INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo­
graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or
copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies
are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type
of computer printer.
The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon the
quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print,
colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs,
print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are m issing pages, these
will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright m aterial
had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­
produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also
photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book. These are also available as
one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and w h ite photographic prin t for an addition al
charge.
Photographs included in the original m anuscript have
been reproduced xerographically in this copy. H igher
quality 6" x 9" black and w hite photographic prints are
available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

UMI
University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information C om pany
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

O rder N u m b e r 8923 8 5 1

T h e effect o f cla ssro o m o rg a n iza tio n a l stru ctu re on tea ch er-stu d en t
r ela tio n sh ip s, sta ff c o o p er a tio n an d tea ch in g p ra ctices in
six th -g r a d e cla ssro o m s a t th e m id d le sch o o l le v e l in M ich ig a n
Green, Rodney Paul, Ph.D .
Michigan State University, 1989

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

THE EFFECT OF CLASSROOM ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON
TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS, STAFF COOPERATION
AND TEACHING PRACTICES IN SIXTH GRADE CLASSROOMS
AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL IN MICHIGAN

By

Rodney P. Green

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
Department of Educational Administration
1989

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF CLASSROOM ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON
TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS, STAFF COOPERATION
AND TEACHING PRACTICES IN SIXTH GRADE CLASSROOMS
AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL IN MICHIGAN
By
Rodney P. Green

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect
of classroom organizational structure on
teacher-student relationships,

staff cooperation, and

teaching practices in sixth grade classrooms at the
middle school

level.

The organization of sixth grade

classrooms varies from building to building and
district to district.

Some are self-contained, some

are team taught, some are departmentalized, and some
are block time.
organizational

These differing classroom
structures could affect the way teachers

teach, the relationships between students and teachers,
and the way a staff works together.
One hundred forty-six teachers from seventy-two
middle schools responded to a sixty-three item
questionnaire.

School

level variables, such as percent

minority, student enrollment, percent above average in
achievement, percent poor, and type of community were

controlled.

Teachers responded to 14 items on

teacher-student relationships and 10 items on staff
cooperation.

Teachers also responded to items

regarding time on non-instructiona1 tasks, class size,
number of parent contacts, number of students taught,
number of subjects taught, teacher expertise and
instructional

format.

Analysis of variance and

multiple regression were used to determine significance
and any effects of one variable on another.
Controlling for the other variables,

the main

findings were as follows:
1.

Teachers in a team teaching structure had

significantly higher staff cooperation than in the
other three structures.
2.

Team teaching, block time, and departmentalized

structures were found to foster better teacher-student
relationships than self-contained structures.
3.

Teachers in departmentalized classrooms had

significantly

less recent college courses and recent

inservice education in math and reading/1anguage arts
than teachers from other structures.
4.

Classroom organizational

structure was found to

affect the amount of time used for lecture and
discussion and the amount of film or video used in the
c 1assroom.

5.
affect

Staff c o o p e r a t i o n w a s
the num ber of par en t

fo und to si gni fic ant ly

c o n t a c t s mad e by the

teachers.
Further re se a r c h
the e f fe ct s of
s t r u c t u r e s at

is n e c e s s a r y

these di f f e r e n t
the s ix th g ra de

to fully u n d e r s t a n d

or ganizational
level.

This dissertation

is dedicated to my wife, Gall,

for her love, patience, and support.

Thank you, dear,

for the inspiration you have provided over the years.
You are the light of my life and I love you very much.
To my children, Rodney and Katie; you are the joy
of my life and I love you dearly.

I hope you w i 11

remember all of

the times you went up

to the school to

help me work on

this project; you were very patient

and

a 1ways full of fu n.
To my father, Dr. James H. Green,
encouragement,

for his

love, and guidance through the years.

Thanks Dad, for all of the great times we've had
together.

I hope I can be as good of a father to my

children as you have been to yours.
To my mother, Esther L. Green, who left this earth
on February 19,

1987, and who provided such an

inspiring model

of love and dedication to us all.

one who knew her will
she gave to others.

No

forget the love and support that
This work

memo ry .

v

is dedicated to her

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere
appreciation to those who have contributed to the
development of this study:
To Dr. Brian Rowan, member of the guidance
committee,

for his excellent counsel, guidance,

encouragement, and personal

interest during the

development and completion of this study.

I especially

wish to thank Dr. Rowan for the tremendous amount of
time he devoted to me during the completion of the
study.
To Dr. Louis Romano, committee chairman,

for his

encouragement, guidance, and common sense in the
development of my program of study and in the
completion of this dissertation.
To Dr. Charles Blackman and Dr. Keith Groty,
members of the guidance committee,

for their support.

To Dr. Joyce Epstein, center for research on middle
schools, The Johns Hopkins University,

for her

willingness to talk to me and offer guidance on the
project and to send whatever
Thank you.

vi

information was needed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................ ix
LIST OF F I G U R E S ...................................... xi
Chapter
I.

STATEMENT OF THE P R O B L E M .................

1

Introduction
............................
1
Purpose of Study
........................
4
Research Questions
......................
5
Importance of the S t u d y .................
6
Definition of Terms ......................
6
Hypotheses
...............................
8
Assumptions and Limitations .............
10
D e 1imi tat i o n s ............................... 11
S u m m a r y ...................................... 12
II.

REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E .........................13
Classroom Organizational Structure
...
13
Theoretical Framework .................
13
Findings from S t u d i e s .................... 18
S u m m a r y ....................................22
Teacher-Student Relationships ........
22
Theoretical Framework .................
22
Findings from S t u d i e s .................... 24
S u m m a r y ....................................27
Staff C o o p e r a t i o n ...................
27
Theoretical Framework .................
27
Findings from S t u d i e s .................... 29
S u m m a r y ....................................31
Teaching Practices
......................
32
Theoretical Framework .................
32
Time on T a s k ............................. 32
Instructional Format
.................
34
Class S i z e ............................... 35
Parent Involvement
....................
36
Teacher Expertise ......................
38
Number of Students and Subjects . . . .
38
S u m m a r y ..............................
. 39
Chapter Summary ..........................
40

vii

III.

DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ......................... 43
Introduction
............................
43
Population and Sample ...................
43
Instrumentation ..........................
44
Principal Questionnaire ...............
44
Teacher Questionnaire .................
45
Ethical Considerations
......... . . . .
47
Data Collection Procedures
.............
48
Testable Hypotheses .
.................... 48
A n a l y s i s ................................... 52
Analysis of Variance
.................
52
53
Multiple Regression ...................
S u m m a r y ......................................55

IV.

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF D A T A ............ 56
Introduction
............................
56
Characteristics of Sample ...............
56
62
Analysis of Subscales ...................
Item A n a l y s i s ............................... 68
Analysis of Hypothesis 1 .................. 71
Analysis of Hypothesis 2
.................. 74
Analysis of Hypotheses 3 - 1 0 ................75
A n a l y s i s ................................... 80
S u m m a r y ..................................... 104

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ...........

105

Introduction
............................. 105
S u m m a r y ..................................... 105
Findings Relative to the Hypotheses . . . 106
Recommendations .......................... 115
Suggestions for Further Study .......... 116
A P P E N D I C E S ........................................... 118
A.

PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

....................

118

B.

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE ......................

119

C.

FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD............................ 123

R E F E R E N C E S ........................................... 124

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page
structure

.........

1.

Classroom organizational

2.

Questions taken from the teacher survey
regarding teacher-student relationships

62
.

63

Means and standard deviations of responses of
questions regarding teacher-student
relationships
.............................

65

Questions taken from the teacher survey
.............
regarding staff cooperation

66

Means and standard deviations of responses of
questions regarding staff cooperation
. .

67

6.

Survey questions from the teacher survey

69

7.

Item analysis of survey q u e s t i o n s ........ 70

8.

Mean rank of responses of questions from the
teacher survey by organizational structure

72

Teacher-student relations by classroom
organizational structure .................

73

10.

Staff cooperation by class structure

75

11.

Mean rank of responses regarding teaching
practices by organizational structure
. .

78

12.

Correlations between certain variables . . .

79

13.

Multiple regression on "The number of
different subjects taught" ...............

83

Multiple regression on "The number of
different students taught" ...............

86

3.

4.
5.

9.

14.

. .

. . . .

15.

Multiple regression on "teacher expertise"

.

87

16.

Multiple regression on "staff cooperation"

.

89

17.

Multiple regression on "time not on task".

.

91

ix

18.

M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n "Number of parent
contacts"
....................................... 93

19.

M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n "Use of lecture
an d discuss ion "
................................ 95

20.

M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n on "Use of student
group pr ojects"
................................ 97

21.

M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n on

22.

Direct

"use of

e f f e c t s on d e p e n d e n t

x

film/video"

va r i a b l e s

.

98

. . . 102

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1.

Bar

graph showing male and female respondents

57

2.

Bar

graph showing race of respondents . . . .

57

3.

Bar

graph showing type of c o m m u n i t y ............ 57

4.

Bar

graph showing experience of respondents .

5.

Bar graph showing the percent of minority
students and the number of schools . . . .

59

6.

Distribution of schools with above average
a c h i e v e m e n t ................................ 61

7.

Distribution of schools with percentage of
poor s t u d e n t s .............................. 61

8.Diagram showing significant relationships

xi

59

. . 100

CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduct ion
Today's middle school has emerged from the junior
high school.

The goals of the middle school are

essentially the same as they were when the junior high
school structure was developed.

These goals are to

provide a transitional school between the elementary
school and the high school

and to help students bridge

the gap in their development between childhood and
adolescence (Wiles and Bondi,

1981).

The junior high school did not meet the worthy
goals its founders had set up for it.

It almost

immediately became a "junior" high school.

The

curriculum of the junior high school was very similar
to that of the high school.

Teachers were not prepared

to handle pre- or early adolescent behavior.

The

classroom organization was departmentalized and the
students changed classes every period.

The emphasis

was on mastery of subject matter (Wiles and Bondi,
1981).

1

2
The "middle school" concept emphasizes a
student-centered approach to instruction rather than a
subject-centered approach.

The middle level school

tailors the curriculum to the particular cognitive,
social and emotional developmental
individual student (Cooley,

1988).

stage of the
Middle level

students undergo dramatic changes in physical,
cognitive and social development and therefore their
self-esteem and self-concept are inconsistent.

Middle

school educators must address these affective needs and
social developmental

needs as well as continuing to

address the cognitive needs of each student (Lipsitz,
1984).
Educators do not know whether the shift from
"junior high" to "middle school" has actually improved
instruction (Epstein,

1985).

McPartland (1987) argues

that the separate building blocks that can be worked
into a design for a successful middle school
environment need to be identified.
research

learning

He argues that

is needed to answer the following question:

Which way of organizing the school

and delivering

classroom instruction will usually best foster academic
learning?

Which ways will contribute most to students'

personal development and positive school
In other words,

experiences?

scientific evidence is lacking on how

3
the alterable elements of middle schools can be changed
to make the schools more effective (Epstein,

1985).

One critical element of school structure is
classroom organization,

that is, the choice of whether

a classroom is departmentalized,
self-contained, or block time.
organizational

team taught,
Research on classroom

structure and its consequences for

teachers and students is needed because, as Becker
(1987) argues, sixth grade students experience school
under a variety of organizational

structures, from

highly tracked, highly departmentalized classrooms to
self-contained heterogeneous classrooms.

Research

about the impact of alternative organizational
structures has not been clear and consistent.
As students master basic skills of the elementary
grades,

they have typically gone on to specific

academic classes and higher order skills of the
secondary grades where increased specialization becomes
necessary.

Different teachers are often assigned to

teach different subjects, creating departmentalization.
So, authority previously vested in a single teacher
now shared by several
(Epstein,

1985).

is

teachers and is somewhat diluted

Epstein argues that this dilution of

supervision and support occurs at a time when young
adolescent students most need an opportunity for
controlled tests of the limits of authority and that

4
the organization of the middle school may have a
fundamental dilemma:

The organizational

forms best

suited for most young adolescents'' cognitive
development may be least appropriate for their social
and emotional

development.

Epstein concludes by saying

that research is needed on how school

organization and

classroom practices at the middle level can achieve the
most effective balance between high quality academic
instruction and learning opportunities that encourage
growth of student responsibility.
Purpose of Study
The researcher wanted to determine what effect
different classroom organizational
student academic achievement.

structures have on

Unfortunately,

the study

could not be designed to test this effectively.
Therefore,

the study was set up to examine variables

that are known to be associated with achievement.
The purpose of this study

is to determine what effect

different classroom organizational
teacher-student relationships,

structures have on

staff cooperation, time

on non-instructiona1 tasks, class size, number of
parent contacts,

instructional

format, teacher

expertise, number of students taught,
subjects taught.

and number of

5
Educators need to be informed of the effects of
different classroom organizational

structures.

Lipsitz

<1984) argues that effective middle schools address
social developmental

needs as well

as cognitive needs.

McPartland <1987) argues that effective middle schools
foster positive teacher-student relations.

Little

<1982) argues that effective schools foster staff
collegiality and cooperation.

These three areas will

be examined in this study and the effect of classroom
organizational structure on these areas will be
determined.
Research Questions
The basic questions are:

What are the factors

which affect teacher-student relationships?
teachers in certain organizational

Do

structures have

better relations with students than teachers in other
structures?

What factors affect staff cooperation?

teachers in certain organizational

Do

structures cooperate

with fellow staff members better than teachers in other
structures?

What factors affect class size, number of

students taught, number of subjects taught, teacher
expertise,
contacts,

instructional

format,

number of parent

and time spent on non-instructiona1 tasks?

Does classroom organizational
these variables?

structure affect any of

6

Importance of Study
School

improvement at the middle level has not

received the same attention as reforms at the high
school and elementary school. Research-based knowledge
about middle schools is weak (Lipsitz,

1977).

This

study will add another piece to the middle school
organizational puzzle.

Each piece is needed to help

develop a clearer picture.

Educators need to see a

clearer picture in order to provide the best program
possible to these "emerging adolescents".
This study will seek to provide a clearer
picture of middle school classroom organizational
structure and its effect on teacher-student
relationships, staff cooperation, and the classroom
practices of the teacher.

It has the potential

to

address the recommendations that have been made by
others and will provide empirical evidence to support
the theory discussed in the next chapter.
Definition of Terms
Several key terms will be important to the argument
of this thesis.

For example,

the study is concerned

with classroom structure, where different types of
classrooms are defined:
Team teaching is defined as two to five teachers
representing different subject areas who form a team

7
that uses common student groups to organize their
instructional program.

The team of teachers shares the

same students, schedule, areas of the school, and
occasionally the responsibility for teaching more than
one subject.
Departmentalized-each teacher teaches a specific
subject area.

The teacher teaches a different group of

students each period.

Sometimes a teacher may need to

teach in two or more areas to make the schedule work.
Students change classes each period and may have as
many as seven different teachers.
Block-time teach 1no-students receive instruction in
more than one academic subject from the same teacher
and have a limited number of different teachers for
academic subjects.

Two academic areas may be taught by

a single teacher for two periods of instructional

time.

Self-contained-one teacher teaches the same group
of students all

four basic academic subjects (language

arts, math, science and social studies)

in the same

classroom all day.
The study is also concerned with several variables
that need to be clarified.

These variables are

important because they may be affected by the type of
structure the teacher teaches in.

8
Teacher-student relat ionships-the degree of
positive Interaction between the student and teacher as
perceived by the teacher.

The extent to which teachers

and students get along and talk to each other from the
teachers'' point of view.
Staff cooperat1on-the degree of cooperative
interaction among professional

teaching staff.

The

extent to which teachers work together, share beliefs,
and work toward common school-wide goals.
Teacher expert 1se-the number of recent college
courses and time spent in inservlce education in
reading/language arts and math.
Instructional
such as,

format-the way a teacher teaches,

lecture and discussion, use of film or video,

use of group project work, use of independent seatwork,
and use of hands on activities.
Hypotheses
This study will

test ten hypotheses.

They are as

foilows:
Hvpothesis 1;

The teacher-student relationship, as

perceived by the teacher, will be more positive in
schools where teachers have self-contained classrooms
than in schools with block time, team taught, and
departmentalized classrooms.

9
Hypothesis 2:

Staff cooperation will be greater in

schools with team taught classrooms than in schools
with self-contained, block time, and departmentalized
classrooms.
Hypothesis 3;

Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ in teacher expertise as defined
in this study.
Hypothesis 4:

Classrooms with different

organizational

structure will differ in the amount of

time spent on non-instructional
Hypothesis 5:

Classrooms with different

organizational structure will
instructional
Hypothesis 6 :

routines.

differ in the amount of

time used for lecture and discussion.
Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ

in the amount of instructional

time used for film and video.
Hypothesis 7:

Classrooms with different

organizational

structure will differ in the amount of

instructional
Hypothesis 8:

time used for student group projects.
Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ in the number of parent contacts
made by the teacher.
Hypothesis 9;

Classrooms with different

organizational structure will differ on the number of
students a teacher teaches each day.

10
Hypothesis 10:

Classrooms with different

organizational structure will

differ on the number of

subjects a teacher teaches each day.
Assumptions and Limitations
This study is designed to show the effect of
different classroom organizational

structures on

student-teacher relationships, staff cooperation, and
various classroom teaching practices.

The following

are limitations of the study:
1)

The study is limited to sixth grade teachers

who teach in middle schools.
2)

The study is limited to the questions asked in

the questionnaire.
3)

The study is not longitudinal

therefore is limited to the present
4)

in nature and

information.

The study is limited to teacher perceptions of

each of the survey questions.

The teachers'' perception

of the item, of his/her situation at school, and of the
purpose for the survey may affect the answers provided.
The reader should be cautioned that all results of this
study are based upon teacher perceptions.
5)

The study is limited by self-identification of

proper classroom organizational

structure.

The teacher

must accurately identify the type of structure he/she
teaches in or the results will

not be meaningful.

11
6)

Two

levels of data have been collected, but the

data are treated only on a single
Teachers,

level basis.

nested within schools, are the unit of

analysis in this study.

School

level data were also

collected, but the data were not aggregated up to the
level of the s c h o o l ,

This may result in disaggregation

bias (Raudenbush, 1988).
The following assumptions are therefore being made:
1)

Teachers will

accurately identify the type of

classroom organizational

structure they are teaching

in .
2)

Teachers will

accurately reflect their

perceptions regarding their relationship with students,
their relationship with and the other classroom
teaching practices in question.
3)

Teachers will

not perceive any pressure to

respond in any certain manner because confidentiality
and anonymity have been assured.
Del imi tatl ons
This study

is not designed to provide educators

with the 'best' organizational structure.

There may or

may not be a 'best' way to organize the sixth grade
classroom.

McPartl and ( 1987: 1) comments:

instead of specific lists and blueprints that
profess to offer a 'best' way to organize middle
school education, we need research-based ways of
thinking about learning environments for this

12
student age group that clarify how particular
organization features may foster or impede
specific learning and human development goals.
This study will help educators understand what happens
when a school or classroom is set up a certain way.
Then they can combine organizational

and instructional

features to balance the strengths and weaknesses of
different elements to meet all major goals (McPartland,
1987).

S u mm ar y

In this chapter, an argument has been presented
that more research is needed to investigate the effect
that classroom organizational

structure has on students

and teachers at the sixth grade level.

The importance

of the study has been emphasized through the call from
others for further research.
help reduce ambiguity.

Definitions were given to

Assumptions that have been made

and limitations of the study were discussed.

In the

next chapter, a review of the theoretical and empirical
literature regarding these topics will be provided as
well as a discussion of the theoretical
linking the topics together.

framework

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
IntroductIon
Evidence exists in both the theoretical and
empirical

literature to suggest that different

classroom organizational structures will have an effect
on teacher-student relationships, staff cooperation and
various teaching practices.
empirical

The theoretical and

literature that deals with classroom

organizational

structure will be reviewed first,

followed by a review of the literature dealing with
teacher-student relationships, staff cooperation and
teaching practices.
Classroom Organizational
Theoretical
Classroom organizational
of discussion for many years.

Structure

Framework
structure has been a topic
The typical elementary

school student receives all academic Instruction from
the same teacher with the same group of students
(self-contained).

A typical high school student

receives instruction from as many as seven different

13

14
teachers usually with different groups of students
(departmentalized).
These various structures may offer advantages or
disadvantages to emerging adolescents, but their
effects are not well researched (Epstein,

1985).

Departmentalization may produce a higher quality of
instruction by allowing teachers to develop competence
in a curricu1urn specialty thereby providing better
learning activities with
However,

limited preparations.

the self-contained classroom may attain a

stronger teacher-student relationship due to the close
and concentrated associations between a single teacher
and a small, stable group of students.
This 'pupil' orientation rather than
'subject-matter' orientation may be

important to middle

schoolers who need significant adults to help them
develop self-responsibility.

Changing from having onl y

one teacher to a system of changing teachers for each
subject may be a difficult transition for some early
adolescents who still need the close supervision of one
teacher (Becker,
highly critcized.

1987).

Departmentalization has been

A group of U.S. educators decried

growing departmentalization of American schools down to
the "sixth grade and lower" with students moving around
from class to class instead of spending all day with
one teacher.

This can mean that students have few or

15
no significant contacts with consistent groups of peers
or with particular teachers.
Various staffing and organizational patterns have
been proposed to strike a balance between these two
poles— to achieve a personalized learning environment
while allowing teachers to develop high quality
curriculum specialities.

One method considered to have

excellent merits is team teaching.

Basically,

teaming

assi gns two to five teachers from di fferent basic
subject areas, English, social studies, science and
math, to a group of students.

The teachers are given a

block of time and the flexibility to vary the time for
each subject, vary the types of activities, to team
teach, etc.

The teachers can correlate or fuse the

subjects, spend an entire morning on one subject or
take a field trip (Lounsbury, 1981).
Team teaching structure might provide a smoother
transition from the self-contained class of the
elementary school and the single-subject curriculum of
the high school
Alexander,

(Clark & Clark,

1968).

1987, George,

1983,

It provides a responsive educational

program that bridges the gap between childhood and
adolescence.

Its aim is to promote communication,

coordination and cooperation among subject-matter
specialists while keeping in mind the child-centered

16
philosophy emphasized over the years at the elementary
school

(Wiles & Bondi,

1981).

Team structures are designed to achieve the
following broad objectives:
1)

To promote maximum development of

self-understanding and self-respect of the student.

A

strong teacher-student relationship is needed to
facilitate this objective (Alexander,
2)

To promote subject-matter specialists at the middle

school
3)

level

(Wiles & Bondi,

1981).

To achieve a high degree of integration among all

aspects of the educational
(Alexander,
4)

1968).

program for pupils

1968).

To provide each student with a wide variety of

rewarding exploratory experiences (Alexander,

1968).

The team teaching organization may have advantages
for both teachers and students.

Students can stay

together as a unit for most of the day to establish a
stable peer group identification for each student
(Alexander 8. George,

1981) and teachers can share and

work together with other teachers.

Teamed teachers

find that they come to know each other,

their students

and the school-wide program far more deeply than they
otherwise might (George,

1983).

Also, teachers find that they're treated more
professionally (Lipsitz,

1984).

In addition,

teachers

17
work together as they never have before.

They discuss

ideas together, plan together, reach group concensus
and face all problems together.
alone CLipsitz,

1984).

Another organizational
school

level

arrangement

Teachers need not be

structure used at the middle

is block time teaching.

This is an

in which students receive instruction in

more than one subject from the same teacher and have a
limited number of different teachers and class changes.
For example, during the first two periods a teacher may
teach English and social

studies.

The students then

change to another classroom and teacher who might teach
math and science during the next block of time.

The

teachers would teach the same subjects more than once
during the course of one day.

This allows for some

subject specialization, while maintaining the personal
contact between teacher and student.

Many argue that

this provides an easier transition for students used to
a self-contained classroom.
Block time teaching offers some of the advantages
of self-contained organizational

structure while also

offering some advantages of departmentalization.
Teachers in this structure will
of the basic subject areas.

teach only two or three

This means less classes to

prepare for and therefore, at least theoretically,
better preparation, better activities, and generally a

18
more 'specialized'

teacher.

Students will change

classrooms and teachers only two or three times during
the course of a day and this means, again
theoretically, that students will have the opportunity
to develop a better relationship with their teacher
than if they changed classes and teachers six times a
day .
Findings From Studies
The center for research on elementary and middle
schools at The Johns Hopkins University has been
concerned about
structure.

the effects of classroom organizational

Using data from a sample of 433 schools in

the Pennsylvania Educational Quality Assessment (EQA),
McPartland <1987) examines the effects of
self-contained classroom instruction and
departmentalization on two educational

goals--positive

student-teacher relations and high quality
subject-matter instruction.

Fourteen questions were

asked on the EQA student survey about teacher-student
relationships.

An overall

scale of teacher-student

relations was calculated for each school.

The results

reported provide strong evidence that sixth grade
teacher-student relations are more positive in schools
that assign teachers to self-contained classrooms than
in schools where departmentalized staffing is used.

19
McPartland used two types of information to
investigate how a school's staffing practices may be
related to instructional

quality.

First, students were

asked to evaluate their learning experiences in five
subjects— reading, writing, arithmetic, social studies,
and science.

Second,

students-' test scores were

available on examinations in reading, writing, math,
science, social

studies and analytical

thinking.

Results showed schools that use more specialized
teachers show statistically higher student ratings of
instruction in arithmetic, social studies and science.
Results also gave direct evidence that use of higher
numbers of specialized teachers for sixth-grade
instruction significantly improves the relative quality
of the instructional
in social studies.

environment

in science and perhaps

So, the study concludes that

self-contained classroom instruction benefits
student-teacher relations at a cost to high quality
subject-matter instruction, while departmentalization
improves the quality of instruction

in specialized

subject-matter at a cost to student-teacher relations.
Using data from the Pennsylvania Educational
Quality Assessment (EQA) on approximately 8,000 sixth
grade students in elementary and middle schools, Becker
(1987) examines how instructional

specialization,

between-c1ass ability grouping, within-class ability

20
grouping and grade span affect the achievement of
students from low to high SES backgrounds.

These

students were given one of three alternative forms of
the acnievement tests in math, written English, reading
comprehension, science knowledge, and social studies.
To see how school

and classroom organizational

factors affected students from 'low'
background groups differently, Becker

to 'high'
looked at

students/ mean achievements (net of the achievement
predicted by their own SES/race/residential

stability

background) for schools characterized by different
patterns of organization.

To find the independent

contributions of different organizational

variables, he

constructed linear regression models, analyzing
specific organizational variables and using other
organizational

variables as controls.

Results showed

that self-contained instructional settings benefited
students from low social backgrounds;

these same

students also benefit from having instruction provided
by a limited number of teachers.

These benefits were

not shown for high social background students although
these students did benefit from between-c1ass ability
grouping in middle schools.
In addition to analyzing data from the EQA,
McPartland, Coldiron, and Braddock (1987) analyzed data
from the National Assessment of Educational Progress

21
(NAEP) to provide a description of grouping, staffing
and scheduling practices that exist in elementary,
middle and high schools.
empirical

The survey data give

confirmation to long held impressions about

differences between elementary, middle and high schools
in practices of staffing, scheduling and grouping, but
also show that there is overlap.
conclusion of the study

The overall

is that practices are found to

follow a continuum from elementary through high school
that proceeds from an early emphasis on "pupil
orientation"
orientation".

to a later emphasis on "subject-matter
These emphases drive decisions about the

scheduling, staffing and grouping practices that
promote learning environments in a schools'
instructional program.
Fech (1984) did a study regarding gemeinschaft
(characterised by intimate relationships emphasizing
tradition, consensus,

and kinship; a community) and

geselischaft (characterized by individual

achievement

and happiness, efficiency, and complexity; a society)
in catholic schools.

He found that

s ec u1ar-gese11schaft teachers were more likely to be
found in grades 7-8 than in grades 4-6 where
gemeinschaft was more

likely.

He attributes this to

departmentalization and the increasing degrees of
spec ia 1izat io n .

22

Summary
The discussion
the theoretical

in this first section has focused on

and empirical

literature that deals

with classroom organizational

structure.

suggests that classroom organizational

Evidence

structure does

have an effect on classroom learning environments.
Teacher-Student Relationships
Theoretical

Framework

Teachers are generally expected to offer some
guidance to students and to be good listeners.
middle school

If

teachers encourage positive and real

relationships with students,

it will help ease them

through the dramatic physical, social, and intellectual
changes they are experiencing.

Alexander and George

<1981) argue that if every student has a relationship
with an adult in the school which

is characterized by

warmth, concern, openness and understanding,
be better adjusted.

Interpersonal

they will

relationships which

produce growth are found in good middle schools.
The nature of the schools'' organizational

structure

establishes the child-adult relationship opportunities
and the opportunities for lives of students and adults
to cross in a meaningful way CLipsitz,

1984).

Bossert

(1979) asserts that the organization of instruction,
its effect on visibility, sanctioning and task

in

23
interdependence, creates a set of conditions which
shapes teacher-student relationships that develop.

The

pattern of interaction is dependent upon the context in
which individuals Interact.
Middle schools need to grant students more
independence than elementary schools, but gradually,
and not as much as high schools.

Young adolescents are

moving from externally regulated behavior to
co-regulated behavior shared with significant adults.
Lipsitz (1984) comments that young adolescents are not
ready to s e 1f-regu1ate their own behavior, as the
independence of some secondary schools would have them
do.

This is one of the causes of behavior problems

that occur in too many Junior high schools.

The school

environment can promote the development of
self-reliance by "balancing continuing close adult
supervision and guidance to lessen the risks of newly
independent student behavior with opportunities for
students to practice s e 1f-regu1at ion and learn from the
consequences of their choices"
Adult

(Epstein,

1985:81).

influence is still a motivating force to young

adolescents (Lipsitz,

1977) and educators need to take

advantage of the opportunity to influence appropriate
dec isions.
A positive classroom climate is an important part
of an effective school.

Lipsitz (1984) comments that

24
successful schools set out from the beginning to be
positive environments for early adolescents personal
and social development, not only because such
environments contribute to student academic
achievement, but because they believe that a positive
school climate should be a goal, not just a process
toward a goal .
Many argue that young adolescents also need to
develop a positive self-image.

Positive

teacher-student relationships and the presence of a
significant adult help to develop this positive
self-image.

Middle schools can play a central role in

developing this positive self-image and aspirations of
all students by providing opportunities to assume new
responsibilities and demonstrate new skills and by
responding appropriately to individual student
behaviors and opinions (Epstein,

1985).

Middle schools

should provide an environment of identity and
communication.

Sensitivity, respect and concern for

each student should permeate the entire teaching staff
(Romano,

1975).

Findings F_rom Studies
Research regarding how the classroom organizational
structure affects teacher-student relationships is
rather limited.

McPart1and's study has been cited in

25
the previous section.

This study concludes that

relationships can be affected by structure.

What is

the effect of teacher-student relationships?
a great deal of

There is

literature that suggests that these

relationships can affect student performance and
academic achievement.
Brophy (1987),

in a synthesis of research on

strategies for motivating students to learn, found that
the teacher must provide a supportive environment.

If

he/she encourages students, patiently supports their
learning efforts and allows them to feel comfortable

in

taking intellectual risks without fear of being
criticized for making mistakes,
motivated to learn.

then students will be

Haukoos and Penink's (1987)

findings agree that student achievement

is influenced

by "dynamic interactions" within classrooms.

Classroom

climates should encourage discovery learning because
the teachers'" support of the student and Interaction
with the student will

influence student achievement.

Barrel 1 <1985) also found that the teacher needs to
create a "supportive environment" as one of three
dimensions that are especially critical

from his

synthesis of research on teacher effectiveness.
essential elements

The

in creating a supportive environment

include accepting student contributions, giving
specific praise and encouraging communication.

26
Eccles and Midgely <1989) found that a rigid
classroom organizational

structure creates more

problems than it solves at the middle school

level.

They found that junior high teachers were more
sarcastic and less supportive than elementary teachers.
This turnabout comes at a time when these young
adolescents 'have a particular need for positive
relationships with extra-parental

adults'”.

Another aspect of this "supportive environment"
that is so prevalent
role for teachers.

in the literature,

is the guiding

Peterson and Clark (1978) found

that student achievement

in abstract thinking was

correlated with teachers' responsiveness to feedback
from students during instruction.

Their conclusion was

that these results suggested a "guiding role"
teachers as well as presentation.

for

Walberg and Wynne

<1986) argue if schools master student discipline and
accept the fact that character development

is as

important as academic deve 1opmei..., then they will be
academically successful.
Teacher-student relationships are also instrumental
in their effect on the development of the students'
s e 1f-perceptions.

Self-concept, self-esteem and values

appear to make up a persons' self-perception <Beane,
1980).

Beane <1980,

1983,

1984) has found that if

teachers purposefully develop relationships with

27
students and they teach to the affective domain of the
child, then the child's self-perceptions are enhanced.
Beane <1984) found that young people explained the
positive feeling they had about school by saying the
teachers were "nice".

Positive feelings and positive

s e 1f-percept1ons are Important to demonstrating high
degrees of self-actualization, which Deibert and Hoy
<1977) found happens only in a classroom climate that
includes personal

and positive interaction from

teachers.
Summary
This section has focused on teacher-student
relationships.

The evidence suggests that classroom

organizational structure can affect these
relationships.

The evidence also suggests that

teacher-student relationships can affect student
achievement and the s e 1f-perception of the child.
Staff Cooperation
Theoretical

Framework

School organizational structure and classroom
organizational structure can be either positive and
nurturing, or a negative and damaging force to teacher
collegiality <Anderson,

1987).

Teachers' professional

growth would be much better served if the structure was
set up so that they could communicate with each other.

28
Teachers should work together, not in isolation.
Anderson states that a teaming approach, such as the
quality circle in industry, will promote better
interaction, better cooperation, and,
better school,

than will

in his view, a

the isolated self-contained

approach.
The main strength of a successful
teaching staff.

school

is its

Their quality and commitment will help

determine the quality of instruction delivered to
students.

When teachers are alive, growing, changing,

working together and being innovative,
that the students will be, too (Wade,

the chances are
1984).

Staff

development programs prepare teachers to make
appropriate instructional decisions (Hunter, 1984) and
with proper supervision, ultimately promote personal
and professional growth of teachers (Goldhammer, 1969).
Staff development programs will achieve their goals
and be successful only if teachers are receptive to
being 'deve1oped '.

Little (1982) comments that the

"conditions of the workplace" may have an effect on the
appeal of a staff development program.

If teachers

work together, share ideas and value their
col 1egiality, there is greater chance that a staff
development program will succeed.

Staff development

most effective when it is conceived and developed by
teachers working together with the support of the

is

29
principal.

It is also most effective when it gives

specific classroom ideas and when it is Implemented at
the building level

(Solo,

1985).

Staff cooperation has other benefits as well.
Walberg (1986) states that students benefit
academically when their teachers share ideas, cooperate
in activities and assist one anothers intellectual
growth.

In a study of effective middle schools, the

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
reported that all schools had administrators and
faculty who worked together, cooperated and
collaborated on decisions af fect ing school policy
(George 8. Oldaker,

1986).

Donovan (1987) comments that

collegiality helps provide a support network for
trained staff, helps provide companionship and provides
opportunities to practice and discuss learned skills
and to explore them in greater depth.
Findings From Studies
Judith Little, Associate, Center for Action
Research (1982) set up semi-structured interviews with
105 teachers and 14 administrators to provide data on
the organizational characteristics conducive to
continued "learning on the job".

Four relatively

successful and two relatively unsuccessful schools were
studied.

Schools were classified as relatively more or

30
less successful on the basis of aggregate standardized
achievement scores over a three year period in reading,
language arts and math.
Little found that more successful schools were more
receptive to staff development and less successful
schools were less receptive to staff development.
These two groups of schools were differentiated by
"patterned norms of Interaction among staff".

At the

successful schools, teachers valued and participated in
norms of collegiality and continuous improvement.

They

pursued a greater range of professional

interactions

with fellow teachers or administrators,

including talk

about instruction, structured observation and shared
planning or preparation.
Further, Little concluded that the school as a
workplace was very powerful.
individual differences,
interactions'

Without denying

the prevailing 'pattern of

in each building creates certain sets of

limits and possibilities.

Further, Little concluded

that to the extent school situations foster teachers'
recourse to others' knowledge and experience, and to
working together and cooperating,

teachers are likely

to favor participation in staff development.

To the

extent that teachers foster the belief that they have
nothing to learn from others, or that each must pursue
his/her own course or that working together is

31
unnecessary, staff development will hold little or no
appeal.
Finally, Little concluded that staff development
appears to have greatest prospects for Influence where
there is a prevailing norm of collegiality and where
staff members cooperate to work together to analyze,
experiment and evaluate their performance.
Donovan, Sousa and Walberg <1987) completed the
first phase of a longitudinal study investigating the
degree to which the school staff development program
affected student attitudes and student achievement.
The results showed that students in classes of teachers
who participated in the staff development had, at the
end of the year, significantly more favorable attitudes
toward school

in general.

were not significant.

Student achievement gains

The change in student attitudes

may be a result of a Hawthorne effect, but the hope is
that quality staff development will result in increased
student achievement and increased positive student
att itudes.

Summary.
This section has focused on staff cooperation and
collegiality.

The evidence suggests that the degree of

staff cooperation can be affected by the organizational
structure of the school.

The degree of staff

32
cooperation can determine how receptive teachers will
be to a staff development program.

In general,

evidence Indicates that good staff cooperation and
collegiality help to promote better student attitudes,
improved student achievement and school as a positive
w o r k p 1a c e .
Teaching Practices
Theoretical

Framework

There are literally hundreds of variables and
factors involved in teaching and learning.
Organizational structure may affect many of these and a
few have been selected to be a part of this study.
Those that have been selected are related to fostering
a school

that promotes good teaching and learning and

high achievement.

In this section of the review of

literature, this relationship will be discussed.
Time on Task
Student time on task has been a popular topic for
researchers over the years.

Clearly and consistently,

student time on academic task has been
student achievement.

linked with

Stallings and Kaskowitz (1974)

found that time devoted to mathematics and reading, as
well as time children spent with academic texts,
yielded significant and positive correlations with
academic achievement.

This study was nationwide,

33
involving more than 600 variables.

The single

strongest relationship to student achievement was
student engaged time on task.

Other studies have

concluded that the actual engaged time that students
spend on academic tasks is positively correlated with
their subsequent performance on achievement tests
(Brown & Saks,
& Slavin,

1979, Frederick & Walberg,

1981).

However,

1980, Karweit

it cannot be inferred from

a l 1 of these f indlngs that simply increasi ng the
student time on task will produce a similar increase in
achievement.

Evidence suggests that the relationship

between time and achievement
& Walberg,

1980, Kidder,

is curve linear (Frederick

1975),

that

is, operating on a

principle of diminishing returns.

After the certain

optimum amount of time, additional

time will not help

and might even impede learning.
Important,

then,

is how schools and classrooms are

organized to provide the optimum amount of time
necessary for maximum achievement.

Time is the scarce

resource in schools and the organization of time may
well be the most important variable to be affected by
policy (Brown & Saks,

1979). Karweit and Slavin (1981)

concluded that a focus on time is needed to lead to
important practical knowledge of ways that classrooms
can be organized into more effective learning settings.

34
Instructional

Format

Walberg <1987) says there are basically two ways to
increase curricular productivity:

1)

Expand the

amount of instruction (increase time on task, as
previously discussed) and 2)

Improving the quality of

instruction by targeting individual

and group needs.

This can also include psychological

as well as

curricular aspects.

Instructional

format can have an

effect on productivity.
What type of instruct ional
greatest productivity?
direct

format w i 11 achieve the

Walberg <1986)

instruction is productive.

found that

Teachers explain

exactly what students are expected to learn and
demonstrate the steps needed to accomplish a particular
academic task, and the students will
et al <1982) argue that direct
practice contrasts sharply with
Direct

learn more.

Rowan

instruction with guided
independent seatwork.

instruction seems to be important, however,

Walberg also says that effective classroom
should not be merely direct, whole group

instruction

instruction.

So, other formats can be important as well.
Cooperative learning as students work together in
small group projects is another type of instructional
format that has received attention in the literature.
Small group projects involving cooperative

learning

produce increased academic gains and also substantial

35
affective development (Slavin,

1981).

It provides the

students with opportunities for acceptance.

Apsy and

Roebuck (1977) say that group projects are great tools
for peer to peer tutoring and that both the tutor and
tutee benefit.
Too often, students from elementary school

through

high school are treated as passive recipients of
information imparted by the teacher with limited
opportunities for active learning.
true at the middle school

level.

This is especially
The greater emphasis

on subject matter along with opportunities for students
to become s e 1f-directed should promote more active
learning rather than the dominant pattern of teacher
lecture and student seatwork (Epstein,

1985).

This

study will help educators understand better how they
can organize their classroom structures and
instructional

format to facilitate a match to the

middle school students and their active learning needs.
Class Size
Class size is another topic that has been
researched extensively.

A meta-analysis of studies of

class size by Glass et al (1982) showed a curve that
traced the effects on learning of reductions in group
size.

This curve indicated that reducing class size

had minimal effect until groups were down to ten

36
students.

The study showed larger effects below ten

students.

They did find, however,

that smaller classes

promote higher achievement, better attitudes, different
instructional practices and higher teacher satisfaction
and morale.
Bourke (1986) also studied smaller classes compared
to larger classes.

He found that greater attention was

given to students through questioning and that this was
Important to achievement.

Other factors that were

affected by class size and also affected achievement
were teachers grouping practices,

frequency and type of

interaction with students, some aspects of teacher
questioning behavior,

the amount of homework given and

the amount of noise tolerated during lessons.

This

evidence suggests that class size is an important
factor to both the teacher and the student.
Parent Involvement
Parent involvement

is critical

to success of

educational programs for children (Bronfenbrenner,
1974).

The same story has been told and retold (Hess &

Holloway,

1984, Lazar, Hubbel1 , Murray, Rosche & Royce,

1977, Phi Delta Kappa,

1980) and the benef its when

parents become involved are suggested as improved
student achievement,

improved student behavior,

lower

37
student absenteeism, more positive student attitudes
toward school and improved home-work habits.
Teachers and parents must engage in frequent,
confident, complimentary transactions.
relationship with the family must

improve if a child's

education is to be optimized (Hobbs,
Hoover (1987) found that

The school

1984).

levels of parent

involvement were affected by a teachers' sense of
efficacy.

That is, when teachers perceive themselves

as capable, they are more likely to encourage parents
to get involved, especially at home with the chi Ids
homework, as a means of increasing student achievement.
Further, teachers and parents must

interact and

communicate clearly as areas of complementary functions
are revealed.

Epstein (1984) found that when teachers

make frequent requests for parent help, parents are
more likely to believe that they should help out at
home.
The question becomes, how do we optimize parent
teacher contacts to involve more parents in school?
Does classroom organizational

structure affect the

parent involvement and the number of parent teacher
contacts?

38
Teacher

Expertise

Obviously, many factors are involved with becoming
an expert teacher.

One important factor in being an

expert teacher is to have an appropriate knowledge of
the subject matter and sufficient
every few years.

inservice or updating

These factors alone are not enough to

define expertise, but are essential

to any effective

teacher.
Organizational structure may mean the difference
between teaching only one subject

(departmentalized)

and teaching six subjects C s e 1f-contained).

The

teacher who must prepare and teach six subjects each
day cannot compete with the teacher who only prepares
for one subject (Epstein, 1985, McPart1and,

1987).

The

teacher who teaches only one or two subjects should be
better prepared, more knowledgeable, provide
outstanding learning activities and bring a certain
enthusiasm to the subject (Epstein).
also have more opportunity

This teacher may

to receive inservice

education in his/her area of subject matter expertise.

Number of Different Students and Subjects
The number of different students taught each day
may affect the degree of teacher-student relationships.
Research is limited on this variable although Epstein
says that the larger the size of the student body the

39
less likely personal and positive relationships can be
formed between teacher and student.

Classroom

organization may affect this number since a
self-contained teacher stays with one group of students
all day and a departmentalized teacher may see six
groups.
The number of subjects taught follows the same
logic only reversed.

This variable may affect how

■'expert/ or how 'knowledgeable' a teacher is in the
subjects he/she teaches.

This instructional

specialization may affect

instructional

format (Becker,

1987) and it may affect staff cooperation and
teacher-student relationships (Epstein, Little, 1982).
Summary
There is not much evidence to suggest that various
teaching and classroom practices will be affected by
the type of classroom organizational
present.

structure that is

The literature mainly focuses on how the

teaching practices affect student academic achievement.
The goal of every school and classroom is to foster
high student academic achievement.

Teaching practices

which promote academic achievement will have advantages
over those that do not.

To this end, an optimum

organization would promote an excellent
on task, a varied instructional

level of time

format, relatively

40

small class sizes, relatively high parent

involvement,

teachers that are subject specialists and knowledgeable
in their field, relatively small

total numbers of

students, and a limited number of subjects to prepare
for.

Some of these factors will be inconsistent if the

organizational structure is at either extreme of the
continuum from self-contained to departmentalized.

For

example, self-contained classrooms may offer a more
personalized learning environment at a cost to subject
specialists (McPartland, 1987).

Departmentalized

classrooms may offer subject specialists at a cost to
personalized learning.

Perhaps a balance is the answer

to this problem as McPartland argues the tradeoffs of
extreme school staffing practices need to be balanced
by some intermediate practice between the extremes and
compensated for by other school practices that address
the weaknesses of each particular staffing pattern.
Chapter Summary
The research just discussed suggests a relationship
between classroom organizational

structure and three

broad sets of dependent variables:

teacher-student

relationships, staff cooperation, and various teaching
practices.

This relationship can be argued from the

work of McPartland (1987), Becker (1987), Little
(1982), and Anderson

(1987).

41
McPartland suggests that classroom organizational
structures affect the degree of personal relationship
between the teacher and the student.
that

He states further

Instructional quality is affected as well, and

suggests that schools "compensate"

for weaknesses in

any organizational structure by adopting specific
school and teaching practices that will address those
weaknesses.

Therefore, not only will classroom

organizational structure have a possible effect on
teacher-student relationships, but

it will also have a

possible effect on other teaching practices because of
compensations schools may have to make for a specific
structure.
Becker suggests that classroom organizational
structure affects the achievement of students from
different SES backgrounds.

Student achievement is

affected by many different variables,
discussed in the previous section,

including, as

time on task,

instructional

format, class size and parent

involvement.

It is logical, then, to study the effect

of organizational structure on these variables to see
what adverse effects or positive effects a particular
structure may have on a particular variable.
Anderson states that classroom organizational
structure can have either a positive or a negative
effect on teachers'' professional

growth and

42
col 1egia 1ity.

Some structures promote working together

and cooperation, while others may promote isolation.
Little found that staff cooperation and patterned norms
of interaction were related to school success and
receptiveness to staff development programs.

This

suggests an effect of classroom organizational
structure on the school as a positive workplace.
While student academic achievement

is often the

bottom line in measuring a schools/ success (Goodlad,
1984), the researcher would suggest that fostering
positive teacher-student relationships and promoting
the school as a positive workplace are worthy goals as
we 1 1 .
The theoretical

and empirical

literature that have

been discussed in this chapter suggest that classroom
organizational

structure will have an effect on

teacher-student relationships,
teaching practices.

staff cooperation, and

A plan that will enable this

theoretical perspective to be tested to see if it is
correct will be described in chapter III.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduct1on
The content of this chapter will deal with the
population from which the sample has been derived,
describe the instrumentation that was used and describe
the data collection procedures.
considerations of the study,

The ethical

the testable hypotheses,

and the statistical procedures that were used to
analyze the data will

also be addressed.

Population and Sample
The population for this study is composed of the
sixth grade teachers of the 335 middle schools in
Michigan which have sixth grade as a part of their
organizational structure.

The sample is a random

selection of teachers taken from a random sample of 100
schools in this population.
study is to determine

Since the purpose of this

if the classroom organizational

structure affects teacher-student relationships, staff
cooperation, and various teaching practices,

43

it is

44
important to have an adequate number of each
organizational structure represented in the sample.
Three teachers from each of the 100 schools were asked
to respond.
Instrumentat ion
Instruments that have been used to study teaching
practices, staff cooperation and teacher-student
relationships were selected for this study's purpose of
determining If they are affected by classroom
organizational structure.

The principal provided

school background information, while the teacher
answered 53 items, 10 of which measured staff
cooperation,

14 that measured teacher-student

relationships and 20 that measured various teaching
pract ic e s .

T h e P r 1 n q.I e a .1 Q.u.e.s t LQ.nnA.Lre..

The primary purpose of sending the principal of
each school a questionnaire
background information.
community,

is to get important school

The urbanicity of the

the current school enrollment,

the

percentage of poor students, the percentage of high
achieving students, and the percentage of minority
students are the school variables needed for the study.
The secondary purpose of sending the principal a
questionnaire is to involve him/her in the study. The

45

principal was asked to distribute the questionnaires to
the sixth grade teachers along with the return
envelopes.

This helped to encourage the teachers to

respond promptly and to give the study credibility.
The Teacher Questionnaire
The teacher questionnaire consists basically of
four parts:

1) Background information

regarding teacher-student relationships
regarding staff cooperation

2) 14 items
3) 10 items

4) 20 items regarding

other teaching practices.
The background items establish the sex of the
teacher,

the race of the teacher,

the subjects taught

by the teacher, and the number of years experience.
The independent variable of classroom organizational
structure is also established in this section.
The degree of positive

interaction between the

student and the teacher as perceived by the teacher
will be measured by an overall

score taken from a

14-item subscale adapted from The Quality of School
Life Scale for Teachers (Epstein,

1988).

The degree of cooperative interaction among
professional

teaching staff will be measured by an

overall score taken from a 10-item subscale adapted
from High School and Beyond Surveys (1984).

46
All but two of the Items on the above two subscales
use a six point Likert scale that ranges from strongly
agree to strongly disagree.

One of the questions uses

a six point scale on the amount of time ranging from
less than 15 minutes to more than 10 hours.

The other

question uses a six point scale ranging from 'no help'
to 'extremely helpful'.
Questionnaire items addressing time on task <5
items),

class size <3 items), number of parent contacts

Cl item), number of different students and subjects
taught <2 items), teacher expertise <2 items), were
adapted from High School and Beyond Surveys <1984).
Questionnaire items addressing instructional

format <6

items) were adapted from Education in the middle
grades: A National survey of practices and trends
CEpstein & McPartland,
These questionnaire

1988).
items were taken from

established surveys so that their reliability and
validity would not have to be retested.

Most of these

items have been used in major national surveys and have
been tested for good reliability and good validity.
Dr. Joyce Epstein, consultant to the researcher, made
the following comment,

"This is exactly the type of

study we need people to do.

We must get more

information on how these different structures affect
students and teachers.

This study will also provide

47
another check on the reliability and validity of
certain items that our center has used in surveys."
The subscales were also checked for internal
reliability so that any items that did not match up
could be rejected.
Ethical Considerations
Consideration has been given to ensure that the
participants of this study would be afforded treatment
in accordance with the American Psychological
Association/s Ethical Principles in the Conduct of
Research With Human Participants (1985).
Involved in this study are volunteers.
minimal risk.
discomfort.

Teachers
They are at

There is no threat of physical

Information provided by the participants

through the questionnaire is confidential
anonymous.

or mental

and

Each participant received their own return

envelope so that they could return the questionnaire
directly to the researcher.

Questionnaires were

numbered so that school size and other background
variables could be attributed to the proper
questionnaires, but the researcher had no way of
knowing who filled out the questionnaire.

The

participants were informed that this is a study
regarding the effect of middle school classroom
organizational

structure.

48
Data Collection Procedures
A packet containing the principal questionnaire,
three teacher questionnaires,

four scanning sheets, and

four return envelopes was sent to the principal at each
school selected.

Building principals were asked to

distribute the forms and envelopes to random teachers
on their sixth grade staff.

When the principal and the

sixth grade staff members completed the questionnaire,
they were asked to put their answer sheet into the
return envelope and to mail
researcher.
stamped.

it directly to the

The envelopes were pre-addressed and

A follow-up postcard was mailed out one week

after the questionnaires.

This was both a reminder to

those who had not yet returned the questionnaires and a
thank you to those who had <Diliman,

1978).

Testable Hypotheses
The following hypotheses are being addressed by
this study:
Hvpothesis 1 :

The mean of the teacher-student

relationship in the schools with self-contained
classrooms will exceed the mean of teacher-student
relationships in the schools with block time,
departmentalized, and teamed classroom organizational
structures.
Symbolically:

H i : X l s t > X 2st

x l s t > x 3st

X l s t > X 4st

49

Legend:

X lst:

Self-contained classroom
student-teacher relationships mean

X 2st :

Block time teaching classroom student
teacher relationships mean

X 3st:

Departmentalized classroom
student-teacher relationships mean

X 4st:

Teamed classroom student-teacher
relationships mean

Hypothesis 2:

The mean of staff cooperation as

measured by the staff cooperation scale in the schols
with the teamed structures will exceed the mean of
staff cooperation in the schools with self-contained,
block time, and departmentalized classroom
organizational

structures.

Symbolically:

H. : X . > X.
1
4sc
lsc

Legend:

X.
>X„
4sc
2sc

X.
> X 0
4sc
3sc

X.,
: Self-contained classroom
lsc
staff-cooperation mean
X„
: Block time teaching classroom staff
2sc
cooperation mean
X 3sc:

Departmentalized classroom staff
cooperation mean

X„
: Teamed classroom staff cooperation mean
4sc
Hypothesis 3:

Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ in teacher expertise.
Symbolically:

H x : ^ 3 - XY zw ^ 0

50
Legend:

X:

Self-contained structure

Y

Block time structure

Z

Departmentalized structure

W

Team teaching structure

3

Teacher expertise

Hypothesis 4: Classrooms with different

organizational

structure will differ in the time spent on
non-instructiona1 routines.
Symbol icall y :
Legend:

H-^ :

¥ 0
ft..
4•XYZW

X

Self-contained structure

Y

Block time structure

Z

Departmentalized structure

W

Team teaching structure

4

Time spent on non-1nstruct1onal routines

Hypothesis 5:

Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ in the amount of instructional
time used for lecture and discussion.
Symbo1ic a 11y :
Legend:

H^

^

5•XYZW

^ 0

X

Self-contained structure

Y

Block time structure

Z

Departmentalized structure

W

Team teaching structure

5

Use of lecture and discussion

51
Hypothesis 6:

Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ

In the amount of Instructional

time used for film and video.
Symbolically:
Legend:

^ :

P 6 .x y z w ^ 0

X:

Self-contained structure

Y:

Block time structure

2:

Departmentalized structure

W:

Team teaching structure

6:

Use of film and video

Hypothesis 7:

Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ in the amount of time used for
student group projects.
Symbolically:
Legend:

H-^ :

XYZW

¥> 0

X

Self-contained structure

Y

Block time structure

Z

Departmentalized structure

W

Team teaching structure

7

Use of student group projects

Hypothesis 8:

Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ in the number of parent contacts
made by the teacher.
Symbolically:
Legend:

p 8 .X Y Z W ^ 0

X:

Self-contained structure

Y:

Block time structure

2:

Departmentalized structure

52
W:

Team teaching structure

8:

Number of parent contacts

Hypothesis 9:

Classrooms with different organizational

structure will differ on the number of students a
teacher teaches each day.
Symbol 1cal1y :
Legend:

Hi:

PC 9a -XYZW
.

X

Self-contained structure

Y

Block time structure

Z

Departmentalized structure

W

Team teaching structure

9

Number of students a teacher teaches

Hypothesis 10:
organizational

Classrooms with different
structure will differ on the number of

subjects a teacher teaches each day.
Symbolically:
Legend:

H,:

V7M ^ 0
1 0 -XYZW

X

Self-contained structure

Y

Block time structure

Z

Departmentalized structure

W

Team teaching structure

10

Number of subjects a teacher teaches

Analvsis
Analysis of Variance
Testing for the first two hypotheses will use a
priori

contrasts.

Overall scores from each subscale

53
will be computed from each teachers-' responses.

A

'grand mean' will be calculated for each of the four
classroom organizational
Statistical

structures on each subscale.

differences between the means of each

structure will be determined using analysis of
variance.

A significance

level of alpha = .05 will be

used to test these two hypotheses.
Three assumptions need to be made

in order to use

this test statistic.

First, the population must have a

normal distribution.

Second, the population must have

homogeneity of variance.
be independent.

Third, the observations must

Since the teachers responding to the

questionnaire were all hired from a common pool of
teacher candidates,

it can be argued that the teachers

come from a population which has a normal
and homegeneity of variance.

distribution

Since each teacher has

been asked to respond independently,

independence of

observations has been satisfied.
Multiple Regression
Stepwise multiple regression will be used to
determine which of the teaching practices have the
strongest relationship to classroom organizational
structure.

Many variables can be handled

simultaneously through multiple regression.

Stepwise

multiple regression shows the increment added by each

54
predictor.

The best predictor is selected in step 1

and a one-predictor regression equation is provided
(Pedhazur,

1982).

In step 2, the variable that would

contribute the most additional

relevant variance is

selected and a two-predictor regression equation is
selected.

The variable selected in step 2 is the

variable that has the highest correlation with Y when
the previously entered independent variable
partialed out.
manner.

is

Each successive step progresses in like

The next predictor variable entered into the

regression equation will be the variable that has the
largest correlation with the criterion when all
variables already included in the previous regression
equation have been partialed out (Glass & Hopkins,
1984).

A significance

level of alpha = .05 will be

used to test the hypotheses.
found to be significant,

If the variables are not

they will drop out of the

equation and will not affect the analysis.
Stepwise multiple regression will also help
determine if relationships among measured variables are
authentic.

If school

level variables, such as, the

percent of poor students, are found to affect the
relationship between the dependent and independent
variable,

this relationship may be dismissed as a

spurious relationship.

Certain variables will be

checked by crosstabulation and Pearson correlation

55
coefficients w i 11 be calculated for other variables to
determine which school

level

variables will need to be

entered into the stepwise multiple regression
equat ions.
Summary
This chapter has provided the design of the study.
Teachers in 100 middle schools will be asked to respond
to questions regarding their perceptions about
teacher-student relationships, staff cooperation, and
various teaching practices.

These responses will be

categorized by the type of classroom organizational
structure the teacher has.

The statistical

for the first two hypotheses will
variance.

Stepwise multiple

analysis

be analysis of

regression will be used to

determine the re 1ationships between the variables and
will

test hypotheses 3-10.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introducti on
An explanation of the data analyses in accordance
with the research design outlined in Chapter III will
be explained in this chapter.
the statistical

A brief explanation of

techniques used will be followed by the

findings of each data analyses and a related
interpretation.

First,

the characteristics of the

sample will be discussed.
Characteristics of the Sample
Seventy-two middle level schools with grade 6 in
their organizational structure were examined in this
study.

One hundred schools were randomly selected and

three teacher questionnaires were sent to each school.
One hundred forty-six teachers responded from
seventy-two schools.

This is 49% of the sample, which

is a good rate of response.

The sample is more than

100 teachers and the analysis is "robust"
of variance (Glass & Hopkins,

1984).

for analysis

Of the 146

responses, 61 or 42% of the teachers were male and 85
or 58% were female;

129 or 88% of the teacher

respondents were white and 17 or 12% were black; 24 or

56

57

Re sp ond en ts
MALE

42%

FEMALE

58%

Figure

1.

Bar graph

RACE OF
TEACHER

PERCENTAGE

WHITE

88%

BLACK

12%

Figure 2.

showing male and

female re sp ondents

Bar graph showing race of respondents

TYPE OF
PERCENTAGE
COMMUNITY
URBAN

18%

SUBURBAN

35%

RURAL

49%

Figure 3.

Bar graph showing type of community

58
16% were from urban schools, 51 or 35% were from
suburban schools, and 71 or 49% were from rural
schools.
Data that illustrate the teacher respondents and
their years of experience are presented in Figure 5.
The vast majority of teachers who responded to the
survey have had over six years of experience.
The school enrollments varied from a low of 184 to
a high of 1308.

The mean was 527 and the standard

deviation was 220.

Since the enrollment distribution

was similar to a normal distribution, most of the
schools were between 307 and 747 in enrollment.
Each of these characteristics was checked using
cross tabulation to see if there were effects on other
variables.

None of the results were significant.

Principals were asked to give the percentage of
minority students, the percentage of students who are
above the national

average in academic achievement, and

the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced
lunches (thus identifying the percentage of poor
students).

These three variables are important because

they may affect the teaching variables in this study as
much or more than any organizational

structure.

This

way the researcher can check for significance and then
control

for the specific variable if necessary.

59

Y EA R S OF
EXPERIENCE

* OF
RESPONDENTS

1 YR
2Y R

'MVSMW/S/fy5*

12

SYR

2 m

4-5

6

6-10

12

OW/W/MW#.

11-15
16-20
21+

31

Figure 4.

Bar graph showing experience of respondents

PERCENT OF
MINORITY
STUDENTS

NUMBER OF
SCHOOLS

0-255$

118

26 - 505$

6

m

51 - 755?

10

vzm

76-10055

12

mm

Figure 5.

Bar graph showing the percent of minority
students and the number of schools

60

The data on the number of schools and their
percentage of minority students are presented in Figure
6.

The overwhelming majority of schools had less than

25% minority students.
The data on the number of schools and their
percentage of students above average in academic
achievement are presented in Figure 7.

The

distribution is somewhat normal with the main bulk of
schools falling between 24% and 66%.

There were a few

schools at the bottom and a few schools at the top.
The data on the number of schools and their
percentage of poor students are presented in Figure 8.
This distribution is somewhat skewed with the majority
of schools having between 23% and 46% poor students.
The basic independent variable in this study is
classroom organizational

structure.

The teacher

respondents categorized by organizational
presented in Table 1.

structure are

Self-contained classrooms are

the least represented accounting for only 12% of the
sample.

Departmentalized teaching structure is the

most widespread accounting for 47% of the sample.

61

Number
of
Schools

Percent above average
Figure 6.

Distribution of schools with above average
achievement

Number
of
Schools
0

Figure 7.

23
46
Percentage of poor students

99

Distribution of schools with percentage of
poor students

62

Table 1.

Classroom organizational

structure

Freauencv

Tvoe of Structure

Percentage

S e 1f-contai ned

18

12%

Block time

36

25%

Departmentalized

68

47%

Team teaching

24

16%

Teacher responses N=146

Analysis of Subscales
Two subscales were used in this study.
all,

First of

teacher-student relationships are defined as the

degree of positive interaction between the student and
the teacher as perceived by the teacher.
measured by an overall

This is

score taken from the 14-item

subscale adapted from The Quality of School
for Teachers (Epstein,

1988).

Life Scale

The items in this

subscale are presented in Table 2.
The questions are scored from 0 to 5, strongly
disagree to strongly agree.
positive and negative
tabulating,

Questions are both

in nature.

For purposes of

the positive questions are scored from 0 to

5, while the negative questions are scored in reverse
order,

from 5 to 0.

This way the numbers can be added

63

Table 2.

Questions taken from the teacher survey

regarding teacher-student relationships___________
Number

Quest ion

Q?

I can talk to my students

Q9

I 1 ike students to ask a lot of questions

Q10

Students have bad attitudes about being wrong

Q12

Most students want :
me again next year

Q14

Most students know I 1isten to them

Q15

Most students th ink I give too many directions

Q16

Most students val ue my opinion on succeeding

Q17

Most students th ink I have favorites

Q18

Most students th ink they shouldn/t question me

Q19

Students come to me with things on their mind

Q21

Most students 1isten to me

Q22

I wish for the same students next year

Q23

I favor certain students over others

Q25

I let students know I have the "right way"

Subscale 1:

14 questions

64

together without bias.

The results of tabulation are

presented in Table 3.
There is an inverse relationship between the size
of the standard deviation of the means and the amount
of consensus among the respondents.

A higher standard

deviation represents more variability in the scores
contributing to the mean.
standard deviation

Consequently, a higher

indicates less consensus among

respondents, and a lower standard deviation represents
a higher amount of agreement.
To check internal

reliability, a reliability

analysis was performed on each of the items and on the
overall
is

scale.

The subscale 1 reliability coefficient

alpha = .7029.

reliability

This value indicates that

is good for this subscale.

The second subscale is staff cooperation.
defined as the degree of cooperative
professional
overall

This is

interaction among

teaching staff and is measured by an

score taken from a 10-item subscale adapted

from High School

and Beyond Surveys C1984).

The items

in this subscale from the teacher questionnaire are
presented in Table 4.
The questions are scored from 0 to 5, strongly
disagree to strongly agree.
positive and negative

Questions are both

in nature.

The positive

questions are scored from 0 to 5 and the negative

65

Table 3.

Means and standard deviations of responses

of auestions reaardina teacher-■student relationships
Number

Mean

Q7

4.3664

.7766

Q9

4.1374

.8299

Q10

3.1298

1.2612

Q12

3.7710

.9573

Q14

4.3740

.8534

Q15

3.0076

1.2121

Q16

3.7252

.9369

Q17

3.4351

1.2159

Q18

3.5725

1.3869

Q19

4.1374

.8016

Q21

4.0229

.7387

Q22

3.2519

1 .1459

Q23

3.3282

1.3725

Q25

3.1221

1.4466

Teacher responses N=146

Standard deviation

66

Table 4,

Questions taken .from, .the teacher survey.

regarding staff cooperation________________________
Number

Quest ion

Q5

Effort to coordinate content of courses

Q6

Most staff members help anywhere, anytime

Q8

Feel accepted and respected as colleague

Qll

Familiar with goals of other teachers

Q13

Most colleagues share my values on school

Q20

Great deal of cooperation among staff

Q24

School

Q26

Staff lacks school

Q27

Time/month planning, etc. with other staff

Q28

Extent other teacher improved my teaching

Subscale 2:

is big family; everyone is close

10 questions

spirit

67
questions are reversed and scored from 5 to 0.

This

allows the results to be tabulated into meaningful
numbers.

The results of this tabulation are presented

in Table 5.

Table 5.

Means and standard deviations of responses

of questions regarding staff cooperation
Quest ion

Mean

Q5

3.6107

1.2252

Q6

3.8168

1.0941

Q8

4.4885

.8262

QU

3.5802

1.3065

Q13

3.7939

.9744

Q20

3.7939

1 .0935

Q24

3.0916

1.2797

Q26

2.7863

1.2891

Q27

3.0916

1.2797

Q28

2.4351

1.6738

Standard Deviation

Teacher responses N=146

There is an inverse relationship between the size
of the standard deviation of the means and the amount
of consensus among the respondents.

A higher standard

68
deviation indicates less consensus and a lower standard
deviation represents a higher amount of agreement.
To check internal reliability, a reliability
analysis was performed on each of the items and on the
subscale.

The reliability coefficient

is alpha= .6783.

This value indicates good reliability.
Item Analysis
An item analysis was performed on the data
collected from all 146 respondents.

This analysis

determines the mean, standard deviation, and percentage
of respondents associated with each choice category for
all the questions.
The question number and the statement associated
with the question asked on the teacher questionnaire
are presented in Table 6.
The question number and the associated means and
standard deviations for the 20 statements are presented
in Table 7.

The items with higher standard deviations

had less consensus among the respondents and the items
with

lower standard deviations show more consensus.

Is evident that most items show a good amount of
variance.

Two items, class size and college

instruction in math, did not vary much at all.
indicates that class sizes are somewhat fixed

This

It

69

Table S t

Survey guest long from the teacher survey

Number

Quest ion

Q29

Time spent doing daily routines

Q30

Time spent getting students to behave

Q31

Percentage of students not working on task

Q32

Min/day class receives read/lang arts lnstru

Q33

Min/day class receives math instruction

Q34

Ave number of students in reading/lang arts

Q35

Ave number of students in math

Q36

Average class size

Q37

Average number of students parents contacted

Q38

Number of different students taught each day

Q39

Number of different subjects taught each day

Q40

College instruction in read/lang arts

Q41

College instruction

Q42

Inservice training in read/lang arts

Q43

Inservice training in math

Q44

Time spent using lecture and discussion

Q45

Time spent using group projects

Q46

Time spent using film or videotape

Q47

Time spent using independent seatwork

Q48

Time spent conducting hands on activities

in math

70

Table 7.
Number

Item analysis of survey questions
Mean

Standard deviation

Q29

2.581

1.417

Q30

2.170

1.412

Q31

3.030

1.880

Q32

5.755

2.335

Q33

3.284

1.052

Q34

6.692

1 .089

Q35

6.493

1.418

Q36

4.778

.936

Q37

3.985

1.870

Q38

6.338

1 .918

Q39

3.184

1.531

Q40

.862

1 .304

Q41

.403

.931

Q42

1 .656

1 .352

Q43

.820

1 .104

Q44

3.992

1 .501

Q45

2.954

1.364

Q46

1 .692

1 .055

Q47

3.731

1.451

Q48

3.131

1 .532

Teacher responses N=146

71
throughout all schools and that most teachers have not
taken math courses in college in the last few years.
An analysis of each item was performed on the data
and compared to organizational

structure of the

classroom using analysis of variance.

This analysis

determined the mean rank of each of the classroom
structures and if the effect of the organizational
structure was significant as to the mean rank for each
statement.

These results are presented in Table 8.

Mean rank statistics are a standardized way of
examining the data.

The table should be examined

comparing the mean ranks of each statement to each
other.

The discrepancy

in the mean ranks of each

variable was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wal1is 1-way
ANOVA.

This analysis shows that organizational

structure has a significant effect on

the numberof

students a teacher has, on the number

of subjects

a

teacher teaches each day, on how many videos and films
are used in the classroom, on how much expertise (as
measured by college courses and inservice education)
each teacher has, on teacher/student relationships, and
on staff cooperation.
Analysis of Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1 states that the mean

1
of

the

teacher-student relationship in schools with

72
Table 8. Mean rank of responses of questions from
the teacher survey bv organizational structure____
SelfVariable tested
contained B1 ock
Dent
Team. 51 q.
Teacher-student
re 1at ionsh ips

45.23

52.14

51 .60

53.35

.005

Staff cooperation

31.62

34.83

33.69

38.53

.006

Minutes per day in
readi ng

59.54

58.89

52.11

55.26

.780

Minutes per day in
math

40.88

43.31

41 .63

35.35

.800

7.92

7.80

8.10

6.85

.623

Use lecture and
di scussi on

62.65

72.81

63.48

67.15

.681

Use group projects

54.23

61 .74

65.91

81 .60

.166

Use f ilm/v ideo

79.58

69.51

55.70

79.02

.030

Use independent
seatwork

70 .58

65.74

68.19

52.82

.439

Use hands on
act iv it ies

68.04

58.99

67.98

68.00

.685

Average number of
students in reading

55.17

51 .88

48.74

59.97

.591

Average number of
students in math

33.63

39.73

38.72

37.29

.879

Average class size

69.15

66.44

68.13

69.52

.992

Number of parent
contacts

60 .81

63.14

70 .28

77. 17

.519

Teacher expertise

70 .23

70 .11

60 .50

67.85

.037

Number of different
students taught

20.96

54.79

85.57

66.90

.000

Number of different
subjects taught
115.96

85.68

50 .63

66.57

.000

Time not on task

Teacher responses N=146

Significance

level alpha=.05

73

self-contained classrooms will be greater than the mean
of teacher-student relationships in schools with block
time, departmentalized,
organizational

and teamed classroom

structures.

by analysis of variance.

This hypothesis was tested
The test statistic is F=4.419

and the significance of F = .005, which is well below
the

.05 level.

organizational

This means that classroom
structure does affect teacher-student

relationships in a significant way.

The means of the

teacher-student relationships by organizational
category are shown in Table 9.

Table 9.

Teacher-student relations by classroom

organizational structure________________________________
Class structure

Mean

Grand
Difference from
Mean______ Grand Mean

S e 1f-contalned

45.23

51 .38

-6.15

Block time

52.14

51 .38

.76

Departmentalized

51 .60

51 .38

.22

Team teaching

53.35

51 .38

1.97

Teacher responses N=146

R= .307

This result is rather surprising.

Previous studies

have indicated that self-contained classrooms would
help rather than hinder teacher-student relationships.

74
This study seems to indicate that self-contained
classroom teachers view their relationship with their
students more negatively than do teachers from other
organizational

structures.

Some possible reasons for

this result will be discussed in chapter V.
Hypothesis 1 must be rejected.
note that the highest mean,

It is important to

team teaching structure,

does not differ significantly from the other two
structures.

Therefore, one organizational

structure

does not seem to best foster positive teacher-student
relations over the other two.
Analysis of Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 states that the mean of staff
cooperation as measured by the staff cooperation scale
will be greater in the schools with teamed classrooms
than in the schools with self-contained, block time,
and departmentalized classrooms.
tested by analysis of variance.

This hypothesis was
The test statistic

F = 4 .315 and the significance of F = .006, which is well
below the .05 level.
organizational

This means that classroom

structure does affect staff cooperation

in a significant way.

Table 10 shows the means of the

staff cooperation scale by organizational

structure.

75
Table 10.

Staff cooperation bv class structure_____

Class Structure
Mean
Grand
__________________________________ Mean

Difference from
Grand Mean__

S e 1f-contai ned

31 .62

34.49

-2.87

Block time

34.83

34.49

.34

Departmentallzed

33.69

34.49

-0 .80

Team teaching

38.53

34.49

4.04

Teacher responses N=146

R = .304

These results support hypothesis 2 that staff
cooperation in a team teaching organizational

structure

would be significantly higher than in the other three
structures.

Teachers from teamed structures seem to

view staff cooperation much more positively than do
teachers from self-contained, block time, or
departmentalized classrooms.
Therefore, hypothesis 2 is accepted.

It is

important to note that the highest mean,

teamed

structures, varies significantly from each of the other
structures.

It may be that the best structure to

promote positive staff cooperation is the team teaching
structure.
Analysis of Hypotheses 3-10
It is hypothesized that different classroom
organizational

structures will differ significantly in

76
the amount of teacher expertise,
spent on non-lnstructional

In the amount of time

routines,

time used for lecture and discussion,
time used for film/video,
for group projects,
the teacher makes,

in the amount of
in the amount of

in the amount of time used

in the number of parent contacts
in the number of different students

taught each day, and in the number of different
subjects taught each day.

These hypotheses could be

tested by ANO V A , however, this would pre c 1ude other
variables from being tested at the same time to make
sure that the relationship found was not a spurious
relat ionship.
Stepwise multiple regression will be used to test
these hypotheses.

This will allow many variables to be

tested simultaneously,

including school

level

background variables that may affect the analysis.
This type of analysis determines the variables that
significantly contribute to the explanation of the
variation found in the independent variable tested.
Variables that are not significant drop out of the
equation and do not affect the analysis.

Stepwise

multiple regression enters variables into the analysis
equation singly and therefore determines the best
predictor,

that is, the variable that contributes most

to the explanation of variation
variable.

in the independent

77
Each of the eight variables to be tested in
hypotheses 3-10 has been analyzed with regard to
classroom organizational structure.

The discrepancy in

the mean ranks of each variable was analyzed for
significance using the Kruskal-Wal1is 1-way ANOVA.
These results are presented In Table 11.

This analysis

shows that different classroom organizational
structures will differ significantly
teacher expertise,

in the amount of

in the use of film/video,

in the

number of different students taught, and in the number
of different subjects taught.

This analysis is not

sufficient because it does not allow school
background variables to be controlled.

level

These

relationships may or may not be authentic.
To determine which variables need to be controlled,
all variables were tested using crosstabulation or
Pearson correlation coefficients.

The analyses using

crosstabulation did not show any significance.

Certain

variables were found to have a moderately high
correlation and had a significant relationship.

These

variables, the correlation coefficient, and the p value
associated with those relationships are presented in
Table 12.

78

Table 11. Mean rank of responses regarding teaching
practices bv organizational structure________________
Sel fVariable tested
contai ned B 1ock
Deot Team Si a
70 .23

70.11

60 .5

67.85 .037

7.92

7.80

8.10

6.85 .623

Use lecture and
di scussi on

62.65

72.81

63.5

67 .15 .681

Use f ilm/v ideo

79.58

69.51

55.7

79.02 .030

Use group projects

54.23

61 .74

65.9

81.60

Number of
parent contacts

60 .81

63. 14

70 .1

77.17 .519

Number of different
students taught

20 .96

54.79

85.6

66.90

Number of different
subjects taught

115.96

85.68

50 .63 66.57 .000

Teacher expertise
Time not on task

Teacher responses N=146

Significance

.166

.000

level alpna=.05

79

Table 12.

Correlations between certain variables
Percent

Percent
Minor Itv
1 .000

Percent
Minori tv

d =.Q00

.7988
d

= .000

Hiah Achiev

.7988

p=,00Q

Percent
Poor

Poor

Time not

Percent

1 .000
.. P=,QQQ

On Task

-.2489
D=

.2194

.002

d =.005

-.4538

.2483

p = .000

D=

.002

Teacher responses N=146

An examination of the table reveals a very high
degree of correlation between the percent of minority
students at the school and the percent of poor
students.

There is an indication of a negative

relationship between schools with high achieving
students and schools with both poor and minorities.
This suggests that schools that have a high percentage
of high achieving students are less likely to have a
high percentage of poor or minority students.
A slightly moderate correlation
time not on instructional

is shown between

task and schools with high

percentage of poor and minority students.

This

suggests that the schools with a high percentage of
poor and minority students are likely to have a higher
degree of time off task, as measured by time spent on

80
daily routines, getting students to behave, and the
percentage of students off task at any given time
during instruction.
On the basis of this analysis,

two variables,

percent of poor students and percent of high achieving
students, were chosen to enter the stepwise multiple
regression equations along with the variables to be
tested.

Percent minority was not included because it

was highly correlated with percent poor and therefore
would be redundant.

Also, percent of poor students has

a less skewed distribution in the sample.
Analvsi s
Stepwise multiple regression will be done in
phases.

The first three equations will have the number

of subjects taught, the number of students taught, and
the teacher expertise level as dependent variables.
The independent variables are classroom organizational
structure, percent poor, and percent high achievers.
The second phase will have two equations with staff
cooperation and student-teacher relations as dependent
variables.

The independent variables will

of the variables in the first phase.

include all

The third phase

will have time not on task, number of parent contacts,
use of lecture and discussion, use of group projects,
and use of film and video as the dependent variables.

81
The independent variables will

include all of the

variables in the first and second phase.
Classroom organizational

structure is the main

independent variable in this study.

Since there are

four organizational structures in this study, three
dummy variables must be selected.

ORG 2 is the block

time structure; ORG 3 is the departmentalized
structure; ORG 4 is the team teaching structure.

This

w i 11 contrast a 11 resu1ts to the self-contained
organizational structure.

In other words,

this

procedure w i 11 show how different these three
structures are from s e 1f-contai ned.
The f irst phase has "how many di fferent subjects
are taught" as the dependent variable.

The independent

variables that are hypothesized to affect this are as
fol1o w s :

Block t ime, departmentalized,

poor, and achievement.

team teach 1ng,

Percent of poor students and

percent of high achievement students were included
because of previous research showing that effects can
be influenced by these variables and from correlations
in this study showing that these variables correlate
signif icant 1y wi th other va r 1ables in the stu d y .

By

Including them in the independent variables, they can
be controlled and their effects will be evident.

82
The results of the first equation using "the number
of different subjects taught" as the dependent variable
are presented In Table 13.
The B value is the regression coefficient.
values can be written

These

in a regression equation for

purposes of prediction.

The regression equation for

this table is as follows;
Y' = 5.33 + -2.92(Dept) + -2.278(Team> + - 1 .539CBlock)
The predicted score for cases belonging to
self-contained would be 5.33 since the other dummy
variables would be equal

to zero.

The predicted score

for departmentalized would be 5.33 + -2.92 since the
value of <dept) is 1 for departmentalized.

Other

values could be obtained in a similar fashion.
The SE B value Is the standard error of B.
reflects how precise B is.

This

This value will be higher

if the number of observations is small or if there is a
lot of variance in the independent variable.
The Beta value is the standardized regression
coefficient.

This value reflects the weight or impact

of the independent variable on the dependent variable
in the equation.
summary

Standardized betas contain more

information than the unstandardized

coefficients and are appropriate to explain the amount
of variance in the dependent variable for a given
sample by various independent variables.

It is

83

Table 13.

Multiple regression on "The number of

different subjects taught"________________________
Variable

B

SE B

Beta

T

Sia T

Departmentalized

-2.918

.3944

-.951

-7.40

.0000

Team teaching

-2.278

.4678

-.515

-4.87

.0000

Block time

-1.539

.4215

-.442

-3.65

.0004

Constant

5.333

Multiole R = .59248

.3624
R square = .35103

Variables not in the equation
Var iable

Beta In

T

SIg T

Poor

-.0081

- .109

.9130

Ach ievement

-.1107

-1 .492

.1382

Teacher responses N=146

84
customary to use these values to represent path
coeff icients.
The T value is the test statistic on each
independent variable.

The further this value is from

zero, the more significant

it is.

significance of the T value.

Sig T represents the

Alpha = .05 is the

significance level used in this study.
The multiple R value is the combined correlation of
the independent variables to the dependent variable.
square indicates the amount of variation of the
dependent variable that can be explained by the
independent variables in the equation.
The regression coefficients in Table 13 show how
different each of these structures is from
self-contained.

This means that departmentalized,

block time, and teamed teachers teach significantly
fewer subjects per day than self-contained teachers.
The amount of variation of the dependent variable "the
number of different subjects taught"

that can be

explained by classroom structures is .35103.
Variables poor and achievement did not contribute
to explaining variation in the dependent variable and
therefore were not included in the equation.
significance of T must be less than

The

.05 to be

significant and to be included in the equation.

R

85
In the second equation of the first phase, the
dependent variable is "the number of different students
taught".

The independent variables are the same:

Block time, departmentalized,
achievement.

team teaching, poor, and

The results of the second equation are

presented In Table 14.

Again,

regression coeffIclents.

the B values are the

This shows how dlfferent the

three organizational structures are from self-contained
c 1assroom structures.

In th is c a s e , departmentallzed

teachers teach significantly more students each d a y , as
do teamed teachers and block t ime teachers, than
self-contained teachers.

The amount of variation in

the dependent variable "the number of dlfferent
students are taught each day"

that can be exp 1alned by

c 1assroom organizatlonal structure is .2655.

Again,

the variables poor and achievement did not contribute
to exp 1aining variation

1n the dependent variable and

therefore were not inc1uded in the equation.
In the third equation, the dependent variable was
"teacher expert Ise".

This variable was measured by the

number of col 1ege courses in math and readlng/1anguage
arts and the amount of inservice education in those
subjects.

The Independent variables are the sam e :

Block t ime, departmentalized,
ach ievement.

team teaching, p o o r , and

The resu1ts of the t h 1rd equat1on are

presented in Table 15.

Departmentalized teaching

86

different students taught li
Varlable

SE B

Beta

DeparmentalIzed

3.169

.514

.842

6.157

.0000

Team teaching

2.389

.611

.440

3.912

.0001

Block time

1 .764

.550

.413

3.208

.0017

Constant

4.000

.473

Multiple R=.51529»

T

Sia T

B

R Sguare= r25553.__

Variables not In the equation
Variable
Poor
Achievement

Beta In

T

Sig T

.0140

.176

.8591

-.0574

-.721

.4720

Teacher responses N=146

87

Table 15.

Multiple regression on "teacher expertise11

Variable

B

SE B

T

Beta

S 1Q T

-1.413

.511

-.252

-2.76

.0067

Poor

.036

.012

.289

2.91

.0044

A c h 1evement

.028

.012

.220

2.18

.0310

2.063

.854

DepartmentalIzed

Constant
Multiple R=.36573

R

Sauare=. 13376

Variables not in the equation
Variable
Block time
Team teaching

Beta In

T

Slg T

.0833

.767

.4449

-.0682

-.714

.4766

Teacher responses N=146

88

structure Is the only structure that contributes to
explaining variation in teacher expertise.

Percentage

of poor students and percentage of high achievers also
contribute.

It is interesting that departmentalized

structure has a negative effect on the number of
college courses and inservice education in math and
reading/1anguage arts.
"teacher expertise"

The amount of variation in

that can be explained by

departmentalized teaching, percent of poor students,
and the percent of high achievers is .13376.
The next phase of multiple regression has "staff
cooperation" as the dependent variable.

The

independent variables hypothesized to affect staff
cooperation are as follows:
departmentalized,

Block time,

team teaching, poor, achievement,

number of students taught, number of subjects taught,
and teacher expertise.
The results of this multiple regression equation
are presented in Table 16.

The only variable to

contribute in a significant way was team teaching
structure.

This type of teaching arrangement seems to

foster high staff cooperation as compared to the other
structures.

The amount of variation in "staff

cooperation"

that can be explained by team teaching is

.09237.

89

Table 16.

Multiple regression on "staff cooperation11

Variable
Team teaching

B

SE B
1.605

33.673

.617

T

SI a T

3.39

.0010

Beta In

T

Sig T

.126

1 .36

.1761

Departmentalized

-.015

-.15

.8771

Poor

-.075

-.82

.4125

.132

1.45

.1498

# of different students -.116

1 .31

.1946

# of different subjects -.062

-.69

.4884

Teacher expertise

1 .96

.0527

Constant

5.444

Beta

Multiple R=.30392

.304

R Square=.09237

Variables not in the equat ion
Variable
Block time

Ach ievement

Teacher responses N=146

.173

90
In the next equation, the dependent variable was
teacher-student relationships.

It was hypothesized

that these relations would be affected by different
organizational structures.

The

independent variables

were the same as in the last equation.

However, no

variables entered into the regression equation.

This

means that variations in student-teacher relationships
could not be explained by these independent variables.
None of the variables had a signi f icant
In the next phase,

impact.

the dependent variable was "the

amount of time spent on non-instruct ional routines".
The Independent variables hypothesized to affect "time
spent on non-instructional

routines"

Block time, departmentalized,

are as follows:

team teaching, poor,

achievement, number of students taught, number of
subjects taught, teacher expertise, staff cooperation,
and teacher-student relations.
The results of this multiple regression equation
are presented in Table 17.

The percent of poor

students had a significant positive effect on the
amount of time spent on non-instructional

routines.

Teacher-student relations had a significant negative
effect on the amount of time spent on non-instructional
routines.

In other words,

the evidence suggests that

the higher percentage of poor students,

the higher

percentage of time spent on non-instructional

routines.

Table 17.

Multiple regression on “time not on task"

Variable__________B

SE B

Beta_______ T

Slg T

.043

.015

.248

2.73

.0073

Teacher-student
relationships -.125

.050

.228

-2.51

.0137

Poor

Constant

13.331

2.060

Multiple R=.33738

R Sauare= ,_L13.82

Variables not in the equation
Beta In

T

Sig T

Block time

.042

.457

.6489

Departmentalized

.049

.529

.5984

Team teaching

<0
0
1

Variable

-.143

.8864

Ach ievement

- .003

-.033

.9741

# of different students

.154

1 .704

.0913

# of different subjects

- .017

- .186

.8531

Teacher expertise

-.015

-.172

.8641

Staff cooperation

.016

.174

.8624

Teacher responses N=146

92
In addition, the evidence suggests the higher degree of
positive teacher-student relations,
on non-instructional routines.

the less time spent

The amount of variation

in the dependent variable "amount of time spent on
non-instructional routines"

that can be explained by

the percentage of poor students and degree of
teacher-student relations is .11382.
In the next equation,

the dependent variable was

"average number of students' parents contacted".
independent variables were the same:
departmentalized,

The

Block time,

team teaching, poor, achievement,

number of students taught, number of subjects taught,
teacher expertise, staff cooperation,

and

teacher-student relations.
The results of this multiple regression equation
are presented in Table 18.

The only variable to

contribute in a significant way was staff cooperation.
This suggests that a staff that cooperates and works
well

together is also the type of staff more likely to

make frequent parent contacts.

The amount of variation

In the dependent variable "average number of parent
contacts"

that can be explained by staff cooperation

Is

.11052.
In the next equation,

the dependent variable was

"percentage of instructional
discussion".

time used for lecture and

The Independent variables were the same:

93

Table 18.
-l v

. t

Multiple regression on "Number of parent
^

* r=

» > r -------------------------------------------------------------------- ==! *_»------------ >

v -------- v t A ------- r r

. * _ . y »» »

contacts"
Variable

B

SE B

Beta

T

Siq T

.332

3.663

.0004

Staff cooperation

.097

.026

Constant

.579

.935

Multiple R=.33244

R Square =,11052

Variables not in the equation
Vari able
Block time

Beta In

T

Slg T

-.098

-1.086

.2798

Departmentalized

.053

.574

.5671

Team teaching

.070

.739

.4613

Poor

.011

.116

.9080

Ach ievement

.074

.805

.4226

# of different students

.123

1 .355

.1783

# of different subjects

-.048

-.529

.5984

Teacher expertise

-.043

-.458

.6481

Teacher-student relations .079

.827

.4096

Teacher responses N=146

94
Block time, departmentalized,

team teaching, poor,

achievement, number of students taught, number of
subjects taught, teacher expertise, staff cooperation,
and teacher-student relations.
The results of this multiple regression equation
are presented in Table 19.

Teacher expertise and the

number of subjects taught entered the equation.
Teacher expertise had a significant negative effect on
u t 11iz ing 1ecture and di scussi o n , while the number of
subjects taught had a significant positive effect.
This evidence suggests that the more

Inservice

education and college courses a teacher had in math and
readlng/1anguage arts, the less lecture and discussion
they use in their classroom.

Further,

the more

subjects that a teacher teaches each day,

the more

lecture and discussion they use in their classroom
teaching.

The amount of variation in the dependent

variable "percentage of instructional
lecture and discussion"

time used for

that can be explained by

teacher expertise and the number of different subjects
taught each day is .06021.
In the next equation,

the dependent variable was

"percentage of instructional
joint or group projects".
were the same:

time students work on

The independent variables

Block time, departmentalized,

team

teaching, poor, achievement, number of students taught,

95

Table 19.

Multiple regression on "Use of lecture

and discussion"
Variable
Teacher
expertise

B

SE B

Beta

T

Sia T

-.116

.054

-.206

-2. 15

.0337

# of different
subjects
.157

.094

.161

2. 03

.0456

Constant

.367

3.881

Multiple R=. 2.4538

R Sauare=.06021

Variables not in the equat ion
Beta In

T

Sig T

.119

1 .209

.2294

-.058

.528

.5986

Team teaching

.002

.020

.9840

Poor

.007

.074

.9409

Ach ievement

.017

.176

.8604

# of different students

.037

.350

.7271

Staff Cooperation

.089

.912

.3641

Teacher-student re 1ations.071

.743

.4592

Var iable
Block time
Departmentalized

Teacher responses N=146

96
number of subjects taught, teacher expertise, staff
cooperation, and teacher-student relations.
The results of this multiple regression equation
are presented in Table 20.

The only variable to

contribute in a significant way was “percent of
students above national average in achievement".

This

suggests that schools with a higher percentage of above
average achievers have teachers who use more group
project work in their classrooms.

The amount of

variation in the dependent variable "percentage of time
students work on joint or group projects"

that can be

explained by the percentage of high achievers in the
school

is .05029.

In the final equation, the dependent variable is
"percentage of instructional
videotape".

time used for films or

The independent variables were the same:

Block time, departmentalized,

team teaching, poor,

achievement, number of students taught, number of
subjects taught, teacher expertise, staff cooperation,
and teacher-student relations.
The results of this multiple regression equation
are presented in Table 21.

Staff cooperation had a

significant positive effect on how much time was used
for film or videotape, while departmentalization had a
significant negative effect.

This suggests that the

type of staff that works w e l 1 together and cooperates

97

Table 20.

Multiple rearession on "Use of student

arouo Dro.iects"
Variable

B

Achievement
Constant

SE B

.0138

.006

2.3167

.300

Multiole R=.22425

T

Beta

2.36

.224

Sia T
.0202

R Sauare=.05029

Variables not in the equation
T

Sig T

Var iable

Beta In

Block time

-.1051

-1 .093

.2771

Departmentalized

.1282

1 .281

.2029

Team teaching

.0789

.807

.4215

-.0805

.732

.4658

# of different students

.0818

.852

.3962

# of different subjects

-.1816

-1 .934

.0559

Teacher expertise

.0798

.815

.4162

Staff cooperation

.0383

.392

.6956

Teacher-student relations .1078

1 .135

.2589

Poor

Teacher responses N=146

98

Table 21.

Multiple rearession on "use of f ilm/video"

Variable

B

SE B

Beta

T

Sic? T

.0337

.0136

.231

2.48

.0147

Departmentalized -.3987

.1724

- .216

-2.31

.0228

Staff cooperation

Constant

.8028

Multiple R=.33333
Variables not

.4952

R Sauare=.11111

in the equation

Var iab 1e

Beta In

T

Sig T

Block time

-.1575

-1 .40

.1630

Team teachi ng

.0671

.64

.5223

Poor

.1392

1 .44

.1505

Ach ievernent

-.1230

-1 .23

.2180

# of different students

-.0230

-.22

.8197

# of different subjects

.0116

-.11

.9122

Teacher expertise

.0719

.73

.4667

Teacher-student relations -.1084

-1 .10

.2734

Teacher responses N=146

99
with each other is likely to use more time for film and
videos in the classroom.

It also suggests,

that

teachers in departmentalized classrooms use less
videotape and films than teamed teachers,
self-contained teachers, or block time teachers.

The

amount of variation in the dependent variable
"percentage of class time used for film or videotape"
that can be explained by staff cooperation and
departmentalization is .1111.
A diagram showing the relationships found by
stepwise multiple regression is presented in Figure 8.
This diagram shows all of the relationships that were
found to be significant.
are shown.

Direct and indirect effects

For example, the type of classroom

organizational structure directly affects staff
cooperation, which in turn directly affects the number
of parent contacts.

Therefore,

the type of classroom

organizational structure indirectly affects the number
of parent contacts made by the teacher.
This diagram should not necessarily be construed to
have predictive meaning.

Covariations are noted, but

the mere fact that X and Y vary together in a
predictable way, and that a change

in X precedes the

change in Y, can never assure that X has produced the
change in Y (Blalock,

1964).

Significant relationships

have been established through multiple regression

Use of
Group projects

Achievement
Teacher
Expertise
Poor
Teacher
Student
Relations

Number of
Subjects

Semi-dept

o
i-i

Time not
on Task

Use of
Lecture/disc

Number of
Students

Self
Contained

Number of
Parent
Contacts

0)

3

h-

N

£D
r+

Team
HO Teaching
3
3
h-

Staff
Cooperation

r+

3
3
O

Dept

r+

3

3

ro

Figure 8.

Diagram showing significant relationships

Use of
Film/video

101

implying that if X is changed, Y w i 11 also change,
provided other variables are held constant.
in real

However,

life one never knows whether other variables

are constant and therefore one cannot
observation that X causes Y.

infer from this

In this study, the

variables have been controlled as much as possible so
the results would not be spurious.
Direct effects on the dependent variables have been
determined and are presented in Table 22.

The numbers

in the table are the standardized beta values.

These

numbers reflect the impact of the independent variable
on the dependent variable. The percentage of high
achieving students has a direct effect on group
projects and teacher expertise.

The percentage of poor

students has a direct effect on teacher expertise and
time not on task.

Teacher-student relationships also

has a direct effect on time not on task.

Teacher

expertise and the number of subjects taught has a
direct effect on the extent a teacher lectures.

Team

teaching has a direct effect on staff cooperation.
Departmentalization has a direct effect on the extent
film and video are used in the classroom and on the
teachers'' expertise.

Staff cooperation has a direct

effect on the extent film and video are used and the
frequency of parent contacts.

102

Table 22.

Direct effects on dependent variables
Dependent
Variable

Independent
Var ia b 1e

Direct effect

Ach ievement

.224249

Student group projec

Achievement

.219930

Teacher expertise

-.251987

Teacher expertise

Poor

.288780

Teacher expertise

Poor

.248803

Time not on task

Teacher-student
re 1at ions

-.228220

Time not on task

Teacher expertise

-.206139

Lecture/di scuss ion

Number of different
subjects taught

.161143

Lecture/di scussi on

Team teaching

.303917

Staff cooperation

-.216016

Use of film/video

Staff cooperation

.231826

Use of film/video

Staff cooperation

.332410

# of parent contacts

Departmentalized

Departmentalized

Teacher responses N=146

103
Indirect effects, as mentioned previously, are
noted in Figure 8.

It Is Interesting that classroom

organizational structure indirectly affects two
variables.

First, the use of lecture and discussion is

directly affected by teacher expertise and the number
of different subjects a teacher teaches.

In turn, both

of these variables, as discussed previously, are
affected by the type of classroom organizational
structure present.

Secondly, the number of parent

contacts is affected by the degree of staff
cooperation.
previously,

Staff cooperation, as discussed
is affected by team the type of classroom

organizational

structure present.

In view of the above analysis, classroom
organzizational structure does have a significant
effect on teacher expertise (hypothesis 3), the amount
of instructional

time used for film and video

(hypothesis 6), number of students taught (hypothesis
9), and number of subjects taught (hypothesis 10).
Therefore, hypotheses 3, 6, 9, and 10 are accepted.
Classroom organizational

structure does not have a

significant effect on time spent on non-instructional
routines (hypothesis 4), on time used for lecture and
discussion (hypothesis 5), on time used for student
group projects (hypothesis 7), or on the number of

104
parent contacts (hypothesis 8).

Therefore, hypotheses

4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected.
Summary.
The purpose of this chapter was to analyze and
report the data collected in this study.
Characteristics of the sample were discussed.
Subscales of staff cooperation and teacher-student
relationships were analyzed and reliability was
reported.

An item analysis on all

items and an item

analysis by organizational structure were presented and
discussed.

Analysis of variance was used to determine

whether hypotheses 1 and 2 were accepted or rejected.
Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine
effects of variables on other variables in the study
and to determine whether to accept or reject hypotheses
3-10.
A summary of the study, discussion,

implications

for educators, and recommendations for future research
are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Introduct ion
This chapter contains a brief summary of the
purposes and procedures of the study, the conclusions
resulting from the analysis of the data,
recommendations resulting from the project, and
suggestions for further study.

S umm a r y

The purpose of this study was to determine what
effect different classroom organizational structures
have on teachers and students in sixth grade
classrooms.
1)

It was hypothesized that:

Teachers from self-contained classrooms would

have a more positive relationship with students than
teachers from other classroom structures.
2)

Teachers from team teaching structures would

have a greater sense of staff cooperation than teachers
from other classroom structures.
3)

Teachers from different classroom

organizational structures would significantly differ in
teacher expertise, the amount of time spent on
non-instructional

tasks, the amount of time used for

lecture and discussion, the amount of time used for
105

106

film and video, the amount of time used for group
projects,

the number of parent contacts,

the number of

students taught, and the number of subjects taught.
The instrument used to collect the data was a
63-item questionnaire adapted from the Quality of
School Life Scale for Teachers (Epstein,

1988), High

School and Beyond Surveys (1984), and Education in the
Middle Grades: A National Survey of practices and
trends (Epstein & McPartland,

1988).

The population from which the sample was drawn is
sixth grade teachers at the middle

level

in Michigan.

Seventy-two of 100 schools randomly selected responded
for a total of 146 teacher respondents.
Ten hypotheses were formulated to determine if
classroom organizational
students and teachers.

structure had an effect on
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested

using analysis of variance while hypotheses 3-10 were
tested using multiple regression.
bindings Relative to the Hypotheses
The findings of this study are based on the
analysis of the data presented in Chapter IV.
1)

Hypothesis 1 was rejected.

The teacher-student

relationship, as perceived by the teacher, was not
higher in self-contained classrooms than in classrooms
with departmentalized, block time, or team teaching

107
organizational

structures.

In fact, the analysis of

variance found that it was significantly lower in
self-contained classrooms than in the other three
structures.
This result is a surprise in view of McPartland's
(1987) findings that teacher-student relations were
more positive in classrooms that were self-contained
than in classrooms with the departmentalized
arrangement.

There are several

reasons that this

difference in findings may have occured.

First of all,

McPartland's unit of analysis in that study was
students^ perceptions rather than teachers'"
perceptions.

In other words, students may feel more

positive about their relationship with their teacher
under a self-contained teaching arrangement than
teachers do.

Secondly,

the sample of self-contained

classroom teachers is small

in this study.

possible that the sample is not

It is

large enough to

accurately assess the teacher-student relationship.
Finally,

it is possible the questions taken from the

Quality of School Life Scale for Teachers (Epstein,
1988) do not measure the degree of teacher-student
relationships effectively.

All of the above reasons

should be considered before making any conclusions
regarding the findings under hypothesis 1.

108
2)

Hypothesis 2 was accepted.

cooperation

The staff

In schools with team teaching structures

was significantly higher than each of the other three
structures.
This result was not a surprise.

It makes sense

that if teachers are working together in teams to help
each other educate the students,

they will perceive

themselves as being cooperative and of having strong
col 1egi al it y .
3)

Hypothesis 3 was accepted.

organizational

Classroom

structures do affect teacher expertise

(the amount of recent college courses taken and the
amount of inservice education received by the teacher).
It was found that teachers in departmentalized
classrooms had significantly less recent college
courses and recent

inservice education in math and

reading/language arts than teachers from other
structures.
This result was not expected.

It was suggested

earlier that departmentalized teachers would be more
"expert"

than teachers from the other structures.

There may be some reasons why the evidence in this
study does not support this statement.
the definition of "teacher expertise"
inclusive.

First of all,
is not all

It does not take into account teachers who

may have their masters degree in their field or are

109
already subject specialists and do not need to take any
more college courses to become any more "expert".
Secondly, departmentalized teachers may only teach one
subject and therefore would not need both math and
reading/language arts since the definition for the
purposes of this study combined the two subject areas.
4)

Hypothesis 4 was rejected.

There was no

difference between classroom organizational

structures

in the amount of time spent on non-instructional
The evidence did show, however,
non-instructional

tasks.

that time spent on

tasks was affected by the degree of

positive teacher-student relations and by the
percentage of poor students.

This suggests that the

teacher who has good relationships with students spends
less time on non-instructional

routines, such as

getting students to behave, getting students to pay
attention, and other daily routines.

It also suggests

that teachers who teach a higher percentage of poor
students spend more time on these non-instructional
tasks.
5)

Hypothesis 5 was rejected.

There was no

difference between classroom organizational
in the amount of instructional

structures

time used for lecture

and discussion.
The evidence did show, however, that the amount of
instructional

time used for lecture and discussion was

110
affected by teacher expertise and the number of
subjects taught by the teacher.

This suggests that

teachers who have taken recent courses in college and
have had recent

inservice education

arts and math will

in reading/language

use less instructional

time for

lecture and discussion than teachers who have not.
Further,

teachers who teach a number of different

subjects each day tend to use more lecture and
discussion than teachers who teach few different
subjects.
6)

Hypothesis 6 was accepted.

There was a

difference between classroom organizational
in the amount of instructional
video.

structures

time used for film and

Teachers in departmentalized classrooms used

less instructional

time for film and video than

teachers in the other three structures.
7)

Hypothesis 7 was rejected.

There was no

difference between classroom organizational
in the amount of instructional

structures

time used for student

group projects.
However, the evidence does show that teachers who
teach in schools that have a high percentage of
students who are above average
use more instructional
than other teachers.

in achievement tend to

time for student group projects

Ill
8)

Hypothesis 8 was rejected.

There was no

difference between classroom organizational
in the number of parents contacted
The

structures

by the teacher.

evidence does show, however,

that teachers who

have a high degree of staff cooperation contact parents
more frequently.

In addition, as discussed previously,

teachers in team teaching structures tend to have a
higher degree of staff cooperation than other teachers.
Therefore,

the evidence does suggest that team teaching

may indirect1y affect the number of parent contacts
made by the teacher.
9)

Hypothesis 9 was accepted.

There was a

difference between classroom organizational

structures

In the number of students that are taught each day by
the teacher.
This was the expected result.

Obviously,

that teach in a self-contained classroom will

teachers
teach

less students each day than the other structures, by
definition.

The evidence shows that teachers in

departmentalized classrooms teach the most students,
with team teachers the second highest, and block time
teachers ne x t .
10)

Hypothesis 10 was accepted.

There was a

difference between classroom organizational

structures

in the number of subjects that are taught each day by
the teacher.

112

Again, this was the expected result.

The evidence

shows that teachers in departmentalized classrooms
teach the fewest different subjects and teachers in
self-contained classrooms teach the most.
The following conclusions were drawn from the data
collected and analyzed.
Cone 1usion 1.

Teachers in team teaching structures

are more likely to work together, cooperate, and feel a
sense of commonali ty than teachers in the other
organizational structures.

They are more likely to

share ideas, cooperate in activities, and assist one
anothers' professional growth.

Teachers in a teamed

structure are more likely to share a sense of purpose
with their fellow teachers, to plan together,

to

coordinate content of courses, and to work together to
achieve the central mission of the school

than teachers

from self-contained, departmentalized, or block time
classroom organizational

structures.

Pi scussi o n : It was stated earlier that classroom
organizational

structure can be either positive and

nurturing, or it can be a negative and damaging force
to teacher col 1egiality.
Implemented properly, will

The teaming approach,

if

lead, according to my data,

to this positive, nurturing Interaction between
teachers.

As teachers communicate, cooperate, and work

together toward goals,

the data also shows that parents

113
will be contacted more frequently and that film and
video will be used more in the classroom.
The team teaching structure sets up an environment
that is conducive to good working relations among
staff.

This is consistent with the findings of Lipsitz

and others who have argued that teachers in a teamed
structure work together as they never have before.
They discuss ideas together, plan together, reach group
consensus regarding important issues and face difficult
problems together CLipsitz,
Conclusion 2.

1984).

Teachers who cooperate with one

another, work together, and have a strong sense of
col 1egiali ty are more likely to make frequent parent
contacts than teachers who are isolated, uncooperative,
or unable to work well with other staff.

This study

results showed that the degree of staff cooperation had
a direct effect on the number of parent contacts made
by the teacher.
Pi scussi o n :

Teachers who like to work together

and cooperate with one another will also work with and
cooperate with parents.

As teachers learn they can

work and cooperate as a staff and reap positive rewards
from that, they will branch out to work with parents
more frequently.
well.

This causality could be reversed as

This will become a cycle as positive

reinforcement

influences the teachers'" behavior.

114
Team teaching positively affects the degree of
staff cooperation, which,

in turn, positively affects

the amount of parent contacts.

Team teaching may help

provide the type of environment

in which teachers feel

more positive benefit
other hand,

in contacting parents.

teachers who like people will

other and will also talk to parents.
therefore,

On the

talk to each

It is difficult,

to infer that teachers In a team teaching

structure will be more likely to contact parents than
other teachers.
Conclusion 3.

Teachers who have good

teacher-student relations spend less time in class
performing classroom routines, getting students to
behave and getting them to pay attention than teachers
whose relations with students are not as good.
Discussion:

This study suggests that a positive

classroom environment
successful

school.

is an important part of a

Good teachers are able to foster

positive relations with students and also able to
maintain a good controlled learning environment.

The

classroom environment then allows the teacher to spend
less time on non-instructional routines.

These

findings are consistent with other findings regarding
teacher-student relations.

The teacher should balance

close adult supervision with opportunities for students

115
to be independent and regulate their own behavior
(Epstein,

1985).

Another important aspect of good teacher-student
relations is the extra instructional
instruction.

time available for

This study shows that teachers with good

student relations spend less time off instructional
tasks.

This means that more time is available for

instruction.

As stated earlier, the amount of time on

Instructional

task is one of the most crucial

related to student academic achievement.

variables

Therefore,

good teacher-student relations are important to
maximizing student time on task which

is important to

maximizing student achievement.
Recommendati ons
Based on the findings of this study and the
conclusions reached as a result of the findings,

the

following recommendations are presented for
consi derat io n .
1.

It is recommended that boards of education and

administrators consider implementing a team teaching
classroom organizational
level .

structure at the sixth grade

The evidence suggests that this type of

structure will promote positive staff cooperation in
the school.

This positive collegiality has benefits,

such as this study suggests,

that teachers who work

116
together and cooperate together make more frequent
parent contacts.
2.

It is recommended that administrators encourage

positive teacher-student relationships as an end in
itself and as an aid to increasing time on task.
Teachers should be encouraged to develop positive
relationships with all of their students and to help
students grow, not only academically, but emotionally
as well.

This study shows that good teacher-student

relations will decrease the amount of time spent on
non-instructional

activities.

Therefore, positive

teacher-student relations help students in two ways:
They provide a nurturing relationship with a
significant adult and they decrease the amount of time
off instructional

tasks.

Suggest ions for Further Study
1.

It is recommended that additional data be

collected on team teaching organizational structure.
The effects on students and the difficulties of
implementing true teaming should be researched.
2.

It is recommended that data be collected on

different classroom structures and student

alienation,

student attachment, school attendance, and how much a
student

likes school.

117
3.

It is recommended that research be done to

determine which classroom structures best facilitate
the flexibility and variety of learning experiences
needed by middle level students.
4.

It is recommended that data be collected on the

principal's role in middle level schools.

Do different

staffing patterns and classroom structures affect the
way the principal does his/her job?
5.

It is recommended that research be done to

determine which classroom structures maintain high
quality Instruction and a personalized learning
environment.

It is suggested that test scores, as well

as teacher and student attitudes, be used to formulate
the data.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

118

PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Educator: Research on middle school classroom organizational structure is needed to help us understand
what happens when we set our schools up in a certain way. I am doing research in this important area as a
part of the requirements for my doctoral program at Michigan State University.
Please answer the following questions about yourself and your school. All answers will be treated in
accordance with federal privacy acts. To guarantee privacy of information, identification numbers and special
collection procedures are used. You indicate your voluntary agreement to particpate by completing and
returning this questionnaire.
Please distribute the teacher questionnaires and scanning sheets to three teachers on your sixth grade
staff (more than half on their day is spent teaching sixth grade students). Please select average, above
average and below average teachers, if they are available on your sixth grade staff.
When you have completed the questionnaire, please check to see that all items have been answered. Then
mail the scanning sheet to me in the envelope provided. While you are not required to respond, your
cooperation is needed to make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate and timely.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,

^

Rodney P./dreen, Principal
Reese MidsMe School
Please mark y ^ u r answe rs on the scanning sheet p ro v id e d .

53.

WHAT TYPE OF COMMUNITY IS YOUR SCHOOL LOCATED IN?

Be sure to n o te th e item s are numbered 5 3 -6 3 .

©Urban

©Suburban

AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1988, HOW MANY STUDENTS WERE ENROLLED IN YOUR SCHOOL?
54.

Thousands

55.

Hundreds

© © © t ' 8 l O 0 0 0 0
^ ^ ^
© G 0 0 A S ' © !2J <o © Q

56.

Tens

© 0- -.0G © © 0 © © ©

57.

Ones

© © © © © © 0 © © ©

©Rural

EXAMPLE:

352 stuaents-hundreds O 0 ® G O 0
tens
G 0 © & l j > ©
ones
© ( I ) © © © ©

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE STUDENTS AT YOUR SCHOOL ARE NON-WHITE OR MINORITY STUDENTS?
58.

Tens

59. Ones

-A
,

_ G rs-OsvG

© © 0 ©© 0 0 0 0

13%

EXAMPLE:
Tens 0 © 0 (T)
O
nes 0©@©

©

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AT YOUR SCHOOL ARE ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT?
60.

Tens

000 000 0 0 0 0

61.

Ones

G ' G ’-i. -

V

0

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AT YOUR SCHOOL ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE FREE CR REDUCED LUNCHES THROUGH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PROGRAM?
62

. Tens

0 0 0 ;0 0 0 0 )0 0 0

Ones-

0 0 0 DGDG0-00

63.

Encourage your sixth grade teachers to complete the questionnaire and to return it to me the same day.
If you are interested in having a copy of the results of this study , please send me a self-addressed,
Stamped envelope. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS WORTHWHILE PROJECT!

APPENDIX B
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

119

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Educator: Research on middle school classroom organizational structure is needec to help us understand;
what happens when we set our schools up a certain way. I am doing research in this important area as a part
of the requirements for my doctoral program at Michigan State University.
Please answer the following questions about yourself and your school. All answers will be treated in
accordance with federal privacy acts. To guarantee privacy of information, identification numbers and
special collection procedures are used. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this questionnaire.
After you have completed this questionnaire, please check to see that all items have been answered. Then
return the scanning sheet to me in the envelope provided. While y o u a r e not requirec to respond, your
cooperation is needed to make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate and timely.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Sincerely,

Rodney P. ireen, Principal
Reese MidiHe School

PLEASE HARK YOUR ANSWERS ON THE SCANNING SHEET PRQVIOED.

USE A 12 PENCIL TO HARK THE APPROPRIATE CIRCLE.

1.

What is your sex?

~

Male

©

2.

What is your race?

©

White

©■ Black

3.

Prior to this year, how many years experience have you had as a full-time teacher?

4.

0

1

C

£

2

3

£

i

4-5

6-10

. 11-15

Female
©

16-20

C

Hispanic

©Asian

<_■ Other

21 +
w

Your classroom organizational structure can best be described as:

G

Self-contained (teach the same group of students the four basic academic subjects, math, language arts,
science and social studies).
G Semi-departmentalizec (students receive instruction in more than one subject from the same teacher and
have a limited number of teachers.) Sometimes referred to as block time.
© D e p a r t m e n t a l i z e d (each teacher teaches a specific subject area and different groups of students each
period. The teacher may teach more than one subject, but to different groups
of students.)
© T e a m teaching organization (2 to 5 teachers form a team representing different subject areas. The
team shares the same students and the same block of time.)

ANSWER THE NEXT FEW QUESTIONS BASED ON THE EXTENT THAT YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT.

5.

I make a conscious effort to coordinate the content of m y courses with
other teachers.

6. Most staff members will help out anywhere, anytime-it may not be part of their official assignment.

even though

7. I feel I can talk to my students about their problems.
o. I feel accepted and resoected as a colleague by most staff members.

strongly
disaaree

strongly
agree

r

© © © © © ©

©o©®©©
®o©@©©
@©0®©©

120

strongly
disagree
9.

© 00 © © ©

I like students to ask a lot of questions during my lessons.

OG©©0©

10. Host of my students have bad attitudes about being told they are wrong.
11.

strongly
agree

I am familiar with the content and specific goals of the courses taught
by other teachers in my department.

©CO©©©

12.

Host of my students would like me as their teacher again next year.

© 000©©

13.

Host of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the central
mission of the school should be.

GG000©

Most students know that I will listen to vihat they have to say.

© 00© © ©

15.

My students think ! give them too many directions and want everything done m y way.

©O0©©©

1®-

Most students

value m y opinion on how to succeed in school.

©O0©0©

I7 -

Most students

think that I have favorite students.

©O0000

18.

Most students

think they should not ask me questions during

19.

f.|y students know that they can come to me with things that are on their minds.

©O0©©©

20..

There is a great deal of cooperative effort among staff members.

©O©0©©

21.

Most of my students listen to what ! have to say.

©O0©O©

22.

I wish I could have the same students next year.

©O000©

23.

I f a v o r c e r t a i n s t u d e n t s m o r e than o t h e r s t u d e n t s .

©O0©©©

24.

This school seems like a big family; everyone is so close and cordial.

©O0®©©

25.

I let my students know that I have one "right way"

©O0©0©

25-

Staff members in this school generally don't have much school spirit.

27.

Since the beginning of the current school year, how much time per month (on the average) have you spent
meeting with other teachers on lesson planning, curriculum development, guidance and counseling,
evaluation of programs, or other collaborative work related to instruction?
©

23.

Less than 15 minutes

©

15-29 minutes

©

©O0©©©

a lesson.

todo things.

30-59 minutes

©O0©©©

©

1-5 hours

©

5-10 hours

To what extent has another teacher helped you improve your teaching o r solve an instructional or
class management problem in the last month?
No Help
Extremely Helpful

©o©©©@

©

10+ hours

121

ON THE AVERAGE, ABOUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR CLASSES' TIME IS SPENT IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES?
PERCENTAGE OF CLASS TIME
0-2 3-5 6-8 9-II 12-14 15-17 18* or more
29. Daily routines (such as set up, clean up, passing out
materials, taking attendance, breaks, etc.
. .
. .
•
•
0 © © ©
©
©
©'
30.

Getting students to behave.

31.

During the time devoted to instruction and practicing skills, at any given time, what percentage of the
students is whispering, fooling around, appears to be daydreaming, or is not working on the assigned task?
PERCENTAGE
0-2*
3-5*
6-8*
9-11*
12-14*
15-17*
18-20*
21-30*
31* or more

O
32.

33.

0

©

.

0

.

©

.

.

©

.

©

.

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

How many minutes per day aoes your class receive reading/language arts instruction? If this does not
apply, leave it blank.
MINUTES PER DAY
0-30
31-40
41-50
51-50
61-70 , 71-80
81-90
91-100
101+

How many minutes per day does your class receive mathematics instruction? If this does not apply, leave it blank.
MINUTES PER DAY
0-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100
101+

2

-•

©

2

,2

©

2

©

2

34.

On the average, how many students are in your instructional reading/language arts class? If this does
not apply, leave it blank.
O
1 student
Q 6-10 students
Q 16-20 students
0 26-30 students
© Over 3£ students
© 2-5 students
© 11-15 students
© 21-25 students
© 31-35 students

35.

On the average, how many students are in your mathematics class?
O
1 student
Q 6-10 students
0 16-20 students
O
2-5 students
0 11-15 students
© 21-25 students

36..

What is the average size ofthe classes you have taught
Q Less than 10 students
'i' 16-20 students
0
© 11-15 students
© 21-25 students
Q

37.

Since the beginning of the current school year, how many students' parents (or guardians) have you talked
with individually regarding their child's classroom performance?
© None
0 5-9 students' parents
© 20-29 s tu dents’ parents
© 40-59 students' parents
© 1-4 students' parents
© 10-19 students* parents
© 30-39 students' parents
© 60+ students' parents

38.

How many different students do you teach each day?
O 0-20 students
© 31-40 students
© 61-80 students
Q 21-30 students
© 41-60 students
© 81-100 students

39..
©

How many different subjects do you teach each day?
1 subject all day
© 2 subjects
© 3 subjects

If this does not aoply, leave it blank.
0 26-30 students
© Over 35 students
© 31-35 students

since the beginning of the current school year?
26-30 students
© More than 35 students
31-35 students

0

©
©

101-120 students
121-140 students

4 subjects

©

©

5 subjects

141+

0

More than 5

During the last three years, how many courses of colleae-level instruction have you taken in reading or
mathematics instruction.
40.
41.

READING/LANGUAGE ARTS
MATH

None
©

1 course
©

2 courses
©

3 courses
©

4 courses or more
©

©

122

Durinq the last three years, how many hours of staff development/inservice trainina 1n ave you had for
readinq and math instruction?
more than 20 hours
11-20 hours
5-10 hours
0-4 hours
None
42. READING/LANGUAGE ARTS
43.

3

MATH

Zi

0

©

0

0

0

TEACHERS VARY IN THE WAYS THEY TEACH MAJOR ACADEMIC SUBJECTS If1 THE SIXTH GRADE. PLEASE ESTIMATE
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TIME YOU WOULD USE THE FOLLOWING APPROACHES IN YOUR AVERAGE CLASS:
0-5%

6-12%

13-20% 21-30%

©

0

©

0

0

©

Li’

G

©

©

©

G

©

©

o

©

©

©

©

...

G

©

...

©

©

45

Have students work on joint or group

46

Utilize film or videotape. . . . .

...

47

Jtilize independent seatv.ork....

48.

Conduct hands-on activities...

©

©
.

WHAT ACADEMIC SUBJECTS 30 YOU TEACH?
49.
50.
51.
52.

Reading/Language arts
Math
Science
Social Studies

©
0
©
©

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

51% +

o

©
e

Utilize lecture and discussion..

41-50X

©
0

©
0

©
projects.... ©
...

44

31-40%

O No
O No
O No
O No

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP WITH THIS RESEARCH. PLEASE CHECK TO SEE THAT EACH ITEM HAS BEEN ANSWERED AND
RETURN THE SCANNING SHEET TO ME IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED. THIS QUESTIONNAIRE SCANNING SHEET MUST 8E
RETURNED TO ME 8Y NOVEMBER 05, 1988 IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE STUDY. IF YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF
THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY, PLEASE SEND ME A SELF-ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE.

©

APPENDIX C
FOLLOW UP POSTCARD

123

O cto be r 31,

1988

Dear E ducator:
L a s t week a q u e s tio n n a ir e seeking
in fo r m a tio n r e g a r d in g m id d le school classroom o r g a n iz a t io n a l
s t r u c t u r e s was m a ile d to y o u .
Your school was d ra w n in a
ra n d o m s a m p le o f m i d d l e schools in M i c h i g a n .
I f y o u h a v e a l r e a d y c o m p l e t e d a n d r e t u r n e d i t t o me,
p l e a s e a c c e p t my s i n c e r e t h a n k s .
I f n o t , p l e a s e do so t o d a y .
Because i t has been s e nt to o n l y a s m a l l , b u t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
sample o f M ic h ig a n m id d le schools, i t is e x tre m e ly im p o rta n t
t h a t y o u r school a ls o be i n c l u d e d in th e s t u d y , i f the r e s u l t s
a r e to a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t m id d le s c h o o ls .

I f b y some c h a n c e y o u d i d not r e c e i v e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e
o r i t g o t m i s p l a c e d , p l e a s e c a l l me r i g h t n o w , c o l l e c t , a t
5 17 -8 6 8 - 3 6 1 5 , a n d I w i l l g e t a n o t h e r o n e i n t h e m a i l to yo u
today.

J

.
S incerely,
R o d n e y P. G r e e n , P r i n c i p a l
Reese M i d d l e S c ho o l

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Alexander, W. & George, P.
(1981).
The Exemplary
Mlddle Schoo1. New York:
Holt, Rinehart &
Wi n s ton.
Alexander, W. , E. Williams, M. Compton, V. Hines, D.
Prescott.
(1968).
The emergent middle school.
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anderson, R.
(1987).
Shaping up the Shop:
How School
Organization influences Teaching and Learning.
Educational Leadership.
44( 5 ) :45.
A p s y , D. & Roebuck, F.
(1977).
Kids don't learn
from people they don't like.
Amhert, M.A.:
Human Resource Development Press.
Barrell, J.
(1985).
You ask the wrong questions.
Educational Leadership.
42(8):18-25.
Beane, J.
(1983).
Self-concept and esteem in the
middle level school.
NAS5P Bui 1et in.
67(5):63-71.
Beane, J. & Lipka, R.
(1984).
S e 1f-concept.
self-esteem and the curriculum.
Boston, Allyn &
Bacon.
Beane, J., Lipka, R. & Ludewig, J.
(1980).
Synthesis
of Research on Self-concept.
Educat tonal
Leadership.
3 8 ( 1):84-9.
Becker, H.
(1987).
Addressing the needs of different
groups of early adolescents:
Effects of varying
school and classroom organizational practices on
students from different social backgrounds and
abilities.
Report 16, CREMS, The Johns Hopkins
Un iverslty.
Blalock, H.
(1964).
Causal Inferences in
nonexperimental research,
UNC.
Chapel Hill.
Bossert, S.
(1979).
In classrooms: A
organization and
University Press:

Tasks and social relationships
study of instructional
its consequences.
Cambridge
NY.
124

125
Bossert, S., Dwyer, Rowan & Lee.
<19825.
The
instructional management role of the principal.
Educational Administrative Quarterly.
18(35:34.
Bourke, S.
<19865.
How smaller is better:
Some
relationships between class size, teaching
practices and student achievement.
American
Educational Research Journal.
23(4 5:558-71.
Brandt, R.
(19885.
On changing secondary schools: A
conversat1on with Ted Sizer.
Edu c a t 1onal
LeadershI p . 44(25:30-36.
Bronfenbrenner, U.
(19745.
Is early intervention
effect ive? Wash ington, D.C.:U.S. Dept of H.E.W.
Brophy, J.
(19875.
Synthesis of research on
strategies for motivating students to learn.
Educational Leadership.
October 40-8.
Brophy, J. & Good, T.
(19745.
Teacher-student
relationships: causes and consequences.
New
York : Hoi t , Ri nehart 8< Wi nston.
Brown, B. & Saks, D.
(19795.
Research Issues
concerning the production and finance of schooling.
Institute for Research on Teaching.
N o . 65.
Cl a r k , S. & Cl a r k , D.
(19875.
Interdisciplinary
teaming programs:
organization, rationale and
implementat ion. Schools in the m i d d 1e . NASSP
B u 11et i n . October.
Cooley, B.
(19885.
The need for middle school
articulation and a suggested process for attaining
it.
Secondary Education today.
29(35:33-40.
Delbert, J. & Hoy, W.
(19775.
Custodial high school
and self-actualization of students.
Educat ional
Research Quarter Iy. 2:24-31.
D1liman, D.
(19785.
Mail and telephone surveys: the
total design method. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Donovan, J., Sousa, D. & Walberg, H.
<19875.
The
impact of staff development on implementation and
student achievement.
Educat1o n a 1 Leadershi p .
80(65:348-51.
Eccles, J. 8. Midgely.
<19895.
Research on
motivation in education.
Edited by Ames & Ames.

126

Epstein, J. (1984).
School policy and parent
involvement:
Research results.
Educatlonal
Horizons.
62:70-2.
Epstein, J. (1985).
Overview:
Middle schools program.
CREMS. The Johns Hopkins Uni versi t y .
Epstein, J. (1988).
Quality of School Life Scale for
Teachers.
CREMS.
The Johns Hopkins UnIverslty.
Epstein, J. & McPart1and, J . (1988).
Educat ion in
the middle grades: A nat ional survey of pract ices
and trends.
CRE M S . The Johns H o p k 1ns U n 1verslty.
Fech , E.B.
(1984).
Be 11ef patterns of cathollc
school principals and teachers. A dissertation.
Michigan State Uni versi t y .
Frederick, W. & Walberg, H .
(1980). Learning
as a
funct ion of time.
The Journal of Educational
Research. 73:183-94.
George, P. & 01daker, L . (1986).
A nat ional survey of
middle school effect iveness. Educatlonal
Leadersh1p . 79(3).
George, P.
(1983).
The Theory Z S c h o o l : Beyond
Effect iveness. Nat ional Middle School Assoc 1at io n .
Glass, G . , L . Cahen, Smi th & FI 1b y . (1982).
School
Class Size:
A Meta-Analvsis.
B e v e r 1y Hills.
G1ass, G . & Hopkins, K . (1984).
in education and psychology.

Statlslcal methods
Prent ice-Hal1. N J .

Goldhammer, R.
(1969). Clinical Sup e r v 1si o n . New
Y o r k : Ho i t , Ri nehart & Wi nst o n .
Goodlad, J . (1984).
A place called school.
Y o r k : McGraw-Hi11.

New

Haukoos, G . & Penick, J . (1987).
Interact ion effect
of persona 1ity characterJ st ics, c 1assroom c 1imate
and science achievement. Sc 1ence Educat1o n ♦
71(5):735-43.
Hess, R. & Holloway, S.
(1984).
Family and school as
educatlonal inst1tut ions.
Rev 1ew of c h 11d
development research: vol. 7. Chicago:Universi ty
of Chicago Press.

127

High School and Beyond Surveys.
<1984).
Center for Educational Statistics.

National

Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P., Hoover-Dempsey, K . , Moroney,
R . , Shayne, M . & Weeks, K. (1984). Strengthen 1ng
fami 1les.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hoffman, J.
(1979).
Let's keep s e 1f-destructive
elements out of our middle schools.
Teacher.
4:24-25.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. Bassler, 0. & Brissie, J.
(1987).
Parent Involvement: Contributions of teacher
efficacy, school socio-economic status and other
school characteristics.
American Educational
Research Journal. 24< 3 ) :417-35.
Hunter, M . <1984). Knowing, teach 1ng and supervising
In using what we know about teaching <pp. 169-92).
Alexandria, VA:Associat ion for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Johnston, J. & Mark 1e , G.
<1986).
What research says
to the middle level practitioner.
Karweit, N. & Slavin, R.
<1981).
Measurement and
modeling choices in studies of time and learning.
American Educational Research Journal.
18< 2):157-71.
Lazar, I., Hubbell, Murray, Rosche 8, Royce.
<1977).
The persistence of preschool effects: A long-term
foiiow-up of fourteen Infant and preschool
exoeriements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Lipsitz, J.
<1984).
Successfu1 schools for voung
adolescents. Transaction, Inc.:New Brunswick, NJ.
Lipsitz, J.
<1977).
& Company.

Growing

up

forgotten.

DC Heath

Little, J.
<1982).
Norms of col 1egi ali ty and
experimentation: Workplace conditions of school
success.
American Educational Research Journal.
19<3):325-40.
Lounsbury, J.
<1981).
Less is more in middle school
scheduling.
Middle School Journal.
January.

128

McPartland, J.
<1987).
Balancing high quality subject
matter instruction with positive student-teacher
relations in the middle grades.
Report 15. CREMS.
The Johns Hopkins University.
Mc Part1and, Coldiron & Braddock.
(1987).
School
structures and classroom practices in elementary,
middle and secondary schools.
Report 14. CREMS.
The Johns Hopkins University.
Miller, R.
(1970).
Handbook of research design and
social measurement.
Pedhazur, E.
C1982).
Multiple regression in
behavioral research.
New York:Holt, R1nehart &
Wi nston.
Peterson, P. & Clark C.
(1978).
Teachers reports of
their cognitive processes during teaching.
American Education Research Journal.
15:555-65.
Phi Delta Kappa.
<1980).
Why do some urban schools
succeed? Bloomington, IN.
Romano, L . , Georgiady & Heald.
<1973).
The middle
school: Selected readings on an emerging school
program.
N e 1son Hal 1 co.
Romano, L . , Georgiady & Heald.
<1984). A guide to an
effective middle school.
Irvington Publlshers,
Inc.
R o m a n o , L . , Egnatuck, Georglady & M u t h . <1975).
The
middle school: A posi t ion p a p e r . MAMSE. MSU:East
Lansing, M I .
Raudenbush, S. 8. B r y k , A.
<1988).
Methodologlcal
advances in analyzing the effects of schools and
c 1assrooms on student 1earn 1ng.
Rev 1ew of
Research in Education.
15:423-475.
Slavin, R.
<1987).
Ability grouping and student
achievement in e 1ementary schools: A best-evidence
synthesis.
Review of Educat ional Research.
57<3) .*293-336.
Slavin, R.
<1981).
Cooperat1ve Learning.
Plains, NY:Longman.

White

129

Solo, L.
<1985).
School site staff development.
Education and Urban Society.
17(3):332-40.
Stallings, J. 8, Kaskowitz, D.
<1974). Follow through
classroom observation evaluation. Menlo Park, CA:
Stanford Research Institute.
Wade, R.
<1984).
What makes a difference in inservice
education? A meta-analysis of research.
Educational Leadership,
42:48-54.
Walberg, H.
<1986).
What work3 in a nation still at
risk.
Educational Leadership.
44 < 1) :7.
Walberg, H.
<1987).
Studies show curricular
efficiency can be attained.
NASSP B u 11e t 1n .
71< 498):15-21.
Walberg, H. & Wynne, E.
<1986).
The complementary
goals of character development and academic
excellence. Educational Leadership.
43<4):15-8.
Wiles, J. & Bondi, J.
<1981).
The essential middle
school. Bell & Howell Company.
Wool folk, A. & Brooks, D.
<1985).
The influence of
teacher non-verbal behaviors on student perceptions
and performance.
Elementary School Journal.
85< 4):513-28.