anderson_ organizational character of education.pdf

8/13/2019 anderson_ organizational character of education.pdf

1/16

Organizational Character of Education: Staff Utilization and DeploymentAuthor(s): Robert H. AndersonSource: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, Educational Organization,Administration, and Finance (Oct., 1964), pp. 455-469Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1169698 .

Accessed: 13/01/2011 10:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Review of Educational Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aerahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1169698?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aerahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aerahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1169698?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera


2/16

CHAPTER V

Organizational Character of Education:Staff Utilization and Deployment

ROBERT H. ANDERSON*

IN CHAPTER IV of the October 1961 issue of the REVIEW, Wynn andDeRemer dealt with staff utilization, staff development, and evaluation of

staff effectiveness. The October 1963 issue of the REVIEW, eacher Per-sonnel, also treated the latter two topics in considerable depth. Because ofthe recency of that issue and in recognition of an unintended overlap, itwas decided to depart from the pattern of the October 1961 issue and todeal primarily in the present chapter with topics related to utilizationand deployment of staff personnel. However, inasmuch as many aspects ofstaff development and effectiveness are inevitably linked with these topics,some of the studies cited also bear at least indirectly upon development andevaluation.

Most of the weaknesses and limitations ascribed in 1961 by Wynn andDeRemer to the literature of staff utilization remain in 1964. Most of thepublished material is essentially descriptive and testimonial; relativelylittle attention was paid to basic rationale or theory, and there was limitedapplication of appropriate research strategies to the questions raised byorganizational innovations.

Almost without exception, studies of staff utilization focused on theclassroom teacher, on nonprofessional workers supplementing or assistingteachers, and on technological devices or pupil-grouping procedures in-tended to supplement, extend, and simplify the work of the teachers. The

utilization and deployment of supervisory and administrative personnel,guidance workers, and other specialists is rarely examined in relationshipto emerging organizational patterns or, for that matter, as a separate topicof personnel research. It is hoped that in the near future changing patternsin the utilization and deployment of nonteaching professional personnel,particularly school principals and supervisors, will be investigated. Cluesto the probable need for such studies appear in such recent terms as teamsupervision and team administration and in questions being raised aboutthe changing roles of the principal and of other officers in team-organizedschools.

Research in the field of staff utilization tends to be unduly complicatedbecause a given school or project is usually involved simultaneously with

* This chapter was prepared with the assistance of Harvard doctoral students Ernest B.Fleishman, James Greig, Robert R. Lee, Eleanor McMahon, Frank S. Manchester, Roland M.Miller, and Arthur N. Pierce.

455


3/16

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

two or more of the new or emerging arrangements. For example, the trendtoward nongradedness, the breaking down of rigid grade barriers, tendsto stimulate greater interest in pupil interchange and in other regroupingplans and, in turn, to precipitate various patterns of collaborative or co-

operative teaching. Most team teaching projects have revealed greatlyincreased use of technological resources and sharply increased interest inthe use of nonprofessional assistants. Schedule modifications and variable-sized instructional groups are generally associated with such projects. Asa result, systematic inquiry into the usefulness of each separate device orpattern is difficult.

Probably the most useful commentary on the problems of research in

the emerging staff-utilization patterns was offered by Heathers (1964),who stressed the need for research in the design and implementation aswell as in the evaluation of new plans. He suggested that team teachingin particular is incompletely designed, inadequately implemented, and

improperly evaluated. He commented that the comparison of outcomes inone organizationil plan with those in another is less useful than are worksthat study the accomplishment of essential objectives of a given school

program against well-defined standards of excellence. He deplored thecurrent tendency toward premature dissemination as well as the neglectof research in design and development.

Cooperative Teaching

The term team teaching continued to be applied rather loosely to awide variety of arrangements involving cooperation and collaborationamong teachers. Goodlad and Rehage (1962) proposed that the termshould be used only when referring to ventures embracing three charac-teristics: hierarchy of personnel, differential staff functions, and flexibilityof grouping. Woodring (1964) suggested that, since the term team teach-

ing is ambiguous, a better term might be team organization and planning.The term cooperative teaching was suggested by some as a general frameof reference within which team teaching is perhaps the most formallystructured alternative.

During the past three years, the literature became somewhat less adrenaland more analytical; useful base-line definitions were provided by Shaplin(1964b) and Olds (1964). In addition to historical and definitive discus-sions, Olds attempted a team teaching taxonomy of four major categories:(a) structural requirements of specific situation, (b) autonomy or span ofcontrol within existing structural requirements, (c) authority structure anddegree of specialization, and (d) coordination. In the same volume, Lortie(1964) used sociological theory to examine the influence of team teachingon the teacher at work, and Grannis (1964) developed a planning strategyfor making various curricular and organizational decisions in teams.

Shaplin (1964a, b, c) described the great diversity in methods of orga-nization and team approaches, and he specified that team teaching, in con-

456

Vol. XXXIV, No. 4


4/16

October 1964 STAFF UTILIZATION AND DEPLOYMENT

trast with other kinds of projects, tends to emphasize specialization inteaching, improvement of supervisory arrangements in teaching, use ofnonprofessional aides, and expanded use of mechanical devices. Brownelland Taylor (1962) proposed a series of team models for both elementaryand secondary schools and hypothesized that certain representative com-binations of models were particularly productive in the development oftheory. Singer (1964) cited three emerging national patterns: (a) thesingle-discipline team, (b) the interdisciplinary team, and (c) the school-within-a-school eam.

In a survey of cooperative teaching in six states, Singer (1962) foundthat team teaching had spread considerably in secondary schools since

1956, with English, social studies, and physical education being the mostaffected subject areas. He noted that financial compensation for teamleaders was still uncommon and that more time for team planning was notin evidence. Teams varied in size from three to eight members.

The National Education Association, Project on the Instructional Pro-gram of the Public Schools (1962), reported a small increase since 1956in team teaching in elementary and a slightly larger increase in secondaryschools, with more teachers in teams in elementary schools than in highschools. According to Shaplin (1964b) and Olds (1964), the movementwas in greater evidence in public elementary and secondary schools, al-though there was a modicum of team teaching at the university level.Both Beggs (1964) and Shaplin and Olds (1964) listed projects at theelementary, high school, and college levels.

Most research studies on team teaching relied mainly on the question-naire method. Lambert (1963), who stated that no valid scientific studyhad been made of team teaching as a whole, predicted that there will beno such study in the next 10 or 15 years. Shaplin (1964c) and Olds (1964)supported this view and described projects of team teaching as demonstra-tions of preferred educational practices without research design. In com-

parison to past recommendations for studies of team teaching, Brownelland Taylor (1962) advised closer examination of assumptions, formula-tion of more explicit models, use of improved research design, and morepenetrating evaluation of team experimentation. Ginther and Shroyer(1962) noted that teacher enthusiasm and pupil interest give support toteam teaching.

Several investigators maintained that team teaching promotes profes-sional growth by making better use of teacher talent and time, by im-proving teacher effectiveness, and by helping teachers to meet the needsof all levels of students. Johnson and Lobb (1961) and Shoresman (1963)reported that teacher prestige, morale, and adaptability were enhanced byrelieving teachers of routine chores and by increasing their status.

Davis (1963) indicated that certain categories of teachers react nega-tively to their roles as team members. Shaplin (1964c) and Olds (1964)felt that a major problem is defining new roles and training experiencedteachers to fill team positions. In the report of the Norwalk Board of

457



5/16

Education (1963), it was stated that the reluctance of teachers to acceptleadership roles might be due to the equalitarian tradition in education.Woodring (1964) noted a general conviction that apprentice teachersobtain a better introduction to the profession by serving on teams asjunior members than by participating in the conventional activities ofpractice teaching. Administrators are the most active proponents of teamteaching, according to the National Education Association, Project on theInstructional Program of the Public Schools (1962).

Bloomenshine and Brown (1961), Johnson and Lobb (1961), and Pellaand Poulos (1963) maintained that, in comparison to other approaches,team teaching offers the following advantages to children: (a) more pre-

cise grouping, (b) more challenging courses, and (c) more opportunityfor independent research. Heathers (1964) reported that there was noindication in research studies that team teaching creates more pupiladjustment problems than it solves.

In the Norwalk Board of Education (1963) study, it was reported thatteam teaching can be approached as a means of redeployment rather thanas a premium cost program. Drummond (1961) noted that the cost ofteam personnel for a given group of students need not be higher thancosts of a self-contained classroom, even with differential salaries of teammembers. On the other hand, Lambert (1963) observed that team teach-ing was more expensive because of more varied types of curricular mate-rials, additional planning time, and different building facilities. Schoolarchitecture in many parts of the country appeared to be considerablyinfluenced by the demand for flexible and varying spaces (Sargent, 1964).

There are several somewhat heterogeneous areas that require furtherinvestigation and research: (a) methods of implementing team teachingplans, (b) group dynamics pertaining to team membership, (c) methodsof disseminating team teaching, and (d) effects of team teaching onadministrative and instructional processes that are not part of the plan.

There is a specific need for evaluative devices tomeasure the effects of

team teaching on achievement and social adjustment of pupils. Moreover,conditions affecting the structure of the team and interpersonal relationsof team members must be investigated. Such factors as scheduling, useof facilities, and administrative details should be included in suchinvestigations.

Subprofessional and Paraprofessional Personnel

Only a decade ago, when pilot projects in the use of teacher aides andother nonprofessional assistants first began to appear in the literature,the predominant reaction of the profession was negative, even hostile.In 1964, it is rare to find discussions of utilization of school personnelin which nonprofessionals are not considered a welcome addition. How-ever, despite what appeared to be a widespread endorsement of sup-

458

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Vol. XXXIV, No. 4


6/16

STAFF UTILIZATION AND DEPLOYMENT

plementing and reinforcing the professional staff, there is not yet muchevidence that school districts are committing substantial funds to thispurpose. Perhaps this is because nonprofessional workers in most of thepilot projects represented an added personnel cost. Only a few projects(notably the one in Norwalk, Connecticut) utilized nonprofessionalswithout changing the total payroll.

Perhaps for these and related reasons, the research in this field hasbeen rather limited. Most of the literature dealing with nonprofessionalswas descriptive or testimonial, and almost none of it was negative. Thecumulative literature of a decade, including materials cited in the REVIEWin October 1961 (pp. 394-96) and in October 1963 (p. 383), not only

offered much information concerning the types of duties being assignedto nonprofessionals but also revealed a general trend toward including anumber of functions once regarded as the province of fully certifiedteachers. In a survey of six states, Singer (1962) reported a wide rangeof such duties: (a) performing clerical work, (b) supervising pupils innoninstructional activities, (c) reading pupil compositions, and (d) pro-viding remedial instruction for individuals and small groups. In a surveyof 800 New York school districts, Samter (1963) found that 51 percentof the respondents utilized aides. Supervision of pupils was reported threetimes more frequently than were nonsupervisory duties for aides. Cafeteriaand playground duties during the noon hour were the most commonassignments.

Jewett (1964) reported a favorable evaluation of the National Educa-tion Association English Composition Project, in which aides read andcorrected themes and held conferences with pupils, thereby relievingteachers for other professional duties. Sauer (1962) cautioned that im-provement of student writing under the direction of lay readers appearedto be cumulative and that it might take up to three years for significantresults to appear.

Although it seems clear that nonprofessionals can and should be usedmore widely in the schools than they have been, it remains to be learnedwhether a proportionate reduction in the professionally certified staff iswarranted or desirable. The waste of talent of certified teachers on routineand minor tasks becomes more evident as teachers' total responsibilitiesare examined. However, where the line should be drawn between profes-sional and nonprofessional tasks is by no means clear at this point.Questions must also be raised with respect to the recruitment, selection,training, and supervision of nonprofessional workers in a variety of roles.

The Flexible School

For the purposes of this section, the flexible school is defined as one inwhich staff-utilization practices permit nongrading, large-group nstruction,small-group activity, independent study, and flexible scheduling.

459

October 1964


7/16


Nongrading

Nongraded school organization is related to the topic of staff utilizationprimarily because, compared with graded practices, it implies closer coor-dination between the activities of teachers and because it tends to stimulategreater collaboration among them. However, in some nongraded programs,the conventional patterns of staff utilization remain unmodified. In others,the self-contained and/or departmentalized attern undergoes major changewhen the lock-step grade structure s abandoned.

The professional literature as well as reports from government sourcesand national organizations indicated a perceptible increase in commitment

to nongraded organization, although it was equally clear that most of theso-called nongraded schools or classes were imperfectly developed. Theaforementioned survey of the National Education Association Project onthe Instructional Program of the Public Schools revealed that 6 percentof 804 elementary principals in 1956, as compared to 12 percent in 1961,reported some form of nongrading. Twenty-six percent foresaw somenongrading by 1966. The largest districts seemed to be moving slowlytoward nongrading in comparison to their adoption of other innovations.Both the first full-length book devoted to nongraded secondary schools(Brown, 1963) and a revision of a volume by Goodlad and Anderson(1963) related nongradedness to flexible scheduling, cooperative teaching,and flexible grouping practices. Goodlad and Anderson urged considera-tion of multiage and multigrade grouping patterns and cited researchstudies indicating both social and academic benefits to pupils.

As in the case of team teaching, research on the nongraded schoolsuffered for the reasons noted by Heathers (1964). Most studies comparednongraded classes with graded classes in terms of pupil achievement asmeasured by standardized ests, the relevance of which was seldom demon-strated. Although a few studies showed achievement differences in favor

of one group or the other, with usually a slight advantage for the non-graded classes, it cannot yet be said that the phenomena being observedand the research procedures being employed are especially relevant to anunderstanding of the eventual value of the nongraded plan. A controlledstudy by Hillson, reported by Goodlad and Anderson (1963), establishedthe manner of vertical progression as the distinguishing criterion betweenthe designated nongraded-experimental and graded-control groups. Kier-stead (1963), who compared reading achievement n a nongraded structurewith that of groups within a graded classroom, also suggested neededapproaches. However, research in this area will continue to be unpro-ductive until the effects of organization can be isolated. Researchers mustdescribe with greater care than previously the operational characteristicsof their sample groups-especially on the horizontal level. In other words,conceptual models must be developed in order to differentiate nongradedfrom graded schools in terms of organization and in terms of curriculumand instruction.

460

Vol. XXXIV, No. 4


8/16


Eldred and Hillson (1963) discussed the effects of nonpromotion andof negative interpersonal relations on the child's mental health. Theysuggested that health benefits are a potential of the nongraded school.This possibility recalls another neglected area of research: the mentalhealth and personal well-being of the teacher as they may relate to thebehaviors required of him by the school's organizational structure. Anotherneed is for an examination of the relation between the teacher's trainingand his effectiveness n the nongraded school.

Grouping

Among the factors directly related to teacher utilization and deploy-ment is school policy with respect to class sizes and pupil groupings.Historically, the questions of optimum class size and of staff adequacywere approached in terms of an assumed static grouping situation. Ratiosof professional staff to pupils were sometimes examined with less interestthan were the average sizes of fixed class groups; even where favorableratios existed, relatively little advantage was taken of the potential flexi-bility provided. With the emergence, since about 1955, of the various

majortrends discussed in this

chapter,it became obvious that the teacher's

role would change significantly and that historical convictions about classsize and grouping practices would be modified. Wynn and DeRemer com-mented on some aspects of these changes in the October 1961 REVIEW.

Research on class size prior to 1955 was largely derived from the pro-fession's concern about the deleterious social and academic effects pre-sumed to be associated with overcrowded classes (i.e., classes with morethan 30 or 35 students). The prevalence of crowded classes was usuallyrelated to lack of financial and administrative support and resources. Theviews of John Kenneth Galbraith with respect to the nation's actual

capacity to support adequate schools are well known and popular amongteachers, and the indignation of the profession over the sometimes chronicproblem of too-large classes has undoubtedly predisposed the professionto look askance at experimentation with large-group instruction. Callahan(1962, pp. 232-40) noted that most of the inquiry into class size be-tween 1911 and 1951 was related to the efforts of administrators to cutcosts and to increase efficiency; various teachers organizations have tendedto suspect the same motives in certain current projects, although somedecrease in this attitude began about 1961.

Theories aboutoptimum

form of instructionalgroups began

toemergeduring 1961-64; and the advantages and limitations of independent study,

small-group instruction, conventional-sized group instruction, and large-group instruction began to be understood. However, these were crudebeginnings, and useful objective research is virtually unavailable.

Somewhat ironic is the possibility that class groups of 20-30 pupils,long cherished as ideal, may prove on the whole to be somewhat less

461

October 1964


9/16


10/16

not yet been formulated. This difficulty was particularly evident in thestudies concerned with the grouping practices recommended in the plan.Probably because NASSP relied primarily upon local evaluative efforts,the results of the research have been negligible.

Some research on large-group instruction, on small-group activity, andon independent study has been conducted apart from the NASSP studies.McKenna and Pugh (1964) reported on the performance of pupils andteachers in small classes as compared to their achievement n large classesand concluded that individualized instruction was better served in classesof 20 and below than in classes of 30. Small classes did not necessarilylead to change in methods. Warburton (1961) found that an English class

taught in a large-group situation achieved significantly more than onetaught in a typical class situation. In an argumentative essay, Pulliam(1963) reflected concern for the increasing use of the lecture and warnedthat successful lectures must be student-centered and carefully related tosmall-group discussion. In two college studies of the use of independentstudy, Baskin (1962) found that students in an independent study courselearned just as well as those in a course using regular lecture-discussionmethods, and Chickering (1964) concluded that social, emotional, andattitudinal criteria were more useful in screening candidates for inde-pendent study than were academic and intellectual criteria.

The research in this area indicated the need for the following: (a)extensive research on the assumptions of NASSP concerning the size andnature of class grouping and the effectiveness of independent study donewithin the framework of a comprehensive rationale and research design;(b) continued research on the use of large-group instruction, small-groupactivities, and independent study as part of conventional school programs,with the research effort concentrating increasingly on such variables asthe nature of the subject matter and the identification of the teacher.

Flexible Scheduling

In order for the flexible school to be viable, schedules adaptable o variedpatterns of vertical and horizontal organization as well as to varied teach-ing methods must be developed. This need for adaptability has focusedattention on the flexible schedule.

Many articles in the past few years have dealt with one or more aspectsof flexible scheduling. Unfortunately, the great bulk of writing has been

argumentative. Moreover,little has been done to show a definite con-

nection between a particular schedule and increased flexibility. Becausethe schools that have embarked on experimental programs for altering thetraditional patterns of vertical and horizontal organization are still modify-ing their master schedules (e.g., Norridge, Illinois, and Wayland, Massa-chusetts), there has been no opportunity to examine the impact of schedulechanges on student behavior. However, Bush and Allen (1961) took an

463



11/16


important first step in this area by pointing to seven assumptions under-lying their definition of flexible scheduling.

Because of the variables that must be considered in designing a sched-ule for a flexible school, many schedulers have viewed computers as ananswer to some of the problems, and the rigorous work in scheduling hasoccurred in the area of machine programming.

Machine programming, as now utilized, involves both a first phase inwhich the master schedule is devised with only limited use of a computerand a second phase in which the students are assigned by the computerto the previously prepared master schedule. However, most schedulingprograms presently used in secondary schools cannot be adapted to the

variable-structure chedule.Although the ideal computer-scheduling program which results directly

in a master time plan to which students are assigned does not yet exist,some work is currently being done in this area. Studies in process at theUniversity of Toronto and the University of Pittsburgh focus on theoreticalmathematical problems, whereas heuristic approaches are under way at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and at Stanford University.None of the more technical work has been published formally, but Holzof MIT and several persons involved in the Stanford study reported oncurrent projects. Holz (1964) described current practices and possibilitiesfor automated scheduling and devoted attention to the development of amaster schedule for Wayland High School. However, Holz cautionedagainst extending the computer's powers beyond clerical duties.

The Secondary Education Project at Stanford is concerned with variable-structure scheduling; in an early report, Bush and others (1961) pointedto the need for a definition of terms used in machine scheduling. Pack(1961), also associated with the Stanford Project, devised an experimentalscheduling program that treated the development of the master scheduleand the assignment phase as a single operation. Although this study was

limited in scope-it accommodated only 100 students and 30 courses-Pack's success encouraged him to be more optimistic than was Holz aboutthe possibilities of programming the entire scheduling procedure. Oakford(1961) underscored the difficulties of using machines to generate masterschedules, but, like Pack, was optimistic about the possibilities.

The New England School Development Council (NESDEC) has beenusing computers to provide member schools with flexible schedules. Theirchief computer service in scheduling deals with the assignment phase andincludes the checking of prerequisites and conflicts. A recent grant toNESDEC for expansion of the New England Education Data

Systems pro-gram made it possible to develop data-processing services on a regionalbasis-these services include attendance taking, test scoring, grade re-porting, scheduling, and the training of school personnel in the skills ofpunchcard and computer technology. The collection of vast stores ofinformation in a data bank is expected to expedite and to facilitate notonly administrative functions but also operations research.

464

Vol. XXXIV, No. 4


12/16


Technology and the Teacher

The situation reported by Wynn and DeRemer is not remarkablychanged with respect to television, other mass media, and autoinstruc-tional devices.

Predictions concerning the potential effect of technological devices onthe role of the teacher have been manifold, but little experimental evidencesupports the predictions. It may well be that considerations of broad prob-lems such as the impact of technology on staff utilization must awaitanswers to narrow technical questions. For example, in most of the currentresearch on the use of educational television, the independent variable

has been presentational technique: television productions versus conven-tional classroom procedures. Hayman and Johnson's (1963) report ofthe Denver-Stanford project is one of the few studies from which implica-tions about the effects on staff utilization can be drawn; that of Jacobs,Grate, and Downing (1963) is another.

Much of the early research on programed instruction was defensive. Itwas concerned with establishing programed instruction as an acceptableteaching technique. Stolurow's (1962) observation that autoinstructionalmethods and devices are here to stay and his prediction that teacher

versusmachine studies would decline were borne out

byan examination

of current practice and research. Schramm's (1962) review of the researchshowed that the emphasis has shifted to a study of the technical aspectsof programed instruction. But as Rabinowitz and Mitzel (1962) pointedout, over and above technical considerations such as mode of responseand size of step, there is a pressing need for fundamental research andfield study to illuminate the exact nature of the teacher-machine coopera-tive relationship. Lambert, Miller, and Wiley (1962) outlined an approachto experimentation within the school setting by which the contributionand impact of programed instruction can be reasonably and advan-

tageously evaluated.Unfortunately, even though much of the research appears to be directed

toward a discovery of the optimum complementation of teachers andmachines, it is reminiscent of the earlier defensive either-or approach.However, Reed and Hayman's (1962) experiment contained importantimplications for staff utilization. When one considers that programedinstruction is assertedly being used in more than one-third of the nation'sschools, more information is required than that based on implicationsdrawn from necessary, but preliminary or peripheral, research.

The potential usefulnessof automatic

data-processingand

data-storagedevices for school practice and for educational research has been alludedto in a previous section. It now seems clear that only a brief time will

pass before electronic devices and modern mathematical applications willmake efficient resources available to school workers. One inevitable effectwill be relief of teachers and administrators, perhaps against their will insome cases, from time-consuming tasks, which will enable them to devote

465



13/16

REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL ESEARCH Vol. XXXIV, No. 4

more time to pupils, other teachers, instructional resources, and schoolbuildings. The teaching role will inevitably change in significant ways,as will the devices and procedures now employed to train, supervise,deploy, support, and evaluate teachers.

Viewed against this likely prospect, the recent research upon whichpolicies of staff utilization and deployment must be based, at least tem-porarily, is woefully inadequate. At most, it may be said from these studiesthat the various innovations in cooperative teaching, such as those inemploying nonprofessional assistants for teachers, in flexible scheduling, invariegated grouping, and in using technological devices represent smallbut plausible steps in a direction that probably makes sense.

Bibliography

ANDERSON, OBERT H. Organizing Groups for Instruction. Individualizing Instruc-tion. Sixty-First Yearbook, Part I, National Society for the Study of Education.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Chapter 13, pp. 239-64.

ANDERSON, OBERT H. The Organization and Administration of Team Teaching.Team Teaching. (Edited by Judson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) New York:Harper & Row, 1964. Chapter 6, pp. 170-215.

BASKIN, SAMUEL. Experiment in Independent Study. Journal of Experimental Edu-cation 31: 183-85; December 1962.BEGGS, AVID W., III, editor. Team Teaching-Bold New Venture. Indianapolis, Ind.:

Unified College Press, 1964. 192 pp.BLOOMENSHINE, LEE L., and BROWN, T. MALCOMB. San Diego, California, Conducts

Two-Year Experiment with Team Teaching. Bulletin of the National Associationof Secondary-School Principals 45: 147-66; January 1961.

BROWN, B. FRANK. The Nongraded High School. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1963. 223 pp.

BROWNELL, OHN A., and TAYLOR, HARRIS A. Theoretical Perspectives for TeachingTeams. Phi Delta Kappan 43: 150-57; January 1962.

BUSH, ROBERT ., and ALLEN, DWIGHT W. Flexible Scheduling for What? Journalof Secondary Education 36: 346-53; October 1961.

BUSH, ROBERT N., and OTHERS. Using Machines To Make High-School Schedule.School Review 69: 48-59; Spring 1961.

CALLAHAN, AYMOND . Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1962. 273 pp.

CHICKERING, RTHUR W. Dimensions of Independence: The Findings of an Experi-ment at Goddard College. Journal of Higher Education 35: 38-41; January 1964.

DAVIS, HAROLD . The Efect of Team Teaching on Teachers. Doctor's thesis. Detroit,Mich.: Department of Education, Wayne State University, 1963. 369 pp.

DRUMMOND, AROLD D. Team Teaching: An Assessment. Educational Leadership19: 160-65; December 1961.

ELDRED, DONALD M., and HILLSON, MAURIE. The Non-Graded School and MentalHealth. Elementary School Journal 63: 218-22; January 1963.

GINTHER, OHNR.,

andSHROYER,

ILLIAM . TeamTeaching

inEnglish and Historyat the Eleventh-Grade Level. School Review 70: 303-13; Autumn 1962.

GOODLAD, OIIN I., and ANDERSON, OBERT H. The Nongraded Elementary School.Revised edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1963. 248 pp.

GOODLAD, OHN I., and REHAGE, KENNETH. Unscrambling the Vocabulary of SchoolOrganization. NEA Journal 51: 34-36; November 1962.

GRANNIS, OSEPH C. Team Teaching and the Curriculum. Team Teaching. (Editedby Judson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) New York: Harper & Row, 1964.Chapter 5, pp. 123-69.

466



14/16


HAYMAN, JOHN L., JR., and JOHNSON, JAMES T., JR. Research on the Context of In-structional Television. School Life 45: 8-11; April 1963.

HEATIIERS, GLEN. Research on Team Teaching. Team Teaching. (Edited by JudsonT. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Chapter 10,pp. 306-44.

HOLZ, ROBERT E. School Scheduling Using Computers. Cambridge: MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, 1964. 6 pp.

JACOBS, AMES N.; GRATE, OHN H.; and DOWNING, LLAINEE M. Do Methods Makea Difference in Educational Television? Elementary School Journal 63: 248-54;February 1963.

JEWETT, ARNO. Eclectic, Experimental Programs in Composition. Bulletin of theNational Association of Secondary-School Principals 48: 18-52; February 1964.

JOHNSON, ROBERT ., and LOBB, M. DELBERT. Jefferson County, Colorado, CompletesThree-Year Study of Staffing, Class Size, Programming, and Scheduling. Bulletinof the National Association of Secondary-School Principals 45: 57-78; January 1961.

KIERSTEAD, REGINALD. A Comparison and Evaluation of Two Methods of Organizationfor the Teaching of Reading. Journal of Educational Research 56: 317-21; Feb-ruary 1963.

LAMBERT, HILIP. Team Teaching for Today's World. Teachers College Record64: 480-86; March 1963.

LAMBERT, PIILIP; MILLER, DONALD M.; and WILEY, DAVID E. Experimental Folkloreand Experimentation: The Study of Programmed Learning in the Wauwatosa PublicSchools. Journal of Educational Research 55: 485-94; June-July 1962.

LORTIE, DAN C. The Teacher and Team Teaching: Suggestions for Long-Range Re-search. Team Teaching. (Edited by Judson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) NewYork: Harper & Row, 1964. Chapter 9, pp. 270-305.

MCKENNA, BERNARD ., and PIGH, JAMES B., JR. Performance of Pupils and Teach-ers in Small Classes Compared to Large. IAR Research Bulletin 4: 1-4; February1964. (New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity.)

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ROJECT ON THE INSTRUCTIONAL ROGRAMOF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. he Principals Look at the Schools: A Status Study ofSelected Instructional Practices. Washington, D.C.: the Association, 1962. 76 pp.

NORWALK OARDOF EDUCATION. he Norwalk Plan of Team Teaching, Fifth Report,1962-63. Norwalk, Conn.: the Board, 1963. 50 pp.

OAKFORD, OBERT . Machine Assistance for Constructing the High School Schedule:An Industrial Engineer's Report. Journal of Secondary Education 36: 374-79;October 1961.

OLDS, HENRY F., JR. A Taxonomy for Team Teaching. Team Teaching. (Edited byJudson T. Slaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Chapter

4, pp. 99-122.PACK, CHARLES . Mechanization of a Variable High School Schedule. Engineeringthesis. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, 1961. 141 pp.

PELLA, MILTON ., and POULOS, CHRIS. A Study of Team Teaching in High SchoolBiology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1: 232-40; Issue 3, 1963.

PULLIAM, LLOYD. The Lecture-Are We Reviving Discredited Teaching Methods?Phi Delta Kappan 44: 382-85; May 1963.

RABINOWITZ, ILLIAM, and MITZEL, HAROLD E. Programming in Education andTeacher Preparation. Teachers College Record 64: 128-58; November 1962.

REED, ERRY ., and HAYMAN, OHN L., JR. An Experiment Involving Use of English2600, an Automated Instruction Text. Journal of Educational Research 55: 476-84;June-July 1962.

SAMTER, UGENE . Teacher Aide: An Aid in Teaching? New York State Education51: 21; October 1963.

SARGENT, CYRIL G. The Organization of Space. Team Teaching. (Edited by JudsonT. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Chapter 7,pp. 216-40.

SAUER, EDWIN H. Contract Correcting: The Use of Lay Readers in the High SchoolComposition Program. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962. 59 pp.

SCHRAMM, WILBUR. Programed Instruction: Today and Tomorrow. New York: Fundfor the Advancement of Education, 1962. 74 pp.

467



15/16


SIIAPLIN, JUDSON T. Antecedents of Team Teaching. Team Teaching. (Edited byJudson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Chapter 2, pp. 24-56. (a)SHAPLIN, JUDSON T. Description and Definition of Team Teaching. Team Teaching.(Edited by Judson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) New York: Harper & Row,1964. Chapter 1, pp. 1-23. (b)

SHAPLIN, JUDSON T. Toward a Theoretical Rationale for Team Teaching. TeamTeaching. (Edited by Judson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr.) New York: Harper& Row, 1964. Chapter 3, pp. 57-98. (c)

SHAPLIN, UDSON T., and OLDS, HENRY F., JR., editors. Team Teaching. New York:Harper & Row, 1964. 430 pp.

SHORESMAN, ETER B. A Comparative Study of the Efectiveness of Science Instructionin the Fifth and Sixth Grades Under Two Diferent Patterns of Teacher Utilizationand Pupil Deployment. Doctor's thesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1963.585 pp.

SINGER, RA J. Survey of Staff Utilization Practices in Six States. Bulletin of theNational Association of Secondary-School Principals 46: 1-13; January 1962.SINGER, IRA J. What Team Teaching Really Is. Team Teaching-Bold New Venture.

(Edited by David W. Beggs, III.) Indianapolis, Ind.: Unified College Press, 1964.Chapter 1, pp. 13-28.

STOLUROW, AWRENCE . Implications of Current Research and Future Trends.Journal of Educational Research 55: 519-27; June-July 1962.

TRUMP, . LLOYD, nd BAYNHAM, ORSEY. ocus on Change: Guide to Better Schools.Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1961. 147 pp.

WARBURTON, OHN T. An Experiment in Large Group Instruction. Journal ofSecondary Education 36: 430-32; November 1961.

WOODRING, AUL. Reform Movements from the Point of View of PsychologicalTheory. Theories of Learning and Instruction. (Edited by Ernest R. Hilgard.)Sixty-Third Yearbook, Part I, National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1964. Chapter 12, pp. 286-305.

Additional References

ALLEN, DWIGHT W. Elements of Scheduling a Flexible Curriculum. Journal ofSecondary Education 38: 84-91; November 1963.

ANDERSON, DWARD . Wayland High School's Flexible Scheduling. Journal ofSecondary Education 36: 354-56; October 1961.

BERNUCCI, VINCENT, and OTITERS. Team Teaching and Large Group Instruction inIndustrial Arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 52: 26-30, 52; May 1963.

BLAKE, ROY F. Small Group Research and Cooperative Teaching Problems. NationalElementary Principal 43: 31-36; February 1964.

BUSH, ROBERT . A Searching Appraisal of New Developments. (Editorial) Journalof Secondary Education 37: 321-26; October 1962.

DURRELL, ONALD D. Implementing and Evaluating Pupil-Team Learning Plans.Journal of Educational Sociology 34: 360-65; April 1961.

ENGLE, FRED S. Large Group Instruction Can Work. Nation's Schools 70: 70-71, 88;October 1962.

FINK, DAVID R., JR.; OHNMACHT, FRED W.; and PRESCOTT, GEORGE . A Second An-nual Report to the Ford Foundation on Team Teaching in Maine. Orono: Collegeof

Education, Universityof

Maine,1964. 80

pp.FLANAGAN, COTT. Machine Programming at Huntington Beach High School. Journalof Secondary Education 36: 371-73; October 1961.

GOODLAD, JOHN I. Individual Differences and Vertical Organization of the School.Individualizing Instruction. Sixty-First Yearbook, Part I, National Society for theStudy of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Chapter 12,pp. 209-38.

GRIFFIN, W. MAXWELL. Schools of the Future-Now. Bulletin of the National Asso-ciation of Secondary-School Principals 46: 267-72; May 1962.

468

Vol. XXXIV, No. 4EVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH


16/16


HALLIWELL, OSEPH W. A Comparison of Pupil Achievement of Graded and Non-graded Primary Classrooms. Journal of Experimental Education 32: 59-64; Fall

1963.HART, RICHARD H. The Nongraded Primary School and Arithmetic. ArithmeticTeacher 9: 130-33; March 1962.

HOWARD, UGENE . The School of the Future-Now. Bulletin of the National Asso-ciation of Secondary-School Principals 46: 258-67; May 1962.

LAURITS, AMES. Approaches to Flexibility at Cubberley Senior High School. Journalof Secondary Education 36: 361-63; October 1961.

LOBB, M. DELBERT. A Basis for First Steps in Flexible Scheduling. Journal of Sec-ondary Education 36: 367-70; October 1961.

MCINTOSH, THELMA ADAMS, and PERKINS, BRYCE. valuation of Teacher Competencyin Team Teaching: A Brochure of Six Instruments for Evaluation with and for TeamTeachers. Honolulu: College of Education, University of Hawaii, 1964. 106 pp.

MITCEIELL, ONALD, editor. Annual Report 1962-63: Claremont Teaching Team Pro-

gram. Fourth Annual Report to the Ford Foundation. Claremont, Calif.: ClaremontGraduate School, 1964. 49 pp.NIBLETT, AURENCE. No Bells Ring for Dr. Trump. Bulletin of the National Associa-

tion of Secondary-School Principals 46: 87-92; March 1962.ROLLINS, SIDNEY P. Automated Grouping. Phi Delta Kappan 42: 212-14; February

1961.SMITH, JAMES E. Flexible Scheduling at Ridgewood High School. Journal of Second-

ary Education 36: 364-66; October 1961.TRUMP, J. LLOYD. Developing and Evaluating a Class Schedule To Help Each Pupil

Learn Better. Journal of Secondary Education 36: 338-45; October 1961.WELTON, GREG. Data Processing and the School Schedule: A Burroughs Approach.

Journal of Secondary Education 36: 382-84; October 1961.WULF, B. H. Data Processing for Student Scheduling: An IBM Approach. Journal

of Secondary Education 36: 380-81; October 1961.

469

October 1964

anderson_ organizational character of education.pdf

Documents