e a c h i n g job i n the team s i t u a t i o n . Measurable r e s u l t s , however, have not yet i n d i c a t e d t h i s t o be so. Team Planning F i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s W r i t e r s i n the f i e l d of team t e a c h i n g g i v e c o n s i d e r -a b l e a t t e n t i o n t o team p l a n n i n g . I t i s g e n e r a l l y recommended t h a t d a i l y s e s s i o n s be h e l d d u r i n g s c h o o l time attended by a l l members of the team. Accurate measures of team f u n c t i o n -i n g i n planning are d i f f i c u l t t o o b t a i n because r e p o r t s by team members are apt to be incomplete and u n r e l i a b l e . Furthermore, as suggested by Heathers, the q u a n t i t a t i v e a s p e c t s of teamwork t h a t are r e a d i l y measured are apt t o be l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t than q u a l i t a t i v e a spects t h a t are hard t o measure. Most r e p o r t s agree t h a t the area of team p l a n n i n g poses many problems. Olson says t h a t because of schedule c o n f l i c t s and o u t s i d e demands, many teams do not have s u f -222 f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r communal planning and e v a l u a t i n g . F i s c h l e r agrees with t h i s view and s t a t e s t h a t "one of the major problems i s a r r a n g i n g adequately f o r team p l a n n i n g and d e c i s i o n making on a team b a s i s as w e l l as on an 223 i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l . " Polos working on the Claremont pro-j e c t r e p o r t e d t h a t f r i c t i o n developed among team t e a c h e r s because of l a c k of time f o r proper p l a n n i n g . ^ He adds t h a t most teams have been arranged around e x i s t i n g time schedules, consequently many team members teach as many i f not more 225 hours than b e f o r e . S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s are r e p o r t e d by Trump 2 2 6 and Chamberlin. Heathers found t h a t 9 0 percent of the l e s s o n s taught by 25 teams surveyed were planned by i n d i v i d -222 Olson, "We C a l l I t Team Teaching, But Is i t R e a l l y That?" op. c i t . , 1 2 . 223 ^ F i s c h l e r and Shoresman, op. c i t . , 2 8 5 . 2 2 4 P o l o s , op. c i t . , 7 1 2 2 f L l o y d J . Trump, "Some Questions and Answers f o r Improving S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n , " op. c i t . , 1 9 Chamberlin, op. c i t . , 1 3 8 . u a l t e a c h e r s working alone. Also most of the t o p i c s d i s -cussed by teams duri n g t h e i r p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s r e l a t e d t o c o o r d i n a t i o n of personnel and o r g a n i z a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s , although teams r e p o r t e d t h a t they set up o v e r a l l plans under t h a t too much a t t e n t i o n was p a i d by teams t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and s c h o o l r o u t i n e matters as opposed t o c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n i n g and i n s t r u c t i o n . There was too l i t t l e s h a r i n g of promising c u r r i c u l u m i d e a s . There was a l s o imperfect communication between the planners and the persons who executed p l a n s . 228 Team meetings were not always p r o d u c t i v e and w e l l run. Borg s t a t e d t h a t data from the Utah S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y survey showed t h a t at the elementary s c h o o l l e v e l only about one-f i f t h of the teams r e p o r t e d d a i l y team p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s . N e a r l y o n e - t h i r d r e p o r t e d weekly s e s s i o n s and another 30 percent r e p o r t e d no r e g u l a r schedule. Only o n e - t h i r d of the teams h e l d t h e i r planning s e s s i o n s during r e g u l a r s c h o o l 229 hours. Warfel made an a n a l y s i s of the content of t h r e e teams' plan n i n g s e s s i o n s . He found t h a t two teams used the m a j o r i t y of t h e i r time i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e concerns. The three teams used the s m a l l e s t amount of time f o r the communication f u n c t i o n . P a r t i c i p a t i o n by students i n p l a n n i n g was l i m i t e d . which i n d i v i d u a l s operated. 227 B a i r and Woodward agreed 227 Bruce R. Joyce, " S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n , " op. c i t . , 327. 228 B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t • , 194. Borg, op. c i t 23. Teams d i d not employ the l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n a l p e r i o d t o e f f e c t economies of t e a c h i n g time. Only a s i n g l e o c c a s i o n of p l a n n i n g time appeared dur i n g the sc h o o l day. Teacher a i d e s d i d not g i v e a d d i t i o n a l time t o p r o f e s s i o n a l s s i n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o the t e a c h e r s , the help g i v e n by a i d e s was 230 d i v e r t e d from the team t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the s c h o o l . Teams of l i k e gender, a c c o r d i n g t o Jackson, have an advan-tage i n t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l s spend much more time i n each oth e r ' s company and so l e n d themselves t o much i n f o r m a l 231 d i s c u s s i o n of events and programme. F i n d i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia The f i n d i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia were i n many cases s i m i l a r t o those of the United S t a t e s . Teachers r e p o r t e d t h a t i t was very d i f f i c u l t t o get a l l the team members t o g e t h e r f o r p l a n n i n g . There was a l a c k of time f o r plann i n g and i t took much l o n g e r t o make plans as a team. F r e q u e n t l y p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s were hampered by p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s and disagreements over ideas and b a s i c philosophy. Many respond-ents s a i d t h a t i t was d i f f i c u l t t o change the e s t a b l i s h e d i d e a s of the group. On occasions p r e c i o u s p l a n n i n g time was f e l t t o be wasted on i r r e l e v a n t matters. Teachers, however, seemed w i l l i n g t o put up with these d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r the sake Z'JUE. W a r f e l , "An A n a l y s i s of Team Planning of Three I n s t r u c t i o n a l Teams i n an Elementary S c h o o l , " Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1961, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXVIII, No, 11-12 (May-June, 1 9 6 8 ) , 483 6-A 231 Jackson, op. c i t . of such advantages as: s h a r i n g i d e a s and techniqu e s ; co-op e r a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n ; e f f i c i e n t use of t e a c h e r s ' s t r e n g t h s , s k i l l s and i n t e r e s t s ; q u i c k e r implementation of new i d e a s ; i n - s e r v i c e experience; b e t t e r p l a n n i n g ; b e t t e r p r e p a r a t i o n ; b e t t e r t e a c h e r morale; more even d i s t r i b u t i o n of work l o a d ; l e s s d u p l i c a t i o n ; and a co o r d i n a t e d c u r r i c u l u m . Of the 1 4 3 team t e a c h e r s surveyed, 7 2 or 5 0 percent f e l t t h a t t h e i r team s i t u a t i o n p r o v i d e d w e l l f o r c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n . Many of the team planning s e s s i o n s , however, had t o be h e l d o u t s i d e of sc h o o l hours thereby i n c r e a s i n g the s t r a i n on t e a c h e r s . Well over h a l f of the s c h o o l s s u r -veyed had no te a c h e r a i d e s or i n t e r n s and so were unable t o schedule e x t r a time through t h e i r use. Teachers who were not i n v o l v e d i n classroom i n s t r u c t i o n were u s u a l l y busy h e l p i n g i n d i v i d u a l s or s m a l l groups. F i f t y - o n e percent, though, had d a i l y l a r g e group meetings which gave some of the team mem-bers pl a n n i n g time. As a r e s u l t of the above f a c t s i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t only 5 8 percent of the team t e a c h e r s s t a t e d t h a t classroom work was planned j o i n t l y by team mem-bers. Seventy-nine percent of the t e a c h e r s planned t h e i r s u b j e c t s p e c i a l t y i n d i v i d u a l l y . T h i s means t h a t many of the advantages of j o i n t team planning are l o s t t o a major p o r t i o n of the s c h o o l s . In c o n t r a s t t o f i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s , the g r e a t e s t percentage o f team p l a n n i n g time was not devoted to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e concerns but to o v e r a l l c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s and e v a l u a t i o n . Students, as i n the United S t a t e s , r a r e l y took part i n team p l a n n i n g . The s c h o o l s surveyed i n B r i t i s h Columbia d i d not s t a t e t h a t there was any g r e a t con-f l i c t between the s c h o o l and team schedules. Most teams made up t h e i r own time t a b l e s and o n l y had t o c o n s i d e r p h y s i c a l education and music p e r i o d s t o f i t i n with the r e s t of the s c h o o l . Only i n s c h o o l s where team t e a c h e r s a l s o taught o u t s i d e the team d i d a problem occur. A few s c h o o l s , where t e a c h e r s s p e c i a l i z e d too r i g i d l y , had d i f f i c u l t y w i t h i n f l e x i b l e time t a b l e s . They s t a t e d t h a t i t was not easy t o extend p e r i o d s or do s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s as the need arose. In g e n e r a l , i t was f e l t t h a t through team plan n i n g schedules were more f l e x i b l e ; more time was a v a i l a b l e f o r i n d i v i d u a l -i z e d study; the implementation of continuous progress was e a s i e r ; s p e c i a l i s t areas were more c o o r d i n a t e d ; t e a c h e r s had more f r e e time; s c h o o l equipment was used more e f f i c i e n t l y ; and l e s s d u p l i c a t i o n o c c u r r e d . Teachers and p r i n c i p a l s s t a t e d s t r o n g l y t h a t s u c c e s s f u l team plan n i n g depended on t h e r e being adequate s c h o o l time f o r i t , t e a c h e r c o o p e r a t i o n and c o m p a t i b i l i t y . Comments r e g a r d i n g team plan n i n g i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g : - F i n d i n g time t o meet f o r the many plann i n g s e s s i o n s was always a problem. We u s u a l l y found e a r l y morning s e s s i o n s were the most convenient ( t e a c h e r ) . - The c l o s e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of time t a b l e s o f t e n s t i f l e d spontaneous e x t e n s i o n of l e s s o n s because one had to c o n s i d e r another t e a c h e r and more c h i l d r e n ( t e a c h e r ) . - Team t e a c h i n g r e q u i r e s a l o t of planning and communi-c a t i o n . One cannot j u s t teach o f f t h e c u f f . T h i s r e q u i r e s more time but a l s o g i v e s much b e t t e r r e s u l t s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - The c o o r d i n a t i o n of l e s s o n planning does take a great d e a l of p r e p a r a t i o n . I t a l s o makes i t more d i f f i c u l t f o r s u b s t i t u t e t e a c h e r s who are u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the method ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - I t has not been p o s s i b l e t o provide the t e a c h e r s with s c h o o l time f o r p l a n n i n g . T h i s n e c e s s i t a t e s many-long evening and a f t e r s c h o o l p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - P e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s make team plan n i n g d i f f i c u l t . - One of the major d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by the groups was f i n d i n g time t o meet and p l a n . There was a dramatic i n c r e a s e i n the numbers of p l a n n i n g meet-i n g s . Meetings were h e l d o f t e n i n the e a r l y morning bef o r e s c h o o l , at r e c e s s , at noon, a f t e r s c h o o l ( t e a c h e r ) . - We d i s c u s s o b j e c t i v e s and problems at quick i n f o r m a l meetings when problems arose and i n evening-long s o c i a l s e s s i o n s we c r i t i c i z e d our progress and a l t e r e d or confirmed our p l a n s . We a l s o met f r e q u e n t l y with our t e a c h e r a i d e s who were very acute i n s p o t t i n g problems and weaknesses ( t e a c h e r ) . - In even a modest attempt at team-teaching, group plann i n g time i s e s s e n t i a l . T h i s year our team has met a f t e r s c h o o l every Thursday under the l e a d e r s h i p of the p r i n c i p a l . Problems are d i s c u s s e d and group s o l u t i o n s agreed upon. A l s o , the t e a c h i n g assignments f o r the next week are arranged and a t i m e - t a b l e developed and posted i n the s t a f f room f o r a l l the t e a c h i n g s t a f f t o know the room assignment f o r each week. These plan n i n g s e s s i o n s can be l e n g t h y , but we f e e l a l l problems must be a i r e d and s o l v e d by the team ( t e a c h e r ) . These r e s u l t s are mixed and ambiguous enough t o suggest t h a t hard data are needed r e g a r d i n g how plans are made by t e a c h i n g teams. I f a team spends very much time r e -a l l o c a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and i f much pl a n n i n g and t e a c h i n g i s done by i n d i v i d u a l s , p o t e n t i a l g a i n s a c c r u i n g t o team t e a c h i n g may f a i l t o develop. F i n d i n g s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s One of the major advantages claimed f o r team t e a c h -i n g i s t h a t i t f a c i l i t a t e s f l e x i b l e grouping. Research on t h i s aspect of team o r g a n i z a t i o n i s l i m i t e d and when a v a i l a b l e remains i n c o n c l u s i v e as t o the r e l a t i v e merit of l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n , s m a l l group a c t i v i t i e s and independent study. C o n v i c t i o n does seem to be b u i l d i n g up, however, t h a t the s i z e of group i s best determined by the nature of what i s taught, the a b i l i t y of those being taught and the competence of those doing the t e a c h i n g . The f l e x i b i l i t y and freedom of team t e a c h i n g r a i s e q u e s t i o n s about the c r i t e r i a f o r grouping, about the a v a i l a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of instruments t o evaluate p u p i l s i n terms of the c r i t e r i a , and about the t r a n s f e r of youngsters from one group t o another. Research has not yet answered these q u e s t i o n s . F i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g p u p i l redeployment are r e v e a l i n g . S h a p l i n s t a t e d t h a t claims f o r enormously i n c r e a s e d f l e x i b i l -i t y of p u p i l grouping and t e a c h e r assignment i n teams i s o f t e n exaggerated. The b a s i c r e s t r a i n t s are the amount of s c h o o l - t i m e , the number of p u p i l s , and the number of t e a c h e r s . These f a c t o r s u s u a l l y remain unchanged i n team o r g a n i z a t i o n 232 as compared with o r d i n a r y s c h o o l arrangements. ^ • I t i s not 232 Judson T. S h a p l i n , "Cooperative Teaching: D e f i n i -t i o n s and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s , " N a t i o n a l Elementary  P r i n c i p a l , XLVV (January, 1965), 18. s u r p r i s i n g t h e r e f o r e , t o f i n d Anderson s t a t i n g t h a t "the grea t preponderance of team t e a c h i n g i s s t i l l done i n c l a s s groupings of 20-30, although t h i s may be due more t o the h a b i t s of t e a c h e r s and the i n f l u e n c e of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l 233 environment than t o v a l i d t h e o r i e s of e d u c a t i o n a l grouping." Olson p o i n t s out the f l e x i b l e grouping i s not o f t e n found. Groups f r e q u e n t l y are set up on some acr o s s - t h e - b o a r d b a s i s , such as g e n e r a l achievement or a b i l i t y l e v e l , and p u p i l s f i n d themselves i n j u s t about the same group f o r a l l i n s t r u c -t i o n . The t y p i c a l team t e a c h i n g schedule p r o v i d e s only f o r l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n which i s u s u a l l y planned f a r i n advance and takes p l a c e at the same time week a f t e r week. Seminar groups of 12-15 p u p i l s are r a r e and so i s independent study. Borg found t h a t the most f r e q u e n t l y encountered grouping technique i n v o l v e d exposure of a l l p u p i l s t o the same b a s i c programme wit h some adjustment i n r a t e and content t o f i t t h i s programme t o p u p i l s o f d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t y . Only f i v e percent of the teams surveyed r e p o r t e d i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c -23 5 t i o n w i t h each p u p i l moving at h i s own r a t e . v Heathers' Norwalk Study r e p o r t e d t h a t most s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n o c c u r r e d i n the c u r r i c u l u m areas of r e a d i n g and a r i t h m e t i c , 233^Robert H. Anderson, "Some Types of Cooperative Teaching i n Current Use," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 26. 2 3 4 C . Olson, "We C a l l I t Team Teaching, But Is I t R e a l l y That?" op. c i t . , 12. 23 5 ^ W a l t e r Borg, "Study of Human I n t e r a c t i o n V a r i a b l e s i n S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Teacher Teams," Utah U n i v e r s i t y , 1966, 27 (ERIC ED01001). which are the areas of i n s t r u c t i o n where s m a l l group i n s t r u c -t i o n occurs i n o t h e r types of s t a f f o r g a n i z a t i o n . T r u m p adds the f a c t t h a t most t e a c h e r s are not t r a i n e d t o p a r t i c i -pate i n s m a l l group d i s c u s s i o n s . They want t o teach a group 237 of 15 the same as they would a group of 30. R i c h i n a study of e f f e c t i v e n e s s of l e a r n i n g through v a r i o u s s i z e s of team d i s c u s s i o n groups found t h a t the d i s c u s s i o n group s i z e had no e f f e c t on the r e t e n t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n among the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . Where d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t they favoured the c h i l d r e n working alone. E l l i s o n , G i l b e r t and Ratsoy i n a comparison of an open-area team t e a c h i n g s c h o o l w i t h a c o n v e n t i o n a l s c h o o l r e p o r t e d t h a t i n the c o n v e n t i o n a l s c h o o l 0 .8 percent of the time was spent i n l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n , 84 percent i n medium group, and 25 percent i n s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n . In the open-area s c h o o l l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n took up 12.5 percent of the time, medium group 75 percent and s m a l l group a c t i v i t y 12.5 percent. I t was a l s o found t h a t t h e r e was l e s s p r i v a t e t a l k between p u p i l s and t e a c h e r and more tea c h e r p r e s e n t a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n or o p i n i o n i n l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n . Thus l e s s time was 2 3 6 B r u c e R. Joyce, " S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n , " op. c i t . , 327. 237 J . L l o y d Trump, "Some Questions and Answers About Suggestions f o r Improving S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n , " NASSP B u l l e t i n , XLV (January, 1961), 21. 2 3 ^ L e o n o r e May R i c h , "The E f f e c t i v e n e s s of I n d i v i d u a l and Team Assignment F o l l o w i n g Mass P r e s e n t a t i o n i n S o c i a l S t u d i e s i n Grades Four, F i v e and S i x , " Boston U n i v e r s i t y , 1968. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 12 (June, 1969), 4389-A. devoted t o s m a l l group a c t i v i t y and more time to t e a c h e r p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the team taught s c h o o l than i n the convention-239 a l s c h o o l . I f team t e a c h i n g r e s u l t s i n mainly l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n then the o b s e r v a t i o n s of F r a e n k e l and Gross should be c o n s i d e r e d . They s t a t e t h a t many t h i n g s they have observed makes them s u s p i c i o u s as to whether or not teams are maximally e f f e c t i v e w i t h a l l a b i l i t y l e v e l s . Large amounts of f a c t u a l m a t e r i a l presented without chance f o r immediate feed-back, as i n l a r g e group l e c t u r e s , may be l e s s e f f e c t i v e with students of l e s s e r a b i l i t y than more c o n v e n t i o n a l arrange-ments. Students of l e s s e r a b i l i t y may not be prepared t o make e f f e c t i v e use of i n d i v i d u a l study p e r i o d s . " I t should be noted t h a t team t e a c h i n g , as p r e s e n t l y d e s c r i b e d and designed, 2L.0 seems e s p e c i a l l y geared t o middle c l a s s s t u d e n t s . " L o v e l l adds to t h i s the f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s no evidence t o warrant any c o n c l u s i o n s about the optimum s i z e of groups f o r the pur-pose of l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n . There i s a l s o no agreement about the frequency with which l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n should 2 U be h e l d . According to Polos the s i z e of group does not, i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s matter, but i n s t e a d what r e a l l y matters i s 3 9M. E l l i s o n , L.L. G i l b e r t and T.W. Ratsoy, "Teacher Behavior i n Open-Area Classrooms," Canadian A d m i n i s t r a t o r , V I I I (February, 1969), 17-21. J.K. F r a e n k e l and R.J. Gross, "Team Teaching: L e t ' s Look Before We Leap," Education D i g e s t , XXXII (October, 1966), 50. 2 4 1 L o v e l l , op. c i t . , 8. the purpose of i n s t r u c t i o n . Research shows no b e n e f i t s from s m a l l e r groups or l a r g e r groups s i n c e t e a c h e r s teach them grouping are s i m i l a r t o those expressed by J a r v i s and Fleming: c h i l d r e n are c a s u a l about moving from group to group but most c h i l d r e n have r e s e r v a t i o n s about l a r g e i n s t r u c t i o n a l groups based on the l a c k of o p p o r t u n i t y to communicate with t e a c h e r s . F i n d i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia B r i t i s h Columbia, 130 or 57 percent s t a t e d t h a t the team approach i n t h e i r s c h o o l was able t o provide w e l l f o r f l e x -i b l e grouping. Only 14 respondents or 6 percent s a i d they were unable t o provide f l e x i b l e grouping s u c c e s s f u l l y . A l -though most p u p i l s were a s s i g n e d to teams on the b a s i s of grade l e v e l or age, q u i t e a few teams were non-graded and multi-aged. Students g e n e r a l l y spent 50-75 percent of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l time i n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d study, 25-50 percent of the time i n s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n , and 10-25 percent of the time i n l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n . Only 6 t e a c h e r s or 5 percent of the sample s a i d t h a t they d i d not use i n d i v i d u a l -i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . Two t e a c h e r s s a i d t h a t t h e i r team d i d not the same way. 242 The f i n d i n g s on c h i l d r e n ' s a t t i t u d e s t o Of the 228 p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s surveyed i n 242 P o l o s , op. c i t 22. J a r v i s and Fleming, op. c i t . , 39-use s m a l l group i n s t r u c t i o n and 3 t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d they d i d not use l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n . Small groups, as i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , were mainly used i n language a r t s and a r i t h m e t i c , where one might a l s o expect them to be used i n the r e g u l a r classroom. Large groups were mostly used i n s o c i a l s t u d i e s , s c i e n c e , music, a r t and any a u d i o - v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s . In-d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n was mainly used i n language a r t s , a r i t h m e t i c , s o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e . In some s c h o o l s teams used a l l types of grouping i n every s u b j e c t . In other s c h o o l s teams used only one type of grouping. The extreme example of t h i s i s a team of two t e a c h e r s and seventy c h i l d r e n who used only l a r g e group i n s t r u c t i o n a l l year. Most t e a c h e r s i n -d i c a t e d t h a t they changed s m a l l groups f r e q u e n t l y or when necessary. P u p i l s were u s u a l l y a s s i g n e d t o s m a l l groups on the b a s i s of a b i l i t y and need. Other bases f o r s m a l l group-ing were c o m p a t i b i l i t y , degree of s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e , depend-a b i l i t y , emotional m a t u r i t y , i n t e r e s t , achievement, and the a b i l i t y t o work independently. Many t e a c h e r s s a i d t h a t t h e i r f l e x i b l e grouping was g r e a t l y hampered by the l a c k of s m a l l group areas and q u i e t areas f o r i n d i v i d u a l study. Comments re g a r d i n g p u p i l redeployment i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g : - Team t e a c h i n g has r e s u l t e d i n f l e x i b l e grouping among our p u p i l s about t w o - t h i r d s of whom are on an i n -d i v i d u a l i z e d programme ( t e a c h e r ) . - A l a c k of pressure i s exerted on c h i l d r e n who are a b l e and w i l l i n g t o be s e l f - d i r e c t e d ( t e a c h e r ) . - In team t e a c h i n g more o p p o r t u n i t i e s are g i v e n f o r i n d i v i d u a l s and s m a l l groups to work on a l t e r n a t e programmes ( t e a c h e r ) . - In our team th e r e i s f l e x i b i l i t y of grouping so t h a t the needed s k i l l s can be taught ( t e a c h e r ) . There i s great f l e x i b i l i t y of grouping and r e -grouping ( p r i n c i p a l ) . F l e x i b i l i t y of grouping has improved i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n ( p r i n c i p a l ) . Grade l e v e l i s not a c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r . The whole group i n the open area i s thought of as one c l a s s w i t h s e v e r a l teachers. We do not completely achieve t h i s g o a l , p a r t l y because of the l i m i t i n g f a c t o r of m a t e r i a l s t o work wi t h ( p r i n c i p a l ) . Our team i s non-graded wi t h ample p r o v i s i o n f o r non-academic achievers t o f i n d i n t e r e s t and s a t i s f a c t i o n i n a modified programme. They are t r e a t e d as a u n i t and d i v i d e d i n t o groupings f o r d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s ( t e a c h e r ) . I am not so concerned or e n t h u s i a s t i c about team teaching as I am about i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . Our present teachers are doing l e s s l a r g e group teaching but p r o v i d i n g more i n s t r u c t i o n f o r smaller groups ( p r i n c i p a l ) . About 80-13 5 p u p i l s i n Grade 5-7 team f o l l o w t h e i r own schedules i n periods 1-5 i n a 7 p e r i o d day. These p u p i l s are informed of s k i l l groups being conducted and may attend i f they f e e l the need or may be r e q u i r e d to attend i f the teachers t h i n k i t neces-sary. F i f t y - f i v e p u p i l s are on a r e g u l a r schedule f o r periods 1-5 i n a r i t h m e t i c , language a r t s , and s o c i a l s t u d i e s . In periods 6-7 p u p i l s attend a r t , s c i e n c e , p h y s i c a l education, h e a l t h and music c l a s s e s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . In my o p i n i o n my most s u c c e s s f u l team i n v o l v e s two teachers and s i x t y Year One c h i l d r e n . In language a r t s and a r i t h m e t i c they have developed very e f f e c t i v e needs grouping. The teachers a l t e r n a t e the types of groups they teach each week. Grouping i s very f l e x -i b l e and I f e e l that these c h i l d r e n have r e a l l y r e c e i v e d the b e n e f i t s of team teaching ( p r i n c i p a l ) . We have a l e a r n i n g centres approach w i t h 16 centres. C h i l d r e n do 5 per day of approximately h a l f an hour each. In the afternoon we have longer group a c t i v i t i e s (teacher). As you n o t i c e we have done team teaching on a l a r g e group b a s i s a l l year as t h i s was our f i r s t year. Next year we plan t o i n d i v i d u a l i z e more and have smaller groups i n language a r t s and a r i t h m e t i c (teacher). P u p i l s are able t o get more i n d i v i d u a l help by the use of teacher aides and small groups (teacher). P u p i l s i n our team have the opportunity t o progress at t h e i r own r a t e and branch out toward t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s . They have a g r e a t e r freedom of movement and time to t a l k or d i s c u s s . They have i n d i v i d u a l conferences and small group i n s t r u c t i o n (teacher). - A team of 3 or 4 t e a c h e r s can b e t t e r accommodate f l e x i b l e grouping where w i t h i n a group 100 c h i l d r e n t h e r e i s a wide range of l e a r n i n g r a t e s and a b i l i t i e s , ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - The a b i l i t y t o break down the graded system by m u l t i -graded teams i s a great b e n e f i t ( p r i n c i p a l ) . Although teams are making more and more use of f l e x -i b l e grouping, much experimentation and r e s e a r c h of p u p i l redeployment needs t o be done i f educators are t o o b t a i n a f u l l e r understanding of i t . Team Costs F i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s Research r e p o r t s on team t e a c h i n g o f f e r l i t t l e i n f o r -mation on c o s t s . Drummond noted t h a t the cost of team person-n e l f o r a g i v e n group of students need not be h i g h e r than the cost of the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom, even with d i f f e r e n t i a l s a l a r i e s f o r team members. However, i n c r e a s e d c o s t s may a r i s e through the purchase of needed equipment and m a t e r i a l s . Lambert observed t h a t team t e a c h i n g was more expensive be-cause of more v a r i e d types of c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s , a d d i t i o n a l p l a n n i n g time, and d i f f e r e n t b u i l d i n g f a c i l i t i e s . 2 4 ' ' Lobb s t a t e d t h a t the new p a t t e r n s i n themselves do not r e q u i r e g r e a t e r o u t l a y of funds, nor do they e f f e c t great s a v i n g s . 2 4 6 p i ; Drummond, "Team Teaching: An Assessment," op. c i t . 2 4 5 L a m b e r t , "Team Teaching f o r Today's World," Lobb, op. c i t . , 51. Hayes r e p o r t s t h a t the P i t t s b u r g h p r o j e c t c o s t s about 15 percent above r e g u l a r p u p i l c o s t s . ^ The same f i g u r e i s quoted by B a i r and W o o d w a r d , B o u t w e l l 2 2 f 9 and L o v e l l . 2 5 0 M i t c h e l l r e p o r t e d t h a t i n a number of s c h o o l s t h a t had been s p e c i f i c a l l y planned and c o n s t r u c t e d f o r team t e a c h i n g arrangements, the cost of p l a n t s compared t o the middle 251 range expenditure f o r e q u i v a l e n t s i z e d s e r v i c e u n i t s . y Both Anderson and Heathers agree t h a t team t e a c h i n g c o s t s more t o i n i t i a t e but once e s t a b l i s h e d c o s t s the same as s e l f -252 253 contained classroom o r g a n i z a t i o n s . ' Lambert and others i n t h e i r c o n t r o l l e d experimental study of team t e a c h -i n g found t h a t the i n s t r u c t i o n a l cost of the experimental teams was almost equal t o the cost of the t h r e e correspond-2 54 i n g t e a c h e r s of s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms. The National School P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n i n i t s r e p o r t on 2 2L 7 ^ ' C h a r l e s H. Hayes, "Team Teaching i n C u l t u r a l l y Deprived Areas." N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 61T '. B a i r and Woodward, op. c i t . , 184. 249 W.D. Boutwell, "What's Happening i n Education? What i s Team Teaching?" P.T.A. Magazine, LVII (May, 1963),63-250 ] 251T 2 ^ ^ L o v e l l , op. c i t . , 8. "D.P. M i t c h e l l , "Housing Cooperative Teaching Programmes," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965) , 54. 252 Anderson, "Team Teaching," op. c i t . , 54. 253 ^Heathers, "Research on Implementing and E v a l u a t -i n g Cooperative Teaching," op. c i t . , 32. 2 54 Lambert et a l , "A Study of the Elementary Teach-i n g Team," op. c i t . , 31 . D i f f e r e n t i a l S t a f f i n g s t a t e s t h a t the t o t a l s c h o o l c o s t s f o r Walnut H i l l s Elementary School, where team t e a c h i n g and d i f f e r e n t i a l s t a f f s a l a r i e s are used, are l e s s than those 255 f o r a c o n v e n t i o n a l s c h o o l . F i n d i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia Of the 85 team t e a c h i n g elementary s c h o o l s surveyed i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 60 or 71 percent s t a t e d t h a t the cost of team t e a c h i n g i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o non-team t e a c h i n g was the same. Many respondents, however, s t a t e d t h a t the cost should have been more. Many items were r e q u i r e d by the teams but money was not a v a i l a b l e . Seventeen s c h o o l s or 21 percent i n d i c a t e d t h a t the c o s t s were h i g h e r and none s a i d t h a t the c o s t s were lower. Since c o s t s are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o physi= c a l f a c i l i t i e s i t i s of value t o once more p o i n t out t h a t 33 of the t e a c h e r s or 23 percent s a i d t h a t the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i -t i e s were inadequate. T h i r t y - s i x or 26 percent s a i d they were b a r e l y adequate. T h i s means t h a t approximately h a l f of the teams were hampered by poor f a c i l i t i e s . Comments i n the area of s c h o o l c o s t s i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g : - The crowded c o n d i t i o n s d e t r a c t from the l e a r n i n g environment. C e r t a i n l y , at times, present t e a c h i n g c o n d i t i o n s are a source of a n x i e t y and f r u s t r a t i o n f o r the t e a c h e r s now o p e r a t i n g i n the open area. I t i s our c o n s i d e r e d o p i n i o n t h a t w i t h a minimum of expenditure, changes could be made which would per-manently enhance the l e a r n i n g and t e a c h i n g c o n d i t i o n s 255 ^ N a t i o n a l School P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , D i f f e r e n t i a l S t a f f i n g i n Schools: Education, U.S.A. S p e c i a l Report (Washington, D.C: N a t i o n a l School P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n s , 1970), 19-22. ' PERSONNEL DESIGN- -WALNUT HI LIS* COMMUNITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ; CHERRY CREEK SCHOOLS Metropolitan Denver, Colorado JULY, 1969 CONVENTIONAL 125-150 Students © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o b o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Cost $8,119 x6 =$48,714 TOTAL COST $ 8,119 x 18 = $ 146,142 $ 8,119 x 3 -$ 24.357- ;;, Teachers Aides - 5,000 $ 175,499 COMMON SERVICES F u l l School 1 Resource Teacher $ 8,119 1 Physical Ed. Teacher 8,119 1 Music Teacher 8,119 $24,357 WALNUT HILLS OVERALL  COMPAR ISONS WH Conventional Personnel 241 18 Cost $136,482 $175,499 © A L P H A ^ 1 2 5 - 1 3 0 S t u d e n t s oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo joooooooooo G A M M A ^ 1 2 5 - 1 5 0 S t u d e n t s ooooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oooo.'.'ooooeooooo oodot isoooooooos o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © B E T A 1 2 5 - 1 5 0 S t u d e n t s ooooooooooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 T E A M L E A D E R $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 T E A C H E R 8 , 0 0 0 1 T E A C H E R 7 , 0 0 0 1 B E G I N N I N G TEACHER 6 , 3 0 0 1 I N T E R N C U . T Y P E 1 , 5 0 0 1 INTERN C.SiC. TYPE 3,000 1 5-HR . TEACHER A I D E 1 , 5 7 5 1 U N P A I D REGULAR - 0 -STUDENT TEACHER 1 H IGH SCHOOL STUDENT - 0 -$37,375 TOTAL COST $ 37,375 x3 =$112,125 $ 8,119 x 3 = 24,357 $ 136,482 F i g u r e 5 6 2 5 6 A Compar i son o f C o s t s a t Walnut H i l l E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l and a C o n v e n t i o n a l S c h o o l 2 5 6 I b i d . , 21. i n t h i s s e c t i o n of the s c h o o l (team p r o p o s a l ) . - We are badly hampered by having t o operate i n a gym ( t e a c h e r ) . - We are hampered by the smallness of space and l a c k of study areas ( t e a c h e r ) . - We are hampered by l a c k of back-up rooms and poor l i b r a r y f a c i l i t i e s ( t e a c h e r ) . - The team i s hampered s e v e r e l y by l a c k of f a c i l i t i e s . I f e e l I am very l u c k y t o have a s t a f f which works so w e l l under adverse c o n d i t i o n s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - We are hampered t o a degree because of t r y i n g the new approach i n a t r a d i t i o n a l p h y s i c a l s i t u a t i o n — o n l y one w a l l was removed and we are s t i l l u s i n g desks i n s t e a d of t a b l e s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - F l e x i b i l i t y i s hampered because of l a c k of f a c i l i t i e s and c a r p e t s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - Team t e a c h i n g has been a i d e d by the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a new 4 pod open area w i t h l i g h t i n g , c o l o u r and equip-ment o u t s t a n d i n g • ( p r i n c i p a l ; * - Our main problem has been overcrowding. Our p l a n t i s w e l l designed f o r team t e a c h i n g but space i s of v i t a l importance. We are an open area with no open area ( t e a c h e r ) . - L i m i t e d f a c i l i t i e s and budgets have had a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - There i s not enough time or money to do a good job ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - L i m i t e d budgets have been a problem ( p r i n c i p a l ) . Team Teaching As a C a t a l y s t f o r Change F i n d i n g s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s Many educators b e l i e v e t h a t one of the g r e a t e s t b e n e f i t s a s c h o o l d e r i v e s from i n t r o d u c i n g team t e a c h i n g i s t h a t such a p l a n i s a c a t a l y s t f o r needed changes. No r e -search has been done on t h i s aspect of team t e a c h i n g but v a r i o u s authors express s i m i l a r views on the t o p i c . Heathers s t a t e d t h a t i n s t a l l i n g team t e a c h i n g i s apt t o expose needs f o r improving c u r r i c u l a r m a t e r i a l s , f o r purchasing i n s t r u c -t i o n a l equipment, and f o r d e v e l o p i n g b e t t e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques through i n - s e r v i c e t e a c h e r education. Anderson f e l t t h a t team t e a c h i n g had s t i m u l a t e d much f r e s h t h i n k i n g about c l a s s s i z e and o r g a n i z a t i o n , grouping p r a c t i c e s , b a s i c c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s , d i v i s i o n of the workload among t e a c h e r s , 2 58 and the bases of p u p i l w e l f a r e . ? In 1964, Anderson p o i n t e d out t h a t team t e a c h i n g p r o j e c t s f r e q u e n t l y combine c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g , the use of n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l a i d e s , nongrading and the 259 use o f new technology. ' Sargent noted t h a t s c h o o l a r c h i -t e c t u r e i n many p a r t s of the country appeared t o be c o n s i d e r -2 60 a b l y i n f l u e n c e d by the demand f o r f l e x i b l e and v a r y i n g space. A r e p o r t on the Norwalk Plan claimed t h a t team t e a c h i n g had been a c a t a l y t i c agent f o r improvement i n c u r r i c u l u m , audio-v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s , i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e s , and t e a c h e r o p e r a t i o n . 2 6 1 B e c k e r , 2 6 2 C a r l a l l g i v e s i m i l a r t e s t i m o n i a l s . l i n 2 6 3 and B i s c h o f f and E n n s 2 6 ^ 2 57 Heathers, "Research on Implementing and E v a l u -a t i n g Cooperative Teaching," op. c i t . , 32. 2 58 Anderson, "Team Teaching," op. c i t . , 52. 259 Anderson, " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Character o f Educa t i o n : S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n and Deployment," op. c i t . , 455-456. 2 6 0 S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 216-240. 2 6 l I b i d . , 325. Harry A. Becker, "Team Teaching," I n s t r u c t o r , LXXI (June, 1962), 44. 2 6 3 C a r l i n , op. c i t . , 352-353. B i s c h o f f and Enns, op. c i t . , 3 - 4 . Of the 85 p r i n c i p a l s responding t o the qu e s t i o n of whether or not team t e a c h i n g had been a c a t a l y s t f o r other i n n o v a t i o n s i n the s c h o o l , 47 or 56 percent s a i d t h a t i t had and 37 or 44 percent s a i d t h a t i t had not. S e v e r a l p r i n c i p a l s s t a t e d t h a t as a r e s u l t of one team being e s t a b l i s h e d , others were added i n f o l l o w i n g y e a r s . E n t h u s i a s t i c t e a c h e r s have not o n l y encouraged i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n w i t h i n the team but a l s o throughout the s c h o o l . In q u i t e a few sc h o o l s team t e a c h i n g l e d t o non-grading and continuous progress. In other s c h o o l s j u s t the r e v e r s e o c c u r r e d . One s c h o o l r e p o r t e d t h a t team t e a c h i n g r e s u l t e d i n an i n t e g r a t i o n o f elementary and second-ary s p o r t s , music, a r t , drama and other a c t i v i t i e s . Secondary s c h o o l t e a c h e r s f i r s t worked wi t h the team and l a t e r took r e g u l a r c l a s s e s a l s o . F l e x i b l e grouping was adopted i n many sc h o o l s as a r e s u l t of the team approach. About 25 percent of the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t more technology and other m a t e r i a l a i d s were used s i n c e team t e a c h i n g was begun. Fr e q u e n t l y c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n , music, a r t and s c i e n c e developed at a l l grade l e v e l s as a r e s u l t of the team's a c t i v i t i e s . In many cases ideas innovated by the team were l a t e r t r i e d by te a c h e r s i n c o n v e n t i o n a l classrooms. More freedom and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c h i l d r e n throughout the s c h o o l was the outcome i n many cases. The use of parent a i d e s a l s o o f t e n f i r s t s t a r t e d i n the teams and then spread throughout the s c h o o l . Comments - Team t e a c h i n g i n our open area has overflowed i n t o the s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classroom complex so t h a t co-o p e r a t i v e t e a c h i n g and p l a n n i n g now e x i s t s at a l l l e v e l s . - Team t e a c h i n g has not been a c a t a l y s t f o r other i n n o v a t i o n s i n the s c h o o l , but i t has made te a c h e r s more open t o implementing ideas f o r continuous p r o g r e s s , f l e x i b l e grouping and i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . - The most observable a t t r i b u t e of our programme has been the s h a r i n g of i d e a s . T h i s has l e d t o many i n t e r e s t i n g i n n o v a t i o n s . - Team t e a c h i n g has helped i n our f o r m u l a t i o n of b e h a v i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s . I t has probably e n l a r g e d the concept t h a t i t i s what the c h i l d knows t h a t counts not j u s t what grade he happens t o be as s i g n e d t o . - Other t e a c h e r s i n the s c h o o l are i n t e r e s t e d i n team t e a c h i n g and f r e q u e n t l y c o n t r i b u t e t o the a c t u a l programme. Teachers i n c o n v e n t i o n a l c l a s s e s are t r y i n g some of the techniques developed by the team. - As a r e s u l t of team t e a c h i n g , t e a c h e r s are i n c r e a s -i n g l y ready t o exchange s u b j e c t s and s p e c i a l i z e t o a g r e a t e r extent. - A l l teams have a f f e c t e d others with regards t o grouping, f i e l d t r i p s , m a t e r i a l usage, c o o r d i n a t i n g s u b j e c t matter and i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . - Yes, as a r e s u l t of team t e a c h i n g non-grading and i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be s l o w l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the s c h o o l . - An e n t h u s i a s t i c v o l u n t e e r programme has r e s u l t e d . - Team t e a c h i n g has been a c a t a l y s t f o r change i n t h a t a l l the s t a f f now seem s o l d on the i d e a of continuous p r o g r e s s . - Imaginative t e a c h i n g o f t e n r e s u l t s from team e f f o r t s . - As an outcome of team t e a c h i n g f l e x i b l e grouping i s used i n the primary grades; the s t a t i o n s approach i s used i n Grade 5; and more technology i s used. Team Teaching Implementation F i n d i n g s i n the United S t a t e s Researchers have g i v e n the process of implementing team t e a c h i n g plans s c a r c e l y any a t t e n t i o n . T h i s i s a major weakness i n r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s s i n c e , u n t i l problems of implementation have been solved, the evaluation of outcomes i s of li m i t e d value. Most studies describe the general features of team teaching and proceed on the assumption that they have been f u l l y implemented. Heathers stated that "a good case can be made for the position that none of the organizational plans currently being tested i n American schools has yet been f u l l y implemented i n any l o c a l i t y . " 2 6 ' 5 Research i s therefore needed to develop instruments and procedures that measure the extent to which each feature of team teaching has been placed i n ef f e c t . Researchers must also determine how often team teaching i s adopted due to urgent pressures to copy changes made elsewhere, the convic-t i o n that the programme has proven i t s worth, or the b e l i e f that the best way to judge a programme's value f o r one's O A A school i s through l o c a l tryout. Reports l i s t numerous findings on the various aspects of implementing team teaching but these are usually summary statements without supporting data. One of the major problems l i s t e d i s inadequate pre-planning. Lambert stated that setting up a good i n s t r u c t i o n a l team requires a great deal of organizational work and vast amounts of O A *"7 planning. ' Roberts f e l t that teachers planning to become 265 ^Heathers, "Research on Team Teaching," i n Shaplin and Olds, op. c i t . , 312. 2 6 6 I b i d . , 321. Lambert, "Team Teaching f o r the Elementary School," op. c i t . , 88. p a r t of a team need p r i o r experience i n c u r r i c u l u m develop-268 ment and study i n group dynamics. L o v e l l r e p o r t e d t h a t s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s s t a t e d t h a t a long p e r i o d , probably up t o a year was necessary f o r plann i n g and c o n s u l t a t i o n among 269 members of a team before i t came i n t o o p e r a t i o n . Borg d i s c o v e r e d i n h i s survey, however, t h a t r e l a t i v e l y few programmes had the type of f i n a n c i a l support c o n s i d e r e d necessary f o r adequate p r e - p l a n n i n g . Forty-two percent of the s c h o o l s had no funds a v a i l a b l e t o pay t e a c h e r s t o do pr e - p l a n n i n g . T h i r t y - t w o percent s a i d t h a t very l i t t l e p l a n n i n g was p o s s i b l e and f i f t y - o n e percent s a i d t h a t most 270 p l a n n i n g took p l a c e a f t e r the team was o p e r a t i n g . Another major problem i n implementing team t e a c h i n g was g e t t i n g teams t o d e f i n e t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s . Borg r e p o r t e d t h a t t h i r t y - s i x percent o f the sc h o o l s f e l t t h i s t o be an 271 o b s t a c l e . Simendinger a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t "the l a c k o f d e f i n i t i o n of the team t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e was one of the causes of major problems duri n g the f i r s t year as was p o o r l y d e l i n e a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , p l u s a l a c k o f understanding of 272 the p h i l o s o p h y u n d e r l y i n g the approach." G.M. Roberts, "Case S t u d i e s of Two Nongraded Elementary School Programmes," U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee, 1964, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXV (November, 1964) 2 6 9 L o v e l l , op. c i t . , 48. 2 7 < ^ B o r g , op. c i t . The welding together of a team unit is another prob-lem. Cunningham reported that the problem of finding persons with the combination of knowledge and s k i l l to f u l f i l l a 273 team's requirements were extensive. Simendinger writes that " d i f f i c u l t y lay in the time and personality factors required to weld individual teachers into one cooperative, sharing unit." 2 7 ^" Other reports indicate that the large annual turn over among elementary teachers causes d i f f i c u l t y i n team organization. Other problems reported in implementing team teach-ing included the d i f f i c u l t y of adapting available space to team teaching, adjusting to peer scrutiny, preparing students for team teaching, lack of resource people and necessary equipment, dread of the unfamiliar, and the problem of cur-riculum reconstruction. The Lexington Plan contains several 275 valuable chapters on implementing team teaching. Chapters by Anderson, Granis and Sargent in the Shaplin and Olds volume also offer numerous g u i d e l i n e s . 2 7 6 Useful information on problems and solutions i s also found in reports by adminis-trators in the Wisconsin Improvement Programme and the Norwalk Plan. 2 7 3 Luvern L. Cunningham, "Essential Components of Teaching Teams," Canadian Administrator, II , No. 8 (May, 1965), 36. 2 7 A ^Simendinger, op. c i t . , 49-275 Bair and Woodward, op. c i t . , 36 - I 8 7 . 2 7 6 S h a p l i n and Olds, op. c i t . , 123-269-In the 85 elementary s c h o o l s surveyed i n B r i t i s h Columbia, team t e a c h i n g was implemented f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons. In 22 sc h o o l s or 27 percent of the sample team t e a c h i n g grew from c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of space and s c h o o l l a y o u t . Sometimes o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r team t e a c h i n g were seen t o e x i s t , and at other times a l t e r a t i o n s were made to b u i l d i n g s which enabled team t e a c h i n g t o take p l a c e . Many p r i n c i p a l s i n -d i c a t e d t h a t team t e a c h i n g was f o r c e d by the b u i l d i n g of new open areas. One p r i n c i p a l s a i d t h at team t e a c h i n g and open areas were i n t r o d u c e d as an inexpen s i v e way of p r o v i d i n g more classrooms. Another r e p o r t e d t h a t h i s s c h o o l was so overcrowded t h a t team t e a c h i n g was begun i n order t o take p u p i l s o f f s h i f t . Teams, however, were so l a r g e and i n so sm a l l a space t h a t they were unmanageable. In another case the o l d s c h o o l was t o r n down and a gymnasium had t o be used as a classroom. Team t e a c h i n g r e s u l t e d . In q u i t e a few new a d d i t i o n s , two classrooms were b u i l t without a w a l l between them and t e a c h e r s found i t necessary t o cooperate. Such b u i l d i n g p o l i c i e s have r e s u l t e d i n q u i t e a few t e a c h e r s being p l a c e d i n team s i t u a t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e i r wishes. When asked t o i n d i c a t e who had i n i t i a t e d team t e a c h i n g , p r i n -c i p a l s ' responses i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n 13 s c h o o l s or 16 percent of the sample they had i n i t i a t e d i t , and i n 12 s c h o o l s or 15 percent of the sample the s c h o o l board had. In many cases, however, t e a c h e r s have requested t h a t team t e a c h i n g be implemented. T h i r t y or 36 percent of the sch o o l s s t a t e d t h i s t o be so. Four s c h o o l s found t h a t a team t e a c h i n g system was the o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t f o l l o w e d l o g i c a l l y from the e d u c a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h i e s of the s c h o o l — non-grading, continuous p r o g r e s s , i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . F r e q u e n t l y unplanned s t a f f c o o p e r a t i o n a c r o s s c l a s s e s was f o r m a l i z e d i n t o team t e a c h i n g so t h a t more use could be made of the s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s of t e a c h e r s . Sometimes i t was a l s o begun as an attempt t o g i v e b a s i c work i n a s u b j e c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y s o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e , t o a l l c h i l d r e n i n a grade. S e v e r a l s c h o o l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t team t e a c h i n g was i n t r o d u c e d a f t e r members of the s t a f f saw i t i n other areas and requested t o t r y i t . In a few cases l a r g e groups were s t a r t e d so t h a t a u d i o - v i s u a l a i d s c o u l d be more economically used. In the m a j o r i t y of s c h o o l s extremely l i t t l e know-ledge or experience of team t e a c h i n g , p r a c t i c a l or from l i t e r a t u r e , was used or a v a i l a b l e . P r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s complained of a l a c k of i n f o r m a t i o n on how a philosophy of team t e a c h i n g i s a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d out. D i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h team implementation were i n d i c a t e d by the 85 p r i n c i p a l s as being: Lack of plan n i n g time before and duri n g implementation (12), l a c k of t r a i n i n g f o r team t e a c h i n g ( 4 ) , l a c k of i n f o r m a t i o n about team t e a c h i n g ( 6 ) , l a c k of t e a c h e r s ' confidence i n the programme ( 6 ) , l a c k of w i l l i n g and a b l e t e a c h e r s ( 6 ) , i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of team members (10), poor f a c i l i t i e s ( 5 ) , l a c k of m a t e r i a l s and equipment (2) and being on view and open to c r i t i c i s m of v i s i t o r s ( 2 ) . In some schools these d i f f i c u l t i e s arose through p o l i c i e s of s t a f f h i r i n g . Teachers were h i r e d at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l and s t a r t e d as complete s t r a n g e r s on a team. T h i s r e s u l t e d i n t e a c h e r c o n f l i c t s or long delays before a team f i n a l l y e volved. Many teams f e l t f r u s t r a t e d because they could not s e l e c t t h e i r own members. L i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e l e c t teams before the s t a r t of the s c h o o l year meant t h a t t h e r e c o u l d be no meetings t o p l a n , c o o r d i n a t e or r e c o n c i l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n p h i l o s o p h y , Money gr a n t s f o r team t e a c h i n g implementation were not g i v e n t o 6 4 or 76 percent of the s c h o o l s . S i x or 8 percent of the s c h o o l s were g i v e n money g r a n t s . F i v e or 6 percent of the s c h o o l s s a i d they were g i v e n very s m a l l g r a n t s , f o r m a t e r i a l s and equipment. Although many s c h o o l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t they requested money f o r i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , i n c l u d i n g v i s i t s t o other s c h o o l s , only s i x s c h o o l s r e c e i v e d enough t o pro v i d e an adequate programme. These s i x s c h o o l s r e p o r t e d t h a t they were ab l e t o p l a n a year ahead, v i s i t team schools i n B r i t i s h Columbia and/or the U n i t e d S t a t e s , and set up short t r i a l p e r i o d s of team t e a c h i n g . A few s c h o o l s met f o r pr e - p l a n n i n g d u r i n g the summer months without pay, but the m a j o r i t y d i d t h e i r p l a n n i n g a f t e r team t e a c h i n g was implemented. The 85 p r i n c i p a l s surveyed i n d i c a t e d t h a t success-f u l implementation of team t e a c h i n g depended upon: C o m p a t i b i l i t y of team members(31); c o o p e r a t i o n of team members (22); adequate f a c i l i t i e s and m a t e r i a l s (17); team members b a s i c agreement on p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s -s i o n a l p h ilosophy (18); e n e r g e t i c , e n t h u s i a s t i c and i m a g i n a t i v e t e a c h e r s (14); hard working, w i l l i n g and committed t e a c h e r s (16); f l e x i b l e and v e r s a t i l e t e a c h e r s (5 ) ; competent and p r o f e s s i o n a l t e a c h e r s (9 ) ; support of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (7 ) ; c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n of team mem-bers (5 ) ; adequate time f o r p l a n n i n g b e f o r e , during and a f t e r implementation (6); w i l l i n g n e s s of t e a c h e r s to compromise (4); adequate p a r a - p r o f e s s i o n a l s (4); continuous r e - e v a l u a t i o n and assessment (4); proper p u p i l s e l e c t i o n (4); good l i a i s o n w i t h parents (2); good l e a d e r s h i p (2); complementary s t r e n g t h s and s k i l l s i n team members (2); f l e x i b l e grouping (1); and a sense of humour (1). The f o l l o w i n g comments r e g a r d i n g team t e a c h i n g imple-mentation were made by the p r i n c i p a l s . - Two t e a c h e r s requested p e r m i s s i o n t o p l a n a team approach. These t e a c h e r s had worked c l o s e l y t o g e t h e r , but i n separate c l a s s e s , f o r two y e a r s . Few d i f f i c u l -t i e s were encountered; only those of f i n d i n g money t o purchase s p e c i a l t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s . - We were l e f t w i t h l i t t l e c h o i c e when an eight-room open area a d d i t i o n was b u i l t t h r e e years ago. Some d i f f i c u l t i e s developed when te a c h e r s who had f o r years taught i n s e l f - c o n t a i n e d classrooms had to teach i n the open area. - Two open areas were b u i l t and t e a c h e r s a s s i g n e d t o them. I t was a " s i n k or swim" s i t u a t i o n . By some g e n t l e arm t w i s t i n g new t e a c h e r s have been added who showed a c o m p a t i b i l i t y and i n t e r e s t i n the area. - In our s c h o o l , p r o s p e c t i v e t e a c h e r s were g i v e n t o u r s of e x i s t i n g open areas. S u i t a b l e students were s e l e c t e d . A f o u r classroom area was m o d i f i e d by removing w a l l s . Some s p e c i a l equipment was p r o v i d e d . D i f f i c u l t i e s arose because l a c k of s p e c i f i c s t a f f t r a i n i n g r e s u l t e d i n i n i t i a l p u r p o s e l e s s a c t i v i t y . - Teachers i n the s c h o o l had such complementary s t r e n g t h s t h a t they r e c o g n i z e d these themselves. Team t e a c h i n g grew from i n i t i a l p l a t o o n i n g . The d i f f i c u l t i e s of implementation were p h y s i c a l ones. - Team t e a c h i n g was School Board i n i t i a t e d . The assignment f o r the p r i n c i p a l was, "Make the open area work." - In order t o take p u p i l s o f f s h i f t , the p u p i l s and t e a c h e r s were put i n t o an open area b u i l d i n g . F i v e t e a c h e r s and 130 p u p i l s were p l a c e d i n a b u i l d i n g p r e v i o u s l y used f o r 2 c l a s s e s , a l i b r a r y and a s p e c i a l c l a s s . - I t was decided by the School Board t o b u i l d some open areas. Any t e a c h e r i n d i c a t i n g an i n t e r e s t was h i r e d . The r e s u l t s have been poor. There should have been more c a r e f u l s t a f f s e l e c t i o n and more s t a f f involvement and p l a n n i n g . - Two c l a s s e s i n our new s c h o o l were designed with a f o l d i n g w a l l between them. Teachers were encouraged t o work t o g e t h e r . - Teachers with s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s were w i l l i n g t o take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s u b j e c t matters l i k e a r t , s c i e n c e , music or p h y s i c a l education. T h i s l e d t o team p l a n -ning and c o o p e r a t i o n . - The t e a c h e r s who d e s i r e d team t e a c h i n g s t u d i e d and planned f o r about 15 months. - Team t e a c h i n g was i n t r o d u c e d t o f i t i n w i t h the continuous progress system i n t h i s s c h o o l . - Team t e a c h i n g was encouraged by the d i s t r i c t super-i n t e n d e n t , the elementary s u p e r v i s o r and the p r i n c i p a l . These f i n d i n g s seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t elementary s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia are having as many problems with team implementation as those i n the United S t a t e s . Much r e s e a r c h and experimentation needs to be done i f we are to s o l v e these problems. Researchers should d i s c o v e r how o f t e n team t e a c h i n g i s adopted due t o pressure t o copy changes elsewhere, how o f t e n t o cope with e x i s t i n g and crowded f a c i l i t i e s , and how o f t e n t o make more e f f e c t i v e use of t e a c h e r s ' s k i l l s . When reasons f o r and methods of implement-a t i o n are c l e a r e r , the success of a team may more e a s i l y be guaranteed. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From t h i s description of team teaching and analysis of the rather li m i t e d research on team teaching, certain implications may be drawn. Since i t takes a number of years to develop and implement a team project to the point where i t s objectives ( i f such objectives have been drawn up i n the f i r s t place) might be r e a l i z e d , i t i s probable that current projects i n B r i t i s h Columbia have not been i n operation long enough to permit appropriate evaluation. Almost a l l accomplish-ments i n team teaching i n t h i s province and the United States s t i l l belong to the design stage. None of the t h e o r e t i c a l models of team teaching have yet been f u l l y implemented. It i s therefore premature and unwise to advocate widespread dissemination and adoption of team teaching i n B r i t i s h Columbia. To date, many team plans have been adopted on the basis of administrative e f f i c i e n c y , popular expediency and the glamor given them by p u b l i c i t y . In education one should not condone change merely because i t i s fashionable. Dis-crimination should be made between what i s worthwhile and what i s a fad. The fact that research shows that children are not hurt by team teaching i s encouraging, but should one not ask that there be some v a l i d evidence that i t i s bene-f i c i a l to most children rather than s l i g h t l y b e n e f i c i a l to some children before adopting the plan? Furthermore there are many complex problems associated with team teaching which are not offset by superior learning outcomes, better emotional well-being of pupils, more teacher competence or e f f i c i e n c y . If we are to modify present patterns of teaching and expend tax d o l l a r s to do i t , we must have clear objectives and p o s i t i v e evidence for our actions. Much of the taxpayer revolt stems from the fact that educators cannot show that • increased school budgets have increased the effectiveness of schools. To date, team teaching has not proven i t s worth. It i s also important that educators i n B r i t i s h Columbia r e a l i z e that present methods of i n s t r u c t i o n and organization have been judged inadequate for no sound reasons. There i s nothing i n conventionally organized schools that precludes teaching students i n those ways which have been associated with the concept of team teaching. For example, one of the advantages given for team teaching i s that i t tends to make the teacher rethink many of the basic issues with respect to curriculum and methods, and that there i s a tendency for him to take more care over lesson preparation. However, there i s no reason why such rethinking and improved lesson preparation should not take place i n a more t r a d i t i o n -a l organization. Also such goals as independent study, small group discussion, use of modern i n s t r u c t i o n a l t o o l s , use of resource people and f l e x i b l e scheduling can also be reached in a conventional se t t i n g . Probably these goals w i l l be furthered i n today's schools whether or not team teaching i s implemented. Moreover, i f independent study and i n d i v i d u a l attention are major goals of team teaching, they can probably be carried out better at home than at school. It appears to be that one of the basic reasons f o r increasing interest i n team teaching i n the elementary schools of B r i t i s h Columbia i s a result of the growing interest i n subject matter. One wonders i f t h i s emphasis on academic achievement i s good. Undue pressure i s being put on children at increasingly e a r l i e r ages. Preoccupation with organiza-t i o n , with moving teachers and children and subjects about, has, i n addition, diverted many educators from facing up to the hard task of improving i n s t r u c t i o n . An organizational plan, such as team teaching, offers opportunities for conducting i n s t r u c t i o n but does not, i n i t s e l f , guarantee any i n s t r u c t i o n a l outcomes. The tendency has been to claim that team teaching i s the answer to the most general and all-encompassing problems: overcrowding, the improvement of i n s t r u c t i o n , the f l e x i b l e grouping of pupils, and the proper u t i l i z a t i o n of teacher t a l e n t . Much team teaching has, as a r e s u l t , been organization f o r the sake of organization. It i s true that team teaching does o f f e r an e f f e c t i v e vehicle for i d e n t i f y i n g these problems, f o r study-ing them, fo r seeking solutions to them but i t has so f a r , as pointed out i n Chapter I I I , solved few of them. Educators in B r i t i s h Columbia should understand c l e a r l y that there i s nothing magic about team teaching. Just making classes large and grouping teachers w i l l not produce more e f f e c t i v e learning. If more team teaching projects are undertaken i n t h i s province i t should be with the f u l l understanding of what can be achieved and what shortcomings are inherent i n the structure. Also educators must guard against implementing team teaching prematurely. There i s a need to prepare the way f o r change. Currently many school d i s t r i c t s are i n i t i a t i n g team teaching without a deliberate e f f o r t to c a r e f u l l y select team members, prepare teachers and pupils, develop a suitable curriculum, provide adequate f a c i l i t i e s , or educate the public. Univer-s i t i e s w i l l have to introduce a programme that t r a i n s teachers who desire to team teach. In B r i t i s h Columbia, at present, f a c u l t i e s of education do not off e r such a programme. These shortcomings have resulted i n hasty and often super-f i c i a l team teaching developments. Without precise d e f i n i t i o n and f u l l understanding of team teaching, schools i n t h i s province run the r i s k of missing i t s purpose e n t i r e l y . Team teaching can e a s i l y become a hollow form without substance. Team teaching must face the d i f f i c u l t problem of c l a r i f y i n g i t s goals. As an instrument of organized i n s t r u c t i o n i t must also be refined. Teams should be able to explain accurately what they do, Research should be an i n t e g r a l part of team t e a c h i n g . A l l those p l a n n i n g team t e a c h i n g should b u i l d a sound r e s e a r c h design i n t o the programme. During the e a r l y years of team o p e r a t i o n the r e s e a r c h should be developmental. I t should not seek s u p e r f i c i a l answers but should attempt t o evaluate degrees of q u a l i t y and u t i l i t y , and then r e t a i n those aspects which w i l l improve the programme. Competencies i n personnel and r a t i o n a l e f o r c u r r i c u l u m , grouping, s t a f f i n g and team pl a n n i n g should be developed before c o n t r o l l e d s t u d i e s are run. Emphasis should be p l a c e d on e v a l u a t i o n as p l a n n i n g p r o g r e s s e s , d u r i n g implementation and at the c o n c l u s i o n of each year. L a t e r when c o n t r o l l e d experimental r e s e a r c h i s a p p r o p r i a t e i t must be made sure t h a t aims are c l e a r , t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r e under i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y d e s c r i b e d , t h a t v a r i a b l e s are i s o l a t e d and c o n t r o l l e d , t h a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s on s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s , and t h a t any e x t r a -p o l a t i o n s of r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s are a p p l i e d only t o team o p e r a t i o n s i n the same manner. The p o t e n t i a l f l e x i b i l i t y of team t e a c h i n g p r o v i d e s new p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r both i n n o v a t i v e and c l a s s i c a l approaches to s t u d i e s . The Committee f o r Economic Development, i n i t s study, The Schools and the  Challenge of Innovation, s t a t e s : Team t e a c h i n g , l i k e a few other u n s h a c k l i n g i n n o v a t i o n s , confounds cu r r e n t s t a b l e r e s e a r c h e s ; i n t r o d u c e s p o s s i b i l -i t i e s f o r developing new, long-term s y n t a c t i c a l s t r u c -t u r e s ; and promises t o r e d i r e c t s t a b l e i n q u i r y . For example, team t e a c h i n g r e v e a l s so many v a r i a b l e s i n the teaching-learning environment that most studies compar-ing departmentalization and self-contained classes, so r e l i g i o u s l y reported i n our encyclopedic reviews of l i t e r a t u r e , are revealed to rest i n the context of a d i f f e r i n g conception of "school."277 Other measures than standardized t e s t s , which have been the chief yardstick to date, must be developed. They w i l l have to take into consideration such variables as : interest shown i n subjects, changed motivation of pupils, consequ-ences of di f f e r e n t sized groups, attitudes to school goals, degree of cooperation among s t a f f members, optimum s t a f f team size i n diff e r e n t areas of the curriculum, personality f a c t o r s , and teaching methods. Many of the techniques employed i n i n d u s t r i a l psychology, cybernetics, and market surveying could be applied to investigate s t a f f u t i l i z a t i o n practices i n schools. At present, schools do not have suf-f i c i e n t s t a f f trained f o r research, f a c i l i t i e s and time to test team teaching. In the future, however, some of the important problems that should be studied are: 1. What constitutes a teaching team? 2. What are the basic elements that i d e n t i f y t h i s approach and d i f f e r e n t i a t e i t from other teaching methods? 3. What i s the purpose of the team approach? 4. What are the requirements for a team teacher? 5. What i s the best size for a teaching team? 6. What are the d e f i n i t e advantages of f l e x i b l e grouping of students? Research and Policy Committee, The Schools and  the Challenge of Innovation (New York: CED, 1969), 100. 7. How does team teaching r e a l l y a f f e c t methods of instruction? 8. What tests must be devised, and how, so that one can accurately measure i f students benefit from team teaching? 9. What i s the best way to prepare teachers for team teaching? 10. What changes i n educational climate a c t u a l l y do take place when groups of teachers work together? 11. Can teams use t h e i r differences i n personality and teaching st y l e s i n such a way as to c a p i t a l i z e on differences i n children's personalities and learn-ing styles? 12. Why do so many teachers and theoreticians i n educa-t i o n r e s i s t h i e r a r c h i c a l structures i n teams? 13. What size of group should be used for what purposes? 14. What are the various stages of development through which a school s t a f f ought to proceed i f an excellent team organization i s eventually to emerge? 15. What curriculum revisions must be made so subjects lend themselves to team teaching? 16. How does the team obtain adequate time f o r planning and evaluation? 17. What i s the best way to handle the complex problem of human relationships i n teaching? Unless research improves and unless i t answers some of these questions, the result w i l l continue to be a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of inadequately implemented and inadequately tested i n s t r u c t i o n -a l changes. The decision as to whether team teaching should be continued, discontinued or even propagated i s not yet dictated. Present research, and a survey such as the author's promise no easy answers. Educators who intend to experiment w i t h team t e a c h i n g might draw encouragement from the f a c t t h a t most s c h o o l s u s i n g team t e a c h i n g are a l s o p i o n e e r i n g w i t h the problems of f a c i l i t i e s , s c h e d u l i n g and grouping. I f a c a t a l y s t i s needed to accomplish changes, team t e a c h -i n g c o u l d be the agent. Many of the changes, as p o i n t e d out, . c o u l d be achieved i n the c o n v e n t i o n a l s c h o o l but are not. As i n d i c a t e d i n Chapter I I I , team t e a c h i n g o f t e n tends t o open up the s c h o o l t o f u r t h e r i n n o v a t i o n : i n s c h o o l b u i l d i n g d e s i g n , personnel u t i l i z a t i o n , t e a c h i n g methods, teacher education and programmed i n s t r u c t i o n . And f u r t h e r , i t i s apparent t h a t most of the s c h o o l s i n v o l v e d , while s t r i v i n g f o r improvement, have expressed a p p r o v a l of the team approach. That they understand some of i t s shortcomings and yet are w i l l i n g t o continue with the experiment i s shown by the f o l l o w i n g comments. - Team t e a c h i n g i s only a v e h i c l e t o e x p l o i t the f u l l p o t e n t i a l of a t e a c h e r . I t s t i l l depends on the people you have doing the job, the number of stu d e n t s , the amount of space, and the team o b j e c t i v e s ( p r i n c i p a l ) . - We are e v a l u a t i n g our programme a l l the time. In consequence i t i s c o n s t a n t l y changing so t h a t i t i s now q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from what i t was at the beginning. We are s t i l l not s a t i s f i e d t h a t we are doing the a b s o l u t e best f o r our students but we f e e l we are at l e a s t heading i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n ( t e a c h e r ) . - I see a g r e a t f u t u r e f o r team t e a c h i n g but i t w i l l take time. I t takes years to change an e d u c a t i o n a l approach ( t e a c h e r ) . - Team t e a c h i n g has the advantage of being l i k e l i f e i t s e l f , c o n s t a n t l y changing and adapting. I t i s capable of being d e f i n e d i n almost as many ways as t h e r e are teams and s i t u a t i o n s . I t i s a r e f r e s h i n g , s t i m u l a t i n g and c h a l l e n g i n g experience and, with the r i g h t k i n d of people, a very s a t i s f y i n g one. I t i s not a panacea f o r a l l e d u c a t i o n a l i l l s ( t e a c h e r ) . In c o n c l u s i o n one may agree with S h a p l i n and p o i n t out t h a t we are now ready " t o move forward i n an attempt t o p r o v i d e b e t t e r c o n d i t i o n s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n and f o r l e a r n i n g , t o develop more f l e x i b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , to r e c o g n i z e and encourage expertness i n the t e a c h i n g p r o f e s s i o n , and t o c o n c e n t r a t e on the k i n d of r e s o u r c e s which are necessary t o b r i n g about b a s i c changes i n c u r r i c u l u m which seem so neces-s a r y . Team t e a c h i n g takes i t s p l a c e among these developments 278 as a way of o r g a n i z i n g f o r change." Whether or not change take s p l a c e or problems are a t t a c k e d depends l a r g e l y on the q u a l i t y of personnel i n v o l v e d , t h e i r commitment t o e d u c a t i o n , and the wisdom with which t h e i r t a l e n t s are employed. 278 J . S h a p l i n , "Team Teaching," Saturday Review, XLIV (May 20, 1961), 70. BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books General Anderson, Robert H. Teaching i n a World of Change. New York: Harcourt, 1966. B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers' F e d e r a t i o n . Nongraded Schools: A B i b l i o g r a p h y . Vancouver: B.C.T.F.,1970. _. The Open Area School: A B i b l i o g r a p h y . Vancouver: B.C.T.F., 1970. C h a r l e s , M.R. A Preface t o E d u c a t i o n . New York: Macmillan Company, 1965* " Department of E d u c a t i o n and Science. C h i l d r e n and T h e i r  Primary. Schools. London: Her Majesty's S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , 1967. F r a n k l i n , Marian Pope. School O r g a n i z a t i o n : Theory and  P r a c t i c e . Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1961. (Also ERIC ED022253) Goodlad, John I. and Anderson, Robert H. The Nongraded  Elementary School. (Revised Edition,). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1963. Haan, Aubrey. Elementary School C u r r i c u l u m Theory and  Research." Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc., 1962. H i l l s o n , Maurie. Change and Innovation i n Elementary School  O r g a n i z a t i o n . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston. Inc., 1965. K o h l , Herbert R.. The Open Classroom. New York: Random House Inc., 1969. " L e b e l , Robert (ed.). E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. T o r o n t o : , C o l l i e r - M a c m i l l a n Canada L t d . , 1969. L o w e l l , K e i t h , Paul Blake and Sidney T i e d t . Contemporary  Cur r i c u l u m i n the Elementary School. New York: Harper & Row P u b l i s h e r s , 1968. M i l l e r , Richard (ed.). P e r s p e c t i v e s i n Educational Change. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Morse, Arthur D. Schools of Tomorrow Today. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., I960. N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n . Multi-Age Grouping: E n r i c h i n g the Learning Environment. Washington, D.C: the A s s o c i a t i o n , 1967. . P r o j e c t on I n s t r u c t i o n Report: Planning and Organizing f o r Teaching. Washington, D.C: the A s s o c i a t i o n , 1963. Research and P o l i c y Committee. The Schools and the Challenge  of Innovation. New York: Committee f o r Economic Development, 1969. Sampson, L.P. and E.N. E l l i s . Educational Innovation: Trends and Development i n Education. Vancouver, B.C.: B.C. School Trustees A s s o c i a t i o n , 1967. T a y l o r , J . Galen and W i l l i a m M. Alexander. Curriculum Planning f o r Modern Schools. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966. Thomas, George I . and Joseph Crescimbeni. I n d i v i d u a l i z e d  I n s t r u c t i o n i n the Elementary School. New York: Random House, 1967. Trow, W i l l i a m C l a r k . Teacher and Technology: New Designs f o r Learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, I963. Wolf, W i l l i a m C. and Bradley M. Loomer. The Elementary School: A P e r s p e c t i v e . Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. Team Teaching B a i r , M e d i l l and Richard G. Woodward. Team Teaching i n  A c t i o n . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , Company, 1964. Beggs, David W. (ed.). Team Teaching: Bold New Venture. I n d i a n a p o l i s , Indiana: U n i f i e d College Press, Inc., 1964. B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers' Federation. Team Teaching: A  B i b l i o g r a p h y . Vancouver, B.C.: B.CT.F. , 1969. . Team Teaching: Report of the Western Conference of Teacher Organizations. Vancouver, B.C.: B.C.T.F., 1964. Bunyan, L.W. Team Teaching: A.Report. Calgary, Alberta: Burnand Printing Co. Ltd., 1965. Canadian Education Association. Team Teaching i n Canada: Report Number Three, 1963-1964. Toronto: Canadian Education Association, 1964. Chamberlin, L e s l i e J. Team Teaching: Organization and Administration. Columbus, Ohio: Charles I. M e r r i l l , 19~W. Davis, Harold S. Team Teaching: A Selected Annotated  Bibliography. Cleveland, Ohio: Educational Research Council of Greater Cleveland, 1967. (Also ERIC ED023159) Freeman, John. Team Teaching i n B r i t a i n . London: Ward Lock Educational Company, 1969. Hansloosky, Glenda, Sue Moyer and Helen Wagner. Why Team  Teaching? Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l , 1969-Johnson, Robert H. and John J. Hunt. R f o r Team Teaching. Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Co., 1968. Joyce, Bruce. The Teacher and His St a f f : Man, Media and Machines. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, 1967. (Also ERIC ED016397) Lobb, M. Delbert. P r a c t i c a l Aspects of Team Teaching. San Francisco: Fearson Publishers, 1964. L o v e l l , K. Team Teaching. Leeds, England: University of Leeds, 1967. National School Public Relations Association. D i f f e r e n t i a l S t a f f i n g i n Schools. Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1970. Polos, Nicholas. The Dynamics of Team Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1965. Shaplin, Judson J. and Henry F. Olds (eds.). Team Teaching. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1962TI Vancouver Board of School Trustees. This Is MacCorkindale. Vancouver: Board of School Trustees, 1967. Vars, Gordon F. Common Lea r n i n g s : Core and I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y  Team Approaches. Scranton, Penn.: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Text-book Co., 1969. Wigderson, Harry I. Team Teaching. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of He a l t h , Education and Welfare, 1964. ( A v a i l a b l e ERIC E D O I I 4 6 9 ) A r t i c l e s E d u c a t i o n a l J o u r n a l s Adams, Andrew S. "Operation Co-teaching D a t e l i n e : Oceano, C a l i f o r n i a , " The Elementary School J o u r n a l , LXII (January, 1962), 203-12. " A d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s Guide t o Team Teaching," The E d u c a t i o n a l  D i g e s t , XXIX (September, 1963), 32-33. Anderson, Robert H. " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Character of E d u c a t i o n : S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n and Deployment," Review of E d u c a t i o n a l  Research, XXXIV (October, 1964), 455-469. . " S c h o o l - U n i v e r s i t y Cooperation i n the Lexington P r o j e c t , " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l S o c i o l o g y , XXXIV ( A p r i l , 1961), 882-886. . "Some Types of Co-operative Teaching i n Current Use," The N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, I965), 22-26. . "Team Teaching," N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , L (March, 1961), 52-54. . "Three Examples of Team Teaching i n A c t i o n , " The Nation's Schools, LXV (May, I960), 62-65, 102-10. ., E l l i s A. Hagstrom and Wade M. Robinson. "Team Teaching i n an Elementary S c h o o l , " The School Review, LXVIII ( S p r i n g , i 9 6 0 ) , 71-84. A r n o l d , W i l l i a m E. "Is Team Teaching the Answer?" School  and S o c i e t y . XCI (December 14, 1963), 407-409. Bahner, John M. "Team Teaching i n the Elementary S c h o o l , " E d u c a t i o n , LXXXV (February, 1965), 337-41. Becker, Harry A., Arthur W. Lalime and Bryce P e r k i n s . "Team Teaching," I n s t r u c t o r , LXXI (June, 1962), 43-45-" B e t t e r Schools f o r a Changing F u t u r e , " CTA J o u r n a l , V, No. 4 (October, 1967), 15-17. Bond, Ruth A l l e n . "Team Teaching: What Is I t ? Where Is I t Being Done? And Why?" Georgia E d u c a t i o n a l J o u r n a l (October, 1964), 15. B o u t w e l l , W.D. "What's Happening i n Education? What i s Team Teaching?" PTA Magazine, LCII (May, 1963), 16-25. B r a d l e y , P.A. " I n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n s t r u c t i o n Through Co-o p e r a t i v e T e aching," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , CLII (May, 1964), 46-49-B r o w n e l l , John A. and H a r r i s A. T a y l o r . " T h e o r e t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s f o r Teaching Teams," P h i D e l t a Kappan, XLV (January, 1962), 150-157. "Calgary Designs f o r Change," School Progress (August, 1968), 47-48. " C a l i f o r n i a Elementary School Drops Out Nonteaching Space," The Nation's Schools, LXXII (November, I963), 52-55. C a r l i n , P h i l i p M. "A Current A p p r a i s a l of Team Teaching," E d u c a t i o n , LXXV (February, 1965), 348-53. Cass, James. "A School Designed f o r K i d s , " Saturday Review, (March 21, 1970), 65-66, 75. Crews, Roy L. "One-Room Space S c h o o l , " I l l i n o i s E ducation (March, 1967), 304-306. "A C r i t i c a l Look at Team Teaching," I n s t r u c t o r , LXXI (October, 1961), 39-42. Cunningham, Luvern L. " E s s e n t i a l Components of Teaching Teams," Canadian A d m i n i s t r a t o r , I I , No. 8 (May, I963), 31-36. . "Keys t o Team Teaching," Elementary School Tournal, LXII (December, 1961), 119-129. . "Team Teaching: Where Do We Stand?" A d m i n i s t r a t o r 1 s Notebook, VII ( A p r i l , i 9 6 0 ) , 1-4. D a v i s , Harold S. "Planning f o r Team Teaching," E d u c a t i o n , LXXXV (February, 1965), 333-36. Dean, Ray B. "Team Teaching i n the Elementary S c h o o l s , " American School Board J o u r n a l , CXLV (December, 1962), Dean, S t u a r t E. "Team Teaching: A Review," School L i f e , XLIV (September, 1961), 5-8. "Design f o r Team Teaching," I n s t r u c t o r (May, 1968), 65-76. " D i f f e r e n t i a t e d S t a f f i n g : The P r o f e s s i o n a l Answer t o Changing Demands on the S c h o o l , " B.C. Teacher (March, 1971), 215-231. " D i v i s i b l e C l u s t e r Plan f o r a Compact S c h o o l , " A r c h i t e c t u r a l  Record (March, 1965), 176-177. Douglass, Malcolm P. "Team Teaching: Fundamental Change or P a s s i n g Fancy?" CTA J o u r n a l , LIX (March, 1963), 26-29, 55-56. Downs, J.A. "What's i n a Team Anyhow?" B.C. Teacher (September-October, 1970), 24-27-Drummond, Haro l d . "Team Teaching: An Assessment," Educa t i o n  D i g e s t , XXVII (February, 1962), 5-8. D u r r e l l , Donald D. "Implementing and E v a l u a t i n g Pupil-Team Learning P l a n s , " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l S o c i o l o g y , XXXIV ( A p r i l , 1961), 360-365. "Eagle Harbour Primary S c h o o l , " The B r i t i s h Columbia School  T r u s t e e , XXIII (Winter, 1967), 17. E a k i n , Gladys E. and Eugene S. Spence. "Team Teaching and Independent Reading," Elementary E n g l i s h , XXXIX (March, 1962), 266-68. " E d u c a t i o n a l Trends f o r School Design," K i t i m a t Review (March, 1968), 1. Evans, Harley and George S. Womer. " S t i r r i n g s i n the B i g C i t i e s : C l e v e l a n d , " N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , L I (November, 1962), 50-53. Farkas, Alyce L. "Is the Granada Plan the School of the F u t u r e ? " CTA J o u r n a l (January, 1967), 17-20. F a r r a r , W.W. "Sequence of Events," A u d i o v i s u a l I n s t r u c t i o n , X ( A p r i l , 1965), 299-302. "Fashioned f o r Freedom: Chartwell School," B r i t i s h Columbia  School Trustee, XXIV, No. 4 (1968), 72-7?. Fink, David R. "The Selection and Training of Teachers f o r Teams," The National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 54-59. F i s c h l e r , Abraham S. and P.B. Shoresman. "Team Teaching i n the Elementary School " School Science and Mathematics, LXII ( A p r i l , 1962), 281-2F8": Fraenkel, J.K. and R.J. Gross. "Team Teaching: Let's Look Before We Leap," Education Digest. XXXII (October, 1966) , 4-6. . and R.J. Gross, "Team Teaching: Opinions D i f f e r , " National Education Association Journal, LXVI ( A p r i l , 1967) , 14-17. Gamble, J.W. "An Inquiry Into the Evaluation of Team Teaching," C.S.A. B u l l e t i n , VIII (October, 1968), 28-74. Gaskell, W. and J. Sheridan. "Team Teaching and the Social Studies i n the Elementary School," Elementary School  Journal, LXVIII (February, 1968), 246-250. Gayfer, M. "A School Where Team Involvement Plays I t s Role at Every Level," School Progress, XXX ( A p r i l , 1969), 50-52. Georgiades, William. "Team Teaching: A New Star Not a Meteor," National Education Association Journal, LXVI ( A p r i l , 1967). -Goodlad, John I. "Cooperative Teaching i n Education Reform," National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 8-13. . "Planning and Organization f o r Teaching," National Education Association Journal (I963), 8. Goss, Jan. "Teaching i n the Big Room," National Elementary  P r i n c i p a l . XLIV (January, 1965), iJ^T. Haas, Arthur. "Fir s t - y e a r Organization of Elmcrest Elementary School: Nongraded Team Teaching School," American School  Board Journal. CLI (October, 1965), 22, 7TT. Haeckel, Lester C. " F a c i l i t i e s f o r Elementary Team Teaching," American School Board Journal, XCLVI (January, 1963), 27-28. Hamilton, Andrew. "Is Team Teaching f o r your C h i l d ? " PTA  Magazine t LVII (May, 1 9 6 9 ) , 4 - 6 . Hayes, C h a r l e s H. "Team Teaching i n C u l t u r a l l y Deprived Areas," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965)1 6C^6T: Heathers, Glen. " F i e l d Research on Elementary School O r g a n i z a t i o n and I n s t r u c t i o n , " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  S o c i o l o g y , XXXIV ( A p r i l , 1 9 6 1 ) , 3 3 8 - 3 4 3 . "Research on Implementing and E v a l u a t i n g Co-o p e r a t i v e Teaching," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 2 7 - 3 3 -Hoppcock, Anne. "Team Teaching: Form Without Substance," N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , L ( A p r i l , 1 9 6 1 ) , 4 7 - 4 8 . Horowitz, M. " P r o j e c t Meet. M c G i l l Elementary Education Teaching Teams," M c G i l l J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , I I ( F a l l , 1 9 6 7 ) , 183^T8"5^ "How t o Break With the P a s t , " School Progress (August, 1 9 6 7 ) , 3 0 - 3 2 . J a f f a , N. Neubert and R i c h a r d M. Brandt. "An Approach t o the Problems of a Downtown S c h o o l , " N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (November, 1 9 & 4 ) , 2 5 - 2 8 . J a r v i s , Galen M. and Roy C. Fleming. "Team Teaching as S i x t h - G r a d e r s See I t , " Elementary School J o u r n a l , LXVI (October, 1 9 6 5 ) , 3 5 - 3 9 -J e n k i n s , T r e v o r . " S p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s Wrong f o r the Elementary S c h o o l , " The B.C. Teacher (March, 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 4 8 - 2 5 0 . Johnson, Kenn. "Team Teaching," The Teachers Magazine (November, 1 9 6 7 ) . Joyce, Bruce R. " S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n , " Review of E d u c a t i o n a l  Research, XXXVII (June, 1 9 6 7 ) , 3 2 3 - 3 3 6 . K e l l y , E r i c . "The Mythology of Change," The B.C. Teacher (February, 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 0 2 - 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 . Keppel, F r a n c i s and Paula P e r r y . "School and U n i v e r s i t y : P a r t n e r s i n P r o g r e s s , " Phi D e l t a Kappan, XLII (January, 1 9 6 1 ) , 174-180" "Key Tipped the S c a l e s t o Favor F l e x i b i l i t y , " American School  Board J o u r n a l ( A p r i l , 1 9 6 9 ) , 2 4 , 26-26. Klausmeier, Herbert J. and Mary R. Q u i l l i n g . "Alternative to Self-Contained, Age-Graded Classes," Wisconsin University, 1967. (ERIC ED016010) . and Doris M. Cook. "Project Models: A F a c i l i t a t i v e Environment f o r Increasing E f f i c i e n c y i n Pupil Learning and f o r Conducting Educational Research and Development," Wisconsin University, 1967- (ERIC ED016004) "The Klein Concept of Team Teaching and Continuous Progress Education," Mountain View School D i s t r i c t , C a l i f o r n i a , 1967. (ERIC ED027713) Lambert, P h i l l i p . "Team Teaching f o r the Elementary School," Educational Leadership, XVII (November, I960), 85-88. • . "Team Teaching f o r Today's World," Teachers' College Record, LXIV (March, 1963) , 4 8 0 - 4 ^ Margulius, M. "Team E f f o r t Puts Up Open-Area School i n Vancouver," School Administration ( A p r i l , 1968), 45-46. McCarthy, Robert J. "Why an Ungraded Middle School? Chapter One. - How to Organize and Operate an Ungraded Middle School," Successful School Administration Series, 1967. (ERIC ED022240) McMahon, Eleanor. " P r i n c i p a l ' s View on Team Teaching," National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 34-43. McNutt, M. "Open Space: Room to Grow," Arbos, V (May-June, 1969), 4-8. M i t c h e l l , Donald P. "Housing Cooperative Teaching Programs," National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 44-52. Morlan, John E. "The Team Approach to Large-Group Instruction," Audiovisional Instruction, IX (October, I964), 520-523. Mosher, R.D. "Qualitative and Quantitative Education," The Teachers Magazine (May, 1963), 46-48. Olson, Carl 0. J r . "We C a l l i t 'Team Teaching,' But Is i t Really That?" Grade Teacher, LXXXIIII (October, 1965). "The One-Room School Returns as Dome f o r Team Teaching," Architectural Record (October, 1965). "Open Areas and Economy Too," B.C. School Trustee ( A p r i l 17, 1968), 32-33. Ovans, CD. "The Taxpayer Revolt," The B.C. Teacher, XLIX (November, 1969), 81. "Pupils, Patterns, and P o s s i b i l i t i e s : A Description of Team Teaching i n Pittsburgh," 1961 Annual Report of the Superintendent of Schools, Pittsburgh, Pa. In Maurie H i l l s o n . Change and Innovation i n Elementary School Organization. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965, 187-198. "Put It A l l Together—School," Instructor ( A p r i l , 1971), 60-62. Reasoner, Robert W. and Harvey R. Wall. "Developing Staff Interaction i n Team Teaching," National Elementary  P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 84-86. Reed, Wayne. "Team Teaching Worked i n Our School," B.C  Teacher, XLIV (March, 1965), 233-236, 258-259. Russell, Kempton W. "No Walls to Climb," CTA Journal (October, 1967), 12-14. "School Design Must Keep Pace with Educational Innovation," A r c h i t e c t u r a l Record (March, 1967), 167-177. Shaplin, Judson T. "Antecedents of Team Teaching," School  and Society, XCI (December 14, 1963), 393-407. "Cooperative Teaching: Def i n i t i o n s and Organizational Analysis," National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIV (January, 1965), 14-2C- sao-JL . "Team Teaching," Saturday Review, XLIV (May 20, 1961), 54-55, 70. Simendinger, Elizabeth A. "Team Teaching i n Science," Science Teacher. XXXIV (October, 1967), 49-51. Snowsell, F. "Some Thoughts on Team Teaching," P r i n c i p a l ' s Journal, VIII (November, 1967), 20-28. " S p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s Good f o r the Elementary School," B.C  Teacher (May-June, 1971), 283-286. " "Team Teaching Isn't Any Easier But It's A Lot More Rewarding," School Progress (August, 1967), 33. "This School Was B u i l t f o r Continuous Progress," School  Progress (December, 1967), 52-53. Thomas, J . " R e c o n c i l i n g Theory and P r a c t i c e i n the Elementary S c h o o l , " Elementary School J o u r n a l , LXVIII ( A p r i l , 1968), 349-358. Trump, J . L l o y d . "Team Teaching: I t Could Happen t o You," School P r o g r e s s , XXXII ( A p r i l , 1963), 15-16. . "Some Questions and Answers about Suggestions f o r Improving S t a f f U t i l i z a t i o n , " NASSP B u l l e t i n , XLV (January, 1961), 19-28. . "What i s Team Teaching?" E d u c a t i o n (February, 327-332. Wallace, R i c h a r d C. "Can Large Group I n s t r u c t i o n Provide For I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s ? " N a t i o n a l Elementary  P r i n c i p a l (January, 1965), 66^W. Walsh, J . "Design and E d u c a t i o n , " B r i t i s h Columbia School  T r u s t e e , XXIV, No. 2 ( S p r i n g , 1968), 18-20. Wigderson, Harry I. "Team Teaching i n American E d u c a t i o n , " E d u c a t i o n , LXXXV (February, 1965), 323-326. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s and Research J o u r n a l s Artman, Burton E. "Micro Team Teaching," Wisconsin S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1968 (ERIC ED023632). B e i g h l e y , A r c h i e Fay. "The O r i g i n , Development of Elementary Team Teaching i n Lewiston, Idaho," U n i v e r s i t y of Idaho, 1968. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 5-6 . (November, 1968), I 0 6 8-A. B i s c h o f f , F.H. and F. Enns. "A Team Teaching P r o j e c t , " Canadian A d m i n i s t r a t o r , VII (October, I967), 1-4. Boren, Donald. "A Comparative Study of Team and T r a d i t i o n a l Teaching Methodologies." U n i v e r s i t y of Utah, 1969, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 9-10 (March, 1968), 2293-A. Borg, Walter. "Study of Human I n t e r a c t i o n V a r i a b l e s i n S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Teacher Teams," Utah U n i v e r s i t y , 1966 (ERIC ED010001). Burningham, George Leland. "A Study and E v a l u a t i o n of the Team Teaching.of the Fourth Grade at Woodstock Elementary S c h o o l . " U n i v e r s i t y of Utah, 1968, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l ,, XXIX, No. 3-4 (September, 1968), 770-A. C r a n d e l l , Edwin Whitney. "An Experimental Study: Team Teaching Compared wi t h the S e l f - C o n t a i n e d Classroom O r g a n i z a t i o n i n Upper Elementary School Grades." Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y , 1966, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXVII, No. 7 (January, 1967), 2308-A. E l l i s o n , M. and Robert D. G i l b e r t . "Teacher Behavior i n Open-Area Classrooms," Canadian A d m i n i s t r a t o r , V I I I (February, 1969), 17-21": F i e r s t e r , L.A. "A Study of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Forms of Team Teaching i n the P u b l i c Elementary Schools i n the Uni t e d S t a t e s . " Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1969, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l f XXV ( J u l y , 1964), 225-A. G i l b e r t , Robert D. "The I n t e r p e r s o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Teaching Teams." U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1961, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXII (1961), 1882-A. Hagen, Owen Arnold. " P e r c e p t i o n s of Team Teaching as Expressed by Teachers i n a S p e c i f i c Team Teaching S i t u a t i o n . " Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1966, D i s s e r t a t i o n s A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXVII, No. 3 (September, 1966), 992-A. Jackson, Joseph. " A n a l y s i s of a Team Teaching and a S e l f -Contained Homeroom Experiment i n Grade F i v e and S i x , " J o u r n a l of Experimental E d u c a t i o n , XXXII (Summer, I964), 317-322. Jacobs, C l a i r e Macaulay. "A Comparison of A t t i t u d e s of Team and Non-Team Teachers Toward V a r i o u s Aspects of Teaching." Northern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1968, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 5-6 (November, 1968), H?4-A. K e l l y , John W i l l i a m . "An A n a l y s i s and E v a l u a t i o n of a Co-o r d i n a t e d Master-Teacher Programme i n S o c i a l S t u d i e s and Science at the F i f t h Grade L e v e l . " Fordham U n i v e r s i t y , 1967, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXVII, No. 9-10 ( A p r i l , 1968), 3560-A. Klausmeir, Herbert J . and W i l l i a m Wiersma. "Team Teaching and Achievement," E d u c a t i o n , LXXXVI (December, 1965). 238-242. Knox, Donald Maser. "An Experimental Study of the E f f e c t of a Team Teaching Program Upon C e r t a i n S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s (Achievement - Anxiety - S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s ) , " Western Reserve U n i v e r s i t y , 1965, D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXVII, No. 1 (June, I966J, 4I6-A. Lambert, P h i l l i p , Wi l l iam L.Goodwin, Richard R. Roberts and W i l l i a m Wiersma. "A Comparison of P u p i l Achievement i n Team and Self-Contained Organizat ions ," Journal of  Experimental Education, XXXIII (Spring, 1965), 217-224. . , W i l l i a m L. Goodwin and W i l l i a m Wiersma. "A Compar-i"son of P u p i l Adjustment i n Team and Self-Contained Organizat ions ," Journal of Educational Research, LVIII (March, 1965), 311-314-. , W i l l i a m L. Goodwin and W i l l i a m Wiersma. "A Study oT the Elementary Teaching Team," Elementary School  J o u r n a l , LXVI (October, 1965), 28-34. Lewis, Paul W i l l i a m . "Demonstration of a Nongraded Plan of an Elementary School, U t i l i z i n g Team Teaching and Programmed I n s t r u c t i o n to F a c i l i t a t e Learning i n Reading and Mathematics," Troy State Col lege, 1966-(ERIC ED010329) MacKay, D.A. and K . L . Ward. "Team Teaching i n Western Canada," Canadian Administrator , VII (December, 1967), 9-12. R i c h , Leonar May. "The Effectiveness of I n d i v i d u a l and Team Assignments Following Mass Presentations i n S o c i a l Studies i n Grades Four, Five and S i x . " Boston U n i v e r s i t y , School of Education, 1968, D i s s e r t a t i o n  Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIX, No. 12 (June, 1969), 4389-A. Roberts, G.M. "Case Studies of Two Nongraded Elementary School Programs." U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee, I 9 6 4 , D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXV (November, 1964), 2830-A. Ross, Charles Lee. "An Experiment i n the Reorganization of I n s t r u c t i o n i n the F i r s t Grade." U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee, I963, D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXIV (August, 1963), 65I-A. Smith, Brooks E., Kerber, James E. , Olberg, Robert, Protheroe, Donald. "A Team Internship P r o p o s a l , " Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y , 1968 (ERIC ED023634). Soucy, Leo Antoine. "A Study to Determine the Effects of Team Teaching Upon the Achievement, S o c i a l Adjustment and Mental Health of Grade One P u p i l s . " Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y , 1966, D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , XXVII, No. 11 (May, 1 9 6 7 ) , 4 1 7 5 - A . Sterns, Harvey Nelson. "Student Adjustment and Achievement i n a Team Teaching Organization." University of Michigan, 1968, Dissertation Abstracts International, XXX, No. 1 (July, 1969), 116-A. Wall, H.R. and Reasoner, R.W. "Team Teaching: A Descriptive and Evaluative Study of a Programme i n the Primary Grades." Mount Diablo Unified School D i s t r i c t , Concord, C a l i f o r n i a , 1963 (ERIC ED027083). Warfel, E l v i n Galen. "An Analysis of Team Planning of Three Instructional Teams i n an Elementary School." Columbia University, 1967, Dissertation Abstracts  International, XXVIII, No. 11-12 (May-June, 190S) , 4836-A. Ar€icles (Unpublished) " C l e v e l a n d Elementary School, North Vancouver: Random P o i n t s on an Attempt at Open Area Team Teaching," 1968. (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre.) C o l l i n s , John. "Reports on C l e v e l a n d Elementary School, Brooksbank Elementary School and MacCorkindale Elementary S c h o o l , " Langley-Maple Ridge Teachers' Convention, 1968. (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre.) "Cooperative Teaching, F r a s e r Lake Elementary-Junior-Secondary S c h o o l . " (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre.) C r a i g , E. , J . Acheson and J . Waite. "Team Teaching i n K i t i m a t , " 1967. (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre.) " E v a l u a t i n g of Experiment i n Team Teaching at Westview S c h o o l , " 1967. (Westview S c h o o l , North Vancouver) "Huddles P r o j e c t f o r I n t r o d u c i n g Large Group I n s t r u c t i o n , " 1967. (Westview Elementary School, North Vancouver) "John Adams Middle S c h o o l , A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a , " 1967• (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre) McE 0wn, D., G. Addy, K. Thibodeau and D. Watson. "Report of Committee I n v e s t i g a t i n g Team Teaching." Presented to a meeting of the North Vancouver P r i n c i p a l s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1967. (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre.) Muheim Memorial Elementary S c h o o l , Smithers, B.C. A p r i l , 1969• (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre.) "Open Area S c h o o l s : B.C.T.F. Committee Report Summary." (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre.) Peterson, Henry. "Team Teaching i n E n g l i s h , H i s t o r y and Geography i n the Osoyoos Elementary-Junior-Secondary S c h o o l . " (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre.) " P u p i l s ' I n i t i a l R e a ction t o Team Teaching a t Westview S c h o o l , " September, 1967. (Westview Elementary School, North Vancouver.) Smith, K.E. "Report on the O r g a n i z a t i o n S t r u c t u r e Used i n John Tod Elementary School During 1969-1970," Kamloops School Board. (John Tod Elementary S c h o o l , Kamloops.) Summerton, J . "Open Area Primary School: Eagle Harbour," B.C. Teacher F e d e r a t i o n , September, 1968. S u t h e r l a n d , H. "Report to I n v i t a t i o n a l Research Conference on the Open Area I n s t r u c t i o n a l Programme i n A l v i n H o l l a n d School," F o r t S t . John, B.C., 1968. (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre) "Team E v a l u a t i o n , " B.C.T.F., August 12, 1966. IfB.C.T.F. Resource Centre) "Team Teaching i n the Elementary S c h o o l , " I n s t i t u t e f o r Development of E d u c a t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s , Dayton, Ohio, 1968. (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre) "Team Teaching at Westview School: I n t e r i m Progress Report, 1966-1967," Feb. 1$, 1967. (Westview Elementary School, North Vancouver) "Team Teaching at H i l l c r e s t Elementary School, Coquitlam." (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre) "Team Teaching i n the Open Area at Seymour Elementary School, Vancouver." (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre) V o g l e r , Crawford. "Team Teaching: A Decade of D e c i s i o n , " Feb. 17, 1967. (B.C.T.F. Resource Centre) News Items B a r l i n g , Ann. " V i s u a l Aids Can't I n s p i r e , " Vancouver Sun, September 6, 1969, 38. Bruce, Marian. "Adult Approach Urged i n Teaching Youngsters," Vancouver Sun, November 20, 1969, 39* . " O f f i c i a l H i t s B.C.'s Lack of E d u c a t i o n a l Research," Vancouver Sun, October 18, 1969, 33* . "Students Over-Taught Says Expert on L e a r n i n g , " Vancouver Sun, October 3, 1969, 6. " C l o s e r Look Urged at Teaching A i d s , " Vancouver Sun, October 10, 1969, 17. " F o l d i n g Walls Used f o r Newest S c h o o l , " Vancouver Times, May 5, 1967, 7. Graham, Mike. " E d u c a t i o n a l T.V. No Magic Wand," Vancouver  Sun, September 26, 1969, 31. . " I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n Seen As New Trend i n E d u c a t i o n , " Vancouver Sun, September 26, 1969, 15. . "Novel Educa t i o n Approach Featured i n New S c h o o l , " Vancouver Sun, October 11, 1968, 8. "Lessons-in-Pocket Eyed f o r Students," Vancouver Sun, September 25, 1969, 7. "Peace R i v e r South Teachers t o Attempt Job D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , " BCTF Newsletter, March, 1970, 2. "School System Accused," Vancouver Sun, October 16, 1969, 23. "Two-Hour Teaching Per Day Favored," Calgary H e r a l d , November 6, 1968, 61. "Who Knows What Schools Are F o r ? " Vancouver Sun, October 18, 1969, 33-Young, John A. "Schools: B u i l d Them To Learn I n , " Vancouver  Sun, December 3, 1968, 6. . "We Don't Demand F i r s t - R a t e S c h o o l s , " Vancouver Sun, August 30, 1969, 6. APPENDIX A T a b l e s These t a b l e s are the s e l e c t e d s t a t i s t i c s from a survey-c a r r i e d out i n A p r i l , 1971. I n i t i a l responses from d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t 45 s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s had some sc h o o l s t h a t were u s i n g team t e a c h i n g , the t o t a l number of sc h o o l s being 110. Permission t o conduct the study was g i v e n by a l l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . Survey instruments were d i s t r i b u t e d t o p r i n c i p a l s and teams i n a l l 110 s c h o o l s . Returns were r e c e i v e d from 85 s c h o o l s or 77.73 percent of the sample. Of these s c h o o l s 64 were urban s c h o o l s and 21 were r u r a l s c h o o l s . The map on the f o l l o w i n g page i n d i c a t e s which areas were c o n s i d e r e d urban and which were c o n s i d e r e d r u r a l . The r e t u r n s i n c l u d e d 228 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n v o l v i n g 85 p r i n c i p a l s , 391 team t e a c h e r s and 142 teams. Each p r i n c i p a l r e t u r n e d one copy of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A designed f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The 391 t e a c h e r s and teams between them r e t u r n e d 143 c o p i e s of Qu e s t i o n n a i r e B designed f o r team t e a c h e r s . In the f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d , frequency counts were based on the t o t a l number of respondents, whether they were p r i n c i p a l s or team t e a c h e r s or both. Percentages were c a l c u l a t e d t o t h r e e decimal p l a c e s and rounded o f f t o the second. Figure 57 C O U R T E S Y TEACHER'S EMPLOYMENT SERVICE B.C. SCHOOL TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION 1095 Howe Street, Vancouver 1, British Columbia, Canada E l locuvo January, 1970 QUESTIONNAIRE A (For P r i n c i p a l s ) TABLE I FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF TEAM TEACHING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BY SIZE, GRADES, NUMBER OF TEAMS, GENERAL FACILITIES AND YEARS OF TEAM TEACHING (N = 85) Frequency Percent A. S i z e of School 0. . . 0 0.00 1. . . 9 11.18 2. • • 35 41.76 3. . . 30 35.88 4. 13-53 B. Grades Taught i n School 0. 4.12 1. Grades K-7 • • . . 37 44.12 2. Grades 1-7 . . 25 30.00 3. Grades K-6 1.76 4. Grades 1-6 . . 4.12 5. Grades K-5 1.76 6. Grades 1-5 . . 2 2.94 7. Grades . , 2 2.94 8. Grades 1-4 . . 3 4.12 9. Grades K-3 2.94 10. Grades 1-3 . . . 1.76 11. Other . . 5 6.47 C. Number of Teams i n School 0. 0.00 1. 1 team . . 54 64.12 2. 18 21.76 3- . , 6 7.65 4. . . 3 4.12 5. , . 2 2.94 6. 2.94 D. Team Teaching F a c i l i t i e s i n School 0. No response 0 0.00 1. Open Area 65 77.06 2. Double Classroom (movable w a l l ) . . . 12 14.71 3. Regular Classrooms 8 10.00 E. Number of Years Team Teaching' has been i n o p e r a t i o n i n s c h o o l 0. No response 0 0.00 1. 1 year 40 47.65 2. 2 years . 17 20.59 3. 3 y e a r s 13 15.88 4. 4 years 6 7.65 5. 5 years 2 2.94 6. 6 years 1 1.76 7. Team t e a c h i n g used but d i s c o n t i n u e d . 6 7.65 F. Years i n which Team Teaching has been i n o p e r a t i o n i n s c h o o l 0. No response 0 0.00 1. 1965-1966 1 1.76 2. 1966-1967 3 4.12 3. 1967-1968 9 11.18 4. 1968-1969 25 30.00 5. 1969-1970 51 60.59 6. 1970-1971 79 93.53 7. Team t e a c h i n g used but d i s c o n t i n u e d . 6 7.65 G. R u r a l or Urban School 0. No response 0 0.00 1. R u r a l 21 25.29 2. Urban 64 75.88 FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEAMS ACCORDING TO TYPE, SIZE, SCHOOL POPULATION AND RANGE OF GRADE LEVEL (N « 142) Frequency Percent A Type of Team 0. No response 0 0.00 1. K i n d e r g a r t e n Team 1 1.06 2. Primary Team 57 40.49 3. Intermediate Team 64 45.42 4. Middle School Team (Grades 4-5, 3-5, 3-6, etc.) 8 5.99 5. Elementary School Team (Grades 1-7) 2 I.76 6. Subject Team (Science , S o c i a l S t u d i e s , P.E.). . . 10 7.73 B. Number of Teachers on Team 0. No response 0 0.00 1. 2 t e a c h e r s 70 49.65 2. 3 t e a c h e r s . 39 27.82 3. 4 t e a c h e r s 30 21.48 4. 5 t e a c h e r s 2 I.76 5. 6 t e a c h e r s 1 1.06 C. Number of Teams a c c o r d i n g t o School P o p u l a t i o n 0. No response 0 0.00 Schools w i t h p o p u l a t i o n 1. Up t o 200 p u p i l s 13 9.51 2. Up t o 400 p u p i l s 57 40.49 3. Up t o 600 p u p i l s 51 36.27 4. Up t o 800 p u p i l s 21 15.14 D. Range of Grade L e v e l s i n Team 0. No response 24 17.25 1. 1 year 20 14.44 2. 2 years 28 20.07 3. 3 y e a r s 31 22.18 4. 4 y e a r s 37 26.71 5. 5 y e a r s 0 0.00 6. 6 y e a r s 0 0.00 7. 7 y e a r s 2 1.76 E. Number of P u p i l s on Team 0. No response 0 0.00 1. Up t o 60 p u p i l s 45 32.04 2. Up t o 80 p u p i l s 42 29.93 3. Up t o 100 p u p i l s 16 11.62 4. Up t o 130 p u p i l s 34 24.30 5. Up t o 180 p u p i l s 5 3.87 FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF TEAM TEACHING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS RESPONDING TO DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVES OF TEAM TEACHING flT- 85) Frequency Percent A. D e f i n i t i o n The d e f i n i t i o n closest to that employed by t h i s team i s : (check one) 0. No response 0 0.00 1. A hierarchical organization with a teacher i n charge and several l e v e l s of professionals and non-professionals working with him (leader, "regular" teachers, interns, teacher aides, secretary, other s p e c i a l i s t s with or without c e r t i f i c a t i o n ) 6 7.65 2. A formalized team structure of teach-ing peers with leadership designated on a rotating basis 15 18.24 3. A cooperative team structure i n which several teachers plan and carry out the team's i n s t r u c t i o n a l programme with no s p e c i f i c ranks designated to. s t a f f members 32 3^.24 4. Two or more teachers exchanging classes on an informal voluntary basis . . . 23 27.65 5. Other (please specify) 9 11.18 B. Objectives—Rank the following objec-tives -oTTTeam teaching as they would apply to your school. Use numbers 1-9 to snow rank of importance (1 = most important; 2 = next i n importance). Use l e t t e r s A - i , to show how well-the objectives are being met i n your school (A = objective i s met the best; B = objective i s s a t i s f i e d the next best). 1. Importance of O b j e c t i v e s a. To make the f u l l e s t use of t e a c h e r ' s s t r e n g t h s , s k i l l s and i n t e r e s t . ( i ) Most Important (1-2). . . 31 37.06 ( i i ) Second i n Importance(3»4) 26 31.18 ( i i i ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6) . . . . . 13 15-88 ( i v ) Fourth i n Importance (7-9) 2 2.94 (v) No response 13 15.88 b. To pro v i d e f l e x i b i l i t y t o meet the v a r y i n g needs of students. ( i ) Most important (1-2) 44 52.35 ( i i ) Second i n Importance (3-4) . . . . 12 14.71 ( i i i ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6) 1 1.76 ( i v ) Fourth i n Importance (7-9) . . . . 2 2.94 (v) No response 26 31.18 c. To provide f l e x i b l e arrangements f o r l a r g e group, s m a l l group and i n -d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . ( i ) Most Important (1-2) . . . . . . . 23 27.65 ( i i ) Second i n Importance (3-4) . . • • 27 32.35 ( i i i ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6)-. . . . . 18 21.77 ( i v ) Fourth in.Importance (7-9) . . . . 11 13.53 (v) No response 6 7.65 d. To pro v i d e f o r c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g , i n s t r u c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . ( i ) Most Important (1-2) 7 8.82 ( i i ) Second i n Importance (3-4) . . . . 34 40.59 ( i i i . ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6) ...... . 22 26.47 . ( i v ) Fourth i n Importance.(7-9) . . . . 2 2.94 . (vj No response 20 24.12 e. To make e x t e n s i v e use of a u d i o - v i s u a l and other i n s t r u c t i o n a l media. ( i ) Most Important (1-2) . 1 I.76 ( i i ) Second i n Importance (3-4) . . . . 4 5.29 ( i i i ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6)- 10 12.35 . ( i v ) Fourth i n Importance (7-9) ...... 48 57.06 (v) No response 22 26.47 f . To p r o v i d e f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l i n g . ( i ) Most Important (1-2) 4 5.30 ( i i ) Second i n Importance (3-4) . . . . 8 10.00 ( i i i ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6) . . . . 35 41.76 ( i v ) Fourth i n Importance (7-9) . . . . 18 21.76 (v) No response 20 24.12 g. To provide f o r e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n through use of p a r a - p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n l i e u o f or t o supplement the s e r v i c e s of c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s . ( i ) Most important (1-2) . . . . . ... . . 1 1.76 ( i i ) Second i n Importance (3-4) . . . . 2 2.94 ( i i i ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6) . . . . 6 7.56 ( i v ) Fourth in.Importance.(7-9) . . . . 51 60.59 (v) No response 25 30.00 h. To h e l p beginning t e a c h e r s t o a c q u i r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l through a s s o c i a t i o n with experienced t e a c h e r s . ( i ) Most Important (1-2) . . . .. .. . . 2 2.94 ( i i ) Second i n Importance (3-4) • • • • 4 5.30 ( i i i ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6) . . . . 10 12.35 . ( i v ) Fourth in.Importance (7-9) . . . . 42 50.00 - (v) No response 27 32.35 i . To improve the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n by the team approach. ( i ) Most Important (1-2) . . . . .. . . 22 26.47 ( i i ) Second i n Importance (3-4) . . . . 22 26.47 ( i i i ) T h i r d i n Importance (5-6) .... . 17 20.59 ( i v ) Fourth in.Importance (7^-9) . . . . 7 8.82 (v) No response 17 20.59 2. A b i l i t y t o Meet O b j e c t i v e s a. To make the f u l l e s t use of t e a c h e r ' s s t r e n g t h s , s k i l l s and i n t e r e s t s . ( i ) Very w e l l met (A-B) . . . . . . . . 30 35.88 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D) . 24 28.82 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met (E-F) . . . . . 7 S.52 ( i v ) P o o r l y met (G-I). .... 1 I..76 (v) No response.. 23 27.65 b. To provide f l e x i b i l i t y t o meet the v a r y i n g needs of s t u d e n t s . ( i ) Very w e l l met (A-B) 37 44.12 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D) 1$ 18.24 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met (E-F) . . . . 6 7.65 ( i v ) P o o r l y met (G-I) 1 1.76 (v) No response 26 31.18 c. To p r o v i d e f l e x i b l e arrangements f o r l a r g e group, s m a l l group and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . ( i ) Very w e l l met (A-B) . . . . . . . 22 26.47 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D) 22 26.47 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met (E-F.) . . . . 9 11.18 ( i v ) P o o r l y met (G-I) ... .... . . . . . . 7 8.52 (v) No response . 25 30.00 d. To p r o v i d e f o r c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g , i n s t r u c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . ( i ) Very w e l l met (A-B) . . . . . . . . . . 22 26.47 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D) . . 23 27.-65 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met (E-F) . . .. .. 8 10.00 . ( i v ) P o o r l y met (G-I) . ... .. ... . .. . .. 5 6.47 (v) No response.. ., 27 32.35 e. To make e x t e n s i v e use of a u d i o - v i s u a l and other i n s t r u c t i o n a l media. ( i ) Very w e l l met (A-B) ... 6 7.65 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D). . 12 14.71 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met (E-F) . .- . .. 10 12.35 ( i v ) P o o r l y met (G-I) 24 28.82 (v) No response . 33 39.41 f . To provide f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l i n g . ( i ) Very w e l l met (A-B) ... . . . . . 15 18.24 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D).. 8 10.00 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met (E-F) . . . . 14 17.06 ( i v ) P o o r l y met (G-I) . . . . . . . . . 20 24.12 (v) No response . 28 33.53 g. To provide f o r e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n through use of n o n - c e r t i f i e d s e r v i c e s i n l i e u o f or t o supplement the s e r v i c e s of c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r s . ( i ) Very w e l l met (A-B) 3 4.12 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D) . 4 5.29 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met (E-F) 3 4.12 ( i v ) P o o r l y met (G-I) . 37 44.12 (v) No response 38 45.29 h. To h e l p beginning t e a c h e r s t o a c q u i r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l through a s s o c i a t i o n with experienced t e a c h e r s . ( i ) Very w e l l met (A-B) 7 8.32 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D) . . . . 3 4-12 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met .(E-F).. 12 14-71 . ( i v ) P o o r l y met (G-I) ... 25 30.00 (v) No response . 38 45.29 i . To improve the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n by the team approach. ( i ) Very W e l l met (A-B.) ... 27 32-35 ( i i ) W e l l met (C-D) 13 15.88 ( i i i ) S a t i s f a c t o r i l y met (E-F) 13 15.88 .(iv.) P o o r l y met (G-I) . . . . . . . . . 3 4.12 (v) No response . 29 34.71 FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF TEAM TEACHING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS RESPONDING TO EVALUATION ITEMS (N = 85) Frequency Percent A. The cost o f team t e a c h i n g i n r e l a t i o n -s h i p t o non-team t e a c h i n g i s : 0. No response 8 10.00 1. More 17 20.59 2. Less 0 0.00 3. About the same 60 71.18 B. According t o present p l a n s , next y e a r : 0. No response 9 11.18 1. Team t e a c h i n g w i l l be e l i m i n a t e d . . 5 6.47 2. The number of teams w i l l be i n c r e a s e d 21 25.29 3. The number of teams w i l l be decreased 0 0.00 4. The number of teams w i l l remain the same 50 59.41 C. As f a r as student o p i n i o n can be analyz e d , r e a c t i o n s t o team t e a c h i n g a r e : 0. No response 0 0.00 1. Favourable 60 71.18 2. Unfavourable 4 5.29 3. I n d i f f e r e n t 14 17.06 4. Mixed f e e l i n g s 7 8.82 D. The r e a c t i o n s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , p r i n c i p a l , e t c . ) to team t e a c h i n g seems t o be: 0. No response 6 7.65 1. Favourable 72 85.29 2. Unfavourable 2 2.94 3. I n d i f f e r e n t 5 6.47 E. The r e a c t i o n s of team t e a c h e r s t o team t e a c h i n g seem t o be: 0. No response 5 6.47 1. Favourable 70 82.94 2. Unfavourable 6 7.65 3. I n d i f f e r e n t 4 5.29 F. The r e a c t i o n of most of the t e a c h e r s i n the s c h o o l who have not p a r t i c i p a t e d i n team t e a c h i n g seem t o be: 0. No response 0 0.00 1. Favourable . . . . . . 43 51.18 2. Unfavourable . 7 8.82 3. I n d i f f e r e n t 25 30.00 4. Mixed f e e l i n g s 10 12.35 G. The r e a c t i o n s of parents t o team t e a c h i n g seem t o be: 0. No response 0 0.00 1. Favourable 63 74.71 2. Unfavourable 5 6.47 3. I n d i f f e r e n t 14 17.06 4. Mixed f e e l i n g s 3 4.12 H. Teachers who seem t o be d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h team t e a c h i n g i n g e n e r a l a r e : 0. No response 18 21.76 I. Outstanding i n t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y . . . 7 8.82 2.. Average i n t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y 5 6.47 3. Weak i n t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y . 10 12.35 4. Older t e a c h e r s . 19 22.94 5. Younger t e a c h e r s . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.94 6. Other (please i n d i c a t e ) 24 28.82 1. P e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s : 0. No response . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.65 1. Have been evident 28 33.53 2. Have not been evident w i t h i n the team 51 60.59 J . The s i t u a t i o n with regards t o d i s -c i p l i n e , under team t e a c h i n g when compared with non-team methods, has been: 0. No response 7 8.82 1. B e t t e r 21 25.29 2. The same 45 53.51 3. Worse 12 14.71 FREQUENCY AND PERCENT OF TEAM TEACHING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS RESPONDING TO PHYSICAL FACILITIES, SCHEDULING, STAFF CHANGES, MONEY GRANTS, INNOVATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS (N-85) Frequency Percent A. P h y s i c a l F a c i l i t i e s 1. Aided by: a. No response 45 53.53 b. Open ar e a f l o o r p l a n 29 34.71 c. Movable d i v i d e r s 5 6.47 d. Easy access t o back up areas . . . 1 1.76 e. Easy access t o r e s o u r c e cen t r e . . 2 2.94 f . Good a c o u s t i c s 3 4.12 2. Hampered by: a. No response 9 11.18 b. Lack of l a r g e open a r e a . . . . . . . . 14 17.06 c. Lack of s m a l l group areas 17 20.59 d. Lack of d i v i d e r s . . . 8 10.00 e. Equipment l a c k s m o b i l i t y . . . . . . 6 7.65 f . Crowded f a c i l i t i e s 15 18.24 g. Lack of equipment 8 10.00 h. , No resource cen t r e . 4 5.29 i . Poor a c o u s t i c s 4 5.29 B. Scheduling 0. No response 11 13.53 1. Hampered by time t a b l i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s 35 41 .76 a. I n f l e x i b l e t i m e t a b l e . . . . . . . . . 10 12.35 b. R i g i d c u r r i c u l u m 4 5.29 c. Teacher s p e c i a l i z a t i o n 9 11.18 d. Reason not g i v e n 12 14.71 2. Not hampered by t i m e t a b l i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s 39 46.47 C. Annual s t a f f changes 0. No response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 18.24 1. No problem 26 31.18 2. Create a c o n s i d e r a b l e problem . . . 44 52.35 D. Money g r a n t s f o r team t e a c h i n g (implementation, experimentation) 0. No response 10 12.35 1. No g r a n t s g i v e n 64 75.88 2. Grants g i v e n 6 7.65 3. Very s m a l l g r a n t s g i v e n 5 6.47 E. Innovations 0. No response 1 1.76 1. Team t e a c h i n g has been a c a t a l y s t f o r other i n n o v a t i o n i n s c h o o l . . 47 55.88 2. Team t e a c h i n g has not been a c a t a l y s t f o r other i n n o v a t i o n s i n s c h o o l 37 44.12 F. Implementation 1. Who i n i t i a t e d team t e a c h i n g programme? a. Teachers 30 35.88 b. P r i n c i p a l 13 15.88 c. School Board 12 14.71 d. Outcome of s c h o o l ' s p o l i c y o f continuous progress 2 2.94 e. Open area being b u i l t . r e s u l t e d i n team t e a c h i n g . . . . . . . . . . 22 26.47 f . No response 6 7.65 2. Major problems a s s o c i a t e d with implementation a. Lack of pl a n n i n g time before and during implementation 12 14.-71 b. Lack of t r a i n i n g f o r team t e a c h i n g 4 5.29 c. Lack of i n f o r m a t i o n about team t e a c h i n g 6 7.65 d. Lack of t e a c h e r s ' confidence i n programme . . 6 7.65 e. Lack of w i l l i n g and ab l e t e a c h e r s 6 7.65 f . I n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f team members . 10 12.35 g. Poor f a c i l i t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.47 h. No response 34 40.58 FREQUENCY OF TEAM TEACHING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS RESPONDING TO BEST AND WORST FEATURES OF TEAM TEACHING (N = 85) Frequency A. Please comment b r i e f l y on the progress of team t e a c h i n g i n your s c h o o l under the f o l l o w i n g headings. 1. Best f e a t u r e s o f team t e a c h i n g : a. Cooperative p l a n n i n g and s h a r i n g ideas . . . . 11 b. B e t t e r q u a l i t y o f i n s t r u c t i o n 12 c. E a s i e r and more use of f l e x i b l e grouping . . . 15 d. F u l l e s t use of t e a c h e r s ' s t r e n g t h s and i n t e r e s t s 20 e. P o s i t i v e ( e n t h u s i a s t i c , r e l a x e d , happy) l e a r n i n g atmosphere . . . . 13 f . More i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n o f i n s t r u c t i o n . . . . 13 g. Good i n s e r v i c e experience f o r t e a c h e r s ( p r o f e s s i o n a l growth, s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , e t c . ) . 11 h. B e t t e r t e a c h e r morale 9 i . B e t t e r p u p i l - t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( c h i l d has o p p o r t u n i t y o f r e l a t i n g t o more than one tea c h e r ) 8 j . B e t t e r e v a l u a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n 11 k. B e t t e r e v a l u a t i o n o f programme 5 1. Increased s o c i a l awareness of p u p i l s