Beyond Interdisciplinary Teaming: Findings and Implications of the NASSP National Middle Level Study

NASSP Bulletin

Volumn 86, Issue 632, 2002, Pages 33-47

  Hackmann, Donald G ^a   Petzko, Vicki N ^b   Valentine, Jerry W ^c   Clark, Donald C ^d   Nori, John R ^e   Lucas, Stephen E ^f  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^e School improvement of NASSP   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992863268     PISSN: 01926365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/019263650208663204     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Arnold, J., & Stevenson, C. (1998). Teacher's teaming handbook: A middle level planning guide. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
2. Beane, J. A. (1996). On the shoulders of giants! The case for curriculum integration. Middle SchoolJournal, 28(1), 6-11.
3. Bishop, P., & Stevenson, C. (2000). When smaller is greater: Two or three person partner teams. Middle SchoolJournal, 31(3), 12-17.
4. Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
5. Davis, G. A. (2001). Transformation and context in middle grades reform. In T. S. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle school (pp. 249-268). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
6. Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). Education in the middle grades: Overview of national practices and trends. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
7. Erb, T. O. (2001). Transforming organizational structures for young adolescents and adult learning. In T. S. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle school (pp. 176-200). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
8. Erb, T. O., & Stevenson, C. (1999). From faith to facts: Turning Points in action-What difference does teaming make? Middle SchoolJournal, 30(3), 47-50.
9. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (1999). The impact of teaming: Five research-based outcomes. Middle SchoolJournal, 31(2), 57-60.
10. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000a). How teaming influences classroom practices. Middle SchoolJournal, 32(2), 52-59.
11. Flowers, N., Mertens, S. B., & Mulhall, P. F. (2000b). What makes interdisciplinary teams effective? Middle SchoolJournal, 32(4), 53-56.
12. George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (1993). The exemplary middle school (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
13. George, P. S., Stevenson, C., Thomason,J., & Beane,J. (1992). The middle school-and beyond. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
14. Hackmann, D. G., & Valentine, J. W. (1998). Designing an effective middle level schedule. Middle SchoolJournal, 29(5), 3-13.
15. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. Kain, D. L. (2001). Our turn? Teaming and the professional development of teachers. In T. S. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle school (pp. 201-217). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
17. Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). Meeting the needs of young adolescents: Advisory groups, interdisciplinary teams of teachers and school transition programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 458-464.
18. Maeroff, G. I. (1993). Team building for school change: Equipping teachers for new roles. New York: Teachers College Press.
19. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
20. McEwin, C. K. (1997). Trends in establishing 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.
21. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of education statistics, 2000. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
22. National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. (2002) Our vision statement. Retrieved May 13, 2002, from http://www.mgforum.org/vision.asp
23. National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.
24. Toepfer, C. F., Jr. (1992). Middle level curriculum: Defining the elusive. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp. 205-243). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
25. Turk, R. L., Wolff, K., Waterbury, C., & Zumalt, J. (2002). What principals should know about building and maintaining teams. NASSP Bulletin, 86(630), 15-223.
26. Valentine,J. W., Clark, D. C., Hackmann, D. G., and Petzko, V. N. (2002). A national study of leadership in middle level schools, Volume I: A national study of middle level leaders and school programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
27. Valentine,J. W., Clark, D. C., Irvin,J. L., Keefe,J. W., & Melton, G. (1993). Leadership in middle level education. Volume I: A national survey of middle level leaders in schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
28. Valentine,J. W., & Lucas, S. E. (2001, April). The design and implementation of a web-based national study of middle level principals and schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
29. Williamson, R., & Johnston,J. H. (1999). Challenging orthodoxy: An emerging agenda for middle level reform. Middle SchoolJournal, 30(4), 10-17.