Young Adolescent Voices: Students’ Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Teaming

RMLE Online

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-19

  Boyer, Susan J ^a   Bishop, Penny A ^b  

^a Montpelier Hospital   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84964290168     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19404476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19404476.2004.11658176     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Arhar, J., (1992). Interdisciplinary teaming and the social bonding of middle level students. In J., Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp. 139-161). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2. Arhar, J., & Kromrey, J., (1995). Interdisciplinary teaming and the demographics of membership: A comparison of student belonging in high S.E.S. and low S.E.S. middle-level schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 18(2), 71-88.
3. Arnold, J., & Stevenson, C., (1998). Teachers’ teaming handbook: A middle level planning guide. Toronto: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
4. Beane, J., (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.
5. Bolman, L., & Deal, T., (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S., (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
7. Briggs, T. H., (1920). The junior high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
8. Carnegie Corporation. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Waldorf, MD: Carnegie.
9. Clark, S., & Clark, D., (1992). The pontoon transitional design: A missing link in the research on interdisciplinary teaming. Research in Middle Level Education, 15(2), 57-81.
10. Cook-Sather, A., (2001). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), pp.3-14.
11. Dewey, J., (1944). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
12. Dickinson, T., & Erb, T., (Eds.). (1997). We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
13. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A., (1997). Young adolescent development. In J. L., Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 15-29). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
14. Felner, R., Jackson, A., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N., (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years: A longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning Points-based comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 528-550.
15. Flowers, N., Mertens, S., & Mulhall, P., (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes. Middle School Journal, 31(2), 57-60.
16. Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J., (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
17. Gatewood, T., & Dilg, C., (1975). The middle school we need. Washington: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
18. Gatewood, T., Cline, G., Green, G., & Harris, S., (1992). Middle school interdisciplinary team organization and its relationship to teacher stress. Middle School Journal, 30(2), 27-41.
19. George, P., (1984). Middle school instructional organization: An emerging consensus. In John H., Lounsbury (Ed.), Perspectives: Middle school education (pp. 52-67). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
20. Glesne, C., (1997). That rare feeling: (Re)Presenting research through poetic transcription. Qualitative Inquiry 3(2): 202-221.
21. Glesne, C., (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
22. Hall, G. S., (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relation to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion & education. New York: D. Appleton & Co.
23. Harper, D., (1998). On the authority of the image: Visual methods at the crossroads. In N., Denzin & Y., Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 130-149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Jackson, W., & Davis, G., (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.
25. James, C., (1972). Young lives at stake: The education of adolescents. New York: Agathon.
26. Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D., (1999). The wisdom of teams: Creating high performance organization. New York: Harper Collins.
27. Knowles, T., & Brown, D., (2000). What every middle school teacher should know. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
28. Kolanowski, K., (1993). Use of portfolios in assessment of literature learners. Albany, NY: Center for the Study of Literature.
29. Lounsbury, J. H., (1992). Perspectives on the middle school movement. In J., Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp. 3-15). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
30. Maxwell, J. A., (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London: Sage Publications.
31. McEwin, C. K., (1997). Trends in the utilization of interdisciplinary team organization in middle schools. In T.S., Dickinson and T.O., Erb (Eds.), We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools (pp. 313-324). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
32. McEwin, C., Dickinson T., & Jenkins, D., (2003). America ’s middle schools in the new century: Status and progress. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.
33. Mills, R., Powell, R., & Pollak, J., (1992). The influence of middle level interdisciplinary teaming on teacher isolation. Research in Middle Level Education, 15(2), 9-27.
34. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle schools. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
35. Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, H. J., (1993). Gaining and losing voice: A longitudinal study of students’ continuing impulse to learn across elementary and middle level contexts. Research in Middle Level Education, 17(1), 1-23.
36. Patton, M., (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Powell, R., (1993). Seventh graders’ perspectives of their interdisciplinary team. Middle School Journal, 24(2), 49-57.
38. Powell, R., (1997). Teams and the affirmation of middle level students’ voices: The case of Jimmie. In T. S., Dickinson & T. O., Erb (Eds.), We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools (pp. 271-297). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
39. Richardson, L., (1998). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N., Denzin & Y., Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 345-371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B., (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
41. Stevenson, C., (2002). Teaching ten to fourteen year olds. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
42. Strahan, D., Bowles, N., Richardson, V., & Hanawald, S., (1997). Research on teaming: Insight from selected studies. In T. S., Dickinson & T. O., Erb (Eds.), We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools (pp. 359-384) Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
43. Strubbe, M., (1990). Are interdisciplinary units worthwhile? Ask students! Middle School Journal, 21(3), 36-38.
44. Wolcott, H., (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.