Research article of American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews
Departmentalization in Elementary Schools: Contradictions Teachers Confront
Richard L. Allington
University of Tennessee.
This paper presents analyses of observational and interview data gathered in a study of exemplary fourth-grade teachers from five states. The central issue explored is the relative merits of self-contained and departmentalized models of instruction. We found no achievement differences in the classrooms by organizational pattern, but differences in the instruction offered in these two models were identified, and mixed views of the relative advantages of either organization plan were expressed by the participants. A key tension was whether these organizational plans are intended to primarily benefit teachers or students. However, the complexities of the cost/benefit concerns are the findings that this study highlights.
Keywords: Contradictions Teachers Confront; Departmentalization
How to cite this article:
Richard L. Allington. Departmentalization in Elementary Schools: Contradictions Teachers Confront. American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 2020; 5:77. DOI: 10.28933/ajerr-2020-09-1205
1. Allington, R. L. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction from a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 740-747.
2. Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. H. (Eds.). (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary 4th grade classrooms. New York: Guilford.
3. Allington, R. L., Johnston, P. H., & Day, J. P. (2002). Exemplary fourth-grade teachers. Language Arts, 79(6), 462-466.
4. Anderson, R. (l962). The case for teacher specialization in the elementary school. The Elementary School Journal, 63, 253-260.
5. Anderson, R., & Pavin, B. (l993). Nongraded-ness: Helping it to happen. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
6. Barnes, R. (l961). Survey of status and trends in departmentalization in city elementary schools. Journal of Educational Research, 55, 291-297.
7. Barr, R. & Dreeben, R. (l99l). Grouping students for reading instruction. In Barr, R., Kamil, M., Mosenthal, J., Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). Handbook of reading research, Volume II. White Plains, NY: Longman, pp. 885-911.
8. Broadhead, F. (l960). Pupil achievement in semi-departmental elementary/junior high schools. The Elementary School Journal, 61, 385-390.
9. Burns, R. & Mason, D. (l998). Class formation and composition in elementary schools, American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 739-772.
10. Cattell, R. (l948). Concepts and methods in the measurement of group syntality. Psychological Review, 55, 48-63.
11. Chan C. T., & Jarman, D. (2004). Departmentalize elementary schools. Principal, 84(1), 70-72.
12. Culyer, R. (l984). The case for the self-contained classroom. Clearing House, 57 417-419.
13. Drees, J. (l989). Elementary school organization: Self-contained and departmentalized classroom structures. Des Moines, IO: Des Moines Public Schools.
14. Gabriel, R., Pereira, J. D., & Allington, R. L. (2011). What effective teachers taught us about learning to teach effectively. In I. M. Saleh & M. Swehine (Eds.), Teaching teachers: Approaches in improving quality of education (pp. 343-357). Happague, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
15. Gayer, N. (l961). The myth of the self-contained classroom. California Teachers Association Journal, 13, 22-26.
16. Gibb, E. & Matala, D. (l962). Study on the use of special teachers of science and mathematics in Grades 5 and 6. School Science and Mathematics, 62, 565-585.
17. Gumplowicz, L. (l899). Outlines of sociology (trans. by F. H. Moore.) Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science.
18. Howard, E. (l969). A look at specialization, Educational Leadership, 26, 547-556.
19. McPartland, J. M., Coldiron, J. R., & Braddock, J. H. (1987). School structures and classroom practices in elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
20. National Education Association. (l966). Departmentalization in elementary schools. NEA Research Bulletin, 44, 27-38.
21. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
22. Raze, N. (l985). Primary and intermediate grade configurations: A review of the literature. Redwood City, CA: San Mateo County Office of Education.
23. Robinson, H. M. (1961). Summary of investigations relating to reading, July 1, 1959 to June 30, 1960. Journal of Educational Research, 54, 203-220.
24. Rodger, M. & Palardy, J. (l987). A survey of organizational patterns and grouping strategies used in elementary schools in the Southeast. Education, 108, 113-118.
25. Slavin, R. E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67- 77.
26. Strohl, A., Schmertzing, L., Schmertzing, R., & Hsiao, E. (2014). Comparison of self-contained and departmentalized elementary teachers’ perceptions of classroom structure and job satisfaction. Journal of Studies in Education, 4(1), 109-127.
27. Ward, R. (l988). Toward improved school organization: Further look at horizontal structure. National Elementary Principal, 22, 93-115.
This work and its PDF file(s) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.